Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
“War on women.” That’s what Democrats and liberal feminists said of the Republican Party. Because the Republican Party didn’t want to pay for liberal activist Sandra Fluke’s birth control. The fact that Sandra Fluke outright lied about the cost of birth control (she dishonestly and frankly idiotically claimed that it cost $3,000 when in reality it cost $324 to cover the same period) didn’t matter. Nor did it matter that in fact she easily could have accessed FREE birth control in the form of condoms from numerous sources. The fact that Sandra Fluke as a Georgetown law school student was willing to pay $23,432.50 PER SEMESTER for her hoity-toity college but felt that birth control for $5 a month at Sam’s Club was too expensive and an outrage for women to have to buy didn’t matter. The fact that an average Georgetown law school graduate starts out at $165,000 a year and what she was demanding was in fact a subsidy for the wealthy didn’t matter. And of course it most certainly did not matter that Sandra Fluke literally enrolled in Georgetown – a CATHOLIC university – just so she could be a treacherous fifth column and sue them from within. All that mattered was that demon-possessed Democrats had a slanderous rhetorical assertion and liberals are the kind of people who would much rather believe slanderous rhetorical accusations than actual reality.
You want to see which party is the real “War on Women” party in terms of the actual reality that every liberal must steadfastly ignore so they can continue to believe all the crap they believe instead?
You guessed it. The Democrat Party. It was true last year and it is every bit as true this year. The Party of Weiner and the Party of Spitzer is the DEMOCRAT Party. It’s okay to stomp on women. Just as long as you’re a liberal.
“I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”
And of course, Bill Clinton would have happily thrown down the knee pads for Nina so she could serve and service her master. The only problem was he was too busy receiving just worship from the lips of a young female intern named Monica Lewinsky whose father had donated money to Clinton’s campaign.
Pardon me for editorializing here, but that ugly mindset really encompasses liberalism. Liberals are people who want the government to step in and do everything for them in exchange for their worship of the state and their vote for the party that seeks more and more and more power for that State. They want your vote, of course, but a vote and getting down on your knees to give a blowjob is the true manifestation of liberalism’s worship of power and those who hold power.
I think of the utterly warped and frankly demonic and hateful worldview of Nina Burleigh and all the liberal feminists just like her. I think of how abortion is “pro-woman” any more than it is “pro-child” to murder a child. Do you know who abortion kills? Today, there are more than 60 million women “missing” in Asia alone because of sex-selective abortion. Millions of men in China – more than 24 million – will never have the possibility of having wives because so many women have been murdered via abortion that there is a radical imbalance in the gender populations. So many girls have been murdered and simply do not exist that it cost ten years’ worth of income to have a wife in that “pro abortion society.” And no matter what pro-abortion people may tell you, they are very much FOR forced abortions that terrorize and maim hundreds of millions of women. 400 million women have been forced to have abortions against their will in China alone, leaving a bloody path of misery and suicide and suffering OF WOMEN in its wake. People like Nina Burleigh who want legal abortion are the guarantors of this vile demonic crime against women. Particularly given the fact that liberal feminists are every bit as “pro-big government” as they are “the right to choose” abortion. And if a woman should have the right to choose,” then on what basis does the state not have the right to choose? Particularly in the leftist totalitarian societies where the state has been given the power to “choose” everything else??? And to take that stand because you are “pro-woman” is insane to the point of being demon-possessed.
“Real women” are wives and mothers; they are not single sluts whining about the need for their ultimate Man, their Savior, big government, to provide birth control for them. And they most certainly aren’t women who murder their babies. And to drive the point home, “real women” are most definitely NOT women who put down their damn kneepads for Bill Clinton or for any other big government bureaucrat for that matter.
We go back to the father of progressivism, Woodrow Wilson, for the genesis of this perverted party. Wilson acknowledged in Congressional Government that “I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.” And it was his many statements like that prompted historian Walter McDougall to sum up Woodrow Wilson thus: “If any trait bubbles up in all one reads about Wilson, it is this: he loved, craved, and in a sense glorified power.” Wilson argued as president that he was the right hand of God and that to stand against him was to thwart the divine will. Whereas conservatives believed that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the father of the progressive movement exalted in power and then more power, and believed that power accrued to whoever was truly on God’s side.
Jonah Goldberg summed it up this way:
“Doctrinaire fascism, much like communism, sold itself as an unstoppable force of divine or historical inevitability. Those who stood in the way – the bourgeoisie, the “unfit,” the “greedy,” the “individualistic,” the “traitor,” the kulak, the Jew – could be demonized as the “other” because, at the end of the day, they were not merely expendable, nor were they merely reluctant to join the collective, they were by their very existence blocking the will to power that gave the mob and the avant-garde which claimed to speak for it their reason for existence.
Liberal men receive that worship, and liberal women can’t wait to throw down their kneepads and give it to them in one form or another.
That, for the record, is called “women’s liberation” by liberals. I call it the lowest form of servitude imaginable.
I know that I would rather die than stand in some line with my “presidential kneepads.” Which is what separates me from liberals. I demand a government that stays off my damn back, not one that I should slavishly worship. And I don’t have to thank my government for getting off my back and allowing me my freedom because the Declaration of Independence of MY founding fathers declares that my government OWES that to me.
I know, I know. That’s just me.
Anyway, end of digression. Let’s get back to this realization that if you want to look at the party of true “war on women,” look no further than at the Democrat Party.
Consider this editorial from a liberal in the liberal Los Angeles Times:
Since the LA Times staff butchered the grammar so badly, I’ll quote Lindsay Bubar and yes, our heroine Sandra Fluke:
Now, women must once again ask the city’s leaders to “remember the ladies” because, deplorably, there is not a single elected woman in Los Angeles city government.
Democrats have OWNED Los Angeles for decades. They have OWNED it. And just like Obama’s inner circle, no damn chicks are allowed. Not without the proper knee-attire, anyway. Democrats in a city that they own don’t have a single woman in office.
And women on the Democrat Party’s actual view of the world frankly ought to throw down their kneepads, get down on their knees, and shut the hell up: because Anthony Weiner says that it is inconsiderate and frankly rude to try to talk when you’re satisfying “The Weiner.”
Frankly, according to the tenants of Bob Filner’s liberalism, I don’t know what Filner did wrong: he was merely demanding what he was entitled to, after all. You get your welfare check, and he gets his something-something. And Bob Filner is most certainly pro-abortion and therefore every bit as entitled to the adoration of liberal women like Nina Burleigh as Bill Clinton was.
But again, don’t ask me: ask Bill Clinton and his blowjob servant cum “journalist” Nina Burleigh. But don’t bother trying to ask the city of Los Angeles or the administration of Barack Obama unless you’re a guy – because they won’t let you in the door.
Don’t tell me that the Republican Party is the party of war on women. At least not until every single Democrat on earth has been hunted down, anyway.
SAN DIEGO – Former state assemblywoman Lori Saldana told Team 10 she warned San Diego Democrats about Mayor Bob Filner’s treatment of women.
On Friday, she said she took her concerns directly to the party’s chairman.
“I went to the leader, the elected leader of the county party,” Saldana said. “I expressed to him my concerns. Did he take strong enough action to make sure things would improve Apparently not.”
What did the Democrat Party completely not give a flying damn about? Here’s a partial list:
the mayor has a modus operandi, a way of getting women alone and forcibly kissing and touching them
Filner grabbed the woman’s breast, putting his hand beneath her bra, and forced his tongue down her throat.
Gonzalez described certain moves Filner had that earned names among those who know him, like the “Filner dance” and the “Filner headlock.” The former was the dance they allege Filner did when he kissed a woman who was pulling away; the headlock, an overly friendly way of pulling women close to him so he could isolate them.
Gonzales related details from the victim who was in Filner’s employ — he said early on in the mayor’s term, she complimented the mayor, telling him he was doing a good job. The mayor responded that he would do a better job if she gave him a kiss. She laughed it off as a joke, Gonzalez said, but he said she soon became aware that the mayor was serious, continuing to harass her and others both physically and verbally.
“There is no circumstance under which it would be appropriate for the mayor to enter into an elevator with my client or any person who he employed and to tell them that they would do a better job on that floor if they worked without their panties on,” but that, Gonzalez said, is precisely what happened.
Victim Donna Frye called him “tragically unsafe for any woman to be around.”
Anybody who wants to tell you that the Republican Party has a “war on women” because Republicans believe that FEMALE babies ought to have their right to live are simply evil. Period.
Update, July 23: I suppose I invoked the demonic little turd by saying his name, didn’t I? But it turns out that Anthony Weiner is at it again. Yes, at least a FULL YEAR after getting busted for “sexting” any woman who would lower herself to online sex with a rodent, Weiner got busted again. This time – under his online name “Carlos Danger” – Weiner promised a young woman a condo and even suggested he could get her a job at liberal “news” source Politico. The address of the condo is known: 1235 S. Prairie Ave. Weiner wanted to set her up so he could meet her there for sex.
That is so damn Democrat Weiner – who is staying in the race because he knows that Democrats are moral cockroaches – that he ought to be praised by the Democrat Party. All Weiner wants is to be able to selfishly exploit a young woman in return for providing her welfare. THAT IS THE DEMOCRAT WAY. THAT IS ALL DEMOCRATS STAND FOR.
The fact that it is demonic is entirely besides the point.
Update, July 25: Anthony Weiner says he won’t pull out of the race; like this turd would ever “pull out” of ANYTHING once he’s got his little weiner in it. This is the story that just keeps showing us the REAL face of the Democrat Party. We now know the name of ONE (there being about a half a dozen other new women) who came forward: Sydney Leathers. And we know she’s an uber liberal. First off, let’s go back and establish the pattern of liberal women showering their liberal government gods with sexual worship. Remember our “journalist” Nina Burleigh and what she said of her government-as-savior-and-lord god Bill Clinton?
“I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”
And, just like Barack Hussein Obama and every OTHER Democrat cockroach who keeps crawling into government life, Leathers now says that Weiner made her “very lofty promises” – and utterly failed to keep them.
I think of our liar-in-chief and all the stinking pile of lies he told just to impose his fascist takeover of the healthcare system: if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your health plan, you’ll be able to keep your health plan; my Obamacare will cut the cost of your health care; my Obamacare won’t increase the deficit; my Obamacare will create millions of jobs. Liberal women LOVE to be lied to; it’s only the truth and those who tell it that they despise.
It must be wonderful to be a Democrat male. You get to be worshipped by stupid, morally-depraved women. You get to get all sorts of “weiner benefits” in exchange for making all kinds of promises that you never have to actually keep. And that gravy train is going to continue until you either die or until the REAL Messiah returns. At which time you will burn in hell along with all your stupid floozies who kept voting for you.
