Fear and Loathing on the Left

By Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish Blog

 

Win or lose, fans of the Philly Eagles go out into the street and smash things. Whoever wins on Election Day, leftists will smash things. The election only determines whether they smash up the country from the inside or the outside. Forget all the theory and all the empty policy promises.

It’s not about equity, democracy, free college, funding terrorists, defunding the police, breaking the glass ceiling, or any of the other suits the naked emperors and empresses wear. When the champagne corks and pills have been popped, the desire underneath is to destroy it all.

Mediocre elites created leftism by sublimating their narcissistic drive to destroy everything superior to them into the revolutionary politics of a purported underclass. But the elites are the oppressed underclass they’ve been waiting for. They fight for their own right to seize power.

And they don’t stop fighting once they get it.

Stop by a leftist rally and you’ll rarely find anyone who ever worked for a living or intends to. The Biden-Harris admin was hobbled by the sheer inability of anyone involved in it to understand kitchen table economics as anything other than a longread thinkpiece about shrinkflation.

Leftists care as much about the working class as you do about the plight of the Tibetans. Probably less. Workers, women, coal miners, the unemployed on bread lines, Gazans, gays, lesbians, transgenders and every letter in the endless LGBTQ alphabet have never been anything other than excuses for smashing things. They’re the wife, girlfriend, uncle or nephew that our hero loses in the first act to justify his bloody rampages in the next two acts.

American leftists are still Americans. And they need to believe they’re the good guys. Unlike Bolsheviks, Maoists and ISIS, they need a bigger buildup to their hero’s journey. They need JFK and MLK to take a bullet, they need Vietnam, Kent State, AIDS, Reaganomics, impeachment, hanging chads and the Iraq War to tell a story to themselves about why they turned to violence.

Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Trump and capitalism killed their idealism in the first act. Now they have permission to plant bombs at dances for service members, rob Brink’s trucks, and riot and burn. But they’re not doing it for themselves, oh no, but for all the oppressed workers and peasants, kids laboring in factories, soldiers on the front lines and trans kids who need puberty blockers.

“It’s just this war and that lying son of a bitch, Johnson!” is a short history of leftist activism.

Working backwards, they claim that Muslim terrorists kill kids because they’ve been so wronged. It’s an alibi that tells us more about leftists than about whatever politically aligned horror show they’re trying to excuse this week. No matter what comic books and Mother Jones will tell you, oppression doesn’t make good people turn evil. Evil people blame their crimes on oppression.

The Nazis believed they were oppressed. The Communists believed they were oppressed. ISIS Jihadists raping children and beheading non-Muslims believed they were the real victims.

Scratch a member of the professionally oppressed and you find a monster working on the backstory for the crimes he intends to commit as soon as he finds a gun or a movement.

Amateur victims become school shooters, filling their diaries with tales of being bullied so they can build up the verve to shoot a bunch of little kids cowering in front of their blue lockers. Professional victims become activists and community organizers so they can do the same thing. They just have a longer wait time which they fill with self-care and race riots before the killing.

Leftist politics is a permission structure for evil. Its activism on the outside and its policies on the inside are designed to destroy everything under the guise of saving it. Tepid leftism ushers in decline, outsourcing the actual destruction to the hordes of invading enemy migrants, while committed leftism leads to gulags, mass famines and Asian museums filled with skulls.

Destruction is the conscious theme of the truly committed leftist and the subconscious impulse of the tepid leftist. Any leftist not driven by a conscious or subconscious urge to destroy will sooner or later fall out of the movement. Those who go on reciting the mantras are either cowards or terrorists. And the cowards are those who want someone else to do the killing.

Working from outside the system, leftists lie, subvert, incite, riot, burn and bomb. Working from the inside, they build massive political machines whose purpose is to wreck everything. The carnage is not ‘creative destruction” and it’s not an unintended consequence of a noble idealistic dream of a better country and an equal society, but the entire point of the whole project.

The Left does not have a plan for a better world, but for destroying the world. Its theories are sucker bait, its issues are recruitment fodder for fifth columns and their implementation serves no purpose except to seize money and power while ruining everything and fueling outrage.

Outrage, more nakedly rage, is the dark beating heart of the beast. Everything else is ad copy. Rage is the morals, ethics, ideology, father and mother of the movement. Rage is the currency which it trades in for more rage. “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention”, its bumper stickers scream, and once you start paying attention, the rage never ends.

Leftists are indoctrinated in outrage, radicalized into rage and ricochet from outrage to outrage to rage against. No matter how old and bourgeois they get, rage keeps them feeling like young rebels, and they hunt and peck between New York Times, Washington Post and Rolling Stone screeds revealing the exciting new outrage that requires innovative new abuses of power.

