Malkin: Debunking Domestic Terrorism of "Right wingers"
It is alarming that in the wake of the recent jewish center murders the media is on a tear to ban rightwing websites. Where was this outcry following the Boston bombings or Fort Hood? Where is the outcry over the origins of Planned Parenthood's mission? Why not point out the KKK was founded by democrats and originally as the bloody arm of the democratic party up through and including Senator Byrd?
This sounds to me like a debate about murders motivated by inheritance/insurance money, by lovers issues, by political motivations, and by murders in the course of a robbery. This specifically takes political motivations and breaks it down by left, right, or religious extremism.
IMHO this is pointless. It doesn't much matter if someone murders in a robbery or for political reasons, they need to be in jail with all the other murders.
If we're not careful, the power hungry will soon control when and if we can have babies, what we're allowed to do with our invention of a new way to sequence DNA, and even determine when we should have a death in the family.
It's really a simple matter of determining your first principles and applying those principles to any situation you find yourself in or aware of. If you don't put the work into understanding fully, your basic principles, then you often become lost in the weeds sprouted by your opponents.
The reality is that today's society is just lazy with regards to their rights. They don't get taught in schools how precious these rights are, how rare they are, or how to appreciate them. Kids get taught instead that they are outdated or inapplicable, where back then part of your basic education (non-government sponsored I might add) was a thorough grounding in basic government according to the Constitution. You walk up to 99 out of 100 people on the street today and they can't even correctly cite the rights of any of the first ten amendments!
I would fully support a Voter Interest amendment that cited that unless you could pass a basic test about your Constitutional rights, you couldn't vote. I don't see any need to coddle ignorance nor to award those who profiteer from it.
I think your last idea could be great or could go very, very wrong. Who makes the test? who grades it? I think in part, it was why the first voters in the US had to own property. They had skin in the game. Now if you get food stamps and an Obama phone, you have skin in the game.
Think about it: if churches suddenly become taxable entities, how many of them would cease to exist overnight? I'd wager nearly all of them, which is what makes the IRS targeting scandal one of the most pernicious and threatening gestures the Federal Government could possibly make. Where else are basic community policy decisions regarding personal rights and liberties taught than in Sunday School? Public education - which is already controlled by government interests. What you are doing is legislating against a competitor for the very ideas and reasoning of your populace!
What an utterly chilling thought.
I agree that the test - especially if administered by the Feds - would be a bad idea. The suggestion was a tongue-in-cheek jab at the vast majority of Americans who have no idea the privileges they enjoy here and are therefore ignorant of the threats to those privileges.
All of us with functional minds know how insane this attitude is, but it's rampant in any city or town where there is heavy industry and unions. The one thing you can count on is that no republican will ever be on that list in the union newspaper - they are sold out to the dems.
No less insane than a movie star telling folks how to vote.
No less insane than a Chamber of Commerce telling folks how to vote.
No less insane than a corporation telling folks how to vote.
Criminologists David Skykes and Gresham Matza found that juvenile delinquents offered a consistent set of explanations for their acts. I submit, further, that these can be applied to the Civil Rights Movement and to other political extremists and terrorists as well. From Wikipedia on Techniques of Neutralization (my comments are in parentheses.)--
* Denial of responsibility. The offender will propose that they were victims of circumstance or were forced into situations beyond their control. (The ruling class made us do this.)
* Denial of injury. The offender insists that their actions did not cause any harm or damage. (So what if we ...)
* Denial of the victim. The offender believes that the victim deserved whatever action the offender committed.
* Condemnation of the condemners. The offenders maintain that those who condemn their offense are doing so purely out of spite, or are shifting the blame off of themselves unfairly. (You are on the side of the One Percenters or the socialists or the world bankers...)
* Appeal to higher loyalties. The offender suggests that his or her offence was for the greater good, with long term consequences that would justify their actions, such as protection of a friend. (The republic, the Original Constitution, the people, the oppressed, the producers.)
Jan
That being as it is, nonetheless, Jets versus Sharks is indeed equivalent. And people who wrap themselves in the American Flag to commit acts of aggression - even taking lives - are indeed equivalent to those who take lives for Islam. The objective standard is the absence of censorship. Websites and discussion boards such as this very one still do exist. So, no foundation exists to justify open, armed rebellion.
Ayn Rand made the same point many years ago, at Ford Hall, when she said that she did not care one way or the other about gun control. If you think you are going to start a rebellion, think again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nahdy9Sjb...
With the overwhelming control of the media, the Left has realized that their lies have the desired effect whether debunked or not. Lie and lie again.
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social services backgrounds, and engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the negro is through
religious appeal. We don 't want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
“What hangs over the South is that the Negro has been in servitude. The white southerner is slow to forget this. His attitude is the archaic of this age. Supremacist thinking belongs in a museum.”
“The big answer, as I see it, is the education of the white man. The white man is the problem. It is the same as with the Nazis. We must change the white attitudes. That is where it lies.”
http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2011/12/d...
Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.
I am not suggesting her goal was abortion-though she said many provocative things about babies already born to poor families. But certainly she was in favor of pushing population control, especially with certain minorities, immigrants. She openly advocated it.
Black panthers
In order to understand Ayn Rand's fiction, you need to appreciate her embracing women as engineers who have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. She was an atheist all of her life. For Ayn Rand, the Bolshevik Revolution was a betrayal. Thus, she called herself a "radical for capitalism."
That's a hell of a statement given that you don't know me.
Nevertheless, let me fill in the blanks.
I don't give a damn if Ayers is a nice guy now, he should swing and be refused burial on US soil.
I mention him over Dohrn because Ayers' name is more familiar.
This is in no way meant to excuse Dohrn, she should meet the same fate as Ayers.
Ask yourself this: between Republicans and Democrats, which of the two parties do CURRENT supporters of Confederate ideologies align themselves with TODAY? If you were to go to the deep south today, and you saw someone flying a Confederate flag, is that person more likely to be a Democrat or a Republican? You shouldn't need more than one guess...
Here's the message from the front page of one of the main KKK websites. Does this sound like something a modern liberal would say?
From the official KKK website:
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
America, Our Nation is Under Judgement from God!
"There is a race war against whites. But our people - my white brothers and sisters - will stay committed to a non-violent resolution. That resolution must consist of solidarity in white communities around the world. The hatred for our children and their future is growing and is being fueled every single day. Stay firm in your convictions. Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, violent, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way - law and order - love of family - love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty. Repent America! Be faithful my fellow believers."
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
~ National Director of The Knights, Pastor Thomas Robb
http://www.kkk.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Kla...
Jan
So what can the KKK truly claim to be? A Racist controlled enforcement arm of the democratic party. The thugs with the torches and clubs who burnt and beat black people by the orders of men like Byrd and him fellows. He and men who thought like him curly abused a entire class of people who shared one characteristic - they were black.
Maph - for some reason you seem to have succumbed to the leftist propaganda that claims that Dems were not ever a part of the KKK. You have been fooled.
So, what I think needs attention is the process by which the labeling (both conservative and liberal) takes place. IF an organization claims affiliation with a deed AND the perpetrators of that deed claim association with that organization THEN one can label the deed as being sorted into the pile of things that were 'done by that organization'. The only such labels that I am aware of have been by Islamic extremists. All of the other deeds should be sorted into a slot that I will call "Trash" (because that is the best term I can come up with).
Therefore my Venn diagram is pleasantly simplified because the deeds done are not co-labeled by any of the groups to which I feel I relate.
Jan
We be good.
Jan, verbally passing as darker than she is
The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, at which point a vast majority of the black community belonged to the Republican party. So of course the Republicans would be the ones to pass the Civil Rights Act – they had all the black people! But then, over the course of the next ten to fifteen years, as more African Americans joined the Democrats, the members of the KKK fled the party and joined the Republicans instead, thus putting us where we are today, with those who advocate Southern Confederate ideologies belonging almost exclusively to the Republican party, and 95% of African Americans maintaining membership with the Democrats.
The '60s and '70s totally inverted the two political parties, to the point where they've essentially traded places with each other.
I have lived in the South on and off most of my life and southern blacks just as much as southern whites don’t like how Northerners think they know how things work better than the Southerners that actually live there. I can show you row upon row of homes occupied by blacks who like to fly the Confederate flag.
RULING CLASS the party does not matter
------------------------------
"Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s, serving as a recruiter and leader for his chapter, but later left the group and denounced racial intolerance."
------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 1940s happened before the '60s and '70s, didn't they?
As long as someone condemns the I don't care which side they are on.
That goes for extremists on the left.