Posts Tagged ‘unions’

Minimum Wage Gain, Maximum Poverty Pain

April 4, 2016

The left is using the politically correct term “living wage” to describe their intent to impose their thug government on small businesses who are barely getting by as it is.

I’ve defined the term many times, but let’s consider “PC” again:

Political correctness is not just a leftist way to make overly sensitive people feel better. It was designed by early Marxists in Russia and the left continues to execute the Orwellian tactic today: if you can control words, you can control thought; if you can control thought, you can control actions.  “PC” is an enormous, sophisticated and highly coordinated effort by elitist intellectuals to “fundamentally transform” Western culture as we know it by  redefining it – by shaping the “acceptable” language people are allowed to use – and thereby dictating the parameters of cultural arguments.  And people with incredibly radical agendas have been exploiting this tactic for decades and it has succeeded.

Was George Orwell right in his 1984 first published in 1945 or was he right in his Animal Farm first published in 1949?  And the answer is that Orwell rightly understood that you have to have the ignorance of Animal Farm to get to the true tyranny of 1984.

This is how Cliffs Notes sums up Animal Farm:

Orwell‘s satire on equality, where all barnyard animals live free from their human masters’ tyranny. Inspired to rebel by Major, an old boar, animals on Mr. Jones’ Manor Farm embrace Animalism and stage a revolution to achieve an idealistic state of justice and progress. A power-hungry pig, Napoleon, becomes a totalitarian dictator who leads the Animal Farm into “All Animals Are Equal / But Some Are More Equal Than Others” oppression.

That’s where we are, sheople of America.

Democrats have incited a massive, profound hatred and bitterness to the so-called “white establishment.”  These tyrants have so much power, according to the leftist narrative, that even the mighty Obama, the divine messiah himself, has been unable to free the slaves.  And of course your Hillary Clintons and your Bernie Sanders have to pay lip homage to the Pharaoh god-king Obama while simultaneously irrationally claiming that the last eight years of suffering had nothing to do with Obama and his miserable policies; oh, no, they were inflicted on you by “Mr. Jones.”  And if you just give our power-mad government all the power in the world, we will pursue “economic justice” and thereby “achieve an idealistic state of justice and progress.”

Orwell realized that you cannot get to 1984 without a people stupid enough and wicked enough to buy the lie that enables Animal Farm.  First you must have a people willing to surrender their liberty so that a powerful State can give them whatever they promise in order to get to a slave state.

As Edward R. Murrow put the same idea, “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”

And when a people gives themselves over to a giant government system, that people deserves to perish.

And so the Democrat Party is well on its way to its cherished goal of ushering in the Antichrist, the beast of the Book of Revelation.  They will NOT rest until every man and woman has been forced by the government to take the economic mark of the beast without which no one will be able to buy or sell.

So let’s consider the Democrat ruse on “living wages” otherwise known as the minimum wage hike.  Understand that I’ve written about this often enough before:

Teen Unemployment Another Proof Of How Desperately Wrong Obama, Democrat Policies Are And How Much They Hurt Little People

Miniumum Wage Increase Means Maximum Employment Decrease

The Party Of Genuine Evil And The Destruction Of America: In 39 States, Democrat Welfare Pays Better Than A Secretary’s Job

Realize That Obama Has ‘Fundamentally Transformed’ America Into A Failed Marxist State. Just Ask Poor People And Liberals

The Union Label Is Hypocrisy: Unions Hire Minimum Wage Non-Union Workers To Do Their Picketing For Them

Obama: Adding 11 Million Low-Skilled Illegal Immigants To America’s Dependency Roles Will Strengthen Middle Class Rather Than Depressing Wages

The Singularity Of ‘Solutions’ Proposed By Liberal Thinkers Is Only Surpassed By Their Abject HYPOCRISY

Democrats’ War On Poverty Has Been A War On America That Has Done NOTHING To Help The Poor

Obama’s ‘Hope and Change’ In Action: Poverty At Highest Number In 52 Years Census Bureau Has Tracked It

Inflation Back On The Table As Part Of Obama’s ‘Hope and Change’ Misery Buffet

It’s funny how Democrats invented a right to “privacy” in the Constitution that somehow ONLY applied to homosexual sex and abortion.  Why can’t people have a right to “privacy” when they hire someone to do a job?  What right does a government have to interfere with my business?  And on the flip side, why should I be barred from working for somebody if I want to work and I’m willing to do a job for the pay they are offering?

It is simply a FACT that when you artificially raise a wage and force every business to pay that wage regardless of what their employees are doing, or how much profit they actually contribute to a business, that many businesses will decide that job is simply no longer worth offering.  This is simply a fact of basic common sense: otherwise kindly explain to me why we don’t make the minimum wage $1,800 an hour (the hourly billing rate of the lawyer who hit the homerun for homosexual marriage)???  Why don’t we try that and find out how many people would have a damn job the next day.

So obviously it might be good for SOME people and it’s bad for many others.  And the left frankly doesn’t give a damn about those people who lose their jobs any more than they cared about the people who were victims of Obama’s health care law who found out that “If you like your plan, you’ll be able to keep your plan.  If you like your doctor, you’ll be able to keep your doctor” was a cynical lie.

Here’s a synonym for “minimum wage jobs”: ENTRY LEVEL jobs.  The idea is that you work, you develop experience, you prove you are capable of showing up and performing, and you leverage your job history toward increasingly better and better paying jobs.  In the past, at least before Obama got his roach hands into everything, it was mostly teenagers and young people who worked for minimum wage.  To the extent that Obama has made it harder than its ever been to get out of the minimum wage rung, the obvious answer is to repudiate Obama and Democrats rather than change the wage system.  It has always been in the interests of businesses to keep their good-performing people rather than see them go elsewhere; and offering better pay is one of those ways.  The ONLY people who want you to stay in the quagmire of minimum wage pay are DEMOCRATS.  And what Democrats do is force businesses to “spread the wealth” to the underperforming workers because I can’t give Wonderful William the raise he deserves because I was just just forced to give Lousy Lou and Terrible Tom a raise that they didn’t deserve.

The unions that bankroll the Democrat Party exemplify the Democrat mindset: whether you’re the best worker who ever worked or whether you’re the suckiest worker who ever conned his way into a job, you should get the same pay.  Democrats and their thug flunkies literally DEMAND that high-performing workers should NOT be able to get paid for their superior performance.  That’s something called a “documented fact.”  And that’s what’s going on here, rather than Democrats giving one miserable flying damn for good workers.

I loved this quote:

Everything we ever needed to know about collective unions we learned in Kindergarten. Why run around gathering up all the Easter Eggs – if they are just going to be reassembled in a big pile at the end of the hunt and equal amounts given to each ?

But that is precisely what is at the very heart of unions and wage control laws: the notion of forcibly redistributing good workers’ pay to lousy workers.

Then you add to that the problem that I explore further below where by forcing business to raise their wages across the board, they have no choice but to raise their prices.  So now everything cost more; and how did that actually help the worker who now gets to pay more for everything he or she purchases?

The hypocrisy on minimum wages on the part of the left is beyond appalling: liberals demand it, they impose it, and then they exempt themselves from it citing it would create an undue hardship on them to abide by what they force everybody else to abide by.  So you have unions that serve as the Democrat Party’s Brownshirt thugs exempting themselves from the minimum wages they are the stormtroopers in imposing:

Editorial L.A. labor leaders’ hypocrisy on minimum wage hike
By The Times Editorial Board
▼ Los Angeles labor leaders fought for a minimum wage hike; now they want to be exempt from it
▼ L.A. County Federation of Labor is being hypocritical in its stance on raising the minimum wage
May 29, 2015, 5:00 AM

No, employers with a unionized workforce should not be allowed to pay less than Los Angeles’ proposed minimum wage. It’s stunning that after leading the fight for a $15 citywide minimum wage and vehemently opposing efforts to exempt restaurant workers, nonprofits and small businesses from the full wage hike, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor is now lobbying for an exemption for employers with union contracts. That’s right — labor leaders are advocating that an employer should have the right to pay union members less than the minimum wage.

This is hypocrisy at its worst, and it plays into the cynical view that the federation is more interested in unionizing companies and boosting its rolls of dues-paying members than in helping poor workers. Such an exemption would create an incentive for companies to allow unions in — but rather than helping workers, it would undermine the purpose of the minimum wage ordinance, which is to set a new, higher pay floor in order to help lift the greatest number of low-wage Angelenos out of poverty.

You have the Hollywood that gave nearly 20-to-1 to Obama over Romney in 2012 demanding and receiving tax credits from Democrats:

LA Times Op-Ed To keep ‘Hollywood’ in Hollywood, tax incentives are key

New Tax Credits Boost Filming In L.A. In Q3

And how about the liberal universities?  Consider what I wrote about the sick trend to skyrocket costs on poor students I ranted about in September 2014 right along with the above fascist liberal power-brokers:

This Labor Day, Demand Leftists Professors And Universities Have Their Salaries And Tuition Redistributed To Poor Working Students
September 1, 2014

I am so sick of the left.

On a daily basis, you have the left screaming for a higher and higher minimum wage, beyond what most businesses can afford to pay entry-level and unskilled workers.

The unions want it because they will then demand a wage hike for THEIR workers; after all, if that unskilled slob is now earning twice what he used to, surely that union worker ought to earn twice as much, too, right???

It doesn’t matter how much it hurts the little people who both struggle to run small businesses and struggle to find jobs as they are literally priced out of the market as it simply doesn’t pay to hire them anymore.

So I’m watching the television and there’s this leftist professor demanding higher minimum wages.

Let it come out of HER wages.  Because as a liberal professor, she represents THE most depraved money-hungry predator of ALL:

Between 2002 and 2012, prices for new textbooks rose 82%, while tuition and fees increased about 89% during that period, and overall consumer prices grew 28%, according to a 2013 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

That according to the Los Angeles Times dated TODAY.

Tuition is skyrocketing.  The cost of college textbooks is skyrocketing.  And who runs that vile system lock, stock and barrel?  Cockroach liberals who say “other people ought to be forced to pay more.”

THEY ought to be forced to pay more.

I propose college tuition and books be reduced at the expense of college/university faculty and staff.

I further propose that any “living wage” increase ought to come right out of the wages of union workers who want to force other people to get gouged to pay for.

Let’s call it the “If you want it, YOU effing pay for it!” law.

Has this trend stopped?  Has it even slowed down?  Hell NO:

Over the last 20 years, the average published price for a year of tuition and fees at a private four-year college has increased from $11,719 to $31,231, an increase of 166%, an increase two and a half times the 61% rise in the Consumer Price Index. Adjusting for inflation, the price of tuition and fees has escalated by 67% at four-year private colleges and by 60 percent at two-year public colleges. Reflecting decreased government funding, the price has more than doubled at four- year public colleges. (Trends in College Pricing 2014 p.16) During this same period, the median family income in the U.S., also adjusted for inflation, has increased 5.2% from $51,006 to $53,657, but it has actually declined by more than 7% since 1999 when it peaked at $57,843.

The implications are clear—list price has made a college education appear unattainable to an ever-increasing proportion of the population, as indicated by several recent studies.

If liberals had one shred of honesty or integrity in them, they would have long ago treated colleges and professors like oil companies and CEOs.  But of course they don’t have any decency in them.  So they keep rigging the system to hand colleges and universities more government money and the colleges and universities keep taking that money and jacking up tuitions and expenses.

And Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are both loudly demanding we quadruple down on stupid.

Another word for “liberal” is FOOL.  Liberals are fools who keep going back to the same people who keep ripping us off and trusting them so that they’ll keep having better opportunities to rip us off even more.  Whether they turn to union thugs or university Marxists or Hollywood moguls, it’s the same damn mindset doing the same damn thing: pathologically greedy, dishonest hypocrites rigging the system for themselves at the expense of the poor who keep trusting them because they’re stupid, ignorant sheople who have been Pavlovian-trained to a particular flavor of racist, misandrist, ant-religious, anti-moral, fascist demagoguery.

And the left contemptuously knows that they keep coming back to that same Pavlovian formula.  No matter how many times it fails.

So we contemplate the minimum wages that unions fought fang and claw to impose and then absolved and exempted themselves from.

I just want you to consider what even the damn leftist Los Angels Times understands (even as they push for it).  All you have to do is read the full story:

Security guard Kenneth Lofton was among the workers who benefited last year when this East Bay city hiked its hourly minimum wage to nearly $15 for employees at large companies.

The jump was almost 50% more than what he used to make in nearby Oakland when he was paid $10 an hour. But it’s not enough for Lofton, 62, to move closer to work — he still has to commute nearly 20 miles from Hayward and back each day.

“It’s somewhat better, but not much,” Lofton said Tuesday morning while eating breakfast and manning the security gate at an Emeryville parking lot. “The high cost of living here takes a big bite out of whatever monetary increase you get, so it’s like not getting an increase at all.” [….]

A similar scenario played out in Emeryville, where some restaurants have increased prices to make up for the higher minimum wage.

On a Tuesday morning, hip cafe Farley’s is buzzing with young professionals from nearby companies. Despite its popularity, the eatery is still subject to the “razor thin” profit margins common in the food service industry, said co-owner Chris Hillyard.

After Emeryville’s wage increase, Hillyard said he had to increase the price of menu items by 5% to 20%. A roasted turkey and avocado sandwich that once cost $9 is now priced at $10. A latte went up 50 cents, to $4.

Hillyard also had to eliminate two positions from the cafe and end the cafe’s baking program. Farley’s now outsources its baking to a vendor.

“The council had good intentions when it increased the minimum wage, but that was one of the unintended consequences,” Hillyard said.

He said the additional wage hike this July will be difficult, as he’s still trying to navigate where his business is now. Farley’s has 12 employees.

“It’s going to be a challenge because we just raised prices,” Hillyard said. “At some point, we won’t be able to do that because there’s only so much people are willing to spend on a cup of coffee or a sandwich.”

So far, he said, customers haven’t minded the higher prices since they’re comparable to those in nearby Oakland and Berkeley.

Down the street from Farley’s, prices have also gone up at Los Moles, a popular Mexican restaurant.

Chef and owner Lito Saldana said he bumped up the price of every menu item by 10% to offset rising food and labor costs. Prior to the minimum wage increase, he said, Los Moles’ servers made $9 an hour, while kitchen staff averaged $13.50 to $14 an hour.

As costs have risen across the board, Saldana said the minimum wage increase hasn’t helped his employees.

“Even my employees who live in Oakland are saying it is now too expensive for them,” he said.

