Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
  
Be a subscriber

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The complete history of Barack Obama's second term -- click Views/Repies for top stories
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 10 of 10     «   Prev   7   8   9   10
lawyer12

Registered:
Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #226 
Left are Parasites.  They seek a host (right, capitalist, god fearing folks) and seek to suck the life out it.  Definitely a good v. evil scenario.  But, there is a balm in Gilead.
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #227 

The death of the Left

Daniel Greenfield says the Left is winning, but for the Left winning is indistinguishable from dying. The West didn't defeat Communism; it held it at bay long enough for it to defeat itself. The Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China crushed Communism more decisively than Goldwater could have ever dreamed of.

The embargo didn't turn Cuba into a hellhole whose main tourism industry is inviting progressive Canadian pedophiles to rape its children. Castro did that with help from the dead guy on the red t-shirts.

"One of the greatest benefits of the revolution is that even our prostitutes are college graduates," Castro told Oliver Stone. In real life, his prostitutes are lucky if they graduated from elementary school.

American admirers eager to get to Havana claim to be worried that Starbucks will ruin their Socialist paradise. What really worries them is that American businesses might give Cuban teens an economic alternative to sexually servicing decrepit leftists from Berkeley for $10 a night in the revolutionary version of Thailand where everyone is free, especially the political prisoners and raped children.

There's no embargo to blame in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez destroyed his own Bolivarian revolution by implementing it. The Venezuelan economic collapse really took off while Obama was in the White House leafing through the tract Chavez had gifted him blaming America for all of Latin America's troubles.

Now Chavez, the tract's author and the Venezuelan economy are all dead.

Chavez's successor has desperately tried to blame America for his crisis, but Uncle Sam had nothing to do with the lack of toilet paper in the stores, the milk rationing and the soldiers stationed outside electronics retailers. It's just what happens when the Left wins.

When the man in the White House wanted a Latin American revolution to succeed, it still failed.

The Left is at its best when it's trying to take power. It unleashes its egocentric creative impulses, it writes poems, plays and songs as its heroes die in doomed battles or pump their fists at protests. And then they win, get rich and fat, the people grow poor and the country becomes a miserable dictatorship. Try putting a 300 pound Che on a t-shirt. Or get inspired by Obama lazily playing golf.

A successful leftist revolution quickly becomes indistinguishable from an ordinary oligarchy. Millions may die, but decades later all that's left is a vast pointless bureaucracy that runs on family connections, an ideology no one understands anymore and an impoverished population ripe for outside exploitation.

And then before you know it, Moscow is full of fast food joints, China uses slave labor to make iPhones and aging hippies can buy children in Cuba for the price of a Happy Meal.

The Left rams through its ideology by force and when the ideology is gone, all that's left is the force.

Now that the Left has gotten its way in America, crushing its enemies, inflicting everything from socialized medicine to mandatory gay marriages on the masses, the excitement is gone. Even pro-criminal policies, the straw that once broke the Left's electoral back, have been accepted by Republicans.

What's left except trying to sell Hillary Clinton as the exciting face of the future, a task that even the Left seems to lack the stomach for.

The excitement died once Obama took over. Suddenly those inspiring speeches no longer inspired. The speeches were the same teleprompter pabulum mixing bad poetry with worse diction, but there was no longer anything to push against except a frustrated Republican opposition in Congress.

The Left had won and victory was boring. Obama took to golfing. He only seemed to come alive by campaigning so he campaigned all the time in an endless non-stop cultural revolution.

Imagine a future in which the Left wins permanently. Just picture Hillary Clinton and then Elizabeth Warren and finally Bernie Sanders kept alive in the Oval Office by electricity and fetal stem cells from babies. Imagine the country run like the DMV. Imagine it divided between the politically connected and the poor. Imagine everyone else giving up and surviving on the black market. Imagine Social Justice becoming a slogan that everyone is forced to repeat, but that no one understands.

And then the Chinese will come along to take advantage of the cheap labor.

The Left is like a suicide bomber or a honey bee. It can't win. It can only kill and die. A successful leftist regime is a contradiction in terms. The hard revolutions blow up fast and then decay into prolonged misery. The soft electoral revolutions skip the explosions and cut right to the prolonged misery.

Europe went Full Socialist and gave up. Carter's malaise has been a reality in Europe for generations.  What was four years in America was forty years in Europe. The American Left's great ambitions; bureaucratic rule, international impotence, national health care, endless education, environmental correctness and childbirth replaced by immigration were realized in Europe. And they killed Europe.

