► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Liberal Fascism’ Category

An honor killing, Brandeis University-style

by Speranza ( 150 Comments › )
Filed under Free Speech, Islamists, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Liberal Fascism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives at April 15th, 2014 - 7:00 am

We are definitely living in an age of Liberal Fascism. Louis D. Brandeis, a proud Zionist and defender of free speech must be turning over in his grave as a university named after him and founded by secular but proud American Jews, caves in to the pressures of Marxists and Islamists.

by Zev Chafets

Brandeis University committed an honor killing this week. The victim was a Somali woman named Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Honor killings are depressingly common in the Middle East: punishment for women guilty of being raped, losing their virginity outside of marriage, adultery, dressing provocatively or simply embarrassing a male relative. These murders – most of which go unreported and unprosecuted – are usually acid-in-the-face, blood-on-the-floor affairs meant not only to salvage the good name of the dishonored family but to intimidate other women (and gay men) into abiding by the prevailing code of behavior.


She comes by her passion honestly. At the age of 5 she was subjected to ritual genital mutilation by her family. As a young woman she rebelled against a traditional forced marriage and fled to the Netherlands, where she received political asylum.

As a girl, Hirsi Ali wore a hijab, abided by Shariah law and even supported the death threat issued by Iranian clerics against renegade Muslim author Salman Rushdie.


She enrolled at a local university, became an avowed atheist and, in 2003, just 11 years after her arrival in her new country, she was elected to the Dutch parliament.

Along with Theo Van Gogh, a descendant of painter Vincent Van Gogh, Hirsi Ali made “Submission,” a cinematic protest against the brutal treatment in the Middle East of women who do not submit to their role as second-class human beings.

In the wake of 9/11, she issued warnings about the violent nature of armed political Islam. Her point was made for her by a fanatic who, in the name of Allah, stabbed Van Gogh to death on an Amsterdam street.

The murderer pinned a letter to Van Gogh’s body: a death threat against Hirsi Ali, who was forced into hiding and lived under government protection until she settled in the United States in 2007.

Hirsi Ali’s story is a heroic one, and her persona – Third World woman of color, secular humanist, ardent feminist, defender of gay rights and a near martyr to her liberal Western principles – certainly resonated with the awards committee of a proudly progressive university like Brandeis. She was almost the perfect candidate for an honorary degree.

But there was one small problem. She had dared to criticize Islam and Muslim behavior in the same way other religions and other human behaviors get criticized in an open society. In America you can’t get killed for this (yet), but you can be dealt with.

Enter Nihad Awad, the national head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. He launched a letter of protest at Brandeis president Fredrick Lawrence, accusing Hirsi Ali of wrong thoughts and evil words. Giving her an award, he wrote, would be like “promoting the work of white supremacists and anti-Semites.”

That was rich. Awad has publicly supported Hamas (which is anti-Semitic) and Hezbollah, the terrorist arm of the Teheran Holocaust deniers. Not only that: He actually accused Ali of threatening the entire Muslim world with violence. The demand to rescind the award was backed by almost a quarter of the Brandeis faculty.

Faced with this absurd and offensive inversion of reality, President Lawrence informed Hirsi Ali that she was no longer welcome at commencement. He blamed this on “certain of her past statements,” which he said were inconsistent with the university’s “core values.”  He had the audacity to invite Hirsi Ali to visit the school someday for a discussion “in the spirit of free expression that has defined Brandeis University through its history.”


Ayaan Hirsi Ali deserves her degree for precisely the reason Nihad Awad doesn’t want her to have it – because she dares to speak her mind and say things that offend the sort of people CAIR represents.

The Brandeis commencement this year is conferring an honorary degree on Jill Abramson, the gifted and outspoken editor of The New York Times. Hopefully she won’t let the occasion pass without reminding her hosts of who is absent from the podium: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman whose reputation is the victim of an honor killing, Brandeis-style.

Read the rest – Ayaan Hirsi Ali -  victim of an honor killing, Brandeis-style

The real, racist motives behind gun control and other leftist policies

by 1389AD ( 208 Comments › )
Filed under Bigotry, Liberal Fascism, Progressives, Second Amendment at March 11th, 2014 - 2:00 pm

Zombie: Progressive Racism: The Hidden Motive Driving Modern Politics

(h/t: Iron Fist)

Progressive politics is rooted in racism. Look carefully at most social or fiscal policies advocated by progressives and you’ll see that underneath their false public rationales lie hidden racist fears and assumptions — some of which the progressives may be too embarrassed to admit even to themselves, much less to the world.

In modern politics, everyone doubts everyone else’s sincerity. Each side automatically presumes that the other side presents a false public justification for its political views. And in most cases it is wise to doubt, because most public justifications are indeed lies — sometimes unconscious lies. But surprisingly often the hypothesized alternative “true” motivation guessed at by the opposing side is itself completely incorrect. Especially when conservatives come up with theories attempting to explain what to them are mystifying progressive obsessions. What conservatives don’t (yet) know is that under the surface, most progressive positions are motivated by racist attitudes and assumptions felt by white progressives, usually against African-Americans. Progressive positions often seem inexplicable to outsiders because the proposals emanating from them usually manifest as colossal social engineering experiments, which the progressives have only devised as a distraction from the shameful racist motivations at the core.

