Praying For A White American/Tea Party/Christian Terrorist

The Obama Media works overtime to fulfill their insistent fantasy that the Boston Jihad attackers were White Conservative Christians.

As if we needed any more proof that mainstream media’s religion, focus and worship is rooted in the MarxoFascist Obama agenda, the disgusting spectacle of the corrupted mainstream press corps in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon Jihad attack, reached depths of depravity and propaganda not even I thought possible.

In keeping with the narrative set as policy in the Obama regime, Islamist Jihadists are not considered a threat or risk to the country – while the real danger the government focuses on and preaches against is White, Conservative Christian patriotism.  This meme of blaming TEA Party White Conservatives happens every single time a mass casualty event has occurred since Obama’s crowning as our first emperor.  And no wonder, since April of 2009, the official policy of Obama and his regime is to classify and redirect the entire government and military structure of the United States to consider it’s own citizens who are beholden to God, the bible and the Constitution, as the greatest threat to public security and safety.  While Obama works tirelessly to restrict and rescind our God-ordained Rights, his government works just as tirelessly to aid, comfort and fund Islamists and their Muslim Brotherhood agenda to establish a global Islamic Caliphate that will place the world under Sharia Law.

I find as evidence the fact Obama decided there was no money for Air Traffic Controllers and had them furloughed as part of his ‘sequester’ of so-called budget restrictions in the wake of a Congressional refusal to fund the rate of increase projection in 2013′s budget – but Obama finds MILLIONS of dollars to gift to Islamists and their Jihadists in Syria and Somalia.

Now that it is known that the Boston terrorists were Chechen Jihadists, the media is working overtime to whitewash, bury or justify the Boston attackers. One Jihad Apologist imbecile even went so far as to suggest the Jihadists were driven to hate America because White “Jocks” bullied them, using the Columbine shooters as evidence:

Dave Cullen tells the story of the attack in meticulous detail, debunking many of the popular stereotypes that persist to this day that the attack was meant to avenge bullying by “jocks.”

This is followed by a litany of Media efforts to push the liberal/Islamist alliance viewpoint as the only viable and acceptable view in the wake of the jihad attack.

“If a Muslim did this it will set the Muslim community back a decade,” Khan said. “It will feed into the perception that Muslims are terrorists. Children are more likely to be bullied at school, individuals at work will be treated with suspicion by their coworkers.”

What’s more worrying, to me at least, is the bubbling up of domestic, right-wing terrorist groups and individuals who might commit atrocities out of sheer hatred of government and racial bigotry. 

Daniel Greenfield points out the Obama media absurdity of their effort to actually ‘pray’ for the hope that the Jihad attack was the work of White Americans, while the entire event showcases the unrelenting efforts of the Obama regime and it’s propaganda machine, the media to continue to demonize White American Christian Conservative Patriots as ‘hate’ ‘extremists’ and probable domestic terrorists.

Remember this truth – when any government demonizes a segment of their people it hates, it is not long before they end up criminalizing and eradicating that segment of people from society.  In this case, efforts are being made to whitewash Jihadist Islam having a role while continuing to warn of the threat White Conservatives pose.

Praying for a White American Terrorist

By Daniel Greenfield

The reactions to the Boston Marathon Massacre were predictable. Alex Jones was going to cry false flag and the media was going to blather about right wing extremism.

Now a suspect, or another suspect, has reportedly been arrested. But before anything happened, the left was hoping he was white. Would his whiteness do anything to change the horror? Would it bring back the lives of the three people murdered, including a little boy?

No, but it would apportion blame in the way that the left thinks is ideologically correct. The loony David Sirota, who has become the go-to guy for bizarre quotes on race and violence, usually finding some backward way of blaming white people for everything, was open about his priorities.

“Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American,” Sirota wrote at Salon. Not, let’s hope he’s caught. Or let’s hope he doesn’t strike again. Let’s hope he’s a white man. That’s not just racism. It’s completely amoral racism.

Sirota looks at terrorism not through the lens of actual existing terrorist organizations, but race.

Privilege tends to determine, he writes, which groups are — and are not — collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals

This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.

One of the problems with Marxists is that they’re clever idiots. Sirota’s screed is a reminder why. Rather than examining the broader picture of events, they view them through the lens of a single category. Class, race or gender determines everything.

Sirota doesn’t need to know anything about the attack or any other attack. All he has to do is equate Adam Lanza to Nidal Hasan based on minority status. (Though Mother Jones, which Sirota formerly relied on, lists Hasan as a “White Dude” to increase the ranks of white dude killers killing in the name of white privilege.)

Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats

Are they portrayed as such or are they actually members of larger conspiracies? That’s the basic factual question. But we’re not in the realm of facts here.

Sirota isn’t interested in discussing actual real world facts. His facile skill, the one most prized by today’s leftellectuals, is reducing all things to race.

Sure Hasan corresponded with Anwar Al-Awlaki, the Al Qaeda mastermind who found his way to half-white dude, Obama’s kill list. But that’s just more white privilege talking.

Asserting white privilege frees us from having to consider any facts. It preemptively delegitimizes all facts and reduces all dialogues to a catalog of grievances. Even debate becomes a crime.

After September 11, and I do mean right after, lefties hung up signs against the War in Afghanistan, that had not even started yet, arguing that we didn’t bomb any of the places McVeigh lived after Oklahoma City. Sirota brings up a variation of the same tired argument that misses the point.

If McVeigh had been part of an international Neo-Nazi group with thousands of fighters and millions of supporters operating in an area outside the United States, we would have bombed it. He wasn’t. Neither was Adam Lanza or the Columbine shooters. The 9/11 hijackers were.

Those are facts, which are a notorious form of white privilege. Muslim terrorism is a collection of organized international movements with a deep base of support from outside the country. It’s an invasive force. It’s also far more lethal. That holds true regardless of who carried out the Boston Marathon Massacre. The list of bombing plots averted by the authorities in the last 15 years are ample testimony to that. But while most people care about stopping the violence, lefties like Sirota would like us to racially classify the violence.

 

BOMBING USED TO SLAM PATRIOTS AS ‘HATE’ GROUP

Tea partiers wouldn’t have done it, because victims weren’t ‘black’

The reason it’s unlikely a tea-party, patriot or right-wing group perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombing is because the victims weren’t “black people or Jewish people or gay people or Muslims,” claimed a senior fellow of the Southern Poverty Law Center earlier this week.

The SPLC – a left-wing, nonprofit organization that describes itself as dedicated to fighting “bigotry” and monitoring domestic “hate groups” – keeps an eagle eye on tea-party, patriot, Christian, gun-rights and right-wing organizations, often insisting their fires are fueled by racism and hatred, rather than politics or policy.

SPLC Senior Fellow Mark Potok continued the narrative in an interview on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Live” earlier this week, when the host asked Potok if the Boston bomber was more likely to be a lone wolf or part of an existing group.

“It’s more likely to be a lone wolf, these kinds of things, at least in the radical right. The non-Islamic radical right, they don’t tend to be carried out in groups at all,” Potok replied. “It may be, in fact, a home grown radical, but perhaps of the jihadist sort. And the reason I think about that in that way is think about who the targets were. You know, this was not a target that one would associate with a radical right-wing bomber. It was not a government building, it was not the IRS, although it was Tax Day on Monday. It was not a minority group. It wasn’t black people or Jewish people or gay people or Muslims.”

The SPLC paints its listing of official “hate groups” with a broad brush, often lumping in politically or socially conservative organizations with white supremacists and neo-Nazis. For example, the SPLC lists among it’s official “hate groups” the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, the Federation for American Immigration Reform and the Traditional Values Coalition.

See “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception,” which reveals the threat that is hidden in plain sight for Americans.

The SPLC further sounds warnings over tea-party and “patriot groups” who oppose a growing federal government or gun-control legislation, often linking libertarian or conservative political positions to racist “hate” activity.

In a recent edition of the SPLC’s “Hatewatch” blog, for example, the Tea Party Nation was among various “extremists” blasted for blaming the Boston bombing on jihadi terror.

“Linking Islam with Ronald Reagan’s ‘evil empire’ of communism, the [Tea Party Nation] warned that the Boston bombings are just another event presaging future violence in ‘an ideological war’ that can only be won if we have tougher, more anti-Islam U.S. political leaders,” the SPLC explained. “That, of course, would be the Tea Party cabal.”

The current suspects being pursued for the bombing, however, have been identified as Islamic sympathizers, in part because of social media posts where one of the suspects listed his “worldview” as “Islam.”

Yet the SPLC insists the real reason for the rise in patriot groups in recent years has little to do with militant Islam or President Obama’s policies – insisting instead, it’s mostly about race.

“The changing demographics have upset many people, and the country is having a hard time coming to terms with it,” SPLC President Richard Cohen told Connecticut’s The Register Citizen in an interview shortly before the bombing. “Obama symbolizes that change to so many people. We have this Kenyan-born, secret Muslim running the country – that is how the country sees it.”

Cohen added that after the Newtown massacre, in which Adam Lanza gunned down 20 first-graders and six educators, the addition of gun-rights advocates into the mix only makes the potential for domestic terrorism more volatile.