Now they're killing America.

What can the Left achieve when it no longer has to worry about a conservative opposition, budgets, democracy or any other obstacle to its great dreams? Cities filled with old men and women who never had children. Cities filled with young men and women who will never marry, who are still working on their fourth degree without ever having held a job. Cities filled with multi-generational welfare recipients who are also the only ones having children. Cities owned by foreign nations from their historic buildings to their imported booming populations. That was the great accomplishment of a united Europe.

No children, no jobs and no future. No great works, no civilizational progress and no golden age.

What stakes are to a vampire, victory is to the Left. The Left gains its creative energies from fighting against authority. Its entire reason for existing is to resist. In triumph, its writers become prostitutes for authority, its heroes become tyrants and its myths die on propaganda posters dissolving in the gutter.

The Left gains its ideological legitimacy from reform. But what happens when it becomes the entity in need of reform? Then reform dies and the word comes to be used as a euphemism for oppression. All the ideas die while the slogans march on like zombies. Radicals kill and then are killed. The men and women who used to fill the gulags, die in them instead. Lenin becomes Stalin becomes Khrushchev.

Before you know it, no one remembers why there was a revolution or how to get rid of it.

The American Left survived its last round of victories by losing elections. It won while maintaining the appearance of defeat. Now it has both the appearance and the substance of victory. And there's nothing left except making sure that every pizzeria caters gay weddings. Maddened social justice warriors lynch-tweet their own over trifles as the revolution's children devour its elders in search of someone to fight.

The Left has won and victory is killing it. It's a slow miserable death for it, and for us. If we win, then a defeated and revitalized Left will go back to fulminating and ranting, plotting and scheming its way to a victory that will kill it. If its victory becomes permanent, a generation from now Cuban sex tourists with pesos will be visiting the Socialist enclaves of Berkeley or Boston for their child prostitution needs.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
lawyer12

Registered:
Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #228 
Look, the liberal left is all TALK.  Isn't Holder suppose to be resigning soon?  Why is he going to a church in Atlanta, GA to make a big announcement regarding his policing initiative.  Just like Zimmerman being charged by the DOJ & FBI for civil rights violation of Trayvon Martin (which have not happened and will not happen because it lacks evidence) it is all TALK to try and appease an IGNORANT BASE OF STUPID, DEPENDENT VOTERS.

Just like with Officer Wilson, nothing is going to happen. The NY Times already stated that the FBI does not have enough evidence to charge a civil rights violation.

These folks are stupid, dumb and ignorant.

That is what the left depends on the stupid, the dumb and the ignorant.
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #229 

The Ferguson "race war"

George Rasley says St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert P. McCulloch's presentation on how the jury system works, the evidence gathered, the conflicting witness statements, the number of witnesses who gave testimony that conflicted with the physical evidence and the jury deliberations should have reassured everyone in America, and the world, that the investigation of Michael Brown's death was fair and that justice had been done.

But it didn't, because justice in the English common law sense that is shared by most Americans isn't really what the riots in Ferguson are all about.

McCulloch did a masterful presentation on the grand jury's deliberations and decision not to indict Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of black teenager Michael Brown.

The grand jury McCulloch said, "put their heart and soul" into the process. They met 25 times and heard from 60 witnesses -- and made the decision of "no true bill," meaning no indictment of Wilson for charges ranging from first degree murder to involuntary manslaughter.

But the rioters weren't and aren't interested in facts -- they are interested in payback for what they believe is years of "institutional racism" in Ferguson and more generally in America.

Monday night on MSNBC's "The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell," Missouri State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadali (D) said of the riots after the grand jury announcement, "I have to tell you that there has been systematic racism, institutionally in state government for decades, including my own state party. So what we are looking at right now is a symptom of racism that has been swept under the rug for decades, and I am so glad now that the truth is out, and I'm very grateful to your network for telling the truth in reporting the truth of what's going to go down in the coming days."

Sen. Chappelle-Nadali went on to tell O'Donnell, "As it was said earlier today, and because of the systematic racism that we have in our state government, and our state party, and we do not bring the truth to bear, then we will not recover from what we are going on. What we are experiencing right now, and I have to tell you, this is St. Louis's race war…"

If there was ever an unlikely and unsympathetic martyr upon which to start a "race war" Michael Brown is it.

A thief, according to the video tape evidence.

A bully, according to the video tape evidence.

And, according to what we now know from the witnesses and physical evidence, a young man bent on a confrontation with authority after smoking marijuana.

