These days, charging the right with inherent racism serves the useful function of a de facto IQ test. For decades now legions of morons have bought into this accusation without the slightest bit of examination or intellectual integrity. It's a fantastically twisted bit of irony that race-mongers have been so successful with this demagoguery, given that history is riddled with examples of the precise opposite. It is one of the distinguishing honors of American conservatism that their historical track record is one of championing the equal rights of blacks. Here is just part of the historical record I refer to:
- The Democratic Party was founded in 1824 by Martin Van Buren (who became our 8th President). His plank consisted of the position that the federal government did not have authority to speak on race issues, or the issue of slavery; these were best considered by the states. This position allowed Democrat candidates to run as opposed to slavery, while guaranteeing the protection of slavery. In other words, this allowed them to begin their trend of voter manipulation, deceit, and outright lying, all for the cause of political power.
- The Republican Party was formed in 1855 and ran on a strictly abolitionist platform. In contrast to many Democrats of the time, Abraham Lincoln (our 14th President) ran for federal office on the clear message that all were created equal. This was the unambiguous moral challenge to free slaves and the beginning of efforts to establish equal rights on their behalf (for those exposed to public education, just remember this...Lincoln was a Republican. He freed the slaves, not FDR, Kennedy, or Clinton).
Congressional records show that it was the Democrats that were opposed to legislation created to achieve civil rights for blacks as equal citizens. The acts that shared Democratic opposition were:
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Freedman Bureau Extension Act of 1866, the Enforcement Act of 1870, the Force Act of 1871, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972.
Get that? It was Democrats who opposed them. And, to spell out the obvious to liberal readers, that means it was Republicans that favored them. From the birth of the Republican Party to the present day, the last thing they have stood for is racism. In fact, they are consistently recorded in history as having been the exact opposite. Democrats, on the other hand, have a much more shameful history.
It takes an incredible amount of self delusion to think that a party that houses Senator Robert Byrd, former KKK member and supporter, is somehow the party championing the black plight. And Democratic Senator Harry Reid can refer to Obama as "light skinned with no negro dialect," without barely a notice from liberal drones. Then there was the ascension of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, a known member of the racist organization La Raza with a judicial record of racist activism. I won't even get into Van Jones. For those of us who still agree with the colorblind ethic of Dr. Martin Luther King, it is clear that there is virtually no member of the liberal political class that is without some degree of racist sentiment. The fact that these types of transgressions are permissible on the left while any conservative would be politically lynched for far less betrays the complete lack of integrity common on the liberal left.
So, in terms of history, it has been the Democrat Party that has been shown as racist to the core. In fact, the KKK was once an appendage of the Democrat Party, despite delusional contemporary efforts to align it with conservatives ( remember that neo-nazi groups favor national socialism, and socialism is a preference of the political left). But in these sensitive times, Democrats cannot possibly be elected to power with such tastes. And in fairness, I would think (hope) that they have outgrown their old sensibilities in this regard. But I would argue that, in a sense, they have not.
As the above video points out, Democrats have relied upon the dishonest manipulation of blacks for decades now. They see blacks as one of many constituency groups that must be kept in line with promises of bribes (entitlements) and the fear of racism, should Republicans be in power. It is, however, quite perplexing at how a group so doggedly devoted to a political party can be so incredibly ignorant of its history, and that it can so repeatedly fail to grasp the degree to which it is constantly manipulated by that party.
For many of us who have long ago figured out the tactics of the socialist left, it is obvious that racism is in fact alive and well...on the political left. No, they are not overt in that racism. But they cannot help but segregate people by race, gender, and now, sexual preference. Its the old tactic of "divide and conquer." And by sucking into their orbit each relatively smaller group, and by maintaining their allegiance through tax-payer funded promises and the constant whipping up of crisis and fear, they rely on the ignorance of the marionettes they would puppeteer.
Thankfully, as more and more blacks and other "minorities" slip through the cracks and get something approximating education rather than indoctrination, they are coming to conservatism in increasing numbers. Regretfully, a majority of the racial groups to which they belong are still of the "slave mind," defending their "masters" (Democrats) by attacking the brothers who do not fall in line with the "plantation mentality." Most hilariously, they often do it by using the exact same charges and language I've used in the previous sentence.
