President Bill Clinton awards the Presidential Medal of Freedom to his mentor - AND STAUNCH SEGREGATIONIST - Senator J William Fulbright (AR), 5 May 1993
Pro-Bernie liberal group found itself in very hot water yesterday after it, the Progressive Democrats of America,wrote:
PDA has five Democrat Members of Congress on its advisory board, none are from the South: Rep. John Conyers (MI), Rep. Barbara Lee (CA), Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ), Rep. Keith Ellison (MN) and Rep. Jim McGovern (MA). With that line up, I think that people are being far too generous by referring to the group as ‘Liberal’. It is not liberal, but rather illiberal. It is, by far, more Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist and Maoist than liberal.
It later apologised, but clearly got pissed when their apologies were not accepted by people like:
Peeps, we've been trying to tell you that the Democrats don't give a shit about you. They only want your vote. Look around, who is in charge of your neighbourhoods and cities? Which party started a war on poverty in 1965 and 51 years later, the poverty rate is the same? You'll also note that, unlike real wars, the Democrats have never demanded or presented an 'exit strategy'. But to be fair, the Clintons'DOhave a large, transparently clear, unambiguous. good, and successful relationship with 'The Confederacy'...
In the Democratic Party, you can be a Southern Governor like Billy
Jeff and never take one act in your 12 years to remove the confederate flag from
your capitol and sign Act 985 making the birthdays of Martin Luther King, Jr,
the preeminent leader of the civil-rights movement, and Robert E Lee, the
general who led the Confederate army, a state holiday- TO BE OBSERVED ON THE SAME DAY
– AND
STILL GET ELECTEDPresident of the United States of America. Then,
as POTUS, you can award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to a staunch
segregationist like William J Fullbright.
Yes, you can! And, you can do all
of this and STILL be the putative first black President of the United
States of America.
Why? Because in the Democratic
Party, the Bobby Byrds never cooooommmmmme hoooooommmmme tooooooooo
rooooooooossssttttt!
Of course, if you are a Republican, don’t try this at home…or at the
100th birthday party of a former Democrat. ‘Cuz, if you do, that would make you a RAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST!
Then, there's this:
And, this:
2008: 'Heritage, NOT Hate'
2016: 'Heritage IS hate!'
Hell, if you're
white, you have a duty to commit suicide because of your privilege!
It must be nice to be a Leftist. You can 'evolve' whenever you want.
You can change your positions when the political winds change and never be
called a 'hypocrite.'
You can take millions from banks like Goldman-Sachs for 'speeches',
but still call yourself a 'champion of the little guy or woman'.
You can make the claim that 'businesses and corporations do not create
jobs' (but the government does).
You can make the absurd claim and lie that 'Muslims have nothing
whatsoever to do with terrorism' after numerous Muslim-led terrorist attacks,
including the Paris Massacre.
You can call African-American kids 'super predators', but still be the hero to
black women like those, whose tweets I reposted above (read their Twitter accounts).
You can call yourself a feminist, who has fought for women's rights
all of your life, even after leading the war on the women that your husband
abused.
You can state that you have been 'fighting for children' for decades,
even after you questioned the mental stability of a 12 year-old rape victim and
accused her of 'being older and more mature than her (young) years' and,
basically, 'asking for it (with her '12-going-on-30' come hither behaviour and
looks).
You can state that all sexual abuse 'victims' (including those like
Tawana Brawley and convicted murderer, Crystal Gail Magnum) 'have a right to be
heard...have a right to be believed' even thoughyou
did everything that you could possibly do to destroy the lives of women
likeJuanita Brodderick, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky,
Kathleen Willey, Sandra Allen James, Christy Zercher, etc.
You can support campus kangaroo courts that deprive male students due
process and taking disciplinary action against them based hearsay, unsupported
allegations, suppression of exculpatory evidence, a lack of any complaint filed
by the victim with either campus or community police, and all on a civil law
standard of 50+1%, preponderance of the evidence instead of a criminal law
standard, beyond a reasonable doubt.
