Concept - JusticeSo officer Darren Wilson was no-billed by the grand jury in Ferguson Missouri; which begs the question. What took so long? It’s good that the grand jury got it right. It was not a given that it would, considering the dire straits of our justice system.

I would like to think that Officer Wilson is in the clear now, but that’s not true. It can never be true so long as villains the likes of Eric Holder hold office. And you can bet his replacement won’t be much better. The Justice Department under such men can be a powerful and effective tool; turning a blind eye when real racist crimes occur and inventing them when they don’t.

In reviewing the testimony of ALL the witnesses and the physical evidence; jurors found there was no crime (on the officers part). I would go further to proclaim that there was not even racism (on the officers part) — not even a smidgen of racism.

But that big bad wolf has been on the hearts and minds of those who refuse to believe otherwise. And nothing, NOTHING will convince them otherwise. Not even a video of the incident would suffice. OJ was innocent after all. That is how deep their hatred and their paranoia runs. They are incapable of rational thought when it comes to such matters. And of course there are the poverty pimps (like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and even Barack Obama and Eric Holder) who stir this pot for their own financial and political ends. There is little hope for the black community so long as they look to these for “leadership”.

Meanwhile young black men die by the thousands, some of them gang bangers and some of them bystanders; but young black life is worth very little if taken by another black man. It only seems to increase in value when taken by a non-black or better yet a non-black police officer.

The death of Michael Brown was without a doubt a tragedy; but a tragedy perpetrated by Michael Brown. Officer Darren Wilson was just the officer who happened to confront this thug (granted, a young thug) at the wrong place at the wrong time. But make no mistake about it; the killing of Michael Brown was justified and proven to be so by a preponderance of the evidence.

Concept - Broken FamilyA bigger tragedy than even the death of Michael Brown is the existence of thousands upon thousands of Michael Browns walking the streets today. This was not always so. But the systemic decline of family and morality in the inner city and in particular the black community is taking its toll. You don’t have an out-of-wedlock birth rate of seventy plus percent with no ramifications.

It causes 6’4″ 292 pound young black men to decide they can throw a little weight around to get what they want. It causes them to rob and strong-arm store owners of merchandise. It causes young men to arrogantly walk in the middle of the street and block traffic the equivalent of marking their territory. It causes them to tell of police officer to “$^$#@ off” when told to get out of the street, and to slam the officers car door when he tries to exit his vehicle. It causes them to punch the officer in the face and reach for his gun saying something like “you are too much of a pussy to shoot me.” It causes young men to have “his arms out with attitude,” while “the cop just stood there.” And finally “Dang if that kid didn’t start running right at the cop like a football player. Head down.”

It also causes young hoodlums to loot and burn when one of theirs has fallen. Terrorists like this will never understand reason… only appeasement. Lucky for them, our leaders are just the kind to give them what they want. The rest of us should hope and pray for leaders willing to give them (and the nation) what we need; a reality check.

2014 11 - Ferguson Burning

Executive Amnesty

People - Obama, Barack - Burn ConstitutionIn November 2014, President Barack Obama has issued executive orders to basically not enforce immigration law for some 5 million people. This is an attempt to begin the process of de facto amnesty. So… here’s my take…

What Obama did was indeed beyond his Constitutional authority. He knows that. He’s stated it point blank many times. The problem is that Obama doesn’t give a rat’s posterior about the Constitution (the principles of which he has sworn to protect). It’s a character thing.

Concept - Straw Man BorderThe Straw-men:
Obama claims that he is doing nothing that Republicans like Reagan and Bush did. This argument is simply slight or hand meant to cloud the issue. Other Presidents have indeed used executive orders to affect the enforcement of immigration law, but always in an attempt to enforce the letter and spirit of legislation duly passed by the Congress; NOT to create law Congress should have (in the President’s opinion) passed.