What Sen. Chappelle-Nadali is calling a "race war" might seem to be about race because that's the story that the far Left has been peddling to the establishment media, but race is simply a cover for the real agenda -- a war by the far Left to politicize crime and prosecutions.

What the Left wants to do under cover of "racial fairness" is create a system of so-called justice where those who are designated as "victims," even if they are the actual perpetrators or instigators of a crime, get special status and cannot be held accountable for their acts, while those who are part of the "oppressive power structure" are always to blame.

This is not a "race war" it is a war against constitutional government and a war against the concept of justice that is fundamental to American civil society and especially to the English common law and constitutional concepts of equality before the law upon which our justice system is based.

What the Left, and those who share the notion that justice must be tailored to the special political circumstances of each case, want is a war to establish a system of "justice" based on the politics of race, economics and ideology, not law.

That is not "justice" but a bizarre form of mob rule in which the criminal is automatically assumed to be the victim. Sen. Chappelle-Nadali's threats of a "race war" should be taken seriously, but not as a sign of a lack of racial harmony in America, but as evidence of how far the Left will go to undermine and corrupt the processes of civil society to breakdown constitutional order and achieve power.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #230 

As Ferguson burns...

Mark Levin says Ferguson burns and violence has been unleashed thanks to the reckless liberal media, the lawless administration (especially Eric Holder) exploiting the shooting to smear police departments across the nation, phony civil rights demagogues, race-baiting politicians, and radical hate groups.

FergusonFlames.jpg

The lies about why and how Officer Darrin Wilson shot Michael Brown started on day one and never ended. The indisputable facts are that Brown was shot because he assaulted a police officer, attempted to take the officer's pistol resulting in two close range gun shots in the police cruiser, and then turned around and charged the officer as he was being pursued. The entire event was precipitated by Brown earlier stealing cigars from a local store and assaulting the owner.

What we are witnessing now is the Left's war on the civil society. It's time to speak out in defense of law enforcement and others trying to protect the community and uphold the rule law.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #231 

The new totalitarianism and the logic of civil war

Adam Yoshida says: Although I have developed a strong tolerance for reading the worlds of the left-wing press through many years of exposure, Christopher Hayes article, "The New Abolitionism," in The Nation made me almost sick with anger. Hayes' article is notably noxious, attempting as it does to draw a parallel between the fossil fuel industry and slavery and arguing that efforts to destroy the fossil fuel industry amount to a "New Abolitionism" in that as the Abolitionists of old argued for the destruction of the wealth represented by the slaves held in the Antebellum South, today's "New Abolitionists" now must argue for destruction of the accumulated wealth represented by fossil fuels. This radical course of action in setting out to deliberately destroy $10 Trillion in wealth is justified, he argues, by the requirement to stop climate change and thereby "save the planet."  This argument for a so-called "New Abolitionism" therefore contains within it all three core elements of what I would describe as the New Totalitarianism.

First, the logic of the New Totalitarians begins with the flawed assumption that they are setting out to avert an apocalypse of some kind of another. Their views on the issue at hand, they argue, must be adopted or the consequences will be the destruction of all life or something approaching it. It is interesting that the form that this apocalypse will take is often unexamined and it is instead simply deemed to be unthinkable (to remedy this, I would recommend that everyone read Herman Kahn's brilliant book about nuclear warfare, "Thinking About the Unthinkable").  This assumption that disaster is inevitable and that there is only one course that may avert it leads naturally to the second core assumption of New Totalitarianism.

Since the advocates of this New Totalitarianism, such as Hayes, assume themselves to be in the absolute right and, further, that the fact that they are so is self-evident, they assume that all opposition to both their goals and their methods must be rooted in evil. Hence the abhorrent rhetorical strategies that they adopt in seeking to advance their own goals, such as branding anyone who disagrees with any element of their catechism a "denier" and Hayes' implicit comparison of those whose economic interests align with the fossil fuel industry with slaveowners. This is not the rhetoric of reason but of the worst kind of religious fanaticism, one which assumes the existence of only One True Faith and which deems those who deny the light and self-evident justice of the One True Faith to be heretics who must be burned and destroyed. The purpose of this sort of intolerance is to make debate impossible.

