Tag Archives: Leftist Hatred

We no longer have a Government.

Posted by on November 7, 2012 No comments

I’ve been listening to people attempt to downplay the devastation Obama will bring to America over the next four years. They drone on about how our government’s checks and balances prevent any president from doing too much damage to our nation. Unfortunately this assumes that American government still functions as it was intended to function. People are apparently unaware that our government no longer follows its own laws.

It is absolutely true that the Founding Fathers gave us a system of government that should have protected our nation from the excesses of any single president. However, the checks and balances, balance of powers, and other limitations enshrined in the Constitution (which they now call gridlock), have all been ignored by our current government. Those checks and balances disappeared as soon as those in power realized that they could ignore the law and no one would do anything about it. This leaves America vulnerable to any tyrant capable of winning an election…  Take Obama for instance.

Now that the Constitution is completely ignored, elections determine what the bare majority can inflict upon the other 49% of the population. There are no restraints, no restrictions on governmental authority, no limitations on governmental power, no protection of inalienable rights. Four more years of Obama is scary ONLY because the government ignores the Constitution and BECAUSE there are no longer any separations of powers.

Earlier this year the U.S. Attorney General announced that the President had the legal authority to order the

killing of any person, including a U.S. citizen, without trial. He explained that under certain circumstances, the President can order anyone outside America to be killed. Of course the circumstances are to be determined by Obama and his staff. No due process. No oversight. No appeal. PLAINLY unconstitutional.  but he did it anyway.

A few days after this announcement the Director of the FBI was questioned by a Congressional committee as to whether it applied to U.S. citizens within the borders of the U.S. His answer was that he would have to check the law. He DIDN’T say, “no, that would clearly be unconstitutional.” He DIDN’T say, “That would clearly violate the citizen’s right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.” He DIDN’T immediately respond by saying, “Hell NO, that would be murder.” The highest ranking government official in the federal government’s domestic law enforcement department said he wasn’t sure if the president had authority to unilaterally order the murder of an American citizen on American soil.

A government that ignores its own laws is NOT A GOVERNMENT!!!

It’s just a bunch of bullies asserting the power through coercion and threats. Our government now ignores its own laws. America, as established by our Founding Fathers, was a GREAT country. We must do whatever it takes to get it back. Our daily lives will get worse, MUCH worse, if we don’t throw off this outlaw band of bullies.

One step forward, two steps back:

Last summer the Supreme Court agreed with LLF’s argument in the U.S. v. Arizona case. Liberty Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief that made only one point: That existing Federal Law prohibited the Obama administration from telling Arizona it couldn’t ask for immigration status information on individual arrestees. To the best of their knowledge, no one else made this point to the Court. This was one of the few areas that the Court found in favor of the State of Arizona.

Unfortunately, the Court also told Arizona, and every other state, that States can’t enforce Federal immigration law. This part of the decision was completely unique in American history. This was a huge defeat that leaves no check on the president’s total authority regarding enforcement of immigration law. In the words of dissenting Justice Scalia, the 50 States are no longer sovereign. In the end LLF did what they could, but the Court’s decision on a different part of the case caused much more damage than LLF fixed. They plug one hole, the Court makes a bigger one somewhere else.

The Court also agreed with LLF, to a certain degree, in the Obamacare case. Again, LLF filed an amicus brief. Again, LLF was practically alone in making the most important argument: the commerce clause was never intended to allow Congress to do anything it wants to do. The Court didn’t overturn Wickard v. Filburn, as they wanted, but it did agree that the individual mandate was beyond Congressional authority under the commerce clause. The Court said that even the Wickard standard doesn’t justify the individual mandate.

Unfortunately the Court then issued completely new and completely arbitrary and unexpected precedent granting Congress authority to enforce any regulation Congress can dream up; as long as enforcement is via a fine collected by the IRS. The Court’s Obamacare ruling blew all tax and spend clause precedent out of the water. It opened a completely new avenue for Congress to assert authority that was explicitly denied to Congress by the Founding Fathers. Again, the Court gave LLF what they asked for, but made matters much worse by changing the rules elsewhere.

It seems that federal courts are determined to kill whatever remains of the Constitution. We must find a way to re-establish the rule of law.

We must find a solution before the only solution is armed conflict.  because that is what an oppressed population eventually degrades to…  all out civil war.  Obama has us hurling in that direction.  At some point soon, the producers who are carrying the rest of the parasites on their backs will say no more and either leave the U.S., or join the battle.  either choice is horrible… and they are BOTH the fault of Barack Obama and his parasite followers.

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.

Leftist Hate & Insanity

Posted by on July 17, 2011 No comments

 

Typical leftist screaming at the top of his lungs at the prospect of actually having to stand on merit and not extortion.

Typical leftist screaming at the top of his lungs at the prospect of actually having to stand on merit and not extortion.The idea that Leftists favour peace is of course absurd. The hate, anger and envy that drive Leftists make them inherently aggressive and bloodthirsty — as we see whenever they gain absolute power — from the French revolutionaries onward through Trotsky, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot — not to mention more minor revolutionaries. And the great violence that often characterized “peace” demonstrations of the Vietnam era (see e.g. here) gave the lie to any claim that these Leftists were any different from their predecessors

Hate and “hate crimes”

This is a rather large topic in its own right so I have given it separate consideration elsewhere. Briefly, however, my argument is that Leftists leap to condemn even the mildest negativity as “hate speech” because they themselves are so hate-filled. It is a classic means of diverting attention from one’s own failings to condemn loudly such failings in others. Psychologists call it “projection”. And Leftists even cover themselves against accusations of projection too — how else but by claiming to find lots of projection in conservatives!

Mental health misrepresentations continue: suicide

So although Leftists undoubtedly hate “the rich”, “WASPs” etc, their greatest hatred is for conservatives — and one of their favorite ploys for attacking conservatives is to claim that conservatism is bad for your mental health. Britain’s Leftist “Guardian” newspaper, for instance, had a good chortle over the claim that the suicide rate in Britain and Australia is higher during periods when Conservatives are in government. They imply that conservatism is so bad for your mental health that it can make you suicide.

This is, of course reminiscent of that old 1950s Marxist nonsense by Adorno and friends (still popular among psychologists — see here or here) to the effect that conservatives have diseased “authoritarian” personalities! If you cannot beat conservatives in rational debate what could be better than a good old “ad hominem” response that says your opponent’s arguments are wrong simply because he personally is a bad lot? One might as well argue that all dog-owners are evil because Hitler loved dogs.

The suicide statistics are of course fraudulent. The British study actually RULED OUT the period of the (Conservative) Heath government when suicide was low — on the laughable grounds that Britain got natural gas about then and that made it too hard for many people to commit suicide. And even with that big fudge the pattern was still far from clear. As Katherine Mangu-Ward puts it in the “Daily Standard” of 30th September, 2002:

“Though the averages are higher for conservative administrations, when one looks at administrations individually, there are numerous exceptions to the supposed trend. For example, in addition to Heath, the suicide rate under Churchill was likewise low, while during Callaghan’s Labour administration it was quite high”

Other standard points could and should be made about the “studies” concerned — such as the old truth that correlation does not prove causation — but the real clincher that was overlooked is the time-period when suicides are usually lowest. Guess when that is? When the nation is at WAR! So that means that low suicides rates are necessarily good??? So we need more wars???

All suicides are truly tragic but like everything else there are swings and roundabouts. Clearly there is NO automatic inference we can draw about people’s overall wellbeing from suicide rates. Certainly, any claim that a low suicide rate indicates good times for the nation is laughable. On the other hand, if anybody wants to extend “Guardian” type logic to saying that being ruled by a Leftist government is about as good for you as having your country attacked by a foreign power, who am I to argue?

Sins of omission and commission

Leftists sometimes argue, with their usual illogic, that it is OK for them to do harm with their addled programs of action because conservatives ALLOW great harm to go on in the world — such as the starving children in Africa. Philosophers Jim Ryan (post of March 3rd. 2003) and Eddie Thomas had a discussion about this.

There are various possible answers to the “argument” — the best of which is probably a reductio ad absurdem (e.g. If I neglect my child, does that mean that you are right to murder your child?) — but the one Jim chose and that Eddie was dubious about is that actively doing harm is much worse than allowing harm to go on. As Eddie, says, however, that surely depends a lot on the circumstances of the particular case.

I myself would identify the essential point in any answer as being that the amount of harm and suffering in the world is essentially infinite — the world is full of harm going on all the time. So we HAVE TO allow most of it. Our own positive actions are different however. We have lots of choice about them. And if we do harm through them we should rightly be held culpable. We cannot solve all the world’s problems but we can at least do our best to do no harm ourselves. As I recollect, that is part of the Hippocratic oath: “First do no harm”.

Buffoons?

One of the classic tactics that Leftists old and new use to attack people they disagree with is to do their best to portray their opponents as dumb buffoons. Almost any US Republican President gets so labelled. President G.W. Bush gained a Master’s degree from Harvard but even he gets portrayed as an airhead. So this is really just another variant on the Leftist’s reliance on lies.

The people Leftists hate most are not in fact conservatives but rival Leftists. And guess how Leftists have always described Benito Mussolini, the founder of the Fascist variant of Leftism? You guessed it: “Buffoon” is by far the most used word. Yet Mussolini read poetry and philosophy voraciously, including Socrates and Plato. He spoke several foreign languages, was always interested in discussing political and philosophical ideas with almost anyone, had considerable acceptance in his early days as a leading Marxist theoretician, wrote over 40 books, and was a tree-lover and environmentalist 50 years before Greenies were thought of. Dumb buffoon!

How Left can you go?

Posted by on June 27, 2011 No comments

Leftism is a matter of degree and we need to remember that there are extreme Rightists who would regard more moderate conservatives as Leftists. I myself have been variously called both a far-Leftist and a far-Rightist, though not usually in such polite terms. So what is the best indicator of how Leftist someone is?

In answer, I think the basic guide is that the further Left we go, the more government intervention in people’s lives is demanded and practiced. All governments exercise power over people’s lives in one way or another but the more Leftist you are, the more pervasive and all-encompassing you will want that government meddling, influence and direction to be. And, by that criterion, note that so-called “Rightists” such as Mussolini’s Fascists and Hitler’s Nazis were FAR to the Left.

We have seen above how this love of big government is related to the Leftist’s love of change and his/her underlying personality needs.

Note, however, that the intrusiveness of government into our lives is now very well advanced worldwide. ALL modern governments are more interventionist than they were 100 years ago. The 20th century was broadly a century of ever-advancing Leftism and we live at the end of that process. Government meddling and regulation CAN be rolled back — Reagan and Thatcher showed us that — but so far we have seen only a small amount of such rolling back. And, for all the Reagan/Thatcher efforts, the Western world is now more regulated and bureaucratized than it ever has been in history. Part of this is the work of the “Greens” — who have managed to get an utter torrent of fresh regulation unleashed upon us. At least, however, government is not yet all pervasive and all-powerful in the modern-day Western world — the way it was in extreme Left regimes such as Stalin’s, Hitler’s, Mao’s and Mussolini’s.

Although all the authoritarian governments that were responsible for megadeaths in the 20th century were Leftist, it must be noted that not all authoritarian governments are Leftist. Most governments throughout human history have in fact been authoritarian. They were usually called Kings or Emperors. And they were all pretty ferocious with those who were a challenge to their power. And they often came to power via military means. But, with very few exceptions, nobody would ever call them Leftist. Why not? Because it is WHAT THEY DO with their power that makes them Leftist or not. If they are just happy to stay in power they are neither Right nor Left but simply historically normal. But if they want to use their power to transform the whole of society and vastly reorganize everyone’s lives, however, they are Leftist.

Such military-based governments still pop up in the modern world too. The regimes of Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal, for instance, had a security apparatus that ensured that they stayed in power regardless of what their people might want but, aside from that, they just let people get on with their lives as before and in fact resisted change of most kinds.

Pinochet in Chile and Suharto in Indonesia were also undemocratic, military-based regimes that were unscrupulous in protecting their power but many of their other policies were more like Western conservative governments: They encouraged gradual and cautious change. They used their power to free up their economies — thus extending the liberties of their citizens in important respects. Thus they were clearly not Leftists either.

Both the static Franco/Salazar type of regime and the progressive Pinochet/Suharto type of regime are often referred to as conservative but that simply reflects the fact that both opposed the large-scale forced reorganization of society that is associated with Leftism. Neither type of regime shows much respect for human rights and individual liberties or any other of the philosophies that characterize conservatives in the Western democracies.

As a libertarian, I deplore all government meddling in people’s everyday lives but conservatives have always realized that it is a matter of degree. And while all governments are tyrannical to some degree, Rightist governments are intrinsically less so. A Rightist philosophy does embody respect for the individual and his rights and choices. The mass murders of Stalin, Mao and all of the many other Communist regimes show us, however, how much respect for the individual is built into a Leftist philosophy. Once they obtain absolute power, Leftists have no respect for other people at all.

Why does it matter to us? Centrism and its implications

The sort of absolute power that the Communists often obtained in the 20th century now seems to be a thing of the past, so why should we worry now about Leftism? Do we in fact have any really Leftist political parties any more?

There is a good article on “Slate”  by Mickey Kaus who puts it very convincingly the well-established view that the major political parties in a democracy both have to stay very close to the centre. Excerpt:

Think of it in … well, cheap Darwinian terms. Imagine that we have a two party system, and each party is a collection of status-seeking individuals looking for power by winning a greater “market share” of the vote. Imagine that they each have their ideological principles –one is more to the left, one more to the right — but these principles are quite flexible in the face of imminent or repeated failure at the polls. Over time, as each party crafts its message to maximize its appeal — and adjusts its message after each election to regain any lost share of the votes — wouldn’t one expect the system to reach a roughly 50-50 equilibrium, in which every election was a cliffhanger?

The really interesting implication of centrism, however, is that you can only get big change by moving the whole political agenda in one direction or the other. This happened very markedly after the implosion of the Soviet Union — after which socialism went out the window worldwide and market-based economic arrangements (particularly privatization of former government-owned businesses) were brought in by parties of every political stripe from Britain to Bangladesh — not even excepting “Communist” China.

This rightward shift in the economic management agenda has been enormously beneficial — with world poverty now becoming steadily “Africanized” (i.e. with India and China both rapidly becoming more prosperous under their new, more capitalist arrangements, populations stuck in poverty are now very largely restricted to Africa).

So the job of conservative/libertarian writers like myself is now to try to expose the destructiveness of government activism in ALL spheres. If we can convince enough people of that, we will have moved the political agenda in a way that the major political parties (whether Right-leaning ot Left-leaning) will have to follow.