Tea Party

On last week’s Toure incident

For years now I have been telling friends that one of my life goals is to become famous and get featured on TMZ.com.  After coming home last week one afternoon from work and seeing my Twitter exchange with MSNBC’s Toure go somewhat viral– hitting Twitchy, the Daily Caller, the blogs of multiple progressive low-life lacktivists (word I just made up…just think about it for a second), and even The Blaze– I can safely say that fame is something I no longer wish to have.

Screw that.  It’s not fun, it’s not enjoyable, and even though I barely even experienced 1/100th of 1% of what your average celebrity must experience every day when they leave their house or apartment, I can confirm that it is not that awesome.  I write on this website anonymously– not to “hide”, but because I do not believe that the concept of liberty needs to have a face or a figurehead.  I do not claim to speak for the whole, but rather I write as a voice offering a different perspective on some of the topics we often hear about daily in newspapers or on television.  My goal is to examine issues from a new angle– an angle often dismissed, or shunned by people of prestige, power, and influence.  People exactly like Toure– and they have been doing it for a long, long time.  I get brash, and I make some very real statements which I deem to be true.  I do not exist in a position of power like Toure does, and he should have known better than to get so careless about how he tried to inject race into something that he had to know was going to segue into an all-out rage from the Twitterverse.  He brought that on himself.  I on the other hand do not have anyone to answer to, and do not owe anyone a toned-down, or more “sensitive” approach to the topic of race in America.  Plenty of brave souls have tried that, and every single one of them has been summarily ignored and labeled a racist by the militant left.

If I’m going to be labeled ‘racist’ for what are arguments against racism, and accusations that the nation’s progressive contingent is perhaps the most relentless band of racists this nation has ever known, I sure as hell won’t be the “nice” guy while doing so.

I addressed this via Twitter, but I most definitely understood what Toure meant when he initially replied to me with “The power of whiteness”, after I mentioned the story of my grandfather and his surviving imprisonment in Dachau.  Had I expected the fire to ignite like it did (I only found out about it via a Facebook message from a friend, hours after its beginning), I might have stuck around and made note of a few facts for people:  that I was not Jewish, as many outlets claimed, that I understood Toure was talking about my family’s “white power” and how that helped us after coming to the States, and so on.  But you know what?  In hindsight, this worked out just fine.  Toure has been making brash statements about race for years now, and if he were a white guy pulling such nonsense, he would be fired or asked to resign.  He would be the Donald Sterling of MSNBC, except he wouldn’t get a $2 billion severance check.

But I am not writing this post to simply recall the events of last week in detail– a week in which for the first time ever, Toure just stopped using Twitter for days on end, which I can only assume was evidence of his bosses figuring out the best way to approach the fallout from his irresponsible tweeting.  The truth is, I didn’t even expect an apology (and didn’t get one, though he did make one to the general public a few days ago), nor did I want one.  I believe in the concept of free speech, for everyone, and in every medium in which that speech exists.  What I find a ridiculous amount of irony in, however, is how people like Toure will praise the firing of television personalities, or support forcing people to sell their basketball teams, yet they will talk themselves out of problems (or just tweet their way out of them) as if there is no measure of equivalence between these differing brands of supposed “hate”.  I will continue to call people out who persist in abusing their power and privilege in the media, just as Toure does, while doing so much to trample on the freedoms of others– and typically in the name of “freedom”, or “equality” at that, which is laughable.

But moving on–

I wanted to address my position from my tweet to Toure first, and discuss the motivation behind it.  I read a lot of criticism about it, and a lot of ridiculous conjecture as to what I “meant”, for example, when I capitalized the word “LEGALLY”, and make things more clear.  Here’s the tweet for reference:

Toure, as usual, was pushing some bullshit idea– this time by promoting an article about the concept of white privilege, reparations, and its applicability in today’s America.  The truth is I didn’t even read the article he posted.  Why?  Because Toure has a long and well-documented history of bashing white people and drumming up race wars via Twitter, or during his time on television, and I didn’t need to reference some random article he skimmed to understand the motivation behind his support of something like reparations.  The justifications for any kind of reparation-based system, regardless of what they were, did not matter to me– I cannot even tell you who wrote the article, and I won’t be able to tell you anytime soon.  I just don’t care.  This was about Toure and his incessant race-baiting- and that’s it.  Also, and just to fit the explanation in here, I only referenced my family’s “LEGAL” immigration to the States so as to bolster the legitimacy of it, and not to claim that people fleeing to the States for other reasons have done so illegally…though millions obviously have, and still do.

My statement to him was about responsibility.  In other words, I was asking what hand my family played in the many atrocities committed against people of color from our nation’s past– how in the run up to some of our most trying times post-slavery, my family wasn’t involved in the rape, murder, house burning, and segregation of black people (that was all done by Democrats), rather, they were either imprisoned in Dachau (which was where my grandfather found himself during the war as a prisoner), or running from Nazis, and even the Soviets.  My issue with not just Toure’s promotion of reparations, but of the “race card” in general, comes down to how such tactics are entirely abstract, passively blameless, and entirely responsible for the “blame everyone but yourself” mindset that progressive culture creates.

The crazy thing here is this:  if people made an argument about “white privilege” in a way that did not a.) blame people with absolutely zero connection to our country’s dark past for it, b.) belittle those who accepted no help from the government and still made things work, or c.) entirely excuse people who just might not be that good at something, skilled enough at something, or determined enough to pave their own way, we might actually have a conversation where we look at the problem as one we would love to lend a hand towards solving together.  As it stands, the idea of “liberty” is a no go in bridging that divide, and even people like Toure have claimed that “jobs aren’t the answer for unemployment” (I’m paraphrasing because the position is too stupid to devote time towards Googling for the actual quote, but yes, that’s what the man said).  None of the liberty movement’s (or as Toure would claim, none of the “extremist right-wing”) positions are good enough to help create equality, so what we are left with is an onslaught of government-heavy legislation which, intentionally, breeds dependence.  You know, I had to laugh when Toure tweeted a picture of him reading Rules for Radicals in first class during one of his recent trips– Toure isn’t man enough to be a radical, and he isn’t autonomous enough, or “colorblind” enough to imagine a world without the government holding the hands of the citizenry through every step down the path of life.  I called Toure out because he is ignorant, hypocritical, and gets a pass for just about everything he says– including what he said to me about the “power of whiteness”.  But more so, I monitor what he says and criticize him often due to his constant support of government-enabled dependence and despair.  Toure is the antithesis of radicalism.

I did not start this conversation with him expecting it to stretch into days of banter, inquiries from news media about my grandfather’s story, or to become a Twitter and blogosphere sensation.  I did not particularly love coming home to 700-1000 Twitter notifications, even though it was interesting to check out what people were saying about the incident, and it became tedious though the vast majority of it revolved around Toure’s condemnation from the public– something long overdue.  I write as a means of voicing an opinion that is too often dismissed, for all of the wrong reasons, by the country’s political and media elite.  One such “reason”, and often from the folks at MSNBC, is for the liberty movement’s “obvious racism”, which oddly enough goes without evidence just about every single time it is proclaimed.  I write to act as a vector from the sidelines, for other “little people”– those of us who might remain silent in the face of Facebook friends, coworkers, and relatives who speak with complete freedom because progressivism is “like sooo coool mannnnn“, and because they’re so into “like progress and not hate, maannnnnn“.

Progressivism is nothing more than a more academic term for “poser”.

Earlier I made reference to the term “lacktivist”.  In other words, an activist that lacks the substance necessary to make their end goals come to fruition.  This is the very definition of the American progressive.  Toure, Maddow, Harris-Perry, Matthews, Gore, Moore, deBlasio, Bloomberg (yes, Bloomberg), Matt Yglesias, Joan Walsh from Salon.com, every single contributor to Think Progress, etc.  These are lacktivists.  They are individuals, often ridiculously privileged in their own right, with minds obviously intelligent enough and coordinated enough to find success and generate ideas, but their emotions enable them to do nothing more than consider their good intentions and “caring” to be all that is necessary for the eradication of the societal ills they simply cannot shut up about.  It is all talk, and no substance– and in five or ten years when the newest, progressive “caring” initiative fails, they figure out a way to convince the poor souls they are ritualistically screwing over that it’s the Republicans’ fault for not giving enough money to the cause.  For as much as progressives love to wail about the billionaire Koch Brothers (looking at you, Harry Reid), they sure do settle on “money” a lot as to the reason why their utopian, castle-in-the-sky fantasies never seem to pan out.

I did not create this discussion with Toure to minimize the severity of what slavery was, or to detract from the gaps in society something more recent like segregation has caused.  No shit there have been negative effects in the aftermath of those horrendous events– even effects which have spilled into, and influence the way we live our lives today.  But get this– they were all Democrat-created things.  Every single one of them.  And today, in my blog, I often discuss how the same “ownership”, dehumanization, and liberty-suffocating principles (which was in essence what slavery was) of the “old” DNC are very much alive and well in today’s DNC and its progressive, demagogue pulse.  I will continue to point this out, regardless of who I piss off and who it “insults”.  If this correlation startles you, then please consider how Democrats, in the decades since the New Deal, have run urban populations into the ground, into poverty, and continue to do so through today.  Please explain how our first black President, a man that was anointed as a political messiah as the savior of America’s downtrodden, and given Nobel Peace Prizes before even so much as lifting a finger, has managed to ensure those in the lower classes are only slipping deeper into the holes that either they, or society has dug for them– worse off than ever before.

But no– keep blaming the Koch brothers and “corporations”.  That’s the spirit.

Perhaps if I write enough of these blog posts, it will finally click in the minds of a few people that making the poor poorer is the intent and not the problem progressives are trying to solve.  Toure, or any of the other folks I have mentioned, might not see things this way anytime soon, but if by chance I influence just one person in a way that enables them to see things in a scope wider than the foolishly simplistic and infantile way they see things now, this entire hobby of mine can be considered a success.  At least by my own standards, anyway.

Until then, liberty needs to be promoted, every day and always.  Adherence to our founding traditions of republicanism, as a nation which allowed democracy to happen, needs to be exercised.  And when people of power seek to use their atrociously biased influence to ensure we continue to set our nation “back”, which is often what they claim to be fighting so vehemently against, they need to be called out.  It just so happens I have gotten tired of being labeled as ignorant or racist because I happened to be born a white male, into a family that has been successful– this is how I started to create public discussions about race.  And it is quite alarming just how often we allow people like Toure to slip race into the equation when there are so many good people in this world who go about their days not giving a shit about what color someone’s skin is.

Until next time, with liberty, and justice for all.


People, and by “people” I am mostly referring to snooty undergrads who think they have a clue or faux-intellectuals who think their intelligence directly correlates with the type of beer they drink, love to theorize about what democracy is.  The discussion is predictable, if not entirely cookie-cutter:  the topic of freedom via our democracy is raised, some asshole in a beret or Prohibition Era jacket holding a can of Pabst Blue Ribbon points out that we don’t have a “true democracy”, and may even point out how some recent academics have considered that our democracy is actually a lot more like an oligarchy.  While the contention that our democracy has in fact evolved over time is a correct one, the spirit behind such discussions is based on false premises of what democracy is and ignorance surrounding what our democracy was meant to be like in the first place.

Democracy does not enable freedom.  It does not permit freedom.  Democracy does not necessarily create room for liberty, and it does not imply or facilitate equality.  The most glaring evidence of that fact is the practice of the electoral college, which reminds us that the vote of a person from California is about 20 times more important than the vote of a person from Delaware.  When the discussion about democracy is raised, usually as a means of backing an argument based upon pro-socialist theories (universal healthcare, income redistribution, confiscating privately owned firearms, etc.), what goes entirely amiss is that the nation was envisioned as a republic, which enabled a democracy.  Democracy was a measure of control implemented to protect people from government, and not to deter the will of the people and empower those elected to lead them.  It was meant to make America anything but the monarchy it had run from; anything but the monarchy that was dead-set to maintain the New World as a group of British colonies and not its own, independent nation.

In today’s America, Republicans do a terrible job of promoting republicanism.  Democrats, today, don’t even like to pretend that republicanism ever existed.  The concept of a republic enables liberty– personal autonomy and freedom from the inherent tyranny of federal control that sometimes goes unchecked.  Liberty, via the framework of a republic, allows democracy to happen.  In other words, republicanism gives democracy permission.

