Tag Archives: Leftist hate

Our Pending Decision: Socialism or Americanism

Posted by on August 31, 2012 2 comments

After listening to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan at the Republican National Convention and reviewing the past three and half years of the Barack Obama and Joe Biden administration, the November election boils down to this: socialism or Americanism.

American was built upon the back of thousands of men and women who worked hard and long to build their own businesses. They all started small and the vast majority remained small. The backbone of the American economy is made up of the millions of small businesses across the nation that also supply jobs to millions of people.

Under the Obama administration, small businesses have been closing their doors at a record pace. Not only are the owners losing their livelihood, but so are millions of workers, other businesses and individuals that rely upon them. Like a human backbone, it cannot continue to support the body if it keeps weakening and losing pieces. When enough pieces of the backbone are removed, the body can no longer support itself and it collapses on the floor.

Socialism relies on the collapse of small businesses. The government assumes the role of provider in all areas and aspects of life. This is the path that the Obama administration is actively pursuing. This is socialism, not Americanism.

The Romney/Ryan ticket promises to help small businesses and entrepreneurship to help rebuild the economy, create jobs and strengthen America’s backbone. They’re not going to do it by borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to use on another stimulus package, but by sound and reasonable business practices that have worked for years. This is Americanism, not socialism.

The hallmark of the Obama/Biden administration is Obamacare. Obamacare is nothing more than socialized healthcare. The government assumes the role of health provider and they will make the decisions on what medical care you do and don’t get. The cost of Obamacare is far greater than you know. Not only is it going to cost every American family, rich, middle class and poverty level, thousands of dollars in hidden taxes over the next decade starting this coming January, but it will also cost lives. Americans will die for lack of proper care. Others will die because the care dictated to them by the government will not be the right care as in the case of Jacob Stieler. Obamacare is socialism, not Americanism.

The Romney/Ryan ticket promises to repeal Obamacare and return ownership of your health to you. They do plan to try to work on a new health plan, but one that will not tax American’s into poverty. In the process, they will restore the money that Obama took from Medicare and strengthen the program to help make it last. This is Americanism, not socialism.

Under the Obama/Biden administration, they have reduced the middle class and increased the number of families living at or below the poverty level. A socialistic society does not have a middle class. It has the upper governmental elite and then everyone else. This is socialism, not Americanism.

The Romney/Ryan ticket promises to boost the economy, increase jobs and thus help bring more Americans out of poverty and back into the middle class. The middle class helped make America strong and will help to strengthen it once again. This is Americanism, not socialism.

Under the Obama/Biden administration, government entitlements and dependency has increased at an alarming rate. The administration has made it harder for religious and other non-profit organizations to operate and provide charity. Instead, the government has been assuming the role of charity and provider. This is socialism, not Americanism.

The Romney/Ryan ticket has promised to help get many Americans back on their feet so that they can provide for themselves and their families and get rid of the government handout lists. They will continue to provide care for those that really need it, while at the same time forcing many to take responsibility for their own wellbeing. This is Americanism, not socialism.

The real choice come November is whether you want a socialistic government and country or the free America of our past? If you want America to become like the old Soviet Union and Cuba, then cast your vote for Obama/Biden as this is socialism. If you want to save America and restore it to its former greatness and free enterprise system, then vote for Romney/Ryan for this is Americanism.

Two Blacks Murder White Woman – No race Hustlers to be found.

Posted by on June 11, 2012 No comments

Cedartown, Georgia, is a quiet town. Last week there was a gruesome murder. A 27-year-old woman with a four-year-old daughter was stabbed to death. She was delivering pizza to help earn money to take care of her daughter.

Cadedra Cook, 18, and an unnamed 15-year-old male are charged with stabbing Elizabeth Hutchenson, 27, fifty times when she arrived at Cook’s home in Cedartown, Georgia, The Cedartown Standard reports.

Cook and the unnamed 15-year-old male are black, Hutchenson is white.

Where are the race hustlers?

