ISIS aka the Islamic State: The New Boogeyman

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you undoubtedly are aware of the recent uprising of ISIS, aka ISIL, aka the Islamic State. This group of Islamic jihadis have been rampaging across Syria and Iraq, taking territory and killing infidels along the way. Clearly, these actions are condemnable. In fact, I believe that goes without saying. After the alleged beheading of journalist James Foley by “Jihadi John” of the Islamic State, the mainstream media and usual war-hawks have been calling for blood. They’re ramping up the rhetoric of yet ANOTHER war; this time, against the Islamic State. If you’re like me, you get suspicious whenever you see a narrative like this in the MSM.

Before we get into this, something must be clarified: our government has no way of distinguishing between these Islamic groups that are fighting in Syria and Iraq. But what we do know, is that they’re all factions or splinters of Al Qaeda. It also seems as if these groups have recently unified under the “Caliphate” known as the Islamic State.

And the reason we should all be suspicious, is that if you recall correctly, it wasn’t that long ago that the US government was touting aid for Islamic “freedom fighters” that were battling Assad in Syria. As a matter of fact, we know that our government has been arming them since at least September of 2013. At that time, the liberal media outlet Washington Post confirmed that the CIA had been delivering weapons, munitions, advanced communications equipment, and armored vehicles to these Islamic fighters.  But even this wasn’t enough.  President Obama has since requested more than $500 million in funds to assist these jihadis! 

The weapons, gear, and money sent to these “freedom fighters” undoubtedly ended up in the hands of the Islamic State; the same group our government and media are now insisting we go to war with!  So basically, we built up an enemy fighting force, and are now attempting to fight them ourselves!  Yes, I know, this seems odd.  And counter-productive.  But it really makes sense when you consider that war is very profitable if you happen to possess a defense contract, or happen to know the right people in DC.  Further, the government loves using war and threats of attack as an excuse to consolidate their power and to steal our civil liberties.  The most recent examples would be the PATRIOT Act and the TSA, which were knee-jerk reactions to 9/11 and Al Qaeda.

Our government has a history of “nudging” us into war.  They also have a history of enabling the fighting forces that we then go to war with!  Basically, every American war since the War of 1812 was either completely unnecessary, or was the direct result of America’s meddling in foreign affairs.  Next, I’ll cover the major conflicts:

Civil War:  I could do a whole article on the Civil War and Lincoln’s tyrannical, unconstitutional actions including trying civilians in military tribunals, but I will stick with the point here.  The Civil War could most definitely have been avoided.  You must consider that slavery was not a central tenet of the Civil War, as far as Lincoln was concerned.  Lincoln was not a fan of the black race.  He argued that, even if the slaves were freed, they should be shipped off to Liberia.  The slaves could’ve been emancipated via compensation by the government.  The “value” of the slaves was approximately $70-80 billion.  Lincoln ended up spending $76 billion enforcing the Civil War.  So essentially, he could’ve just paid to free the slaves, and saved 100,000 lives. 

The Civil War was really about the South’s struggle for states’ rights.  The South rightfully viewed Lincoln as a tyrant that did not respect the rights of the states.  The states, at that point, were still considered sovereign, and the federal government was small and had little influence throughout the country.  The South argued their right to secede from the federation.  And they should’ve been able to.  The states entered into the federation voluntarily, and thus they should’ve been allowed to leave the federation voluntarily.

WWI:  Prior to American intervention, there had been a three year stalemate in the Great War, and both sides were discussing truce plans. The war would’ve ended soon. But no, Wilson just had to have his hand in the “rebuilding” of Europe.  And his League of Nations could not come to fruition without major American intervention in the Great War. Wilson said that had America not entered the war, he wouldn’t have even had a “peep through the curtain” of the Treat of Versailles. Without American intervention, the Great War would’ve most likely ended in a truce, and the involved European countries would have maintained their original land borders.  The Treaty of Versailles would’ve never happened. 

Woodrow Wilson was reelected in 1916 by running on the slogan “He Kept Us Out of War.”  So how did he convince the American people to join the war?  He allowed American citizens to die in the sinking of the Lusitania.  I say “allowed”, because it was completely preventable.  While Germany was at war with Great Britain, they warned the American public about taking voyages on British ships, as many trans-Atlantic voyages were carrying military aid for Britain.  The Germans issued publications and advertisements in America, warning Americans to stay off of British ships.  But Woodrow Wilson knew that an event that resulted in the deaths of a large number of Americans could be propagandized and used to warm the American public towards entering the war.  So Wilson encouraged Americans to continue sailing on British ships.  In fact, when the Lusitania, which was designated as an auxiliary British war ship, was sunk by Germany, they were carrying 4.2 million rounds of ammunition, as well as explosive components.  Wilson’s plan worked; after 128 Americans died on the Lusitania, the government sold their war to the American people. 

lusitania

 

Stay tuned for the faulty reasons behind WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan…

 

 

 

 

