Punishing His Enemies: It’s What Tyrannical Dictators Do

In 2010, Obama told a Latino audience:  “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”  We, in the conservative blogosphere were horrified.  This sounded Nixonian, it sounded banana republic unethical.  Yes, the president sounded petty and self-important, but he was also proud in a bizarre way–as if, punishing enemies and rewarding friends was something that was not beneath him, as we might expect from someone in a position of such power, but was instead something that he actually relished.  It was mind-boggling, really, to think that the president’s political “enemies” (not “opponents,” not “loyal opposition,” but “enemies”!) were going to be labeled by the head of state as essentially “‘enemies’ of the state.”

Even those of us who heard it and understood the implications didn’t know how, exactly, these punishments would be doled out, what form they would take.  Perhaps, we hoped, he’d just keep calling us names, mocking and deriding us, sneering down at us from his Styrofoam pedestal.  Maybe he’d lie about us more than usual, urge his sheeple in the tabloid media and regressive groups to attack and attempt to discredit us more often.  Maybe he’d set up another version of “Flag the Fishy” and “Attack Watch” to get our fellow citizens to turn us into the state . . . for some reason, to locate all the “enemies” he has?  And to what end?  After all, this is America, you can’t “punish” Americans for political dissent or on the whim of a president.

You can’t, right?

Wrong.

This president has taken punishing his enemies (and often simultaneously rewarding his friends) and elevated it to an art form that would make history’s worst tyrants and dictators drool with envy:

His DOJ: in addition to suing Arizona for violating federal immigration laws (while ignoring violations of immigration law in “sanctuary” states and cities, of course–after all, what petty tyrant doesn’t pick and choose which laws he likes best?), also has a well-known policy of never prosecuting blacks for crimes against whites.  0’s DOJ also went after Gibson guitar on bogus “wood” crime allegations.

His TSA: in addition to gross abuses of power and zero ability to actually detect an actual terrorist, the TSA considers anyone who “opts out” of their porn scans and gate rapes to be “domestic extremists.”

His DHS: in addition to the unprecedented (and frankly bizarre) stock-piling of ammunition about which they decline to comment, issued a memo in April 2009 telling various law enforcement agencies across the country to be on the lookout for dastardly “. . .. groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority [i.e. that pesky 10th Amendment which protects citizens and states from a too-powerful central government]. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,’ the warning says.” I.e. conservatives, TEA Party groups, patriots.

His military: in addition to forcing its pastors to perform gay “marriages,” has also targeted Christians in a special effort to silence their free speech.  And the army has been told not to consider actual terrorists (Nidal Hissan, for example) as terrorists, but instead to focus on Christians, Jews, and Islamaphobes.

His press secretary: tried to exclude the “enemy” network Fox News from an interview.  Yes, it was one interview, but if they had succeeded, it would have been the end of Fox in the WH press pool.  It was a baby step to see how far they could go in ending the freedom of the press.

His NLRB: targeted Boeing in a bogus lawsuit in an attempt to bully them into opening a new plant where the administration (and its union thug friends) wanted it.

His DOE joined with his DOJ to effectively revoke the First Amendment on all college campuses receiving federal funding (the majority of them, in other words).

His IRS: the recent revelations that the IRS was intentionally and methodically targeting TEA Party, “patriot,” and those groups or individuals “educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights,” has created deep concern on the right–leftists, not being the targets this time, are perfectly happy to see this gross abuse of power to intimidate and silence opposition.  This isn’t that surprising; after all, if we’ve learned nothing else over the past four years, we’ve learned that leftists are perfectly happy with tyranny and oppression . . .  as long as they are the tyrants and oppressors.  Too bad for them that totalitarian takeovers historically end badly (very very badly) for the regime’s early supporters and apologists.

Not only are we, justly, concerned that political dissent will make us a target of IRS (or FBI, CIA, FDA, DOJ, or any other executive branch agency–keep in mind that the videographer 0 falsely blamed for Benghazi is still in prison.  Sure, he did something unrelated to the video wrong, but odd how he was only picked up after the attack in Benghazi when the president and secretary of state needed a scapegoat.  And believe me, every single person out there is guilty of some crime or violation of some regulation–there are so many that we don’t even know about. You could be harassed for collecting rain water, for growing vegetables or herbs on your porch, for who knows what else. So we are not only concerned about the IRS targeting us as taxpayers), but we also are concerned about what this means with the new role that the IRS has as the 0Care enforcers.  They now have, granted by the 0Care monstrosity, access to our personal bank accounts (actual access, not the power to freeze them–they’ve had that for ages), free reign to monitor our purchases and income, access to our personal medical files, and a list of other means by which to “enforce” the 0Care mandate.  These things could all be used to intimidate, bully, silence, even imprison any person “guilty” of political dissent.

And now we know, for a fact, that 0 is not only willing but actually relishes wielding the power of the presidency to “punish” his “enemies” (no, I won’t rant about his insistence that he can use drones to kill American citizens on American soil because he thinks them an “enemy,” but . . . well, not so tinfoil hatty now, huh?).  We, that is anyone who opposes this administration, are 0’s “enemies,” and no abuse of power, no strong-arm tactics, no bullying thuggery is beneath him.