“Gunfire erupted in a church parking lot as a funeral wrapped up Thursday [June 7, 2012] in an Atlanta suburb, leaving two people dead and another two wounded.” The shooters and the victims are black. Kenneth Samuel, the pastor of the church, told reporters, “Shots rang out and the police locked down the church. I was shocked to hear what happened. I had just finished my eulogy and tried to do the best I could to speak to the many teens about valuing life.”

Where are the race hustlers?
Two former Auburn football players were shot and killed at a party in Alabama. They are black, and so was the shooter.

Where are the race hustlers?

In February of 2009, in his first major speech after being confirmed as the nation’s first black attorney general, Eric Holder said the following to a crowd celebrating Black History Month:
“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”

There’s not much on which I agree with Eric Holder, but on his claim that we are a nation of cowards when it comes to race, I can agree.

The cowards are the so-called black leaders who engage in race baiting when they publicize an incident that includes blacks so they can use it for political one-upmanship.

The Trayvon Martin shooting is a perfect example. Every day in America blacks kill other blacks, and in the case of the Cedartown woman, whites. The race baiters are nowhere to be found because there is no political capital and money to be made.

Some whites are also cowards. They refuse to engage blacks on this issue. It’s destroying black communities. The only thing self-appointed black leaders can do is call for more government action and more money. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have been in the shake-down business for years, using white guilt and fear of boycotts to blackmail businesses to “donate” to their organizations. It’s time we stood up to them no matter how they describe us.

It’s time blacks stop blaming their troubles on whites, the rich, conservatives, slavery, and whatever is the latest fashionable argument for why blacks are killing other blacks. I’ve had enough of it.

How Leftist ideologues Think.

Posted by on May 15, 2012 2 comments
Democratic Party Ideology is recycled Fascism

With a few exceptions, the entire ideology of today's leftists is just recycled fascism.

I have set out the case for what the actual motivations of Leftist ideologues are — but Leftists themselves would be very unlikely to salute any of it. It is of some interest therefore to try to see things from their own point of view. And Olavo de Carvalho has done sterling work there.

He deals principally with extreme Leftists (“Revolutionaries”) but points out that the same mentality pervades Leftist “thinkers” generally. He says that Leftists are fixated on a view of utopia. They justify themselves as seeking the betterment of mankind according to quite Christian standards. They want everyone to be loving and sharing to one-another at some future time.

And the fact that they are fixated on this beneficent vision excuses everything that they might do and gives them huge psychic benefits. It allows them to see themselves as kindly and wise even while they lie, cheat and brutalize others in pursuit of their goals. The vision is all and excuses all.

Utopia is of course unattainable but the thinking concerned is a powerful form of self-deception.

Lets consider Leftism in much more detail and focus on Leftist leaders and activists:

Because they are very influential, this monograph will focus primarily on Leftist leaders: Politicians, activists, ideologues, intellectuals, academics and preachers of Leftism generally. And there is no claim that what is true of them is also true of the average Leftist voter. Among the leaders too, there will be a variety of motivations but what the great majority of them say and do can be seen as fitting a common power-seeking and praise-hungry pattern — and that pattern is the one that is of greatest interest here. It will be seen that most Leftist policies can be traced back to that source

It is now clear that Rightists are not systematically opposed to change but that “Western” Leftists seek it eagerly — so attitude to social change is the defining characteristic of the political Left rather than of the political Right. Rightism (“conservatism”) and Leftism are not opposites or mirror images, however, so Rightists in general are neither for nor against change as such. When they do want change, the changes that they favour are usually ones that remove or reduce interference in their lives by others.

Today's Democrat party and their ideology is nothing more than recycled Fascism.

The Leftist’s dissatisfaction with the world about him and his burning desire to change it can come from many sources but for Leftist leaders and other preachers of Leftism in the economically successful “Western” democracies (“liberals” in contemporary North American terms), the major motivation is to fulfil the ego needs of the Leftist himself — needs for self-advertisement, self-promotion, excitement, influence and ultimately power. And the prime source of power is the state, so Leftists love the state.