The Black on White Violence Epidemic

After the deaths of the thugs known as Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, the liberal media has been foaming at the mouth crying racism.  At first, CNN just saw Zimmerman’s name and assumed he was white.  They then manufactured the white on black racism story.  After they discovered he was Hispanic, instead of dropping the false racism narrative, they created a whole new category of race in order to keep their rhetoric alive:  The White Hispanic.  (Does that mean that Obama is a White African? or a Black Arab? or a Black Caucasian?)  After all, Obama is just as black as Zimmerman.  (1/8 black)  Obama’s racial makeup is 1/2 white, 3/8 Arab, and 1/8 African)

Concerning Michael Brown, the liberal media ran with the “gentle giant” narrative, while claiming that Brown was coldly executed, without cause, in the street by white police officer Darren Wilson. We have since learned that Brown had just committed a strong-armed robbery. We’ve also learned that when Wilson ordered Brown out of the street, Brown ignored him. When Wilson then began to get out of his car to confront Brown, Brown kicked his door shut and then attacked Wilson in his squad car. After this, Brown started to run away. At this point, Wilson drew his weapon and pointed it at Brown, while yelling “FREEZE”. What most likely happened next, was that Brown, being 6’3 and near 300 pounds, knew he could not outrun Wilson. So instead, he turns around, faces Wilson, puts his hands in the air, and yells “What you gon’ do, shoot me?”, and then Brown proceeded to charge at Wilson. At this point, with Wilson fearing for his life, he fired at Brown in order to prevent his own serious injury or death. The media has only backed down off of Brown once they learned they jumped the gun in their narrative.

The media’s goals are to tow the party line, and divide the people.  Race is a great divider.  But their narrative only supports white on black racism, as they view the black community as oppressed by whites.  They want white people to feel guilty for being white, and therefore hate themselves.

Let’s take a look at some black on white violence that the media will be sure to downplay, and most likely blame guns while dismissing any racial motives for the black offenders:

Oklahoma:  Chris Lane, 22, Australian baseball player shot in the back by black teens.  One of the black teens, James Edwards, tweeted a couple months before the shooting:  “90% of white ppl are nasty.  #HATE THEM”. 

Spokane, WA:  WWII Hero Delbert Belton beat to death by two black men.

Florida:  A 13 year old boy was brutally beaten on a school bus by three black 15 year olds because he told on them for selling drugs

Memphis:  A man was doused with gasoline and set on fire by Robert Glasper and 19-year-old Renard King, both black.

St. Louis:  A hot dog vendor at a Ferguson Home Depot was robbed of his cellphone and struck in the head with a hammer by four black shoplifters.

Maryland:  White leasing manager killed by black maintenance man, Rashaan Williams. 

Memphis:  Black nurse, Demequa Bonds, charged in the negligent death of 3 year old white girl.

Raleigh:  Grant Ruffin Hayes, who is black, is charged for the murder of his white girlfriend.

Jacksonsville:  Four black people, Eltonia Lavonne Humphries, Josh Dukes, Roteia Lashay Hutchinson, and Jarquavis De’Vonte Davis were charged in the murder of Wesley Phelps Bridges, 36, white. 

Louisiana:  Vincent Andrew Naquin, who is white, was murdered by black suspect Jabaar Celestine, 19.  Jabaar Celestine, 19, was also involved in the robbery and homicide of Vincent Andrew Naquin.

Detroit: In April 2014, Steven Utash, a white man, stopped his car after he hit a child than ran into the side of his car. Upon exiting his vehicle, a mob of black men badly beat him. He ended up fighting for his life in a coma.

Let’s take a look at the big picture, shall we?

According to the FBI, blacks killed whites at more than twice the rate that whites killed blacks.  To add to that, while blacks account for only 13% of the US population, they committed 48.25% of murders.

So, tell me again, Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Trayvon supporters, NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus, Oprah, Piers Morgan, who is killing whom?  Regardless of what you or the media say, the facts tell a different story.  But white people don’t need to see this crap in the media in order to believe it.  We see it all around us.  We feel the hatred.

Hitler, National Socialism, and the Political Spectrum

political spectrum

The American left has a penchant for rewriting history, and playing word games to suit their agenda.  The most commonly used example is the word “liberal” itself.  The left has been referring to themselves as “liberal” since FDR’s reign.  What is ironic about this, is that the left is actually the antithesis of the true meaning of liberalism, which can be summed up as a political ideology in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government.  It advocates civil liberties, limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire capitalism.  After all, the word “liberal” is rooted in the word “liberty”, which is as American as apple pie, baseball, and Smith & Wesson.

Limited government?  Civil liberties?  Laissez-faire capitalism?  I know, I know…it doesn’t sound like the American left of today.  Leftists typically desire big, expensive, controlling government, limited individual liberties, limited private property ownership, and government-infused (crony) capitalism.  They just love to tax, legislate, and regulate us to death.  There is nothing truly liberal about NSA spying, prosperity-killing progressive income taxes, foreign drone wars, gun control, etc.  So then why did the left adopt the term “liberal”?    It was merely a head-fake; an attempt to “re-brand” itself.  Think about it:  would you vote for someone who described themselves as socialist, or tyrannical?  Of course not.  Hence, they describe themselves with a hijacked word that most Americans think of in a positive light.  After all, what patriotic American isn’t pro-liberty?  They’re hoping that you won’t look into their policies and beliefs, and that you’ll just take their word for it; that they’re liberty lovers.  It’s kind of like taking a junk vehicle, calling it “Quick and Reliable”, and hoping that you will buy it based on name alone, without test driving it.

The Fascist History of the Left, and How They Pin it on Their Opponents

For the cleverly deceptive progressives, hijacking positive terms for their own political gain isn’t enough.  They’ve also gotten very good at spinning negative words and ideas as “right-wing”, and pinning them on their opposition, regardless of the accuracy of their claims.   Take the “racism” charge for example.  I personally have been called a racist simply because I do not agree with the socialist policies of Barry Soetero.  Regardless of how incredible these claims may sound, progressives will continue to make them because they simply cannot argue the facts.  Historically, the facts are clearly stacked up against them, especially very damaging truths, such as that leftists killed more people in the 20th century than the number of dead from combat in WWI and II.  These are the truths that the left simply refuses to acknowledge.  I equate this to trying to prove to someone that their religion is false.  Indeed, the left does treat their political ideology as a religion.  Even when presented with clear and concise factual objections that completely dispel their beliefs, they still refuse to acknowledge the painfully obvious, and generally project these difficult truths back onto their opposition.  Maybe it’s because they’ve devoted so much of themselves to their “religion”, that they wouldn’t know what to do with out.

And such is the case with Adolf Hitler, Nazism, and fascism.  Considering how damaging it would be to have these concepts aligned to your own politics, the left has worked tirelessly to distance themselves from the fact that Hitler, Nazism, and fascism were all left-wing.  Hitler, fascism, and the Nazis have been quite successfully marketed as “right-wing” by leftist historians and mainstream media, in complete spite of the facts.  Many people (myself included) grew up believing that Hitler, the Nazis, and fascism were products of “right-wing extremism”.  After all, Hitler WAS against communism, right?  And he allowed for the existence of private corporations, right?  So then he must be a right-winger…or so they say.

The simplest way to define the Nazis is by eo nomine, which is a Latin legal term meaning “by name”.  Many people don’t even know what “Nazi” stands for, and I think there is a particular reason for that.  And the reason is that the name itself refutes the very idea that the Nazis were “right-wing”. “Nazi” is short for National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSADP).

It would be difficult for progressives to espouse the idea that Hitler/Nazis were anything but leftists/socialists if they used the proper party name.  “But what about the “National” part?” they ask.  Surely, that is right-wing!  Right…?  Patriotism is reserved for right-wingers and republicans, right?  Wrong.  The “national” aspect of the Nazi ideology could be summed up as the scope of the party.  (A national scope)  You see, most Marxists and communists view the world with open borders.  They have little respect for national sovereignty, and actually desire central, global governance.  (Like the United Nations)  Unlike the commies, Hitler and the Nazis strongly desired a sovereign nation.  They had a lot of pride for their country.

Hitler capitalized on the fact that Germany lost most of its sovereignty after they lost WWI, and had the Weimar Republic installed.  If you know your history, you would know that the Weimar Republic ended very badly.  As a testament to the evils of central banking and fiat money, (::cough:: Federal Reserve ::cough::), it should be noted that after the Western-backed Weimar Republic began printing more and more money to pay back its debts from the war, their money was devalued incredibly.  Most Germans, who had worked their whole lives to save money, found their money now worthless.  They were poor, tired, and frustrated.  It took a wheelbarrow full of money just to buy a loaf of bread.  This helped set the stage for Hitler’s national socialist agenda.  He placed the blame squarely on international capitalists; especially the Jews.  His successful creation of class and racial warfare was what he needed to catapult the Nazis to power on a nationalist (Germany first) platform.

I discussed a brief history of the Weimar with the intention of revealing the “national” aspect behind national socialism.  This was pivotal for the success of Hitler and his Nazi party.  Without the support and adoration of “patriotic” Germans, he would’ve never made it out of the beer halls of Germany.  His philosophy was otherwise very typical of other leftist regimes.  If you don’t believe me, then simply read the 25 Point Program of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP).  I’ve included some brief tenets of this program that are easily distinguished as leftist policies, as well as some correlations to today’s American left:

7. We demand that THE STATE be charged with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.

11. Abolition of unearned incomes. (Property incomes (rent), inheritance, interest (investments))

13. We demand the nationalization of all associated industries.

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15. We demand an expansion on a large scare of old age welfare. (Social Security)

16. Immediate communalization of large buildings

17. Land reform – expropriation of land for public utilities. (BLM land grabs)

18. Usurers and profiteers are to be punished with death

20. National education program

21. The State is to care for the elevating national health (National health care)

23. Restrictions of press – Newspapers must have permission from the State to be published. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. (Diane Feinstein’s attempts to regulate journalists.)

25. For the execution of this we demand the formation of a STRONG CENTRAL POWER in the Reich.

 

So for you leftists out there, please tell me how these points, and Hitler’s philosophy in general, relate to the core principles of (right-wing) libertarianism:

-Free markets

-Individual liberty

-Personal responsibility

-Limited, Constitutional government

 

Next, I’m going to break down how National Socialism was the antithesis of libertarian principles, as well as some commonalities between National Socialism and today’s progressive / democrat / liberal / socialist left.

Free Markets – – Some leftists like to say that Hitler was pro-free markets because he still allowed private ownership of companies.  This is only partially true.  The Reich “allowed” you to run a business if, and only if, you were favored by the Party, and operated in accordance with their desires.  Hitler’s crony capitalism was basically a “pay to play” system. You had to appease the Reich before you could run a business. This should sound familiar to Americans. Obama has a similar “pay to play” system. A great example would be the “green” c0mpanies, like Solyndra, that received government loans to the tune of billions of dollars. Most of these companies were huge funders of the Obama campaign, and other progressive causes. The American left in general hasn’t been very friendly towards free markets either.  Our current economic crisis can easily be tied back to progressive Woodrow Wilson.  He created the privately-owned, central banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve, in 1913.  He also signed the Revenue Act of 1913, which created the progressive income tax.   Another fine example of economic tyranny by the left is FDR’s Executive Order 6102, which allowed the government to steal all of the gold owned by private citizens.

Individual Liberty – –   You’d have to be insane to believe that Hitler was pro-liberty.  As Chancellor, one of the first things he did after the Nazis won a super-majority of the parliament, was to suspend Germany’s constitution.  He imprisoned and/or executed people based solely on race alone.  During WWII, this concept was not confined to Germany and the USSR.  FDR also imprisoned over 100,000 Americans based solely on race.  Under FDR’s Executive Order 9066, the American government essentially suspended the Constitution for Americans of Japanese descent.  They were imprisoned without charge or cause.  A liberal-majority Supreme Court upheld the decision in Korematsu v US, in one of the worst decisions the high court ever made.

Personal Responsibility – –  Point 7 of the 25 Points of the NSDAP completely absolves the individual of responsibility for himself.  It charges that the State provide individuals with sustenance.  This is not very different from our current welfare state in America.  Besides Social Security, created by FDR’s “New Deal”, LBJ greatly expanded the welfare state with his “Great Society”.  We now spend more on entitlements than we do on defense of our nation.

Limited, Constitutional Government – – As noted above, Hitler suspended Germany’s constitution.  He also vastly expanded the size of government.  The Reich reached into nearly every part of German life.  People were kidnapped and executed by the German government, without charge or cause. This is not much different, in theory, than our very own National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the government to arrest and indefinitely imprison individuals without being charged, without having access to a lawyer, and in complete subversion of the US justice system. Our current American government is also expanding at a rapid state.  A recent notable unconstitutional expansion of government was the creation of the TSA, under progressive RINO George W. Bush.  Most progressives view the Constitution as a “living” document, and that its meanings change with the times.  These leftists view the Constitution as merely a roadblock to their socialist utopia, where the ends justify the means.

Political Spectrum Distortion by Progressives

According to progressives, the political left is communism, and the political right is fascism.  Don’t let them get away with these lies.  If a leftist spouts this crap, ask them where anarchy falls on the spectrum.  Because a legitimate political spectrum, from left to right, is based on the size/scope of government, as well as the balance between collectivism vs. individualism.  The left equates to total collective government, whereas the right equates to no government (anarchy).  In reality, fascism is just another brand of tyranny and totalitarianism; a “cousin” of communism.  The progressives place fascism on the right side of the spectrum as a scare tactic to prevent people from moving to the right politically.  They want to create the illusion that both sides of the spectrum end in totalitarian government, and that liberalism is the “centrist”, or “moderate” choice.  The true “center” is conservatism/libertarianism.  To the left – – big government.  To the right – – anarchy.  In reality, the LEFT has always been the home of tyranny.  They conceal the fact that the farther right you move, the more freedom the individual has.  By principle alone, a right-wing tyrannical government cannot exist.  That would be a logical fallacy.  Because once a government shies away from individual freedom, and small, constitutional government, it ceases to be a “right-wing”/libertarian government.  The bigger and more powerful a government gets, the further left it slides on the scale.

 

Don’t fall for their false “choice” of big government or fascism. Fascism is just a cousin of communism. Choose liberty.

 

As a side note, I’d like to share with you what I learned while typing this. My intention with this article was to expose the distortion of history and specific words by progressives, with the main point being the false assertion that Hitler and the Nazis were anything other than left-wing lunatics. But while doing this, I also began to realize something else. Not only was Hitler a leftist, but his policies are beginning to very closely resemble those of our current administration… I always wondered how the German people allowed those atrocities to happen. I guess now I know…. They, too, fell for the “hope and change” rhetoric.

 

 

Syrian Civil War: Freedom? Or Something Else?

Barack Obama, John Kerry, John McCain, John Boehner, and others would like for you to believe that the Syrian Civil War is about democracy and freedom.  They’re pushing a narrative that touts Assad as a ruthless, oppressive tyrant, and the rebels as moderate freedom fighters.  They’re also saying that they know, undoubtedly, that Assad and/or his regime are responsible for the chemical attacks (sarin gas) that occurred in August of this year.  For these reasons, they say, the US should go to war against the Assad regime.