Robbed of rage, leftists are reduced to a planetary HR department given free reign to ban everything and fail ever upward even as their fiefdoms descend into extremes of misery. In triumph, the mediocre elites expose their mediocrity for all to see. That’s why they can’t stop the rage for even one moment lest everyone see that underneath the virtue signaling uniforms and jackboots is a Biden or Brezhnev incapable of running anything including their bodily functions.

And that is the reckoning that the mediocre elites have been running away from all their lives.

Leftists must destroy because they cannot create. Inside their heads is a little lurking voice telling them how worthless they are every second of the day. Imagine if Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Fidel Castro or AOC had been forced to get actual jobs outside political leftism?

What do objectively worthless narcissists convinced of their own genius do with their lives?

They become commandantes, chairmen, congressmen and other things beginning with ‘C’. Being a revolutionary, an activist or a professional troublemaker requires a very different set of skills than actually working for a living and is a perfect fit for egomaniacs furious at every perceived slight with a knack for getting other people to die for their delusions of grandeur.

Add on a slick patina of ‘theory’ of fantasy economics and academic conspiracy theories and you have the movement that has spent the past two centuries trying to destroy the world.

Whatever happens on this Election Day or in any election, the Left is waiting to destroy it all.

Racist pastor. Radical parents. Extremist views.

Find out the truth about Kamala in the Center's new ebook, 'The Truth About Kamala'

>

Daniel Greenfield is a columnist, and investigative journalist and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

One-Party Rule: When Corruption and Radicalism Collide

September 14, 2021 By Linda R. Killian

New York and California are glaring examples of one-party rule gone bad, resulting in tyrannies of the hard left. They are also contrasts of how the populace in one state is impotent to reject corrupt, one-party rule and how the populace of the other has availed itself of a constitutional pressure valve, the recall petition, for political self-correction.

Each state demonstrates the extreme dangers of one-party rule recognized 250 years ago by America’s Founders and addressed by the U.S. Constitution through federalism at the national level. However, the Founders were uncertain how to institutionally protect minorities in individual states and municipalities from the tyranny of the majorities, ultimately leaving it to the discretion of each state’s own constitutional structure along with the voters.

As of September 2021, there are 23 Republican-controlled states, in which the Republicans control governorship and both houses of the legislature. Democrats hold 15 of these trifectas and the remaining 12 states are divided. The political disruptions occurring in two of the Democrats’ largest trifectas, New York and California, may provide some answers for the future American political landscape, particularly just how much hard left policies the public is willing to endure............To Read More...

Leftists Really Are Nuts

By Rich Kozlovich Updated 7/2/21

 

Democrats, progressives, leftists, socialists, Marxists, communists, Antifa, BLM and Islam have morphed into a political and social Chimera. In mythology it was "an imaginary monster compounded of incongruous parts".  In psychology it's "an illusion or fabrication of the mind especially an unrealizable dream an individual. In biology it's an "organ, or part consisting of tissues of diverse genetic constitution".

 

Many disparate parts forming a strange and distinct single entity, that's leftism!  Is it any wonder their actions seem insane to the rest of us?  Leftism has no firm immutable philosophy with a moral foundation other than do whatever it takes to get the power to control everyone's life.  The left are magi of the moment who fear everything.   Everything is a crisis.   

• When Too Much Power Makes the Elites Insane.  (Editor's Note: This appeared in today's American thinker, and if I was writing this piece today I would have titled it "Leftists Really Are Nuts and Misanthropic. RK)
  

On July 1, 2021 Ron Ross  posted the article entitled, The inscrutable Left asking:  What are leftists afraid of? An easier question would be what are they not afraid of?  

 

Here is a partial list of their fears: climate change, fossil fuels, Russia, maskless people, Republicans, carbon, death, words, Donald Trump, chemicals, freedom, masculinity, pipelines, meat, nuclear energy, national borders, guns, light complexions, binary genders, GMOs, debate, election audits, live births, utilizing natural resources, voter IDs, fracking, laughter, capitalism, free speech, private property, conservative values, opinions different from their opinions, pronouns, truth, statues, risk, glutens, mass extinctions, human history, order, triggers, rising sea levels, Christians, law enforcement, Israel, and traditions. 

Leftists, having totally consumed, or perhaps subsumed would be a better description, the Democrat party, and if allowed to continue on their current course, they will destroy the economy, they will destroy the American identity, the American culture, the American economy, the Constitution and will impose a tyrannical socialist form of governance.  Can't happen in America you say? 

 

Did anyone look around and see what's happened over the last 18 months with this hysteria over the Chinese/Wuhan flu?  Americans actually fighting over wearing masks. Government generated hysteria for an affliction that impacts a very small part of the population.  Yet we have businesses being shut down, we have social distancing, churches being closed and ministers being arrested, while porn shops and marijuana businesses have been allowed to remain open in many states.

 

Don't buy into these fraudulent and inflated mortality rate numbers being thrown about.  "In a scrupulously documented piece, Anthony Colpo obliterates the sensational numbers being touted endlessly, demonstrated once again the leftist have corrupted science and scientists."

 

My friend "All this should raise an alarm; only it probably won’t. I discovered quite long ago that science isn’t so much a search for truth, as it is a search for orthodoxy."   Follow the link as Mike has written extensively on this issue. 

 

As for all these efforts to test the entire population:  That's nothing more than effort to inflame the hysterical fraud they've imposed on the nation.  Never before has this been done, and if we tested the entire population for all the viruses that have attacked America there's no one in America that wouldn't test positive for most if not all of them.  It's a fraud, but it's good propaganda that entirely too many Americans are buying into.  I'm still seeing people wearing masks, and we're seeing this demand everyone must be vaccinated, even with all the controversy over the safety of these particular vaccines,  or they can't travel:  Vaccine passports!

Let's understand this.  don't work, social distancing and doesn't work, don't work.  Once these viruses become part of our environment, they're with us forever.  Every year, now and forever, someone is going to contract this affliction and sicken, and some will die, just like seasonal flu.  

 

And at some point society will realize this is just another fake leftist crisis being used for political purposes and will largely be ignored.  But when they happens the left will create another crisis, and then another crisis, and another crisis thereafter and forever.  

 

The one thing that shows these leftists must be nuts is this:  What happens to these people who promoted leftist demagoguery, schemes and policy when leftists take over?  Well, history is replete with the consequences, and they're all negative.    

 

CCP at 100 Years: A Century of Killing and Deceit - More than 70 years of Party rule have resulted in the killing of tens of millions of Chinese people and the dismantling of a 5,000-year-old civilization. While China has advanced economically in recent decades, the CCP retains its nature as a Marxist-Leninist regime bent on solidifying its grip on China and the world. Millions of religious believers, ethnic minorities, and dissidents are still violently repressed today.

 

How can anyone not look at leftist history with all that misery, suffering, and mass murders and still be a leftist unless they're nuts? 

 

 

 

 

A Time to Provide New Guards

By Fredy Lowe —— Bio and Archives--May 15, 2020 

There is but a single worded declaration from our late beloved Andrew Breitbart, which can be heard more prevalently today in the whispered voices or rumblings, in the thoughts and minds of many Americans, as our destructive forms of government no longer derive their power from the consent of the governed.

WAR! “This is a struggle for the survival of our nation”

And, to help clarify our declaration, we need first to go back to that moment, on October 23, 2016, when then candidate Donald Trump gave his infamous stump speech where his words could not be more relevant today, saying:

“For them it’s a war, and for them nothing at all is out of bounds. This is a struggle for the survival of our nation””...This election will determine whether we are a free nation or whether we have only the illusion of democracy, but are in fact controlled by a small handful of global special interests rigging the system, and our system is rigged. This is reality, you know it, they know it, I know it, and pretty much the whole world knows it.”

These are, undoubtedly, fighting words for the perilous times in which we presently live. Dangerous, not only to our livelihoods, but to our very lives as well. Yes, we are in a struggle for the survival of our nation. Never have Americans seen their Democratic politicians take a sledge hammer to our once-booming-economy by indiscriminately closing down, essentially stealing the property of privately-owned businesses. One has to wonder if the Democrat governors came together knowing that, with their complicit media—nothing was out of bounds. Was it by a collective effort that they declared war on the citizens of their states by literally destroying their state economies? With the help of global special interests, did they use fear of the Wuhan virus as an election year tool to sabotage President Trump’s MAGA economy, which as you might recall, was running smoothly at the end of February with less than 3.5% unemployment?

Wuhan virus: Falsehoods, Fabrications, and One! Big! Lie!.........To Read More....

Does the Right Dare Fight?

Putting the question to David French about moral reasoning in action.

Hadley Arkes 09.10.2019

There’s an old joke about two Jewish women in an apartment building in Brooklyn in the 1950s. One was vexed over Israel and the rumblings of war in the Middle East. “Did you see what that lousy Nasser did?” she asked. To which the other replied, “I didn’t see a thing—I live in the back!”

So I felt on hearing from friends, who read things closely and often between the lines, that I was very much in the background of the recent clash between Sohrab Ahmari and David French.

They saw reflections of my own writings in First Things when Ahmari wrote in the same journal “Against David Frenchism,” the article that launched the debate between the two over conservatism. My most recent essay from June/July, “Backing into Relativism,” dealt with similar themes.

My concern in that essay was with the way that two other friends, Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, were projecting into the domain of religion the same moral relativism they were settling on (as a tactical move) in the regulation of “speech.”

Part of my complaint was that so many of our friends among the judges and lawyers were willing to settle on the test of “sincerity” in judging religious claims because they didn’t want to cast moral judgments on the things different groups professed—and the privileges they claimed—in the name of religion.

This approach brings us to a state of affairs in which conservatives are willing to cast the protections of religion even over Satanists, as though the affirmation of radical evil could be reconciled with anything we take seriously as “religion.”

And so our friends find themselves in full pragmatic mode, seeking to protect religious freedom by emptying religion of any substance, most notably the G-word:.........To Read More.....

My Take -  The article goes on to demonstrate how "conservatives" are more than willing to find a middle ground with anti-Judaic/Christian values and adopt the Neville Chamberlain policy of appeasement with the very values that made this nation great, and the people who wish to destroy it.
But after you've spent a lot of time going over the convoluted, so-called, conservative reasoning you find this whole piece can be summed up in this sentence. 

"But for Ahmari this stance looks like a recipe for the peace after surrender—the acceptance of a state of dhimmitude".   

And I agree. 

Definition leads to clarity, and we need to define these people as enemies of the American culture, the American identity, the American economy, and are enemies of the United States and the Constituion.

Once we're willing to grasp that reality everything else falls into place. 

Omar, Bernie, and Ocasio-Cortez decried for their fusty, outdated ideas on Venezuela — from the left

March 22, 2019 By Monica Showalter

Yesterday's detention of Roberto Marrero, Venezuelan president Juan Guaidó's chief of staff, by the Nicolás Maduro dictatorship, drew bipartisan condemnation from both Republicans and Democrats.
Here's Nancy Pelosi on Twitter.  We condemn the Maduro regime’s middle of the night raid and kidnapping of Roberto Marrero, the Chief of Staff to Venezuela’s interim President Juan Guaidó. We call on Maduro to release Marrero immediately and allow him safe return to his family............

Florida Reps. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Shalala, and New Jersey's Sen. Bob Menendez, all tweeted similarly.  We all agree that Maduro is despicable. USA Today called the entire stunt a kidnapping.  Even the press is onboard..........Then there are the outliers...the socialists who are so out of it that they're seeing pushback from the leftist press on something that's going to be painful for them when they hear about it..................Read more

Feel the Bern: Let’s Cheer for this Caravan of Migrants

November 17, 2018 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

 

Years ago, I shared a joke about American leftists fleeing to Canada.

But since Canada actually has a lot of pro-free enterprise policies (completely decentralized education and school choice, welfare reform and reduction, privatized air traffic control, etc), it doesn’t make much sense for statists to head north.

Last year, I followed up with some humor asking why leftists don’t move to places where socialism actually exists, such as Venezuela.
Well, the satirists at Babylon Bee have big news.

The caravan of Central American migrants heading to the U.S. is going to cross paths with a southbound caravan.

A migrant caravan full of leftists desiring to enter the socialist paradise of Venezuela departed the United States Thursday and began marching toward through Mexico, stating they will demand asylum so they might experience the far better life that socialism offers. …”Everyone there has the same quantity of possessions and food,” said one marcher. “Everyone makes millions of dollars, and very few people work. It’s a real paradise.” The refugees have complex motivations, but the vast majority simply want to see everything socialism has to offer after suffering the amazing benefits of capitalism for too long. …At its current pace, the caravan is expected to arrive just in time for Venezuela to run out of food entirely.

That sounds like a good trade to me.

Venezuela gets a bunch of crazies who will revel in equal levels of poverty (with the exception of the ruling elite, of course), and America will get a bunch of folks who want to work hard for a better life (an outcome that will be more likely since there will be fewer statists offering them welfare and telling them not to assimilate.

Speaking of assimilation, I suspect the leftists will have a very hard time adjusting to life under socialism.

P.S. Sticking with satire, American refugees have also fled to Peru.

P.P.S. If leftists don’t want to leave, maybe they’d go with this proposed national divorce agreement?

 

Leftists Are All Brass, No Class, And No Answers!

By Rich Kozlovich

Recently an article posted by Eugene Kim, entitled, “Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos's new $2 billion philanthropic fund faces many unanswered questions”, saying:

“Jeff Bezos Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos finally shared more details of his philanthropic efforts on Thursday, announcing a new $2 billion fund, called "Day One Fund," to help homeless families and create preschools. The announcement came more than a year after Bezos asked his Twitter followers for ideas on how to give away his fortune, and on the heels of growing public criticism on his lack of philanthropic activities. But philanthropic experts say the announcement — while a good start — still has many unanswered questions that need to be addressed as the world's richest person accelerates his plan to give back”……

One of the questions was, “Why only $2 billion?" Imagine that? People who did nothing to generate that capital are now criticizing Bezos for his “measly” two billion dollar charity. I gotta tell ya – that’s nerve! But that’s the left for you! All brass and no class.

First of all, why should the wealthy have to give their money away anyway? All this Corporate Social Responsibility horsepuckh is a scam to keep leftists in business. And leftism has now become "big business", getting real businesses to give away real capital created by real businessmen, in order to undermine capitalism. Can there be any doubt leftism is a form of insanity.

(Side bar - For my friend John: Leftism is the term that encompasses communism, fascism, progressivism and liberalism, which are all forms of socialism going back to the foundation of socialism, the French Revolution.  As for groups like Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and the Occupy Wall Street loons, they're the American left's modern version of the Nazi "Brown Shirt" thugs.  Different names, same purpose!  But the underlying social philosophy is socialism. If calling them communists pleases you, I'm fine with that.)

I recommend reading Ron Arnold's book, Freezing in the Dark: Money, Power, Politics and The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, to see just how much capital these leeches suck out of the system, who that money is coming from, how much is hidden, and how it's hidden. It's frightening!

It amazes me at the questions asked in this article, which sound a lot more like demands to me. As for the idea he “has” to give back, and he “has” to be more philanthropic, or has to explain how and what he's going to do with that $2 billion dollars is a load of horsepucky. He doesn’t have to do any of this stuff and he doesn’t have to answer to these mooches or explain anything to anyone, except possibly the IRS, but if he’s following the law, that’s not an issue either. 

Why is this so hard to get? It's "his" money!  And he can do what he pleases with it.   

When a person is amazingly wealthy they’re giving back just by the fact of their wealth, because that wealth was created by creating jobs. When not in use, that wealth has to be banked and that’s the foundation for investment into other businesses and homes, by lending institutions.  They give back with the very existence of that wealth, not to mention the huge amount of taxes they pay.

And where did this term “give back” originate anyway. What did the public give to them? They bought their stuff? Well, that’s called commerce. I sell, you buy. If I offer a product I owe you a quality product and you owe me payment for that product, and if both sides of that business deal are satisfactorily met, neither one of us owes the other anything else.

If Bezos really wants to "give back" he needs to invest that money in other businesses - then those who are willing to work and build will reap the rewards of those efforts, and won't need charity. Then those rewards will be shared with their neighbors by buying homes, groceries, going on vacations, going out to dinner, going to the theatre, buying furniture, carpeting, hiring plumbers, lawn care people, etc., who will reap the same kind of rewards based on hard work, and then they will also "give back" in the same way.  It's called capitalism!  

But he won't.  He'll keep pushing his left wing agenda, giving his money to the leftist loons that swirl around him and their loony causes, all working unendingly to undermine the very system that made him wealthy.  A system that has brought more people out of misery, suffering and despair than any system the world has ever known.  Capitalism!  Capitalism isn't perfect, but perfection isn't attainable!  Why is that so hard to understand?  That means we need to accept the most acceptable imperfection, and that's capitalism.  It's the most acceptable imperfection because it has allowed, and will continue to allow, for the unprecedented creation of capital by ordinary people.  And that allows for freedom!

Hey Bezos, have you read about Venezuela? 

Stuck on Stupid

By David Prentice February 12, 2018

That phrase comes from a press conference with General Russell Honore back in 2005. It was a jab at the media for being mired in the past. A well placed jab. One that is unforgettable. It's a jab that has stood the test of time. It's a phrase I'm going to use to apply to, first, the Democratic Party and then to its vanguard, the so-called mainstream media. And to the party's two so-called great families, the Clintons and the Obamas.

All: mired in, and stuck on, stupid.

It starts with the overwhelming self-generated conceit by the left that it's smarter, better, and in all ways superior to the riffraff that surrounds it in the good old U.S. of A. Smarter than its opponents, morally superior to all, and simply outclassing all others.

These leftists really believe that concept of superiority, particularly the incarnation that gave us Barack Obama.

That's how they presented Barack Obama to us. For all these years, despite a lot of evidence, in their eyes, Barack was the best. Ever. Smarter, morally superior, he couldn't do less than ace everything he did. He won the Nobel Peace Prize, he gave the best speeches, he outclassed everyone he touched.

Except he didn't.

Try this as often as you want: ask an Obama supporter for three things he accomplished in his life that would make him a qualified and good president of the most powerful nation on Earth. Then ask for one................To Read More.....

Impersonators of God

E.M. Cadwaladr

As the liberal media is pushed onto the defensive, its talking heads get more and more desperate to prop up their illusions. They are like magicians whose tricks are exposed, or ventriloquists who can no longer keep their mouths shut. It is easy to see them merely as cynical liars. They are certainly not interested in objective facts. But is there something deeper going on here? Something worse than garden variety political dishonesty?

Since at least the beginning of the Obama administration, both politicians and what pass for journalists have been using the word “narrative” more commonly -- and with less reservation. “We have to get the narrative right” or “terrorism is a problem of competing narratives.” Similarly, progressives seem to have acquired an unshakeable faith in sending diplomats to simply talk to our enemies -- like Iran or North Korea -- as though they could be persuaded by pure eloquence to give up on their national agendas............ To be fair, the tactic of shaming their opponents has worked well for them for decades -- withering weak Republicans in place like Christ’s fig tree. We drown in the perennial mantras of “diversity,” “social justice,” and “white privilege” -- vague ideas that are moldable enough to suit whatever magic incantation the circumstance requires.  All of it nonsense. All of it just so much sound and fury, signifying nothing.......More

The Left: Their Party - Their Leadership - Their Mission, Part I

By Rich Kozlovich

We so often fail to grasp the difference between a modern liberal and a leftist.  There is none!  In Carol Swain's presentation, "The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party", she documents just how far off are the nation's historical views are of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. 

With the main stream media being the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party and Academia as the party's enabler it's not unreasonable to understand why the general population is so ignorant of who and what the party really is, where was and where it's going. 

She starts by asking the following question:

Did you know that the Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded the KKK, and fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history?

Swain then lists the civil rights history of the Democrats, what they supported from it's founding in 1829, and the actions of it's members. 

• Fought against every major civil rights initiative
• Has a long history of discrimination.
• Defended slavery
• Started the Civil War
• Opposed Reconstruction
• Founded the Ku Klux Klan
• Imposed segregation
• Perpetrated lynchings
• Fought against the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s
• John Wilkes Booth, a Democrat, assassinated President Lincoln.
• Lincoln’s vice president, a Democrat named Andrew Johnson, assumed the presidency.....adamantly opposed Lincoln’s plan to integrate the newly freed slaves into the South’s economic and social order.

Swain's comments show why the Republicans - who Jesse Jackson Jr., - another history illiterate, called extremists - impeached Johnson: 

[Andrew] Johnson and the Democratic Party were unified in their opposition to the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery; the 14th Amendment, which gave blacks citizenship; and the 15th Amendment, which gave blacks the vote. All three passed only because of universal Republican support. 

Continuing in her condemnation of the Democrats:

"During the era of Reconstruction, federal troops stationed in the south helped secure rights for the newly freed slaves. Hundreds of black men were elected to southern state legislatures as Republicans, and 22 black Republicans served in the US Congress by 1900. The Democrats did not elect a black man to Congress until 1935."

"But after Reconstruction ended, when the federal troops went home, Democrats roared back into power in the South. They quickly reestablished white supremacy across the region with measures like black codes – laws that restricted the ability of blacks to own property and run businesses. And they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests, used to subvert the black citizen’s right to vote.

And how was all of this enforced? By terror -- much of it instigated by the Ku Klux Klan, founded by a Democrat, Nathan Bedford Forrest.  “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.”

"President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, shared many views with the Klan. He re-segregated many federal agencies, and even screened the first movie ever played at the White House - the racist film “The Birth of a Nation,” originally entitled “The Clansman.” ...."A few decades later, the only serious congressional opposition to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats."

But that changed with President Lyndon B. Johnson.

And when all of their efforts to enslave blacks, keep them enslaved, and then keep them from voting had failed, the Democrats came up with a new strategy: If black people are going to vote, they might as well vote for Democrats. As President Lyndon Johnson was purported to have said about the Civil Rights Act, “I’ll have them n*****s voting Democrat for two hundred years.”  "So now, the Democratic Party prospers on the votes of the very people it has spent much of its history oppressing, and what has been the impact to blacks?"  

Swain notes:

Democrats falsely claim that the Republican Party is the villain, when in reality it’s the failed policies of the Democratic Party that have kept blacks down. Massive government welfare has decimated the black family. Opposition to school choice has kept them trapped in failing schools.  Politically correct policing has left black neighborhoods defenseless against violent crime.

She then goes on to outline the civil rights history of the Republican Party. 

• Founded in 1854 as an anti-slavery party. Its mission was to stop the spread of slavery into the new western territories with the aim of abolishing it entirely.
• In the 1857 case Dred Scott v. Sandford, the court ruled that slaves aren’t citizens; they’re property. The seven justices who voted in favor of slavery? All Democrats. The two justices who dissented? Both Republicans.
• The first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln.......freed the slaves.
• Eighty percent of Republicans in Congress supported the Civil Rights Bill. Less than 70 percent of Democrats did. Democratic senators filibustered the bill for 75 days, until Republicans mustered the few extra votes needed to break the logjam.

So what's all of this prove?  Any group can change, but what are they changing?  They - like Satan - keep changing themselves into an angel of light and for the same purpose.   The Democrats are myrmidons of the left - which has no moral foundation other than to fool the masses for one purpose and one purpose only - get them the power they so desperately and cravenly desire.

In Jefferis Kent Peterson's article, Abortion - A Liberal Cause?  He discusses Margaret Sanger, the founder of what became Planned Parenthood, and what these leftists supported and promoted.  He goes on to say:

A careful examination of the history of the abortion rights movement would shock even the most ardent defender of a woman's right to choose. The founders of the movement were in fact racists who despised the poor and who were searching for a way to prevent colored races from reproducing. Rather than defending the rights of the poorest of the poor, which is the tradition of liberalism, the founders advocated abortion as a means of eliminating the poor; especially Blacks, Jews, Slavs, and Italians. And rather than desiring to help the poor through welfare programs, they wanted to eliminate all charities and government aid. Today, most liberals would be shocked to know of this racist heritage. Not only is the founding of the abortion rights movement anti-liberal, but it may have been an attempt to promote racial genocide."..   

........"Margaret Sanger continually shows up in the company of other racists. In fact, she was the guest speaker at a Klu Klux Klan rally in Silverlake, N. J. in 1926.  Not only did she not disassociate herself from these racist views, her own writings leave little doubt as to her sympathies. In implementing a plan called the "Negro Project," that was designed to sterilize Blacks and reduce the number of Black children being born in the south, Sanger wrote:

"[We propose to] hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." 

 "Organized charity (modern welfare) is the symptom of a malignant social disease, increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the 'failure' of philanthropy, but rather at its success."    

The urban poor, and their increasing numbers, she called, "an ever widening margin of biological waste."   

Welfare, she believed, encouraged the breeding of the poor, or "human waste," as she called them. She feared that welfare would encourage the urban poor by having them give birth to those "stocks that are the most detrimental to the future of the race."  

"Therefore, she believed that the government should actively encourage the sterilization of those who are unfit to propagate the race, using as her motto: "More [children] from the fit, less from the unfit.......she advocated limiting the racial quotas of immigration of "Slavs, Hebrews, and Latins,"because of their lower intelligence!" 

Over the decades the left has made a one hundred and eighty degree turn on everything they ever believed, everything opposed or everything they supported.  Since they have no moral foundation who knows what philosphical flavor of the day they will adopt tomorrow?

But there's one absolute historical fact that's incontestable. They promise utopia and deliver dystopia continually.  Dystopia follows the left just as sure as Sancho Panza followed Don Quixote - A madman.

The ACLU's radical roots

Why the ACLU is a scam.

By Robert Knight March 9, 2017

Examining the pedigree of groups helps us understand why they act the way they do today. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) purports to uphold First Amendment freedoms for all Americans, but its seminal doctrines and selective choice of cases reveal something else altogether.

The ACLU was founded in 1920 by leftwing activists, including socialists Norman Thomas and Crystal Eastman, lesbian social and peace activist, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Jane Addams, then-radical jurist Felix Frankfurter and communist Roger Baldwin. Frontpagemag.com, founded by former leftist David Horowitz, often strips bare the liberal front groups and exposes their radical nature. Here are some excerpts from a March 6, 2017 article by Daniel Greenfield that shed some light on the ACLU’s lineage:........More

Leftist Who Beat Pro-Israel Woman Demands Orthodox Jews Take Stock of Their "Values"

This is being billed as an attack on President Trump by Orthodox Rabbis.

Twenty-two Modern Orthodox rabbis signed a statement last week urging their communities to commit “non-partisan acts of spiritual resistance” in order to push back against “an administration that poses a grave threat to our democracy.”

The problem is that these left-wing activists aren't Orthodox or Rabbis. They're being led by Shmuly Yanklowitz of Uri L'Tzedek, an anti-Orthodox left-wing group. Whatever degree Yanklowitz has comes from Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, a non-Orthodox institution that exists as an incubator for left-wing clergy for "Open Orthodoxy"..   Shmuly Yanklowitz came out against the Book of Esther just in time for Purim............ Being lectured on values by leftists is like being lectured on morality by sociopaths.....To Read More.....

My Take on Cruz's Speech

By Rich Kozlovich

There's nothing more interesting than people. In Benjamin Franklin's autobiography he talks about a sea voyage he was taking from one port city to another (travel overland was extremely difficult in those days) and the sailors caught a large fish for the passenger's meal. Franklin says he'd been a vegetarian for many years, partly philosophical and partly financial.....which meant mostly financial.

As the sailors cut the fish opened a lot of smaller fish poured out. Franklin said he'd been fond of fish in the past so he reasoned - since you ate those fish, I'm going to eat you. He goes on to say in the book: “So convenient a thing to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for every thing one has a mind to do.”

I think this is applicable in this issue over Cruz and his speech.

Jeremy Carl in his article, Lion Ted, explains:

In this case, the simplest explanation for Senator Cruz’s behavior is also the best one: He didn’t endorse Trump because he didn’t think Trump was worthy of endorsement...  Donald Trump insulted Cruz’s wife, (presumably) planted false tabloid stories about him in the National Enquirer, and suggested, completely baselessly, that his father might have been involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. Beyond these outrageous personal insults, it is clear that Trump’s conservatism, such as it is, has little in common with the limited-government, pro-federalism conservatism of Senator Cruz......Ultimately, Cruz’s performance in the hall outlined his strongest political quality: his courage.....

Then we have Mona Charen with her article, Why I Am Not a Cruzite, saying:

"There is so much to admire about Cruz — and I don’t doubt that if his plan had worked and he’d been elected, he would have made a good president — but he also must bear some measure of responsibility for what has happened to the Republican party, and thus, to the country. Together with talk radio and Fox News celebrities, Cruz wove the tale of Republican-party betrayal that so alienated and embittered Republican voters against his own party. From the moment he arrived in Washington, Cruz lacerated Republicans as part of the “Washington cartel.” His specialty was the attention-grabbing gesture, such as the filibuster against Obamacare. It had no chance of success but positioned Ted Cruz very well with the “base.”

All that's true, and it's probably not how to win friends and influence the people he's forced to work with......but personally I like that!

Then there's Tim Alberta's article, Ted Cruz Isn’t Changing a Thing, which is so close to the other two I wonder if they all collaborate on this issue. He says:

"There is no question Cruz will run for president again. He’s up for reelection in 2018, but his 2020 plans are likely to move forward no matter who wins the White House this fall: Challenging a Republican incumbent would suit Cruz’s style and message, and he would probably be assured of a significantly smaller primary field that could facilitate the one-on-one matchup with Trump that John Kasich denied him this time around. What that next campaign will look like, however, remains unclear even to close observers of Cruz and those in his inner circle."

Let's change a little direction here to develop some foundation.

Huey Long, known as "The Kingfisher", (a former governor of Louisiana, who controlled a political machine in his state that was so powerful you couldn't get a job as a janitor in a school without their consent) won a seat to the Senate on March 4, 1931, but remained Governor for the remainder of his term, leaving that Senate seat for Louisiana open. He claimed having a vacant seat was better than having his opponent there. The man had brass.

In January 1932 he took his seat in the Senate and violated the first rule of the Senate in those days - in your first term you sit down and shut your mouth until you learn how things are done. That wasn't Long's style. He walked around the Senate shaking hands telling everyone "the Kingfisher's in town and things are going to change." And they did.

He proceeded to make fiery speeches denouncing everyone - especially the rich and the leadership in both parties because they just refused to redistribute the nation's wealth according to his liking. Sound familiar? He was another Bernie Sanders, only with style and panache. "The New York Times called him "a man with a front of brass and lungs of leather".

Huey Long was a remarkably flamboyant populist which made him one of the best known Senators in the nation. His colleagues in the Senate hated him, including his fellow Democrats.  One Senator said "I do not believe you could get the Lord's Prayer endorsed in this body."

He later announced he was going to run as against Franklin Roosevelt in the 1936 election - and there were many who feared he could take the nomination away from the sitting President of his own party, and if he hadn't been assasinated he just might have done so.

Now, there's a serious difference between Long and Cruz. Long was absolutely a socialist promoting what he called the Share Our Wealth clubs, of which he "had 7.5 million members nationwide," and furthermore, "he regularly garnered 25 million radio listeners, and he was receiving 60,000 letters a week from supporters (more than the president)".  In a population of 128 million in 1936 - that's impressive.  And considering there were probably only about 75 million people of voting age in 1936 - it's even more impressive. 

To diffuse charges of being a socialist he claimed is views weren't based on Marx, but were derived from the Declaration of Independence and the Bible.

Having said all of that - I come to this question about Cruz. If he didn't want them to support the ticket who did he want them to support?  Him? This leads to the next question. Is it about the mission or is it about Ted Cruz? The answer is yes, it's about the mission and Ted Cruz, because it's Ted Cruz's mission.  Which is to run for the presidency in 2020, which is the one thing all writers seem to agree on, and that's what his speech was all about. 

Hello world!  Meet the conservative Huey Long - Ted Cruz!