Seattle workers interviewed by the minimum wage study researchers said they were happy to get the higher wages. For some, it made a “fundamental difference in their quality of life,” said Vigdor, of the university.

At the same time, many workers said they were nervous about whether price increases would eat up their higher paychecks.

“The minimum wage, when it works well, is really a tool for transformational change in people’s lives,” Vigdor said. “And the worry is that it doesn’t always work well.”

The ONLY “successful” example the LA Times could find was a high-end restaurant owner (whose wealthy customers demonstrate how well-to-do they are by paying outrageous prices as a rule) who nevertheless said, “If I have to close some restaurants, so be it. If I have to restructure, so be it. I would rather pay a living wage.”  Versus the rest of the businesses who’d actually prefer to survive and be able to take care of their employees by continuing to provide them a JOB.

The minimum wage law has an incredibly sordid history, just as the progressive left that imposed it in the first place:

When California legislators voted to raise the statewide minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2022, labor activists cheered. Discounting fears that a $15 minimum might cost some low-wage workers their jobs, activists and their political allies celebrated a victory for fairness and economic justice.

Progressive labor activists took a very different view 100 years ago, when 15 states established America’s first minimum wages. Labor reformers then believed that a legal minimum would hand a raise to deserving white Anglo-Saxon men, and a pink slip to their undeserving competitors: “racially undesirable” immigrants, the mentally and physically disabled, and women. The original progressives hailed minimum-wage-caused job losses among these groups as a positive benefit to the U.S. economy and to Anglo-Saxon racial integrity.

Two overarching characteristics have always been true of progressive activists: 1) they are genuinely evil people and 2) they have always believed in the raw, naked power of their God, the State, to impose their evil on the rest of the country.  Function has always followed form with the left.

Just so you understand what happens when liberals artificially drive up prices by fascist fiat, there’s another article the same day in the same issue of the LA Times.  It begins:

More rent-controlled buildings are being demolished to make way for pricier housing
By Ben Poston and Andrew Khouri•Contact Reporters
April 2, 2016, 3:00 AM

Looking to cash in on a booming real estate market, Los Angeles property owners are demolishing an increasing number of rent-controlled buildings to build pricey McMansions, condos and new rentals, leading to hundreds of evictions across the city.

More than 1,000 rent-controlled apartments were taken off the market last year — a nearly threefold increase since 2013, according to a Times analysis of housing data. Evictions from such units have doubled over the same time.

You jack up the wages by dictatorial fiat, YOU PAY MORE FOR EVERYTHING.

AND YOU SHOULD PAY MORE FOR EVERYTHING.

It’s just like the colleges and universities that liberals keep giving more billions of dollars to by jacking up the limits of “financial aid”: “Hey, stupid-ass student, you’ve got more borrowed money now, so we can jack up tuition even higher, can’t we?”

And so liberal bureaucrats in cahoots with the colleges say, “Oh, no!  We’d better increase the amount students can borrow.”

And so colleges raise their tuition again.  And then again.  And again and again.

The same vicious cycle has been going on for decades.  And stupid liberals never learn because YOU KNOW PEOPLE ARE STUPID BECAUSE THEY CAN’T LEARN EVEN AFTER THEY’VE MADE THE SAME STUPID MISTAKE FIFTY TIMES.

So here we are artificially jacking up wages.  And it might seem like a boon to those who KEEP their job (it’s not a boon to those who lose their jobs because the wages government liberals force them to pay does not justify that job any more), but it’s an ILLUSION: because the price of everything just got jacked up to pay for the artificial wage increase.

Meanwhile, landlords say, “Oh, you’re earning 50% more?  Well, well, well, I guess that means we can jack up your rent by that amount.”

But will they learn?  Nope.  They’ll just vote for even more Democrats who impose even worse crap until:

And I heard a voice from among the four living beings say, “A loaf of wheat bread or three loaves of barley will cost a day’s pay. And don’t waste the olive oil and wine.” — Revelation 6:6

But that comes after Democrats have already voted for the Antichrist and his mark of the beast where Democrats’ dream government finally seizes total control of the economic system.

Yeah, If You’re A Democrat, You’re A HYPOCRITE

May 29, 2015

I was a little surprised when I saw even the Los Angeles Times editorial condemn the rank hypocrisy of labor unions:

Editorial L.A. labor leaders’ hypocrisy on minimum wage hike
By The Times Editorial Board
▼ Los Angeles labor leaders fought for a minimum wage hike; now they want to be exempt from it
▼ L.A. County Federation of Labor is being hypocritical in its stance on raising the minimum wage
May 29, 2015, 5:00 AM

No, employers with a unionized workforce should not be allowed to pay less than Los Angeles’ proposed minimum wage. It’s stunning that after leading the fight for a $15 citywide minimum wage and vehemently opposing efforts to exempt restaurant workers, nonprofits and small businesses from the full wage hike, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor is now lobbying for an exemption for employers with union contracts. That’s right — labor leaders are advocating that an employer should have the right to pay union members less than the minimum wage.

This is hypocrisy at its worst, and it plays into the cynical view that the federation is more interested in unionizing companies and boosting its rolls of dues-paying members than in helping poor workers. Such an exemption would create an incentive for companies to allow unions in — but rather than helping workers, it would undermine the purpose of the minimum wage ordinance, which is to set a new, higher pay floor in order to help lift the greatest number of low-wage Angelenos out of poverty.

Mind you, it was also rank hypocrisy at its WORST when the same damn cockroach labor unions fought like the rabid roaches that they are to get ObamaCare passed – and then demanded that they be exempted from the law they forced everybody else to bow down before and obey.

Because to be a Democrat is to be a fascist who says, “What is good for me to force on thee should not apply to me.”

And of course there has never been in all of human history a politician who exemplified that spirit of elitist liberal entitlement than Hillary Clinton.  Which is why hypocrite Democrats love her so much.

Here’s another one: Same newspaper, same day, revealing how liberals are HYPOCRITES without shame, without honor, without virtue, without decency, without integrity.  As you read the following LA Times article listen to my voice in your head screaming, “JUST HOW THE HELL IS IT THAT THESE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT HOLLYWOOD COCKROACHES WHO DEMAND HIGHER TAXES ON EVERYBODY ELSE ARE CHASING TAX BREAKS RIGHT OUT OF THE DAMN STATE???

Realize before I show the article below that Warner Bros. and pretty much all the other big Hollywood entities are LIBERALS who donated heavily to Obama:

Other media companies have contributed more significantly to Mr. Obama, including Time Warner, owner of CNN and the magazine publishing house Time Inc. The company, which is based in New York and also owns Warner Brothers and HBO, has contributed $191,834 to Mr. Obama in the 2012 election cycle, compared with $10,750 to Mr. Romney

Which is to say, having done the math, that Warner Bros. is 1,692.84 percent more Obama-liberal than it is Romney-Republican.  And virtually every single media outlet today is a whore of liberal ideology, pumping their propaganda into the mindless heads of pathologically depraved cows who gobble it up like pigs shoving their faces into their feeding trough.  I mean, when I was a child, I used to spit into fish ponds and watch in amazement as the goldfish swarmed to be the first to dine on my loogie.  But only now do I realize that I was receiving an object lesson in how liberals teach and how liberals learn.

Liberals are Nazis who say, “What is good for me to force on thee does not apply to me.

Now watch how real liberals act when it’s THEIR money rather than somebody else’s money:

Big movies in short supply in California, FilmL.A. says
By Richard Verrier
▼ Only two big-budget movies released in 2014 were filmed in California
▼ Few big movies have filmed in California because they were excluded from the state’s financial incentives
May 28, 2015, 5:59 PM

The big movie hitting theaters this weekend is “San Andreas,” depicting the destruction of California from a massive earthquake.

The Warner Bros. movie was filmed mainly in Australia, of course.

Such is the reality that California faces in an industry where tax credits and other financial inducements increasingly drive where movies are filmed around the world.

Fresh evidence of that emerged Thursday in a feature film study from FilmL.A. Inc., the nonprofit group that handles film permits for the city and county.

The second annual report found that only 22 of 106 films released by the major studios in 2014 were actually filmed in California. The rest of the movies were shot in New York, Britain, Canada, Georgia, Louisiana, Australia and a dozen other states and countries.

Only two films with budgets above $100 million were filmed primarily in California: Marvel’s “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” and Paramount’s “Interstellar.” Even those films spent considerable time and money in other locations that offer tax credits and rebates to lure filmmakers.

The exodus of big movies from California has been happening for years. When local film production peaked in 1997, 64% of the top 25 movies at the box office were filmed in California, compared with 16% last year.

“We’ve waited so long to truly get involved in the competition that we’ve allowed some major production centers to be created around the world,” said Paul Audley, president of FilmL.A.

The report notes that several high-profile movies set in California have filmed elsewhere, including Warner Bros.’ “Godzilla,” which was shot mainly in Vancouver, Canada; 20th Century Fox’s “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” which was filmed in Louisiana; and Disney’s “Million Dollar Arm,” which was shot mainly in Georgia.

As for “San Andreas,” the movie filmed some scenes in Los Angeles and San Francisco but most of the two-month shoot took place at Village Roadshow’s Studio on the Gold Coast in Queensland, Australia.

The $110-million movie, from Warner Bros.’ New Line Cinema unit, received a portion of a $20-million film fund specifically designed to attract foreign productions.

Warner’s decision was not surprising.

Few big movies have filmed in California because they were excluded from the state’s financial incentives.

That’s about to change. To stop the exodus of production, state lawmakers last year approved an expansion of the film and TV tax credit program. The new program triples annual funding to $330 million a year and for the first time allows big budget films to apply for the incentives.

Studios will apply for feature film tax credits under the new program in July.

“The new program should result in us getting several of the large features back in California,” Audley said.

While the same Democrats who are giving tax credits to hypocrite liberal moviemakers impose sky-high taxes on all the other businesses and people they’re crushing and oppressing right out of the state.

If you are not truly and astonishingly STUPID, you understand that low taxes are the key to healthy businesses.  The problem with these liberals isn’t that they’re dumb, it is that they are utterly depraved moral hypocrites who because they are the human equivalent of cockroaches are ONLY capable of caring about THEMSELVES and to hell with everybody else.

Now, elitist jet-setting liberals right out of The Who’s songEminence FrontDO understand that the overwhelming majority of Democrats are just rank-and-goose-stepping-Nazi-file STUPID as well as depraved.  They are little more than dumb farm-animal-cattle who are so easily lied to and manipulated and duped and led by the nose by lies that it is beyond amazing.  But yeah, stupid Democrat: “it’s an eminence front.”  And “it’s a put on.”  That’s what liberalism is, that’s what the Democrat Party represents: an eminence front, a bright-shining lie.

Let’s force ObamaCare.  And exempt ourselves.  Let’s force higher wages.  And exempt ourselves.  Let’s force higher taxes.  And exempt ourselves.  And anybody who thinks liberals give one flying DAMN about the poor are poor – in the sense of completely lacking in either rational or moral-capacity – deluded fools.

If you have any insight whatsoever into the shriveled cockroach psyche of Hillary Clinton, you shouldn’t be one bit surprised that this corruptocrat who wants to be empress got her parasitic little fangs into $100,000 of probably the biggest and worst scandal ever to hit the sports universe:

WASHINGTON — The embattled Clinton Foundation can add a new name to its long list of donors under scrutiny — the scandal-tarred world soccer federation.

FIFA donated as much as $100,000 to the charity headed by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, foundation records revealed, with no further details available.

On Wednesday, US authorities indicted 14 soccer officials.

FBI agents arrested the officials meeting in Switzerland, as the head of the Justice Department described a conspiracy of bribery and corruption in the selection of World Cup host countries and sponsors.

The Clinton Foundation, already under fire for accepting multimillion-dollar contributions from nations including Saudi Arabia, disclosed only the range of the contribution — from $50,001 to $100,000.

Meanwhile, as we speak, on this very day’s headlines, even the New York Times is calling what the Clintons did “distasteful”:

An Award for Bill Clinton Came With $500,000 for His Foundation
By DEBORAH SONTAGMAY 29, 2015

To commemorate the 10th anniversary of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Petra Nemcova, a Czech model who survived the disaster by clinging to a palm tree, decided to pull out all the stops for the annual fund-raiser of her school-building charity, the Happy Hearts Fund.

She booked Cipriani 42nd Street, which greeted guests with Bellini cocktails on silver trays. She flew in Sheryl Crow with her band and crew for a 20-minute set. She special-ordered heart-shaped floral centerpieces, heart-shaped chocolate parfaits, heart-shaped tiramisù and, because orange is the charity’s color, an orange carpet rather than a red one. She imported a Swiss auctioneer and handed out orange rulers to serve as auction paddles, playfully threatening to use hers to spank the highest bidder for an Ibiza vacation.

The gala cost $363,413. But the real splurge? Bill Clinton.

The former president of the United States agreed to accept a lifetime achievement award at the June 2014 event after Ms. Nemcova offered a $500,000 contribution to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds — enough to build 10 preschools in Indonesia.

Model Invites Bill Clinton to Her Gala

In this August 2013 letter, the model Petra Nemcova rewrote an earlier invitation asking Bill Clinton to accept a lifetime achievement award from Ms. Nemcova’s Happy Hearts Fund charity.

OPEN Document: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/30/us/politics/model-invites-bill-clinton-to-her-gala.html

Happy Hearts’ former executive director believes the transaction was a “quid pro quo,” which rerouted donations intended for a small charity with the concrete mission of rebuilding schools after natural disasters to a large foundation with a broader agenda and a budget 100 times bigger.

“The Clinton Foundation had rejected the Happy Hearts Fund invitation more than once, until there was a thinly veiled solicitation and then the offer of an honorarium,” said the former executive director, Sue Veres Royal, who held that position at the time of the gala and was dismissed a few weeks later amid conflicts over the gala and other issues.

Press officers for Ms. Nemcova and for the Clinton Foundation said on Thursday that the foundation had not solicited the donation and that the money would be used for projects in Haiti, as yet undetermined.

The Happy Hearts Fund and the Clinton Foundation “have a shared goal of providing meaningful help to Haiti,” the school charity’s spokeswoman said. “We believe that we can create the most impactful change by working together.”

Never publicly disclosed, the episode provides a window into the way the Clinton Foundation relies on the Clintons’ prestige to amass donors large and small, offering the prospect, as described in the foundation’s annual report, of lucrative global connections and participation in a worldwide mission to “unlock human potential” through “the power of creative collaboration.”

