Posts Tagged ‘Progressives’

Obama Liberation Movement

by coldwarrior ( 112 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Liberal Fascism, Progressives at March 1st, 2010 - 7:00 am

Submitted 26FEB2010

Speranza’s post on Obama’s destruction of the special relationship between the UK and US got me thinking. What is Obama trying to do? Why is he governing this way? His style seems so familiar. Sure, he’s a progressive, some would use stronger words like fascists or communist to describe him. His record indicates he is an affirmative-action promotion all the way through college into public life. He has been repeatedly promoted many times well over his abilities; get the promotion and look for the next gig and ride that white-guilt gravy train all the way to the top. He could alleviate some of this perception by showing some of his college and professorial writings; or maybe had he voted something other than ‘present’ over and over again there could be a real record to look at. But none of this really explains why he governs the way he does. Perhaps the explanation is that he is from the mold of the African Liberation Movements of the 1960’s forward.

The African Liberation Movements were mostly driven by Marxists ideology and revenge against the established colonial powers and colonial structures. These movements that took control from the European colonial powers in the 1960’s were all based on destruction: fighting the colonial oppressors and destroying the old power base sometime violently with the goal of some nebulous idea of justice for the formerly downtrodden citizens. The problem with this sort of thought is that it is incapable of building anything positive, these movements are based on destruction. After victory, they mostly failed to implement the democratic aspirations that they were formed around and they managed to destroy the economies of almost all of th countries in which they took power. The white European elites were replaced by black African elites that were short on skills but quick to learn how to pay off people to stay in power. Obama’s father was a minor player in Kenya during the time of the African Liberation Movements and Obama, Jr never really got to know him. So why bring up a minor economist from Kenya?

It would seem to me that a fatherless boy hungry for a positive identity in a world hostile to his bi-racial birth would look to his absent father and his absent father’s life and ideals for comfort.   The the son would be looking to his father and identifying with the African Liberation role in his ancestry to inform and then affirm his own beliefs during the son’s formative years and into his college career and beyond . The Movement would take on larger and larger proportions of his identification with his past because of a need of identification with his father. As he learned more about the Liberation Movements, identification with the principals and actors become ingrained in the political and economic outlook of the young Obama. Young Obama holds and nurtures these ideas and they become part of his identity and methods. (The biography “Dreams from my Father” is dismissed here because it is nothing more that political theater and a distraction tool.)

His idea of “Fundamentally Changing America”, as he promised on the campaign trail, does not come from grass roots organizing in the Democratic Party machine of Chicago. I would bet that the machine would frown on this, unless the change would ensure uninterrupted political power. “Fundamentally Changing America” comes from the marriage of his nascent, core African Liberation Movement examples with the Rev Wright’s Liberation theology. The methods of the African Nationalist Movements would be merged with the teachings of Liberation theology to destroy the structure and basic tenants of America and replace them with the Progressive ideals of undefined and nebulous ideas of justice and newly created rights. Twenty years of of these two messages in Obama’s mind wedded the two into a single ideology that, unlike the Negritude movement coined by Cesaire, would create a Liberation Movement that does not need to be racial; the Movement replaces race with a nation built on a permanent needy trans-racial underclass becasue minority and race based Liberation Movements fail becasue they are not inclusive and encompassing of all people.

Destroy the system with its own hand. Print as much money as you can, ignore the will of the people, trample the ideals that built this country. The goal is to forever weaken the perceived evil, the unfair country, the target of loathing in the progressive mind,”Fundamentally Change America”. Strive to create a perpetual trans-racial dependent class and the progressives can remain in power free from the legal colonialism of the Constitution that restrains the Obama Liberation Movement and its followers.

We can also treat this as an open thread…now get back to work robomonkey! its monday after all :)

Traitorous Democrats.

by coldwarrior ( 73 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Healthcare, Politics, Progressives at February 20th, 2010 - 9:00 am

Submitted 20FEB201

I’ll keep this short and sweet, from Drudge: “
BACK FROM THE DEAD: DEMS VOW TO RAHM-THROUGH HEALTHCARE!

Add that with the polling data like this:Only 35% of voters believe Congress should pass health care reform before the upcoming midterm elections anyway. Fifty-four percent (54%) say Congress should wait until voters select new congressional representatives in November. This 35% for passing health care reform right now is also consistent with the Obamanite Water Carrier Poll at Perky Katie CBS.

Any member of Congress or the Senate that continues with this nonsense is working against the will of the American people, revolutions and violence stem from continual acts of government like this. Frankly, if there were a real ‘reset’ button’, it needs to be hit, and hard!

You will notice I am not including President Obama in this push for unpopular bills, he stated that he would fundamentally change America…at least he was very honest about that.

Bernardine Dohrn & William Ayers vs Egypt

by Eliana ( 157 Comments › )
Filed under Egypt, Gaza, Hamas, Israel, Progressives at January 18th, 2010 - 3:30 pm

Egypt won. Bernardine Dohrn blames Israel.

Obama pals Bernardine Dorhn and William Ayers are up to mischief again and their target is Israel. So far, they aren’t doing very well, though.

