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
The Chinese came up with a curse: “May you live in interesting times.” The subtle idea was, if things were going well, if there was peace, times would be nice and boring. The worse things got, however, the more “interesting” they would be.
Which is why things are so damn interesting in our country and in our world now, thanks to the worst president in American history.
It’s just an amazing thing to be alive today, no two ways about it.
[M]edia bias seems an obvious and inevitable phenomenon; serious analyses of media bias date back as far as the Lincoln-Douglas days over 150 years ago. But honest and objective analyses clearly indicate that such bias has only worsened.
During President Obama’s 2008 campaign, the overwhelming majority of news media was clearly and unabashedly behind the campaign of hope and change. Time‘s Mark Halperin called it “the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq War. It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.” Los Angeles Times writer Mark Barabak expressed similar sentiments: “I think it’s incumbent upon people in our business to make sure that we’re being fair. The daily output was the most disparate of any campaign I’ve ever covered, by far.”
Their statements were not only backed by traditional analyses of media coverage, but also by a more revealing statistic: the Democratic Party received a total donation of $1,020,816 from 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks in 2008, while the Republican Party received only $142,863 from 193 donors.
After such blatant and self-admitted media bias in 2008, we might have expected this year’s election coverage to become far more balanced. Instead, news organizations remained blatantly in the bag for the president and his Democratic allies.
The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism recently released its report on the 2012 election, and the numbers are clearer than ever. While Governor Romney and President Obama received approximately the same amount of coverage, the type and character of coverage provided were much different. In eveningnetwork news, for example, narratives of President Obama remained approximately balanced, while the negative exceeded the positive by 17 percentage points for Governor Romney. Coverage of Romney was also twice as negative as that of President Obama (23 percent versus 11 percent).
Of course, the go-to scapegoat for liberal critics will be the conservative-leaning Fox News Channel. There is no question that Fox News exhibited a right-leaning bias in its coverage: fully 46 percent of news coverage for the president was negative. However, not only was Fox News essentially the only media organization to not have a leftward skew, the bias in its coverage also paled in comparison to that of MSNBC, where coverage of Romney was 71 percent negative (over one and half times more negative than Fox coverage of President Obama). And perhaps the most telling statistic is from the final week, when MSNBC ran no negative coverage of President Obama and no positive coverage of Governor Romney, the most absolute bias of any of the cable news channels.
Even network television (ABC, CBS, NBC) exhibited an apparent bias for President Obama. While Romney received a roughly even amount of positive and negative coverage during the day, evening coverage (when the majority of viewers tune in to network news) saw a stark change, giving a positive three percent boost to President Obama while Romney received two-to-one negative coverage.
– now demanding that the press does to the other party’s guy what they never ONCE did when he was running???
Then you consider Obama’s unrelenting WAR on a fair and balanced press that had access and the ability to provide impartial coverage, and you just start BARFING.
“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.” So wrote President Barack Obama, back on Jan. 29, 2009, just days into his presidency. “Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.” Now, six years into the Obama administration, his promise of “a new era of open Government” seems just another grand promise, cynically broken.
As the news industry observed its annual “Sunshine Week” in mid-March, The Associated Press reported that “[m]ore often than ever, the administration censored government files or outright denied access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act [FOIA].” The AP report continued, “The government’s efforts to be more open about its activities last year were their worst since President Barack Obama took office.”
How about the Associated Press? What do THEY say about Obama? The AP published the damning results of its new analysis using federal data that finds the Obama administration not just to have failed to be “the most transparent administration in history,” but to in fact be less transparent than any recent administration. Data from the last two years also shows despite the repeated complaints from journalists and news outlets, the administration “has made few meaningful improvements” to its opaque M.O
So it is absolutely astounding that this despicable, vile roach-in-chief would come out and blast the media and blast Donald Trump benefitting in any way, any shape or any form from that media.
And yet that is precisely what the most pathologically dishonest and hypocritical human being in the entire history of the human race did:
WASHINGTON — President Obama delivered a forceful critique on Monday of politicians and the journalists who cover them, lamenting the circuslike atmosphere of the presidential campaign and declaring, “A job well done is about more than just handing someone a microphone.”
Speaking at a journalism prize ceremony in honor of Robin Toner, a longtime political reporter for The New York Times who died in 2008, Mr. Obama said the 2016 campaign had become “entirely untethered to reason and facts and analysis,” a coarse spectacle that he said was tarnishing the “American brand” around the world.
“I was going to call it a carnival atmosphere,” the president said, “but that implies fun.”
“The No. 1 question I’m getting as I travel around the world or talk to world leaders right now is, ‘What is happening in America about our politics?’ ” Mr. Obama continued. “They care about America, the most powerful nation on earth, functioning effectively and its government being able to make sound decisions.”
Mr. Obama’s references to Donald J. Trump, the New York real estate developer turned Republican front-runner, were unmistakable in his criticism of “divisive and often vulgar rhetoric,” frequently aimed at women and at ethnic and racial minorities. But he also turned his fire on the news media, saying it had given an uncritical platform to those pronouncements, in part because of relentless economic pressures that have changed the way news organizations operate.
The president suggested that the news media had not done enough to question the promises made by politicians — an apparent reference not only to Mr. Trump, but also to Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the independent who is challenging Hillary Clinton, Mr. Obama’s former secretary of state, for the Democratic nomination. Mr. Sanders has promised free public college education and national health care coverage, ambitious social programs that critics say could never be enacted.
“When people put their faith into someone who can’t possibly deliver his or her own promises,” Mr. Obama said, “that only breeds more cynicism.”
The president denounced what he called the practice of drawing “false equivalences” between competing claims made by politicians. “If I say the world is round and someone else says it’s flat, that’s worth reporting,” Mr. Obama said. “But you might also want to report on a bunch of scientific evidence that seems to support the notion that the world is round.”
In the latest report to undercut President Obama’s “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” promise, the Congressional Budget Office projects millions of workers will leave employer-sponsored health plans over the next decade because of ObamaCare.
Some will opt to go on Medicaid, but others will be kicked off their company plans by employers who decide not to offer coverage anymore, according to a new CBO report titled, “Federal Subsidies for Health Insurance Coverage for People Under Age 65: 2016 to 2026.”
“As a result of the ACA, between 4 million and 9 million fewer people are projected to have employment-based coverage each year from 2017 through 2026 than would have had such coverage if the ACA had never been enacted,” the report, released Thursday, said
We were told that 48 million Americans lacked affordable health insurance and something had to be done, but even five years after the passage of Obamacare, 33 million Americans are still uninsured.
If you dig deeper into the actual numbers and realize what really happened with those 9 million “newly insured”, there’s little reason to cheer.
The number of Americans with health insurance increased by 9.25 million in 2014, the first year that two key provisions of Obamacare took place: the subsidies for coverage purchased through the exchanges and Medicaid expansion. And according to recent research by The Heritage Foundation, out of that 9.25 million, “the vast majority of the increase was the result of 8.99 million individuals being added to the Medicaid rolls.”
In other words, over 97 percent of last year’s newly insured Americans were from Medicaid expansion.
Medicaid is designed to assist people who lack the capacity to work, thus making them unable to access employer-provided insurance options, and those who are too poor to afford individual private health care plans. The Obamacare program, however, has expanded those parameters to include the young, the able bodied, and those who are capable of working but choose not to, exploding Medicaid’s ranks and taxing (pun intended) an already at-risk program running straight into bankruptcy. As Kristina Ribali of Uncover Obamacare points out, each dollar spent on those Medicare isn’t designed to serve is a dollar taken away from those who Medicare was designed to help: the truly poor and needy.
