Tag Archives: Woodrow Wilson

Karl Rove: The GOP’s Progressive Woodrow Wilson

karl-rove-mug

 

“Architect” Karl Rove is a progressive disaster to the Republican Party: He’s pushing to destroy the Tea Party and American conservatism in order to install his version of politics that mirrors Woodrow Wilson.

There’s not much difference between Wilson and Rove: Wilson wanted control over the Democrat Party and the American people abiding by his will.  Rove is doing the exact same thing: Controlling the GOP vote by putting RINO candidates up against Tea Party candidates in order to destroy conservatives.

Rove  decides GOP primary winners,  not voters.  Rove chose the 2008 and 2012 presidential candidates:  John McCain and Mitt Romney. Both decisions failed and the GOP was defeated like Waterloo on steroids.

Yet, Rove is hell-bent on choosing the 2014 and 2016 GOP candidates and preventing Tea Party candidates from getting on ballots. And the GOP machine does not care: Its goal is power, not constitutionalism.

The result: The GOP is failing because it keeps bringing this power-hungry, overweight knife to the political gun fight.

Despite Rove’s American Crossroads Super PAC proving a dismal failures, the GOP refuses to learn lessons and listen to its conservative base. Instead, the GOP wants Rove to move ahead with his Wilsonian-style plan: Decide the candidates people need as president, Senate and House leaders.

 

9781451694932_p0_v1_s260x420

 

To pull off this anti-Constitution, strong-arming-the-people plan, Rove set up the Conservative Victory Group, another progressive-style Pac to choose candidates, and further to the point, advise candidates on what they can and cannot articulate.

 

Karl-Rove-puppeteer-460x307

 

Rove’s plan was laid out in the New York Times:

The biggest donors in the Republican Party are financing a new group to recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s efforts to win control of the Senate. Steven J. Law, a leader of the Conservative Victory Project, say they are taking steps to steer Mr. King away from a Senate run. The group, the Conservative Victory Project, is intended to counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates over the last two election cycles. It is the most robust attempt yet by Republicans to impose a new sense of discipline on the party, particularly in primary races.

 

Notice Rove’s goal: “protect Senate incumbents” from Tea Party candidates and “counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates.” In other words, down with Mia Love Tea Partiers shaking things up, no Todd Akin slip-ups allowed on ballots, and defeat upstarts like incumbent Rep. Allen West, whom Rove could not “discipline” and “impose” his GOP power.

Rove’s ideology is similar to British constitutionalism where leaders, not the people,  pick prime ministers and MPs, and decide laws as they go. That was Woodrow Wilson’s ideology. Is it any different than Rove picking candidates? Worse, is that any different than Wilson’s desire to abolish the Separation of Powers?

No, Rove has never called for abolishing Separation of Powers so presidents have parliamentary-style control.  However, if party leaders control votes, prevent people from deciding primary candidates, party leaders control Congressional leader’s votes, and Separation of Powers dissolves, and the House and Senate belong to party leaders, not voters.

To cover his fat rump, Rove made radio talk show rounds, backtracking his bashing the Tea Party.  Big deal! Rove believes he is the architect of politics and he’s attempting to design America’s leadership.

Rove assumes he knows what’s best for the people, as Wilson himself believed. Rove is Woodrow Wilson in every sense of the Progressive Movement: Mold the party, voters, and America’s future to party leadership command, not the Constitution. How is that “consent of the governed?”

There is nothing conservative about Rove’s Conservative Victory Party or Rove.

Wilson said choose elite candidates best suited for making the people’s decisions. Candidates must do the thinking for the people, because citizens are too inept at making individual decisions.

Wilson said: “Governments are what the politicians make them…:”

[T]here should be a science of administration which shall seek to straighten the paths of government, to make its business less unbusinesslike, to strengthen and purify its organization, and to crown its duties with dutifulness.

 

Rove too wants to “make” the government.

Matt Hoskins, Executive Director of Senate Conservatives Fund said of Rove:

This is a continuation of the establishment’s effort to avoid blame for their horrible performance in the 2012 elections. They [the GOP] blew a ton of races up and down the ticket because they recruited moderate Republicans who didn’t stand for anything. Now they want to use this new PAC to trick donors into giving them more money so they can lose more races.

 

Hoskins is correct.  Rove helped destroy GOP conservative Florida Rep. Allen West by refusing to help West win reelection and stop the redistricting of West’s seat.