As Caroline Glick tells the story…

Oh the shame of it all. Last month, 1,300 pro-Palestinian activists from the US and Europe came to the region in the name of peace and social justice to demonstrate their solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza. Led by the self-declared feminist, antiwar group Code Pink, the demonstrators’ plan was to enter Gaza from the Egyptian border at Rafah and deliver “humanitarian aid” to the Hamas terrorist organization.

But it was not to be. Led by Code Pink founder and California Democratic fund-raiser Jodie Evans, the demonstrators were not welcomed by Egyptian authorities. Many were surrounded by riot police and barbed wire as they demonstrated outside the US and French embassies and the UN Development Program’s headquarters. Others were barred from leaving their hotels.

Those who managed to escape their hotels and the bullpens outside the embassies were barred from staging night protests in solidarity with Hamas on the Nile. In the end, as the militant Israeli pro-Palestinian activist Amira Hass chronicled in Haaretz last week, all but 100 of them were barred from travelling to Gaza.

The lucky few allowed into the Strip included neither Evans nor her friends, former Weather Underground terror leaders Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayres. But they bore no grudge against Egypt. The Egyptians were mere puppets of the real culprit: Israel. As Evans said, “It’s obvious that the only reason for [Egypt's treatment of the demonstrators] is to make Israel happy. Israel is behind the refusal [to allow the demonstrators into Gaza] – what other excuse could there be?”

Dohrn, the woman who has called for a “revolutionary war” to destroy the US, felt that the Egyptian authorities’ behavior was nothing but an unfortunate diversion from their mission. As she wrote in a blog post from Cairo, “We find ourselves unwillingly in Cairo, drawn into clashes with authorities and one another on side issues, when what we most want is to keep our eyes on the Palestinian people.”

Their goal was to break the “siege” on Gaza, but the 100 people who made it into Gaza couldn’t break the seige imposed on themselves by Hamas when they got there:

Unfortunately for the lucky 100 who were permitted to enter Hamastan, the diversions didn’t end at the Egyptians border. Hamas immediately placed them under siege. The Palestinian champions had planned to enjoy home hospitality from friends in Gaza. But once there they were prohibited from leaving the Hamas-owned Commodore Hotel and from having any contact with local Gazans without a Hamas escort.

Rather than being permitted to judge the situation in Gaza for themselves, they were carted onto Hamas buses and taken on “devastation tours” of what their Hamas tour guides claimed was damage caused by the IDF during Operation Cast Lead. And then these international protesters were forced to participate in a Hamas-organized march to the Erez crossing.

As [Amira] Hass tells it, in “a slap to many feminist organizers and participants,” no Palestinian women were allowed to participate in the march, which “turned into nothing more than a ritual, an opportunity for Hamas cabinet ministers to get decent media coverage in the company of Western demonstrators.”

Hamas probably didn’t mention to the Code Pink people that the Erez Crossing between Gaza and Israel is closed most of the time because Gazan terrorists try to blow it up when it’s open. An attempt happened again recently after Israel had been leaving it more open than usual.

The crossing is currently open on a limited basis. Last week, a Jewish woman and her four children escaped from Gaza and her Arab husband (the father of her children) who is currently in prison for his work on the smuggling tunnels. Her Arab brother-in-law threatened to kill her if she tried to escape Gaza, but her Jewish family arranged things with Israel’s Shin Bet (similar to the FBI) to get the woman and her four children through the crossing quickly if they could make it there via taxi and if they managed to fool Hamas into letting them go through the Hamas side of the crossing. It all worked! The woman and her children are FREE in Israel!

Not that an American Feminist organization like Code Pink would care about a woman’s and four children’s freedom when Code Pink has mass murderers to support.

[Militant Israeli pro-Palestinian activist] [Amira] Hass’s participation in the pro-Hamas propaganda trip is a bit surprising. In November 2008, she was forced to flee from Gaza to Israel after Hamas threatened to kill her. At the time, Hass appealed to the Israeli military – which she has spent the better part of her career bashing – and asked to be allowed to enter Israel from Gaza, after sailing illegally to Gaza from Cyprus on a ferry chartered by the pro-Hamas Free Gaza outfit.

Hass’s behavior is actually more revealing than surprising. The truth is that Hass and her fellow demonstrators were willing to be used as media props by Hamas precisely because it isn’t the Palestinians’ welfare that concerns them. If they cared about the Palestinians they would be demonstrating against Hamas, which prohibited local women from participating in their march to the Israeli border, and which barred non-Hamas members from speaking with them. It would offend their sensitivities that Hamas goons beat women for not covering themselves from head to toe in Islamic potato sacks. It would bother them that Hamas executes its political opponents by among other things throwing them off the roofs of apartment buildings.

The demonstrators did not come to Gaza to demonstrate their support for the Palestinians, but rather their hatred for Israel and for their own Western governments that refuse to join Hamas in its war against Israel. As one of the organizers told Hass as she sat corralled by Egyptian riot police outside the UNDP offices in Cairo, “In our presence here, we are saying that we are not casting the blame on Egypt. The responsibility for the shameless and obscene Israeli siege on Gaza rests squarely with our own countries.”

