Greatest Hits: This is Your Grocery Store on Communism

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

This is Your Grocery Store on Communism- And of course, it was someone else’s fault.

After reading Robert Stacy McCain’s complete dismantling of the pro-communist rantings of Jesse Myerson, I’ve kept my eyes peeled for other stories that show how, in the words of the late Yuri Bezmenov, “how the beautiful society of equality and social justice is in practice.”  Here is one such example.  The following video shows a typical Moscow grocery store was on a typical day, in 1986.

Now, besides the scarcity, did you notice that no one seemed to smile? No friendly exchanges, no banter, no warm greetings. Just mind-numbing obedience and drudgery.
That was communism in the 80’s, and will be communism where ever it is tried. It is a slow, painful death of the spirit. While all the time, the government and media tells you how great it is. It’s a psychosis that is caused by the contradiction of reality and propaganda. You’re in paradise, while you’re in misery. You’re equal-equally poor, equally oppressed, and equally unhappy. There is the practical application of social justice, while the party big wigs have the best of everything.

Share

Why Democrats Are The Party Of Slavery And Victimization

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Alfonzo Rachel
Alfonzo Rachel

Hat/Tip to Alfonzo Rachel at PJ Media.

Alfonzo Rachel speaks truth to power and lays it on the line. He isn’t afraid to call a spade a spade, and he can back up all his words with facts.

Take the time to watch this video, you’ll be glad you did.


.

.

.

Share

Left Pushing To Replace Andrew Jackson On $20 Bill With Baby Killer And Genocidal Enviro-Statist

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

stanton-elizabeth-cady

 

Hat/Tip to Warner Todd Huston at Publius’ Forum.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Hell bring the $2 bill back and put someone with female genitalia on that…

There is a new campaign afoot that is tickling the interests of the mainstream media. It is an effort to kick President Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill and replace him with a woman. Sadly at least three of the candidates do not belong on the list. One is a famous hater of men, another can only be termed a mass murderer, and the third was an important supporter of the genocide of African Americans. How is it these three women deserve to be celebrated on the $20 bill is anyone’s guess.

The campaign called Women On The 20, is, the group says on its website, is an effort to “compel historic change by convincing President Obama that NOW is the time to put a woman’s face on our paper currency.”

The group hopes to have the change on the money made by the year 2020, which happens to be the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, the one that gave women the right to vote.

One of the ways that proponents of the new face on the 20 hopes to achieve their goal is to have Americans sign a petition that would “force” Obama to take notice and make a decision on the proposal.

So, Iran is close to getting nukes, ISIS is damn near committing genocide, Putin is building up Russia’s military, as is Red China and these folks think THIS is what our President needs to be focused on??!!

The group has also proffered a list of 15 candidates from which website visitors may chose their top three. The list of candidates, though is in many cases little else but a cavalcade of leftists some of whom celebrated things that should disqualify them as the sort of Americans whom people should respect.

Here is the full list:

  • Alice Paul (1885-1977): Woman’s suffragette
  • Betty Friedan (1921-2006): Radical feminist
  • Shirley Chisholm (1924-2005): Politician
  • Sojourner Truth (1797-1883): Former slave and abolitionist
  • Rachel Carson (1907-1964): Environmentalist
  • Rosa Parks (1913-2005): Civil rights activist
  • Barbara Jordan (1936-1996): Politician
  • Margaret Sanger (1879-1966): Eugenecist
  • Patsy Mink (1927-2002): Politician
  • Clara Barton (1821-1912): Founder of the American Cross
  • Harriet Tubman (1822-1913): Former slave and abolitionist
  • Frances Perkins (1880-1965): FDR’s Labor Secretary
  • Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906): Abolitionist and women’s sufferage leader
  • Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962): First Lady and human rights activist
  • Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815)-1902): Women’s rights leader

Now, most of these candidates are personages worthy of being included in a list of candidates for famous American women. But three of the candidates are not famous, but are infamous and do not belong on this list of worthies.

Namely, Betty Friedan, Margaret Sanger, and Rachel Carson.

Rachel Carson is famed as the author of the thinly researched and now thoroughly debunked envirowacko book Silent Spring. Carson’s faux “work” led to the banning of the insecticide DDT. Carson claimed it was a carcinogen and an environmentally disastrous. The the facts are that DDT helped kill mosquitos and save the lives of billions who otherwise would have died from malaria. Since its banning tens of millions have kept dying, most of them in underdeveloped nations. Rachel Carson is guilty of mass murder for her lies.

Next up is the unworthy Margaret Sanger. She is famed for coining the term “birth control” and is an icon for lovers of infanticide everywhere. But one of the dirty little secrets that the pro-abortion lobby refuses to accept is the fact that she worked in her chose field of eugenics in order to cleanse America of the black race. Sanger was little else but an advocate of the genocide of blacks in America.Sanger wanted to use abortion and sterilization to cull from the population a list of “undesirables” that mirrors the list the Nazis used to purify Germany. She wanted, for instance, to eliminate the mentally retarded and blacks from the gene pool of the country.Sanger was a disgusting, murder-supporting eugenicist that should be reviled.

Lastly is Betty Friedan, one of the founders of the women’s rights movement, wrote the famed book The Feminine Mystiquein 1963, a book that sparked a massive movement for women’s rights. But ultimately Friedan proved to be merely a man hater, some charge a racist, but most certainly a major liar.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Common Core Lessons Spew Racist Propaganda

Share

Never be deceived into thinking the liberals ever stop lying.  It’s in their very nature to spew untruths in order to make their agenda stick.  For more evidence of this, look no further than the racist propaganda they disseminate in Common Core.  Here is the latest, in which any and all opposition to Barak Obama is portrayed as racist…

With the introduction of Common Core ‘standards’, schools around the nation have witnessed not only a decline in the academic standards expected of children under the guise of improving problem solving skills, but we have seen numerous examples of children being exposed to very disturbing and dangerous lessons.

Much has been made of the nonsensical Math lessons courtesy of Common Core and the elimination of the great classics of literature in favor of informative, progressive pieces. However, one lesson that should concern Americans comes courtesy of Barack Obama himself. His biography has been, not surprisingly, designated as an approved piece of Common Core literature. As a result, 4th graders in some parts of America are being taught a narrative as reality that we have witnessed the President and his lackey media push over the last 5 years. Our children are being taught that America is, at its core, a racist nation.

obamaBook

Once again, we see that any resistance to Obama is racist.  But, at the same time, horrible insults to Allen West, Herman Cain, and other Conservatives are not considered racist, even when the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and Planned Parenthood are those saying them.  And, Common Core is just another vehicle in which to pump racism into the minds of children.

