Nobody Oozes Hatred Like a Leftist

Another example of leftist projection: They accuse you of “oozing with hatred” when you criticize the rampant irrationality, mass psychosis and totalitarianism overtaking our world.

Think about it. THEY are the ones who ooze hatred. They HATE America. Which means: they HATE freedom. They HATE liberty. They HATE self-responsibility. They HATE immigration, when it means self-responsible, courageous individualists entering a country with nothing but the shirts on their backs and having to learn how to take care of themselves, in total freedom. This very image makes them sick and causes them to shake with loathing. Hence the resulting rage, hatred and advocacy of dicatorship they now openly encourage, with all the masks off.

They cannot STAND the idea of independence, of competence, of achievement, of productivity, of wealth. And, of course, they LOATHE things that aren’t themselves. They LOATHE religion, even though their sycophantic allegiance to the unreasoned and unproven claims of Green religion tops the most fervent irrationality seen since the peak of the Middle Ages. They LOATHE happy families. They claim all families are dysfunctional by their very natures, and then they turn around and excuse or ignore — in some cases, even champion — child molesting and the physical mutilation of children before they’re old enough to have any concept of what’s happening.

They DETEST all who are not like them. They DESPISE people who don’t live in cities or in affluent left-wing suburbs. They openly say, in many cases, that America only needs the cities, not the truckers, the blue collar workers who voted for Trump, and certainly not anyone who owns a gun or a Bible or (in other cases) a copy of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged or (heaven forbid) a copy of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. They reserve their most robust HATRED for anyone whom they believe should be like them — a gay person, a black person, any other “person of color” — who dares to disagree with them. In their minds, those are the first to go to the gallows. Right now, it’s just in their minds; but if the tone and content of Biden’s inconceivably irrational and hateful speech of a couple of weeks ago (the American Nazi speech) means anything at all, the real gallows are coming.

THESE are the people — these tortured, twisted, irrational, amoral and utterly intellectually dishonest, irreparably crippled souls — who seek to make reasonable, decent people feel guilty or ashamed by saying things like, “You’re full of hate.”

Nobody oozes hatred like a leftist. It’s because leftism/progressivism (or whatever you wish to call the monstrosity destroying our worlds) is, by its very nature, based upon the idea of destruction and mutilation for their own sake. All that you hold valuable, and all that you potentially might hold valuable — materially, psychologically, spiritually — is what they are after. It’s deeper than politics. That’s why it’s everywhere, not just in the government but throughout the media, all levels of schools, entertainment, sports, music … Destruction and mutilation of all things beautiful is their quest. And — so far — it’s working.

Don’t let the bad guys make you feel guilty. THEY are the bad guys. THEY are the ones guilty of ALL the things they accuse you of. It’s such a ridiculous and obvious form of projection that it’s hard to generate the motivation to even say so. But we have to say so; because if we don’t, they win.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Leftists Wet Their Pants

Leftists are wetting their pants over Elon Musk taking over Twitter. They view the unrestricted free speech he promises as DANGEROUS. They see any views in opposition to their own as physical violence– like a rapist, murderer, thief or looter. Imagine the intellectual and psychological state of someone so terrified of an opposing opinion that they’d rather impose a totalitarian dictatorship than take what they see as a risk on freedom of speech. We call them snowflakes, but that seems like too kind a word. I call them petulant, tantrum-throwing little terrorists. WE are the ones who must be protected from THEM. I wish Elon Musk the best, and I hope he means to keep his promise.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

America 2021 and Nazi Germany 1930s: How Alike We Are

Reports of the months and years leading up to Nazi Germany generally include the following characteristics of the people of that time:

Willingness to believe the narratives that fit preconceived notions, rather than objective truth;

Intolerance of those with dissenting views;

Race or cultural membership as above the identity of the individual;

Government as the first if not only solution to every problem;

A willingness to believe the state authorities over profit-making authorities, or even obvious facts.