By happily collaborating with Hamas in its propaganda extravaganza, these demonstrators demonstrated that the rights of Palestinians are not their concern. Their concern is waging war against their own societies and against Israel. They are more than happy to have their pictures taken with the likes of Hamas terror master Ismail Haniyeh. And while they will never acknowledge that his organization’s terror war against Israel is illegal and immoral, or care that Hamas’s founding charter explicitly calls for the genocide of Jewry, they will demonstrate from today till doomsday against their governments’ recognition of Israel.

Dohrn & Ayers are old Obama pals, of course, and Code Pink is welcome at the White House too.

The last line of Caroline Glick’s artile is especially chilling:

Israeli authorities tend to treat groups like Code Pink and its Israeli allies as nothing more than nuisances. Since unlike Egypt and these self-proclaimed human rights champions themselves, Israel actually does care about human rights, it would never occur to anyone to treat these demonstrators as Egypt did. At the same time, the Egyptian authorities’ actions were clearly informed by their understanding that, with their ties to Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizbullah, Syria and Iran, Code Pink and its friends are active collaborators with the jihad war machine.

With their open ties to our jihadist enemies on the one hand, and their direct line to the White House on the other, Israel ignores them at our peril.

Caroline Glick’s article is here — Column One: Code Red on Code Pink

President Zero promises kept

by bar ( 197 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Progressives at January 4th, 2010 - 5:00 pm

This is what he says

But this is what he really does.

President Obama to Sign Pork-Laden Omnibus Spending BillABC news

The White House cut backroom deals with a number of senators to secure their votes for the bill.  Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska received $100 million in federal funds for a rip off which exempted his state from paying for new Medicaid patients.  Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana got a kickback of $300 million in extra federal spending for her state. – The canadafreepress

Democrats lock Republicans out of committee roomThe Hill

Obama makes secret back room deal with big pharmaceuticalHot Air

Credit card bill of rights passed without five-day break – politifact
Still no “Sunlight before Signing” – politifact
Obama signs first law without Web commentpolitifact

Meetings With Lobbyists Go UnreportedThe Benton Foundation

Take his advice and decide if your representatives are representing you.

The Proggies are restless

by snork ( 67 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Humor, Leftists, Open thread, Politics, Progressives at December 29th, 2009 - 7:20 pm

This is a hilarious if not semi-righteous rant from a libprog blogger. He’s seriously tinkled off at our blunder-in-chief:

But the little prick is making it very hard.

Like any good progressive, I’ve gone from admiration to hope to disappointment to anger when it comes to this president. Now I’m fast getting to rage.

How much rage? I find myself thinking that the thing I want most from the 2010 elections is for his party to get absolutely clobbered, even if that means a repeat of 1994. And that what I most want from 2012 is for him to be utterly humiliated, even if that means President Palin at the helm. That much rage.

Verrrrry angry, indeed.

Are you freakin’ kidding me??? What’s up with the passive president routine, anyhow, Fool? You hold the most powerful position in the world. Or maybe Rahm forgot to mention that to you. Or maybe the fat cat bankers don’t actually let do that whole decision-making thing often enough that it would actually matter…

But, really, are you going to spend the next three interminable years perfecting your whiney victim persona? I don’t really think I could bear that. Hearing you complain about how rough it all is, when you have vastly more power than any of us to fix it? Please. Not that.

Are you angry enough?

Here’s a guy who was supposed to actually do something with his presidency, and he’s turned into the skinny little geek on Cell Block D who gets passed around like a rag doll for the pleasure of all the fellas with the tattoos there. He’s being punked by John Boehner, for chrisakes. He’s being rolled by the likes of Joe Lieberman. He calls a come-to-Jesus meeting with Wall Street bank CEOs, and half of them literally phone it in. Everyone from Bibi Netanyahu to the Japanese prime minister to sundry Iranian mullahs is stomping all over Mr. Happy.

Well, umm… you could have gotten behind Hillary. Fool. Snigger.

It goes on and on and on. Read the whole thing.

Responding to a J Streeter

by Delectable ( 115 Comments › )
Filed under IDF, Israel, Palestinians, Progressives at December 23rd, 2009 - 5:00 am

Greetings, netizens!

As I wrote before, I hope you see Love and Licenses on January 6th in NYC. However, I am writing this to discuss something else entirely.

I had a long back-and-forth communique with a progressive J Streeter, and I figured that you would appreciate my arguments, so that you may use my words in the future, should you come across similar such arguments.

It is important to note that there is a large swath of people who fit this category: they believe Israel has a right to exist, but they also believe Israel is a “colonizer” in Judea/Samaria (the “West Bank,” - we cannot cede language), and must go back to 1949 borders. This essay is meant to serve as a handy reference guide when you are faced with such people!

—————–

ARGUMENT ONE: Israel is in violation of UN resolutions by being in Judea/Samaria ILLEGALLY. In order to stop violating “international law,” Israel needs to leave Judea/Samaria.
Here is the bottom line. The UN is made up of the countries that make up the UN, and that consists of a majority of despotic regimes that are antisemitic in nature. See: UN Watch, Eye on the UN.

You claimed that one of the “proofs” that Israel is “illegally occupying” the “settlements” are the numerous UN resolutions against the State of Israel.

I have the simplest answer in response. So what? Do you think I am unaware of the numerous resolutions against Israel, none of which are binding, but all of which simply prove the UN is a made up of antisemitic countries that punish the good guys?

The General Assembly resolutions are little more than suggestions, and are non-binding on an international level. The only binding “international law,” to the extent it even exists, are Security Council Resolutions. And Israel is not in violation of even a single Security Council resolution. The only resolution anyone points to is UN resolution 242, which was drafted by Eugene Rostow, undersecretary of State under Lyndon B. Johnson. And this resolution only calls for Israel to withdraw from “land for peace.” However – it does not call for Israel to withdraw from all land, and it only calls for Israel to withdraw from land in exchange for peace, not jihad.

(more…)

The Goings on in Gilo, Jerusalem

by Delectable ( 228 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Barack Obama, Israel, Progressives, Tranzis at November 18th, 2009 - 1:33 pm

As many of you have probably already heard, the Obama administration has decided to make international waves about the decision of the Jerusalem municipality in Israel to approve an additional 900 housing units in Gilo, which is within Jerusalem city limits. Somehow, a municipal decision to approve housing units in the capitol of its country becomes an international incident. Only in Israel!

Gilo

This is typical. I am going to not lay all the blame on Obama here, and it must be noted that Condi Rice had made similar such statements in the past. As is typical, J Street supported Obama, and is against the additional housing in Gilo. (shocka!)

The common theme is that somehow it is “anti-human rights” for Jews to build homes, kindergartens, and nurseries in their capitol city of Jerusalem, which is, lest we forget, the holiest city for Jews, and the city that every observant Jew prays to on a daily basis. (Can you imagine the USA telling Saudi Arabia that it cannot build more housing units for Muslims in Mecca? Enough said!)

But here is the little wrinkle to the story that the mainstream media usually leaves out: Arabs can buy land in Jewish areas. Not only can they buy land – they actually do buy land in Jewish neighborhoods.

Here are just two examples of Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem where Arabs feel free to buy and sell land as they see fit – Pisgat Ze’ev and French Hill. In fact, Arabs buy and sell land anywhere they want in Israel, including Tel Aviv!

Here is an article by reputed scholar Alex Safian about the ability of Arabs to buy and sell land in all parts of Israel, written in 1997. The restrictions to land purchase only have decreased, to the extent they existed in 1997, due to the liberal Supreme Court of Israel! Right now there are reports of Gulf Arabs buying of land in Israel located in the Galilee. This flies in the face of the supposedly ‘racist’ and ‘discriminatory’ land policies in Israel. Actually, the real racists are from Peace Now. They actually sued to prevent Jews from buying land in Jaffa, Israel, which is indisputably part of the 1967 borders of Israel. Arabs – they can buy land wherever they want (with the understanding that most land is state-owned, but I use the term “buy” and “long-term lease” interchangeably, as far as this goes). But according to Peace Now (a misnomer of a term if I ever heard it – they are anti-peace, as I previously discussed), Jews cannot buy land in Jaffa, because it is an Arab neighborhood, which must be ‘respected.’ (yet Jewish neighborhoods disrespected, of course – this is a one-way street!) Thankfully, Peace Now lost their case before the Israeli Supreme Court. Interesting, I came across this article, which clearly peddled the lame line that if Jews move into an Arab neighborhood of Jaffa, then it will “incite” violence. So Jews should not have the right to live there. This clearly follows the “noble savage” line of thinking – that somehow Arabs who live in Jaffa are not human beings, but rather are beasts, who are incapable of anything but violence, so you should not provoke the noble beasts! As I said – Peace Now, J Street and their ilk – they really are racist!

Meanwhile, we deal with the reality that if Arabs sell land to Jews, they could be slaughtered. I am not just making this up. There have been cases of Arabs being killed for selling land to Jews. And so this also colors land claims – of course Arabs will deny they sold land to Jews, because to do anything us puts their very lives in jeopardy! Also – in Jordan – and throughout the Mideast – it is against state law for a Jew to own land in the country. (yet no “human rights organizations” seem to have problems with this, of course!) Here is a CAMERA primer on the law concerning land purchase and use. It is a must-read to understand the basic law in the region!

What is the lesson to be learned about this all? I would say that it is racist for Obama (and previously, Condi Rice) to make an “international incident” over 900 homes in Gilo. As I have extensively shown, Arabs have the right to buy and sell land throughout all of Israel. It is clearly racist to tell Jews – and only Jews – that they must be ghettoized, and cannot enjoy such similar rights.

As I have outlined, Peace Now is tied in very closely (joined at the hip, if you will) to the progressive movement. They (and J Street, also, as I have outlined, a progressive organization) are thus supporting racism.

It is because I reject racism and support equality and human rights that I support Israel and reject the progressive view of the world that ghettoizes the Jew, and turns Arabs “noble savages.” I expect more for humanity and the world!

Liberal elitists aren’t elite

by tqcincinnatus ( 188 Comments › )
Filed under Leftists, Politics at November 14th, 2009 - 5:35 am

Great editorial by Mike Rosen in which he points out that the pretentions of those on the Left are divorced from reality,

When it suits their purposes and advances their political agenda, liberals are unabashedly elitist. Nonetheless, they recoil from that term when conservatives label them as such. Their reasoning is positively schizophrenic, confusing private behavior with public policy.

