It’s Better to be Hated by Liberals Than Have Their “Help.”

From: Town Hall

by - John Hawkins - Aug 05, 2017

“Liberals do not believe in the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which are American ideals, or at least they used to be. If you love freedom, then you will be hated by the modern liberal who believes that government should regulate individual freedom. If you love freedom and believe that the state does not own you, then leftist hate should be a goal, not a fear.” – Dr. Helen Smith

“I thought of what Daddy had said when I asked him why he’d never gone on public assistance. ‘Because they take away your manhood,’ he said.” – Clarence Thomas

Most liberals are hateful people. As hateful as Nazis. As hateful as KKK members. As hateful as Fred Phelps and his God hates f@gs wackos, who are, come to think of it, Democrats. Liberals are as much defined by whom they hate as what they believe in.

They hate straight, white males and non-liberal white people in general. They hate Christians. They hate Republicans in general and conservatives in particular. They hate women who don’t tow the feminist line. They hate the wealthy, business owners, bankers and stockbrokers. They hate southerners, gun owners, soldiers and cops. They hate gay Americans and minorities who don’t want liberal help.

The Left is no longer subtle about its hatred. It comes shining through like a beacon on a black night. Liberals hurl abuse at these people, attack them on social media and reward liberals who make the most vicious attacks on those groups.

Yet, over time, liberal complaints have become a badge of honor. In fact, if there aren’t liberals lobbing hate at you, you’re probably doing something wrong.

If you look at the groups liberals hate the most, you’ll usually find they’ve got their sh*t together. What groups of people do liberals believe it’s okay to discriminate against based on their skin color? Whites and Asians. Which two racial groups are doing best in America? Whites and Asians. Who are the most competent people in America? The ones you’d want on your side if things got bad because they know how to make things happen? Business owners, cops and soldiers. Because they live in the real world where they must make tough choices, they’re detested by liberals who snipe from the sidelines while avoiding the tough, dangerous dirty work those groups have to do. Christians? The fact that they try (and sometimes fail) to make their lives better by adhering to a strict moral code makes them hated by liberals who have no code at all. Gun owners are willing to take responsibility for their own safety by learning how to use a potentially dangerous tool. Liberal hatred of stockbrokers is a favorite of mine because it reminds me of one of my favorite stories from the liberal Occupy protests.

When the Occupy hippies gathered outside the Chicago Board of Trade building to yowl about how unfair it was that stockbrokers make so much money, the traders responded by showering them with McDonald’s job applications. Of course, even that cruel joke (Go get a job at McDonald’s) makes more sense than the liberal solution, “Go to a protest to complain that other people make more money than you.” This is so typical for the Left. You think bankers and stockbrokers make too much money? Then maybe you should be a banker or stockbroker.

Of course, that’s a conservative solution. Go forth and take responsibility for making your own life better. In fact, the very reason that conservative minorities like Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Herman Cain are hated by liberals is because they’re living examples of that message.

Meanwhile, how do liberals “help” minority Americans? How’s Compton looking these days? How about Chicago? Flint, Michigan? Liberal “help” means living in poverty in terrible neighborhoods, but always having someone else to blame for your failed life. It means feeling angry, victimized and hated by people who’ve never thought twice about you while liberals promise to help you by tearing down statues of Confederate generals. That doesn’t put money in your pocket, but it makes cosmopolitan liberals feel better about themselves.

This is usually how liberal “help” turns out for people.

Transsexual men, you don’t have a mental illness! Mutilate yourself through surgery and libs will claim that the guys who don’t want to date you and the women who don’t want to share a bathroom with you are bigots! Lord knows you wouldn’t want to suggest mentally ill people get psychological treatment instead of life-altering surgery.

Liberals “help” the poor by raising the minimum wage, but shrug their shoulders when it inevitably causes large numbers of poor Americans to lose their jobs. Conservatives who quite correctly predicted that would happen are called heartless.

Liberals will hand you welfare, food stamps and public housing. You just have to give up your pride and self-reliance in exchange. It’s like that scene from 300, where Xerxes says to Ephialtes, “Unlike the cruel Leonidas, who demanded that you stand, I require only that you kneel.” It’s conservatives who want people to stand on their own two feet and liberals who need their adoration in return for their pathetic “help.”

Liberals love to see women kill their babies so much that Susan Smith should be their patron saint, but are they going to be there for those women down the line when they’re alone one day, thinking about how they killed their own child? Yet, conservatives who encourage sexual responsibility are mocked and those who oppose killing children are called “anti-choice.”

Lefties love to encourage college kids to act like snowflakes. Why, their tender ears can’t be expected to listen to contrary opinions! So, what happens when little Jimmy the Snowflake walks into a work environment where nobody cares about his opinion, what offends him or his personal problems? Next thing you know, little Jimmy is living at home with mom and dad again because he can’t hold a job. How about exposing these kids to contrary opinions and refusing to treat them like they’re made of glass? Apparently, that’s cruel and horrible!