Rove trashed Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin as “thin-skinned,” claiming that if no one speculates “about her, she’d be upset and try and find a way to get us to speculate about her.”

It sounds like chunky skin, who was adamant Palin would run for the 2012 presidency, is not only off beam with erroneous predictions, he’s jealous of popularity that may possibly destroy his power.

Rove demonstrated disloyalty to Rep. Michele Bachmann when Bachmann demanded answers to why Muslim Brotherhood-connected Huma Abedin-Weiner was Hillary Clinton’s top aid with high security clearance in the State Department. GOP leaders Marco Rubio, John McCain, and Speaker John Boehner condemned Bachmann. Rove took the RINO side against Bachmann.

When it comes to breaking Constitution law to grant illegals amnesty, Rove tramples the Constitution for the Hispanic vote. He is empowering Tea Partier-turned-RINO Senator Marco Rubio, whom Rove says has “The framework of the proposed reforms highlights the persuasive powers of Sen. Marco Rubio.”

Notice the phrase “persuasive.”  Rove wants “persuasive” leaders making voter’s decisions. That is what Wilson wanted:

“Wherever regard for public opinion is a first principle of government, practical reform must be slow and all reform must be full of compromises… Whoever would effect a change in a modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow-citizens to want some change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion in its way.

 

This is exactly what Rove is doing with conservative voters who must reject what will surely destroy conservatism if “We The People” don’t stand up and fight Karl Rove.

Rove’s Conservative Victory Project is progressivism. His record demonstrates he’s not a Republican, he’s a left-wing progressive in GOP clothing molding the GOP into his image, just as Wilson did with Democrats and America.

 

Why Miss California’s Seemingly Ignorant “Euthanasia, That’s a Vaccine Right?” Is Technically Correct

 miss cal

 

 

Many Americans who watch the Miss America Pageant no doubt wonder if intelligence is still a qualification for young women entering beauty pageants. It appears as long as beauty queens are left-winged and give the desired politically correct answers leftist judges demand, beauty overcomes inglorious stupidity.

I’m speaking of the the latest Miss America Pageant and the beautiful Miss California, who wowed judges with her anti-gun political correctness, but made the “Idiots Hall of Fame” headline’s with her answer to euthanasia: “That’s a vaccine, right?”

My first thought was: “If Euthanasia is a vaccine, strangulation is the best Asthma medication!”

At first I thought Miss California’s brain was perhaps crushed by years of over-weight pageants crowns, until I realized Miss California’s seemingly ignorant answer is 100% correct.

No, I’m not giving stupidity the thumbs up; I’m looking within Miss California’s answer. The young woman has no idea she stated an historical fact: Vaccines do kill diseases, but euthanasia is not about eliminating AIDS or the Flu, it’s about extermination, and you can’t find a better vaccine to kill off mankind than euthanasia.

Obviously Miss California was not joking when she responded. She truly has no idea what euthanasia or eugenics projects are, and for that, the young woman needs to read books containing words and study what she is reading. But despite proving herself ill-educated, Miss California’s brainless comment is historically true.

For instance: Leftist feminist’s ideology demands abortion as the best way to keep a woman’s life free of the hindrance of that nasty pre-existing condition called motherhood. Since pregnancy is viewed by FemiNazis as a disease worse than Cancer and AIDS, as well as the destruction of women’s sex lives, the answer to eliminating the pre-existing condition of motherhood is abortion—euthanasia.

In view of the fact abortion takes the life of unborn children, it technically is euthanasia.

Abortion is the vaccine of all vaccines against unwanted pregnancies for pre-existing conditioned women.

Of course no one in the pageant will ever utter such words. To do so might demoralize women expected to have such high morals, they make Catholic nuns look like street walkers.

History, however, proves Miss California’s uneducated answer true: Euthanasia has vaccinated millions of unwanted human beings from existence.

In author Edwin Black’s book War Against The Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race he discusses how early 19th century, British statistician Francis Galton believed forced sterilization on women considered inferior would prevent a so-called degenerate race, while superior women produced children.

American Charles Davenport, who helped launch radical feminism’s push for abortion with eugenics, believed abortion and sterilization was the answer to creating a perfect society by:

plot[ing] a bold campaign of ‘purging the blood of the American people of the handicapping and deteriorating influences of these anti-social classes,’ meaning the socially unfit, such as epileptics, the feebleminded, the deformed, the deaf, mute and blind.

 

eugenics

 

Davenport’s horrific methods sterilized 50,000 Americans.