Finally, because the New Totalitarians believe that they are fighting to ward off Armageddon and that their opponents can only be motivated by evil, they have no patience of the niceties of civil society, and in particular the rule of law. They do not mean to win debates with the opposition, they mean to silence and to destroy it by any means necessary. This tendency is visible across many different fronts and is notably evident in Hayes' article, wherein he doesn't even stop to address the fact that the $10 Trillion in wealth that he would so blithely and confidentially destroy represents the work of a lifetime for millions of people -- not merely unsympathetic oil company executives, but also for millions of ordinary people including many millions in the Third World who are enjoying a decent standard of living for the first time in history (and whose aspirations, as I have pointed out many times before, ultimately make any debate over the use of fossil fuels and global CO2 emissions a waste of time and energy). Because they think themselves to have absolute good on their own side and because they believe that their opposition represents absolute evil, the New Totalitarians feel free to demand that the coercive power of the state be used to destroy the property and liberty of individuals and corporations seemingly without any regard for the loss that that actually represents. It is one thing to blithely proclaim, "we must all sacrifice for the state, comrades" from the comfort of your Crimean dacha when it isn't your family's farm that is being collectivized.

Hayes' article is fascinating in that it nudges towards an unspoken truth that the left has seemingly chosen to ignore in its totalitarian drift but then blinks from facing it at the last second. If you set out on a quest to achieve some goal and, along the way, you decide that some other group of people are evil and that they must therefore be targeted for selective prosecution and the confiscation of their property, it is only right and natural that such a group will resist to their last ounce of strength. If we accept -- which I do not, but for the sake of argument I will indulge the notion -- that the countless individuals whose wealth is tied to the consumption of fossil fuels are the equivalent of the slaveholders of the Old South, then does it not follow that they should resist any attack upon their property every bit as fiercely as those who served the Confederacy did? And, if we accept that Hayes is writing in good faith when he acknowledges that there exists a wide moral gulf between the ownership of human beings and that of decomposed plant matter, does it not follow that those whose wealth and economic interests would be attacked would have rather more justice contained in their resistance than those who rose on behalf of the Confederacy did?

Therein lies the fundamental problem with both Hayes' article and with the architecture of the ideology of the New Totalitarians: if they insist of dogmatically adhering to their own professed beliefs and insist upon using the power of the state to attempt to target the property of a significant percentage of the population for destruction while being utterly willing to use coercion to silence any and all dissent while willingly overriding the rule of law anywhere that it should prove to be an inconvenience, then the inevitable result will be civil war. No group of people, anywhere, should be expected to sit passively by while they and their property are targeted for liquidation and destruction, nor will they. Those segments of the left that are edging towards totalitarianism are not just threatening to start a war: they happen to be leading us towards a war that they will inevitably lose.

After all, why did the South lose the first American Civil War? Ultimately the defeat of the Confederacy was largely a matter of economics. The North had more people and a larger industrial base and in the end they used both to good effect to grind up the armies of the South in spite of the tremendous spirit and gallantry displayed by the latter. If an ideologically-inspired civil war were to take place in America -- or anywhere else in the West, for that matter -- today, who would have more money, more guns, and more soldiers at their disposal?


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #232 

What the Left did last week

Dennis Prager says that in his column last week, Charles Krauthammer crossed a line. He declared the American Left totalitarian. He is correct. Totalitarianism is written into the Left's DNA.

Krauthammer wrote about a Left-wing petition "bearing more than 110,000 signatures delivered to the [Washington] Post demanding a ban on any article questioning global warming."

He concluded:

"I was gratified by the show of intolerance because it perfectly illustrated my argument that the Left is entering a new phase of ideological agitation -- no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all opposition. The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian."

America is engaged in a civil war -- thank God, a non-violent one, but a civil war nonetheless. It is as divided as it was during the Civil War in the 19th century. The issue then was slavery -- a huge moral divide, of course. But today, the country is divided by opposite views about much more than one major issue. The Left and right are divided by their views of morality, politics, society, religion, the individual and the very nature of America.

The Left seeks to, as candidate Barack Obama promised five days before his first election, "fundamentally transform the United States of America."

That is what the Left is doing. There is almost no area of American life in which the Left's influence is not transformative, and ultimately destructive.

Beginning with this column I will periodically, perhaps regularly, devote this space to that transformation and destruction. My reason for doing so is that most Americans, including more than a few Republicans and more than a few Democrats, simply do not know what the Left is doing to their country.

So, here is some of what the Left has done in the last week or two.

•  The Left-wing directors of Mozilla, the parent company of the browser Firefox, compelled their CEO, Brendan Eich, to resign after he refused to recant his support for maintaining the man-woman definition of marriage. Even though his gay employees acknowledged how fairly he treated them individually and as couples, the mere fact that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman rendered him unacceptable as an employee of Mozilla/Firefox. (For more details, see my column of last week, "Uninstall Firefox.")

The Wall Street Journal condemned Mozilla. The New York Times has not taken a position.

•  Brandeis University rescinded its invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, perhaps the world's foremost activist on behalf of women in the Islamic world. Hirsi Ali, an African woman born into a Muslim family and raised Muslim, who now teaches at Harvard, was scheduled to receive an honorary degree at the forthcoming Brandeis graduation ceremony. Brandeis rescinded its invitation after protests led by a Muslim student and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an Islamist organization, erupted over Hirsi Ali's criticism of the way women are treated in many parts of the Muslim world.

The Wall Street Journal condemned Brandeis. The New York Times has not taken a position.

•  The University of Michigan canceled a showing of the documentary "Honor Diaries." The film features nine women who are either Muslim or come from a Muslim country. They speak about honor killings, female genital mutilation, forced marriages at young ages, and the denial of education to women in Muslim communities. They praise moderate Muslims. But the University of Michigan cancelled the film lest a non-moderate Muslim organization, CAIR again, label the university "Islamophobic."

•  Six weeks ago, a University of Wisconsin student released a video he had made of a guest lecturer in the freshman general education course "Education 130: Individual and Society." The lecturer, the political and organizing director for Service Employees International Union Local 150, delivered a diatribe, with obscenities, against conservatives, whites and Republicans. Last week. When confronted with the evidence that classrooms at their university were being politicized, the faculty of the University of Wisconsin reacted with indignation -- at the student who made the video. And then the faculty passed a resolution demanding that the university ban recording any of its classes.

It's hard to blame the faculty. Given the intellectual shallowness and the Left-wing politics that pervade so many liberal arts classes, the University of Wisconsin faculty has every reason to fear allowing the public to know what professors say in class.

•  Today is the cutoff date for public reactions to the California Supreme Court's ethics advisory committee's proposal to forbid California judges from affiliating with the Boy Scouts, which the Left deems anti-gay. Given the Left's animosity to traditional value-based institutions, it is not surprising that it loathes the Boy Scouts. What is remarkable -- actually, frightening -- is how easy it has been for the Left to make it "illegal" for a judge to be a leader in the Boy Scouts. This is the now case in 22 states. It will soon be the case in California as well.

This was just one week -- and only selected examples -- in the Left's ongoing transformation of America.

Related:  Liberals are winning the language war

Related:  The modern left is a movement of tribal nostalgia -- neo-tribalists -- they want people divided up in little tribes


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #233 

The American Left is positively Putinesque

Jay Haug says Vladimir Putin's tactics in both Crimea and now Eastern Ukraine seem transparent to the western media. Using tactics designed to "protect" its citizens, Russia annexed Crimea. Georgia fell to a similar fate when George Bush was president. Now "protests" are being fomented in eastern Ukraine while troops mass at the border. The Russians advertise this as "defensive measures."

Hitler used similar tactics when he invaded the ethnically German Sudetenland in the lead-up to World War II. In Putin's case, the tactics involve trumped up protests by Russian loyalists apparently shipped in to protest for this very purpose, troops massed at the borders, media blackouts and in Crimea's case, ultimately an invasion. There are lots of outcries for America to do something.

But what the media will never acknowledge is that many of these same tactics are currently being employed by the American Left and the Obama administration, minus the military invasions, of course. In fact, this is precisely the campaign strategy of the Obama administration. With the president's approval rating in the tank and ObamaCare very unpopular, how will the Democrats hold onto the Senate? Apparently the answer is Putinesque. Trump up phony "wars on women," with accompanying drum beats on "paycheck protection" and slogans such as "Republicans want to take away your birth-control" and voila, you will have no choice but to endorse the coming totalitarianism. "It's us against those evil people who refuse to embrace the fierce urgency of silencing conservatives."  What's that you say? Yes, I said totalitarianism.

It all starts in the brain and that is where the Left wants to own us. They want Putin-like agreement. They desire no other way to think and a permanent rule of continuous change with them in charge. To leftists, there is no other future possible. Enormous, wasteful spending? Bumbling government healthcare? Withdrawing from the world because we are "sick of war?" Income inequality in Washington's hands to fix? There simply is no alternative, no other way to think. As President Obama said recently, "You know, in the end, history is not kind to those who would deny Americans their basic economic security."  Republicans are not just wrong. They are "deniers."  All who disagree are enemies of progress.

