Leftist Hate-Watch

President Obama Incites Murder?

2011-09-06T04:47:00.000-07:00

September, 6 2011 A.D.

Immediately below is a You Tube video of Jimmy Hoffa (the younger) recently threatening to murder people (Tea Party members or whomever he doesn't like I suppose). Hoffa is speaking at the right though you cannot see him.

And the next clip below from You Tube is the president complimenting Mr. Hoffa AFTER the murderous threats against Tea Party folks (according to Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website Obama complimented Hoffa after Hoffa's comments)

Democrats are all criminally-minded people and you should never forget it. If they do not flinch that they have snuffed out the lives of about 50,000,000 unborn human lives in the womb (a record worse than Hitler or perhaps Mao) then you should never believe they would hesitate to come after you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1VyhXpyjD8

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/09/05/obama-declares-hes-proud-of-hoffa-after-hoffa-declares-war-on-tea-party-sons-of-bitches/

http://youtu.be/B0L4t-tQ-ac

Tea Partiers Murdered Over 20 Navy Seals In Afghanistant Today

2011-08-06T18:32:00.000-07:00

August 6, 2011 A.D.

Oh wait, No they did not. Taliban terrorists killed them (ABC News). You might have been misled to believe that Tea Party folks were the culprits because of the recent idiotic statements made our imbecilic (or demented, take your pick) vice-president Joseph Biden that Tea Partiers are terrorists.

Jeffrey Kuhner of the Washington Times reports here about our VP's recent statements.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/nato-crash-31-americans-killed-including-25-navy/story?id=14245387

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/4/tea-party-terrorists/

Sorry Lew, Lefties Ain't Gonna Go For Ron Paul

2011-07-30T12:52:00.000-07:00

July 30, 2011 A.D.

Lefties are too evil to go big for Ron Paul in November but Lew Rockwell wants you to ditty-bop on over to a leftist website to see favorable comments about Ron Paul. Paul likes liberty and freedom and leftist don't and that is where the proverbial rubber will meet the road.

Democrats are deeply committed to fascism, Marxism, and totalitarianism, and they will never willingly put the interests of the welfare state at risk because the US remains a warfare state. Follow the money. Democrats love other peoples money too much to care about whether or not the US fights unjust wars and kills people overseas.

It just isn't going to happen. Democrats adore slaughter and bloodshed. This should be quite obvious by now and that is why they do not flinch at the thought of approximately 50 million human organisms having been snuffed out in the womb legally through the abortion they promote through legalization. They have never cared about slaughtering people in the past and still don't. Yes, yes, there's the oddity of Vietnam. But the problem there was the dead Americans, not the dead foreigners.

So it is odd to see Lew Rockwell online leading his readers to a weird place like this one on the web. It's called Dissident Voice. Strangely enough, not only is there no dissent at that website that I could see, especially since what is said there is the same old criminal-type Marxist collectivist baloney that everyone has heard over and over again, but I thought the Libertarians didn't like collectivists?

Here is Lew's introductory comment about the Dissident Voice article:

Ron Paul's Challenge to the Left

Posted on July 30, 2011 by Lew Rockwell

A very interesting piece by John Walsh in DissidentVoice, which argues that it's a question of basic morality. Indeed, any honest leftist, someone opposed to the warfare state, the police state, and Fed-bankster-Wall Streetism, must support Ron Paul.

I think the father of modern Libertarianism would have cringed at the sight of the Dissident Voice blog and Mr. Rockwell's blurb.

DV blogger John Walsh writes:

"The Left often acknowledges its obligation to those in developing countries, people of color over the planet whose standard of living and life itself is held back by the depredations of the U.S. Empire."

Okay, that is what the loons on the left often do acknowledge, but that is also what depraved people acknowledge. Of course, if the left wishes to obligate itself to what non-whites around the world need, that is their own business. I'm opposed to any US imperialism, but I'm not going to take the fall for it because some leftist dirt-bag feels guilty about it.

And that is the problem with fascists, thugs, and collectivists. They take their moral beliefs and cram them down other peoples throats while screaming about any religious person who might try to do the same to them.

This is completely against what the Father of Libertarianism (Hayek) would have advocated. So what's up with Lew Rockwell taking his readers to a fascist collectivist website and not providing a disclaimer about how he abhors the evil thinking that goes on there?

Is he that desperate? Or is he a deceiver? Or is he kinda dumb?

Even the subtitle of the website should shock the sensibilities of a true Libertarian. It reads "a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice."

What the...?

"Social". "Justice."? You have got to be kidding me. People still talk like that? Well I guess so and Lew Rockwell is directing you to a website where they do.

In Hayek's The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, Hayek devotes an entire chapter to the misuse of words and how serious a matter it is. In the chapter named "Our Poisoned Language", Hayek teaches that sometimes words have heavy animistic overtones. Words like "coerce" and "distribute"-- "things" that imply an actor. (pages 107 and 108).

Socialist writers, Hayek claims, use this superstitious animist thinking to explain their coveted economy theory. Hayek writes:

"Take for instance the personification of 'society' in the historicist tradition of Hegel, Comte, and Marx. Socialism, with its 'society', is indeed the latest form of those animistic interpretations of order historically represented by various religions (with their 'gods')...Imagining that all order is the result of design, socialists conclude that order must be improvable by better design of some superior mind [their minds, of course]." page 108

To advance their Marxist 'religion' the socialists pepper the political language with their 'religious' phrases. Like, for example, and especially the word "social" and all the nouns they modify with it. Hayek, on pages 115 and 116, lists "over one hundred and sixty nouns qualified by the adjective 'social'." These are words like:

...awareness...compact... etiquette...[and] needs...

And of course the biggie is "social justice". Like the "social justice" in the title of the Dissident Voice blog.

You cannot describe what social justice is, just like you cannot describe what hate speech is. So you can bet that leftist thugs and criminal types are going to overwork its usage. Hayek makes a good argument that sticking the word "social" in front of all these other excellent nouns robs them of their meaning.

How is justice any more meaningful if it is social? Isn't being a just person ample enough to meet a satisfying level of justice? Isn't a righteous court decision for an individual good enough justice? Why and how does it have to be "social" to be anything more just? And how is etiquette better by being social? A man or a woman having good etiquette is insufficient unless it has some mystical or magical quality of being social? Isn't etiquette already a social act?

To say there must be social justice is to say that having plain ole justice isn't enough. It also gives the priests of Marxism and collectivism a means by which they create their 10 commandments and the Law and the Prophets. Since justice becomes a collective concept instead of an individual one a whole new system of "collective justice" with its sins, proscriptions, and prohibitions must follow. And they, not god, will tell us.

And in this new collective, religious, economic order, whatever "THEY" the collectivists say is unjust is unjust and you better not get in their way as 100 million innocent dead and billions enslaved last century will attest to if they could.

Nasty folks these priests of "social justice".

I noticed an article at the DV whining about the left's alleged Islamophobia. The left is Islamophobic? Since when? Isn't it just the opposite and the left tends to love Muslims? Islam fits in neatly with so many of lefts self-righteous values. But isn't a phobia an unnatural fear of something as opposed to a genuine and rational fear of something dangerous? Isn't is righteous and not phobic to fear Imperialism? If so then it is as much a good thing to fear Islam as the DV folks fear Imperialism. That is because, in fact, Islam is KNOWN as an Imperial religion.

Just how stupid do you have to be to "hate" imperialism, complain about Islamophobia, and not know that Islam was founded by the imperialist military leader named Mohammad who led a 30,000 some odd army of thugs, thieves, and rapists across the Arabian desert plundering wealth and subjugating the innocent? As stupid at the people at DV. Obviously.

So Mohammad's sex slave trafficking of women, and kiddie sex with a nine year old, and approval of it all by the Koran doesn't upset the folks over at DV who claim to be interested in something called "social justice"?

This is a joke, right?

Shame on you Lew Rockwell.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/07/a-question-of-morality-ron-paul%E2%80%99s-challenge-to-the-left/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/07/ron-pauls-challenge-to-the-left/

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/07/leftists-of-america-and-the-world-wake-up-to-your-islamophobia/

Keith Ellison's "Hateful" Remarks About Michelle Bachmann

2011-07-14T06:30:00.000-07:00

July 14, 2011

Congressman Keith Ellison recently attacked Michelle Bachmann during a speech he gave to a group called Campus Progress (Breitbart). You can be sure that with the word "progress" in the name, the campus group is making none.

Ellison claims that Michelle Bachmann (a Republican conservative--read Christian--women) wants women to return to some mythical "barefoot" and "pregnant" state of affairs long sneered at by the deviants and perverts on left since the 60s counter-culture revolution.

Apparently, this jerk and the stupid people who applauded him for his lies and deceptions, didn't "get it" that Bachmann is a lawyer (tax lawyer) and PHD scholar who runs a successful business with her husband and thus isn't even herself promoting the barefoot and pregnant myth. Her Biblical background teaches her otherwise.

Scripture teaches good things about Lydia, the seller (merchant) of purple. It teaches about the woman of Proverbs 31 who sold belts and woven materials to the merchants. And she also sold the produce from her vineyard and provided for the needs of her family. A Christian woman is free to do these things and Bachmann is a Christian woman.

World population is exploding out of control because Muslim women are captive baby factories continually being raped by the vile and disgusting pigs who will have them murdered if they leave the Islamic faith but according to Ellison, it is Michelle Bachmann who wants women to be subjugated.

Ellison is a filthy and disgusting pig who attacked Bachmann for something members of his faith are guilty of.

It is the Christian world which has less pregnancies per family than the Muslim world. But Ellison would like us to assume that it is his faith that would be making progress for women. And he brings that to the Democratic Party.

You cannot be having sex voluntarily with your wife if your culture and faith teaches you you can kill her if she rejects Islam. In Muslim countries a woman can leave a marriage, but she can most likely not leave her faith without losing her life. So if she wants to leave her husband she loses her children.

Keith Ellison adores a filthy stinking old man who continually raped a nine year old child, pretended it was marriage, and then has the gall to claim it is Bachmann who advocates subjugation. Perhaps if Ellison wasn't so obsessed with the pervert predecessor and founder of his faith who enjoyed kiddie sex he might have time to read the Bible and get his facts straight about Christianity, the Bible, and conservative women in the GOP like Bachmann.

Apparently, Ellison thinks progress for women means that tiny little girls (instead of grown women) should be stripped naked and raped continually by their pretend "husbands" before they are capable of bearing children (before menses start). This is what Mohammad did to a little girl and Ellison reveres Mohammad. No one in their right mind believes a nine year old girl is capable of consenting to this, but it is Keith Ellison who worships the faith that promotes it.

It appears that progress to a Democrat or leftist is in seeing to it that nine-year-olds are barefoot, barren, and deflowered before they even menstruate instead of waiting until females are older. It appears Ellison is condemning women for being barefoot and pregnant when because he believes it is children who should be.

And it is only the pressure on Islam by the Christian world that keeps Muslim men from a widespread revival of Mohammad's teachings on having sex with female children. Because everything Mohammad did is holy and just.

Little girls without breasts. Little girls without menstrual cycles. And little girls without the ability to defend themselves from rape by their older and stronger "husbands". This is the female world of Mohammad and Congressman Keith Ellison and the morons who put him into office.

Naturally, the degenerate Democrats (they are all degenerates) are quick to embrace someone whose religion kills those who try to escape. And they are quick to embrace a religion that which advocates the repeated rape of little girls and then calls it "marriage".

This is progress for a member of the Democratic Party.

And now you understand better why President Obama is very fond of Islam: it appeals to him.

The heroic Dr. Wafa Sultan and Muslim women:

http://www.breitbart.tv/keith-ellison-bachmann-wants-women-barefoot-pregnant-and-back-in-the-kitchen/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up3yuQDAWKQ

Living In a Heathen Society: Bachmann Gets Accosted In Bathroom by Bullies

2011-06-17T02:17:00.000-07:00

June 17, 2011 A.D.

The other title of this post could be "Michelle Goldberg's Unrivaled Stupidity And How She Uses it as a Career Tool". Ms. Goldberg writes an article at the Daily Beast about an event that happened about six years ago to then state senator Michelle Bachmann. Bachmann, as the politically astute know, is now running for president of the United States. I found the article at the Lew Rockwell website. It provided the hyperlink. More about that later.

Bachmann was apparently frightened by two homosexual women who accosted her in a bathroom. And that just won't do. And Christianity must be "hatefully" attacked for it.

In a heathen society such as our own things like this are likely to happen more and more when people think something is appropriate (but is not) and someone else is appalled or frightened by it. This appears to be the case in the story in question as we find no place in the Goldberg article that has even the slightest acknowledgment that toilet facilities are not an appropriate place to engage strangers in political topics of a sexual nature or not.

I don't know if Bachmann knew if the women were homosexuals, but if I were cornered alone in a bathroom with two strangers accosting me, I might be screaming my head off too. What else is one to think? It's a BATHROOM for crying out loud. And it's leftist dirt-bags. It's a perfect storm of creepiness, bullies, and toilets.

We soon learned after this event that people indeed use a bathroom to bring down Republican politicians. I'm remembering the Larry Craig scandal and how the senator was destroyed by a he said/he said unprovable allegation of goings on in a bathroom. I'm not saying that Craig wasn't looking for sex in a bathroom, I'm saying there was no evidence of it. One cop's word about it and no other evidence is NO evidence.

Having once recognized the inappropriateness of having people who are sexually attracted to each other half stripping and urinating together in the same room, our society made sure those attracted to each other had separate toilet facilities. That protection is now gone in a sense. Yes, yes. I know about the response we get from the homosexuals: "Well we have ALWAYS peed with you." (Wink). There is a perverse pleasure sometimes taken in giving out this information which tells you a lot about what kind of people they are.

But now that we know what they are up too and, that they are so darn prideful about it, normal women are not comfortable having to share quarters with them (our feelings don't matter to them).And normal women are not comfortable sharing quarters with strange men while we do our business in the bathroom. Which is why a civilized society separated the two in the first place. Homosexuals are bold now and demand the right to that which men do not have: access to half naked people they are sexually attracted to. So much for equality on the left.

Concern for equality ends when it might deny them some special privileges. Have you noticed also how silent the normally big-mouthed homosexuals are about the "civil rights" violations of homosexual women who must be frisked by female TSA agents? Imagine if virtuous heterosexual women were being frisked by those who were sexually attracted to them. The bat guano would surely hit the fan. Are there NO virtuous homosexual women appalled they are being frisked by those who might be sexually attracted to them? The left sure had big mouths when they demanded bathrooms for the handicapped. But where are they now? Silent. Why? Because of the advantages? Oops.

And just where should they go to the bathroom now that they have complicated things? I have no idea. This is their problem. And apparently mine. And Ms. Bachmann's as well. They created this problem. And it is certainly not my fault. Nor Ms. Bachmann's. Granted, men are more violent and obnoxious (for now). And obviously women stand a better chance against women attackers than men, but that is besides the point.

What is at issue here is normal people do not gang up on and corner strangers in bathrooms to "chat" about issues, let alone chat about issues related to sex. As far as what is customary for speaking with ones representative in the legislature, most semi-intelligent people know that one can use the telephone (for something other than dirty phone calls), snail mail (for something other than sending porn), or email (for something other than sending photos of ones "junk").

Normal people know how to contact their state representatives and I don't understand Ms. Goldberg's not giving a nod to these normal channels of communications in her post. It is to be expected of a leftist "hate" monger like her to gloss over the inappropriateness of the women's conduct. I believe that at the state level one might even be able to get an appointment with a legislator during business hours and outside of the toilet area.

At a minimum Ms. Goldberg could have discussed the unfortunate choice the homosexual women made. And she could have indicated to us if they were sorry. As far as we know they were not. Or she could have explained to us how they realize it was a dumb thing to do. And she could have stated that maybe the senator did over react but it is understandable. (Think Grabrielle Giffords). But no. None of these relevant issues were discussed about the encounter. The main point was to express Christophobic feelings.

I have, what I feel are, as strong opinions about abortion as the bullies who approached Ms. Bachmann in the toilet might have had about the homosexual marriage issue or any other subject. But I don't believe I ever thought it proper to corner a politician in a room where one partially disrobes to go to the bathroom or change a sanitary napkin. And I have no idea what Mrs. Bachmann was doing in the bathroom except washing her hands and trying to escape creepy people.

Goldberg found no criticism whatsoever in the rude and crude behavior by Bachmann's constituents. That says a whole lot about her lack of fairness and character (and/or poor writing skills).

Goldberg's attack on Bachmann is purely Christophobic and "hate filled", because honestly, there is no sin that I know of against being afraid of strangers accosting ones self in a bathroom. And I don't know any violation of Christian principles in this story which would lead the extremist Goldberg to attack Bachmann by bringing up Christianity. Bringing up the Christianity was just ~~anti-Semetic~~ anti-Christic. There is no verse warning Christians to not be afraid in bathrooms. There is no chapter discussing it. And there was no reason to bring up the subject of Christianity when the subject was about being frightened when accosted in a bathroom.

The real story here is Goldberg's "hate".

And I don't get Lew Rockwell linking a story about harassing someone in a toilet facility with "war-mongering". But that is what Rockwell did. He gave a lead-in to the story of Bachmann not getting accosted in a bathroom, but about being a war-monger! What does being bullied by creepy strangers in a bathroom have to do with being a war-monger?

Rockwell provides the link to the Daily Beast story in such a fashion as to suggest it is about Bachmann's viewpoint of war. I mean real war: guns. ammo. soldiers. etc. But when we get to the linked article over at the Beast we find it is merely a "hate" mongering rant (perhaps of an unrivaled type) that completely ignores the inappropriate conduct of the homosexuals in question and suggests that Bachmann opposes the "war" in Libya. I'm stunned by it all.

Rockwell writes:

The Daily Beast attacks neocon warmonger Michele Bachmann's Christian right religion. You know, the theology that holds that a foreign government is God walking on earth, and that it is the job of Americans to cosset it, fund it, kill its enemies, etc. for ever and ever,

Then he mentions that Bachmann violates a central tenet of Christianity. That's about it. You are then supposed to link over to the Beast and read the article (which is supposedly about the war-mongering by Bachmann, but actually says she opposes the war in Libya!).

But what central tenet of Christianity is Rockwell referring to that Bachmann violates? The one that says we Christians are not supposed to be frightened by creepy people trying to engage us in unsolicited conversations in toilet facilities?

That central tenet?

Finally Goldberg brings up Bachmann's quoting the bible (yes, apparently it has something to do with being accosted in a bathroom). I kid you not. Goldberg writes:

On Monday, Bachmann didn't talk a lot about her religion. She didn't have to—she knows how to signal it in ways that go right over secular heads. In criticizing Obama's Libya policy, for example, she said, "We are the head and not the tail." The phrase comes from Deuteronomy 28:13: "The Lord will make you the head and not the tail." As Rachel Tabachnick has reported, it's often used in theocratic circles to explain why Christians have an obligation to rule."

What the Dickens does that mean? I don't think even Goldberg knows. First of all, that verse applies to the country of Israel specifically and only when it is fully devoted to Jehovah. And it isn't speaking to Christians who are, by-the-way, never told anywhere in the New Testament to run a theocracy anywhere on the planet.

Read the whole chapter of Deut. 28 and you will see clearly who that passage applies to and you will see for yourself that it isn't Christians. I don't know why Bachmann mentioned it, but Goldberg suggests it means crazy people like Bachmann want to rule the world. Right, and the dangerous, extremist, and subversive evil-doer Obama doesn't? Obama always uses scripture, but I suppose that is okay.

I don't know what Bachmann was implying. And I suspect Goldberg really doesn't know either. Besides IF this is Bachmann's true feelings about Israel (or ignorant Christians like Pastor John Hagee) then Bachmann would support Obama's attack on Libya. But in fact (and even according to Goldberg's article) Bachamann is criticizing what is essentially Obama's (PRO-ISRAEL) attack on Libya.

Bachmann says he shouldn't be attacking Libya because there is no evidence that it is in our national interests to do so. The president is attacking one enemy of Israel after another and it's Bachmann who is doing the religious war-mongering thing by opposing the attack on Libya?

Goldberg is a nincompoop.

Bachmann is not being a war-monger in this instance regarding Libya and Rockwell says she is one and then links us to an article in which a critic says Bachmann is NOT behaving in a war-mongering fashion but is trying to rule the world?

Is that it? Did I get that correct?

And all this has to do with creepy people frightening Bachmann in a bathroom?

Sheesh. Leftists are too dumb to be as smart as they think they are. And Lew Rockwell looks to be losing a few marbles.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/14/michele-bachmanns-unrivaled-extremism-gay-rights-to-religion.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/bachmanns-unrivaled-extremism/

Say What?

2011-06-15T21:09:00.000-07:00

June 15, 2011 A.D.

Info wars is reporting that the president of the United States and his family are not "invested" in a second term. What's he got? ADHD?

Still, it makes sense. Anyone with half a brain knew they weren't even invested in the first term. They "hate" America that much. It was obvious from the beginning.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-my-family-is-fine-with-one-term-2/

New York Times Springboards Off the "Hatred" of Sarah Palin

2011-06-10T18:23:00.000-07:00

June 10, 2011 A.D.

After nearly fifty years of stoking hatred against Christians, Republicans, right-wingers, and loyal American citizens, the New York Times is sending its dogs (its readers) after Sarah Palin.

This is about the unmitigated "hatred" of Sarah by those at the New York Times and their communist followers (everyone in the Democratic Party). And the maniacal mindset of the rank and file leftist who subscribes to the NYTs can be completely trusted to devote insane amounts of time to this task to destroy her.

They "hate" her that much.

After decades of deceiving the public, they can no longer get away with it. So un-devoted are they to the unvarnished truths of life, they might as well depend on the twisted minds of the unpaid readers (who don't work for the NYTs) that buy their garbage.

Read about the New York Times and Sarah's email here.

I understand the Washington Post and the Guardian in England are doing a similar stunt.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/help-us-investigate-the-sarah-palin-e-mail-records/

Chris Matthews Blames The Pervert's Wife?

2011-06-07T05:08:00.000-07:00

June 7, 2011 A.D.

It's not like left-winger women have a choice.

MSNBC talking-head Chris Matthews suggests that Anthony Weiner's wife is somewhat responsible for having married a guy like Weiner because of some alleged knowledge she had about the guys previous vile conduct. (The Blaze)

And by vile I mean Weiner's sending obscene photos of himself to young women over the internet and having phone sex with some of them.

When I speak of left-wingers in this case I mean Democrats. Also known as liberals. Also known as progressives. These deviants, perverts, or criminal types continually change their political names so I have to define the terms from time to time to keep up with them order to provide accurate commentary. These various names are actually aliases. You are familiar with aliases because criminals use them all the time to fool the righteous.

Thus it is easy to understand Democrats using aliases as Democrats and criminal types are six of one half-dozen of the other.

But these poor left-winger women. All they have is left winger men to choose from to copulate with. And what an awful disgusting pool of men (usually) that is since that choice is already a pool of perverts and deviants who cannot seem to face a future of having sex with left-wing women without an escape clause--abortion. Even if they don't take advantage of it themselves, they make sure they could do so legally if necessary. This is what makes all of them especially vile including men like Matthews--an abortion proponent.

Their pagan gods may forbid them from having to deal with the offspring they created with their left-wing women, but it goes beyond the pale to blame the ignorant women they pounce on for it. Women are after all something to be protected in these matters by the men who have sex with them. Oh wait. Left-winger men don't protect women. I forgot.

These "men" (hardly) also continue to make sure they don't have to deal with the consequences of their "actions" by making sure divorce is as easy and cheap as possible. It is only conservatives or right-wingers who have fought to keep divorce laws as they once were: difficult. You member those don't you? I'm speaking about the divorce laws we had not so long ago that protected children from their parents' errors. Keeping in mind here that divorce is usually about the worst thing you can do to a child short of physical abuse and leftists being the ones who made that easier. And keeping in mind that divorce on a wide-spread level destroys civilizations.

Democrats simply hate children and women, and the laws they advocate through their political associations demonstrates it.

So this is what leftist women are up against. Their men use them for sex and mainly for sex. And while they use their women as life-sized blow up dolls or not they go about society forming laws through their political associations to make sure they can easily get away from the women and their own offspring if need be. The woman and children (what is left of the ones they have not murdered through abortion) are left holding the bag of social ruin.

Now, these loathsome and vile people who can hardly stand having sex with each other without having a guarantee that it isn't for keeps, and with the option of slaughtering the offspring of their copulation, have themselves reduced sex to some cheap filthy movie-like atmosphere. So I don't see how Chris Matthews thinks a left-winger woman (Anthony Weiner's wife) can discern a decent leftist from a bad one since they are all bad in the first place. Bad like Anthony. Bad like Matthews.

What Matthews might have better inquired of was why Weiner's wife was irresponsible enough to choose a leftist pig like himself , Weiner, or _______(substitute ANY Democratic Party members' name).

Anyone with half a brain already new Anthony Weiner was a moron before he sent unseemly photographs of himself across electronic conveyances (ACROSS STATE LINES: AHEM!) by-the-freaking-way, by the way. It's the politics that provides the clues to the perversion. Well you say, there are Republican perverts. Indeed. And I would venture to say they were leftists as well.

Right-wingers don't do these things in the main; and it would be only left-wingers pretending to be right-wingers who do them. Right-wingers are philosophically opposed to sexual corruption. Yes, some might sin and get caught. But the right-wing community scorns them and rejects the conduct. But for the left these matters are a point of pride. They are liberal. Open. Even natural. Encouraged. And especially so at the leftist elitist colleges and universities.

The left philosophically advocates sexual corruption at all levels. And the only reason Weiner is sniveling like an infant he helps destroy in the womb by the tens of millions through his political associations is because right-wingers are appalled with his conduct. If we left it up to left-wingers to be outraged or to determine the morality of a sexual issue it is most likely that Weiner would not be apologizing for his immoral conduct because there would be no one condemning him from the left if there was no one condemning him from the right.

In other words, it is only because someone somewhere outside of a left-winger thinks these things are wrong, that a left-winger might feel the need to be ashamed of it.

But you say Matthews is decent and doesn't send disgusting pictures of himself across state lines and so my theory is wrong. You would be cutting the fellow too much slack thinking it made him decent. He is of the criminally-minded classes; the totalitarian police-state class; the thievery class. In other words he is a communist. Now communists tended to be prudes and Weiner breaks that particular mold, but what is most important about them is that they hate women while they use them as blow-up dolls to jerk off with. That is key to understanding the leftist mind and the communism is the clue. Communists hate womanhood and the child (thus the fetus). Have sex with a woman, then she and her fetus are a packaged deal. If you don't protect them both you are a diabolical monster who deserves the lowest levels hell.

And you can be sure that the communists were not hesitant to agitate for the dissolution of the family (viz a viz the 60s Sexual Revolution) as a weapon to destroy the United States and the "free" world. So much does the Communist hate womanhood and the innocent, it could view any defenseless woman (even one in a "capitalist" country) as an excellent target. The left in America did their bidding in the 60s and continues to do so. Especially and mainly people in the Democratic Party.

Marx is a perfect example of all this. He even let a child of his own starve to death while he committed his devotion to theft on paper in the London Library (I learned about this from Phyllis Schlafly's writings). Such a man does not really love his wife and certainly doesn't love his children up past the point of letting them starve while he is out Quixotically battling wind-mills and promoting fantasies of legalized stealing.

Writer Paul Johnson has an interesting book called Intellectuals. In it he writes about the vile and perverted sex life of some of left's biggest heroes like Karl Marx, Bertrand Russell, Earnest Hemmingway, and Leo Tolstoy.

Johnson writes of Tolstoy--a pervert and lecher well into his elderly years:

"Tolstoy knew he was doing wrong in resorting to prostitutes and seducing peasant women [he had gonorrhea]. He blamed himself for these offenses. But he tended to blame the women still more. They were all Eve the Temptress to him. Indeed it is probably not too much to say that despite the fact that he needed women physically all his life and used them--or perhaps because of this--he distrusted, disliked and even hated them."*

Wow, that sounds like Matthews. Make the woman responsible when men pursue them like dogs in heat or behave like perverts? Guess who made most of the laws that have hung women and children out to dry since the 1960s?

Men. And mostly leftist men. They are the real chauvinist pigs.

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2011/06/06/unbelievable-chris-matthews-suggests-weiners-wife-is-to-blame/

*Intellectuals, Paul Johnson, Harper & Row, 1988, Hardback. Page 117.

Harry Reid Attacks Rand Paul

2011-05-28T13:14:00.000-07:00

May 28, 2011 A.D.

Harry Reid, in "hate" filled comments, attacks Senator Rand Paul for opposing the extension of the Patriot Act. Real Clear Politics has the story about Reid's critical comments of Rand Paul. Reid says that Rand's actions would pose a threat to US national security.

Has Harry Reid supported legislation to ban Muslim immigration and entry to the USA? No?

Then it is the "hate" monger Harry Reid who poses a threat to national security.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/26/reid_rand_pauls_opposition_to_patriot_act_giving_terrori sts_the_opportunity_to_plot_against_our_country.html

Stupid White Guy Bob Schieffer and the Indomitable Donald Trump

2011-04-29T01:58:00.000-07:00

April 29, 2011 A.D.

Leftists, according to their own standard, are thoroughly obsessed with hatred. And that "hatred" was given wide berth this week after Donald Trump continued to insist that President Obama give more personal details about himself.

Having provoked the President to reveal another document about his birth, The Donald continues to needle our dangerous, extremist, subversive president about other documents. Like his school records.

This has the leftist "haters" screeching racism.

Apparently it is racist to suspect or believe that the president achieved any great or good thing because of Affirmative Action. But of course it is not racist to support the race-based Affirmative Action program. You may lobby for race-based Affirmative Action, but you better not say it was something a black or bi-racial person ever benefited from. Because if you do insinuate it you will be labeled a racist.

If right-wingers were clever (and they are not) they would challenge the stupid Whoopie Goldbergs of the media by pointing out that Obama isn't a black man and if anyone is being a racist it is the people who say he is. Because if he is a black man, he is most certainly a white man as is mother was fully a white person.

And people like Whoopie ignore this fact, which itself could be labeled racism against Obama's white mother. And it is racism used in order to charge racism against those who challenge the president.

See how stupid this has become?

It has become this stupid because stupid "white" people like Obama and Bob Shieffer of CBS news have made a mockery of reason and rational thought for the purposes of gaining power over others.

Imbecile's like Shieffer would do well to remember, as Patrick Buchanan recently pointed out, that Obama himself acknowledge the benefits of Affirmative Action in his life. (Buchanan.org)

Since Obama is so stupid, what other reason could there be for him to be a Harvard grad? His purrdee face?

I don't know if rigging the SATs and giving more points during admissions to racial groups is part of Affirmative Action.

http://buchanan.org/blog/hate-speech-makes-a-comeback-4734

Oh Boy! NPR "Haters" at it Again.

2011-03-10T11:22:00.000-08:00

March 10, 2011 A.D.

The left continues to justify the reason for the existence of this blog. And that reason is the left's consummate "hatred" of others not like them according to their own standard of "hate". They are at least more guilty of "hate" than those they accuse.* And they most certainly are not fit to define what hate is.

We've had that better revealed to us this week by the intrepid videographer James O'Keefe who got an awesome video of left-wing "hate" and bigotry in action during O'Keefe's recent journalistic video "sting".

MSNBC has this post about it. It also has the juicy video of the left-wing NPR bigot in action.

I'm posting the video here and at this time it already has about 850,000 viewings!

I'm sorry, but I'm laughing at all this. Oh wait. I'm not sorry. I'm actually delighted. Delighted because this video shows how all leftists think and it is wonderful that it has been exposed. Thank God for the internet too! Surely the leftists are going to have to find a way to shut it down because it exposes them for what they really are: evil doers. They don't like that.

It is likely that the disappointment felt by the NPR muckety-mucks--the board of directors-- for having to let Vivian and Ron Schiller (no relation) go in the wake of this flap is more about the disappointment for getting caught stating true left-winger beliefs. Left-wingers try to hide their true feelings because they know decent and normal people would recoil from them.

These big players at NPR have now been relieved of their responsibilities and it is the funniest thing to happen in a very long time. Don't worry about them either. Some other low-life left-wing organization will hire them. Eventually.

In the video we see the leftist goon Ron Schiller "speaking for myself" instead of speaking under the pointy hat of being a NPR representative. He said to the Muslim impostor: "It feels to me as though there is a real anti-intellectual move on the part of a significant part of the Republican Party."

Oh yes, a privileged twerp from an Ivy League school (Cornell) is condemning GOPers for being anti-intellectual while he is talking about doing business with a Muslim (impostor) who, if he really were a Muslim, loves and adores the founder of a religion who had sex with a nine year old when he was about 54. Wikipedia .

It appears that only a left-winger in America (or some pedophile sitting in jail) would think it intelligent to do business with someone who loves an old geezer who had sex with a nine year old child. Or a ten year old child. And even an eleven year old child. By then, the old geezer would be nearly 60 years old. Apparently, this is what passes for intelligence to an educated Ivy League left-winger type in America.

Has Schiller even read about the life of Mohammad? If so, then he approves?

Oh wait, I'm remembering I'm an evangelical Christian. How would I, the great anti-intellect (fanatic), know about the life of Mohammad let alone write about it and point out various unflattering things Muslims admire? I suppose I'm to be too anti-intellectual to have read about Mohammad having sex with a nine year old child or to know that anyone who admires him despite this information would be an evil doer as well. I suppose that only a clever left-wing Ivy League type like Schiller is capable of reading books about historical figures and making a determination about whether they were good or evil.

Evangelicals like me are, apparently, not interested in the life of the mind. So when we read books that left-winger intellects don't read it must not count for anything but anti-intellectualism.

I get the impression from these Ivy League types, including ones drooling for dollars with the Muslim impostor in the video, that they think themselves of superior intellect. Yet for all his education Schiller is talking with an impostor who, if he really were a Muslim, still believes infidel women can be treated as sex slaves and it is good, virtuous, sanctified, holy, and moral. Unless Schiller's family is Muslim, that would mean the females in his family are suitable targets for being made into sex slaves should Muslims get the opportunity.

I guess this is part of what makes an intellectual left-winger men so smart: they cannot stand their own women. And, keeping left-winger women in mind, it is understandable. Left-winger women really are vile and disgusting. And we can understand that their men detest them enough to let the Muslim men have at them. But the Muslim slave traders wouldn't stop with the leftist women. All infidel women in America (and the world) are would-be targets of this pervert religion that greatly appeals to leftist American men.

Just how intelligent do you have to be to know not to negotiate with religious people that admire an old dead guy who traded and raped his own sex slaves and recommended that others could do it according to their religious beliefs?

In the video, the Ivy League turd from NPR actually compared the lack of "voice" from the Muslim community in America to the lack of "voice" from women in America. I guess it takes a "pro"intellectual Ivy League type jerk on the left to compare less than one percent of a US population which are Muslims to 50 percent of the population not having had a voice since the inception of the nation, over 200 years ago, until the "Feminist Movement" in the 1960s.

And I guess only an "anti"intellectual evangelical such as myself might want to point out the stupidity of Ron's line of thinking in our electronic era and the age of communications when "voice" for American Muslims is limitless. Those poor unfortunate Muslims in America today who have all the avenues for their "voices" that they could ever wish for and are somehow silent. Oh my. What oppression. Leftist men to the rescue.

What the moron from NPR really is really referring to, but is too stupid to understand, it is that the Muslim "problem" is that no sane person wants to listen to their evil voices. If you have evil and stupid ideas don't be surprised if no one wants to listen to them. I guess after having gotten away with having evil and stupid ideas for so long NPR types just don't know any better because they don't read unbiased history books.

Perhaps the Muslims should get smart like the people at NPR and those on left and hide their true feelings while they move forward establishing them in this country. Of course Muslims are at an disadvantage with that since we have nearly 1400 years of Muslim history to refer to (if we are apt to be curious readers not like Schiller). And so they cannot easily hide their religious feelings, ideas, and goals.

Their evil intents have already been outed.

Certainly, these days, Muslims have more avenues to express themselves here than their coreligionists have overseas in the disgusting and vile countries run by lovers of Mohammad.

Muslims have had over a millennium to get their point across. And seeing that they possess about 30 nations around the world only an imbecile or an ignoramus who refuses to read critical and scholarly works would think they do not have a voice. And if Muslims did not have a voice it would be only because Islam is SO anti-intellectual itself that it engenders it.

It is natural that leftists are sympathetic with an anti-intellectual religion like Islam and so it is no surprise that NPR would be excited to deal with its members or claim that Christians are the ones who would be the anti-intellects.

Western Civilization, with its strong Christian influence, has created the modern age of technology, electronics, and communications. Islam has never been capable of this because Islam loathes liberty. And to make advancements in science and technology you have to have freedom. Christian lands are more free and promote education. Muslim nations mostly do not.

*Leftists have appointed themselves the deciders of what hate is. Hate is hate only if a leftist says so and they get to determine what it is. And by that standard--the standard that we all get to appoint ourselves to decide what hate is--I have appointed myself to determine that all leftists are hate mongers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41986715/ns/politics-more_politics/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Schiller

Obama: A Gaddafi Wannabe?!?!

2011-03-01T00:41:00.000-08:00

March 1, 2011 A.D.

Both men are as daffy as it gets these days.

And our president appears to be as deluded as the leader of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, and will be as crazy one day unless he gets a grip of himself.

President Obama schizophrenically calls for Libya to stop shooting Libyans while he ramps up the Department of Homeland Security Neo-Stazis who have no other purpose than to shoot Americans or sexually molest them.

Then he sends his warships towards Libya. To shoot whom? Libyans?

And he schizophrenically gives himself the kill switch for the internet and wants to grab more and more internet powers through his FCC while he urges Arab and Muslim nations to keep the internet open. Muslim leaders are not allowed the kill switch but the holier-than-thou President Obama is?

And finally, he reveals his rank hypocrisy by not defending the Tea Party folks from the sustained onslaught of verbal abuse they received and continue to receive by the left-wing media when they peacefully protested in the streets about their rights. Yet he continues to ask critics to cut his criminally-minded union thugs and comrades in some slack.

There is no end to the wickedness of the Qaddafi wannabe in the White House.

Yes, yes, don't shoot the precious Muslims and Arabs protesting in the streets. After all, they are not white, conservative, Tea Party members. Those are the people targeted by president and he has his guns, spies, and neo-Stazis trained on them. And he is waiting for the right moment to unleash them.

Corrections and revisions to blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for your patience.

Democrat Congressman Urges Bloodshed

2011-02-24T19:14:00.000-08:00

February 24, 2011 A.D.

Catalina Camia of the USA Today online reports

A Democratic congressman who told union supporters earlier this week they should "get a little bloody" apologized today for his heated rhetoric.
'
Congressman Capuano (D-Massachusetts) said

"I wish I had used different language to express my passion and I regret my choice of words."

Very funny. Think the guy just wants to keep his job?

You won't see the "hate" mongers at the Southern Poverty Law Center putting the Democratic Party on their hate-watch list. Which is why I put them both on mine. Both are just too shy or sly to openly admit these things about themselves.

President Obama can call amnesty and open immigration opponents enemies of Hispanics, Barney Frank can threaten AIG employees by threatening to reveal their home addresses, and Capuano slips and advocates blood-shed, but the Democratic Party is never slated to be put on a SPLC hate-watch list. Not that. This is because the "hate" mongers at the SPLC and the Democratic Party are on the same side of the political spectrum and they won't finger themselves or each other as haters. Mostly right-wingers are suited to be labeled as haters and left-wingers feel they are authorized or particularly capable of determining what hate is and who the haters are.

It is quite a scam. The SPLC depends on labeling groups haters or it would likely have no reason to exist. Without someone somewhere being haters, how would the SPLC make money? Its leaders would have to find decent work if they ran out of bad guys.

Michelle Malkin provides this litany of recent "hate" mongering by the left. It is real obscene stuff too. Of course it is, it's left-wingers.

When you dwell among the vicious bloodthirsty monsters who have promoted snuffing out the lives of approximately 50 million unborn innocents in the womb, as Capuano does, you are not going to be able to easily hide what you really are. Eventually it catches up to you. You slip. And that is what Capuano did this week.

You cannot be a member of the Democratic Party and be a decent human being. It is impossible. No one ever has to be a blood-thirsty member of the Democratic Party. It is a thoroughly voluntary act. No ones life is threatened if they are not a Democrat. Hitler snuffed out the lives of about 20 million civilians and the Democrats, thus far and still counting, 50 million unborn.

Who is worse?

Figure it out. And fast.

They are finding it hard to hide their true feelings and Obama is now calling for young people to rise up against the American government (like the people rose up against the Egyptian government). But, mind you, he wants the young to rise up against the Republic our Founders created. He wants the young to embrace the rogue government our lawless president supports. While the SPLC portrays the people who love the Constitution and want our Republic restored to be the bad guys.

The people at the SPLC support our rogue government and figure they all are the good guys.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/02/rep-michael-capuano-union-rally-apology-/1

http://www.creators.com/conservative/michelle-malkin/hate-a-rama-the-vulgar-sexist-racist-homophobic-rage-of-the-left.html
Corrections and revisions to blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for you patience.

Lily-White Union Protesters In Wisconsin

2011-02-24T12:07:00.000-08:00

February 24, 2011 A.D.

Those evil doers on the left, who according to their own standards, hate more than hate could ever hate, have been utterly silent about the lily-white protesters in Madison, Wisconsin who are angry about governor Scott Walker's attempt to rein in collective bargaining with the teachers unions in that state.

The evil doers in the left-wing media, who also hate more than hate could ever hate have neglected to condemn and criticize (on the basis of race) the gathering of white union members on the left like they criticized the Tea Party people. This is because, apparently, it is only bad to gather together serendipitously while white if you are a right-winger or anti-leftist. And it has nothing to do with geography. It has to do with like-minded people gathering together for the purposes of dissent and expression, who when they don't gather to gather in a fashion to please the "hate" mongers on the left, get slandered and smeared for being racists.

And this is because leftists hate with a hate more than hate could ever hate. And it has been on display in the left-wing media this past week.

Corrections and revisions to blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for your patience.
.

Those Bloodthirsty Democrats

2011-02-15T04:46:00.000-08:00

February 15, 2011 A.D.

Okay, it could be a fake.

This video below could be a fake. But it doesn't look like it. I got it from Breitbart online. It is odd, but I tried to get back to the video to get the url. But when I searched the site I couldn't find it again. Breitbart's search engine seems quite bad since I originally saw the clip at Breitbart's site, but it listed nothing about it when I tried to find it again.

So I went to Google and got it from Hot Air. Here is the link with a little bit of information about the protest in which threatening comments were made against sitting Supreme Court justices . This story at Hot Air ran on February 3rd.

The exact reason for my blog is to point out my past recognition of the continued obvious truth that left-wingers are the most vicious "haters" among us. Obviously, the point is also that this makes them huge hypocrites.

And that obvious truth is easily seen since the 1960s. They rant and rave about love, peace, and understanding and each of these are far from anything they themselves understand or practice. This truth about the left grows more obvious by the day. Especially since the people the left "hates" have stood up to exercise their power. That will not be tolerated by the left as only they (according to themselves) have the right to exercise power or dissent. And, of course, the underlying truth here is that though these are merely the rank and file leftists, this "hatred" is what really is going on at the top--at the leadership level of the Democratic Party.

This is why you need to be worried about Democrats sudden embrace of Abraham Lincoln. He is the fellow who murdered hundreds of thousands of Americans because he didn't like them and wanted to plunder their wealth. Naturally, Democrats adore murderers and find any president, whether a Democrat or not, who does such a thing, to be an appealing character. So now you have been warned.

When Democrats/leftists, progressives/liberals are clamoring in fake outrage about hatred from right-wingers they are really clamoring about how much left-wingers "hate" others. They haven't done too much about this "hate" business in congress these days in large part, in my opinion, because they have themselves come to realize THEY like "hatred". And they better not outlaw themselves.

The video is amazing. Person after leftist person calls for the torture, lynching, and murder of justices Thomas, Scalia, or Thomas.

All with smiles on their wicked little (and ultimately very stupid) faces. I got this off of the Breitbart website. At least I think I did!

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/03/video-koch-protests-include-calls-to-lynch-clarence-thomas/

Arianna Huffington: Just Another Rich Marxist

2011-02-09T11:48:00.001-08:00

February 9, 2011 A.D.

Arianna Huffington has just sold her radical leftist Huffington Post for a cool several hundred million dollars to the radical leftist America Online (AOL). Here is the story of the purchase (Washington Post). Tip-o-the-hat to Drudge Report.

Dana Milbank reports that Ms. Huff wishes to move beyond the left right paradigm of American politics. Only a fool would believe it.

You will see to the right, that the Huffington Post is number eight on Leftist Hate-Watch's top leftist "hate" groups. And it is doubtful that will change with the sale. AOL didn't help itself with its community patrolled goons (radical leftists and Muslims) who got the accounts of people they did not like terminated by incessant whining, complaining, and reporting on people who offended them.

A good deal of this went on before the Time-Warner deal. AOL shot themselves in the foot with their radical community goon squads. I would imagine many of the people they terminated were paying customers during the time AOL was offering free services!

The jerks at AOL appear well suited to the jerks at Huffington Post.

If you haven't been to the Huffington Post then you won't know that it is as creepy, flaming, freaky, weirdo, and leftist as it can get and still remain suitable for respectable mixed company. Politically, it will sear the hair off your face.

This wicked little witch from the left has done well stoking the fires of "hate", greed, and envy of the rich. Of course, at the Huff Po it is mainly the right-wing which is guilty of being bad while rich.

It appears most of her members are obsessed with loathing the rich. And this anti-rich theme is popular among her many bloggers (apparently there are about 500 of them altogether). This fantastical number, I suppose, may lead Ms Huffington into believing she shares no guilt in fanning flames of the uncivil debate the left thinks only the right promotes.

Most reasonable people come away from her blog feeling its leader, bloggers, and supporters "hate" people with money and want those people plundered and destroyed. And she fanned those flames, now, it appears, for her own monetary gain.

What a joke.

Maybe she will give her money away? But then she might have to give up her powerful rich lifestyle bamboozling the Marxist peons into accepting slavery.

Perhaps she has tired of the vicious monster she created and now has buyer's remorse about her role in fomenting vicious social and political commentary.

The millions and millions of dollars might be the consolation prize.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/08/AR2011020805179.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Corrections and revisions to blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for your patience.

Joy Behar Is At It Again

2010-11-09T05:41:00.000-08:00

They are never guilty. They are always innocent. Only people THEY "hate" with unmitigated "hate" are guilty of "hate". It's never them. It's never the insane lefties.

It's never Joy Behar. It is impossible that she could "hate". Only right-wingers can hate.

So here we have Joy, after calling a thoroughly decent human being (Sharron Angle) a "bitch", trying to get out of it (Media-ite online). Not by apologizing. Not by honest introspection. Not by examination of her own conduct and condemnation of it. No, not by any of these truly humane means for recovering ones sense of justice or virtue or redemption.

She tries to get out of it by pretending that the word bitch is a compliment. She failed.

Yes, leftist women are all deranged but you know, and I know, that this "endearing" use of the word bitch is not what Joy meant. Behar was condemning Sharron. She was condemning Sharron because of what Sharron stands for and because soon the people of Nevada would be voting for her in the November election for governor.

The original tenor of Joy's first verbal attack was meant to harm Sharron.

And decent people know this. Which is why Joy doesn't.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/joy-behar-apologizes-for-calling-sharron-angle-bitch-says-its-a-term-of-endearment/

Immigrant Arianna Huffington Stabs Americans In the Back

2010-09-15T02:37:00.000-07:00

It is one thing for idiotic Democrats to continually stab Americans in the back with high immigration rates, Marxism, a Maoist cultural revolution, the growth of the police-state and so forth, and a whole other thing for an uppity immigrant hag to do it.

Arianna Huffington, a leftist elitist who runs the online website called The Huffington Post (number eight on my leftist "hate" monger list), went too far in a recent interview with Maria Bartiroma on C-Span. Huff is promoting her new book Third World America. After listening to her I believe she is also promoting a third-world America.

Starting about the 21 minute mark she sets up her brutal and vicious attack on Americans. She says (beginning about the 21:30 mark) that

"innovation is absolutely key here".

Okay, I buy that.

But then she criticizes the "effort at the moment to restrict skilled immigrants from coming to this country".

She says we need more skilled labor immigrants. Apparently Americans are bumbling boobs too stupid or too inferior to get skills. So instead of the public schools training American kids, we should bring in foreign skilled labor because they will CREATE jobs which our stupid American kids are just too darn stupid to create for themselves.

Skilled business men and women (who may also possess superior labor skills) create jobs and we already have enough of these people.

What we need are manufacturers in country. Some manufacturing remains, but much has gone offshore, and we need it to do business here. We need to bring it home and stop over taxing it. Skilled American workers need the ability to start their own business on the shoe-string without aid from government . To do that there has to be less regulation of small businesses. This over regulation usually comes from idiotic leftists like Huff.

Democrats are currently strangling the shoe-string operation in the cradle. These shoe-string operations are the foundation of small businesses; importing skilled immigrants isn't. Dems strangle small operations with local, state, and federal laws and it becomes next to impossible to start them up.. These small operations have been the backbone of independence and prosperity for individual Americans since our founding. Huff implies we American workers are now too stupid to do this, and need superior OTHERS from overseas to come here and do it for us.

Get lost you foreign pond scum. Please.

The problem isn't the lack of skilled Americans. And if it was it would be because of leftists jerks who run the public schools. The problem has more to do with ruthless hags like Huffington who insults American workers, tells them to go volunteer somewhere and while they have their backs turned, stabs them in the back by advocating bringing in foreign workers to take any paying jobs that might pop up along the way while they are too busy donating their time working for free and needing to beg for food since they cannot start up a business for themselves because sapheads like Huff join up with those who make oppressive regulations over start-up businesses.

What it looks like is Huff appears to be advocating creating a beggar class out of native born Americans so that foreigners (like her, I guess) can come over and rake in the money.

About the end of the 23 minute mark she tells us that foreign visitors come to our country, get college educated, and then we ask them to leave. She says they should stay. Why should they stay? Well, I guess it is because our citizens who already have an education and college degrees, but don't have jobs, are going to be too busy volunteering for free and begging for food from people like Huffington who make money by writing books about how other people like her should come to America and take jobs and opportunities from Americans.

Ms. Huffington is a perfect example of why we must close the door to immigration before it is too late. At least we don't need more communists or those who hate our system of government and its reliance on free markets and freedom, and our custom of vibrant un-oppressed shoe-string operations. Immigration, as demonstrated to me by the likes of Ms. Huffington, has become counterproductive. If we need more Americans, then we need government to encourage Americans to have bigger families. Government can do that by letting them keep their own money. And they can do that by removing oppressive laws for small businesses.

These little operations can become a Apple Inc. some day.

http://www.booktv.org/Watch/11827/After+Words+Arianna+Huffington+Third+World+America+How+Our+Politicians+Are+Abandoning+the+Middle+Class+and+Betraying+the+American+Dream+hosted+by+Maria+Bartiromo+CNBC.aspx

Corrections and revisions to blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for your patience.

National Association of White People Targeted by the NAACP

2010-07-14T06:08:00.000-07:00

The National Association of White People has been targeted by the National Association of Colored People as having racist elements.

Oops, my mistake. That should read "the Tea Party" has been targeted by the National Association of Colored People as having racist elements.

If Tea Party members were urged to "increase" their "intensity" (Mrs. Obama's words to the "colored people" in the audience) some might think this was a call to violence.

New Black Panther Rant

2010-07-07T15:15:00.000-07:00

Well bust my britches. Is THIS what Eric Holder had in mind when he urged us to not be racial cowards and talk frankly about race in America?

Who believes Holder did not know about this man's rant against whites BEFORE he dismissed this young "gentleman's" civil-rights voter intimidation case? Perhaps the Department of Injustice dismissed the case in order to hide this lunatic's rant?

It didn't work if so.

He doesn't hate you whities, he just wants all your babies dead. So relax. Apparently he's just the type needed for the US government's genocide of white Americans.

No wonder they let him go. They have so much in common!

Corrections and revisions to blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for your patience.
.

The Rise of the "Hate" Monger, Neo-Stalinist Chris Matthews

2010-06-17T05:09:00.001-07:00

"Hate"monger and neo-Stalinist Chris Matthews has launched a head on attack of Americans who wish to preserve our republic and restore our Constitution.

Here is his loony rant at Big Government online (MSNBC).

Perhaps the reason Matthews has to dishonestly lump little old ladies with crazed militia members is because he has to divert attention from the fact that he has thrown his hat in with Joseph Stalin and Hitler by supporting the Democratic Party (which has sold out to socialism). All share political ideologies that led to mass murder and enslavement last century. That ideology encompasses collectivism, arbitrary, and absolute power.

Matthews would seem to take the position that the Founding Fathers were wrong to resist and throw off the lawful government of King George III (he doesn't say this directly, but his comments suggest that our Founders were wrong to rise up against the British government because it was legitimate regardless of whether or not it had become despotic). Never mind that it was leftists in Vermont who threatened to secede during the Bush era. You see, it is only right-wingers who should be portrayed as threats. Marxists like Obama and Matthews are, on the other hand, angels and can never be assumed to be evil, just because they say so and just because they voted.

Perhaps Matthews doesn't think the British people chose to have a monarchy and therefore couldn't be compared to enlightened voters like himself. But according to Edmund Burke, a man who would probably make Chris Matthews appear to have the intelligence of an insect, the British people did choose their leaders as they saw fit. And that choice was an heritable monarchy. Then, later on, also a Parliament.

Indeed, the Founders of this country revolted not because they willy-nilly hated their abusive leaders. They revolted because they were denied the protections owed to them by that duly chosen and lawful government. This is not far from, if not exactly, what the Tea Party members and many others like them claim for themselves.

Tea Party folks want their God given rights protected. These are the rights spoken of in the Declaration of Independence. These are among the rights assumed by our Constitution. And they want government officials to stop trampling the Constitution, lying about what it says, or ignoring it. Tea Party folks, and many others, want the government to stop stealing their property and freedoms. It is the duly elected officials who are doing this against Americans and according to everything we have learned about our form of government, no one, not even one who is elected, has the right to do it.

If our leaders want to form a new government they must do it according to the Constitution or risk the right of the people to defend it. Our Founders taught us this and only idiots or usurpers would deny it.

The least democrats could do is tell us openly that they want to abolish the Constitution. They are too chicken to do that. They prefer difficult to prove criminal activity, such as murdering the innocent in the womb. Or slaughtering foreigners overseas in order to make the world safe for democracy (Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, FDR, and LBJ).

The truth is that democrat leaders are simply squeamish about murdering people at close range. They prefer to do it from a distance. Last century, democrats led Americans into bloody war after bloody war. Now, they would prefer a peaceful overthrow through the old media spewing of government propaganda, through not teaching school children our history, and through anti-American globalism. But that may not work.

This is because the media arrived and democrats plans of overthrow have been disrupted. People are learning about their heritage and the truth of our founding and they are mad about what has happened. Now democrats are mad that the truth is being discovered and they must make loyal Americans the bad guys. The next step is for government to destroy those who know democrats are overthrowing the REAL government. They will do this economically. They will criminalize as many loyal Americans as they can. And their final solution will be to turn the government against the citizens they have demonized and murder them.

This is where they are going. There is no other place to go. It is the way of the Marxist. All those people in Europe and China today? They are the vanquished. They are who is left of what the Marxists did not murder. They are also enslaved. They have no guns. They have no power to resist. They do what government tells them to do. And they are not free. This is what democrats want for all of us here. This is AGAINST the Constitution.

Matthews apparently thinks that the Founders never thought that duly elected officials could be dangerous, seditious, extremist, usurpatious, subversives like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. Otherwise he would never lead us to believe that loud complaints against them is wrong. He could only believe this if he was ignorant, stupid, evil, or a combination thereof. Indeed, the Founders considered it not only a right and duty to complain and make a noise, but to rise up against despotic leaders whether or not they were elected.

Matthews cowardly hides behind the legitimate act of voting to promote illegitimate acts against the Constitution and its defenders. He is a dirty-rotten scoundrel.

Matthews' problem appears to be that he doesn't think his and Obama's excrement stinks. Well, it does. It appears he thinks that just because the democrats were voted into power, whatever they do, no matter how despotic, must be legitimate. This is not the case. This has never been our tradition since going back to the origins of American justice including the Magna Carta when lawful leaders abused power and were stopped by those who rose up against them.

The whole purpose of allowing citizens to have guns in the first place was to ensure that the people could defend themselves from tyrants, elected or not. If the citizens are unarmed, what does the government have to fear? Nothing. And if it has nothing to fear, who can stop them from any or all abuse of power? No one, unless there is a good deal of wholesale slaughter.

God forbid.

The Founders taught us that without guns, the people were slaves. Well, that is the position of Stalinists like Matthews, Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. They don't want the people to have guns and everyone knows it.

Oh. Right. They may "allow" them to have guns, but they make sure people cannot get ammo, or afford it, or find it easy to obtain. Dangerous government officials continually work on obstacles to the right to arm ourselves. This is because they want us enslaved. There is NO other reason. Even with a high crime rate, the crime rate and murder by government is always HIGHER.

A subversive extremist like Matthews portrays lovers of America as dangerous threats, yet it is likely that he supports the US government genocide of white protestant Americans through immigration and amnesty. Genocide by government is apparently NOT a threat. And he likely supports democrat politicians bribing poor people for votes by promising to steal other peoples' money through the tax code and giving it to them through welfare.Apparently, this is NOT criminal activity writ large by oppressors. And clearly, he has supported the party that has snuffed out the life of 48 million unborn human organisms. In his warped mind this is not murder.

In other words, Matthews is as criminally-minded a person as one can be without being in prison for the rest of his life, or as Chris likes to suggest about others, perhaps guilty of committing offenses worthy of execution if he were in other countries (Limbaugh, News Busters, Media Research Center).

So there you have it. When Chris isn't throwing around a suggestion to execute a businessman, he is lumping old ladies with crazed militia members in order to portray decent law abiding citizens loyal to their country for decades, and who want the Constitution restored, as the enemy.

Marxists like Matthews are fond of this sort of thing and look at what that led to: the murder of about 100 million unarmed citizens last century and the enslavement of many more.

http://www.breitbart.tv/hardball-rise-of-the-new-right-part-1/

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051810/content/01125109.guest.html

Another Lefitst "Hate" Monger Bites The Dust

2010-06-08T03:50:00.000-07:00

Helen Thomas, whose ugly hag of a face seems to be the result of unremitting "hatred" rising up from the core of her being, has retired.

What seems most disturbing about her and magnified by her recent "hate" mongering statements against the Jews in Israel is that who she is as an evil, wicked, and vile person is precisely what democrats were drawn to. It is likely that with the evil "hate" mongering crew currently running around the White House and Congress these days she felt perfectly safe in making her stupid "hate" filled comments about the Jews in Israel.

Helen Thomas is indeed the face of the Democratic Party, especially its women. These women are unfeminine, vicious, disgusting, without morals, rude, crude, haters of little children yet to be born, unmerciful, vengeful, ruthless destroyers

Surely misery does love company, as the saying goes, but there isn't anyone more miserable than leftist women whose emblem is the hag, Helen Thomas. All that is missing in our image of her is the black pointy hat, a well placed wart, and a speedy broom with witch to fly.

http://bigjournalism.com/jpollak/2010/06/05/pollak-post/

Corrections and revisions to blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for your patience.

The Democrat Mob Ramps Up Intimidation: Stalking Sarah Palin's Family

2010-05-29T13:22:00.000-07:00

It was said (oddly enough by a union leader) of Bill Clinton that he was the kind of man who could "shake your hand and piss down your leg at the same time."(Independent online)

This imagery perfectly explains the underlying thuggish and mob-like tactics used by democrats against their political opponents. They charm the little people they lie to with words of concern while their real goal is to defile them.

It is hard to believe that the hate crimes legislation they have promoted over the years is nothing more than a self-loathing, subliminal indictment of their own hatred against others. It's like a murderer who keeps leaving clues about who he is in his secret effort to get the cops to stop him.

By their own standards democrats are the best haters in America. From Rahm Emanuel stabbing a table with a knife while shouting out his political opponents to sending a dead fish to a critic. From Barney Frank threatening people he doesn't like with exposing their addresses to the recent story of democrat union thugs terrorizing two children outside the home of a banker.

Why did Barney Frank threaten to expose addresses if not to terrorize them or incite violence? The incidences of leftist thuggery, harassment, and intimidation has now expanded to stalking.

A left-wing "journalist" is stalking Sarah Palin's family by moving in next door to her. Bloggers and Fox News might be unprofessional just because Bill Clinton says so, but stalking children at home playing might be what defines "real" journalism to a democrat. How are the intimate details about the comings and goings of Sarah Palin's family of interest to anyone except assassins, sexual perverts, or the "hate" mongers at the Huffington Post?

Does anyone believe Obama's family should be stalked like Sarah's? Actually, no. Not even republicans. This is because, for all their faults, republicans are decent people (stupid, but decent) and democrats are evil monsters to the core of their being.

Every last one of them. The number one rule about democrats is: Never trust anyone who belongs to a party that has snuffed out the lives of 48 million human organisms in the womb.

Politico is reporting on the story. And it appears that even a democrat finds the stalking distasteful. Could it merely be a moment of unexpected human compassion by a leftist, inspired only by the thought that this could happen to a democrat?

It could.

And if it did happen it would come only from a leftist "journalist" stalker.

Corrections and revisions to blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for your patience.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/presidents/bill-clinton-the-great-seducer-1482925.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/seiu_thugs_terrorize_banker_an.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37918.html

Al Gore And His Commencement Lament

2010-05-18T20:44:00.000-07:00

How Al Gore has the guts to step outside his house and interact with normal humans is beyond my understanding. A mentally stable person would be too mortified to leave home if they did the things Al Gore does.

Yet here he is making a commencement speech (Real Clear Politics). Those unlucky kids.

I think Edmund Burke describes best the kind of loon Al Gore is:

On the scheme of this barbarous philosophy, which is the offspring of cold hearts and muddy understandings, and which is as void of solid wisdom as it is destitute of all taste and elegance, laws are to be supported only by their own terrors, and by the concern which each individual may find in them from his own private speculations, or can spare to them from his own private interests. In the groves of their academy, at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows.

Al Gore offers young people something different than the gallows, he offers them the end of the world. Which is something only God or megalomaniacs can offer with any certitude.

If Gore was really a Christian, instead of a blatant liar, he would know that mankind does not destroy the planet such as to extinguish the human race. No, no. The human race will, according to the Bible, be gutted by power hungry monsters like Al Gore who wish to control others with brutal government.

The key feature about the Biblical end times is that the people of the world as a whole will believe a whopper of a lie in which world government will swoop in and take over with totalitarian powers.

A lie like the kind Al Gore spreads, perhaps.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/18/al_gore_gives_depressing_commencement_speech_on_global_warming.html

Bill Moyers, A Wolf In Sheep's Clothing

2010-05-04T04:56:00.000-07:00

He talks softly and gently smiles. He persuades Eve that the fruit is surely tasty. And he has become a millionaire doing it (Discover The Network).

Bill Moyers recently interviewed the head of the Federal Communications Commission, Michael Copps. Here is the link about the interview. And here is a brief clip of it at You Tube. Copps and the federal government want to rescue you from those evil businessmen like AT & T who want to censor folks. The government wouldn't want to censor people, no not them! They are good and wise. They wouldn't do that (though that is what they have done most of my life). Government is virtuous and you never mind that it was the biggest killer of innocent human life last century.

Ignore all that.

Instead, worry that the mainstream media of yesterday is no longer what it once was and we need to protect it because they care for you more than AT&T. The left-wing magicians want you to focus on that. Don't focus on the most dangerous organization on earth: government.

The truth is that there has been a galactic shift in the media universe away from the old media and Lucifers like Bill Moyers to people like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. This is real change, a thing an Obama supporter ought to admire. But it is change you ought not to believe in because it encourages freedom of speech and takes power from slime-buckets like Bill Moyers.

There has never been a more freer press in America during my lifetime as there is right now. That just won't do. NBC, ABC, CBS and the New York times don't have control over us anymore by manipulating the information we recieve. That won't do either. We get to freely choose what information we will consume. That is very bad according to the thinking of Copps, Moyers, and the totalitarians on the left.

Thom Hartman writes in tribute about the end of Moyer's current PBS program Bill Moyers Journal:

"Who but Bill Moyers could have… done television's most hard-hitting reporting on the Iran/Contra scandal; investigated the media's failure in Iraq; defined the human impact of economic inequality; examined the ability of corporations to manipulate the "'public mind'"?

That should read: who but the leftists and government should have the ability to manipulate the public mind. Such manipulation has been Moyers' stock and trade and he would like to see that the control of the media possessed by the left continue and that the government control of television should be extended to the internet.

What could be the harm?

Enter stage left: the feds.

When Moyers was speaking with Copps, he told a story about a woman he met at his local market. (Isn't that humble? Moyers is such a regular Joe shopping at the market. That must mean he is a good old soul and innocent of guile).

Moyers said the woman was worried about the corruption of the powerful rich. The implication was those on Wall Street, bankers, and people like that are so very very bad. Naturally, left-wing Marxists like Moyers making gazillions of dollars on TV manipulating gullible women must be good. Moyers tells us that she thanked Moyers for his efforts to expose the truth.

Such is the left-wing humility and delusion.

There seems to be an outbreak of it these days too. Marxist Democratic Party leader Harry Reid recently told a story about a grateful woman who thanked Reid (this time the humble event happened in church) for caring about her special needs child. Why did she think him? Did he write out a big fat check to the woman so she could take care of her child? Oh heck no. That would REALLY be helping the woman. What these partners in crime were referring to was government stealing other peoples' money and giving it to the woman and her child. That is the full-measure of left-wing service and compassion: stealing other peoples stuff and giving it to people who will vote to keep you in power.

Robin Hood had to be a Marxist. I'm convinced of it now.*

Moyers never told the woman in the market that he was a rich guy too. Or that he is very cozy with the billionaire George Soros. How's that for a humble servant of humanity out to stop the rich man from trampling the poor?

Honestly, who believes the bullcrap Moyers spews about himself? Clearly stupid women who approach him at the local market.

Rich people are evil mainly when they disagree with Bill Moyers and try to manipulate them like he does.

*
UPDATE 6-7-10: Yesterday, Glenn Beck (on his TV program) did a little clearing up my insinuations about Robin Hood. I apparently smeared him. Hood, that is. He wasn't a Marxist according to the things Beck said. Phew. That's good to know since I grew up admiring that Hood guy.

Apparently, Hood didn't just steal from the rich and give to the poor; he stole money BACK from the rich who originally stole it from the poor and gave it back to them.

Okay. That's kinda nice.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04232010/profile2.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIlUv0poBBs

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printindividualProfile.asp?indid=932

Corrections and revisions to blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for your patience.
.

Radical Far-Left Leader Warns of Rise of Far-Right

2010-04-24T17:17:00.000-07:00

Drudge report has a (disabled so far) link which reads:

"Chomsky Warns of Rise of the 'Far Right' in USA..."

Chomsky refers to Noam Chomsky, a radical far-left totalitarian collectivist who supports the Marxists currently in power in D.C . I finally got a link for an article at the Education News site. It isn't one I've heard of and most likely few have. At first I was going to put up the link from the only site I recognized near the top of the list, Praavda (cough). They had Chumpsky Chompsky's comments but it appeared some of the article was missing.

Typical. Something is always missing in Russia.

So I settled for the education website, here.

It just doesn't get any funnier.

Or scarier.

Past leftist leaders (Chomsky's team) of note: Mao, Stalin, and the tree-hugging, vegetarian, artist, who was shacking-up with his main squeeze, leader of the National Socialist party in Germany, Adolph Hitler.

Further reading:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/405414/National-Socialism

http://www.educationnews.org/political/90184.html

Corrections and blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for your patience.
.

Maxine Waters: Racist Name-Calling "Hate" Monger

2010-04-02T06:24:00.000-07:00

according to her own standards.

Maxine Waters has been all over the news complaining about tea party participants being "outlandish in behavior", "causing problems"" "shouting", "over-running", "name calling" "spitting". Their antics are "outrageous"."

This is all code for protesting while white.

I didn't hear these stupid democrats all over the media complaining about black militants carrying nightsticks outside a voting precinct intimidating white voters during the last presidential election. In fact, these black militant thugs were let off scott-free by the Obama justice department and scott free from complaints by black democrats like Waters.

The black militant thugs were violating the civil rights of white people by threatening violence on them at a voting place and there is no hysteria by the left, but whites waving an American flag are threatening? If this sort of thing isn't blatant racism on the part of black leadership, I don't know what is.

Waters is one of the most stupid people in congress and you don't have to take my word for it. Even CBS questions her intelligence here. If Bush being an idiot was an issue with Democrats, there would be no congressional leader named Maxine Waters. But there is no excuse for Waters, even stupid people don't have to be racists.

Democrats may think it is cute to keep racist imbeciles in office, but young people are watching and they are going to figure out that these people are too stupid to be running around Washington D.C. with that much power. The young (especially young whites) may have went for voted heavily for democrats in the last two elections, but the obvious wickedness and stupidity of racist criminally-minded democrats will turn them away in the future.

If stupid racists "hate" mongering "name-callers" like Waters are not voted out of office, it will make republicans look more appealing.

And even republicans cannot do that for themselves.

http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2010/04/01/maxine-waters-outrageous-gop-waved-american-flag-tea-party

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-6241870-503983.html

Barack Honkey Obama

2010-03-30T14:01:00.000-07:00

It's kinda sad.

Since Obama has been president, I've seen a sudden influx of young black people (many of them clearly bi-racial like Obama), suddenly living high-on-the-hog and living the American dream. They're tooling around in their Lexus', dressing like yuppies, and taking in all the good, life has to offer. It's not bad to see them "prosper", don't get me wrong.

Yet, I really doubt that most of them are from the by-their-bootstraps class of independent business men and women who generate wealth and employ others. It's likely that many are just bureaucrats or government workers who produce nothing but inefficiency and torment. And I don't want to deny them this sudden little taste of prosperity, but it is only a temporary promotion. It's just a little bit of heaven.

And it's going to end soon.

"Things Fall Apart" real quick.

Obama knows this. He is, after all, a Harvard grad. And he has all those dazzling Ivy league egg-heads advising him. So he knows.

And it will be down hill from here. Our friends of color will not be happy when the laws of economics, which are as certain as the laws of gravity, set in. They will be devastated and enraged when the party is over. They will have to blame someone and we already know who that will be: whitey. And democrats and the leftist media will make sure to blame whites, especially white people who do a lot of tea.

Obama should have been someone blacks could be proud of, but he will be a shameful and embarrassing humiliation to them for royally botching the first "black" American presidency.

But there is a way to avoid that particular embarrassment, blame it on that honkey Obama. *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_Fall_Apart

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=HFO&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&defl=en&q=define:honkey&ei=FGOyS_LvEIOC8gaj2qDDAQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAYQkAE

*I'm a honkey.

UPDATE April 1, 2010: The great Walter Williams explains how the democrats will gin up hatred.

Talk Show host Dennis Prager is talking about Louis Armstrong today (Prager is also a music conductor). Apparently Armstrong believed that self-pity about ones circumstances in life leads to all manner of evil. Democrats and Obama peddle self-pity like drug dealers peddle heroin.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/10/ConflictOrCooperation.htm

Corrections and revisions to blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for your patience.

Joy Behar Epitomizes Leftist "Hate" Speech

2010-03-28T19:50:00.000-07:00

This blog began in response to left-wing "hate". Left-wingers will usually deny that they are hateful.. But, according to their own standard of hate that they have defined for the rest of us, they are always hate-filled.

According to democrats own standard of hate, leftists are the biggest haters around. What is that standard? That standard is disagreement. If you disagree with a Democrat, you are a hater. This has been going on for a very long time. But Behar picks up on the story of "hate" in America very late in the game, she thinks it is a recent development (YouTube).

If she was minimally astute, she would know that this legacy of left-wing "hate" goes back a long time. Moreover, it is doubtful that Behar even has the intelligence or integrity to discuss the nature of hate.

Indeed, the "hateful" accusations and smears by the left as we experience them today go back to Franklin Roosevelt's time. They go back to when left-wingers labeled those who opposed FDR's war-mongering as "isolationist".

They go back to the "hate" directed at those who opposed FDR's [Marxist] schemes. People who opposed social security were smeared as being greedy, heartless, and unkind to old people. Republicans who want to reform it in our day are still smeared in this way by the left.

Right-wingers who opposed Medicare were once smeared as wanting the elderly to suffer and die without medical care. But now look at who is going to jerk the rug out from the elderly after they were bribed to vote for Democrats for decades with promises of Medicare.

After decades of exhibiting "hate" by defaming republicans for opposing medicare, it is the Democrats are going back on their promise to the elderly. But it is republicans who are cruel according to the democrats who think they are the gods of defining what compassion and caring is.

Democrats have deemed themselves the judges of what virtue is and you better not cross them or they will destroy you. These lies and smears about republicans became institutionalized in the mainstream media for most of my life.

It wasn't until Bill Buckley started the National Review that there was any competitive formal representation of the conservative viewpoint to be found anywhere in America. The reason for that is because the left suppressed the conservative viewpoint. By democrat standards, this was done out of hatred against conservatives.

All portrayals of republicans or conservatives in the media were done in a hateful manner so as to demean them. Sound bites were manipulated to distort republican and conservative opinions and make fools of opponents. It was hateful treatment of republicans and conservatives according to democrats own standards.

Long before the left launched their crusade against hate, which led up to hate-crimes legislation, and long before Behar, Chris Matthews, or Keith Olbermann had their useless television shows, left-wingers were relentless in their "hatred" against Rush Limbaugh. Their smear was that Rush was a hater. Why was Rush a hater? He was a hater just because democrats and liberals said so. He was a hater because he disagreed with leftists.

Two can play this game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh5t8J1MV4M

Charlie Rose and Dick Armey

2010-03-05T16:35:00.000-08:00

Former Congressman Dick Armey was on Charlie Rose this week. His performance was a mishmash of contradictory thinking, the kind of thinking that has brought the GOP much trouble especially with independent voters who are much smarter than republicans.

First Armey tells Rose that the new GOP is interested in sticking to the Constitution and sticking to small government. Okay, that revealed everything. A true conservative isn't interested in "small" government. He is interested in "limited" government. Why? Because a small government could be a tyrannical one, just small. What a conservative is interested in is a government that limits it powers to those it is authorized to exercise.

The stupidity of men like Armey hurt the GOP for decades. And as much as he brushed off any notion that he would ever go back into politics, some citizens were jumping for joy that he won't.

Armey demostrated this stupidity when Rose asked Armey if he supported some level of federal government health care. Rose asked this question after Armey said he advocated a closer adherence to Constitution. Armey said he did support federal health care for some people (those in need, etc.).

This is impossible.

You cannot (as the Constitution is currently written) support adhering the Constitution and support federal health care. The Constitution just does not permit it as written.

This sort of stupidity continues to hurt the GOP.

At one point Rose read comments by Armey about how widespread disloyal government officials were today in D.C. These comments disturbed Rose. He suggested that it was wrong to imply that people who had other political ideas where not necessarily unpatriotic.

Yeah, the people who held Hilter's differing political ideas were not unpatriotic either? Please. This is the reasoning of a six year old!

Rose took issue with name calling. He doesn't like it.

Of course he doesn't like it, as it is a convenient verbal shorthand which cuts to the chase about how bad people are.

Evil people don't like to be called out that way.

They prefer polite happy talk which never gets to the truth.

Resources:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/dick-armey-manages-to-make-charlie-rose-lose-his-cool/

Sandra Bullock, Charlie Rose, and Leftist Bigotry

2010-03-01T14:39:00.000-08:00

Recently, Charlie Rose interviewed Sandra Bullock about her new movie The Blind Side. In it she portrays the real life story of Leigh Anne Touhy, a woman whose family takes in a troubled black youth.

In the interview Sandra reveals the bigotry leftists have about Christians (as well as the misconception they have about people who claim to be christian but are not). She doesn't do this knowingly, of course. It's an accident.

In the You Tube audio clip, Bullock says she went to school in the "Bible Belt". Oh. Well, then she surely must know what she is talking about!

Naturally, being morally superior to those awful born-agains, she was aware of the hypocrisy down there in that nasty belt. And, of course, because of this bodacious insight, she was thus surprised by Touhy's humanity. After all, Touhy is a white Christian from the south and you know how THEY are--wink, wink.

Mind you, Touhy's family was great before it took in a black youth. Oh yes indeedy. Sandra said so. But now Sandra has black friends too....ooops....I mean a Christian friend. And darn it if she doesn't have some affection for them....ah....her.

Since this discovery that white born-agains can be FIXED by adopting a troubled black youth, the Sandra Bullocks of the world have discovered that born-again Christians are people too!

Of course, in this case, just the RICH ones.

None of this has to do with the intellectual or moral failings of left-wingers, of course. It has only to do with white Christians not getting their point across unless they adopt black people or throw themselves off cliffs, or whatever else pleases the left.

Perhaps I'm being too tough on the leftists. It seems that one can be a born-again Christian and the left will love you if you are, say, a Baptist like Bill Clinton who waved his big bible at the cameras before he shuffled off to worship at the alter of chubby sexy interns.

Never mind that Christ wasn't a racist and they still murdered him. And never mind that those who hate born-agains might be the problem.

They can fix that problem by adopting troubled non-whites. The heathens say so.

Gee, how big of them.

Thanks for the permission to be admitted into the human race.

Speaking of blind......

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0878804/plotsummary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DW4HFfeXvVQ&feature=PlayList&p=287858E552210D33&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=7

Leftists Threaten Karl Rove

2010-02-28T11:44:00.000-08:00

(full disclosure, I oppose the phony war on terror)

Leftists at the University of California Santa Barbara make Karl Rove (an evil, wicked little man) look sympathetic.

Nice going guys. Is that what passes for intellect at the university these days?

Never recognizing their own abject evil, leftists are forever accusing others for evils they are never hesitant to commit. Here, in a video clip at Alex Jones' website Prison Planet, we see leftists chasing after Rove with the intentions of doing Heaven knows what. Perhaps they wish to bite off his finger or perform a late term abortion?

Below the video, we see these comments (amongst others) by citizens who have written in to Jones's website (Janet Napolitano, please call your office):

Quantummonkeybutt Reply:
February 28th, 2010 at 7:56 am

Carl Rove, Wanted For HIGH TREASON AGAINST AMERICA For His Involvment In ‘911′, And 1st Degree Premeditated Murder!!!

U.C. Santa Barbara, February 25th, 2010 (Just Three Days Ago…)

Santa Barbara Hippie Kids Chasing Carl Rove Off Their Campus!!!

Priceless.

QMB
ahhhhhhhh,
the memories

[and]

CHuck Feney Reply:
February 28th, 2010 at 10:28 am

IMAGINE!!!
Cheney, the Bushes, Rove, Rumsfield, Zakheim, Silverstein, Wolfowitz, Kissinger, the Clintons – all hanging from their heels doing the Mussolini dance!

Now, Mr. Quantummonkeybutt (a physics major or a zoo-keeper?) has a point about the first degree murder business, and perhaps a point about high treason. But since high treason applies only to officials IN office who need to be removed, its not a good line of thinking. Though, it could apply to Barack Hussein Obama, since he is currently serving AND carrying forward Karl Rove's policies.

But at LEAST we might have an American here acknowledging that the Constitution does exist. This is a great achievement for our time. Now, if we could only get Mr.Monkeybutt to study it, the Federal Papers, and the writings of our Founders, then we might be headed somewhere.

The point is we can have an eye on the high-treason theme while we keep our current crop of Constitution usurpers in view. Dangerous extremists like President Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and Janet Napolitano must be viewed through the filter of the Constitution, no matter how horrifying the view.

High treason does not have to apply to official acts (though they might). It can apply to a government official (a judge or a president) who is insane, for example. Or it could, if the people desired, apply to a president or judge who is perhaps a pervert. It originated as a method for dealing with things an official did that was beyond the pale, or even perhaps unreachable by law. In our day, being a pervert, is a "high bar" to hurdle since one would have to be more perverted then say, most people in Hollywood.

A difficult task. But, this is just an example.

Nevertheless, even though it is illogical to apply high-treason (which leads to impeachment) to Rove, it is a good line of thinking in view of Obama.

Mr. Monkeybutt appears to be on the right track with the murder charge business. But such thinking will make the ruthless degenerate evil-doer Janet Napolitano very nervous, because, now, Obama would be guilty of the same charge.

And kiddies, she works for him (as opposed to the American people who she regularly defames).

This could get tricky in the days to come since the anger of the American people against their criminally-minded leaders is no doubt leading to the sort of thinking trigger-happy criminally-minded leaders like Janet Napolitano reveals these days about the alleged threat of terror from Americans. The complaints by her office are like a bank robber complaining about jay-walkers who got in the way of his escape.

If Ms.Napolitano is talking about the threat by left wingers like her and Obama, I might agree that the threat is real.

Then we have the comments of Mr. Chuck Feney. He wants democrat and republican leaders hanging by the feet "Mussolini style".

Okay, this could be some FBI guy writing incognito. He might want Janet Napolitano to issue more vile statements about Americans and what better way to do it than to make it seem like Americans are frothing at the mouth all over the country. How better to guarantee your next paycheck than by making it out to seem like Americans should be put down like rabid dogs?

Anyway. Let's pretend Mr. Feney is not some FBI guy lighting fires like an arsonist who also happens to be a fireman. Mr. Feney clearly wants someone to murder our government officials.

And it is despicable of Mr. Jones if he allows this comment to remain on his site.

How do I know if the comment writer threatening murder is a left-winger? Left wingers are always murderous. Just ask the 48 million people aborted by left-wing fanatics. I'll guess you have to do that from heaven.

Okay. ask Mao about left-wing murder. Oops, he is dead too. But wait, he has a living spokesman and defender, Obama's friend Anita Dunn. Give her a call, she'll tell you all about it.

It's a cultural revolution, you know. Change the culture, like Mao did. It's about change folks.

At about the 1:35 mark on the video at Jones's site, a student begins to talk with a man in a shirt and tie (with the microphone). The complaint is that there will be no free wheeling question and answer session with Mr. Rove. Apparently this young man actually believes that left-wingers attending the event might know how to participate in a Q&A session without threatening to assault the guest.

The leftist idea of Q&A is this barbarism at Columbia University.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/karl-rove-chased-out-of-ucsb.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuNXmy0e5fc

Is Keith Olberman A One Man Leftist Death Panel Member?

2010-02-12T00:22:00.000-08:00

Keith Olbermann is out to defend the vulnerable, or so it appears. He criticizes an insurance company if they will not help a child in need of expensive medical treatments.

Olbermann featured Mr. Paul Von Nocker on his show. Mr. Nocker was having trouble getting his insurance company to pay for all his little son's expensive medical treatment. And Olberman portrayed the insurance company as cruel and heartless (though he acknowledged that it did cover some of the boy's treatments).

But does or did Olbermann part with any of the millions and millions of dollars he gets from NBC to help the boy?

Did Olbermann volunteer to provide money for the child's treatment ?

Of course, it is easy to trick the stupid people in Olbermann's audience with this kind of sob story reporting used to justify the fascist take-over of the health care industry. And it would be difficult to demonize others if Olbermann was honest enough to mention that he too didn't help the child financially.

The insurance company wasn't going to deny the Nocker family access to medical treatment for their son like the federal government will for many if it takes over the health care system.

This wasn't about denying treatment, it was about coverage. Mr. Nocker was free to get the care he needed for his son, he just had to pay for it.

Why is Olbermann trying to injure those who don't want to contribute to charitable causes Olbermann says they should? Isn't Olbermann using his power in the media to bully or intimidate others to spend money where Olbermann says they should spend money?

Do virtuous people try to destroy others who won't fund their charity cases?

That is what it appears leftists do.

Do I think someone is rich enough to help the child? Of course.

Certainly Olbermann is.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/msnbc-olbermann-renew-contract/

Hate Monger Cindy McCain Joins Pro-Homosexual Marriage Forces

2010-01-25T09:30:00.001-08:00

Many news outlets and blogs are reporting Cindy McCain's support of homosexual marriage. Here is an L.A. Times' comment on it.

You can see a photograph of Cindy advocating her hate campaign against those who disapprove of overthrowing our civilization and its customs here.

That is one definition of genocide, by the way.

This earns Cindy a spot on Leftist Hate-Watch's "Haters of Note" list.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/proposition-8-opponents-cindy-mccain-same-sex-marriage-ad.html

http://www.smh.com.au/world/mccain-family-at-odds-over-gay-marriage-20100121-mnrh.html

"Hate" Mongers at the Huffington Post Continue Unabated

2010-01-24T17:44:00.000-08:00

Censorship and "hatred" is still rampant at the left-wing Huffington Post. Even a liberal who tries to speak the truth gets persecuted by the "hate"-filled fascists at Huff Po.

Read the story here at Vdare online. Mick Jones runs up against one of the most evil organizations in America: the Huffington Post.

http://vdare.com/

Corrections and revisions to blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for your patience.

Left Wing Thugs At It Again: Assault Reporter

2010-01-14T04:27:00.000-08:00

They bite off fingers, slaughter the young in the womb by the tens of millions, get us into one endless war after another, welcome mob bosses to their ranks, promote porn, perversion, plunder, white genocide in America, and now they've now gone on to assaulting reporters. Who should be surprised?

And who are these violent people?

Democrats.

They are the people who accuse conservatives, Christians, and republicans of being hate mongers.

Democrats want these people dead.

Read about this latest installment of left wing hate here (Boston Herald online). There you will learn that the idiotic democrat candidate running for Ted Kennedy's senate seat, one Ms. Martha Coakley, refers to a bonafide reporter covering her at the peak of her senatorial race,as a "stalker". The thug accompanying Coakley assaulted the reporter, then acts to care about him.

This is how democrats always treat those they hate. This is what democrats are doing to all Americans right now: they pretend that we have accidentally fallen when in fact they have pushed us down.

Ted Kennedy, you will remember, is the late genocidal maniac who democrats worshiped.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?&articleid=1225332

Joy Behar Behaving Badly

2010-01-04T05:08:00.000-08:00

This past weekend, I happened to see a portion of Joy Behar's new television program The Joy Behar Show. I was trapped--TV wise--with a limited choice of programming, and since I never saw the program before ( because I have better things to do than waste my time watching stupid left-wing TV), I allowed myself to be tortured. This particular show was the first in her new series.

Bette Midler was her guest and they were talking, among other things, about the political climate in America. Apparently it's too mean and too nasty and these two poor, delicate-little, innocent flowers are scared. And it's those horrid right-wingers who are scaring them.

Ms. Midler called for polite and reasoned debate (this from one of the bawdiest actresses in Hollywood). And I thought she might spring a halo and angel wings right there on the spot.

Joy agreed (about the political climate) and for a split second or so, she actually pretended to BE polite and reasoned.

That is until she started to talk about Glenn Beck merely a few seconds later.

Then she got into a low-down, dirty, nasty, vicious political climate mode and attacked Beck.

This intrepid purveyor of polite reason called Beck a clown (I guess he had referred to himself as one), but then she suddenly swerved into deep-end crazy notions that Beck could be as dangerous as those in Rwanda who are fighting a brutal civil war and using the media to do it.

Beck is a media guy, so you get it, right?

Perhaps the guys in Rwanda are using the airwaves to demonize others like Behar is using TV to demonize Beck? Maybe that is what she meant?

Anyway, you just cannot fool brilliant minds like Joy Behar, she is one smart cookie who caught Beck gunning for a hatchet war.

Darn it, I wanted Beck to keep that a secret.

Oh well, no matter, if Behar continues to be this vicious, this mean, this nasty, and this irrational, her show is going to be a huge success with the "hate-mongering" leftist loons among us.

(Aside) I happened to see her show again. This time she interviewed Dolly Parton and Valerie Bertinelli. What an AWFUL job of interviewing. Many of Behar's responses to answers given by her guests were merely a series of mind-numbing grunts like "uh huh", "yea", and "ah". You know what these types are. They are real clever responses one gives when possessed with a high level of leftist cognitive reasoning abilities.

At one point during the Bertinelli interview, Bertinelli had to flat out refuse to answer Behar's rude, perverse, and stupid questions about the sex life of Bertinelli's 18 year old son. Behar wouldn't let it go even after Bertinelli first rebuffed her.

Apparently this sex life of the boy was of great interest to Behar. Heaven only knows why the sex life of a young man who is barely out of boy-hood is of great interest to Behar.

She wound up sounding like a pervert sizing up her chances with the boy.

What do you expect?

Behar is a leftist, they wind up sounding like a lot of crazy things.

Merry Christmas To All

2009-12-25T06:28:00.000-08:00

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 9:6 KJV

Happy Thanksgiving to All

2009-11-26T05:03:00.001-08:00

Psalm 100

Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all ye lands.

Serve the LORD with gladness: come before his presence with singing.

Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.

Enter into his gates with thanksgiving; and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him, and bless his name.

For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

.

Too Many White People?

2009-11-11T07:53:00.001-08:00

There is a wicked little undercurrent going around the country these days in our "real" lives and it bubbles up into the e-lives we spend on internet. This undercurrent can be seen on display lately in the comment sections of vile "hate" promoting websites like The Huffington Post, or The Democratic Underground.

This undercurrent is that the GOP and the Tea Party protesters are mostly white people because the right-wing is racist. The problem for these critics of the right is really that the GOP is mostly white. They don't like that. Just imagine if a white guy were to say the same thing about the Democratic Party if some day it has a majority of non-whites (something that is highly likely). Won't they be racists too?

A good example of this sort of thinking is from writer Eugene Kane at the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel. Kane appears to be a bi-racial (white and black) man.

He said that the Tea Party folks must

"Get yourself some color..." so they can be "... taken more seriously."

Oh, isn't that nice. What a genius this fellow is. Can we apply a similar logic to the Congressional Black Caucus? Shall we only take them seriously when they get a tad more whiter?

Sadly, this subject has hardly been addressed by the right-wing media except for denials that this is about racism.

The right-wing media does not address this issue for many reasons. One is that they are not too bright. Two, they are terrified about being labeled racist because they know they are not and they fear the accusations and ruinations. Three, they don't know how to defend the fact that there are so few non-whites in the GOP and at the Tea Parties (see number one). Four, they don't know why there are so few non-whites in their party. And five, they are instinctively and deeply offended by these false accusations and are sure what goes around will come around and these accusative creeps who "hate" the right-wingers will get their comeuppance.

Let me provide some of that right now and contribute to some "racial bravery" few on the left are able to endure (Breitbart).

It is the people who point out that there are too few non-whites in the GOP that are actually the racists or bigots. That is because these critics and accusers of the GOP actually hold some kind of unexamined subconscious belief that non-whites are too stupid to make their own political decisions or choose their own political philosophy.

If most non-white liberally minded people (and this appears to be the case for registered black voters) believe that the government should provide welfare handouts and social programs, which political party will they naturally choose? The Democratic Party which shares that same viewpoint, or the Republican Party which does not? The Democratic Party, of course.

It is a smart choice from their point of view and I, for one, am not going to imply they were stupid in making it. Nevertheless, I don't think theirs is a morally correct decision, but logically, it isn't stupid.

Those who criticize conservative whites because they happen to be white are not so bright either. What if the federal government decided it was too costly to spend extra money for education of inner city kids because it doesn't pay off: too much money and too little results.

Parents from around the nation from Detroit to Washington D.C. would be outraged even though the cost benefit calculation is as reasonable and as seemingly logical as the one the democrats seem to use to justify reducing care to seniors.

I think the parents in these communities would start their own tea party movement. Cameras would show up and the nation would witness as much if not more dissatisfaction with government. And it is most likely that the vast majority of the protesters would be black and Hispanic. That is because this is demographic most effected by such a policy change since most inner city schools are non-white.

How should we respond to the sight of seeing a sea of non-white faces on our TV sets protesting? Should we respond like democrats or leftists have responded (with revulsion) to the sight of a sea of white people? If we did our thinking would have to be something like: "Oh look at all those blacks protesting! They must be racists since there are mostly blacks are out there. And LOOK, there are hardly any whites! What racists!"

Sounds stupid, doesn't it?

The Million Man March was mostly black and the amnesty marches several years ago, mostly Hispanic. Racists? Did we ever hear the slightest peep from the media or the left that the marchers were racist because there were hardly any whites among them?

No.

But that is happening with our current controversy and smear of white people by the leftist "haters" among us. The white older demographic is the most effected group by Obama's proposals. Ergo: lots of older white folks are mad and saying so. And the left reads it as some racist conspiracy. The left is INSANE and feels it has a right to despise those it disagrees with.

By the way, how will the white conservatives "get themselves some color"? Should they buy a slave or two and put them in the front row of their events? Oh wait! That is what white democrats do.

No, the only important way the GOP will "get ...some color", at this current time in history, is for non-whites (especially blacks and Hispanics) to agree with the GOP's philosophy about welfare handouts and social programs, which is that they don't believe such handouts are the federal government's business.

Those freebies (the bribes) from the left are too tempting for the poor (of any color). Am I saying that large numbers of non-white (voters) in America are less than ethical for basing their decision for party affiliation in part on this greed for handouts? You betcha. Just like I'm saying that the predominantly white liberal democrats (aka progressives) who bribe them with the promises of plunder are unethical.

It is non-whites who have made the choice to isolate themselves from the GOP and their ideas. And that is fine, it's their choice. Actually, it is mainly WHITES who are to be commended for being the most politically diverse group. Whites appear in both parties at fairly large rates, unlike non-whites.

It is the political decision by non-whites based on their political philosophy that has caused the oil and water to separate. It is not because of racism on the part of republicans or conservatives no matter how dearly the "haters" on the left wish.

Instead of looking at the real reason why non-whites prefer Democratic ideology, the lazy-minded "intellects" on the left blame it on right-wing racism.

Whites in the GOP are merely the first of the two main parties to bear the evidence of the differing political opinions among whites and non-whites. This difference is mainly the result of culture and education. But as the demographics shift drastically in the decades to come, the Democratic Party, the white democrats in particular, by their own design will become less and less a majority in their own party.

Pity that white liberals continue to willingly eliminate themselves off the face of the planet.

It must be that survival of the fittest business and all that other junk white liberals foist on humanity through their own self hatred.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/52594087.html

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96E53483&show_article=1

Corrections and revisions to blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for your patience.
.

The Southern Poverty Law Center "Hate" Group And the Militias

2009-10-25T09:57:00.000-07:00

The left-wing conspiracy nuts at the SPLC are at it again. They are obsessing about "militias". Oh, and this time they say they are especially energized by racism through immigration. In this article at the SPLC, the author writes:

"...coupled with high levels of non-white immigration and a decline in the percentage of whites overall in America, has helped to racialize the Patriot movement, which in the past was not primarily motivated by race hate."

Decline in the overall percentage? Is that how the dangerous, extremist, subversive leftists over at the SPLC refer to genocide these days? If this was a story about Pandas there'd be a multimillion dollar organization formed post haste to stop the "decline"and major world-wide hysteria would ensue.

What we have in this article is the SPLC "hate" mongers inadvertently admitting that something earth shattering (International Law calls it genocide) is going on racially and culturally in America because of immigration. And instead of being appalled (as normal, virtuous, and sane people are) the SPLC is quite furious that the victims of the genocide are deeply anguished.

Those damn white folks have a lot of nerve getting testy about being the victims of genocide! And if the SPLC has its way this genocide will go off without a hitch from those ya-who's in camo gear, you can be sure of that.

Never mind that the American people have been denied the right of self-determination regarding their ethnic and cultural make-up. Genocide under those circumstances doesn't count with the evil-doers at the SPLC when it is happening to white Protestants even though International Law seems to be written for everyone. White liberals (democrats and progressives) havent' given white people permission to dislike white or Protestant genocide in America.

Isn't the SPLC special!

Before this WASP (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant) genocide was set in motion in 1965 (mostly by deranged white liberals, stupid white republicans), and the deranged lily-white Catholic leader Ted Kennedy, government officials promised there would be no noticeable effect on the ethnic makeup of the American people. Don't you think that Ted Kennedy knew that a noticeable change in the cultural make-up was happening and he did nothing about it? Of course he did, and that is why this situation is categorized as government sponsored genocide.

Now that whites are soon to be a minority in their own country without their consent or permission (self-determination denied) just when does the SPLC suggest whites should get mad about the decimation of their genotype and culture? When they are 25 percent of the population? 10 percent?

When?

And just exactly when should Protestants get mad about the intentional effort to change America into a catholic nation by importing millions of Catholics (another act of genocide)? Five years from now, twenty-five? We need some genocide guidance here from the "hate"-filled liars at the SPLC.

You must know that if this form of genocide (covertly violent and criminal) was happening to a country once filled with black Muslims being swamped with white Christians, the SPLC would be tripping over itself to demonize the government for letting it happen.

By the way, how will the SPLC make money if it doesn't find people to terrorize the citizens with? I wonder if blacks started calling themselves militias, would the SPLC start a big list of the thousands of black on white "hate" murders and crimes committed each year? The SPLC could say stuff like "black supremacists", "black racists", and "black anti-government extremists. Then left-wingers could get a big chuckle over that too.

Blacks surely commit enough violence against whites to warrant a little more attention by the hate experts at SPLC.. Would gang membership help them qualify for breathless updates at Hate-Watch? Seems some folks might be thinking the SPLC isn't so genuine about its concern for justice.

Man, that black hate crime list would be some big data-base!

Is it not enough that these conspiracy nut "haters" at the SPLC would be satisfied that law-enforcement deals with law-breakers when they are caught? Do they have to invent monsters ahead of time and stir up hatred and fear?

Why don't the dangerous, extremist, subversive "haters" at the SPLC find honest jobs anyway? I think the world would be a happier place if they did.

The worn-out conspiracy rant by the dangerous, subversive, extremist, and "hateful" SPLC hasn't changed: certain men with guns (right-wingers!) who love America are anti-government, according to the SPLC (I don't condone murder by anyone--white, black, militia member, gang member, or not).

Of course, they don't tell us that militia types are most likely against people who are overthrowing our government (murder is still inexcusable).

Is it bad for North Korean citizens to take up arms against their despots? Now, I oppose bottom up rebellions, and understand that our own War of Independence (anti-government, yes?) was a top to bottom affair with leaders (our Founders) leading the rebellion. But if the current leaders of the opposition refuse to save the republic from Obama and his Marxist friends, could citizens end up waiting until it is too late? If Nazi types where taking over the government could the SPLC give anyone their their blessings to fight them?

Isn't it convenient that those who are really anti- our government, like the SPLC, must make it seem like everyone on the right wanting to preserve our TRUE government are bad guys or militia members in waiting?

The real story is probably that most law-abiding militia types want our Constitution preserved. How is that anti-government? Doesn't the SPLC want the Constitution preserved too? If they do, then they too could be allies with the non-criminal militia types, albeit gun-less ones.

Aren't people who support the Constitution natural allies? How can the SPLC be for the Constitution but against the non-criminal militia members who are for the Constitution as well? Someone must be lying. If both groups support the Constitution, then they are both on the same side or we are talking about different government. I'm being sarcastic here. My point is that even militia members have more love of country than the SPLC. That is how BAD the SPLC has become. It seems hell bent on blurring the distinction between right-wingers, white supremacists, racists, KKK members, neo-Nazis, militias, Christians, republicans and people who oppose our current immigration system. And it doesn't look accidental.

Those who murder don't believe in government, whether they are on the right or left, black, white, militia or not. They are lawless.

The SPLC should know something about that. The SPLC is a leftist organization that shares most of the Democratic Party philosophies. That philosophy is clearly Marxist, which if implemented without changing the Constitution, is illegal. The Democratic Party under the leadership of Barack Hussein Obama promotes this lawless Marxism.

If we can lump the militia types (including who are innocent of violent crimes) together while insinuating them with right-wingers and indict them all in the court of public opinion with Terry McVeigh (the archetype established by the SPLC), then to be fair, we can lump the SPLC (leftists) all together with an archetype suited to them: Karl Marx.

Here is what this looks like mathematically according to the SPLC's method of reasoning"

Right-wing militias+Terry McVeigh=168 innocents dead a decade ago

ergo:

Left-wing radicals (including SPLC)+ Karl Marx= 70 million plus innocents dead last century (excluding US soldiers).

Shortened:

Rw+TM=168 dead
SPLC+KM=70,000,000 dead

According to SPLC's own reasoning, the SPLC is more dangerous than the militia types.

UPDATE: November 3, 2009. Here is well written and researched article from Reason online (Hat tip Lew Rockwell) pertaining to the subject of militias, radicals, paranoids, and who is really dangerous.

http://www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?aid=392

http://www.johntanton.org/answering_my_critics/art2008dec03.html

http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1185995987.pdf

http://fairuse.bravehost.com/par-cent.html

Dangerous Left-Wing Group is Inciting Hatred Against Right-Wingers

2009-10-24T10:15:00.000-07:00

Check out this hate-mongering website. I demand a congressional investigation and if these dangerous extremist left-wing radicals receive Federal money, they should be defunded quickly.

http://www.splcenter.org/

Corrections and revisions to blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for your patience.

Southern Poverty Law Center Hates Oath-Keepers

2009-10-24T10:06:00.000-07:00

Few groups in America are as hateful as the Southern Poverty Law Center. They have gone into high-gear to destroy loyal Americans who take seriously their oaths to uphold the Constitution. In this case, Oath-Keepers.

Read about the SPLC's latest frothing and vicious "hate" rant here at their Hate-Watch blog.

If you need to learn how to "hate", you can learn it at the SPLC today!

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/10/21/oath-keepers-say-theyre-on-patrol-in-iraq/

Frank Rich of the New York Times is a "Hateful" Racist

2009-09-20T10:52:00.000-07:00

He proves it in his vile post at the New York Times online. Apparently, Rich thinks blacks and Hispanics are too stupid to choose the political party and philosophy they prefer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/opinion/20rich.html

Corrections and revisions to blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for your patience.

Losing the Health Care Debate. Or, It Must Be Racism!

2009-09-15T04:19:00.000-07:00

The left, according to their own nebulous theory of hate, are ramping up the hate over the health care reform of Barack Hussein Obama. This time in the form of charging opponents of reform as racists.

In order to deflect from their own racism leftists have to make the political opposition out to be racists. And by leftists own standards, their smear republicans is that form "hatred". Democrats cannot help but make these remarks because they have already committed the racist error of claiming that Obama is a black man.

He is not.

Look at this MSNBC video clip at Gateway Pundit online to get an idea of how the left-wing media is ramping up the "hatred" (the important part comes at the 44 second mark, but watch the whole thing--it's very short--to get the context).

Only a racist or an ignoramus says Obama is a black man. And too many smart democrats are saying he is. These racists insist on ignoring the fact that Obama is half white and ought to be referred to as bi-racial.

That is because there is more "hate" for the racist left to cultivate.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/msnbc-analyst-obamacare-opponents-are.html

Speaking of Obama and His Left-Wing Haters

2009-09-02T07:49:00.000-07:00

Matthew Spalding from the Heritage Foundation (heard on the idiotic Laura Ingraham talk show today) reports that the official Barack Hussein Obama website had a post up calling protesters (at town-hall meetings who oppose Obama) right-wing terrorists.

My, isn't that amazing? Which deranged democrat posted that?

Spalding also reports that the site was scrubbed clean of that comment. Gee, I wonder why?

By the standard of hate leftist's use themselves, that post was about as hate-filled as it gets and no one should be surprised that democrats are hate-filled people, nor that such a hate-filled comment would appear on the official web-site of our dangerous, extremist, subversive, Marxist president Barack Hussein Obama.

Democrats are attempting a Marxist coup as peacefully as possible, but they just accidently tipped their hand.

Obama and the democrats want those who disagree with them arrested for crimes against the government, when it is Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Van Jones, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their lemmings in the Democratic Party who would be most guilty of political crimes. If they don't like this government they can change the Constitution, but until then, they ought to stop trampling it and overthrowing it.

Laura Ingraham ran an audio clip of Van Jones pumping up his audience about green jobs. He shouted out and the audience shouted back, over and over again.

The audience response had almost the exact same audible cadence of "seig heil".

It was sickening. And I hope the FBI and CIA sees what Obama and the democrats are doing. If not, why do we need them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieg_Heil

Corrections and revisions to blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for your patience.

Sarah Palin "Haters" Must Be Furious

2009-08-17T14:22:00.000-07:00

"Death Panels"

Sarah Palin: 1

Barack Hussein Obama: 0

According to Democrat Standards, the Ultimate Hate Group is The Democratic Party

2009-08-15T07:01:00.000-07:00

Oh the hate, hate, hate!

It's just everywhere. Now we read that the Secret Service and the FBI are in a tizzy about it (read it here at ABC News online.)

And who elected the Southern Poverty Law Center to define the issue of "hate" in America for the rest of us? ABC News and the SPLC? How convenient. When they say all republicans and conservatives should be rounded up and put in jail, will that be true too?

Hate wasn't really such a big deal when left-wingers where spewing venom against Bush. Heck, there is STILL a website about him called "The Smirking Chimp". Try saying that about Barack Hussein Obama without, not only being called a hate-monger, but also a racist. Leftists would be trying to murder you if you referred to Obama in this fashion. I assure you of this.

The left has demonized the right as hate-mongers for the past fifteen years or so and now the Secret Service and FBI is shocked about an atmosphere of hate in the land? The left has repeatedly lied about Rush Limbaugh hating others even though these lies are themselves evidence of hatred according to the standards the LEFT itself has set for defining hatred.

The left's obsession with hatred inspired this website because they pretend they are not guilty of the same conduct they accuse right-wingers of. Apparently, in the deranged and twisted little minds of left-wingers, you can say the most horrible things about right-wingers, whites, and Christians and it is NEVER hatred (as long as you vote democrat).

It has come down to this: it's impossible to hate if you are a democrat (according to democrats).

The left has so corrupted the meaning of hatred, its real meaning is getting lost. It is good to hate some things and even the left will have to admit that because they certainly think it is good to hate Rush Limbaugh.

Obama just so happens to BE a Marxist. Why avoid stating the obvious? Are we suddenly not supposed to hate Marxism? (I don't hate ANYONE!) After having fought a "cold" war against Marxism for nearly 40 years, all of a sudden we are not good citizens if we are aghast that we now have Marxists in the White House?

Will the Secret Service, ABC News and the Southern Poverty Law Center (itself guilty of left-wing "hate") please allow us to hate Nazism? Or does the Secret Service want us to LIKE Nazism like we are supposed to like our new Marxists leaders? Just whose side is the Secret Service on these days anyhow? If we did have a Nazi president, would they get mad at us for hating Nazism?

What is going on here?

Didn't Marxism lead to the slaughter of over 100 million unarmed CIVILIANS last century?

Uh, yes it did. R.J. Rummel proved this very well in his book Death by Government.

Will someone PLEASE notify the FBI about this fact if they are unaware of it?

Has the Secret Service lost track of what they are sworn to defend? Since the Constitution has yet to be amended to make Marxism legally possible, I should think that the Secret Service would know that Obama is as much a clear and present danger as any threat by lone wackos. Last century PROVED this fact. Last century PROVED that GOVERNMENTS were the most DEADLY organizations against INNOCENT citizens. R. J. Rummel proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It was the police, and security forces, and soldiers who posed the greatest threat to innocent citizens last century: NOT LONE WACKOS. NOT TEN LONE WACKOS. NOT 1000 LONE WACKOS.

The biggest threat to innocent life last century came from those in AUTHORITY, not from those without it.

Hello: please>>>>WAKE UP!

Maybe if the Secret Service did its job to uphold the Constitution and stop defending one group of usurpers after another in Washington, there wouldn't be such fear among the public? I know of no one in "hate-radio" who advocates murdering anyone. I know of many in government who advocate murdering over 100 million innocent citizens last century. They tortured and raped their way through it too.

Marxists can now waltz into the United States White House and those upset with it are enemies of government? Marxists can plop down in the peoples house and the people who uphold the Founding Fathers are the threat?

Have the Marxists taken over the Secret Service too? Is that what is happening here?

If people like Obama didn't belong to the biggest hate group in America (the Democratic Party) I doubt that there would be such a big issue about "hate" at all. Rush didn't have to hastily leave his church because he was stupid enough to stay in a hate-mongering racist church for twenty years.

Nor did Rush have to disassociate himself from a terrorist who bombed government offices many years ago because he clearly hated the US government and wanted it destroyed.

If it weren't for the hate peddlers on the left, the Secret Service would have just regular run-of-the-mill problems to deal with and not have to concern itself with these murky, fascist, totalitarian waters of "hate" thoughts. Because, I assure you, if the Secret Service thinks Rush is a hater or promoting hate, then everyone is a hater and promoting hate, including members of the Federal Government.

If the Secret Service starts finger-pointing about hate like the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security is then they will be helping to unleash a virulent plague across the country. America will become like North Korea as its leaders and its police forces descend into sociopathic insanity--dissecting every thought and every word we speak--silencing freedom.

DON'T GO DOWN THIS ROAD, PLEASE!

It is mainly DEMOCRATS who are ginning up the topic of hate. It is a red herring that could destroy free speech and create at North Korean style state.

This hatefest was started by democrats long ago with their vicious attacks on Rush Limbaugh, and now people like Glenn Beck (whose life and family have been repeatedly threatened).

Who does ABC think might be threatening the lives of Glenn Beck and his innocent family members?

Right-wingers?

This blog was started to counter the myth that political opposition is a form of hatred. It is democrats who have started this awful evil myth that will destroy America and tear her apart. Only by "turning the tables" on the left and labeling their every criticism as hate (giving them back what they dish out), can we return hatred to its proper place. And it does have a proper place.

There are only two ways of proving hate. A person must ADMIT they that hate someone or something for there to be evidence of hate (and so what if that is as far as it goes?). Or a person must commit a malicious act of harm based on that ADMITTED hate for there to be evidence of hate. Only when that physical act happens (and there was an admission of hate) can we say that person hated someone.

Even IF a person hates someone, it is crazy to punish them if they haven't done anything to hurt them.

We cannot prove hate until there is evidence, and disagreement (even vehement disagreement) IS NOT HATE even though democrats want it to be.

Democrats have reduced political disagreement to hatred, besmirched everyone they don't like as haters, and are dragging the nation away from free speech, away from freedom of conscience, and towards a North Korean style tyranny. They cannot tolerate those they do not want to hear from and that is why they want them silenced by the accusation of hate.

Destroying the first amendment to silence the opposition appears to be a genuine act of hatred.

The only kind of people who do such things, are the evil kind. And, even so, I still don't hate them, but I will surely stand my ground against them.

I have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and I take that duty seriously.

I also am fully committed to truth and justice and will not shrink from my personal commitment to uphold them even when Democrats or my government want to destroy me for it.

http://leftisthatewatch.blogspot.com/2009/08/according-to-democrat-standards.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8324481&page=1
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

Corrections and revisions to blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for your patience.

The Democrat Mob is Projecting Again

2009-08-05T06:50:00.001-07:00

Democrats do always accuse others of the things they are. This is likely because, as Michael Savage used to say, "liberalism is a mental disorder". Note: Liberal = Progressive.

When illegal invaders protested in our streets, the left-wing media portrayed them as freedom fighters or victims.(LA Times)

When leftist's hold million man marches, the leftist media goes ga-ga.

But when right-wingers do what they rarely do--protest like left-wingers--they get accused of be a mob. Here is the You Tube video calling republicans the "mob".

LOL. This is too funny.

Even at Lew Rockwell, they saw how stupid the video is because the DNC ad actually makes republicans look good for opposing the government usurpation, corruption, and thievery listed in the DNC video. Michelle Malkins sums up leftist stupidity here.

Democrats are like foreign barbarians overseas who mutilate female genitals: they think they are doing something good but in fact they are stark raving MAD.

The DNC unwittingly shows that republicans are on the right track by opposing:

(the bloated) Budget
The Recovery Act
Childrens Healthcare

Very funny stuff.

Thanks DNC!

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/31/local/me-students31
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/031946.html
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/05/tea-party-bashers-gone-wild/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtTBkxvBq88

Corrections and revisions to blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for your patience.
.

Dan Rather: Leftist "Hate"-Monger In Need of Attention

2009-08-01T16:56:00.000-07:00

It was hoped by many decent, good, and loyal Americans that Dan Rather was off fishing somewhere or in a nursing home. But alas, their hopes have been dashed.

The "hater" of America and truth is back. The Aspen Daily News reports that Rather loony is calling for government control of the media (especially those right-wingers who are more evil than Dan) to save our "democracy".

ADN quotes Rather dumb:

"A truly free and independent press is the red beating heart of democracy and freedom..."

So government control will allow this independence? Brother. What a twisted mind.

Rather hypocritical really takes the cake! This Rather shameless money grubber worked for a network (no doubt made millions from it) that was NEVER free and independent because it was party to the dangerous, subversive, and treasonous anti-American Council on Foreign Relations. This Rather immoral creep let himself be a propaganda tool for THEM. This is the same CFR that Joseph Biden belongs too. And it's the same CFR which every CIA director has belonged to.

The CFR is a SUBVERSIVE organization bent on abolishing US sovereignty, and now Rather moronic is asking the very people who want to overthrow the US government (the CFR) to SAVE the government (and the "independent" media)!

I'm laughing because THIS IS CRAZY! Anyone who belongs to the CFR should be arrested and tried for TREASON. The CFR owns the current White House administration (as it has virtually all the recent White House administrations), and Rather air-head is asking that CFR sell-outs save the media they already control!

Rather mentally inferior is asking the fox to guard the hen house. No wonder they paid him for over 20 years! He was the perfect left-wing "journalist": ignorant, feckless, dishonorable, asinine, shameless, foolish, closed-minded, and gullible.

http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/135834

Corrections and revisions to blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for your patience.
.

How Democrats Hate Republicans: A Primer

2009-07-23T14:05:00.000-07:00

It is difficult not to get impatient with a man as naturally evil (and idiotic) as Barack Hussein Obama. And one would think if leftists or Democrats were fair-minded people, that if they loathed George W. Bush because he was such an idiot, they would be hating Obama right now for being Bush's equal.

Oh, but no. Not on your life. They love Obama. He is THEIR idiot and they worship him nonetheless. They will not hate him for killing the innocent in the Middle East and beyond; they will only hate GW for it.

They will not hate Obama for reckless spending; they will only hate GW for it.

They will not hate Obama for the fascist police-state policies he promotes; they will only hate GW for it.

And they will not hate Obama for promoting the white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, US Government sponsored genocide; they will only hate, wait, they don't hate Bush for that. They all agree on that (even the white democrats do).

The reason the democrats do not hate Obama for doing many of the same things GW did is because of their blatant bigotry and prejudice against republicans (and knowing they will get paid off with bribes acquired through immoral legislation Democrats create to exact excessive taxes).

The method Democrats used to hate Bush and not Obama is same one the KKK used against blacks: automatically and without justification.

Democrats hate republicans just like the KKK hates blacks: with pathological, unthinking, senseless, ignorant, and shameful hate. This is because democrats--all of them--are naturally criminally-minded people. One example of their criminally-minded nature is that they think what belongs to others belongs to them (or those who will give them power). When you think you own everything others have, you are surely hating them.

Democrats excel at various forms of hatred and another variety of it is demonstrated by their desire to silence republicans and conservatives. This is why they are trying to stop conservatives from speaking by reviving the (un) Fairness Doctrine, and bailing out treasonous Council on Foreign Relations newspapers (LA Times, NY Times, etc.), and threatening to muzzle independent and free bloggers on the internet. Democrats cannot hate people, trample the Constitution, and plunder their opponents if others are telling the truth about it minute by minute.

For the Democrats to succeed in their hatred, republicans must be silenced. This is also the purpose of "hate laws".

Leftists are good at accusing others of hate, but there are few who hate as much as they do. And, since they currently have nearly all the levers of power in government, they don't have to lynch conservatives like the KKK used to lynch blacks. Instead, they will persecute republicans through corrupt "laws" that will plunder their wealth and strip them of their constitutional rights.

The most stupid and ignorant KKK member, sadly, appears to be more honest about his intentions than any Democrat in America, even one with an Ivy league college degree.

This is really a bad situation.

Corrections and revisions to blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for your patience.
.

Southern Poverty Law Center, A Hate Group According to Themselves

2009-07-15T16:34:00.000-07:00

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has anointed itself to patrol the nation for hate. Sniffing around the country like a dog in heat, these hounds pant and froth for a warm juicy spot to push into and have their way with it. The SPLC has also elected itself to define hate for the rest of us (and now you don't have to wonder about it). The problem is that if we resist their opinion and definition we are liable to be labeled a hater or member of a hate group.

It follows (or precedes), then, that these self-appointed rooter-outers of hate cannot tolerate those they target. The SPLC is intolerant of their target's intolerance. Of course, the SPLC's intolerance could never be a form a hate, especially since they haven't said so. That is the convenient part. Though they once did good work, it looks like they have now become a menace to a free people. And this is because only the SPLC approved intolerance can be tolerated, while those who disagree and make it on to their (proverbial) radar screen will be spied upon, hunted down, and destroyed if possible.

Peter Brimelow is currently a target of the intolerant SPLC and by the SPLC's own standard of reasoning, they hate him. He says things they don't want people to have the unmolested right to say. It is a thoroughly anti-free speech attitude for them to have, because they want it to cost plenty, especially financially.

Brimelow has hurt no one. He has not advocated anyone be attacked, injured, or oppressed. He is a gentle man who has no history of abusing others. Yet he is accused of being a threat.

The SPLC lies about Brimelow; they say he is anti-immigration. He is not. He is simply against bad immigration and promotes immigration that does not lead to ethnic strife and dissolution of the country as "a people". Apparently the SPLC approves of an immigration system that brings in the worst immigrant groups, INSTEAD of the best groups (as Brimelow suggests). They can suit themselves, but that position doesn't demonstrate the SPLC's intellectual honesty and certainly not its wisdom. If the SPLC wants us to bring in the least educated, and the imigrants most unlikely to be interested they can support that. But you have to ask yourself why they don't want to bring in the smarter ethnic groups? What do they want with all these immigrants who eschew education, have a high crime rate, and greatly favor welfare handouts?

The SPLC implies that Brimelow is a white suprmacist, which he is not. At least I don't see that he is and he denies it. I guess they say he is a liar too. I don't find anywhere in his writings or conduct anything that would prove Brimelow is a white supremacist EXCEPT that the SPLC might say so. Yes, he publishes controversial authors like Jared Taylor, but then again, members of the SPLC probably voted for Barack Hussein Obama who went to a church for twenty years, that promoted the writings of black supremacists. So, in that sense, wouldn't the SPLC support black supremacists too? And, isn't the SPLC's position a nonwhite or brown supremacist position?

The SPLC says these things because, by their own standards of reasoning, they must hate Brimelow and will not tolerate his opinions. Ah, but you say, aren't you labeling them the say way they label Brimelow? Well, that's the point. The tables need to be turned on the leftists. If we don't start accusing everyone of hate, only one side will be silenced and both sides need to watch what they say about these subjective judgments before they get codified in law and stifle truth.

By their silence (and intimidations),members of the SPLC demostrate that they appove of the US government sponsored white genocide. They are brown supramcists according to their own warped reasoning. If what is happening today in America was happening to a black nation, the SPLC would rightly be outraged by it because it violates International Law.

The SPLC lives in a universe where the ruthless, cruel, and hateful attacks on Sarah Palin are not criticized by the SPLC as hatred. Perhaps it is because she is a white, right-wing Christian. Perhaps it because they belong to the political party responsible for the hateful treatment of Sarah Palin.

The SPLC lives in a universe where black "pride" is an approved of virtue, but white pride would be considered akin to Nazism.

...where a Black Caucus in congress is good, but a white one would be categorized as the Klan.

...where the National Association of Colored People is respectable, but Vdare is a hate group for noticing and writing about things that affect white people like the NAACP notices and writes about things that affect black people. Damn those white folks! How DARE they!

The SPLC lives in a universe where saying that your Latina ethnicity proudly gives you better insight into justice than a white man's ethnicity (or sex), but saying your WASP ethnicity would give you better insight gets you labeled a racist, Klan member, Nazi, fascist, and soon to be litigant in a court case.

It is a place where it is it OKAY to violate International Law by denying Americans the right to self-determination through immigration, but NOT OKAY for declaring the Federal government's WASP genocide immoral.

It is a universe where it is GOOD to make America less white but RACIST to maintain the historic white majority.

That is the evil universe where members of the Southern Poverty Law Center--clearly haters of Peter Brimelow according to their own standards--appear to be intolerant of anyone who wishes to represent the concerns of whites.

That is the universe of those who promote the US sponsored WASP genocide through immigration by their attacks on those who fight it.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=152
.

Leftist Hate-Watch: A Timely Blog

2009-07-06T05:50:00.000-07:00

The hatred on the left is so profound and powerful, it is necessary to chronicle it and that is what this blog hopes to do. Of course, leftists (all democrats) are so obsessed with their hatred, one blog could not possibly cover it all seeing that a good portion of the country is leftist.

Nevertheless, the hate from the left needs to be covered, especially since they are the ones always decrying it and are most guilty of it.

The left hates Sarah Palin obsessively. From the Huffington Post to the major noncable networks, the left-wing media has virtually stalked her and continues to do so. Accuracy in Media predicted this in 2008.

Sarah is now resigning her post as Governor of Alaska and none of us knows exactly why. In her speech she noted the hounding by those on the left with the ethics violations. These ethics violations were hate-inspired and seem to be an attempt ruin Ms. Palin financially. Those who lodged the charges should have to pay her legal fees. This type of persecution is a classical tactic of hate-mongering leftists (though Rudy Giuliani and republican prosecutors excel at this sort of thing too). And in the coming days or weeks, those who lodged these complaints will be listed here on the blog.

Our legal system is horribly abused by both sides of the political spectrum, but the hate-mongers on left turn it into a weapon to destroy others.

I hope Sarah has something wonderful planned for herself and her family. As disappointed as many are because of her stepping down, if this is about the survival of her family, I congratulate her for having the guts to do it.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-media-plan-to-destroy-palin/

Corrections and revisions to blog posts occur frequently. Thank you for your patience.
.