Sadly, Miss California would be on the list of “feebleminded, but would be allowed to live, because her looks could produce superior-looking, tall blonde children. And isn’t that of utmost importance!

President Theodore Roosevelt agreed with Davenport’s sterilization and euthanizing of unborn children:

Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce.

 

The Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation funded the euthanasia projects in America. By 1904, those seen as unfit to breed children were sterilized or forced into abortions. They were: Native Americans, epileptics, alcoholics, Jews, Mexicans, Blacks, small-time crooks, the mentally ill, the unemployed and homeless. In fact David Rockefeller stated this of China’s Mao

The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.

 

Look at China today: The One Child Only Policy. Girl children must be aborted or killed after birth to create a male-dominated society.

Rockefeller was so intent on sterilization and abortion for a perfect race; he funded Hitler’s eugenics scientists in order to create the master race.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld Virginia’s decision to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck, because:

Three generations of imbeciles are enough” in this country.

 

Justice Holmes may have been on to something: Three generations of Kennedys did actually breed  “alcoholics,” “imbecile” sleep drivers, and “degenerate” womanizers!

President Woodrow Wilson approved of sterilization and abortion against anyone considered unfit, and

created a board of examiners of feeble-minded, epileptics and other defectives. Under it, the state could determine, ‘when procreation is inadvisable like for criminals, prisoners, poor kids and the ill-defined, other defectives.’

 

Wilson didn’t realize it, but he classified the whole of Washington leadership in both parties!

Margaret Sanger, who saidThe most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it,” set up the Negro Project to sterilize black mothers and “exterminate” unborn black children.

margaret sanger

 

Hitler was so taken with America’s euthanasia plan; he used abortion and sterilization to euthanize the unborn children of Jewish women and mentally disabled women. This was Hitler’s way of vaccinating unfit women’s bodies in order to produce a pure Aryan race.

 

eugenics holocaust

400,000 Germans were sterilized against their will, while 800,000 abortions were performed yearly. Germany literally began losing its population due to euthanasia. The result was the Lebensborn Born Project: impregnate as many German women by SS soldiers to create the master race. Many of those children were killed because they didn’t look Nordic.

Miss California has no idea just how point on her ill-educated answer is. It’s too bad the young woman doesn’t have a clue as to what euthanasia is and what it has done to the world, as well as her own country, or she could have answered by saying: “Euthanasia? You can’t find a better vaccine against humanity and breeding what progressives consider unfit-to-live people than sterilization and abortion.”

Bad News for Globalists

European business activity fell in May, nearing a 35-month low, according to a survey by Markit. Its survey, based on European manufacturing and service sectors, fell to 45.9. The euro fell to a 22-month low against the dollar in response. Disagreement at Wednesday’s summit between European leaders about how to solve the dilemma did nothing to boost confidence.

Chris Williamson, chief economist for Markit, said research indicated the downturn had “gathered further momentum in May. The survey is broadly consistent with gross domestic product falling by at least 0.5% across the region in the second quarter, as an increasingly steep downturn in the periphery infects both France and Germany,”

Economic reports show that concerns over Greece are having a broader economic impact than originally expected. “It clearly indicates that the evaporating sentiment that we have seen in recent weeks, as the Greece crisis has intensified, is having a big impact on the economy” said Peter Dixon from Commerzbank.

Socialist President Hollande wants France to increase spending; a plan Chancellor Angela Merkel says Germany will oppose until there is more budget discipline across Europe.

Facing the reality that sovereign nations will retain and defend their own national views, interests and sovereignty is bad news for Globalists. New World Order proponents saw Establishment of the European Union and eurozone as an important step in the march towards their grand vision of One World Government.

Theorists within the “progressive” movement have envisioned such an eventuality since the early Twentieth Century. Woodrow Wilson, after winning re-election in 1916 on the campaign slogan: “He Kept Us Out Of War”, entered WWI in order to involve the United States in world affairs, thereby creating justification for his desire to establish the League of Nations.

While in Paris after the war, Wilson engaged in creation of the League of Nations while also helping shape the Treaty of Versailles. The Versailles Treaty resulted in economic devastation within Germany, leading to the rise of Adolph Hitler’s Nazi Germany. In 1919, Wilson and a Republican controlled Senate fought over giving the League of Nations power to force the U.S. into a war, a clear violation of Article One, Section Eight, Clause Ten of the United States Constitution, which assigns Power to declare War to the U.S. Congress. To the credit of Republicans in the Senate, they stood for U.S. sovereignty, rejecting the Treaty of Versailles, and voting against U.S. entry into the League of Nations.

Although the League of Nations proved completely impotent in the prevention of WWII, that didn’t deter “progressive” Globalists from forming the United Nations. The original aim of the UN was to keep peace throughout the world, develop friendly relations between nations, to help eliminate poverty, disease and illiteracy, stop environmental destruction and encourage respect for rights and freedoms. These aims were based on, among other principles, that all member states would have sovereign equality and that the UN was not to interfere in the domestic affairs of any country.

Pending before the United States Senate today are threats to U.S. national sovereignty:

The Convention on Biological Diversity, the Law of the Sea treaty, the International Labor Organization Convention No. 111, the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and other Related Materials, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

Additionally, there’s Agenda 21, which dictates action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally in every area where humans directly affect the environment. If the Agenda 21 agenda doesn’t clearly describe the UN interfering in America’s domestic affairs, what would? The Law of the Sea treaty, if ratified, would grant the UN mineral rights within U.S. territorial waters. If that’s not a violation of national sovereignty, what is? Were the firearms treaty to be ratified, the UN would then have control over arms within the United States, an open violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It’s time for Americans to stand up for national sovereignty and kiss the UN, Globalists and One World Government “progressives” goodbye. The best way to accomplish this is to do what Americans did in 1920 after Woodrow Wilson’s early attempt to violation American sovereignty. Elect Republicans in a landslide.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/bad-news-for-globalists/

With Friends Like These…

Since the beginning of the War on Terror, the United States has taken on the task of forming hostile nations into allies in the Middle East. The best analogy I can think of to currently describe the way things have gone is likening our nation building efforts to the comic strip “Peanuts”. The nations that we go to war with are much like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown, America in this scenario, to kick. We run to kick the football, Lucy moves the football, and we fall on our behind. The difference is that immediately afterward, Charlie Brown knows that he’s been had and vows to never fall for that again, before he inevitably does. Our politicians on the other hand, refuse to reflect on the results of past interventions and many times embrace a “full steam ahead” approach.

I don’t write this as apologetics for Ron Paul, the Cato Institute, the founding fathers, Reason Magazine or any other well known libertarian intellectual cause. Instead, I’m going to use an inherently conservative thought process, the cost-benefit analysis. Liberals hate the cost-benefit analysis because it shows that their government programs to be counter-productive; this is why they often resort to arguing based on emotions and intent. Unfortunately, despite President Bush’s noble intentions, the major engagements of the War on Terror may not pass the cost-benefit test.

We invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to eliminate Al-Qaeda and to topple the country’s acting government, the Taliban. While fighting the enemy, we also helped set up an acting Afghan government. And in 2004 Hamid Karzai was elected president of the country and the US has supported him ever since. However, it has been revealed that Karzai and his family are corrupt and that he perhaps fraudulently won re-election in 2009. The US decided to express its disapproval by sending a troop surge of 30,000 to double down on our efforts of giving him a stable country to govern. Worse yet, its also been learned that Karzai, behind our back, has been in talks with the Taliban and has had diplomatic relations with Iran. But even before Karzai’s corruption became apparent, he still wasn’t exactly our BFF. Karzai frequently threw the US “under the bus” in press conferences and openly supports the farmers there growing Opium poppy despite our requests. Even taking Karzai out of the equation, a cost-benefit analysis must be done (not in this article) on whether or not we should still be fighting in Afghanistan. Former CIA director and current Secretary of Defense Leon Panneta estimated in 2010 that there were no more than 50-100 Al-Qaeda still in the country.

Next we turned to Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator who ended up getting what he deserved, not many Americans on either side of the political aisle would disagree with that. But, as the Iraq war winded down and the US turned into a police force to help stabilize their government, the people at home wondered what the new Iraqi government would look like. While still in its infant stages, details of the new Iraqi government have been disappointing at best. It appears as though Iraq has warmed up to its former hated enemy, Iran. This is particularly bad, because the Iraq-Iran conflict helped to keep Iran in check. This is why in the 1980s we helped supply Iraq with materials to produce chemical/biological weapons; with the idea of them to using the weapons against Iran. Further showing its gratitude towards the US, Iraq recently voted against Saudi Arabia’s proposal to increase oil production at OPEC’s 2011 conference. Seeing nations turn their back on the US after the US had invested large sums of money isn’t particularly unusual, but what makes this different is that the US still has 50,000 soldiers over there. This is a blatant slap in the face.

Worst of all is Libya. If there is something positive to be said of the War in Libya, one could say that its been the least costly of the wars. Despite its comparatively low price tag, Libya could quite possibly have the costliest long term consequences. To clarify, just like Saddam, Muammar Gaddafi is an evil dictator who deserves whatever grisly fate that awaits him. But, the United States went to war for the stated goal of stopping an alleged massacre that never took place, not for “regime change”. Then, in spite of goals which stated otherwise, we stayed until the regime change was complete. Now the question that remains is, “What now? Who are these rebels?”. That answer appears to be an interesting mix of regular citizens who grew tired of their oppressor, radical Islamic insurgents, and long term US ally Al-Qaeda. Wait… no, that’s not right, Al-Qaeda’s goal is to destroy the US and Israel. While the new Libyan constitution hasn’t been written, it was released that Sharia law is anticipated to be the main source of inspiration. If the Muslim Brotherhood’s popularity in Egypt is any indication, the so called “Arab Spring” will not have positive long term effects on the US and it’s allies. Rarely do events have 100% negative consequences without a silver lining, and Libya very well could be one of those times. In life there are disappoints and ideas that backfire, but rarely do you spend money and resources to create a nation whose leadership’s stated goal is to destroy you. Before many marriages that end in divorce go bad, there is usually a blissful honeymoon. Likewise the Libyan rebels started off giving the US a deserved gift, by denying their request to extradite Lockerbie bomber Al-Megrahi.

The Middle East has plenty of hostile countries, some unfriendly indifferent nations, and very few allies. One of those nations considered friendly to the US is Kuwait, particularly after we saved them from Saddam Hussein’s invasion in Desert Storm. Now to Kuwait’s credit, they have repaid us with their support in the UN by voting against us a region-low 67% of the time. More and more on the right, people grow disenfranchised by our foreign involvements. Republican California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said that behind closed doors, most republicans will admit that Iraq was a mistake. This sentiment briefly gave businessman Donald Trump the affection of some republicans when he considered a presidential run. One of Trump’s main platforms was taking trillions of dollars in oil from Iraq to offset our costs there. The fact that the idea garnered some support among republicans shows that at the very least, they’re willing to admit that the Iraq war didn’t yield desired results; so they feel the need to get something out of it. I agree that in retrospect, knowing what we know now, it was a mistake. But you can’t go around taking nation’s oilfields or anything else for that matter, might doesn’t make right. The equivalent I draw from the people who support the US taking oil from these nations we intervene in is this: Let’s say I cut your grass without me asking. You either try to stop me or passively let it happen. When its done I take some household appliances to compensate myself.

A best case scenario in these countries is that we pay billions yearly for their defense, having them become reliant on us, allowing them to become socialist in nature; all while complaining about our presence and influence. This allows them to become what I like to call “International democrats”. They do nothing to warrant the US taxpayer paying for their defense or fighting for them, yet we do it. What would be better is if we charged them at cost or more for us to protect them, but even then, that’s only a solution if you want to use our military men and women as mercenaries instead of only using them to “protect the US Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic”. Better would be forcing these nations to pay for their own defense, taking them off the government payroll.

In the world there are going to be problems that arise on an international level. Friendly dictators and elected officials alike will lose power or get overthrown from time to time. When a US-friendly regime loses power its one thing, when the US pays great costs in lives and money to create a hostile regime is infinitely worse. Woodrow Wilson’s progressive dream is alive and well today with the goal of “making the world safe for democracy”, championed by republicans (McCain, Graham) and democrats (Lieberman). Creating democracies in a region where the people who make up the electorate despise the US would seem to make the policy mutually exclusive with safety at home.

Munchhausen’s by Proxy (Race and the Democrat Party)

Growing up I was taught that Republicans were racist and greedy. I was taught that Republicans were fascist and not unlike Hitler and Mussolini. I was taught that without the Democrats there would still be segregation and all minorities would be treated as inhuman. It is an incredible story, Oscar worthy in its ridiculous simplicity, arrogance and narcissism.  As I began to actually read a lot of history this meme melted into something nearer to the polar opposite.

To understand this we must go back, all the way back to the beginning of our country. When the world thinks of slavery they think of the U.S. Yet the U.S. was the first country to actually have political infighting over the morality of slavery. The values the country were built to fly directly into the face of slavery, those who wanted to continue the practice developed racism as an excuse for the obviously immoral and backwards institution. Racism and slavery were never linked before an excuse for slavery was needed, even though slavery was part of human society since before the advent of writing, possibly even before the advent of language.

We tore our country apart to rid our selves of the cancer of slavery.  The party that chose to take it to that point was the Democratic Party. I remember asking a teacher in middle school about this fact being absolutely opposite to what I was taught about the Republican Party; He said something to the effect of  “the Parties switched sides,” certainly an odd statement and totally meaningless as well. He used the idea that the civil war was about states rights. It was certainly not, in fact that is an excuse used by southern racists. The civil war was about the growth of slavery to the new states, and the fear of the south that their society based on bondage would be flipped upside down. They fought and lost, slavery is not only immoral but it is not economically viable as well. The north beat them through productivity, if I had to pick a singular term.

After the Civil War the Democrats got control of the government, destroyed the reconstruction process and let lose a flood of anti-black legislation in the south. The Democrat Party then made their bones on racism and disenfranchised the black population. Through racism they owned the south for decades. The democrat party was the party of Jim Crow.  The link between the Democrat party and racism doesn’t end there but links into another aspect of my overall point. I was taught that the right wing was fascist. Yet fascism requires large government. A relatively quick look at American political science around the turn of the 19th century seems to show that European fascism got it’s ideas from a Republican that started the Progressive movement and two very popular Progressive democrats, both of which were quite racist.

Since Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican talking about him doesn’t fit that well into my purpose but yes, he was horrible. Much like a Nixon, what a lot of conservatives call a RINO (a republican in name only.) After Teddy came someone whom I consider the most evil man to ever hold the office of the Presidency. Woodrow Wilson was by definition fascist and a eugenicist. In school I learned he was a peace loving genius and if people just listened to him World War Two never would have happened. None of those statements are true. In fact, all of them are quite the opposite. Wilson believed that English and Western European individuals were superior to all others genetically. He was a Eugenicist. When elected President he fired all but one African American on his staff, solely to avoid the fact he fired them all or had none.  Through his friend Margaret Sanger he even tried to cleanse our society of undesirables such as the poor, blacks, the Irish and so fourth through free abortion and sterilization. Planned Parenthood exists today with numbers that smack of something very disconcerting still. Wilson also interned ethnic Americans during World War One. He arrested people for speaking opinion in their own home. Started a brown shirt organization to watch for “sedition,” as well as being very quick to go to war for non-defense reasons.

Me being of Irish heritage, even having been 4th Generation would be considered less than human by many beloved Democrats. F.D.R. held very much than same backwards view on race as Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt’s political advisors even begged him to support anti-lynching legislation; he refused despite polls and turning opinion, which made it not only moral, but a guaranteed political win. Roosevelt also interned Japanese, German and Italian Americans. Roosevelt arrested people for not burning crops and other ridiculous “solutions” enacted in his many bills. From Reconstruction on till the 1950’s, many southern districts African Americans still could not register to vote as Democrats. I have heard more times than I can count a reason for the historical reality of the Democratic Party, “all the racists switched sides.”

The Democrat party was factually the party of Slavery, Eugenics and Jim Crow.  The Democrat Party also committed tyrannical acts against its own people, and picked up Progressivism, which was the base on which Mussolini and Adolf Hitler built their governments; the fascist and NAZI elite held Wilson and F.D.R. in high respect. Knowing that the Democrat party was a haven for fascism and racism, the meme “all the racists switched sides” must be true if the received wisdom that was forced on me was accurate, that republicans are racist and fascistic.

Continuing past F.D.R. the major player of Part Two emerges. L.B.J. was a Texas democrat and an unrepentant racist. He fought anti-lynching legislation and pro-voting rights legislation put fourth by Democrat Harry S. Truman. He then was incredibly effective in shutting down the first large equal rights bill proposed by Eisenhower. Eisenhower a republican was the first to propose a real, effective equal rights bill, he was also the man who integrated the armed forces. L.B.J. continued to fight equal rights legislation until he was picked as Vice President by Kennedy to keep the deeply racist proportion of white Democrats.

After Kennedy was assassinated L.B.J. not only passed a version of the Equal Rights bill he stymied but also started “the great society,” through “the war on poverty” and so fourth. Now, most liberals, yet hilariously not all, admit the fact that L.B.J. was an unrepentant racist. This creates problems. It seems on its face to be antithetical. The left would have you believe that either he did it out of respect to Kennedy, or that he was blackmailed or coerced into doing it. I do not buy either of those theories. L.B.J. the consummate politician did it to protect the Democrat  party, knowing that his great society was a trap.

“We will have those (horrific racial epithet deleted) voting Democrat for the next 200 years.”  – President Lyndon B. Johnson

Although these bills sound good and many people very similar to me in belief think the bills passed after the equal rights bill were well intentioned, I most certainly do not. This belief requires empirical and statistical evidence that I will provide. African American progress lessened and then reversed after these bills began to be passed. Making Johnson’s decisions effective in hurting the race he so despised.

A common liberal meme is that the rioting during the 60’s and 70’s was caused by inner-city squalor. Yet inner city squalor hit after the riots not before. Places like what became inner-city Detroit boasted amazing growth numbers and economic indicators higher than what they have seen since. The businesses and job opportunity left because of the riots, meaning that the riots made Detroit a slum, not vice versa. No business wanted to operate there, and it has nothing to do with race, just common sense. It is also a liberal meme that these riots caused equal rights legislation, while in reality the riots happened after.  It is also important to point out that these riots occurred almost predominantly under Johnson while there was not a single large scale riot under Ronald Reagan, even though hate for him was successfully cultivated in all minority populations to the point that people thought he was Satan.

African American success was staggering from 1940 to 1960.  Crime rates continuously declined with all races in that time. After the “war on poverty” crime rates skyrocketed over all and even more so in African American populations. For some historical perspective I want to note that African Americans had slightly higher rates of labor force participation than whites from 1890 to 1950. The percentage of black families under the poverty line for instance fell most sharply between 1940 and 1960 from 87% to 47%.  The decline of African American poverty rates started to lessen drastically when the “War on poverty” and “affirmative action” came to their modern conclusions. The rates of African Americans in white collar, managerial and other high-level occupations doubled from 1940 to 1960 while the rates of African American farm workers dropped. These positive rates in fact lessened after legislation while many would believe they caused such growth.

More importantly the subsequent government programs initiated specifically on African American communities, pushed on and supported by the Democratic Party, destroyed the base of African American culture, and all other culture, the family. Most African Americans during slavery were raised by two parents, Democrat “solutions” seem to have done what slavery could not. Marriage rates of African Americans after slavery were even higher than those of white Americans from 1890 to 1950. 31% of African American children were born to unmarried women in the 1930’s while 77% were in the 1990’s. By 1993 more than a million black children were being raised by their grandparents.

Johnson was a racist genius; He knew economically that besides the basic equal rights guarantee everything he passed would hurt the race he hated while also giving his party extreme power through programs that can be used as slush funds and Ponzi schemes much like those of his equally racist predecessor F.D.R. Even now the Democrat party claims anyone who would remove the things that have hurt minorities so badly is in fact racist or greedy, while what they spent other peoples money on has factually and unavoidably hurt those they claim to protect. Munchhausen’s by proxy, the new racism.

A Brave New World In 1984

The English language is beautiful in its complexity, dangerous beauty. Interpretation is an art in English, enough that you can paint your own pictures with someone else’s words. Orwell knew it. Aldous Huxley figured out how to control people without it. Unfortunately it seems the world’s governments have figured out how to use the ideas of both. In 1984 Orwell used “newspeak” while Huxley in “A Brave New World” just made everyone’s life just comfortable enough to not question.  I feel only a small minority of the political spectrum is being truly honest in the current debate. Although all sides say that our course is unsustainable, they are demanding that more money be spent or that if we just lessen the amount of unsustainable growth of government we will be fine. Whether the two larger sides of the argument are acting politically or not, this type of statist philosophy is attained through things Huxley and Orwell wrote about, through active shaping of the populace.

Newspeak is so prevalent today I have to pick from only a few terms that have been victims of the practice. These two will be the term “liberal” and the term “Social Justice.” I have chosen them for very important reasons, they are both old and loaded terms that have been used in incredibly dynamic ways.

The word liberal comes from the word liberty. In Europe during the Enlightenment individuals who felt that people should have more control over their own actions were called liberal. That is what the word meant originally and is the reason why many on the far right consider themselves libertarian. The Newspeak corruption of the word began With F.D.R. when after half of the new deal was deemed unconstitutional; He tried to add 6 more seats to the supreme court in order to pass similar bills that had been denied. He chose to claim he wanted more “liberal” justices. He chose the word for two reasons, because after the abuses of Woodrow Wilson and his Progressive buddies the term progressive was negatively loaded, and because the laws he wanted passed were the opposite of liberal in its original sense and that was the reason half the New Deal was deemed unconstitutional. The modern term Liberal has become the polar opposite of what it meant, now liberalism demands more economic and social control over people. Mussolini for example hated liberal government because it denied government control, while modern American liberals demand control in everything including what your children eat, whether you have health insurance and whether you can wear an American flag shirt at an American public school.

“Social Justice” is a meaningless term. It has been in use since the turn of the 19th century, has been used by Islamists, fascists, communists and totalitarians before it was adopted by American liberals. It can literally mean anything. From what I have seen Social Justice is invoked when a government wants to do something that by itself, would be called immoral, but it is excused by claiming it is for the greater good, i.e. for the justice of all society. Honestly justice needs no qualifier. Social Justice is so vague in fact; you can use it to claim the morality for anything. If you want to dispose of a group of people, all you have to do is say they are bad for society, there in it is justified to kill them and so fourth. That kind of power is not “liberal” in its original sense, but social justice has been a term used by American Liberals to coerce the ability to do many things thought tyrannical by our founding fathers.

To keep on the social justice theme, terms like “open space” and “smart growth” are the same kind of undefined or open-ended term that social justice is. These programs are what has sent Bay Area housing prices skyrocketing, these programs for example quadrupled the housing prices of Palo Alto CA, in the decade of the 1970’s. That isn’t smart growth. Keeping “open space” for posterity is great, but when the consequence of an unlivable cost of housing causes farm workers in Salinas CA to live 9 people to one apartment society isn’t being helped. Basically the fruition of these laws is that rich, mostly white liberals make money and price out  the poor and minorities. There is half the African American population in San Francisco than there was just 15 years ago and currently more African Americans die than move to or are born in the city. Not social justice in my eye.

What programs like “open space” and “smart growth” do is they provide money for the less fortunate, or affordable housing all of which is bad economically. It would be easier to not try to control what happens and let cities naturally develop lower income areas due to a reasonable cost of living, something the Bay Area hasn’t experienced since these types of government interventions started. Regardless of the damage these actions have caused the less fortunate, their newspeak terminology and the idea that they are giving to the poor makes people feel well, comfortable and good, that is if they don’t have to live in those places hardest hit and failed by an inevitably incompetent economic third party. This leads me into the Huxley side of my point. Make people just comfortable enough to not question. There are many ways to do this.

In Huxley’s book what is used is a removal of the family structure, drugs, sex and guaranteed food, shelter and work. In the book there was a biological caste system. The Alfa class was the hardest to control because they were the most biologically intelligent while the lowest biological class was the easiest to control, using guaranteed living, drugs and sex. We have only one biological class, human. Our class system is irrelevant to biological ability. Yet I see a Huxley like control system apparent. Regardless of the epic failure of government programs to help the less fortunate, these programs do control the helped populace. These individuals are stuck but their needs are taken care of, their animal needs that is. The STD and drug use rates of these communities’ shows that drugs and sex became a needed release or entertainment. These things are fun and addicting, even all consuming if you have a job let alone if you have none. These individuals are controlled with false comfort drugs and sex, which causes a breakdown of the family. Huxley would feel sick to his stomach thinking maybe his idea was used, but this particular idea has existed since the Ancient Greeks. Give people free stuff and take away their choices and they will be happy, for a short period.

Regardless of the extreme inhuman suffering of these groups leading to crime and at its worst riots, those that provide it receive a comfortable feeling at best and a megalomaniacal feeling with a need to protect these hurtful practices at worst. Through Orwellian newspeak even the most intelligent people can be fooled into thinking any program is for the best. “I live fine, I take care of those people, so I am like a protector, without me they would be worse off, I am more moral than those who would question and change things.” It is a type of moral comfortability. The Alphas of “A Brave New World” felt the same of the inferior biological castes. That false feeling of being a protector is incredibly pervasive and speaks to our most animalistic of instincts.

Unlike in Huxley’s book, when riots happen you cannot release drugs or “soma” in clouds from their government workstations. We are seeing what happens to a completely controlled populace as I type. In the U.K. where riots hit hard they have a whole lower class, many of which have not worked just in their lifetime, but their families have not had a job in three generations. People need liberty. People need choice and they need the ability to fail and suffer. We have been warned. Humans aren’t like a bear in a zoo that can be made happy with friends and activities to use up their time. It is in actuality about power and control. Read both books, especially “A Brave New World,” tell me that the scene when the teacher was instructing his very young students to stimulate each other sexually doesn’t make you question why the government wishes to teach your toddler about sex. This country is turning to a brave new world in 1984.

Bradygboyd.com