Of course, a Medicare expansion isn’t anywhere near ideal – in any way – but it’s interesting that the Obamacare program can, essentially, count as it’s only success a Medicare expansion, something that could have been accomplished without passing a multiple-thousand-page Federal law that has had such a disastrous impact on the way health insurance functions in America. According to the Heritage report, even the parts of the ACA that were supposed to help those in need have failed: while Obamacare counts 4.79 million new enrollments, the same program forced 4.53 million people off their employer-provided insurance, meaning a whopping net 260,000 people were actually served by Obamacare.
Put those two things together: remember how a Republican congressman was vilified by Obama who postured like a martyr and by the most dishonest media machine since Goebbels when he shouted, “You lie!” at Obama during a State of the Union speech?
I pointed out who was telling the truth and who was lying at the time:
There is a world where Joe Wilson is smiling and every single Democrat is screaming in the agony of eternal hell fire. Fortunately that world is coming. Because everybody who cares one flying DAMN about the truth knew where this vile ObamaCare law was going. And Democrats lied about it like the future citizens of hell that they truly are.
So it shouldn’t be a surprise that even Politico – which was one of those propaganda mills for Obama when he was running in 2007-2008 – broke with this fascist lying weasel and said things like this:
“The last person in the world who should be lecturing journalists on how to do journalism is President Barack Obama. Yet there Obama was last night at a journalism award ceremony, yodeling banalities about the role of a press in a free society, moaning over the dangers posed by “he said/she said” reporting, and—to the delight of the assembled audience—attacking Donald Trump in every way but name. The press-heavy crowd, convened by Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications to give the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting to Alec MacGillis, clapped at Obama’s 30-minute address, encouraging his best Trump-baiting lines about “free media” and the dangers of “false equivalence.”What they should have done is bombard Obama with rotten fruit or ripped him with raspberries for his hypocrisy.How do we hate Obama’s treatment of the press? Let me count the ways. Under his administration, the U.S. government has set a new record for withholding Freedom of Information requests, according to a recent AP investigation. FOIA gives the public and press an irreplaceable view into the workings of the executive branch. Without timely release of government documents and data, vital questions can’t be answered and stories can’t be written.Obama’s “Insider Threat Program“ has turned employees across the government—from the Peace Corps to the Social Security Administration to the Department of Agriculture—into information squelching snitches. If this isn’t Trumpian behavior, I don’t know what is.“Obama hates the press,” New York Times national security reporter James Risen said not long ago, “and he hates leaks.” Associated Press Washington Bureau Chief Sally Buzbee has decried the “day-to-day intimidation of sources” by the Obama administration, judging it worse than the Bush administration on that score. And in a 2013 piece, Politico’s Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen documented Obama’s mastery of “limiting, shaping and manipulating media coverage of himself and his White House.””
“The deeper you study Obama’s relationship with the press, the more you want to ask what business he has giving out a press award. Was Trump himself busy that night?”
“Shame on the Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications for allowing Obama—a documented opponent of the press—to pontificate on journalistic practice. The only press award he has any business awarding is special commendation to Trump, thanking him for making Obama look like a free-speech radical by comparison.”
The title of the above piece is “Spare Me Your Hypocritical Journalism Lecture, Mr. President.” It is very much worth reading.
The only difference is that I knew Obama was like that eight damn years ago.
Donald Trump owes his rise to one loathsome, despicable man – and that man is Barack Hussein Obama.
Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit. Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.
What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States. And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions. You mark my words. Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification??? Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage. You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching. And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame.
Obama set out to break the Republican Party. And now this demon-possessed man claims that he’s in no way responsible for the party that he broke by imposing tyrannous executive orders that split a GOP desperately trying to react to outright fascism as Obama used the media in ways described above to distort and warp public opinion. If a group of thugs breaks into a gathering by a group of decent people and starts slapping people, kicking them, punching them in the face, some people will want to fight back and others will want to call the police and still others will want to cowardly negotiate with their attackers. That’s exactly what Obama did to the GOP with his sweeping tyrannous actions. And all the while he divided America by race, divided America by income, divided America by gender, divided-divided-divided so he could conquer no matter how small the margin was.
The result was tens of millions of people – basically half the nation – who are rabidly enraged at Obama and literally ready to do what Democrats have done – first with their vile Occupy Movement and then with race riots and now with Black Lives Matter and fascist Brownshirt violent attacks against Trump rallies – and begin burning and rioting.
And so we have that until now bottlenecked rage incarnated in the rise of Donald Trump. Right out of the toxic soul of Obama.
I can even show you with numerous headlines how Obama uses the same damn TACTICS that Trump uses to mock opponents and label them:
You click on that and you see 6,220,000 results of “Obama mocks Republicans.”
Is that presidential? It sure is now, in the age of Obama (and the type Obama created, Donald Trump).
Trump is to angry, pissed off white people EXACTLY what Obama was to the people he won over by preaching hate the same damn way his vile “reverend” for 23 years preached hate.
At least the GOP establishment is trying to keep the despicable candidate from winning: versus the Democrat Party that openly celebrates the only two people on earth who are vastly more despicable.
I frankly don’t care what the issue is, liberals are THE most hypocritical and deceitful people on the face of the earth.
And the funny thing about it is, the more liberal you are, the more well-known you are for being a liberal or for succeeding in a basically-all-liberal industry, the more the above is true.
Take the movies and the liberals who dominate every aspect of the Hollywood film industry – and then flush all their PC bullcrap down the toilet where it belongs.
Here is a collage of all the actors nominated for Oscars from the esteemed leftist Academy of Motion Pictures:
The Los Angeles Times acknowledges in the January 15 print edition that “For the second year in a row, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has nominated an all-white group of acting nominees, passing over popular, well-reviewed performances in “Creed” and “Straight Outta Compton” and failing to nominate prominent actors of color in 2015 films, including Idris Elba, Samuel L. Jackson and Will Smith.”
The thing I always marvel at is how mainstream media (i.e. liberal) news outlets will run a story like this, you know ONCE, and then go back to demonizing Republicans and conservatives the remaining 99.999 percent of the time. They’ll say, “We reported that, we were fair,” but the difference is when their negative stories target the left they get reported on and dropped but when they target the right they get picked up and the long march of incessant reporting featuring banging drums and clashing symbols begins.
In the same vein, and with the same damn leftist Hollywood industry, just consider how these incredibly rich white people manage to keep spouting off about liberal economic policies as they horde all the money and decry corporate welfare while they SWIM in greed. Liberal Hollywood takes in $1.4 BILLION a year in corporate pork even as they hypocritically hate on corporations.
Now, in addition to that, we always hear how Clarence Thomas, or Thomas Sowell, or Colin Powel, or Condoleezza Rice, are “Uncle Toms.” Because they serve the white establishment.
What the hell is Chris Rock but the “Uncle Tom” for the liberal white Hollywood establishment???
How about this, liberal actor, liberal producer, et al: you give UP your fancy mansions and your fancy cars and your fancy clothes and your jet-set lives where you look down on all the people in flyover country who vote Republican because they’re ordinary, decent people with ordinary, decent values:
But no. To be an “actor” is to pretend to be a human being when in reality you are a leftist roach impersonating a human being.
Let’s just go on with some proof: take the following headline about Hollywood political money during the 2012 presidential election:
And that’s only because most of the remaining ten percent has gone to Bernie Sanders.
These Hollywood people are liberals. They are virtually ALL doctrinaire liberals who like the fascists they are have done their own version of the blacklisting they used to so despise when it targeted communists to now target conservatives. The same damn thing has happened to just as great of an extent in our universities as liberals – that is “fascists” have Stalinist-style purged Christians, conservatives and Republicans from being allowed to have a foot in the door of the university system. Or I’ll just let you explain to me how it was that 96 percent of Ivy League professors’ donations went to Obama.