I’ve been saying DemonCrats (that’s “Demonic Bureaucrats,” which is what “Democrat” truly stands for) despise their country. Now I’ve got über-liberal Harvard to back me up. Which is to say that this isn’t a case of Sarah Palin blasting away at Democrats and claiming Democrats don’t love their country; it’s an example of the liberal intelligentsia itself claiming that Democrats don’t love their country:
Democratic political candidates can skip this weekend’s July 4th parades. A new Harvard University study finds that July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day.
“Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation’s political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party,” said the report from Harvard.
“The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century. Survey evidence also confirms that Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than Democrats. According to this interpretation, there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party. Fourth of July celebrations in Republican dominated counties may thus be more politically biased events that socialize children into Republicans,” write Harvard Kennedy School Assistant Professor David Yanagizawa-Drott and Bocconi University Assistant Professor Andreas Madestam.
Their findings also suggest that Democrats gain nothing from July 4th parades, likely a shocking result for all the Democratic politicians who march in them.
“There is no evidence of an increased likelihood of identifying as a Democrat, indicating that Fourth of July shifts preferences to the right rather than increasing political polarization,” the two wrote.
The three key findings of those attending July 4th celebrations:
When done before the age of 18, it increases the likelihood of a youth identifying as a Republican by at least 2 percent.
It raises the likelihood that parade watchers will vote for a Republican candidate by 4 percent.
It boosts the likelihood a reveler will vote by about 1 percent and increases the chances they’ll make a political contribution by 3 percent.
What’s more, the impact isn’t fleeting. “Surprisingly, the estimates show that the impact on political preferences is permanent, with no evidence of the effects depreciating as individuals become older,”said the Harvard report.
Finally, the report suggests that if people are looking for a super-patriotic July 4th, though should head to Republican towns. “Republican adults celebrate Fourth of July more intensively in the first place.”
Conservatives have American Indendence Day, which we celebrate on July 4th in honor of our Declaration of Independence. Democrats hate the Declaration of Independence because it bases our separation from Great Britain on GOD and establishes the new nation that would consequently be born as a Judeo-Christian one. Liberals have Marxist May Day, i.e. DEpendence Day, instead.
It’s rather interesting, actually. I think of the analogy of the “Naksa”, or Israel’s defeat of Arab armies in the 1967 Six-Day War. It’s a day of celebration for Israelis, and a day of mourning for Palestinians. It’s a shame that Independence Day is nothing worthy of celebrating for Democrats. But when you realize that the independence and liberty the founding fathers created was independence and liberty from big government totalitarianism, and that Democrats yearn for the very thing that our founding fathers delivered us from, it starts to make perfect sense. Ben Franklin said, “Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.” And Democrats who dream of a big government nanny state say, “Amen! Where can see sign up for that?”
Liberals have always despised the Constitution, because it gets in their way of imposing their will on society. A couple of very recent examples:
Time Magazine: “We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights.”
[…]
The Constitution does not protect our spirit of liberty; our spirit of liberty protects the Constitution. The Constitution serves the nation; the nation does not serve the Constitution.”
We can go back to Woodrow Wilson, “the father of the progressive movement,” and see how Democrats have always felt about the Constitution:
President Woodrow Wilson was an early progressive who actively rejected what the founding fathers said and intended. He argued that the meaning of the Constitution should be interpreted by judges, and not based on its words.
In his book, Constitutional Government in the United States, Wilson wrote: “We can say without the least disparagement or even criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States that at its hands the Constitution has received an adaptation and an elaboration which would fill its framers of the simple days of 1787 with nothing less than amazement. The explicitly granted powers of the Constitution are what they always were; but the powers drawn from it by implication have grown and multiplied beyond all expectation, and each generation of statesmen looks to the Supreme Court to supply the interpretation which will serve the needs of the day.”
Wilson and other progressives have failed to understand the consequence of rewriting the Constitution’s meaning and ignoring the intentions of the founding fathers. If this generation is not bound by yesterday’s law, then future generations will not be bound by today’s law.
If law is not a body of rules and can be arbitrarily manipulated, then the rule of man trumps the rule of law. And the founding principle that “all men are created equal” is replaced by “some men are more equal than others.” When people are governed by self-anointed rulers instead of elected representatives, they cannot be free.
When the Constitution was written, it was a radical departure from the despotic governments of its time. While Europeans were being ruled by the arbitrary edicts of kings, Americans revolted so they could become a self-governing people.
Because the founding fathers understood human nature, they structured the Constitution to permanently protect the people from the human shortcomings of their leaders. Human nature has not changed since America’s founding. So the need still exists for the protection provided by the Constitution.
And as Mark Levin points out, we can actually go back before that to see how liberals undermined America and undermined the Constitution by finding judges who would “interpret” it rather than just read it. Consider slavery, and consider the fact that the Democrat Party was the party of slavery and that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party. And what justified slavery in the face of our founding documents which clearly condemned slavery? Liberal activist judges:
Levin: Activist Supreme Courts are not new. The Dred Scott decision in 1856, imposing slavery in free territories; the Plessy decision in 1896, imposing segregation on a private railroad company; the Korematsu decision in 1944, upholding Franklin Roosevelt’s internment of American citizens, mostly Japanese Americans; and the Roe decision in 1973, imposing abortion on the entire nation; are examples of the consequences of activist Courts and justices. Far from being imbued with special insight, these decisions have had dire consequences for our governmental system and for society.
“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114
“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
Democrats don’t love America. They haven’t for a long time. For my entire life, in fact.
America is based on the idea that man can govern himself, and that man can govern himself and should govern himself, within the just parameters of the Constitution they so painstakingly crafted for us:
The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution is unique in history and reflects the strongly held beliefs of the American Revolutionaries.
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powell anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” “A republic if you can keep it” responded Franklin.
The term republic had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the Revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question.
The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.
But Democrats have always despised our founding fathers and the republic they gave us. Thomas Jefferson said:
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
“I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”
And when you read our founding fathers, and understand their arguments and their worldview, you can readily understand why Obama has to characterize the founding fathers and the Constitution they wrote as “blind.”
Because Thomas Jefferson also said things like:
“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”
And:
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
And:
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
And:
“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”
And:
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
And:
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
But these notions are fundamentally incompatible with the vision of “America” Democrats have for this country. Which is why the founding fathers must be destroyed; their integrity demolished; their wisdom undermined.
Don’t tell me you love America, Democrats. You hate it. You’ve hated it for a long time. That’s why you embrace the following vision of this founding father:
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
The problem is that yours isn’t a founding father of America, but rather the founding father of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That quote that Democrats all affirm came from Karl Marx (see Obama’s paraphrase: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”) And if you are a Democrat who doesn’t affirm that statement, than explain to me as a Democrat why this central defining statement of communism – which flies in the face of what America’s founding fathers said – is in fact demonic and evil. And then explain to me how that statement has no part with the Democrat Party. Please.
I rather routinely call Obama the F-word. No, not that F-word (although the ability to resist doing so is dwindling); the other F-word: Fascist. Barack Obama is a fascist.
I have had quite a few liberals fixate on this word, and – while ignoring the rest of my arguments – proceed to give me a lecture about how my extremism undermines my positions and arguments (which they don’t bother to consider).
I’d like to respond to that. At length.
There are many who would argue that if a politician is not as rabid as Adolf Hitler, that one cannot use this label of “fascist” – at least not unless the target is a Republican (see below). Barack Obama is not a “dictator,” these would argue. He hasn’t launched the world into global war and he hasn’t murdered 6 million Jews (at least, he hasn’t yet). So he can’t be a “fascist.” This argument fails on two parts. First of all, by such a metric, Benito Mussolini wouldn’t be a “fascist” either (except for the “dictator” part). One of the reasons it is hard to have an easy definition of “fascist” is because fascism has taken a different character in every country and culture in which it has been embraced. Hitler is not the norm or standard of fascism; he is merely the most extreme example of its virulence and danger. Secondly, even if we were to take a Hitler as our example, let us realize that Adolf Hitler was a very cunning politician who managed to gain power in a Germany that was THE most sophisticated, educated and scientific nation and culture of its day. What I am asserting is that if an Adolf Hitler were to run for the presidency of the United States in 2012, he would run a platform that we could very easily label as “hope and change,” he would demagogue his adversaries as being the cause for the nation’s plight, he would lie both cynically and outrageously to win votes and he would then proceed to push the country as far as he possibly could toward his agenda. And so here, from the outset, I am claiming that the suggestion that either Barack Obama or anyone else does not qualify as a “fascist” simply because he or she can’t be directly compared to Adolf Hitler is nothing but a straw man.
The question thus becomes, what is fascism, and then it is what is Obama steering us toward?
THE WORD “fascism” is used broadly on the left as a term of abuse. Sometimes it is used to refer to any repressive government, whatever its political form. Most commonly on the left in the U.S., it is used to describe any Republican government–in particular, any Republican government or candidate on the eve of a presidential election.
As an experiment, I typed the words “Bush fascist” and then “Obama fascist” sans quotes. I got 3,280,000 Google hits for Bush fascist (and keep in mind an awful lot of hits would have vanished in the last 11 years as domains purged articles or simply ceased to exist) versus only 2,490,000 for Obama. That means liberals were over 45% more likely to call Bush a fascist than conservatives have been to call Obama one.
And when these liberals express their outrage that I would dare call Obama a fascist and thus lower the discourse, I invariably ask them just where the hell they were when their side was teeing off on Bush for eight unrelenting years of Bush derangement syndrome??? It was rare indeed to see a liberal excoriate his fellow liberals for demonizing the president of the United States.
With all due respect, the left started this form of “discourse.” They turned it into an art form. And how dare these hypocrites dare to tell me not to do unto Obama as they did unto Bush???
That might only be a rhetorical argument, as two wrongs clearly don’t make a right. But it remains a powerful one. Liberals have forfeited any moral right to criticize conservatives for using their own tactics against them.
But I don’t simply call Obama a fascist because liberals called Bush one. I call him one because he has exhibited all kinds of fascistic tendencies, which I shall in time describe.
But fascism has a far more precise definition. Historically, fascism is a far-right movementof the middle classes (shopkeepers, professionals, civil servants) who are economically ruined by severe economic crisis and driven to “frenzy.”
In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky, fascism brings “to their feet those classes that are immediately above the working class and that are ever in dread of being forced down into its ranks; it organizes and militarizes them…and it directs them to the extirpation of proletarian organizations, from the most revolutionary to the most conservative.”
I have no doubt that the irony of these words were entirely lost to the “Socialist Worker” who wrote the article. But allow me to illuminate it for you: think of the most infamous fascists of all time, the Nazis. What did the word “Nazi” stand for? It was the “acronym for the ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’.” Let me try that again, just in case you missed these precious little details: “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.”