If you're one of those who think that characterizing Obama as a socialist is an "extreme" view of the "fringe" right, it's time to wake up and read some history books...preferably those written before revisionism became so fashionable. The only difference between the men pictured above is method, not overall ideology.
Socialists believe that the way to paradise is for governments to own the means of production. Much of Europe has flirted to varying degrees with this monstrous failure of an ideology that just won't seem to die. To this day many Europeans are fighting to reinstall privatization into their governmental systems, but it is a difficult fight indeed while maintaining the freedom to vote for nanny-state addicts.
So skip "across the pond" to North America, and it seems we also have a thickness for learning what should be the historically obvious lessons often paid for with the blood and misery of our forebears. But where many Europeans are struggling to get away from socialism, we're just getting started in our very serious flirtations. Actually, we are now well beyond flirting. We are firmly on our way to being a socialist nation, although we would never call it such...that would be un-American.
But today's socialists and future SS members are far more sophisticated than those who preceded them. Takeovers are not outright, but slow and methodical, relying on significant numbers of less thoughtful supporters to buy the message that each takeover is necessary to avoid crisis, and for the good of all. Rigid regulations are one of the modern socialists preferred tools. Obamacare ring a bell, anyone? Private insurers already see the writing on the wall...their days are numbered. For those who bought into the notion that the government would not further intrude into health care, think again. They are just getting started. Take it from a guy who lives with socialized medicine...you will not be pleased.
But that is just the beginning (to say nothing of the foundations already firmly in place from the last several decades of socialist creep). Watch for Obama and his kind to start giving away the store, offering more and more entitlements (as if we don't have far too many already). These they will try to advertise as "rights," and continue to guilt-trip the smarter ones into submission. "Free" education is already on Obama's plate, with government intervention of student lending as the tool of eventual takeover. Once complete, it's the smallest of moves to the full governance of colleges and universities. And they've done such a swell job with public education, haven't they? I've always thought it quite ironic that the "pro-choice" party gets hostile towards the idea of providing choice to parents for the schooling of their children. Having a dictatorial lock on K-12, aren't we smart enough to know what lays in wait if federal takeover of the universities bears fruit? I'll say it again: this is just the beginning. It may not end up being education, but the "freebie" rights are going to roll out soon. Do you really think it is because of the kindness of their hearts, or because they actually believe you have these as "rights?"
And then there are the "soft" takeovers of businesses and industries. Freddie and Fannie, anyone? Auto industries? Banking institutions? Now you can say that they were just "helping" them out. Really? The government more often than not operates like the mafia. When they do you a favor, you might one day be called upon to repay that favor. Actually, that would be getting off easy. The truth is that once the gov buys in, unless you are really lucky, they are there for the long haul. Take that government (taxpayer) money, and you have to answer up to the feds...period.
So here is Senator Chris Dodd (D--Conn.) trying to push through a package of financial regulatory legislation which is, to quote Forbes Magazine (which tends to understand these financial things much better than any Harvard mis-educated politician), "a neosocialist's dream." To boil it down, he wants to establish a $50 Billion fund to save the skins of financial institutions whose failure would be deemed too big of a threat. It's bad enough that the legislation calls for a new powerful bureaucracy (the Financial Stability Oversight Council) to "manage" things, but the behavior this will cause on the part of the institutions in question is enough to make you wanna slap Dodd across the face and ask him what the hell he is thinking. When a financial entity knows in advance that the taxpayers will bail them out to the tune of $50 billion, how is it that he thinks this will cause anything other than the precise opposite of prudent management? These institutions tend to see government money as "free", not unlike the politicians who forcefully extract it from the taxpayers, and are more than willing to follow government rules in exchange for the safety net bailouts. And that is exactly what Dodd and fellow "progressives" have in mind.
Health care (one-seventh of the economy), banks, auto industries, just to name a few. And the "progressive" regime is just getting started. Two things are without question: Obama and the current criminals in power are unquestionably socialists by historical definition, and at this rate they will indeed transform America..into something very unlike America.