It’s generally pretty easy to find an equivalent situation that demonstrates the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to these scenarios. The Keystone XL pipeline offers such an opportunity. This would be like the House of Representatives deciding that the Senate and President should have acted on the pipeline instead of keeping the project in limbo for years. What if the House had approved the project, appropriated the funds, found someone to make it happen and bypassed the Senate and the President. Harry Reid refused to allow a vote (which would probably have passed before the election), just as the House did on “Comprehensive Immigration”. Neither legislative branch is required to vote on every bill passed by the other. Reid, in fact has been much more guilty of this sin than Boehner. And then there is Obama, who claimed he kind-of might think about support the pipeline if it ever reached his desk… But the logic goes… with no action taken, surely the House would be justified in moving forward on such an important issue.

But in reality, NO, they wouldn’t. In fact, if the House and Senate can’t get the Keystone XL pipeline though in 2015 (possibly having to override a Presidential veto), then it should not go forward. It should become a possible issue in the 2016. But the process should be followed.

In another example, tax reform is every bit as important is immigration reform. Do you think the next President (possibly a Republican) should have the same prerogative on enforcement of tax law if Congress fails to act? Can the President simply instruct the Treasury and IRS to not collect taxed for a certain group or enforce certain tax laws. Of course not. The idea is absurd, and THIS is no different.

Republican Action:
Political - Republican - White Flag - SurrenderSo what should the Republicans do? What the President has done here is impeachable. And in a perfect world, one in which the rule of law means something, that is exactly what should and would happen. But alas, we do not live in such a world. (In such a world, Lois Lerner would already be in jail.)

Republicans should stay calm and collected and look at the ramifications of their options. They should define their real goals, and evaluate what options/actions can realistically move us towards those goals during this time of Constitutional crisis. They should choose options that achieve goals while minimizing the damage to the nation.

The Republicans in the Legislature should use what power (Constitutionally) they have to directly thwart the President. That begins with the “power of the purse” in the House of Representative. While I understand that it is next to impossible to use that power to get the President to do something he is refusing to do (like secure the border); it can be used to prevent any money from being spent on what little requires bureaucratic action (like the issuing of green cards). This is precisely how the Republicans (and a few Democrats) prevented Obama from closing down Guantanamo. They basically told the President, “You and Holder want to bring all the terrorists over here and put them in American courts? Knock yourself out. You just can’t spend one red cent of federal money doing it.”

Now when it comes to the “power of the purse”, I’m not saying we have another government shut-down. Don’t get me wrong, I like and support government shutdowns; but they have proven to be ineffective due to the main stream media amplifying the feigned leftist hysterics to great effect. Thus the Republicans need to be smart in how they use this power.

The Senate (once controlled by the GOP) too should extract some costs from Obama for his actions. I like Ted Cruz’s idea of using the Senate’s Constitutional power of “advise and consent”. Thus, no more hearings on Obama nominations, with a few exceptions for positions that may have some affect on public safety.

The main point here is that we can use lawful and Constitutional means to thwart lawless behavior by the Commander in Chief. Will there be much wailing and gnashing of teach by the left (and amplified by the main stream media)? Yes. That is where cojones (balls) come in; and granted those are not a Republican strong point.

Concept - Devil in the DetailsComprehensive?
At the same time. The Republicans should move forward putting legislation on the desk of the President; starting with the Keystone XL Pipeline. In some cases, this is simply a means of exposing the lefts feigned support of issues (like Keystone XL) and in others an opportunity to get things done in a bipartisan manner. Legislation sent to the President should also include simple straight forward bills concerning fixing immigration.

But know this. “Comprehensive” when describing desired legislation is Washington speak for “Obfuscation”. Comprehensive means to design something so enormous that the devil can easily been hidden in the details. Comprehensive means that the “Stupidity of the American Voter” (see Jonathan Gruber, Obamacare Architect) can be used to deceive and hide costs, results, and ramifications. After the Obamacare fiasco, nothing coming out of Washington should ever again be “comprehensive”. Not immigration reform, not health care, not twiddly winks… NOTHING.

“Comprehensive” is the bill that came out of the Senate. THAT is what the Obama and the left want; and it should remain dead on arrival in the House.

Midterm Asswhoopin’

Lollipops and AsswhoopingsI guess I should comment on the mid-term election. OK…

First off, no matter the spin (and there has been lots of it) 2014 was an ASSWOOPING. The Republicans hold more of the House than they have since World War II. They have (minimal) control of the Senate and may expand on that control. (Though when you count the RINOs from the North-East there’s not much there.)