Gay marriage is the latest example. What the Left is telling us is something so shocking and so un-American that many seem unable to respond to it. What the Left believes is this: There is simply is no other way to think about gay marriage than what we think. And if you do not think that way, you will be ostracized, lose your job and removed from any public role, ever. This is what they believe, even though their own president thought about it another way until recently.  ( Wink wink)  Even though states like California voted to uphold traditional marriage. The message of Mr. Eich's firing at Mozilla is that in the future, no one with any leadership responsibility in America will be able to think otherwise. Is Andrew Sullivan the only liberal who thinks this is bad for their cause? The lack of protest is chilling, but it follows the leftist pattern, which is change followed by diminishing freedom and ultimately totalitarianism ( See Lenin, Hitler, and Stalin and Castro).

This is nothing new here. Protesters have long been the darlings of the Left, because they give cover to the Left's totalitarianism by appearing to be for the underdog. In Russia and in America today, they are aiding and abetting the powerful. In an economic crisis not to be "wasted.," there is a new alliance between the deprived and the powerful. They are forming an alliance against the rest of us. Government hand-outs, Washington-based solutions to everything, gay marriage group-thinkers, Occupy Wall-Streeters, racial and gender politics, all are massing at the border of E Pluribus Unum and telling the rest of us to shut up and get with their program or else. The phony rationale for this is to protect the people from being victimized by the powerful. But the result is that the powerful feel justified in demonizing those with whom they disagree. Minus the troops at the border, all this is positively Putinesque. It's long past time that liberals give their leftist pals a slap-down. Or have they been assimilated?


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
lawyer12

Registered:
Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #234 
We had fascism with FDR and Woodrow Wilson, folks just did not see a questionable allegiance to America.  These guys laid the foundation for Obama.  History is repeating itself.  Keep your bible, your guns and be vigilant.
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #235 

Tolerance, health, and fascism

Dennis Prager says: I cannot count the number of times I heard liberal professors and liberal writers quote the phrase: "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

The phrase is brilliant. There is actually no threat to America of fascism coming from the right. The essence of the American Right, after all, is less government; and fascism, by definition, demands ever larger government.

Therefore, if there is a real fascist threat to America, it comes from the left, whose appetite for state power is essentially unlimited. But because the Left has so long dominated American intellectual, academic, artistic, and media life, it has succeeded in implanting fear of the Right.

I have never written that there is a threat of fascism in America. I always considered the idea overwrought. But now I believe there really is such a threat -- and it will come draped not in an American flag, but in the name of tolerance and health.

Before explaining what this means, let's be clear about what this does not mean.

First, it does not mean, or have anything in common with, Nazism. Nazism may have been a form of fascism. But Nazism was a unique form of fascism and a unique evil. It was race-based and it was genocidal. No other expression of fascism was race-based. And not all fascism is genocidal. So my fear that the American Left is moving America toward an expression of fascism in no way implies anything Nazi-like or genocidal.

Second, it is not liberals or liberalism that presents a threat of fascism. It is the Left. Liberals of the 1940s to 1970s such as John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman, Hubert Humphrey, Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and so many others were not leftists. They were liberals.

But liberalism has been taken over by the Left. There are virtually no non-Left liberals.

The Left now has a leader who is a true leftist who is asserting unprecedented presidential power through his cabinet and myriad other agencies (such as the EPA) and through presidential decrees. The Left has taken over the universities and, increasingly, high schools and elementary schools. It dominates the news and entertainment media. And many judges and courts are leftist -- meaning that their decisions are guided by leftism more than by the law or the Constitution.

With all this power, the Left controls more and more of the life of the American citizen. And when nothing stops the Left, the Left doesn't stop.

Take tolerance.

Last week, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that an event photographer's refusal on religious grounds to shoot the commitment ceremony of a same-sex couple amounted to illegal discrimination.

The photographer had never objected to photographing gays. She did not, however, wish to be part of a ceremony that she religiously objected to. In America today, thanks to myriad laws and progressive justices, one can be threatened with jail time for refusing to participate in an event he or she has religious objections to.
 
This is what happened to a florist in Washington State who had always sold flowers to gay customers, but refused to be the florist for a gay wedding: sued and fined.

This is what happened to a baker in Oregon who had always sold his goods to gays, but refused to provide his products to a gay wedding: sued and fined.