Congrats, Obamazombies. I'll see you at the front lines.
In my last rant I made reference to the tea party phenomenon as our current vehicle of hope in the battle for freedom against would-be tyrants. Scarcely hours later I found myself reading about the latest subtle attack on these patriots, by none other than "Slick Willie" Blythe, aka former President William Jefferson Clinton.
We should be accustomed to attacks on the Tea Party by now, as liberals and the eagerly compliant mainstream media have been quite happy in rabidly savaging and grossly distorting them at every available opportunity. At first they were half-dismissed as kooks and oddballs who apparently just didn't "get it." By this mischaracterization we were supposed to perceive them as fringe loons who were by no means worthy of taking seriously. In reality, however, this worked more to expose the complete lack of objectivity in the MSM. Rather than investigating this growing group and their legitimate grievances, as any serious news organization is ethically bound to do, we were instead treated to vague references that never failed to cast them in an unflattering light.
As time went on the Tea Party grew, particularly as more and more people felt stung with buyers remorse in the ascension of Obama and his new breed of gangster cronies. So, on cue and directly out of the liberal propagandists play book, we then were (and still are) treated to both constant insinuations and even outright accusations of racism as a primary motive within the Tea Party. Not that any serious investigations had been done. The actual existence of racism is not the point, but rather to silence through the stigma of being labeled as racist. We even went as far as to have elected officials claim victim status from the supposed racial abuses of Tea Partiers. Of course there was absolutely no evidence to support the charges, but again, for some evidence is not necessary. If you are labeled a racist, then you must be one...right?
Now we have Clinton executing yet another propaganda tactic of the corrupt left, illegitimately associating the Tea Party with scary extremist groups of the past.
On Friday, former President Bill Clinton warned that the anger some members of the Tea Party express concerning taxes and the growth of government could lead to the same kind of extremism that led to the Oklahoma City bombing back in 1995.
Did you get that? These Tea Partiers are not only to be understood as redneck racist kooks, but now they are (according to liberals) potential extremist threats. It's all fine and dandy to play ring around the rosy with Islamic terrorists, but we are supposed to disparage and fear peaceful protesters with legitimate grievances? And wasn't it the liberals who not so long ago preached that dissent was patriotic every time they had their obnoxious hate-filled anti-Bush mob rallies? Funny how that whole thing works for them.
Here's the truth: Tea partiers largely represent the broad sentiments of Americans across all lines. They are Republicans (60%), Independents (30%), and even Democrats (10%). They are white, black, and hispanic, along with other racial representations in proportions roughly similar to the overall national population. There are almost as many female "partiers" as there are male. They come from all income levels, and are overall more educated than average. They are certainly more educated than the majority of liberal voters. More importantly, they are highly educated on the issues and constitutional rights and limitations...putting many legislators to shame. In short, Tea Partiers are overall the exact opposite of what liberals try so hard to portray them as. It is precisely because of what they are that the would-be dictators and propagandist of the left fear them, and that is why they want you to fear the Partiers rather than listen to them.
The Tea Party is a direct threat to the outrageous lies and power grabs of our criminal class in political power, and they know this. What's more, they know that people are becoming increasingly aware of the abuses many politicians have become accustomed to perpetrating on the public, and more are flocking to the Tea Party by the day. So if you're smart, the next time you hear some talking head portraying the Tea Party as racist, redneck, uneducated, or as a borderline threat, you will know that you are listening to one of the bad guys who more likely fits into one or several of the categories listed rather than the group he would disparage so dishonestly.
Clinton has one thing right though...they are angry. They are angry at a government that is self indulgently expansive, that lies to and manipulates it's people regularly, and that is more than eager to sell out their future so cheaply. It is angry at a government that makes it clear that it is no longer they who work for us, but we who work for them. And it is angry at those who would distort them and their views in a propaganda campaign that clarifies the reality of a political class run amok.
They're angry, particularly with the fascist left, and they have every right to be. They are patriots, and tyrants have every reason to fear them.
I've been warning of this for what seems half my life now.