I guess the results we saw were the best we could have hoped for. :) I’m just disappointed that the best we could hope for will matter so little in the lives of the American people and the decline this once great nation.

Looking at what I expect this election to mean, my opinion can be summed up in the words “Meh… whatever…”

I stick by my continued assessment of the two party system. That being… “The Democrats are taking this nation straight to hell at a dead run… and every now and then we elect a few Republicans who slow us down to a trot.”

We’re still heading in the wrong direction… still going straight to hell… just a little slower. So here’s to trotting along for a while. I guess it beats the alternative of the dead run but it’s really hard to get excited.

My regret is there isn’t a third alternative… and won’t be until conservatives realize the Republicans are NEVER going to turn around, never going to be part of the solution. And this “oh sh!t” moment may never come.

You Are StupidDemocrats Reaction:
It’s hard to really know what the Democrats think about the elections. By this I mean it’s really hard to tell if they are just continuing the lies or if they are deluded enough to actually believe the lies. They’re that good!

We’re a bunch of racist is one of the main assessments of the election. “I’ll be very, very honest with you. The South has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans.” — Senator Mary Landrieu LA on Obama and why she’s in so much trouble. The race pimps like Al Sharpton are pushing worse… Meanwhile, these conservative racists elected black conservative Senators and Representatives…

Obama was shunned and every Democrat on the face of the planet ran away from him and his policies. Some would not even say publicly that they had voted for him. Really? Unfortunately (for the Dems) as Obama said himself, his policies were “on the ballot, every single one of them”. He was right… thus the ASSWOOPING.

Dont Want to Be a GrownupObama’s Reaction:
Obama’s initial reaction was… “To everyone who voted, I want you to know that I hear you. To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too.”

Translation: “To the majority of voters who voted against me… kiss my ass…” In defense of this tact, I’m absolutely positive that Obama won overwhelmingly among those two-thirds of non-voting idiots.

In Obama’s favor in all of this, what he lacks in competence he more than makes up in hubris. It’s amazing that a man so completely devoid of balls when it comes to dealing with our foreign enemies, can suddenly find them when it comes to fundamentally destroying the Constitution and the nation in general.

Look Better Without YouRepublican Reaction:
The Republican reaction remains to be seen. If history is any indication they will fold lawn chair. This is what I expect and I dare not hope for anything else.

If they find a pair, I would recommend the following… and it wouldn’t even be that hard to do. It could be bipartisan even. Put on Obama’s desk bill after bill after bill supported by a vast majority of Americans (Republican and Democrat). Obama will veto many of them. Good. Let the Democrats explain it for the next two years.

Bill 1: Keystone pipeline (easy peasy)
Bill 2: No bailout money for Insurance companies (as promised by Obamacare)
Bill 3: (you get the picture) Broad support

Can the Republicans get around trying to actually address hot button issues like immigration. Absolutely. But nothing “comprehensive”. Comprehensive is just leftist speak for behemoth and unintelligible so that no one knows what’s in it. Obamacare was comprehensive.

Do the Republicans have the brains (or balls) to actually lead? Probably not… but once again they have the opportunity to prove me wrong.

Political - Fascism - CoreSo hopefully I’ve had some success in defining fascism. Real fascism. See Fascism, I Know It When I See It I don’t hold to the belief that anyone who disagrees with me (politically or socially) is a fascist. That horrible designation is reserved for those who embrace and employ the worst in human nature and what is found at the core of fascism. Those things I believe are 1) abusive authoritarianism 2) overwhelming hatred for a select group and opposition 3) an overwhelming sense of superiority and entitlement and 4) the systemic use of power to suppress and persecute.

So now I’m going to name a few names. :)

First off… Barack Hussein Obama. I know, big surprise? Right? Not a fascist… or to be more accurate I have no clear evidence of it (meaning I could be corrected). He definitely has tendencies of all three requirements in my opinion, but if that rises to the definition then many from all political persuasions deserve the label.