This essay will likely be eye-opening for conservatives, and infuriating for progressives, who often don’t know their own history and never contemplated the origins of their own belief system.

Below you will find eight separate entries, each focusing on a different policy pushed by progressives. Each entry follows the same format:

BOLD: Name of topic.

In yellow: A neutral description of the exact proposal which progressives champion.

In red: The progressives’ stated justification or explanation behind their position, which hides their real purpose.

In red: The inaccurate theory which conservatives mistakenly assume must be the actual progressive motivation.

In green: The true racist reason underlying the progressive policy.

Plain text: Additional notes on the origins of the progressives’ racist attitude and how it led to this specific policy proposal.

If you want to just skim the essay and only read the highlights, then simply look for the green sections and skip the rest. Otherwise, read the whole thing to get a clear step-by-step explanation of the actual racist motivations driving each progressive position.



Progressive position:
Restrict access to guns as much as possible; ultimately ban and confiscate them all.

False public rationale offered by progressives to justify their position:
Gun violence is a scourge on society; easy access to killing machines unnecessarily facilitates murder and crime.

Conservatives’ inaccurate theory of progressives’ real intent:
Progressives want to disarm the populace to prevent armed resistance to the eventual imposition of a leftist totalitarian police state.

The actual racist origins of the progressive stance:
White urban liberals are deathly afraid of black gangbangers with guns, but are ashamed to admit this publicly, so to mask their racist fears they try to ban guns for everyone, as a way of warding off the perception that their real goal is to target blacks specifically.

The basic dividing line in American politics is not (as it once was ) North vs. South, nor is it (as many people now assume) Coasts vs. Flyover Country, but rather Urban vs. Rural:

The new political divide is a stark division between cities and what remains of the countryside. Not just some cities and some rural areas, either — virtually every major city (100,000-plus population) in the United States of America has a different outlook from the less populous areas that are closest to it. The difference is no longer about where people live, it’s about how people live: in spread-out, open, low-density privacy — or amid rough-and-tumble, in-your-face population density and diverse communities that enforce a lower-common denominator of tolerance among inhabitants. …The only major cities that voted Republican in the 2012 presidential election were Phoenix, Oklahoma City, Fort Worth, and Salt Lake City.

Or put more simply: In modern America, liberals live in cities; conservatives live in rural areas. And what else is concentrated in cities? African-Americans, and gun violence:

The 62 center cities of America’s 50 largest metro areas account for 15 percent of the population but 39 percent of gun-related murders.

Putting all these statistics together, we see that large cities have high concentrations of white liberals alongside gun-using black criminals. And yet it is specifically in Democrat-voting big cities where most of the gun-control measures are proposed. Why is that? Are the white progressive urban dwellers afraid of rootin’-tootin’ cowboys? Of backwoods deer hunters? Of hillbillies with shotguns? No: the average white progressive has never even met a cowboy, a hunter or a hillbilly. And frankly, progressives could care less if rednecks own guns, because progressives aren’t physically afraid of rednecks on a daily basis. Instead, they are afraid of gun violence at the hands of their fellow city-dwellers, the urban African-Americans who commit a wildly disproportionate percentage of the gun crimes in America.

Progressives don’t want to ban guns to disarm resistance to any upcoming police state; that idea has never even occurred to them. Instead, progressives want to ban guns because progressives are afraid of black people.

But God forbid that progressives’ racist motivations be exposed publicly. So to make the gun-control bans appear even-handed and race-neutral, progressives must try to ban guns for everyone, even though the bans are in reality aimed at one specific group. Rural gun-users are just collateral damage of a policy that actually targets inner-city blacks.

Continue reading…

In the remainder of the article, Zombie exposes the covert racist assumptions that underlie leftist demands for junk food taxes, climate change policies, the welfare state, affirmative action, plastic bag bans, abortion, and nanny statism in general.

Zombie concludes:

…The secret is this:

White progressives believe that black people are too dumb to make rational decisions on their own and too uncouth to behave civilly. So the progressive urge is to heap rules upon rules to control blacks and render them harmless to themselves and others. At the same time, progressives are terrified of being perceived as racist. So they hit upon a solution: Make rules which restrict everyone‘s freedoms, even though the progressives are actually targeting African-Americans. The collateral damage in this cynical equation — law-abiding citizens of all ethnicities — erroneously assume that the intrusive rules are aimed at them. But they’re missing the point: Progressives don’t enjoy restricting their own freedoms along with everyone else’s, but can conceive of no other legal mechanism to deal with what they see as misbehaving blacks while still appearing to be race-neutral.

Nanny statism is the modern progressive version of Jim Crow: regulations whose real intent is to oppress blacks, but now hidden behind the smiley-face mask of universal oppression.

Please read Zombie’s entire article. And the next time someone brings up any of these leftist policies, have the courage to explain the hidden and insulting racial attitudes that truly motivate the leftist position.