I often recall an old missionary who used to go around from pulpit to pulpit warning of the dangers and methods of communists and socialists. A former Soviet who was both an active member of the socialist party and somehow affiliated with the KGB, eventually he had a severe crisis of conscience and fled his homeland, thereafter devoting his life to exposing the socialist creep implanted into and growing within US soil.
I remember more vividly his explanation that socialist architects rarely operate transparently, and that they are fantastically methodical and intelligent in their strategy, much preferring slow subversive manipulation to advance an agenda that freedom-loving people would never knowingly embrace, particularly if they understood the ramifications. Rather, they prefer to manipulate the lazy, and particularly the lazy-minded, for whom they actually have little genuine respect except where they are "useful idiots."
I recall his warning that the strategy of the leftists are to first take over the fields of information and education. This of course means the entertainment and news industries, as well as the education system. Who can reasonably deny that these very same systems are not now populated with born and bred sympathizers of socialism?
Likewise, we are warned that the tactic of socialists is to frame "the struggle" as one of the "blue-collar" class, the working man...the proletarian. And it is just coincidence that the labor unions are sold out to the radical left? It is not that they have bought into the old soviet style "working class" philosophies?
Socialists are almost hopelessly stupid in their understanding of that which they embrace, yet they are not at all stupid in the cunning which with they advance their ideologies with religious type devotion. As a matter of fact, they are deviously intelligent. Disorient and divide. Create and maintain a perpetual sense of crisis. Market government intervention and control as the only effective remedy. And above all, use idiots to their full potential as tools of propaganda. These are not new concepts, they are the old strategies of corrupt power-mongers with insatiable appetites. Fortunately for them (and tragically for us), there are always sufficient numbers of uneducated and self-serving sheep who are more than willing to trade not only their own freedom for a scrap of government provided "security," but that of their brothers as well.
Former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov has it right in the above video. So here we have yet another "insider" revealing trade secrets of the left. Like the previously mentioned missionary and former member of the soviet socialist party, he again warns us of the grave consequences of our indifference towards an insidious ideological war having been waged quietly and patiently under our very noses for decades. But how many are paying attention? Remarkably few. And this complacent ignorance may likely be our undoing.
There are mainly three types concerning this issue. There are those who furrow their brows and say "pshaw." They think that criticisms of our direction are motivated by irrational extremism. They may not completely agree with our direction, and in fact may see significant problems with our straying from the Constitution and the founding principles. But they haven't the will to challenge our dalliances with hip socialism as such, thinking that that would then make them "extremists" as well. Nor do they have the motivation to seriously investigate the historical evidence alongside of the actual methods and practices in place. Instead, they prefer to stick their heads in the sand as "moderates" and "independents." "We are the calm, collected, rational middle," they may tell themselves. In fact, they are the first ranks of useful tools in the socialist (communist, fascist, marxist...call it what you want...they all serve the same utility) army.
The second type is the ideological devotee. These are the most useful idiots. While the "moderate" is simply unwilling to put up much of a fight, or to think things through to their natural end, the ideological devotee is not only unwilling to question the policies, tactics and consequences, they believe that the struggle is a morally justified one for which the ends justify the means. Cultivated by the ideological campus and mainstream media, they often think of themselves as enlightened, although the shallow depth of their sound bite knowledge base betrays an utter lack of genuine independent thought. These utopianists are the shock troops of the radical left, exhibiting a massive deficit in understanding history and human nature, as well as the dangers of expanded government and temptations of political power. Whereas forty percent of Americans identify as specifically conservative, twenty percent shamelessly identify as "liberals" (leaving the remaining forty percent as milquetoast independents). However, the power held by this small minority of one-fifth greatly dwarfs their size in numbers, largely due to the effectiveness of their ability to seize and control the systems previously mentioned.
Then there are the few "good guys." I make no bones about the fact that these are what we nowadays commonly refer to as conservatives (and many libertarians), or as the political right. But even these are a mixed bag, since many have ingested varying quantities of leftist kool-aid, and some are given to governmental control to enforce social policies they may favor. But all in all, these are those who understand clearly the limitations intended by our founding fathers, where they in turn understood perfectly both human nature and the temptation of political corruption. These are our modern-day tea-partiers, and these are the current vehicle of our hope for a return to freedom in opposition to the power hungry.