Obama is leftist. He is wrong about most issues. He has been leading this nation to ruin (fiscally, socially, morally) for six years now. His very name should be associated with abject incompetence. But I believe him to be no more a fascist than equally (maybe) incompetent Jimmy Carter. Wrong, destructive, and incompetent do not a fascist make.

That said, I would change my mind if I had but one question answered in the affirmative. What did Obama know about the IRS targeting (and persecution) of conservative (Tea Party) organizations? And when did he know it? And the fact that such effort, and resources have gone into preventing those questions from being answered scares the crap out of me.

Name One:
People - Lerner, Lois - IRS Brown Shirt - Fascist MustacheWhich brings me to the first name in the affirmative fascist category… Lois Lerner.

Lois Lerner fits the bill. She used her position and her authority to attack, oppress, and suppress a group of people she showed unadulterated hatred for. The arrogance displayed after the gig was up shows a complete disregard for the principles of freedom and democracy. Might and means justified everything she did in her mind. Today, Lerner sees herself as a hero for justly squashing the civil rights of those whom (she believes) are not entitled to such things. She is also a victim of those bastards who brought her crimes to light and eventually put a stop to what she was doing.

So a few key questions remain about Lois Lerner (and the IRS).
1) Where was she in the organizational chart? The hierarchy? A leader, an instigator, or just a guard following orders?
2) How systemic was this behavior and leftist hatred for conservatives in her department? How systemic is it in the IRS? In the federal government and bureaucracies in general? There was clearly collusion between the IRS and other agencies. How so, and who was involved?

None of the questions are being asked (much less answered). Why? Two reasons. One, Republicans are $#@%less. And two, the mainstream media doesn’t care. It’s ox is not being gored here. Had Lerner been a conservative attacking leftist groups, she (and her co-conspirators) would have been exposed, tried, and in jail by now.

Name Two:
People - Parker, Anise - Mayor Houston - Fascist MustacheMore recent events bring me to an obvious practitioner of the fascist arts; one much closer to home; Anise Parker, mayor of Houston Texas. Again as I move forward with my case, I invite my readers to keep in mind the four attributes of fascism. (Authoritarian, Hatred, Suppression, Entitlement)

Having lived in Houston Texas for 20 years, I got to see first hand the heavy handed, undemocratic, treatment of people (especially conservatives) who ever dared opposed city government. All this goes at least as far back as I can remember starting with the likes of Mayor Bob Lanier (and co-conspirator Ken Lay of Enron) as they constantly laid waste to common decency. But I digress… Let me just say that Anise Parker has had plenty of role models (leftist role models) in past Houston city governments to pattern her abuse after.

Anise Parker is a lesbian, not that there’s anything wrong with that. :) She’s also a leftist, not that… oh wait, I’ll just stop there… :) And, as is found in practically all major cities, the Houston City Council is made up almost entirely of leftist with perhaps one (maybe two) “moderates” and a gerrymandered conservative. Thus leftism rules the day.

Houston, as championed by Parker (and the rest of the leftist) enacted the “Houston Equal Rights Ordinance” (HERO) intended to prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, and “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, etc…

Now, I as a conservative would not agree with nor support such an ordinance; but I’m not looking to debate the morality, sanity, or even possible secondary effects of the HERO ordinance. All that’s out there, knock yourselves out. It really serves little purpose since we (the left and right) are not going to agree on the issue.

No… I’m simply looking at the actions and re-actions of those involved in implementing HERO and those involved in trying to stop it.

HERO was passed by the due process set up in the charter of the Houston City Government. That process is absolutely one sided and heavy handed, but it is the system implemented and tolerated by the majority of the people of Houston. HERO was (and is today) the “law of the land” and unless some higher law adjusts or supersedes it; that settles it. It’s like Obamacare… :) But the “law of the land” can be changed… otherwise HERO and Obamacare never would have been implemented; and there are means, legal means by which opponents can attempt to undo what they see as bad law.

In Houston Texas, that is a referendum process. The same charter, the same law that made it possible for Anise Parker and her cronies to pass HERO also give ordinary citizens the means to bring to force a vote on any law passed by the city they don’t like. All it requires is enough signatures of enough concerned citizens (registered voters). And that’s what some concerned citizens did (including the Houston Area Pastor Council).

They collected signatures to put HERO to a vote. I’ve heard various numbers, but the lowest I’ve heard is that they collected double what they needed to put the issue on the November ballot. These people simply followed the law, whether you agree with them or not.

Now… we get to the fascist part… the part where the law doesn’t apply to those in power and is used to suppress and later persecute. The City Attorney (Dave Feldman) took the petition of signatures and determined that there were not enough valid signatures. Dave Feldman, out of hand, decided there would be no referendum because not one in eight signatures was valid.

To be blunt, it was bullshit. I don’t know the guy (Dave Feldman); but I’ll bet you dimes to donut holes he’s a fellow leftist and if not working on behalf of Anise Parker agrees with her enough to make the decision that these cretins, these bigots, are not entitled to the due process of law. That is something reserved for the civilized (read liberal) folk.

The concerned citizens actually took the high road. They followed the law again and filed suit to have their collection of signatures reviewed, perhaps by someone (I don’t know) slightly objective. This solicited yet another fascist response for the powers that be in Houston. The city issued subpoenas to five local pastors who opposed HERO for a broad range of documents including “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to (Houston Equal Rights Ordinance), the Petition … Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.”

I submit this had little to do with gathering information and more to do with intimidation and suppression. THIS my friends it what the separation of church and state is all about.

Even some leftist lawyers who would completely agree with Parker and the HERO ordinance see this basic truth.

Church State - Steeple and Flag

“It is so inconsistent with American law and American tradition. That’s what separation of church and state is all about. That’s what Jefferson meant when he wrote the first Virginia statue separating church and state. That’s what he meant when he and Madison joined together to draft the First Amendment saying freedom of religion, the exercise of free religion has to be protected… What it’s [the subpoenas] suggesting is that the minister may have been organizing opposition to some law referendum that would be pro-gay and the ministers were anti-gay. I’m very much pro-gay rights and pro-gay marriage, but I’m not going to start going after ministers … We have to err on the side of permitting free speech. You don’t go after the minister for preaching the gospel in a way that you disagree with.” – Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School Professor

That right… You don’t… unless you find that gospel abhorrent, and it’s practitioners less entitled to basic human rights than civilized secular humanists.

Since this all blew up in her face, Anise Parker has spun like a top. At first (Oct 15) she initiated the Obama-Defense. She was uninformed, uninvolved, and clueless of the contents of the subpoenas. Then it was all the fault of those dammed outside council/consultants. (Side Note: Remember Lois Lerner throwing those rogue agents in the Cincinnati Office under the bus? :))

Clueless or not, Anise seemed to have no issues with the subpoenas early on when she twitted “If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game. Were instructions given on filling out anti-HERO petition?-A” This proves, all the backpedaling Anise has been doing is just BS to cover her ass.

And backpedaling is what we’ve seen a whole lot of by Parker and the City of Houston. The subpoenas have been withdrawn. Why?

“I didn’t do this to satisfy them. (opponents) I did it because it was not serving Houston. I don’t want to have a national debate about freedom of religion when my whole purpose is to defend a strong and wonderful and appropriate city ordinance against local attack.” — Anise Parker, Mayor of Houston

No, you especially don’t want to have that debate when it’s obvious you are having your proverbial ass handed to you. Parker has also decried being a victim of villainization by the likes of “Fox News” and of course you’ve got the standard accusations of things being mis-characterized or blown out of proportion. Me? I don’t think so. A fascist thwarted, it still a villain, just not a successful one.

All spin aside; this has been about one thing from the beginning; stopping the public vote on HERO no matter what the law or the people say. It’s like Anise said herself, “I’m not going to let the citizens of Houston vote on my civil rights.” No, of course not. Tyrants seldom hold votes they don’t absolutely control. The law, democracy, and common decency be damned… So Anise Parker set her brown shirts and jack boots to work to stop …that… vote!

Still, this is but a taste of what Christians (and our churches) have to look forward to from the homosexual left (one of two segments of the left that most embrace fascism) in the near future. Anti-homosexual speech will eventually be criminalized (as it is in Canada) and churches (and businesses and individuals)… will have to accept and tacitly participate in gay marriage ceremonies or face government imposed consequences. Anise is just a dead canary in a coal mine.

Christ - World Hated Me First

Your Word is Disaster…

People - Obama, Barack - Kid in MaskIt’s good that I’m not a parent. :) I’m just not equipped to deal with the school system (or confederacies of dunces in general). In my defense, I’m pretty sure it’s genetic in that I got a double dose of the smart-ass gene.

So I’m catching up with a friend over the phone who has a boy in (I think) first grade. If I’m understanding what he was telling me, each student in his son’s class was given a vocabulary word. They were required to become familiar with the word, probably spell it, define it, and use it in a sentence. Stuff like that.

But since it is approaching Halloween, the young tykes were encouraged to come to school dressed up as their vocabulary word. I kid you not. :)

Little Junior’s word was… “disaster”. Disaster…

D… I… S… A… S… T… E… R… :) :) :)

Given that word and those instructions… there is no way on God’s green earth… zero chance whatsoever… that a son of mine would not show up to school the next day dressed to a tee as anything other than… Barack Hussein Obama.

And failing an earlier successful courtship of a very open-minded black missus, I can only imagine the can of worms that would ensue. :)

Teacher “Little TL (he goes by his initials), can you please spell your vocabulary word?”

TL: “Disaster (pause for effect) O… B… A… … M…” …

A chip off the old block. :)

Political - Fascist - SmileyIntroduction:
Today we loosely throw around the hated label of fascist (or NAZI) toward those we disagree with. I try not to do that; but still the adjective is apt in this day and age… especially in this day and age. The human race never learns the lessons of the past even as we pretend and even believe otherwise. Those who commit, those who appease, those who suffer, and those who abdicate fall right into line to play their parts.

So What is Fascism? What the World Says:
Trying to define fascism can be a quite an undertaking unto itself. Everyone (sane) agrees it’s bad… some of us agree it is worse; that it is evil. But what is IT exactly?

Looking at what the all knowing man behind the curtain (Google) tells us… a fascist is “an advocate or follower of fascism.” Wow :) that was helpful.

Google adds the following synonyms to clear things up: authoritarian, totalitarian, dictatorial, despotic, autocratic, undemocratic, illiberal; Nazi, extreme right-wing, rightist, militarist; nationalist(ic), xenophobic, racist… Google add the similarly helpful antonym (meaning the opposite of fascist): liberal

You might notice that I stuck through a few of Google’s “helpful” synonyms and one antonym. That it is to identify the ones Google (and most of the world) got wrong. :). Google’s mistake (causing the inaccuracy) is in allowing worldly (leftist) precepts to influence their response.

The Merriam Webster dictionary does a much better job.

fascism (noun): a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government : very harsh control or authority : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Now that’s a pretty accurate definition.

So What is Fascism? What does TexasLynn say? Fascism is almost like the classic Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of pornography; “I know it when I see it.”

Political - Fascist - Nazi FlagThe Core of Fascism:
To get a proper understanding of fascism I agree that it is a useful exercise to examine the Party that was at the core of defining the movement back in the early to mid-twentieth century (the NAZIs). But the key to doing this is to look at what is at the core of fascist behavior, what lies below the implementation.

I think Google and Merrian Webster get it right in that the core of fascism is authoritarianism, specifically government authoritarianism. It is this core that leads to totalitarianism, and dictatorial, despotic, and autocratic regimes. By definition authoritarianism (and thus fascism) is undemocratic. That doesn’t mean that a democratic system can’t be fascist, but such a “democratic” system can only be fascist when it is hypocritical. I might also add my opinion that the emphasis on government control and ownership inherent in socialism naturally breeds fascism as socialism progresses through its natural course of suppressing and destroying liberty.

Another core aspect of fascism that stems from this authoritarian power is suppression and persecution of opposition; using the power of the state. This is true even when the stated laws of the state prohibit the behavior. Fascist in power believe they (or their cause) are above the law. They believe they have might and right on their side.

So far… fascism at it’s core is government authoritarianism (at all levels) that uses its power to suppress and persecute. But I agree it’s more than that. Fascism is not a synonym of authoritarian; authoritarian is an attribute of fascism.

Moving forward, let’s look at what it’s not… what Google (and the world) got so wrong.

Concept - DirectionNot Right (or Left):
The big mistake Google makes is assigning fascism to “right-wing” and for extra measure disassociating it from the left. Left and right have nothing to do with being fascist (or not). This fallacy has been successfully pushed by the left for generations (and Google is happy to continue the tradition).

This leftist propaganda is the act of smearing an idea and movement with the tar of a far distance and extreme cousin; maliciously transferring an attribute of one to another despite logic that might point otherwise. In defense of the left, here they make a common mistake. It’s what they want to be true, so it is.

Basically the argument goes… Ducks swim so all birds found in the water are ducks OR the NAZI’s (fascist) believed in social hierarchy and inequality so if you believe in some semblance of those concepts the label may be applied, and thus intuitively if you reject those concepts you in no way can be considered fascist. The older traditional definition of right-wing being “…political positions or activities that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically justifying this position on the basis of natural law or tradition.” — Wikipedia

The NAZIs definitely believed in social hierarchy and inequality from a strictly racists and antisemitic creed. I, as a conservative, believe that social hierarchy and inequality are natural, and inevitable (having nothing to do with race). These things are simply a law of nature, like gravity. The left would have you think those two concepts are one and the same. The argument is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Not Militarist, Nationalistic Xenophobic, or Racist:
I hate to even mention this one because it’s so stupid; but Google included it. A fascist state or system need not be militaristic. It needs the ability to apply its authority towards its citizens and sometimes others; but that need not be a military. It can be any combination of executive, legislative, or judicial force; and that force need not extend beyond its own borders.

Google (and the World) again associate the NAZIs implementation of militarist fascism with the definition. Hitler was a megalomaniac bent on world domination. A fascist state need not include such a leader; he may be perfectly content with control of his little piece of the world. Indeed, while leaders are necessary in any movement, the movement itself can have fascist tendencies.

Nationalistic also was a NAZI trait, but again not a requirement to fascism. True, the fascist state (like any political system) needs some banner (high idea) on which to gather it’s supporters but nationalism need not be it. The NAZIs did it with pride in nation, and race. That was simply their implementation. Any ideal can supplement that nationalism… even anti-nationalism.

Xenophobic (hatred of other nations)? Racist? (Same thing):
It is useful for the fascist state to put up a bogyman to rally supporters against; but that could be anything. The hatred of other races and nations complemented nicely with NAZI pride. Again though, it was their implementation. I believe fascists could just as easily embrace other nations, and not be outwardly racist.

Political - Fascism - CoreThe Definition of Fascism:
Thus we come to my identification of what key characteristics that make up fascism.
1. Government authoritarianism instinctively abusive of life and liberty
2. A systemic use of power to suppress opposition
3. An overwhelming hatred of some groups of people (racial, religious, ideological, regional…)
4. A systemic use of power to suppress and persecute those hated peoples (in addition to opposition)

Sad But True…

People - Obama, Barack - Mickey Mouse EarsPresident Obama went to the bank to cash a check and he didn’t have his ID. And the teller said you’ve got to prove who you are.

He said, “How should I do that?” She said the other day Phil Mickelson came in, he didn’t have his ID but he set up a little cup on the ground, took a golf ball, putted it right into that cup so they knew it was Phil Mickelson. They cashed his check.

And then Andre Agassi came in. And Andre Agassi didn’t have his ID either. He put a little target on the wall, took a tennis ball and racquet — hit it onto that target. We knew that was Andre Agassi so we cashed his check.

And she said to him, “Is there anything you can do to prove who you are?” And Obama said, “I don’t have a clue.”

And she said, “Well, Mr. President, do you want your money in small bills or large bills.”

– A joke told by Mitt Romney at a campaign event in Iowa (Oct. 2014)


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 82 other followers