Landmark Suit Tells Feds: State Gun Laws Are None Of Your Business

by Mars ( 102 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Crime, Democratic Party, Fascism, Free Speech, government, Liberal Fascism, Nazism, Patriotism, Politics, Progressives, Second Amendment at December 16th, 2013 - 7:00 am


Landmark Suit Tells Feds: State Gun Laws Are None Of Your Business

Written by: Tara Dodrill Self Defense December 6, 2013 1 Comment

Lawsuit states that Montana gunmakers want the federal government to “butt out” of gun sales which take place within the state, and they’ve sued the US Justice Department in an attempt to do just that.

The lawsuit filed by the Montana Shooting Sports Association maintains the US Constitution does not give the federal government authority to enact regulations and restrictions pertaining to guns made, sold, and kept inside the State of Montana.

The lawsuit asks the Supreme Court to uphold the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which was enacted in 2009 and which says the federal government does not have authority over firearms that are made and sold within the state of Montana. For firearms to not be subject to federal laws, each gun must be labeled “Made In Montana,” according to the ’09 law. Other states have implemented similar laws, although their future is uncertain.

A lower court and appeals court ruled against Montana’s law.

Specifically, the lawsuit asks the high court to uphold the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The 9th Amendment says:

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The 10th Amendment reads:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, actually wrote the Supreme Court justices a personal letter in November, explaining the rationale behind the law. Such a letter is unique and was separate from the legal briefs.

Marbut told local media that he wants to make a bolt-action, small, youth-model rifle he calls the Montana Buckaroo. The gun would be sold within the state. Marbut’s plan to manufacture the youth rifle has been thwarted by federal officials and courts who say the gun would be illegal.

Marbut told the Supreme Court justices:

“The natives are beyond restless. They are at the stage of collecting torches and pitchforks and preparing to head for the castle gates en masse.

Advocates of the law have garnered legal support from the attorneys general from the states of Montana, Utah, Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

An excerpt from the Montana Shooting Sports Association lawsuit reads:

The wholesale stripping of independent sovereignty from the states has destroyed the balance of power, and given the federal government advantages it demonstrably tends to abuse. The outrage that is our $17 trillion national debt [which amounts to more than $149,000 per taxpayer] may be the worst example. By borrowing more money than the current generation can repay in our lifetimes, Congress leaves a legacy of debt for future generations. Our progeny did not consent to the monumental hole their parents are digging for them. Still, they will certainly be saddled with the duty to make good. This is tyranny.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association lawsuit also argues that “dual sovereignty” should be restored within the US. Marbut staunchly feels that the lawsuit and the 10th Amendment protections extend far beyond the issue of gun rights.

Read the entire article here.

When Reality Comes A Knockin, Liberals Invariably Ask That We Consider Only Their Intentions

by Flyovercountry ( 63 Comments › )
Filed under Liberal Fascism at December 10th, 2013 - 12:00 pm

Demagogue: 1) a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power

Barack Obama’s election as our 44th President created a lot of panic on the right side of our national divide for many reasons, all of them valid. Worries ranged from the more practical concerns of his agenda being forced into action to the more esoteric variety, did this represent a fundamental shift in our national identity, vocalized by Al Sharpton’s celebratory declaration that America was now officially, a Socialist Nation. In that age old question, is this group incompetent or evil, the only accurate answer is yes. Part of the problem however was that the 2008 disaster went further than just electing Barack Obama. It also elected a super majority of his party to control the Senate, and at the same time, gave him the Keys to the House. For two solid years, there literally was no opposition to the Liberal wish list, and his persona had been built to the level of deity by a compliant and completely incurious lapdog media, who were themselves recorded in the act of chanting mindlessly along with Dear Leader at his convention’s coronation. They worked tirelessly to build a cult figure, and scrubbed any and all photographs to make this mere mortal seem messianic.

Barack Obama is in good company on that front, with historic figures such as Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin Dada, Lafayette Ron Hubbard, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, and David Koresh. So far, history has not had time to judge Barack Obama, but when things shake out, as they always do, make no mistake about it, he’ll be right in there with the first four names on that list in terms of destruction left in his wake. For his cult of persona you see, has been applied on a national scale, rather than on simply a more personal level consisting of a handful of dolts. The number of deaths attributed to Manson is hovering between 35 and 50 currently, Jones scored a cool 909, Marshall Applewhite got 37 others to follow him to that great beyond, and Koresh’s pyrotechnics claimed 82 lives besides his own. The first four names on the list succeeded in applying their evil on a national or multinational scale. While each of these figures may have presented themselves to history in vastly different ways, there is a sameness to all of them. Their rise, their increasing levels of lunacy once the zenith had been obtained, the increasing need to push the envelope of sanity in order to maintain control of those dolts who followed, the inevitable crash associated with being perceived through the lens provided by reality, and the consequences of reality come a knockin, always seem to leave a perplexed mass of people asking the same questions of themselves in rhetorical wonderment. How could that have happened to an intelligent and curious people?