“The 1,300 hate groups we counted were before Newtown,” Cohen said, “and before proposals to reinstitute the ban on assault rifles and to require background checks. We are in a really incendiary situation now. A mixture of those who hate and those with guns is a disaster.”

The SPLC, in fact, wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano in March advising them of the growing threat of “patriot” groups.

“In the last four years, we have seen a tremendous increase in the number of conspiracy-minded, anti-government groups as well as in the number of domestic terrorist plots,” the SPLC wrote. “As in the period before the Oklahoma City bombing, we now also are seeing ominous threats from those who believe that the government is poised to take their guns. Because of the looming dangers, we urge you to establish an interagency task force to assess the adequacy of the resources devoted to responding to the growing threat of non-Islamic domestic terrorism.”

“It’s absolutely disturbing,” Cohen told The Register Citizen. “The Department of Homeland Security seems reluctant to devote significant resources to monitoring non-Islamic domestic terrorism, especially in the light of the election of an African-American president and the collapse of the economy.”

Cohen is scheduled to speak before the Salisbury Forum on April 19 at The Hotchkiss School in Salisbury, Conn., on the history of hate groups in the U.S. and what can be done about them.

“One thing I will talk about in Salisbury is how we are seeing similar signs now to what we saw before the Oklahoma City bombing,” Cohen explained. “I don’t think the country is headed for a revolution, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we see another Oklahoma City. I think the prospect of significant damage from domestic terrorism is very real.”

So Satan Made A Leftist

Parodies and revisions of the 2013 Superbowl Commercial with Paul Harvey’s Narration now abound the web.

Without question the most talked about and favorite commercial from this year’s Superbowl has been the Ram Truck “Farmer” spot:

A slice of Americana, and tugging on heart strings and the awe of respect for rugged individuals who feed us all, albeit in this age of of collectivism, are being overrun by reverence for government.  The truth Paul Harvey belted out in quick staccato form with those grit and gristle images, sparked the musings of several on the internet who thought this resonation deserved a sequel to highlight another group of people in our midst.

My only disagreement with these ‘remakes’ is in ascribing the making of such people with the Leftist ideology to God.   It is far more fitting that Satan the devil deserve the credit for making the attributes described in the following two efforts.  First, Daniel Greenfield’s piece will definitely leave a mark.

SO GOD MADE A DEMOCRAT

God looked down on Washington D.C. and said “I need someone who will steal morning, noon and night. Who will steal from the rich to give to the poor and steal from the poor to give to the rich and fool them all and keep all the loot.”

So God made a Democrat.

God said, “I need college man to come to a farm and tell the farmer that he can’t feed his hogs with lettuce from his own farm or use the manure from his pigs to grow his lettuce. I need an inspector who will tell him how much he can sell his milk for and warn him that his son riding on the tractor constitutes child labor. I need someone to pay a farmer not to farm so that poor people can’t afford bread.”

So God made a Democrat.

“I want a union organizer who hires non-union picketers to keep workers from working, a politician who fights for the people by taking money from billionaires and a clergyman who worships whoever runs on the party line. I want a banker who fights for the poor and gives to the party and a party that pays the poor man eight times to vote for the banker’s man.”

So God made a Democrat.

“I need someone to retire at 55 with generous benefits from a government job.  I need lawmakers who will pass laws without reading them. I need teachers who refuse to teach kids unless they’re paid twice as much as any worker in their city. I need people to sit on commissions and make rules about lines of work that they’ve never been in.”

So God made a Democrat

“I need a Catholic who’s for abortion. A Jew who’s for Palestine. A Mormon who’s against the Church. A Baptist who’s for evolution. A Methodist who doesn’t believe in god. And a Muslim who believes in destroying America.”

So God made a Democrat.

He said, “I need someone who starts all the wars and protests against all the wars. Who is first in line to sign up to fight against his country but comes out as a pacifist when it’s time to defend it. I want war heroes who throw their medals over fences and then gather them up again when it’s time to run for office. I want men who are for everything before they’re against it”

So God made a Democrat.

“I need a working class man who who has never worked a day in his life, but always talks about caring for those who do. I need a man who talks all the time about helping women, blacks, lesbians, Eskimos and Martians get ahead and then drops them like a dirty rag when he has what he wants. A man who gets up at 11:30 in the afternoon to help the less fortunate by passing laws that will make them even less fortunate. A man who takes nine tenths of what’s meant for the poor and lets them have the leftovers.”

So God made a Democrat.

“I need a man who believes in himself too much to take responsibility for anything he did. I need a man who is tolerantly intolerant, who is outraged all day by everything in the world except his own outrageous behavior. I need a man who is for freedom of speech except when he’s offended, for freedom of religion except when he disagrees with it and for the right to bear arms but only for those weapons that existed in 1791.”

So God made a Democrat.

God said, “I need a party of jackasses that will always break through the fence and spoil everything that the farmer grows. I need bad men to test good men and liars, cheats and thieves with clipboards to teach neighbors to stick together against them. I need a man with no more conscience than a rattlesnake leading a band of fools with less sense than sheep. And I need him to keep the farmers and ranchers, the workers and doers on their toes so they always remember that evil never rests and keeping it down can sometimes be the hardest work of all.”

So God made a Democrat.

Next up is Soopermexican’s “God Made A Liberal”

Again, while I applaud the efforts – I do think thatSatan has more to do with creating the Leftist ideology than ascribing it to God since the Democrats/Liberals/Leftists reject God and His Commandments for the tyranny of men and the celebration of sin.

But satire and parody may be the only tools left in the Conservative toolbox to reach the mind-numbed with the truth.  So kudos to Mr. Greenfield and Soopermexican.

Gun Violence Comes From Obama’s Amerika – NOT from Americans.

Gun violence in the USA is a hallmark of Democrats and Leftists.  From the Fort Hood Jihadist to the Colorado shooter – the ideology that uses guns for mass murder are from Obama’s worldview.

Facts are stubborn things if one is not willing to ignore or lie and spin them to serve a political agenda.  The murder rate and shootings are epidemic in the urban ghettos of Democrat strongholds who worship Obama.  As the MarxoFascist Left works furiously to disarm Americans for easier subjugation by their political messiahs, the startling facts for anyone still left with the ability to use logic and not emotional propaganda and Leftist talking points – is that America does not have a gun violence problem, Obama’s America does.

Nearly ALL of the recent mass shootings were the result of registered Democrats or in a family of registered Democrats.

This is the common thread among massacre nut jobs:

Ft Hood: Registered Democrat/Muslim.
Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.
Virginia Tech: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff.
Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal.
Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

Daniel Greenfield of The Sultan Knish blogspot details truths about gun violence that the Left will ignore, marginalize and demonize in order to push their disarmament agenda.

The Guns of Obamerica

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog

Forget Wal-Mart and skip your local gun show. The murderers of tomorrow will not be found wearing orange vests at your local sporting goods store. They won’t have NRA memberships or trophies on their walls.

You won’t find them in America. Look for them in Obamerica.

67% of firearm murders took place in the country’s 50 largest metro areas. The 62 cities in those metro areas have a firearm murder rate of 9.7, more than twice the national average. Among teenagers the firearm murder rate is 14.6 or almost three times the national average. Those numbers are from six years ago. They have grown worse since.

Those are the crowded cities of Obamerica. The places with the most restrictive gun control laws and the highest crime rates. These are the places where the family is broken, money comes from the government and immigrants crowd in from some of the most violent parts of the world bringing with them their own organized crime. These are also the places that have run by Democrats and their political machines for almost as long as they have been broken.

Obama won every major city in the election, except for Jacksonville and Salt Lake City. And the higher the death rate, the bigger his victory. He won New Orleans by 80 to 17 where the murder rate is ten times higher than the national average. He won Detroit, where the murder rate of 53 per 100,000 people is the second highest in the country and twice as high as any country in the world, including the Congo and South Africa. He won it 73 to 26. And then he celebrated his victory in Chicago where the murder rate is three times the statewide average.

These places aren’t America. They’re Obamerica.

In 2006, the 54% of the population living in those 50 metro areas was responsible for 67% of armed killings nationwide. Those are disproportionate numbers especially when you consider that for the people living in most of those cities walking into a store and legally buying a gun is all but impossible.

Mayors of Obamerican cities blame guns because it’s easier than blaming people and now the President of Obamerica has turned to the same shameless tactic. The NRA counters that people kill people, but that’s exactly why Obamerican leaders would rather talk about the guns.

Chicago, the capital of Obamerica, is a city run by gangs and politicians. It has 68,000 gang members, four times the number of police officers. Chicago politicians solicit the support of gang members in their campaigns, accepting laundered contributions from them, hiring their members and tipping them off about upcoming police raids. And their biggest favor to the gang bosses is doing nothing about the epidemic of gang violence.

80% of Chicago’s murders are gang-related. But in 1999 when a bill came up in the Illinois State Senate to try anyone carrying out a firearm attack on school property as an adult, a law that would have affected gang members who often bring weapons to school, the future leader of Obamerica voted present. Had he not voted present, it is doubtful that he would have been reelected in an area where gang leaders wield a great deal of influence.

The majority of murders in the cities with the worst homicide rates are gang-related. And while it isn’t always possible to be certain whether a killing was gang-related, the majority of homicide victims in city after city have been found to have criminal records.

In 2010, there were 11,078 firearm homicides in the United States and over 2,000 known gang-related killings, over 90% of which are carried out with firearms. Since 1981, Los Angeles alone has had 16,000 gang related homicides. That’s more than twice the number of Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and it’s more than the number of Americans who died in the Mexican-American War.

This is what Obamerica looks like. It’s a place where life is cheap and illegal guns are as available as illegal drugs. It’s a series of war zones whose problem is not the supply of guns, but their own social dysfunction. It’s the war that we aren’t talking about, because it’s easier to talk about the inanimate objects being used to fight that war.

Reformers in the twenties blamed the plight of the slums on the availability of liquor. They rammed through Prohibition for the entire country to fix the cities. The liquor went on flowing and the slums went on being slums. Gun control has been just as successful in healing the slums as whiskey control was. And like the dry reformers, gun control advocates insist on trying to apply their solution on a national level, when the problem is not nationwide.

There are, as John Edwards said, two Americas. America is a country that runs pretty well on its own. Gun sales in America do not lead to bursts of homicide. If the power goes out for an hour, there is no epidemic of looting. The new year isn’t rung in at the morgue. Social dysfunction exists but it never affects the majority or even a sizable minority of the population.

And then there’s Obamerica. Not all of Obamerica is broken, but a lot of it is. Obamerica has a big gap between the rich and the poor. Its middle class is always on the run. Its upper class retreats to fortresses. Its lower class is broken and constantly growing as its political machines feed off human misery and exploit social dysfunction to gain votes.

America does not have a gun violence problem. Obamerica does. And Obamerica has a gun violence problem for the same reason that it has a drug problem and a broken family problem. These social ills cannot be solved by banning something. The War on Guns is not going to fix the inner city just as the War on Drugs didn’t. Rigid law enforcement can keep the numbers down, but does not deal with the causes of the violence.

Obamerica is a bad place. It has great restaurants and night clubs. It has a lot of noise and a lot of light. The next big thing in music will probably come out of there. It’s where your kids probably dream of moving to when they’re teenagers. But for all that it’s fundamentally broken.

Democratic leaders and machines, combined with liberal social workers and justice crusaders have run Obamerica into the ground. Obamerican cities used to be the homes of industry and progress. Now they’re places where young Black and Hispanic men kill each other in growing numbers.

In America, guns are used for target practice and for hunting, and on rare occasions for self-defense, but in Obamerica guns have only one purpose, as so many liberals have pointed out, like so many of the young men who walk the streets of Obamerica, they exist only to kill. The guns get blamed and the killers rotate through the revolving doors of an overburdened justice system. And then the politicians who sit around the table with gang leaders announce that they have a new initiative to get guns off the streets.

America does not need gun control. It is a mostly law-abiding place. And gun control cannot help Obamerica. Not when its murder rate is driven by gangs who have no trouble obtaining anything; whether it’s legal in the United States or not.

What can help is talking about Obamerica. AIDS prevention was sabotaged by the claim that the disease was a general problem spreading through the population. It wasn’t. Neither is gun violence. Despite the occasional exception created by high profile suburban shooting sprees, this is not an American problem. It’s an Obamerican problem.

Adam Lanza is as much of a plausible poster boy for gun violence, as Ryan White was for AIDS. A better poster boy for gun violence might be Jay-Z, who boasts of having been a drug dealer and claims to have shot his brother at the age of 12. The drug dealer to millionaire rapper is the Horatio Alger story of Obamerica. And Jay-Z can be seen partying with Obama, the political king of Obamerica touching base with its cultural king.

If Obama really wants to get serious about gun violence, then all he has to do is turn to the man standing next to him. But Obama, like every Chicago politician before him, don’t want to end the violence. The death toll is profitable, not just for rappers writing bad poetry about dealing drugs and shooting rivals, but for the politicians atop that heap who score money and gain power by using the problems of Obamerica as some sort of call to conscience for the rest of the country.

That’s what Obama is doing now. Hiding behind Newtown and adorable little kids is the grim specter of Obamerica’s death toll. It’s buried inside the gruesome figures of how many Americans are shot each year issued as an indictment against the entire country in general and gun owners in particular. But those numbers are not an indictment of America. They are an indictment of Democratic mayors and Liberal social policy. They are an indictment of Obamerica. They are an indictment of Obama.

This country does not need to have a conversation about how many bullets should go in a clip. It does need to have a conversation about how many parents should go in a family. It needs to talk about the ghettos of Obamerica and have a serious conversation about broken families and generational dependency. It needs to have a conversation about funneling new immigrants from broken parts of the world into areas already suffering from high levels of unemployment and street violence.

Most of all this country needs to have a conversation about the direction it’s headed in. We need to set aside the same old tired social justice rhetoric that has done nothing except train .001 percent of the young men and women of Obamerica to be community organizers and race card wielders and have a serious conversation about what is wrong with New Orleans, Detroit and Chicago.

Obama has become a role model to millions of people in the Black community. You can see posters and photos of him in every barbershop. If anyone can address these problems, it’s him. But instead of trying to solve the problems of Obamerica, instead of doing something about the high levels of unemployment, the broken families and the glamorization of drug dealing and violent crime, he wimped out and picked a fight with the rural Americans that he derided as gun-clingers.

In the same hollow tradition of macho posturing common among the men responsible for much of the violence in Obamerica, he chose to show his power in a fight for dominance with a perceived rival, rather than give back to his community. Rather than looking to the hearts and minds of his followers, he went after the guns of those he sees as his enemies. That is what distinguishes a thug from a leader. Leaders uplift their people. Thugs use them up as cannon fodder in their own private power struggles.

The legacy of Martin Luther King reminds us that a leader speaks difficult truths even to his own people. There are such leaders in the Black community today. Obama is not one of them.

The guns of America, by and large, are not a threat to the innocent. The guns of Obamerica are. And the conversation that we need to have is about what can be done, not about the guns of Obamerica, but about its hearts and minds.

The Revolution Is At Our Door

As the American experiment with liberty collapses into tyranny, a very real bloodbath stands in wait

The American War of Independence and the French Revolution.  Two revolutions against state authority and tyranny.  Two completely different outcomes.

Why?

In attempting to answer the question of where his native nation of France went wrong, Alexis DeToqueville summed up in Democracy in America, that America’s greatness could be found in our churches, and that the day America ceased to be good (and moral), she would cease to be great.  He was stating what John Adams himself had declared when he wrote: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate for the governance of any other (people)”.

It is not lost on any right-thinking American that our nation has ceased to be a moral or religious nation and has ceased to be good.  MarxoFascists and Leftists have been busy redefining morality and what is good for the better part of five decades, and their cultural revolution has paved the way for their hoped-for Marxist revolution against Capitalism and individual liberty.  Running on the induced self-loathing of America that has been soaked into the minds of public school and college students since the 1960′s, the culture war has been lost to Leftists.  Coupled with a complete brainwashing of Communist/Socialist propaganda by Leftist Teachers and their Communist Unions being taught as the only true morality and fairness, Obama’s army of disgruntled welfare class dependents and media stooges, are openly calling for the deaths of Americans they hate.

At the other end of the spectrum, lovers of our liberty and Constitution see this as a direct threat to freedom.  The actions of the Obama regime and Democrat MarxoFascists in Congress; the impending nullification of the Second Amendment is spurning the exponentially accelerated talk of revolution against the counter-revolutionaries of the Obama-Left.

War it appears, is on our doorstep.

Revolution may sound romantic – but it is anything but.  It often descends into a bloodbath of horrors and terror that end up being waged by those not grounded in religious principles.  It would do us all well to read the following essay by Daniel Greenfield and contemplate what is being stoked among us, and is standing upon our doorsteps.

And This Is Revolution

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog

There are a few things worth knowing about revolutions. Most people don’t participate in them, even if the history books often make it seem otherwise. Revolutions are thought up by small groups of people who then make it everyone’s business. Or alternately they don’t. And those are the revolutions that never happen.

Most people, at any given time and place, are dissatisfied with the government and believe, rightly, that whoever is in charge is guilty of stealing from them, oppressing them and making it impossible for them to live their lives in peace. And they also believe that things are not likely to get any better. Hope is a vanishing emotion that dissipates easily in the drudgery of ordinary everyday work. It may be taken out for a spin on historical occasions, but then it goes back into the barn where it sits for a while gathering dust until it is needed again.

There are however some known crossroads of revolution. A successful revolution usually doesn’t happen among the thoroughly repressed. Those people tend to lack the motivation and skills to face down a modern army. When the peasants revolt, they can often be tricked into going home with some false promises and free beer. It worked more often with the serfs in European history than you would think. It’s the middle class that you really have to watch out for.

People are not at their most dangerous when they’re eating bread crusts and hoping that they won’t die tomorrow. By then they’re often broken, perhaps not individually, but as a society. It wasn’t the people on the collective farms who challenged Soviet tanks in Moscow. Nor was it the Chinese farmers, now being bulldozed off their land, sometimes literally, who stood up to the tanks in Tienanmen Square.

The most dangerous people are the ones who have tasted enough freedom and prosperity to want to keep it. They don’t think their leaders are godlike and they have enough education and competence to think the heretical thought that just about anybody could do the same job as the king, the emperor, the czar or the president. They have experience enough upward mobility to understand that a man’s place in the world isn’t fixed. It can and should be changed. And that is what distinguishes them from the serf. That is what makes them so dangerous.

Authority works best when it isn’t challenged. Ceremony, whether it is that of an emperor or any lesser rank, invests authority with mystical force. Peer pressure and social conformity employ horizontal pressures to keep everyone in their place. Secret police and ranks of informers allow the regime to project an illusion of omnipotent force that seems to be everywhere at once. Reigns of terror create examples to intimidate anyone who might think of challenging the regime.

Revolutions strip away these illusions. The secret police run for cover or comically march out with clubs and guns against mobs, and get beaten to a pulp. The neighbor who rats on everyone sits home and stews in front of the television. And then the regime has no choice but to call on the army and hope that it still retains enough control over the officers and that the officers still have enough control over their men to do the bloody work of winning a civil war.

The army test is the acid test of a regime because it exposes the actual level of power of the regime, which relies entirely on its officer corps and its grunts to be willing to shoot people in the street. In Russia, the army proved unwilling to kill a bunch of civilians to protect a coup by their own superiors leading to the end of the Soviet Union and the fall of Communism.

After generations of worldwide terror, the great red beast was reduced to relying on the willingness of a handful of Russian kids in tanks to run over protesters. The kids, who had grown up on Western rock and roll, listening to old men preach about a coming revolution that was already older than the oldest man they had ever seen, while the echoes of capitalist dreams leaked through the Iron Curtain, chose to sit this one out. And Communism died in the streets of Moscow.

But where the Soviet Union fell, the Chinese Communist Party succeeded because they had men who were willing to run over other men with tanks. After all the great debates and posturing, the fate of hundreds of millions of people came down to the same things that all revolutions come down to, not cogent arguments or complex theories, but the willingness of some men to kill other men for a cause.

Communism also died in China. It had to. But the leadership class remained in power and their princes made it into a hereditary dynasty. In Iran, protests were pitted against the guns of the Revolutionary Guard. The regime won, but at the cost of shifting power to the Revolutionary Guard. In Syria, each side escalated, found foreign backers and is fighting a war in which the most ruthless bastards are winning. That is how the Communists ended up winning in Russia, but not after a long bout of murderous warfare in which all sides did horrible things and painted the land red. Any Russian naval officers with a sense of history watching the whole thing happen from a portside cafe are probably remembering how the same thing went down in the land of red snow.

It’s the aspiring middle class that begins revolutions, but when they turn bloody enough, then they usually aren’t the ones who inherit them. An ascending middle class begins revolutions to protect its privileges, only to see those revolutions hijacked by the fanatics, who to be fair, often began them, the lawyers who want to be executioners, the demagogues who fail at everything but street corner tirades and the psychopaths who drift in and then take over.

The American Revolution avoided being overtaken by these types of lunatics, though at times it was a closer thing than anyone realizes. If history had gone a little differently, Aaron Burr could very well have been our Robespierre. And General Lafayette could have been France’s George Washington. Instead the American Revolution stayed in the hands of the people who wanted peace and prosperity, rather than radical social change, and France descended into blood and chaos at the hands of those who thought that revolution was worthless unless it allowed them to completely transform society.

The other kind of revolution, the Bastille kind, has managed to catch up with us. A vast territory and technological revolutions held it at bay for the longest time, but it was the aspiring middle class that eventually allowed itself to be seduced into mortgaging its political power, national integrity and economic freedom to gain an illusory peace and security in the form of a powerful government. And if there to be another revolution against it, it will once again come from the ranks of the middle class.

The American middle class can feel itself sinking. Its prosperity has been stagnating and the jobs are drying up. The educational revolution isn’t doing what it was supposed to, for most, instead it saddled much of the country with even more debt. Debt is the watchword of the present, as it was of France before the Revolution. Everything is in debt and mortgaged to the hilt for everything else. International financial systems have made it possible to spread the pain and bury it in complicated financial transactions and speculation, but that just means the debt is bigger and badder than ever.

The pre-revolutionary middle class can choose between two sets of villains, big government and big business. Both are big, and thus meet the criteria for being worth revolting against, but the choice of villains often comes down to a choice of professions.

The college student who owes insane amounts of money to a complex network of financial institutions for a degree of dubious worth and a credit card whose interest rates are more complicated than the subject she was studying, is likely to sympathize with Occupy Wall Street’s bank baiting. The small businessman who feels like he spends all day filling out forms in order to get other forms to fill out, while seeking his profits being sucked up by the government and its institutions, feels a tug toward the Tea Party.

It’s the anarchist who is closest to the mark when he notes that there really isn’t that much of a distinction between the two. The government bails out the banks with bad money and the banks bail out the government with fake money. Governments and corporations, are run by the same people with the same phony mantra of social justice, that really means showy philanthropy and profitable regs. But then the cynics usually tend to be closer to the mark because faults are easy to find.

The American middle class is caught between two rebellions. One by an urban middle class elite that would like a more closed and regulated society and another by a rural middle class that would like a more open and less regulated society, with the suburbs split in the middle.

Having the cities is not absolutely mandatory for a revolution. The modern American city is a drain that produces very little except bureaucracy and culture. And while the power of those two should not be underestimated, if every major American city were to vanish tomorrow, some of the sciences would be hard hit and the bureaucracy would become decentralized, but most other things would continue on as before.

During the American Revolution holding on to the cities proved next to impossible, because of British naval power and the large concentrations of Loyalists. Even during the Civil War, most Northern cities leaned rather close to the anti-war side. Urban Democrats may lionize Lincoln now, but many of them thought of him, the way that their descendants thought of George W. Bush, as a war criminal with the brain of a monkey who was obsessed with oppressing the common man. Even some liberal Republicans thought of him that way.

But underestimating culture is dangerous. The sort of culture that we have is mostly worthless, but that doesn’t make it any less effective. There is a great distance between Beethoven’s Eroica and Katy Perry singing for Obama, but unlike Beethoven, few modern liberal writers and artists would have the integrity to rip up the title page on learning that their messiah had feet of muck. The Soviet Union fell in part because it lost that sense of cultural momentum, clinging to the Western Canon, while being overwhelmed by the pop trash that now rules Russia. And though it may be trash, cultural innovation creates a sense that we are moving forward. Those on the side of the newest trend seem like they have the answers to the future. Those who aren’t, end up looking like Brezhnev.

Revolutions can be won without that cultural momentum, but it’s harder than ever because culture carries with it that tang of prosperity, that sense that the good times are out there for those who want them. And revolutions tend to fall on the side of prosperity, on the side of an aspiring middle class looking to the future. Culture can be beaten, but it is best beaten with culture. Successful revolutions make their ideas compelling and appealing, not just in words, but in attitudes, in music, in literature and in art. France had Marat and America had the Death of Jane McCrea,

A revolution is part anger and outrage. It is that sense that you are being unfairly treated and that the life you had or could have had is slipping away from you. It is that breath of freedom that you once took and the belief that life on the other side of the wall must be better. It is a narrative, a story that rejects the authority of those in power on moral grounds and on practical ones.

Revolution works best when the authorities are weakened by a transition period, when they were once oppressive, but have been liberalizing, or where they are asserting a new level of authority that the people are not used to. It is in these transition points that revolutions are most effective because the authorities are not ready to cope with them and the people are made bold and desperate by the uncertainty.

Revolutions are not easy, until they begin rolling, and then it seems in retrospect as if they were always inevitable, the way that big things are. It is that explosion of kinetic energy born out of the potential energy of large numbers of people discovering their strength that fills the air with energy. That ionization is what most people associate with freedom, with the inevitable collapse of an old order and the rise of a new order.

At first a few people begin to push against the wall, and then more and more, their numbers growing as wall-pushing suddenly becomes the thing to do, and suddenly the sober men and women who never held with it, who put their faith in protests and petitions, join in. The wall shakes and then it falls.

This is revolution.

 

Anti-Gun Lunatics Stoking The Mob To Ban Gun Rights

The 2nd Amendment – is not there to preserve hunting.  It’s there to preserve liberty from the talons of tyrannical government.

It’s a gift-wrapped present for His Heinous Barack Hussein NerObama and Attorney General Eric Holder.  The Newtown Connecticut shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary last week, has achieved  what Fast & Furious was intended to accomplish – but failed to do:  shove the country into a mass-frenzy supporting restrictions on and towards the abolition of gun rights.  The horrors of kindergartners shot by demonic lunatic Adam Lanza has automatically knee-jerked politicians and pundits to jump on the zeitgeist wagon and call for everything from registration and bans, to all out gun confiscation by the Federal Government.

A full-blown hysterical meme is being pushed by the Obama Media and their sycophantic Leftists – to abolish the 2nd Amendment by default and ban guns for the illusion of making people safe.  Many cowards say they see the handwriting by the screeching mob on the wall of the inevitability of gun bans, and are surrendering to the anti-gun mob in the aftermath of the school shooting rampage.

Cerberus Capital Management LP an investment firm is yanking it’s funding and selling Freedom Group, a confederation of the nation’s largest gun manufacturers.  Online firearm retailer and supplier Cheaper Than Dirt suspended selling arms along with Dick’s Sporting Goods and Walmart in the wake of the hysteria in the air since the rampage.

It’s silly to see all this hysteria when nary an eyebrow was raised by Obama’s media or this regime over the Jihadist killings of Americans in Benghazi, or killings in Mexico via guns Obama walked into the hands of drug cartels.  But an elementary school massacre – is a gift wrapped Stalinist/Hitlerian pretext to disarm the American people and put them at the mercy of Obama and his MarxoFascist thugs along with every violent criminal out there.  The massacre has the entire Leftist establishment is on board the express train for disarmament.

Crybaby and Judenrat General John Boehner just ordered the Republicans on Tuesday night to surrender to the mob by calling for “a discussion on guns“, which in Ruling Class parlance means that the GOP must agree to whatever gun abolition policy Obama sets.  After all, just look at what an incredible discussion Boehner has had with Obama over the Fiscal Cliff Budget  negotiations.  As always, ‘discussion’ means surrender to whatever the MarxoFascist Left demands, even if it means surrendering your rights.

Then this morning, Obama names  the Dumbest Man in America – Uncle Joe “Gaffe” Biden – to head a “commission” to lay out policies for absolute federal gun control.  A unilateral effort to declare why law-abiding citizens can no longer be trusted to possess certain guns, while only police, government law enforcement, and the U.S. military can.

The Obama media and His Heinous are capitalizing on the sense of urgency being stoked across the country against gun owners.   Politicians are jumping on the express train to force through sweeping federal gun control legislation without any reasoned deliberation or a proper discussion of the Constitution and the government’s expanding powers, following the Axelrodian policy of taking advantage of a legitimate crisis to exploit those who are emotionally willing to let their guard down.

The Lunatic Left dominates the narrative and few are willing to push back against the horde.

Left-wingers consider any desire to own a gun to be prima facie proof of mental illness.

Leftists across the fruited plain have gone apoplectic in light of last week’s multiple murders. TV talking heads Piers Morgan, Soledad O’Brien, and Martin Bashir have been particularly obnoxious, cutting off and shouting down guests who defend Second Amendment rights.

In recent days any principled defense of the Second Amendment has raised howls of indignation from affective, sheltered so-called progressives who wouldn’t know the difference between a Glock and a glockenspiel. Even more than usual, reasonable debate is not possible with leftists who mere days ago were cheering labor union violence aimed at preventing Michigan from becoming a “right to work” state.

To the Marxists, guns in the hands of average Americans frightens them as much as liberty in the hands of average Americans does.  For them, the ONLY people who should have liberty, freedom and guns, are Leftists.  Why just tonight in an argument with your typical Obama-stepping Leftists is the talking point spewed by the media that ‘No American needs a military-styled assault weapon’.  Well, see – that is where they are completely wrong – and I was happy to tell them so.  It’s not a matter of NEEDS – it’s a matter of RIGHTS – as in; Americans have a GOD-GIFTED RIGHT to arms and the liberty to use them in defense of life, property and liberty.  The purpose of the Second Amendment was not put there so hunters could load up freezers of meat and hang heads on den walls.

It’s funny when you transpose the Second Amendment with the first Amendment of speech and suggest to these same idiots “No one NEEDS to be able to block intersections to protest either”.  That suggestion is greeted with indignation because the MarxoFascists hold that the right to get in another’s face, punch their face in, fling poo and shut down business, is an indivisible divine right.  But to suggest the same is true of the Second Amendment, sorry – that does not fit the MSM narrative or the gross ignorance that exists among the deluded masses that populate the landscape today.  You are treated to epithets and declarations i.e.: “Screw the Constitution!  WE ARE the Constitution!”  Of course – once the Second Amendment is abolished – these goose-stepping imbeciles for Obama who see chanting in lockstep with Union goons as holy writ, will have no means to stop their regime from abolishing the first Amendment in it’s entirety or the rest of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution when the time comes.

But lets’ get back to guns.  It has become a devolution of understanding of our Supreme Law of the Land – to assume there is a Separation of Church and State written in the Constitution inasmuch as a belief that the Framers put the Second Amendment in there to protect hunters.  The eyes pop wide and eyebrows go through roofs when you openly state what the intent of the Second Amendment was for.  Many refuse to believe that was the intent of the Second Amendment, or they assert times have changed and that the Founders intended that right to pertain to muskets only.

No – The Second Amendment exists for the sole purpose of an individual or community to defend itself. From criminals, animals and especially from tyranny of government.   The right to self-defense was understood to be God-gifted – meaning it transcends the laws of men and is beyond their authority to regulate or diminish.  The Founders in particular – saw the need of the Second Amendment to be applied by individuals and communities as defense against wayward government.  This is making the rounds out there on the net and bears repeating:

It has often been said, the Second Amendment is what gives the Constitution its teeth. The Second Amendment is an implied promise that should all other options and avenues of appeal fail, the will of the people will be enforced. Towards that end, we the people retain the right to possess the necessary tools, weapons and arms, to competitively stand against our own military, against our own law enforcement or against any private soldiers they may employ. The concerns addressed by the Bill of Rights are not granted to us by the Constitution. These are rights bestowed on us by our Creator; the Constitution simply identifies these rights and enumerates them so that we may all be aware of them.

Our Second Amendment rights exist to protect us from tyranny and oppression. Regardless of whether or not the time has come to exercise that right, I am going to ask you to seriously consider something.
The Second Amendment right protected your grandfather, and his grandfather from oppression. I am asking you to search your heart, and to commune with your God. Be completely honest with yourself. If you can then convince me with absolute certainty, definitive clarity and with no margin for error that neither my children, nor my grandchildren, nor any of my descendants will ever face a time or situation where they will require the ability to forcibly effect a change in how they are governed, then I will give consideration to no longer keeping and bearing arms. For when the day comes that I comfortably feel that men will not prey upon one another, I will be secure that my Savior is walking the earth and ensuring my safety. Until such time, I respectfully insist upon my right to ultimately be responsible for my own safety and for ensuring the preservation of all the rights identified for me, and for my children in the Bill of Rights.

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796

The cunning and unprincipled Left have now made it sport to attack the gun culture in the USA and blame them for all these mass shootings.  Of course – as Daniel Greenfield at Sultan Knish points out – in reality – it is the LEFT that has more in common with these raging mass murdering loners than the rest of normal America.

What liberals think of as gun culture is really shorthand for rural America. It’s what liberals won’t say, but it’s what they mean. Americans are still sentimental about the village, so, for now, the number of movies that portray the rural community as ideal, rather than a hive of small-minded bigots, is still rather high. But there are backdoor ways of getting at the same topic and talking about gun culture is one of them.When liberals talk about “gun culture”, they mean the same thing that Barack Obama did when he told his San Francisco fundraiser friends about the people out there who still cling to their bibles and their guns. It isn’t about the guns really, though gun control culture is worried about having that much personal autonomy in the hands of people who don’t share their values and like their independence, it’s about rural America. And rural America, like guns, is another symbol that stands in for traditional America.

The left cannot talk about how much it hates this country. Gun culture is one of its dog whistles. A way to talk about how much it hates America without actually saying it out loud where everyone can hear. Talking about gun culture not only allows the left to publicly vent its hatred for America, gun control, like racism, is another way that the left teaches Americans to hate America.

Of course the proof of the lunacy of the Left abhorring gun violence is seen in their own words – as actress Joyce Carol Oates tweeted this PM  her hopes that NRA members get shot, so that they can get everyone on board for gun abolition legislation.

 

Burned Out By Obama

Obama’s Wave of personality cult is crashing, his star is falling over Chicago.

Two incredible blog entries today that we can only pray and hope is indeed the trend in regards to the most disastrous and destructive President in American history.

First, Daniel Greenfield AGAIN knocks one out of the park – and this may be his finest essay to date.  Spot on analysis of the cultural anomaly that made Obama and the consequences of a fake and manufactured candidate; a nation burned out by Obama.

His entry is required reading start to finish – but here are some outstanding pull quotes:

A Star Falls Over Chicago

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog

Obama was always a petty man and his campaign has descended into pointless pettiness, into Team Big Bird, binders full of women and bayonets and horses. Like so much hipster culture, it exists so that the participants can entertain each other with something that no one else thinks is funny or clever. And that elitism is precisely the point. It’s the last resort of losers who hide from their lack of taste behind walls of exclusivity.

The Obama Campaign was never serious, but it once aspired to an Oprah level of seriousness, to the dignity of the self-help sections where trite observations are recited with great solemnity so that they sound like they must mean more than they do.

Obama’s seriously intent tone, the one that signals you to pay attention, no longer works on even the faithful. Like Pavlov’s dogs, they have stopped coming once they realized that just because the bell rings doesn’t mean that dinner or a functional economy will be served. The weighty tone that he once used to deploy to great effect, borrowing the tricks of the preachers that he encountered in his huckstering days, has come to seem as empty as Oprah’s smile or Bill Clinton’s sincere head nod, just another of the tricks of hollow public personalities signifying nothing.

For years and years, he has talked and said nothing of any import. All the talk, the endless speeches and addresses, the verbal and facial tics that indicated seriousness of purpose, have never led to one single thing. Not one problem solved, not one crisis resolved and not one plan laid out and completed in four years with something to show for it.

Somewhere along the way, Obama became boring. He became that one man at a party that you don’t want to talk to because he will go on forever and all his chatter leads nowhere, because for all his conversational skills, he is capable of nothing but talk. And after talking to him for ten hours, you don’t know him any better than you did after ten minutes.

Voting for Obama was never the right choice objectively, but it was the right cultural choice, it was the trend, the impulse that everyone seemed to be following, the style that everyone was wearing and the book that everyone was reading. But trends like that don’t last. How many people will have Lady Gaga songs in their players or Fifty Shades of Grey on their bookshelves ten years from now? This too is the fate of the president of the trending topic, the commander-in-chief of the pet rock and the mood ring with his binders full of women and t-shirts with pictures of horses and bayonets on them. A joke that like Snakes on a Plane or All Your Base Are Belong To Us never gets old until 5 minutes later.

Americans escaped to Obama and now they’re escaping from Obama. The vacation was already being cut short in 2012 and now it’s approaching its blackout date. Instead of taking Americans away from everything, Obama took everything away from them, and now they’re gearing up to take it all back and put him on a back shelf next to last summer’s beach reads and last decade’s pop hits.

Obama is over. And confronting his ‘overness’, that deadliest of fates for a hipster, he is crawling back to pander to his original audience, the graphic designers who put together posters of him on their free time, the celebrities who were eager to form his Jack Pack, to be his Joey Bishop or his Marilyn Monroe, the musicians singing about him, the netroots bloggers cranking out their sensations of euphoric immediacy at being in his presence and the professional leftists cheering for him to take down the American Empire like Godzilla took down Tokyo.

Obama has gotten desperate. His fundraising emails walk the thin line between emotional blackmail and hysteria. Increasingly they read like Cousin Larry phoning for bail money from Tijuana. Shrilly needy they demand that we pay attention to him, that we love him, adore him and spend money on him. They are the missives of a man who cannot conceive of a life outside the spotlight, the vapid fear of a celebrity who cannot confront the real world and cannot understand why their public is walking away.

We can only hope that Americans agree with and that the analysis Daniel has put into this essay, bears more positive fruit in ending the long nightmare for America.  Be sure to read all of his essay at the Sultan Knish blog and hopefully, like me – a smile will hit your face as his words sink into the conscience.

The second uplifting essay is from the American Thinker’s C. Edmund Wright who insists Obama’s wave will bust the liberal bubble altogether.

The Wave That Breaks the Liberal Bubble

Can you feel it?

The wave, that is.  I speak of one that will wash away far more than just a failed presidency.  This wave will have the torque to rock the entire liberal bubble — the political/media/crony bubble — leaving it forever exposed.  Ironically, those inside this bubble will be the last to know — which is precisely why it will happen.  Those who would rule over us, and insult us with outrage over Big Bird, academic debate-scoring, “binders” memes, and specious jobs statistics know nothing about us.  This includes those inside the bubble who purport to represent our views.

…

They really believe this, and they really believe that the world revolves around them.  For years, it did — as most power, communication and information originated inside the bubble.  Three networks, two wires, one cable, and three dailies ruled the bubble and the opinions of the world.  We know the rest: along came Rush, Drudge, Fox, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Beck, and the conservative websites.  Breitbart emerged and inspired millions to embrace tech toys to expose the “racial Marxism” of the Democrat-media complex.  Thanks to the delightful capers of O’Keefe and Giles, we all know ACORN.

Liberal mischief was exposed.  A union thug fakes racism at a Tea Party — it goes viral.  SEIU members confess to being paid to protest — and it goes viral.  A Democrat congressman insults a youngster — it goes viral.  Chris Matthews wets his pants, and it goes viral.  Weiner…well, you know — and it goes viral.  The entire bubble is intellectually naked, and everyone sees the political porn without the networks, cable channels, or newspapers that once controlled access.

In the bubble, where politics is but a game, they miss the cumulative effect of all this.  They have no sense of the undertow pulling on many.

MORE at the American Thinker link.

Biden Admits Obama Arming Jihadists To Take Over

As in Egypt and Libya – The VP Admits Obama is arming factions of Muslim Brotherhood inside Syria for the purpose of their takeover.

As time continues to breeze by, it is becoming self-evident to this author, that Obama is arming and aiding Jihadists in the Middle East for the apparent purpose of jump-starting the Islamic Caliphate. It was Obama and his handlers who spear-headed the “Arab Spring” overthrow of regimes in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Yemen.  Recall that Obama unilaterally, without Congress OR the UN ordered American military force to be used in Libya to aid in the overthrow of Moammar Khaddaffi.  Every secular dictatorial regime, and those Middle East nations who had relatively favorable alliances with Israel and the United States, Obama has worked to destabilize and overthrow.

While it is being said in political talking points that Obama is aiding “democracy” in the Middle East – that is PURE UNMITIGATED Bovine Excrement.  Obama ignored aiding legitimate student democracy protesters in Iran in 2009, that led to their eventual slaughter by Ahmadinejad’s regime after he let them twist in the wind and abandoned them.  Since then, Obama is hands-off on Iran.  Nothing is being done to stop their march to nuclear weapons and Ahmadinejad’s promise to wipe Israel off the map.   No, Obama is NOT about change in the Middle East for democratic purposes that will benefit America and the West.  Instead it is the exact opposite.  In every instance of Obama’s meddling in the Middle East, it has led to a vacuum filled rapidly by the Muslim Brotherhood and agents of Al Qaeda.

Obama himself, well I think there may be something to the Shia prophecy that states a tall black man will assume power in the West, destroy her from within and herald the Great Islamic Caliphate. After all, it’s not surprising Obama wears a ring he has had since his college days that is engraved with the inscription ‘There Is No God But Allah”.

It appears that the next nation to become part of the Jihadist takeover of the Middle East, is Syria.  And according to the Vice President – Obama is aiding the same insurgency that led to the debacle in Egypt and Libya.  Perhaps the consequences will be even worse, because just this morning – there is news that these SAME ACTIVISTS JOE BIDEN ADMITTED OBAMA IS AIDING – seizing a missile base in Syria.

Syria activists: Jihadists seize missile base

Videos posted online Friday, apparently shot inside air defense base near Aleppo, show fighters linked to al-Qaeda participating in overnight battle, inspecting lines of large missiles

These are Al Qaeda Jihadists – the ONLY faction in Syria fighting against Assad’s regime.  The regime Obama is working to replace with these same Al Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood insurgents that Biden admits is receiving “training and other aid”, perhaps even using our military to assist in that goal.

As in Libya – there are some sources that cite Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has confirmed Obama has deployed American military force to the region.

Daniel Greenfield has again picked up on the subtle admission hidden right in front of our faces.

Biden Admits Obama is Arming Muslim Brotherhood to Take Over Syria

This is ridiculous and it should be an incredibly damning statement. It’s shocking to me that this has not been picked up.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Let — let — let me — you don’t go through the U.N. We are in the process now and have been for months in making sure that help, humanitarian aid, as well as other aid and training, is getting to those forces that we believe, the Turks believe, the Jordanians believe, the Saudis believe are the free forces inside of Syria.

What Biden said in his debate with Ryan is that Saudi Arabia and Turkey, both Islamist countries, and Jordan which is a pawn, determine which Syrian rebels get “other aid”, presumably weapons, and the training to use them.

That Obama is arming and training, directly or indirectly, the Syrian rebels, would be an important revelation in and of itself. Biden’s dismissal of the UN, after years of Democratic whining about Bush’s unilateralism, should also excite comment, but most significantly Biden admits that our view of who should get them derives from the view of Turkey’s Islamist government and Saudi Arabia’s even more Islamist regime. Saudi Arabia is as bad as Pakistan and Turkey is being run by an Islamist party that is backing the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Syria. Both consider Hamas a legitimate group, and yet Obama has decided to make his plan for regime change in Syria subservient to what the Saudi and Turkish lobbies tell him to do.

This is near confirmation that Obama is arming and training the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Syria.

In probably the worst choice of words imaginable, Biden talks of, “working hand in glove with the Turks, with the Jordanians, with the Saudis and with all the people in the region attempting to identify the people who deserve the help so that when Assad goes and he will go, there will be a legitimate government that follows on, not an al-Qaida-sponsored government that follows on.”

This isn’t just backing rebel fighters, this is fairly open regime change. Al Qaeda can do quite a bit of damage, but they can’t take over Syria. Even a buffoon like Biden knows that. Syria isn’t Mali or Afghanistan. But the Muslim Brotherhood can take over Syria. And when the Muslim Brotherhood takes over a country, like the Taliban they provide a safe haven for Islamic terrorist groups.

Biden said a lot of stupid things during the debate, but this may be the worst of them all. And the worst part is that it’s all true.

The Islamic Post-American World

What a Post-American world looks like, Islamic leaders tell us that the only way we will have peace is if we let them decide what sections of the Bill of Rights we get to keep.

Daniel Greenfield hits another one out of the park:

The left has a choice to make. They can either choose Americanism or the Koran, and for the most part they have made their choice. And we need to make ours. This is not a debate over policies, but over basic freedoms. This is not a conflict over what percent of taxes we will be paying, but whether we will have even the most basic civil rights left by the time that the international order of savages and murderers, and their transnational representatives, are done with us.

Sultan Knish Blog: Anti-American Savages of the Post American World

Obama’s “Forward!” Heralds the Horrors of the Past

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Modern Marxist Police State that we have become, is not a future world of progress, but a nightmare of death from the past.  A Republic rots while a Caliphate rises.

This blog post from Daniel Greenfield was so excellent – I’m reposting it here with link to his blogspot Sultan Knish.

Those that forget history…. have no clue that the past is is being thrown in our face as the future.

The World of Tomorrow

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog 

The slogan under which Obama hopes to win the next four years is “Forward”. “Forward” is the quintessential progressive slogan, progressives being people who are so forward-thinking that they want to remake the 21st Century in line with their 19th Century ideas. Progressivism, like so many other flavors of futurism, is so new it’s old. It’s the world of tomorrow as imagined by men with top hats and full beards whose Twitter-wielding descendants are still shouting, “March Forward!” at us  150 years later.

The last century has represented a great love affair with the future. A hundred years of spring cleaning accompanied by the resounding cry, “Out with the old, in with the new.” Everyone was a progressive now. The one thing that all the participants in the Second World War had in common was that they were all dreaming of the future. A Thousand Year Reich, a United Nations or Communism: millions died for the sake of a wonderful future.

The Germans died for a Nazi superstate built out of Albert Speer’s monstrous concrete towers of babel, a technocratic revival of Mad King Ludwig’s castle building projects. The Russians died for collective agriculture and inspiring posters of grim workers hoeing the earth and electrifying the countryside. Everyone else died because they were either in the way of one vision or the other. Then they died so that a United Europe and a United Nations might usher in a better world.

The world of tomorrow has seen better days. The West is still in love with the future. If you doubt that, stop by an Apple Store and marvel at all the shiny surfaces. Try not to notice that the aesthetic is a retro futurism because even our future has become our past. Forty years after the Soviet Union tried to land a Mars rover and fifteen years since the first time we did it successfully, we landed a bigger and better rover on Mars. We may not be able to reach the ISS without taking a ride on Soviet Soyuz tubs, but the parts of NASA that aren’t dedicated to proving that science and technology are burning up the planet through Global Warming, can still execute an occasional engineering triumph.

But the future is not so much a place as it is a state of mind. It is a fervent faith in the inevitability of human progress. Men have died for this faith and men are still dying for it.

Britain’s Olympics opener celebrated the journey from the industrial revolution to the NHS euthanasia bed. While capitalism killed workers randomly and unscientifically, the progressive state kills them scientifically and methodically. Any old factory can kill a worker by dropping a load on his head or allowing him to inhale fumes that in retrospect turn out to be toxic, but it takes a genuinely progressive turn of mind to leave him lying in bed for three days begging for a drink of water while he dies because he has become, in the fine German phrase, “Lebensunwertes Leben” or “Life Unworthy of Life.” That is true progress, which also happens to be the name of the unmanned Soyuz cargo ship that keeps American astronauts from starving or dying of thirst up on the ISS.

The Nazis and the Communists believed that certain races and classes had to be wiped out to make the future possible. We, the modernists who communicate through shiny slabs of white and black plastic, who use the flag of the United Nations as our background image and John Lennon’s “Imagine” as our ring tone, don’t believe in such barbaric things. Instead we kill people because they are too old or too sick and use up medical services that are always short in a collective system.

WW1 and WW2 were fought over regional ambitions, but we have gone beyond them. Our scientists can measure every atom of carbon in the atmosphere and assign responsibility for it to individuals. “Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?” Yeshayah’s prophecy asks  These are the territories that now concern us.

When our modern institutions aren’t starving retired workers to death in soiled hospital beds, they are rationing out water and air, earth and sky. They warn us that there are iceberg shortages, shortages of soil and swampland. Our rationing has gone planetary. We imprison men for filling in wetlands and cap and trade the heat of the planet. Our collectivist world state allows no sparrow to fall without charging someone with unlicensed hunting.

But their taking ownership of the planet may be a bit premature. Outside a few enclaves where the smooth and shiny still predominate, the barbarians are at the gates of the empire of tomorrow. While the West is still in love with the future, even if it is a future of rationed everything where everyone is entitled to a tofu turkey in every microwave oven and a whopping tax bill to pay for the tofu turkey’s carbon footprint, the rest of the world is in love with their past.

No sooner did mobs gather in Cairo, Tunis and Damascus than Western foreign policy analysts began dusting off their history books and drawing analogies to the 1848 European Revolutions. But there was nothing modern about these revolutions even if they relied on Twitter flash mobs and Facebook posts. It isn’t the future that the Muslim world wants, even if the modern Albert Speers fill Dubai with horrendously futuristic architectural vomitoria, it’s the golden past.

In Tunisia, the birthplace of the Arab Spring, Hamad Jebali, the new Islamist Prime Minister of Tunisia, proclaimed, “My brothers, you are at a historic moment in a new cycle of civilization, Allah willing. We are in the sixth caliphate.”

For the Islamists who inherited the Arab Spring and their eager supporters, the future was the past, a return to the glories of the Caliph and his harem, to an era where Christian and Jewish Dhimmis knew their place and he Islamic Empire stretched across the world. The Arab Spring, which began when a Muslim man was so intolerably humiliated at being struck by a woman that he set himself on fire, culminated in gang rapes and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. A revolution which began when a man was humiliated by a woman ended with the ritual sexual humiliation of women at the hands of revolutionaries and the regime, and the restoration of the old patriarchal order of Imams and Islamist Neo-Caliphs.

So much for the future and so much for the world of tomorrow where all men will be brothers so long as they can beat their sisters.

Western liberals are still pretending that Caliphate is just United Nations spelled backward, but their faith in the progressive future of no nations, no borders and no freedom can only be sustained for so long by Benetton ads and cheerful multicultural sitcoms. Outside their enclaves the future looks nothing like them. While they parcel out the carbon atoms of the North Pole, their capitals are being carved up into tribal enclaves where the future is as much the past as it is in Cairo or Tunis.

Our present future is defined by the spillover of violent chaos. In the throes of Egypt’s revolution, Bedouin tribes in the Sinai are violently asserting their rights and the Kurds are rising in Syria. As the fall of the Czars and the Austria-Hungarian Empire devolved sizable portions of Russia and Eastern Europe into violent chaos, a violent chaos that repeated itself several decades later when the Nazis pounded through on their way to the Thousand Year Reich, the fall of the last modern states in the Muslim Middle East has ushered in its own chaos of bandits, tribalism and terrorism.

The West has been marinating in that chaos for some time now. It is the reason why we have a police state, a massive military with no equal and social welfare spending that is through the roof. It isn’t, as the modern progressives would like us to believe, because people are living longer, but because of a domestic instability rooted in tribal violence and cultural chaos. And no amount of euthanasia set to a tune from Paul McCartney, who unlike John is still free to imagine that there’s no heaven, only an earth where they stop feeding you if your illness gets too expensive, will fix that.

But the architects of our future still can’t see the present for the future. They also can’t see that the present has become the past. In the urban mosques it is not to the infidel Queen or the Republic that allegiance is owed, but to the Caliph and the Mahdi, to the martyrs who give their lives in orgies of death so that the wheel of time may turn back and that yesterday may replace tomorrow.

Their own native culture is equally decadent. In art and literature, in film and fashion, the new is still the old. The two biggest summer films are based on characters that debuted in 1939 and 1963. Stop by Broadway and you can choose between a musical based on Abba, another based on a Disney movie from twenty years ago, and Sister Act, Ghost and Bring It On, musicals based on more movies from the last twenty years. We are remaking remakes with tongue firmly in cheek to show that we don’t really mean it, that we aren’t truly culturally bankrupt, only ironic connoisseurs of the past.

Liberal websites denounce the 1950′s in retro fonts painstakingly designed to look like they are from the 1950′s. Clothing brands aimed at young people aim for that same retro look. Abercrombie and Fitch’s popular Hollister brand is pegged to 1922. American Apparel is rooted in the 70′s. There is nothing modern because there is no modern. Only bits of cultural appropriation to give the retro a more exotic flavor.

The progressive sneers at the past but cannot escape it. Whatever creative energy his assaults on culture unleashed have long been spent. He has nothing new to offer, only rationing plans for the old. Our technocracy has made us into sophisticated communicators, even if we have nothing new to say. Institutionally we harvest and wield massive amounts of data and use it to manipulate people. We cheered so loudly for Curiosity’s arrival on Mars because it has been a long time since our culture did anything noteworthy. Even if it isn’t truly new, it’s new to us.

There is no world of tomorrow because there is no tomorrow. A decaying culture has no future. Only a stasis that is easily ruptured by internal and external enemies. To have a future we must have a culture again and to have that we must rebuild an identity by meeting challenges. We can discover who we are through what we can do. It is not futurism that makes futures, but a people striving to make something because they believe that the future is worth making.

The great progressive project of the future is a rotting stench that blows across the Atlantic. It is a formless dream that died. It is a future without a future. It is a million conferences and a billion regulations. It is a world where everything is known, where each atom is weighed and every man is found wanting. It is a closed room and a white bed on which to lay down and die on while the machines count off the seconds.

If we are to have a tomorrow it will not come from those places. It will be not be the Everycity or the eternal conference. It will not be from the men and women who have appointed themselves the rulers of the earth and all that is within it.  Rather it will come from those who defy the decay, who cope with the chaos that the progressive program has spawned, who hang on to their homes and their businesses and fight for their dreams.

The Bulldozer Morality of the MarxoFascist Left

Raw emoting rage, stoked by Utopian Leftists will leave nothing but ruin in it’s wake, and they will think they do service to their moral superiority.

 

This essay by Daniel Greenfield is perfectly spot-on in it’s analysis of the zeitgeist of the Marxofascist Utopian Leftists that easily capture the emoting class of America that no longer thinks or knows our history.  It needed to be reblogged here.

On reading his excellent illustration of what we face in America, a bulldozer of vapid redefined morality, I cannot help but think of the scripture that Jesus warned would take place upon His followers at the close of the Age:

 They will put you out of the congregations, but an hour is coming that everyone killing you will think to bear a service before God. John 16:2

Without citing scripture, Greenfield illustrates with scalpel precision, the bulldozer morality of those who would subjugate you.  He points out perfectly that those who see you as evil, think they are serving a higher morality.

All the Morals of a Bulldozer

Daniel Greenfield

To be genuinely outraged about something, you need to actually believe in something. Without principles, outrage is just tactical anger, or bullying in plainer language. Principles, values and codes are universal. That is if you are angry about a dog being mistreated by riding on top of a car, then you should at least be equally angry at dogs being eaten.

If a man shooting another man after a confrontation and not being charged for it angers you, then it should anger you regardless of the color of his skin. For that matter if racism or sexism offends you, then it should offend you regardless of whether it is directed at a woman or a black man who is a liberal or a conservative.

It’s child play to notice that the game doesn’t work this way anymore. That the media engages in displays of tactical anger, serious-face inquiries into issues that they are concerned about only when they benefit their side, manufactured outrage that is not based on any deeply held beliefs, but only on the need to score some points.

If Republicans seem slower on the uptake, it’s because their ranks tend to be stocked with old fashioned types who even in their more liberal incarnations still try to maintain consistent values. The mindset that that they confront is alien to all but a few of their opposition political operatives. It is a mindset devoid of any values, operating on a Pavlovian reflex that reacts to talking points without framing them in any larger context.

Media moral bullying follows this course, raising issues that they pretend are vital principles, but stop being so the moment they no longer benefit them. The iron clad value of a moment ago is discarded into the trash a second later. The serious faces relax, the twitter accounts go dead and all the attention is refocused on some truly important issue, like the next iPhone.

It’s not entirely cynical, though it mostly is. The people behaving this way have lost the ability to recognize enduring abstract principles that have an existence beyond their emotions of the moment. They don’t live by rules, rather rules live by them, if they are angry, then their anger is a moral issue, if they are not angry, it isn’t. Emotions are the only moral barometer that people who cannot see beyond the self have.

That makes them natural bullies, their shows of outrage lifting their anger up to self-righteousness. Their tactical anger is part pretense, part real, and even they don’t really know the difference anymore. They have been taught that their momentary moral tantrums make them good people, they have not however been taught to be good people. They believe that they are right because they are angry and that they are angry because they are right. It’s an attitude you can see in traffic arguments, in divorce court and on the evening news.

Like well trained Oceanians, it depends on audiences in colorful Keffiyah scarves and ironic t-shirts who rise eagerly for the daily Two-Minute Hates, shouting against racism, patriarchy, carbon, oil, corporate personhood and logos, gun rights, animal testing, heteronormative bathrooms and any of the endless list of things to be outraged by, without the ability to apply their denunciations to a moral code.

Oceanian propaganda was deliberately inconsistent so that none of its citizens developed a consistent code that might allow them to judge the system even by its own rules. Left-wing talking points tend to be like that, consistently inconsistent, willfully senseless, cultivating an instinct for mob rage, for hours of political analysis, but no steady rules of conduct that would apply to the analyzers.

The only consistent principle that we are good and they are bad. If you understand that Republicans are racists, that a cabal of corporations, zionists and christian fanatics are plotting to take over the country, and that they hate anyone who is different from them, then you have all the context that you need to understand the liberal message. Without that it’s gibberish. With it, it’s simplistic but comprehensible propaganda.

Boiled down to its essence, the liberal message is that we are good people, because they are bad people. The new Democrats sticker which reads, “Not a Republican” aptly sums up this void. It follows that good people cannot be bad and that bad people cannot be good, and once you accept this message, no further ethics or morals are needed. The very goodness of your side is all the moral code you need.

Identity politics substitutes for a moral code, not so much racial politics as racial tolerance politics which holds that liberals are more ethical, because they are more tolerant, better people because they care. The only crime they are ever guilty of is caring too much. Even the Communists and the terrorists were just too outraged by all the capitalism, racism and zionism, and had no choice but to start shooting and starving people.

It’s possible to spend years immersed in this swill without realizing that none of it is moral or ethical, that it’s “They are bad, we are good”  blaring from every radio and television set. Morality and ethics is about principles that apply across the board. When your only principle is that your group is good and your enemies are bad, then not only are you devoid of morals and ethics, but you are incapable of recognizing immoral and unethical behavior except with a gut instinct that your ideology has trained you to discard.

Cognitive dissonance sets in over everything from Communist gulags to Occupy Wall Street rapes, if things aren’t supposed to happen, then they never did. When the ideological good confronts the real world bad, either ideology dies or morality dies. Historically it’s more often been the latter than the former. Just ask one of the good Nazis or good Communists who had decent home lives, loved their children and pets, and kept on believing in everything except right and wrong.

When you take a bulldozer to traditional values, what takes its place is bulldozer ideology, the expedient virtue of bulldozing things and the virtue of whatever rises in their place. Once you believe in the bulldozer, then you must also believe in whatever mess follows in its wake, otherwise you are forced to take a long hard look at the virtue of the bulldozer. And once that happens, you are one step away from becoming a reactionary clinging to traditional values.

What has grown in the wake of the bulldozer is bulldozer ethics, situational ethics that justify the virtue of bulldozing things as a vital moral principle, disguising their appeal in calls to fairness, justice, decency, tolerance and a thousand other virtues that they never practice across the board.

Bulldozer values call forth explosive faux moral tantrums at anything that stands in front of the bulldozer. These tantrums can be seen on the late night news, on the front page of the New York Times, which long ago stopped relegating its moral tantrums and special pleading to the editorial page, on liberal blogs and a thousand other places. They don’t however represent moral or ethics, only the virtue of the bulldozer– the virtue of power.

The country must know about Romney’s dog riding on top of the car. Why? Because it shows that Romney is a bad person. They must not know about Obama eating dogs, because it might make him ‘wrongly’ seem like a bad person. The only consistent value here is that of the bulldozer. Obama is driving the bulldozer, and so he must be protected, just the same way that the media protected Clinton in his own private war on women and their right to say no to being groped or propositioned, because back then he was driving the bulldozer. When Clinton briefly got in the way of Obama’s bulldozer, then the media bulldozed him.

There is genuine anger over Romney’s dog on their side, not because they care about dogs, though they often do, in the same detached way that they care about the Third World, but because they already believe that he is a bad person. Any anecdote that makes him a bad person feeds their anger. It isn’t an outrage based on principles, but on their burning hate for anyone who stands in front of the bulldozer. They already know that all such people are bad, any story that reinforces this feeds into an existing anger, much the same way that people who hate Jews, Christians, the Chinese, women or dog owners feed off selective incidents that fit their narrative. And they mistake their shoddy bigotry for moral outrage.

When your only moral value is that of the bulldozer and its destructive rampage, then you have all the moral values of your chosen instrument. The moral tantrums are destructive, rather than constructive, they never seem to fulfill their stated mission of healing America and making it a better place (unless you consider provoking multiple racist attacks over the Zimmerman case to be that) but like driving a bulldozer into someone’s house, they make them feel good.

And that is what it’s really all about. The ego. The moral power of the self. The destruction of the old by people who are convinced that they are the new order. That they are the young, even when they are old. That the destruction they leave in their wake is really construction. And that anyone who thwarts their destructive impulses is the enemy and that destroying him is an absolute good.

These are the morals of the bulldozer and the values of liberal America.

***