You can cheer on Yale when it expels its men's basketball captain Jack
Montague on alleged charges of sexual misconduct (even after his alleged
'victim' asked to return to his dorm room and spend the night...on the night
that he supposedly 'raped' her; even after his 'victim' never reported the
'rape' to campus police or the local police; and, even after the 'victim'
declined to file charges with the school and the charges leading to his
expulsion were filed by a Title IX official at the school)...
Yet, you will silence ANYONE and never allow ANYONE to point to your
own husband's alleged rape of a law student in 1972...at the same university:
Yale.
And, you and your cohorts will never explain why your husband left
Oxford University, which he attended after receiving a scholarship from his
racist, segregationist mentor, J. William Fulbright, even though Eileen
Wellstone accused William Jefferson Clinton of sexually assaulting her at a pub
near the British university in 1969...and, she has told and been willing to
tell the story for the last 47 years.
You can look into the eyes of a jury and lie
about a man, who you know to be a rapist (you even cackled about him and his
polygraph!), while defaming a 12 year-old rape victim.
Hillary Clinton Cackles While Discussing Defence of Child
Rapist
- The victim. The Daily Beast agreed to
withhold her name out of concern for her privacy as a victim of sexual assault.
You can look into the camera on 60 Minutes and lie to the American
people about your husband's 12 year-long affair with Gennifer Flowers.
You can go on the Today Show, look into the camera, and again lie to
the American people blaming 'the vast right-wing conspiracy' for the
inappropriate behaviour of your hound-dog husband.
You can look into the eyes of the families of three of those murdered
in Benghazi, while standing over their coffins, and tell them that 'the person
responsible will be punished...(that person being) the ('Islamophobic')
filmmaker.'
You can put the national security of the United States and the lives
of Americans at grave risk ('but,
but, but, no one died in Libya!!!11!!!!) because you are
paranoid, self-interested, wish to deny Congress of its constitutional duty of
oversight), seek to circumvent the Federal Records Act and Freedom of
Information Act, believe you have a 'right' to keep public information from
Americans and your 'enemies' (Republicans), consider yourself above the law,
and, above all, have the firm opinion thatYOU. ARE. ENTITLED. TO.
THE. PRESIDENCY. OF. THE. UNITED. STATES.- the citizenry of
those same United States and their safety be damned.
Yes, you can! And, you can do all of this and STILLbecome
the first female President of the United States of America. Why? Because
in the Democratic Party,YOU HAVE TO BREAK A FEW OF THOSE EGGS LAID
BY THE CHICKENS COMING HOME TO ROOST IN ORDER TO MAKE A GOOD OMELET!
Of course, if you are a Republican, don’t try this at home…‘Cuz, if
you do, that would make you aCCRRRIIIIMMMMIIINNAAAALLLLLL!
If the Left didn't have double standards, it would have no standards
at all.
Sometimes it’s the smaller
things that reveal where a politician stands.
British
Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister) George Osborne today unveiled
his latest budget. There was plenty in it that was praiseworthy, but then (The Daily Telegraphreports) there was
this:
Britain
will become one of the first countries in the world to introduce a sugar tax on
soft drinks….The Chancellor said that he could not stand by while children
became obese and revealed a new levy on soft drink firms that would be used to
fund sport in primary schools.
“For
the children”. Of course.
And
then:
However,
a surprising and beloved beverage will be affected by it. That beverage is Gin
and Tonic. This is because tonic water has sugar in it – a shocking 9g per
100g.The devastating news comes after the fact we may be heading into a gin
shortage.
Christopher
Snowdon notes claims that this new tax could “save” the National Health Service up to £300m over
20 years, but:
What
they neglect to mention (but have mentioned previously) is that their sugary
drinks tax would cost taxpayers £20 billion over those same 20 years.
Perhaps
it’s worth adding that soft drinks already carry a ‘standard’ rating of VAT,
that’s twenty percent.
GuidoFawkes: George Osborne’s sugar tax extends the reach of the nanny state, it is
a punitive, regressive tax that will hit the poorest hardest. The Chancellor
told the House:
“We understand that tax
effects behaviour. So let’s tax the things we want to reduce”.
This
is a naked attempt to coerce individuals into behaving how the state desires,
making them pay if they don’t conform.
Extensive
research from the Institute of Economic Affairs shows that sugar taxes are a
highly regressive tax on the poor. They take a considerably greater share of
income from the poor than the rich.
Lower income consumers are also less
responsive to price changes than the rich. This massively exacerbates the
regressive impact.
Research
also shows that rather than encouraging consumers to cut sugary drinks out of
their diets, sugar taxes force them into buying cheaper, inferior products,
sometimes switching to higher calorie drinks in the process. Sugar taxes have
been tried in various US states, France, Hungary, Finland, Mexico and Denmark.
No impact on obesity or health has ever been found as a result of a sugar tax.
And
if you think this will stop with fizzy drinks, I have a restaurant smoking
section to sell you.
So
to sum up – the tax is regressive, reasonably complicated to administer (more
bureaucrats!), and is unlikely to achieve its stated goal. Perhaps most
importantly of all, it extends the power of the state even deeper into areas of
personal choice. A senior conservative politician ought to understand that it
is not up to government to ‘nudge’ individuals away from that can of coke. But
not in this case, it seems. To be fair, this move has its fans.
Mike Bloomberg
tweets:
There’s
one other thing: Take a look at this from a piece in The Spectatorlast year:
If you dig around in
Defra’s [The British government’s Department for Environment, Food & Rural
Affairs] source material, you can see that sugar consumption has declined by 16
per cent since 1992. This is confirmed by data on the availability of sugar
which shows a decline of about 20 per cent since the 1970s. It is also
confirmed by the National Diet and Nutrition Survey and the Nutritional Survey
of British Adults. We can argue about the exact size of the decline, but all
the evidence points in the same direction. We eat less sugar today than we did
in Public Health England’s shangri-la of 30 or 40 years ago.
‘If
something cannot go on forever, it will stop.’
-Herbert
Stein, Stein’s Law, which is often
paraphrased as:
‘Trends that can't
continue, won't.’
Let
me be as perfectly clear as possible: I am not a Trump supporter (although, if
forced, I will either vote for him over Clinton or Sanders or stay home) nor do
I want anyone to think that I am an apologist for some of his rhetoric or
thuggishness.
Having
said that, I must simply ask: What does anyone think was eventually going to
happen after decades of the Left shutting down speech, resorting to mobocracy
and Alinskyite tactics, vile misrepresentations and disgusting slanders of
their opponents, and outright violence that has been a staple of the New Left
and all of its incarnations since the 1960s? How long were otherwise peaceful,
rational, and productive Americans supposed to meekly submit to or retreat in
the face of threats, defamation, abuse, and violence?
African American man beaten by SEIU Union Thugs in St. Louis at Tea Party Townhall Protest
I
am a naturalised American having emigrated from the UK. Beginning in the
mid-1990s, I started to witness the no-platforming of non-Leftists and the
treatment of anyone, including lifelong Labourites, who questioned the
Blair/Brown governments' purposeful scheme to import massive numbers of
immigrants from primarily third-world countries in what an adviser to Sir
Mandelson said was 'a deliberate act to rub their (the Tories) noses in
diversity'. This plot was a reaction to the continued victories of
Margaret Thatcher and designed to forever change the demographics and voting
populace of Britain. They succeeded in the former, but the Conservatives'
present occupation of No 10 Downing suggests that they may have been thwarted in
the latter.
The Truth At Last! Peter Mandelson AdmitsLabour 'Sent Out Search Parties' To Bring Migrants Here After Losing The Votes Of The Working Class
Be
all of that as it may, the Establishment's reaction, including the Etonians
like Cameron, to their own constituents' concerns about mass immigration's
effects on social cohesion, law and order (some immigrant communities refuse to
submit to British law holding that their own religious, tribal or cultural laws
are supreme...see the many grooming and rape scandals involving 'Asians' -
Muslim men from primarily Pakistan...if I were a Hindu or Buddhist from 'Asia',
I'd be incensed by the government and media's sliming of me because they are
too politically correct to accurately identify the actual culprits),
infrastructure like schools, hospitals, housing, transportation, etc, and the
essence of 'Britishness' was always the same: 'Racists! Bigots! Xenophobes!'
I
believe that it was Mark Steyn who once observed that when citizens' rational
and legitimate concerns are dismissed, derogatorily described, and stifled by
'rational and legitimate' leaders, the people will eventually seek out
'irrational and illegitimate' (in the Establishment's view) leaders who will
listen and take their anxieties and issues seriously. Labour is in the process
of learning this hard lesson. The party that was once the home of the middle
and working classes has seen massive defections by what was its original base.
Many of these former traditional Labourites have fled to UKIP and even the
Conservatives although more aligned with the grassroots as opposed to the
elites.
Labour 'utterly betrayed real interests of working class'
Remember Gillian Duffy, the woman whom Gordon Brown called a 'bigot'
after she expressed her concerns about unlimited immigration from Eastern
Europe? She was a lifelong Labourite. I think that we can safely assume that
she helped defeat him in that election. There are millions just like her. They
feel betrayed by their government, their parties, the media, and other
'leaders'. And, what is their primary beef? Immigration and the impact it is
having on jobs, wages, and society.
Mass immigration and its effects on the British economy, budget, job market, wages, schools ('Muslim Trojan Horse' school scandal, anyone?), hospitals, social services, social cohesion, and its traditions and culture (consider this: The Flag of St George is banned because it is considered 'racist', but the flag of ISIS is not)is at the core, along with the loss of national sovereignty to the EUSSR and its unelected, unaccountable dictators and apparatchiks, of the Brexit movement. According
to a new poll released today, these people will be the driving force that vote
for Brexit. They represent 52%. And,even 24% of the Remain voters will switch to Leave if Angela Merkel gets her way and grants Turkey and its blackmailing, terrorist-sympathising, press-jailing, murdering-Kurds-in-Syria-along-Turkey's-border, authoritarian, Islamist wannabe dictator, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, a 'fast track' to EU membership. Not even many Europhiles want (the soon-to-be Islamic Republic of) Turkey, with its growing regime of human rights abuses, legions of extremists, winks and nods to repressive Islamic regimes given membership status nor its 75 million citizens, who are overwhelmingly Muslim, awarded the 'right to freedom of movement' within the EU, which is already overwhelmed. What
has happened in the UK has been occurring in Europe for decades and we are
seeing the polarisation, internal strife, and hardening of positions play out
daily. Even after the calamity brought about by the elites' migrant crisis,
many still try to cover up, lie, stifle and silence opposition to mass
immigration with the same taunts of 'Racists! Bigots! Xenophobes!' Most
clear-thinking people see what is happening and know that this will not end
well.
As Newton's Third Law of
Physics avers: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. I
would add my observation: The longer it takes for 'an equal and opposite
reaction' to occur, the more likely it is to become 'a violent and possibly
more than commensurate reaction.'
For
many years before he slaughtered 77 people, I predicted that, one day, an
Anders Behring Breivik would do exactly what he did. Why? Because it is utterly
predictable that dismissing the concerns of the people, who supposedly give
their consent to be governed, and ruling in contravention of their desires with
only a privileged, elitist goal ('a closer union', financial gain, moral
preening, 'we know better than those ignorant, bigoted rubes') will always end
in violence, tragedy, and - eventually - revolution.
Germans "Cheer" Fire Of Migrant Shelter By Onlookers
Muslim Migrant Gangs Riot and Torch Stockholm
The Collapse of Swedish Police, Law, and Legal System
Muslim Migrants warn Germans their days are numbered
As
with Trump, I'm not making apologies for Breivik or the anti-immigrant mobs
that burn down 'migrant centres', but, honestly, what do officials expect is
going to happen? Did anyone ask the people of Britain if they wanted to forever
change their demographics, culture, and traditions? Did anyone ask the Germans, Austrians, etc, if they wanted to foot the bill for millions of
immigrants? Did anyone ask the Swedes if they wanted to see their 'education system plummet in quality and do so far more than any of the other countries studied'by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)' because of the mass immigration of people, who in many cases aren't even literate in their native tongues?