The other day, I had read a posting on Facebook written by a child hood friend. He was discussing the idiocy of the so called strike against fast food restaurants by workers demanding an increase in the minimum wage to $15 per hour. (Something is worthy of note here by the way. The vaunted strike so dutifully covered by the press, turned out to be nothing more than about 100 paid protesters, all earning $7.25 per hour, walking from location to location in Manhattan, while the local McDonald’s went about their business uninterrupted, serving the desires of their patrons. The entire sorry episode was nothing more than an organized effort to distract national attention from the Obamacare disaster, which is apparently worrying the pretty little heads in the Obama White House.) It was a well written post, and filled with many cogent arguments, many of which missed the mark in terms of prudent economic theory. I put up my argument, which supported his, which means I agreed for different reasons than those stated, and as you may have guessed, the usual group of liberals began whining their discontent that anyone would disagree with our President and his latest pivot to prosecute his class warfare. Something that happens by the way whenever he is facing political discomfort of any sort.

I pointed out that minimum wage began in this country as a part of the Jim Crow laws in the South, and that it was one of the principle tenets of Apartheid. Minimum wage you see, removes the only economic weapon that the poor and uneducated have which will help them introduce themselves into the labor market. I received the requisite beat down, called unfeeling, a racist, evil, and saw the use of ad hominems, and straw man arguments to refute my ideas. Then the inevitable happened. Someone brought out that old tried and true debate tactic, “Oh yeah, a majority of people agree with us, that the minimum wage is a good thing.” You might recognize that argument as this, at least I hope you do, “follow the mob, because we all know that mobs are always right.”

What is it about our DNA that severely inhibits critical thinking when a mob forms around us? After WWII, the common defense invoked by all of the Nuremberg Defendants, and rejected by a world once again restored to sanity, was that they committed their atrocities simply because they were merely following orders, or in the common vernacular, just going along with the mob. An enterprising Psychology Professor at Yale, Stanley Milgram, decided to conduct an experiment to determine if ordinary people could be convinced to kill other innocent human beings if they were merely told to do so, and what he found was so terrible, both for all of society and those who were subjects of his study, that Yale fired him the very next day. Out of his 36 test subjects, only one refused to take another human life, a Catholic Priest. 35 other people turned the dial of purported electrical voltage beyond the lethal limit, coaxed into doing so with no more than a person carrying a clip board wearing a white lab coat and glasses entering the room.

More noteworthy than the fact that these miscreants can gain power and influence however, is what happens when the inevitable conclusion occurs. That’s also a part of the sameness that I spoke to earlier. In each instance, when they seemingly have hit the zenith of their popularity and influence, it must suddenly occur to them that they are the leader of a frenzied mob, and those are increasingly hard to control. The mob started out due to something in their world that was lacking at the moment of formation or joining. The expectation of that something never goes away. They follow because they feel that whoever is leading can lead them to satisfaction, something that can never be truly fulfilled. Adoring followers can become rabid hunters at the dropping of a hat. Pretty soon, our cult leaders are faced with the unenviable task of keeping one step ahead of the mob, both in terms of crazy and cunning. Only with the continued promise of satisfaction will they survive, and patience has never been a human trait enjoyed by the majority of beings within that club.

Reality can not be held in abeyance for ever. Eventually, no matter how deeply held within the psychosis of the mob a person is embroiled, reality will set in, and the thought, “My God, what have I done?” will seep in. The craftiest cult leaders have always chosen the moment just prior to that happening as their swansong, cementing their place in history’s more visible field of vision. The cult followers, even after being led to their self destructive ends are always perplexed with outsiders not seeing the logic, if not within their actions, than with how they could have been so easily led down that path. 909 people in Jones town drank kool-aid laced with cyanide, or were children of parents who forced them to do so. They began their path looking for a higher plane of spiritual existence. The Manson family had believed that they had found the second coming of Jesus Christ, and followed when their savior told them that they should kill indiscriminately.

Given the choice between being chased from town by the same angry mob via torch and pitch fork or leading that angry mob to its own inevitable destruction, cult leaders will invariably choose the latter. The problem for Barack Obama and those who helped both build and perpetuate his mythology is this, so far as I know, there is no way that Barack the magician can place himself between your eyes and the envelope you’ll be receiving in the mail very soon that notifies you of the fact that you can’t keep your insurance that you liked, nor your doctor, nor your chosen hospital. There is no way that he’ll be able to distract you from the fact that you’ll have to defend yourself to a bureaucrat when seeking medical treatment for anything more serious than a cold, with the decision as to whether or not you deserve to live resting in the hands of someone you’ve never met, and is willing to let you know just how inferior and less worthy you truly are, when you stand either by yourself or with a loved one in front of a Death Panel. 85% of all Americans will now learn that they’ll get to pay double what they once did for health insurance, and on top of that will now face deductibles that dwarf those contained in the inferior plans that the government considered unfit. The good news of course is that men will now be covered for problems with the Uterus that they don’t have, and women will no longer have to worry about testicular cancer. We’ll find this all out, assuming that the $635 Million website is ever made functional.

What we are seeing is that Barack Obama has not been able to stay ahead of that curve. Reality has set in, and his star is falling. Last week’s bizarre foray into class warfare was nothing more than a lame attempt to whip up anger at someone else, the wealthy. That’s another item on the cult leader’s repertoire, blaming outsiders. Keeping the faithful distracted from their lack of satisfaction by blaming an outside boogie man for the world’s ills. You can’t afford the television lifestyle because the wealthy have gotten rich off of your back, and if not yours, then somebody else’s. All any cult leader needs is to get you to fall for a simple mistake in logic at the beginning, and every step down that dark path seems like it fits perfectly within the realm of common sense. In the case of the great class warrior, that mistaken premise is that wealth in this world has existed since the dawn of man, and that it is both finite and zero sum.

When we first moved out of caves, and started putting up mail boxes that we called our own, there were no such things as doctors, jet skis, or even 401k’s. Those were all created from the environs surrounding us all, by ingenious members of our species who wanted to get rich, and understood that serving the wants and needs of their fellow man was the best way to accomplish that. The wonderful thing about the free market system is this, every transaction is voluntary. When you go into a McDonald’s and wish to purchase the Big Mac for example, the choice to do so depends on one thing and one thing only. Would you rather have the sandwich to eat, or your $3.50. The person working behind the counter or on their grill line is also there voluntarily. Their choice is, would they rather be somewhere else, or are they willing to give McDonald’s an hour of their time at what ever wage McDonald’s has agreed to pay. Not one person in the equation has been forced to act as the other wants.

The reality is this, forcing a minimum wage on any society will lead to unemployment in that community that can least afford to be unemployed. The reality is that we’ll be hurting the very people we are promising to help most of all. If we ignore the market signals and act to subvert them, unintended consequences will occur. McDonald’s invested in a great deal of automation within their restaurants the last time an appreciable increase to the minimum wage went into effect. They can now run their restaurants with fewer people than they did before. If a person can not produce enough with their presence to justify the minimum wage, the job will simply cease to exist, adjustments made, and the ability to enter the workforce will be shut off for somebody who otherwise would have had an avenue.

It’s very easy to make statements about the top wage earners versus the bottom wage earners, but care should be taken to tell the whole truth. People as a whole do not stay in any specific wage strata for the entirety of their lives. This year’s bottom wage earners are very rarely next year’s bottom wage earners. The same is true for the top. People move back and forth through the various stratifications regularly. Those people who are flipping hamburgers at McDonald’s today might very well be managing a McDonald’s five years from now. So, thanks to the cult of Obama and the political left, substituting reality for some twisted fantasy, several thousand future members of management who would have been earning a decent wage and enjoying the American Dream, will instead be unemployed and living within the endless trap of subservience. As Fredric Bastiat pointed out in 1830, just because those jobs are unseen, that does not make them any less real than the ones which will be eliminated today. And just because that particular bit of economic destruction will be happening to people who are at the moment faceless, it is no less cruel.

I can not forgive the intentions of those who would inflict this evil upon our society, since the effects are or should be well known to those who advocate for its merits. It is nothing more than the same old economic weaponry aimed at a lower economic strata of our society, cleaned up and put in shiny new clothing, a pig wearing lipstick, and sold as something positive. The destruction wrought by the Obamacare law are terrible enough. By itself, this is a society killer. At doubling of the minimum wage would be just as destructive, and the fact that it is being introduced for no other reason than to distract us from the reality of Obamacare makes it that much worse. Is Barack Obama evil or stupid? The answer to that question is yes.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Barack Obama: “If only I were a Dictator”…

by Guest Post ( 130 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Communism, Democratic Party, Fascism, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Progressives at November 27th, 2013 - 7:00 am

Guest Blogger: Doriangrey

In what has become a reoccurring theme, Barack Obama lamented the fact that he isn’t a Dictator, able to ignore the United States constitution and simply order his agenda into existence at will.

Obama: If I Could Bypass Congress on Immigration, ‘I Would Do So’

During remarks on immigration, President Obama was confronted onstage by a protester calling on him to use executive power to bypass Congress on the issue.

The protester, standing behind the president during a speech in San Francisco, was joined by others who began to chant “Stop deportation!” “If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing them through Congress, I would do so,” President Obama responded. “But we’re also a nation of laws.”

He ended his lament with the phrase, “But we’re also a nation of laws.” The irony here is think enough to cut with a dull butter knife. Funny how when dealing with his signature law, Obamacare, he has violated the law repeatedly. From it’s passage in the middle of the night through the highly dubious practice of “Reconciliation” the fact that it originated not in the House of Representatives as required by Law, but the Senate. The multiple executive alterations of it, to the numerous delays, and even finally to his “Fix” of the Laws required policy cancellations. Obama has done nothing but violate Laws which he did not agree with.

Then we move on to numerous Court orders he has blatantly ignored, his refusal to defend existing Laws that he doesn’t like such as the Defense of Marriage Act. One is left wondering how he could make the claim “But we’re also a nation of laws.” without his mouth bursting into flames. Thus we find ourselves reflecting on his previous desire to be a Dictator.

Obama wishes he had an easier job, like president of China

Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”

Tahrir Square, for those who don’t understand the stupidity of this comment, is in Egypt. Hu Jintao had nothing to do with Tahrir Square, Hu Jintao was the Communist Chinese Dictator responsible for the massacre that took place in Tiananmen Square, change a single name, and sadly most people lose the significance of what Obama was saying, remind them that he was speaking not of Hu Jintao words in Tahrir Square, but of his actions in Tiananmen Square and the meaning of Barack Obama’s statement comes into crystal clear focus.

(Cross Posted @ The Wilderness of Mirrors)

Goldwaterite Historical Update: Hu Jintao was not the leader of China during the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. The leaders of China were Deng Xiaoping and Li Peng.

What happened to Obama? Basically nothing

by Speranza ( 96 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Election 2008, Healthcare, Liberal Fascism, Progressives at November 21st, 2013 - 7:00 am

All this hand wringing by conventional liberals about Obama’s pratfalls in the health care debacle are rather amusing. It was obvious to those of us who pursue “truth” – instead of “ideology” – where ever it may lead, that Barack Obama was a hard core leftist and a naif  when it comes to real world economics and was damned serious about remaking America according to the dreams of his neo-Marxist father.

by Norman Podhoretz

It’s open season on President Obama. Which is to say that the usual suspects on the right (among whom I include myself) are increasingly being joined in attacking him by erstwhile worshipers on the left. Even before the S&P downgrade, there were reports of Democrats lamenting that Hillary Clinton had lost to him in 2008. Some were comparing him not, as most of them originally had, to Lincoln and Roosevelt but to the hapless Jimmy Carter. There was even talk of finding a candidate to stage a primary run against him. But since the downgrade, more and more liberal pundits have been deserting what they clearly fear is a sinking ship.

Here, for example, from the Washington Post, is Richard Cohen: “He is the very personification of cognitive dissonance—the gap between what we (especially liberals) expected of the first serious African American presidential candidate and the man he in fact is.” More amazingly yet Mr. Cohen goes on to say of Mr. Obama, who not long ago was almost universally hailed as the greatest orator since Pericles, that he lacks even “the rhetorical qualities of the old-time black politicians.”  [.......]

Overseas it is the same refrain. Everywhere in the world, we read in Germany’s Der Spiegel, not only are the hopes ignited by Mr. Obama being dashed, but his “weakness is a problem for the entire global economy.”

In short, the spell that Mr. Obama once cast—a spell so powerful that instead of ridiculing him when he boasted that he would cause “the oceans to stop rising and the planet to heal,” all of liberaldom fell into a delirious swoon—has now been broken by its traumatic realization that he is neither the “god” Newsweek in all seriousness declared him to be nor even a messianic deliverer.

Hence the question on every lip is—as the title of a much quoted article in the New York Times by Drew Westen of Emory University puts it— “What Happened to Obama?” Attacking from the left, Mr. Westen charges that President Obama has been conciliatory when he should have been aggressively pounding away at all the evildoers on the right.

Of course, unlike Mr. Westen, we villainous conservatives do not see Mr. Obama as conciliatory or as “a president who either does not know what he believes or is willing to take whatever position he thinks will lead to his re-election.” On the contrary, we see him as a president who knows all too well what he believes. Furthermore, what Mr. Westen regards as an opportunistic appeal to the center we interpret as a tactic calculated to obfuscate his unshakable strategic objective, which is to turn this country into a European-style social democracy while diminishing the leading role it has played in the world since the end of World War II.  [.......]

This statement, coming on top of his association with radicals like Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Rashid Khalidi, definitively revealed to all who were not wilfully blinding themselves that Mr. Obama was a genuine product of the political culture that had its birth among a marginal group of leftists in the early 1960s and that by the end of the decade had spread metastatically to the universities, the mainstream media, the mainline churches, and the entertainment industry. Like their communist ancestors of the 1930s, the leftist radicals of the ’60s were convinced that the United States was so rotten that only a revolution could save it.

But whereas the communists had in their delusional vision of the Soviet Union a model of the kind of society that would replace the one they were bent on destroying, the new leftists only knew what they were against: America, or Amerika as they spelled it to suggest its kinship to Nazi Germany. Thanks, however, to the unmasking of the Soviet Union as a totalitarian nightmare, they did not know what they were for. Yet once they had pulled off the incredible feat of taking over the Democratic Party behind the presidential candidacy of George McGovern in 1972, they dropped the vain hope of a revolution, and in the social-democratic system most fully developed in Sweden they found an alternative to American capitalism that had a realistic possibility of being achieved through gradual political reform.

Despite Mr. McGovern’s defeat by Richard Nixon in a landslide, the leftists remained a powerful force within the Democratic Party, but for the next three decades the electoral exigencies within which they had chosen to operate prevented them from getting their own man nominated. Thus, not one of the six Democratic presidential candidates who followed Mr. McGovern came out of the party’s left wing, and when Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (the only two of the six who won) tried each in his own way to govern in its spirit, their policies were rejected by the American immune system. It was only with the advent of Barack Obama that the leftists at long last succeeded in nominating one of their own.

To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.  [.........]

And so it came about that a faithful scion of the political culture of the ’60s left is now sitting in the White House and doing everything in his power to effect the fundamental transformation of America to which that culture was dedicated and to which he has pledged his own personal allegiance.

I disagree with those of my fellow conservatives who maintain that Mr. Obama is indifferent to “the best interests of the United States” (Thomas Sowell) and is “purposely” out to harm America (Rush Limbaugh). In my opinion, he imagines that he is helping America to repent of its many sins and to become a different and better country.

But I emphatically agree with Messrs. Limbaugh and Sowell about this president’s attitude toward America as it exists and as the Founding Fathers intended it. That is why my own answer to the question, “What Happened to Obama?” is that nothing happened to him. He is still the same anti-American leftist he was before becoming our president, and it is this rather than inexperience or incompetence or weakness or stupidity that accounts for the richly deserved failure both at home and abroad of the policies stemming from that reprehensible cast of mind.

Read the rest – What happened to Obama? Absolutely nothing

Pope Francis calls out the evil nature of Progressivism

by Rodan ( 2 Comments › )
Filed under Christianity, Communism, Fascism, Hipsters, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Nazism, Progressives, Socialism, Special Report, Theocratic Progressives, Tranzis at November 18th, 2013 - 12:21 pm

The Progressive movement is the most successful and brutal political ideology since the rise of Islam. Since its inception with the Jacobins of the French Revolution, Progressivism many factions which ranges from nazism to Communism has been responsible for the majority of wars and human suffering the last 2 Centuries. Pope Francis calls out this evil ideology and the misery it brings to humanity.

Vatican City ( AsiaNews) – God save us from the “hegemonic uniformity ” of the “one line of thought”, “fruit of the spirit of the world that negotiates everything”, even the faith.  This was Pope Francis’ prayer during mass this morning at Casa Santa Marta, commenting on a passage from the Book of Maccabees, in which the leaders of the people do not want Israel to be isolated from other nations , and so abandon their traditions to negotiate with the king.

They go to “negotiate ” and are excited about it. It is as if they said “we are progressives; let’s follow progress like everyone else does”.   As reported by Vatican Radio, the Pope noted that this is the “spirit of adolescent progressivism” according to which “any move forward and any choice is better than remaining within the routine of fidelity”. These people, therefore , negotiate “loyalty to God who is always faithful” with the king. “This is called apostasy”, “adultery.” They are, in fact, negotiating their values​​, ” negotiating the very essence of being faithful to the Lord .”

“And this is a contradiction: we do not negotiate values​​, but faithfulness. And this is the fruit of the devil, the prince of this world , who leads us forward with the spirit of worldliness.  And then there are the direct consequences. They accepted the habits of the pagan, then a further step: the king wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people, and everyone would abandon their customs. A globalizing conformity of all nations is not beautiful, rather, each with own customs but united, but it is the hegemonic uniformity of globalization, the single line of thought . And this single line of thought is the result of worldliness . “

Conformity goes against God’s design of making each human a unique individual. Conformity of thought which is a Progressive concept is outright evil!

Overheard At An ObamaCare Exchange

by Bunk X ( 213 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Business, Communism, Corruption, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Fascism, Health Care, Healthcare, History, Liberal Fascism, Open thread, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, Socialism, unemployment at November 14th, 2013 - 8:00 pm

“Hello, Ma’am. May I help you?”

“Yes, I’m here to sign up for ObamaCare because my insurance carrier dropped me.”

“I can help you with that, but I need some information first. I need your age, weight, height, current medical status and your Social Security ID card with an ID.”

“Here’s my card and my driver’s license. I’m 67, 5′-7″, 210 lbs., diabetic, smoker, varicose veins, and have high blood pressure.”

“Do you drink alcohol?”

“All I can get.”

“Do you own a firearm?”

“What? Yes I do. For self defense.”

“Huh. Are you aware that ObamaCare provides free contraceptives and coverage for pregnancy?

“I’ve had a hysterectomy.”

“That doesn’t matter, because you’ll still be covered just in case. Who did you vote for in the last presidential election?”

“What does that have to do with medical insurance?”

“I’m sorry, Ma’am, but I need that information to process your enrollment.”

“I voted for Mitt Romney.”

“Okay. I’ve got your info entered and it looks like you qualify for ObamaCare Plan 9.
Please proceed down the hall to Waiting Room 2, Door 314, and an ObamaCaregiver will be with you shortly. Have a nice day.”

ObamaCare Exit

What a bizarre nightmare of bureaucratic fascism Obamacare has become. It has nothing to do with so-called “affordable health care” because it’s more insidious than that. Look beyond the facade of the ObamaCare website fiasco, and there’s nothing but expensive darkness, economic gloom, substandard medical care and more.

Make no mistake, the aging “baby boomer” generation, those of us born between 1946 and 1964, are the targets, because we’re old enough to remember atrocities perpetrated by the Left here and abroad. ObamaCare is just another vehicle designed to erase the past in order to promote a radical leftist agenda, and it’s got lethal teeth.

People still wonder how mass murderers like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Ho Chi Minh & Pol Pot came to power and killed off millions of their own people. We’re witnessing the same process today, via a clever but insidious program known as ObamaCare, and that’s not hyperbole. If ObamaCare is fully enacted, the Missus and I will suffer, but I worry for my kids who will suffer more, because they won’t know why.

Teach Your Children Well.

[Crossposted here, just because.]

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Obamacare

by Mars ( 107 Comments › )
Filed under Free Speech, Health Care, History, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Politics, Progressives, Ronald Reagan, Socialism at November 14th, 2013 - 4:00 pm

Kyle Becker

Kyle Becker
On September 25, 2013


Ronald Reagan predicted the exact maneuver that Barack Obama is undertaking to “transition” the medical system of America to a single-payer, universal healthcare system — which was his intention all along.

Speaking for the campaign “Operation Coffee Cup,” which opposed the Democrats proposing socialized medicine, future president Ronald Reagan lays out how the socialists intended to take over healthcare in this country. The following is an edited transcript:

“Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.

There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. Our government is in business to the extent over owning more than 19,000 businesses covering different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.

But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way. Because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

So, with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand Bill. This was the idea that all people of social security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security.

Now, Congressman Ferrand brought the program out on that idea of just for that group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot in the door philosophy, because he said “if we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that.”

Walter Ruther said “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record as backing a program of national health insurance.” And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American. Well, let’s see what the socialists themselves have to say about it.

They say: ‘Once the Ferrrand bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine. Capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.’ Well, we can’t say we haven’t been warned…”

Maybe Obama meant something when he bragged about “fundamentally transforming” the United States of America?


Please listen to this speech in it’s entirety, the edited transcript does not do it justice. Reagan detailed many of the aspects of Obamacare that are just now being understood by the general public. And he did it all the way back in the 60′s when another set of liberals tried the exact same thing.

About those Death Panels

by Mars ( 91 Comments › )
Filed under Blogmocracy, Communism, Democratic Party, Europe, Fascism, Guest Post, Health Care, Healthcare, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Medicine, Political Correctness, Progressives, Science, Socialism, Tranzis at November 5th, 2013 - 1:00 pm

This article should terrify anyone with physically and mentally disabled family members. Remember the left keeps pushing for euthanasia because it isn’t fair to force someone terminally ill to continue living. Yet again and again when the law is put into action suddenly it becomes a force to eliminate those that are “inconvenient” to society. It should also be noted that the man most considered the architect of Obamacare, Ezekial Emmanuel is a true believer of Peter Singers view that children should be able to be “aborted” up until the age of two. The idea that this could lead to death panels and forced euthanizing of the disabled and elderly is not too far fetched when you look at how this is applied in other countries. Remember, the left wants to make us more like the “enlightened” Europeans.

Human Exceptionalism

Life and dignity with Wesley J. Smith.

Of Course Euthanasia is About Mental Illness
By Wesley J. Smith
November 4, 2013 10:52 AM

It really is astounding how the media continue to assume that assisted suicide/euthanasia is only for the terminally ill.

Here’s the latest example: Hemlock Society founder Derek Humphry was in Arizona advocating for assisted suicide for the mentally ill, and Arizona Star columnist Tim Steller is shocked! From the article:

If you think the idea of assisted suicide is controversial, welcome to the farthest frontier in the debate. Announcing his visit to Tucson for two Nov. 23 presentations, Derek Humphry, a pioneer in the movement for legal assisted suicide, broached this shocking notion: assisted suicide for those suffering from mental illness and unable to get better.

Furthest frontier?

In the Netherlands, the mentally ill are euthanized. Indeed, the mental health community is looking forward to getting in on the euthanasia action.
In Belgium, the mentally ill are euthanized–and harvested for their organs.
In Switzerland, the Supreme Court declared a constitutional right to assisted suicide for the mentally ill:
Quebec’s new euthanasia legislation would allow euthanasia of the mentally ill.
There is a strong movement within the mental health professions to legitimize “rational suicide.”
The most prominent backers of legalizing assisted suicide internationally have always promoted opening the door to the mentally ill, from Kevorkian to Nitschke, to Humphry–all heroes of the euthanasia movement. Some obscure this latter goal for reasons of political expediency, but realize that is the tactic, not the goal.

Why aren’t these facts on the ground more widely reported? The media has taken sides on this issue–and advocate-journalists know what they don’t want you to know.

I am also convinced that the grass roots of the assisted suicide movement are enthusiastically on board with the eventual spread of euthanasia to mentally ill people. For example, two years ago I debated the issue at the Santa Barbara Natural History Museum: When a self-declared mentally ill woman went to the microphone and said she should have the right to be made dead too–most of the audience burst into strong applause.

Death-on-demand–except for those with a transitory desire to die–is what the euthanasia issue is really all about. An honest debate would be waged over that–not about defining phony restrictions that are intended to give false assurance of control and then collapse as society embraces the killing agenda.