This is what happened in Massachusetts, Illinois, and elsewhere to Catholic Charities, historically the largest adoption agency in America. Their placing children with married (man-woman) couples, rather than with same-sex couples, was deemed intolerant and a violation of the law. In those and other states, Catholic Charities has left adoption work.

In the name of tolerance -- fighting sexual harassment -- five- and six-year-old boys all over the country are brought to the police for innocently touching a girl.

In the name of tolerance -- girls' high school teams in California and elsewhere must now accept male players who feel female.

In the name of tolerance – businesses cannot fire a man who one day shows up on the sales floor dressed as a woman.

For the Left, tolerance does not mean tolerance. It means first, acceptance. And second, celebration. That is totalitarianism: You not only have to live with what you may differ with, dear citizen, you have to celebrate it or pay a steep price.

Meanwhile, in the name of health there is a similar intrusion into the life of the individual. We saw it in New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's call for a law limiting the amount of soda a person can order at one time.

In the name of health, people are banned from smoking outdoors, cigar stores are prohibited from allowing customers to smoke inside them, and, incredibly, California is about to ban electronic "cigarettes" as if they were real cigarettes, even though they contain no tobacco, nothing is burning, and they emit only water vapor.

In the name of health, some businesses, like the Bert Fish Medical Center in Florida and Kids II, Inc. (Baby Einstein, Disney Baby), do not hire those who smoke at home. In the name of health, for the first time in American history, what you do -- legally -- at home will be reason for companies' not hiring or terminating employees.

In the name of safety, first-grade boys are suspended from schools for playfully aiming a pencil at another boy and "shooting" him.

And then there are the ubiquitous "reeducation" and "rehabilitation" seminars that the allegedly insensitive need to take at both private and government workplaces; and the speech codes at nearly all universities.

The only question is: Will Americans awaken to the increasingly rapid deprivation of their freedoms -- not draped in an American flag, but draped in tolerance and health?

Prager is correct when he says, "there are virtually no non-Left liberals."

The people carrying the "liberal" mantle today are progressives, and the goal of their "progress" is 21st century socialism and the end of the constitutional republic and traditional Americanism.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
BuckeyeMike

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 105
Reply with quote  #236 
Make no mistake, Obama is not the least bit ignorant of history. He has been well informed and well indoctrinated into the political philosophy he intends to direct this county, and is using history as a means to attempt to not repeat the previous failures of those regimes.
0
Lou E Brown

Registered:
Posts: 516
Reply with quote  #237 

I was paying attention until I got to "Barack Obama isn't a bad guy-" and almost barfed. The Halfrican is most certainly a bad guy, and knows exactly what he is doing because Valerie and George tell him what to do. It seems more and more as if he is stepping away from America more by the day, and keeping his eyes on the prize he wants: Dictator for Life. But maybe I exaggerate.

0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #238 

A conservative teachers says Obama's University of Vermont Speech analyzed by logic and history reveals a dangerously incompetent fascist.

As a teacher, it makes me sad to read about a student to wasn't educated properly and had his head filled with wrong  information. Via GatewayPundit I came across this quote from a major policy maker (President Barack Obama) who once again recycles outdated and tired myths regarding the past:

You know, each of us is only here because somebody somewhere felt responsibility, yes to their families, but also to their fellow citizens. Also to our country’s future. That’s the American story. The American story is not just about what we do on our own. Yes, we’re rugged individualists, we expect personally responsibility and everybody out there has got to work hard and carry their weight.

We also have always understood that we wouldn’t win the race for new jobs and businesses, and middle class security if we were just applying some ‘you’re on your own economics.' It’s been tried in our history and it hasn’t worked. It didn’t work when we tried it in the decade before the Great Depression. It didn’t work when we tried it in the last decade. We just tried this. What they’re peddling has been tried — it did not work!

In the statement above, Barack Obama is arguing four points:

  • That capitalism (ie, 'you're on your own economics') does not lead to increased economic growth and personal freedom.
  • That when capitalism 'was tried in the decade before the Great Depression' it did not work to increase economic growth or result in more personal freedom.
  • That capitalism 'was tried in the decade before the Great Depression.'
  • And that communism (or the 'responsibility' of those who work hard and are successful to give up their wealth and freedom and property to those who do not) leads to more economic growth and personal freedom than capitalism.

Before I use my grade school education to easily refute his three points, let me pause for a moment to drop my mouth in stunned disbelief that this communist is running our nation right now and is even seriously considered by many to have a good chance at winning reelection.