Share

Communist Mayor, Bill de Blasio, Targets Harlem Charter School

Share

Like all good, white,  progressives, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio heard that charter schools were successfully teaching dark skinned children how to read, so he’s trying to shut them down…

So, it comes as no surprise that another progressive socialist is attacking another school choice program, charter schools.

As John Fund reported in the National Review, “Last week, New York’s ACORN mayor Bill De Blasio announced he is evicting Success Academy, a widely praised charter school from the Harlem public school building it occupies. Two other charter schools will be blocked from opening. He claims elementary-school kids wouldn’t be safe in a building with high-school students. His excuse is as absurd as the propaganda Vladimir Putin is using to justify the occupation of Crimea.”

If I may put this into the vernacular, De Blasio is a liberal socialist racist jackass who is more concerned with supporting the corrupt teachers’ unions than ensuring deserving minority children can get a better educational opportunity. And don’t give me the blather about him being married to a black woman, obviously she is a progressive elitist who cares not for young black mothers who want something better for their children.

According to Fund, Danique Loving, the principal of Success Academy, notes that “one out of every four African-American boys who drops out of school ends up in jail. That’s what Mayor de Blasio would be focusing on if he were really worried about the safety of our students.” Eva Moskowitz, the CEO of Success Academy, showed up last night at the New York Meeting, a group of political activists and donors, to blast the de Blasio decision and announce she would lead a rally today in Albany, the state capitol, to protest it.

See, charter schools do what the public schools cannot and will not:  teach black children how to read and write. So, when progressives find schools that do that, they always seek to limit them, and then shut them down.  After all, they can’t have black folks getting off the plantation, can they?  As Frederick Douglass wrote in the 19th century, and I covered two years ago…

If you needed more proof, kindly considers what happens when a young black student “wakes up” to history, and has the temerity to quote Frederick Douglass, in the proper context…

Mr. Vargas is fortunate enough to have in his charge one Jada Williams, a 13-year-old eighth grader who voluntarily took on some difficult extra work: reading Frederick Douglass’s Narrative of the Life and writing an essay on the subject. Frederick Douglass is dangerous reading, truly radical stuff. Miss Williams, like most of the students in her dysfunctional school, is black. Most of the people being paid to go through the motions of teaching them are white. Coming across the famous passage in which Douglass quotes the slavemaster Auld, Miss Williams was startled by the words: “If you teach that nigger (speaking of myself) how to read, there will be no keeping him. It will forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master.” The situation seemed to her familiar, and her essay was a blistering indictment of the failures of the largely white faculty of her school: “When I find myself sitting in a crowded classroom where no real instruction is taking place I can say history does repeat itself.”

Her teacher was so offended by the essay that she circulated copies of it to the rest of the faculty and to the principal. Miss Williams, an A student, suddenly began to receive Ds. According to accounts, her mother received harassing telephone calls from teachers who suggested that she was in some way disturbed rather than merely observant. She was forced eventually to withdraw from the school and enroll in an even worse one. (The Blaze has more.) (Emphasis added)

So, as you can see, the thought of black reading, using their talents, and taking their rightful place as citizens in a free society is terrifying to regressives.  So, we see this all over the US; progressives shutting down schools that make their slaves useless.  Bill de Blasio is just the latest example.
Share

Virginia Democratic Candidate Proposes the Enslavement of Doctors-Forcing Them to Accept Medicare and Medicaid Patients

Share

If you ask someone that has worked in the medical profession, they would tell you that there is a reason that so many doctors do not accept Medicare and Medicaid patients.

1.  Poor re-reimbursement rates-essentially, you lose money with ever patient.

2.  Increased overhead in the form of more regulation.

3.  (Particularly with Medicaid) Very high no-show rate.  In other words, not only do you lose money with each appointment, but nearly 50% of those appointments are not kept at all, complicating the losses immensely.

4. (Particularly with Medicare) Medicare hired companies to investigate claims and “recover” false claims.  However, by their definition, a false claim is nothing more than an undotted “i,” or an uncrossed “t.”  The mafia outfits that charge seniors for 15 jazzies only get caught due to coincidence.  Oh, and did I mention that these companies get a percentage of the “false claims?”

5.  The Obama administration took hundreds of billions out of Medicare to fund ObamaCare.

6.  The insurance that denies more claims than any other?  Medicare!

In other words, for most doctors, Medicare and Medicaid is a losing proposition.  Mainly because they are government run, and therefore are terrible to deal with.

So, in order to prevent doctors from escaping the “suck,” democratic state delegate candidate, Kathleen Murphy, proposes that the state enslave doctors…

The Mason Conservative reported:

FYI last night at the Great Falls Grange debate, Democrat delegate candidate Kathleen Murphy said that since many doctors are not accepting medicaid and medicare patients, she advocates making it a legal requirement for those people to be accepted.

She did not recognize that the payments are inadequate to cover the doctors’ costs. She also did not recognize there is a shortage of over 45,000 physicians now and that it is forecast to be 90,000 in a few years.

Democrats appear to want to make physicians slaves of the state, but Democrats don’t admit they would just drive more doctors out of practice into retirement and other occupations. The Obamacare law and regulations are causing millions of people to lose their health insurance, drop many doctors and hospitals. The HHS internal forecast is 93 million Americans would lose their health insurance due to the Obamacare law and rules about adequacy of insurance.

Many more people will be uninsured. The penalties for being uninsured start at $95 per year, but the penalties can’t be collected by the IRS if a person does not have a tax refund to attach.
The out of pocket costs required by Obamacare’s Silver Plan for a non-smoking mother and father with two children making a gross before income taxes of $50,000 (roughly average salary for VA) would be $13,765 per year including the deductible of $10,400. That’s 28% of their gross income — not very affordable and about the same as guidelines for a mortgage payment. For such a family making $100,000 of gross income, The cost would be $21,431 including the deductible of $12,700, or 21% of gross income.

In other words, she wants to build a legislative “wall,” took make sure the doctors don’t escape.

Of course, that will just lead a bunch of them to either leave the state, or retire outright.  Of course, the democrats will blame that on someone else.

Share

A Tale of Two Stories: Democrats Blocking the School Doors Again, and Why Keep Minorities in Failing Schools?

Share

school starts

In something reminiscent of the 60’s, Democrats are barring minorities from escaping terrible public schools.    Doug Ross has our first excerpt…

Pro-Choice: The Justice Department has asked a federal court to stop 34 school districts in Louisiana from handing out private-school vouchers so kids can escape failing public schools, just like the president’s daughters.

He didn’t say it on the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream Speech,” but President Obama, along with Attorney General Eric Holder, also has a dream — one of leaving every black child in the Pelican State behind, trapped in schools that cannot educate them.