Similarly, Ms. Nemcova, like other celebrity philanthropists, uses her fame to promote her charity — which has financed more than 110 schools, mostly kindergartens — just as she uses Happy Hearts to position herself as a model-humanitarian.

“This is primarily a small but telling example of the way the Clintons operate,” said Doug White, who directs the master’s program in fund-raising management at Columbia University. “The model has responsibility; she paid a high price for a feel-good moment with Bill Clinton. But he was riding the back of this small charity for what? A half-million bucks? I find it — what would be the word? — distasteful.”

In her letter of invitation to Mr. Clinton, Ms. Nemcova, then chairwoman of her charity’s board, said she wanted to show her appreciation for his “inspirational leadership” after disasters.

“My gratitude to you is so strong that should you accept, we will schedule our event commemorating the 10th anniversary around your schedule,” she wrote, speaking of their shared dedication to the survivors of both the tsunami and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti.

When the tsunami struck in December 2004, Ms. Nemcova, who had been featured on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue the previous year, was vacationing in Thailand with her boyfriend, a fashion photographer named Simon Atlee. They were swept from their beach cottage and separated in the turbulent waters; Mr. Atlee died.

Ms. Nemcova, her pelvis shattered, held fast to a tree for hours until she was rescued, listening impotently to the cries of children, she has said, which later motivated her to found her child-centric charity.

Happy Hearts rebuilt two schools in Thailand while Mr. Clinton was the United Nations’ envoy for tsunami relief and reconstruction. Most of the charity’s rebuilding has been in Indonesia after the earthquakes of 2006 and 2009.

After the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, Ms. Nemcova turned her attention to that small island nation, where both Mr. Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton, as secretary of state, played outsize roles in the earthquake relief effort and the more problem-filled reconstruction. The country had attracted other celebrity benefactors, too, notably the actor Sean Penn, an ex-boyfriend of Ms. Nemcova’s who had created his own relief organization and forged a relationship with Mr. Clinton.

In the fall of 2011, many players in Haiti’s rebuilding effort, including Ms. Nemcova, attended the Clinton Global Initiative’s membership meeting in Manhattan. Members, who must be invited, pay $20,000 in annual dues, largely for the yearly gatherings, where charity founders and entrepreneurs get to network with world leaders, corporate executives and wealthy donors.

Clinton Foundation Bills Small Charity for Big Donation

Six months after Bill Clinton accepted a lifetime achievement award at the Happy Hearts Fund gala in June 2014, the Clinton Foundation sent this invoice to the charity, run by the model Petra Nemcova. It sought to collect a $500,000 donation.

OPEN Document: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/30/us/politics/clinton-foundation-bills-small-charity-for-big-donation.html

At the meeting, Ms. Nemcova signed a memorandum of understanding with the president of the Inter-American Development Bank to finance schools in Haiti. The development bank has also donated to the Clinton Foundation — just over $1 million — and it partnered with Mrs. Clinton’s State Department after the earthquake to create an industrial park in northern Haiti.

Almost four years after Happy Hearts and the development bank made their commitment, they have yet to complete a single school, partly because of problems finding suitable land. Five schools are under construction.

Happy Hearts collaborated more expeditiously in Haiti with the Digicel Foundation, whose founder, the Irish billionaire Denis O’Brien, is a multimillion-dollar supporter of the Clinton Foundation and whose parent telecommunications company benefited from grants from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department.

Digicel also made a commitment at the 2011 meeting to build schools; the commitment was a formality, though, as Digicel had already taken the lead in Haiti in that realm. It has built 150 schools there over the last seven years; Happy Heart has built seven, six of them joint or side-by-side ventures with Digicel.

One of those schools, operated by the Haitian group Prodev, was featured in the Clinton Foundation’s most recent annual report as “built through a Clinton Global Initiative Commitment to Action.” The Clinton Foundation’s sole direct contribution to the school was a grant for an Earth Day celebration and tree-planting activity.

In late 2011, Ms. Nemcova dedicated her charity’s annual fund-raiser to Haiti, awarding the lifetime achievement honor to Mr. Penn, whom the Haitian government had named an ambassador at large, and giving a speaking platform to Laurent Lamothe, Haiti’s foreign minister.

The next year, Ms. Nemcova, too, became an ambassador at large for Haiti. And by 2013, she was practically living there, having become romantically involved with Mr. Lamothe, by then prime minister. (Mr. Lamothe, no longer prime minister, is now a presidential candidate in Haiti, and the couple have split up.)

Through the years, Ms. Nemcova, 35, has blended her personal and philanthropic lives; her sister replaced Ms. Veres Royal as executive director of Happy Hearts. She has also mingled her celebrity and charity work, both in ways that benefited the charity and in ways that benefited her personally.

In 2011, when she appeared as a contestant on ABC’s “Dancing With the Stars,” her survival story and charity received ample, positive attention. She brought on Clinique and Chopard as sponsors of the charity, but also accepted personal fees to model their products.

“Ms. Nemcova has a long career as a model in fashion industry for 16 years and has longstanding relationships with many brands,” her charity’s spokeswoman said. “Happy Hearts Fund is grateful for Chopard’s and Clinique’s support.”

At the 2014 gala, Chopard, a Swiss jeweler that was dedicating partial proceeds from a heart-shaped bracelet to the charity, set up lighted showcases in the cocktail area, Ms. Veres Royal said.

“They were peddling exorbitant jewelry at a gala that was supposed to focus on children who have lost their belongings, homes, and often friends and family members,” she said. “It was inappropriate and tacky. Too many people at that event were looking after their own interests first.”

Happy Hearts Fund first asked Mr. Clinton to be its honoree in 2011. Trying again in 2013, Ms. Nemcova sent her first formal letter of invitation in July, asking Mr. Clinton to be the primary award recipient at a Happy Hearts gala on Nov. 4, 2013, celebrating Indonesia.

Mr. Clinton’s scheduler replied with a cordial rejection — “Regrettably, he is committed to another event out of town that same evening” — in an email copied to Frank Giustra, the Canadian mining financier who is one of the Clinton Foundation’s largest donors and also a supporter of Ms. Nemcova.

Haitians protested outside the Happy Hearts Fund gala, which Mr. Clinton attended after Ms. Nemcova pledged $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Her charity has worked with the Clinton Foundation on projects in Haiti. Credit Tony Savino/Corbis

Ms. Nemcova subsequently met with officers at the Clinton Foundation, Ms. Veres Royal said. Afterward, she said, “Petra called me and said we have to include an honorarium for him — that they don’t look at these things unless money is offered, and it has to be $500,000.”

The invitation letter was revised and sent again at the end of August. It moved the gala to 2014, offered to work around Mr. Clinton’s availability, dropped the focus on Indonesia and shifted it to Haiti, and proposed the donation.

“Understanding the need and commitment to ‘rebuilding better,’ Happy Hearts Fund would like to also share the proceeds of the event with the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, committing at least $500,000 in partnership on a joint educational project in Haiti, of your selection,” Ms. Nemcova wrote, ending with her customary signoff, “Lots of Love, Light and Laughter.”

When charities select an honoree for their fund-raising events, they generally expect that the award recipient will help them raise money by attracting new donors. But the Happy Hearts Fund raised less money at the gala featuring Mr. Clinton than it did at its previous one.

Further, it is extremely rare for honorees, or their foundations, to be paid from a gala’s proceeds, charity experts said — as it is for the proceeds to be diverted to a different cause.

And while the original invitation letter spoke of a joint educational project, the Clinton Foundation said Thursday that Happy Hearts had agreed that the money could be “split 50/50” between the foundation’s education programs and its economic development and agriculture programs in Haiti.

In the charity gala world, it is considered unacceptable to spend more than a third of gross proceeds on costs, and better to spend considerably less. If the donation to the Clinton Foundation were counted as a cost, Happy Hearts would have spent 34 percent of its announced $2.5 million in proceeds on its gala.

Its actual expenses — while they might seem extravagant to outsiders, with the total cost of the Cipriani facility alone at almost $300 a head — were in line with what other charities spend on such events.

In the end, the Happy Hearts Fund’s gala was a star-studded event, with celebrities including Naomi Watts and John Legend and the models Karlie Kloss and Coco Rocha in attendance. The Haitian president, Michel Martelly, a former musician who was Ms. Nemcova’s boyfriend’s boss at the time, was a second honoree, and he performed a couple of numbers with Wyclef Jean.

At the start of the evening, school bells rang and, as the master program dictated, “Petra dressed as schoolteacher” appeared, wearing glasses.

“Good evening, class,” said the message on the screen behind her. She later changed into a sheer red lace gown donated by the designer Naeem Khan, with diamond and ruby jewelry by Chopard.

A video by the Happy Hearts Fund framed the moment she presented the award to Mr. Clinton like this: “Ten years ago, two people were deeply impacted by the 2004 tsunami. They met this year again to inspire …”

“Petra did not have to devote 10 years of her life to building these schools,” Mr. Clinton told the crowd. “But what she has done is a symbol of what I think we all have to do.”

Outside Cipriani, about 100 protesters, mostly Haitian-Americans expressing frustration with the earthquake reconstruction effort, stood behind barricades holding protest signs.

“Clinton, where is the money?” they chanted. “In whose pockets?”

Bill Clinton’s speaking fee would have built ten pre-schools in disaster-torn Indonesia.  Not that Slick Willy gives a damn about poor kids.

Here’s another story, fresh just today, detailing the PATTERN of Hillary Clinton using the State Department as her own personal money-machine:

State Department spending followed foreign Clinton Foundation donors
By Sarah Westwood  | May 29, 2015 | 12:01 am

Countries and companies that donated to the Clinton Foundation or paid Bill Clinton heavy fees for speeches saw an increase in State Department activity while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state.

The presidential candidate’s supporters have dismissed as conspiracy theories allegations that she and her husband traded political favors for contributions to their foundation or for lucrative speaking engagements.

A Washington Examiner analysis of Clinton Foundation donors suggests the State Department ramped up its diplomatic activity, foreign assistance and/or investment in countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation and hosted Bill Clinton for high-profile speeches.

For example, months after Bill Clinton delivered a speech in Riyadh for a price of $300,000, State Department funding for projects and activities in Saudi Arabia spiked.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has also donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, donor records show.

State Department funding for its diplomatic operations and projects in the country jumped from more than $18 million in 2011 to $67.75 million in 2012, the year after Bill Clinton delivered his speech at the Saudi Investment Authority, according to USASpending.gov.

Much of that appears to have gone toward the construction of new State Department buildings in the country.

The agency poured $177.9 million into building a new embassy in Norway in 2011 over the apparent objections of diplomatic officials in Oslo.

Norway’s government has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.

A leaked diplomatic cable sent to Clinton in July 2009 shows plans for the embassy project, which predated Clinton’s tenure as secretary, had been pushed from 2011 to 2020 to free up funding for embassies in key countries.

“We understand the arguments for first building NEC’s [new embassy complexes] where terrorist threats are higher,” the cable said of the delayed embassy plans in Norway.

The cable mentions “Pat Kennedy,” the undersecretary for management and a close Clinton aide, among the State Department officials who had helped to further the project.

Kennedy’s name also surfaced in Benghazi-related emails published by the State Department last week.

Despite the misgivings by agency officials in 2009, the State Department awarded the contract for the Norwegian embassy to Walsh Construction Group on September 27, 2011. It was the construction company’s first overseas embassy project.

Norway teamed up with an arm of the Clinton Foundation in September 2012 for an ambitious health care project funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is part of the State Department.

USAID, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, the Children’s Investment Fund, the U.K. and Sweden supported the development of a type of contraceptive produced by Bayer that was widely distributed in poor nations.

All but Sweden and USAID itself were Clinton Foundation donors.

“The US Agency for International Development (USAID) is proud to have funded the development of this life-saving product,” then-USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah said at the time.

The same year USAID announced its plan to purchase 27 million contraceptive devices from Bayer, which donated between $20,000 and $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, the pharmaceutical company hired lobbyists with DLA Piper (itself a foundation donor) to lobby the State Department on “federal procurement issues,” according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Bayer did not return a request for comment.

USAID and the State Department appear to have tapped Clinton-connected companies regularly for well intentioned projects around the world.

One month before Hillary Clinton left office, her agency launched an effort to expand the electronic banking sector in Afghanistan.

Citi, the Ford Foundation, Visa, Omidyar Network, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were each involved in the USAID-backed initiative. All five donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton kicked off a taxpayer-funded effort to bring health information to pregnant women around the world through their phones in 2011 with the help of two foundation donors — Johnson & Johnson and the United Nations Foundation.

The “Mobile Alliance for Maternal Action” initiative won an award for its innovation in 2012 after being judged by an independent panel that included additional donors to the Clinton Foundation.

The Clinton Health Access Initiative was brought into a State Department health project called the President’s Malaria Initiative alongside two of its major donors.

While the malaria initiative began in the Bush administration, it consumed millions while Hillary Clinton was at the State Department.

Irish Aid, Ireland’s development agency, and the British version of USAID — both foundation donors of between $1 million and $5 million — also shared in the U.S.-backed project in Uganda.

Ireland saw a substantial increase in the money USAID and the State Department spent on operations and projects there while Hillary Clinton was in office.

She even made Ireland the site of her final official trip as secretary of state when she traveled there to receive an award from one of her family foundation’s top donors.

The State Department increased its spending in Ireland from $1.65 million in 2009 to $2.96 million in 2010 and $7.48 million in 2011.

USAID also upped its support of Ireland, taking its funding from nothing in 2008 — the oldest year for which data is available — to $29.87 million the year Clinton came into office.

After the Kingdom of Bahrain donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation, the State Department stepped up its activities in the Middle Eastern nation.

The agency’s contracts, grants, loans and investments in Bahrain climbed from $6.8 million the year before Clinton came to the State Department, to $7.1 million in 2009, to $8.9 million in 2011 and peaked at $11 million during Clinton’s final year in office.

Bahrain also enjoyed nearly $2 million from USAID in 2010, bringing its total State Department funding that year to more than $10 million.

To put that figure in perspective, the State Department spent just $1.9 million on its operations in Trinidad & Tobago, the country whose GDP was closest to Bahrain’s, in 2010. The agency spent just $1.3 million on its operations in Mauritius, the country whose population was closest to Bahrain’s, that same year.

United Arab Emirates and Jamaica, two other countries whose governments donated directly to the Clinton Foundation, also saw the State Department’s funding rise during Clinton’s tenure.

USAID’s support of its operations and other projects in Jamaica crept from $2.8 million the year before Clinton took office to $15.8 million in 2011.

State Department spending in the United Arab Emirates rose from $11.57 million in 2008 to $16.79 million in 2012, peaking in 2010 at $21.18 million.

The Clinton Foundation did not return a request for comment about the nature of its direct work with the State Department while Clinton ran the agency.

The Clintons are so damn cynical it is beyond unreal.  They are the posters of official government corruption on planet earth today.  And Obama tolerated it for the simple reason that it is the heart and soul of the Democrat Party to be corrupt and to cynically exploit the giant government they keep making more giant to enrich themselves and their cronies who support their ideology and their own palm-greasing.

Here’s another story fresh off the headlines of today appearing on Yahoo News’ feed today:

The latest Clinton shoe: Bill’s shell corporation
By Post Editorial Board
May 27, 2015 | 8:22pm

Just two days after President Obama confirmed that Hillary Clinton would be his secretary of state, Bill Clinton set up a shell corporation to “channel” his payments for unspecified consulting work.

Another day, another revelation about the Clintons’ tangled financial web. (Kudos to Robert Wargas of Pajamas Media for pinning down the date Bill set up his dodge.)

With WJC LLC set up as a limited-liability company with no assets and no employees, there was no need to report any of the cash that passed through it — not on Hillary’s personal disclosure statements then, not on her campaign forms now.

This perfectly legal mechanism provides certain tax advantages — notwithstanding the Clintons’ repeated claims that the rich “aren’t paying their fair share of taxes.”

But we’d guess it was the non-disclosure feature that appealed most.

No doubt the Clintons giggled all the way to the bank about their no-funny-business promises to President Obama and his team.

And now Hillary preaches the virtues of “transparency.”

Like everything else about the once “dirt poor” Clintons (now comfortable in the ranks of the 1 percent) the LLC raises huge questions. Questions like those Democrats raised in 2012 about Mitt Romney’s finances.

As the Associated Press (which first reported the existence of the LLC) notes, almost nothing about the exact nature and financial worth of Bill Clinton’s business interests, other than his ultra-lucrative speechmaking, is a matter of public record.

The Clinton camp insists it’s all nothing to worry about, that everything has been disclosed. Then again, that’s what they said before ’fessing up to $26 million in foreign donations they’d “overlooked.”

Hillary Clinton cites Eleanor Roosevelt as her inspiration. Sure seems her real idol is Imelda Marcos — because there’s always another shoe waiting to drop.

There are so many examples of Clinton “Pay-to-Play” that it is absolutely unreal.  The level of crony-capitalist dishonesty is rabid.  But being a Democrat means either being so depraved and hypocritical you don’t care are so pathologically stupid and ignorant you don’t know.

No one – NO ONE – who is not a rank, abject hypocrite without so much as a scintilla of honesty or integrity or even shame would EVER vote for this crony-capitalist political whore.

The problem is that to be a Democrat is to be a hypocrite.  So no problem.

Democrats Reveal Their Ugly Fascist Face: American People Are Stupid Sheep Who Must Be Deceived By The Superior Illuminati Class

November 12, 2014

If I sound furious, it is because I am FURIOUS.  We have watched the Party of Lies, the Party of Satan, take over America and it may be too late to change course now from the “God damn America” that Barack Obama and the Democrat Party have “fundamentally transformed America” into.

The essence of fascists is that they must lead the stupid sheep to pasture and they often have to lead the stupid animals by deception.

Democrats are tied with “the most pathologically dishonest people who ever existed.”  Because you can be AS dishonest as a Democrat, but it is impossible to be MORE dishonest.

Let us listen to the true voice of fascist liberal arrogance:

ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber in a speech:

The tape, played on Fox News’ “The Kelly File,” showed Gruber speaking at an October 2013 event at Washington University in St. Louis.

Referring to the so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-end health plans, he said: “They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.” 

Gruber specifically was referring to the way the “Cadillac tax” was designed — he touted their plan to, instead of taxing policy holders, tax the insurance companies that offered them. He suggested that taxing individuals would have been politically unpalatable, but taxing the companies worked because Americans didn’t understand the difference.

And ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber in a different speech:

This is similar to remarks he made at a separate event around the same time in 2013. In a clip of that event, Gruber said the “lack of transparency” in the way the law was crafted was critical. “Basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” he said.

Did Gruber do this twice?  Nope; he did it at least three times (and probably many more):

Obamacare’s Jonathan Gruber in third video: ‘Exploitation’ of voter was ‘very clever’
By Cheryl K. Chumley – The Washington Times – Thursday, November 13, 2014

A third clip of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber has emerged, this time of the MIT professor speaking to a University of Rhode Island crowd in 2012 about the health care law’s so-called “Cadillac tax” — and bragging at the utter inability of the American people to comprehend its complexities.

The “Cadillac tax” requires that insurance companies, not individual policy holders, pay the difference between higher- and lower-cost packages — a plan that was pushed into realization by then-Sen. John Kerry, Mr. Gruber said, Fox News reported.

Mr. Gruber then said that a tax on individuals would have been “politically impossible” — but that a tax on companies would prove palatable to voters, mostly because they didn’t understand.

His comments, Fox News reported: “So basically, it’s the same thing. We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It’s very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

These audio comments followed a clip that was played on Fox News’ “The Kelly File” on Tuesday evening that showed Mr. Gruber speaking at Washington University in St. Louis about the same “Cadillac tax” and saying it passed “because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.”

And before that, another clip made the media rounds of Mr. Gruber saying at a different event in 2013 that Obamacare passed due in large part to its “lack of transparency.”

His widely reported comments: “Basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

Mr. Gruber has since expressed regret on national television for his comments. But critics of Obamacare say his remarks only prove what many on the left really believe about Americans.

“It confirms people’s greatest fear about the government,” Sen. John Barrasso, Fox News reported. “Remember, it was Nancy Pelosi who said first you have to pass [Obamacare] before you get to find out what’s in it.”

And yes, I know when I said “fascist liberal” I was employing a tautology and saying the same thing twice in a slightly different way.  You know, like the heart of liberal Darwinism’s “survival of the fittest,” where the “fittest” are defined as “the ones who survive.”  Because “fascism” survived as “liberalism.”  And one is as pathologically dishonest as the other.

Democrats are like the people who come up to you with a story to get money.  and you give them money because you buy their pathetic story.  And they walk away with your money mocking you for a stupid idiot because you were actually stupid enough to believe them.

And Democrats are nothing but liars and horrible demon-possessed people.  So you actually MUST be truly stupid to believe them.

Keep in mind, the lies about ObamaCare are now called LEGION, for like the demons that inhabited a man whom Jesus confronted in Mark 5:9, they are many.

“Democrat.”  It sounds good, right?  You know, it sounds like somebody who cares about the will and the voice of the people.

Bullcrap.  Democrats have naked CONTEMPT for the will and the voice of the people.  The people are obstacles, they are pathetically stupid sheep who must be deceived in order to be hauled off to the slaughtering pen.

So what do Democrats do when they are caught in a lie?  They tell ANOTHER LIE, OF COURSE:

After the first tape surfaced — prompting Republican outrage — Gruber went on MSNBC to express regret. On Tuesday, he said: “I was speaking off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately, and I regret having made those comments.” 

But after Fox News played the second tape, GOP lawmakers said it proves what they’ve been saying all along.

Jonathon Gruber went on MSNBC rather than on Fox News because if he’d gone on the air with Megyn Kelly it would have taken about twenty seconds for everyone to know which one of those two was the “stupid” one.  He knows he has to go to the channel that only STUPID PEOPLE WATCH in order to sell his patent lies.

The “stupid people” are Democrats.  It’s not Republicans that are idiot enough to watch MSNBC.  It’s the Nazi faithful who follow their Führer and await his next message from his bunker (and I don’t give a damn if you call it “the Führerbunker” or “the White House.”  Because it’s the same place by a different name under this “president.”

Now Democrats who relied on this pseudo-intellectual fool’s “analysis” to sell their treason called ObamaCare in honor of the most dishonorable U.S. president who ever lived are now trying to claim they don’t know who THE DAMNED ARCHITECT OF OBAMACARE is.

Bullcrap.  Fortunately now-former Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi knows who he is:

PELOSI: We’re not finished getting all of our reports back from CBO, but we’ll have a side by side to compare. But our bill brings down rates. I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange. And our bill takes down those costs, even some now, and much less preventing the upward spiral.

So again, we’re confident about what we set out to do in the bill: middle class affordability, security for our seniors, and accountability to our children.

Fortunately now-former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid knows exactly who this slimebag is:

Democratic Senate Minority Leader-elect Harry Reid called Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber “one of the most respected economists in the world” on the Senate floor during the 2009 push to pass Obamacare.

Lies and hypocrisy are the essence of Democrats.  If you’re not a hypocrite and a liar, you’re not a Democrat.  If you are a liar and a hypocrite, you are either a Democrat or a cockroach Nazi fascist by some other name crawling slithering around over some other part of planet earth.  All you want is big totalitarian government to be imposed by any means necessary.  But whether you’re an ISIS terrorist sawing people’s heads off or Barack Obama, if you are a Democrat you are somebody who views people as an obstacle who must either be exterminated, intimidated or lied to in order to get your way.

“NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”  And for the record, that party was the “German Workers Party” until Hitler got ahold of it.  Because Satan is a socialist.  It was HITLER who changed it to the National Socialist German Workers Party so that the world could better experience the hell of socialism after the communists gave us the first taste of that wicked, ugly hell.  Neither of those two groups were ever honest about their project, either.  If there was a “National Socialist American Workers Party,” and you don’t believe that would be the damned DEMOCRAT Party, you are worse than a fool to be that kind of ignorant to be so morally idiotic to believe that it is conservatives and Republicans who want to make America “socialist.”

Who votes Democrat?  BAD PEOPLE, that’s who.  People who are selfish and greedy and vote to take the stuff that other people worked for by raw government force, just like the damned Nazis did when they looted other people’s wealth from them.  And they do it the same way the Nazis did; by pitting groups against groups and arguing for instance that white people are thieves and don’t deserve what they have.  Just like the Nazis argued their race-baiting lies that Jews were thieves and didn’t deserve what they have.

Let’s describe the people who vote Democrat:

First there are the welfare turds.  We now have in America generations of families who have never worked – unless you define “work” by “making more babies” in order to collect a larger welfare check.  We have now more “Americans” on welfare than ever before in history.  Which, to put it in Obama campaign-slogan terms means, “Yes we CAN go on welfare and food stamps and join the massively growing Useless Class who do absolutely NOTHING to build America and absolutely EVERYTHING to help collapse it.  100% of this group who can get off their lazy butts long enough to cast a ballot vote “Democrat.”  To wit: the Democrat Party literally purchased their vote.

Then there are the “working class.”  But let’s define what that REALLY means: the UNION class.  The UNION class – because let’s call them what they truly are – survive by “collective bargaining.”  Because throughout history, good workers who actually produced a benefit for their employers have never had to worry about their jobs, but only the lazy, bitter, slacker “workers” were in jeopardy.  The trick to “collective bargaining” has always been to lie (see this whole damned article as a “for example”) to decent workers and deceive them into supporting the lazy, useless slackers who would have otherwise been FIRED in any honest workplace.  And once you get your union in, good luck trying to fire these turds.  And yeah, most of them vote “Democrat,” too.  Because socialist Democrats impose bureaucracies, laws, regulations and judges that make it impossible for employers to do anything but knuckle under to the blue lie agenda of unions and Democrats who alternately climb over each other’s backs to keep grabbing more and more and more share of the pie.

Then you’ve got your intellectual class who live in the ivory towers of the universities.  They actually have a lot in common with the first two groups above; namely, they live off of other people and depend upon government policy for their largesse.  The cost of colleges/universities has inflated FAR more than damned near anything else.  Do you know why?  Because it’s an industry that is subsidized by the government.  Government keeps pumping out “student loans” and increasing the amount of student loans as the costs of education skyrocket.  And so colleges and universities respond by further raising the costs of education – because the students (another group of “stupid people” fwiw) – backed by more and more loan money that will put them in debt for DECADES – can “afford” higher tuition.  And then higher tuition and higher tuition and higher tuition, ad infinitum.

A vote for the Democrat Party is a vote for education costs that you either can’t afford or decide to become a debt-slave to the government for decades to come in order to be able to afford.

And so if you are a “professor” what you really are is a pig with your snout shoved up past your ears into the trough of government socialism.

Your whole way of life depends on it.

And you therefore keep spewing and pumping out propaganda to keep the system flowing so it will keep pouring more of other people’s money into your pig trough.  And you vote Democrat, of course.  Because the Democrat Party is the Party of Pig Troughs.

And then there are the Filthy Rich.

Oh, I know.  You’ve been told that the Filthy Rich are Republicans who steal from you and want to steal more from you and only government can stop them.  The problem with that is it’s just another demon-possessed Democrat lie from the party of demon-possessed Democrat liars.  Just like ObamaCare.  So look over this list of the top fifty political donors and see who the Filthy Rich really support.

What you find is that the Koch Brothers – the face of the evil Filthy Rich Republican – aren’t even ON the list of the top fifty donors.  But a whole lot of Filthy Rich LIBERALS sure are.

You see, just like ObamaCare, FDR’s New Deal was based entirely on lies.  And just like ObamaCare, FDR’s New Deal desperately hurt the American people by prolonging the Great Depression by seven agonizing years.

There’s a passage from Burton Folsom Jr.’s book, New Deal or Raw Deal that comes closer to framing the essence of FDR’s New Deal in a nutshell – and explaining why the Filthy Rich vote Democrat – than anything I can think of:

Let’s start with the New Deal’s effort to promote industrial recovery: the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which became law in 1933 and was soon shortened to the NRA.  Of that act, Roosevelt said, “History will probably record the National Industrial Recovery Act as the most important and far-reaching legislation ever enacted by the American Congress.”  The president was right: the NRA was revolutionary.  It allowed American industrialists to collaborate to set the prices of their products, and even the wages and hours that went into making them.  Leaders in all industries, from steel and coal to shoulder pads and dog food, were invited to sit down together and write “codes of fair competition” that would be binding on all producers in their industry.   — page 41

This identical tactic was employed again and again in various components of the New Deal: the rich and the powerful were able to cozy up to the politicians and write the laws and regulations that enabled THEM to continue but suppressed their smaller competitors from being able to compete.  In some ways, the brilliance of the scheme was its counter-intuitiveness: the Filthy Rich imposed regulations on themselves that made the cost of doing business dramatically higher.  Because they could afford to pay those higher costs of complying with regulations but their smaller competitors could not.

And thus the Filthy Rich and the Democrat Party became bedfellows: the Democrats got the massive totalitarian fascist control they wanted and the Filthy Rich got to choke out their smaller competitors and retain supremacy.

That tactic is still used to this very day even as the Democrats slanderously demonize the other side as doing what THEY are the ones who do: they keep imposing more and more and more and more sweeping regulations which drive up the cost of doing business.  The small business that would have competed with the bigger companies and corporations can’t afford to comply with the burdens; but the Filthy Rich just hire another regulatory compliance officer and keep sailing along, knowing that they can increase their prices and make the people pay because they have no competition to drive their profits down.

Let me tell you a secret the Democrat Party, their mainstream media propagandists and their pseudo-intellectual leftist professor class don’t want you to know:

Economic inequality in the US reaches levels not seen since Great Depression
Wealth inequality in the US is reaching its most extreme point since just before the start of the Great Depression in 1929, according to a new economic analysis. Even the 1 percent are lagging behind the 0.01 percent.
Christian Science Monitor
By Henry Gass
November 10, 2014

It’s 2014, but when it comes to wealth inequality in the United States, it’s starting to look a lot like 1929.

In the late 1920s, the top 10 percent of Americans possessed 84 percent of the country’s wealth. Since then, wealth inequality in America has followed a U-shaped trajectory, declining through the Great Depression until the mid-1980s, then steadily increasing since then. Now, the richest Americans have a share of the country’s wealth almost big enough to rival those in the late 1920s, according to a new study

The study, from Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics, uses a greater variety of sources to paint its picture of wealth inequality in the US than other recent analyses. […]

According to an analysis of data sourced through 2012 – including detailed data on personal income taxes and property tax – Professors Saez and Zucman found that the richest 0.1 percent of Americans have as much of the country’s wealth as the poorest 90 percent. Both groups control roughly 22 percent of total wealth, but while the average wealth of the bottom 90 percent is $84,000, the top 0.1 percent were comprised of 160,700 families with net assets above $20 million, according to their study.

An even closer look at their data has shown that while the growth of the American middle class has been restricted by modest income growth and soaring debt –thanks in large part to the 2008 mortgage crisis – the super-rich have been making significant gains in income and wealth.

While the bottom 90 percent of Americans and the top 0.1 percent control about 22 percent of the country’s wealth each, the top 0.01 percent of Americans now control 11.2 percent of total wealth. That share of the wealth held by the country’s richest 0.01 percent – a group of roughly 16,000 families with an average net worth of $371 million – is the largest share they’ve had since 1916, the highest on record, according to the study.

I think I’ve already explained why that is.

Keep in mind that for the first two years of Obama Democrats controlled the ENTIRE government.  They passed EVERYTHING they wanted to pass and shoved it down the American peoples’ throats – lying as needed, we now know.  Since then, they have held lock step control of the White House or the Führerbunker or whatever the hell Obama calls it when he’s not golfing, and the Senate under Democrat Harry Reid has blocked more Republican-House-passed bills and shut down more amendments than all previous Senate Majority Leaders in the entire history of the republic TIMES TWO.

But we’ve got two more giant lies from the party of the devil going on; namely, number one, that it’s somehow the Republican Party that is the “party of obstruction” when it’s the damn DEMOCRAT Party and number two that income inequality is the fault of Republicans when it has been the result of OBAMA’S vile FDR-esqe policies that have created this disaster.

Democrats – liars, remember – will tell you about “corporate welfare” and they’ll tell you about the big banks being given billions by Republicans.  Just remember that Barack Obama voted for that deal that gave the banks billions in that bailout, that the Tea Party who are Obama’s primary conservative enemies opposed it fiercely and bitterlyIf you’re a Lehman Brothers, or a Morgan Stanley or a JP Morgan or a Citigroup or a Goldman Sachs, well, you know who your Führer is.  But, hey, you’re a Democrat, so you can always just LIE and blame what you did on your opponents, right?

Bush said “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”  Whereas it is the intrinsic, pathological NATURE of the Democrat Party to “abandon free market principles.”

Every single Democrat votes to crush the small businesses and therefore exalt the Filthy Rich.  That is the malicious fascist evil of the Democrat Party tradition – and it has been thus for over eighty years.

If you don’t like exalting the Filthy Rich, support conservative Tea Party Republicans.  Well, or else be a Democrat LIAR and lie about it being the fault of the other side who opposes the very thing you want to do and demonize them for doing.

I could add to these groups the people who despise America, the William Ayers and the Professor Ward Churchills and your Black Panther types.  I could add the bitter race-baiters, I could add the people who want to divide America up by gender, or by all the other issues that these people want to divide America with.  I could add the illegal immigrants who have no love for America or its ways but only want to come here to be able to exploit what others built.  There are a lot of horrible, bad, warped, evil people who form the nucleus of the Democrat Party.

But let’s just stick with the three groups I discussed at greater length above, so you can contemplate the incredibly parasitical nature of the Democrat Party that is the party of leeches.

And realize that the quintessential tactic of this diseased party is to lie and lie and lie and then lie some more.

Because to the extent they aren’t truly “stupid,” they know that the American people are increasingly – since Democrats drove God out of this nation – become a bad people.  And it is always the nature of bad people to prefer lies to the truth.

 

 

Hey Unions, SHUT UP: Messiah Obama Just Gave WalMart Divine Absolution. So Begone, Ye Racist Paupers!

May 9, 2014

Unions are more than slightly upset that Barack Obama is spurning them to be the whore of the environmentalists.  But they probably should have read the fine print before supporting the Whore-in-Chief.

Note to liberals: what’s good for the goose is just as good for the gander: unions only oppose Obama because unions are racist:

Flanked by bargain-priced displays of women’s wear and patio lighting, President Barack Obama came to a Wal-Mart store in Silicon Valley on Friday to praise new steps by businesses and communities to deploy solar energy.

The President was showcasing efforts to combat climate change that don’t rely on a disinclined Congress.

But in choosing the giant retailer as the backdrop for his announcement, Obama also triggered a backlash from labor unions and pay equity advocates who say low wages paid by Wal-Mart fly in the face of Obama’s vaunted push on pay equity.

President Barack Obama poses for a photo after speaking at a Walmart store in Mountain View, California on Friday

‘What numbskull in the White House arranged this?’ former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who served in the Bill Clinton administration, said on Facebook.

Obama said more than 300 companies and state and local governments have pledged to use solar technology, and he unveiled his own executive actions aimed at increasing energy efficiency with a goal of reducing U.S. reliance on carbon fuels.

The two tracks underscored Obama’s strategy of sidestepping Congress to advance his own agenda, but they also illustrated the limits of his reach in a bitterly divided government.

‘The commitments we’re announcing today prove that there are cost-effective ways to tackle climate change and create jobs at the same time,’ Obama said at a sprawling Wal-Mart store in Mountain View.

President Barack Obama speaks at a Walmart store in Mountain View, California, on Friday

President Barack Obama speaks at a Walmart store in Mountain View, California, on Friday

 

The solar effort will power the equivalent of 130,000 homes, the White House said, while Obama’s administrative actions could reduce carbon pollution in an amount equal to taking 80 million cars off the road for one year.

The White House also announced that long-delayed energy efficiency standards for walk-in coolers and freezers have finally been completed.

Ticking off a list of economic and environmental benefits he attributed to solar technology, Obama cast the commitments as part of a broader campaign to reduce American energy dependence, create jobs in renewable energy and lower heat-trapping emissions blamed for global warming.

‘This is what you call a win-win-win,’ Obama told about 250 store employees as he wrapped up a three-day swing through California focused heavily on raising money for Democrats in advance of November’s midterm elections.

Obama announced new steps by companies, local governments and his own administration to deploy solar technology

 

Tweaking the mostly Republican opponents of his energy policies in Congress, Obama lamented that lawmakers have ‘not always been as visionary on these issues as we would like.’

That’s why he’s seizing opportunities this year to act unilaterally to advance those goals, Obama said.

‘Unfortunately, inside of Washington, we still have some climate deniers who shout loud,’ Obama said. ‘But they’re wasting people’s time on a settled debate.’

His policies unable to generate momentum in Congress, Obama has increasingly gone outside the federal government to press his agenda.

He has won commitments from colleges and universities to expand access to more students; he has created innovation hubs that link businesses and education institutions; and he has drawn attention to companies and state and local governments that have increased pay for workers.

President Barack Obama waves after speaking at the Walmart store

 

Still, that choice of tactics has severely limited what Obama may be able to accomplish, a reality the president acknowledged the night before as he spoke to donors at a fundraiser in La Jolla benefiting House Democrats.

‘Regardless of how hard I push, regardless of how many administrative actions I take, we’re not going to be able to go where we need to go, and can go, and should go unless I’ve got a Congress that’s willing to work with me,’ Obama said.

The White House said it chose Wal-Mart because the company has committed to doubling the number of solar energy projects at its stores, Sam’s Clubs and distribution centers.

The Wal-Mart location he visited gets about 15 percent of its power from solar panels.

Wal-Mart’s president, Bill Simon, said. Obama is the first president to visit one of the chain’s warehouse stores.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2624149/At-Wal-Mart-Obama-praises-steps-solar-power.html#ixzz31Fi78NuT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Sorry your messiah betrayed you, unions.

Now please shop at WalMart.  Otherwise you’re a racist (or the rhetoric of liberalism is pure demagogic slander).

Boy, this is probably the biggest leftist betrayal of leftist since Hitler started murdering the homosexuals who had brought him to power

Unions Are Simply Evil: Union Forces School To Rehire Teacher Who Watched Porn In Classroom. Oh, And He Gets $200,000 Too.

April 23, 2014

This is so evil only liberals and unions could possibly do it:

Union gets teacher, fired for watching porn in class, his job back
By Dan Calabrese (Bio and Archives)  Thursday, January 23, 2014

This is the sort of thing you can imagine, at some point, conservatives might have imagined half-seriously that a teachers’ union would do, only to provoke dismissive scoffs from union defenders who would point to the claim as evidence conservatives just hated teachers and would say anything to slander the union.

Fast-forward to the present, and the unions not only do it, but do it with no apparent sense of shame.

Andrew Harris was previously a seventh-grade science teacher at Glacier Creek Middle School in Wisconsin’s Middleton-Cross Plains Area School District. He was fired when it was discovered he had spent quite a bit of time, in class mind you, watching porn on his computer. Even a teachers’ union wouldn’t contest that firing, right?

Wrong.

Watchdog.org reports:

The district’s school board Monday voted in a special closed session to comply with an arbitrator’s 60-page order that demands Harris be reinstated. He was fired in 2010 after receiving and viewing multiple pornographic and sexually inappropriate images and videos, according to a complaint.

To add insult to the district’s injury, taxpayers will have to pay Harris nearly $200,000 in back pay. In total the district will spend nearly $1 million on the case, the brunt of which went to legally defending its position that the firing was fair.

The district’s admission of defeat in the case comes with a decision to offer Harris a job teaching seventh-grade science at another middle school. So in the end, the taxpayers lay out $1 million, and not only are they still stuck with the teacher who watches porn in class, but the porn-watching teacher himself loses nothing as he even ends up getting paid for the three years in which he was not working.

A bunch of other teachers were nabbed along with Harris receiving inappropriate material on their computers, but the school district says its investigation shows Harris was the only one actually viewing the material on his classroom computer.

A district spokesman lays it out: “A lot of people are wondering how? Why? Really? Is this really something as an organization they want to stand for? My wife’s a teacher, so I understand they (the union) feel the need to defend their membership. I also hope they would understand why we would feel this isn’t the right decision.”

Exactly. Everyone understands that it’s the function of a union to defend its members. But do unions care nothing at all for the actual result of the actions they take? What do you do if you’re the parent of a seventh-grader who finds out that your son or daughter ends up in this guy’s class? Do you request a different teacher? What if he’s the only seventh-grade science teacher the school has, which is certainly going to be the case at a lot of middle schools?

The problem when you unionize any sort of workforce is that the rules that are established often leave no room whatsoever for common sense. If a teacher is viewing porn on his school computer, the teacher needs to be fired. Period. That’s not even a question. Or it shouldn’t be. But once you get a union involved, with union rules and union-mandated processes, the firing can’t go forward unless every i is dotted and every t is crossed, and the unions make it their business to make it as difficult as possible for all that to happen.

And this is what you end up with. Yeah. Andrew Harris’s “rights” are protected. And now kids are stuck learning science from a guy who watches porn in the classroom, and no one can do anything about it.

Democrats don’t give one flying damn about children.  Not one flying damn.

Liberalism is an extortion racket, pure and simple.

It’s loyalty to the Party rather than loyalty to the children.

They don’t want poor kids to be able to go to excellent schools; they want to force them to go to government schools where they will receive inferior educations but “excellent” propaganda.  That’s why they so adamantly oppose vouchers and aid for poor families desperate to give their kids an actual education as opposed to a liberal indoctrination.

Democrats protect unions and unions protect government bureaucrats a.k.a. “teachers”.  And both of them prey on children to get what they want.

In this case, what they want is porn.  On public school property.  Using public school resources.  And on public school time.

Any decent human being would want a cockroach like Harris gone.  But Democrats and unions are NOT decent people.

 

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

April 7, 2014

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

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

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

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

Gene Edward Veith makes this point:

“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative.  [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.”  Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite.  If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative.  If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing.  If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie.  If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.

The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.  Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.  They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

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

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

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

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

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.[1] It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2][3][4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This from yesterday at the leftist Mozilla:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pathological dishonesty goes hand in hand with pathological fascism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“You guys aren’t wanted here.”

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

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

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

“Yeah, we are,” the organizer stated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Trigger Warnings’ Are Antithetical to College Life

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

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

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

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

More.

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

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

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

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

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

Mireille Miller-Young

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

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

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

Read more at the Santa Barbara Independent.

Instapundit and Jim Treacher also have some choice words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holocaust survivor Eli Wiesel:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even a socialist publication admits out the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

Michelle Obama Says ‘Young People Are Knuckleheads’ So They Need A Fascist Thug Dictator To Force Them To Be Obama Smart

February 21, 2014

Yeah, she really said it:

On the “Tonight Show” with Jimmy Fallon, First Lady Michelle Obama explained that it was more important than ever for young people older than 26 to sign up for health insurance.

“A lot of young people think they’re invincible, but the truth is young people are knuckleheads,” she laughed, pointing out that they often cut themselves while cooking or injure themselves by dancing on bar stools.