But ask the “Socialist Workers” and they’ll assure you that the “Socialist Workers Party” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Socialist Workers. Because that would certainly be awkward, wouldn’t it???
It is rather fascinating that “Socialist Worker” would cite as his authority on fascism and who should be labeled as a “fascist” the Marxist thinker . Allow me to provide one counter statement which is based not on the “brilliant words” of a Marxist, but on the plain simple facts:
“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative. [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.” Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite. If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative. If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing. If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie. If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.
The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].
So depending on Leon Trotsky or any other Marxist-inspired academic who merely parrots “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” has rather serious intellectual drawbacks. And yet that is largely what we get. Far too many American academics wouldn’t be so obvious as to use the phrase, “In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky,” but they give his ideas, theories and talking points total credence, nonetheless. The term “useful idiots” was literally coined to describe these Western “intellectuals.” And their being “useful idiots” is every bit as true today as it ever was in the past.
Consider the REAL “polar opposite”: American conservatives are capitalists, not socialists. They demand a limited national/federal government, not a massive centrally planned state as does socialism, communism and fascism. They prefer the federalist idea of powerful states’ rights against a weakened federal government, not some all-powerful Führer. And to try to force conservatives into some Nazi mold invariably means either creating straw men arguments or citing irrelevant facts (such as that conservatives favor a large military just like the Nazis did, as though virtually every single communist state does not similarly favor a large military “just like the Nazis did”). If you want an all-powerful national government that gets to decide who wins and who loses, if you want to see a system where you have to come to your government for assistance and resources with all manner of strings attached rather than being allowed to depend on yourself, your family and your community, you should embrace the political left, not the right.
By the way, another favorite idiotic red herring for liberals asserting that “Nazism was right wing” was that the Nazis hated the admittedly left wing communists. But consider the fact that Coke hates Pepsi and Barbie Doll makers hate Bratz Doll makers. Are we supposed to believe that Coke is the opposite of Pepsi as opposed to water, milk or orange juice? The fact of the matter is that Nazis and Soviet Communists hated each other because both movements had a global agenda of totalitarian dominion, and both movements were competing for the same rabidly left wing converts.
Pardon me for the following insult, but the only people who believe garbage arguments like these are ignorant fools who live in a world of straw men. Even if they have the title “PhD.” after their names.
It is for that reason that I can state categorically that Marxism and fascism are not “polar opposites” at all. They are merely two potentially complementary species of socialism. That is why China has been able to easily weave blatantly fascistic (national socialist/corporatist) elements into its Maoist communism. It is also why Joseph Stalin was able to go from being an international socialist (i.e. a communist) and then appeal to nationalism (i.e., national socialism or “fascism”) when he needed to fight Hitler, only to switch back to “international socialism” after the war, as a few lines from Wikipedia on “Russian nationalism” point out:
The newborn communist republic under Vladimir Lenin proclaimed internationalism as its official ideology[4]. Russian nationalism was discouraged, as were any remnants of Imperial patriotism, such as wearing military awards received before Civil War….
The 1930s saw the evolution of the new concept of Soviet nationalism under Joseph Stalin, based on both Russian nationalism and communist internationalism. Official communist ideology always stated that Russia was the most progressive state, because it adopted socialism as its basis (which, according to the writings of Karl Marx, is the inevitable future of world socio-economic systems). Under Lenin, the USSR believed its duty to help other nations to arrange socialist revolutions (the concept of World Revolution), and made close ties with labor movements around the world[4].
[…]
The Soviet Union’s war against Nazi Germany became known as the Great Patriotic War, hearkening back to the previous use of the term in the Napoleonic Wars. The Soviet state called for Soviet citizens to defend the ‘Motherland’, a matrilineal term used to describe Russia in the past.
[…]
In 1944, the Soviet Union abandoned its communist anthem, The International, and adopted a new national anthem which citizens of the Soviet Union could identify with.
And then, with the victory secured over fascism, the Stalinist “national socialism” (a.k.a. “fascism”) suddenly became international socialism again. The Nazis’ very name was Nationalsozialistische.
One can be a “Marxist-fascist” and combine and blend elements of both totalitarian socialist systems quite easily, as both the Russian and then the Chinese communists proved. Communism and fascism have far more in common with one another than they have in opposition; especially when you examine the fact that both political systems invariably end up becoming the same big-government totalitarian police state.
So for my first two points – namely that 1) the left has routinely demagogically labeled the right “fascist” even when 2) it is clearly the left that owes far and away the most to fascistic elements – I am going to continue to shout from the rooftops who are the real fascists in America.
That said, it is still not enough to merely point out the FACT that American liberalism has much in common with fascism. And there is a lot more yet to say.
Before I begin spouting particular examples, I therefore need to further approach just what it is that would constitute a “fascist.” And then see who and how the label fits. From The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had “reached the end of its historical function,” Mussolini wrote: “To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself…. Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual.”
This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.
[…]
Mussolini’s fascism took another step at this time with the advent of the Corporative State, a supposedly pragmatic arrangement under which economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers who represented trades and industries. By this device the presumed economic rivalry between employers and employees was to be resolved, preventing the class struggle from undermining the national struggle. In the Corporative State, for example, strikes would be illegal and labor disputes would be mediated by a state agency.
Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups.
[…]
Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.
Banking also came under extraordinary control. As Italy’s industrial and banking system sank under the weight of depression and regulation, and as unemployment rose, the government set up public works programs and took control over decisions about building and expanding factories. The government created the Istituto Mobiliare in 1931 to control credit, and the IRI later acquired all shares held by banks in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises.
The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad. Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933…
Fascism is all about the “community,” not the individual. Its message is about the good of the nation, or the people (or the Volk), or the community, rather than the good of a nation’s individual citizens. It is about distributing and then redistributing the wealth and returning it to “its rightful owners” under the guise of an all-powerful state rather than recognizing and rewarding individual achievement. In short, when Hillary Clinton explained that, “It takes a village,” an educated Nazi would have snapped his fingers and excitedly shouted, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!”
For Obama, the collectivism, community or “village” thing is such a profound part of him that he has literally made it an integral part of his very heretical form of “Christianity,” which very much stresses individual salvation and individual responsibility. Obama has on several occasions put it this way:
For example, in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country…” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”
In the Christian faith, there is no such thing as collective salvation. Salvation is an individual choice. It is personal acceptance of Jesus as savior, Son of the living God.
Obama’s is a wildly perverted view of orthodox Christianity. It so distorts true Christianity at such a fundamental level, in fact, that one literally has to go to Hitler to find a suitable similar parallel from a “Christian” national leader. The great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther – the most famous German prior to Hitler – had written the most monumental text of German culture prior to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. It was called “The Bondage of the Will,” which was considered THE manifesto of the Reformation. According to Luther, the human will was in bondage to sin. The fallen will, if left to itself, will choose what is evil. The human will has been perversely set against the righteous will of God. For sinful human beings, the will is not in a state of liberty but is in bondage to its worst impulses. Luther wrote in this work, “When our liberty is lost we are compelled to serve sin: that is, we will sin and evil, we speak sin and evil, we do sin and evil.” Adolf Hitler infamously turned that key doctrine of Christianity on its head in his “The Triumph of the Will,” in which he exalted depraved human will to an altogether different level of human depravity. Which is to say that Hitler was so profoundly wrong that he proved Luther right.
But getting back to Obama’s profoundly anti-Christian concept of “collective salvation,” the Nazis would have been all over that, enthusiastically shouting their agreement, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!” Recall the encyclopedia entry on fascism stating that, “Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual,” which was then further defined as “collectivism.” And the Nazis repeatedly called upon loyal Germans to make horrendous sacrifices in the name of that collective.
What the Nazis pursued was a form of anti-capitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”
From the Nazi Party Platform:
– The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:
– Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
– In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
– We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
– We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
– We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
– We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
– We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
– We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
– We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
– The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
– The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
– We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
– We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
Ah, yes, the Nazis had their “Fairness Doctrine” long before this current generation of liberals had theirs.
You read that Nazi Party Platform carefully, and you tell me if you see small government conservative Republicans or big government liberal Democrats written all over it.
Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.
Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHO was recognized as fascist in America.
Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.
H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:
These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fascists of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”
H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”
It was from the lips of liberal progressive H.G. Wells that Jonah Goldberg got the title of his book, Liberal Fascism. Goldberg didn’t just invent this connection: H.G. Wells flagrantly admitted it and George Orwell called him on it. All Goldberg did was rediscover history that liberals buried and have used every trick imaginable to keep buried.
And as a tie-in to our modern day, who more than Barack Obama has been more associated with said FDR?
But let me move on to some real red meat. In just what specific, concrete ways can I call Obama a fascist?
Well, to begin with, there is the signature achievement of his entire presidency, his national health care system (ObamaCare). For liberals, it is nothing but the most bizarre coincidence that Nazi culture had a national health care system that was quite rightly considered the wonder of its day by socialists in America. It is the most despicable of insults that Sarah Palin excoriated ObamaCare as “death panels” – even though it is more precisely a bureaucratic maze consisting of more like 160 separate death panels:
And the “czar” thing hits a very fascist nerve, too. Obama has appointed 39 czars who are completely outside our Constitutional process. Obama signed a budget bill into law that required him to remove these czars, but why would a fascist trouble himself with outmoded things like “laws”? One of the enraged Republicans responded, “The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy.” And of course, he’s right.
But why do I say it’s financial fascism in 20/20 hindsight? Because of what we just learned: in spite of all the bogus lying promises and the massive takeover “for our own good,” Obama didn’t fix anything. Instead he made it WORSE:
The financial system poses an even greater risk to taxpayers than before the crisis, according to analysts at Standard & Poor’s. The next rescue could be about a trillion dollars costlier, the credit rating agency warned.
S&P put policymakers on notice, saying there’s “at least a one-in-three” chance that the U.S. government may lose its coveted AAA credit rating. Various risks could lead the agency to downgrade the Treasury’s credit worthiness, including policymakers’ penchant for rescuing bankers and traders from their failures.
“The potential for further extraordinary official assistance to large players in the U.S. financial sector poses a negative risk to the government’s credit rating,” S&P said in its Monday report.
But, the agency’s analysts warned, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.”
Because of the increased risk, S&P forecasts the potential initial cost to taxpayers of the next crisis cleanup to approach 34 percent of the nation’s annual economic output, or gross domestic product. In 2007, the agency’s analysts estimated it could cost 26 percent of GDP.
Last year, U.S. output neared $14.7 trillion, according to the Commerce Department. By S&P’s estimate, that means taxpayers could be hit with $5 trillion in costs in the event of another financial collapse.
Experts said that while the cost estimate seems unusually high, there’s little dispute that when the next crisis hits, it will not be anticipated — and it will likely hurt the economy more than the last financial crisis.