Almost simultaneously with the president’s speech, Holder’s Department of Justice filed suit in federal court to stop Louisiana’s statewide voucher program.

Passed in 2012, the program guarantees a voucher to students from families with incomes below 250% of poverty and who attend schools graded “C” or below.

Liberals are all for choice when it comes to having children, but not when it comes to educating them. The irony of Obama’s speech is that he pretended to honor a man who fought to have black children attend schools they were barred from as his administration fought to keep them in schools they can’t escape from, a form of educational apartheid that’s both separate and unequal.

Once again, just like the 60’s, Republicans are trying to open doors, and Democrats are barring them.  Look it up, it’s history.

Let’s also understand that the public school system, that systematically fails to educate everyone, but especially minorities, is little more than a vassal of the Democratic Party, and serviced by the teachers union.  In spite of the overwhelming evidence, Both the Democrats and the unions steadfastly refuse any attempts to reform it, as that would mean removing their control of it.  Now, why would they so vehemently resist changing it?  I posted a story of a 13 year old girl that found the answer, and was punished for it…

If you needed more proof, kindly considers what happens when a young black student “wakes up” to history, and has the temerity to quote Frederick Douglass, in the proper context…

Mr. Vargas is fortunate enough to have in his charge one Jada Williams, a 13-year-old eighth grader who voluntarily took on some difficult extra work: reading Frederick Douglass’s Narrative of the Life and writing an essay on the subject. Frederick Douglass is dangerous reading, truly radical stuff. Miss Williams, like most of the students in her dysfunctional school, is black. Most of the people being paid to go through the motions of teaching them are white. Coming across the famous passage in which Douglass quotes the slavemaster Auld, Miss Williams was startled by the words: “If you teach that nigger (speaking of myself) how to read, there will be no keeping him. It will forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master.” The situation seemed to her familiar, and her essay was a blistering indictment of the failures of the largely white faculty of her school: “When I find myself sitting in a crowded classroom where no real instruction is taking place I can say history does repeat itself.”

Her teacher was so offended by the essay that she circulated copies of it to the rest of the faculty and to the principal. Miss Williams, an A student, suddenly began to receive Ds. According to accounts, her mother received harassing telephone calls from teachers who suggested that she was in some way disturbed rather than merely observant. She was forced eventually to withdraw from the school and enroll in an even worse one. (The Blaze has more.)

So, a student woke up, and realized that she was being enslaved by a failing system, was punished for noticing the truth?  Well, let’s just say that it gets more interesting…

Teachers refused to show Miss Williams’s mother the schoolwork she had allegedly performed poorly on, and they refused to answer many of her questions about her daughter’s performance and alleged behavioral problems.

The teachers also failed to enter Miss Williams’s essay in the contest for which it was written — intentionally sabotaging her chances at an academic honor.

It is our contention that most of the regressive/Marxist/Democrat Party social programs are intended to no only create dependency, but to perpetuate it forever.  The chains of this new slavery were forged by the Democrats, are expanded, and are strengthened by the Democrats.  And, when of their victims notices who it is that is enslaving them, there is quick and sure retribution.  Because, you see, ideas are dangerous things, especially ones about escaping the government plantation.

So, just like the 60’s, the Democrats are keeping minorities ignorant, and dependent.  Far too many people of color are on the government plantation, and any attempt to escape will be sternly punished.

Just remember these quotes from LBJ…

“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. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

LBJ, Democratic President of the United States.

“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler’s Book, “Inside The White House”

The Democrats are still the party of slavery.  They are still the party of Jim Crow.  They are still the party of racism.  They just changed their rhetoric, and their policies to appear to be something they’re not.

But, if you point this out, YOU are the racist!

Linked at the Daley Gator! Thanks!

Linked at Zion’s Trumpet Thanks!

Share

Margaret Thatcher, The Iron Lady, Dead at Age 87

Share

Margaret Thatcher, the so called “Iron Lady,” had passed away at age 87.  The UK’s first female prime minister, she was in power at a pivotal time in the UK’s history, restoring the economy and international prestige of her nation.  She was seen as a partner with Ronald Reagan in confronting Soviet Communism, winning her the title, “Iron Lady,” from the Soviet Press.  The Daley Gator has more…

Margaret Thatcher Dies After Stroke – Sky News

Britain’s first and only female prime minister Baroness Thatcher has died at the age of 87 after suffering a stroke.

Lady Thatcher’s children Mark and Carol said their mother, who suffered bouts of ill health in recent years, died peacefully on Monday morning.

Downing Street, which joined Buckingham Palace in flying its flags at half mast, said the politician would be given a full ceremonial funeral with honours at St Paul’s Cathedral.

Sky sources understand she died at the Ritz in central London where she had been staying since January following a minor operation.

It is believed her Belgravia home was not properly equipped for her recovery and she was invited to stay at the hotel by its owners, David and Frederick Barclay.

.

Prime Minister David Cameron led tributes from around the world, calling the former Tory leader “a great prime minister, a great leader, a great Briton”.

He said: “As our first woman prime minister, Margaret Thatcher succeeded against all the odds, and the real thing about Margaret Thatcher is that she didn’t just lead our country, she saved our country, and I believe she’ll go down as the greatest British peacetime prime minister.

“Her legacy will be the fact she served her country so well, she saved our country and that she showed immense courage in doing so and people will be learning about what she did and her achievements in decades, probably centuries to come.”

Mr Cameron was in Spain at the start of a European tour to push for a more flexible EU when the news broke but immediately cut short his trip.

.

It is understood that Lady Thatcher was consulted about details of the funeral arrangements and made clear that she did not want to lie in state.

The streets between Westminster and St Paul’s will be cleared for the procession, the date of which is yet to be decided. The route will be lined with members of Armed Forces.

US President Barack Obama said that America would “never forget her standing shoulder to shoulder with President Reagan” and that she had “with moral conviction” helped to shape history.

He said: “With the passing of Baroness Margaret Thatcher, the world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend.

“As a grocer’s daughter who rose to become Britain’s first female prime minister, she stands as an example to our daughters that there is no glass ceiling that can’t be shattered. As prime minister, she helped restore the confidence and pride that has always been the hallmark of Britain at its best.”

As a pivotal figure in British history, we will miss Baroness Thatcher, but her legacy lives in in the UK that she had restored and strengthened.

Stacey McCain has a post as well, as does Bob Belvedere.

Sarah Palin [tip of the fedora to Daria DiGiovanni]:

Today we say goodbye to a towering figure of the 20th century. With the passing of Margaret Thatcher, we’ve sadly lost the last living member of that great triumvirate that included Ronald Reagan and John Paul II — those giants who defeated the evil empire of Soviet Communism and allowed the liberation of its captive nations. We’ve also lost one of the great champions of economic freedom and democratic ideals.

Many will focus on the fact that Margaret Thatcher’s career was a collection of “firsts” for women — she was the first and youngest female Conservative-party member to stand for election, the first woman to hold the title Leader of the Opposition, and the first woman prime minister of the United Kingdom.

But Thatcher not only broke a glass ceiling; she broke a class ceiling. She was a grocer’s daughter from the back of beyond who advanced to the height of power in a class-conscious society. Like her friend Ronald Reagan, she was an underestimated underdog and political outsider. Simon Jenkins, the former editor of the Evening Standard, once said, “There was no Thatcher group within the Tory Party. . . . She was utterly and completely on her own. She simply was an outsider in every way.”

She was at heart a populist taking on the Conservative party’s old guard, who disdainfully referred to her as “That Woman.” The disdain was mutual. She referred to them as “the not so grand grandees.” As Thatcher later said, “It didn’t matter what they called me as long as I got the job done. I mean, to me they were ‘Those Grandees.’ They just don’t know what life is like. They haven’t been through it. And eventually if they didn’t help our cause, they had to go. But it didn’t bother me too much that they were patronizing like that. Frankly, the people, who are the true gentlemen, deal with others for what they are, not who their father was. Let’s face it: Maybe it took ‘That Woman’ to get things done, and the real reason why they said it was because they knew they just hadn’t got it within them to see things through.”

It seems that not everyone enjoyed peace and prosperity.  And, just as the American left has a tendency to celebrate death, the Brit left has the routine down pat.  Here is a video from the Daily Mail…


As usual, leftists show class and dignity are NOT part of the Alinsky handbook. But, I guess it can be expected, after all, Thatcher did stand against communism.

But, I don’t want to end this post on the terms of the leftists.  Instead, let’s look at some highlights from Thatcher’s career…

This is one of the best “take downs” of socialists that I recall ever seeing.  It is a fitting tribute, and as fine a political legacy as I can identify.  She clearly showed the difference between freedom and slavery-and like Reagan, the left hates her, even in death.

Then again, to be hated by communists, even in death must have meant that she did much in the cause of freedom.   For that, we thank her, and she will be missed.


You can support the CH 2.0 with your Amazon Purchases, at no expense to your self!

Share

Obama’s Inferno

Share

Growing up in Northwest Montana, many of my friends worked for the Forest Service during the summer months to either remove old dead growth or to fight forest fires. If there weren’t any fires to fight (there usually were), they would remove the old growth because that stuff just sits in the forest, dries out, and waits for a spark.  It all amounts to fuel waiting for a flame.

The frustrating part was that environmental lefties from places like New Jersey were constantly fighting the Montana citizens in their efforts to remove the old growth. The people of Montana saw the threat that it posed to their community, but  the environmentalist saw it as part of nature that shouldn’t be disturbed.  That is, until the forest fire came and burned down thousands of acres – then the environmentalists would use the fire to their advantage in pushing their agenda (“We shouldn’t be living in those forests anyway”).

Now, consider today’s racial environment (in the midst of this post-racial administration).  The left has continuously fought to keep racial warfare alive in order that they can use it to their advantage…They keep the kindling well stocked, and when the time is opportune, they provide the spark.  The left constantly reminds black Americans about the racism that is still very real, very abrasive, and very damaging to their lifestyle.  Their canon proclaims racism as that which takes the crutch of the left away from those who are unable to stand without it.  In other words, black people can’t survive without the support of the left – and anyone who disagrees with that is racist.

This stance, of course, escapes reason. The left has become to black America a new kind of master – one that, when absolute liberty becomes available, replaces the metal shackles on its servants with the mental shackles of fear and uncertainty.   Many have fallen victim to the same outcome as the freedmen after the Confiscation Act of 1862 – as dependent on the Federal government as they had been their masters prior to their new found “freedom”.  They’ve run to open arms that are just as willing to use them for their purposes.

Well, their work is now being called upon. All those years of built up resentment toward an entity that doesn’t exist; a theoretical racist white man who takes on the form of politicians, cops, and power that want nothing more than to take from the black man and abuse him.   It all sits, idle, waiting for an opportune spark.  The left saw their Health Care bill crashing, their numbers shrinking, their voices failing and needed something…a flicker of hope, an ember of strength, an ignition.

A boy is dead, a terrible and unfortunate outcome to an event that we know very little about – but a potential spark to light the left’s old growth.  Now fan the flames and watch it spread out of control, without reason, absent of consideration, and raging with violence and ferocity.  Witness its damages, note its destruction, examine its chaos, discern the pain it brings while it burns bright and let all other matters of concern slip away.

Original Post:  The Sentry Journal

Share

AGW Alarmist Compares Reality to Racism, Wants it Categorized as a Mental Illness: Where Have we Heard That Before?

Share

History always repeats itself.  And when statists are bent on acquiring power, or then keeping it, they can’t allow something like facts get in the way.  So, they have to be creative when attacking truth.   Since reality blows the narrative out of the water, they can do nothing with it, so, they attack those that advocate or present the truth.  The idea is simple, if someone presents facts that run counter to the narrative, smear them, so no one will pay attention to the facts.  Here is the latest example comes from Professor Kari Norgaard, via The GateWay Pundit…

Professor Kari Norgaard, from the University of Oregon, has labeled an entire population of people who think for themselves… racists.  But, it’s even more absurd than that.  If you reject the junk data, corruption, and blatant grab for power that is the Green Movement she wants you diagnosed with a disease.  And treated.

Via Bluegrass PunditThe Register reports,

Scepticism regarding the need for immediate and massive action against carbon emissions is a sickness of societies and individuals which needs to be “treated”, according to an Oregon-based professor of “sociology and environmental studies”. Professor Kari Norgaard compares the struggle against climate scepticism to that against racism and slavery in the US South.

According to an Oregon uni statement announcing the paper:

Resistance at individual and societal levels must be recognized and treated …

“This kind of cultural resistance to very significant social threat is something that we would expect in any society facing a massive threat,” [Norgaard] said.

The discussion, she said, is comparable to what happened with challenges to racism or slavery in the U.S. South.’

Of course, this type of thing has happened before, pricipally in the former Soviet Union.  I discussed that back in March of 2010….

Psychology Today Blogger Channels Psikhushka

One of the many abuses of human rights in the Soviet Union was the use of psychiatric treatment for people that did nothing more than disagree with the state and communist party.  Diagnosed with “Sluggishly Progressing Schizophrenia,” dissidents were subjected to forced treatments, that, when exposed to the world, caused universal condemnation.

Here is a description of the “treatment” of dissidents.

In the Soviet Unionpsychiatry was used for punitive purposes. Psychiatric hospitals were often used by the authorities as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally; as such they are considered a form of torture.

The official Soviet psychiatry allegedly abused the diagnosis of sluggishly progressing schizophrenia (??????????? ??????????), a special form of the illness that supposedly affects only the person’s social behavior, with no trace of other traits: “most frequently, ideas about a struggle for truth and justice are formed by personalities with a paranoidstructure,” according to the Moscow Serbsky Institute professors (a quote [4] from Vladimir Bukovsky‘s archives). Some of them had high rank in the MVD, such as the infamous Danil Luntz, who was characterized by Viktor Nekipelov as “no better than the criminal doctors who performed inhuman experiments on the prisoners in Nazi concentration camps” [4] .

The sane individuals who were diagnosed as mentally ill were sent either to regular psychiatric hospitals or, those deemed particularly dangerous, to special ones, run directly by the MVD. The treatment included various forms of restraint, electric shocks, electromagnetic torture, radiation torture, entrapment, servitude, a range of drugs (such as narcoticstranquilizers, and insulin) that cause long lasting side effects, and sometimes involved beatings. Nekipelov describes inhuman uses of medical procedures such as lumbar punctures.

At least 365 sane people were treated for “politically defined madness” in the Soviet Union, and there were surely hundreds more [4] .

Note the emphasized section.  People that were concerned with truth and justice were determined to be mentally ill.  How many Americans, therefore, would be diagnosed with “Sluggishly Progressing Schizophrenia?”

I guess that they’re just modifying it to reflect the need to smear anyone who see’s the modern environmental movement as a power grab.  Of course, they’ve changed the narrative, from global cooling, to global warming, to global climate disruption.  And, at every stage of the process, the science is settled, until, that is, they decide to change the narrative.   But, once again, recognizing that is akin to racism, and needs to be treatment.  Maybe they can create “camps” where these poor people that follow reality can be “treated?”  Come to think of it, maybe they can call them, “Gulags!”

Share

The Most Racist Racist Video About Racists of the Year

Share

Overkill on the title?  Perhaps, but you’ll understand when you see evidence.  You see, I’ve uncovered the most racist video about racism that you will see all this year.  So pervasive is the racism, that the racists that made it won an imaginary award for being the most racist racists in all the land.  Just be warned of the racism within the video…

Can’t you see?  It’s incredible racism to encourage anyone to abandon the loving arms of the Democratic party Government Plantation.

If you want more information on the racism, and the racists that promote it, take a look at their HQ.

Share

Public Schools are Probably Going to ban all References to Frederick Douglass

Share

Conservatives, Libertarians, and otherwise concerned citizens have long documented the many failures of the public school system.  From mass indoctrination, to the exclusion of actual learning, the system is a victim of the public sector union, and it’s symbiotic relationship with the un-elected federal/state bureaucrat.  And, this dismal dance of failure seems to impact minority students to a far greater degree than others, particularly black children.  I did some research in late 2010 on that situation…

As for graduation rates…

The national graduation rate for the class of 1998 was 71%. For white students the rate was 78%, while it was 56% for African-American students and 54% for Latino students.

And for illiteracy…

September 2008

Graduation, Dropouts, and Preparedness

  • African American high school students are notably falling behind their white counterparts in graduation rates, dropout rates, literacy rates, and college preparedness rates.

  • In 2005, only 55 percent of all black students graduated from high school on time with a regular diploma, compared to 78 percent of whites.

  • In 2005, the on-time graduation rate for black males was 48 percent nationally; for white males it was 74 percent.

  • Nearly half of the nation’s African American students, but only 11 percent of white students, attend high schools in which graduation is not the norm.

  • In 2002, 23 percent of all black students who started public high school left it prepared for college, compared to 40 percent of whites.

  • On average, African American and Hispanic twelfth-grade students read at approximately the same level as white eighth graders.

  • About half of poor, urban ninth graders read at only a fifth- or sixth-grade level.
  • The National Assessment of Educational Progress reports that 88 percent of African American eighth graders read below grade level, compared to 62 percent of white eighth graders.

As you can see, there is a wide disparity between achievement, and it has been persistent no matter how much money has been spent. This leaves many poor citizens trapped in poverty, stuck on government assistance programs, and left voting for Democrats due to the false victimization narrative.

But, are African Americans really victims or racist Conservatives, or racist leftists? Well, lets take a look at a school that takes poor African American kids, and sends 85% of them to college-well over the national average…

Now, just take a second and absorb that.  A mostly white mob surrounds a school filled with mostly black, SUCCESSFUL students, and as you heard at the end, the man, who reportedly is a public school official, suggests that choice is being targeted as well-meaning, like in all choice situations, the unions want them shut down.  That, of course, would condemn all the children within to the failed public system-guaranteeing that the cycle of dependence continues.

Exactly as the regressives want it!

If you needed more proof, kindly considers what happens when a young black student “wakes up” to history, and has the temerity to quote Frederick Douglass, in the proper context…

Mr. Vargas is fortunate enough to have in his charge one Jada Williams, a 13-year-old eighth grader who voluntarily took on some difficult extra work: reading Frederick Douglass’s Narrative of the Life and writing an essay on the subject. Frederick Douglass is dangerous reading, truly radical stuff. Miss Williams, like most of the students in her dysfunctional school, is black. Most of the people being paid to go through the motions of teaching them are white. Coming across the famous passage in which Douglass quotes the slavemaster Auld, Miss Williams was startled by the words: “If you teach that nigger (speaking of myself) how to read, there will be no keeping him. It will forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master.” The situation seemed to her familiar, and her essay was a blistering indictment of the failures of the largely white faculty of her school: “When I find myself sitting in a crowded classroom where no real instruction is taking place I can say history does repeat itself.”

Her teacher was so offended by the essay that she circulated copies of it to the rest of the faculty and to the principal. Miss Williams, an A student, suddenly began to receive Ds. According to accounts, her mother received harassing telephone calls from teachers who suggested that she was in some way disturbed rather than merely observant. She was forced eventually to withdraw from the school and enroll in an even worse one. (The Blaze has more.)

So, a student woke up, and realized that she was being enslaved by a failing system, was punished for noticing the truth?  Well, let’s just say that it gets more interesting…

Teachers refused to show Miss Williams’s mother the schoolwork she had allegedly performed poorly on, and they refused to answer many of her questions about her daughter’s performance and alleged behavioral problems.

The teachers also failed to enter Miss Williams’s essay in the contest for which it was written — intentionally sabotaging her chances at an academic honor.

It is our contention that most of the regressive/Marxist/Democrat Party social programs are intended to no only create dependency, but to perpetuate it forever.  The chains of this new slavery were forged by the Democrats, are expanded, and are strengthened by the Democrats.  And, when of their victims notices who it is that is enslaving them, there is quick and sure retribution.  Because, you see, ideas are dangerous things, especially ones about escaping the government plantation.

H/T:  The Camp of the Saints

Share

A Letter From A Former Slave, to His Former Owner

Share

History is a pure pleasure for me.  As most readers already know, my favorite period is WW II, however, I do know a bit about the Civil War as well. The evils of slavery, the death and destruction of the war itself, and then, the struggle of reconstruction did much to shape our history.  However, I caught something interesting on Memeorandum today, and it shows the struggles of that age in a slightly different light.  Here is a letter written by a former slave, in response to a letter sent by his former master.  

Dayton, Ohio, 

August 7, 1865

To My Old Master, Colonel P.H. Anderson, Big Spring, Tennessee

Sir: I got your letter, and was glad to find that you had not forgotten Jourdon, and that you wanted me to come back and live with you again, promising to do better for me than anybody else can. I have often felt uneasy about you. I thought the Yankees would have hung you long before this, for harboring Rebs they found at your house. I suppose they never heard about your going to Colonel Martin’s to kill the Union soldier that was left by his company in their stable. Although you shot at me twice before I left you, I did not want to hear of your being hurt, and am glad you are still living. It would do me good to go back to the dear old home again, and see Miss Mary and Miss Martha and Allen, Esther, Green, and Lee. Give my love to them all, and tell them I hope we will meet in the better world, if not in this. I would have gone back to see you all when I was working in the Nashville Hospital, but one of the neighbors told me that Henry intended to shoot me if he ever got a chance.

I want to know particularly what the good chance is you propose to give me. I am doing tolerably well here. I get twenty-five dollars a month, with victuals and clothing; have a comfortable home for Mandy,—the folks call her Mrs. Anderson,—and the children—Milly, Jane, and Grundy—go to school and are learning well. The teacher says Grundy has a head for a preacher. They go to Sunday school, and Mandy and me attend church regularly. We are kindly treated. Sometimes we overhear others saying, “Them colored people were slaves” down in Tennessee. The children feel hurt when they hear such remarks; but I tell them it was no disgrace in Tennessee to belong to Colonel Anderson. Many darkeys would have been proud, as I used to be, to call you master. Now if you will write and say what wages you will give me, I will be better able to decide whether it would be to my advantage to move back again.

As to my freedom, which you say I can have, there is nothing to be gained on that score, as I got my free papers in 1864 from the Provost-Marshal-General of the Department of Nashville. Mandy says she would be afraid to go back without some proof that you were disposed to treat us justly and kindly; and we have concluded to test your sincerity by asking you to send us our wages for the time we served you. This will make us forget and forgive old scores, and rely on your justice and friendship in the future. I served you faithfully for thirty-two years, and Mandy twenty years. At twenty-five dollars a month for me, and two dollars a week for Mandy, our earnings would amount to eleven thousand six hundred and eighty dollars. Add to this the interest for the time our wages have been kept back, and deduct what you paid for our clothing, and three doctor’s visits to me, and pulling a tooth for Mandy, and the balance will show what we are in justice entitled to. Please send the money by Adams’s Express, in care of V. Winters, Esq., Dayton, Ohio. If you fail to pay us for faithful labors in the past, we can have little faith in your promises in the future. We trust the good Maker has opened your eyes to the wrongs which you and your fathers have done to me and my fathers, in making us toil for you for generations without recompense. Here I draw my wages every Saturday night; but in Tennessee there was never any pay-day for the negroes any more than for the horses and cows. Surely there will be a day of reckoning for those who defraud the laborer of his hire.

In answering this letter, please state if there would be any safety for my Milly and Jane, who are now grown up, and both good-looking girls. You know how it was with poor Matilda and Catherine. I would rather stay here and starve—and die, if it come to that—than have my girls brought to shame by the violence and wickedness of their young masters. You will also please state if there has been any schools opened for the colored children in your neighborhood. The great desire of my life now is to give my children an education, and have them form virtuous habits.

Say howdy to George Carter, and thank him for taking the pistol from you when you were shooting at me.

From your old servant,

Jourdon Anderson.

As soon as I read this, I knew I had to republish it.  The letter has irony, sarcasm, and , more importantly, maintains a sense of dignity as well.  I hope you enjoy it as much as I did, and, as much as I think Mr. Anderson enjoyed writing it.

Share

Why We Fight: Unalienable Rights; Does Government Exist to Protect Rights, or to Grant Them?

Share

Note from Matt:  Given the current political climate, I thought it might be a good idea to review some differences between the right and the left.  So, here is an article from November 2009.  Since we are about ideas, I think this is similar to the “Why we Fight” films from WW II.

“A free people claims their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as a gift from their chief magistrate.”

Thomas Jefferson

We are engaged in an ideological struggle.  The lines are drawn cleanly between the opponents.  One is the side of individual freedom and liberty, born of the American Revolution. The other is the soft (for now) totalitarianism of the nanny state, seeking to grow the government’s level of control over all aspects of human life.    While the words “freedom” and “liberty” tend to evoke reactions to some degree from all Americans, looking at the general ideas behind those words helps us to understand the true nature of the current struggle.  These ideas look to the very view of human nature between the sides, and are important.  The implications of these ideas will largely determine our fate as a people.

Perhaps the most important of these underlying ideas is the concept of unalienable rights, or rights that cannot be taken away or otherwise abridged.  Obviously, the idea rights that cannot be violated or reduced by government fiat is a significant factor in any debate about government intervention, or the very nature of man.  The nature of man, either as a free individual, or intelligent mammal to be managed, will have implications for any view of humanity and it’s relationship to government.  Without the underpinnings, the resulting arguments are loose and meaningless.

One cannot view the American idea of individual freedom without considering the works of John Locke, a 17th Century political figure who is considered by many to be the intellectual father of our nation.  Here are some quotes regarding Locke.

The political philosophy of Locke’s mature years stemmed from the commonly-accepted Natural Law, under which man had Natural Rights, not given to him by any ruler. Under Natural Rights the right of property is paramount. Men came together in an organized community under a Social Contract between every member in order to gain advantages they could not have individually in a state of nature.

This Contract of Society was the foundation of the Contract of Government, under which all political power is a trust for the benefit of the people, and the people themselves are at once the creators and beneficiaries of that trust. The State is based on a contract between ruler and subjects, who give him power only so that their own welfare is increased and their property protected in a way not possible in the State of Nature, where it may be taken away by unprincipled forces. They, if he keeps the contract, owe him their loyalty.

It was Thomas Jefferson’s passionate belief in these ideals that made him base the powers of government on “unalienable rights.” Most of his Declaration of Independence is a bill of particulars in an indictment of King George III for his failure to keep the contract with his American subjects. He had broken it, and it was therefore void. The signers agreed with him. Contract, therefore, is fundamental to our system of government.

The state, Locke maintained, was concerned only with public order. It extended solely to those aspects of behavior, which had to be regulated for the protection of the public.

I think that one of the most important aspect of Locke’s idea is his use of Natural Law; that individuals have rights that preexist government, and they are not granted or created by government.  The idea that rights are intrinsic, and cannot be discarded, disregarded, or superseded by the government have obvious and far-reaching repercussions on the relationship between the individual and the state, as the idea does intentionally limit the role of government.   For example, as we debate free speech, and Mark Lloyd’s thoughts on the press, we see that his philosophy is one of censorship and control, which would naturally be opposed by Locke’s ideas.  When we look at the health care debate, we see the government seeking to control the Doctor-patient relationship, to ration care, and to limit access.   Also, when we also look at the writings of Ezekiel Emanuel, White House Special Adviser on Health Care, we see the government seeking to control decisions of life and death itself.  When Cass Sunstein talks about animals being able to sue their owners in court, and advocates for gun control, other aspects of rights come into play.  When Universities limit the free speech of professors and students, and punishes those who dissent, they show a different view of rights than the rest of us.  When the President is caught on tape talking about income-redistribution, important issues are raised regarding our freedom. We can see more proposed government regulations that would control or otherwise limit what we can drive, where we can live, what we can eat, what we can say, and what our children can or cannot be taught.  But can government take rights from others that it never granted, and therefore over which has no claim?

Both the left and the right invoke the concept of the social contract.  However, it seems that the left quotes the words, but not the substance.  As Locke states, the people are the creators and beneficiaries of the contract.  While the people created our government, they did not create the thousands of bureaucracies that dictate so many different aspects of public life, nor are the bureaucrats that staff these monstrosities answerable to the people.  Were Kevin Jennings, Mark Lloyd, or Van Jones even confirmed by the Senate, which does answer to the people?   Also, when these bureaucracies and regulators regularly usurp the rights of the people, has the government violated the contract?  The left would say no, but as we will discuss, the left views the contract as a license to steal, control, and dominate.  If unalienable rights cannot be transferred or abridged, can the people elect a government that will transfer or abridge them?

Also, it is vital to note that Locke stressed that the role of government was to protect the rights of the people, not to limit them, regulate them, or render them irrelevant.  Government is to be limited to protect the public in ways that they cannot protect themselves, i.e., defense, setting up courts, and so on.  Locke contends that, “The State is based on a contract between ruler and subjects, who give him power only so that their own welfare is increased and their property protected in a way not possible in the State of Nature, where it may be taken away by unprincipled forces.”  If government actions reduce the welfare and property rights of the people, as they admit that they will, are they betraying their obligations under the contract?  If government does not protect the welfare, and instead decreases it; and does not protect property, but instead takes it, has government then not become the “unprincipled force” of which we should be wary?

If we are “endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights,” what gives the government the right to reduce or otherwise take them?  Government does not grant rights, rights are built into humanity by its very nature.  Leftists and others would simply take this point and use it to attack Christianity.  However, I would submit that any view of a creator would suffice in this argument.    This idea even applies to an atheistic worldview.  For example, what if nature, via evolution, created a sentient race.   Is not a sentient being free by it’s very nature?  Are not  individuals possessing  free will, as humans demonstrably are, born in a state of freedom?  Even in that scenario, humans are free, and government serves to protect freedoms, not to take them.  After all, government cannot take away what is has not granted, can it?  To me, freedom is a concept that applies to every human, regardless of their belief in a particular creator, or even lack of one.

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

Alexander Hamilton

Another important aspect of Locke’s work seems to be his views on property.  However, property does not necessarily extend to simply a piece of land.

He was concerned with principles and rights, and property rights are uppermost. He wrote in “The Second Treatise of Government,” . . . every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his . . . ” He said that whatever is removed out of the state that nature provided and is mixed with someone’s labor, becomes that person’s property. James Madison later explained that “property” means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual . . . it embraces everything to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.”

This is a view of property that is at once practical, expansive and libertarian. It is the essence of political freedom. Who can argue that a man does not have a property in his own person? No government could take the fruits of one’s labor and intellect without a compelling public need and without compensation, and then only through due process of law. A person was free to contract away his property, or any of his several rights in it, for gain. The contract with government was only to protect private contracts, and the government was not entitled to any of the gains therefrom.

The human right in property was meant by Locke and understood by the Framers of the Constitution to be the fundamental liberty. Obviously, it was not necessary to organize government to protect free speech from government or to protect freedom of assembly against government. It was only necessary to organize it to protect property and life (one’s life was his property), and once organized other freedoms had to be protected against government’s power. He wrote in the Second Treatise that men unite in a society “for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates, which I call by the general name ‘property’.” He said that the supreme power (the legislative) “cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent. For the preservation of property being the end of government and that for which men enter into society . . . ” He noted that for the protection of government everyone should pay his share (a small, flat tax), but only with the consent of the majority.

Do you own you own body?   Apparently not, according to the left, as they take the stance that people can be “nudged (Cass Sunstein)” into doing as the state wishes.  Also, is it not Mr. Sunstein that suggests that organs might be removed from living people?  Do you control your body when the government wishes to determine what you can or cannot eat, or otherwise consume, or what type, amount, or frequency of health care you can receive?  Again, the left seems to act as if  YOU belong to them, and that all that you do is subject to government intervention and supervision.  Hate crimes laws take into consideration what an individual may or may have been thinking when they committed a crime, are we then to assume that the government means to legislate our thought processes?

Beyond the basic control over one’s body, the basic property that all of us have is our labor.  We contract with an employer, or a customer, in order to exchange currency, goods , and services.  We own our labor, and Locke and the founders suggest that this too, is an unalienable right.  However, do we own our own labor when the government takes ever increasing amounts  of it?  Do we own our own labor when, depending on where one works, a labor union can take from you and use it against your own best interests?  For that matter, can one be forced to join a union against their will?  Also, why does government turn a blind eye to the violence committed by labor unions?  Do we own our own labor when the government advocates forcing you to “volunteer” that labor (The GIVE act)?  For that matter, do we own our own labor when, this year, the average American worked into August to pay off their tax bills?

A common deception of the left is to not ban something that they want to “go away.”  Rather, they use increasing levels of taxation or regulation to make it either impossible to exercise a right, or create so many administrative hoops that one can only exercise a right within a narrow window of government regulation.   Can we use our property as we see fit, or do we have to leap through many hoops to do what we want?  Can we control the heat and power consumption of our home, or will the “smart grid” do that for us?  Can government take our property and hand it over to private developers?  It’s happening all over.  Are sustainable development regulations being translated into zoning and building codes all over the US?  Yes, they determine where you can build, what you can build, and how big it can be, and a myriad of other requirements that have to be met.  Is the government “nudging” us into living in certain areas, all in the name of eliminating “suburban sprawl?”   In the end, are we really free to own and use property, or does the government create an environment in which we can (at least for now) own property, but can only do with it as they allow?

“This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power is so necessary to, and closely joined with, a man’s preservation, that he cannot part with it but by what forfeits his preservation and life altogether. For a man not having the power of his own life cannot by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute arbitrary power of another to take away his life when he pleases. Nobody can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it.” (Locke, op. cit.)

As usual, this is a topic that can be expanded into a book.  There are a myriad of directions, examples, and solutions that this post could take.  For the sake of brevity, I will sum it up this way:

Either we are free, and government must guard those freedoms, or we are not.  In which case, government is free to do to us what it wills.  The answer to that question will determine our future.  We must therefore must choose our leaders wisely, or our political differences will pale in comparison to what is to come.

Source: http://www.alainsnewsletter.com/read/464/free-speach/unalienable-rights/

Share

Apparently, Being Opposed to Union Thuggery Means That You Favor Slavery

Share

Yes, that was said.  Well, they left out the thuggery, but since that is the pink elephant in the middle of the room, it doesn’t really doesn’t require further explanation.  According to a useful idiot, being opposed to union means that one is in favor of slavery.  However, the wise and capable Wyblog has destroyed such ridiculous notions…

Taking race-baiting to new heights of mendacity, the Sunday Star-Ledger opines thusly:

The American experience overflows with examples of ordinary people — the working class — siding with corporations and the powerful against their own economic interests.

The most tragic example is the nearly 300,000 Confederate soldiers, the “Johnnie Rebs,” who died to preserve slavery, the South’s “peculiar institution” that undercut the value of their own labor and reduced their income.

Few “Johnnies” had slaves to call their own, but they fell for the siren song of the plantation aristocracy that the Southern way of life (and its economic exploitation) was threatened.

As another Labor Day arrives, it’s not hard to see many in the present-day workforce doing the same thing, this time by accepting the notion that organized labor (e.g., teachers, auto workers, public employees) — not Wall Street and a reckless, unregulated financial industry — collapsed the economy.

Got that? If you’re not pro-union, you’re pro-slavery. Because fighting for the Confederacy is just likerequiring teachers and firemen to pay a few bucks toward their health insurance. Eliminate collective bargaining and the taskmaster’s whip will surely be unrestrained.

Yes, they are actually pushing that nonsense.  Wyblog, of course, is correct.  I would only add that collective bargaining IS force, and it is the only “right,” that if utilized, deprives others of their right to say, “no.”  Also, these are the same unions that support “card check,” which would eliminate secret ballot elections for union “representation”.  And, of course, these are the same unions that engage in sabotage, intimidation, death threats, and physical violence to achieve their goals.  As you see, these behaviors are far more consistent with “freedom,” rather than slavery, right?

In the end, actions speak louder than words.  Here are some of the actions of the unions…

Aren’t you glad that these guys are on the side of “freedom?”  Just don’t disagree with them, or you too, might get labeled.

Share

Racism, Calls for Lynching a Supreme Court Justice, Murder at Koch Protest

Share

I had thought that the Koch protests would have gone away by now-consigned to the database of moonbattery and hypocrisy that is the left.  I’d probably bring it up again as an example in future posts, as I tend to do, but otherwise, it initially looked like a typical rent-a-mob gathering.

But then again, more  video footage emerged.

This is really some reprehensible stuff.  They openly warrant “stringing up” people.  They want to send a black Supreme Court Justice, “back to the fields.”  They talked openly about killing people.  Normally, I would have some snarky response to a liberal protest, as I did in my prior posts.  However, this compares a little too favorably to some historical precedents.   History teaches us that when a Marxist, Socialist, Facsist, or any other totalitarian regime comes to power, at the top of the agenda is usually the rounding up of, jailing of,  and executions of political opponents.  It happened in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China, Cuba, Vietnam.  Make no mistake, our “progressives” are every bit as totalitarian as the others.   They may couch their intentions in pleasant sounding words, but the level of control they desire, as well as the means that they are following to obtain it, are right out of  the totalitarian playbook.  It has happened before, and I think we would be foolish to not ignore such rhetoric.

Alternatively, is it possible that I’m over-reacting?  Maybe, but when you look at what is happening around the world, things start to come together in disturbing ways.  I’ve always been one to carefully look at what members of groups say, and then look at what they do.   When rhetoric and action come together, things get ugly.

Also, some will say that this is the fringe left.  But are they?  I’ve done enough posts on leftist violence to know that rhetoric does become action.  Here are just a few links for background.

More Leftist Violence: MSM Ignores Revolutionary Rhetoric as Well.

Union Thugs Strike Again

May Day Violence

Again, there have been violent protests here in the US.  I’d have to say that all of them have come from the left.  If they are the fringe, it strikes me as being a rather large one.

In fairness, Common Cause, one of the Soros-funded organizations put out a press release…

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 3, 2011
4:37 PM

CONTACT: Common Cause
Mary Boyle, (202) 736-5770
Common Cause Condemns Bigotry, Hateful Statements Caught on Film at Rally

WASHINGTON – February 3 – Common Cause’s 40 year history of holding power accountable has been marked by a commitment to decency and civility – in public and private. So we are of course outraged to find that a few of those attending the events around a gathering Common Cause helped to organize Sunday near Palm Springs voiced hateful, narrow-minded sentiments to an interviewer in the crowd.

We condemn bigotry and hate speech in every form, even when it comes from those who fancy themselves as our friends.

Anyone who has attended a public event has encountered people whose ideas or acts misrepresented, even embarrassed, the gathering. Every sporting event has its share of “fans” whose boorish behavior on the sidelines makes a mockery of good sportsmanship; every political gathering has a crude sign-painter or epithet-spewing heckler.

We organized the “Uncloak the Kochs” panel discussion and took part in the rally afterwards to call public attention to the political power of Koch Industries and other corporations, their focus on expanding that power, and the dangers it presents to our democracy.

We’re committed to staging other forums and public events in the coming months to continue that effort. We urge all Americans of good will to join us.
###
Common Cause is a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization founded in 1970 by John Gardner as a vehicle for citizens to make their voices heard in the political process and to hold their elected leaders accountable to the public interest.

In publishing this, I have already shown more fairness than any Soros-funded organization has ever shown the Tea Party movement.  That shows the difference between us and them.  We have principles, they crave power.

H/T: Maggie’s Notebook

Share