  • The suggestion that capitalism- defined as an economic system that includes private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income, the accumulation of capital, competitive markets, voluntary exchange, and wage labor- does not lead to increased economic growth is just beyond stunning. Nations which have adopted largely capitalism economic systems- USA, Britain, Germany, Singapore, Japan, etc- have had far superior results than nations which have attempted other economic systems- Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, China under Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot, etc. In economic growth, human liberty, quality of life, amount of personal liberty, and treatment of the poor, capitalism has demonstrated again and again to be a great economic system. It is bad at giving power to elites because of its emphasis on voluntary exchanges, and it is bad at giving wealth to those who do not labor for it because of its reliance on wage labor, and it is poor at keeping a stable class system in place because of the high mobility of capital, but unless you want those things (which Obama does) than capitalism is a very good economic system to adopt.
  • Let's take the year 1929 as a good date for the start of the Great Depression, which would mean that we would need to analyze the economy of the United States from 1919 to 1929 to get a fair sense of whether 'on your own economics' (aka, American capitalism) led to increased economic growth. Through the beauty of a website called Measuring Worth (which appears to be led by a slew of top university professors), we can establish in real terms just exactly what the economy did during this time period. From 1919 to 1929 in the United States, the CPI went down .1% (meaning goods were cheaper to buy) and the real GDP went up 3.48% (meaning Americans were more wealthy). From 1923-1929, the unemployment rate hovered under 5%- and that wasn't a phony number either like Obama is pushing now. New products and services were introduced- automobiles, radios, electric iceboxes, electric irons, fans, electric lighting, vacuum cleaners, other laborsaving household appliances, growing electricity, etc. For skilled and semi-skilled male workers real average weekly earnings rose 5.3 percent between 1923 and 1929, while real average weekly earnings for unskilled males rose 8.7 percent between 1923 and 1929 (source)- in other words, this economic growth helped out the poor and unskilled the most. I could go on, but I think the case has been made that when 'on your own economics' was tried in the decade prior to the Great Depression, it worked, it worked well, and it would work again.
  • The above point is based on the fact 'on your own economics' was tried in the decade prior to the Great Depression, but as Lawrence Reed (President of the Foundation for Economic Education) documents in his booklet Great Myths of the Great Depression, this was not really the case. After decades of amazing and booming success from 1836 to 1913, America decided to adopt another failed central banking system in 1913, and after that point we can clearly see that our economy wasn't as 'on your own' as uneducated people like Obama argue and that the less 'on your own' the economy got the more trouble it got into. One prominent interpretation of the Federal Reserve System's actions prior to 1929 can be found in "America's Great Depression" by economist Murray Rothbard- using a broad measure that includes currency, demand and time deposits, and other ingredients, he estimated that the Fed bloated the money supply by more than 60 percent from mid-1921 to mid-1929. By 1928, the Federal Reserve was raising interest rates and choking off the money supply, which is just the sort of economic uncertainty from the government that leads to a decrease in economic growth. Rising calls for higher tariffs (that led to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, passed in June 1930, which was even harsher than the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922) and dramatic increases in government spending (starting in 1929) also led to a sharp but regular recession caused by government policy escalating into a full out Depression. All it would take now to turn this Depression caused by government policy into a historic and awful Great Depression was more government intervention.
  • Obama suggests that economic success is built on a sense of shared responsibility in the nation. He may be suggesting some sort of communism or socialism- to each according to their needs, to each according to their abilities- but in further thought I think that President Obama is more properly asserting a different idea. Obama is suggesting that our economy be state-directed and heavily regulated, where private property and private enterprise is contingent upon service to the nation, and the state should step in when it views private enterprise as failing or inefficiently distributing money (for example, it is 'not fair'). These ideas aren't anything new- they are the very definition of fascist views on the economy. I'm no economic expert, but from speeches like this one, it sounds like President Obama is pushing for alternatives to capitalism such as syndicalism or corporatism. These economic models have been unsuccessful wherever they have been tried.

As we can see, Barack Obama has revealed himself in his recent speech to be ignorant of history, economics, and political theory, and has been led by his lack of knowledge and education in these subjects to advocate policies that have led to failure and worse. Barack Obama isn't a bad guy- just ignorant, naive, uneducated, and I think honestly unaware of how dangerously close his policy suggestions are to fascism and communism. But if a small-time government teacher from Flint can deconstruct and rip apart his speeches and policy suggestions this easily, I think it demonstrates that he should not be re-elected as President of the United States.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved