tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7736311488637575462024-02-21T04:41:36.943-08:00The Anonymous ConservativeReflections on Conservatism and Progressivism
Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.comBlogger273125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-3765740555187302732018-01-02T12:33:00.000-08:002018-01-03T13:03:50.499-08:00Al Franken-Swine and Angry Tweeden <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFeJIyLvWUqLq6D7KshC2ZU75MwnFlEieUffdcH9uv6f4cf_OIswACZZaRf0MSJjVKR9uIIF9EbhimjbmNMVBQCh0pOCO7sqbC6eD0Pck-YhLYvQeYdaQBhzkjiKbGc4EO-u8zlyWC_b0/s1600/franken_grope_0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="278" data-original-width="420" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFeJIyLvWUqLq6D7KshC2ZU75MwnFlEieUffdcH9uv6f4cf_OIswACZZaRf0MSJjVKR9uIIF9EbhimjbmNMVBQCh0pOCO7sqbC6eD0Pck-YhLYvQeYdaQBhzkjiKbGc4EO-u8zlyWC_b0/s320/franken_grope_0.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow', sans-serif; line-height: normal;">From <em><a href="http://nymag.com/print/?/nymag/culture/tv/47548/index6.html" target="_blank">New York</a></em> magazine in 1995, excerpting from a <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/senator-famous-joking-about-rape-campaigns-obama-biden/article/650609">writing session that the reporter was present for</a>: </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow', sans-serif; line-height: normal;">Franken: “And, ‘I give the pills to Lesley Stahl. Then, when Lesley’s passed out, I take her to the closet and rape her.’
Or, ‘That’s why you never see Lesley until February.’ Or, ‘When she
passes out, I put her in various positions and take pictures of her.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow', sans-serif; line-height: normal;">Franken's fantasy brainstorming seems strangely prophetic, given the 'antics' shown in the photo above. This act Franken apparently enjoyed photographing followed some <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/17/a-photo-shows-al-franken-touching-leeann-tweedens-chest-many-media-reports-still-say-he-allegedly-groped-her/?utm_term=.1b56cde10feb">blatant harrassment that Leeann Tweeden alleges took place</a> when working with Franken to entertain the troops. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow', sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> </span>Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-7947258383664626832017-01-03T11:12:00.000-08:002018-01-03T11:12:43.005-08:00Obama's Legacy - Epic (Star Wars) <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjehmL-_oCxKf65ZvJKgh5Wuo9P7tpUnTWLsKCGsvHf1C6mjiq8q04wJCUhqfFCPRwZmXaCmcu4tblpPCv1duxWkMCFl6Cm5V-Jira9MbVz5UkofP6-5r48OhyW80qb0-9Nd2mOnpoZYII/s1600/revenge344.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="185" data-original-width="329" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjehmL-_oCxKf65ZvJKgh5Wuo9P7tpUnTWLsKCGsvHf1C6mjiq8q04wJCUhqfFCPRwZmXaCmcu4tblpPCv1duxWkMCFl6Cm5V-Jira9MbVz5UkofP6-5r48OhyW80qb0-9Nd2mOnpoZYII/s1600/revenge344.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-70444542454068248312015-07-06T18:29:00.000-07:002018-01-03T11:35:10.728-08:00Is 'Philomena' Movie "Cinematic Propaganda"? *SPOILERS*<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjf2fG7RtIOFLJG1JJe_lq_kz2kkQgBvHI6LrVLsdcaD0uyYqoxgz438NsicPkzzAfsyFzSD14jc6OZz34RA8Z_rFqVxiyz9GLj8-2RQmKyVrQVdMrLfteIFnqecYoAKzlzq_O_xUnkL0/s1600/philomena.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjf2fG7RtIOFLJG1JJe_lq_kz2kkQgBvHI6LrVLsdcaD0uyYqoxgz438NsicPkzzAfsyFzSD14jc6OZz34RA8Z_rFqVxiyz9GLj8-2RQmKyVrQVdMrLfteIFnqecYoAKzlzq_O_xUnkL0/s1600/philomena.jpg" /></a>Years after watching <i>Philomena </i>and forming an initial impression, I've gotten a little curious about criticism of the film, and the obligatory counter-criticism. I was surprised to find that the film's namesake <a href="http://deadline.com/2013/11/the-real-philomena-answers-new-york-post-critic-who-condemns-her-film-as-an-attack-on-catholics-and-republicans-644672/">Philomena Lee had written to the NY Post</a> in response to a <a href="http://nypost.com/2013/11/21/philomena-another-hateful-and-boring-attack-on-catholics/">unflattering review by Kyle Smith</a>. <br />
<br />
I'm inclined to agree partly with the sentiments Mrs. Lee expresses to Smith: The relationship depicted between her and Martin Sixsmith is not so simple and not simply for laughs (the movie poster notwithstanding). Sixsmith seems to have taken Lee's story on for the same reasons that leftwing commentator <a href="https://timothyrhaslett.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/philomena-and-the-art-of-cinematic-propaganda/">Timothy Haslett gets swept up</a> in the story: It's apparently <i>very </i>satisfying to hate the Catholic Church. It's obvious that <i>Lee </i>doesn't hate the Catholic Church, but Sixsmith, who early in the movie seems to reveal disdain for conservatism, is somehow drawn to help this religious social conservative. He obviously looks down on her, and, here the story becomes more subtle, he gains some respect for her along the way. The story puts a sympathetic spin on her: she somehow detected homosexual tendencies in her wee bairn before he was stolen from her (he showed too much interest in other male toddlers?), and was therefore not shocked to learn that Anthony was gay. Whaddayaknow, conservatives are <b>not </b>all evil! <br />
<br />
I'm not surprised that Lee sees the movie (and book) as incontrovertibly positive. (Who <i>would </i>be surprised?) She says the film is about unlikely friendships. It turned out to be a progressive who helped her locate her son, so in her experience, help really does come from some surprising allies. It's surprising that sometimes it turns out that the only ones who will help you stand up to the Catholic Church are people that aren't religious at all--possibly even <i>anti</i>-religious. Martin Sixsmith and Stephen Frears chose to tell her story, a story that had long gone unheard, so why shouldn't she be completely positive about that? <br />
<br />
But, as Timothy Haslett ably pointed out, just because her story has some bright points about unlikely friendships, doesn't mean that in context it doesn't intentionally play on anti-religious and anti-conservative sentiment. I mean, if you are a big Hollywood filmmaker and also a liberal (but I repeat myself), <b>to have a story about evil baby-selling nuns that <i>also </i>pre-supposes and perpetuates <a href="http://humanevents.com/2012/06/25/hating-reagan/">the 'Reagan hated the gays' myth</a>, well, it just doesn't get better, does it?</b> You see, Philomena's son turned out to be a closet gay in the Republican Party of the' 80s, and even though AIDS was adamantly not a gay disease, <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/06/understanding_the_viciousness_of_the_gay_left.html">nothing said "I hate gays" more</a> than AIDS not getting more than its fair share of medical funding. (Did Reagan ever reject a budget because it provided too much AIDS research funding?) So in parallel with Philomena's betrayal by the Sisters of the Immaculate Heartlessness, there is Anthony's alleged betrayal by the GOP who just stood by and let him die when he contracted the heterosexual disease. <b>It's a two-generation story of betrayal! Now that's the kind of film that gets Oscar nominations!</b> <br />
<br />
I disagree with <a href="http://nypost.com/2013/11/21/philomena-another-hateful-and-boring-attack-on-catholics/">Kyle Smith</a> that the repartee is trite or that the film is boring. By analogy, the movie <a href="http://individualismislonely.blogspot.com/2013/02/lincoln-movie-cynicism-of-lincoln.html"><i>Lincoln</i> was one of the best-made films in years yet also completely propagandist</a>; well-made films aren't necessarily devoid of political purpose. But I do agree with Kyle Smith that anything made about the evils of institutional Islam would be panned as Islamophobic. But Hollywood isn't Islamophobic--it's <i>Christ</i>ophobic, if anything. So Haslett and Smith are both right about the anti-Catholic overtones, and by association with the evangelical-supported Reagan administration, anti-<i>Christian</i> overtones, to the film. The film <b><i>is </i></b>a predictable yawnfest in that one important respect, but it's a very well-made bit of cinema nonetheless. <br />
<br />
For Philomena Lee the film is uplifting because her story of perseverance is finally told to a wide audience; for many, many others, it's an uplifting film because the bad guys are once again, oddly enough, who they "should" be. Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-59500737600794637562015-06-26T08:39:00.001-07:002015-07-11T13:54:15.224-07:00The Sons of Hephaestus: Gee Mr. Wizard<a href="http://hephaestusunbound.blogspot.com/2013/05/gee-mr-wizard.html?spref=bl">The Sons of Hephaestus: Gee Mr. Wizard</a>: A Tim Burtonesque flashback to the childhood of Louis Michael Seidman:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFkKD-8bmbnQbnrxI0SK1H7jHbC7rwM0wPrTw0Y2whSKEHS4oe25WORtu9gOTafIU1_amykZt8iJgyBhbU7QhtkiSFQX2PMap9elCq8ffmZAPypzvXMs7O41SMVkxGxVKFdAzIffGQk7U/s1600/Constitution58347.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFkKD-8bmbnQbnrxI0SK1H7jHbC7rwM0wPrTw0Y2whSKEHS4oe25WORtu9gOTafIU1_amykZt8iJgyBhbU7QhtkiSFQX2PMap9elCq8ffmZAPypzvXMs7O41SMVkxGxVKFdAzIffGQk7U/s1600/Constitution58347.jpg" /></a></div>
Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-7676928871368313232015-06-24T21:38:00.001-07:002015-07-11T16:43:39.063-07:00The Problem With Reza Aslan : Why Did Reza Write About Jesus?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNMt0flyxNi5kbyiWAwclWR3fpExRkmKgmDKkqklW8YQFfa6q9LRCYwzDDS0J6PjEA9kDAv_kHC3Cle_p8kNBPSFnwsJCjmJL92A5kGxCqFwRzH1ASK_MTU17kGjLIPdrXSWIEV2GngTI/s1600/reza_aslan_10.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNMt0flyxNi5kbyiWAwclWR3fpExRkmKgmDKkqklW8YQFfa6q9LRCYwzDDS0J6PjEA9kDAv_kHC3Cle_p8kNBPSFnwsJCjmJL92A5kGxCqFwRzH1ASK_MTU17kGjLIPdrXSWIEV2GngTI/s200/reza_aslan_10.JPG" width="186" /></a><a href="http://problemwithreza.blogspot.com/2015/06/reza-real-reason-zealot.html?spref=bl">The Problem With Reza Aslan : Why Did Reza Write About Jesus?</a>: "separate the man from the deity" Why would Reza Aslan, a Muslim, write about the founder of Christianity? He gave an answer to Lauren Green (in the infamous Fox News interview) that was very different from the answer he gave in his post "Why I write about Jesus," written July 20th, 2013, six days prior to the interview ... Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-81832321637327704692015-05-25T19:36:00.005-07:002015-05-25T19:36:40.716-07:00Oberlin Choral Response: The Real World<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
This is too funny!</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fxCSy7tpUME/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fxCSy7tpUME?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-14644114336072005392015-05-17T16:48:00.002-07:002015-07-12T08:58:58.771-07:00Orwell on Collectivism/SocialismIn George Orwell's classic <i><a href="http://msxnet.org/orwell/print/1984.pdf">1984</a></i>, he appears to give his impressions of the various ideologies derived from Marxism (through the eyes of the fictional dissident Emmanuel Goldstein) and explain why they all share the same essence, character, and outcome. In the following quotes, all emphases are mine.<br />
<br />
The "equality" that all forms of collectivism (fascism, communism, and socialism) tend toward:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNZ8mDXX-Hno5mCib-vay-Qu69nRPhpHhaFVOoxhxg9O2yyCHvnfrpruPMi0hIxCl7-Sip06iRjkuiSp7FwvoTl0gWrqmk3RhA0McG4vxyiVRV2DXe71Fl2UfrSDxt_yoSZSg3_rCtFhU/s1600/manual.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNZ8mDXX-Hno5mCib-vay-Qu69nRPhpHhaFVOoxhxg9O2yyCHvnfrpruPMi0hIxCl7-Sip06iRjkuiSp7FwvoTl0gWrqmk3RhA0McG4vxyiVRV2DXe71Fl2UfrSDxt_yoSZSg3_rCtFhU/s320/manual.JPG" width="108" /></a>After the revolutionary period of the fifties and sixties, society regrouped
itself, as always, into High, Middle, and Low. But the new High group, unlike all
its forerunners, did not act upon instinct but knew what was needed to safeguard
its position. It had long been realized that <b>the only secure basis for oligarchy
is collectivism</b>. Wealth and privilege are most easily defended when they are
possessed jointly. The <b>so-called ’abolition of private property’</b> which took place
in the middle years of the century meant, in effect, <b>the concentration of property
in far fewer hands than before</b>: but with this difference, that the new owners
were a group instead of a mass of individuals. Individually, no member of the
Party owns anything, except petty personal belongings. Collectively, <b>the Party
owns everything in Oceania, because it controls everything</b>, and disposes of the
products as it thinks fit. In the years following the Revolution it was able to step
into this commanding position <b>almost unopposed, because the whole process was
<u>represented</u> as an act of collectivization</b>. <a href="http://msxnet.org/orwell/print/1984.pdf">p. 120</a></blockquote>
The usefulness of government waste, the danger of capitalism's creation of wealth, and the power of scarcity:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The economy of many countries
was allowed to stagnate, land went out of cultivation, capital equipment was
not added to, <b>great blocks of the population were prevented from working and
kept half alive by State charity</b>. . . . <b>The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without
increasing the real wealth of the world.</b> . . . War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring
into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, <b>materials which might
otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable,</b> and hence, in the long
run, too intelligent. . . . In practice the
needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result that there
is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life; but this is looked on as an
advantage. It is deliberate policy to keep even the favoured groups somewhere
near the brink of hardship, because <b>a general state of scarcity increases the
importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one
group and another.</b> By the standards of the early twentieth century, even a
member of the Inner Party lives an austere, laborious kind of life. . . . And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore
<b>in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural,
unavoidable condition </b>of survival. <a href="http://msxnet.org/orwell/print/1984.pdf">p. 112</a></blockquote>
How and when the Marxist-inspired collectivisms started abandoning the pretense of being about liberty and equality:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Socialism,
a theory which appeared in the early nineteenth century and was the last link
in a chain of thought stretching back to the slave rebellions of antiquity, was still deeply <b>infected by the Utopianism</b> of past ages. <b>But </b>in each variant of Socialism
that appeared <b>from about 1900 onwards </b>the aim of establishing liberty
and equality was <b>more and more openly abandoned.</b> The new movements which
appeared in the middle years of the century, <b>Ingsoc</b> ["English Socialism"] in Oceania [i.e. the West], <b>Neo-Bolshevism</b> [Russian communism] in Eurasia [former Soviet Union], <b>Death-Worship </b>[Chinese communism], as it is commonly called, in Eastasia [the "Far East"], had the <b>conscious
aim </b>of perpetuating unfreedom and inequality. <a href="http://msxnet.org/orwell/print/1984.pdf">p.118</a></blockquote>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBzzIOAP408cCflYtloJnZW5jec4uiF65JwQnq9qYqCVhcBg7w5y7Xj1Qp2kr7Mt_Mk544-_d2M6C_GQivQ6Y0jYVFF8zu1xUNaz-Xiz89CdsphI3b0yrSzak35LjDbpEzJfnhykJA80o/s1600/orwell-freedom-is-slavery.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBzzIOAP408cCflYtloJnZW5jec4uiF65JwQnq9qYqCVhcBg7w5y7Xj1Qp2kr7Mt_Mk544-_d2M6C_GQivQ6Y0jYVFF8zu1xUNaz-Xiz89CdsphI3b0yrSzak35LjDbpEzJfnhykJA80o/s200/orwell-freedom-is-slavery.jpg" width="161" /></a><b><spoiler> </b>In <i>1984</i>, it turns out that the dissemination of Emmanuel Goldstein's book is controlled by the State to carefully flush out dissidents. The government's ability to monitor its citizens is absolute. In the end it is unclear whether Emmanuel Goldstein is merely the State's amalgam of anti-collectivist revolutionaries. What does become clear is that the State does not mind some revolutionaries knowing the State's true values and game plan, because the strongest revolutionary can be reeducated (i.e. tortured) into complete submission to and love of "Big Brother." <b></spoiler> </b><br />
<br />
Also see<br />
<a href="https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/hitlers-war-on-christianity-quotes/">https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/hitlers-war-on-christianity-quotes/ </a>Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-50588373310531120222014-10-29T00:07:00.001-07:002018-01-03T10:52:30.177-08:00More Nonsense From Piers Morgan<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Piers Morgan, the tabloid “journalist” who briefly was on CNN before we ran him out of America, is once again ranting about gun control in
the US. His tabloid experience allowed him to come up with a sufficiently lurid
title: <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2809793/PIERS-MORGAN-math-question-media-s-going-kill-American-kids-year-Ebola-guns.html">A Math Question For The US Media: What’s Going to Kill More American Kids This Year? Ebola or Guns?</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Answering
that directly, there’s no way to tell. It’s only October 28<sup>th</sup> and
President Obama’s stunning lack of leadership and incredibly bad choices may yet
result in an “Ebola Apocalypse Christmas” here in the US.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">But Piers
doesn't really care about that, this is just another case of his impassioned
fury that in America people are allowed to own guns. And, like all anti-gun
liberals, his favorite argument is “guns are killing children.” Really? Let me
present some facts supporting my assertion that you don’t actually give a crap
about “the children.” <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_2011-a.pdf">According to the CDC</a>, unintentional injury is the leading
cause of death for children between the ages of 1 and 4. <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_injury_deaths_highlighting_unintentional_injury_2011-a.pdf">Drilling down further</a>, for children 1 – 4 accidental drowning is the leading cause of death.
So, where are the calls to outlaw private pool ownership? Nonexistent, despite
the fact that nobody “needs” to own a pool. Where are the calls for mandatory
24-7 lifeguards, paid for by the pool’s owner? Or even just mandatory fencing?
Nary a mention.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">For kids 5 –
24 automobile accidents are the leading cause of death. So, why are people
allowed to own (or drive) their own car? Alternatives <i>do</i> exist- everyone
could take the bus, train, bicycle, or just walk. Think of all the children we
could save by outlawing pools and cars!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Of course,
I’m certainly not the first to point all this out. It’s a frequent
talking-point among those who support the basic human right to self-defense.
And, of course, it’s a point that anti-gunners like Piers Morgan blithely
ignore.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Morgan trots
out another assertion: That following the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre">Dunblane Massacre</a> in 1996, the UK
almost completely outlawed guns. And following this wise, sensible action, they
all lived happily ever. Of course, it’s just not true. Perhaps he should
actually <i>read</i> the very publication that now employs him. They report that <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html">England has seen an unbelievable 89% increase</a> in <b>gun</b> violence since
outlawing guns. Which really shouldn't surprise anyone- now the only people
with guns are the criminals. But, in typical liberal fashion, he tries to spin
his away around that unpleasant reality by grandly proclaiming “we haven’t had a
single school shooting since guns were outlawed!” What he fails to mention is
that they hadn't had a single school shooting <i>before</i> the Dunblane
Massacre, either. But they did have the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings">Cumbria Shootings</a> just four years ago
with 14 shot dead. Wow, that gun control is sooo effective!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Finally,
Piers treats us to the liberal’s standard smug moral superiority line of
“permitting gun ownership is so <i>uncivilized</i>.” Really? OK, Piers, let me
show you what “uncivilized” really looks like: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXxJFpKU_ZnfysF0-9GBM9yh-GxQO_uW26OolS6g6Gx8hwjZ0si5IFeV5FsHgcl6SOybXID58ZXQNv81HOcrfJkI1wVLygEvGklmnlcq7lcWHBahGkiIzl63a3XZrrgylyefg8Un00P_LY/s1600/London-forced-strip.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXxJFpKU_ZnfysF0-9GBM9yh-GxQO_uW26OolS6g6Gx8hwjZ0si5IFeV5FsHgcl6SOybXID58ZXQNv81HOcrfJkI1wVLygEvGklmnlcq7lcWHBahGkiIzl63a3XZrrgylyefg8Un00P_LY/s1600/London-forced-strip.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">That’s some
innocent person being forced to strip by a criminal at the height of the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024001/UK-riots-2011-London-Birmingham-people-forced-strip-naked-street.html">London Riots</a>. Would you like another?</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzTZZ92lFu2Wh_IhT37hTyV6i2jDqrBMeXvo3xSh0jgFcSJxoF0D6Ca8fN5nv4SJpsNOC-B8joFyH8d8xWu4RzIQpnyfIjbuKMBZpwHIC6BHHjRdANyH8o0Gj8oxU8_szt8u6yESNFkECf/s1600/2zia8he.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzTZZ92lFu2Wh_IhT37hTyV6i2jDqrBMeXvo3xSh0jgFcSJxoF0D6Ca8fN5nv4SJpsNOC-B8joFyH8d8xWu4RzIQpnyfIjbuKMBZpwHIC6BHHjRdANyH8o0Gj8oxU8_szt8u6yESNFkECf/s1600/2zia8he.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">Yep, someone
else who was stripped of their right to defend themselves from criminals.
Betcha neither of those victims were thinking “thank goodness for gun control!” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: small;">Fundamentally, what gun ownership is
about is a human right to defend themselves and their family. I think it has
nothing to do whatsoever with the Second Amendment of the US Constitution-
everyone in every country deserves this right. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: small;">Let’s face
it, on average, men are larger and stronger than women. From a purely
mechanical standpoint, rape just isn't that difficult to perpetrate. A gun is
what allows a small woman to say “no” to a large man <i>and make it stick</i>.
This is why a popular saying in America in the 19<sup>th</sup> century was “God
made man, but Sam Colt made them equal.” As we have so clearly seen in England,
without guns humanity descends into an uncivilized mob where big, strong people
can do whatever they want to little, weak ones. And <i>that</i> is what is
truly barbaric. We in America aren't wrong to allow guns, <i>you</i> in the UK
have violated your citizen’s human rights by outlawing them. And every single
day some innocent person pays the price.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSDN-Hn7GeMgIb9VkP0EOgV-wmWRJ09q7WEiK6dSh-BJP322oZH1_e_XvN_GJ2P5IVypjw7A7jvxqqhQUpANhIreEWhSSyeU1EkVlnBQcBSoJfhjrwcuRf3mqdldfF55u1XjaGQemnQzAc/s1600/Teach+Daughter+Shoot.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSDN-Hn7GeMgIb9VkP0EOgV-wmWRJ09q7WEiK6dSh-BJP322oZH1_e_XvN_GJ2P5IVypjw7A7jvxqqhQUpANhIreEWhSSyeU1EkVlnBQcBSoJfhjrwcuRf3mqdldfF55u1XjaGQemnQzAc/s1600/Teach+Daughter+Shoot.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
TalkaboutPopMayhemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17025275174113995106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-28901268451213710772014-10-23T00:10:00.000-07:002015-05-16T01:46:21.037-07:00One Bad Choice After AnotherSo, the truth is finally starting to come out about the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. But before we talk about that, let's take a trip down memory lane to see how this story has been presented all along. I think the LA Times summed it up best <a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hands-up-20140813-story.html">on August 12th</a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrOo1YB-iblk5Hdxyq8ThSJsCPWL9NKd_ICCHzAuGv840Mss9C1ZE7nnP72dAutXiuh5-2u9cz2EhGMASXnIE1wuP_5HgaDx-Ac3oDFWsC7DQoILWt2VagbWPqxVDvi_3t_ZKQ1DPGbrdw/s1600/HandsUpDontShoot.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="326" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrOo1YB-iblk5Hdxyq8ThSJsCPWL9NKd_ICCHzAuGv840Mss9C1ZE7nnP72dAutXiuh5-2u9cz2EhGMASXnIE1wuP_5HgaDx-Ac3oDFWsC7DQoILWt2VagbWPqxVDvi_3t_ZKQ1DPGbrdw/s1600/HandsUpDontShoot.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Yet again, the protesters took to the sidewalks and streets, facing a row of police guarding the St. Louis County prosecutor's office. "Hands up!" they chanted, their arms aloft. "Don't shoot."</b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>"This is how the boy died!" Kendrick Strong, 42, hollered at police officers Tuesday morning. "This is how the boy died! With his hands up in the air!"</b></blockquote>
<br />
Later in that same article they summed up the narrative: "Brown was shot and killed by an officer Saturday while...running away with his hands up." It's Trayvon Martin all over again- an unarmed black teen senselessly killed by an evil, racist, white man. In both cases we've had the liberal media relentlessly hammering their "message" of racial injustice into our skulls.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKtWLS3RjtZg8xqixQtD0qiJr2bMORU_1q_lVZXkwijCnX_EPC8er-J0U4pntCE-g19bx66iiRZ1esUwhowlvCTaFdjsBTYp0L2a624rsQKD_u3yJGFN6EsxHw1LCYKcphasCZRYnduJ2I/s1600/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-media-bias-cnn-113840572031.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKtWLS3RjtZg8xqixQtD0qiJr2bMORU_1q_lVZXkwijCnX_EPC8er-J0U4pntCE-g19bx66iiRZ1esUwhowlvCTaFdjsBTYp0L2a624rsQKD_u3yJGFN6EsxHw1LCYKcphasCZRYnduJ2I/s1600/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-media-bias-cnn-113840572031.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Yeah, but the facts came out with Trayvon, too. Most of them in the "alternative" (conservative) media, but I recently read <a href="http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob143.html">an article by Massad Ayoob</a> that introduced me to things I had never previously heard. I strongly encourage you to read the article yourself. The main take-away is that Trayvon was portrayed as an innocent young boy out purchasing skittles and tea who was senselessly gunned down for no reason. He was in fact a man-sized criminal who both did and dealt drugs, had a history of violence, and who brutally assaulted (and nearly killed) a man without provocation. A man who successfully defended himself.<br />
<br />
What a strange coincidence. It appears that's EXACTLY <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2802660/blow-blow-ferguson-cop-s-account-killed-michael-brown-darren-wilson-claim-incredibly-strong-teen-pushed-gun-hip-frantic-struggle-car-shot-head-charged-street.html">what happened in Ferguson</a>. Turns out the physical evidence corroborates virtually all of Officer Darren Wilson's testimony: Michael Brown did not have his hands up. He was not surrendering, he was charging. He had already violently assaulted Officer Wilson without provocation, and had tried to grab his gun. He had just robbed a convenience store, a crime that (despite media reports) Officer Wilson <i>was</i> aware of. So yet again, we have a violent criminal thug, high on drugs, who brutally assaulted a man who then successfully defended himself.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfK-P3dEs2n4MkREZBqufpZ3NqDWeZaQ1drJvUiu4rgazdSCMGKahSjwlSuQULwEMLnED9yUx9zdHgLedq7fhnXpBs6nlYrRfsYjnvoKnePkvnGZLpNJcygl224wAteo8ECuFKefUgBDI-/s1600/Boom13.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfK-P3dEs2n4MkREZBqufpZ3NqDWeZaQ1drJvUiu4rgazdSCMGKahSjwlSuQULwEMLnED9yUx9zdHgLedq7fhnXpBs6nlYrRfsYjnvoKnePkvnGZLpNJcygl224wAteo8ECuFKefUgBDI-/s1600/Boom13.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Both cases are virtually the same case. Protesters scream for "justice" and go on marches. Their community expresses it's displeasure through "riots" which are really just disorganized festivals of theft, vandalism, and arson.<br />
<br />
But the truth is, Justice is exactly what two violent attackers received at the hands of their victims. The real injustice is how defending himself has already ruined George Zimmerman's life, and the media is on track to ruin the life of another innocent man as well.<br />
<br />
And for what? I understand what the Democrats and their media lapdogs get out of this: Keep people perpetually angry and they won't think straight. They won't realize just <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUSRZo1BE5o">how harmful democrats are to the black community</a> and will keep voting for them. But what does the black community itself get out of making criminal thugs into their poster children for "racial injustice?" <br />
<br />
Does anybody remember Rosa Parks? She was an upstanding, hard-working, educated, and employed member of the community. And she got things done. She helped end the unjust segregation Democrats had visited upon the South in the wake of the Civil War, and she did it peacefully and with dignity.<br />
<br />
She stands in stark contrast to Trayvon and Mike Brown. Blacks are four times as likely to be murdered as any other race in America. <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/yv-datasheet-a.pdf">Among 10 to 24 year olds</a> the leading cause of death for blacks is homicide. And who is murdering all these young people? It's not the KKK. It's overwhelmingly black-on-black violence perpetrated by criminals just like these two "tragic martyrs."<br />
<br />
The black community has a serious problem, and it sure ain't racism. Their biggest problem is the idolization of the very criminals who murder them and the demonization of any black person who strives to get educated, employed, or in any way better themselves (the sin of "acting white"). And truthfully, there isn't a thing anyone from any other race (most especially whites) can possibly do to help them.<br />
<br />
P.S. I feel the need to point out that there's the literally thousands of murders we never see in the news. Almost everyone has brought up the multitude of black on black murders, so I'll point out something else:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirGpPXMmLjIRCXzgKf9RwUk0iYwcvF8Ddrw3JszfLgjDTXKXFmIADimKnvejxUgDYWHqN6Buj25m1SDHd0jsE0_jiDZ-ugl0KDVGEX7mhSekez96HiJy-jDG9KAm_IEMb5W8WNkFKF75u0/s1600/a07a4bc639cad410b7fe0d3632fab145.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirGpPXMmLjIRCXzgKf9RwUk0iYwcvF8Ddrw3JszfLgjDTXKXFmIADimKnvejxUgDYWHqN6Buj25m1SDHd0jsE0_jiDZ-ugl0KDVGEX7mhSekez96HiJy-jDG9KAm_IEMb5W8WNkFKF75u0/s1600/a07a4bc639cad410b7fe0d3632fab145.jpg" width="347" /></a></div>
<br />TalkaboutPopMayhemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17025275174113995106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-33875975086699013592014-09-08T01:16:00.001-07:002014-09-08T20:43:25.783-07:00It's Not TheatreMinutes after emitting some non-committal bureaucrat BS in response to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Foley_%28journalist%29#Kidnapping_in_Syria_and_death">the beheading of American James Foley</a> US President Barack Obama hit the golf course (again). Someone took this photo:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3GfwPffMzgCMICL1E-VViPQmcV5fTjs39peKwURGvz3t6zomMQn2jrgtS5fTom60mkycIsmXIyeZVEyxv11sFVMLZcwbx2zrUOe0r1QXtdcjDYaQvz1H-nl2uWg6YfulK5zbzBR4NOhoR/s1600/Obama+Golfing+Happy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3GfwPffMzgCMICL1E-VViPQmcV5fTjs39peKwURGvz3t6zomMQn2jrgtS5fTom60mkycIsmXIyeZVEyxv11sFVMLZcwbx2zrUOe0r1QXtdcjDYaQvz1H-nl2uWg6YfulK5zbzBR4NOhoR/s1600/Obama+Golfing+Happy.jpg" height="336" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Finally, three weeks after this atrocity, Obama went on NBC (his biggest cheerleaders) and <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746850/Political-theater-Obama-explains-went-golfing-addressing-beheading-journalist-Foley-ISIS.html">had this to say</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Part of this job is also the theater of it. I should have anticipated the optics of playing golf."</i></blockquote>
<br />
The <b>optics</b>? No, you inhuman monster, it's not <i>theatrics</i> when people are outraged or saddened by someone's untimely death. James Foley's friends and parents weren't happily laughing after he was killed. And it's not because they appreciated "the theatrics" of the moment, it's because they were feeling honest grief.<br />
<br />
Continuing to speak about "theatrics" Obama said: "Well, it's not something that always comes naturally to me. But it matters. And I'm mindful of that."<br />
<br />
This just shows how completely disconnected <i>from the human race</i> our President really is. He just doesn't get that other people aren't <i>acting</i> sad about things like this. He can't imagine that they genuinely <i>are</i> feeling that emotion.<br />
<br />
It's so ironic that the liberals, the people who so prize feeling over thinking, would gift us with this man who is apparently incapable not only of feeling these emotions, but also incapable of believing that anyone else feels them.<br />
<br />
The photo above tells us what he really felt about the brutal execution of an American: It was hilarious.TalkaboutPopMayhemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17025275174113995106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-69568757370806652162014-08-21T21:19:00.000-07:002018-01-03T10:51:13.977-08:00Does Google Target Conservatives? Should bloggers that challenge the ultra-progressive narrative (especially libertarians and conservatives) strongly consider using Wordpress instead of Blogspot? <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisTR96a_V5fhCTZ6ol9pcselPYGBv2A5-QgqwdI6LOP3b2eyPge2SEHkMVTWcdJ82xddBVAhD3XE8aUSybnRzuOOcJKuKZKxRlCcdK6N1F6-W8BnW65f2C1p9YhwUOoMYAepNUMQbfhoQ/s1600/obama-google.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="288" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisTR96a_V5fhCTZ6ol9pcselPYGBv2A5-QgqwdI6LOP3b2eyPge2SEHkMVTWcdJ82xddBVAhD3XE8aUSybnRzuOOcJKuKZKxRlCcdK6N1F6-W8BnW65f2C1p9YhwUOoMYAepNUMQbfhoQ/s1600/obama-google.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
On July 3rd, in anticipation of conservative buzz over D'Souza's <i>America</i> movie and July 4th weekend posts by conservative patriots with some extra time on their hands, Google employee activists are back to their old tricks. I came out of the theater looking to blog about the movie, and found I had an email about "suspicious activity" on my account. Well, if Google didn't want me to think my account was hacked, this was a poor choice of words. Turns out that I was the suspect, and my blog was guilty until proven innocent. (Note: This also occurred withing hours of me doing something I had never done before: commenting on an LA Times article and linking back to my blog!) And as such the Blogspot interface would not even let me download or back up the data from my 'jailed' blog. I was told that my blog had been removed. As I was trying to find information about blog restoration and the review process, I was sent an email telling me that my blog <b>had</b> been reviewed and was denied reinstatement. Which could easily have dissuaded a blogger from further pursuing the matter. From a company that prides itself on user interfaces, is that the point? <br />
<br />
Back in 2008 it seems that the 98% liberal Google workforce <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/06/29/google-shuts-down-anti-obama-sites-its-blogger-platform">decided to silence criticism of Barack Obama</a> including (or especially) blogs of pro-Hillary Democrats.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">It turns out that there is an interesting pattern where it concerns the blogs that Google's Blogspot team have summarily locked down on their service. They all belong to the </span><a href="http://justsaynodeal.com/" rel="nofollow" style="color: #ff4300; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Just Say No Deal</a><span style="line-height: 18px;"> coalition, a group of blogs that are standing against the Obama campaign. It seems the largest portion of these blogs are Hillary supporting blogs, too.</span></span></blockquote>
<div>
The blogger GeekLove (a pseudonym) writes about how the timing of her blog removal made her suspicious. </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“I suspect that it was Obama supporters because I think the block was timed to affect blogs prior to the unity event so that we would not ‘rain on the unity parade,’ GeekLove said. “Also, Obama has ads out hiring people with no experience, except the ability to use computers. I presume these are the individuals responsible for silencing any opposition. His campaign has really harnessed the power of the internet and in the process learned to game the system in a way that I find frightening.”</blockquote>
<div>
In other words, select people (with a questionnaire) who will do anything to support the campaign, and have them simply do Google searches, find anti-Obama sites that get hits on Google, and flag them for review. Hard to believe? <b>Do you not know how this Chicago politician became a state senator in Illinois to <i>begin </i>with???</b></div>
<br />
<div>
Is all this bullying activism coming from outside Google? Or are there people on the inside giving low priority to the resolution of suspected Terms of Service violations? Well, realize that Obama now has the DOJ, the FBI, and the NSA now, not a team of campaign volunteers with PCs. He can communicate to any staff members of Google and Facebook through intermediaries (although he has met with Zuckerberg directly), and enjoin them with a national security letter to not speak of anything said, especially their covert "cooperation" with the government. </div>
<br />
But even before Obama administration, the following <a href="http://swacgirl.blogspot.com/2008/08/more-conservative-blog-sites-shut-down.html#comments">was written</a> by an <a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/08274568303926657845">alan james</a> in 2008 (emphasis mine):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.799999237060547px;">I recently started a new "conservative" blog on blogspot, and was <b>"under review" for potential splogging</b> within 48 hours. Here's the kicker - I <b>hadn't even put any content on my blog yet</b>. The only content on the blog were <b>2 gadgets (newsmax video feeds and fox news headlines) </b>provided by blogspot. </span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.799999237060547px;">Oddly enough, when I learned I had been placed under review, it wasn't hackers I suspected of foul play, but the political leanings Google/Blogspot themselves. Call me narrow minded, but Occam's Razor seems to work here. It's not hard to imagine <b>the simplicity with which Blogspot could flag conservative blogs from the outset</b> and place them under review. </span></blockquote>
Last year a "birther" blog was shut down for TOS violation <b>in concert with a <a href="http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2014/02/google-shut-down-birther-website-2803836.html">purported malware attack</a></b>, as with the aforementioned <a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/08274568303926657845">alan james</a> (most of the targeting is under the guise of anti-splogging).<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; padding: 0px;">
I do know that <b style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">on Oct. 1, 2013 this blog was severely hacked to the point the template had to be replaced and on the very same day Google AdSense sent notification that it was disabling the ads running for violating TOS listing, <i style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">targeting an individual or group</i>, as their reason</b>, even though sites like <i style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Americans Against The Tea Party</i> [<b style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://www.aattp.org/" rel="nofollow" style="color: #3970dc; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">www.aattp.org</a></b>] can run Google AdSense with no problem.<br />
On one hand I thank Google and on the other I shame them. It is sad that such a great resource would let political ideology take over.</blockquote>
And when Christian Browne was given the anti-splog treatment, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/05/13/another-conservative-blog-shut-down-by-google-ksm-trial-edition">he was not directed at all to the forum</a> <b>at all</b> by Google staff, and (naturally) concluded that that there was no appeal process for reinstating his blog. This is all very similar to the tactics reportedly used by insurance companies. Except that it makes you wonder what Google has to gain by this abuse in a venture that is no more a charity than Facebook is.<br />
<br />
Timothy Carney describes the staff-swapping relationship between Google and the Obama administration as being like what occurs for ideological think tanks (maybe they shouldn't have lost all those people to Google before the Obamacare website was built):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 16px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 12px;">T</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">his may surprise you if you believed Obama’s campaign rhetoric about him fighting against big business and wealthy executives. But the </span><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/21/technology/obama_google.fortune/" style="background-color: white; color: #0f5b8a; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">Google-Obama alliance is long-lasting and intimate</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">.</span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 16px;">
A couple of examples:<br />
Remember Obama’s No. 2 tech staffer at the White House was Google’s former top lobbyist — <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/timothy-p.-carney-white-house-google-violate-lobbying-pledge/article/32050" style="color: #0f5b8a; text-decoration: none;">who improperly worked with active Google lobbyists on pushing policy that Google supported</a>.<br />
Obama <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2518904" style="color: #0f5b8a; text-decoration: none;">appointed non-registered Google lobbyist</a> and max-Obama donor Vint Cerf to a science advisory board.<br />
Schmidt <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/143129" style="color: #0f5b8a; text-decoration: none;">reportedly</a> once asked a deputy to make the search engine ignore Schmidt’s political giving (heavy to Dems and Obama). </div>
</blockquote>
Has the search engine been tweaked before? Is it possible that the Google search engine response to "WMDs" was a calculated ad as part of the Democrats' "Bush tricked us into voting for the War" strategy? A lot of criticism over private company owners' donations (e.g. Chic-Fil-A) but no response to obvious campaigning by a search engine? Google is also apparently <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/27/Google-To-Block-Firearm-Ammunition-Magazine-Ads-Starting-September">joining Eric Holder in Obama's economic war against the 2nd Amendment</a> through selectivity. It would seem Google doesn't have much use for libertarians at their company. <br />
<br />
These are stories leading up to the latest July 4th campaign. With all the aforementioned problems, is it any wonder that <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/US/America-Dineh-DSouza-Google/2014/07/16/id/583022/">when "technical difficulties" caused an error in the Google search engine turning up results for D'Souza's new movie <i>America</i></a>, D'Souza was skeptical about it?<br />
<br />
And that brings me to the issue of Don Mashak who was caught in the Google's persecution of sploggers" and was given the run-around by Google staff even more egregiously than Christian Browne was. The Google staff (volunteer staff?) made it sound to me that the problem is with other blogs (presumably at Blogspot/Blogger) that clone material to get hits. (My articles haven't reached the level to even justify monetization, let alone are there clone blogs that pop up if I test the 'searchability' of my articles.) What they told Don Mashak that weekend paints a different picture. It would seem that these agents ruthlessly "persecute" (yes, they use the words) authors that publish the contents of their posts in other venues. <br />
<br />
A prominent Google rep/reviewer (who writes articles explaining/defending Blogspot policy) obviously knows that the articles being compared are written by the same person. The blogger embeds his name in the names of his blogs. Don Mashak explains several several times that he is the owner of the content. The reviewer is deliberately obtuse on this point as he never explains why an author can't reuse his own content. If you question this, look where he mentions "scraped (i.e. stolen) or syndicated" and follows with "<b>My guess is that 90% - 100% of your content is all scraped.</b>" He could've said "You are not allowed to use your own content" and explain how the Google policy is interpreted that way (which would be very odd and not obvious to me why that would be the case, but ...), but he simply concludes this based on his contrived evidence that Don Mashak is lying about using content from articles written by ... <b>himself!</b><br />
<br />
The most telling part might be where the Google rep tries to put on the most I'm-being-reasonable tone (like the contemptuous tone of some managers use to talk to incensed customers like kindergartners):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">If this sort of ranting is part of your blogs, that would explain <b>why the blogs were deleted</b>.</span></blockquote>
Wow. Think about this. The sort of political complaining that Mashak is doing there might not score points with IT personnel, but how is it against Google policy? This rep feels that Mashak is abusive because he is "paranoid" about the fact that they are doing nothing with the information provided, not really answering his questions, and basically stonewalling him. It's theater in a blog forum. But Mashak's tiresome reactions wear down the TOS agent into an admission of guilt. I'm having a difficult time understanding what sorts of ranting are against the Terms of Service.<br />
<br />
What also seems implicit is that <b>Google has a text comparison application that is like the WinDiff utility, but deals with hypertext and probably searches hypertext at the site level.</b> (And why <b><i>wouldn't </i></b>the Terms of Service reviewers have such a utility?) Enter the name of a blog, and a list of suspected "plagiarized" sources and all commonly used text is cited. That common text can then be used to run in the Google search engine and turn up results in many pages. Lo and behold, sentences "chosen at random" turn up half a dozen articles all by the same author.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
http://gawker.com/5961202/how-the-obama-campaigns-data-miners-knew-what-you-were-watching-on-tv<br />
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/04/Google-Hires-Obama-s-Campaign-E-Team<br />
<br />
<br />Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-78720267741435567132014-08-19T00:01:00.000-07:002014-08-19T21:28:56.586-07:00Seeing Socialism From Space<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhh0sM2uqqawWOVdyxAM17uTz_AQFjY03ZgFoXXDImVA2SeAGjkRaiaZa_hIcAFTUW2Nt_HV8lY1yW9FFL7Mz8r4kzlePT0HbG07TDpVg1ARctWWVwUFoC2BmOzgGlpr-aeK-m59jlMNDY/s1600/nkorea-770x330.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhh0sM2uqqawWOVdyxAM17uTz_AQFjY03ZgFoXXDImVA2SeAGjkRaiaZa_hIcAFTUW2Nt_HV8lY1yW9FFL7Mz8r4kzlePT0HbG07TDpVg1ARctWWVwUFoC2BmOzgGlpr-aeK-m59jlMNDY/s1600/nkorea-770x330.jpg" height="274" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">China to the left, Japan to the right, and S. Korea below, make N. Korea look very dark indeed.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
From space North Korea is an environmentalist's dream. There is nothing to halt energy consumption like totalitarian repression and anticapitalist poverty. (And nothing thumbs one's nose at filthy capitalism like keeping one's people dirt poor and miserable.) With that level of energy production there is sure to either be starvation, or a smaller population due to past starvation. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Fascist China, having roughly survived the Mao personality cult, is doing better than North Korea which is a personality cult. North Korea does have nuclear capability so even if the energy production per capita is nil. You'd think that the only industry in North Korea <i>is </i>nuclear weaponry. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Here is what one thoughtful person wrote about the idea that the picture above says something about "socialism":</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
North Korea is not a socialist state. It is a dictatorship pretending to be communist. There is nothing remotely related to socialism in such a state and no economic philosophy at play in such a state. Anyone making such a suggestion that it is truly an uneducated moron. England is a socialist state. Most of out [sic] democratic allies are as well. The US is socialist in many areas. We don't use the term, but the economic basis for things like Medicare is socialism. And it was socialism at play when George W. Bush briefly took over much of our banking and auto industry. So learn what the word means and what it doesn't. The lack of electricity and the starvation in North Korea has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with a crazy dictatorial family in power.<br />
<a name='more'></a></blockquote>
The commentator Nathaniel Lack is apparently "well spoken" and considers himself fairly educated. Yet some people of various political leanings <a href="http://archive.lewrockwell.com/sowell/sowell94.1.html">maintain that "socialism" properly applies to systems in which government owns the means of production</a>. (<a href="http://individualismislonely.blogspot.com/2014/07/liberal-fascism.html#brayton">Ed Brayton</a> might consider Lack <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/06/14/sowell-obama-not-socialist-hes-fascist/">uninformed</a>.) Because of the association of fascism with the "national socialisms" of Spain, Italy, and Germany, particularly Germany, there is some pervasive confusion over what "fascism" applies to. If one accepts Mussolini's definitions then what Lack calls "socialist" may be more properly called "fascist," or more generally, "collectivist." In that vein, N. Korea is more likely a socialist country in which the elite ruling oligarchy consists of one person. He may not be the sort of dictator that Clinton aids or celebrity actors are chummy with, but N. Korea is socialist nonetheless, as commended in the movie <i>World War Z</i>. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The lack of electricity and the starvation in North Korea has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with a crazy dictatorial family in power.</i></blockquote>
Socialism <i>did </i>put all means of production in the hands of the State so... "nothing" is a strong word. I wonder if Lack would be prepared to admit that the lack of economic recovery over the last 6 years has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with ... something else. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPrWmyt5D9RrClyhLln0tzpv5jlEIaB-kpbfTnUdpf8yuJ9hlls_PZQBEaXWBAweIHpytZZ86Sc9eQMg7NToDCiSFr16fzMkxVgk2hyphenhyphen0eJkyXgHc0u_nlMfZ8AAmrlSYwzi9m6r1Yb_QM/s1600/52837453.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPrWmyt5D9RrClyhLln0tzpv5jlEIaB-kpbfTnUdpf8yuJ9hlls_PZQBEaXWBAweIHpytZZ86Sc9eQMg7NToDCiSFr16fzMkxVgk2hyphenhyphen0eJkyXgHc0u_nlMfZ8AAmrlSYwzi9m6r1Yb_QM/s1600/52837453.png" height="254" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-57185968910597558082014-08-15T00:21:00.000-07:002014-08-15T22:15:29.833-07:00Imperialism in Jerusalem<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhWoj97_0gWNPIbyVvHy_kbwA82bZEtir5Dnf6fYg2e2h1cybqtf3PL7vJJq5yDnyBExTcq9wpsOwzDczVhuDSoidj5FDoWv4LGCDEe4xiE9qgufyikZTpkPFxpfWr6d8uOEFzqMRmUoU/s1600/jerusalem.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhWoj97_0gWNPIbyVvHy_kbwA82bZEtir5Dnf6fYg2e2h1cybqtf3PL7vJJq5yDnyBExTcq9wpsOwzDczVhuDSoidj5FDoWv4LGCDEe4xiE9qgufyikZTpkPFxpfWr6d8uOEFzqMRmUoU/s1600/jerusalem.PNG" height="167" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 13px;">The City of Jerusalem.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Around 1967 something happened that changed the way the enlightened felt about Israel. Several Arab nations decided it was time to get rid of them pesky Jews. While the first bully was still cocking his fist, Israel punched first, proceeded to beat 3 bullies at once, and then took <i>their </i>lunch money for good measure. Israeli Jews were no longer victims to be pitied.<br />
<br />
The anti-imperialist/multiculturalist set was all prepared to mourn the destruction of the Jews and send out the 1967 equivalent of hashtags. Their demise would have meant as little to Europe as the demise of Christians and Kurds does now in the present day Arab nations. But suddenly Israelis represented strength instead of victimhood, they represented self-determination rather than a pawn for the UN to posture over, they represented a militarily defensible democracy rather than another pitiable medieval theocracy. <br />
<br />
Suddenly Europe wasn't so embarrassed about the Holocaust. No longer content to wait in shtetls for the next progrom, Israelis not only demonstrated that an enterprising people could create wealth in an impoverished land but could defend it. <br />
<br />
One of many things that amaze me about the anti-imperialist/multi-culturalist movement in Europe and North America is how sensitive they are to some tokens of conquest and not to others. If Mount Rushmore had been the most sacred site to the Sioux nation, fundamental to their religious system for centuries, it would be difficult to feel as positive about its nationalism. Wouldn't there be other places to make it after all? Surely it would even be more embarrassing to have carved a Pilgrim holding a Bible. Or if American Christians had carved a cathedral into the mountain? <br />
<br />
Yet no one speaks about the message of religious imperialism that the Dome of the Rock communicates. Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Koran. It is central in the Jewish scriptures (what Christians call "the Old Testament"). Muslim imperialism built this mosque on the site of the Jerusalem Temple for two reasons: to demonstrate that the Muslims have a greater claim on Father Abraham (and the sites associated with him) than do the Jews, and because claiming the most holy Jewish site was a way of marking the territory of the former Israelite kingdom for <a href="http://www.the-american-interest.com/berger/2014/08/06/the-geography-of-horror/">political Islam</a>. As beautiful as the Dome is aesthetically, it is and always will be a deliberate symbol of conquest. If there was an ancient cathedral built there, I think most Christians would feel (and should feel) a sense of embarrassment about it. (Not out of knee-jerk political correctness, but out of the fact that a 'building' is not the Lord's Church.) Most evangelicals and fundamentalists in America would want such an edifice torn down. <br />
<br />
<b>The most visible landmark in all Jerusalem is a landmark of religious and political imperialism.</b> Jewish Israelis are much more tolerant of the existence of the Dome on their Temple Mount than most Palestinian Arabs and Muslims are tolerant of the existence of Israel <u>in any part of Palestine</u>. If Jerusalem were unequivocally Israeli soil, the Dome would remain standing. If it were entirely Palestinian, synagogues and temples would burn as Muslim crowds cheered and Americans tweeted their hashtags. Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-44062633098535401732014-08-14T23:50:00.000-07:002014-08-15T20:56:06.033-07:00Contrasting The Democrat Narrative With RealitySpaceX, the private rocket company founded by Democrat Billionaire Elon Musk <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2724400/Rocket-techs-sue-Elon-Musks-SpaceX-bilking-owed-wages-withholding-lunch-breaks-laying-400-employees-blue.html">got hit by a pair of class-action lawsuits</a> yesterday. One suit is over the fact that he fired 400 workers last year in clear violation of labor law. California's Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act unequivocally states that any company with over 400 employees must provide 60-day notice when laying off fifty or more employees.<br />
<br />
The other suit alleges that SpaceX failed to provide employees, even those with safety-critical jobs, with state mandated lunch and rest breaks. Even worse, SpaceX is accused of forcing workers to work off the clock and even falsify timekeeping records. That last bit is a huge violation of federal law, and managers and executives in aerospace have been marched off in handcuffs for that exact violation. I work in that industry myself, and I can tell you that timekeeping is the one thing taken as seriously (or sometimes more so) than worker safety.<br />
<br />
So where's the California Labor Board investigation of SpaceX? There isn't one. Where's NASA's investigation of the company's timekeeping practices? Also completely absent. Elon Musk is a major Democrat donor, and California is run by Democrats. So is NASA in the form of Barack Obama who directed them to end manned American spaceflight and <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/07/nasas_muslim_outreach_106214.html">focus on Muslim outreach</a>.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, here's the (incredibly ironic) narrative put forth by the Democrats:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBq1E_0QbEai65byjF8mVImug-ToBytz9FtP8mEb1BPu4KqLAfO9myioLWKNP7sEW_pyIujeL-TXRUsTvb2gf39rDU4G42HDurij0ExsJlRnA0CB8fvYIrziz9t2vn5Oyss7E47TzP9cs1/s1600/stop_the_republican_war_on_workers__by_poasterchild-d5eu4rq.png.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBq1E_0QbEai65byjF8mVImug-ToBytz9FtP8mEb1BPu4KqLAfO9myioLWKNP7sEW_pyIujeL-TXRUsTvb2gf39rDU4G42HDurij0ExsJlRnA0CB8fvYIrziz9t2vn5Oyss7E47TzP9cs1/s1600/stop_the_republican_war_on_workers__by_poasterchild-d5eu4rq.png.jpg" height="400" width="290" /></a></div>
<br />
Elon Musk's SpaceX is a prime example of something else the Democrats blame on Republicans: Receiving unfair tax breaks. In April of this year, the California Legislature passed and Governor Jerry Brown signed into law <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB777">AB777</a> which specifically exempts SpaceX from the same property taxes that every other business in the state has to pay.<br />
<br />
Hilariously, Musk promptly burned California and <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/08/06/Elon-Musk-Plays-California-Then-Moves-SpaceX-Operations-to-Texas">moved his operations to Texas</a>.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, here's what Democrats claim to be reality:<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqxJVks98YyaPDj6uEeuchbmR42p_LWFOT5K_F1gqObtz7vO1Veg6vE3i9BCW6IjA7OpFZGfJOvaRjxghyhwZMRL5yjwTMYnKzpwZeEcK3Ax0pDrAFi4imw3KtQZMklvIGw_mWXmagwFkj/s1600/The+Republican+Economic+Plan+tlg2011.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqxJVks98YyaPDj6uEeuchbmR42p_LWFOT5K_F1gqObtz7vO1Veg6vE3i9BCW6IjA7OpFZGfJOvaRjxghyhwZMRL5yjwTMYnKzpwZeEcK3Ax0pDrAFi4imw3KtQZMklvIGw_mWXmagwFkj/s1600/The+Republican+Economic+Plan+tlg2011.jpg" height="300" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
I'm a middle-class worker, and my taxes have skyrocketed since 2008. So have my health-care premiums thanks to the ACA. Despite receiving generous raises every year from my employer, my take-home pay just keeps going down while inflation keeps going up. I certainly feel "stolen from." This is in stark contrast to Democrat richies like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg (<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-15/facebook-gets-a-multi-billion-dollar-tax-break">another recipient of tax breaks</a> and even a $429M <i>refund</i>), Bill Gates (recipient of a pass in his infamous anti-trust trial), George Soros, Warren Buffet (who made his fortune in tax shelters), Steven Spielberg, David Geffen, and just about every producer, director, and actor in Hollywood. THEIR paychecks and wealth just keep getting bigger.<br />
<br />
And what do Democrats do after giving special tax breaks to Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg? Make graphics like this:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh55j7kfVbqN2R7KkbCJ7rAUTkHy8h1mgIOLXUgPdHUjFz1aNJSxf2y1YWQ9-mhiIoHZAvOjH-qdnhhdDx0g55_i7NR-_lkho7x-BCtY8fnNfraoMlxAEdLaTNH0Y75o29kETksHulkNbQi/s1600/Giving+Money+to+rich.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh55j7kfVbqN2R7KkbCJ7rAUTkHy8h1mgIOLXUgPdHUjFz1aNJSxf2y1YWQ9-mhiIoHZAvOjH-qdnhhdDx0g55_i7NR-_lkho7x-BCtY8fnNfraoMlxAEdLaTNH0Y75o29kETksHulkNbQi/s1600/Giving+Money+to+rich.jpg" height="266" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
Yep, let's blame the Republicans for unfair tax breaks to greedy corporations. Makes perfect sense to this girl:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnbltc7uWPG6OVefynU0eNXyeoaP6U7sRgYGbCJBnmI1UkFclMb5wu9uIZV5M3t53JaMAhGyZ0-N1L2jrcxK3h57vk-PwVyChQ86MdW_nAwWBjZQbtdTgjt6XPCmZRoEUERTWaOGrnjC00/s1600/35kdvz.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnbltc7uWPG6OVefynU0eNXyeoaP6U7sRgYGbCJBnmI1UkFclMb5wu9uIZV5M3t53JaMAhGyZ0-N1L2jrcxK3h57vk-PwVyChQ86MdW_nAwWBjZQbtdTgjt6XPCmZRoEUERTWaOGrnjC00/s1600/35kdvz.jpg" height="400" width="266" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />TalkaboutPopMayhemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17025275174113995106noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-17704133905872767532014-08-12T07:09:00.000-07:002014-08-19T09:10:09.543-07:00Obama's Threat to IsraelAn interview in which Obama defender Jeffrey Goldberg described a "veiled threat" from Obama, the President<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But in today’s world, where power is much more diffuse, where the threats that any state or peoples face can come from non-state actors and asymmetrical threats, and where international cooperation is needed in order to deal with those threats, the absence of international goodwill makes you less safe. The condemnation of the international community can translate into a lack of cooperation when it comes to key security interests. </blockquote>
In that case, maybe the good ol' U.S. can plead Israel's case instead of having John Kerry join that condemnation? An honest answer to the question "Has Obama contributed to this 'diffuse-power' state of the world?" is that he <b><i>has </i></b>contributed a lot to it through his support of the Muslim Brotherhood, jihadists, al-Qaeda sympathizers, and political Islam in general; and his weak and ineffectual response to Iran's nuclear program. But even more importantly, that "absence of international goodwill' has been there since 1967 if not earlier, and international goodwill did not protect Israel in 1967 anyway. <b>The only thing that will leave Israel less protected is the loss of America's goodwill, and John Kerry's recent undermining of the peace process is not a good sign. </b><br />
<br />
It is good to remember the outrage over Romney's comments over Palestine, as though it were unconscionable for Romney to do anything other than to interfere in Israeli politics get the Palestinians the <b>two-state solution that they consistently refuse</b>. (All of Romney's reasons seemed very cogent.) In the Goldberg interview, Obama seems to be all in favor of kicking the can down the road, only unlike Romney he is typically nebulous about everything except his critical attitude toward Israel. <br />
<br />
Only now Obama is showing his disapproval to Israel by <a href="http://www.israelusa.net/obama-administration-delays-arms-shipments-to-israel-as-it-confirms-advanced-arms-sales-to-turkey-and-qatar/">routing routine military supplies to Israel through the White House itself</a>, as though it is somehow helpful for Barack to sign off on this and that in case we accidentally give Israel too much support.<br />
<br />
Regardless of Obama's personal prejudices, Israel hasn't lost the goodwill of the American people in general, particularly of the evangelicals and conservatives.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBHSH9zUEUFOWqDhTN1RBTBTT6kTwumz2uVF7LRNs59Vx2uit8pKU6y9qJnfSQ-0a6K5AClcYGtIbe0VP7aGGORBoIs1GEttXk5oqABM87wNDV7nQIITkLWRRHO1O1j9wAsfav1tB0xbk/s1600/mitt-romney-palestine.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBHSH9zUEUFOWqDhTN1RBTBTT6kTwumz2uVF7LRNs59Vx2uit8pKU6y9qJnfSQ-0a6K5AClcYGtIbe0VP7aGGORBoIs1GEttXk5oqABM87wNDV7nQIITkLWRRHO1O1j9wAsfav1tB0xbk/s1600/mitt-romney-palestine.gif" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-3993304302959789252014-08-05T07:30:00.000-07:002014-08-09T12:51:07.337-07:00Obama the Pro-NSA "Moderate" Uber-Progressive<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW2Wex-Hzuh01Fsbm4KX0WTf1DjIPoIolDFJ4OvND2KWgfrdo-BeBmARpBWH1FN_mq1FsuDP3KOU0v-oIEjpP6pEO4zPf22osxU73CldrFBiWpKBNheozeuLtEpfajtDum_Kw6bXfVk9c/s1600/ndaa2014.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW2Wex-Hzuh01Fsbm4KX0WTf1DjIPoIolDFJ4OvND2KWgfrdo-BeBmARpBWH1FN_mq1FsuDP3KOU0v-oIEjpP6pEO4zPf22osxU73CldrFBiWpKBNheozeuLtEpfajtDum_Kw6bXfVk9c/s1600/ndaa2014.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Now that Obama is getting ridiculously low numbers in public opinion, it's time to revisit the disenchantment of 2012.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
. . . <b>unless national security is pretty much your sole obsession</b>, I really have a hard time understanding progressives who are disappointed in him. <b>Obama has gotten more done for the progressive cause </b>than Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, JFK, or Harry Truman—and, on balance, nearly as much as LBJ . . .</blockquote>
Kevin Drum basically argues in that election year piece ('A Pretty Damn Good Presidency') that Obama was really an uber-progressive even though Obama and his associates made it "pretty clear" that they <b>despise </b>the progressive base. This piece, of course, was an effort to rally the disenchanted progressive base months before most of the media blitz that consisted of vilifying Romney, politically spinning Hurricane Sandy, and de-spinning jobs and the Benghazi debacle. Obama had somehow managed to communicate to progressives that he despised them in spite of doing more for them than a host of liberal icons. Drum didn't explain what this "seems to despise" consists of (it is a vague nod to the vague alienation his readers apparently felt), but contented himself with reminding his liberal audience that it is obviously just an act. (Or alternatively, arguing that Obama believes in progressivism in spite of <i>despising everyone</i>.) <br />
<br />
This is an interesting comment compared to the following from RationalWiki's hit piece on Dennis Prager (note that 'RationalWiki' is using "rational" as a synonym for "progressive"), given the staunch depiction of Obama as a centrist<b>:</b> <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Who Prager believes the left consists of is unclear since his definition of the left apparently means that Barack Obama is our first leftist president, with the possible exception of FDR. This is another <b>blatant lie</b> since JFK, LBJ, Carter, and even Nixon and Eisenhower governed to the left of Obama.</blockquote>
<div>
Personally, I think Prager's giving Clinton way to much credit. In terms of the New Left, it may make sense to exclude FDR, but really Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and Obama hold to the essentially statist thread of progressivism. The essence of progressivism is (and most progressive supporters may be unaware) reinterpreting the Constitution away from the limited government it explicitly sets forth to implicitly support a collectivist oligarchy. RationalWiki isn't there to explain to the not-savvy what they mean by "govern to the left." No matter how much Obama does for the progressive cause, it is a "blatant lie" that Obama is anything but a moderate. So much so that unless you are "solely obsessed" with national security (as leftists were before 2009), you liberals have got to embrace Obama's commitment to Sparkle Motion. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Note here also how Kevin Drum's rhetoric differs from the pre-2009 umbrage at <b>George Bush's unacceptable, reprehensible, fascist, extremist, imperialistic policies</b> for national security: "a <b>continuation</b> of the <b>mainstream</b> national security policy that <b>both parties </b>have endorsed for <b>decades</b> with only <b>minor</b> differences." This is how he describes what the progressives considered a cancer that Obama was going to root out. And when Obama gives us a "continuation" (more intrusion, data collection, news agency snooping, use of Patriot Act for things other than terrorism, but hey, we've thrown out the guidelines for interrogation so torture officially does not happen -- and therefore has no oversight or visibility), it suddenly is no big deal. Why? Because progressives are getting what really mattered to them all along. Because it's okay if your liberties are bought with presidential activism. As long as it's liberal activism. <br />
<br />
Now, Obama got seriously low numbers in 2010, leading to a sweeping change in the House. Democrats had no choice but to deny the connection entirely, of course, so they changed the rhetoric: People weren't legitimately upset -- their latent racism was finally bubbling up (just like it did for Hillary on Hillarycare). I sometimes wondered whether the typical progressive was really that over-the-top, but recently was invited out to eat with a group of progressives (nice people) who became very upset when the topic turned to people who don't like Obama. The explanation: Racism. A complete echo of the rhetoric. I wasn't part of that sidebar conversation (loud though it was). If the "I won" presidency was so antagonistic that the people's new Representatives couldn't deal with him, he didn't need to cave as Bill "End of Big Government" Clinton had to; <b>just ramp up the racist libel</b>. (You didn't actually fall for that unified America crap, did you?) But the racism charge didn't slow the Tea Party reaction to the ill-conceived Affordable Care, and after Andrew Breitbart started to expose the racist libel, they manufactured something more elaborate: the "spontaneous" Occupy protest (as spontaneous, it turns out, as the Benghazi "protest"). </div>
Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-68929803859750616712014-08-03T21:48:00.000-07:002014-08-15T21:57:19.321-07:00Free Gaza From Whom Exactly? <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEippnN9zLFCjedIEdwJ6-ytO__g_w49lu99tF7assY9P_aRUJKY8vc6LKicUGImpuza9S0VuZAz6jkRP9jCqffKVL-seuVu5qvuR1YFk0c1sqfCHnwfM8IkYDPI_YbhVTEbnCTDnzrPM9s/s1600/2009-01-08-hamas-firing-rockets-in-gaza-600.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEippnN9zLFCjedIEdwJ6-ytO__g_w49lu99tF7assY9P_aRUJKY8vc6LKicUGImpuza9S0VuZAz6jkRP9jCqffKVL-seuVu5qvuR1YFk0c1sqfCHnwfM8IkYDPI_YbhVTEbnCTDnzrPM9s/s1600/2009-01-08-hamas-firing-rockets-in-gaza-600.jpg" height="278" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 14px;">Over the past few weeks he received tens of emails from Gaza City acquaintances, even from Sajiyah, begging, literally begging, not to halt the operation prematurely – to please free them from the horror of living under Hamas. They are begging for us to finish the job because Hamas is too horrible to countenance. He showed me a video, smuggled out of Gaza, of Hamas police beating people to prevent them from leaving the area after an Israeli warning – I saw a pregnant woman beaten to death. - <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/25/stories-from-the-battlefield-the-horrors-of-hamas-tunnels/">Mordechai ben-Menachem</a></span></blockquote>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAfHG9MHTOX_5kLbOPiPtonXgoRH0IoRe6MQdRzFkW_gv2ip5R7xPSmA28cXzjQxhbNf5UoTmFc1bmPQiw-Bg-0njH652DqnpWmep8n6-Q3G1qNzSH2XCKSjlT6VR0tD5pW9WGh7iy0qI/s1600/hamasvsisrael.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAfHG9MHTOX_5kLbOPiPtonXgoRH0IoRe6MQdRzFkW_gv2ip5R7xPSmA28cXzjQxhbNf5UoTmFc1bmPQiw-Bg-0njH652DqnpWmep8n6-Q3G1qNzSH2XCKSjlT6VR0tD5pW9WGh7iy0qI/s1600/hamasvsisrael.jpg" height="130" width="200" /></a><span style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">If you are on the political Left in America, it is almost certain that you will not believe such a thing happens since that makes it difficult to keep <a href="http://www.truthrevolt.org/israel-revolt/dunetz-focusing-palestinian-casualties-condones-use-human-shields">focusing on the civilian casualties</a>; or you will have to believe it does not matter. Just like it doesn't matter what happens to Palestinian Arabs in Middle Eastern nations other than Israel, or what happens to Christians in those nations for that matter. Like Russell Brand, you can live in denial, because the media outlets you depend on aren't interested in such accounts either. Like Nancy Pelosi, you might think that Hamas is a <i>humanitarian organization </i>who vow to keep killing Jews until all of the former British Mandate of Palestine is under Islamic theocracy, simply because the Qataris and Turks say so. </span><br />
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Hamas’ state sponsors are Qatar and Turkey. Qatar is the bankroll. Turkey is the Hamas NATO representative; think about that! Turkey has also been a major supporter of ISIS and al Nusra. (<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/25/stories-from-the-battlefield-the-horrors-of-hamas-tunnels/">ibid</a>.)</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">What Iraqis do to Kurds, what Iranians do to gays, what sharia Muslim extremists do to Christians and their own women, what the Chinese do to the various peoples of various religions under their iron rule (e.g. Tibet) - none of it is nearly so interesting as to what Israelis lengths Israelis will go to protect their citizenry from deadly attacks. Comparatively, all other global suffering is a yawnfest. <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/obamas-alliance-with-boko-haram/">An Islamic group has to kidnap and rape a whole school full of children just to be tweetworthy by our Executive Branch and the factions they represent</a>. Even what Hamas do to the already troubled Palestinian people is not very interesting. </span><br />
<span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br />
</span> <span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Most Palestinians (presumably those who haven't been forced yet to act as human shields) may not realize how Hamas is destroying them. And even if they do realize now, it's possible that they deserve this misery, <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/are-the-gazans-who-voted-for-hamas-ever-responsible-for-their-actions/">having asked for it</a> by knowingly electing Hamas with its openly genocidal purpose. Either way, both Israelis and Palestine need to be free of the cancer that is Hamas. </span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJYQCbqu1jYBBRyEncmjGt4_U8bXnGJp5HrVL0OOvf09tPVIFZ999n8-xLb49B0X-k1ZonMMIK6PtTHV_q3d13_hay5KJkVCAYmw6OuUNaZDJpnMbgvegzM9XjbbRrq_dSah4pTfKVm9I/s1600/callforpeace-299x350.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJYQCbqu1jYBBRyEncmjGt4_U8bXnGJp5HrVL0OOvf09tPVIFZ999n8-xLb49B0X-k1ZonMMIK6PtTHV_q3d13_hay5KJkVCAYmw6OuUNaZDJpnMbgvegzM9XjbbRrq_dSah4pTfKVm9I/s1600/callforpeace-299x350.jpg" height="320" width="273" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Demonstrating for peace, Palestinian-style.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</span><br />
<br />Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-53295183051696461532014-08-01T12:52:00.000-07:002014-08-16T02:48:10.750-07:00Passive Anti-Semitism<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhj7xVre56jCm5NFyPLq5xchYzUnDhnNGJ2BBJuN_WHFhA6Mg3UVyQX83N8FYB2V-inkiwrDFmXgGwXR6jWQUclmDl2zngK3HXX3BDFM8xJirGpi6eNiBT2niGckcchHYaBhQEOzcYTr1M/s1600/lb0730cd20140729054058.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhj7xVre56jCm5NFyPLq5xchYzUnDhnNGJ2BBJuN_WHFhA6Mg3UVyQX83N8FYB2V-inkiwrDFmXgGwXR6jWQUclmDl2zngK3HXX3BDFM8xJirGpi6eNiBT2niGckcchHYaBhQEOzcYTr1M/s1600/lb0730cd20140729054058.jpg" height="242" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Mighty Kerry at the bat...</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors not out of strength, but out of weakness.”</blockquote>
Remember when Obama said to Romney about Russia: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back." <b>Maybe it’s time to call the </b><i><b>1980s</b> </i>to ask for our old foreign policy back. The one we have now is truly awful. It's <b>Obysmal </b>in fact. What does Obama have to say about Russia now? This flexing of power against their neighbors is, in his opinion, <a href="http://downtrend.com/brian-carey/abcs-jonathan-karl-asked-president-obama-if-mitt-romney-was-right-about-russia-you-might-laugh-at-the-answer/">a sign of their diminishing power, a sign of weakness</a>. Wow. When this guy shovels it, he uses both hands.<br />
<br />
Now, Russia and Iran have a new competitor for total foreign policy poochscr&w<b>:</b> Just how catastrophic can progressive foreign policy get in the Middle East? Well, Clinton bailed before she could find out the answer to that question, so enter 'Boston Strangler' Kerry. <b>Kerry and the President have said that Israel should be doing more to prevent Palestinian casualties, but haven't done us the service of saying what that is or why they think this</b>. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXh9f2iVhGiCFAJ-FR9uXQgDlDIqTT8CEMdXOzK0ru45UEe7di83KCzRLkNfaobg0zOJ5wKeJeO6ojQ3v0WT6VqK7QcNOjLlbB0Ec-ic9h4YfbarXXYtEgf7CyBZcA_Mm21Dv6HKPOS1k/s1600/140727underminedRGB20140728051849.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXh9f2iVhGiCFAJ-FR9uXQgDlDIqTT8CEMdXOzK0ru45UEe7di83KCzRLkNfaobg0zOJ5wKeJeO6ojQ3v0WT6VqK7QcNOjLlbB0Ec-ic9h4YfbarXXYtEgf7CyBZcA_Mm21Dv6HKPOS1k/s1600/140727underminedRGB20140728051849.jpg" height="242" width="320" /></a>Meanwhile various commentators are saying that fairness dictates comparing Palestinian deaths to Israeli deaths, not comparing <i>attempts </i>to kill and hostile aggressions. Apparently one is supposed to not remove the threat unless the terrorist attack <i><b>succeeds</b></i>, (just like one is only supposed to defend oneself if actually hit by a bullet). Sheik 'Yer Mami has a <a href="http://sheikyermami.com/so-tell-us-how-many-jews-do-israels-critics-want-to-die-before-israel-is-allowed-to-defend-itself/">cogent answer to this</a> biased assertion. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As almost the whole Arab world is shrinking back from the stink of Hamas, <b>Nancy Pelosi seems willing to take the Qataris' word that Hamas is a humanitarian organization</b> (maybe the Qataris are getting rich off of the deals that procure expensive weaponry for Hamas? Poor Nancy), while <b>Holocaust survivor <a href="http://www.algemeiner.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Elie-Wiesel-Hamas-Child-Sacrifice.pdf">Elie Wiesel is calling out Hamas for its tactics</a> that are responsible for the high civilian casualties</b>. </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In my own lifetime, I have seen Jewish children thrown into the fire. And now I have seen <b>Muslim children used as human shields</b>, in both cases, by <b>worshippers of death cults</b> indistinguishable from that of the Molochites. [emphasis mine]<br />
<a name='more'></a></blockquote>
<div>
But what of this constant need to paint as victims (and certainly many Palestinians have been <i>unwilling </i>victims of Hamas and militants, as the recent murder of protesting Palestinians by Hamas has demonstrated) the Syrian Pan-Arabist Muslims of the former British Mandate of Palestine (the Israelite territory passed from empire to empire till the 1940s) that we now call Palestinians? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The <b>recent open letter in which Spanish celebrities </b>have stated that the high civilian casualties are <b>not due to Hamas' use of civilian hostages but rather due to Israel's commitment to genocide</b> (which is laughable if you know anything about Hamas' charter or the Nazi propaganda used by Palestinian Arabs from the 1940s up to now) has recently stood out as the paragon of anti-Semitic victim politics. <b>Ben Shapiro </b>(who has already <a href="http://individualismislonely.blogspot.com/2014/03/ben-shapiro-blasts-ucla-for-anti.html">chastised his UCLA alumni</a> for this foolishness)<b> <a href="http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/salem-radio/dennis-prager-radio-show/episode/34992383#">discussed this on Dennis Prager's radio show today</a></b> [<span style="font-size: x-small;">bold emphasis mine</span>]. <br />
<blockquote>
<b>Prager: </b> Well, I have a problem, interestingly, with calling them [Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz] anti-Semites because it enables them to evade the evil that they committed [with the blood libel of “genocide”]. I don’t think they wake up every day thinking “How can we hurt Jews?” [But t]hey lied in the most horrific way about what Israel is doing. <b>If they don’t retract the charge [of genocide], I don’t care if every day they kiss a Jew, so it’s irrelevant to me what they <i>feel </i>about Jews.</b> They did a horrible thing to Israel.<br />
<br />
<b>Shapiro: </b>“But here’s the problem: Without labeling them <i>as such</i> they don’t respond. So if you just say, “What you said is anti-Israel and it’s a lie,” that draws no response because <b>these people work in the world of emotion</b>. So if you label them anti-Semitic, which is what their actions are, then they are driven to try and disown themselves. This is, unfortunately, this is why the Left is so effective, cause what Left does is they always go to intent. Right? They don’t like our policies, so it turns into “Well, you’re racist” or “you’re sexist” or “you’re bigoted” or you’re homophobic,” that’s very successful with the world. And I think that conservatives in general – we have a choice we can argue with the world as it’s currently constituted or we can deal with the world as it is. Dealing with the world as it is, if we … just say, “They are liars and they’re siding with evil,” they won’t care. [But i]f we say “Your intent is to hurt Jews,” which may or may not be true but is <i>certainly true in terms of effect</i>, then for some reason that has resonance with folks.<b> It’s a sad world that we live in where intent matters more</b> than action [i.e. effect], but that’s sort of where we’ve reached. . . . Dennis, I also think there’re two types of anti-Semitism. There’s the Muslim-in-the-Middle-East anti-Semitism: “All Jews are bad; I wake up in the morning trying to think how to hurt Jews” – and then there’s the <b>enabling anti-Semitism</b> of the Left which is basically <b>based in anti-Westernism</b>, which is “Anything Western is bad, and Israel is a repository of imperialism in the Middle East, and therefore it justifies what the Muslims are doing in the Middle East to Israel.” And <i>that</i>, it’s hard for me not to label <i>that </i>at least an attendant anti-Semitism.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b>Prager: </b>“No, no, look, if you isolate one state of the 220-odd states in the world – that, that is the only state being targeted for annihilation, then it’s a little naïve and disingenuous to say, “Oh, I love Jews but <a href="http://sheikyermami.com/everyone-expects-the-jews-to-be-the-only-real-christians-in-this-world/">if the Jewish state is isolated [i.e. singled out] for destruction and for libels</a>, I’m okay with it. I want to go back to this though, I want to make this clear for my listeners: They [Cruz and Bardem] did not retract what they said [that Israel is guilty of genocide].” So it’s nonsense what they [<a href="http://time.com/3069754/javier-bardem-penelope-cruz-gaza/">later</a>] said [about having nothing against Jews or Israelis]. It’s meaningless.”</blockquote>
<b>Post Script: </b> Are John Kerry and Javier Bardem extremists? It depends on what you mean. Relatively speaking, since radicalism has completely dominated the Democratic party, it is not fringe or atypical at all. It is in this environment that Democrats will say that the Tea Party's views are extremist, partly because many don't know what they are celebrating on July 4th and because many vehemently hate what we are celebrating on July 4th. Kerry and Bardem and Obama represent an aggregate of radical philosophies that have become all too popular since the totalitarianism started pretending to be libertarianism in the 1960s.. </div>
Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-70649969839307450622014-08-01T00:00:00.001-07:002014-08-21T08:24:50.012-07:00Why Do They Hate the Jews?.<br />
http://www.jewishjournal.com/dennis_prager/article/why_do_people_hate_israel<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #252324; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20.8px;">[Going back] to 2003, we find that another American president, named George W. Bush, directly addressed [the resurgence of anti-Semitism] in a speech at London’s Whitehall Palace on November 19 of that year. He not only warned of the return of anti-Semitism; he scolded European leaders for averting their eyes from it. “Leaders in Europe should withdraw all favor and support from any Palestinian ruler who fails his people and betrays their cause. And Europe's leaders -- and all leaders -- should strongly oppose anti-Semitism, which poisons public debates over the future of the Middle East.” (When I had the opportunity, at a White House reception, to thank Mr. Bush in person for these remarks, he replied that “it’s much worse there than you can imagine.”)</span><span style="color: #252324; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"> </span><span style="color: #252324; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: xx-small; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">[<a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/american-presidents-and-european-anti-semitism_802961.html">link</a>]</span></blockquote>
<br />
.<br />
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/american-presidents-and-european-anti-semitism_802961.html<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #252324; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">People have become inured to the quiet bigotry that Jews face, probably because they are pale skinned and often DON’T LOOK ANY DIFFERENT than most of us,” Bellerose wrote. “We have stopped taking it seriously when a Jew says, ‘What you just said makes me uncomfortable.’ Because they look just like us, it’s hard to understand that they could be targets, BECAUSE TO WESTERN PEOPLE IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE TO BE PREJUDICED AGAINST SOMEONE WHO LOOKS LIKE YOU. </span><span style="color: #252324; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: xx-small; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">[<a href="http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/08/14/philo-semite-becomes-a-jew-for-a-week-to-experience-anti-semitism-firsthand/">link</a>] </span></blockquote>
<span style="color: #252324; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><br />
</span> <span style="color: #252324; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20.799999237060547px;"><br />
</span> <br />
<br />
<br />
.Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-66910170963347905482014-08-01T00:00:00.000-07:002014-08-02T09:58:24.339-07:00Kristallnacht Reenacted in France on Small Scale<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5c_Ct0d6k4oXdrDT20N6tG_3JQDMfW0rYhVRi0zPQpNsI3KramXVLwNKvByolw9PTeiXu0kC7tsxQQrVCIZrPUKj-6-jiJNlpGl0WSQnX3MdxH9hJ8BtPi9jhRrvtTOlWQSmKsvhGWtk/s1600/Paris-shul-224x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5c_Ct0d6k4oXdrDT20N6tG_3JQDMfW0rYhVRi0zPQpNsI3KramXVLwNKvByolw9PTeiXu0kC7tsxQQrVCIZrPUKj-6-jiJNlpGl0WSQnX3MdxH9hJ8BtPi9jhRrvtTOlWQSmKsvhGWtk/s1600/Paris-shul-224x300.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">French lay siege to shul while Jews <br />
wait for police intervention.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Yep, French people who are likely Arab and Muslim have rallied in Paris to demonstrate for peace. They have apparently learned how to do this in Palestine since<a href="http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2014/07/kristallnacht-in-paris-2879812.html"> they think this involves</a> wrecking Jewish-owned shops, laying siege to a synagogue, and shouting "Death to Jews." <br />
<br />
While this pogrom was awful and scary, it simply reveal the anti-Semitism that France, and Europe, has been condoning there all along by implicitly agreeing with Palestinians about Israel and not being vocal against Hamas. <br />
<br />
They are in fact so used to tiptoeing around Hamas, that they may say little about the shooting of Palestinian dissenters by Hamas. Stick to criticizing Israel and the U.S. It's safer. <br />
<br />
Yes, this is bad. But the timing is really good <b><i>if </i></b>it can successfully draw attention to the situation that even people in the U.S. have been trying so hard to ignore.<br />
<br />
What is keeping this situation going? The unqualified, uncritical support for the Palestinian cause by Westerners in Europe and the U.S. This Palestinian goal of the destruction of Israel is simply unacceptable and it simply should not be accepted. If the Palestinians can't keep their people from attacking Israel, they should be occupied or sent to Syria. Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-17137126139211622912014-07-29T23:13:00.000-07:002014-08-15T21:59:53.096-07:00'Crap Prophet', Andres Serrano Does Islam<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJ4Fbhx16LSGVWr1H-ipsFXfIzhzkuULNV-gB3W1B4OewPpMjr2rN9v1fBI1eEcuU_m_UCadB-khjMntzWVAFPlDpbIXTOZW977VOsUOfN_7FN81hwd-WF4euLUFIiSZ27dbZxvAXzz64/s1600/koran_bible_toilet.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJ4Fbhx16LSGVWr1H-ipsFXfIzhzkuULNV-gB3W1B4OewPpMjr2rN9v1fBI1eEcuU_m_UCadB-khjMntzWVAFPlDpbIXTOZW977VOsUOfN_7FN81hwd-WF4euLUFIiSZ27dbZxvAXzz64/s1600/koran_bible_toilet.jpg" height="242" width="320" /></a></div>
It has been my theory that who the Left demonizes has a lot to do with who they fear and don't fear. The network allows South Park to depict Jesus as weak and foolish, but does not allow them to depict Mohammed visually at all. Obama speaks against those who "blaspheme the Prophet" but doesn't condemn anyone that treats Jesus sacrilegiously. Leftist Europe "courageously" condemns Israel and says nothing about the human rights violations of the Palestinians, nor says anything in any way to upset Muslim Arabs (now about 1/6th of France's population). <br />
<br />
If the mass mutilation of unborn infants results in a religious American going nuts, it demonstrates (to the Left) the backwardness of Christianity. No number of lunatics killing non-Muslims in the name of Islam because they make a sacrilegious cartoon or refuse to convert to Islam ever seems to reflect negatively on Islam or any Arab country's culture. 20% of Muslims in Europe may support violent jihad, but it doesn't matter as it is the proverbial elephant in the room. <br />
<br />
If a Christian would've gone on a rampage over the government-sponsored "art" exhibit that included Serrano's "Piss Christ" (literally a crucifix immersed in urine), that would've reflected poorly on Christianity. (Actually <a href="http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1189">any "white" person would do</a>, the media would just assume he was Christian.) If a Muslim would've gone on a rampage over a pastor burning the Koran, that also would've reflected poorly on <i>Christianity </i>somehow, since whenever a Muslim goes crazy, he was obviously driven to it by some Westerner's actions and is not really responsible for his own actions. <br />
<br />
What I suggest is this: Earmark the tax money from Muslim Americans to finance a special religious tolerance art exhibit which will <b>include an image of the Prophet fashioned from excrement called "Crap Prophet"</b> which will be as good and mind-expanding for the Muslim community as "Piss Christ" was good for the Christian community. (Maybe a few items from Mapplethorpe as well: perhaps some LGBT interpretations of Mohammed.) It will be the perfect opportunity for Muslims 'round the world to demonstrate peace and tolerance for freedom of expression. <br />
<br />
Insult Islam? Absolutely not. I'm talking about exposing their religion to the lofty heights of art. I'm talking about <i>art</i>, people. <i>Art. </i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4ldVTkHBi8NMUIPJdDTt7R3R_3N3KmUrRKvuO5veRG9fNkWI5odswtwqVKcRbae7L2cwKEGpDB6OGBWinECADCjUvRJLLNw_cWydjWO2a10FdVmnyRXPMQvrWko8q1KTp7Y6ytydUctM/s1600/one.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4ldVTkHBi8NMUIPJdDTt7R3R_3N3KmUrRKvuO5veRG9fNkWI5odswtwqVKcRbae7L2cwKEGpDB6OGBWinECADCjUvRJLLNw_cWydjWO2a10FdVmnyRXPMQvrWko8q1KTp7Y6ytydUctM/s1600/one.gif" height="151" width="320" /></a></div>
Note: It is possible that by exercising my 1st Amendment rights in this way I will be the cause of some protest that spontaneously turns into a major 'act of terror' and the President will have to get Eric Holder on the line and tell him to find some law that I've broken (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ">which shouldn't be difficult</a>) in order to "bring the guilty parties to justice." Until then, keep chanting that Islam is a religion of peace. Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-49199188265293313612014-07-29T22:31:00.000-07:002014-08-16T02:38:59.584-07:00Terrorism and the Southern Poverty Law Center<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5THpHE7wxceEEudTY0sBsDTpbcx8V3TIz_u_hA4VvO1nq2t9iKrYecdrcHiIOMRU929jmoy9JR1My_7cCgZmRIheRHooXBIVixglG3H5AT93VgBZgyD0IRKgKp6uokGI8D6tc4YO7Nso/s1600/lynchin-2010-20445581804.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5THpHE7wxceEEudTY0sBsDTpbcx8V3TIz_u_hA4VvO1nq2t9iKrYecdrcHiIOMRU929jmoy9JR1My_7cCgZmRIheRHooXBIVixglG3H5AT93VgBZgyD0IRKgKp6uokGI8D6tc4YO7Nso/s1600/lynchin-2010-20445581804.jpeg" height="235" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
It is problematic on the face of it to try to make Timothy McVeigh the face of heartland Christianity. <br />
<br />
Digging deeper, I'm skeptical that McVeigh was not set up to take the fall for a staged terrorism event to make America think that it's biggest threats were not overseas. The Waco incident in which the government incinerated women and children in order to confiscate guns caused an upsurge of militia movements in the heartland and general skepticism in the public mind that the administration knew what it was doing. <br />
<br />
There are indications that McVeigh believed himself to be, up to the time of the Oklahoma City bombing, in the employ of the U.S. government to infiltrate militia groups. A week or two after the incident that huge manhunt for McVeigh's witnessed accomplices abruptly ended and was instantly forgotten by the press. The following year, first responder policeman Terrance Yeakey claimed to be harrassed over his investigation into things that didn't fit with his memory of events the day of the bombing and "<a href="http://tytruth.com/">committed suicide" in a very curious manner</a>.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ3VBdwqZ-ejppbnv9ZGr8cJro6MXQtB23LCgh49DyUzCc3HtguC31lfHYldQeBVxQ0LOYznh7YNp0heeGtCfTakSGnPf5oxKLbHK9fh6j1Z3bIx-vSXUZy-iw9DjIW6YCYgQtWwwjHNA/s1600/splctee.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ3VBdwqZ-ejppbnv9ZGr8cJro6MXQtB23LCgh49DyUzCc3HtguC31lfHYldQeBVxQ0LOYznh7YNp0heeGtCfTakSGnPf5oxKLbHK9fh6j1Z3bIx-vSXUZy-iw9DjIW6YCYgQtWwwjHNA/s1600/splctee.jpg" height="200" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
On a similar note, McVeigh told <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/trial-seeks-fbi-tape-showing-mcveigh-accomplice/">Kenneth Trentadue</a>'s brother the real reason he "hanged himself" in his jail cell (presumably after torturing and unmercifully beating himself). Trentadue's unexpected phone call from McVeigh was just one piece of many independent pieces leading him back to the FBI, the ATF, <a href="http://www.coachisright.com/leftist-southern-poverty-law-center-was-underground-partner-of-clinton-fbi/">and the Southern Poverty Law Center</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Upon being leaked a redacted copy of the Freeh teletype, Trentadue filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full document and any other information held by the Oklahoma City FBI field office pertaining to the SPLC, specifically, “all documents about any connection between the Southern Poverty Law Center and eight named individuals from the OKBOMB and BOMBROB investigations or a white supremacist compound in Elohim City, Okla.” (3) </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When the FBI declared no such Freeh teletype existed, Trentadue produce his copy and an enraged US district court Judge Dale Kimball ordered the FBI to produce all responsive documentation. Though the FBI later admitted in response to Kimball’s order that some 340 documents had been discovered, the Bureau has been fighting the judge’s ruling they be turned over ever since the 2005 filing. [<a href="http://www.coachisright.com/leftist-southern-poverty-law-center-was-underground-partner-of-clinton-fbi/">here</a>]</blockquote>
In the documentary film <i><b>A Noble Lie</b></i>, Trentadue emphasizes that his trail kept pulling him <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2004/01/22643/">back to the SPLC</a>, <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2004/01/22643/">which trail seems to keep popping up</a>, even linking to the CIA. What's especially curious about this is that the <b>SPLC was in the middle of a much more recent case of domestic terrorism: their "hate map" </b>showing progressive activists where to find people upon which unleash their hate <a href="http://www.westernjournalism.com/bloody-hands-the-southern-poverty-law-center/">instigated the <b>attack by Floyd Corkins</b></a>, who planned to <b>humiliate, torment, and murder </b>the workers at Family Research Council in an attempt to terrorize for his political views on same-sex marriage.<br />
<a name='more'></a> <br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgyGgySML9G37EWTWNzj_Ks1jwLmRCe6UnGE9VGNTUNDLdf8I3JSvr_sdvVfSc0LuA-LWZGiy-FVbEW64NtJb8niut7WsTmYWOu1kyoo2al8p8LHQULGgsHY-SRJ6xMuBdmaxFgjzsw2I/s1600/081912_Hate_Group-thumb-250x178-27236.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgyGgySML9G37EWTWNzj_Ks1jwLmRCe6UnGE9VGNTUNDLdf8I3JSvr_sdvVfSc0LuA-LWZGiy-FVbEW64NtJb8niut7WsTmYWOu1kyoo2al8p8LHQULGgsHY-SRJ6xMuBdmaxFgjzsw2I/s1600/081912_Hate_Group-thumb-250x178-27236.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Typical SPLC-type propaganda</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The SPLC has had a longstanding relationship with the government since the Clinton glory days of Waco and Ruby Ridge. The Floyd Corkins event was embarrassingly enough to <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/splc-insists-it-still-works-with-fbi-after-christian-groups-protest-inappropriate-relationship-on-website-116951/">force the Obama administration to keep their relationship with the SPLC less obvious</a>. The hate map was obviously <a href="http://americansfortruth.com/2010/03/24/splc-plays-politics-with-hate-labels-americans-for-truth-a-hate-site/">meant to inspire subtler expressions of hate and intimidation</a>.<br />
<br />
But the SPLC is at the forefront of promoting the new Obama-era definition of the homegrown terrorist threat: namely that it is people who believe in the Constitution, who are critical of the government, or who fear the expansion of government power that are the likely enemies of the state. The SPLC is devoted to showing how the "radical right" (not at all interested in the "radical left" or in eco-terrorism) <b><a href="http://www.gcmwatch.com/9943/southern-poverty-law-center-pushes-hate-media-pogrom-against-former-homosexuals">and Christianity</a></b> is the source of danger -- they will rid the world of hate by <a href="http://www.gcmwatch.com/9943/southern-poverty-law-center-pushes-hate-media-pogrom-against-former-homosexuals">destroying the reputations of those hateful people</a> who believe in limited government or cultural values not dictated by the Left by associating them with racism and Aryanism (including people who <a href="http://www.novatownhall.com/blog/2006/04/discrimination_against_exgays.php">identify themselves as "former homosexuals</a>" or "ex-gay"). <br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgasErYSIheg3BpJUCKaKO0fUhJJKN0Nu3Mbg-fFE3l4QM4w8K7aCWYf2kZtUMQQ3EgRgTtbjuNoVRKObDEwAVrp_uRZv_eOeGUEIc_GOJ2yVvXIAM25KcQNDfygXGSXJazsUVZ968GFKU/s1600/a_tragic_day.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgasErYSIheg3BpJUCKaKO0fUhJJKN0Nu3Mbg-fFE3l4QM4w8K7aCWYf2kZtUMQQ3EgRgTtbjuNoVRKObDEwAVrp_uRZv_eOeGUEIc_GOJ2yVvXIAM25KcQNDfygXGSXJazsUVZ968GFKU/s1600/a_tragic_day.png" height="155" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy">Guilt by association</a> tactics</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
They are and have been, predictably, on the forefront of conflating conservatism with Aryanism and (by association) fascism as well. And the Oklahoma City bombing has been <b><i>good </i></b>for business. <i>Really good. </i>(If it hadn't been, maybe political pressure to pull the trigger on bin Laden would have swayed Bill Clinton in 1998.)<br />
<br />
<b>Perhaps the Oklahoma City connection shows how far they've been willing all along</b> to convince the American people to empower the government to stop any American group that threatens its progressive march for power. Is there <b>any clue in the name of the SPLC</b> to its agenda of undermining faith, conservatism, and governmental limitation? I think the otherwise <i>non sequitur </i>word "<b>poverty</b>," emphasizing the leftists' concern over economic equality (also denoted by the "scales" symbol) and "social justice," <b>link its Alinskyan "anti-hate"agenda to Marxism</b>. Marxism (i.e. collectivist materialism) is essentially <a href="http://individualismislonely.blogspot.com/2013/05/marxism-means-destruction-of-family.html">the replacement of family and village with an omnipotent justice-determining State</a>, all in the name of material equality.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29fXGqndic26zoWixvUEM0FBSW3V5p0I33mJmsnJRnCuQF7MyoDEpUSpqYhO4mQlHHrdC0GIwv3gFpFo_9OCmCvL7AsMaf2u1hQ7G7jY3sR-sNp3l5044lk42ukekfuBcVR3-vrN0rgw/s1600/SPLC-Gina.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29fXGqndic26zoWixvUEM0FBSW3V5p0I33mJmsnJRnCuQF7MyoDEpUSpqYhO4mQlHHrdC0GIwv3gFpFo_9OCmCvL7AsMaf2u1hQ7G7jY3sR-sNp3l5044lk42ukekfuBcVR3-vrN0rgw/s1600/SPLC-Gina.jpg" height="121" width="320" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyCAoe8dmWoQ-h56cmvAAyTU27bIIfNcf9E9IfatpBJL_i-StBaJCVmKAqIKMFfCahbawW-s-p9RlMPER1_nqgEI-AKWHQf9C_aKlHO7FzEy8h6hVngmG-kDsxps_QxrcZio3TOxc7Vfo/s1600/splc.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyCAoe8dmWoQ-h56cmvAAyTU27bIIfNcf9E9IfatpBJL_i-StBaJCVmKAqIKMFfCahbawW-s-p9RlMPER1_nqgEI-AKWHQf9C_aKlHO7FzEy8h6hVngmG-kDsxps_QxrcZio3TOxc7Vfo/s1600/splc.jpg" height="150" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-15082258659230520322014-07-26T00:36:00.000-07:002014-08-09T12:53:56.476-07:00Robert Downey Jr. Selflessly Offers Other People's Money<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPLIBBx6aT95eMF-WNZfs27biZslZkvDKNmjS1jHd7IOxGs9ueuY99pEUT0MHKgmY8LTWcVyNGC7F7F1jpKPwUV8H_bGclwP39XqJ4Sby1n8w1aQYrLt3bqzZcWTugi5BSX9U5313QS7s/s1600/GhdGbBSxNnA.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPLIBBx6aT95eMF-WNZfs27biZslZkvDKNmjS1jHd7IOxGs9ueuY99pEUT0MHKgmY8LTWcVyNGC7F7F1jpKPwUV8H_bGclwP39XqJ4Sby1n8w1aQYrLt3bqzZcWTugi5BSX9U5313QS7s/s1600/GhdGbBSxNnA.jpg" height="152" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Robert Downey Jr has "heroically" campaigned against the meager 6-figure payments that his fellow movie stars received for <i>Avengers </i>compared to his 8-figure deal.<br />
<br />
Why does this strike me as ridiculous? Because there is a simpler, more honest way that Downey can make for equality. He can simply divide up whatever ridiculous amount the studio pays him for <i>Avengers 2 </i>and share it with his worthy colleagues. <br />
<br />
In fact, he can split the $50 million that he was already paid for the first <i>Avengers </i>among his co-stars who were paid a paltry $200,000 to run around in costumes and be the toast of the town. (I'm tellin' you, the Man has <i>really </i>got them down.) Which co-stars are worth including in this charity pool, Downey can decide for himself, of course. <br />
<br />
Why was Downey paid so much more? Because with him the studio execs feel strangely generous, or because replacing him (who has practically built the <i>Iron Man </i>franchise and therefore the <i>Avengers </i>franchise) is costlier to the money-making potential of the film than replacing anyone else? How <i>much </i>costlier? Look at the payment to find out. The studio has a budget for production that competes with a budget for paying actors, both of which compete with the expected intake of money. In terms of a limited budget, the more they pay Downey for his continued participation in the franchise, the less they have in their budget to entice the future participation of the other actors. It <b><i>is</i></b> "zero sum," and instead of volunteering his own ludicrous share, Downey opted to pressure the studios into taking on more risk. <br />
<br />
Sure it's his fortune to gamble. But don't you just feel sorry for those actors struggling by on six figures? Why, that wouldn't even begin to pay for one of poor Hillary's many homes.<br />
<br />
But Downey was worried about fairness.<br />
<br />
When I read things like Downey's generosity with other people's money instead of his own, especially with these ridiculous overpaid actors speaking against those who get rich off of corporations and capitalism, I think that these people should put their money where their mouth is:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>The Frivolous Pay Law: </b> For anyone <b>in the movies, in music recording, in the arts, in sports, or in politics </b>making over $300,000 (that is, mainly people who don't have to deal so directly with the consequences of of the economically illiterate policies they advocate) in a single year (this is 20% greater than the $250,000 mark our President favors), <b><i>everything </i></b>over that $300,000 goes to the IRS. </blockquote>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZLPtzWS4q7_aWpHYQJBSYW3IJtcVJocGcIaj46Ek1jaL3Gk1quvcRtkLw2fv2TE8kEkvazY5r5jyDF7C7AD142Q_7FoBLntv_6v9AL2MBgA3i7cDctHJn7A1N13gpwhvwdQqdwlsMYrI/s1600/downey-jr-money.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZLPtzWS4q7_aWpHYQJBSYW3IJtcVJocGcIaj46Ek1jaL3Gk1quvcRtkLw2fv2TE8kEkvazY5r5jyDF7C7AD142Q_7FoBLntv_6v9AL2MBgA3i7cDctHJn7A1N13gpwhvwdQqdwlsMYrI/s1600/downey-jr-money.jpg" height="200" width="150" /></a>Because at some point <b>you've made enough money</b>, as someone once said. Because you <b>didn't earn that</b>, as someone once said. You got there through luck and through money illicitly gained from the rest of us through manipulative corporate advertising. Your movie crews travel on vehicles and roads the rest of us built. Because <b>you've got to eat your peas</b>. Because we got all this here debt to pay. Uh-huh. Lead the way, ye selfless beings. Show us how it's done. Physician, heal thyself. You first.<br />
<br />
Is there really such a shortage of good actors that we have to recycle the same actors over and over to make them into their own brand names? Are they really so special and indispensable that they have to make more on one movie than most of us will see in several decades? If anyone is overpaid ...<br />
<br />
Just have that law in place for eight years (as long as the rest of us have had to deal with some notable politicians these people financed for us), and see what good it does. See if these luminaries of egalitarian righteousness can stand only making a measly $300,000 like the rest of us yokels. Just for eight short years to help make up for several years of trillion-dollar deficits.<br />
<br />Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-31452160625862003192014-07-05T20:03:00.000-07:002015-05-16T01:28:29.427-07:00Liberal Fascism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjybWdXxyaWDjjelSZu8ZczmPdVKeLNtjPX3jeeAu9tG8Umbi7t_HOzCIUr0WoAIBm5f9LGorFjHTymsOsS7FR7VGNb0qU8LwNkiv0pzElUt88OVCdLLgEFK1ZStLnJ1LF6x_oSdV-zWmo/s1600/obama+flag.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="243" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjybWdXxyaWDjjelSZu8ZczmPdVKeLNtjPX3jeeAu9tG8Umbi7t_HOzCIUr0WoAIBm5f9LGorFjHTymsOsS7FR7VGNb0qU8LwNkiv0pzElUt88OVCdLLgEFK1ZStLnJ1LF6x_oSdV-zWmo/s1600/obama+flag.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
It's instructive what happens when someone starts to connect the dots and question the narrative, in this case the "Fascism is on the Right" narrative. I had heard this one so much I thought maybe there was some truth to it. I had never heard, in college or anywhere else, anything as nuanced and complicated as historian Robert Paxton decides to elucidate here in his review of Jonah Goldberg's <i>Liberal Fascism</i>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Goldberg likes to put things into rigid boxes: right and left, conservative and liberal, fascist and non-fascist. He doesn’t leave room for such complexities as convergences, middle grounds, or evolution over time. . . . The very mention of a “Third Way” puts one instantly into the fascist box. [Is "reaching across the aisle" a third way, or are there only two ways?] . . . Fascism – a political latecomer that adapted anti-socialism to a mass electorate, using means that often owed nothing to conservatism – drew on both right and left, and tried to transcend that bitter division in a purified, invigorated, expansionist national community. A sensitive analysis of what fascism drew from all quarters of the political spectrum would be a valuable project.</blockquote>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirmBWrOruDC7bS257EGoB37C4JhyZ5Jo48X4OwxlqX0OoDHvuycTWBF-hXB6b6I20R7Ws3cx1sLQFNPTkwCea3nJRWlSHzgmzdnJn0gsa_F-Xno1Ds6d4zsD26-0NURwV1Yc4tRgg5vhQ/s1600/fascism_in_a_nutshell_by_deltahd-d7nidnw.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="120" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirmBWrOruDC7bS257EGoB37C4JhyZ5Jo48X4OwxlqX0OoDHvuycTWBF-hXB6b6I20R7Ws3cx1sLQFNPTkwCea3nJRWlSHzgmzdnJn0gsa_F-Xno1Ds6d4zsD26-0NURwV1Yc4tRgg5vhQ/s1600/fascism_in_a_nutshell_by_deltahd-d7nidnw.png" width="200" /></a>Paxton mourns the loss of an opportunity for Goldberg to complicate this subject. Well, there have been ample opportunities for liberals in the political discourse to describe national socialism and fascism as things that don't fit on either the right or left. Suddenly, it's Goldberg's responsibility to create a third box. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
For example, “Liberals . . . claim” that free-market economics is fascist (p. 22). Could we please have a few examples of “liberals” who say this?</blockquote>
Ummmm. Did the last ten years not just happen? Somehow Paxton thinks that liberal pundits and bloggers are typically as erudite as he is. Here is what I've gleaned from the leftosphere over the last ten years, very similar though intensified from the ten years before that:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Hitler was on the Right. Hitler loved corporations. Fascism is corporation friendly. Capitalism equals cronyism. These freedoms that allow corporations to use invested money to hire people to make products -- it's not about economic liberty. Anything that supports the right for individuals to wield their economic liberty corporately is really just a smokescreen for those who want to distribute the wealth from poor people to rich people. We can't make the marketplace <i>fair </i>without giving government <i>carte blanche </i>control over corporations. Free-market capitalism is radical conservatism. Fascism is radical conservatism. Connect the dots.</blockquote>
As more and more Gen Xers found themselves "informed" by Michael Moore, they echoed notions like these. But it isn't limited to the young soundbitten Obama-ites. These notions are reflected in the responses to the <i>Citizens United </i>case, and reflected by Ginsberg in her objections to the <i>Hobby Lobby </i>ruling, and in think pieces and NY Times op eds based on the <i>non sequitur</i> slogan "corporations aren't people."<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Look across all the backlash to the <i>Hobby Lobby </i>decision. Liberals want everyone to believe that as soon as you incorporate, your liberties should be up for grabs: the right to follow your conscience in a direction liberals don't approve of, the right to safeguard your identity from political enemies like Hillary Clinton (e.g. <i>Citizens United </i>case), etc. The only right you should ever retain is the right to do business exactly as the government tells you to. Because "corporations aren't people", the Constitution doesn't protect you once you incorporate.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
. . . ["fascism" and "liberalism"] are two of the most problematical words in the political lexicon. To his credit, Goldberg is aware that the term “liberal” has been corrupted in contemporary American usage. It ought to mean (and still means in the rest of the world) a <b>principled opposition to state interference in the economy [note: fascism is adamantly opposed to this principle]</b>, from Adam Smith to Ronald Reagan. Goldberg . . . has capitulated to the sloppy current American usage by which “liberal” means, usually pejoratively nowadays, any and all of the various components of the Left, from anarchists and Marxists to moderate Democrats. </blockquote>
This use of Liberalism isn't a result of sloppiness. It is a term intentionally commandeered by the Left to mask their Progressivism under a guise of Libertarianism. When Hillary Clinton distances herself from the term "Liberal" it isn't because the term is <i>sloppy </i>but because during the Reagan era progressive "liberalism" had been largely discredited and leftists found that over the years the public had forgotten any negative connotations in the term "progressive." Any "sloppiness" was intentional. "Classic liberalism" is rather in line with the 'republicanism' of our Founders, and progressivism was anti-liberal in the original sense--which is why progressives were originally enamored with Mussolini and Hitler and continue to be enamored with socialist dictators. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The following statement <i>should </i>thoroughly discredit Paxton, and exemplifies why we should be skeptical of the claims of academics who have been the vanguard for distancing fascism from progressivism:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Liberal Fascism is an oxymoron, of course. A fascism that means no harm is a contradiction in terms. Authentic fascists intend to harm those whom they define as the nation’s internal and external enemies. Someone who doesn’t intend to harm his or her enemies, and who doesn’t relish doing it violently, isn’t really fascist. </blockquote>
<div>
Doesn't <i>relish </i>it? As long as you put on a sad face at bulldozing a compound in Waco, Texas as an unfortunate necessity, it isn't <i>really </i>fascist. It's not fascist if you mean well. If you assume powers that aren't really granted to you by the Constitution to by pass the will of the people, it isn't fascist as long as you are a good person. If you deliberately stock the Supreme Court to undermine the economic liberty of citizens, to place their welfare entirely within reach of a benevolent central government, it isn't fascist because you are trying to make the world a more just place. If your program involves using the power of the State to imprison for noncooperation with progressive agenda, it isn't really a violent use of force, and couldn't be fascist. If you force people to undergo sterilizations (viz-a-viz 20th century Progressives), it isn't fascism if it's for the public good. If you voice too loudly the "right to revolution" that was embraced (with lip service) even by Abraham Lincoln, and by those who came before him, you just might fit the current description of terrorism and be eligible for "indefinite detention." (And it will be so much more easy to jail these trouble makers once we repeal that outdated 2nd Amendment.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Just to be clear, when Sean Penn endorses jailing citizens who are critical of a "benevolent" dictator, that is fascist, right? When Woody Allen endorses giving progressive leaders dictatorial powers (Chancellor Obama?) that is fascist, yes? (Talk about holding your liberty cheap.) The use of lawsuits to cow individuals and corporations (such as gun stores) into certain progressive agenda (e.g. making loans likely to produce a housing bubble) is fascist, yes? The use of the IRS to intimidate citizens from criticizing and reforming progressive government is fascist, yes? The use of the DOJ to passively endorse Brownshirt, er, I mean, Black Panther intimidation of voters is fascist, yes? No, if the Obama administration chooses to "punish their enemies," it's only fascist if they relish that punishment. Lois Lerner is only fascist if she relishes getting away with power abuse. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Fascism was certainly <i>presented </i>by fascists as an alternative to Marxist socialism, and so Mussolini marketed fascism as a right-of-center totalitarianism, an alternative to leftwing totalitarianism that would avoid the chaos of the French Revolution and Bolshevik Revolution. Government would not assume ownership of the means of production. Government officials would simply have <i>ultimate say </i>(getting rid of those pesky property rights) over what was good for the economy, intruding only when certain too-big-to-fail industries weren't working in the best interest of the public good: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production. . . . State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. --<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doctrine_of_Fascism">Mussolini, 1935</a></blockquote>
This is rather like the nationalization of Israel's healthcare industry, in which the "private" companies were recently found to be tricking immigrant women into taking contraceptives they didn't want. In a state founded by a mixture of merchants and radical communists, this centralized collectivist control of industry in Israel is not surprising, and neither is inevitable commandeering of private enterprise for population control, er, I mean, <i>national healthcare interests</i>. It also brings to mind the nationalizing of America's banking (run by quasi-governmental entities neither political party wants to help Ron Paul audit), diseased with graft, corruption, political intimidation and intrigue. Why is it so hard to audit the Federal Reserve? Why is it so easy for the IRS to cover the digital tracks of their improprieties?<br />
<br />
If you'll pay attention, Paxton accuses (or defends?) Mussolini as someone that really didn't interfere too much with nationalized business, having more or less turned "CEOs" into his business czars. Whenever you hear academics or politicians describe fascists as <i><b>friendly </b></i>to Big Business, realize that they are trying to play down the assumption of absolute control through destruction of property rights and inalienable economic rights. Question why they are doing it. And question whether they mean a <b><i>friendliness </i></b>fundamentally different from Barack Obama's bail-out-and-control relationship with Wall Street and Big Business.<br />
<br />
When Mussolini asserted he was against liberalism, he is referring to "classical liberalism" or libertarianism, as Paxton means "liberalism." Inalienable individual rights constitute the "liberalism" that fascism is intrinsically and adamantly opposed to, not the progressive liberalism of today (which, if anything, is a just useful means to progressing towards fascism). <u>If there is anything that fascism borrows from conservative thinking, it is the idea that a <i>simple</i> majoritarian rule is chaotic and destructive</u>.<br />
<br />
Disabused of this fanciful utopianism, instead of a representative republic (as in the American Constitution) that protects the minority against the majority be governmental restraints, fascism turns toward "authoritarian democracy" which is eerily like the government the last Constitutional professor (Woodrow Wilson) wanted to give us. Woodrow Wilson was a typical 20th century progressive who envisioned an omnipotent elite group that would assume any powers necessary to bring about the "will of the people," inventing <i>ad hoc r</i>egulations not written by the people's representatives. Did Wilson, brilliant academic that he was, foresee any necessity in keeping the growing regulatory apparatus of the ruling elite from actively shaping the opinions of the populace to steer them toward the legislation and judicial findings they <i><b>should</b> </i>want? No. Wilson did not believe in separation of powers or checks and balances. (In short, he believed in a radical deconstruction of the Constitution, as did Franklin Roosevelt.)<br />
<br />
Recall that modern "public" (i.e. government) education grew from the same coercive Reconstructionist nationalism that Progressivism grew out of. With the post-Civil War South utterly beaten into submission, neither the 10th Amendment nor a strict reading of Constitutional powers posed much threat to the Henry Clay Whigs in the new <b><i>National </i></b>Republican coalition, but the children of the subjugated South and the children of the mass-imported immigrants needed to be told how to think now. In the 1960s, the ability of the government to steer the next generation's thinking away from their parents' thinking would be indispensable to the Progressives now referring to themselves ironically as "Liberals."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsleFt7d1dUQB5_RZ_yuyBGzvGWrHoV_rD5X-y12oYb8zC8Y-owULck4RzndyWHO-8lharJLfonBsnOmQacazYj5TV1fWG9vr_NxwpdoIukWSPkn6cZQ4Ti5Yw1ub1ftmeSYCpvHA7xMU/s1600/external.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsleFt7d1dUQB5_RZ_yuyBGzvGWrHoV_rD5X-y12oYb8zC8Y-owULck4RzndyWHO-8lharJLfonBsnOmQacazYj5TV1fWG9vr_NxwpdoIukWSPkn6cZQ4Ti5Yw1ub1ftmeSYCpvHA7xMU/s1600/external.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="brayton"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsleFt7d1dUQB5_RZ_yuyBGzvGWrHoV_rD5X-y12oYb8zC8Y-owULck4RzndyWHO-8lharJLfonBsnOmQacazYj5TV1fWG9vr_NxwpdoIukWSPkn6cZQ4Ti5Yw1ub1ftmeSYCpvHA7xMU/s1600/external.png" /></a> <b>Ed Brayton</b> is a man who stopped being a comedian because his jokes were too intelligent to be understood by the common American, or so he claims. So he's turned to blogging, and one of his several listed accomplishments (in the leftwing bubbleverse) is making fun of Chuck Norris. In one post, after praising Thomas Sowell for differentiating between textbook socialism and fascism, he <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/06/14/sowell-obama-not-socialist-hes-fascist/">condemns Sowell</a> for conflating fascist intrusion with <i>well-intentioned </i>policies. Since Brayton doesn't bother to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate intrusion into economic affairs, one presumes that his brand of "freethinking" doesn't recognize fascism until it marches in with jackboots and says something that progressives might confuse with a conservative ideas. For Brayton, forcing corporations to violate their owners' conscience and religious values is presumably no different from keeping corporations from dumping toxic waste or committing fraud. Which begs the question: What actually forces government to draw the line? If creative "empathetic" judicial interpretations can gut the restraining power of the Constitution, what checks the NSA, the IRS, the Federal Reserve, the IPAB, our debt-escalating Congress, the BATF, the corrupt DOJ, or even the current Nixonian executive order dispenser-in-chief? <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWiwkqkl1IJG8Uh1pICpJtewTHQ9cG4l3LpQ03K2wLlI0txRLFbHGhhwjr8KbE-lxPj95fhhlD131ZsLILo0QTrcN3aC8adFkAelfh7zxrpJfpoR2jrHG6fW8F8iCHhcDIDacnhb9AszQ/s1600/fascism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> <img border="0" height="396" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWiwkqkl1IJG8Uh1pICpJtewTHQ9cG4l3LpQ03K2wLlI0txRLFbHGhhwjr8KbE-lxPj95fhhlD131ZsLILo0QTrcN3aC8adFkAelfh7zxrpJfpoR2jrHG6fW8F8iCHhcDIDacnhb9AszQ/s1600/fascism.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Note: The above "meme" is no doubt based on the similar Sarah Palin "meme" which has a cross photoshopped into Palin's hand (the mention of "cross" is also an addition to the original misquote). The above photo has the advantage that it relies on WYSIWYG images from the Obama photo op machine. Some versions of this carry over the "1835" anachronism (neither Lewis nor 'fascism' per se was around in 1835) from the Palin meme. As far as I can determine, the only Lewis quote that comes close is “. . . the worst Fascists were they who disowned the word ‘Fascism’ and preached enslavement to Capitalism under the style of Constitutional and Traditional Native American Liberty.” (Was Lewis one of those mysterious capitalism-as-fascism progressives Paxton wants identified?) One of the greater ironies is that when Wilson-Clinton progressivism first came on the scene it was very nationalistic--the New Left morphed it into an imperialistic attitude toward American culture in the name of fairness and multiculturalism. Progressivism was reborn as "liberalism" with its totalitarian homogeneity reformed to "respect for every culture except that of American conservatives." </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ4kOIDOuDy2ct7P3Jou7Ek3PJqYp4nrWRSBPJjP3sB0wXYIgbEWjVYV5l7y38GW5LEYIX6q1ThIAqKaAKqXmGTqXYdDhCGSk-PE2KobIPIPqZI90shTdIiPUrdzjgR9502MMjmSkSTLU/s1600/untitled2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ4kOIDOuDy2ct7P3Jou7Ek3PJqYp4nrWRSBPJjP3sB0wXYIgbEWjVYV5l7y38GW5LEYIX6q1ThIAqKaAKqXmGTqXYdDhCGSk-PE2KobIPIPqZI90shTdIiPUrdzjgR9502MMjmSkSTLU/s1600/untitled2.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-773631148863757546.post-43051384351351671682014-07-01T14:00:00.000-07:002014-07-20T14:13:06.905-07:00Who's the Fascist?It's time to recycle those anti-Bush cartoons to address that lithium drip that comes through the synoptic media: CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, etc.:<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCBFwZzH54C_HYMk7gdsp_o2A0FB9PhnuwWEt0i4Bsnt0eO7OM3vXa4NN_UO_9sV8kAfR212qXiGY14SVMUOtBmd5ANHElD2nLCce228LFWNugoBNylmBawudf2Jxlpgxf5w_JGmOT2d0/s1600/fascism_cartoon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCBFwZzH54C_HYMk7gdsp_o2A0FB9PhnuwWEt0i4Bsnt0eO7OM3vXa4NN_UO_9sV8kAfR212qXiGY14SVMUOtBmd5ANHElD2nLCce228LFWNugoBNylmBawudf2Jxlpgxf5w_JGmOT2d0/s1600/fascism_cartoon.jpg" height="350" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Contrariwisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04987423976556044486noreply@blogger.com0