Let’s take a closer look at their actions, and reasoning behind this war, shall we?

The Flip-Flop on Assad

If Bashar Al-Assad is such a ruthless, oppressive dictator, then why was John Kerry singing his praises not too long ago?  In fact, John Kerry had met with Assad more than once, and called him a “friend“, a “reformer“, and “generous.”  Doesn’t sound too “ruthless dictator-ish” to me.  I, personally, am not saying that Bashar is a good guy.  But John Kerry sure made it sound that way in the recent past.  I find it noteworthy to add that Assad is an Alawite Muslim, aligned with the Shia sect.  I’ll expalin how that fits in below.

The “Moderate” Rebels

The Obama administration and friends have been saying that the Syrian rebels are moderate freedom fighters.  If you get your news from anywhere other than the lamestream media, you know that this simply isn’t true.  The rebels are a Sunni majority consisting of designated terrorist groups such as Al Nusra Front, and Al Qaeda in Iraq.  The rebels haven proven themselves to be ruthless killers.  Recently, Abu Sakkar — the well known founder of Homs’ Independent Omar al-Farouq Brigade, was videotaped cutting out and eating the heart of a Syrian soldier.  The rebels have also been mercilessly executing numerous captured soldiers.  The rebels have also been killing Christians and burning churches with complete disregard for human life.  This past weekend, the rebels seized control of Maaloula, an ancient Christian village.  After attacking Christian homes and churches, the Al Qaeda rebels indiscriminately began shooting Christians.  Does that sound “moderate” to you?

Chemical Weapons:  Whodunnit?

John Kerry has recently said that he “knows”  that Assad used chemical weapons against his people.  This attack is presumably the event that pushed Assad over Barack Obama’s infamous “red line.”  I question the truthfulness of the White House and John Kerry when they say this.  They have not put forth any evidence that I know of that suggests that Assad used chemical weapons.  Why would he, anyway?  He is already winning the war, and he knows that using chemical weapons would cause more problems for him.  Strategically, it just doesn’t make sense.  We have plenty of evidence that suggests that it was the rebels, specifically Jabhat al-Nusra, that used sarin gas.  See here, here, and here.  Using chemical weapons is deplorable.  We all know that.  But so is murder, no matter how it is carried out.  The question is whether or not this justifies the United States going to war against Assad.

Why Are We Being Lied To?

To date, the Obama administration and certain elements within Congress remain adament about intervening in Syria, despite the overwhelming opposition from the American people.  So then why are they, as OUR elected officials, pushing for this war?

It may have something to do with the fact that Israel is supporting intervention in the Syrian Civil War.  Assad and the Israelis just can’t quite seem to get along.  I’m sure Syria being an ally of Iran is a major factor.  While the US is, historically, friends with Israel, we must put Americans first.  After all, it is our necks, and money, on the line.  While Syria may or may not pose a direct threat to Israel, the US is not in imminent danger of being attacked.  The Israelis are fully capable of defending themselves.  After all, America is NOT the world’s police.

Bashar Al-Assad considers himself to be an Alawite, which is a sect of Shia Islam.  The Al Qaeda backed rebels are Sunni extremists known as Salafists.  It should also be noted that the Muslim Brotherhood is also Sunni.  As of late, Barack Hussein Obama has aligned himself with the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood.  Is Obama a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and therefore an Al Qaeda ally?  A liberal Egyptian Newspaper, Al Wafd, says so.  After all, the President’s close friend and brother, Malik Obama, is the owner and investment adviser for the Sudan-based Islamic Dawa Organization, or IDO, and the organization’s umbrella group, the Muslim Brotherhood.  Does that help put Obama’s confusing Middle East policy into perspective?

It’s all about the money.  The figure that puts everything into perspective is this:  83%.  The Senators that backed the Syrian resolution received 83% more defense lobby money than those that opposed it.  So, basically, our Senators and Congressmen are now representing the industries that fund their polical action committees, instead of We The People.  They’ve sold out and no longer represent us.

If our Congress and/or the President take any military action against Syria, they are acting in the interests of Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Military Industrial Complex.  None of which are the interests of the American People.  As taxpayers, what do you call that?  I believe it’s “Taxation Without Representation.”

Keep your powder dry.

Hypocrisy of the Left Regarding Greed

The Myths of Liberalism and the Democratic Party Regarding Greed
I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read “Republicans care about rich people. Democrats care about everyone. Vote for Democrats.” I am not necessarily a republican or a democrat; I am a libertarian that leans to the right. The politicians I support are libertarian Republicans such as Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Sarah Palin. To me, liberalism and the Democratic Party go hand in hand supporting big, progressive government. On the other hand, conservatism and the traditional Republican Party go hand in hand with smaller government and personal freedoms. Please note that I do not consider politicians such as John McCain and Lindsay Graham to be conservative, let alone Republican; in all reality, they are big government progressive RINOs.
Considering the simplest breakdown of left vs. right, how can a logical, sane person come to the conclusion that the right only cares about the rich? True conservatives and libertarians care about the freedoms of everyone; not just the rich. Sure, we want the rich to be able to keep their money out of the hands of the government, but the same goes for the (dwindling) middle class and the poor. I think everyone should be able to decide what to do with their money, their lives, and their choices.
According to most progressives, republicans are greedy, oppressive, old, racist white men that give two shits about minorities, the poor, and the ability of people to make choices. This idea sounds like it came right from Saul Alinsky. Alinsky was a big proponent of accusing the opposition of your own shortcomings.

Let’s take a look at one of the most common characteristics of liberals that they often attribute to their opponents:
Being rich and only caring about the rich. According to the Huffington Post, one of the most liberal “news” sites available, 7 out of 10 of the richest members of Congress are DEMOCRATS. Further, a majority of the wealthiest districts are represented by democrats, and half of America’s richest households live in states where both senators are democrats.  But I guess that because they support keeping the poor down by entitlements, that they “care” about the poor. If they cared about the poor, they would empower them, not enable and pander them. After all, “You can give a man a fish. Or you can teach him to fish.” 

The reason why liberals love welfare so much is because it buys them votes from those who receive welfare.  Of course they don’t support welfare with their own money, it comes from “other people’s money”, one of communism/socialism’s favorite terms.  Being able to “buy” votes with taxpayers’ money is dangerous to a constitutional republic.  Just ask Alexis de Tocqueville, who famously said “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

Being greedy. Liberals often accuse conservatives/republicans of being greedy. I think we could all agree that a measure of selflessness would be charitable donations. As it turns out, republicans are much more generous than democrats. According to ABC News, of the top 25 states that give an above average percent of their income to charity, 24 were red (republican) states in the last presidential election.

In the words of Washington State Supreme Court Justice Don R. Willett, “The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses.”

According to Arthur C. Brooks, a social scientist/professor at Syracuse University (who is a registered independent):

-Liberals earn 6% more than conservatives, on average

-Conservatives donate more time than liberals

-Conservatives donate more blood than liberals

-People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Regardless of what liberals accuse you of, just remember that the facts back you up.  The only “giving” that most liberals do is with other people’s money.  True Americans have a kind heart and will help others when they can.  We do not need to be forced to “share” by stealing from our paychecks and redistributing to welfare recipients.  I gave 4% of my salary last year to charity, directly from each pay check.  (And I am by no means “rich”.)  Is that something most liberals would do? 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/26/richest-congressmen-list_n_2025710.html
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alexisdeto390854.html#jzcjG6lqB1Yq3TBt.99

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.htm

Hypocrisy of the Left Regarding Racism

Hypocrisy of the Left Regarding Racism

Republicans/conservatives are racist.  This is one of the left’s favorite arguments.  This is a simple, easy accusation because it doesn’t take any evidence to accuse someone of racism.  The term also carries very negative connotations and is very damaging to someone’s character, whether warranted or not.  It is a great attack tool, regardless of the accuracy of its use.

Let’s take a look at who is really racist, shall we?

Senator Robert Byrd, lifelong democrat, and longest-serving senator in US history, was an Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan (KKK)

After the Civil Rights Act passed, democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson was quoted as saying “I’ll have those n*****s voting democrat for 200 years.”

Then-Democratic Congressman Lyndon B. Johnson consistently voted AGAINST legislation to protect black Americans from lynching.

Another LBJ quote:  “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

The president credited with freeing the slaves, Abraham Lincoln, was a conservative Republican.

Democratic Senator John C. Calhoun was the South’s leading defender of slavery and segregation.  He believed that whites and blacks could never live together, and that after any emancipation, they’d forever be “worlds apart.”

Republican Rep. Charles Sumner argued for civil rights and held that all individuals are made in the image of God.  For this position, he was beaten with a cane by Democratic Rep. Preston Brooks on the Senate floor.

Black anti-slavery advocate Frederick Douglass was a conservative.

Civil Rights activist Susan B. Anthony was a conservative

The Civil rights Acts of 1875, 1957, and 1960 were all passed by republican majorities.

Republicans passed the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery.  80% of democrats opposed it. 

The 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, was endorsed by every single republican, while every single democrat opposed it.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by 82% of Senate Republicans, but only 66% of Democrats.  In the House, 80% of Republicans supported it and 63% of Democrats were against it.

Progressive hero President Woodrow Wilson re-segregated previously integrated federal facilities.  His response to dissenters:  “If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it.”

Woodrow Wilson chose the KKK epic Birth of a Nation to be the first film ever shown at the White House.

The 1964 Republican Party ran on a platform demanding “full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.”

Black Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel called TEA partiers “white crackers”.

Democrat Congressman John Dowdy, who opposed the 1964 reforms, compared the Civil Rights Act to a bill that Hitler would support.

Other examples of racist liberal hypocricy from some non-politicians:

The “Rev.” Al Sharpton:  “White folks were in caves while we were building empires…. We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and those Greek homos ever got around to it.”

Al Sharpton derisively referred to Jews as “diamond merchants”— and to “pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.”

Obama’s pastor of nearly 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright of the Trinity United Church for Christ, has infamously said the following:  “All white people are liars.”  You are not now, nor have you ever been, nor will you ever be a brother to white folk.  And if you do not realize that, you are in serious trouble.” 