If you look at 2021 in the United States and the overall Western world, you see exactly the same thing:

Willingness to believe the narratives that fit preconceived notions, rather than objective truth? Try arguing with a leftist Biden supporter about what he or she sees on CNN or MSNBC. Any evidence leading to a contradictory conclusion from the one reported on those propaganda machines is greeted with cries of “racist, intolerant, well, that’s just Fox News” (as if Fox News was much better.)

Intolerance of those with dissenting views? Look at what happens to anyone in corporate America or sports/entertainment who offers a dissenting view. Even die-hard leftist Democrats who challenge some aspects of “cancel culture” — America’s version of Mao’s Cultural Revolution in 1950s and 1960s Communist China — risk being cancelled. We have seen this kind of intolerance before, in Nazi Germany as well as Communist China in the Maoist period especially (read Nien Cheng’s “Life and Death in Shanghai” for vivid details). I am unsure any human society has seen the intensity and level of intolerance of today’s leftists. These people are truly unhinged in their hatred, even with Donald Trump long gone from the White House.

Race or cultural membership as above the identity of the individual? That goes without saying. If you’re white or male, your life must be one long apology tour. Why? Because of anything specific you did? No. Strictly and solely because of your race and gender. The now explicit premise is: “Because of your race and gender, you are inferior. You must atone for that inferiority.” Today’s anti-white and anti-male racists are precisely the same as anti-black, anti-brown or anti-any other race racists. It’s all the same thing. Unless or until you understand this fact, you will not appreciate the madness truly overtaking not just our government, but our entire culture (media, schools, entertainment, sports, corporate world, EVERYTHING).

Government as the first if not only solution to every problem? Look at what Congress has passed. Literally unending spending. Not just to “help out” the destitute, or those impaired by a crisis (COVID) primarily of the government’s and media’s own making; but with the explicit goal of making that “help” permanent. Government is literally competing with low- and medium-wage providers to pay people more money to stay home than go to work. It’s a fact. And, by their own words (and every single one of their actions, including but not limited to getting rid of the filibuster), they’re just getting started. The federal government is spending to the tune of $20, $30, even $40 or $50 trillion dollars in debt … indefinitely, and always expanding for as far as the eye can see. How on earth can this not have consequences? Only someone with a fervent faith in the unlimited power of government to create currency and spend it into infinity will not worry about it.

A willingness to believe the state authorities over profit-making authorities, or even obvious facts? Millions are getting vaccinated. They don’t even have to be forced (although that will come for the minority who defy the commands.) Would these same millions trust any private company who cannot be sued, nor in any way held responsible, for their product — if it were anything other than the vaccine? Would any of these same people getting vaccinated go to a restaurant indemnified from getting sued, or prosecuted criminally, for poisoning people? Would any of these same people getting vaccinated drive a car manufactured by an auto company who can’t be held liable if they fail to put brakes on the car that work beyond 1,000 miles? This is not a rant against vaccinations, and I’m not opposed to the legitimate desire of people to stay physically safe and healthy. But merely on the government’s word, with little to no responsibility on the part of the manufacturer? In the words of their precious, demented felon occupying the Oval Office: “Come on, man!”

In summary, the essential attributes you can expect to give rise to a Nazi Germany are all present — in spades — in 2021 America. That’s why the quasi-military occupation in D.C. — no longer a real government of laws, simply an occupation — is set to exploit everything it can to impose perhaps the greatest dictatorship the world has ever seen.

If that happens, then the great majority of people — in their lack of critical thinking and independence of soul — will have primarily themselves to blame.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Lockdowns are the Great Unequalizer

Democrats and their liberal economic advisers obsess about income inequality. Will someone please tell them that no act in modern times has widened the gap between the rich and the poor more than the lockdowns going on right now?

Diane Yentel, the president and CEO of the leftist National Low Income Housing Coalition, said, “The majority of the up to 17 million households at risk of losing their homes this winter are people of color.”

