A slap of truth

From www.biggovernment.com:

You’re a Bigot, Now Vote for Me! The Progressive’s Plan for November.

by Derek Hunter

Are you opposed to Obamacare or illegal immgration? You’re a racist. Are you opposed to gay marriage? You’re a homophobe. Did you oppose Elana Kagan’s appointment to the Supreme Court? You’re a sexist. After less than two years of complete Democrat control of government, there aren’t many Americas progressives haven’t accused of some sort of bigotry for simply having an opinion different from theirs. The politics of “hope” and “change” have devolved into exactly what those espousing them claimed they would end. Is this really Democrat’s plan to win votes in November?

Barack Obama campaigned under the banner of unity and ending the “politics of division.” But that banner was swiftly furled and the true banner of progressive politics began flying over our country. Progressivism leaves no room for debate or disagreement. To paraphrase former President Bush, to progressives you’re either with them or you’re with the enemy.

During the Obamacare debate, opponents were compared to opponents of civil rights legislation. The ethically challenged Congressman from New York, Charlie Rangel, said “The group that were in Washington fighting against the health bill and fighting against the President, [they] looked just like and sounded just like those groups that attacked the civil rights movement in the South.” Left-wing blogs ran with this mantra and agenda-driven media outlets like MSNBC dutifully followed. They still advance the lie that African-American Members of Congress were pelted with racial slurs as they walked to cast their vote, something even the New York Times has acknowledged there is zero evidence of.

The ends justify the means, no matter how sickening and divisive the means.

When a judge in California overturned Proposition 8, a ballot measure that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman which was passed by voters, these self-appointed champions of democracy cheered its undermining. Whatever your opinion on the issue, it was a rather ironic turn for people who use the word “democracy” as though they respect it.

When Elena Kagan was nominated to the Supreme Court without much of a record, opposition to this life-time appointment was called sexist all across the left-wing echo chamber. Blogs were replete with this unfounded charge, with headlines like “Not-So-Subtle Sexism at the Kagan Hearings” from the blog at Ms. Magazine.

The bigotry arrow has become the default weapon in the progressive’s quiver, only it’s lost its sting.

When Arizona passed a state law allowing police to enforce federal law on immigration, progressives cried racism. It couldn’t be that a majority of Arizonans, and Americans, simply support forcing immigrants to enter the country legally – opponents needed to be painted as bigots.

When 9/11 families expressed discomfort with building a Mosque two blocks from where Muslin extremists senselessly murdered their loved ones they were ignored by Progressives. Why? Because attacking them is a losing proposition. So they attacked those who sided with them, many of whom are Republicans, as bigots. They’ve basically ignored Democrats, including Howard Dean and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who’ve said the same things. Opponents are not trying to “block” the Mosque, Progressives claim, yet no law to stop it has been proposed. They’ve made appeals to sensitivity, nothing more.

Progressives, who act as sensitivity police for others, attack Republicans for standing with people who have every reason to be sensitive.

The difference between right and left on these issues is the right attempts to change hearts and minds; the left simply accused opponents of bigotry. This makes sense when you realize how unpopular their initiatives have been; if you can’t get people to vote for you, try to discourage them from voting at all. It’s a strategy – if you can’t win someone’s vote, convince them the alternative is a bigot, because who wants to vote for a racist, homophobe or sexist? They’re hoping people will stay home on November 2^nd.

Progressives show little concern for the will of the people. They have an agenda, and nothing is going to stand in the way of achieving it. They will lie, they will demonize, they will do anything to achieve it.

In their zeal to advance that agenda they’ve gone farther than they ever have before and thus exposed their true nature. Progressives have accused about 90 percent of the country of bigotry, in one form or another. On every one of the issues listed above polls show the American people are unambiguously not buying the spin and siding with their opponents. That’s a fact progressives will learn the hard way when it comes time for these “bigots” to vote

American rights versus Obama's purloined freebies

Here is a basic difference that runs really deep and explains a lot. It's the difference between how Obama and the far left New Age Marxists view rights and how we Americans view rights. Americans know that a person is born with the right to own him or herself and whatever he or she can produce.

Further, we understand that the only reason there is government is that individuals get together and decide that there are certain things they can't do by themselves (national defense, infrastructure, etc.) so they will have to organize and pool resources to do those few things that would otherwise not get done. But still, of course, individuals are the primary unit, though they choose to gather in groups for different purposes. Overall, we have the right to be left alone except for those few things that we delegated to government. So we have rights like the right to speak freely, move freely, defend ourselves, freedom of the press, freedom to congregate, etc. We have a Constitution to guarantee that we retain the right to act freely except for those few things we delegated to government. Everything else we keep for ourselves, as it should be. They were ours to start with.

Obama disdains these rights and calls them "negative liberties." That is, they say what government can't do, which then ensures our freedom from control and interference. What he has proposed for the past ten years or so are "positive rights." These are things that the government gives you, like the right to a job, the right to high speed internet (That's not a joke -- they think it's a basic human right!), the right to medical care, the right to a college education. Naturally, this includes seizing resources from no good people in order to dole out goodies to more "deserving" people. (Fortunately, often one only needs to have the correct skin color in order to "deserve" someone else's property.)

Notice, these are all things that the government needs to control and dole out. It is diametrically opposed to the American system of "natural rights" that are based on logic and nature. These are based on Friedrich Hegel's concept of Der Stadt. The State, or central government is everything. Without them you would have nothing. The individual has no reason to exist but to serve the government and be thankful for the crumbs they get back for giving the state all their rights, money, and freedoms.

A practical real-world look at what Hegel's ideas look like in practice would be to study the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. The government is everything; the individual is nothing but a worm churning out as much as they can for the state.

Again, in the American system the individual is everything. We own ourselves and what we produce. We allow government to exist to fill in the cracks between the things we can do ourselves. Hegel's idea is that when you are born you belong to the state. Therefore, anything you produce belongs to the state. Anything they give back to you is a gift. This is the idea behind government being able to seize as much of what you have as they want and to "spread it around," as Obama likes to say. It's not his to spread. It's stolen from the rightful owner who produced it. If he wants to spread something around he could feel free to start being generous himself, and at the very least help his aunt in Boston and brother in Kenya who live in abject poverty. In actual fact he gives the tiniest percentage of his income to charity of any president -- he's a selfish miser. BUT, he will make damn sure that you are forced to help people that he wants to cozy up to.

This divide between American ideas and Hegel's idea that was part of the excuse for Marxism is huge and is being crammed down our throats daily. He wants us to believe we are born owing the government something, and are lucky that we have the government there to dole out absurd rights like high speed internet while denying us our most basic rights that he disdains as "negative liberties." No thanks, buddy, you can keep your command and controlled handouts and I'll keep my constitutionally guaranteed rights that I was born with.

Tony Robbins (mister positive) warns of "major, major" collapse

Tony Robbins, famous for decades for being unrelentingly positive, issues a warning of "painful" economic collapse towards the end of the year. Very interesting how he frames it.