A true elite is one whose talents place him, objectively, at or among the top in his field. Tiger Woods is an elite golfer, in fact, the best in the world. Albert Einstein was an elite scientist, a genius. Michelangelo, an elite artist. An “elitist,” on the other hand, is one who is not necessarily talented or brilliant but who simply regards himself as such, and who would subordinate others to his will.

Al Gore, for example, is certainly not an elite scientist. In fact, he’s not a scientist at all. He’s not a physicist, climatologist or meteorologist. He’s a politician, and when it comes to the highly debatable subject of climate change, he’s just a guy with an opinion. As an advocate for a doomsday version of the theory of human-induced global warming, he selectively and misleadingly brokers the work of actual scientists and other polemicists in this field. To the extent that Gore would dictate how people, businesses and governments behave in the course of imposing environmental and economic policies, he’s a pretentious elitist in the worst sense of that term.

[snip]

One liberal pontificated that he wants only the “best and the brightest” in government to “run our country.” I suspect he and I would disagree about who the best and brightest are and what qualities earn them that distinction. My list certainly wouldn’t include Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama, to whom I don’t defer as my intellectual superiors. His list probably wouldn’t include Ronald Reagan. Moreover, I don’t want government or politicians to “run our country.” That’s a statist view. The state is not society; it’s a subset of society. It’s the height of pretentious elitism to believe that any panel of bureaucrats is smart enough to “run” our intricate market economy. The Soviets tried that.

Exactly.  One thing that always strikes me about the so-called elite is how singularly and uniformly incompetent they tend to be.  This is especially true with respect to the issue of climate change.  Indeed, it can be taken as a truism that the more sure a person is about the “truth” of anthropogenic global warming, the less that person actually knows about the science involved.

There are two main reasons why people are leftists: they want somebody to take care of them (if they are in the vast mass of useful idiots propping up the ideology) or they want to control other people.  It is those in the latter group who generally tend to think of themselves as “elite,” though the vast mass generally tends to be conned into thinking the same thing about those few at the top.  I’ve literally had people tell me at great length about how intelligent and wise Obama is.  Meanwhile, I’m sitting there wondering if they’re referring to the same Obama that I’m thinking of? 

After all, the real Obama can’t even say more than two sentences in public without the aid of a teleprompter.  The real Obama can’t even make a decision about Afghanistan while our troops are dying from the idiotic rules of engagement that his administration has saddled them with.   The real Obama can’t even write his own book, but had to have another leftist write it for him (and that was poorly done too, I might add.  I mean, I’m not an elite, but at least I wrote my own book all by my little ol’ self, and did all my own research, too.

Elitism is uniquely a product of collectivist thinking.  Elitism presupposes the existence of hierarchy within group interactions, and the top of that hierarchy is filled by those who have managed to impose themselves upon those below them, though usually not for objectively meritorious reasons.  Typically, advancement in a collective setting involves reward for conformity to the group ideals.  If those ideals are bad, or make no sense, then the result is that those who advance the furthest because they are the most zealous or effective at promoting those ideals tend to be people who are not, in the wider sense, as foresighted, wise, or munificent in their dealings outside the particular group setting.  This is why tone-deaf party hacks tend to be the ones who rise to the top in political parties.  This is why top bureaucrats tend to be those most effective at stonewalling and protecting the interests of the bureaucracy as a body, even if efficient service to the customer is lacking (and this is true in both the public and private sectors, by the way).  This is why dictatorial systems inevitably end up being so vicious and cruel – those who are best at punishing non-conformists end up reaching the highest offices.

Ironically, individuals who don’t feel the need to impose themselves onto others generally tend to be more individually meritorious than those who prosper within collectivist, leftist systems.  

This explains the sea change in American governance that has occurred over the last 60 years.  When our nation was founded, it was founded by men who had individually excelled in their fields, and who did not require government intervention to prop them up, nor did they desire to intervene in the lives of others so as to induce their dependence.  Starting with the Great Depression, however, the shift in attitude on the part of those in political power was that the common man was too incapable to provide for himself, so the government would provide for him.  Of course, the first failure of the outflowing of efforts on that part was the prolonging of the Great Depression by several years, to be ended only by the artificial economic injection provided by World War II.  Since then, the elitist attitude has given us a failed War on Poverty, and any number of “deals” which have fallen through.  In turn, our government has largely been filled by those who cannot think for themselves, and who are primarily interested in maintaining and advancing the bureaucratic systems in place.  “Intelligence” and “capability” are no longer measured in terms of individual merit,  but in terms of “a willingness to perpetuate the welfare state,” which makes a mockery out of what those terms really mean. 

Hence, the drive to socialise our health care system, even though there are any number of market-based reforms that could be put into place instead, and that have the added advantage that they would actually work.   But they wouldn’t increase the power of an elite that needs to validate itself by inducing dependence in the expanding underclass. 

The “elite” in this country are afraid of individual initiative.  This is because individual initiative refutes the “need” for an elite, and would bring to the fore individuals whose talents and capacities far exceed the “elite” like Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Gore, Frank, and the rest. 

Project for The Blogmocracy: defined terms dictionary!

by Delectable ( 223 Comments › )
Filed under Liberal Fascism, Political Correctness, Progressives, Tranzis at November 12th, 2009 - 3:00 pm

As I have stated before, it is my sincere belief that one of the biggest threats we face from progressivism today is a language desecration. At the forefront of the war on language is “J Street,” which has decided to call itself a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” organization.

This thread should hopefully become part of a series on Blogmocracy, to catalogue the many places where the progressives have desecrated the English language. The goal will be to identify the specific language desecrations, in order to correct these problems, and correctly define mis-defined words in the English language. In time, hopefully this can be copied in other languages.

The first in this series will start off with the word PEACE.

Shalom

Dictionary.com defines “peace” as: the normal, non warring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world. Source. This definition meshes well with the biblical concept of “Shalom,” which wiki defines quite well right here:

Shalom, in the liturgy and in the transcendent message of the Christian scriptures, means more than a state of mind, of being or of affairs. Derived from the Hebrew root shalam – meaning to be safe or complete, and by implication, to be friendly or to reciprocate. Shalom, as term and message, seems to encapsulate a reality and hope of wholeness for the individual, within societal relations, and for the whole world. To say joy and peace, meaning a state of affairs where there is no dispute or war, does not begin to describe the sense of the term. Completeness seems to be at the center of shalom as we will see in the meaning of the term itself, in some derivatives from its root, shalam, in some examples of its uses in Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and in some homophone terms from other Semitic languages.

This is all well and good, but how do the progressives define this all-important word? Let’s see the way they use this term…

United for Peace and Justice

Code Pink (a “peace” group)

Peace Now

J Street (“pro-Israel, pro-peace“)

U.S. Institute for Peace

Jewish Voice for Peace

Christian Peacemaker Teams

United Nations Peacekeepers

What do all of those organizations have in common? They all have a part in the ongoing war on language, raging across the world.

They all apparently define peace as “surrender.” As such, they are actually not pro-peace, but they are pro-war for the other side. They are looking to redefine “peace” as a term which is synonymous with pacifism, which, as I showed very clearly, is NOT the actual definition of peace.

And so, that is why I like to end my statements with the following…

I am pro-peace, pro-human rights, pro-humanity, pro-American, pro-Israel, and pro-Judeo-Christian values. This is why I believe it is imperative to stand up for our basic values, and never back down against progressivism. We must never cede the language!

Recall the old Roman maxim: “If you want peace, prepare for war.” – Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus

Sometimes war is necessary in order for peace to be possible. This is something that Gandhi never understood. He is the same man who told the British to “give up” to the Nazis, as a “true sign” of nonviolence, and told the Jews to “dare Germans to shoot them,” rather than move to “Palestine.”

In this screwed up ideology, fighting genocide is equivalent to committing genocide. Their version of “peace,” as I already documented in other posts, involve laying down and committing suicide.

I am sorry, but that is not “peace,” it is genocide. The next time some so-called “peace” group claims to be pro-peace, we should never let them get away with false claims. We must ask them what they mean by “peace,” and how they define “peace.” And then we should ask how they hope to bring about “peace” through absolute surrender to mass murderers/human butchers.

Next to follow in the series: justice, human rights, racism, imperialism, colonialism, apartheid, progressivism, liberalism, West Bank, genocide, zionism, patriotism, social justice, and due process. This is just for starters!

Obama’s insensitive response to the Ft. Hood shooting

by Rodan ( 354 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Dhimmitude, Islamic Invasion, Islamic Supremacism, Islamic Terrorism, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Liberal Fascism, Multiculturalism, Progressives at November 6th, 2009 - 9:51 am

President Barack Hussein Obama’s attitude towards our military was on full display yesterday. While he was supposed to be addressing the horrible incident at Fort Hood, instead he made very insensitive remarks while, as always, he was trumpeting himself.  The press conference took place during a meeting with Native American tribal leaders and did even address the shooting until only a few minutes in.  Instead he was giving shout outs, smiling and being cheerful. It’s almost as if he really doesn’t care or grasps the enormity of this situation.

President Obama didn’t wait long after Tuesday’s devastating elections to give critics another reason to question his leadership, but this time the subject matter was more grim than a pair of governorships.

After news broke out of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas, the nation watched in horror as the toll of dead and injured climbed. The White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president. The situation called for not only his trademark eloquence, but also grace and perspective.

But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a “shout-out” to “Dr. Joe Medicine Crow — that Congressional Medal of Honor winner.”  Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?

Read the rest.

Obama’s attitude yesterday was stunning and quite revealing.  He continues to proves time and time again that he is not much more than an Anti-American narcissist.  He will make any national tragedy about himself and his progressive puppet masters.  As for our troops, it seems that he really couldn’t care less.  I’m sure he is probably trying to minimalize this incident since the perpetrator was a Muslim colonialist.   I would guess that had it instead been a Christian or Jew, Obama would be all over this incident trying to take all political advantage of that fact that he could.  However, the reality is that this act of terror goes against his message of Muslim tolerance that he is trying to shove down our throats despite the repeated evidence to the contrary. In the end it just isn’t in his or his Progressive masters’ interest to keep discussing this incident as it doesn’t fit into their message.

Crazy Right-wing Extremists in Pittsburgh.

by bar ( 31 Comments › )
Filed under Leftists, Liberal Fascism, Politics at September 26th, 2009 - 9:31 am

And even more Crazy Right-Wingers Extremists from the 9/12 DC March.

I don’t know about you, but I cant tell the difference between these two groups. They all look like evil creationists to me.

Exit question: Which group prefers Apple over PC?

Michael Moore – A Capitalist Success Story

by tqcincinnatus ( 79 Comments › )
Filed under Leftists, Progressives, Socialism at September 23rd, 2009 - 6:59 am

In many societies, being fat is a sure sign of wealth and financial success.  Ours is apparently no different,

The bars were sponsored by liquor companies, the kitchen by Lufthansa. One room had marble walls, another, cashmere. Hundreds of guests plucked hors d’oeuvres from Plexiglas trays, but when I reached for a passing tray of pigs in blankets, the waitress tried to stop me. “These are for Michael,” she said.

That would be Michael Moore, filmmaker, who was enthroned nearby on a crowded sofa nibbling from a skewer, which did seem less in harmony with his everyman sneakers and populist persona than a sausage wrapped in fried bread. The Monday night party in Manhattan, which spread over two luxurious penthouse suites, was sponsored by Esquire and tricked out with the magazine’s advertisers’ products. The guests were there to celebrate Moore’s latest movie, which had just had its New York premier uptown.

Capitalism, A Love Story, takes aim at nothing less than the whole capitalist system. It uses all the trademark Mooreisms familiar from earlier works like Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11: Stakeouts, clever editing and innuendo, with the extra-wide filmmaker himself shambling up to corporate headquarters as a self-declared representative of the people. In voice over, he calls capitalism “a system of taking and giving, mostly taking,” and he interviews two priests who call it evil. He praises socialism, and near the end of the film concludes of capitalism that “we have to replace it with something, and that something is called democracy.”

If this were a different kind of movie, it might make sense to point out here that neither capitalism nor democracy nor socialism exist in pure form, and that pretty much every nation in the Western world, including the U.S., combines elements of all three. But Moore, to borrow a phrase coined by a physicist, is “not even wrong.” He makes jokes and tugs at heart strings. He shows pilots who can’t make a living wage, corporations that take out life insurance policies on their workers and families who are thrown out of foreclosed homes. It’s a litany of economic disasters, but it’s not an argument. I’ve heard him compared to Leni Riefenstahl, which is apt insofar as he is a brilliant propagandist. (He’s also fond of cueing Wagnerian-sounding music at dramatic moments.)

It’s been observed that Moore, crusading leftist and now explicit anti-capitalist, has made piles of money from his movies. In a question-and-answer session after Monday night’s screening, an audience member asked Moore if he wouldn’t concede that U.S. capitalism was better than Soviet Communism. Moore replied that the question was “bullsh–” and refused to answer directly, saying that his movie was not about that but about “democracy versus greed.” The hazard of being a professional polemicist, I suppose, is the risk of boxing oneself into intellectual corners. He couldn’t tenably claim that the Soviet system was good for its people, but if he conceded that capitalism had a few things going for it he would have undercut the revolutionary rhetoric that is his bread and butter.

This should drive home the point to us all that whenever you have someone loudly proclaiming that he’s “for the people,” he’s really for his own wallet and his own ability to wield power, first and foremost.  Now, apply that to the conglomeration of cretins who inhabit the Obama administration.  Hypocrisy becomes an art form for those on the Left.

As Sgt. Schultz once said on Hogan’s Heroes, “I am too poor to deserve to be this fat.” 

Michael Moore doesn’t have that problem.

Obama Advocacy Site Calls People Who Oppose Obama “Domestic Terrorists”

by tqcincinnatus ( 6 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Free Speech, Hate Speech, Leftists, Politics at September 3rd, 2009 - 6:09 pm

Another day, another new low by the kook-wacko Left.  This time around, a “call for action” issued on the advocacy site Organizing for America, started at the behest of Barack Obama, urges people to “fight back” against our “right-wing domestic terrorists”,

President Obama’s grassroots advocacy group is coming under fire for a supporter who pulled the Sept. 11 attacks into the health care debate. 

The controversy stems from a notice on the Organizing for America Web site urging reform advocates to use the anniversary of the terror attacks to call on lawmakers to pass health care reform. 

“All 50 states are coordinating in this — as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders,” the notice said in part. It has since been scrubbed from the Organizing for America site. 

Following criticism from the conservative Heritage Foundation, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee told FOX News in a statement that anyone can post on the site and condemned the language. 

“We certainly don’t agree with these comments, nor do we condone them, just as I’m sure the Heritage Foundation or FOX don’t agree or condone some of the things posted in sections of their Web site,” the statement said. 

But the Heritage Foundation’s Rory Cooper said the call to action was actively distributed

This was distributed to people in Illinois, Michigan and North Carolina. So yeah, the original posting was just an independent person who went too far. But when Organizing for America took the next step and invited people to the event, they became complicit in the language,” Cooper said. 

Cooper criticized Obama for pushing his message through both the official White House Web site and Organizing for America’s BarackObama.com

It’s interesting, really, to see just how insane the Left becomes when they are challenged.  It sort of puts the gulags and unaccountable “administrative courts” of the Soviet Union into perspective.  That’s the way the Left views things – dissent it patriotic when they do, but its subversive and terrorism when somebody else does it.  Retirees showing up at town halls and giving their ELECTED representatives the business are worse than al-Qaeda.  It’s rather scary that we have an administration willing to allow its name to be put on this kind of rubbish.  It’s rather scary that this administration’s “Green Jobs” Czar is a racist buffoon who thinks 9-11 was a Republican campaign ad.  It’s rather scary that this administration apparent thought it was acceptable to set up a website so people could “snitch” on their neighbours for holding the wrong political viewpoints, 1938-style.  It’s rather scary that this administration has an Attorney General who thinks our own CIA is more of a threat to us than Islamofascist terrorists.  It’s rather scary that we have an administration that is dead set on developing any more energy resources in America, but freely hands out billions to Brazil to develop theirs.  It’s rather scary that we have an administration that is setting up a system for harvesting personal data from social networking sites. 

The crazy is strong with this administration, no doubt about it.

Bill Clinton declares “New era of Progressive Politics”

by Rodan ( 67 Comments › )
Filed under Leftists, Liberal Fascism at August 14th, 2009 - 10:30 am

Political Chameleon: Bill Clinton, who once declared the era of big government is over, is now declaring that we are in a new Progressive era. Billy boy is really not a Progressive, however since it’s the Movement in power he is kissing up. This exposes their elitism. In spite of the fact Americans are rejecting this Progressive agenda, they believe in their invincibility.

Former President Bill Clinton told an audience of liberal online activists Thursday evening that the nation has “entered a new era of progressive politics” that could last for decades if Democrats can pass ambitious measures such as health care reform and climate change.

In a nearly hour-long keynote address to the fourth annual Netroots Nation convention in Pittsburgh, a gathering of roughly 1,500 progressive bloggers and activists, Clinton said the nation—and public opinion—has dramatically changed in the 16 years since he took office. But he noted that President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress needed the support of the online community to achieve their agenda.

Read the rest.

The Nutroots convention is an example of how the Progressive Machine shows their power. They gather and get on message together to attack the Right. However the resistance to Obamacare is exposing the Totalitarian nature of this movement. Bill Clinton will be proven wrong, and this Progressive era will be nothing but a bad memory.

The real question: How many Americans have health insurance?

by bar ( 33 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Healthcare, Leftists, Politics, Republican Party at August 14th, 2009 - 9:05 am

That’s the real question. We have all heard the alleged numbers of Americans that don’t have health insurance, 46+ million. The true number is likely less than half that. Twenty somethings are not interested in low insurance premiums with extended coverage. They are interested in new iPhones, clothes and pimping their cars out. When I was a twenty something, I didn’t care about health insurance or retirement. They are just things most young people don’t have at the top of their to-do-list. I worked for 7 years before I got a job that offered health insurance and I didn’t seek that job for the insurance benefits. I just needed a job.

Now just try to find out how many Americans really do have health insurance. When I do a goggle search 99% of the results are how many Americans DON’T have health insurance. Then I stumbled across a census report dated August 2008 with 2007 data and it states that more than 250 million Americans have health insurance. Of that, we have heard that about 89% are happy with their dreaded “status quo”. Even if I, for the sake of argument, accept the 46 million uninsured person claim, it still amounts to only 1/5th of the total number insured. I guess the 1/5th will now dictate to the other 4/5ths? That doesn’t seem right or fair. Why should I and the rest of the majority suffer for the minority? That is nothing but kowtowing to special interests.

Take the gay rights crusade for example, less than 3% of the population is homosexual, yet they will define what marriage is for the other 97%. That sounds really fair! Why turn the world upside down just to appease that small percentage?

I also take note of the Obummer canard that healthcare costs will rise dramatically in the near future. Thus the need to act RIGHT NOW before its too late! So he is fighting a crypto-ghost of his own making for his own convenience.

Illegal aliens use our emergency rooms as primary healthcare centers now and its on the American tax payers dime. We do not deny healthcare to those who can not afford it. Illegal aliens don’t pay taxes so they do not pay into any system that covers their healthcare costs, its free for them.

If we truly want to cut healthcare costs, we must first stop these illegal free loaders.
You and I and your insurance and my insurance are paying for those free loaders, because nothing is really free, somebody has to foot the bill.

Mr President and members of congress stop wasting our time and your time writing thousand page bills that change the “status quo” for over 250 million Americans that are happy with their “status quo” just to appease the very small minority and illegal aliens. Unless you want to lose your job, then by all means carry on.

Its past time for the American people to stand up and take notice of your shenanigans and vote you all out of office. Its time we get some representatives that care about the majority interests and stop kowtowing to special interests. Last time I checked the majority has a larger vote then the minority, a simple fact that is lost on our current elected officials.
-bar

Update: 10 things that make American healthcare better than any other developed country.
Well at least until Obummer and congress get their hands on it.