Governance through democracy is intended to limit the power of the federal government and enable governance via the states.  The federal government’s role, as intended from the start, is to provide that which states cannot provide themselves– nothing more.  And though we like to pretend like there is no precedent for that notion while things like “hope and change” become justifications for the constant nullification of liberty, there is actually a ton of literature on the matter; let us take a glimpse at just a few of them.

An excerpt from “The Liberty Song”, the first patriotic American ballad, written in 1768 by John Dickinson:

Come join hand in hand, brave Americans all,
And rouse your bold hearts at fair Liberty’s call;
No tyrannous acts shall suppress your just claim,
Or stain with dishonor America’s name.
In freedom we’re born, and in freedom we’ll live,
Our purses are ready,
Steady, friends, steady,
Not as slaves, but as freemen our money
we’ll give.

The incredible thing about that excerpt is that the “purses” and “money” being referenced to do not have to be thought of as wallets, or actual hard currency.  The purses can hold anything– your possessions, your ideas, your individuality, your freedom of choice, the healthcare plan you used to have that was cheaper and worked better for you and your loved ones, or your goals.  These are all things that progressives make a living of either condemning you for having, dictating what these should be for you, or ripping from you what they deem the “excess” and redistributing that to others undeserving.  The “money” needn’t have the face of a former President emblazoned on it– it can be your time, your effort at work, or even your opinions.  Every one of those are examples of things that progressives like to either tax you on, lie to you about, or label you erroneously for.  The Liberty Song predates the Constitution, and is but another example of something we are more apt to ignore than revere, or learn by its example.

In the wake of the Boston Tea Party, and the subsequent British response to it which saw ports shut down and colonies deprived of their outlets to sustenance, a few men from Virginia called for the Continental Congress with this justification:

…We are further clearly of opinion, that an attack, made on one of our sister colonies, to compel submissions to arbitrary taxes, is an attack made on all British America, and threatens ruin to the rights of all, unless the united wisdom of the whole be applied.

Is there anything more arbitrary and ridiculous than a nation’s highest court validating a penalty for not buying something, under the justification that it can be considered a “tax”?  Yeah, we as Americans just cheered for that, and let it happen (not me though!).  Peter the Great actually implemented a tax on citizens for sporting beards sometime around the start of the 18th century, and that even makes more sense than the Obamacare mandate.  Hell, it would be especially applicable today in a place like the gentrified, and hipster-infested borough of Brooklyn.  Bring this one back, guys– in hindsight, it was pretty smart!

Patrick Henry wrote to the President of the Continental Congress in 1775:

Gentlemen may cry peace, peace!– but there is no peace.  The war is actually begun.  The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms.  Our brethren are already in the field.  Why stay we here idle?  What is it that gentlemen wish?  What would they have?  Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God.  I know not what course others may take, but as for me: give me liberty, or give me death!

The most amazing thing about how we view “liberty” today, to me, is that we so rarely look at liberty as being on par with something else we cannot exist without– oxygen.  We sit back and watch people push bullshit initiatives, in the name of liberty, when they are anything but.

“Access to” (i.e “free”) healthcare, is pushed as a universal right that directly coincides with the notion of liberty– yet to enable this in reality we allowed the federal government to monopolize it and dictate what “good healthcare” is, we cheered on the creation of a “marketplace” that offered an incredible selection of three whole healthcare plans and told you that you had to choose one, and we allowed that same government to pretend like such proceedings would have no ill effect on a market that already sorely lacks an inroads to competitive innovation (which is how you lower the cost of medical care, by the way).  It has also completely forgot about the motivation necessary to lead intelligent youths down the path of medical education in the future.  We somehow managed to allow the government to do this in the name of liberty, while it did nothing but carry on its tradition of enslaving the public will– a public that in the end, remains populated with people who do not give much of a damn so long as their birth control is free.

The problem with our understanding of liberty today is that it is not revered as something important enough to die for– a level of dedication to it like Patrick Henry must have had in calling upon his fellow colonists to take up arms, and to start taking action, even if it meant that they would not be alive to see their children, or their grandchildren playing in the yards of the homes they owned– built on American soil.  In 2014, Patrick Henry would have been the guy that got his rifle ready, and jumped on his horse, if 300 little girls were kidnapped by the British.  He would not appeal for someone else to do something about it via Twitter, and pretend like he had done his part.

Today, we look at liberty like something given to us as a gift by the people we elect.  We place it below a good, but naturally flawed system we call democracy.  In doing so we allow the keepers of democracy to use liberty as a tool; a means of controlling popularity, directing public opinion, or guaranteeing subservience.  And that is a travesty.  Liberty is a gift bestowed upon the people, by the people who spilled blood to make such a gift possible.  It is liberty that motivated the founding of the nation as a republic, and allowed citizens to seek the honor of making decisions and acting as the voice of the people by way of public life.  If liberty was ever to be a tool, it was exclusively meant for the people and no one else.  Politicians– people who were expected to serve in politics as a secondary profession, and not a career– are not the ones who own the sow that reaps the fruits of liberty.  Today, we have this backwards.

Such a backwards situation would not be so bad if we regularly enjoyed leadership that understood that civilizations exist most efficiently when markets are free, and when people maintain a hold on the liberty that directs their personal decisions and lives.  Healthcare is but one of many examples in which the government has told us that we are no longer capable of being autonomous decision makers for ourselves and our families.

The unfortunate thing, in the end, is that many Americans are just fine with the way we perceive what liberty is, how we skew its meaning, and spit upon it daily.  Similarly, the British ruled over the colonies for a century and a half, and some even liked it, before people like Thomas Paine decided it was time to kick things into action and enable a revolution.  In Common Sense, buried deep in the parts that people don’t bother to Google, he states:

Small islands not capable of protecting themselves are the proper objects for government to take under their care; but there is something absurd in supposing a continent be perpetually governed by an island.  In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet; and as England and America, with respect to each other, reverse the common order of nature, it is evident that they belong to different systems.  England to Europe: America to itself.

We do not understand what it is to be ruled by a foreign power- a satellite.  But we are doing an impeccable job of recreating that satellite, and giving it an American flag to wave while it exercises control upon matters of importance not applicable to a need for federal concern.  We have turned D.C. into colonial England.

While big-R Republicans might be disappointing these days, if you ever encounter a republican, that supports republicanism, you should say “thank you”.  They support a cause that enabled your country to be what it is.  When the idea of free-anything (markets, choice, etc.) becomes something vilified, or entirely condemned by the progressive clowns who infest our nation’s leadership ranks, a great disservice is done to the history and the tradition imparted upon us by those who fought, and sometimes died for what became the United States of America.

If someone wants to pat themselves on the back as a progressive (which, really, is the sole purpose of their existence), and tells you in their next breath about how much they believe in the idea of liberty and the freedoms it should guarantee, kindly remind them that they are not only living examples of their own hypocrisy, but traitors to the cause.  Progressivism does not exist without a complete indifference to the nature of what is a free individual exercising their liberty, on republican soil.

Progressives, like the colonial British, are enemies of the dream that was liberty and became the republic.  In turn, they also exist as enemies of the State(s), and they need to be reminded of it more often.


Author’s note:  You may have noticed that I have not linked my quotations to any online sources or documents in this article.  That is because I have hand-written each one, from hardcopies I own, that are open right in front of me in my apartment.  I do not say this to sound pretentious like someone sitting at Starbucks reading Kerouac, but I think Americans would most assuredly prosper from seeking out, and purchasing the original documents that we so often pull up on computer screens and pluck pieces from to suit our needs.  In that regard, if you feel like you might want to read these documents in their entirety, I suggest you run down to your nearest Barnes & Noble (or whatever’s out there these days), and you grab a copy of some of the documents and publications that set forth the foundations for our country’s framework and its escape from tyranny.  Yes, you’ll have to deal with another arbitrary tax much like the colonies did called a “sales tax”, but I think there are more pros to be had than cons in reading every single word of these pieces we rarely see in full.  Just my opinion, though.  Take it or leave it.

The Religion of Progressivism

I’m not so ignorant as to believe that every liberal is an atheist– in fact I’ve come across plenty that regularly attend church with their families– but if someone is going to bring up religion when it comes to political discussion, I would be completely dishonest if I made the claim that the “anti-religion” side was somewhat divided between left and right.  It’s not.  The anti-religion, or “pro-science” arguments are typically from the left wing, or the apathetic.

I’ll save commentary revolving around the argument that “pro-religion” is akin to “anti-science” for now and table that for a future post.

It is with great rarity that you’ll find a right winger denouncing religion to the point where they condemn those on their own “team”.  That said, there are plenty of conservative-minded individuals who lack faith entirely, or some who simply choose to keep that part of their life private– a facet of their livelihoods that they choose to remove from the political discussion altogether.  Religion, much like other hot topics like abortion or gay marriage, ultimately becomes a part of the discussion as those opposing conservative ideologies use it to erroneously label or illogically condemn otherwise valid arguments.  For example, someone’s opposition to abortion– even when citing some kind of respect for a higher power, a creator, or something more— is not necessarily driven by religious belief.  This is but one example.

But I bring up the topic of religion today to point out something interesting about how non-religious, progressive people of today’s political landscape see things.

The backbone of religion, any of them, is faith– belief that isn’t based in proof.  While there are plenty of aspects of religion that are bound by proof, such as the historical existence of Jesus,  or geographical locations and the countries and governments that sprung up within them, much of it comes down to trust in something you cannot see, or experience in the flesh.  It is this faith piece that draws much ire from “scientists”.

(Note that I am using the term “scientist” as many who claim this as a personal trait do, however most don’t have a clue that being a scientist does not necessarily mean you are champion of the laws of biology, medicine, or the cosmos.  Hell, you can be a scientist and not give even the slightest damn about chemistry, human anatomy, or what a plant looks like.  What I am basically saying here is that people who claim “science” as their religion do so in an illogical way– that “science”, as they are defining it, isn’t entirely accurate.  On a less serious note, I’d contend that many of these people are more interested in being seen as liking science more than they are in what they actually consider science.  In sum, they’re full of shit.)

The usual argument is that the religious right uses its faith to limit the rights of others.  A statement I would not necessarily disagree with, depending on the argument.  There are certainly some who find the democracy we have created to be less desirable than theocracy.  And while this is an un-American perspective, it is also quite obvious that many immediately jump to this conclusion– that religious people demand nothing but theocracy– all too often.  While the devout undoubtedly do not care whether or not you accept their position, it is much more difficult for someone like me– a man that considers himself sympathetic to those with religious beliefs– to defend them when one side is all about rights derived from government, from man, while the other is dedicated to the rights they consider innate and a derivative of a non-human hand.

So I won’t be trying.  I’m not going to be defending religious people here.  If the argument is solely about the rights the government allows you to have via legislation or edict, then the naysayers of religion hold a strong position.  Additionally, our government is meant to operate outside of religion– that whole separation of church and state stuff.

But what I would love to point out at this juncture is how liberals– more so progressive ones– are the most religious people in the entire country.  One might laugh about religious folks that think the earth is 4,000 years old (admittedly I consider that belief kind of crazy too), and they might consider themselves smart because they are followers of the “I f’ing love science” page on Facebook, but support of the progressive ideology absolutely defines what it is to be a person of faith.  What part of the history of progressive policies and movements has ever, even once, spawned evidence of success?  None of it, of course.  Trust in progressive movements requires nothing but faith of the strongest kind, for the progressive’s influence is driven by something built upon anything but proof.

Your average liberal, at this point, is pretty quick to point out things like labor rights or minimum wage, as examples of progressive “wins”.  That is of course ridiculous when you consider things such as the definition of an 8-hour work day, overtime pay, etc. are largely bipartisan efforts– things just about everyone agrees have their place in an ethical society that treats its workforce better than slaves.  Those were humanitarian pushes more than political ones.  I always get much joy out of hearing such an argument from liberals because it is but one more example of how easy it is for them to ignore their own history of doing anything but treating their workers, and human beings in general, as something above the level of a slave.  I’ve pointed this out before, but the “our history” page of democrats.org touts their long history of supporting equality, civil, and human rights– which isn’t only ridiculous, but also a bold-faced lie.

The exact text from their page, which is absolutely laughable and ignorant, is:

For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers’ rights, and women’s rights.

Today, the Democrats are about other stuff– at least they’re about other stuff on the surface.  They use their election success and political savvy to bolster their bonafides and enact incredibly stifling policies that harm society in the long run.  Underneath that surface they continue to be about the same, good old-fashioned suppression of the individual that they have always been about– the intentions that led to their enslavement of  individuals of color, brutally destroying their homes, families, and lives…the intentions that enabled them to leverage minorities for votes at the command of Lyndon Baines Johnson while condemning them to a permanent position of complete dependence on government, once they became free and more valuable than the three-fifths of a person the Democrats always believed, and continue to believe they are.  Notice on the Democrats’ history page, on their timeline, how they don’t ever really get around to mentioning how all of that inequality became reality in the Land of the Free.  How convenient it must be to be a Democrat, with overwhelming minority support, when much of that minority is likely ignorant to how the party you represent is directly responsible for the problems that befall them today, in 2014.

I’m rambling a bit, but a glimpse at the Democrats’ website provides some evidence as to how much liberals invoke faith as a foundation of their political viewpoints.  As I said previously, the obvious lack of historical evidence or proof, defines what it is to be a person of faith.  Civil rights are but one example.  The only thing liberals have been doing for 200 years with regard to civil rights is hiding the evidence that would negate the party’s influence entirely.

But to provide more examples of faith-based political beliefs, look no further than what democrats.org trumpets as their next “success”– SOCIAL SECURITY.  One of the biggest failures, ever, when it comes to American history– a failure we, and our children continue to pay into when numbers prove that we’ll never get anything out of it.  A completely unstable and more importantly unsustainable initiative, that liberals love so much they tout it as their next great success after the passing of the 19th Amendment.

Didn’t anyone consider that the “timeline of success” on democrats.org was going to be a bit fishy when it proclaimed “TWO HUNNNNNDREEEEDDDD YEEEAAARRRRSSSS” of leading the charge towards progress, while starting at 1920 and just kind of ignoring the first one hundred years?  Yeah, wonder why that is.

Liberals consider things like social security, and other miserable social policy failures as successes because of the intent– which is what it is always about when it comes to progressives and what they support.  Numbers lie, caring and “progress” (even when there is none) flies.  Anyone that considers the social policies, that have all but guaranteed the existence of the welfare state for generations to come, as “progress”, is the epitome of someone with faith.  A Catholic might have faith in the Holy Trinity, a progressive puts their faith in the government’s three branches.

This website was created, directly, in response to the utter ignorance surrounding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, what led up to it, and the vast history our country has with politically defining roles, or values for people and dividing those people up– from the era of segregation back to slavery and earlier.  It is the reason why I woke up one morning about a year ago and decided to purchase this domain under this catchy, and slightly ironic name.

Religion is but one example of the ammunition people use when opposing opinions, especially those based upon limiting the power and size of the government they love to be dependent on.  While the faith of religious people is unshakable, it is that same faith that those who condemn them so often cite as the weak point of their argument.  The problem is those against faith and those who support or live by it, are speaking entirely different languages when seeking to tackle a single argument and engage in debate about it.  Though I went off on more than a few tangents in this one, the point, overall, is to clarify that faith is not reserved solely for the religious.  People use faith all the time– even if they think they are nothing but “scientists”.

(For the morons out there, being a scientist means you are simply on a quest for truth, for knowledge– you might claim this is inherent in your position, and that it was your idea of what a “scientist” was all along, but cut the bullshit– you consider yourself a scientist because you hate Michelle Bachman, like Bill Nye the Science Guy, and because you enjoy sharing Neil deGrasse Tyson images on your Facebook wall)

Without some faith, religiously-based faith or otherwise, we would find life to be pretty boring.  Entirely predictable, while never actually living up to such a standard of certainty.  We all have faith sometimes, and there is nothing wrong with that.  If you are going to use someone’s faith to condemn them, politically, one should consider that they might be using just as much faith– if not more– to fuel their own opinion.

P.S. For the hippies (and I’ll let you enjoy the journey of Googling this yourself):  an even more prolific American astrophysicist than Neil deGrasse Tyson, a leading expert on solar activity, entirely disagrees with the notion of climate change– another thing you put faith in, and use to support legislation that rips cash out of people’s paychecks for the “common good”.  But keep the faith, man.  Keep the faith.