The funny thing is that when they were blacklisting Hollywood, they SHOULD have been blacklisting the universities, because even Democrat President Lyndon Baines Johnson was pointing out this fact:
LBJ to Sen McGee (D-WY): “They’re going into the colleges and the faculties and the student bodies, and trying to get them to send wires that come right out of Communist headquarters.”— LBJ, Thursday, April 29, 1965, 4:29 p.m.
And it is sadly even MORE true today than it was when the last decent Democrats were pointing it out fifty years ago.
At least, not if you are a demon-possessed, morally sick leftist university professor who is utterly consumed by lies and determined to propagate them in the name of “education,” anyway.
I’m sorry, I actually think I wronged Joseph Stalin: because STALIN didn’t purge as viciously as liberal-progressives purge today.
Liberals are people who just hate bias and bigotry so damn much – unless THEY get to be the ones unleashing all their hate and bigotry.
You know what? I really don’t need a damn NAZI telling me to be “tolerant.” Not when a liberal Democrat wouldn’t know “tolerance” if it came up and mauled him grizzly bear-style.
These fascists have NOTHING to do with “tolerance.” They are posturing hypocrite liars down to the very cores of their shriveled roach souls.
Oh, there’s liberals and “gun violence.” FORGET the fact that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of “gun violence” is from criminal members of the race-baiting Democrat Party race coalition who live in and prey on people in cities that are governed by LIBERALS. And forget the fact that Democrats share this cherished goal of seizing guns from the population that Stalin and Hitler and Mao had before them. And forget the fact that Obama and many of these other hoity-toity liberals who decry the 2nd Amendment and the right of the people to keep and bear arms have armed bodyguards.
That “equal pay for equal work” line is nothing but a statistical shenanigan from dishonest liars who are lying to bad people who prefer to believe lies rather than the truth.
BY HER OWN DISHONEST METRIC, HILLARY CLINTON IS EVERY BIT AS GUILTY OF WAGING A WAR ON WOMEN AS THE MOST MISOGYNISTIC TURD WHO EVER LIVED.
But every single day on the campaign trail, at event after event, this hypocrite liar is out screaming about the very issue that she is as personally as guilty of as anyone else on the face of the earth.
Oh, liberals love to pat themselves on the back and praise themselves for being “pro child.” Let’s put aside the fact that sixty million children can’t agree with them because liberals MURDERED them in their abortion mills and then callously sold their body parts like chunks of meat in a deli.
Liberals tell us how much they care about the children and how much they value their education while rabidly maintaining a “public education establishment” that is an utter joke and an abject disgrace compared to private schools and charter schools. But good luck trying to pry the parasitic fangs of the utterly self-centered union teachers out of your kids. Your kid is that teacher’s meal ticket. Period. And Democrats will fight to the death of the last child to protect the last union “teacher.”
And the Democrat Party is the party of hostility to children who want to actually a) be born and b) actually LEARN something other than Stalinist indoctrination. But such as it is, kids are pumped full of godless Darwinian evolution and global warming ideology, they’re pumped full of religious indoctrination in the form of fostering “tolerance” to Islam and harboring contempt for Judeo-Christianity; they’re pumped full of gender-bending sexual perversion; they’re pumped full of contempt for America and its founding fathers in favor of a hate-America-first campaign that could have been written by communist commissars from the KGB; they’re pumped full of everything BUT reading, writing and arithmetic.
But hey, to be a liberal means to be a liar whose soul swims in lies. So you liberals believe your own lies and report your own lies as “fact” no matter how utterly fallacious they are or what dishonest hypocrite assured you they were true.
[Update, 12/30/14: Well, this additional fact didn’t take long to further document the cancerous climate created by our cop-killer-in chief:
A new report out found a sharp rise in the number of police officers killed by guns in 2014, including 15 of what the Associated Press calls “ambush” shootings.
The number of law enforcement officers killed by firearms jumped by 56 percent this year and included 15 ambush deaths… In 2011, 73 officers were killed in gunfire, the most in any year in the past decade. The average since 2004 is 55 police deaths annually.
The AP notes that the motivation of these vicious ambush attacks is politics.
As the city was thrust into mourning, with flags lowered and police badges ribboned in black, the way Mr. Brinsley had stalked the officers set off precautions across the department. Officers who in recent weeks had felt besieged by political attacks found themselves contemplating the specter of far greater peril.
Neither “news” source has the basic journalistic integrity to point out the obvious blatant FACT that these “political attacks” are ALL coming from the vile political left. [end update]
Liberal Democrat Mayor Bill De Blasio is to blame for the assassination of two NYPD police officers. And the documented facts prove it:
“We’re not just dealing with years of racism leading up to it or decades of racism,” de Blasio said. “We are dealing with centuries of racism that have brought us to this day. That is how profound the crisis is.”
Mayor de Blasio made “moronic” comments Sunday that prove he “doesn’t belong” in New York, a key police union chief said, further inflaming the war of words between Hizzoner and the NYPD.
The comments from Ed Mullins, head of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, came after de Blasio reiterated his concern that his son, Dante, could be harmed by a police officer if he were to make any sudden movements in a hypothetical encounter with cops.
“What parents have done for decades who have children of color, especially young men of color, is train them to be very careful when they have …an encounter with a police officer,” de Blasio said on ABC’s “This Week.”
Mullins ripped right into de Blasio later in the day, calling his comments “really hypocritical and moronic” and suggesting the mayor get out of his own city.
“He has a security detail of New York City police officers assigned to protect his family. And yet he’s making statements that his son shouldn’t feel safe with New York City cops,” Mullins said on John Catsimatidis’ radio show on AM970.
The New York Post reported in March 2013 and again this year on Motley’s offensive Twitter comments.
“NYPD fatally shoot knife-wielding man in Times Square. F–k. The. Police,” Motley wrote on Aug. 11, 2012, of the police shooting death of Darrius Kennedy, The Post reported.
One of the last straws was when de Blasio brought racist, race-baiting race hustler Al Sharpton to a place of high honor and allowed him to demonize the NYPD:
He [de Blasio] took the unusual step — unimaginable under the mayoralties of Rudy Giuliani or Michael Bloomberg — of inviting Sharpton to City Hall, seating him opposite Bratton at a table where the activist proceeded to strongly denounce the police. (“If Dante wasn’t your son, he’d be a candidate for a chokehold. And we got to deal with that reality,” Sharpton said to de Blasio as Bratton looked on.) Last week, de Blasio privately met with organizers of the Garner protests, another moment that antagonized police.
But the action that turned off cops most of all was his defense of City Hall staffer Rachel Noerdlinger, a longtime Sharpton aide whose son and boyfriend posted anti-police messages on their Facebook accounts. The boyfriend allegedly tried to drive a cop off the road in Edgewater, New Jersey, and later pleaded to a lesser offense, according to the New York Post. The mayor stood behind Noerdlinger for weeks until her son was arrested for trespassing – and even then he didn’t fire her. When she left her job, City Hall officials said she was on leave.
“His words and his deeds don’t match,” said veteran cop reporter Leonard Levitt, who runs NYPD Confidential, a website fed by tips from inside the department and widely read by the rank-and-file. “You had Noerdlinger’s son calling cops ‘pigs’ and de Blasio doesn’t think that’s inappropriate? What message are you sending? De Blasio says it’s just the union guys who are angry. It’s not. It’s everybody. I’ve been covering this for 25 years and I have never seen anything like it… The mayor doesn’t have a clue.”
NEW YORK — New York City’s police union, the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, is urging its members to ban Mayor Bill de Blasio from their funerals, the latest episode in the ongoing clash between the mayor and the city’s law-enforcement power structure.
Officers are encouraged to fill out a form on the union’s website titled “Don’t Insult My Sacrifice” to request that neither de Blasio nor Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito attend their funeral, should they be killed in the line of duty.
I, _____________________, as a New York City police officer, request that Mayor Bill de Blasio and City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito refrain from attending my funeral services in the event that I am killed in the line of duty. Due to Mayor de Blasio and Speaker Mark-Viverito’s consistent refusal to show police officers the support and respect they deserve, I believe that their attendance at the funeral of a fallen New York City police officer is an insult to that officer’s memory and sacrifice.
NOTE THE DATE THE POLICE SAID, “DON’T COME TO OUR FUNERALS.”
It occurred LESS THAN ONE WEEK BEFORE A THUG CITING THE VERY BULLCRAP THAT BARACK OBAMA, ERIC HOLDER, AL SHARPTON AND YES, MAYOR DE BLASIO HAD INCITED:
Two police officers sitting in their patrol car in Brooklyn were shot at point-blank range and killed on Saturday afternoon by a man who, officials said, had traveled to the city from Baltimore vowing to kill officers. The suspect then committed suicide with the same gun, the authorities said.
The officers, Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, were in the car near Myrtle and Tompkins Avenues in Bedford-Stuyvesant in the shadow of a tall housing project when the gunman, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, walked up to the passenger-side window and assumed a firing stance, Police Commissioner William J. Bratton said. Mr. Brinsley shot several rounds into the heads and upper bodies of the officers, who never drew their weapons, the authorities said.
There is a DIRECT correspondence between what liberals said and what this cop murderer believed and literally claimed was his motive for assassinating police officers.
When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?
Put me in the latter category. I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 — an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again.
As Obama civil rights advisor Al Sharpton frantically tries to distance himself from the revenge execution style slayings of two NYPD officers Saturday afternoon in Brooklyn, keep in mind that just one week ago protestors at his march in New York City were chanting, “What do we want? Dead cops! When do what them? Now!”
The protesters were part of Al Sharpton’s “Million Marchers” protest against police violence. The protesters chanted “What do we want?… Dead cops!” as they marched in New York City.
Meanwhile, former NYPD Commissioner Bernie Kerik is accusing Sharpton and NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio of having blood on their hands.
“In this circumstance I believe, I personally feel, that Mayor de Blasio, Sharpton and others like them, they actually have blood on their hands,” Kerik said. “They encouraged this behavior. They encouraged protests. These so-called peaceful protests that, where people are standing out there saying ‘kill the cops.’”
“Well, I hope they’re happy, because they got what they wanted,” Kerik added.
Democrats have divided America by income, by class, by race, by gender, by sexuality, by the desire to murder babies. And now they are dividing America on the level of criminals vs. police. And always, ALWAYS Democrats take the side of evil and vileness in a way guaranteed to bring America down and bring on the full wrath of a just and holy God in the last days before they vote for the Antichrist.
I’m at my gym, peddling away on the exercise bike (one of my realizations while riding the exercise bike is that “Maybe I don’t know why the caged bird sings; but I sure know why the hamster runs on his little hamster wheel”) while looking at a bank of eight televisions. My favorite Fox News program is on – Megyn Kelly’s new show – but it’s a commercial. So I look around at the other televisions and notice that “X-Men: the Last Stand” is playing on the FX channel on one of the other TVs.
I saw one scene, but it was THE scene to see to frame a very important point regarding racism and discrimination.
In the movie, there is absolutely zero question as to who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. The good guys are the X-Men, led by Charles Xavier. Charles, like all mutants, has suffered discrimination and hostility as a result of his powers, but he fights for true justice, for human dignity, for the human spirit. And he has assembled a group of young mutants to help him in his noble cause. Whereas Magneto, an embittered mutant, consumed by hate and the desire for not justice but vengeance, leads a massive army of evil mutants in a fight to dominate the human race.
In the scene I started to view, Magneto had assembled hundreds or even thousands of evil mutants to attack a prison – which turns out to be Alcatraz – to free key evil mutant allies. The X-Men and a few human prison guards stand on the other side in a struggle to keep evil behind bars where it belongs.
So you’ve got thousands of evil mutants on one side and five good mutants on the other side.
There is absolutely no question that the creators of the X-Men intended “mutants” to be a metaphor for race.
And given the fact that we have the exact same situation today: with a giant group of minorities on the one side standing for preferential treatment based on race and a very small group of minorities on the other side standing up for human dignity and the human spirit while the leaders of the larger group denounce as “race traitors” the members of the smaller group, well, I think we’ve got a narrative to discuss.
What I want you to realize is that, when Magneto surveys the few X-Men standing against him and says, “Traitors to their own cause,” he is doing THE EXACT SAME THINGas black “civil rights” leaders are doing to great black conservatives such as Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Allen West, Herman Cain and Ben Carson.
Magneto – evil mutant intent on bitterness and hate and vengeance as he is – is following the script of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and all your other leftist race baiters. You’re either with us, on the Democrat Party plantation (it was the Democrat Party in the 19th century that fought a vicious, bloody Civil War to keep black people on slavery plantations), fighting for more welfare, more food stamps, more preferential race treatment, more government dependence, or you’re a “traitor” for fighting for the human spirit and for human dignity which ought to abhor such things and encourage people to work and stand on their own feet.
There’s another line that happens in the scene I watched (until Megyn Kelly came back on) that shows something important.
Because you’ve got to ask: if Magneto won the battle, what kind of society would he have? Sure, ordinary humans would be slaves, but what about his fellow evil mutants? And by way of analogy, what kind of society would Al Sharpton have? Again, surely white people would be second-class citizens as a result of his “reverse discrimination” whereby whites made blacks second-class citizens and therefore blacks should make whites second-class citizens in return and keep the hate of racism alive forever and ever. But how would black people – and I mean the black people who sided with Sharpton – be treated in Sharpton’s brave new world?
As the battle begins, evil mutants Juggernaut and Pyro begin to rush in to attack the X-Men. And Magneto – who had ordered the attack – holds them back. The lesser evil mutants rush in and are destroyed. And Magneto reveals his incredibly cynical and evil attitude toward them, saying, “That’s why the pawns go in first.”
And that’s all you are to the race baiters, ordinary black person struggling to live in a society where Obama has destroyed the economy and made it all but impossible that you will ever be able to find a job: a damn pawn.
Just as in the X-Men movie, the truly courageous people in real life aren’t the hordes of blacks screaming for their rights (and their vengeance); it is, as always, the small group of noble heroes who stand with the rest of us against their hate.
That’s why when I see a black conservative standing next to me, I truly cherish that noble soul who stands for what’s right in spite of all the fierce and vicious opposition against him or her.
One can do a search on my blog and see how vigorously I defended George Zimmerman’s right to defend himself against Trayvon Martin.
I was of course called a “racist” by the incredibly racist left for doing so, as someone reading the comments can see.
George Zimmerman was physically attacked. Only the most rabid ideologue fool refuses to acknowledge that Zimmerman was on his back getting beaten with Trayvon Martin on top of him “MMA style” raining down blows on a man who had already suffered a broken nose and serious abrasions to the back of his skull.
Liberals are fascists who do not want ordinary people to possess the right or capability to defend themselves. Period. On top of that, liberals are racist race-baiters who demonize white people and who have no compunction whatsoever to alter reality to make themselves victims. Thus George Zimmerman became a “white Hispanic” to eradicate the fact that he himself is a racial minority. And Trayvon Martin became an innocent ten-year old in the news accounts rather than a 6’3″ thug who already had had numerous encounters with the law and who by his own accounts was already glorifying in violence.
The case was a “no-brainer” from the outset. And liberals proved that they are brainless ideologues who refuse to accept the real world in their steadfast determination that George Zimmerman be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for daring to defend himself rather than placing all his trust that Obama and the State would defend him. The ONLY reason the case even ever went to trial was because Democrats are rabid fascists.
The Michael Dunn case is entirely different. And pathologically rabid liberals might be surprised to learn that I am very firmly on the side of the car-full of black kids who got shot rather than on the white man who shot them.
Michael Dunn, unlike Zimmerman’s defense, is citing the “Stand Your Ground Law.” Again, pathologically dishonest Democrats made the Zimmerman case all about that “Stand Your Ground” law even though Zimmerman’s defense NEVER cited it. And the reason that Democrats hate that law so much is that, again, they are fascists whose demons inhabiting them start twitching hysterically the moment an ordinary person is deemed to have the right to stand in any way, shape or form or to protect himself in any way, shape or form. And that is especially true – in the Democrat age of “Never bring a lawsuit against a black” – when race is involved.
George Zimmerman is Hispanic. Not a “white Hispanic” as the racist, bigoted, socialist and frankly evil New York Times branded him. Either acknowledge that Zimmerman is Hispanic, you jackals, or for the sake of any kind of honesty whatsoever STOP CALLING OBAMA AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRESIDENT WHEN HE IS ONLY HALF AFRICAN-AMERICAN. But the fact of the matter is that Democrats are hypocrites without any kind of shame, honor, decency, integrity or virtue whatsoever. So Obama gets to be the first black president and anybody who doesn’t like Obama’s policies is a “racist” by definition while Zimmerman becomes a “white Hispanic” with the sole emphasis on his being “white” and therefore guilty.
Mr. Dunn, a middle-aged white man, allegedly opened fire on a car with four black teenagers in it at a Jacksonville, Fla., gas station. The boys were apparently blasting music, and when Dunn asked them to turn it down, they responded angrily. Dunn has said he felt threatened and thought he saw someone point a gun at him through the back window, so he opened fire. No gun was found in the boys’ car, and none of the witnesses to the altercation noticed a gun.
The day after last Thanksgiving, Dunn was in good spirits when he attended his son’s wedding at a historic home overlooking the St. Johns River in Orange Park, a quaint Jacksonville suburb.
But after the wedding, Dunn got into a parking lot dispute with teenagers at a gas station that ended with a 17-year-old dead and Dunn charged with murder.
Police portray the South Patrick Shores resident as an out-of-control gunman who became enraged over loud rap music booming from a nearby car, grabbed a 9mm pistol from his glovebox and fired two volleys into a Dodge Durango containing four black teens. The gunshots killed Jordan Davis and narrowly missed two other boys.
Dunn told detectives he acted in self-defense after he heard threats and thought he saw Davis raise the barrel of a shotgun above the SUV’s rear passenger window. No gun was found, police said.
Here’s the thing that makes Michael Dunn guilty:
Asked by detectives why he didn’t report the shooting by calling 911, he said he planned to drive Rouer home to Brevard County in the morning, then confess to authorities.
By 4:25 a.m. the next morning, Jacksonville police had obtained an arrest warrant and contacted the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office, looking for Dunn. A witness at the gas station had reported his license tag number.
He was arrested by deputies at about 10:30 a.m. at his condo, then taken to police headquarters in Viera for a videotaped interview with two Jacksonville detectives.
Wearing a yellow short-sleeved collared shirt and striped shorts, fidgeting and wiping his hands on his knees, Dunn related his side of the story – but neither detective bought his version of events.
Rather, they said details of Dunn’s story didn’t match those at the crime scene. Neither the surviving boys nor independent witnesses at the gas station said Davis had a firearm or tried to exit the SUV – in fact, one of the boys later said Davis couldn’t have exited a rear door because the child locks were engaged.
“If there was a shotgun coming up at you, we would expect you to do what you did. The problem that we have is, there is no shotgun. That’s the bridge that we’ve got to get across,” a detective told Dunn.
“You keep dwelling on this shotgun as if there’s one at the scene. If there was a shotgun, a BB gun, any type of gun at the scene – hell, if there was a water gun that was black that looked real at the scene. …” the detective said.
This case is NOT about race, any more than the George Zimmerman case was ever about race.
Democrats pathologically despise the Constitution or the United States and our founding fathers, unless and until these great men are perverted into deists and atheists in radical abandonment of actual history and unless and until their words are “fundamentally transformed” by liberal judges into a grotesque mockery of anything they ever actually intended their words to mean. And the words that Democrats hate only slightly less are Martin Luther King, Jr.’s words from his “I have a dream” speech:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Democrats hate those words. They hate the idea that the content of one’s character should matter. They want it to be exclusively about the color of one’s skin. And if you are black, you are by definition a “victim” and if you are white, you are by definition a “racist” and a “bigot” and “privileged” and therefore guilty of whatever crime Democrats want to scapegoat you with.
I think of the character in the great movie, “The Ten Commandments” named Nathan. Because he is the epitome of the Democrat Party. Like Nathan, DEMOCRATS are the real party of slavery. Democrats literally fought the damned Civil War to keep slavery while Republicans fought to liberate the slaves. The Ku Klux Klan that rode like a living cancer after that Democrat War constituted the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party who persecuted blacks and white Republicans while their fellow Democrats undid everything Republican president Abraham Lincoln tried to do in his Reconstruction Act.
The cry of Democrat blacks today is “Give us welfare or give us death.” But the two amount to the same thing as blacks have given in to bitterness, hopelessness and a spirit of entitlement rather than trying to actually fulfill the American Dream for themselves. You can either wait for your damn check to come off the work of other people or you can go out and work your ass off to make your world and your kid’s world a better place. And because of the Democrat Party, blacks have pursued the former and abandoned the latter. These are people who have fallen prey to the belief that whitey is out to get them and there isn’t any hope of a fair deal – so why try? And the only reason that is true is the same Democrat Party who told them that are the very same white people who have actually been the ones keeping them down with promises of welfare for nothing forever.
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).
Now, of course, you run into the irony that it was that Grand Old Party that freed the slaves, and fought a bitter war to free the slaves against the Democrat Party that was fighting just as bitterly to keep black people in the chains of human bondage. But that’s beside the point in the Democrat narrative.
Harry Reid is also on the record admiring Obama as a:
Maybe it’s because Obama was half white, but Harry Reid nevertheless praises Obama for overcoming that stupid negro dialect. And being light-skinned is a huge bonus for Harry Reid. “Whiter is better” when you’re in the party of “the White Man’s Burden.”
Bill Clinton wasn’t quite as happy with the man who was stealing his white wife’s rightful place as leader of the free world.
I know, William Jefferson. That’s back when southern Democrats like you had a different way of keeping black boys in their proper place.
Senator Robert Byrd, a distinguished “Exalted Cyclops” and “Kleagle” of the famous Democrat-created Ku Klux Klan, was on the record as once saying:
“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
Ah. There’s that depiction of blacks as being in that long-way-from-being-human I earlier mentioned.
And:
“The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation.”
When Bill Clinton honored fellow Democrat Robert “Exalted Cyclops” Byrd, Clinton said:
“He was a country boy from the hills and hollows of West Virginia. He was trying to get elected. And maybe he did something he shouldn’t have done…”
Well, as long as he was just a Democrat trying to get elected, then ANY racism or racism is fine, isn’t it, Hill Billy?
Liberals are liars and haters. And worst of all, they are true moral idiots. “Democrat” stands for “Demonic Bureaucrat” as they seek to advance two interests: Satan’s love for 55 million murdered human beings in the abortion mills and the worship of homosexual sodomy, plus their determination to replace the God of the Bible with “the State” and make GOVERNMENT our God and Savior while increasingly marginalizing and even criminalizing the worship of Jesus Christ and the God of the Bible.
So what’s this Michael Dunn case about? I already stated it above. It is about a guilty man – and I don’t frankly give a damn WHAT color he is – who fired ten shots into a vehicle with kids inside and claimed he was being threatened with a gun when nothing even remotely resembling a gun was found at the scene.
It’s about this question: do you have the right to stand your ground with a gun? You’re damn right you do – and again, I don’t CARE if you are white or black or Hispanic or Asian or whatever. Do you have a right to whip out a gun after confronting somebody and then start shooting at them when they are no real threat to you? You’re damned right you don’t.
Michael Dunn ought to be convicted for his crime of shooting at those kids and for murdering one named Jordan Davis. And if Michael Dunn were black and the kids were white, he should be every bit as convicted.
And I say that as a conservative and a Republican rather than a racist liberal Democrat.
Before reading this article, just to provide you with some context for what you’re learning, realize the following information about Los Angeles County as reported by the Los Angeles Times:
When Democratic attorney general nominee Kamala Harris opened a South Los Angeles campaign headquarters earlier this month, she picked a spot on Crenshaw Boulevard right next door to the site of one of Barack Obama’s satellite offices during the historic 2008 presidential campaign.
Harris, the San Francisco district attorney, can only hope that Obama’s political magic in Los Angeles County — where he won a whopping 69% of the vote — will drift down the sidewalk.
Voter-rich Los Angeles County represents a sure-fire victory for most Democrats on Tuesday’s ballot, but it’s anything but assured for Harris. Her GOP rival, Steve Cooley, has won three consecutive elections as the county’s district attorney despite Democrats outnumbering Republicans 2 to 1 in the county — and, a recent poll shows, he has the edge this time too.
“If Kamala Harris loses L.A. County, she won’t win,” said Allan Hoffenblum, whose California Target Book handicaps California political races. “L.A. County is to the Democratic candidates what the Central Valley and Inland Empire are to Republican candidates. You have to be strong where your party is strong.”
History records that Kamala Harris is the attorney general of California. Which apparently means Los Angeles County’s “sure fire victory for most Democrats” won out for her, too.
The FACT that Los Angles County is HEAVILY Democrat is important as you read the following:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is aggressively pursuing lawsuits over minority voting rights in Texas and North Carolina, but the Justice Department has not moved on evidence that the latest round of redistricting in Los Angeles County unfairly reduces the influence of Latino voters.
Nearly half the 10 million people in the nation’s largest county are Latino. But political boundaries redrawn in 2011 make it possible for Latino voters to elect just one of the five supervisors.
The administration has resisted calls to sue the county, despite the county’s history of discrimination against Latino voters in earlier redistricting efforts.
The inaction rankles some Latino activists who count themselves as strong backers of President Barack Obama.
‘‘I support the Obama administration and the president, but frankly, Obama and the top people around him seem to be unaware on this issue. Obama is somewhat blind to the issues of Latinos,’’ said Cruz Reynoso, a former California Supreme Court justice and member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Reynoso said the administration seems more attuned to voting rights complaints of African-Americans.
He said the administration also appears reluctant to pursue a complaint against a jurisdiction that is dominated by Democrats. ‘‘Most of the folk in Los Angeles have been supporters of the president, so why make them unhappy despite the fact that, from my point of view, there is great injustice going on,’’ he said.
In the wake of a stinging U.S. Supreme Court defeat in June that rendered useless an important enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act, the administration has focused its voting rights resources on Southern states that are controlled by Republicans.
The Justice Department has initiated or joined suits targeting voter identification laws and redistricting plans in North Carolina and in Texas, where Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott began moving to put the state’s tough voter ID law into effect just hours after the high court’s decision.
The suits were filed under other provisions of the voting rights law that were not part of the Supreme Court case.
The situation in Los Angeles County predates the high court decision and the passage of the laws now being challenged in North Carolina and Texas.
The Justice Department acknowledges it is looking at the situation in Los Angeles, but otherwise declined comment.
‘‘We have received significant amounts of information from the county and others about the issue and the matter is still under review,’’ said Justice Department spokeswoman Dena Iverson.
Matt Barreto, a political science professor and voting rights expert at the University of Washington, said the evidence against the county is overwhelming and includes a history of racially polarized voting that has hurt Latinos.
‘‘My perspective is that this is one of the easiest cases to be made nationally,’’ said Barreto, who has worked for the group of Latinos that includes Reynoso. Barreto also served as a consultant to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, a voter-approved independent board that draws the state’s congressional and legislative districts.
Counties, though, retain the authority to devise their own districts. Nowhere is there more power and money at stake than in Los Angeles, where each of five supervisors represents nearly 2 million people and the county’s annual budget tops $26 billion.
Following the 2010 census, the board adopted districts in 2011 that made relatively few changes even though two supervisors cautioned that their colleagues were exposing themselves to a voting rights lawsuit.
Gloria Molina, the only Latina ever elected to the board, and Mark Ridley-Thomas, the board’s lone African-American member, supported maps that would have created a second district with a majority of Latino residents. But the two members could not persuade their three white colleagues to join them.
‘‘Today this board had an opportunity to make history, not repeat it, but all signs indicated that they would repeat history, and unfortunately, they did,’’ Molina said in 2011.
Molina was elected after a federal court documented political discrimination against Latinos dating back to the 1950s and drew a map to ensure Latinos would be represented.
Yet since that vote, Molina has not aligned herself with the loose association of activists and voting rights experts who are pushing for greater Latino representation. Her spokeswoman, Roxane Marquez, said Molina continues to back two majority Latino districts, but otherwise had no comment on possible Justice Department intervention.
Ridley-Thomas told Bill Boyarsky, a columnist for LA Observed, that he wants the Justice Department to get involved.
The map Ridley-Thomas proposed in 2011 would have increased the chances of making the Los Angeles board more diverse, said redistricting consultant Alan Clayton. Ridley-Thomas’ map would have preserved his district, created a second district likely to elect a Latino and increased the odds that an Asian-American candidate could be elected, Clayton said.
The first thing you learn from reading this article and understanding the facts is that Barack Obama and his vicious lawless law dog Eric Holder don’t give a flying DAMN about “racism”; they only care about the Democrat Party having total power. If Obama and Holder were considering race or racial equality, they would look at the racial suppression of Los Angeles County and see “one of the easiest cases to be made nationally” and they would do something about it. But it’s DEMOCRATS who are doing it, so no harm, no foul.
And why are these whitey Democrats screwing Latinos? So they can keep their elitist and racist white paws on that $26 billion rather than “redistributing their wealth” to the dirty little brown people.
It’s not war on women when we do it; it’s not racist when we do it. And in the quite recent case of Democrats who demonized the Republicans as Nazis for CONTEMPLATING to end the filibuster rules that had survived for 235 years when it was DEMOCRATS who actually DID the evil and vile and treasonous and anti-democratic deed, t’s not fascist when WE do it.
The cry of Democrat blacks today is “Give us welfare or give us death.” But the two amount to the same thing as blacks have given in to bitterness, hopelessness and a spirit of entitlement rather than trying to actually fulfill the American Dream for themselves. You can either wait for your damn check to come off the work of other people or you can go out and work your ass off to make your world and your kid’s world a better place. And because of the Democrat Party, blacks have pursued the former and abandoned the latter. These are people who have fallen prey to the belief that whitey is out to get them and there isn’t any hope of a fair deal – so why try? And the only reason that is true is the same Democrat Party who told them that are the very same white people who have actually been the ones keeping them down with promises of welfare for nothing forever.
And now the same Democrat Party that spent its history betraying blacks is betraying Latinos.
The Democrat Party is the Party of genuine evil in America; just as it has ALWAYS been Democrats who have ALWAYS been the Party of genuine evil in America.
[Update 3/26/12] One of my good friends on this blog, HL, provides information in her comment that I did not know – such as the facts that the mainstream media have been streaming pictures of Trayvon Martin from when he was a twelve-year-old boy rather than recent pictures to create a false impression of “innocence,” and concealing facts about Trayvon Martin that indicate a propensity for violence. In the same way, the media have deliberately demagogued Zimmerman’s 911 call to allege that he uttered a racial slur when there is no reason beyond their own biases to conclusively prove that he did. Maybe he did use a racial slur, maybe he didn’t. But even if he did use the slur, as offensive as such racism ought to be it still doesn’t in any way mean that Trayvon Martin did not attack Zimmerman as he claims (see below for more).
There are about 300 homicides a week in these United States of America. The media only cares about an incredibly tiny cross-section of those tiny homicides, such as when a pretty little white girl is killed or when a black person is killed and it can at least be made to appear linked to racism.
The department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics report offers a snapshot of racial disparities among violent crime victims. Black people represented an estimated 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2005, the latest data available, but were the victims of 49 percent of all murders and 15 percent of rapes, assaults and other nonfatal violent crimes nationwide.
Most of the black murder victims — 93 percent — were killed by other black people, the study found.
– but covering all of those awful stories undermines the leftwing narrative, so let’s not trouble ourselves with all of those murder victims. Let’s try to be like the liberal mainstream media and not give a damn about them. Let’s try to think of murdered black people the way the left thinks of murdered black babies:
“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
Just remember what the left said in the form of überliberal heroine Margaret Sanger:
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population.”
And try to remember that dead black people only count in liberalism if you can link the deaths to white racism.
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson swooped into this tragedy like the vultures they are so they could get in front of the cameras and racially demagogue and demonize they way only they can do. This case was all about racism and it’s frankly racist to think it could even possibly be about anything other than racism (well, except how guns are evil and how any law that allows an ordinary American to be allowed to touch a gun is evil), we’re told.
And of course nobody mentions that George Zimmerman, the shooter, is Hispanic (i.e., is a member of an ethnic group that overwhelmingly votes Democrat) because that kind of information doesn’t suit the leftist mainstream media narrative. He is every scintilla as Hispanic as our first black president is black. Oh, and some of his relatives are even black –
“His father is white, neighbors say. His mother is Latina. And his family is eager to point out that some of his relatives are black.”
– But how often have you been told that little bit of trivia on MSNBC???
The shooter, George Zimmerman – and I remind you again for the record that said shooter is Hispanic and therefore a recognized member of the Democrat voting block – has been about as convicted as the mainstream media can convict somebody. Well, him and “stand your ground” gun laws. Because how dare an ordinary citizen believe he or she ought to have a right to stand his or her ground in America!!!
Nothing has been allowed to stand in the way of justice. If the media has to bury certain facts and hype certain others, well, demagoguery is a small price to pay for lynch-mob justice. Which is why this item hasn’t made the story lines on MSNBC, either:
ORLANDO – A witness we haven’t heard from before paints a much different picture than we’ve seen so far of what happened the night 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed.
The night of that shooting, police say there was a witness who saw it all.
Our sister station, FOX 35 in Orlando, has spoken to that witness.
What Sanford Police investigators have in the folder, they put together on the killing of Trayvon Martin few know about.
The file now sits in the hands of the state attorney. Now that file is just weeks away from being opened to a grand jury.
It shows more now about why police believed that night that George Zimmerman shouldn’t have gone to jail.
Zimmerman called 911 and told dispatchers he was following a teen. The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to.
And from that moment to the shooting, details are few.
But one man’s testimony could be key for the police.
“The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: ‘help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911,” he said.
Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.
The witness only wanted to be identified as “John,” and didn’t not want to be shown on camera.
His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman’s claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.
“When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point,” John said.
Zimmerman says the shooting was self defense. According to information released on the Sanford city website, Zimmerman said he was going back to his SUV when he was attacked by the teen.
Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting.
Not that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson give a damn about such information. Any more than the racebaiting duo cared about the evidence that exonerated the Duke Lacrosse team. You know, before the black woman who wrongfully accused them – with Al Sharpton’s and Jesse Jackson’s assistance – ended up murdering – you should have guessed it – a black man named Milton Walker. Not that the 93% of black people who get murdered by other black people matter one tiny bit to the left, mind you. Let’s not lose our focus on racism, by which I mean focusing on cases involving killers who can at least be made to appear more or less white.
So why did Barack Obama jump into this case? Because he’s the exact same sort of racebaiting media whore that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are, that’s why.
We’ve got a couple little pieces of info on Obama’s taking that question from the press. The New York Times writes:
The president often appears perturbed when he is asked off-topic questions at ceremonial events, but on Friday, he seemed eager to address the case, which has quickly developed into a cause célèbre around the country. He cautioned that his comments would be limited because the Justice Department was investigating. But he talked at length about his personal feelings about the case.
And we’re also told how the whole question was a fascist media set-up for a fascist media-hungry president:
@Admin A few minutes before the press conference began Josh Earnest of the press office approached the NBC JournoLister present and whispered something into his ear. The NBC JournoLister later asked Obama about Trayvon. Yes, we are implying this was a set up question designed to exploit the death of Trayvon Martin.
Aside from the fact that America used to have a quaint and bizarre notion that accused people were supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty – and Zimmerman may actually be innocent of everything but not having an adequately Hispanic-sounding surname – Obama’s assistance as “Demagogue-in-Chief” may very well be the thing that gets George Zimmerman off on this shooting.
If you’ve been living in a cave: George Zimmerman is the guy who killed the young black kid Trayvon Martin. So forget the system — let’s kill him if necessary!
On Thursday, members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense circulated a “wanted dead or alive” poster for George Zimmerman over the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.
The posters were circulated during a press conference led by Minister Mikhail Muhummud, who said he is the southern regional director for the New Black Panther Party in Jacksonville, Florida.
For what it’s worth, I have absolutely no idea what took place between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. All I know is that it was a tragedy, and Trayvon Martin looked like a real nice kid with a big smile in the pictures I’ve seen of him. It sounds like Zimmerman was following Martin – quite possibly after he was told to stop – and that therefore this wasn’t a “stand your ground” case. It’s possible that this whole thing was a terrible misunderstanding, in which George Zimmerman was pursuing a suspicious black guy in a hoodie and Trayvon Martin was becoming increasingly paranoid about the Hispanic guy who clearly seemed to be stalking him. It’s quite possible that both young men actually thought they were legitimately defending themselves from the other man. All I know is that Obama didn’t help anybody but Obama by injecting himself into this case. And all I know is that by attempting to transform this case into one about guns rather than about homicide, the left has turned it into a political football and undermined the justice process.
[Update, 3/26/12] I said immediately above that “Trayvon Martin looked like a real nice kid with a big smile in the pictures I’ve seen of him.” What I didn’t know was that the mainstream media propaganda was playing a collage of pictures from when Trayvon Martin – who looked very different when George Zimmerman encountered him – was 12 years old. I also didn’t know that the facts that we haven’t been given by the media paint a very different picture of this “kid” that begins with the fact that he had just been suspended from school for ten days for drug possession and was temporarily staying with his father:
Of course, this is why Trayvon was staying as his Father’s house, so far away from school. And it also explains why George Zimmerman, who by all accounts seemed to stay on top of everything that happened in his neighborhood, didn’t recognize him that evening, Trayvon didn’t really live there, and was only in town because of the suspension.
It seems we may not find out more anytime soon, as a lawyer representing Trayvon’s family has sealed his school records.
[…]
Even though Trayvon was only 17, he already was sporting gold teeth, and several large tattoos. This one was on his wrist, apparently of his girlfriend’s mother’s name.
[…]
It seems that Tray was also on Twitter, but his account seems to have been recently deleted by his family or friends.
His screen name was “@NO_LIMIT_NIGGA, as you can see from the twitpic account screenshot above. He was also a member of a twitter hash group #team4dat.
At first, I was skeptical that anyone would maintain an account with that sort of derogatory slur in the title, but after doing some research, it’s apparent that it was Trayvon’s account.
[…]
There seem to be several allusions to violence on Tray’s Twitter account.
THAT’Sthe 6’3″ “kid” the 5’9″ Zimmerman encountered the night of the shooting.
And Barack Obama and the mainstream media propaganda are doing absolutely everything they each can to poison the justice process so they can convict a “racist” “white” guy who is really Hispanic out of their larger goal to convict guns in the hands of American citizens.
It very much sounds like Trayvon Martin was growing into a brutal thug. And I think about that thug when I contemplate Chicago-style thug Obama saying, “If I had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon.” It sounds a lot more true now than it did before, knowing what I’ve learned about Trayvon Martin and knowing what I’ve sadly experienced in Barack Obama.
[End update].
This country is such a mess it is absolutely unreal. And when you’ve got a president interfering in a state case that’s already being interfered with more than quite enough as it is instead of doing his job keeping Iran from getting nukes and causing Armageddon, or maybe keeping gas from getting to $5 a gallon, you can understand why.
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:
Well, then there’s Eric Holder, a.k.a. Moses, calling those same blacks “my people.” Which is to say that “his people” are not the American people, and they SURE aint “white people” or “Asian people.” Racism is fine – as long as it’s liberals being racists while simultaneously getting to constantly throw out the race card.
Despite the lack of interest by the mainstream media, the revelation that New Black Panther maniacs who intimidated voters were not prosecuted because of a Justice Department policy of only enforcing civil rights laws if the plaintiffs are not Caucasians will not go away. Eric Holder, who denounced the USA as a “nation of cowards,” has stuck his foot in his mouth once againby revealing that his loyalty to his race comes long before any loyalty to the law or America:
Attorney General Eric Holder finally got fed up Tuesday with claims that the Justice Department went easy in a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party because they are African American.
Holder’s frustration over the criticism became evident during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing as Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) accused the Justice Department of failing to cooperate with a Civil Rights Commission investigation into the handling of the 2008 incident in which Black Panthers in intimidating outfits and wielding a club stood outside a polling place in Philadelphia.
The Attorney General seemed to take personal offense at a comment Culberson read in which former Democratic activist Bartle Bull called the incident the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career.
“Think about that,” Holder said. “When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia — which was inappropriate, certainly that… to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people,” said Holder, who is black.
In other words, it’s okay to chase Whitey away from the polls with clubs, because His People endured worse in past generations.
That Obama would appoint an Attorney General with known terrorist sympathies was the height of arrogance. Every day that he fails to fire him is another finger poked in America’s eye.
There’s more about the New Black Panther story here.
Let me rephrase Holder’s words into a slightly different argument to show how morally idiotic it is:
“Think about that. When you compare what women endured in Afghanistan in the last few years to try to get the right to be treated as human beings, and to compare what women were subjected to there to what happened in California to Jaycee Dugard – which was inappropriate, certainly, that… to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to heroic Afghani women who put their lives on the line…”
Thank you, Attorney General Eric Holder. Now I’m finally free to find myself as many sex slaves to kidnap as I can fit in my trunk. Because those women in Afghanistan clearly had it even worse. And therefore how DARE you uphold that law against stopping American women from being turned into sex slaves. I mean, both girls were obviously repeatedly raped, but the Afghani girl got her nose and her ears cut off as well. So let’s not uphold the law against the rat bastard piece of moral filth who ruined Jaycee Dugard’s life. Because he wasn’t as bad, you see.
Here’s the new political correctness that is perfectly okay in AG Holder’s mind. These are the words of the New Black Panther who was intimidating white voters:
SHABAZZ: “I hate white people. All of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate him! You want freedom? You’re going to have to kill some crackers! You’re going to have kill some of their babies.”
Samir: “We didn’t come out here to play. There is to much serious business going on in your black community to be sliding through south street with white, dirty cracker whores on your arms. What’s a matter with you black man, you got a doomsday with a white woman on your arm.”
……
“We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we’re not free. Your enemy can not make you free fool. You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies.
Let us get our act together. It’s time to wake up, clean up, and stand up.”
“I can’t wait for the day that they’re all dead. I won’t be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead.”
“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”
That attitude is just FINE in Barack Obama’s and Eric Holder’s twisted vision of America. It’s only all white people who are to be permantly deemed guilty for what a few did back before I was born.
If you’re going to kidnap a sex slave for yourself, just make sure she is a white, dirty cracker whore. Because “her kind” especially shouldn’t count.
Eric Holder is the Attorney General of the United States. He is the person responsible for upholding the laws of the land. And he is a shockingly stupid moral imbecile, appointed to his position by another shockingly stupid moral imbecile.
If you have so much as a single functioning moral cell in your body, you do NOT say you don’t give a damn about upholding the law because something worse happened fifty years ago. Or five years ago, for that matter.
I can now say that Obama is not my president, because he’s not from “my people.” Nor do I have to follow the laws of the land, because they’re being administered by someone who isn’t one of “my people.” And when I say that, I am actually backed up by the words of the highest law enforcement offical in the land. It is absolutely disgraceful and despicable.
Barack Obama and Eric Holder are two truly evil men who are too morally stupid to know that they are truly evil men.
This is God damn America, plain and simple. And in God damn America, “justice” only works for whomever the tyrant regime wants it to work for.
In 2008, Barack Obama won Massachusetts by 26 points. Tonight, Scott Brown won a Senate seat in Massachusetts by 5 points. That’s a 31-point swing. Obama won just one state by more than 31 points: Hawaii. So while Democrats should be panicking everywhere else in the country, at least they can relax in the Aloha state. Except, of course, Obama grew up in Hawaii, and now there’s an attractive Republican candidate, Charles Djou, running for Neil Abercrombie’s seat. So maybe Democrats really are endangered in every state in the country. As Scott Brown said during his victory speech: “When there’s trouble in Massachusetts, rest assured there’s trouble everywhere.”
As wonderful as dodging that nation-killing asteroid is, Scott Brown’s win might have an even bigger impact come next November.
I believe that a lot of good, well-qualified Republican candidates who otherwise wouldn’t have entered “unwinnable” races are going to believe that they CAN win thanks to Scott Brown’s stunning victory.
And I believe that Scott Brown has provided those candidates with a blueprint for victory even in Democrat “safe seats.”
Republicans are empowered by this incredible Brown victory, and any Democrat who isn’t frightened by it is simply a genuine fool.
One thing is for sure: Republicans no longer have to run away from George Bush; now it’s Democrats who have to run away from Barack Hussein.
Start Thinking Right 