Recently, in an op-ed written by Jeremiah Wright called “Damn You White America”, he said “From the beginning of time, all evil can be pinpointed to the existence of the white race.”   Read the entire racist, hateful piece here.  Also note that this is the pastor that performed the wedding of Barack Hussein and Michelle Obama.

Some want to argue that times have changed and that Republicans are now the racists.  Not true.  Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, only one would ever change parties.  The remaining 20 continued to run and be elected as Democrats.  Republicans continued to represent most southern states until 1995.  Views on welfare reform, the Cold War and other foreign policies were attributed with this shift in southern politics.

Are all democrats racist and all republicans angels?  Of course not.  Are there racist republicans?  Of course.  To determine where each party really stands on issues of equality, simply look at their legislative record and party platforms.  And for that, I refer you above.

The perception problem is due to the fact that liberals are great at getting their message out in a venue that will not provide an opportunity for them to be challenged.  Most people just take their word for it when they spew lies such as those mentioned above.  They have no problem lying to get support.  Just ask liberal/communist hero Saul Alinsky, who said that “The ends justify the means”.  To them, this means that they can do/say whatever they want, no matter how dishonest, immoral, or hateful, so long as it serves their purpose.  Conservatives, generally, are honest and will not participate in language/rhetoric that is deceptive.  Don’t just listen to people; watch what they do.  It blows these liberal lies out of the water.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/06/what_does_an_exalted_cyclops_do.html

http://greensboroguardian.com/2013/06/08/democrats-opposed-civil-rights-for-blacks/

 http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson/page/0/1

 http://townhall.com/tipsheet/taylorcolwell/2013/08/03/charlie-rangel-calls-tea-partiers-white-crackers-n1655110

 http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/06/28/defenders-of-rachel-jeantel-channel-john-c-calhoun/

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/06/racism-your-name-is-jeremiah-wright/

http://theredsquirrelreport.blogspot.com/2012/04/reverend-jeremiah-wright-damn-you-white.html

http://theblacksphere.net/2011/07/wright-white-liars/

Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry; “Phony Scandals” and the Second Amendment

Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry; “Phony Scandals” and the Second Amendment
Brian A. Terry grew up in Michigan and served in the US Marine Corps. He also served as a Lincoln Park police officer, as well as an Ecorse police officer. He joined the US Border Patrol on July 23rd 2007, with class 699.
On December 14, 2010, in a remote area of the Arizona desert known as Peck Canyon, members of the Border Patrol’s elite tactical unit known as BORTAC were on the lookout for illegal alien drug smugglers. Before too long, the agents come across a group of five drug smugglers. Armed with less-than-lethal beanbag shotguns, the agents made their presence known. They end up firing beanbag rounds at the suspects, who in turn returned fire with their real guns. The agents then engage in a full blown firefight with their service issued weapons. Before the gun smoke had settled, Agent Brian A. Terry was found to have been shot in the back by an AK-47. He died shortly thereafter. Two of the suspects’ weapons were found at the scene, which happened to be AK-47s.
Attorney General Eric Holder was notified immediately via email about the incident. Within hours, Department of Justice officials realized that the weapons found at the scene were linked to Operation Fast and Furious and began their coverup. Operation Fast and Furious was a botched program that directed American gun stores to sell weapons to DOJ informants that were involved with Mexican drug cartels. The weapons, which were paid for with US tax dollars, were supposed to be tracked into Mexico and into the hands of cartel leaders. Except for one thing: the DOJ lost track of thousands of the guns, including Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifles, AK-47s, FN Five-sevens (aka “cop killer”), and others.
Only a fraction of the guns have been recovered to date. As of today, they are still being used along the border to commit more crimes. ICE Agent Jaime Zapata was also killed by a gun that some suspect came from Fast & Furious. In addition, hundreds of Mexican citizens have also been killed with Fast & Furious linked weapons.
Most Americans know this story by now because ATF Agent John Dodson blew the whistle. After not receiving a response from his agency leaders, he went to Congressman Darrell Issa to bring Fast & Furious to light. What Americans have been lied to about don’t know, is the real story behind Fast & Furious. I too do not know the truth behind it with certainty. I do however have some speculation about what happened.
Many involved with US/Mexican relations have strong opinions about the drug and weapons trade between the two countries. Some suggest that the US is to blame for Mexico’s violence and narcotics problems because Americans consume most of the drugs that come though Mexico, and some of the firearms in Mexico come from the US. It should be noted that most Mexican citizens are prohibited from defending themselves and their families owning guns. How many guns are illegally smuggled to Mexico from America is unknown.
It is widely known that many guns used by the drug cartels originate from corrupt Mexican military and law enforcement officials. Without a doubt, some come from the US. However, radical left-wing liberals and communists progressives in the US like to place most of the blame on the Second Amendment. It is this argument, I believe, that fueled Fast & Furious.

It is no secret that the Obama administration views the Second Amendment as a roadblock to a fascist take over has a deep disdain for the Second Amendment. But exactly how far would he and his cronies go to push their people control gun control agenda? It is my theory that Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to be used as a way to further the cause of Obama’s dictatorship gun control. Keep in mind that Fast & Furious was supposed to be kept from the public, like most of the Obama administration’s userpations of liberty. I theorize that the Obama administration was trying to use Fast & Furious to fuel the violence in Mexico with American guns. They then would be able to create a “solution” to the problem that they created by enacting restrictive gun control. Only in the mind of progressive liberals would it be acceptable to fuel gang violence and kill people create a problem in order to furnish a solution. After all, in the words of the ghostwriter of Obama’s Dreams From My Father Obama’s hero, Saul Alinsky, the ends justify the means.
Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, which was dedicated to Lucifer, acts as a type of bible for progressives/communists. In Rules for Radicals, there is even a specific “rule” regarding means and ends. Rule 2. Of Means and Ends states “The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. … The real arena is corrupt and bloody.”
When you put two and two together, it is easy to see. Fast & Furious was a textbook Alinsky tactic used by the left. The goal (or “end”) was more gun control. The “means” were Fast & Furious. Apparently, the deaths of Terry and many others were “worth the cost”. In their minds, the only mistake was that they got caught.
So next time Obama tries to dismiss his scandals as “phony”, remember Brian A. Terry. His life and death were not phony.

Rest in peace, Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry, a true American hero.

 

 

Update:  Many Obama peddlers defend Fast & Furious by stating that it was started by George Bush.  They also talk about a gun-tracing program that Bush implemented, called Operation Wide Receiver.  This comparison is false.  Below are the five biggest differences between Bush’s Wide Receiver and Obama’s Fast & Furious, provided by The Blaze.

“The insinuation is that Fast and Furious is somehow a continuation of the Bush-era operation. The only problem with that theory is that it’s not true.”

(1) First and foremost, operation Wide Receiver did not result in the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent or an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer. Fast and Furious did. The guns that ultimately killed Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and ICE officer Jamie Zapata were traced back to straw purchasers related to Fast and Furious. Zapata’s family filed a wrongful death suit against the U.S. Justice Department last week. 

Further, officials have confirmed that the guns from Fast and Furious have already killed hundreds of Mexican citizens and Holder has said on the record that they will likely kill many more. The total number of confirmed deaths so far from Wide Receiver: Zero.

(2) Second, Wide Receiver, though flawed, was more of a gun-tracing operation than a gun-walking program. Gun-tracing involves putting specific safeguards in place to track firearms, such as RFID chips perhaps with video or aerial surveillance. Gun-walking is what happened in Fast and Furious, where ATF agents sold thousands of guns without a reliable way to recover them, apparently just hoping for the best.

Some of the guns from Wide Receiver were implanted with RFID chips and were actively tracked electronically. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in Phoenix also implemented aerial surveillance tactics in an attempt to follow the weapons.

However, problems reportedly arose due to poorly implanted RFID chips which were forced into the guns, bending the antennas and decreasing their effectiveness. Cartels and straw purchasers also eventually came up with creative ways to shake tracking maneuvers and overhead surveillance, such as driving in loops for hours until surveillance planes had to refuel.

Those in charge of Fast and Furious took no similar steps to strengthen their chances of recovering walked guns other than recording the serial numbers before watching them disappear in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

In fact, ATF agents involved in Fast and Furious have previously testified that they were ordered to stand down and not track the weapons even when interdiction was possible and instead “took notes” and let the guns walk across the Mexico border.

(3) Third, one must take into account the size and scope of the operations.

Speaking to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month, Holder said that “three hundred guns” were allowed to “walk” (although note the difference between “tracing” and “walking” above) in Wide Receiver. While there is no evidence that suggests otherwise, the figure is dwarfed by the approximately 2,000 firearms that walked in Fast and Furious. Roughly 1,400 guns were lost and about 700 have been recovered in Mexico and at crime scenes like the sites of Terry and Zapata’s murders.

(4) Perhaps the most convincing piece of evidence proving the two operations are separate from each other is the fact that Wide Receiver was shut down in 2007 shortly after it was clear the program was a failure. This was before Obama was even in office and nearly two years before Fast and Furious began.

Fast and Furious wasn’t shut down until late 2010 after the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans, a border agent and an ICE officer.

(5) Finally, unlike Fast and Furious, officials involved in Wide Receiver were reportedly in close contact with Mexican authorities during the operation, though how involved Mexican officials were is not entirely known.

What is known is that Mexican authorities were kept completely in the dark during Fast and Furious, according to the Mexican ambassador to the U.S. Mexico. He announced on June 1, 2012,  that Mexico would be launching its own probe into Fast and Furious.

It should be perfectly clear that both the Bush and Obama administration conducted two separate, flawed operations. One, however, was a much deadlier and larger operation.

If there is evidence of wrongdoing, or false testimony related to operation Wide Receiver, those responsible should be held accountable. But the argument that Fast and Furious is all about “politics” and should just be swept under the rug because the previous administration also carried out a similar program is irresponsible.

A contempt resolution will be considered by the full House of Representatives this week. If lawmakers decide to hold the attorney general in contempt, it will be a first in U.S. history for a sitting attorney general.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/06/26/the-5-biggest-differences-between-operation-fast-and-furious-and-operation-wide-receiver/