Swedish
authorities have been forced to admit that poor school performance and mass
migration are directly linked.
The declining level of
the Scandinavian country’s schooling system and the huge influx of migrants are
directly correlated according to the shocking report. The education authority
made a statement Monday saying there is up to an 85 per cent waste of resources
in the schooling system, and that the proportion of students coming to Swedish
schools who are above the enrolment age is climbing rapidly, reportsDie Welt.
The study, which was
conducted by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), showed
that the university level education in Sweden between 2006 and 2012 had
plummeted in quality and did so far more than any of the other countries
studied.
During the same period,
pupils coming from foreign countries increased from 14 to 22 per cent. Also
recorded was the share of students who failed their studies, which went from 37
per cent to a significant 50 per cent.
The average age of minors
first entering the school system rose sharply from seven to nine-years-old. The
board of education said, “many students have so much less time to catch up,”
compared to native Swedes who typically start school at the age of six.
The board also noted that
many of the migrant children were coming from countries with weak educational
systems, meaning that even if school had been attended for many years they
would not have the same basic foundations as Swedes and lag far behind.
In that same vein, were Americans ever asked if they wanted open borders, mass immigration from third world countries, forever change the demographics, culture, traditions, and politics of their Constitutional Republic? Of course not. Democrats wanted their dependent underclass of future voters and Republicans wanted cheap labour. Playing of the fundamental good nature of the American people, both parties blatantly lied to their citizens. They rebuked any dissenters with 'America is a nation of immigrants!' Of course, this is a wild distortion of history considering the fact that the United States was not formed for centuries after immigrants arrived in the New World. Sure, America has experienced 'waves' of immigration in its history, but it has also had long periods where immigration was severely restricted...see, for example, the period between 1924 and 1965. As an aside, you will notice that Mexico is never called a 'nation of immigrants' even though a significant portion of its population is of European, primarily Spanish, descent. Seriously, does anyone believe that Jorge 'Blue Eyes, Pale Face' Ramos is a descendant of indigenous people? These politicians pointed to the Statue of Liberty, which - as a gift from the French - had nothing whatsoever to do with immigration. They screamed about Emma Lazarus' poem, 'The New Colossus':
'Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'
But, The New Colossus was not an ode to massive immigration and open borders. It was a rebuke to Europe with its monarchs, despots, class system, tyranny, authoritarianism, oppression, persecution, limited rights, lack of freedom, denial of liberty to most of its subjects, especially the religious 'heretics', the 'enemies of the state', the many small 'd' democrats a/k/a 'Classical Liberals' (which aren't anything like today's illiberal 'Liberals'), the peasants, the mistreated, the hated, the outcasts. The Other. And, it wasn't just the nobility, wealthy, and powerful clerics that were targeted. Many of these 'Other' people would have been considered as ‘Völkerabfälle’ (racial and class trash) by the likes of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. As I have demonstrated previously...
'The Germans have long since shown that in all
spheres of science they are equal, and in most of them superior, to other
civilised nations. Only one branch of science, political economy, had no German
name among its foremost scholars.'
- Karl Marx, A Contribution to
the Critique of Political Economy (Review by Frederick Engels), Das
Volk, 30 No. 14, 6 August 1859
‘[In Central Europe] only
Germans, Hungarians and Poles counted as bearers of progress. The rest must go.
The classes and races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give
way. [...]
- Friedrich Engels, Die Neue
Rheinische Zeitung, January 1849
'The chief mission of all
other races and peoples, large and small, is to perish in the revolutionary
holocaust.’
- Karl Marx, Die Neue Rheinische
Zeitung, January 1849
It
was explained that the Slavs had failed to pursue essential historic evolution,
so were therefore counter-revolutionary. All European countries contain
‘left-overs of earlier inhabitants’, now rightly brought into subjugation by
more advanced peoples. Amongst such ‘Völkerabfälle’ were
listed Scottish Highlanders, Bretons, Basques, South Slavs (Slovenes, Croats,
Serbs) Irish and Czechs. These
'inferiors' would never be able to become revolutionary. Serbs were ‘dirty.’ There was no reason for Poland to even ‘exist.’ (See: Friedrich
Engels, Die Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 1849).
‘Apart from the Poles and
the Russians, and perhaps the Slavs of Turkey, no Slavic nation has a future,
since all the other Slavs lack the historical, geographical, political and
industrial bases that are necessary for independence and survival.
Countries that have never had their own history, that have hardly achieved the
lowest level of civilization....cannot survive and can never achieve the
slightest autonomy…'
- Karl Marx, Marx's journal,
15-16 February 1849
'Among all the nations
and sub-nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an
active part in history, and are still capable of life -- the Germans, the Poles
and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small
nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the
revolutionary world storm. (...)
This remnant of a nation
that was, as Hegel says, suppressed and held in bondage in the course of
history, this human trash, becomes every time -- and remains so until their
complete obliteration or loss of national identity -- the fanatical carriers of
counter-revolution, just as their whole existence in general is itself a
protest against a great historical revolution. (...)
Such, in Austria, are the
pan-Slavist Southern Slavs, who are nothing but the human trash of peoples,
resulting from an extremely confused thousand years of development. (...)
The next world war will
result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary
classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too,
is progress.’
- Friedrich
Engels, 'The Magyar Struggle', Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No.
194, 13 January 1849
'For us, economic
conditions determine all historical phenomena, but race itself is an economic
datum.'
- Friedrich Engels, letter to W. Borgius,
1894
Stalin
would recommend study of Engels' influential piece. Marx himself, asked how ‘those
moribund peoples, the Bohemians, the Carinthians, the Dalmatians, etc.,’ might
be disposed of. By the way, if you believe that Marxism cannot equal Nationalism, then you might find Engels' statements on Germanic Supremacyand Germany's 'right of honour' to destroy other countries quite revealing.
THIS is the kind of thinking that was despised and rejected in The New Colossus.
Returning to American politics, leaders shouted over amber waves of grain, from purple mountain majesties, above fruited plains and from sea to shining sea that illegal immigrants were: 1) 'undocumented Americans'; 2) 'acts of love'; 3) 'hardest working'; 4) 'most family oriented'; 5) 'God-fearing'; 6) 'an integral part of our society; and, 7) a foundational part of our economy without whom we'd suffer stagnation!, recession!, depression!, complete economic collapse!, and maybe even WORLD WAR III!!!111!!!!
What utter nonsense. How many of these 'leaders' have ever told the American people about the real crime rate amongst illegal immigrants (see FBI annual reports) or the fact that:
And, they certainly have never told the American people that 87% of household headed by illegal immigrants receive welfare.
What did these 'leaders' think would happen if these truths were ever revealed? How long did they think they could keep Americans in the dark? Did they honestly believe that they and their compatriots could forever shut up citizens with their taunts of 'Racists! Bigots! Xenophobes!'? Do American elites believe that they can continue to run the nation as though it were a college campus or Baltimore? Special snowflakes, 'safe spaces', 'space to destroy', double standards, unequal treatment under the law, suppression of constitutional rights like free speech, right to peaceably assemble, or seek redress of grievances from their government, and Stalinist-Alinskyite violence, intimidation, extortion, and persecution of 'dissidents'? Are they paying attention to Europe? Are they listening to their own neighbours and constituents? Do they believe that they can continue to flout the law? Do they honestly believe that illegal immigrants should receive 'get out of jail free cards' while poor and/or minority American citizens receive prison sentences? Do they seriously think that the unemployed and underemployed will simply go quietly and allow foreigners to be given preference for jobs in this country? Young African-American unemployment is around 50%, but let's bring in more unskilled labour! Ms Middle Class American Disney employee, you are fired, but before you go, you must train your replacement from Asia! Today's Disney Effect may turn out to be tomorrow's Bubba Effect. Treat American citizens as trash. Disrespect their opinions and beliefs. Insult their intelligence. Call them 'racist, sexist, bigoted, misogynistic, homophobic Neanderthals'! Tell them to pay their taxes and shut the fuck up. Tell them that they will be thrown underneath Leavenworth if they even think about doing what Hillary Clinton did. Tell them that you know what is best for them and how to best spend their money. Do any or all of this and see what happens. In my opinion, Donald Trump is merely Flyover Country's middle finger to the ruling class. If you think he's bad, keep at it and wait until they start throwing their fists and more. Again, you are asking for it. You can only poke a hornet's nest for so long before a swarm attacks you with a vengeance. As
Newton's Third Law of Physics avers: For every action, there is an equal and
opposite reaction. I would add my observation: The longer it takes for 'an
equal and opposite reaction' to occur, the more likely it is to become 'a
violent and possibly more than commensurate reaction.' Do not ever say that I failed to warn you of the risks you are taking and the danger that you may face. Call it 'The Revenge of the American Völkerabfälle’.
