Hypocrisy of the Left Regarding Greed

The Myths of Liberalism and the Democratic Party Regarding Greed
I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read “Republicans care about rich people. Democrats care about everyone. Vote for Democrats.” I am not necessarily a republican or a democrat; I am a libertarian that leans to the right. The politicians I support are libertarian Republicans such as Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Sarah Palin. To me, liberalism and the Democratic Party go hand in hand supporting big, progressive government. On the other hand, conservatism and the traditional Republican Party go hand in hand with smaller government and personal freedoms. Please note that I do not consider politicians such as John McCain and Lindsay Graham to be conservative, let alone Republican; in all reality, they are big government progressive RINOs.
Considering the simplest breakdown of left vs. right, how can a logical, sane person come to the conclusion that the right only cares about the rich? True conservatives and libertarians care about the freedoms of everyone; not just the rich. Sure, we want the rich to be able to keep their money out of the hands of the government, but the same goes for the (dwindling) middle class and the poor. I think everyone should be able to decide what to do with their money, their lives, and their choices.
According to most progressives, republicans are greedy, oppressive, old, racist white men that give two shits about minorities, the poor, and the ability of people to make choices. This idea sounds like it came right from Saul Alinsky. Alinsky was a big proponent of accusing the opposition of your own shortcomings.

Let’s take a look at one of the most common characteristics of liberals that they often attribute to their opponents:
Being rich and only caring about the rich. According to the Huffington Post, one of the most liberal “news” sites available, 7 out of 10 of the richest members of Congress are DEMOCRATS. Further, a majority of the wealthiest districts are represented by democrats, and half of America’s richest households live in states where both senators are democrats.  But I guess that because they support keeping the poor down by entitlements, that they “care” about the poor. If they cared about the poor, they would empower them, not enable and pander them. After all, “You can give a man a fish. Or you can teach him to fish.” 

The reason why liberals love welfare so much is because it buys them votes from those who receive welfare.  Of course they don’t support welfare with their own money, it comes from “other people’s money”, one of communism/socialism’s favorite terms.  Being able to “buy” votes with taxpayers’ money is dangerous to a constitutional republic.  Just ask Alexis de Tocqueville, who famously said “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

Being greedy. Liberals often accuse conservatives/republicans of being greedy. I think we could all agree that a measure of selflessness would be charitable donations. As it turns out, republicans are much more generous than democrats. According to ABC News, of the top 25 states that give an above average percent of their income to charity, 24 were red (republican) states in the last presidential election.

In the words of Washington State Supreme Court Justice Don R. Willett, “The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses.”

According to Arthur C. Brooks, a social scientist/professor at Syracuse University (who is a registered independent):

-Liberals earn 6% more than conservatives, on average

-Conservatives donate more time than liberals

-Conservatives donate more blood than liberals

-People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Regardless of what liberals accuse you of, just remember that the facts back you up.  The only “giving” that most liberals do is with other people’s money.  True Americans have a kind heart and will help others when they can.  We do not need to be forced to “share” by stealing from our paychecks and redistributing to welfare recipients.  I gave 4% of my salary last year to charity, directly from each pay check.  (And I am by no means “rich”.)  Is that something most liberals would do? 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/26/richest-congressmen-list_n_2025710.html
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alexisdeto390854.html#jzcjG6lqB1Yq3TBt.99

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.htm

Advertisements

Hypocrisy of the Left Regarding Racism

Hypocrisy of the Left Regarding Racism

Republicans/conservatives are racist.  This is one of the left’s favorite arguments.  This is a simple, easy accusation because it doesn’t take any evidence to accuse someone of racism.  The term also carries very negative connotations and is very damaging to someone’s character, whether warranted or not.  It is a great attack tool, regardless of the accuracy of its use.

Let’s take a look at who is really racist, shall we?

Senator Robert Byrd, lifelong democrat, and longest-serving senator in US history, was an Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan (KKK)

After the Civil Rights Act passed, democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson was quoted as saying “I’ll have those n*****s voting democrat for 200 years.”

Then-Democratic Congressman Lyndon B. Johnson consistently voted AGAINST legislation to protect black Americans from lynching.

Another LBJ quote:  “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

The president credited with freeing the slaves, Abraham Lincoln, was a conservative Republican.

Democratic Senator John C. Calhoun was the South’s leading defender of slavery and segregation.  He believed that whites and blacks could never live together, and that after any emancipation, they’d forever be “worlds apart.”

Republican Rep. Charles Sumner argued for civil rights and held that all individuals are made in the image of God.  For this position, he was beaten with a cane by Democratic Rep. Preston Brooks on the Senate floor.

Black anti-slavery advocate Frederick Douglass was a conservative.

Civil Rights activist Susan B. Anthony was a conservative

The Civil rights Acts of 1875, 1957, and 1960 were all passed by republican majorities.

Republicans passed the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery.  80% of democrats opposed it. 

The 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, was endorsed by every single republican, while every single democrat opposed it.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by 82% of Senate Republicans, but only 66% of Democrats.  In the House, 80% of Republicans supported it and 63% of Democrats were against it.

Progressive hero President Woodrow Wilson re-segregated previously integrated federal facilities.  His response to dissenters:  “If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it.”

Woodrow Wilson chose the KKK epic Birth of a Nation to be the first film ever shown at the White House.

The 1964 Republican Party ran on a platform demanding “full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.”

Black Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel called TEA partiers “white crackers”.

Democrat Congressman John Dowdy, who opposed the 1964 reforms, compared the Civil Rights Act to a bill that Hitler would support.

Other examples of racist liberal hypocricy from some non-politicians:

The “Rev.” Al Sharpton:  “White folks were in caves while we were building empires…. We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and those Greek homos ever got around to it.”

Al Sharpton derisively referred to Jews as “diamond merchants”— and to “pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.”

Obama’s pastor of nearly 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright of the Trinity United Church for Christ, has infamously said the following:  “All white people are liars.”  You are not now, nor have you ever been, nor will you ever be a brother to white folk.  And if you do not realize that, you are in serious trouble.” 

Recently, in an op-ed written by Jeremiah Wright called “Damn You White America”, he said “From the beginning of time, all evil can be pinpointed to the existence of the white race.”   Read the entire racist, hateful piece here.  Also note that this is the pastor that performed the wedding of Barack Hussein and Michelle Obama.

Some want to argue that times have changed and that Republicans are now the racists.  Not true.  Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, only one would ever change parties.  The remaining 20 continued to run and be elected as Democrats.  Republicans continued to represent most southern states until 1995.  Views on welfare reform, the Cold War and other foreign policies were attributed with this shift in southern politics.

Are all democrats racist and all republicans angels?  Of course not.  Are there racist republicans?  Of course.  To determine where each party really stands on issues of equality, simply look at their legislative record and party platforms.  And for that, I refer you above.

The perception problem is due to the fact that liberals are great at getting their message out in a venue that will not provide an opportunity for them to be challenged.  Most people just take their word for it when they spew lies such as those mentioned above.  They have no problem lying to get support.  Just ask liberal/communist hero Saul Alinsky, who said that “The ends justify the means”.  To them, this means that they can do/say whatever they want, no matter how dishonest, immoral, or hateful, so long as it serves their purpose.  Conservatives, generally, are honest and will not participate in language/rhetoric that is deceptive.  Don’t just listen to people; watch what they do.  It blows these liberal lies out of the water.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/06/what_does_an_exalted_cyclops_do.html

http://greensboroguardian.com/2013/06/08/democrats-opposed-civil-rights-for-blacks/

 http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson/page/0/1

 http://townhall.com/tipsheet/taylorcolwell/2013/08/03/charlie-rangel-calls-tea-partiers-white-crackers-n1655110

 http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/06/28/defenders-of-rachel-jeantel-channel-john-c-calhoun/

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/06/racism-your-name-is-jeremiah-wright/

http://theredsquirrelreport.blogspot.com/2012/04/reverend-jeremiah-wright-damn-you-white.html

http://theblacksphere.net/2011/07/wright-white-liars/

Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry; “Phony Scandals” and the Second Amendment

Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry; “Phony Scandals” and the Second Amendment
Brian A. Terry grew up in Michigan and served in the US Marine Corps. He also served as a Lincoln Park police officer, as well as an Ecorse police officer. He joined the US Border Patrol on July 23rd 2007, with class 699.
On December 14, 2010, in a remote area of the Arizona desert known as Peck Canyon, members of the Border Patrol’s elite tactical unit known as BORTAC were on the lookout for illegal alien drug smugglers. Before too long, the agents come across a group of five drug smugglers. Armed with less-than-lethal beanbag shotguns, the agents made their presence known. They end up firing beanbag rounds at the suspects, who in turn returned fire with their real guns. The agents then engage in a full blown firefight with their service issued weapons. Before the gun smoke had settled, Agent Brian A. Terry was found to have been shot in the back by an AK-47. He died shortly thereafter. Two of the suspects’ weapons were found at the scene, which happened to be AK-47s.
Attorney General Eric Holder was notified immediately via email about the incident. Within hours, Department of Justice officials realized that the weapons found at the scene were linked to Operation Fast and Furious and began their coverup. Operation Fast and Furious was a botched program that directed American gun stores to sell weapons to DOJ informants that were involved with Mexican drug cartels. The weapons, which were paid for with US tax dollars, were supposed to be tracked into Mexico and into the hands of cartel leaders. Except for one thing: the DOJ lost track of thousands of the guns, including Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifles, AK-47s, FN Five-sevens (aka “cop killer”), and others.
Only a fraction of the guns have been recovered to date. As of today, they are still being used along the border to commit more crimes. ICE Agent Jaime Zapata was also killed by a gun that some suspect came from Fast & Furious. In addition, hundreds of Mexican citizens have also been killed with Fast & Furious linked weapons.
Most Americans know this story by now because ATF Agent John Dodson blew the whistle. After not receiving a response from his agency leaders, he went to Congressman Darrell Issa to bring Fast & Furious to light. What Americans have been lied to about don’t know, is the real story behind Fast & Furious. I too do not know the truth behind it with certainty. I do however have some speculation about what happened.
Many involved with US/Mexican relations have strong opinions about the drug and weapons trade between the two countries. Some suggest that the US is to blame for Mexico’s violence and narcotics problems because Americans consume most of the drugs that come though Mexico, and some of the firearms in Mexico come from the US. It should be noted that most Mexican citizens are prohibited from defending themselves and their families owning guns. How many guns are illegally smuggled to Mexico from America is unknown.
It is widely known that many guns used by the drug cartels originate from corrupt Mexican military and law enforcement officials. Without a doubt, some come from the US. However, radical left-wing liberals and communists progressives in the US like to place most of the blame on the Second Amendment. It is this argument, I believe, that fueled Fast & Furious.

It is no secret that the Obama administration views the Second Amendment as a roadblock to a fascist take over has a deep disdain for the Second Amendment. But exactly how far would he and his cronies go to push their people control gun control agenda? It is my theory that Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to be used as a way to further the cause of Obama’s dictatorship gun control. Keep in mind that Fast & Furious was supposed to be kept from the public, like most of the Obama administration’s userpations of liberty. I theorize that the Obama administration was trying to use Fast & Furious to fuel the violence in Mexico with American guns. They then would be able to create a “solution” to the problem that they created by enacting restrictive gun control. Only in the mind of progressive liberals would it be acceptable to fuel gang violence and kill people create a problem in order to furnish a solution. After all, in the words of the ghostwriter of Obama’s Dreams From My Father Obama’s hero, Saul Alinsky, the ends justify the means.
Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, which was dedicated to Lucifer, acts as a type of bible for progressives/communists. In Rules for Radicals, there is even a specific “rule” regarding means and ends. Rule 2. Of Means and Ends states “The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. … The real arena is corrupt and bloody.”
When you put two and two together, it is easy to see. Fast & Furious was a textbook Alinsky tactic used by the left. The goal (or “end”) was more gun control. The “means” were Fast & Furious. Apparently, the deaths of Terry and many others were “worth the cost”. In their minds, the only mistake was that they got caught.
So next time Obama tries to dismiss his scandals as “phony”, remember Brian A. Terry. His life and death were not phony.

Rest in peace, Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry, a true American hero.

 

 

Update:  Many Obama peddlers defend Fast & Furious by stating that it was started by George Bush.  They also talk about a gun-tracing program that Bush implemented, called Operation Wide Receiver.  This comparison is false.  Below are the five biggest differences between Bush’s Wide Receiver and Obama’s Fast & Furious, provided by The Blaze.

“The insinuation is that Fast and Furious is somehow a continuation of the Bush-era operation. The only problem with that theory is that it’s not true.”

(1) First and foremost, operation Wide Receiver did not result in the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent or an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer. Fast and Furious did. The guns that ultimately killed Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and ICE officer Jamie Zapata were traced back to straw purchasers related to Fast and Furious. Zapata’s family filed a wrongful death suit against the U.S. Justice Department last week. 

Further, officials have confirmed that the guns from Fast and Furious have already killed hundreds of Mexican citizens and Holder has said on the record that they will likely kill many more. The total number of confirmed deaths so far from Wide Receiver: Zero.

(2) Second, Wide Receiver, though flawed, was more of a gun-tracing operation than a gun-walking program. Gun-tracing involves putting specific safeguards in place to track firearms, such as RFID chips perhaps with video or aerial surveillance. Gun-walking is what happened in Fast and Furious, where ATF agents sold thousands of guns without a reliable way to recover them, apparently just hoping for the best.

Some of the guns from Wide Receiver were implanted with RFID chips and were actively tracked electronically. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in Phoenix also implemented aerial surveillance tactics in an attempt to follow the weapons.

However, problems reportedly arose due to poorly implanted RFID chips which were forced into the guns, bending the antennas and decreasing their effectiveness. Cartels and straw purchasers also eventually came up with creative ways to shake tracking maneuvers and overhead surveillance, such as driving in loops for hours until surveillance planes had to refuel.

Those in charge of Fast and Furious took no similar steps to strengthen their chances of recovering walked guns other than recording the serial numbers before watching them disappear in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

In fact, ATF agents involved in Fast and Furious have previously testified that they were ordered to stand down and not track the weapons even when interdiction was possible and instead “took notes” and let the guns walk across the Mexico border.

(3) Third, one must take into account the size and scope of the operations.

Speaking to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month, Holder said that “three hundred guns” were allowed to “walk” (although note the difference between “tracing” and “walking” above) in Wide Receiver. While there is no evidence that suggests otherwise, the figure is dwarfed by the approximately 2,000 firearms that walked in Fast and Furious. Roughly 1,400 guns were lost and about 700 have been recovered in Mexico and at crime scenes like the sites of Terry and Zapata’s murders.

(4) Perhaps the most convincing piece of evidence proving the two operations are separate from each other is the fact that Wide Receiver was shut down in 2007 shortly after it was clear the program was a failure. This was before Obama was even in office and nearly two years before Fast and Furious began.

Fast and Furious wasn’t shut down until late 2010 after the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans, a border agent and an ICE officer.

(5) Finally, unlike Fast and Furious, officials involved in Wide Receiver were reportedly in close contact with Mexican authorities during the operation, though how involved Mexican officials were is not entirely known.

What is known is that Mexican authorities were kept completely in the dark during Fast and Furious, according to the Mexican ambassador to the U.S. Mexico. He announced on June 1, 2012,  that Mexico would be launching its own probe into Fast and Furious.

It should be perfectly clear that both the Bush and Obama administration conducted two separate, flawed operations. One, however, was a much deadlier and larger operation.

If there is evidence of wrongdoing, or false testimony related to operation Wide Receiver, those responsible should be held accountable. But the argument that Fast and Furious is all about “politics” and should just be swept under the rug because the previous administration also carried out a similar program is irresponsible.

A contempt resolution will be considered by the full House of Representatives this week. If lawmakers decide to hold the attorney general in contempt, it will be a first in U.S. history for a sitting attorney general.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/06/26/the-5-biggest-differences-between-operation-fast-and-furious-and-operation-wide-receiver/