These are the times that try men’s (and women’s) souls.  Luckily, we are Americans, and this tyrant wannabe will not intimidate, cow, or silence us.  We are not Germans defeated in spirit and nation, we are not Russian or Chinese peasants–isolated and disarmed, we are not, in other words, easy pickings.  And for that, I am forever grateful.

For Leftists: Thinking, Hard.

I’m not sure whom I find more despicable, the leftist pols who spin the most amazingly absurd narratives or the leftist morons who gobble them up as Gospel, infuse them with their own special brand of hate, and spew forth bile and vitriol like an overactive, over-reactive volcano.  Yes, I’m kind of talking about what’s going on as the left struggles to defend their Dear Leader and “messiah” on Benghazi.  Note that the last link was to a British news site; oddly, apart from Fox News, the only coverage of this massive story is being conducted overseas (oh, and it’s the leftist Guardian, not the rightish-but-still-faaar-left-of-me Telegraph, but you know how those Brits are just RAAAACIST Republicans who hate Obama.  Or something.). Note, too, that some tabloid television networks, like NBC, are willing to admit that Obama is incompetent or “sloppy.”  That’s huge.  He’s been the bestest best thing since best things were first found to be best, but now suddenly he’s incompetent? That’s one hell of an admission from the salivating, slavish media.  And we know why they’ll throw out that bone.

And, frankly, I–at least–don’t care.  We’re talking about “news” organizations that failed to cover the Gosnell trial because it was “local” but spent hours and hours on some crazy, murdering biotch’s guilty verdict . . . while the Benghazi hearings are the actual news–national and international news–of the day.  Indeed, the hearings are being covered not only in Britain but in Germany, even in Russia and in the Middle East.  Our “media”?  Dancing around like puppies for scraps from their master’s table.  Massive fail.

But I’m not really talking about that, per se, others are covering it amazingly; instead, I am mostly talking about . . . well, just generally. I was just reading through some articles and a couple illustrate my point magnificently: one talked about how the majority of Americans accept gay people and the other was about the Traitor in Chief’s comments about immigration.  Oh, and let’s not forget the bogus stat that 90% of Americans support background checks. Dude, 90% of Americans can’t agree that the sky is blue, but the myriad lies–outrageous, in-your-face-ridiculous, “not one dime” lies–this president tells are not really my point.

Here’s the thing, the point, if you will.  A poll shows that the majority of Americans accept gay people, and that’s probably true.  I do.  And I know that my conservative friends and relatives do.  But here’s where everything gets murky for sophomoric leftist brains: I can accept gay people without *gasp* supporting gay “marriage.”  Yes, it’s true!  I can also accept that Obama is president without wanting to make him dictator for life.  Imagine that!

Nuance.

Nuance that is, of course, totally lost on the all or nothing, my way or the highway left.  You can’t just accept gay people, you can’t just accept that the government should recognize gay relationships as they do those of heterosexuals.  Oh no!  That’s not good enough, not “tolerant” enough for the most intolerant people on the planet.  You must accept that God is wrong, that your religion, your faith, your beliefs are all wrong.  You must embrace something that you might accept but not endorse; if you’re not ready to don a pink tutu or a suit and tie and march in the gay pride parade, then you’re not tolerant enough.  Actually, well, you’re just a toothless troglodyte teabagging troll.

Uh huh.

It’s sad, isn’t it that our wanna-be intellectual and emotional superiors on the left are incapable of reason, of compassion, of understanding, of anything remotely resembling human feeling?

Sad, and I used to find it perplexing, but it’s really not.  They just have simple, childlike thought processes that literally jump from “you accept gay people” to “therefore, you must accept gay ‘marriage'” and with that the utter destruction of religion and of religious freedom in this country.  And if you don’t, well, everyone knows you can’t accept gay people without supporting gay “marriage”; therefore, you must HATE gay people!  Again, uh huh.  The lack of logic, of critical thought, is mind-numbing.  But not unexpected.

The left does this on purpose and urges its mindless sheeple to not think, to be “tolerant” and to think that tolerance somehow means acceptance, even submission.  It does not.  I can tolerate something without accepting it, much less submitting to it.  There’s a huge difference, actually, but the English language seems to be a bit problematic for shallow, unthinking leftists (probably why they feel the need to “revise” and “adapt” it so often).

And we see this knee-jerking, conclusion-jumping, skipping over major points and differences, ignoring of language and its meaning again in Obama’s statement that “unless you’re a Native American, you came from someplace else.”  Well, no . . . poop, Sherlock.  (omg, is that an awesome show or what? Anyway,) yes, Dear Leader, we–well, okay, maybe not me, personally.  Or my parents.  But sure, somewhere down the line, some of my relatives–came to the United States from someplace else.  But here’s the thing, they didn’t come here illegally.  They came here within and abiding the law, respecting their new home and hoping to succeed in the land of the free and home of the brave.  They didn’t sneak in, they didn’t “overstay their visas,” they didn’t come as “birth tourists,” they came as legal aliens who acquired citizenship and paid their own way, often against great odds.