For
decades - and especially over the last two years or so - Americans have watched
'peaceful protestors' riot, loot, rob, burn down their communities, destroy the
private property of others, silence even liberal professors, make demands,
disrupt life, business, and activities, and harm innocent people. For the most
part, they have remained peaceful and muted. Whether it is Newton's law or my
observation on it, I suspect that some serious blowback is coming across the
Western world. I sincerely doubt it will be peaceful and orderly.
While
disappointing, what else would any person remotely aware of human behaviour
expect? UPDATE #1:
‘NRO devoted an installment
to stopping Trump. They failed. They shouldn't cry foul when the Dems do.WOULD ANYONE THINK GEORGE WALLACE SHOULD BE ABLE SPEAK IN A CITY
THAT IS 2/3 MINORITY?Trump plays
to bigotry and racism, and it would be best that the GOP abandon him now.’
Of
course George Wallace should have been able to speak in a city that is 2/3rds
minority...just as the Neo-Nazis were allowed to march through Skokie,
Illinois...a community that had a large number of Jewish residents, many of
them Holocaust survivors.
Would
I have approved of Wallace's speech or the Neo-Nazis march on a personal level?
No. But, that is not the issue. The First Amendment applies to every
American...even those that espouse abhorrent views. The Constitution doesn't
cease to exist in a city or town or state or region just because a majority
disapproves of a minority view.
Using
your logic, Black Lives Matter should not be allowed to speak in a community
that is 2/3rds white. I
can imagine your response if such a situation developed. It would be the exact
opposite of your position here.
'Can we discuss Trump's
merits and deficiencies without invoking the Nazis, the Neo-Nazis and Adolf
Hitler? The comparison is not appropriate in the least, and is offensive to a
great many people, including Mr. Trump's daughter, who is an Orthodox Jew.'
Do you not know of the infamous case of the Neo-Nazis marching through Skokie, Illinois, in 1977? I mean, it is a pretty famous Supreme Court case, which saw the ACLU defending the First Amendment rights of the vile Neo-Nazis. See: National Socialist Party of America v Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977). Here is a Syllabus from FindLaw:
And, my dear, my father is a Jew and he lost several members of his family in the Holocaust. No one is invoking Hitler or Nazis or Neo-Nazis as a comparison to anyone. The Skokie case is famous because of its reaffirmation of bedrock American principles and the First Amendment issues, not Adolf Hitler. Every American has a right to free speech. No American has a right to suppress the free speech of another nor does s/he have a right not to hear speech which s/he finds 'offencive.'
UPDATE #2:
I'm afraid that the Left hasn't learned its history. If you repeat 1968, you will elect the authoritarian who promises to bring law, order and stability back to the streets...just as the SDS, Black Panthers, Weather Underground, etc, and their Chicago riots during the Democratic National Convention led to the election of Richard 'Law and Order' Nixon.
History is replete with examples of this.
If you want to defeat Trump, do nothing. If you want to elect him, riot, violently protest, beat up cops, shut down rallies, and trample on the rights of other Americans.
Americans have long rejected the 'Heckler's Veto' and I don't believe that they have changed so much that they will embrace anti-American sentiments that are more in line with Stalinism and even, ahem, Fascism.