So much for the massive and unprecedented fascist government takeover.
Think last year’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue package was beaucoup bucks to spend bailing out the nation’s floundering financial system? That’s chump change compared to what the overall price tag could be, a government watchdog says.
The inspector general in charge of overseeing the Treasury Department’s bank-bailout program says the massive endeavor could end up costing taxpayers almost $24 trillion in a worst-case scenario. That’s more than six times President Obama’s proposed $3.55 trillion budget for 2010.
Nobody here but us fascists. And we sure aint talking.
Then there are other issues that the left usually uses to attack conservatives, such as racism. Wasn’t Hitler a racist, just like conservatives? The problem is, the liberals are as usual upside-down here. After running as the man to create racial harmony, Barack Obama has instead done more to racially polarize America than any president since other famous progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Frankly, if one were to conduct a major study of racial politics, and the setting up in opposition of one racial group against another, just which party has emphasized race and race-baiting more?
Hitler’s Jew-baiting was all about the idea that one race had taken over the culture, had the money and the power, and was using its influence to oppress the people in the banking system and anywhere else that mattered. And Hitler’s constant screed was that Germany needed to confiscate the Jews’ wealth and then redistribute it. With all respect, all the left has done is replace “Jew” with “Caucasian” and making the exact same claims.
And with all this hard-core racist demagoguing, I’m supposed to say that, “Oh, yes, it’s the conservatives who are guilty of demagoguing race”??? Seriously???
Obama has Samantha Powers (the wife of Cass Sunstein, the man who “nudges us”) close to him and advising him on matters of war. According to the very liberal publication The Nation, “She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.” What if you had an ultra conservative – oh, say a Sarah Palin – openly acknowledged to pursue war and risk American lives to advance her radical values??? What would the left call this if not “fascist”?
But it’s only fascist if Republicans do it, of course.
Also in yesterday’s news is the fact that Obama is the perpetual demagogue– which is a quintessentially fascist tactic. Obama demonized Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling until he needed to raise it. Now it would be un-American for Republicans to act the same exact way Obama acted. In the same demagogic spirit, Obama personally invited Paul Ryan to a speech just so he could personally demonize him. The same Obama who lectured Republicans that it would be counter-productive to rely on name-calling and accusations in the health care debate launched into a vicious demagogic attack. Ryan correctly said that “What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.” But that is par for the golf course for a fascist. If that wasn’t enough, Obama held a White House conference for “stake holders” in the immigration debate and refused to invite a single governor from a border state.
A Republican equivalent would have had to come out of a deep involvement with some vile racist militia organization to approximate Obama’s background. And liberals would rightly label such a politician a fascist for his past alone.
Here’s a recent Youtube video of Obama’s key union allies on camera saying, “We’re not going to rely on the law,” and, “Forget about the law” as they seek to impose their unions basically whether workers want them or not:
“The Universal is to be found in the State…The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth…We must therefore worship the State as the manifestation of the Divine on earth, and consider that, if it is difficult to comprehend Nature, it is harder to grasp the Essence of the State…the State is the march of God through the world…” — Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, as quoted in Popper, Karl R., The Open Society and its Enemies, 4th ed., 2 vols. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963, vol. 2, p. 31.
“…the State ‘has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State… for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'” Author/historian William Shirer, quoting Georg Hegel in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959, page 144).
Hegel, it probably doesn’t surprise you, was an important precursor to Marxism, in that he held that the State owned everything, and had all the prerogatives of God Almighty.
But that was also the view of the founder of the Progressive movement, Woodrow Wilson. As Wilson put it, the essence of Progressivism was that the individual “marry his interests to the state.” Jonah Goldberg noted that:
Wilson’s fascination with power is the leitmotif of his whole career. It informed his understanding of theology and politics, and their intersection. Power was God’s instrument on earth and therefore was always to be revered. In Congressional Government he admitted, “I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive” (Liberal Fascism, p. 84).
We also learn of the founder of the Progressive movement that:
“Wilson would later argue when he was president that he was the right hand of God and that to stand against him was to thwart divine will.” [And that] “He always took the side of power, believing that power accrued to whoever was truly on God’s side” [Liberal Fascism, p. 85]
“‘Government,’ Wilson wrote approvingly in The State, ‘does now whatever experience permits or the times demand'” (found in Liberal Fascism, p. 86, with footnote].
Jonah Golderg cites Woodrow Wilson from his unintentionally chilling essay, Leaders of Men:
“Only a very gross substance of concrete conception can make any impression on the minds of the masses. They must get their ideas very absolutely put, and are much readier to receive a half truth whcih they can promptly understand than a whole truth which has too many sides to be seen all at once. The competent leader of men cares little for the internal niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much – everything – for the external uses to which they may be put … He supplies the power; others supply only the materials upon which that power operates … It is the power which dictates, dominates; the materials yield. Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader” (Liberal Fascism, p. 89; from Woodrow Wilson, Leaders of Men, 1952, pp. 20, 25-26].
And Wilson argued, “we must demand that the individual shall be willing to lose the sense of personal achievement, and shall be intent to realize his activity only in connection to the activity of the many.”
“God” was useful to Wilson and his fellow progressives in order to seize dictatorial powers and advance the cause of a Government as God. But the atheist communists founded a system in which God was overthrown, and the State could assume His prerogatives unto itself. Modern progressives have likewise banished God out of government, but they still fiercely stand for “Government as God.” “God” may largely be gone from their arguments, but, like Woodrow Wilson and like the communists, their worship of power remains.
Right now, today, we are facing an incredibly important issue in this country which boils down to the following question: Do we own the state, or does the State own us?
Now, someone might argue, “No one’s debating that. Liberals aren’t arguing that ‘the State owns citizens.'”
And I would argue, “Really?” And then I’d hand off the ball to Brit Hume.
BAIER: Senior political analyst Brit Hume is here with some thoughts about what the debate over the soon to expire tax cuts really means.
Good evening, Brit.
BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Hi, Bret.
The running argument over extending the Bush tax cuts may come to nothing if Congress decides to go home in just three weeks, but it has been a revealing exchange nonetheless. The president’s call for extending the cuts for middle class taxpayers is an acknowledgment that President Bush did not just cut taxes for the rich as Democrats are fond of claiming. He cut them for all taxpayers.
Administration officials keep saying it’s a bad idea to keep the cuts in place for wealthier taxpayers because it would cost $700 billion in lost revenue over 10 years. What they don’t say is that keeping them for the middle class which they now support would cost about three times that much.
Still, the president’s position means he agrees with Republicans that raising people’s taxes in the midst of a flagging economy is a bad idea. But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.
This sense of the primacy of government is reflected in the high percentage of stimulus funds used to bail out broke localities and protect the jobs of government workers. Democrats are proving once again that they are indeed the party of government. Americans think government is important, too. They just don’t think financing it takes priority over all else — Bret.
BAIER: Brit, “The Washington Post” is reporting that top Democratic leaders want to rebrand the extension of the Bush tax cuts to call them the Obama tax cuts for the middle class. What about that?
HUME: Well, if we had sat here a year and a half ago and one of us had said to the other that Democrats at this stage would be wanting to rebrand the Bush tax cuts and continue them and call them the Obama tax cuts, we’d have both fallen out of our chairs laughing. These are people who opposed these tax cuts when they were passed. They now not only want to extend them or at least the largest piece of them, but they want to put Barack Obama’s name on it. Bret, it doesn’t get any better than this.
BAIER: All right. Brit, thank you.
I recently wrote an article that refutes the Democrat contention that tax cuts have to be “paid for” or “cost” the government. And Brit Hume points out – as I do – that the Democrats screaming about the $700 billion that the rich’s tax cut would cost the Treasury, while simultaneously calling for a tax cut for the middle class (which they vigorously opposed during George W. Bush’s presidency) that would cost the Treasury $3 TRILLION according to the same report. But in the above special commentary, Brit Hume destroys the very premise by which the Democrats argue that the tax cuts should be treated as a “cost” to the government at all. On what ethical basis should allowing people to keep more of the money that they earned be deemed a “cost” to the government?
Think of it this way. Suppose I believe that my next door neighbor’s property belongs to me, and allowing my neighbor to keep what I think is really mine is a cost to me. Our prison system is filled with people who think precisely that way. But is it true? Well, only if the entitlement mindset of coveting what others have accumulated is the way the world should work. In that case, what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine, too. Otherwise, if my neighbor’s property actually belongs to my neighbor, then no matter how much he works or how much he profits, it doesn’t cost me anything. And it would frankly be immoral of me to think otherwise.
Here’s another way to think of it, in the words of Chief Justice John Roberts:
“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath.”
But while it IS the oath, it is no longer the system. Rather, we have a system that has been perverted by judicial activism and by the politics of class envy and class warfare.
Then there’s the fact that even the wealthiest billionaire becomes “the little guy” when confronted by the power of government.
Watching the September 16th Larry Kudlow program on CNBC, I learned that China has ten times the growth of the United States, and that China has lower taxes than we have. Meanwhile, Democrats are using Marxist class warfare and redistributionist arguments to try to raise American taxes even higher. With all due respect, what should you call a party that is even more communist now than communist China?
So let me ask again: Does the government own all of my wealth, and allow me to keep some of it? Do I belong to my government, or does my government belong to me?
In Washington under the Democrats’ philosophy, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a “cost.” It’s “lost revenue” for the government. As if all the money we earn really belongs to the government in the first place and that what government allows us to keep amounts to a government expenditure. In this mindset, we are wading neck deep into the waters of Marxist collectivism, and the view of Government (big ‘G’) as being our God and as Savior.
The story of abusive big government is not a recent one. The prophet Samuel describes it in the Old Testament:
But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles. — 1 Samuel 8:19-20
Who are we really rejecting? God said to Samuel:
“…it is not you they have rejected, Samuel, but they have rejected me as their king.” — 1 Samuel 8:7
Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.” — 1 Samuel 8:10-18
The tenth of everything that God warned the people the king would take was on top of the tenth that belonged to God. Which is to say that the king would double their taxes in addition to treating the people like they belonged to him. Of course, that tyrant king was only seizing an additional tenth of his people’s wealth; imagine today, where in the highest-taxed states (which are all Democrat states, fwiw), some Americans are forced to pay more than half of their income in taxes. A mere extra tenth would be like a blessing to them.
From doubling our taxes to quintupling them; a good definition of “progressivism” is a political movement that is devoted to making things ever worse than they were before.
Tyranny is the kind of thing that creeps up on a people. It’s not like we have a “Tyrant Party” that promises more tyranny, and then we vote for them. Rather, tyranny is “progressive.” The wrong people, or people with the wrong worldview, gain power, and then they just seize more and more and more of our freedoms. Until we wake up and wonder what happened.
47% of Americans pay no federal income taxes at all today, while demanding that a smaller and smaller group of people pay an increasing share of taxes.
But mark my words: the same government that believes that it owns the wealth of the wealthiest will all too-soon understand that it owns your wealth, too. And that it has the right to take from you whatever it demands.
Why did Harry Reid say that? Well, as a progressive Democrat, Harry Reid understands the “white man’s burden.”
Harry Reid understands that blacks and Hispanics are little more than animals – millions of years’ worth of Darwinism from attaining the humanity of the white man. And therefore it is the duty of the white man to guide his less evolved evolutionary cousins toward a course that will enable them to survive. I mean, we have programs to protect turtles and frogs; it is the least we can do to protect blacks and Hispanics, too.
Most every progressive Democrat knows all that.
Second, Harry Reid, again as a progressive Democrat, understands the equivalent of “they all look alike”; namely that “those kind of people all think the same.” I mean, blacks’ and Hispanics’ minds are clearly far too feeble to enable them to think for themselves, right? I mean, that’s a big part of why we’ve got the “white man’s burden thing” above.
One day, millions of years from now if we’re lucky (you know how Darwinism takes eons of time), blacks and Hispanics will finally be fully human, and then we’ll be able to hold them responsible as human beings just like the white man. But Harry Reid knows that we’re far from that day in the here-and-now.
Now, of course, I put both ideas in over-the-top language. But they nevertheless do accurately reflect the incredibly racists underlying assumptions on the part of progressive Democrats today.
First, they lump people into groups on the basis of race and gender. And then they essentially point out that some of these groups are not able to take care of themselves, and therefore we must redistribute the wealth of the more successful groups in order to help the racial categories who are unable to help themselves (and of course to punish the successful groups, who are assumed to have acquired everything they obtained illegitimately or through greed).
Interestingly, in spite of my being white – or according to progressive Democrats BECAUSE of my white race – I am able to think for my self. I don’t “vote my race”; I vote my values. I vote my ideas. I vote my conscience. It is beyond a shame that blacks and Hispanics – according to the Democrat Senate Majority Leader – either don’t have or shouldn’t have that capacity.
Stop and think, liberals. What if a Republican had met a group of white people and said:
“I don’t know how anyone of Caucasian heritage could vote Democrat, OK? Do I need to say more?”
That Republican would have been hounded out of office in shame. And he would be gone.
But if the Democrat Party exists to advance the cause of blacks and Hispanics, then wouldn’t it be just as true that the Grand Old Party exists to advance the cause of some other racial group? And what group would that be if not whites?
Hey, every single one of you white, dirty cracker whores (at least, that’s what the New Black Panthers consider white women) out there: vote Republican, or be branded a traitor to your own race.
Now, of course, you run into the irony that it was that Grand Old Party that freed the slaves, and fought a bitter war to free the slaves against the Democrat Party that was fighting just as bitterly to keep black people in the chains of human bondage. But that’s beside the point in the Democrat narrative.
Harry Reid is also on the record admiring Obama as a:
Maybe it’s because Obama was half white, but Harry Reid nevertheless praises Obama for overcoming that stupid negro dialect. And being light-skinned is a huge bonus for Harry Reid. “Whiter is better” when you’re in the party of “the White Man’s Burden.”
Bill Clinton wasn’t quite as happy with the man who was stealing his white wife’s rightful place as leader of the free world.
I know, William Jefferson. That’s back when southern Democrats like you had a different way of keeping black boys in their proper place.
Senator Robert Byrd, a distinguished “Exalted Cyclops” and “Kleagle” of the famous Democrat-created Ku Klux Klan, was on the record as once saying:
“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
Ah. There’s that depiction of blacks as being in that long-way-from-being-human I earlier mentioned.
And:
“The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation.”
When Bill Clinton honored fellow Democrat Robert “Exalted Cyclops” Byrd, Clinton said:
“He was a country boy from the hills and hollows of West Virginia. He was trying to get elected. And maybe he did something he shouldn’t have done…”
Well, as long as he was just a Democrat trying to get elected, then ANY racism or racism is fine, isn’t it, Hill Billy?
Maybe he did something he shouldn’t have done. And then again, maybe he didn’t. After all, Byrd was a Democrat, and therefore can get away with the most shocking acts of racist filth imaginable, right, Hill Billy?
Democrats love to call Republicans “racist.” And what a racist thing of them to say (if not being “race traitorous,” if the Democrats are white – to throw Harry Reid’s standard back at them).
I pointed this out once before (and we could also point out that the Confederacy voted exclusively Democrat, and that the KKK was created by Democrats as a terrorist arm to target black people and white Republicans).
The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee by veterans of the Confederate Army. Although it never had an organizational structure above the local level, similar groups across the South adopted the name and methods. Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement after the war. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan reacted against Radical Republican control of Reconstructionby attempting to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871 the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes. Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing Republican voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to white conservative Democrats‘ regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.
I mean, maybe you can go back to President Andrew Jackson and his vicious genocidal Trail of Tears. But Andrew Jackson was a Democrat, too. Or you could go back to President Woodrow Wilson who literally fired all the blacks in federal government and RE-segregated the military. But you guessed it – Democrat. We can go back to January 26, 1922, when Democrat Senators filibustered a Republican bill that had passed in the GOP-controlled House to make lynching a federal crime. Or we could mention the vile and evil political party that had a national convention in 1924 that was so dominated by the Ku Klux Klan that it is today known as “Klanbake.” But, oops. That was the 1924 DEMOCRAT PARTY CONVENTION. Or we could consider that President Franklin Delanor Roosevelt was a bigger racist for put American Japanese citizens in camps for nothing beyond racism. Or for allowing the infamous Tuskegee experiment to begin under his presidency. Or allowing his New Deal program to be used to help Democrat-supporting labor unions hurt black people and shut them out of economic success. But, well, you know…So when you hear Democrats today like Patrick Kennedy comparing the Arizona with the Trail of Tears, note that they’re merely trying to pass the buck for their own Democrat historic racism to innocent Republicans. I mean, what Patrick Kennedy did was analogous to Osama bin Laden saying, “You Americans are the terrorists, just like the murderers who attacked and destroyed the World Trade Center!” But wait a minute, Osama – YOU’RE THE ONE WHO DID THAT!!!
The Democrats that once deliberately targeted racial minorities for exclusion and even violence as a means of advancing their political power ultimately realized that their strategy wasn’t working beginning in the 1960s. That was when they realized, “If you can’t beat ’em, co-opt them.” And they began to buy the votes of the very racial minorities they used to savagely oppress by offering racial quotas (opposed by great civil rights leaders such as Frederic Douglas and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) and welfare benefits for life.
So why was it that Democrat Senator Robert Byrd was “MAYBE” wrong for being a member of the Klan? The answer is as simple as it is frightening: because it’s always been okay for the Democrat Party to use racism and race-baiting and racial segregation in order to drive their agenda home. And that is just as true today when the Democrats buy off blacks through welfare so they will act as the human shields of the Democrat Party as it was when the Democrat-created Ku Klux Klan was riding around with torches.
Frederick Douglass ridiculed the idea of racial quotas, as suggested by Martin Delany, as “absurd as a matter of practice,” noting that it implied blacks “should constitute one-eighth of the poets, statesmen, scholars, authors and philosophers.” Douglass emphasized that “natural equality is a very different thing from practical equality; and…though men may be potentially equal, circumstances may for a time cause the most striking inequalities.” On another occasion, in opposing “special efforts” for the black freedmen, Douglass argued that they “might ‘serve to keep up very prejudices, which it is so desirable to banish’ by promoting an image of blacks as privileged wards of the state.”
So now conservatives are suddenly racists for agreeing with Frederick Douglas and Martin Luther King, Jr. and against liberals and the vile pseudo values that the greatest civil rights leaders in history condemned?
Richard Nixon, whom Democrats love to make the poster boy for Republican racism, was the first president to introduce the racial quotas that Democrats have been trying to implement and expand ever since. To whatever extent Nixon was a racist, Democrats have been swimming in Nixon’s racism ever since.
Harry Reid should have resigned in disgrace two vile comments ago. He should certainly resign now.
It was the late 1980s, and I experienced something that will probably puzzle me for the rest of my life on this earth.
I had ordered “Blazer Cable” so that I could see the Portland Trailblazer home games. And in order to help pay for it – and to make it more fun to watch – I got a few friends to go in on it with me.
One night, one of my friends brought one of his friends over on a night when the Blazers were playing the Chicago Bulls. I thought the guy had some faulty wiring from about the moment I met him, but, what they hey.
In any event, to get to the point, at some point during the game my friend’s friend was sitting on the couch alone with me (everybody else was either in the kitchen or in the bathroom, as it was halftime). They were interviewing Michael Jordan. And he looked over at me and said, “Would you trade places with Michael Jordan?”
This was like the stupidest questions I had ever heard, and I’ve heard quite a few stupid questions.
“Of course I would,” I said. I mean, duh. Michael Jordan was strikingly handsome, he was filthy rich, he was incredibly successful, and he was one of the best athletes in the history of the human race. And I wouldn’t want to trade places with him why, exactly?
Then came the only possible answer.
My friend’s friend starting giggling. I can’t really call it laughing.
“What the hell is so funny?” I asked.
“You’d trade places with a black guy,” he said, still giggling.
Well, yeah. I waited to hear the cross-eyed albino boy start playing a banjo.
At the time, I was too astonished to be angry at the guy. It was like encountering someone who – in spite of massive evidence to the contrary – believed he was invisible to the human eye.
I’ve thought about that few second encounter a number of times since. It still amazes me to this very day. How can somebody possibly get that stupid?
In the years before that moment, and since then, I had known some black men who were total turds. And I have known some black men whom I regarded as having superior character to my own.
Lumping people into racial groups and then judging people on the basis of the color of their skin is every bit as stupid as not wanting to change places with Michael Jordan simply “because he’s black.” But I see it being done all the time these days. By the left.
I was raised to regard character, intelligence, virtue, attitude and attractiveness of personality as the qualities that determined the value of a person. It had never even occurred to me to think that the color of one’s skin made on more or less valuable.
I was also raised to want to continue to improve myself. I was raised to want to become a better human being, to improve my station in, and my quality of, life.
I think that’s why I react so viscerally to the racial attitude inherent in modern liberalism. To pit people against each other on the basis of color and bigotry, and to label white people as being evil and somehow complicit in some kind of white power structure is bad enough. But it goes beyond that.
It’s self-taught, self-limiting perpetual victimhood. It’s providing a class of people with a ready-made excuse for failure; it’s discouraging them from even really bothering to try, and rewarding them for not trying; it’s an evil exchange in which one accepts all kinds of control over their lives in exchange for destructive and cancerous welfare; it’s wallowing in an attitude of bitterness and even self-loathing that dooms one to a life of misery. It is a guaranteed perpetuation of failure.