Politico reported that minorities and the poor have “been more vulnerable to job and income losses from the ensuing economic crisis, in large part because Black and Latino workers are over-represented in the service industries wiped out by shutdowns.”

James Parrott, an economist at the New York City New School, said that what the United States is experiencing is “the most lopsided economic event imaginable.”

The National Restaurant Association said that 40 to 50 percent of restaurants may go bankrupt in the months ahead if their stores don’t reopen immediately. Two of the U.S.’s most iconic restaurants, the 21 Club in Manhattan and the Cliff House in San Francisco, announced they had closed their doors permanently after nearly 100 years of business. As they die, so do hundreds of jobs in these cities. The workers out of work aren’t rich. Overall, 15 million middle-income people work for bars and restaurants.

Even Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and arguably the planet’s richest man, complained that the lockdowns exacerbate inequality. With tens of billions of dollars of added profits, Amazon has been the world’s biggest beneficiary from locking down brick-and-mortar stores.

For once, liberals are spot on.

Lockdowns are crushing the little guy. Even so, it is the Democrats who are pushing this anti-freedom agenda. Here are the 10 states listed by The New York Times with the strictest lockdown orders: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Washington. What do they have in common? Democratic governors.

Liberals love to talk about following the science, but all evidence of the last nine months points to the scientific conclusion that lockdowns do not work to reduce deaths. Contact-tracing studies show that about half of those infected with the coronavirus got it despite staying at home. Only 2 percent of the transmission comes from restaurants, and almost none comes from outdoor dining, which is now idiotically prohibited in California.

The states that have not locked down their economy have lower death rates than New York and New Jersey. The unemployment rate for service workers in these states has skyrocketed to as high as 10%. In contrast, the red states, such as Utah and Florida, that are still open for business have unemployment rates for service workers as low as 4 percent.

Yet lockdowns are supported by politicians, university professors, journalists, technology executives, government employees, preachers, teacher unions and wealthy suburbanites. Their incomes are not in jeopardy. They won’t wait in lines for a meal. Would teachers support school closures if they weren’t getting a paycheck? How many people get tenure like six-figure salaried university professors who have been inoculated from the lockdowns they cheered on?

I don’t see Yentel or many other “low-income advocates” protesting the lockdowns; do you? They think a government stimulus program of $1 trillion will solve the problems of the poor and the unemployed. Handouts are no substitutes for jobs and paychecks. Millions will fall through the cracks in any case.

There is an old joke about a boy who kills his parents and then throws himself on the courts’ mercy because he is an orphan. The modern-day version of that story is liberals who have helped burn down the house and then piously complain about rising homelessness.

Arthur Laffer, Walter Williams, Milton Friedman and so many other great economists have always warned us: The poor and minorities are the first victims of anti-growth and boneheaded public policies. Tragically, we are once again learning that lesson.

So, why is the left all in for lockdown policies? These policies are doing just the opposite of what they preach: “rewarding wealth, not work.” Perhaps the answer is that the left cares a lot more about power than the poor.

Stephen Moore, American Thinker

The Wisdom of Ayn Rand: Civil Disobedience

Civil disobedience may be justifiable, in some cases, when and if an individual disobeys a law in order to bring an issue to court, as a test case. Such an action involves respect for legality and a protest directed only at a particular law which the individual seeks an opportunity to prove to be unjust. The same is true of a group of individuals when and if the risks involved are their own.

But there is no justification, in a civilized society, for the kind of mass civil disobedience that involves the violation of the rights of others—regardless of whether the demonstrators’ goal is good or evil. The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others. Mass disobedience is an assault on the concept of rights: it is a mob’s defiance of legality as such.

The forcible occupation of another man’s property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality. An individual has no right to do a “sit-in” in the home or office of a person he disagrees with—and he does not acquire such a right by joining a gang. Rights are not a matter of numbers—and there can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob.