Obama added that thanks to Obamacare, coverage for young people was much cheaper.

What do young people need?  They need to experience what socialism truly is: the redistribution of wealth.  And they need to experience why it is EVIL: by being the ones who suffer from it instead of benefitting from it.

If we did this with organ harvesting, and one group of people always benefitted with better health and longer lives while other people had their parts cut out and died, you might think it was a good thing – provided it was OTHER PEOPLE’S ORGANS and you were the one benefitting.  But let’s imagine the federal organ thugs finally came after YOU.  Suddenly it wouldn’t be so damn wonderful anymore, would it???

But let’s just remember something, “You didn’t build that.”  If you studied hard when other kids were outside playing, went to college when other young people were shortsightedly dropping out for dead-end jobs, studied and got good grades while the stupid kids who did go to college were partying like there was no tomorrow, worked hard while other people played hard, scrimped and saved to buy your own business while other people were buying quads and boats and toys, took a chance to believe in yourself enough to start your own business when other people were playing it safe, worked eighty hours a week when other people were bitching about working even with all the damn exclusions of their damn union agreements, and actually BUILT your own business while other people were sitting on their lazy asses, just remember: OBAMA made you what you are.  It was by Obama’s godlike greatness and NOT by your own hard work and creativity.

NOBODY EVER ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING but Obama.  Without Obama and his Government, you are nothing.

You didn’t get there on your own.  You got there because of Obama.  And only evil racists don’t understand that.

If you have any pride in yourself at ALL, ANY confidence whatsoever in YOUR OWN abilities and willingness to work to get ahead, YOU DIDN’T BUILD OBAMA.

It was lazy, loafing parasitic LOSERS and naïve, gullible moral idiots who built Obama.  And it’s long past time to tear him down while there’s still an America left to rebuild.

So now young people are finally waking up to the fact that Barack Obama is an anti-freedom demoniac, are they?  They’re finally waking up to the fact that Obama will force them to pay a dramatically higher cost for healthcare in order to subsidize all the “free bennies” he’s “giving away” and all the sicker people who are going to flock to their now free socialized health care.

People are beginning to wake up and understand that “health care” and “insurance” are NOT the same thing: I can have the nicest looking card that says I have “insurance.”  But if your incredibly limited networks don’t let you see a damn doctor and you can’t even HOPE to see a specialist while your prescription medicines are suddenly no longer covered, oh, and you have a stratospheric deductibleYOU DON’T HAVE HEALTH CARE.

The fact is there: young people are not signing up for ObamaCare.  They’re like unions and Democrat politicians: the same damn moral idiots who voted for this crap suddenly don’t want to eat it themselves.

I remember the immortal words of Richard Pryor when he described the attitude of a Chinese restaurant: “You order shit, you EAT shit!”

And now these finally older and wiser young people are “knuckleheads.”

Congratulations, young people.  You’re finally going to get your chance to “grow up” and suffer for your stupidity and idiocy in 2008 and then incredibly AGAIN in 2012.  Now it’s time to get used to your life SUCKING because Obama REDISTRIBUTED  what made it worth living.

Congratulations, young people.  You finally will get a chance to grow up and be treated like enemies of the state by the fascist you voted for.  You finally understand the fascist essence that is the Obamas.  If you aren’t with them, you are an enemy who has to be ridiculed and ultimately demonized.

Congratulations, young people.  You finally get a chance to understand the logic of liberalism: you need our giant government State and if you don’t want it you are either too stupid or too evil to understand that we’re from the Government as God and we’re here to help you.

Actually, that might come across as a “hopeful” note (with young people finally growing up) and I’m no longer hopeful.

Young people now represent everything that is immoral and depraved and pathetic and weak about this country.  Let me explain why:

It was young people who elected Obama.  Aside from blacks they were THE largest percentage bloc who elected Obama.  And who ARE these people?  They are vile, self-absorbed hypocrites just like liberal labor unions and Democrat politicians.  They want all this socialist crap that makes people suffer – as long as it makes OTHER people suffer.  But like all Democrats, of whom the quintessential essence is hypocrisy and selfishness and envy of other people, the moment THEY have to pay for what they voted for, they rebel.  Because they are BAD people.

Decent people would never have voted for this fascist liar in the first place.  But bad people – and that very much includes young people – are like pigs who can be trusted to eventually roll in their own filth and vote Democrat again.  Because they are narcissistic liars and narcissistic liars always trust liars who tell them what they want to hear rather than what is true.

That is why the beast is coming.

Realize That Obama Has ‘Fundamentally Transformed’ America Into A Failed Marxist State. Just Ask Poor People And Liberals

September 9, 2013

Quick test.  Who said this:

“The economy is doing poorly. Everything is expensive. With high taxes, we’re not going to be able to pay rent.”

Wrong, Democrat.  It was NOT Karl Rove or some über right wing nutjob who only said this because he hates Obama (and that because he’s “racist”).  Nope.  It was a 34-year-old Hispanic father named Francisco Zuniga at an SEIU-sponsored protest event.  Who would have thought that out of the mouths of leftist whiners could drool wisdom???

This is the fifth year of the Age of Obama.  It is the fifth freaking year of a failed president whose only talent is blaming others for his massive failures.

Let’s break those words from Zuniga down:

“The economy is doing poorly.”

That is something that literally every single person who is not a demon-possessed liar and hypocrite without shame (i.e. a Democrat) knows as a fact.  Obama promised the world; he has delivered economic manure.

What else does Zuniga say?

“Everything is expensive.”

Well, thanks for noticing that little factoid, Francisco.  I’ve written ad nauseum about the Obama Federal Reserve policies that were necessary to “fund” Obama’s reckless and morally and fiscally insane federal spending.  We’ve had Quantitative Easing, we’ve had QE2, we’ve had Operation Twist, we’ve had QE3, and now we’re at “QE Forever.”  And these policies have basically arbitrarily added zeroes to the money supply computers.  As of March of this year, Obama’s chief Fedthug had added over $2 trillion to the money supply – a beyond insane 240 percent increase.

It’s actually probably a lot more than that “mere” 240 percent increase.  CNN Money says that rather than $2 trillion, it’s actually been at least $2.5 trillion.  And as Democrat Bernie Saunders notes, it’s actually an awful lot more than that, given the AT LEAST $16 trillion in “secret loans” that had taken place under Obama’s Federal Reserve.  I mean, holy hell, where did all this cash come from?  From Never-Never Land, that’s where.

Let me put it this way: when Obama took office from George W. Bush, the Federal Reserve balance sheet was $800 billion; it is now $3,601,523 BILLION under Barack Obama.

In an article I wrote three full years ago:

An increase in the money supply is rather like an overdose of drugs. And in this case the effect of the overdose will be hyperinflation. Basically, the moment we have any kind of genuine recovery, our staggering deficit is going to begin to create an ultimately gigantic inflation rate. Why? Because we have massively artificially increased our money supply beyond our ability to actually produce real wealth, and that means that money will ultimately be devalued. There’s simply no way it can’t be. If simply printing money solved financial problems, the government could just mail everyone several million dollars, and we could all retire. The problem is that more money chasing a limited supply of goods simply pushes up prices higher and higher without doing anything to solve the underlying economic problems. If we have a recovery, with increased economic activity, there will be increased demand on the money supply, forcing an upward climb in interest rates as a means of controlling the currency. And then we’ll begin to seriously pay for Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s sins. Paradoxically, the only thing preventing hyperinflation now is the recession, because people aren’t buying anything and therefore aren’t competing for those limited goods.

THAT is why we haven’t yet experienced truly catastrophic hyperinflation YET.  But the moment we ever actually start to get out of the economic hellhole Obama has dug us into, we will see inflation at levels that will shock and dismay you.  You mark my words.  And what we’ve now learned is that having become hooked on the hardcore narcotic known as QE crack, we can’t get off of it – because if we try the stock market will crash and people will start to panic.

Who is actually going to pay for all that money Obama invented?  I pointed out the sad reality a year ago:

Nobody’s talking about what that massive devaluation of our currency is going to ultimately cost us.  Nobody is talking about the fact that the people who are going to pay the highest tax as a result of this action – and it IS a regressive tax – will be retirees who will see the value of their savings drop even as they look at interest rates and pension funds that pay them nothing.  Retirees are not in a position to snort the crack of quantitative easing; they depend mostly on bonds.  And the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve have decided to stab the bond market  that older investors necessarily depend upon in the heart to artificially inflate the stock market.  Until they have to do it again.  And again.  And of course pretty soon again and again after that.

Commodities like oil and food – which conveniently are being ignored as proof positive that we are already seeing MASSIVE inflation – will continue to go up and up and up (see here and here and here for examples).   The fact of the matter is that prices are rising dramatically and HAVE BEEN rising dramatically, and what just happened today will sure that they CONTINUE to rise dramatically.  And everybody but Obama and the Federal Reserve know it.

And everything I predicted in that article and one I wrote back in 2011 turned out to be right.  Except I used the term “QE 4” and Obama’s economic wizards called it “QE Forever” instead.  And all the way back in 2010 I said it would fail, as it HAS failed.  You need to understand: as I pointed out in May 2011, quantitative easing is the economic equivalent of feeding a diabetic lots of sugar.  It is incredibly unhealthy and will ultimately kill the patient, but once you start feeding that sugar you can’t stop or the patient will crash and die for sure, just as Wall Street will crash and die if Obama stops giving them free sugar candy money.

Let me add another group of people to retirees I described above, Francisco: THE POOR.  Because most of the poor are on fixed incomes every bit as much as retirees are.  And their low wages, their welfare and their food stamps just aint going to keep up with the inflation that has resulted from printing money.  When you print money out of thin air, and you’ve got trillions more dollars chasing the same amount of finite resources, the value of those dollars goes down, down, DOWN.

It turns out that “free money” isn’t really so damn free, after all.

Commodities such as food and fuel are skyrocketing – especially gas as Obama’s failed Middle East policy rears its ugly head in Syria (although, mind you, Obama’s gas prices have been shockingly high all along) – and so, yeah, Francisco, “everything is getting more expensive.”

We’re to the point where we will soon be spending more money in interest to service our psychotic debt than we will on anything else.  By the next decade – and keep in mind we’re nearly half way there NOW – we will be spending the equivalent of the 2009 $862 billion Obama stimulus EVERY SINGLE YEAR.  Only those payments will be going to China while they mockingly laugh at our stupidity that made us their debt slaves.

You aint seen nothing yet, Francisco.  Thanks to Obama, your hell is going to get a lot more hellish.

What else did Francisco tell us?  He told us that Obama’s economy was crappy and thanks to Obama’s moral and fiscal idiocy, everything was more expensive now due to inflation.  What else did he say?

“With high taxes, we’re not going to be able to pay rent.”

I don’t need to point out which party and which failed president of which damn party is behind all those taxes, of course.

Let’s try to put this in terms that Francisco will understand if he doesn’t already: who owns your house you’re paying that rent on?  And what do you think happens when liberal demagogues “tax the rich”???  Here’s what will happen: when Obama and Democrats viciously tax “the rich” who own that house you rent, what’s that high-taxed owner going to do?  He’s going to raise your damn rent, THAT’S what he’s going to do.  And if you don’t like paying more in rent, you’d better show up with a huge mob of likeminded enraged sufferers with pitchforks and torches to drive Obama out of Washington before he creates another monster and kills again.

But you won’t, will you?

I want you to consider something about Obama’s “housing recovery” within Obama’s “economic recovery.”  They’re both radically and wildly FAILED.  I want you to consider, Mr. Zuniga, the ramifications of the fact that SIXTY PERCENT OF HOMES SOLD IN 2013 WENT TO CASH BUYERS.  Before I point out what that means, let me first point out how connected it is with the radically failed Obama Fed policies that have kept the money printing presses going night and day and day and night:

USA: 60 percent of homes sold in 2013 went to all cash buyers
Posted on August 16, 2013 by Stacy Herbert

Stacy Summary: This is what interest rate apartheid looks like.

USA:  60 percent of homes sold in 2013 went to all cash buyers

There was an odd sort of myth floating around the market that the cash buyer  crowd was somehow a tiny portion of the market, like a drop of water in the vast  ocean of home buying.  This delusional dream played into the fantasy that this  housing market was naturally rising because of overall household demand when in  reality, it is being driven by investors leveraging the artificial low rates  created by the Fed.  The flood of money from Wall Street has been large.  Even  anecdotally, it was apparent that cash buyers were driving the market given that  housing is a margin driven market.  That is, at any given time only a small  portion of all homes are on the market for sale.  However, an analysis by  non-other than Goldman Sachs shows that 60 percent of all 2013 home sales are  being driven by cash buyers.  That is, the middle class is largely being pushed  out of this game and has become the minority in this real estate market.

You see, Mr. Zuniga, these rich people are taking advantage of the crony capitalism (fascism) of Obama that has helped the elite investor class at the expense of the poor.  They’re snapping up the homes that YOU’RE going to rent.  And then they’re socking you with higher and higher rents.  Meanwhile, you’ve got virtually no change to ever own a home thanks to Obama.  The American dream is dead meat.  And did I mention this is the FIFTH year of the Age of Obama???  But it’s all Bush’s fault, much the way in the Big Brother society of 1984 it was all “Emmanuel Goldstein’s” fault.

Meanwhile, Mr. Zuniga, it’s getting harder and harder for you to even GET a job in Obama’s wildly failed economy.  The jobless rate just went down to 7.4%.  Hip-hip-hooray.  Only it did so as still MORE of the decimated American working class were destroyed into hopelessness at EVER finding a job.

There is an incredibly significant labor measure called the “labor participation rate.”  It is the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have a damn JOB.

There’s an article I wrote a little over a year ago that you ought to consider.  I detailed then the catastrophic plunge in the rate of Americans who actually have a job in the miserably failed Obama economy during and throughout the Obama regime.  At that time, it was the worst it had been in thirty years.  And I noted how each year under Obama’s failed Marxist State, it had just gotten worse and worse.  As an example, I recorded that in November 2010 – and note this AFTER the so-called “recovery” – the labor participation rate was the worst it had been in 25 years.  Which is to say far, FAR worse than anything Bush had ever done, you Democrat ideologues.  The next year, by August 2011, it was the worst in 27 years.  And by May of 2012, it was the worst due to Obama in 31 years.

Here we are, a year or so later, and how have things gone?  Just as I told you they would go under this failed president’s failed leadership and failed ideology: the labor participation rate is now the worst in 35 years.

And the reliably überliberal Los Angeles Times was forced to acknowledge it in these terms:

Although the unemployment rate ticked down to 7.3% last month — the lowest level since December 2008 — it fell largely for the wrong reason. More discouraged Americans gave up looking for work as the percentage of the population in the labor force dropped for the third consecutive month to its worst point in 35 years.

The unemployment rate has been dropping – which has been as good for Obama politically as it has been catastrophic for the rest of America economically.  I predicted a year and a half ago:

At the rate we’re going in Obama’s God damn America, we will have zero percent unemployment and nobody will actually have a damn job.

And, yep, that’s the way we’re headed.

Democrats are demon-possessed bureaucrats.  That’s where they get their name from.  They claim that the labor participation rate is falling as older baby boomers retire.  But that is a LIE FROM HELL.  As an example, it is YOUNG ADULTS who are suffering the most due to Obamanomics.  People cannot find a job who need to work.

And because of ObamaCare, full-time jobs have been “fundamentally transformed” by Obama into part-time jobs with no health benefits.

And if you don’t believe me, again, just ask liberals.  A letter signed by the heads of the Teamsters, the UFCW and UNITE-HERE have this to say about Obama’s impact on workers and the hours they get to work:

When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them.  Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.

The letter from these liberal unions points out the obvious fact that Democrats refuse to acknowledge about their demonic ObamaCare takeover of healthcare:

First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.

Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit health insurance plans like the ones in which most of our members participate. These non-profit plans are governed jointly by unions and companies under
the Taft-Hartley Act. Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans.

And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours
unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies.

You want to know who is killing your dreams, Mr. Zuniga?  Democrats.

But you keep voting for them anyway, because you prefer lies and more socialism and more welfare and then more lies and still more socialism and still more welfare, to the truth that would set you free if you were willing to finally act like a man and be determined to stand up on your own two feet and demand an economic system that enables you to do that.

You’re siding with the wrong people, the wrong party, the wrong political philosophy.  You’re siding with the people who keep HURTING you.  As you’d understand if you stopped and thought about your own words.

You’re one of those people who still idiotically believes that when Obama “gives” you “free stuff,” it’s actually FREE.  Let me pop your bubble, Francisco: when ObamaCare taxes insurance companies, taxes drugs, taxes medical devices, and mandates (that means forces) the health industry to pay for all of these “free” benefits such as free birth control and 26-year-olds staying on mom and dad’s health plan, the cost of medical care rises FOR EVERYBODY.  And at the same time the quality of health care goes up for EVERYBODY.

And that has had the result that people are getting kicked off health plans rather than all the lies Obama promised.

You don’t understand that everything you and your Democrats want to do – such as force businesses to raise the minimum wage whether they can afford to do so or not, whether they will cut their work forces or not, whether they will be forced to raise prices (which will reduce demand and thus reduce jobs) on poor people who buy from them or not – undermines the economy and hurts the very poor people Democrats dishonestly claim to be trying to help.  Back in 2009, I predicted that Obamanomics with its totalitarian dictate on employers to pay higher wages would be a holocaust for minimum wage workers.  And I was right.  And I just keep being more and more right as Obama’s devastating and disastrous impact on the economy spreads like the cancer that it is.

In order for the economy to create jobs, and create enough jobs to get America out of the hellhole Obama put it in, the government needs to step off employers’ throats.  Quit forcing them to do stuff they can’t afford to do and cover stuff they can’t afford to cover.  Cut their taxes so they have an actual INCENTIVE to create jobs.  And for that matter cut the damn welfare incentive so that working-age adults who ought to be ashamed of themselves if they were capable of that virtue have an actual incentive to start working.

Obama And The Unions Haven’t Been Very Good To Detroit (Largest Bankruptcy In American History), Have They?

July 19, 2013

How do you kill a major American city – particularly one where three of the biggest manufacturers in the WORLD are located?

Ask a Democrat.  Because they’re the ones who just succeeded in doing it.

Detroit just went belly up.  And I can smell the rotting carcass of a city that had everything until idiotic liberalism killed the golden goose.

Has Obama been good for Detroit?  Not so much.

Detroit is a city that literally did everything – absolutely EVERYTHING – Obama and the radical leftists demoniacs said we need to do everywhere.  And it was the kind of cancer in Detroit that it will be spreading throughout the rest of America.

That said, we can’t lay all this at Obama’s feet.  Because in spite of the fact that it had the big three auto manufacturers located there, the unions and the union mentality have been poisoning the city for going on sixty years.

Detroit files for bankruptcy protection
Nancy Kaffer, Stephen Henderson and Matt Helms, Detroit Free Press 5:22 p.m. EDT July 18, 2013

DETROIT — The city of Detroit filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection in federal court Thursday, laying the groundwork for a historic effort to bail out a city that is sinking under billions of dollars in debt and decades of mismanagement, population flight and loss of tax revenue.

The bankruptcy filing makes Detroit the largest city in U.S. history to do so.

The filing begins a 30- to 90-day period that will determine whether the city is eligible for Chapter 9 protection and define how many claimants might compete for the limited settlement resources that Detroit has to offer. The bankruptcy petition would seek protection from creditors and unions who are renegotiating $18.5 billion in debt and other liabilities.

FULL COVERAGE: Detroit’s financial crisis STORY: Financial manager: Detroit ‘dysfunctional, wasteful’

“The fiscal realities confronting Detroit have been ignored for too long. I’m making this tough decision so the people of Detroit will have the basic services they deserve and so we can start to put Detroit on a solid financial footing that will allow it to grow and prosper in the future,” said Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. “This is a difficult step, but the only viable option to address a problem that has been six decades in the making.”

Detroit Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr, who in June released a plan to restructure the city’s debt and obligations that would leave many creditors with much less than they are owed, has warned consistently that if negotiations hit an impasse, he would move quickly to seek bankruptcy protection.

Snyder signed off on the filing in a letter attached to court documents filed Thursday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of Michigan. A spokeswoman for Snyder did not immediately return telephone calls Thursday.

“It is clear that the financial emergency in Detroit cannot be successfully addressed outside of such a filing, and it is the only reasonable alternative that is available,” Snyder said in the letter granting his state-required approval. “In other words, the City’s financial emergency cannot be satisfactorily rectified in a reasonable period of time absent this filing.”

Snyder continued: “I have reached the conclusion that this step is necessary after a thorough review of all the available alternatives, and I authorize this necessary step as a last resort to return this great City to financial and civic health for its residents and taxpayers. This decision comes in the wake of 60 years of decline for the city, a period in which reality was often ignored.”

Orr’s spokesman Bill Nowling said, “Pension boards, insurers, it’s clear that if you’re suing us, your response is ‘no.’ We still have other creditors we continue to have meetings with, other stakeholders who are trying to find a solution here, because they recognize that, at the end of the day, we have to have a city that can provide basic services to its 700,000 residents.”

This week, the city’s two pension funds (which have claims to $9.2 billion in unfunded pension and retiree health care liabilities) filed suit in state court to prevent Orr from slashing retiree benefits as part of a bankruptcy restructuring.

Ambac Assurance Guaranty, which insures some of the city’s general obligation bonds, has also objected to Orr’s plan to treat those bonds as “unsecured,” meaning they’re not tied directly to a revenue stream and would receive pennies on the dollar of their value. Ambac, and other creditors, have threatened to file suit.

Sources agree that Orr’s deal with creditors, widely reported to be Bank of America Corp. and UBS AG, to pay a $344-million swap with a $255-million debtor-in-possession loan, is instrumental in the timing of the bankruptcy filing.

The deal gives the city access to $11 million a month in casino tax revenues that Orr has said is key to maintaining city services while negotiations, in or out of bankruptcy court, take their course with other creditors and unions.

Plunkett Cooney bankruptcy lawyer Doug Bernstein, who is not involved in the bankruptcy and is not representing any parties related to it, said Thursday that the filing was critical for the city, given a growing number of legal challenges.

On Monday, an Ingham County Circuit Court judge was scheduled to hold a hearing on the city workers’ and retirees’ challenge to stop the city from filing for bankruptcy protection. The employee groups, and separately the city’s two pension funds in another lawsuit, argue that the governor — who must and has authorized the bankruptcy filing — cannot do so if the filings include plans to reduce pension benefits, because the state’s constitution explicitly protects public pensions. If the state has such plans, it wasn’t immediately presented in the court filing.

Bernstein said preventing the court hearing Monday is probably a key part of the strategy behind a Chapter 9 petition by the city, because a ruling in favor of the employees could put a halt, at least temporarily, to any moves by Orr and Snyder to proceed with a bankruptcy petition. A bankruptcy filing immediately stays all such court proceedings.

STORY: Detroit manager pitches debt recovery plan to creditors

“The stay kicks in as soon as the filing, whether it’s Friday or Monday,” Bernstein said before Thursday’s filing. “The key is taking advantage of the automatic stay. Because of the lawsuit filed by the pension funds and the hearings coming up Monday, it became a factor, so to the extent that (Orr) wanted to continue negotiations with creditors, now the city is forced to” file a Chapter 9 petition.

The 30- to 90-day eligibility fight could be prolonged beyond that time frame if creditors mount a significant challenge to Detroit’s eligibility for bankruptcy. In other communities that have filed for Chapter 9 protection, such fights have extended the process a year or more, including Jefferson County, Ala., and Stockton, Calif., two of the largest municipal bankruptcy filings so far in the United States.

Detroit’s bankruptcy is by far the largest of its kind in U.S. history, in terms of the city’s population of about 700,000 and the amount of its debts and liabilities, which Orr has said could be as high as $20 billion. Because of the stakes involved, and the impact on residents statewide, as well as 30,000 current and retired city workers and Detroit’s ability to stay in business, the case could be precedent setting in the federal judiciary. It also could set an important trajectory for the way troubled cities nationwide settle their financial difficulties.

Bernstein noted that Orr has said repeatedly his office would “negotiate with creditors until and unless we find that the negotiations won’t bear fruit, with the understanding that the city has a limited amount of time” for those talks.

City Council President Pro Tem Andre Spivey said he understood that negotiations Orr was having with creditors weren’t as fruitful has he’d hoped they be, and that he hopes the bankruptcy process will be relatively quick. But he stressed to residents that they needn’t worry about the impact of the filing immediately.

“City services we provide will not be shut down,” Spivey said. “We’ll still be providing services, but the challenge is where we’re going to get to as we go through the bankruptcy process.”

The city has lost more than half of its population over the last 60 years. In 1950, the city was the fifth-largest city in the country with a population of around 1.8 million. Today its population is estimated at just under 700,000.

Who is to blame for this mega-disaster? Is it the United Auto Workers labor union, which has been completely owned by the Democrat Party machine and which funds that machine? Is it the municipal government labor unions, which have been completely owned by the Democrat Party machine and which have funded that machine? Or is it all the Democrat politicians who have rubber stamped the liberal labor union agenda for decades by giving them money and benefits vastly beyond what they were “entitled” to at the expense of the taxpayers???

Detroit was the FOURTH LARGEST CITY IN AMERICA.  It was a city that had everything.

And Barack Obama is determined to impose the fate of Detroit on the rest of America.  And he is succeeding.

As You Survey The Mess Our Culture Is In, You’ve Got To Ask: ‘How Did It Come To This?’

January 31, 2013

There was a scene in the Lord of the Rings in which King Theoden – finally realizing that a vast horde of darkness is coming against him and that his people’s situation is now all but hopeless – asks:

Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? They have passed like rain on the mountain, like wind in the meadow. The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. How did it come to this?

I ask that question of America.  The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.  In the Middle Earth of Sauron and in the America of Obama.  And the only “Return of the King” to complete the LotR trilogy will be the physical return of Christ Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords.  And that will occur only after the world has gone through seven literal years of hell on earth otherwise known as the Tribulation.

How did it come to this?

First, liberals are the most intolerant people in America.  As you read this article, realize that our crisis stems from profound liberal intolerance.  And the worst thing of all about them is the way they continually demonize their opponents as “intolerant” for the speck of intolerance in the conservatives’ eyes when there’s a giant log of intolerance in the liberals’ eyes.

Liberals are hypocrites, period.  The quintessential ingredient to liberalism is abject moral and intellectual hypocrisy.  It’s why Al Gore sells his television station to a pro-terrorist entity owned by a filthy oil emirate.  It’s why Al Gore tried to structure the deal so he wouldn’t have to pay the higher tax rate that Obama wanted and he publicly campaigned for.  And it is most certainly why liberals continually depict themselves as the most tolerant people when in reality they are by far and away the most intolerant people of all.

Pew: Liberals most intolerant online
posted at 11:00 am on March 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

It’s a well-known fact that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives or moderates.  Superior liberal tolerance is such a fact that they will scream at you if you dare to disagree or debate them, demand that your advertisers bail on you, and pressure the FCC to get you banned from the airwaves.  Does that sound like tolerance to you?  A new survey from Pew confirms that liberals are the least tolerant of differing opinions, at least on line (emphasis mine):

Politics can be a sensitive subject and a number of SNS [social networking sites] users have decided to block, unfriend, or hide someone because of their politics or posting activities. In all, 18% of social networking site users have taken one of those steps by doing at least one of the following:

  • 10% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because that person posted too frequently about political subjects
  • 9% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics or issues that they disagreed with or found offensive
  • 8% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they argued about political issues on the site with the user or someone the user knows
  • 5% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics that the user worried would offend other friends
  • 4% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they disagreed with something the user posted about politics

Of course, that means that 82% of SNS users have not taken any steps to ignore or disconnect from someone whose views are different – or have not encountered any views that would prompt such a move.

Liberals are the most likely to have taken each of these steps to block, unfriend, or hide. In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.

It’s not even all that close, as their chart shows:

Andrew Malcolm has some fun with the implications:

Not exactly shocking news for those exposed to them for years, but the respected Pew Research Center has determined that political liberals are far less tolerant of opposing views than regular Americans.

In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy  — such as, say, uniting diverse Americans — liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics. (i.e. photo above of President Obama reacting to Boston hecklers.)

The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That’s double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.

For some full disclosure, I’ve blocked more than a few people on Twitter.  I didn’t do it for disagreements, but for being unpleasant about disagreements.  I consider Twitter to be a true social network; I don’t hang out with unpleasant people in real life, and so I see no need to do so in virtual life.  Twitter is my water cooler, my hangout in slack time between bursts of writing.  I’m happy to have a debate, but when it gets insulting, unpleasant, and intellectually dishonest, I take a pass.

Even if that counts in the Pew poll (and I’d argue that it doesn’t), I’d be in a small minority among conservatives — and to be fair, it’s a small minority among liberals too.  It’s just that it’s a statistically significant larger minority among liberals.  While Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda demand that the government act to silence Rush Limbaugh for challenging their orthodoxy, Forbes’ Dave Serchuk points out the irony, the hypocrisy — and the unintended consequences:

Imagine this scenario: you are a lifelong liberal. You pretty much hate everything Rush Limbaugh stands for, and says. You are really glad that the times have finally seemed to have caught up to him, and that people are outraged by his callous, gross comments. So what do you do next? You do theone thing that will make him a sympathetic figure. You call on the FCC to remove him.

Think this is just not-very-good satire? If only. Nope, I draw from this example because in an opinion piece just published on CNN.com Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan did exactly this. In the process they seem to have played into the exact stereotype of the thin-skinned, hypocritical liberal. One who supports the First Amendment and freedom of speech … except for when they don’t.

Here is the lame excuse they offered for why the heavy hand of government sponsored censorship should come down on Limbaugh, a guy who seemed to be doing a pretty good imitation of a man hoist on his own petard anyway.

“Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh’s radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.”

Umm, okay. But isn’t there something called ratings that are a truer indication of what these respective communities already want? And shouldn’t that count the most? Don’t ratings (i.e. “popularity”) in fact tell the FCC just whom the public thinks serves their interest? Whether we like it or not?

Why do they go for the block rather than provide an alternative?  Michael Medved says they can’t compete — and need government to intervene:

Limbaugh’s critics seem unable to accept the fact that many of their fellow citizens actually appreciate the opportunity to listen to his opinions on a regular basis, so rather than persuade those poor benighted souls to listen to something else, they mean to take away the broadcast that they enjoy.

Why not try to build an eager new audience for liberal opinion leaders and steal listeners from Rush and the rest of us who host right-leaning shows? How about recruiting the most outrageous and opinionated voices on the left, syndicating their shows in major markets, and promoting these fresh, progressive voices with a catchy moniker like “Air America”?

Oh wait, that’s been tried, starting in 2004 and proceeding (intermittently) till 2010 when chronically low ratings and bankruptcy court performed a belated mercy killing on the ill-fated experiment. It’s true that some of the Air America “stars” ultimately found their way to other opportunities—with Rachel Maddow hosting a successful TV program on MSNBC, and the insufferable Al Franken enjoying an unlikely career in the U.S. Senate.

But attempts to create viable radio alternatives to Rush and other right wingers have never gained traction, so rather than continuing to compete in the open market place, lefties merely yearn to shut down the other side with sponsor boycotts, public pressure or, most obnoxiously, the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Fortunately, Barack Obama has consistently opposed the Fairness Doctrine, but many of the Democratic colleagues have promoted it for years, with Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and—most adamantly—that heroic public servant John Edwards providing support.

Well, it’s not exactly news that the Intolerant Tolerance Hysterics are all about choices that they want to dictate to people, too, even if (or especially if) it involved the use of “an oppressive, invidious authoritarian relic” like the Fairness doctrine.  Don’t expect them to understand that irony, Mssrs. Serchuk and Medved, but thank you for pointing it out.  They can unfriend and block all they want on social networking, because those are personal choices not to listen to differing opinions, and every American has that choice.  The problem is when they want government to unfriend and block so that no one has that choice — and that’s the kind of intolerance that’s much more dangerous than humorous.

Don’t worry, kids at home.  Liberals say that conservatives are intolerant; and if anybody else disagrees with liberals, well, those people are all intolerant, too.  And according to liberals – who are the high priests of tolerance – it is perfectly okay to be tolerant and even fascist to intolerant people.

You need to understand how we got to be in such a cultural mess, where 88% of Americans think one way but the 12% who think practically opposite the majority have been able to pretty much make up all the rules.  And our society is about to collapse because their rules are evil and frankly fascist to go along with failed.

Let us return to the main point: the secret for the collapse that will plunge us into a collapse unlike ever seen in history is liberal fascist intolerance.

I have come to believe that we are in the last days before the Tribulation and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.  Based on that view, I understand that God prophetically warned man in His Word that as we neared the end, man would increasingly turn away from God and fall into the errors that He warned us about.  I also understand that the same God who told us it would happen 2,000 years ago and beyond is in control, and is allowing the last days to finally come upon the world.  I’ll say that from the outset.

I’m talking to a lot of Christians who have used the word “despair” to describe how they feel about the way America is going.  They somehow felt the world would just keep getting better and better and of course the exact opposite is happening.  And I want you to understand that, for me, Bible prophecy is a great comfort.  Again, I see so many signs that God predicted as a sign the last days were coming to pass and it makes me all the more certain and confident in my faith in God.  The U.S. is now over $225 trillion in actual debt when you add in the unfunded mandates of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  It is growing by about one trillion dollars every single month.  And you ought to be able to see the signs that if we fall down we will NEVER get back on our feet the way we did in the years following the Great Depression (recognizing that FDR stalled that recovery by seven years according to economists) with his failed liberal policies.  We were the most productive nation on earth at that time in terms of manufacturing; we were a creditor nation rather than a debtor nation at that time; our citizens were NOT consuming mass welfare the way we overwhelmingly are now, nor would they have stood for the kind of sloth that passes for normalcy today; and we had just won a world war and were frankly the only economy on earth that hadn’t been destroyed.  When we fall now – and we WILL fall in the next twenty years – we will shatter into pieces and those pieces will never be reconstituted.  America will be a relatively insignificant banana republic or group of banana republics.  The day our economy crashes we will lose the status that has allowed us to accumulate such a super massive debt – our status as the world’s reserve currency – and it will all be over for us.

America isn’t mentioned in Bible prophecy.  All the other major nations and regions – such as Russia, Europe and Asia ARE mentioned.  America has largely already guaranteed that it simply will not matter in the coming years.  We had a vote and literally determined to follow the path of the Dodo bird to certain extinction.  There are famously nine stages of civilization.  Last year we were in the seventh, but this election put us over the top of number eight – we voted for entitlements and to become a dependency-based society.  In our final age, bondage will mean bondage of the very worst kind: bondage to the coming Antichrist.

I neither take comfort nor rejoice in that sad, tragic and pathetic end for America.  I rejoice and take comfort in the fact that God has a plan for His people – and I am one of His people.  I need neither weep nor worry.  My treasure is in heaven and I don’t have to fear how much Obama or the beast who will succeed him will take away on earth.

I have another home to go to – and it will be a far grander land than this one ever was even in its brightest day of promise.  And frankly, my faith in the next land (Heaven) grows stronger even as this one (America) grows weaker and weaker.

But why does it happen?  How did we sink this low?

Our modern media descended from the propaganda of World Wars One And Two.  Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays were men who believed that people could and frankly SHOULD be manipulated.  They believed that a class of cultural elites should anoint themselves to serve as gatekeepers and ensure that their secular humanist worldview and values would be advanced and rival worldviews and values would be defeated.  You simply cannot read the writings of these fathers of journalism and media elitism and not see that common thread in their work.

What I’m saying is that when it comes to journalism and modern media, you cannot say that conservatives ever “lost control” over these institutions – because we never had any control over them to begin with.  They were never anything other than secular humanist and liberal progressive in orientation.  And all it took was for the technology to become sufficiently powerful and all-encompassing that their domination of the media would translate to their being able to dictate to mass culture what to think and what to believe.  And here we are.

The power of media was used against Christianity in 1960 with an incredibly dishonest piece of propaganda titled Inherit the Wind (see also here).  And the order of magnitude in terms of media manipulation has grown by giant leaps and bounds in the over fifty years since.  Most people – the 88 percent above – understand that they are being routinely lied to with outright propaganda.  The problem is that even though they know they’re being brainwashed, they’re STILL being brainwashed.  The media is altering people’s perceptions much the way the constant ocean tide wears away even the rocks let alone the sand; it is the inevitable result of being washed over with lies again and again and again and again, ad infinitum.

How did the secular humanist left gain control over academia?  Christians unwittingly played a giant part in that.  Do you know how many of the first universities in America were founded by Christians?  How about pretty much ALL of them.  Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian.  That trend continued long into America’s journey as a nation: I just got through reading an excellent article about the incredibly enormous role Christian churches and denominations played in the establishment of virtually all of the schools, universities and hospitals in the American West.  Education was almost ENTIRELY up to Christian churches and denominations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was our strike two for us.  Liberals got into the education system and then barricaded the door behind them.

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

Strike three for conservatives and for the United States of America was when liberals seized control of the government.  They didn’t do it by winning elections; they did it by stacking the government employees with leftwing union thuggery.

FDR said that government employee unions were unAmerican.  And of course he was right.  But as far to the left as FDR was in the 1930s and 1940s, he didn’t even begin to hold a candle to just how radically far the Democrat Party would go to to undermine the United States of America.  FDR said:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. … Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Unions are completely dead in America in the private sector, where they have killed jobs and crushed entire industries.  But they dominate government employees.  And if Mitt Romney and Republicans were to have won the election, they would not have been able to significantly change the way government “works” (in quotes because in the vast majority of respects, government doesn’t “work” at all).  That is because virtually every level and layer of government “service” is as dominate by liberals as the kitchen floor of a filthy house is dominated by cockroaches.

You’ve got the government as an entity unto itself whose primary purpose is to create more government, more government jobs and more government workers with more lavish government pensions and benefits that are borne on the backs of the taxpayer.

The aim of the Democrat Party and the aim of the government unions is identical: to explode the size and power of government and to make government employees an elite, privileged class of masters over the rest of society.  Their collective goal is to attain government power that allows them to dominate forever by being able to be able to pick the winners and losers and the victims and villains of society.

And they have largely attained that power.  Once a government bureaucracy is created, it can never be undone; the liberals who own government by what FDR said was an immoral tactic have never allowed it and WILL never allow it.

There’s a reason for this that goes to what I said above about how Christians trained their people to go into the mission field and liberals trained their people to go into government: and that is, for liberals, serving government is tantamount and in fact even greater than serving God.  Liberals have simply flooded government and there is no practical way to purge the influence that even FDR said was illegitimately obtained.

There are other reasons that our culture became toxic and doomed, of course.

“Political correctness” is a huge factor.

Political correctness is not just an attempt to make people feel better. It’s a vast, coordinated effort on the part of the secular humanist, socialist left to change Western culture as we know it by  using rhetoric to redefine it. Early Marxists in Russia designed this game plan long ago and liberals continue to execute the tactic today: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language. Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.

With the “news” media, with academia and with government at their beck and call, to go along with liberal Hollywood culture, it was easy to tell people what to think.

Liberals have used boycotts to devastating effect; while conservatives say boycotts are wrong and refuse to call for them.  The result of this disparity is that our businesses are vulnerable and exposed to incredible pressure from the left, while liberal businesses are completely safe.

I think of two recent examples of how the difference between liberalism and conservatism works in the form of two athletes.

Phil Mickelson “sinned” by saying that the tax burden that Democrats were demanding he pay – basically 63 percent of everything he makes – was far too high, and that he was fleeing the Socialist Republic of California as a result.  Do you think it’s unreasonable for Mickelson to say that he disagrees that Obama is 63 percent responsible for his success and that he’s only at most 37 percent responsible for his success?  This gets us right back to Obama’s, “you didn’t build that, government did” argument.  Mickelson was so viciously demonized that he went out something like four times to mea culpa and say he was terribly wrong to say stuff like that.  On my count he came out four separate times begging people to please quit hating him for believing he had a right to express his views in Amerikkka.

The second recent example is San Francisco 49er player Chris Culliver, who expressed his opinion that he would not personally feel comfortable having an open homosexual player on the team.  And of course, he was quickly broken as liberals demanded he literally be fired for expressing his views.

How many celebrities have been celebrated and adored by the liberal media culture for saying that celebrities should “pay their fair share” with high taxes and that homosexuality is so wonderful it’s even better than sliced bread?  Were they forced to do a perp walk and apologize for their remarks?  Not a chance.

You see, here’s the difference between liberals and conservatives.  Conservatives believe that people – even liberals – have a right to express their views and beliefs.  Conservatives believe that our nation with its freedoms and liberty should not persecute people merely for expressing a viewpoint that they disagree with.  Liberals, on the other hand, are fascists who brutally and viciously attack anyone who doesn’t bow down to their agenda.  You do NOT have the freedom of self-expression if you use that freedom to say something that liberals don’t like.  They will come after you with stunning hatred if you try to do so.

Liberals are people who routinely shout down everyone with whom they disagree.  You do not have the right to say anything that offends them.  They will simply come after you in full-fledged fascisti mode.

Genuine tolerance is a weapon that liberals have turned against conservatives.  As liberal activist Saul Alinsky – who devoted his book to Satan – said:

“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”

And of course liberals like Al Gore have no “book of rules” to have to live up to.  They can preach radical environmentalism and demonize oil for years.  They can say that people ought to pay their “fair share” of taxes.  And then – like Al Gore – they can sell out to a terrorist “journalism” network funded entirely by oil money and try to structure the deal so they don’t have to pay Obama’s sky-high tax rates.  But because they always parroted the liberal vision – no matter how hypocritically – they’re on hallowed ground with the vast majority of the propaganda machine a.k.a. journalism in America.

Liberals are currently decrying guns, because everybody knows that human beings are merely farm animals incapable of exercising personal responsibility or self-restraint.  Guns must be taken away from the law-abiding even if it makes them utterly helpless in a deteriorating society because that’s the only solution that liberals will allow.  I submit that there aren’t too many guns; there are too many abortions.  There aren’t to many guns; there’s too much pornography.  There aren’t too many guns; there’s too little respect for the dignity of human life that the abortion culture and the pornography culture that liberals fought so hard to institute guarantees.  There aren’t too many guns; there’s too much lawless disregard for justice that liberals (the ACLU being your classic example) have produced throughout our legal culture.

We kicked God’s butt right out of our schools, banned prayer, banned the Ten Commandments with its “Thou shalt not murder” and we’re just astonished that the children who grew up godless in liberal indocrination facilities a.k.a. our public school system would actualize the disgusting hatred of life that liberalism produced in their empty souls.

And now liberals are exploiting the gun violence that their policies produced in the first place to implement their next step in the Stalinist takeover of America.

And that’s why we’ve lost.  And why the America we stood for is now basically eradicated.

And those three strikes plus are why America is going to go down and go down hard.  King Theoden ultimately won; America is ultimately going to lose and then the beast will come just as God told us would happen.  Theoden’s enemies were outside the walls; America’s enemies are very much within.