It is a completely alien worldview to me. Every bit as much as that idiot who wouldn’t trade places with Michael Jordan “because he’s black.”
I made the earlier comment that I’ve met black men whom I regarded as being superior to me in the thing that I value most – character. They were examples to me, and as a result of their friendship, I became a better person. I’ve also known a number of white men whose superior character helped me advance in my own life. The point is that you desire excellence, and you take it wherever you can find it.
I have a feeling that Pastor C.L. Bryant would be one of those men, were I fortunate enough to know him.
Slavery, Courtesy Of Liberals Everywhere
July 27th, 2010
Comedian Eddie Murphy once joked that Lincoln forgot to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, and that people should go out and claim their slaves. I’m here to tell you that the Democratic Party took that request seriously and have claimed their slaves.
When 98 percent of African-Americans vote Democrat, that tells me that they are psychological and economic slaves to a Party that structures its fiscal policy to keep the black man down.
Welfare policy, government-forced affirmative action, reduced testing requirements for minorities…these are all things that don’t serve to elevate people to greatness, rather, they keep people down.
This video is a movie trailer about a man who proposes that these slaves to the liberals run away from the slave plantation that liberals have created. Its creator, Pastor C.L. Bryant, holds an honest discussion about black conservatives in America. Quote the man, “Run away from the slavery of tyranny toward the blessings of liberty!” Check it out:
David Horowitz rightly calls African-Americans “the human shields of the Democrat Party.” It simply a fact of history that modern African-Americans have come hat-in-hand to the Party of Slavery, and the Party of the Ku Klux Klan.
Even the left-leaning historian Eric Foner observed that:
“In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life” (Foner 1989, p. 425–426).
Let us never forget that Democrats were the party of slavery. And that Democrats were the creators of the Ku Klux Klan. It literally took a war in which Democrats had to be militarily crushed to keep them from enslaving people based on the color of their skin. And thank God for the Republican Party and a Republican president for freeing the slaves from Democrats. Let’s not forget that Woodrow Wilson – Democrat president and the father of the progressive movement – RE-segregated the military after Republicans had DE-segregated it. Let us not forget that Wilson cheered the racist propaganda film “Birth of a Nation.” Let us never forget that the national party convention that was so directly tied to the Ku Klux Klan that it was called the “Klanbake” was the 1924 DEMOCRAT convention. Let’s not forget that FDR’s New Deal directly attacked blacks and kept them from getting jobs.
Few have bothered to learn the Democrat Party’s profound legacy of racism. Or the Republican Party’s history of standing up to protect the rights, freedoms and dignities of black Americans.
As we move into the 1950s we find that a Democrat Governor, Orval Faubus, called out the National Guard in 1957 to prevent black children being integrated into white schools. And again, a Republican president had to rise to the occasion, with Dwight D. Eisenhower sending in US Army airborne troops to enforce racial equality that had once again been opposed by Democrats. And of course Alabama Democrat Governor George Wallace would fight for racist segregation all over again in 1963. It was Democrat John F. Kennedy who sent in the troops this time. But few are aware that that same John Kennedy had previously voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act.
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Frederick Douglas BOTH fundamentally opposed the quotas and preferential treatment that liberals have employed to create the equivalent of the Democrat “house negro.” Jack Greenberg of the NAACP said in the 1950s that “The chief problem with quotas is that they introduce a potentially retrogressive concept into the cherished notion of individual equality.” But it is readily obvious today that the NAACP has fallen far from it’s roots.
Frederick Douglass ridiculed the idea of racial quotas, as suggested by Martin Delany, as “absurd as a matter of practice,” noting that it implied blacks “should constitute one-eighth of the poets, statesmen, scholars, authors and philosophers.” Douglass emphasized that “natural equality is a very different thing from practical equality; and…though men may be potentially equal, circumstances may for a time cause the most striking inequalities.”77 On another occasion, in opposing “special efforts” for the black freedmen, Douglass argued that they “might ‘serve to keep up very prejudices, which it is so desirable to banish’ by promoting an image of blacks as privileged wards of the state.”
So now conservatives are suddenly racists for agreeing with Frederick Douglas and Martin Luther King, Jr. and against liberals and the vile pseudo values that the greatest civil rights leaders in history condemned?
Richard Nixon, whom Democrats love to make the poster boy for “Republican racism,” was in fact the first president to introduce the racial quotas that Democrats have been trying to implement and expand ever since. Which is to say that, if you want to argue that Nixon was a racist, Democrats have been baptizing themselves in Nixon’s racism ever since. And if Nixon employed a racially immoral strategy to win whites, the Democrat Party has employed the flip-side of that same immoral strategy to win blacks.
Liberals are biblical – and never in a good way:
PSA 52:3 You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right.
MIC 3:2 “You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones
There are men and women of basic virtue in every race, and even every creed. The problem is that there are fewer and fewer of these, while the men and women of apathy, degeneration and self-centeredness abound.
Slavery is a terrible thing. But it is even worse when one willingly applies the shackles to his or her own wrists and ankles and demands the right to a government-imposed easy way out, in pathetic contrast to the principle from an Aesop fable, “Better to starve free than be a fat slave.”
This case of voter rights abuse was already won, and all that remained was the sentencing. And then suddenly – at the last moment – someone under Obama-appointed Attorney General Eric Holder came in and dropped all charges.
New Black Panther leader Samir Shabazz stood outside the door of a voting location clad in a threatening uniform and bearing a police-style baton. Several witnesses testified that he made a number of threatening racially-charged references.
He’s not guilty in Obama’s hopey-changey America. Because overt acts of racism are fine, as long as the perpetrator is black and the victims are white.
Here’s the current hero of liberalism:
Here’s the new political correctness:
SHABAZZ: I hate white people. All of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate him! You want freedom? You’re going to have to kill some crackers! You’re going to have kill some of their babies.
Samir: We didn’t come out here to play. There is to much serious business going on in your black community to be sliding through south street with white, dirty cracker whores on your arms. What’s a matter with you black man, you got a doomsday with a white woman on your arm.
……
“We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we’re not free. Your enemy can not make you free fool. You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies.
Let us get our act together. It’s time to wake up, clean up, and stand up.”
“I can’t wait for the day that they’re all dead. I won’t be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead.”
“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”
“We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.”
That’s pretty much what the Democrat Party stands for under the Barack Hussein regime.
That’s what Shabazz says outside the voter site. What did he say inside? According to several witnesses:
Witnesses described an ugly scene: Two members of the New Black Panther Party threatening white voters the day Barack Obama was elected president, flinging insults like “white devil” and “you’re about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”
Like I said; that was why the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department had this guy so dead to rights. Until the Obama administration – due to political partisanship, leftist ideology, and racism of its own – dismissed the case.
Not that it’s just Barry Hussein. We’ve got the racism of Bill Clinton who said of black man Obama, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.” And clearly wishing for those good old days, so that his wife could win the Democrat nomination. More recently, Bill Clinton – the former leader of the Democrat Party – said of former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle and “pillar of the Senate”, said:
“They mention that he once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan, and what does that mean? I’ll tell you what it means,” Clinton said. “He was a country boy from the hills and hollows of West Virginia. He was trying to get elected. And maybe he did something he shouldn’t have done…”
Byrd wasn’t a “fleeting member” of the Ku Klux Klan any more than Kobe Bryant is a “fleeting member” of the Los Angeles Lakers. Former Exalted Cyclops and Kleagle Byrd wrote:
“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
He wrote:
“The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation.”
He personally filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act on behalf of the Klan when he was nearing fifty years old.
So why was it that Democrat Senator Robert Byrd was “MAYBE” wrong for being a member of the Klan? The answer is as simple as it is frightening: because it’s always been okay for the Democrat Party to use racism and race-baiting and racial segregation in order to drive their agenda home. And that is just as true today when the Democrats buy off blacks through welfare so they will act as the human shields of the Democrat Party as it was when the Democrat-created Ku Klux Klan was riding around with torches.
Well, just thank God that the Obama administration which looks down so magnanimously on hard-core black against white racism is so on the ball when it comes to attacking the decent citizens of Arizona.
So it’s a slam dunk for Democrats to demagogue white people in Arizona, and simply assume that white cops will act stupidly there, too. Their skins are white, ergo sum they are racist and evil; what more evidence do you need?
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s comments can be dismissed. After all, she is what Obama-supporter in good standing Samir Shabazz describes as a “white, dirty cracker whore”:
“It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels,” Brewer said in a written statement. “Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice. Today’s filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds.”
[Note: I supplied the above link to illustrate the sheer insanity that Arizona faces from the most racist and most demagogic administration in American history]. I mean, maybe you can go back to President Andrew Jackson and his vicious genocidal Trail of Tears. But Andrew Jackson was a Democrat, too. Or you could go back to President Woodrow Wilson who literally fired all the blacks in federal government and RE-segregated the military. But you guessed it – Democrat. We can go back to January 26, 1922, when Democrat Senators filibustered a Republican bill that had passed in the GOP-controlled House to make lynching a federal crime. Or we could mention the vile and evil political party that had a national convention in 1924 that was so dominated by the Ku Klux Klan that it is today known as “Klanbake.” But, oops. That was the 1924 DEMOCRAT PARTY CONVENTION. Or we could consider that President Franklin Delanor Roosevelt was a bigger racist for put American Japanese citizens in camps for nothing beyond racism. Or for allowing the infamous Tuskegee experiment to begin under his presidency. Or allowing his New Deal program to be used to help Democrat-supporting labor unions hurt black people and shut them out of economic success. But, well, you know…
So when you hear Democrats today like Patrick Kennedy comparing the Arizona with the Trail of Tears, note that they’re merely trying to pass the buck for their own Democrat historic racism to innocent Republicans. I mean, what Patrick Kennedy did was analogous to Osama bin Laden saying, “You Americans are the terrorists, just like the murderers who attacked and destroyed the World Trade Center!” But wait a minute, Osama – YOU’RE THE ONE WHO DID THAT!!!
Obama has joined with Mexico in waging legal war on an American state of the union. For what act of racism? Arizona had the gall to write a law identical to the federal law so that they could make what was already a federal crime a state crime. If that isn’t racism, I don’t know what is.
When they had massive evidence of black-on-white, leftwing racism, they did nothing.
That’s why I can call Obama the “Racist-in-Chief” and be completely accurate.
Barack Obama is a “Jeremiah Wright Democrat.” Which means he is a racist bigot who has always undermined REAL civil rights reform by real civil rights leaders such as Frederic Douglas and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
“It was always about becoming white . . . to master what [they] do.”
I’m a believer in the message of Dr. Martin Luther King, and to the message of Frederic Douglas. Which is why I’m so dead-set opposed to the Democrat Party and the pseudo “civil rights” movement they fabricated.
From the family photo album: you can call it “Obama with his uncle,” or “Obama with his spiritual mentor,” or “Obama with his pastor for more than 20 years.” I prefer to title it, “Racist-in-Chief Poses With His Guru.”
Jeremiah Wright is Barack Obama’s guru in Marxism and racism.
No human being of principle or virtue would have spent 20 seconds in Jeremiah Wright’s demonic cesspool. Barack Obama spent 20 years there. He asked Jeremiah Wright to marry him to Michelle. He raised his children under this evil man.
From the New York Post:
Obama’s race-rant Rev. rages on ‘White folk done took this country’
By MAUREEN CALLAHAN
Last Updated: 5:00 PM, June 27, 2010
CHICAGO — He’s been keeping such a low profile since nearly derailing Barack Obama’s campaign for president in 2008 — is it possible that the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright has mellowed?
Hardly.
During a five-day seminar Wright taught last week in Chicago, he was back at it, claiming that whites and Jews are controlling the flow of worldwide information and oppressing blacks in Israel and America.
“White folk done took this country,” Wright said. “You’re in their home, and they’re gonna let you know it.”
The course, advertised as focusing on politics and public policy in South Africa and America, was taught in a small, ground-floor room at the Chicago Theological Seminary, where Wright’s voice echoed out an open window. The class was composed of about 15 to 20 students, mainly older African-American women who would arrive early and giddily linger during lunch breaks and after class, looking for the reverend’s attention. (The course cost a little over $1,000 if taken for college credit and $300 if taken without.)
The absence of young people was telling: The lectures seemed ossified, relics of a pre-civil-rights America — a point that Obama himself made during his famous speech on race in March 2008, prompted by the incendiary comments (“God damn America!”) made by his former pastor and mentor.
“Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect,” Obama said.
Yet during this course — which was described as asking, “What is the response and public witness of persons of faith to ongoing developments in both countries?” — Wright made many statements about what he believes are the true aims of whites and Jews.
“You are not now, nor have you ever been, nor will you ever be a brother to white folk,” he said. “And if you do not realize that, you are in serious trouble.”
He cited the writings of Bill Jones — author of the book “Is God a White Racist?” — as proof that white people cannot be trusted. “Bill said, ‘They just killed four of their own at Kent State. They’ll step on you like a cockroach and keep on movin’, cause you not a brother to them.’ ”
Wright referred to Italians as “Mamma Luigi” and “pizzeria.” He said the educational system in America is designed by whites to miseducate blacks “not by benign neglect but by malignant intent.”
He said Ethiopian Jews are despised by white Jews: “And now the Knesset [Israeli parliament] is meeting with European Jews, voting on whether or not these African Jews can get into [Israel].”
The civil-rights movement, Wright said, was never about racial equality: “It was always about becoming white . . . to master what [they] do.” Martin Luther King, he said, was misguided for advocating nonviolence among his people, “born in the oven of America.”
“We probably have more African-Americans who’ve been brainwashed than we have South Africans who’ve been brainwashed,” he said, and seemed to allude to President Obama twice: “Unfortunately, I got in trouble with a fella for saying this . . . All your commentaries are written by oppressors.” At the mention of Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan — whom Obama disavowed during the campaign — black leaders “go cuttin’ and duckin’,” he said.
In March, Wright told The Washington Post that he expects to speak to Obama again, when “he is out of the White House.” Last June, he told a Virginia newspaper that the only reason he and the president were not speaking at the moment is that “them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me.”
From 1972 until May 2008, Wright served as pastor of Trinity United Church of Chicago, located in a rough area of the city’s South Side. Today, he is “pastor emeritus” and identified as such on the rugs that line the doorways at Trinity.
Until very recently, Wright lived with his wife and children in a nearby two-story house, in a more affluent subdivision surrounded by roadblocks; the line between rich and poor is literal. His former neighbors all say he kept to himself.
A few months ago, Wright and his family moved into a brand-new million-dollar home located near a golf course and made of stone with a recessed doorway surrounded by pillars. It’s the only house on a cul-de-sac. Records show it was sold by Trinity United Church to a company called ATG Trust and paid for in cash.
Since leaving Trinity, Wright has traveled the country, preaching and lecturing. He said he’s been working “all year long” with Trinity’s preschool program and called US Education Secretary Arne Duncan a disaster. Duncan, a former college basketball star, was given the job only because Obama enjoys his “good jump shot in the back yard,” Wright said.
Wright gives interviews intermittently but declined to speak to The Post. He recently headlined a two-day “men’s empowerment revival” in Florida but in mixed company is careful not to say anything racist or inflammatory.
The most he had to say about the African-American experience that day was “God is working on your behalf.”
You look at the anti-Semitic race hatred of Barack Obama, as epitomized in the words of his mentor and spiritual leader for over 20 years, and then you have this result in Obama’s policy:
TEL AVIV – Israeli-US relations have undergone a huge shift amounting to what Israel’s ambassador to Washington has termed “a genuine tectonic rift,” media reports said on Sunday.
Briefing officials at the foreign ministry last week, ambassador Michael Oren described the state of ties between Israel and its closest ally as worse than a crisis, something akin to that of two continents drifting apart.
According to one diplomat quoted by the Haaretz daily, Oren used bleak terms to explain the changes which have taken place under the administration of US President Barack Obama.
“Relations are in the state of a tectonic rift in which continents are drifting apart,” Oren was quoted as saying by the diplomat.
Another diplomat who spoke to the top-selling Yediot Aharonot daily said there had been an historic change in Washington’s approach to Israel.
“There is no crisis in Israel-US relations because in a crisis there are ups and downs,” he quoted Oren as saying.
Both papers quoted Oren as attributing the shift in sentiment to “interests and cold considerations” by Obama who did not have the same historical-ideological bent towards Israel as his predecessors.
We’ve got a crystal clear trend emerging from Jeremiah Wright to the coldest and most hostile relationship with Israel in the history of US-Israeli relations consisting of both Democrat and Republican administrations.
Obama promised he would transcend racial and political divides. He lied.
Liberals looked at Obama and saw nothing but whatever the lying rhetoric of the moment was, but this is what I saw: Barack Obama’s “value system” from his church of 23 years:
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.
I would have similarly boldfaced the word “white,” but alas, it never managed to appear as a group that Obama’s church of 23 years gave a damn about. No Asians, Indians, Arabs, etc either, I couldn’t help but notice.
Black civil right leaders of today despise the movement that registered Republican Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. envisioned. They pay lip service to it, of course, because they have to, but in their heart of hearts, it’s all about “becoming white” to them.
Men like this talk about racism, when they themselves are racist to their very cores.
Let us never forget that Democrats were the party of slavery. And that Democrats were the creators of the Ku Klux Klan. It literally took a war in which Democrats had to be militarily crushed to keep them from enslaving people based on the color of their skin. And thank God for the Republican Party and a Republican president for freeing the slaves from Democrats. Let’s not forget that Woodrow Wilson – Democrat president and the father of the progressive movement – RE-segregated the military after Republicans had DE-segregated it. Let us not forget that Wilson cheered the racist propaganda film “Birth of a Nation.” Let us never forget that the national party convention that was so directly tied to the Ku Klux Klan that it was called the “Klanbake” was the 1924 DEMOCRAT convention. Let’s not forget that FDR’s New Deal directly attacked blacks and kept them from getting jobs.
As we move into the 1950s we find that a Democrat Governor, Orval Faubus, called out the National Guard in 1957 to prevent black children being integrated into white schools. And again, a Republican president had to rise to the occasion, with Dwight D. Eisenhower sending in US Army airborne troops to enforce racial equality that had once again been opposed by Democrats. And of course Alabama Democrat Governor George Wallace would fight for racist segregation all over again in 1963. It was Democrat John F. Kennedy who sent in the troops this time. But that same John Kennedy had previously voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act.
Frederick Douglass ridiculed the idea of racial quotas, as suggested by Martin Delany, as “absurd as a matter of practice,” noting that it implied blacks “should constitute one-eighth of the poets, statesmen, scholars, authors and philosophers.” Douglass emphasized that “natural equality is a very different thing from practical equality; and…though men may be potentially equal, circumstances may for a time cause the most striking inequalities.”77 On another occasion, in opposing “special efforts” for the black freedmen, Douglass argued that they “might ‘serve to keep up very prejudices, which it is so desirable to banish’ by promoting an image of blacks as privileged wards of the state.”
So now conservatives are suddenly racists for agreeing with Frederick Douglas and Martin Luther King, Jr. and against liberals and the vile pseudo values that the greatest civil rights leaders in history condemned?
Richard Nixon, whom Democrats love to make the poster boy for Republican racism, was the first president to introduce the racial quotas that Democrats have been trying to implement and expand ever since. Democrats have been swimming in Nixon’s racism ever since.
Liberals are biblical – and never in a good way:
PSA 52:3 You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right.
MIC 3:2 “You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones
Barack Obama chose as his spiritual mentor a man who is every bit as racist as any Exalted Cyclops or Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan. You don’t willingly place yourself in the hard-core racist environment of a Jeremiah Wright unless you are pretty damn racist yourself.
On Friday May 27, at the White House Jewish Heritage Celebration, Helen Thomas, the “Dean” of the White House Press Corps, answered a journalist’s request for an opinion on Israel:
“Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land…not German and not Poland.”
“So, where should they go?”
“Go home. Poland, Germany.”
“So, you think the Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?”
“And America and everywhere else.”
How is saying, “Tell all the Mexicans (whether legal or illegal) to get the hell out of America and go back to Mexico,” or, “Tell all the blacks to get the hell out of America and go back to Africa”???
And go back to Germany? Doesn’t Helen Thomas realize what she’s saying? “Go back to the country that only recently tried to exterminate your entire race as though they were vermin”? That event occurred within your lifetime, Helen. I mean, how dare you???
Helen Thomas: I’m a liberal, I was born a liberal, I’ll be one ’til I die, what else should a reporter be when you see so much and when we have such great privilege and access to the truth?
I don’t know. Maybe “objective” would have been nice.
Being a liberal journalist basically means being a propagandist and an ideologue for the left, unfortunately. It also means thinking oneself an “intellectual” – the “privileged” intelligentsia class which alone has “access to the truth.”
Thomas Sowell described the destruction their kind has done:
“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people were free to say whatever they wished. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.
Nazism was always a creature and creation of the left. They didn’t call themselves the “National Socialist German Workers Party” for nothing. Nazism and Darwinian theory went hand in hand as the Nazis delved deep into American Progressive-born eugenics. Margaret Sanger – founder of Planned Parenthood and Nazi-sympathizer – strategically used abortion and birth control to weed out “racially inferior” peoples such as blacks and Jews.
Of this effort, liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said:
“Frankly I had thought that at that time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of” — 7/2/09 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
It was Woodrow Wilson, “the father of the Progressive movement,” who RE-segregated the military, and who purged every single black from the federal government save a single “token negro.”
And now we’ve got Helen Thomas “on the record” being the useful idiot for the side of murder and totalitarian evil yet again – this time siding with the Islamic jihadist murderers who want to exterminate Israel and kill all the Jews just for being Jews.
Liberal progressives have done incredible damage throughout 20th century history; but they never seem to pay for it, because they’re the ones who get to “write the history.”
If you want to know what an idea looks like, it is a good idea to look for some examples of that thing in action.
Take “progressivism” or “liberalism,” for instance (please! as the old comic’s joke goes).
What do these people think? What are they about? What is their vision for the future, and for this country? What do they want to do?
Well, why not ask Tom Hanks and Sean Penn, both famed Oscar-winning Hollywood liberals in good standing.
Let’s start with Sean Penn. That way we can get rid of him faster.
Sean Penn, speaking about Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, said:
“Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And this is mainstream media. There should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.”
Well, what SHOULD we think about Hugo Chavez? Let’s find out.
From May 2007:
CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuelan troops have seized an anti-government television channel’s broadcast equipment, the station said on Sunday, ahead of a controversial midnight EDT/0400 GMT takeover by President Hugo Chavez that will take the broadcaster off the air.
Chavez sparked international criticism with his decision to not renew RCTV’s license and to replace Venezuela’s most-watched channel with a state-backed network that will promote the values of his self-styled socialist revolution.
From November 2008 in the New York Review of Books:
On September 18, we released a report in Caracas that shows how President Hugo Chávez has undermined human rights guarantees in Venezuela. That night, we returned to our hotel and found around twenty Venezuelan security agents, some armed and in military uniform, awaiting us outside our rooms. They were accompanied by a man who announced—with no apparent sense of irony—that he was a government “human rights” official and that we were being expelled from the country.
From July 2009 from the Human Rights Watch (which also includes numerous Venezuelan human rights violations):
The Venezuelan government has adopted and proposed measures that reduce the ability of government critics to voice their opinions and will seriously limit freedom of expression in Venezuela.
Thirteen channels ordered to be closed by the Venezuelan government went off the air on Saturday and more than 200 are expected to close in coming weeks.
The government broadcasting watchdog, Conatel, said that 34 radio outlets would be closed because they failed to comply with regulations.
However, critics claimed the crackdown infringed on freedom of speech and hundreds of protesters demonstrated in Caracas against the closures.
According to the U.S. State Department and other official government sources, the Venezuelan government has been guilty of numerous human rights violations under Chavez’s rule.
“Politicization of the judiciary and official harassment of the political opposition and the media characterized the human rights situation during the year,” said the State Department’s Country Report on Human Rights in Venezuela for 2008 that was released last month.
The report credits the Chavez regime with unlawful killings, arbitrary arrests and detention, discrimination based on political grounds, widespread corruption at all levels of government, official intimidation and attacks on the independent media.
“According to HRW [Human Rights Watch], ‘Government officials have removed scores of detractors from the career civil service, purged dissidents employees from the national oil company, denied citizens access to social programs based on their political opinions, and denounced critics as subversives deserving of discriminatory treatment,” says the State Department report.
A recent report by the Congressional Research Service also outlined human rights concerns in Chavez’s Venezuela.
“Under the populist rule of President Hugo Chavez … Venezuela has undergone enormous political changes, with a new constitution and unicameral legislature, and a new name for the country, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,” states a Feb. 5, 2009 CRS report.
“U.S. officials and human rights organizations have expressed concerns about the deterioration of democratic institutions,” the report adds, “and threats to freedom of expression under President Chavez, who has survived several attempts to remove him from power.”
CHAVEZ: “Yes, we are indoctrinating the children from the first grade through college, every grade, private schools. The ideology of the revolution! The ideology of socialism! Our ideology.”
So Hugo Chavez is a dictator and a thug who is without any doubt suppressing freedom of speech and other human rights in his country. And if I may now refresh your memory about Sean Penn’s view of the man:
Sean Penn has defended Hugo Chávez as a model democrat and said those who call him a dictator should be jailed.
The Oscar-winning actor and political activist accused the US media of smearing Venezuela’s socialist president and called for journalists to be punished.
“Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And this is mainstream media. There should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.”
This one’s pretty easy. Sean Penn demonizes the press for smearing a dictator by calling him a “dictator.” And proceeds to argue that journalists who report the truth about Chavez be jailed.
Which is, of course, precisely what a dictator would do, isn’t it???
You see, Hugo Chavez is a dictator and thug; but he is a LEFTWING dictator and thug (just as most dictatorial thugs almost always are).
Let’s go back to Woodrow Wilson, the father of the progressive movement. In his unintentionally chilling essay, “Leaders of Men,” Wilson wrote:
The competent leader of men cares little for the interior niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much – everything – for the external uses to which they may be put. His will seeks the lines of least resistance; but the whole question with him is a question as to the application of force. There are men to be moved: how shall he move them? He supplies the power; others supply only the materials upon which that power operates… It is the power which dictates, dominates; the materials yield. Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader.
On Wilson’s elitist view, American citizens truly ARE as clay. They are incapable of understanding anything remotely complex. And therefore the half-truths (which very often amount to whole lies) of the skillful demagogue become justified:
only a very gross substance of concrete conception can make any impression on the minds of the masses; they must get their ideas very absolutely put, and are much readier to receive a half-truth which they can understand than a whole truth which has too many sides to be seen all at once.
And how did the father of the progressive movement – who viewed men as uncomprehending clay waiting to be shaped by the half-truths of the skillful demagogue – view the Constitution? Wilson wrote:
Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws
And uncomprehending clay men do not particularly deserve the inalienable rights bestowed upon them by a Constitution which itself is of little actual value. Thus the father of the progressive movement wrote:
No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle.
And what should be the limitations of power on the government Leviathan – which could easily be stripped of its limiting Constitution – over uncomprehending and infinitely malleable men of clay? In The State, Wilson said that:
“Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand.”
Conservatives favor limited government with limited and well-defined powers. Which is the exact OPPOSITE of fascistic totalitarian governments. When you start demanding bigger and bigger and more activistic and socialist government, you begin meandering over to fascist land.
Thus you should understand why it shouldn’t be surprising that Sean Penn and Danny Glover should think this way about Hugo Chavez. Chavez is the Great Leader who shapes stupid clay men with his skillful demagoguery; and thus woe be unto any who seek to get in his way.
And, good news for progressives, the magnificent Hugo Chavez’s socialist revolution is coming to America in the form of Barack Hussein Obama:
(CNSNews.com) – Inspired by his meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama at the Americas Summit, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez declared on Sunday that Venezuelan socialism has begun to reach the United States under the Obama administration.
And it’s completely reasonable that Chavez would think this way about Obama. After all, the American president who did nothing while the Venezuelan dictator nationalized U.S. businesses has done plenty of nationalizing himself. Which prompted Hugo Chavez to point out:
CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday that he and Cuban ally Fidel Castro risk being more conservative than U.S. President Barack Obama as Washington prepares to take control of General Motors Corp.
“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.
[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”
[…]
“In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.
“The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government– worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.
And we’ve had complaints about this ever since.”
“Complaints,” of course, which bother genuine progressives such as Sean Penn and Obama’s diversity czar Mark Lloyd. Which is why they think that “complainers” should be thrown in jail.
The left loves – and even worships as a surrogate for God – big government, and seemingly the bigger the better. And of course, the very biggest governments, the ones that can control the populations and guide their nations to the next socialist Utopia, invariably are or descend into totalitarian regimes.
It’s not that Sean Penn is stupid for his views. Sean Penn is accurately explaining his progressive philosophy. He is not a politician who needs your vote, so he can be honest. And as a multi-millionaire celebrity, he epitomizes the mindset of progressivism: that the peon clay masses are ignorant and need to be ruled over, and that they should surrender their wills and allow the government of their superiors to do whatever they think is best. And who better than an elitist Hollywood celebrity to explain why the more than 300 million Americans constituting the lower classes are like maggots crawling across the landscape, and that they should be compelled to shut up and do as their betters tell them?
So let us be rid of Sean Penn and introduce ourselves to the “wisdom” of Tom Hanks. Recently – in acquainting America with the 10 part HBO series on World War II he took part in – had this to say:
“Back in World War II,” he told Brinkley, “we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?” In a separate interview, Hanks referred to the war in the Pacific as one of “racism and terror.”
Damn racist American bastards. They were called “the greatest generation”; the generation that rose up from the ashes of the Great Depression to defeat the greatest evil the world has ever seen. But you and Tom Hanks know the truth, don’t you: they were just a bunch of racists. The vicious cheap-shot sneak attack at Pearl Harbor didn’t have anything to do with our going to war against Japan. Heck, in the spirit of the modern “truthers” who claim that Bush bombed the World Trade Center, FDR probably sent in American planes painted to look like Japanese Zeroes.
Stupid unAmerican fool. We didn’t want to annihilate the Japanese “because they were different.” We were forced to annihilate them because they were utterly fanatic and refused to surrender. We were forced to annihilate them because they started a war of annihilation and wouldn’t stop. Tom Hanks is too ignorant and too much an ideologue to consider the Rape of Nanking, or the Bataan Death March, or the Banzai charges, or the first suicide bombers known as the Kamikaze. I’d like to see Tom Hanks take part in a movie about the monstrous and utterly despicable Unit 731.
If Tom Hanks wasn’t a complete moral idiot, he would simply realize that Japan attacked us without provocation with a vengeance, and the United States of America responded with a vengeance. Just as they would have done had their attackers had white skin and round eyes.
And when Tom Hanks asks, “Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?” he is not content to label the greatest generation as a bunch of racist warmongers; no, he seeks to do the same thing to our great warriors who are protecting us today.
Why are we fighting against Islamic jihadism? Because they’re “different,” as Tom Hanks maintains? How about because they attacked us in vicious act of war that left 3,000 innocent civilians murdered? Maybe THAT had something to do with it?
Contrary to being “racists,” our soldiers today are operating with a level of restraint against an utterly despicable terrorist enemy – who hide among and prey upon their own civilian people – that is simply amazing to behold. Our soldiers as a matter of routine are the most enthusiastic back-patting cheerleaders of the courage and toughness they are beginning to see in their Afghani and Iraqi counterparts.
Tom Hanks, like Sean Penn, see only ugliness in America and Americans, and only beauty in the totalitarian regimes of brutal dictators.
And that is, and always has been, the progressive way.
Start Thinking Right 