Tag Archives: hate

A Perfect Example of the Progressive Hate Machine

If you want to understand exactly who and what the Progressive Movement is, simply listen to what they espouse to hate. The movement that proclaims “tolerance,” “inclusion,” “acceptance,” and “equality for all,” is actually a movement that embraces intolerance, exclusion, opposition and oligarchic elitism. And no matter how much they espouse the former, their actions confirm the latter.

The Progressive Movement, which now controls not only the federal government and the government apparatuses in most of the failing, debt-ridden, deficit spending urban centers in the United States (and in many “enlightened” locales across the globe), but the education system and the mainstream media, is tolerant to only those who agree with their world view, include only those who will advance their cause, accept only those who tow the Progressive line ideologically and call for equality to apply for only those with which beg their favor. If you have an opposing viewpoint on culture, government or society, you are smeared, demonized, castigated and otherwise openly and veraciously hated.

So much for all that “hate crime” talk oozing out of the Progressive’s collective “pie hole.”

The Examiner reports:

“While speaking at the Texas Democratic Party convention in Dallas on Friday, state Rep.Trey Martinez Fischer told fellow Democrats that GOP doesn’t stand for ‘Grand Old Party,’ it stands for ‘gringos y otros pendejos.’ In addition to the racist slur, Martinez Fischer’s office handed out a set of six Lotería cards to delegates, one of which depicts a red-faced Abbott as ‘El Diablito.’

“A Google search found that other than the Houston Chronicle and a few other sites, the racist profanity…”

“Gringos y Otros Pendejos” is translated to mean “Gringos and Other A**holes”. One needs only look back to the abundance of media coverage over the feigned outrage over a private and direct-to-target off-the-mic comment made by then Vice President Dick Cheney to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), in 2004 to palpate the hypocrisy of the Progressive Movement.

Mr. Fischer went on to defend his “hate speech”:

“Martinez Fischer did not offer an apology and doubled down on his overheated rhetoric.

“‘I stand by my words,’ he said. ‘I did not know Greg Abbott was at the convention to hear me, and if I had known that I would told him directly to his face.’”

It should be noted that if Mr. Fischer really wanted to repeat his “hate speech” to Mr. Abbott’s face he would have had to sit down. Mr. Abbott is confined to a wheelchair. Abbott became a paraplegic when an oak tree fell on him while he was running following a storm in 1984.

Here we have a perfect example of true “hate speech.” The statement has all the necessary components. It is meant to attack, to disparage, and to demean. It is racist and it is profane. Yet, aside from one mainstream media outlet that covered it “in passing,” nary a word has been spoken or printed about it. Why is that you ask? Because the main stream media is held captive – held hostage – by the Progressive Movement. To wit, when a Progressive employs the Alinskyisms espoused in Rules for Radicals points five and thirteen, the ethics of the issue is moot.

Points five and thirteen state:

▪ No. 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

▪ No. 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Alinsky provides an astounding level of moral relativism to absolve the “hate speaker” for this intolerant, non-inclusive, unaccepting and inequitable ethical dilemma by offering this bit of intellectual disingenuousness:

“The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment…”

“The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”

And there you have just a taste of the convoluted justification behind the Progressive Movement’s hypocrisy on the issue of hate and “hate speech.” It would appear that advancing hate, smear and demagoguery is quite alright if you are in the Progressive Movement, and particularly if you are a Progressive politician. But if you are outside of the “protected” Progressive class, watch out! If you speak exactly as Progressives do and you are not protected you are a hater and should be silenced and punished.

It brings an entirely new prospective to old adage “do as I say, not as I do,” wouldn’t you say?

The Unbridled Hate of Hate Speech Laws

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This quote, often attributed to Voltaire, is at the heart of our First Amendment right to free speech, at least where the authority of our government is concerned. A free society, and, in fact, a free people, must be able to speak freely in order to challenge power, ideological aggression or the coercion of faction. To limit or eliminate this fundamental right; this essential check to balance, is to limit or eliminate freedom in its most cursory form. Put succinctly, limiting free speech rights is tyranny in its most basic form.

It is for this reason that the Progressive Movement’s continued assault on free speech rights – both here in the United States and throughout the free world – is of such immediate concern.

On January 16, 2014, TheHill.com reported:

“Thirteen House Democrats have proposed legislation that would require the government to study hate speech on the Internet, mobile phones and television and radio.

“The bill, sponsored by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (P-NY) and 12 other House Democrats, would look at how those media are used to ‘advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.’

“The Hate Crime Reporting Act, HR3878, is meant to update a 20-year-old study from the National Telecommunications & Information Administration. That study, delivered to Congress in 1993, looked at hate speech on radio, TV and computer bulletin boards.

“Jeffries says the NTIA needs to see how hate speech is transmitted over the various new modes of communication that have sprung up over the last two decades…

“‘This legislation will mandate a comprehensive analysis of criminal and hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of the First Amendment protection.’”

The other co-sponsors of this bill include: Reps. Gregory Meeks, (D-NY); Ann Kuster, (D-NH); Michael Honda, (P-CA); Judy Chu, (P-CA); Bobby Rush, (P-IL); Carolyn Maloney, (P-NY); Pedro Pierluisi, (D-PR-At Large); Tony Cardenas, (D-CA-29); Mark Pocan, (P-WI); Eleanor Holmes-Norton, (P-DC-At Large); and Ron Kind, (D-WI).

Again, the entirety of the issue of “hate speech” is predicated on who is defining “hate.” Put another way, one person’s “hate” is inevitably another person’s “free speech.” Cases in point: Nazi, Soviet and Communist Chinese censorship.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Emphasis added)

So, the desires of the sponsors of HR3878 – and, in fact, the whole of the Progressive Movement – are juxtaposed to the guarantees of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights. If the US Constitution guarantees that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,” then no speech – no matter how offensive, societally unacceptable or politically incorrect – can be abridged, sans speech that directly incites violence toward another or which directly calls for the violent overthrow of the United States government.

Therefore, assurances made by the sponsors of HR3878, that only “criminal and hateful” speech occurring “outside of the zone of the First Amendment protection,” are presented disingenuously at the proposal’s genesis because no speech can be considered – short of speech that directly incites violence toward another or which directly calls for the violent overthrow of the United States government – “criminal” and/or “hateful” by constitutional measure.

Understanding this as fact, it is not out of line to charge that the sponsors of HR3878 are either, constitutionally illiterate, deceptive in their intentions or both. Only the constitutionally illiterate would fail to understand the First Amendment free speech clause was meant to prevent factions from silencing dissenters of the majority, thus executing one of the pinnacle purposes of the Charters of Freedom: protecting the rights of the minority. Conversely, if the sponsors of this piece of legislation do understand the unconstitutionality of their proposal, they advance the measure for nefarious reasons; reasons antithetical to true freedom and liberty for all.

But this shouldn’t surprise anyone who has been paying attention to Progressive Movement from its inception.

In a recent analysis entitled, It’s Not a War on Christmas, I make the observation:

“If the elitist oligarchs of the modern day Progressive Movement are to assume complete control; complete authority to execute social justice, economic justice and redefine the many ideas of equality, then they must dispense with the idea that they – themselves – are not at the top of the power pyramid; at the top of the intellectual ‘food chain’…

“By playing on emotions – the most potent tool in the Progressive arsenal – and painting those who hold true to their…beliefs as being “un-inclusive,” “intolerant of others,” and “insensitive”…, Progressives aim to ‘shame’ the truly tolerant and inclusive… By shaming or making the majority of Americans ‘uncomfortable’ for the accusations of intolerance and insensitivity, Progressives aim to force an abdication of traditional American values and beliefs. In doing so they inch closer to their goal of expunging the notion of Natural Law from the societal and then governmental lexicons, successfully achieving elitist, oligarchic and totalitarian control over the defining of rights, the common good, and the role of government in our lives.”

This reality applies to the false-flag concept of “hate speech” laws. It can also be applied to the totalitarian “double-jeopardy” of “hate crime” laws as well. To the latter, a crime is either a crime or it is not a crime. By creating a more severe punishment for a “class,” “demographic” or “preferred faction” of people, Progressives seek to artificially elevate the severity of a crime only when that crime is committed against the few, while citing the crime as less severe when committed against all others.

In the end, it is the Progressive Movement’s modus operandi to manipulate the citizenries of free nations through emotion and “feel good” sounding pieces of legislation, all sold to us as a bill of goods addressing the “common good.” In reality, these false-flag, emotion-based pieces of legislation – these “social justice” initiatives – serve to usurp the freedoms guaranteed to us in the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

They are exercises in soft tyranny meant to create power for – and deliver power to – the elitist oligarchs and the tyrannical.

They serve to pollute the airs of freedom; to smother Lady Liberty; and to, eventually, oppress the masses into subjugation.

Of course, to Progressives, those are words of “hate.”

America’s Race Hustling Poverty Pimps: Al, Jesse, & Barack

As I read stories and opinions about the death of Trayvon Martin I find myself wondering how so much can go so wrong in America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. I can find enough fault on both sides of this tragedy to show the racial hatred being spewed by the usual race baiting hate mongers in the black community to be not only unnecessary but down right evil.

In the first place, George Zimmerman was told by the police that he didn’t need to follow Martin, just give them a description and be available for officers when they got there. I understand Zimmerman’s concern. When help is needed in seconds the police are often minutes, sometimes many minutes, away. Zimmerman stated he was afraid this unknown person would just disappear and the police would find nothing, take a report, and go back to what they had been doing. This happens all too often, especially in cities where police are often overwhelmed with work to do. I am not bashing police here, just making what I believe to be a fair observation. If Zimmerman had done as asked Trayvon Martin would be alive today.

On the other side of this coin are Trayvon Martin’s bad decisions. I imagined myself in this situation and asked myself, “What would I do?” if faced with being followed by an unknown person with unknown intentions. My first thought was not “to hide around the corner of a building and attack the follower when he rounded the corner”. My first thought was to get to where I was going as fast as possible. If I was not able to accomplish that before being overtaken the next choice is to find a suitable place to hide and dial 911 for help. Under no circumstances would I go on the offensive when an unknown person, who could be armed, was following me and I had no idea why. Martin’s actions were ill-advised at best, and stupid at the worst. Martin had a cell phone. Why wasn’t he calling 911 to report he was being followed by a possible assailant instead of talking to his girlfriend?

The combination of bad decisions by both of these men resulted in an unnecessary death. I understand the hurt of the parents; I know the pain of losing a son too early in life. This was a totally senseless situation brought on by bad decisions on both sides of the coin. Enough said about this, now on to the larger tragedy here.

As soon as reports of this tragedy came out, Al Sharpton, smelling a profit, crawled out from under his rock to do his usual stirring up of racial hatred before knowing any facts in the incident. George Zimmerman sounds like as white a name as I have ever heard but is he? Well, partly. It seems, now that we have more information, that he is a multi-racial Hispanic. But this information doesn’t really matter to me, as it doesn’t matter to the race baiters. The “it doesn’t matter”, however, comes for different reasons.

Race isn’t an issue to those of us who see other Americans as Americans instead of seeing race as does Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Spike Lee, the Black Panthers, and other race baiting hate mongers. We now have the Black Panthers offering a $1 million reward for Zimmerman’s head. Isn’t solicitation to commit murder a crime in America? Spike Lee has tweeted Zimmerman’s address. If Zimmerman is assaulted will Eric Holder’s “Justice Department” charge the Black Panthers and Lee as an accomplice or accessory to an assault or murder? Not likely!!!

I wonder where all of these “concerned citizens” were last week when a 90 year old white man and his 85 year old white wife were attacked in their home in Tulsa, Oklahoma by a young black man and unknown accomplices. The woman (again, 85 years old) was raped and beaten to death. The man is clinging to life in ICU at last reports. Where are the $1 million dollar offers from the Black Panthers? Where is Al Sharpton and his megaphone? Where is Jesse Jackson to offer financial help to the family of this couple as he did in the Duke Lacrosse case? Where is Spike Lee to tweet this animal’s home address for the angry mobs to go kill him? Where is Barack Obama and his condemnation of black violence against whites? Remember Eric Holder saying black on white violence would not be investigated by the same “Justice Department” who is jumping through hoops to convict Zimmerman before the sun rises tomorrow?

Last week I read a story from Chicago about a 6 year old boy killed as a result of gang violence, and a 1 year old clinging to life by a thread from the same shooting. This was black gang members trying to kill a rival, but killing babies instead. Where are the Black Panthers? Where is Al Sharpton? Where is Jesse Jackson? Where is the $1 million reward for the heads of those who hurt these innocent children in an indiscriminate shooting? Where is Spike Lee and his Twitter account when needed?

Several years ago we had the Tawana Brawley incident. She reported that white men raped her, smeared feces on her, and repeatedly called her “nigger”. After Al Sharpie crawled out from under his rock to drum up money for himself he found out it was all a lie. Did he apologize? Did he give the money back? No, he just stirred up unnecessary racial hatred, raked in his millions, and crawled back under his rock until the next opportunity arose.

Remember the Duke Lacrosse case a few years ago? A black prostitute claimed she was raped, beaten, and called “nigger” by white members of the Duke Lacrosse team. Along came Jesse and Al to the rescue. As it turned out, after the flames of racial hatred had been fanned to a roar, the entire story was found to be a huge lie. Even the District Attorney in the case did everything he could to profit politically, from a case he knew was a lie. Once again, Jesse and Al raked in their millions and crawled back under their rocks to await the next incident they could use to fan racial hatred and make a few million dollars for themselves.

And once again Barack Obama, the Usurper in Chief, has jumped into the fray to stir up racial hatred and try to gain some votes without knowing the facts. Remember the famous “beer summit” that resulted when the cop wanted to know why the college professor, who was reported by neighbors to be breaking into a house, was there? It turned out the house belonged to the professor and he had lost his key or left it somewhere. All the policeman did was his job, but he was turned into a monster by the same race baiting hate mongers we have seen so many times before. What if that had been a mugger breaking into the house of an elderly woman with no protection other than that policeman? Oh well, the white guy has to be wrong regardless of the facts. And the racism is where?

Obama was to be the first “post-racial” president, but alas, that hasn’t happened. Racial polarization is worse than it has been since the 1960’s. White people voted in droves for a black man, or half black, to prove they weren’t racists. Instead of pointing out the fact that white voters seem to be over racism he makes racial strife the keynote part of his agenda. Instead of taking the moral high ground and urging people to look at this as a tragedy that resulted from a set of preventable circumstances on both sides, he jumps in with both feet to help Al Sharpie & Company fan the flames of racial hatred. Obama has shown himself to be as racist and as much of a hate monger as the “Justice Brothers”.

All of these men call me a racist and a hate monger because I am white and believe in finding the facts first. You were able to see my view on this at the beginning of this article. What is the difference between my approach and that of the blacks who are raising so much hell about this Florida shooting? Am I or other white people out in the media calling for riots over the attack, rape, and murder of that elderly white woman by a young black man in Oklahoma? No, of course not. That would be an asinine and wrong stand to take. If I offered $1 million for his head would that be racist?

Racism is alive and well in America but it isn’t the whites who are stoking the fires of racism, or even committing racist acts. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Spike Lee, Louis Farrakhan and other liberals can’t open their mouths without fanning the fires of racism, and doing it to make a profit for themselves. They don’t care about the black community. These people only care about the money they make off of racial hatred.

The fact that Barack Obama does the same thing on a regular basis (African-Americans for Obama campaign ads, for instance) is not only an act of racism against We the People, it is detrimental to our nation. It is even more detrimental to members of the black community. Blacks are being used by profiteers. This kind of rhetoric is not conducive to a harmonious future in America. The divide and conquer tactics of these people are intended to enslave all ethnic groups, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, etc. equally.

The only way to overcome the tactics of division are for We the People to unite in rejecting those who divide us. God made all of us and all of us need to come together against the strife spread by the agents of Satan. We can come together, One Nation Under God, or we will live as one nation under tyrants. The choice is ours. As for me and my house, we choose One Nation Under God. My heart goes out to both families in this tragedy. Let’s not waste our time ripping each other apart for no good reason. Let’s unite, under GOD, against those who use tragedies like this one for profit and to divide a nation unnecessarily.

I submit this in the name of the Most holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
March 27, 2012