You want an easy way to tell if someone is a loser at life? All you need to do is look for the people who need liberal “help” to make it. Want an easy way to tell when those same people are pulling their lives back together? Watch to see when they don’t want any more “help” and want to start taking care of themselves. Liberalism is for poor people who are content to stay poor. Conservatism is for poor people who want to make a better life for themselves. Lefties love to tell you that they’re looking out for the most disadvantaged people in society, but they never want to admit that their “help” may be the biggest disadvantage those people have.


God bless,
JohnnyD

Democrats Don’t Actually Believe in Democracy

From: Town Hall

Kurt Schlichter - Aug 03, 2017

Yeah, we’re a republic, but we also have democratic rules, norms, and traditions. Too bad the Democratic Party doesn’t believe in them.

Case in point – their bizarre embrace of illegal aliens. Democrats seem to think that foreigners who violate our laws have a greater right to determine what will be America's laws than actual Americans. After all, that's their argument when they whine because some illegal is getting shipped back to his Third World hellhole-of-origin. They seem to think that just because some uninvited, unwanted, unlegal trespasser (we’re not supposed to call them “illegal,” right?) has been violating our laws for an exceptionally long period of time makes his offense less offensive. Huh? That’s like saying getting slugged in the gut once is a no-no, but being pounded in the pancreas a couple dozen times is cool.

We citizens expressed what we wanted through our representatives – remember that “I’m Just a Bill” cartoon? We didn’t want people we didn’t invite in to be in. But apparently what we want – and what our elected representatives enacted into law and the president signed – doesn’t count because the people who blew off our laws, who disrespected us and our country by sneaking in, want something else. And the Democrats side with them against Americans.

Nice. They should be open about it and run on it. Let me help with a slogan for 2018: “The Democrats: What you want doesn’t matter. What the guy who snuck in here from Guatemala wants does.”

Seems catchy – it’s certainly catchier than “A Better Deal.” Or maybe they can go with “The New Deal 2: The Revenge.”

Anyone wondering why the congressional numbers for the Democrats out in the red states aren’t rising? Sure, they are pumping up urban polls from 60 percent to 80 percent, but outside the dysfunctional blue cities, no dice. There’s no wave coming. And no money either for the Dems; not so for the GOP, which is raking it in despite its legislative version of an inability to perform man-wise.

Maybe the Democrats’ utter contempt for the idea that normal Americans have a right to participate in their own governance has something to do with it. It's clear the Democrats don't like our laws on immigration, but they are our laws. These are laws made under our Constitution, through the people we elected. If you don’t like them, the remedy is to convince enough representatives to change them. But that’s hard and inconvenient. So the Democrats’ answer is just to ignore the laws – and us.

Why not? After all, we are deplorable. Regular hard-working, religious, patriotic people whose No. 1 focus is not ensuring men pretending to be women can lurk in teen girls’ locker rooms should have no say, the Democrats tell us. No, the people who built this country, defended it, and make it run are its biggest problem.

The Democrats really ought to change their name. Right now, it’s false advertising. How about the Dictatorcrats? After all, that's what they want to do – dictate to us. When they can't get the votes to change the law, they just change it anyway by not enforcing it. And that’s bad.

See, what makes the constitutional system work is that the losing side accepts the loss and complies with the duly enacted law. But if one side chooses not to honor this principle, then that side can’t ever lose. That’s a problem. The designated perpetual loser is eventually going to get woke, and then you end up with a President Trump and (I so hope) a Senator Kid Rock.

Democrats, how is that working out for you? You were all excited about pens and phones, but hey – look who’s dialing and scribbling now.

I warned you that you’d hate the new rules.

See, Americans are fussy about that whole democracy thing – again, I know we're a republic as opposed to a People's Republic, but you know what I mean. We are not going to tolerate being disenfranchised. So much of everything that's gone wrong for the liberals lately has been because they simply ignore the desires of a large bunch of citizens in order to impose their will. And there are consequences.

You want to know why you got Trump? This is why you got Trump. He was the only nominee not telling normal Americans “You’re stupid, so shut up and do what you're told.”

But the liberals don't see anything wrong with that. They do think you're stupid, and that you should shut up and let them tell you what to do. This arrogance is a result of the false premise underpinning America’s elite class. That false premise is that the prestigious educational credentials that confer elite status also confer competence. Nope.

Basically, 17-year-olds apply and get accepted to the right college and this itself is a sufficient achievement to enroll them in the elite. They don’t have to actually do anything once they are accepted because no one fails to graduate from the Harvards or Yales unless he chooses to drop out, or unless he's a male who gets jammed up by a kangaroo court because he broke up with some bitter chick who then carries a mattress around because of patriarchy or something. So basically, you get into the Ivy League and then you start school at 18 and then you're set. You're part of the elite, and everyone else should bow down and acknowledge your awesomeness.

These people imagine they attained their lofty positions as a result of their successful performance within a strict meritocracy, and that their cultural power is not just the result of their efforts but of their innate moral goodness. But here’s the thing about America’s meritocracy - is it really so much for us to expect that those occupying the heights of the meritocracy start showing some merit?

We keep hearing from them about how society is such a mess, that we are besieged by problems, and that our society is a disaster. Of course, the solution is always to shift more and more power and money from the normals to the elite. But this raises a question the elite never seems to ask: Who the hell has been in charge while all these crises were percolating?

I know who it wasn’t. It wasn’t the truck drivers or the air-conditioner installers or the guys working in the factory whose jobs got shipped to Oaxaca who have been making all these decisions. Those guys from the red states who went off to Falluja and Kandahar didn't invent the policies that had us fighting for nearly two decades without victory in sight. They just did the bleeding and dying while their puny betters wrote unread articles in Foreign Policy and moved them around like pieces on a chessboard.

Regular Americans didn't give us Obamacare. They didn't give us Wall Street’s pillaging of the middle class – we all have to give the money guys our retirement savings to play with because they made sure interest rates were a big .1 percent and it’s our only option if we don’t want to spend our golden years dining on Alpo.

You elitists think you're elite? Start proving it.

Scratch that. You had your chance, and you failed. Yeah, legal immigration might get you gated community dwellers cheaper nannies and gardeners, but its regular people who get murdered by MS-13, whose daughters get raped by the dozen-times deported scumbag the sanctuary city sheriff set free, and whose children get run over by drunks who shouldn't even be in this country. It's the regular people who have to pay for the welfare these people take – and don’t tell me they don't get government benefits. Even you elitists can’t really think we’re that stupid.

This is about whether all American citizens have an equal say in their own governance. That can only be true when we enforce the law. You either abide by the law, or there is no law. And if there is no law, then there's only power. Since you elitists probably never stooped to serving in the military, and since you almost certainly are neither armed nor proficient in weapons like we are, which makes us extremely dangerous to aspiring oppressors, you may want to rethink the whole “rule of power” thing.

But of course you won’t – instead, you're doubling down by trying to nullify the results of the election because you don't like the fact that you've been rejected and that you're out of power. Except we're not going to simply shrug and go back to letting you dictate how we live.

Donald Trump is a warning. Trump is the best case scenario. If you somehow depose him via your smarmy shenanigans, what comes along next is really going to upset you. You need to understand something.

Trump is not our last chance. He's your last chance.


God bless,
JohnnyD

The Dirty Little Secret that is Haunting Democrats

From: Fox News

By David N. Bossie Published August 01, 2017

The Democratic Party is a mess. It has no effective national leader. It has no serious agenda. And Democrats have no idea how to win back the Rust Belt voters who propelled the ultimate political outsider, Donald J. Trump, to the presidency.

During President Obama’s eight years in office the Democrats became primarily a coastal party that caters to out-of-touch wealthy elitists in liberal enclaves like Manhattan and Hollywood, while ignoring the hardworking Americans who are the backbone of our country.

Democrats lost election after election during the Obama years, as voters strongly rejected the party’s bankrupt policies. In fact, according to a Fox News report, President Obama’s tenure was marked by an embarrassing “net loss of 1,042 state and federal Democratic posts, including congressional and state legislative seats, governorships and the presidency.”  

Forgotten voters in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and North Carolina – whose families had voted for Democrats since President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s time – have finally had enough. They feel like they’ve lost their country and that their leaders in Washington have lost faith in them.

Then Donald Trump came into their communities, talking America First, American jobs, and American exceptionalism. Trump has backed those words up with an optimistic agenda anchored on the central promise to get Americans working again. The Make American Great Again effort is focused on reform: tax reform, trade reform, regulatory reform, domestic energy production reform, and health care reform.

Just a few days ago, nine months since being shell-shocked by the epic Trump victory, the Democrats rolled out a new, weak agenda. Washington Democrats clearly felt pressure to put forth something – anything – new because their allies in the mainstream media told them they needed to put new wrapping paper on their old and failed ideas.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that only 37 percent of the American people think that the Democratic Party stands for something. And 52 percent said all that the Democrats do is oppose President Trump. This polling data reflects reality. President Trump has been in office for six months and the Democrats up until now have done nothing more than run a permanent obstruction campaign against the president and his agenda.

The truth is that Americans hailing from states that President Trump carried have well-founded beliefs about what today’s Democrat Party stands for – and it’s not good. These folks think that the Democrats are the party of big government, bureaucratic decision-making, high taxes, open borders, abortion on demand, and weakness around the globe. 

I will go a step further and offer what I hear from the liberals in Washington and in the mainstream media about what I would call the real Democrat agenda:

• On health care, double down on the failing ObamaCare disaster.

• On federal spending, continue to grow our $20 trillion national debt at an unsustainable rate. “Free” college, anyone? 

• On illegal immigration, protect sanctuary cities.

• On taxes, keep them high because government bureaucrats know how to spend your hard-earned money better than you do.

• On the Second Amendment and gun rights, disregard the Constitution and only allow criminals to have guns.

• On terrorism, refuse to acknowledge the underlying problem: radical Islam.

• On campaign finance reform, pretend to be against Super PACs, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

This list represents the deep hole that Democrats have dug for themselves outside of their shrinking far-left base.

The idea that ultra-liberals like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York City,  Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, or Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of the People’s Republic of Vermont have any intention of fixing or even acknowledging the problems facing ordinary Americans is absurd.

This is all an upside for Republicans, for President Trump’s America First agenda and for the president’s promise to prioritize the working men and women in America’s heartland.