Really, I could rant on and on about this stuff. But suffice it to say that we are engaged in a war for the soul of America that will have horrendous global impact if not won. Yes, I know that it sounds kooky to some. There are those who might call me an extremist for saying these things. But I would call upon all who might think so to put the kool-aid down for a while and do the research. Get your head out of the sand and pay attention. We are in fact the proverbial frog being slowly cooked in the pot, and this is the documented historical tactic of leftist would-be tyrants.
As Mr. Bezmenov says, writing letters and passive protest is a fine idea. But it has proceeded well beyond that point now. The bad guys have been slowly winning for some time, and eventually we will have to make a decision of whether we will lay down and allow America to die, or if we will take seriously the war that has been laid at our feet, and fight it as such. It is certainly not an easy one to fight, much less win, as the enemy is none other than your brother. But it is one that must eventually be waged, else both we and our brother (to say nothing of our children) further become slaves of the state.
I was going to leave the blog thing alone for a while. Things have been busy and I have other projects and interests taking up time, so I figured "hey, I've run my mouth quite a bit lately, why not pipe down for a while?" And then I saw something that just really irked me. It should come as no surprise that it concerns Barry "Bam-Bam" Obama.
One of many things that bother me deeply about Obama is the degree to which he arrogantly snubs our closest allies while bowing (both literally and figuratively) with deference to our enemies and the various cretinous "leaders" of the world. It's as if this guy constantly dwells in the twilight zone. Suck up to China, Russia, and the Muslim states...blow off England, Canada, and Israel. This breaks a long tradition of recognizing very special relationships cultivated with longstanding allied nation-states, and shows the complete ignorance and hubris of our amateur Comrade-in-Chief.
For those who may not have paid attention since the ascension of our new Messiah, here's a sample of how he represents Americans as a nation:
Bowing. Wow. Now when was the last time you saw an American President do that?
Now you can argue that it was a matter of showing respect in a cultural context. Fair enough. I get it. But it simply is not done by the President of the United States, who is supposed to at least make an effort to symbolize our country and our values. Deference to a foreign power is not part of those values, Barry. (Note: It is not intended here to imply that the Japanese Emporer pictured is any less than a friend and ally of the US)
But it gets even worse.
More bowing. Damn, this guy is good at showing American weakness. And wasn't it not too long ago that the libtards were going on and on about Bush, and conservatives by extension, being a tool of the middle-eastern "oil" powers? Of course that was hysterical conspiracy nonsense of the hate-fueled left. But one thing is for sure, he never publicly kissed their butts like this.
Here's the one that set me off today, and the driving force for this rant:
For those Americans who may not be able to identify the person that Obama seems to be lecturing here (and admit it, most of you can't), this is Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, arguably our closest ally, both in geographic proximity and economic ties.
It bears mentioning (once again) that I am an American seeking dual citizenship in Canada. Therefore I have a direct interest in the politics of that country, and support the Prime Minister as both the leader of the country in which I live, and as the leader of the political party of which I intend to become part. In short, I have learned to become patriotic for two countries.
That said, this picture immediately disgusted me.
Now I have no idea what was actually going on when this photo was taken. I think it reasonable that even Obama the arrogant con-man would not be this foolishly brazen with another world leader. So I give the benefit of the doubt that this unfortunate image just managed to capture both leaders in an unflattering snapshot.
The thing that bothers me, however, is that it also captures a sentiment that is very much based in fact...the hubris with which Obama handles our closest friends while actively seeking to appease those who are not necessarily our friends, or even our enemies. Old friendships are now strained while our enemies feel emboldened by the weakness our President displays on out behalf.
Make no mistake, President Obama has routinely shown absolute incompetence in the office he now occupies. Let's hope our old allies bear in mind that this joker is not in office forever, and that our friendships might outlast him. As for the photo, it causes me to be embarrassed for my Prime Minister, and ashamed of my President...not because of the photo, but because it symbolizes a reality of the strained relationships caused by a smug socialist American leader.
If divine justice were as reliable as we might wish it to be, here is how Obama's bowing might best look:
It appears that the Talkmaster (Neal Boortz) and I are of like mind, at least on the issue of whom should first suffer the effects of Obama's reckless policies.
In a previous post, I made the point that Obamacare will certainly result in a slimming (to be polite) of the health care work force, and that employees supporting the Community-Organizer-in-Chief should be the first terminated. Now I'm just a simple fella who nobody is really paying attention to, but when someone with a substantial audience says the same things, the leftist lunatics go bananas.
Apparently some of the more typical socialist mouthpieces (like Alan Colmes and the Daily Kos) were quite disturbed at a couple of Neal's twitter posts:
Boortz goes on to say:
"I'll make this simple. The Democrats have passed ObamaCare. You have
50 employees. You're going to have to cut back to 49 employees to avoid
the mandate that you provide health insurance for your employees. You
have this strange idea that you hire people to work for you and you pay
them well for that work. It is not your responsibility to take care of
their health insurance. So .. you whittle down your choices to one of
two employees. Both have been with your company for the same amount of
time, both have similar work histories, and they are both very similar
in their work habits and productivity. The only difference is that one
is an unrepentant Obama voter, and the other is not. If it were not for
Obama you would not be having to let an employee go ... so doesn't it
make sense that the employee who contributed to this situation be the
one to go on a job hunt? That employee was a part of your problem ... so
he gets to realize the consequences of his actions.
just why would you want someone who is ignorant enough to be sucked in
by focus group phrases like "change we can believe in" working for you
When Neal Boortz concludes the same thing as me, and folks like Alan Colmes go nuts, I hope you will indulge me a bit of smug pride in knowing I am firmly on the right track. Fire every one of those Obamazombie creeps...they did this, let them suffer first.
"The Community Organizer continues to slide in the approval polls.
Rasmussen and Gallup both have Obama's approval rating at 47%. That's
good news and bad news. The good news is that over half of the people in
this country realize he's doing a poor job. The bad news is that 47% of
the people actually approve of his efforts. Well ... I guess that's not
so amazing when you realize that just about the same percentage of
people don't pay any federal income taxes. Funny how that works out."
Actor Jon Voight recently penned a letter to President Obama and read it on Governor Mike Huckabee's news program. The video is available on YouTube, and the letter reads as follows:
"In one year, the American people are witnessing the greatest lie that
is cleverly orchestrated by President Obama and his whole
administration. The lie is a potent aggression that feeds the needs of
people who either have not educated themselves enough to understand the
assault upon us all or the very poor and needy who live to be taken care
President Obama feeds these people poison, giving them the
idea that they are entitled to take from the wealthier who have lived
and worked in a democracy that understands that capitalism is the only
truth that keeps a nation healthy and fed. Now the lie goes very deep
and President Obama has been cleverly trained in the Alinsky method and
it would be very important that every American knows what that method
It is a socialistic, Marxist teaching and with it, little by
little, he rapes this nation, taking down our defenses, making new
language for the Islamic extremists. The world looked up to us as a
symbol of hope and prosperity now wonders what will become of the entire
world if America is losing its power.
The American people who
understand exactly what is taking place have come together in the
thousands, vowing to try to stay together as a unit of love and freedom
for all men and women, from all walks of life, shivering to think that
this once great nation will be a third world country.
be the first president to ever weaken the United States of America.
President Obama uses his aggression and arrogance for his own agenda,
against the will of the American people when he should be using his will
and aggression against our enemies.
Every loving American for
peace and truth and the security of our nation must come out and join
the Tea Parties in their states. The opposition will continue their
tactics; they will lie and plant their own bullies amongst us. Everyone
must pay close attention to who stands next to them. We can weed out the
liars and agitators.
Let us all stay in Gods light. Let no man
put asunder. We can and we will prevail. God bless us all!"
~Jon Voight, April 10th, 2010
Usually the Hollywood dreamers are so off base that it would be laughable, if they were not so dangerously stupid. How refreshing that there are still a few Hollywood actors out there whose common sense has not yet given way to utopian idealism. Thanks for the work you are doing, Mr. Voight.