The good new is that Obama has accomplished something that his wife Michelle had claimed he would as President. He will not allow us to “go back to our lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed…”

“He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”
~Michelle Obama

The T.E.A. (Taxed enough already) Parties are a sign of political awakening. Thank you Barack.

Glen Reynolds has a great piece describing this:

Today American taxpayers in more than 300 locations in all 50 states will hold rallies — dubbed “tea parties” — to protest higher taxes and out-of-control government spending. There is no political party behind these rallies, no grand right-wing conspiracy, not even a 501(c) group like MoveOn.org.

So who’s behind the Tax Day tea parties? Ordinary folks who are using the power of the Internet to organize. For a number of years, techno-geeks have been organizing “flash crowds” — groups of people, coordinated by text or cellphone, who converge on a particular location and then do something silly, like the pillow fights that popped up in 50 cities earlier this month. This is part of a general phenomenon dubbed “Smart Mobs” by Howard Rheingold, author of a book by the same title, in which modern communications and social-networking technologies allow quick coordination among large numbers of people who don’t know each other. ~online.wsj.com

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,
but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

• Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carryout violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.
• Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.
• The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.
• During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.
• Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing as the preeminent world power.

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.  ~thelibertypapers.org

Maybe Democrats believe that it’s necessary to destroy all their enemies first in order to save the planet. This would make sense when you look at the actions of the left rather than their words.

The ‘new’ politics of hope and change looks just like a ramped up, more hateful and malicious version of the old politics (of personal destruction). Who would have thought that this was the way to unite America?

So my liberal friends, is this the blueprint on how to be a uniter and not a divider? Attempting to silence your critics? Using the power of the media and the Executive branch to crush any dissent or disagreement as the model of civility?

Obama’s plan to target Rush began in October according to the Politico. The demonization of Rush Limbaugh was planned, coordinated, and executed by members of the Democratic machine and the administration. Obama himself pulled the trigger, signaling that the slander and coordinated attacks should begin. It continues day after day as liberal journalists demand a disavowal from every Republican on their respective shows.

“Are you now, or have you ever agreed with Rush Limbaugh?”

Ironically (or not) democrats are a caricature of their own psychological projections.

What we should be asking is how long will this targeting of Rush Limbaugh be the main priority of the Obama administration?

First they came for Rush, next, who knows, everyone who disagrees with the President’s plans for radical and “fundamental transformation of the United States of America” may be targeted. Beware.

MOSCOW –

Russia may have turned its back on Vladimir Lenin’s revolutionary ideology, but Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez on Thursday told Russians they should revere and revive the ideas of the Soviet Union’s founder.”We should remember Vladimir Lenin and come back to his ideas, especially when it comes to anti-imperialism,” Chávez told the audience at the opening of a Moscow cultural center named for the South American revolutionary hero Simon Bolivar.

The rhetoric was vintage Chávez — mainly aimed at portraying Venezuela as a bastion of defiance of the United States. Chávez’s comments emphasized Venezuela’s solidarity with the Kremlin leadership, which frequently complains of Washington’s alleged dominance of global affairs.

”We must defeat imperial hegemony that is imposed on us or we head toward barbarism; we either defeat imperialism or imperialism destroys the world,” Chávez said. “The empire must understand that it cannot dominate the world.”    ~miamiherald.com

Any doubt that the left is on a collision course?

These are the kind of clueless and arrogant statements that mark a true liberal elitist:

OTTAWA — Frank McKenna, Canada’s former ambassador to Washington, referred to the United States on Friday as “a theocratic state” in which Christian evangelicalism plays a big role in the Republican administration.

“Right now the United States is in many ways a theocratic state, not dissimilar to some of the other religious states in the world where religion has a huge part to play in government.” ~canada.com

This is more a statement about the small mindeness and exclusionary aspects of secular humanism and liberalism (small minded liberalism.) The heart of this kind of thinking is not the all-inclusive rainbow of multi-color/multi-ethnic togetherness and sharing that liberals tend to fantasize about their ideology– instead it is dogmatically hateful, exclusionary and anti-religious.

So what is McKenna actually saying here? His point is that anything less than a strictly ‘secular state’, meaning one which completely represses and stigmatizes any religious input, impulses, or influence, is a “theocracy.” Because, *GASP*, we can’t have people who are religious in government… everything they do is invalid by definition. (Unlike, let’s say, someone basing all their political decisions on progressive ideology bordering on religion.)

Essentially McKenna prefers his state to be ruled by an anti-religion. “Canada is truly a secular state. Religion and politics do not mix in this country.”

Which becomes problematic when you realize just how much of life folks like McKenna believe the government should control. Virtually all of it in fact. There is nothing off limits for quasi-socialist nanny states. Everything is subject to legislation. All areas of economic life, all areas of public life, all areas of private life are potentially subject to control for the common good. But, religious people need not apply to hold the reigns of government because they don’t have valid beliefs. Which brings up an interesting question for McKenna, since he obviously believes religious people should be ruled by people like him in charge of “stricly secular states,” one wonders if he feels they shouldn’t have the right to vote either because obviously religion shouldn’t have anything to do with politics.

I’ve got an idea, let’s substitute any other group for, “Christian evangelicalism,” and see how it sounds.

OTTAWA — Frank McKenna, Canada’s former ambassador to Washington, referred to the United States on Friday as “a black state” in which colored ‘African-Americans’ play a big role in the administration.

Very forward thinking don’t you think? Is it now valid liberal thought to say an entire segment of society should have no participation in government at all?

What is a theocracy?

The reality is that a theocracy is a very different thing from how McKenna wants to define it.

Answers.com defines the word theocracy as, “A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.” The Brittanica excerpt goes on to say:

Government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state’s legal system is based on religious law. Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations. The Enlightenment marked the end of theocracy in most Western countries. Contemporary examples of theocracies include Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Vatican. ~answers.com

The key aspect here is in bold. If we merely said that every government which was popularly thought of as being merely led by divine guidance, or had elements of religious law embodied in their legal system then America was indeed founded as a theocracy. But this is not enough to label a country a theocracy.

Today we have a whole political class who view true theocracies, like Saudi Arabia and Iran, as lesser evils in contrast to their true chosen enemy: Republicans and Christians in America.

They question the very notion of a war on terror because they don’t believe the threat from Al Qaeda rises to the level of ‘war’ status. No matter that Al Qaeda is a truly radical theocratic religious terrorist organization which has already destroyed the World Trade Center buildings killing 3,000 Americans and declared war on the United States, the West, and all religions besides their taliban version of Islam. Yet the left is alarmed about American Christians, not Al Qaeda. So alarmed that they are writing books about the, “Clear and Present danger,” to America posed by these ‘radical extremists’, “that together threaten the future of the United States and the world.”

In the much lauded book (among liberals), AMERICAN THEOCRACY, Kevin Phillips explains the equivalent danger posed by both radical Islam and radical Christianity/Judaism:

The excesses of fundamentalism, in turn, are American and Israeli, as well as the all-too-obvious depredations of radical Islam. The rapture, end-times, and Armageddon hucksters in the United States rank with any Shiite ayatollahs, and the last two presidential elections mark the transformation of the GOP into the first religious party in U.S. history. ~americantheocracy.net

The premise of his book is nothing if not all-too familiar: Iraq is a War for Oil started by the Republican theocracy. Where have I heard that before?

Then there are the Jews.

The path that liberals and progressives are on isn’t new, and it isn’t pretty. Liberalism isn’t about inclusion. In fact, it’s central premise is exclusion and demonization. Like the Borg on Star Trek they see any deviation from their proscribed ideology as a threat and a menace to their utopian dreams of a fair society equitably distributed by an all-knowing and all-caring government. That can’t happen when people exist who completely disagree with your premise and argue that the practice of egalitarianism runs counter to the theory every time it’s been tried.

• Byrd assailed for Nazi remark
• NAACP chairman makes GOP/Nazis comparison
• Siege Heil: The Bush-Rove-Schwarzenegger Nazi Nexus and the Destabilization of California
• Neo-fascists and Terrorists Against Liberty
• Prescott and Adolf: W’s grandfather helped fund Hitler and the Nazi party
• 1. republican nazi (Urban Dictionary)
• A Fresh Look: Nazis and the Republican Party
• It is ABSOLUTELY appropriate to make Nazi comparisons
• Garofalo Says Inked Salute Like Nazis
• Art: Republicans, Nazis and Communists
• Republicans ARE nazis

If only I had a nickel for every time a liberal has mentioned Geobbels in reference to conservatism I’d be a millionaire.

The Nazi reference is pulled out all to often. For instance, decry the filth and perverted priorities of Hollywood and your a Nazi.

In doing so, Medved echoed the sentiments of other conservatives who, whether they like it or not, are promoting a standard of art that the world has seen before. A standard marrying a style with a political attitude. A standard used to keep an ill-informed public brainwashed. A standard adopted by Communists and Nazis. ~mydd.com

There’s absolutely no reason to go there. Disagreement is not grounds for creating a Nazi strawman.

The Nazi neocons are supposedly following the well worn path of Hitler. 9-11 is the reichtstag.

Hitler wrote about his plans in advance in Mein Kempf. Hitler’s regime used patriotism and fear of terrorism coupled with religious rhetoric to convince the masses to quietly go along with their plans. The Germans never questioned the official line on the Reichstag Fire, even though it made little sense. They never questioned why Poland would be so stupid as to invade Germany, even though it made little sense. They never questioned why their rights were being “temporarily” suspended through the Enabling Act because it was necessary to fight the terrorists, even though it made little sense.

The neocons in power wrote about their plans in advance with The Project for a New American Century. The Bush administration uses patriotism and fear of terrorism coupled with religious rhetoric to convince the masses to quietly go along with their plans. The Americans never questioned the official line on the 9/11 attacks, even though it made little sense. They never questioned why Iraq would be so stupid as to want to attack the U.S., even though it made little sense. They never questioned why their rights were being “temporarily” suspended through the Patriot Act because it was necessary to fight the terrorists, even though it made little sense.

“We must never forget that everything Hitler did was legal.” — Martin Luther King, Jr.

~democraticunderground.com

I’m not sure that the MLK quote is accurate… hmm.

The Nazi Conspiracy

Some even cross over into the conspiracy swamp, where not only are Republicans acting, talking, or resembling Nazi’s in some tangential and fabricated manner, they ARE Nazi’s! (Maybe even Hitler himself?)

Investigative reporter Christopher Simpson says in BLOWBACK that after World War II, Nazi émigrés were given CIA subsidies to build a far-right-wing power base in the U.S. These Nazis assumed prominent positions in the Republican Party’s “ethnic outreach committees.” Simpson documents the fact that these Nazis did not come to America as individuals but as part of organized groups with fascist political agendas. The Nazi agenda did not die along with Adolf Hitler. It moved to America (or a part of it did) and joined the far right of the Republican Party. ~Carla Binion

The problem, of course, is that this is not just an overt problem, it is a covert problem as well. The reason so many easily take that step into Nazi accusations is that the entire liberal political theory is based on this exact idea.  Don’t believe me? Then what are they talking about when they say America is an empire? That we are an imperialist and militaristic nation which is dangerous to the world?

What is fascism but imperialism and militarism? Warmongers and rascists is how a majority of the left paints Republicans. Isn’t this essentially the same thing as outright calling Republicans Nazis?

Can We End the American Empire Before It Ends Us?

In politics, as in medicine, a cure based on a false diagnosis is almost always worthless, often worsening the condition that is supposed to be healed. The United States, today, suffers from a plethora of public ills. Most of them can be traced to the militarism and imperialism that have led to the near-collapse of our Constitutional system of checks and balances.   ~Chalmers Johnson

Mark Kleiman seems to believe that any incredibly lame comparison proves that Conservatives use Nazi iconography.

…My point was that if the New Righties can’t make their case without looking and sounding like Nazis, it’s not unfair to compare them to Nazis.

Looking and sounding like Nazi’s? There seems to be a complete lack of logic and reason here.

Here’s another “stabbed in the back” poster from WWII. Does this prove that FDR looked and sounded like a Nazi? Or does it prove that conservatives look and sound like FDR?

Here also are a dozen or so cartoons which apparently also use Nazi iconogrophy.

Scottish soldiers are also apparently fond of Nazi sybolism.

Life imitating propaganda? A soldier stabbed in the back… Another soldier stabbed? Ok, in the stomach this time.

The reason I bring this up is because this is common parlance on the left. Conclusion precedes common sense logic. The left desperately wants to believe that the right truly are Nazi’s, hence no evidence is needed. Anything that makes even the slightest most tangential connection is taken as evidence that conservatives are Nazi’s.

The fallacy here is that Nazi’s somehow own the iconography of being stabbed in the back. Truly the National Socialists were a potent and creative force in history but did they actually invent this sybolism or did they merely use a common idiom which was already widely understood?

Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. ~rasmussenreports.com

In fact, the poll says that 35% of Democrats believe Bush knew about 9/11 in advance! Perhaps I should repeat that because it is evidence of the apparent mental incompetence ideological hatred of an entire swath of the electorate:

35% of Democrats believe Bush knew about 9/11 in advance!

On a side note I’d say that Segolene Royal is definitely a Democrat, or has read the official liberal playbook, or has the same ideological psychosis…

PARIS (Reuters) – Socialist opponent Segolene Royal said on Friday that France risks violence and brutality if her opponent right-winger Nicolas Sarkozy wins Sunday’s presidential election. ~yahoo.com

I can recall many such instances of Democrats warning that “there’s going to be violence” if this or that doesn’t happen… I believe it is just part of the unhinged nature of liberalism’s disconnect with reality. How else could so many believe that socialism could actually work and should be the ultimate goal of society?

Next we will find out that liberals believe that President Bush really is trying to kill Hugo Chavez and that, “Radical Christianity,” really is, “just as threatening as radical Islam.“

From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all. ~guardian.co.uk

Tired and silly, these kinds of bad analogies seem to proliferate among the raging left. Unfortunately it’s also a ubiquitious argument among the left.

If you look at history, you can see that there is essentially a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship. That blueprint has been used again and again in more and less bloody, more and less terrifying ways. But it is always effective. It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy – but history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10 steps.

As difficult as this is to contemplate, it is clear, if you are willing to look, that each of these 10 steps has already been initiated today in the United States by the Bush administration. ~guardian.co.uk

The first and primary anomoly in this liberal analogy is the definition of fascism itself. The left’s version of fascism is merely a straw-man argument formulated so as to fit their cartoonish version of political opponents. It is a definition truncated down to, “right-wing dictatorship,” meaning right-wing American conservative. The ignorance is appalling.

Does Wolf mean Italian Fascism, German Fascism, or FDR fascism?

U.S. military develops Robocop armour for soldiers

…U.S. defence chiefs hope to have their troops kitted out in the outlandish combat gear as soon as 2020.

Included in the Pentagon’s Future Warrior Concept are a powerful exoskeleton, a self-camouflaging outer layer that adapts to changing environments and a helmet which translates a soldier’s voice into any foreign language. ~dailymail.co.uk

Technology. I love it. Even more when it’s Hegemonic technology. Doesn’t the military industrial complex just warm your heart?

The future soldier will also benefit from ‘intelligent’ armour, which remains light and flexible until it senses an approaching bullet, then tenses to become bulletproof.

…The sheer scale of U.S. military research spending and the pace of recent advances in aircraft stealth technology and guided precision bombs are staggering.

Project specialist Jean-Louis DeGay, a former captain in 75th Ranger Regiment, said: “We’re already trialling equipment and technologies that did not exist a few years ago.

“The air force has just debuted its new stun gun and five years after the concept of an exoskeleton was first discussed, we have fully functioning prototypes.”

He told Soldier magazine: “Five years ago, nobody thought we’d have a portable hydrogen fuel cell, but we’ve got them now.

“They’re functioning, and we’re just trying to make them smaller. And if I’m honest, nothing speeds up the development of technology like war.” ~dailymail.co.uk