God bless,
JohnnyD

Left's 'Big Lie' about Trump and GOP explodes

Author Dinesh D'Souza on 'ploy of seizing the Hitler card'

From: World Net Daily

Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt from chapter 1 of  “The Big Lie” by Dinesh D’Souza. Reprinted by permission of Dinesh D’Souza and Regnery Publishing.

By Dinesh D’Souza - July 30, 2017

 
To hear the left tell it, Donald Trump is a fascist if not actually a Nazi. “I feel Hitler in these streets,” actress Ashley Judd chanted around his inauguration. Documentary filmmaker Ken Burns terms Trump “Hitleresque.” Columnist Andrew Sullivan terms the GOP today a “neo-fascist party.” And MSNBC host Rachel Maddow says, “I’ve been reading a lot about what it was when Hitler first became chancellor … because I’ve I think that’s possibly where we are.”

The charge that Trump and the right are fascists and neo-Nazis is used to establish Trump as an illegitimate president, the GOP as a party in cahoots with him, and to justify getting rid of both “by any means necessary,” which is actually the name of one of the many so-called antifascist groups. The media barrage against Trump, the street violence of Antifa and other groups, are all based on the premise that the left is fighting a modern incarnation of the Hitler movement of the 1930s.

I agree that there is a fascist strain in American politics today, but who are the real fascists? Is fascism a phenomenon of the left or the right? This question is rarely asked in a serious way, and I want to give credit to two worthy predecessors who have begun to plough this ground. The first is the economist Friedrich Hayek, whose “The Road to Serfdom,” first published in 1944, made the startling claim that Western welfare state democracies, having defeated fascism, were moving inexorably in the fascist direction.

Hayek identified fascism as a phenomenon of the left, a cousin of socialism and progressivism. And he warned, “The rise of fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.” While Hayek’s book was written in a pedantic, measured tone, appealing to progressives to learn from one who had witnessed firsthand the rise of fascism in Europe, progressive scholars immediately set about reviling Hayek, with one, Herman Finer, accusing him of displaying a “thoroughly Hitlerian contempt for the democratic man.”

If you spotted, in this reaction, the familiar progressive ploy of seizing the Hitler card and playing it right back against Hayek, then you are beginning to see the big lie at work. Here is Hayek making a case for how progressives are moving in the direction of Hitler, and without answering this charge and with no supporting evidence whatever, the left turns around and accuses Hayek of being like Hitler.

Jonah Goldberg received pretty much the same treatment for his important book “Liberal Fascism.” Goldberg argues, “What we call liberalism – the refurnished edifice of American progressivism – is in fact a descendant of and manifestation of fascism.” Goldberg argues that fascism and communism, far from being opposites, are “closely related historical competitors for the same constituents.” Goldberg terms progressivism a “sister movement of fascism” no less than Communism, displaying a “family resemblance that few will admit to recognizing.”

Goldberg traces innumerable links between progressivism and fascism, spelling out the left-wing laundry list in both the platforms of Mussolini and Hitler, and then showing their parallel in modern American progressivism. Goldberg uses a broad brush, even detecting an odor of fascism in modern progressive environmentalism, vegetarianism, holistic medicine and child care policies. Even though he occasionally overdoes his fascist comparisons, his book is well worth reading for its originality and comprehensiveness. Once again the left set upon Goldberg with a vengeance, charging him with being, of all things, a fascist.

Hayek and Goldberg are my starting point. But I go much further and delve into areas of inquiry completely untouched by them. Hayek, for example, asserted that fascism and Nazism emerged out of the left but he never showed how this occurred. Drawing on the work of scholars like A. James Gregor, Renzo de Felice and Zeev Sternhell, I tell the riveting story of how fascism and Nazism both emerged out of a debate within socialism. The problem began when the central prophecies of Marxism failed to occur. This created a massive crisis within the left, and essentially Marxism split into two camps: the first became Leninism and Bolshevism, and the other became fascism and Nazism.

Goldberg associates the American left with fascism, but he does not dare to make an equivalent link with Nazism, probably because he doesn’t want to risk associating the left with genocide and concentration camps. This is where my book actually takes off. As Goldberg well knows, fascism and Nazism are two different things. Hitler virtually never referred to himself as a fascist, and Mussolini never ever called himself a Nazi or a National Socialist. I intend to show that there are deep and profound connections not just between the left and fascism but also between the left and Nazism.

In some ways the progressive Democrats are even closer to the German Nazis than to the Italian fascists. The Italian fascists, for example, were much less racist than the Democratic Party in the United States. There are no parallels for the costumed racial terrorism of the Democratic Party-backed Ku Klux Klan in Italy, although one can find such parallels in Nazi Germany. Democratic policies of white supremacy, racial segregation, and state-sponsored discrimination were also completely alien to Italian fascism but right at home in the Third Reich.

Here, for instance, is a passage from Robert Paxton’s “The Anatomy of Fascism.” “It may be that the earliest phenomenon that can be functionally related to fascism is American: the Ku Klux Klan.” Long before the Nazis, Paxton points out, the Klan adopted its racial uniform of robes and hoods and engaged in the type of intimidation and violence that offered “a remarkable preview of the way fascist movements were to function in interwar Europe.” If this seems like a surprising concession by a progressive, Paxton protects his political side by omitting to mention that during this period the Ku Klux Klan was the domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.

Notice that as with the racial terrorism of the Klan, the racism of the Democratic Party in America far preceded the racism of the Nazis. Moreover, Nazi racism lasted for 12 years while Democratic racism lasted for well over a century. Democratic racism was preceded by the Democrat-run slave plantation and Democratic policies for the relocation and extermination of American Indians. We think of concepts like “genocide” and “concentration camps” as unique to Nazism, but what term other than genocide can we use to describe Democratic president Andrew Jackson’s mass relocation of the Indians? Didn’t Jackson and his allies systematically seek to dispossess, disinherit and dismember the Indians as a people? Using the official United Nations definition of genocide, it’s obvious that he did.

Moreover, what is the slave plantation if not a special type of concentration camp? This may seem like an outrageous analogy. How can anyone compare a forced labor system, however unjust, to Nazi camps designed and used to kill people? But as we will see, the concentration camps were also work camps. In the German camps and on the Democrat-run plantations, forced labor was employed with “human tools” solely with regard to productivity and with little if any regard for the lives of the workers who were, in both cases, regarded as inferior and even subhuman. The analogy between the two worst compulsory confinement and forced labor systems in human history is not merely legitimate; it is overdue.

Moreover, this whole issue has been raised to a completely new level since the publication of historian Stanley Elkins’ path-breaking book “Slavery.” Elkins not only drew an elaborate comparison of the plantation as a “closed system” akin to a concentration camp, he also showed that slavery produced personality types eerily similar to those described by Nazi camp survivors. So the point is that even on some of the institutions and practices uniquely associated with the Nazis – from genocide to the concentration camp – the Democrats in a sense got there first.

In this book I will show what the left learned from the Nazis, and also what the left taught the Nazis. It turns out that the left provided the Nazis with some very important policy schemes that the Nazis then murderously implemented in Europe. Hitler, for instance, specifically said he intended to displace and exterminate the Russians, the Poles and the Slavs in precisely the way Americans in the Jacksonian era had displaced and exterminated the native Indians. The Nazi Nuremberg laws were directly modeled on the segregation and anti-miscegenation laws that had been implemented decades earlier in the Democratic South.

Forced sterilization and euthanasia aimed at eliminating racial “defectives” and producing a “superior” Nordic race were two additional schemes the Nazis got from American progressives. This is not my view of the matter; it is the Nazi eugenicists’ view of the matter. In the early twentieth century, eugenics and social Darwinism were far more prevalent in America than they were in Germany. Margaret Sanger and her fellow progressive eugenicists didn’t get their ideas for killing off undesirables – or preventing their births – from the Nazis; the Nazis got them from their American counterparts who dominated the field of international eugenics. So there is a two-way traffic between Nazism and the American left.

This is a story that deeply implicates the heroes of American progressivism: Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. Wilson was a veritable progenitor of American fascism. One may say of him that he was fascist even before fascism became cool. In addition, he was a racist who was almost single-handedly responsible for the revival of the Ku Klux Klan, the organization that according to historian Robert Paxton is the closest American precursor to a Nazi movement.

Franklin Roosevelt was an avid admirer of Mussolini and one who closely collaborated with the worst racist elements in America, working with them to block anti-lynching laws and exclude blacks from New Deal programs and naming a former Klansman to the Supreme Court. Mussolini, for his part, praised FDR’s book “Looking Forward” and basically declared FDR to be a fellow fascist. Hitler too saw FDR as a kindred spirit and the New Deal was widely praised as an American form of fascism in the Nazi Party’s official newspaper Volkischer Beobachter and other Nazi publications.

JFK toured Nazi Germany in the 1930s and came back effusive with praise of Hitler and his theory of Nordic superiority. “I have come to the conclusion,” JFK wrote in his diary, “that fascism is right for Germany and Italy.” Touring the Rhineland, JFK echoed Nazi propaganda at the time. “The Nordic races appear to be definitely superior to the Romans.” Hostility to Hitler, JFK insisted, stems largely from jealousy. “The Germans really are too good – that’s why people conspire against them.” Even though JFK fought in World War II, he retained a soft spot for Hitler as late as 1945, when he described him as the “stuff of legends…Hitler will emerge from the hate that now surrounds him and come to be regarded as one of the most significant figures to have lived.”

These facts are known to many progressive scholars. But after World War II, as this group came increasingly to dominate the academy – a dominance that was fully consolidated by the late sixties – the progressives recognized how crushing it would be if Americans knew about the actual record of progressivism and the Democratic Party. What if people, especially young people, knew the links between revered progressive figures like Wilson, FDR and JFK on the one hand, and the hated Mussolini and Hitler on the other? Such knowledge would not merely topple progressive heroes from their pedestal. Basically it would be the end of progressivism and the Democratic Party.

So progressives decided to tell a new story, and this is the story that has now become our conventional wisdom. In this story, the very fascism and Nazism that were, on both sides of the Atlantic, recognized as left wing phenomena from the outset now got moved into the right wing column. Suddenly Mussolini and Hitler became “right wingers” and the people who supposedly brought them to power became “conservatives.” The left, then, became the glorious resisters of fascism and Nazism.

To make this story work, fascism and Nazism had to be largely redefined. The big problem was that Mussolini and Hitler both identified socialism as the core of the fascist and Nazi weltanshauung. Mussolini was the leading figure of Italian revolutionary socialism and never relinquished his allegiance to it. Hitler’s party defined itself as championing “national socialism.” So the progressives had to figure out how to move these avowed left-wingers to the right, and how to get the “socialism” out of “national socialism.” This was not an easy task.

How to do it? Taking a cue from the Marxists, the left figured out as early as the 1960s that it had to suppress altogether the fact that fascism and Nazism were systems of thought. According to the left-wing historian Denis Mack Smith, “Italian fascism originated not as a doctrine but as a method, as a technique for winning power, and at first its principles were unclear even to its own members.” Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat, who is extensively quoted in the media linking Trump to fascism, insists nevertheless that fascism is “one of those words that is very hard to define precisely” because “fascism was all about contradictions, and this kind of ambiguity has remained in fascism.”

In reality such nonsense can only be sustained by refusing to take seriously the fascists themselves. As historian A. James Gregor writes, “Under the crabbed influence of the Marxist analysis of fascism, fascist statements are never analyzed as such. They are always ‘interpreted.’ Fascists are never understood to mean what they say. As a consequence, there has been very little effort, to date, to provide a serious account of fascism as an ideology.” Instead the left identified fascism with amorphous tendencies that could just as easily be applied to numerous other political doctrines: authoritarianism, militarism, nationalism and so on.

Think about this: we know the name of the philosopher of capitalism, Adam Smith. We also know the name of the philosopher of Marxism, Karl Marx. So, quick, what is the name of the philosopher of fascism? Yes, exactly. You don’t know. Virtually no one knows. My point is that this is not because there were no foundational thinkers behind fascism – there were several – but rather that the left had to get rid of them in order to avoid confronting their unavoidable socialist and leftist orientation. This is the big lie in full operation.

If statism and collectivism are at the core of fascism, National Socialism adds another explosive ingredient – anti-Semitism. This much is well known. What the progressives have carefully disguised, however, is the degree to which Nazi anti-Semitism grew out of Nazi hatred for capitalism. Hitler draws a crucial distinction between productive capitalism, which he can abide, and finance capitalism, which he associates with the Jews. For Hitler, the Jew is the unproductive money-grubber at the center of finance capitalism, the entrepreneurial swindler par excellence.

This hardly sounds “right wing”; in fact, with some slight modification, it echoes progressive rhetoric about greedy Wall Street investment bankers. Thus progressives realized the necessity of hiding the true basis of Hitler’s anti-Semitism, and to do this, anti-Semitism itself had to be redefined.

As you can see, we are dealing with a big, big lie – a lie that keeps getting bigger, and one that encompasses many smaller lies. We need to understand the big lie in all its dimensions in order to be free of it. Once we are free of it, the left is finished. Their power over us is gone. They had the race card and now they have the Nazi card, but they have no other cards left. If they lose this one, they lose their moral capital and are exposed for what they are – the bigoted, thuggish, self-aggrandizing thieves of our lives and liberties. They are the true descendants of Mussolini and Hitler, and in defeating them we can finally lay to rest the ghosts of fascism and Nazism.


God bless,
JohnnyD

They won't learn this in today's schools...........and that's sad !

Our 4th Of July:

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.

Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well-educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding.

His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson,Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his  gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.

So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots.  It's not much to ask for the price they paid.

Remember: Freedom is never free!

We thank these early patriots, as well as those patriots now fighting to KEEP our freedom!

I hope you will show your support by sending this to as many people as you can, please. It's time we get the word out that patriotism is NOT a sin, and the Fourth of July has more MEANING to it than beer, fireworks, HOT DOGS,  and picnics......

God bless,

JohnnyD

Plot to replace Europeans with refugees exposed

U.N. document reveals 2000 plan to push massive migration

From: World Net Daily

by - Liam Clancy - July 21, 2017

WASHINGTON – Millions of migrants mostly from Africa and the Middle East have swarmed Europe in the last three years – the result of what has been explained by world leaders as a war-driven “refugee” crisis.

Yet, a United Nations document, prepared in the year 2000 and rediscovered by WND, reveals the U.N. was already promoting the notion of “replacement migration” in Europe with the support of open-borders non-governmental organizations and “progressive” politicians.

The document – “Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Aging Populations?” – details the plunging birthrates across Europe and identifies a solution: mass immigration.

The 17-year-old document contended mass immigration was necessary to replace the aging populations of developed countries. Without the migration of populations from the developing world, it reasons, economies will suffer because of labor shortages and falling tax revenues.

“Therefore, among the demographic variables, only international migration could be instrumental in addressing population decline and population aging in the short to medium term,” the report concludes.

The report specifically targets the U.S., Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea and Russia as prime candidates for replacement migration. It is not an obscure study, written and then ignored, but a founding piece of the pro-migration agenda pushed by the United Nations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and open-borders advocates.

“Following the publication of the draft of this study, the Population Division of the United Nations organized an Expert Group Meeting on ‘Policy Responses to Population Aging and Population Decline’ from 16 to 18 October 2000, at United Nations Headquarters in New York,” the report notes.

“Replacement migration was one among a number of possible policy responses that were considered.”

According to U.N. documents, the meeting was attended by a host of government and non-governmental organizations and individuals, and it featured numerous policy proposals in support of “replacement migration.”

Attendees included the International Organization for Migration, a U.N. group that recently declared that mass migration is not only “inevitable” but “necessary”; the U.N. Population Fund, a group dedicated to “family planning” and the spread of contraceptives; and the U.S. Census Bureau.

Among the invited experts were two Americans, Judith Treas, a sociologist at the University of California at Irvine, and Michael Teitelbaum, former vice president of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

Both experts concluded that a large increase in migration would not benefit the United States, though Treas noted that immigration already accounts for about one-in-five new Americans.

“Immigrants will not prevent the long-run aging of the population, except in the highly unlikely scenario of a ten-fold increase in annual immigration levels,” Treas said.

When writing about Europe, on the other hand, many experts supported “replacement migration.”

Veteran political commentator and former White House adviser Patrick Buchanan told WND the fact that the U.N. “signed on to a mass migration of Third World peoples to Europe and America, to replace the native populations, is consistent with its anti-Western ideology and comes as no surprise.”

“Not long after its birth, the U.N. came to be dominated by delegates, diplomats and staff among whose operative principles was that the West was guilty of historic crimes against humanity, and that justice demanded the endless transfer of the West’s illicitly acquired wealth to a Third World it had oppressed,” said Buchanan, a senior adviser to U.S. Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan and a former presidential candidate.

“Resentment, envy and hatred of the West among intellectual circles at Turtle Bay (the U.N.) – often echoed within the West itself – needs to be resisted like a disease, if the West is to remain the Great Civilization it has been,” he told WND.

Former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes told WND he views the “replacement migration” plot as “a decisive existential threat.”

“Given our form of government, careless immigration policies actually exacerbate an attack on the sovereign body of the people, whom the U.S. Constitution vests with ultimate human authority over the government it establishes, and the constitutional terms on which it is established,” he said.

On Wednesday, at a keynote to a gubernatorial forum in Minnesota, former Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann also warned that migration from Islamic countries is a vital threat to Western civilization.

“This is something that we have to be cognizant of, and not be afraid of it,” Bachmann said, according to the St. Paul Pioneer Press.

“That’s what I see in Minnesota: too many people who are being afraid of being called racists, bigots, Islamophobes — I’m not afraid of it, because what we’ve got to do is talk about the truth of the problems that are going on in Minnesota.”

Bachmann said America should “step up deportation in the country of people who are unwilling to bear allegiance to the United States,” stop immigration from Muslim countries and prevent the creation of “parallel societies within our society.”

Ten years ago, when Europe’s demographic crisis was not as apparent as it is today, WND covered an international conference in Warsaw that warned of a coming “demographic winter” that posed an existential threat to Europe as the rejection of the “natural family” was leading to plunging birthrates and the consequent importation of millions of workers from countries with historic colonial ties who spurn Western values and refuse to assimilate.

Male-dominated migration

More than 1.3 million migrants applied for refugee status in Europe in 2015, a record number for the continent, according to the Pew Research Center.

An estimated 75 percent of Europe’s asylum seekers in 2015 were young males, many without significant training or education. Among them were Gambian (97 percent male), Pakistanis (95 percent male), Afghanis (80 percent male), Iraqis (75 percent male) and Syrians (71 percent male).

Aydan Özoğuz, the German commissioner for immigration, refugees and integration, told the Financial Times that only 25 percent of recent migrants to Germany would find employment in the next five years.

“Many of the first Syrian refugees to arrive in Germany were doctors and engineers, but they were succeeded by many, many more who lacked skills,” Özoğuz said.

In Sweden, the government accepted 163,000 asylum seekers in 2015. A year later, only 500 of these migrants had found any work, according to the European English-language news site The Local.

The migrants cost the Swedish government millions of dollars in financial and housing benefits from the state.

In the Netherlands, 90 percent of Syrian and Eritrean asylum seekers who entered in recent years remain dependent on social benefits.

Almost none were employed after 18 months in the country, reports Wakker Nederland, a Dutch public broadcaster.

In addition, a high percentage of so-called asylum seekers are not refugees fleeing persecution or war but economic migrants seeking to move to Europe for financial benefit.

Only 2.65 percent of migrants who crossed the Mediterranean to Italy in 2016 were deemed refugees, according to a U.N. report. Out of 181,436 migrants, a mere 4,808 were granted asylum in Italy.

The same U.N. report notes that 90,334 of the migrants to Europe did not even request asylum. Instead, they entered into the black market economy immediately.

Many E.U. officials are no longer denying that fact, with one official claiming last month, “In most of the cases, and that is actually the case on the central Mediterranean route, we’re talking clearly and manifestly about economic migrants.”

European Council President Donald Tusk agrees with the assessment, concluding the current policy toward illegal immigration is “not enough.”

Some politicians in Europe are calling for a strict crackdown on illegal immigration, placing the blame for mass migration on NGOs as well as the complicity of the European Union.

“You can’t any longer speak about immigration but about an invasion organized, funded and planned by Brussels with the complicity of Rome,” Matteo Salvini, the leader of Italy’s Northern League party, claimed in May.

Migration ‘inevitable’

Along with the E.U., the United Nations has been a major proponent of migration to the European continent.

The U.N.’s New York Declaration on Migrants and Refugees, a document adopted by the General Assembly in 2016, demonstrates the continued support for migrants provided by the U.N. It includes provisions to “strongly condemn xenophobia against refugees and migrants and support a global campaign to counter it” as well as “strengthen the positive contributions made by migrants to economic and social development in their host countries.”

The U.N.’s views on migration are further outlined in a video created by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), a U.N. organization that provides services for migrants.

A U.N. propaganda video released in July declares: “Migration is INEVITABLE. Migration is NECESSARY. Migration is DESIRABLE.”

Some believe the actions by the U.N. and NGOs are leading to what French writer Renaud Camus termed “the Great Replacement,” in which, over just a few generations, the names of places remain the same but the people and their values change.

The Roman Catholic archbishop of Strasbourg, Luc Ravel, recently stated in the French publication Valeurs Actuelles that France was undergoing such a replacement, pointing to the influx of Muslim immigrants and their high birth rates relative to the native population.

“Muslim believers know very well that their birthrate is such that today, they call it … the Great Replacement, they tell you in a very calm, very positive way that, ‘one day all this, it will be ours,'” said Ravel.

Ravel and other critics on the right provide as further evidence of an engineered “Great Replacement,” the propensity of left-wing media and politicians to decry childbirth, promote abortion and simultaneously declare that migration is needed to raise birthrates.

But the Great Replacement is seen as a positive for many left-wing political parties across Europe, many of which have been vocal supporters of migrants and regularly court them with policy proposals.

For example in Germany, a whopping 63.7 percent of Social Democrats and 65 percent of German Green Party voters support giving residents without an E.U. passport the right to vote in elections.

A migration policy paper written by experts under the German government’s commission on migration came to a similar conclusion, declaring that migrants should be able to vote in local elections.

Germany’s commissioner on migration, Oezoguz, further believes that the length of prior residency required for citizenship should be reduced.

But the European populace overwhelmingly rejects the current rate of migration.

According to a Pew study, 94 percent of Greeks, 88 percent of Swedes, 70 percent of Britons and 67 percent of Germans report they are unhappy with the E.U.’s handling of refugees.

Prophesying a ‘demographic winter’

In 2007, at the fourth World Congress of Families, attended by 3,300 lawmakers and activists from 75 nations, Poland’s vice premier, Roman Giertych, warned of a coming “demographic winter.”

Returning to the centrality of marriage and families is the only way to avoid civilizational disaster, he insisted, declaring the family as “the hope for Poland, the hope for Europe, the hope for the entire world.”

“Without the family, there is no nation, there is no continent, there is no civilization, there is nothing,” he said.

Just eight months before the congress, Mark Steyn, in his book “America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It,” warned that amid the shrinking of the European family, one of the fastest demographic evolutions in history already was making traditional views of European culture outdated.

He predicted Europe “will be semi-Islamic in its politico-culture character within a generation.”

While it takes a fertility rate of at least 2.1 children per woman for a nation to replenish itself, countries once known for big families, such as Greece and Spain, had fertility rates of 1.2 and 1.1 respectively at the time. The current rate in Greece may be as low as 1.1. Italy’s fertility rate is 1.4, while the country’s Muslim population has grown from about 2,000 in 1970 to 2 million today.

By 2050, Steyn wrote in September 2006, 60 percent of Italians, for example, will have no brothers, no sisters, cousins, no aunts, no uncles.

“The big Italian family, with papa pouring vino and mama spooning out the pasta down to an endless table of grandparents and nieces and nephews, will be gone, no more, dead as the dinosaurs,” he wrote.

Italy is currently the gateway for migrants into Europe, and over 180,000 migrants entered Italy in 2016.

A paper by European Union representative Constantinos Fotakis concluded that “replacement migration” would be beneficial for the entire E.U.: “There is a growing awareness that restrictive immigration policies of the past 25 years are no longer relevant to the economic and demographic situation in which the Union now finds itself. Some European policy makers think that it is now the appropriate moment to review the longer term needs for the EU as a whole, to estimate how far these can be met from existing resources and to define a policy for the admission of 3rd country nationals to fill those gaps which are identified.”

French official Georges P. Tapinos expressed support for mass migration as a humanitarian consideration. Interestingly, the recent massive wave of “refugees” was justified almost purely on the basis of humanitarianism.

Earlier this month, President Trump hinted at the demographic decline in his speech in Warsaw’s Krasinski Square, arguing the survival of the West rests ultimately not on armies and economies but on “strong families and strong values.”

“The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost?” Trump asked.

“Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”

Trump then emphasized: “We can have the largest economies and the most lethal weapons anywhere on Earth, but if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive.”


God bless,
JohnnyD