The only power of a mob, as against an individual, is greater muscular strength—i.e., plain, brute physical force. The attempt to solve social problems by means of physical force is what a civilized society is established to prevent. The advocates of mass civil disobedience admit that their purpose is intimidation. A society that tolerates intimidation as a means of settling disputes—the physical intimidation of some men or groups by others—loses its moral right to exist as a social system, and its collapse does not take long to follow.

Politically, mass civil disobedience is appropriate only as a prelude to civil war—as the declaration of a total break with a country’s political institutions.

From “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”

Who is to Blame for Black Poverty ?

We’re all familiar with the cycle of poverty in Black urban neighborhoods that Democrat politicians have run for decades. Everybody assumes it’s because Democrats are so wedded to their policies, they keep throwing good money after bad. Maybe that’s not the problem, though. Maybe Black Democrat politicians don’t want to help these areas, and the citizens in those areas don’t actually want to be helped. 

“Diversity” and “inclusion” are two of the most often heard buzzwords in our lives these days, with a heavy helping coming from the media, of course.  Tucker Carlson addressed the subject very well recently in an opinion piece where he discussed diversity versus the meritocracy, using Biden’s recently-announced cabinet selections to make his case. The evident theme for Joe Biden’s picks has nothing to do with whether his picks are actually qualified for their postings. Rather, that must check off the appropriate victim identity group box: female, Black, Hispanic, gay, trans, or (Jackpot!) a combination of two or more, where being a black Hispanic lesbian is the pinnacle of the victim hierarchy.  

In particular, I noted in the public remarks made by soon-to-be repeat offender against our economy, Janet Yellen, that a big part of her focus as Fed Chair is to address economic inequality, wage inequality, food insecurity, poverty — all seemingly benevolent causes until you peel back the onion just slightly and realize that she’s not talking about these things in the scope of helping everyone, regardless of race.  No, she’s specifically talking about “communities of color.”  Just so we’re clear, a group of people is going to receive different (preferential) treatment based solely on the color of their skin.  I’m pretty sure that’s called racism.

Yellen goes on to say that she also wants to provide more opportunities for people of color, because, she says in so many words, these opportunities are denied to people of color. She specifically states that opportunities are denied, so I must ask the question: Who exactly is doing the denying?  

If we look at the largest areas of concentration of Black people, which would be the large urban centers of New York City, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, and Detroit, just to name a few (and I’m not even crossing the Mississippi!), those areas presumably contain large numbers of black-owned businesses or at least Black people who would like to start a business . . .  you know, they’d like to, but they’re being denied the opportunity.  (I think we all know the subtext when someone is saying that “people of color” are being allegedly mistreated, the alleged mistreatment is at the hands of Evil White Conservatives.)

So, again, who is doing this denying?  All of the major cities that I just listed, and dozens more just like them across the country, have been run for decades by Democrat mayors and city councils, with assistance from Democrat Congressmen on both a state and federal level.  One must therefore assume that these same people in charge are also very influential regarding who receives economic opportunities or assistance, right?  Thus, this horrible denying is being done, in fact, by the very people now crying about the fact that the denying is happening!

As usual, it takes mental gymnastics on an Olympic level to reconcile leftist thinking.  Democrats have had control of these cities for decades and what have their policies brought their “people of color?”  Misery, poverty, violence, and addiction.  Obama and Biden had eight years, with two of those eight having the benefit of both houses of Congress on their side, but they didn’t come up with any miracle salve to soothe the troubles of the inner cities.  What on earth would lead us to believe that this will be any different under Biden and Harris?  

Or is it more practical and pragmatic if we believe that, via Occam’s Razor, the simplest answer is the correct one: These so-called leaders in Democrat-run enclaves have no real interest in helping their constituents pull themselves out of the cycle of poverty.  For decades, Democrats have had their faithful Black voters right where they want them; namely, poor and dependent on the government. We give you stuff, you vote for us. That’s the unspoken agreement.  But when a true leader finally comes around who has a plan and the political will to do something to help these communities — like Kimberly Klacik in the Baltimore Congressional district formerly ruled by the late Elijah Cummings — she receives a paltry 28% of the vote.  Now the always useless 10-year Congressional veteran Kweisi Mfume has Cummings’s old job and somehow those precious opportunities are still being denied.

