How Left Tries to De-humanize the Right

History is replete with racists and bigots that have matured and grew spiritually to renounce their bigotry. However there is simply not a case for the reverse; one would have to look far and wide to find a group  that was a champion of civil rights and suddenly became bigoted toward the same group; the concept is absurd. But that is exactly what the Democrats preach when they claim the Republicans turned racist as a political ploy to take the South from the newly marketed champion of the black man during the 60's. But just prior to the 1960's is was the Democrats that eviscerated the 1957 Civil Rights Act, that was supposed guarantee blacks the right to vote. from Wikipedia;

The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, whose southern bloc was anti-civil rights and northern members were more pro-civil rights. Southern senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees due to their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee, led by Senator James Eastland from Mississippi, who proceeded to change and alter the bill almost beyond recognition. Senator Richard Russell from Georgia had claimed the bill was an example of the federal government wanting to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill, while also receiving recognition from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for reducing it so much as to kill it.

Even Johnson's 1964 Civil Rights Act,  was heavily contested by southern bloc Democrats; when the final tally was counted less than half the Democrats in the Senate and House voting for the Act while  80% of the Republicans voted yes.

It wasn't just enough for Democrats to claim they were now champions of the black man, they had to villainize the Republicans to make it believable and Saul Alinsky provided the frame work for this;  “charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting” this “with qualifying remarks such as ‘He is a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband,’” one convicts oneself of “political idiocy”.  The winning strategy is to “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”; in this case Republicans are always the "establishment" regardless who is actually in charge; this is one reason the left can charge the right with racism, misogynism, homophobia with apparent impunity as they claim of ownership of victimism; where the right sees victimism a transitory stage to overcome, the left  fosters a permanent victim class from which it creates a power bloc. Alinsky says The reason for villainization of ones opponent is "Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition [is] 100 per cent on the side of the devil.” Even though the Republicans have had a 100 year head start in civil rights, the left must create a narrative fed by revisionist history to demonize them.

Do you notice the left never has a civil conversation with the right? This is also an Alinsky tactic, because any conversation with your opponent will humanize them. The end game of the left is collectivism and the real distribution of wealth is not to the middle class, but from the today's rich to the watchers of socialism. But collectivism is a hard sell, so instead they offer more than they can possibly deliver; later down the road when the left can not deliver on their promises, the right is blamed for obstructing the unattainable. The true weakness to Alinsky it is his tactics never leads to a solution; it's the unraveling the fabric of society solely for it's own purpose.

The Hobby Lobby Case and The Hierarchy of Rights

Many from the left claim the Hobby Lobby case and the striking down of buffer zones at abortion clinics were a loss for America and Woman; in reality it is a win for both. Both cases shows that there is a hierarchy of rights (aka a hierarchy of derivation). The right to an abortion is an entitlement granted by the State based on Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty. However the right to free speech (freedom of expression) trumps the right to have an unimpeded abortion. The arguments from the left on this matter is the result oft the left having their own hierarchy of rights were abortion trumps all. Generally this hierarchy is based on limiting government intrusion over impeding the actions of the people; this is the difference between laws based on individual rights vs laws based on collective rights. Most agree that the First Amendment to the Constitution sits on top the hierarchy of rights.  The idea that abortion trumps free speech or the practicing of religion would give the State a mandate to limit individual rights in the name of securing the general welfare of the collective (also termed the "greater good"). As I have written before, Resistance is Futile, You Will be Assimilated, the needs of a free state and a collective state run counter to each other. This is because the Collective State has it's own hierarchy of rights, as it determines the needs of the collective over the individual.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means government can't make a person or group violate their religious beliefs for the good of the collective and this was further affirmed by the codified Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). This law says "Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability" ("general applicability," meaning the regulation of free speech and/or religion) creates a hierarchy of individual religious rights over the States presumption of a collective need..  Today we have a State intent on imposing it's perceived needs of the collective, but our founding fathers had a different idea.


In order to maintain individual rights, the citizen must exercise those rights and not leave it up to the government to protect the citizenry form itself. The Democratic Republic built by our forefathers is not for the timid or uneducated; one is expected to know and exercise their liberty and freedoms. This means one has the right to stand on a public sidewalk, but if someone is blocking your path, you need to tell them to get out of your way, because this is a free country.

Hobby Lobby and the Scripted Lies of the Left

Well it's apparent the misinformation and lies were scripted before the Hobby Lobby case was decided. Starting with Sandra Fluke and followed by the main stream press, the line is

Sandra Fluke @SandraFluke

Supreme Court rules that bosses can deny employees coverage of birth control. #HobbyLobby #NotMyBossBusiness

The truth is something entirely different so one has to ask as I read on the internet, is Sandra Fluke clueless or lying. I also see that Ms Fluke is running for the California State Senate; well she seems to have past the test of telling a bald face lie to vilify those who's world view differ from her world view.

Here is a typical letter where it reader has to wonder if the writer is a lying or clueless. From the Santa Cruz Sentinel;


Court ruling just lines pockets of corporations
July 4 is "Independence Day". July 11 is "World Population Day". There are over 7 billion people on Earth. Our species is facing drought, extreme weather, ocean acidification and extinctions, because we have over bred. The Hobby Lobby ruling by misogynist judges, on June 30 just annexed all "USDA" fertile female wombs for corporate profits. Stabilizing our human population requires that all females on Earth have access to birth control.
Future generations ought to know what it's like to live on a healthy planet, but at the rate human population is exploding we'll be passing on a dead future. Birth control pills are listing online from $37 to $162 per month if purchased without insurance. The Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling just made all fertile female wombs in the USA into a cash register for corporate profits. Rescind Citizen's United now and remove justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito from the Supreme Court Bench.
— Connie Troupe, Aptos
and my response, 

Apparently someone has been drinking the Sandra Fluke koolaid. Let see if I can set the record straight; Hobby Lobby never protested paying for women's contraceptives (defined as inhibiting ovulation and fertilization); if Hobby Lobby has always agreed to pay for contraceptive birth control pills, why check the internet for retail prices? What Hobby Lobby didn't want to pay for are 4 out of the 24 FDA approved birth control pills or devices (refereed to as "emergency contraception"; which as I explained is a misnomer) that work by blocking a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus; ie aborting a fertilized egg after contraception. Also, the ruling was so narrow that even if it had blocked the use of all birth control by other "closely held corporations", it would have no real effect on availability of employer paid for birth control; so the apparatus needed to reduce the useless eaters of the world is safe. Hobby Lobby actually won the case based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), championed by the Democrats and signed into law by Clinton in 1993; it was written to allow American Indians to smoke Peyote. There is a simple solution for the pro abortion alarmists and the Hobby Lobby case; all that needs be done is Obama change the law (something he was already done many times already), to allow these handful of closely held corporations to be treated like the non-profits already exempted under the Religious Employer Exemption (REE). In these cases a third-party administrator (TPA) pays for the birth control exempted by non-profit religious organizations.

I am also curious how it came to be that quality healthcare is defined by birth control and any company wanting an exemption is immediately tagged misogynic. It should be noted that over half the adult population of the US define themselves as pro-life, believing that life begins at conception. Rather than being misogynic, the pro-life crowd belief that an optional abortion is no different than the after-birth abortions championed by medical ethicist and population alarmists. The real issue here seems to be left's refusal to acknowledge that those that take a pro-life stand believe in every fiber of their being that an abortion is killing a fully alive baby. Instead, it has been my observations that when the left plays the racist or misogynic card, it's the sound of someone with nothing intelligent to say on the subject..

The folley that a gun has but one purpose

"A gun has but one purpose...to kill" is highly simplistic and in many cases wrong. First in most cases guns that are aimed at people are designed to stop a threat, not to kill; the Hague Convention of 1899 prohibits the use of bullets that expand when fired into a body, hence only full metal Jacket bullets are used in warfare. A full metal jacket bullet makes it less likely a person will be killed; it's also well known that a wounded soldier takes more resources that a killed soldier. There is also the fact that guns are used as a deterrent much more than they are used to shoot people; hence the saying that carrying a concealed weapon gives the carrier more options than those that don't. There are also many firearms specifically used for target shooting that are so job specific (the majority of competition/target shooters do not hunt), they don't translate well to handling/aiming hunting firearms and certainly would be impractical to use hunting or in a deadly force scenario. Yes, the purpose of a gun used to hunt is to kill, but if a police officer wounds a bad guy and that wounding stops the threat, it would be a homicide for the police officer resume shooting to make sure the bad guy was dead. Certainly if a person uses deadly force, for clarity sake there needs to always be the justification to take a life. But one can't ignore that the rate of fatal firearms injures in the US is 10 per 100,000 but the number of non-fatal wounded is 25 per 100,000. So if "a gun has one purpose; to kill" it would seem the gun is not accomplishing it's purpose very well.

The Democrats Problem with Obama's New Deal

What is  becoming more and more difficult is the Democrat left differentiating Obama's policies and Bush (43's) legacy. There is practically no Bush policy that candidate Obama ran against, that he has not now embraced (with the exception of an official policy allowing toture).  The liberal bloggers that blame conservatives for the concentration of wealth, and the middle class losing ground seem to have forgotten that it is now year 5 of President Obama's policies. Even the liberal Mother Jones has to question what happened to the Obama promises From Guantanamo to Limitless War, Obama's Failure to Live Up to His Own Five Commandments

Below is a portion of a post from a liberal blogger (WS) that is almost comical in it's hubris that they are not describing their own President.
(WS)  Modern conservatives have much in common with Fascism, they are for a strong military police type state where everyone is monitored and controlled as well as concentrating power and wealth at the top. Republicans championed the Patriot Act and are responsible for reducing many of Americans personal freedoms. Income disparity is a direct result of conservatives deregulating the financial markets and weakening unions.*

As far as fascism, very few understood what candidate Obama meant when he called for a “civilian national security force being just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the U.S. military"; we now know it was his intention to expand Homeland Security as a federal police force. While Bush may have championed the Patriot act, the vote in 2001 and the subsequent reauthorizations under President Obama; the Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and the Patriot Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 all received bipartisan approval with a majority of both parties. Then you have President Obama signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens and self derived power allowing his killing of an American citizen overseas, who are deemed terrorist without due process along with non-American citizens (he says has a list where he personally gives a gladiatorial contest thumbs down when the drone has the victim in it's sight ; and now the lawyer that wrote the law brief saying it is legal to kill American citizen terrorists has been nominated by Obama to a federal appellate court. You may remember how Obama castigated Bush and the Iraq war for invading a country and overthrowing it's leadership when the country did not constitute a national security threat, yet now Obama has been part and parcel of the overthrow of Libya, Egypt and the attempted overthrow of Syria; all three not approaching anything close to a national security threat and are now more unstable and dangerous than before.

*(continued) Make no mistake about it as discontent grows there will be a correction just as there was after the great depression which ushered in several decades of progressive power including the New Deal policies that benefit working people to this day.

Is this really the correction the Democrats are championing? Do you really think that President Obama is offering the American people anything that reeks of a new Deal? FDR put people to work, Obama has lowered unemployment by discouraged workers dropping out of  the labor force; FDR built and re-build the national infrastructure; the Obama Stimulus couldn't find any shovel ready jobs (which Obama later admitted never existed to begin with). And while the President wants universal healthcare, all that has happened is millions of cancelled heathcare policies and new policies that have less coverage and are more expensive. And then there is promise about keeping your  health-plan and /or doctor if you like both or either;  funny, I don't remember FDR lying to the American people when he was championing the New Deal.

US Healthcare Still the Best in the World; WHO Ratings Slanted Toward Socialized Medicine

The WHO rates the US 42nd in the World Health System; a ranking that is absurd. For one it is slanted very heavily toward socialized medicine, placing the US below many countries with socialized medicine regardless of the quality of care. The WHO does not consider data on wait times for care,  the availability of advanced medical technology, or even the success rate of treatment. Other areas such as infant mortality (46th; highest in the western world) and life expediency (26th) are also based on very questionable and non-medical data. 1)infant mortality; most western nations have some criteria as to when attempts will be used to keep a new born infant alive; the US has none.

Some of the countries reporting infant mortality rates lower than the U.S. classify babies as "stillborn" if they survive less than 24 hours whether or not such babies breathe, move, or have a beating heart at birth. Forty percent of all infant deaths occur in the first 24 hours of life...In the United States, all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive...In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby born who is less than 30 centimeters long is not counted as a live birth. Therefore, unlike in the U.S., such high-risk infants cannot affect Swiss infant mortality rates. Efforts to salvage these tiny babies reflect this classification. Since 2000, 42 of the world's 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States. Infant Mortality Figures For US Misleading

Life expediency is also misleading; as it's based on differently calculated infant mortality rates, and non-medical deaths that are high in the US such as suicides and homicides and car accidents; if you remove non-medical deaths, America leads life expectancy compared to any other western nation. The US is #1 in cancer and breast cancer survival; a fact that is not considered in the rating by the WHO.

(I)f we measure a health-care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates bear this out. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50 percent; the European rate is just 35 percent. Esophageal carcinoma: 12 percent in the United States, 6 percent in Europe. The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2 percent here, yet 61.7 percent in France and down to 44.3 percent in England—a striking variation.  Canadian Healthcare

In Canada, as in Britain under socialized medicine, patients are denied care, forced to cope with increasingly antiquated hospitals and equipment, and can die while waiting for treatment. Canada controls health care costs the same way Britain and Russia do: by denying modern treatment to the sick and letting the severely ill and old die Nation Health Insurance a Disaster

The Canadian government also does not allow doctors to charge for medical procedures if it is paid for by their single payer system; so you can't pay a private doctor more to be seen sooner.
Chaoulli was representing George Zeliotis, an elderly Montrealer forced to wait almost a year for a hip replacement. Zeliotis was in agony and taking high doses of opiates. Chaoulli maintained that the patient should have the right to pay for private health insurance and get treatment sooner. He based his argument on the Canadian equivalent of the Bill of Rights, as well as on the equivalent Quebec charter. The court hedged on the national question, but a majority agreed that Quebec’s charter did implicitly recognize such a right. Nation Health Insurance a Disaster 

As in Britain, eventually all National Single Payer system will need to cut corners. Britain's NHS seems to be returning to it's Eugenics roots;  suggestion this week from the Department of Health that it should take into account how much patients contribute to the economy when deciding on the cost-effectiveness of drugs. Denying Life savings Drugs This should really come as no surprize we have heard such things here in America from the Left. Howard Dean writes in an OpEd "One major problem [with ObamaCare] is the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them." Politifact Lie of the Year and of course it simplies echos what Candidate Obama said, if the patient is too old, a pain pill is a lot cheaper than a pace maker).

                    

The there are those that presume the US could just clone the EU, France or Japanese health system in the US. The problem with this is it should be common knowledge that every medical system in the world has evolved over many years as a result of the countries culture, changes in the culture, and the wants and needs of the citizenry and of course the resources available to build it and maintain it; the healthcare system in one country would certainly not succeed in another. Japan and France are a good example. Both are exclusive systems that deal with the particular needs of their culture. In Japan they have employer insurance with a public option (something that works because it was designed to assist the healthcare market, not take it over). The Japanese also have three times more hospitals per citizen  than the US as the Japanese go the hospitals 4 times more often than Americans. The quality of their healthcare is greatly assisted by their healthy lifestyle and diet; something that costs Americans dearly. Further the Japanese and French are the most overly medicated people in the western world. Even with the highest tax rate in the EU (45-50%), the French healthcare system is estimate to collapse in 3-5 years. To cut costs the healthcare system has stemmed the use of name brand drugs (a common demand by French patients) and giving taxi rides to patients that live in rural areas that are farther from the hospitals. A look at one aspect of the quality of care shows the male death rate from cancer in France is 238 per 100K; in the US total deaths, male and female combined is about 173 per 100K.

I also agree that the US needs a sustainable healthcare system that won't bankrupt the sick. The Heritage Foundation once recommended that a low cost catastrophic healthcare plan be mandatory to protect the sick from bankruptcy; I think that was a good starting place, but obviously Americans need more; and  ObamaCare was the answer. The CBO estimates ObamaCare will still leave 30 million people without healthcare by 2016 Without Medicaid Expansion ObamaCare Would Increase Uninsured.  ObamaCare did offer waht might be part of the answer. If ObamaCare did nothing more than fund the expansion of Medicaid, without the ObamaCare hegemony if demands, the states would be able to offer many uninsured, health coverage; this healthcare could be tailored to the individual states, rather than the one size fits  all implemented by ObamaCare. 

Benghazi; Obama's Iran Contra

The issues about what happened in Benghazi appear to be somewhat complicated, but it still boils down to Hillary Clinton and the cover up. Benghazi appears to be a page stolen from the Reagan Administration and Iran Contra. While Reagan funded Nicaraguan rebels with arms sales to Iran, the Obama Administration was stockpiling weapons in the Benghazi consultant annex, left over from overthrowing the government of Libya and smuggling them into Syria to arm and train anti-Assad forces, many with ties to al Qaeda; all contrary to promises the President made to Congress and the American people. The reason responding forces where told to stand down was because this was a secret operation that needed to stay that way and the Ambassador Christopher Stevens(who was certainly involved if not leading the operation Slain US Ambassador Recruited Jihadists . was to be collateral damage. The big problem now is the cover-up, which like Watergate involves all the lies told by Obama and Secretary Clinton. He have to be able to trust our elected officials or we no longer have a representative government; that's why past Presidential crisis and Benghazi are important (and why, Secretary Clinton, it still matters why the attack happened and why Americans died in Benghazi).

First we now have evidence that some 35 CIA operatives were using the annex near the Benghazi consulate, working on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armories to Syrian rebels; an operation that  Ambassador Chris Stevens was spear heading . CIA Running Arms In Benghazi The attack was from a local militia group and Islamic extremist group in Libya, Ahmed Abu Khattala; that apparently wanted the missiles for themselves. Benghazi Attack Then as credible intelligence information started to emerge that a terrorist attack was likely, the FBI released the anti-Muslim video* in Egypt, in the event they needed a cover story for an attack on the embassy.

 As some of these details started to emerge, the CIA initiated a full court press,  subjecting Agency employees, involved or having knowledge of the operation monthly polygraph tests, among other measures that many have claimed has put a chill on any of the agents willing to testify in any of the Congressional investigations. Dozens fo CIA Operatives on Ground in Benghazi If this information becomes main stream, it could be devastating to the Obama Administration. First and foremost Obama was facing re-election and had based his foreign policy success on end of al Qaeda resulting from the American Special Forces taking out Osama Bin Laden; an obsurb premise by any measure. It also would have showed how that President Obama lied (again) and did an end around Congress and the Constitution as he would have  been arming Syrian rebels, many with ties to al Qaeda, contrary to promises made to congress and the American people. Further, and possibly the most important, it would have been a death knell for Secretary of State  Hillary Clinton's President hopes in 2016, as the entire operation would have the very least needed here approval as it involved a US embassy and Ambassador Chris Stevens. This is also a fight (in Syria) were the US has no dog, but Saudi Arabia does. It should be noted that President Obama's failure to oust the President Assad from Syria has resulted in serious diplomatic rift between the US and Saudi Arabia.

*There is ample evidence that Mark Youssef, the maker of the infamous Benghazi video was release from Federal Prison in 2010, after serving 6 month of a 21 month sentence to make the video for the FBI. The movie had only one showing, in a ridiculous plan to smoke out al Qaeda. The FBI then retained the film as an asset (sometimes called a honey pot) that could be used at a later date. Anti-Islam Film Producer on Federal Probation. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula