I'm shooting off my M855 cop-killer heat-seeking super-duper armor-piercing anti-tank intercontinental ammo for one of the following reasons. You pick:
1) It is the least accurate ammo on the market for my (1:7) rifle and I want to be rid of it, or
2) I want to get rid of it because the government thinks I shouldn't be trusted with it and I always turn to the government for guidance because they are infallible and have my best interests at heart.
Do we not talk about racial issues because we are "cowards?"
Or do we talk too much about racial issues because we harbor a "dark vein of intolerance?"
Will our liberal betters publish a government bulletin that will give us approved language? Or will they keep us in the dark as to what we can say and not say in order to retain their "betters" status?
Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting
pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too
many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.
Was that meant to silence us? Or, by calling us "cowards," was it meant to spark more conversation that would eventually lead to more tolerance?
This weekend Colin Powell expressed the same small-mindedness on ABC:
...former George W. Bush administration Secretary of State Colin Powell
said the Republican Party still struggles with a “dark vein of
intolerance,” when dealing with race issues.
Holder made his comment one month after America's first black president took office. This "nation of cowards" had Democrat super-majorities in both houses of congress. The stars were aligned to finally solve our nation's racial divide. Right?
Powell made his comment six years into Obama's presidency - and two years into Obama's second term as president. Apparently the Democrats pissed away their opportunity to solve our racial issues. Or, an alternative view: they need racial animosity and chose to perpetuate the problem.
One might conclude that Holder and Powell are racists who use this language to silence their political opposition and to establish a crisis-as-a-means environment where racial violence and the threat of racial violence is not just excused, but encouraged.
Today's news: an Oklahoma fraternity was closed because of a racist chant by a couple of its members. This is all I know as all I've read is the headline. And that is all I will read. The story does beg the questions:
Were the fraternity members cowards before they expressed their dark vein of intolerance?
If what they said was wrong, shouldn't we direct our disgust at the Democrat Party for not providing guidance on what language is approved and what language is forbidden?
I'm white, and by the left's definition, unable to participate in the dialogue of race. I'm also a conservative who agrees with the idea that people should be judged by the "content of their character," which may be another reason why I haven't been invited to participate in these discussions.
My intolerance will remain with the Democrat Party who bought, sold, owned, oppressed and terrorized (KKK) blacks. They filibustered their civil rights legislation, then polluted the idea with Affirmative Action which created a cloud of doubt over the head of every self-made person of color. Then they destroyed the black family by replacing black fathers and husbands with a government check, and destroyed opportunities with government-run schools. The only tolerance towards the black community that I've seen on the left is their tolerance for high drop-out rates, abortion rates triple the average, drug use, sexual promiscuity, bastardization of religion, inner-city violence and entitlement expectations.
UPDATED 3.10.15:
Another angle by ZoNation, who connects the dots between reverse-racism and communism:
2:30 mark, speaking to liberalsprogressives communists:
We don't bring up the past. You do. We just correct you on it when you do. And the thing that I don't get, is that people are going to get so hung up about America's bigoted past, why don't you hold Democrats responsible in that grudge? The Democrat Party is the party that is responsible for the institutionalized bigotry that has so deeply scarred this country. Yet you suckers are totally on their farm.
And on the topic of Communism, 3:10 mark:
People are suckered, if not coerced, into thinking Communism equals equality. It doesn't.
Supposedly, it does away with classes. And everyone lives in an Utopia. You can not achieve this without heavy handed government that will murder people by the millions to achieve this system.
I'm in the process of re-formatting the book and movie recommendations at the left. Specifically, I've separated them into Fiction and Non-Fiction categories.
These are books I've read and movies I've watched as part of my 8+ year research into the topic of Communism. They are not all. Only the books and movies I feel compelled to recommend to like-minded comrades who don't want to waste their time.
In addition to these changes, I've added two documentaries I recently watched to the Ushanka Cinema section.
The Soyuz Conspiracy is a short documentary of the Soviet manned space program, narrated by Elliot Gould. I have an interest in this topic after reading Starman, a great primer to the topic as well as a revealing look into how desperate things had become in the Soviet Union way back in the 1960's. Both present the death of Gargarin's close friend, Cosmonaut Komarov, and Gagarin's depression and disillusionment with the Soviet Union. This movie, however, presents new information. Specifically, that Gagarin was not the first Soviet in space. Instead, it suggests that either a) Gagarin was not the first into space, but the first to return to Earth alive, or b) Gagarin never went into space.
These alternatives suggest this could be an Oliver Stone presentation, but it never felt that way. They do a great job at explaining the Soviet media realities - the controls over information, the timelines for stories, and the weaknesses of factual information in a closed, top-down dictatorship.
Worse Than War, a two-hour documentary filmed by the author of the book with the same title. I have this book but have yet to read it. I'm not sure that I will.
Ushanka has been an 8+ year study of communism and tyranny. This documentary is strictly about genocide, with no connection to political ideologies. For me, this was frustrating. For others, it could be a non-issue. Another frustration was that his calls for military intervention do no require a national security reason And like all calls for military action by the global powers, it always boils down to US military action. Again, a sole focus on genocide is admirable, but calls for remedies that do not address political and military components and challenges is just noise.
This documentary is full of excellent footage and interviews. The author is determined to connect genocide to the decision-makers, and is on a quest to find a way to eliminate genocide from a leader's options. The author is a liberal, and his US interviews are all with Democrats. He is, however, objective. And I appreciated his disagreement with Clinton's failed Secretary of State, Madeline Albright re: Rwanda.
Surprisingly, the author's solution was very close to mine.
I decided to use the data from my previous metal videos to do some research. Specifically, how would a metal investor have done over these past six years? The results were shocking.
In case you needed an example of a "respected precious metals expert" predicting when the sky will fall. According to this guy, the end comes this September.
My dad taught this little girl to chase her dreams and to never give up.
Despite Democrats trying to replace fathers with government, fathers are key to productive adults and to a working society.
My favorite story of hers' is when this father stood in front of their house with a shotgun to protect his family from the Democrat Party's terrorist group, the KKK.
Check out these three news items from today's Google News. Each is designed to get a click, albeit not from a media critic like your comrade Karl. Do you see the same things that I do?
Christian Science Monitor introduces a new term: "Pro-North Radicalism." The new term for pro-communist. Catch that? Am I splitting hairs here?
CNN is unaware that accountability was applied in Ferguson when Michael Brown was shot dead and left in the street with his ass in the air after he robbed a local store and then attacked a police officer. Their search for another culprit, and their accusation of racism, fall flat UNLESS there was a white robber at large in Ferguson at the exact same time Michael Brown was walking down the middle of the street. Or, does CNN have an agenda here?
USA Today suggests, in the snippet below, that being called a coward is liberating.
I realized I'm overdue for a chat about Libertarians. Excuse me while I whip this out.
It is time for Libertarians to have their own show. And to stop attending CPAC.
CPAC is the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.
I propose LPAC: Libertarian Political Action Conference. Perhaps in Denver. Here is why:
Conservatives will never support legalized prostitution, legalized meth, legalized late-term abortion, legalized marriage between a man and non-woman, and unanswered attacks on Americans. Ever.
It has to do with traditional family values and religious values. These, with the Constitution, are what made America the greatest country in the shortest amount of time. Libertarians are pro-Constitution. Cool. But like Democrats, they are not just against these family and religious values. They actively work against them.
I think the douche who said at the 2:25 mark...
Although some conservatives refuse to accept the changing world around them...
...needs to acknowledge his Libertarian bias and admit Libertarians attend CPAC because they'd be seen as the anarchist dope-smoking hippie fringe if they held their own show. Disagree? Prove me wrong.
Rand Paul won the straw poll this year. Ron Paul won it when I attended in 2008, and probably again in 2012. The value of the CPAC straw poll is the second place winner.
This year it was Scott Walker. Gov. Walker differs from Ron and Rand as he is a) a proven executive, b) a realistic presidential contender, c) not an advocate for the legalization of mind-altering substances because "personal responsibility," and d) will bomb the shit out of those who do, or wish to do, America harm.
That is the short list of how we differ.
As long as Reason continues to pollute YouTube with their 'Libertarian is the new conservative' propaganda, I will remain here to call them out. And as long as Libertarians pollute CPAC instead of standing on their own, I will call them out.
Libertarians are smart. They are passionate. They are committed. And I have learned a lot from the Libertarians I know. Having said that... They could launch their own LPAC 2016 conference and create an amazing amount of buzz (pun intended). Maybe Reason could sponsor it....
To continue to piggyback on CPAC proves, a) the conservative movement has more momentum, better organization and better dressed attendees than the liberal movement, and b) there is more credibility for the Libertarians to siphon and present as their own.
My predictions for 2016 - and I'll bet a Commie Obama hat on one or both of these (assuming supplies last):
Rand Paul flames out in the primaries, and
Libertarians fail to attract 2% of the vote in the November election and only hope for a spoiler role in one or more battleground state.
If this criticism is new to you and you want to learn more, click the Libertarian label below.