I’ve already established solid evidence that Democrat politicians — even and especially Black Democrat politicians — have little to no interest in helping their Black constituents.  But there is another side to that coin. The evidence seems to show that Black people themselves appear to not want to be helped.  One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.  So, are Black voters in these areas insane?  They keep voting for the likes of Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, and Kweisi Mfume, but expect these serial grifters to suddenly start working for them. 

In my eyes, that puts the blame squarely on both parties, the politicians and the voters who keep sending them back to their offices.  Is it because the way things stand now, those voters are cozily wrapped up in their blanket of victimhood?  Is it so comfy in there receiving their government subsistence handouts that they can’t be bothered to get out and do something about it?  Is the alternative to this abusive, co-dependent relationship — personal responsibility, hard work, and entrepreneurialism — just too difficult to face?  

My prediction for all of these cities that I’ve mentioned, and any other Democrat-run major cities around the country, is that if a Biden/Harris ticket sets up shop in the White House, in four years’ time those cities will look much the same as they do now, except with four more years’ worth of decay, addiction, and violent crime.  But those citizens can comfort themselves that they still have someone else to blame for their problems. 

H.P. Smith, American Thinker

Omar, Tlaib & AOC Demand Facebook Remove 100% of ‘Anti-Muslim Content

Two of the most notorious bigots in the House of Representatives signed a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg demanding that he “eradicate anti-Muslim bigotry from Facebook”.

The three-page letter signed by Rep. Ilhan OmarRep. Rashida Tlaib, as well as 28 other left-wing House members, spends a great deal of time demanding the removal of what it calls “anti-Muslim content” without ever specifically defining it. That’s convenient considering Omar and Tlaib’s own history of racism and antisemitism, and support for the sorts of Islamic bigotry and violence that groups like CAIR, which supports the letter, have become known for.

The letter spotlights one violent incident, but then goes on to call for a ban on “anti-Muslim content”, “anti-Muslim animus”, “anti-Muslim bigotry”, and finally, “anti-Muslim content and organizing” on the platform, without ever explaining what exactly they want to ban.

Considering the letter’s call for, “100 percent proactive detection and removal of anti-Muslim content”, the safe assumption would be that they want to ban everything critical of Islam.

Trending: Media Blackout: Moderna’s FDA Report Lists 13 Deaths in Vaccine Trials

That’s a disturbing attack on the First Amendment coming from 30 House members.

Democrats have repeatedly pressured Facebook and other social media companies to remove speech they politically disapprove of, whether by President Trump or other conservatives, eroding the thin line between private companies acting on their own initiative and government officials conspiring to violate the First Amendment by banning certain kinds of political speech.

After multiple hearings, legal proposals, and legislative threats, it’s no longer possible to view Facebook’s censorship of political speech as anything other than government censorship. When enough pressure by government officials has been applied to a company to censor certain kinds of speech, the company’s decision to censor speech becomes government censorship.

30 House members would now like Facebook to censor criticism of Islam and political protests against Islamic terrorism. One of the few examples of anti-Muslim content in the House letter was a political protest against the Islamic Society of North America’s 2019 conference.

That was the conference which included an appearance by two Democrat presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders and Julian Castro, whose forum was moderated by Salam Al-Marayati, the head of MPAC, who had defended Hamas and Hezbollah. Also participating in a round table at the conference was Imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing, who has defended the Islamic mandate to kill gay people.

This is the sort of information that AOC, Omar, and 28 other House Democrats, want banned.

House Democrats trying to shut down protests targeting their own candidates is a blatant violation of the First Amendment which was meant to prevent exactly that kind of thing.

And the party of social justice wants to stop Americans from protesting against an Imam who says things like, ”Brothers and sisters, you know what the punishment is, if a man is found with another man? The Prophet Mohammad said the one who does it and the one to whom it is done to, kill them both.” What happens when ‘anti-Muslim content’ meets anti-gay content?

The 30 House Democrats don’t want to talk about any of this which is why their letter doesn’t.

Even Omar and Tlaib can’t quite openly call for blasphemy regulations for social media, but they conveniently leave terms like “anti-Muslim content” undefined and then demand that Facebook outsource the suppression protocols to “senior staff focused on anti-Muslim bigotry issues” backed by diversity training on “civil rights issues and common words, phrases, tropes or visuals used by hate actors to dehumanize and demonize Muslims”.

And if that’s not enough, there’s an independent third-party review of Facebook’s compliance.

CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood groups would be brought in to define what “anti-Muslim content” is and then senior staff, approved of by CAIR and its allies, would set moderation policies to suppress “tropes” used by “hate actors” like Jihad, Sharia, Taqiyya, and terrorism.

Cartoons of Mohammed, mentions of blasphemy, hate, and terrorism would all be censored.

It’s not hard to spot what sort of content they’re after.

The House Democrat blasphemy and terror letter has been endorsed by CAIR and the Islamic Networks Group, but beyond these traditional Islamist groups, it has the backing of pro-terror groups like Code Pink and JVP, and assorted anti-war organizations. These groups are less concerned with blasphemy, but very focused on preventing America from fighting terrorists.

CAIR had demanded the removal of Mohammed’s image from the Supreme Court, and more recently compared magazines publishing cartoons of Mohammed to ISIS. A board member of the Muslim Brotherhood group had insisted that, “[t]he right to free speech is not absolute.”

The Founding Fathers and the Constitution disagreed.

The letter also cites a Muslim Advocates report which listed examples of “anti-Muslim content” that they wanted Facebook to censor that included President Trump’s call for a ban on migration from Islamic terror nations, and a Trump campaign ad which described AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and Pressley as socialists who had made “anti-Israel, anti-American, and pro-terrorist remarks”.

AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and other Democrats have signed a letter demanding that Facebook censor political speech critical of them. That’s a grotesque assault on the First Amendment.

Another example of “anti-Muslim content” from the Muslim Advocates report was an Israeli Facebook user who had written negatively about Omar, Trudeau, and Corbyn.

Omar responded to this by ranting that “foreign interference – whether by individuals or governments – is still a grave threat to our democracy” and that “malicious actors operating in a foreign country, Israel”, were “spreading misinformation and hate speech to influence elections in the United States.” Even though there’s no evidence that elections were actually influenced.

But, once again, the kind of “anti-Muslim content” that Omar and her political allies seem to want to ban involves criticism of her and of them. The “grave threat” here is coming from Rep. Omar.

The letter claims that its signers also want Facebook to remove “any hate content directed at a religious or ethnic group”, but Rep. Ilhan Omar, one of the letter’s signers, has been the House’s worst offender, tweeting antisemitic content, including her infamous “Benjamins” tweet.

If House Democrats were serious about removing hate, they would have removed Rep. Omar.

Facebook already engages in extensive monitoring and censorship. This isn’t about taking down bigotry, but about removing political speech and content that Islamists consider blasphemous. It’s also about suppressing the political organizations that combat Islamist hate and violence.

It’s no coincidence that the type of political speech that Omar, Tlaib, Carson, and other House members want to censor casts a negative light on their own political alliances with Islamists, their bigotry, and their ugly views. And they would like Facebook to do the censoring for them.

The more Democrat officials lay out the kind of censorship they would like internet platforms to perform, the more the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech becomes a dead letter. And this letter, signed by 30 House Democrats, is a new threat to our freedom of speech.

America does not have blasphemy laws. And politicians are not allowed to ban speech they don’t like. The letter to Facebook makes it more urgent than ever that our elected officials find ways to protect the marketplace of ideas from political censorship by Democrats and Facebook.

Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield