Rick Perry is done. Period.
Understand, I hate Trump. Understand this: Perry says this of Trump but has NEVER shown this kind of venom toward DEMOCRATS, the party they pretend to OPPOSE.
"'Let no one be mistaken Donald Trump’s candidacy is a cancer on conservatism and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised, and discarded,' Perry said during a speech in Washington, D.C. 'It cannot be pacified or ignored for it will destroy a set of principles that has lifted more people out of poverty than any force in the history of the civilized world and that is the cause of conservatism.'"
"'Donald Trump the candidate is a sore of division, wrongly demonizing Mexican Americans for political sport,' Perry said. 'It is wrong to paint with a broad brush Hispanic men and women in this country'"
Nope. Sorry. To Hell with this clown. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rick-perry-calls-donald-trump-cancer-conservatism/story?id=32622991
This Big Lie is common enough that I figured I'd save my response. A leftist on a forum was arguing that the concept of "American exceptionalism" was right wing rewriting of history, meant to pretend the nation has done nothing wrong, and excuses us for any wrong. I educated him...
Wikipedia is a left leaning source that is usually worthless, but even wiki is useful as a beginning for this...
"In this view, American exceptionalism stems from its emergence from the American Revolution, thereby becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called "the first new nation" and developing a uniquely American ideology, "Americanism", based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, democracy and laissez-faire. This ideology itself is often referred to as "American exceptionalism.""
Did you see anything in there about how we can do no wrong? Because it's not there.
The American experiment from the beginning was an experiment based in the belief that man is inherently free and rules himself - that is to say no kings and queens. It is exceptional in that it was the first and successful in the case above.
"Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and other American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense."
They call on two examples and at least one the misrepresent. Check the footnoted link.
I will say that neoconservatives are a problem. But that's a different topic.
"To them, the U.S. is like the biblical "City upon a Hill"—a phrase evoked by British colonists to North America as early as 1630—and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries."
And? There is nothing wrong with this.
"The theory of the exceptionalism of the U.S. can be traced to Alexis de Tocqueville, the first writer to describe the country as "exceptional" in 1831 and 1840."
That's it. Read some de Toqueville. What he considers exceptional and why has real meaning, and nothing to do with the left's strawman.
"However, American Communists started using the English term "American exceptionalism" in factional fights. It then moved into general use among intellectuals.[10"
And that is how it's become a source of scorn now. Communists -> Frankfurt School progressives --> modern Democrat. Our 'intellectuals' are leftist.
"In 1989, Scottish political scientist Richard Rose noted that most American historians endorse exceptionalism. He suggests that these historians reason as follows:
America marches to a different drummer. Its uniqueness is explained by any or all of a variety of reasons: history, size, geography, political institutions, and culture. Explanations of the growth of government in Europe are not expected to fit American experience, and vice versa."
That's it. We are a special and unique nation.
We are. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Read more at wikipedia, and then I encourage you to go from there.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
"There’s a basic difference in the traditions of political science between 'authoritarians' and 'totalitaritarians.' People throw both of these words around, but as is so often the case, they’re using words they may not always understand. They have real meaning, however, and the difference between them is important.
Simply put, authoritarians merely want obedience, while totalitarians, whose rule is rooted in an ideology, want obedience and conversion. Authoritarians are a dime a dozen; totalitarians are rare."
"Totalitarians are a different breed. These are the people who have a plan, who think they see the future more clearly than you or who are convinced they grasp reality in a way that you do not. They don’t serve themselves—or, they don’t serve themselves exclusively—they serve History, or The People, or The Idea, or some other ideological totem that justifies their actions.
They want obedience, of course. But even more, they want their rule, and their belief system, to be accepted and self-sustaining. And the only way to achieve that is to create a new society of people who share those beliefs, even if it means bludgeoning every last citizen into enlightenment. That’s what makes totalitarians different and more dangerous"
"This is what George Orwell understood so well in his landmark novel “1984.” His dystopian state doesn’t really care about quotidian obedience; it already knows how to get that. What it demands, and will get by any means, is a belief in the Party’s rectitude and in its leader, Big Brother. "
"What makes these kinds of attacks, however, smack of totalitarianism—and I could reel off dozens more examples, but your computer would run out of pixels—is that people like Takei and Bennett-Smith are lighting their torches and demanding rough justice even on issues where they’ve already won."
"This attitude promises social warfare without end, because there is no peace to be had until the opposing side offers a sincere and unconditional surrender."
I don't think people understand how dangerous the modern Democrat Party has become.The New Totalitarians Are Here
Rush Limbaugh offers more on this...Must Read: The New Totalitarians
"I have just, with the assistance here of Mr. Nichols, explained a whole lot of what's going on right around you, each and every day from the local bakery, to the photo shop, to the Supreme Court justices who dissent. It's not enough that the losers lose. In their defeat, they must be humiliated and they must be converted and they must be taught never, ever, to dissent again. It's all happening right in front of our eyes here, and everything that I have described so far, read from in this piece, you can cite me examples."
The danger cannot be overstated.
"Still, Washington wants to take over local zoning authority to impose racial quotas on communities. And as Ethics and Public Policy Center Senior Fellow Stanley Kurtz warns, 'Once HUD gets its hooks into a municipality, no policy area is safe. Zoning, transportation, education, all of it risks slipping into the control of the federal government and the new, unelected regional bodies the feds will empower.'"
"And rebel they should. As if Washington putting on a lab coat and stethoscope weren’t bad enough, now Obama wants to become zoning authority, landlord, realtor and public transportation chief combined. He’s leaving no racist rock unturned in his quest to undermine Liberty.
Making matters worse, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Texas Fair Housing case — in which a liberal majority said groups claiming housing discrimination no longer need to prove their case on the merits but only to claim 'intent' to discriminate — means the real implications of AFFH will be a racially charged free-for all, with no gray areas and everything defined in black and white (pun intended)."Welcome to Mr. Obama's Neighborhood
Do I agree with all of his conclusions and arguments? No. Some of these points are very interesting in relation to our views on drugs.
"First thing that alerted me to the fact that something's not right with this story is when it was explained to me. If I step out of this TED Talk today and I get hit by a car and I break my hip, I'll be taken to hospital and I'll be given loads of diamorphine. Diamorphine is heroin. It's actually much better heroin than you're going to buy on the streets, because the stuff you buy from a drug dealer is contaminated. Actually, very little of it is heroin, whereas the stuff you get from the doctor is medically pure. And you'll be given it for quite a long period of time. There are loads of people in this room, you may not realize it, you've taken quite a lot of heroin. And anyone who is watching this anywhere in the world, this is happening. And if what we believe about addiction is right -- those people are exposed to all those chemical hooks -- What should happen? They should become addicts. This has been studied really carefully. It doesn't happen; you will have noticed if your grandmother had a hip replacement, she didn't come out as a junkie. (Laughter) "
"You get a rat and you put it in a cage, and you give it two water bottles: One is just water, and the other is water laced with either heroin or cocaine. If you do that, the rat will almost always prefer the drug water and almost always kill itself quite quickly. So there you go, right? That's how we think it works. In the '70s, Professor Alexander comes along and he looks at this experiment and he noticed something. He said ah, we're putting the rat in an empty cage. It's got nothing to do except use these drugs. Let's try something a bit different. So Professor Alexander built a cage that he called "Rat Park," which is basically heaven for rats. They've got loads of cheese, they've got loads of colored balls, they've got loads of tunnels. Crucially, they've got loads of friends. They can have loads of sex. And they've got both the water bottles, the normal water and the drugged water. But here's the fascinating thing: In Rat Park, they don't like the drug water. They almost never use it. None of them ever use it compulsively. None of them ever overdose. You go from almost 100 percent overdose when they're isolated to zero percent overdose when they have happy and connected lives."Everything you think you know about addiction is wrong
Fascinating read. It never ceases to amaze how much the Orwellian left will rewrite history.
"He took it upon himself, this week, to announce (to my brother, who is a very patient man) that Iran’s Islamist dictators were “a predictable consequence of American imperialism,” which manifested itself through “the CIA’s international pro-fascist crimes.” That’s nonsense, of course, but it’s widely believed nonsense — and not just among college kids who’ve read the first chapter of a Noam Chomsky book. There are serious men who are under the impression that the CIA led a coup to replace an upstanding, democratic reformer named Mohammed Mossadegh with a fascist Shah named Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and that Pahlavi’s crimes were so atrocious that Iran was driven into the arms of the mullahs. None of that is true."
"Nonetheless, in 1951, Mossadegh had all Anglo-Iranian Oil agreements terminated and the AIOC nationalized. He described the nationalization as a blow against British imperialism. Extremely valuable property, legally owned by the British government and British private citizens, had been confiscated by a foreign government. Before the war, Britain might have invaded. Instead, it retaliated against Mossadegh by leading an international embargo of Iran’s oil and by withdrawing its technicians from the nationalized holdings. Without British know-how, the company could barely function; after the withdrawal, Iranian oil production dropped 96 percent. And the oil that was produced couldn’t be sold. Oil money funded the Iranian government; without it, Mossadegh’s reforms were worthless, and his popularity plunged. Mossadegh called a parliamentary election in late 1951. When he realized he was going to lose, he had the election suspended. (That should put to bed the notion that he was an idealistic democrat.)"
In other words, this martyr of the left was another socialist failure.
"Reinstated, Mossadegh — in the tradition of all great democrats — persuaded the parliament to grant him emergency powers, which he used to confiscate the Shah’s land, ban him from communicating with foreign countries, and exile his sister. Mossadegh also used his emergency powers to institute collective farming. According to Stephen Kinzer’s book All the Shah’s Men, 'Iranians were becoming poorer and unhappier by the day. Mossadegh’s political coalition was fraying.'"
"The U.S. had helped turn Persian public opinion against Mossadegh. However: There was no coup. In 1953, Mossadegh was prime minister of Iran; like many heads of state, the Shah had the legal, constitutional authority to remove his prime minister, which he did, at the behest of his ally the United States. Mossadegh, though, refused to be removed, and he arrested the officers who tried to deliver the Shah’s notice of dismissal. The Shah was forced to flee the country."
"Says Takeyh: “Pro-shah protesters took to the streets. It is true that the CIA paid a number of toughs from the bazaar and athletic centers to agitate against the government, but the CIA-financed mobs rarely exceeded a few hundred people in a country now rocked by demonstrators numbering in the thousands"
"The CIA was happy to take credit, exaggerating its involvement in what was, at the time, considered a big success — but a private CIA cable credited Mossadegh’s collapse to the fact that “the flight of the Shah . . . galvanized the people into an irate pro-Shah force.” (A large portion of those galvanized people, it should be noted, were hard-core Islamists, who feared that Mossadegh’s slide to the left would include Communist atheism.)"
Far more to all this. A good read. The short version is, as usual everything the left says is false. The leftist martyr
caused the Iran problems, and the Shah eventually returned to restore order. Years later leftist Jimmy Carter would tacitly support the Islamicist and communist coalitions against the Shah, and the nation fell to decades and ongoing brutal theocratic tyranny. Iran: The Truth about the CIA and the Shah
Somewhat long. Well worth the read in full. People have no idea just how bad things are.
"A middle-aged person living in parts of Virginia today will have witnessed more demographic change in the span of her life than many societies have experienced in millennia.
A census study entitled 'Immigrants in Virginia,' released by University of Virginia (UVA) researchers, documented the phenomenon: 'Until 1970, only 1 in 100 Virginians was born outside of the United States; by 2012, 1 in every 9 Virginians is foreign-born.'"
"The Post notes that, 'as recently as 1990, non-Hispanic whites made up 76 percent of the state’s residents. A decade later, their numbers had fallen to 70 percent, and [in 2010], they accounted for less than two-thirds of the state’s residents.'
Because these newcomers to Virginia have largely been invited into the country with green cards or other visas, they can collect public benefits, fill any job, rely on federal retirement programs, and become naturalized voting citizens."
"As Manhattan Institute Scholar Heather Mac Donald observed in 2005: 'The foreign-born Hispanic welfare rate was nearly three times that of native-born whites.' This trend continues for the children of immigrants as well"
"The impact mass visa admissions has had on job opportunities for Virginia workers is representative of nationwide trends. For instance, according to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, all net jobs created in the United States from 2000-2014 went to immigrants.
But the flood of new immigrants also threatens the job prospects of past immigrants. As Bill Kristol and Rich Lowry wrote in their joint op-ed opposing the Schumer-Rubio plan to triple green card admissions as part of the Gang of Eight bill:
'The last thing low-skilled native and immigrant workers already here should have to deal with is wage-depressing competition from newly arriving workers.'"
"The media has already coined a term to describe the different landscape emerging as a result of immigration. The National Journal news site, for instance, has created a vertical entitled, 'The Next America,'"
Guess what? The next America will be like the nations to our South. Utterly corrupt. No liberty. That's what we're doing to the coming generations.New California: Mass Immigration Turning Virginia Blue
"In March, when I pointed to the differences between the men in Lisak's paper and the student population on which his popular campus presentations focus, Lisak responded: "Are you asking if there are comprehensive studies about sexual offenders on traditional college campuses? No, there aren’t." Yet this is exactly how Lisak’s work has been treated."
"The higher education community might be best served by doing what it is uniquely positioned to do: Read the original paper. Critically consider whether every accusation represents such dire danger to a campus community that the only prudent policy is to preemptively assume a pattern of offense. Act accordingly, and in the best interests of all students."
Of course, the real issue here is that the left does not care if it's all base do lies. This is all about agenda. http://journal.ijreview.com/2015/07/245635-gun-rights-advocates-have-a-devastating-new-argument-against-gun-control-here-it-is/
The following can't be said enough in regard to every Democrat argument:
"The fact is that there is no point in arguing with liberal gun-control advocates because their argument is never in good faith. They slander gun owners as murderers. They lie about their ultimate aim, which is to ban and confiscate all privately owned weapons. And they adopt a pose of reasonability, yet their position is not susceptible change because of evidence, facts or law. None of those matter – they already have their conclusion. This has to do with power – their power."
"Obama is lying – about gay marriage, about your doctor – and he is likewise lying about guns. The minute he could disarm every American civilian he would, something particularly alarming in light of his pal Bill Ayers’ infamous observation that ‘fundamentally transforming’ America would require killing at least 25 million citizens."
A good piece, worth the read.Gun Rights Advocates Have A Devastating New Argument Against Gun Control. Here It Is.
Almost no Americans know about this yet the danger can't be overstated.
"It’s difficult to say what’s more striking about President Obama’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation: its breathtaking radicalism, the refusal of the press to cover it, or its potential political ramifications. The danger AFFH poses to Democrats explains why the press barely mentions it."
"If you press suburbanites into cities, transfer urbanites to the suburbs, and redistribute suburban tax money to cities, you have effectively abolished the suburbs. For all practical purposes, the suburbs would then be co-opted into a single metropolitan region. Advocates of these policy prescriptions call themselves 'regionalists.'"
"Even with no allegation or evidence of intentional discrimination, the mere existence of a demographic imbalance in the region as a whole must be remedied by a given suburb. Suburbs will literally be forced to import population from elsewhere, at their own expense and in violation of their own laws."Attention America’s Suburbs: You Have Just Been Annexed
Here's a fun video from MSNBC that reveals some of the common tactics of the left.
First this dope demands, "Do you have a degree in economics". Their interest is always in disqualifying you from having an opinion if they can.
That's all they care about - winning, how to shut you up so they can push the agenda.
When he answers, "Yes, ma'am, with honors," she's momentarily lost. She recovers with an appeal to authority. You don't know economics! Oh, you do know economics? You don't know economics like this other person!
It's helpful to look at things like this and remember that Democrats aren't interested in truth or solutions. They are interested in agenda. Nothing else matters. They aren't debating you in good faith. Never forget that.MSNBC's Contessa to GOP Congressman: "Do You Have A Degree In Economics?
The progressive oligarchs of the Chamber of Commerce are going after conservatives.
"'The fact that there are still members of the Republican House that are obstructionist, isolationists that would be willing to shut down the government'"
What's that mean? Oppose illegal immigration, foreign wars, Obamacare and you're a target.
Those are the people who back the Republican establishment. Chamber gearing up to take out GOP incumbents
What is enough? More dangerous than people might realize. And absolutely unamerican.
"content of character". MLK weeps. He would be organizing in the streets against this totalitarian regime. Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database
"A key part of President Obama’s legacy will be the fed’s unprecedented collection of sensitive data on Americans by race. The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of “racial and economic justice.”
Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites."
Don't take this lightly. Know how progressives work.
The point of it is precedent
. Remember, these people just took over all of our health care. They'll do this, then expland to anyone on anti-depressants, then the "mental illness" of "the radical right", etc. Eventually only those allowed a leftist exemption will have weapons in their home. It is a national gun ban by increment.Obama looks to ban Social Security recipients from owning guns
Useful idiot manginas will respond "can't happen here" or worse, "what's wrong with that".
I pulled some quotes. But the article should be read.
"On Wednesday, the Daily Mail reported that a school in Oxford has become the first to introduce “Good Lad” workshops, in which boys are singled out for sessions that teach them about 'the scale of sexual harassment and violence aimed at female students' and how they must stand up for women's rights.
The workshops are the latest in a mushrooming series of initiatives in which ideologically-driven activists are being invited into schools"
" Neither are these activist interventions just the preserve of a few radical head teachers: they in fact reflect official government policy.
In March, the Government announced the introduction of new consent classes for children aged as young as 11. "
"And the indoctrination doesn’t stop when a boy leaves school, it continues when he gets to university too – the “Good Lad” workshops in Oxford, are in fact a spin-off from compulsory consent classes for new male students that are now springing up across UK universities. "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11747413/We-must-stop-indoctrinating-boys-in-feminist-ideology.html
If these stats are true, the evil from the left/feminists is even greater.
"You’d never know it from the rhetoric, but a man – and particularly a young man -- is around twice as likely to be a victim of violent crime as a woman. And it’s not just drunken street violence either. A 2009 NSPCC report into domestic violence in teenage relationships, showed teenage boys suffer comparable rates of violence from their girlfriends as do teenage girls from their boyfriends.
In the same year another report, this time by Childline, found that of the children who called to report sexual abuse, a total of 8,457 were girls (64pc) and 4,780 were boys (36pc). The charity also found boys were more likely to say they had been sexually abused by a woman (1,722 cases) than by a man (1,651). "
First say it's equal. Win. Then say it's better. This is how progressivism works.
"but social science is beginning to discover that part of the challenge of marriage stems from the fact that most couples choose to marry a member of the opposite gender. "
That formula that's worked since the dawn of man in almost every society? Inferior.
An honest, non-leftist-cultist might think to point out that maybe a century of progressivism screwing with the sexes and putting us at constant odds might be part of the problem. But oh no! That's crazy talk. The fix to every problem leftism creates is more progressive "solutions".
Social science - AKA leftist studies. Next "social scientists" will "discover" gays are better at being parents. Whether they are or not. And if you disagree? You hate
- you might lose your job, your business, and you've long since lost your right to speech.Are Gay Marriages Healthier Than Straight Marriages?
A very strong argument. Excerpts below, but the whole thing should be read.
"In particular, modern-day Israel is often cited as an example of women successfully fulfilling combat roles. But Israel’s military position is almost nothing like that of the United States: It’s surrounded by hostile nations that collectively outnumber its population by over 20 to 1. Even so, for many of the reasons discussed, women no longer participate in front-line IDF combat units."
Did you know that, among all the leftist talking points about it?
"Individually, any one of above differences could make the difference between life and death. In the combat environment, the differences between men and women in speed, strength, endurance, agility, physical resiliency, and psychological resiliency represents an unbridgeable gap — and the impact on the battlefield is dramatic."
"Mixed-gender units will be both slower in getting to the fight and slower when beating a tactical retreat. They are more likely to be crippled by physical injuries or PTSD. Men will put themselves in harm’s way to assist women in getting over obstacles that men can easily negotiate unassisted. Blows to the head or other concussive events that a man can shrug off will stun or render a woman unconscious, reducing her unit’s chances of survival, especially in hand-to-hand combat. Units will have to deal with feminine-hygiene issues that significantly reduce unit effectiveness.
This is not merely theory: One Army study focusing on Operation Iraqi Freedom found women are almost twice as likely to suffer from non-combat related disease and injuries and are twice as likely to be medevac’d out of the theater of operations. Historical non-deployment rates for women are three to four times than that of men. Women suffer many times the rate of stress fractures and ACL injuries. All of this hurts combat readiness and increases costs. That we will still be able to defeat vastly inferior opponents is beside the point — more of our soldiers will die and our combat units will be less capable."Putting Women in Combat Is an Even Worse Idea Than You’d Think
"Still, it is a $1 billion project that took 15 years to build, compared the projected $68 billion the state is spending on high-speed rail, which will not be fully complete until after 2040. As we know, modern trains built and subsidized by the government never a) finish on time b) finish on budget and c) cover their own operating and capital expenses. That makes the water plants a far more rational investment."
"As Randal O’Toole of the Cato Institute notes, “When [Quentin] Kopp (Former chairman of the High Speed Rail Transit Authority) first proposed the project, it was supposed to cost $33 billion. Now it is expected to cost $68 billion for slower, less-frequent trains.”"
"About that timeline: as it stands, we’re looking at a completion date 25 years in the future. That’s optimistic as far as government projections go, because government moves as slowly as possible to drain as much money as possible. Who is to say that a much better technology won’t come along that outperforms high-speed rail?"
25 YEARS! Google has automated cars now
It is the definition of boondoggle in a state already far beyond bankrupt, and going downhill due to thirst.
"Yet when it comes to solving the state’s chronic water problem, $1 billion on a desalination plant that produces water (albeit at nearly twice the cost of conventional water) regardless of weather and climate is too much. "
Understand: Progressive elite will ALWAYS be able to drink. Thirsty Californians Tithe To High-Speed Rail
"Yet in their efforts to achieve a more egalitarian conversation, left-wing academics and their students completely ignore (at best) and marginalize (at worst) students and the rare colleague who disagree with them politically.
And therein lies the ultimate irony: The very voices that decry inequality in all its manifestations either accept or turn a blind eye to the stunning dearth of conservative academics and the de facto censorship of right-wing students on overwhelmingly left-wing campuses."
"it might behoove left-wingers on college campuses to think about the various privileges from which they benefit simply by being members of the overwhelmingly dominant group in their academic communities."38 Ways College Students Enjoy ‘Left-Wing Privilege’ on Campus
"Despite its scorn for reticence, the new sexual revolution has a deep puritanical streak. Consensual sex is viewed as always under control, the result of a rational, fully autonomous choice. In this vision, there is either unequivocal “enthusiastic consent” or reluctant submission. In real life, though, there are many other possibilities."
"This advocacy creates a world where virtually any regretted sexual encounter can be reconstructed as assault (unless the person who regrets it initiated it while fully sober) and retroactive perceptions of coercion must always be credited over contemporaneous perceptions of consent — even though we know that memory often 'edits' the past to fit present biases.
In theory, this regime is gender-neutral. Yet real-life cases like the one at Occidental show a strong presumption — openly acknowledged by a dean at Duke University — that in a heterosexual encounter, it’s the man who must gain consent and bear the blame if both partners are intoxicated. Whether cloaked in traditional chivalry or feminist rhetoric, it’s still a paternalistic double standard.
It is time to rethink this crusade, which criminalizes bad or uncomfortable sex, thereby trivializing actual sexual violence.</i></b> Anti-rape efforts should focus on criminal conduct and law enforcement responses."
Crusade is the right word. This is the witch hunt mentality of the past, based on the dogma of the leftist cult.Feminists want us to define these ugly sexual encounters as rape. Don’t let them.
"In 1944, three years before writing and five years before publishing 1984, George Orwell penned a letter detailing the thesis of his great novel."
"Hitler, no doubt, will soon disappear, but only at the expense of strengthening (a) Stalin, (b) the Anglo-American millionaires and (c) all sorts of petty fuhrers° of the type of de Gaulle. "
"Everywhere the world movement seems to be in the direction of centralised economies which can be made to ‘work’ in an economic sense but which are not democratically organised and which tend to establish a caste system. With this go the horrors of emotional nationalism and a tendency to disbelieve in the existence of objective truth because all the facts have to fit in with the words and prophecies of some infallible fuhrer."
"On the whole the English intelligentsia have opposed Hitler, but only at the price of accepting Stalin. Most of them are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods, secret police, systematic falsification of history2 etc. so long as they feel that it is on ‘our’ side. "
And here is what they forgot or cast aside.
"I think, and have thought ever since the war began, in 1936 or thereabouts, that our cause is the better, but we have to keep on making it the better, which involves constant criticism."http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/12/george-orwell-s-letter-on-why-he-wrote-1984.html
"... Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except in an endless present in which the Party is always right."http://www.orwelltoday.com/past.shtml
"...I know, of course, that the past is falsified, but it would never be possible for me to prove it, even when I did the falsification myself. After the thing is done, no evidence ever remains. The only evidence is inside my own mind, and I don’t know with any certainty that any other human being shares my memories."https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.5.html
Thank you Wal Ford</i> for the reminder.
"He wrote that even people held in slavery, even people interned during World War II, retained their dignity because it is impossible to erase what is woven into our very nature.
What one would think is a stirring statement about our irreducible human quality occasioned outrage""That Takei’s first instinct was to deny the blackness of Clarence Thomas tells us much about the rancid racial essentialism of the Left,
which can’t get its head around minorities stepping out of ideological line."
“'They cannot degrade Frederick Douglass. The soul that is within me no man can degrade. I am not the one that is being degraded on account of this treatment, but those who are inflicting it upon me.' (Quick — someone ask George Takei if Frederick Douglass was truly black.)"
"The reaction to the Thomas dissent is, in part, about the historical and philosophical illiteracy of his critics. But they also have a profoundly different worldview. The Founders believed we have innate rights that must be protected from government.
This notion is anathema to a Left that identifies the state with progress, and that defines freedom much more loosely (not to say nonsensically) as including what government gives us, in an ever-expanding palette of benefits."http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420822/george-takei-clarence-thomas-freakout-ignorance-liberty
Thou shalt not leave the Democrat plantation. That's the reality of the left and race. So who are the racists?
The left worships the state. That's part of why Takei became so angry. He is so far left he can't grasp a worldview that doesn't believe that the state gives or takes away our rights. And far too many agree with him. That road leads to certain servitude for all.
Trump was right. Two articles on it:
Let's all keep in mind, the San Fransisco murderer was deported FIVE times and had committed multiple felonies, and was free.
"In the days leading up to July Fourth weekend, Americans were hysterically warned about an ISIS attack in the United States. Congressman Peter King, for example, somberly advised Fox News viewers that 'this is the most concerned I've seen the FBI and Homeland Security' since 9/11.
And, once again, the weekend came and went without anyone in America being killed by ISIS, but a lot of people being killed by immigrants -- legal, illegal, second generation and anchor babies. http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-07-08.html
"Looking at it another way, illegal aliens constitute 27% of the federal prison population (3). This means that a group which comprises less than 5% of the population nationally is committing 27% percent of the federal crimes. So just by that metric alone, illegal aliens commit over five times more serious crimes on a per capita basis than residents do. "
Why are *ANY* okay?http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/trump-is-right-illegal-alien-crime-is-staggering-in-scope-and-savagery?f=must_reads
This game up when I mentioned that gay marriage was part of the march against marriage eventually to leasd to children defined and effectively owned by the state. The libertarian I said it to seemed surprised by the notion. So I pulled up some links...
"While Critical Theory is often thought of narrowly as referring to the Frankfurt School that begins with Horkheimer and Adorno and stretches to Marcuse and Habermas, any philosophical approach with similar practical aims could be called a 'critical theory,' including *** feminism ***, critical race theory, and some forms of post-colonial criticism. In the following, Critical Theory when capitalized refers only to the Frankfurt School. All other uses of the term are meant in the broader sense and thus not capitalized. "http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/http://www.wendymcelroy.com/sexcor/marr.html
An excerpt from Sexual Correctness: The Gender-Feminist Attack on Women (McFarland, 1996)
"To the sexually correct feminist, *** marriage oppresses women and the family breeds patriarchy *** . Both result from capitalism. Happily married women are considered pathological and traitorous. "
"Gender feminists and individualists view the same institution -- marriage -- and derive antagonistic conclusions. Gender feminists insist that the state must thrust justice into an inherently oppressive condition: marriage and family life. Individualists demand that the state withdraw from marriage and allow the adults involved to work out their own definition of justice in the privacy of their own homes. "
This next was long and eye-bleedingly boring. I took some excerptshttp://www.hnet.uci.edu/mposter/CTF/chapter2.html
The full emancipation of women, Engels predicted, will be achieved with the construction of socialism because then women will be allowed to work. "The first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into industry, and . . . this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society." With women working, the evils of male supremacy--prostitution, the double standard, and so forth-will automatically disappear.
In Dialectical Materialism and Psychoanalysis (1929), the most important early effort to synthesize Marx and Freud, [...]
With capitalism and sexual repression so neatly tied together, Reich was able to develop a Marxist family theory that was superior to that of Engels. While Engels called for socialism to liberate monogamy from patriarchy, Reich saw monogamy itself as a source of sexual repression. Instituted to insure the male's economic dominance, monogamy and the negative sexual morality connected with it were themselves agents of sexual repression.
"Unlike Parsons, Horkheimer and, the Frankfurt School were critical of the element of domination in the family. As a theory of human emancipation, Frankfurt School Marxism sought to unearth the root of psychic oppression in the family. In Horkheimer's lament, the despair of women and children, the deprivation of any happiness in life, the material and psychic exploitation consequent upon the economically based hegemony of the father have weighed mankind down no less in recent centuries than in antiquity . . . " The family for him was a center of domination which brutalized children in preparation for their submissive acceptance of class society. "The child's self-will is to be broken, and the innate desire for free development of his drives and potentialities is to be replaced by an internalized compulsion toward the unconscious fulfillment of duty. Submission to the categorical imperative of duty has been from the beginning a conscious goal of the bourgeois family." Horkheimer postulated a natural freedom which was then destroyed in the family.
The central mechanism in the family which crushes freedom is the authority of the father over his sons. Of all family relationships, that of father to son is the only one taken seriously by Horkheimer and the Frankfurt School."
The left has almost always considered the family unit an enemy. The further left it gets the more they despise the family, as *any* loyalty above the state is unacceptable. Women must be "free" from monogamy and sexual restriction, etc, which coincidentally kills the family.
Examples of this stuff throughout Leftist dogma abounds. So much so it didn't occur to me that non-leftists don't take it for granted.
Up to you what you want to do with this.
However, in her 1938 autobiography, Sanger noted that her opposition to abortion was based on the taking of life: "[In 1916] we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun." And in her book Family Limitation, Sanger wrote that "no one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortions."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
"the Obama administration tried to force Westchester County to cast aside its own zoning laws and build high-density, low-income housing at its own expense"
Consider: After that the citizens would have had to pay for all of the students schooled in their zone. AND, the children of all of those residents would be locked into government schools every day with the children of the high density, low income housing the Obama administration hand picked to stick in that neighborhood.
Today, HUD Secretary Julian Castro announced the finalization of the Obama administration’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule.
AFFH is easily one of President Obama’s most radical initiatives"
That's not an understatement. It's something to know about NOW if you don't, not later. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420896/massive-government-overreach-obamas-affh-rule-out-stanley-kurtz
"Meanwhile, most members of our mainstream media - executives, on air personalities, writers, editors, and producers alike along with an advertiser base that supports much of the enterprise - are, at best, merely able to express exasperation and confusion as to why Obama does as he does. Pretending to hold meaningful 'conversations' about the President and his key associates, our mainstream media collusively avoids any genuinely honest effort to explore Obama's true motivations in seeking the destruction of our nation as it was formed and intended to develop and thrive."
"In 1958, former FBI Special Agent W Cleon Skousen published The Naked Communist in which he listed the then current communist goals for infiltrating, transforming, and ultimately taking over America"
"Of the 45 goals in Skousen's list, some obviously do not fit today's changed circumstances while others are far more devastating than originally fathomed. Still, the entire list is provided to furnish proper context. Repeated as read into the Congressional record in 1963, the goals below speak for themselves and show just how far Obama, top aide Valerie Jarrett (herself from a family with various communist associations) and fellow comrades have advanced a great deal of this decades-old vision."
"They will always choose to impute good intentions to Obama, attributing any negative outcome to what they have now made acceptable for him - lack of experience, naïveté', poor leadership skills, chasing a legacy at any cost, even a still youthful fancy if not ego, boredom or shyness. They will not charge, much less consider however, any other intent or ideological calling.
While Skousen's book was entitled The Naked Communist, our mainstream media has resolutely refused to undress our president and reveal his true motivations in similar naked form. Keeping their eyes covered, they just may have unconsciously sensed something far more obscene than imaginable."Our Naked President
About that 'separation" thing, oh, and those Deist Founders....
This is a great observation.
"The familiar 'their Creator,' [..] near the beginning of the Declaration refer to God; but some argue that it just refers to a 'watchmaker God' who set up the universe — and a natural order from which natural rights are inferred — and then left it alone.But this misses, I think, the less well-known phrase that starts the last paragraph: 'We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions ….' (The last paragraph also speaks of 'a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.')
This isn’t just God as Creator — it’s God as Judge, who apparently isn’t leaving the world alone but is judging it.
That's active, not passive. It's no small thing.
"It’s also worth recalling that the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which Jefferson drafted a year later, included similarly religious language. As introduced in 1779, it read (emphasis added),"
"are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind
, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do
, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions
over the greatest part of the world and through all time. …"
Does that sound like a man who isn't religious?
"(The three accomplishments that Jefferson asked to be listed on his epitaph were that he was 'Author of the Declaration of American Independence,' author 'of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom,' and 'Father of the University of Virginia.')"
Given that, if Jefferson knew progressives had fundamentally changed our government to put it against all religion based on his personal letter
to a church group, I suspect he'd be heartbroken or enraged.The Declaration of Independence and God
An exceptional piece from Matt Walsh. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, it's an interesting read. (Oh, who am I kidding. The rainbow fascists don't care what any dissent says.)
I plan to post excerpts but wanted to have it out there sooner than I'll get around to it for any who missed it.Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally
Pretty damning stuff.
A personal pet peeve of their griping:
"And others, such as sexist language being used against women, being called bitch, slut, etc. aren't really gender specific issues at all. The specific words being used against them may often times be reserved for insulting women but the experience of having abusive language thrown their way is also something men deal with daily. Men face sexually charged insults like asshole, faggot, dick, and if you're in the public eye, it's often daily. And don't you dare ever disagree with a woman because then you're just a neckbeard with a small penis who can' get laid."
Wah! "'Strong' women get called 'bitch'"! Live a day in our shoes, Buttercup. Men say worse than that when they like
"The same study found that only 4% of women would consider dating a man who was unemployed. When was the last time you heard of a man rejecting a woman because she was unemployed? With sexual objectification at least they actually want you, it's your specific physical qualities that are attractive. But when men are treated as a cash machine, it's not the man who matters but the products his money can buy.
And when you're walking down the street and need some money, any ATM will do."
"Men pay 97% of alimony, men make up 94% of work suicides, men make up 93% of workplace fatalities, 79% of all suicides are men, 78% of all homicide victims are male, men are over twice as victimized by strangers than women, 82% of the prison population is male and men are 165% more likely to be convicted than women. Men also get 63% longer sentences than woman for the same crime and court bias against men is six times bigger than racial bias.
Men get arrested in 85% of all domestic violence cases but it’s estimated that women are the perpetrators in most domestic violence cases. Most reciprocal violence is started by women and 70% of non reciprocal violence is perpetrated by women. Women however only get arrested in 15% of all DV arrests.
Despite these numbers 99.3% of domestic violence shelter spaces are for women only."
More info at the link...Men Face More Sexism And Discrimination Than Women
Applies more today than probably ever before.
"About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."
Something else down the memory hole.
"Kenneth Michael 'Ken' Pollack, PhD (born 1966), is a noted former CIA intelligence analyst and expert on Middle East politics and military affairs."
"Pollack is credited with persuading liberals of the case for the Iraq war. New York Times columnist Bill Keller, in supporting the Iraq war in 2003, wrote 'Kenneth Pollack, the Clinton National Security Council expert whose argument for invading Iraq is surely the most influential book of this season'"
“‘Blackface’ is a lesser known theatrical term for a white actor who blackens his face to play a black buffoon,' Takei wrote. 'In traditional theater lingo, and in my view and intent, that is not racist.'”
Dude. DUDE. Yes, yes it is. That’s kind of the definition of racist. You essentially called the only black member of the U.S. Supreme Court a race traitor for the crime of stating that…dignity and humanity are bestowed on mankind by God, not government. And then to top it all off, you also explicitly likened him to a 'black buffoon.'”
"As of this afternoon, there had been a near-universal progressive blackout of Takei’s black face comments about Thomas. Now that he’s doubled down and declared that 1) the term 'black face' totally isn’t racist you guys, and 2) Thomas is a race traitor, pretending that Takei isn’t willfully peddling racism is going to get a whole lot more difficult."http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/02/george-takei-clarifies-actually-black-face-isnt-racist-at-all/
Where the Hell are 'liberals' to condemn this racism? We all know the answer: To Democrats any minority that doesn't stay on the liberal plantation doesn't count.
Think about what that says about their true views on race.
Excellent short read:
"When Donald Trump said something not exuberantly enthusiastic about Mexican immigrants, the media's response was to boycott him. One thing they didn't do was produce any facts showing he was wrong."
"The first thing a fact-checker would have noticed is: THE GOVERNMENT WON'T TELL US HOW MANY IMMIGRANTS ARE COMMITTING CRIMES IN AMERICA. "
"In other words, the government hasn't the first idea how many prisoners are legal immigrants, illegal immigrants or anchor babies.
But there are clues!"
"Here is the Los Angeles Police Department's list of 'Most Wanted' criminal suspects: [read it]
The full 'Most Wanted' list doesn't get any better."
"The rate of rape in Mexico is even higher than in India [...] A report from the Inter-American Children's Institute [..] women and children are 'seen as objects instead of human beings with rights and freedoms.'"
"Who is this media cover-up helping? Not the American girls getting raped. But also not the Latina immigrants "http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-07-01.html
Gay militant thinks your rainbow icon marks you as lazy, fake, and a brainless joiner who doesn't really care.
We finally agree on something!
"There is a dangerous foe we queers need to prepare against and it might just be you, the fair-weather ally.""Too many breeders
seem to think we’ve done it now. "
" Yet too many straight people have taken it as a logo of cool, which spits in the face of our queer heritage.
It’s a bit rich to see Pride being appropriated by the straight community. It’s like you can’t help it, just slowly sucking every life form of ours away to make it your own.
Just like you changing your profile picture. Well done: yet another thing to steal from us. We can’t even have fucking Pride as our own."
They HATE you, suckers. You were and are TOOLS, and nothing more.http://durham.tab.co.uk/2015/06/29/if-youre-straight-you-need-to-stop-using-rainbow-profile-pics/
This whole group is a cartel of oligarchs and perpetual liars. And still Democrats will support them.
"emailed aides to fetch her iced tea "
"And then there's 'Santa' – an unknown person apparently on Clinton's meeting schedule.
'I'm seeing Santa at 8:30,' she wrote her deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin six months after taking office, 'so won't take off until closer to 9:30.'"
"Twitter let out a collective guffaw Tuesday night in the direction of a December 2009 email exchange between Clinton and Abedin – who invested 15 minutes trying to teach her boss how the handset on a fax machine worked."
". Many of Washington's most influential Democrats had Hillary's secret address, including political operatives like David Axelrod, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski and liberal think tank chief John Podesta"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3145491/Email-bombshells-Hillary-s-secret-account-didn-t-know-cabinet-meetings-held-dumbfounded-fax-machine-emailed-aides-fetch-iced-tea.html
"But e-mails from 2009 show that chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and senior adviser David Axelrod understood at the time that Clinton used a private e-mail account and server for official business. Indeed, top officials were forced to explicitly ask Clinton aides for her e-mail address."
"But, despite this 2009 e-mail, Axelrod told MSNBC host Mike Brzezinski on June 17 this year that he was unaware Clinton was using a private e-mail address"http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420573/hillarys-private-e-mail-server-whitehouse-knew-since-2009
Enough good points in this that it's worth the read.
It's delusional to consider Stewart and Colbert as center.
"This is perhaps why young Americans don’t know anything about politics, exhibiting disastrously diminished understanding of current events compared to our older counterparts. Herein lies the primary problem with electing court jesters as thinkers-in-chief: Comedy, subversive as it has the potential to be, is entertainment. And entertainers, unlike tenured professors and think-tank fellows, rely on mass adulation to remain gainfully employed. This means that Stewart, Colbert, and the rest of their ilk have a special motivation to flatter their audiences: They’re not here to teach, after all, but to win some laughs and get good ratings."
"It seems unlikely that public intellectuals without staffs of bit writers will ever out-compete those with them in the bid for public attention. If that is the case, and comedians are our new public intellectuals, we have made a sorry trade. But don’t worry: The worn-out deck jokers of Comedy Central will laugh it off in no time."Comedians Are Funny, Not Public Intellectuals
Haunt them with it. The Onion - Scientists Trace Heat Wave To Massive Star At Center Of Solar System
"PASADENA, CA—Groundbreaking new findings announced Monday suggest the record-setting heat wave plaguing much of the United States may be due to radiation emitted from an enormous star located in the center of the solar system.
Scientists believe the star, which they have named G2V65, may in fact be the same bright yellow orb seen arcing over the sky day after day, and given its extreme heat and proximity to Earth, it is likely not only to have caused the heat wave, but to be responsible for every warm day in human history."
"The media's WHITES ARE TERRORIZING BLACKS campaign reflects reality as accurately as the media's other campaign, WHITE MALE COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE RAPING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT! "
" Ordinary people keep hearing that we are in the middle of an epidemic of white-on-black violence and think, Surely the media wouldn't be making this up, so I must be misinformed.
According to a preposterously, laughably, ridiculously bogus report on 'hate crimes' produced by Eric Holder's Justice Department, blacks are far more likely to be victims of hate crimes than whites are. It would be like a government report asserting that most rapes are committed by elderly white women.
Holder's DOJ got to the desired outcome by:
(1) Defining 'hate crime' only as those in which the perp uses a racial epithet.
(Because that's what people fear most: I don't mind getting the crap kicked out of me -- as long as no one calls me a 'cracker'!)
(2) Defining Hispanic perpetrators as 'white.'
(Yes, according to our federal government, Hispanics are 'Hispanic' when they are victims of crimes, but "white" when they are the perpetrators.)
(3) Defining less than 0.1 percent of all violent crimes as 'hate crimes.'
(According to the FBI's detailed crime victimization report, there were about 1.2 million violent crimes in 2012, but Holder's Justice Department characterized less than 1,000 of those as 'hate crimes.') "http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/coulter-theres-reason-we-hear-mostly-about-white-micro-aggressions
"Shut up, stupid! Christians will be fine! This isn't going to allow discrimination!" - said every gay fascist and useful idiot minion.
IT TOOK A SINGLE DAY.
"But we can no longer support the law in its current form. For more than 15 years, we have been concerned about how the RFRA could be used to discriminate against others. As the events of the past couple of years amply illustrate, our fears were well-founded. While the RFRA may serve as a shield to protect Singh, it is now often *** used as a sword to discriminate against women, gay and transgender people *** and others. Efforts of this nature will likely only increase should the Supreme Court rule — as is expected — that same-sex couples have the freedom to marry."
See, once you can label it "hate" ANYTHING goes, and no one is there to support you.
It's ALMOST like they have a textbook they are going off of, a strategy, a plan. It's ALMOST as if useful idiots have their heads up their asses, so in love with the Feelz of supporting "love" or hiding behind that because they hate Christians, that they are enabling the coming biggest trampling of rights since Jim Crow. Fools or bigots. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-should-amend-the-abused-religious-freedom-restoration-act/2015/06/25/ee6aaa46-19d8-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html?postshare=6371435345896586
ICYMI: This is the ruling you probably didn't hear about, but need to. There were THREE big rulings in the last two days.
1) The SCOTUScare ruling established that the words of law don't matter, only the opinion of 9 oligarchs on the intent or impact of the law matter. In other words, there is no rule of law anymore. It is rule of man. If you don't understand why that's important please look it up.
2) The gay marriage ruling said that the 10th Amendment is void, as soon will be the actual rights in the Constitution of speech, freedom OF religion, and association (though all have been raped for years, now it's formally begun in earnest). This is important: Being against gay marriage is now discrimination. Remember that word discrimination. It's important, because number...
3) The following ruling establishes that *intent* is no longer necessary to have committed the crime of discrimination. If someone Feelz discriminated against it is up to you to prove yourself innocent.
Now put those rulings together and see what you get. No conspiracy theories needed.
You might not be able to do that math. You can sure as Hell bet progressives can.
If you see some flaw in my thinking other than "NU UH" or "it can't happen here" do tell.
"Under today’s 5-4 Supreme Court holding in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, you can be held liable for housing discrimination whether or not you or anyone in your organization intended to discriminate. Instead — to quote Justice Anthony Kennedy, who joined with the Court’s four liberals in a 5-4 majority — you might have been influenced by 'unconscious prejudice' or 'stereotyping' when you lent money or rented apartments or carried on appraisal or brokerage or planning functions. What you did had 'disparate impact' on some race or other legally protected group, and now you’re caught up in potentially ruinous litigation in which it’s up to you to show that you had a good reason for what you did and could not have arranged your actions in some other way that had less disparate impact."http://spectator.org/blog/63263/scotus-okays-liability-unintentional-housing-discrimination