It was all summed up rather well in the debate over ratification of the U.S. constitution that took place in the 1780s. The debate was between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists distrusted central government power and could be seen as most akin to the conservatives of today — though both sides would be seen as conservative by today’s standards. With prophetic insight, the anti-Federalist “Brutus IV” wrote what could be seen as a pretty good description of today’s Democratic party leadership:

“…It is not to be expected that a legislature will be found in any country that will not have some of its members, who will pursue their private ends, and for which they will sacrifice the public good. Men of this character are, generally, artful and designing, and frequently possess brilliant talents and abilities; they commonly act in concert, and agree to share the spoils of their country among them; they will keep their object ever in view [government-controlled health care, anyone?], and follow it with constancy [sought since the 1930's]. To effect their purpose, they will assume any shape, and, Proteus like, mould themselves into any form – where they find members proof against direct bribery or gifts of offices, they will endeavor to mislead their minds by specious and false reasoning, to impose upon their unsuspecting honesty by an affectation of zeal for the public good; they will form juntos, and hold out-door meetings; they will operate upon the good nature of their opponents, by a thousand little attentions, and teize them into compliance by the earnestness of solicitation. Those who are acquainted with the manner of conducting business in public assemblies, know how prevalent art and address are in carrying a measure, even over men of the best intentions, and of good understanding. … It is probable, … the powerful influence that great and designing men have over the honest and unsuspecting, by their art and address, their soothing manners and civilities, and their cringing flattery, joined with their affected patriotism; when these different species of influence are combined, it is scarcely to be hoped that a legislature, composed of so small a number, as the one proposed by the new constitution, will long resist their force.”

And that was written in 1787!

The Marxist in Chief, Taking what is not his... (We call this theft... He calls it "Social Justice")

Leftists do not like all changes. Because power is their underlying motivation Leftists/liberals dislike the power-reducing changes that conservatives favour — such as neo-liberal (pro-market) change. Change of that sort threatens the Leftist’s access to power. We also see the primacy of power in the old Soviet system. We saw there that Leftists who had gained power suddenly became very opposed to change. The desire for change is at its base the desire for one particular sort of change: Putting Leftists in power so that they can reshape society into a mould that feels good to them. And why is power sought so single-mindedly? Why the single-minded egotism? At the deepest level, the Leftist leader appears to be psychopathic — with the psychopathic disregard for all norms, morals, standards and ethics in the ruthless quest for personal praise and satisfaction.

It is because of their quest for power that Leftists come into conflict with conservatives. History shows that what has always motivated conservatives is resistance to government power — in particular government encroachment on individual rights and liberties. So conservatives may either favour or oppose change to promote that cause.

A description of the political attitude domain in terms of two dimensions rather than a single Left/Right dimension is rejected here on both empirical and theoretical grounds. The pervasiveness and evolutionary origins of egotism and reality denial generally are also briefly considered below.

The most detailed causal chain proposed for preachers of Leftism, then, is as follows: Psychopathic personality > high ego need > hatred of an indifferent world > need for change > need for power > love of the State

Psychopaths are normally seen as lacking in emotions so it may seem perverse to say that Leftist leaders are both psychopathic and motivated by rage — and it is certainly not asserted that ALL Leftist leaders are psychopathic. Psychopaths are however not totally lacking in emotions. What they lack is normal emotions. And one emotion that they do definitely display is rage — in particular outrage at what they see as poor treatment of themselves by those around them. And Leftist intellectuals in particular display feeling of that sort too. It really burns them up that they are not as well-paid or as influential as successful businessmen, for instance.

Note that I am talking about sub-clinical psychopathy above: psychopaths who are not so extreme as to get themselves into trouble with the law and the mental health system. Most human characteristics exist in degrees so a subclinical psychopath has normal human emotions to some degree rather than a total absence of such emotions. And there are, sadly, various avenues in life where some lack of normal human emotions can be advantageous — anything requiring deceit, for instance. And Leftist leaders need a lot of deceit if they are to persuade people of the benefit in what are actually destructive schemes.

Why do Democrats Hate America?

Posted by on March 9, 2012 No comments

Bill during one of his daily marxist hate filled tirades against liberty, freedom, or anyone who loves America

The answer can be found in the fact that Democrats see life as a zero-sum game. To them, if someone wins that means it must come at the expense of someone else. Success is thus evil as it causes pain and suffering to others. Since America is successful — in fact unprecedentedly so — America, in their eyes, is unprecedentedly evil. Suddenly it makes sense why Democrats continually compare America to the most heinous regimes in history.

The Republican, in contrast, believes the very opposite. The Republican believes that “all ships rise with the tide.” To the Republican success, then, is good and should be encouraged at all levels and to the greatest degree. To the Republican America’s success — and the benefits that brings to the rest of the world — is great.

But that’s not what makes America great to the Republican. Success is amoral. To the Republican it is not a persons or a nation’s success or failure that defines their goodness but rather it is their behavior. To the Democrat behavior is of no significance. To the Democrat good is defined as anything that fails and evil is defined as whatever succeeds.

The Democrats’ hatred of success is not just limited to economics. While America is evil because of our success and corporations are, de facto, evil because they’re successful (and the most successful corporation, Wal-Mart, of course receives the most hatred from the left) the same hatred exists for those who are successful in their studies.

It is for this reason that the Democrat designs policy intended always to reward the failed and punish the successful. Thus when children fail to learn to read and write the Democrat seeks to reward them with a promotion to the next grade anyway. They call it a “social” promotion and it includes all of the benefits one receives for working hard, staying home from the party to study and doing one’s assignments without having to make any of the effort.

At the same time that the Democrat works to reward failure they pursue policies such as the ones we’re seeing on college campuses today where they seek to destroy the valedictorian honor for the best of the best and remove merit as the criteria for awarding the “merit scholarship.” Rather than being a reward for hard work and accomplishment the Democrats seek to turn the merit scholarship into just another welfare program.

Since good and evil is defined not by behaviors but by success and failure the Democrat supports every failed regime on the planet no matter how horrific its system and leader or the cause of its failure.

This is why the Democrats (and their ideological brethren in Europe) so hate Israel and so adore the Palestinians. The fact that Yasser Arafat was a corrupt, mass murdering, terrorist dictator who stole his people’s money, sent fourteen year old brainwashed children out to blow the skulls off of the infidels in Israel and intentionally kept his people in poverty to be used as political pawns is of no significance to the Democrat. The Palestinians are to be championed for their failure and Israel, a democracy with freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, is to be hated for its success.

There is no doubt that Democrats hate America. There is no other possible explanation for their attempts to turn unpleasant weather conditions in an interrogation cell in Cuba or a couple of pairs of panties on the heads of those sworn to murder all infidels (e.g. Americans) into the equivalent of the regimes of Pol Pot and Adolph Hitler. There can be no other explanation for the Democratic Party leadership giving a standing ovation to what they know to be a lie-filled, hate-filled, anti-American propaganda film — one that would be used to incite hatred for America and drum up recruits to massacre its citizens. There can be no other explanation for the most hateful demagogic attacks on America’s Commander-in-Chief at a time of war especially when that is against those who have not only sworn to bring death to America and Americans but have already succeeded in doing so by the thousands.

No, there is no doubt that Democrats hate America — and will do so until they can make us fail.”

Democrats the TRUE Racists

Posted by on January 3, 2012 No comments

 

The leftist nationalist KKK was then and continues to be a Democrat organization.

A little known fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights movement by prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is given to the important role Republicans played in supporting the civil rights movement. A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960′s civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! These facts are intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons. In most cases, the Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during the civil rights movement.

Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including:

  • Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia
  • J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton
  • Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
  • Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame
  • Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore

The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators:

  • Hill and Sparkman of Alabama
  • Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas
  • Holland and Smathers of Florida
  • Russell and Talmadge of Georgia
  • Ellender and Long of Louisiana
  • Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi
  • Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina
  • Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina
  • Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee
  • H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia
  • R. Byrd of West Virginia

Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat standard bearers took their normal racists stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort.

It took the hard work of Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Republican Whip Thomas Kuchel to pass the Civil Rights Act (Dirksen was presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). Upon breaking the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Republican Dirksen took to the Senate floor and exclaimed “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!” (Full text of speech). Sadly, Democrats and revisionist historians have all but forgotten (and intentionally so) that it was Republican Dirksen, not the divided Democrats, who made the Civil Rights Act a reality. Dirksen also broke the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was signed by Republican President Eisenhower.

Outside of Congress, the three most notorious opponents of school integration were all Democrats:

  • Orval Faubus, Democrat Governor of Arkansas and one of Bill Clinton’s political heroes
  • George Wallace, Democrat Governor of Alabama
  • Lester Maddox, Democrat Governor of Georgia

The most famous of the school desegregation standoffs involved Governor Faubus. Democrat Faubus used police and state forces to block the integration of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. The standoff was settled and the school was integrated only after the intervention of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Even the Democrat Party organization resisted integration and refused to allow minority participation for decades. Exclusion of minorities was the general rule of the Democrat Party of many states for decades, especially in Texas. This racist policy reached its peak under the New Deal in the southern and western states, often known as the New Deal Coalition region of FDR. The Supreme Court in Nixon v. Herndon declared the practice of “white primaries” unconstitutional in 1927 after states had passed laws barring Blacks from participating in Democrat primaries. But the Democrat Parties did not yield to the Court’s order. After Nixon v. Herndon, Democrats simply made rules within the party’s individual executive committees to bar minorities from participating, which were struck down in Nixon v. Condon in 1932. The Democrats, in typical racist fashion, responded by using state parties to pass rules barring blacks from participation. This decision was upheld in Grovey v. Townsend, which was not overturned until 1944 by Smith v. Allwright. The Texas Democrats responded with their usual ploys and turned to what was known as the “Jaybird system” which used private Democrat clubs to hold white-only votes on a slate of candidates, which were then transferred to the Democrat party itself and put on their primary ballot as the only choices. Terry v. Adams overturned the Jaybird system, prompting the Democrats to institute blocks of unit rule voting procedures as well as the infamous literacy tests and other Jim Crow regulations to specifically block minorities from participating in their primaries. In the end, it took 4 direct Supreme Court orders to end the Democrat’s “white primary” system, and after that it took countless additional orders, several acts of Congress, and a constitutional amendment to tear down the Jim Crow codes that preserved the Democrat’s white primary for decades beyond the final Supreme Court order ruling it officially unconstitutional.

Hispanics in South Texas were treated especially poorly by the Democrat Party, which relied heavily on a system of political bosses to coerce and intimidate Hispanics into voting for Democrat primary candidates of choice. Though coercion is illegal, this system, known as the Patron system, is still in use to this day by local Democrat parties in some heavy Hispanic communities of the southwest.

The next time Democrats take to the national airwaves to dishonestly accuse Republicans of racial hatred, remember who the historical record up until this very day points to as the real bigots: The Democrat Party. In all possible ways, the Democrat Party is built around the pillars of ultra leftists, many of whom are known participants in racism and/or affiliates of racist hate groups. Consider the Democrat Party of today’s heroes and leaders:

  • Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democrat icon and orchestrator of Japanese Internment
  • Ex-House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, former affiliate of a St. Louis area racist group
  • Ex-Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd, former Ku Klux Klansman known for making bigoted slurs on national television
  • Rev. Jesse Jackson, Democrat keynote speaker and race hustler known for making anti-Semitic slurs
  • Rev. Al Sharpten, Democrat activist and perennial candidate and race hustler known inciting anti-Semitic violence in New York City
  • Sen. Ernest Hollings, leading Democrat Senator known for use of racial slurs against several minority groups
  • Lee P. Brown, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat mayor of Houston who won reelection using racial intimidation against Hispanic voters
  • Andrew Cuomo, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat candidate for NY Governor who made racist statements about a black opponent.
  • Dan Rather, Democrat CBS news anchor and editorialist known for using anti-black racial epithets on a national radio broadcast
  • Donna Brazile, former Gore campaign manager known for making anti-white racial attacks. Brazile has also worked for Jackson, Gephardt, and Michael Dukakis

The simple truth is that the Democrat Party’s history during this century is one closely aligned to bigotry in a record stemming largely out of the liberal New Deal era up until the modern day. Bigots are at the center of the Democrat party’s current leadership and role models. And in a striking display of hypocrisy, many of the same Democrats who dishonestly shout accusations of “bigotry” at conservatives are practicing bigots of the most disgusting and disreputable kind themselves.