But conflating all immigration with illegal immigration, all immigrants with illegal immigrants, is par for the regressive course.  Now, do you really think that Obama himself doesn’t understand the difference?  Of course he does.  Do you really think that Obama doesn’t know the difference between accepting gays and demanding that gay “marriage” be the law of the land?  Of course he does.  As in all things from the economy to foreign policy, he just plays his mindless minions like a fiddle.  Rome may burn . . . but his disciples won’t notice.  Until it’s too late.

Fuzzy Ramblings: Introspection, Blogging, Slavery, Obama

So I took a whole week–a whole week!–away from the internet.  And with that, I also avoided most news (just enough to know that Iran is indeed crafting a nuclear weapon, d’oh, that the world didn’t explode, etc.).  I think that’s the first time in at least a year, maybe more, and it was much needed.  I feel all refreshed and happy.  Of course that probably has to do with Thanksgiving and my counting my blessings (and filling my brain with crap on tv, heh).

I’ve been blogging since 2004; I can’t even believe it, really.  Of course, back then, I was just discovering my conservatism which had been building since at least 9/11 (and I now suspect was a part of me all along, as the Democrats–and Republicans–moved left, I cringed and rebelled.  I’m a conservative at heart, always have been, but I was, back then, . . . a Reagan Democrat.  That best sums it up.).  But I wasn’t all that political (Kerry and Dudge knew me “then,” they can attest to my inane postings about whatever silliness entered my brain and found its way onto my blog).  Oh, sure, by 2004, I knew that my once-naive proclamation to my stunned parents, “well, gee, I’d happily pay 100% of my income to the government to have good roads, education, healthcare, and housing,” was a thing of the distant, stupid, embarrassing past.

I knew, too, by then that I wasn’t “with” the “new” Democrat party (the regressives), not only did I have a job (unlike when I said that to my parents) but I had lived through 9/11, saw what was happening with amnesty talks (McCain-Kennedy inspired a number of posts back then, in between the burblings about Ents I spotted at the park and deciphering “English” English as an American), the war on Judeo-Christian values, and the expansion of government.  I knew the latter meant less freedom for the people, for me.  I was getting a clue.  You know, slowly.

So yeah, I’ve spend the past week putting things in perspective.  You know, sort of.  I’m still of the mind that the American people voted for this crap, so let it fall where it may, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t care.  It’s just that reconciling these two views is proving problematic.  To me, everyone who voted for anyone but Romney–or not at all–voted for Obama.  Period.  It may not have been the intent, but it was the result.  So . . . yeah, I’m a bit angry about that, a bit “you voted for it, you got it” about it.  Still.  But I’ll get over it.  You know, slowly.

I left Massachusetts over a year ago.  Yay!  I can’t tell you how happy I am to be among people who cheerily (yes, already) say “Merry Christmas” to you at the stores (I haven’t tested this theory, but I bet I’d be looked at askance if I said, “Happy Holidays”).  I did a post last Christmas that was in part about this, about how new and strange and great it was, and I think this year I’ll take some photos of the many homes that have not only Christmas decorations but also CHRISTmas decorations.  It’s so stunning, so new, so wonderful.  It’s so great to move on with my life and to face a Massachusetts-less future (okay, I miss the snow, but that’s it.  Moving on is good; I highly recommend it.).  Usually my tree is red and gold, but I’m thinking that I might go blue and white this Christmas, in support of Israel.

So what else?  Some craziness about some loon proclaiming Obama his lord and savior . . . or was that “our” lord and savior?  Honestly, what the hell is wrong with these people?  At least people on Twitter, including Obama’s black acolytes (who’ve not managed to figure out that he’s destroying any hope they have for a future that doesn’t include calling him their lord and savior and mindlessly supporting his policies that negatively impact them, in many cases, more than anyone else), disavowed that crazed nonsense.  They may vote for a guy who supports infanticide and the restriction of their religious liberty, but they aren’t ready . . . yet . . . to call him their lord and savior.

That’s something.

I guess.

So I was watching this episode of Top Chef re-runs or whatever, and this one chef–I love her, she’s so sweet and seems so sincere and fabulous–during some weird genealogy bit was stunned, stunned I say, to learn that her grandfather (or maybe it was her great-grandfather?) had gone from being a slave to being a freedman (Emancipation Proclamation, 1863)  to being a business owner in the South.  She was stunned.  Stunned. She thinks him some super hero who beat insurmountable odds and somehow triumphed.  But the fact is that wasn’t at all unusual.

Segregation was later.  Much later.  And it was a Democrat construct.  The United States military was not segregated until regressive hero Woodrow Wilson (president, 1913-1921), who, as president of Princeton University, had a record of barring all blacks from the campus (professors and students!) decided that blacks, being inferior and all, needed to be segregated.  This was at about the same time that Margaret Sanger, another racist, founded Planned Parenthood with the express, clearly-stated purpose of eliminating black people because they were society’s bane.  Wilson, the supreme regressive, even insisted that applicants for government jobs include a photo so that blacks could be eliminated more easily.  These people were behind eugenics, too, the fun thing that Hitler used to eliminate Jews but that was purposed here through abortion and various Democrat government “experiments” with std’s and various other medical “tests” to “cull” black people from “the genetic pool.”  No kidding, that was the regressive goal, the big Democrat pitch for their continued power.

But that’s not really that different from “social” and “racial” and “economic” justice, right?  It’s about barring people who are perceived as “priviledged” and blocking anyone, regardless of their competency, from obtaining a job.  That’s what regressives do.  It may be racist, as it certainly was with Wilson, and it may be “reverse” racism as it certainly is with Eric Holder who bemoans the plight of “his people” and demands redress of grievances from people, like myself, whose white skin nullifies the fact that my own people didn’t get here until well after the Civil War and who were held in as much disdain as blacks and poor, white trash.

Class was and is the main factor (let’s not forget that far far more white people are on food stamps and welfare than blacks or other minorities; that’s simple fact, and it’s not numbers, it’s percentages); we got that class-focus from the English who were actually the ones who first decimated the Native Americans (that happened while we were still a British colony, the people here still British “subjects”; a fact that is happily forgotten by the American-bashing left and the newly-shamed British who want to pretend that they aren’t among history’s worst offenders in terms of colonization, slaughter, rape, and oppression).

Obama and his traitorous, regressive horde want “justice,” not equal justice, of course.  And I’m not suggesting here that anyone who is a descendent of slave-holders should “pay,” in fact, my point is the exact opposite.  My people were Irish.  Poor, illiterate, enslaved Irish.  You will not, ever, find me whining about how unfair our treatment was or how we “deserve” “justice.” That’s freaking nuts.  And yes, we were enslaved, raped, murdered, tortured, treated abysmally for centuries.  Far more time, actually, than American slaves.  In fact, there is no people in history who were enslaved and maltreated for a shorter time than those who can claim they are descendent from slaves here in America (surprisingly few, actually, and inclusive of a great number of white people).  This would have to exclude the time such slaves spent as slaves to black African masters before coming here; after all, if the black African masters and traffickers are given a free pass, then we should also pretend that this slavery did not exist.  Right?

Obviously, this doesn’t excuse the practice.  But I am sick to death of this crazy idea that it’s the be all and end all, that anyone owes anyone anything.  Get over it!  The Irish did, the Scots did, the Welsh did, the African blacks who were (and actually still are, but where’s the outrage?) enslaved by other African blacks did, the Jews did, the Christians did, the Persians did, the Asians did, the South American Indians did, . . . heck, name a freaking people in history who weren’t enslaved, persecuted, raped, tortured, murdered, and you win . . . absolutely nothing because it can’t be done.  Everyone has been, at some time, the victim of/enslaved by someone else.  Period.

The unique thing here in America is pretending that somehow black slaves are worse than white, Irish ones or than any others throughout history.  That we should be riddled with guilt about something that was, frankly, the norm in the world.  And at the time.  And at this time actually.  It’s nuts to think that way, and it’s destructive and divisive.  That chef’s grandfather’s (or maybe great grandfather, wasn’t paying super close attention, obviously) wasn’t the exception, he was the norm.   Blacks, after emancipation, weren’t enslaved and they didn’t feel “owed.”  That came later.  Much later, actually.  In fact, I would venture to guess that this man, who built his own business, would be horrified at the thought that we not only don’t know that was possible but that we later, or that Democrats later to be historically accurate, ensured that his success would no longer be possible.  That he would instead be expected to underachieve and call that his due.

I dunno.  It’s hard to get worked up about anything now.  I mean the American people, this time knowing full well what they were getting, voted for this amateur loser.  I can’t get past, no matter how great this past week has been, that fact.  Got socialism?  Oh yeah.  On the way to tyranny?  Sure.  Is he a destructive force on both our culture and economy?  Uh, yeah, no crap.  Does he look at Morsi assuming near-unlimited power and drool jealously that he doesn’t have that . . . yet?   Oh yes, don’t doubt it.  Will he continue to issue executive orders that undermine or flat-out spit on the Constitution of these United States?  Of course he will.  Will he step up his violations of religious and personal liberty?  Yep.  Big time.  Buuuuuuut, Americans voted for him.  Yes, including the asshats who stayed home or voted for that other guy.

Obama didn’t hide this time, he wasn’t an unknown.  I can’t be mad at him.  I can’t even say what he’s doing is wrong beyond pointing out when it violates the Constitution (which, who cares?!, he’ll soon seat Supremes who think the Constitution is just as dated and worthless as he thinks it is.  BUT we knew that.   And elected him anyway.).  He wasn’t  a blank slate this time, he didn’t even pretend to be centrist or uniting.  I can’t excuse the electorate this time.  He blatantly campaigned on being just the opposite of what he campaigned on in ’08.  And he won.

Read your history. Know your facts. But at this point, Obama is not the problem. And that makes me endlessly sad.

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 1: Conservatives Are RAAACIST homophobic Islamaphobic xenophobic misogynists.

Okay, I have to admit that I sort of forgot about this series.  Oops.  But I had been reviewing the Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives, and here’s where we’ve been:

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 5: Conservatives are fascists.

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 4: Conservatives are anti-science neanderthals.

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 3: Conservatives are anti-government war-mongers.

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 2: Conservatives Hate the Poor.

And here’s where we’re going (exactly where you knew we were going):

Number 1: Conservatives Are RAAACIST homophobic Islamaphobic xenophobic misogynists.  No commas, probably should use hyphens, though, as that’s the breathless, said-as-one-word description of us that they have in their tiny little brains.  Wrapped up in this, of course, is the sense that we are drooling idiots who hate everyone who is unlike ourselves, toothless rednecks who shoot “others” on sight, a Bible-thumping God Squad intent on white supremacist isolationism.  And they believe it.  The “nuance” crowd, our supposed intellectual betters, have zero problem painting with broad brush every single conservative (though of course they are loathe to be so-stereotyped themselves).

I’ve thought about this post a lot, knowing it was coming, and have contemplated how I’ll approach it (a Fuzzy Rant seems so obviously in order, ya know?).  I settled on a focus on the mindset behind it rather than debunking (yet again) the idiocy of this belief.  After all, we know that we are not any of those things, with the possible exception of being Islamaphobic (that old “it’s not paranoia if ‘they’ really are out to get you” saw may be applicable here).  But it’s hardly going to be a complete post without at least mentioning the flaws on the face of that assumption, right?

Before I do that, though, I want to take a few moments (paragraphs) to examine leftist “thought.”

If your entire ideology is based on one tiny, ill-conceived, hastily-written (and later retracted) “manifesto,” it’s bound to be simple(-minded).  And if you have a wrong-headed belief that the way to transform something simple into something complex is to add more simple layers to it, then you just mire yourself in shallow thinking, tires spinning in tired mud.  Today’s leftists start with Marx, middle with Marx, and end with Marx.  Oh sure, they take their theoretical paintbrush and splash Marx paint around, but it’s always the same, simple(-minded) blather.

I used to feel so overwhelmed in graduate school, so inadequate, because my commie professors would keep insisting that [fill in the blank]ism was so “complex,” so mind-bogglingly brilliant . . .  and I just couldn’t see it.  I just sat there, nodding, thinking to myself that either they were complete morons . . . or I was.  As a graduate student, I naturally assumed the latter, and tried and tried to find something complex (or even interesting) in Showalter, Foucault,  Said, Derrida, Hegel . . . oh, the list goes on.  But it was all, all of it, at rock bottom, the same damn thing (even deconstruction, supposedly rendering a “text” “meaningless” only does so because the “meaning” is “indeterminate” or non-existent as constituting an all-out attack on . . . yep, [fill in the blank]ism. Besides, if there is no meaning, then we all need the government to step in and create it out of nothingness, right?  Uh huh.).

Being an English major at that (and this) time in our nation’s “intellectual” history was . . . shall we say, agony.  Literature wasn’t literature, every  novel, poem, play was not a novel, poem, or play; it was a “text” that had to be analyzed for oppression and for possible outlets for mass revolt sparked by one or more oppressed group.  This got tricky for the Marxists after a while, so after exhausting the dead-white-males-are-the-devil meme, they had to add to the canon works by Marxists that they claimed were “silenced” by dead, white male writers (who are, after all, the epitome of all that is wrong with the world and should therefore be . . . well, silenced.  But shhh, we don’t think too much about that).  That led to our reading, conveniently, assorted crap by radicals because they had a vagina or were black militants or . . . well, you get the picture.  We stopped reading literature and started reading political treatises disguised as literature.  All the better to dig out those “hidden” messages of oppression when we didn’t have to torture a “text” to locate them.

Every “ism” currently used to indoctrinate students is rooted in Marx (or in something he built on or that was built on his inchoate ramblings, so he becomes the secondary or tertiary conduit, but is still there, anchoring the whole mess or holding it down like some sort of ideological paper weight).  Every. Single. One.  Oh, sure, they add some layer to or under it, but it’s all the same thing: people belong to specialized “identity” groups (this is a fun spin on Marx’s focus on classes—the simple-minded just piled on layers of “oppressed” groups: women, blacks, Latinos/as, gays (then the entire spectrum of LGBT), even the planet), someone is exploiting someone else, and it’s all about money and power, and the only way to “reclaim” that money and/or power is to “revolt.”  The exploited class or gender or sexual orientation or [fill in the blank] is a victim of the exploiter (capitalist, white male, American, homophobes, whatever), and as such is “owed” recompense (or “social justice,” “economic justice,” blah-de-blah “justice”); if that recompense is not offered voluntarily (and of course it won’t be, or it wouldn’t be Marx), then it must be taken.  By any means necessary.  The ends always–always–justify the means.

RAAACIST? Misogynist? Homophobic? Really?!?

Racism, as we know, means hating someone or a group of someones because of their skin color or race.  It means thinking one’s own race superior to another, usually based on the belief that everyone else is inherently inferior because they do not share your same race.  It is narrow-minded, shallow, immoral, and basically evil.  Leftists have decided that conservatives are essentially “white males,” so any conservative, including non-white non-males, are automatically “racist.”  It’s really that simple.  They are really that simple(-minded).

Point out that TEA Party conservatives support minority, gay, and/or women candidates, and they simply declare that the minority, gay, or woman candidate is not “really” (or “authentically”) a minority, gay, or woman.  So, no, “racist” doesn’t mean what we think it means.  Not to leftists.  They can hate “niggers” all day long (and oh, yes, they all–white, black, whatever–use “the ‘N-word” with wild abandon), as long as they are conservative and therefore not authentically black.  They can publish rape fantasies about conservative women and gays, call us all sorts of horrible names, because we aren’t authentically women or gays.  To be “authentic” means to believe what they believe, to embrace victimhood and a sense of entitlement.  If you aren’t railing against every ism, outraged at every perceived slight or “coded” insult, and demanding government handouts, then you are simply not a “real” black person or a “real” woman or a “real” gay person, et al.

It’s so simple-minded, so naive, so childish, so truly wrong-headed that we’ve expended a lot of energy and time to point out leftist “hypocrisy.”  Don’t get me wrong, they are the worst sort of hypocrites, and we should absolutely call them out on it (ala Andrew Breitbart), but we need to do so in such a way that we address not only the hypocrisy but the fast and loose way they have with language and emotion.  Calling someone a racist is hurtful and damaging (well, okay, that particular card has been over-played to the point of invalidating it completely), but we may have to spend some time addressing what racism is and who is actually pushing policies that harm minorities (and gays and women) and who is pushing policies that help everyone.

Conservatives have lately been talking a lot about judging by the content of one’s character.  Leftists, on the other hand, are the ones who think that dark skin and/or a vagina are so debilitating that the government must step in to make up for them.  Darker skinned? Vaginally-afflicted?  Well, worry not, democrats have your impeded, hampered, inferior backs!  Woot!

Islamaphobic? Xenophobic? Seriously?

This one’s tougher in some ways, because I do think that I am indeed “Islamaphobic.” Something about the beheadings, the slaughter, the threats and intimidation, the homicide bombings, 9/11, the insistence that gays, women, and others that Islam considers to be subhuman should be killed in the name of Allah . . . well, go figure.  So yeah, I would have to hand this one to the leftists if it weren’t for the fact that they are also Islamaphobes, much more so and much less intelligently than we are (or than I am, can’t really call you an Islamaphobe, can I?).  They are so terrified of Islam that they seek to appease it; they ignore the treatment of women under Sharia (everything from the stonings, honor killings, sex slavery, lashings, to the second-class citizen status marked by the burkha), of gays (not allowed to live under Sharia. Period.), of all the “protected” classes they claim to defend.  They claim to abhor religious fundamentalism, but that only really means Christianity (and Judaism); they embrace Islamic fundamentalism, protect it almost jealously.

The Islamaphobia and xenophobia charges are usually rooted in their above-discussed skewed and narrow-minded view of the world (the little bit they occupy … in their heads) and is manifested in multiculturalism, the left’s latest failed great experiment.  I’ve written about this at some length before, so will keep it short here, but the gist is that if you want America to be a “melting pot” in which many cultures and races come together and meld or merge into one larger something better, then you are denying the people who choose to come here of their own free will the chance to keep the same thing from which they fled.  Go figure.  Wanting English spoken in America, wanting to protect American culture and traditions, wanting immigrants to assimilate . . . these are “xenophobic” responses of the idiot masses.  Does it matter that it’s the exact opposite of xenophobia, that welcoming foreigners into our midst, into our culture and society is the furthest thing from xenophobia?  Of course not. Not to leftists who actually insist that foreigners stick to their “own kind” and have their own separate (but “equal”) sub “communities” . . . and then have the gall to call us xenophobic.

But then, this is no real surprise, is it?  Leftists love their isolated and controllable “communities” of managed “identities” beholden only to them.  So much so that when there aren’t such “communities,” they’re happy to create them out of nothing and cause division along every line they draw be it race, sexual orientation, religion, culture, class, income level, or gender.

This is the epitome of racist homophobic Islamaphobic xenophobic misogynists and is exactly who and what leftists are.  But then, we all know they are the masters of projection.  Anything they accuse conservatives of being, we can be confident that they are the embodiment of that thing.  On steroids.

Hollow Points, “Any Means Necessary,” and Alinsky’s Rule 14

Some things that we’ve all been thinking for ages are finally seeing the light of day; by “light of day” I mean that they are no longer relegated to the tinfoil hat brigade.  Major General Jerry Curry’s post, “Who Does the Government Intend to Shoot?,” at The Daily Caller has spurred a couple of thoughtful and thought-provoking posts over at American Thinker.  MG Curry writes:

What would be the target of these 174, 000 rounds of hollow point bullets? It can’t simply be to control demonstrators or rioters. Hollow point bullets are so lethal that the Geneva Convention does not allow their use on the battle field in time of war. Hollow point bullets don’t just stop or hurt people, they penetrate the body, spread out, fragment and cause maximum damage to the body’s organs. Death often follows.

Potentially each hollow nose bullet represents a dead American. If so, why would the U.S. government want the SSA to kill 174,000 of our citizens, even during a time of civil unrest? Or is the purpose to kill 174,000 of the nation’s military and replace them with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) special security forces, forces loyal to the Administration, not to the Constitution?

Forces like the SS, loyal only to Hitler, not to Germany or the German people?  Possibly. After all, as MG Curry notes:

We have enough military forces to maintain law and order in the U.S. even during times of civil unrest.

We have local police, backed up by each state’s National Guard, backed up by the Department of Defense. So in addition to all these forces why does DHS need its own private army? Why do the SSA, NOAA and other government agencies need to create their own civilian security forces armed with hollow nose bullets?

Why indeed.  Needless to say, this news coupled with the gravitas provided by such an upstanding, respected military officer (retired. And certainly not of the tinfoil hat brigade) has caused quite a stir in the conservative blogosphere (even I posted a “Short” on it).

American Thinker has published, in the past few days, two pointed posts that address the issues raised by MG Curry:  Stella Paul’s “Will Obama Keep Power ‘by Any Means Necessary’?” and Cameron Reddy’s “Wargaming Termination of Tea Party Extremists.”  While these two articles may well have been in the works for a while (who doesn’t have several drafts of possible posts waiting to be molded into something worth hitting “publish” on?), they do follow the MG’s post and are taken, by me at least, in that context.

We have this puzzling mass purchase of hollow points, then we have a list of things that 0 and his traitorous horde have done in preparation for . . . what?, and finally, we have a cool-headed response to the (very real) threat under which we find ourselves and our great country.

Go read each of these articles (if you haven’t already).  As our dear, wonderful Adrienne says, go ahead, I’ll wait.

Each of these articles prompted a great deal of comments, and I’ve tried to read them all (but gave up, there are just too many).  One thing that is established, too clearly, in them is that some Americans are ready to take the fight to 0, to be, in Reddy’s spot-on analysis, “goad[ed] ” into doing exactly what they want.

Do I need to point out that doing exactly what they want us to do, are itching and hoping and NEED us to do, is a mistake of catastrophic proportions?

Things have changed since 2009, when I was certain that 0 would never give up power willingly.  I tried to capture that in my (ugh, so lengthy!) comment in response to Adrienne’s asking our thoughts on Paul’s essay, “Will Obama Keep Power By ‘Any Means Necessary’?” (note: I’m not setting this off as a quote, too, it creates too many icky layers):

I said back in ’09 that I believed that Obama would never give up power willingly. I understood fully who and what he is and what he’s doing, and I feared the worst for America. Since then, however, Americans are starting to get it. So many people, not just obscure bloggers such as myself or tinfoil hat loons tapping away in dark basements, are now willing and able to call Obama not only the radical that he is but also the communist fascist that he is. This is incredibly good news for America. Incredibly good news. So few people knew or understood what Stalin and Hitler were up to (to name but two similar totalitarian dictator types) that they got away with it. With so many people not only aware of what Obama’s up to but actively, vocally pushing back, I have every expectation that he and his traitorous horde will be stopped.

They didn’t count on so many things. They bought their own press (in both senses of the word, I guess), and they really believed that Americans were not only ready but eager to embrace the communist nightmare vision Obama and his treasonous scum fellows have in store for America. They thought they would have four years of a completely free hand to set up their structures, to put in place their means, to erect a devastating distortion of America. But they didn’t have that. Almost immediately, and by their own mistake, the American people got together and said not just no, but Hell NO! The TEA Party caught them completely off-guard. They thought they had us cowed, that screeching RAAAACIST would be enough, that Obama would be teflon in ways that the left only dreamed up and coveted when Reagan was the “teflon president.” They thought they had him covered with both the Messiah nonsense and the race card. They thought their union goons and scuzzy occudreg types would be sufficient. That strong-arming Boeing, Gibson, the TEA Parties would make everyone shut up. Heck, it worked so well, you see, for so many others who attempted and accomplished the same thing. They didn’t count on the new media, the Andrew Breitbart, the Jim Hoft, the Dana Loesch, the William Jacobson, and they certainly didn’t count on every day conservatives, American patriots quickly and fearlessly jumping onto social media and pushing back. Hard.

Do I think they’ve given up? Oh no. Not even close. Do I think things will get worse before they get better? Oh yes. Do I think they are fully and completely capable of concocting anything and everything, up to and including mass civil unrest and violence? Oh yes. But here’s the thing. We know it, and we are committed to resisting, as are vast numbers of current and former military, elected officials from local and state up to the federal government, police forces and other agencies at the state and federal level (or at least enough of them). There are plenty of “bluedog” democrats who are also in positions to help if and when this admin makes a move. All of this makes this moment in history totally different in every conceivable way from previous fascist takeovers. Add to that our Americanness, that special something that sets us apart from the people of other nations–certainly from the defeated, humiliated, desperate Germans and the impoverished, helpless Russians of the 1930’s and 1940’s, and they don’t stand a chance.

No scenario makes sense. Canceling the elections? Not going to happen; elections are state matters, state-controlled, not federal. They can’t be cancelled by the president. At least not in red states, and how stupid would Obama have to be to have only red states voting in a presidential election? And no hostile takeover of the United States, from within or without, makes any logistical sense at all. People talk about the UN coming in, and that is one thing that will set off not only patriotic constitutional conservatives but almost every American, including normal Democrats who love America (they still exist out in America, believe it or not). That would spark something that would not be pretty, create a far worse backlash than our own agencies doing it. So people talk about the ATF showing up at people’s homes and taking them and their guns into “custody”; the logistics of that make it impossible. Here’s what I wrote in response to this scenario on this post over at AT:

[Insert: here is the original comment to which I was responding:

November 23, 2012. Romney has won, but you hear a knock at your door at 11:30 p.m. You open the door and five armed ATF agents demand you turn over your registered firearms and ammo in compliance with an executive order from the White House. You also see a local school bus filled with your half dressed neighbors in idling front of your house and you are told that unless you turn over your guns you will be taken away to a holding area as a domestic terrorist.

How many of us have REALLY thought through the consequences of giving up our guns and the consequences of not doing so?

The tougher questions quickly becomes as a thinking connservative what am I willing to sacrifice -my life, my family, my security – in upholding the Constitution? Very tough questions without easy answers.

I carefully ask my Jewish friends if a Second Holocaust could happen today in America, as in Nazi Germany. Almost all say no, and they almost all support Obama. They often get upset at being asked such a question, yet it is one of the most crucial question an American Jew should think about. “Never Again” has morphed into, “You Must Be Crazy.”

As a thinking connservative do I beleive that Obama is capable and willing to pour lighter fluid on the remaining shreds of the Constitution and toss a match onto the parchment? Yes.

Do enough Americans -including myself — have the courage to follow THAT thread to it’s logical conclusion IF such a series events occurs? Again – very tough questions without easy answers.

Stella and American Thinker — excellent work….because only the naive and foolish think IT COULD NOT happen here in America.]

“There aren’t enough ATF agents, first of all, to pull this off. It would have to be simultaneously-executed at every gun-owner’s home nationwide. I don’t know about your neighborhood, but I can just imagine what would happen at the first house that bus pulled up to while armed agents demanded that first neighbor’s guns and attempted to force
his family onto a bus. They’d have to lock down every house and every person in every house for miles around to get away with that. This isn’t the 1930’s and ’40’s; we have the internet, phones . . . all manner of instant and near-instant communication. Further, if one worries about the Obama “kill switch” on communications, what on earth do you think Americans would do if they woke up one day and had no power, no access to the internet, no phone use? We’re also not dispirited Germans or impoverished Soviets, we’re freaking Americans!  The very idea of us shuffling off in our night robes to be taken on our special vacation trip to the gulag . . . nope, not going to happen.

There’s no way that an actual, overt takeover can happen; certainly not in a way that would make the risk outweigh the objective. America is enormous, our population dispersed, and our people well and truly ticked off. Ticked off and well-armed and more organized than many seem
to think. This sort of thing is out of the question; no agency, even the wild and wacky ATF, would agree to go through with it even if some “genius” in the WH thought it would be a good idea.”

I say all this with one caveat: we HAVE to win in November. Obama has to be routed, the GOP has to have a mandate. Ideally, we’ll also keep the House and take the Senate, making everything that needs to be done easier to do. Alas, our chances of the latter got much worse yesterday [insert: this was a reference to Akin not dropping out by the Tuesday, 5 p.m. CST deadline].

End oh-so-lengthy comment over at Adrienne’s.

Things have changed, and I’m rather alarmed by the chorus of conservative patriot voices who seem to be calling for violence.  Violence is not the answer.  That, to iterate Reddy’s point (one I’ve made frequently over the last four years), is exactly what they need in order to accomplish everything that we most fear.  Reddy directs us to Alinsky’s Rule 14:

RULE 14: “Push the enemy so hard with outrageous situations and allegations that he is forced to push back.”  Whenever possible, cause the enemy to respond, and when he does, hold him up for ridicule; then push harder.  (By threatening his security and way of life, you will always elicit a reaction that can be turned against him.)

They can’t accomplish their goals without us becoming violent, being plastered all over the television and newspapers acting like . . . well, like crazed lefties.  Remember, the people who opposed segregation were counting on, NEEDED, the black and white marchers to become violent.  It was their nonviolence, insisted upon by Martin Luther King, Jr., and the resultant images of nonviolent people being summarily beaten, whipped, dragged through the streets that shifted American sympathies, that made the Civil Rights Act possible.

We must commit, equally strongly and with equal determination and faith, to nonviolence.  As I said in a comment on Reddy’s article: Nonviolent adherence to our constitutional principles is the only way to defeat Obama and his traitorous horde. It’s what they fear most.  The second, and I mean the second, that conservatives respond with violence, we lose.  We lose it all.