Rand Paul defends blacks from the terror of big government

Here’s a throwback post, not because there’s plenty of news currently unfolding that isn’t worth discussing, but because I find it interesting.  We all need a break from Ferguson and ISIS coverage.  While browsing YouTube the other day, I stumbled across Rachel Maddow’s interview with Rand Paul during his 2010 campaign soon after he won the Republican senatorial primary, in which they discussed Paul’s position on the Civil rights act of 1964.  Before the interview, Dr. Paul had made some statements in other interviews saying that he abhors racism and supports ridding the government of institutional racism, but believes that the section of the civil rights act that prohibits business owners from not serving blacks limits the first amendment rights of such business owners.  These comments made by Paul set the stage for his interview with Rachel Maddow, which was uploaded on YouTube and divided into two parts by a user whose real username I will not post here simply because it is so long.  I recommend that you watch part 1 of the interview because Rachel Maddow provides a good introduction to their debate.  I will mainly focus on part 2, which includes the majority of the interview, in this post.

Throughout the entire interview, Rachel attempts to have Dr. Paul fully state his stance on the civil rights act.  She asked him the same question multiple times, only worded differently, to get it out of him.  But unlike many other Republicans, Rand Paul is no idiot.  He stands by his beliefs, but is smart to not denounce the civil rights act.  Several times during their conversation when Maddow asked him the question (“Do you support business owners’ rights to discriminate against blacks?”) in many variations or allude to evidence that shows him contradicting himself, Paul would evade it by saying “Well, I think that this debate is interesting”, and then go off on some notion as if he completely disregards her contribution to the argument.  Here’s a metaphorical example for their conversation: there is a cardboard square between Maddow and Paul, she pokes holes through the square to see what his true position is, which is written on a paper concealed behind the square.  Each time she pokes a whole through the square, we get a clue on what it is.  Paul remains unyielding and refuses to fully elaborate on his opinion in fear that he may be labeled as a racist.

It is through these small slivers that we can evaluate all what Paul has said and put it together.  Only then is his position on the issue revealed.  Maddow makes a great point when indicating that supporting civil rights while criticizing the CR act directly contradicts itself.  Rand Paul may abhor racism, but will not fight against it if it means limiting free speech.  He says that if he were older during the sixties, he would’ve marched with MLK, but with this viewpoint he holds, he is practically on both sides of the argument.  On the side of the civil rights activists, he hates racism and believes that Blacks should be treated equally to whites, but also defends the bigots and racists in their right to free speech.  If a law includes racism, like many of the laws in the Jim Crow South did, he would condemn it.  But if its a business discriminating against blacks, Mr. Paul doesn’t have any problem with it.  Sure, he may not agree with what the racist business owner believes, but he won’t do anything to prevent it. With this logic, Paul will defend Blacks in their pursuit for equal rights, but if it means restricting the freedom of speech for bigots, Rand will admit defeat.  Thus, any possible progress is prevented.  Civil rights aren’t as important as free speech (speech that this full of hate and bigotry, I should add) according to Rand Paul.    Considering this, it becomes confusing on which side Mr. Paul stands.

Perhaps examining some of his other responses to racism will provide insight onto where he stands.  The most recent event involving racial discrimination in the U.S. that Paul commented on was, of course, the protests in Ferguson, Missouri.  Being socially liberal, he stood with the democrats on the issue.  During the crisis, he wrote a times op-ed on the police militarization in Ferguson.

Not surprisingly, big government has been at the heart of the problem. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies—where police departments compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of Americans think of as law enforcement.

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.


Although I agree with Rand Paul and strongly condemn police militarization, I can’t help but feel that he is artificial on this issue.  The protests and riots in Ferguson aren’t in response to police militarization, they are in response to the fatal shooting of a young black man by a white police officer.  The root of the whole crisis in Ferguson is the atmosphere of the town, it’s segregation and the police discrimination black residents experience everyday.  Only once in his article did Dr. Paul mention the issue of race and how it corresponded to police brutality.  Throughout his op-ed, he mainly focuses on growing police militarization throughout the states and how it infringes upon our civil liberties. Although he may be on the same side as them on the topic of Ferguson and civil rights, he seems to have a more developed position than the liberals he has sided with.  Rand’s hatred for racism doesn’t come from rationality, it derives from his libertarianism.  Many of the liberals like myself who have come out in support of the blacks protesting in Ferguson have done it because we think blacks have equal rights to whites and shouldn’t be persecuted by law enforcement simply due to their skin color.  Rand Paul may also believe this but he does not voice it.  He takes on the subject of civil rights from another angle.  As was seen in his interview earlier with Rachel Maddow, he views racism as an evil principle of big government, which enforces it through the police forces.  Due to his libertarian ideology, Paul is an enemy of big government and consistently labels big government as the source of all problems.

Once examining his condemnation of institutional racism in both arguments, one may question whether Rand Paul truly thinks African-Americans as people who deserve civil rights or simply a racial minority who he should publicly defend in order to challenge big government.  As I mentioned before, most Democrats view the denial of civil rights to blacks in the south and racial discrimination across the nation as a moral issue that must be dealt with in order to treat blacks as human beings who deserve equal treatment in a country and society their race has helped create.  While Democrats focus on the moral objectivity of the issue, Rand Paul takes it a step further and uses the race issue to victimize the government.  He used the police militarization in Ferguson to his advantage in strengthening libertarian influence, particularly his influence.  When he exploits the race issue in his favor, he objectifies blacks to a mere material status in his libertarian political formula in framing the government of fueling racism.  If the government really was full of racists, than why is the head of the government a black man?  I’ll wait for Senator Paul to explain that to me, but for now, it doesn’t seem realistic.  If he were actually being truthful, he would admit that the heart of the race problem lies within the private sector, which explains why blacks are often denied higher paying jobs and advantages.  Our society doesn’t offer many opportunities to blacks, but that isn’t entirely the government’s fault.  The U.S.’s long history of oppressing blacks is responsible for their current socio-economic condition.

In many ways, like in the civil rights of 1964 (which Rand Paul only partially supports), the government has passed legislation to prevent discrimination, but according to Rand Paul, we shouldn’t do that because it’ll diminish the free speech of the racists.  If the Senator honestly cared for the civil rights of blacks, he would do anything in helping them achieve those rights, even if it meant silencing bigots.  Ultimately, I don’t know if Rand Paul really does hate racism or if he’s secretly a racist, but I do know that as he continues to enter the public spotlight and advocate his doctrine of libertarianism, more people will realize that he’s exploiting the race issue for his own political advantage, and hopefully they’ll be disgusted by it.





Posted in Politics, Social Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

FOX News’ response to Ferguson: “What about Chicago?”

Every major media outlet, international or American-based, has been covering the mayhem in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri for the last two weeks.  Liberal and moderate media reported the story first because of it concerning a civil rights issue.  Starting last weekend, as the protests, riots, and looting grew in response to the militarization of the local police force, right-wing media outlets like FOX News began to cover the story, recognizing that it was headline-worthy material.  As the conflict has become mass publicized, like any major issue, the two political spectrums have developed contrasting stances.  The left, myself included, see the protests as a justified retort to the racial discrimination many blacks in Ferguson have experienced for years by the police.  The right has also developed their own opinion on the situation.  They have come out supporting Darren Wilson, the white police officer who shot unarmed Michael Brown, and oppose the majority sentiment that sympathizes with the protesters.

Here is a clip of law enforcements “experts” on FOX News giving their opinion on the situation in Ferguson:

Firstly, I agree with them that police should be militarized during a natural disaster, but to say it that police militarization is justified to combat protesters and some violent rioters is ridiculous.  What threat do they pose that the police need snipers, stun grenades and military equipment?  The protesters certainly don’t have that type of equipment.

There have been some reports of rioters throwing molotov cocktails at law enforcement, but none of them possess any dangerous weapons like the ones the police are threatening to shoot them with if they come too close.  Also, Bo Dietl’s justification for militarization that muslim extremists threaten Ferguson is completely senseless.  The notion that muslim terrorists are plotting to invade Ferguson, Missouri is pure stupidity.  Even if he was making the claim that muslim extremists’ encroachment on our native cities rationalizes police militarization, that still doesn’t have anything to do with these protests over the fatal shooting of a young black man by a white police officer.  If muslim extremists were causing terror within our national borders, it would be the U.S. military who is to combat them, not a local police force.  Considering this, Dietl’s argument is revealed to be even more irrational.


The militarized police in Ferguson.

When Dietl brought up the issue of black on black violence occurring in Chicago and all over the country to supersede racial discrimination in Ferguson, it wasn’t the first time that has been said on FOX News.  While observing the right’s reaction to the story, i’ve noticed several times that conservatives bring up the violence in African-American communities between blacks themselves, to give the impression that they truly care about black people and that our attention should rather be on those communities.  It’s true that hundreds of young black men die each year in cities like Chicago due to gang violence, much more than the number of black males who die in police shootings.  What these right-wingers fail to realize is that racial discrimination and police brutality on blacks such as the cases witnessed in Ferguson, is root of every problem for the African-American community.  If they only opened up an American history textbook, they’d know that Blacks have been mistreated in the U.S. for centuries, from slavery to Jim Crow segregation.  When considering this chronic mistreatment of blacks by whites, they would know that our society is still deeply affected by the conditions blacks suffered throughout history, and after examining cases like this fatal shooting in Missouri, it becomes obvious that blacks have still not obtained their full civil rights.  It would be wonderful if African Americans really did have equal opportunity, but sadly, that’s not the case.  Blacks are often prevented from attaining high or well paid jobs because whites are the ones in control, and discriminate against them.  Due to this lack of opportunity and education usually experienced by blacks, their ability to climb up the social hierarchy is significantly small, and they are reduced to living in ghettoes, where crime is widespread and living conditions are abysmal.

Yet, despite these obvious facts, most conservatives believe there is no longer a race problem in America.  Its sad that they can be so ignorant of such a conspicuous and important issue.  Only through educating the public on these social ills will popular sentiment grow in support of the black community’s battle for equal rights.  White America needs to know and realize that racial discrimination is still a very serious issue in this country.  Once they realize this, we can start to rally for another civil rights movement, and stories like this situation in Ferguson are good beginnings for such a campaign.





Posted in Social Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Conservatives stand up for individual freedom, unless you’re black


Bundy-Brown Partisan Divide

If you’ve been following the news coverage on the protests in Ferguson, Missouri in response to the police shooting of Michael Brown, you know how volatile the situation has gotten.  The police stationed at the protests sites have suppressed the protesters by hurling tear gas canisters and stun grenades into crowds of citizens.  They’ve even threatened to shoot reporters on location for recording and publicizing the police’s actions, a complete violation of the first amendment.  Many politicians, including the President, have condemned these officers for persecuting reporters for simply doing their jobs.  But it continues none the less.  Despite the militarization of the local police, Missouri governor Jay Nixon announced Sunday that the state’s national guard would intervene.  Whether having the national guard intervene is a good judgement or not is yet to be determined.  What is more remarkable is the response of some conservatives to the situation.

On Sunday afternoon, a few dozen counter-protesters gathered in downtown St. Louis to display their support for Darren Wilson, the white police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown on August 9th.  During their protest, they argued that Wilson was just doing his job, and being an officer of the law who maintains peace throughout the community.  That could be interpreted as a legitimate argument if Wilson really was enforcing peace.  Unfortunately, he wasn’t.  He victimized Brown and his friends for walking in the street, and executed Brown for it.  Anyone who believes that police behavior like that is rational or justifiable will undoubtedly support anything the police do, regardless of its legality.  They don’t admit that racial discrimination in Missouri exists because they’ve never experienced it.  The reason they haven’t been persecuted by the cops is because they are white.  Meanwhile, the black citizens of the area have to experience racial stereotyping by the police everyday.  These white folks in the counter-protest just ignore the race issue as if it doesn’t exist, simply because it hasn’t negatively impacted them.  Just because an issue has never involved you, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist or it isn’t a serious problem.  Yet, these Darren Wilson supporters are so ignorant that they completely disregard this.

If ordinary white civilians of St. Louis came out in support for Darren Wilson, than it could only be a matter of time until more radical individuals also publicly announce their support for him.  The Ku Klux Klan praises Wilson for shooting the black teenager, and is committed to financially supporting him.  The KKK’s South Carolina faction, the New Empire Knights, revealed that their Missouri division is currently raising money for Wilson.

We are setting up a reward/fund for the police officer who shot this thug. He is a hero! We need more white cops who are anti-Zog and willing to put Jewish controlled black thugs in their place. Most cops are cowards and do nothing while 90% of interracial crime is black (and non-white) on white.

The fact that now the KKK are getting involved in the situation is beneficial for the side of this contention who are against the police.  Just as the conservatives stopped supporting Cliven Bundy once they found out he was a racist, those who endorsed Wilson will no longer do so now that the KKK does.  Surely no sane person would choose to remain on the same side as the KKK on any issue.


The standoff between Cliven Bundy’s red-neck militia and law enforcement.

This whole situation and the right’s stance on it can’t help but remind me of the conflict earlier this year involving Cliven Bundy, the cattle rancher who let his cattle graze on state property for twenty years.  When officials from the U.S Bureau of Land Management demanded that Bundy follow the law and pay the grazing fees he owes, he refused.  Afterwards, a standoff between a militia in support of Bundy, composed of family members and fellow ranchers, and law enforcement ensued.  Progressive media displayed him as a fool who refused to follow the law, while Right-wing talk-show hosts like Sean Hannity regarded Bundy as a patriot who was standing up for his liberty against the restrictions of individual freedom instituted by big government.    Even some Republicans in congress promoted Bundy, that is, until everyone learned that he’s a racist.  Bundy quickly lost support of his new friends from the conservative media, was left alone to defend himself and tell the world that he wasn’t a racist.  Before discovering his racist remarks, the Republicans loved him for resisting law enforcement and condemning big government.

In this Ferguson case, the conservatives have completely switched sides.   Now they support the police.  They blame most of the incident on Brown, claiming that he if had followed the law and listened to the officer, he wouldn’t be dead.  These conservatives are very inconsistent in their beliefs on standing up for individual freedom. During the Bundy standoff, they supported a man who violated the law and openly disobeyed law enforcement, in this Ferguson issue, they support a police officer who targeted a few young black men and decided to kill one.  When considering these factors, one who thinks reasonably might ask, “If the conservatives condemn Brown for not following the law, why did they support Bundy when he violated the law?”  This is where the issue of race returns to the issue, and it truly reveals just how racially divided America is.  Republicans approved of Bundy when he protested against the BLM because he’s one of them.  A conservative, libertarian old white man who shares the same views and values as they do. This shows that they value the life of a white man superior than to that of a black man. Aside from a few Republicans, such as Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, they criticize the protesters in Ferguson for standing up against law enforcement, while they were doing it only a few months ago in southeastern Nevada.

The hypocrisy of these right-wingers is quite ludicrous.  Although some of them believe that racism isn’t an issue in America anymore, most of them, whether it they know it or not, are partially racist, which is why they have condemned the protesters who are angry because of the death of Michael Brown.  I wish that more Americans would take a position like Rand Paul and support the protesters in their anger at the police, and in their struggle for freedom.  If the rightists legitimately care about an individual’s right to freedom, than they won’t support the police in their oppression of protesters.






Posted in Social Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Rafael Cruz: Obama and Castro are the same

rafael-cruz-father-of-ted-cruzRafael Cruz, the father of Texas Senator Ted Cruz and a conservative political activist was recently interviewed by Dave Garrison, the host of “Faith and Liberty”, a radio show for conservatives.  During the interview, he compared President Obama to Fidel Castro, claiming that the two “operate by the same rule book” and that they both strive to “eliminate the concept of god” and “make government your god”.  Being very conservative and quite religious, Cruz is obviously very biased in his conclusion on Obama and the whole idea of big government.  Being both an atheist and a socialist, Rafael is directing attacking my beliefs in this argument.  I find it necessary to fire right back at him to defend my beliefs (and also attacking his at the same time).

Here is a clip of the interview, provided by Right Wing Watch:


Despite what Rafael believes, Obama and Castro are not two peas in a pod.  President Obama isn’t even a socialist, unlike Castro, who first identified himself to be a Marxist-Leninist during the Cuban Revolution, and later as a communist.  The two might occupy the same side of the political spectrum, but one is quite moderate, while the other is very far left (that being Castro, of course).  It may be true that leftists are on the same side as brutal tyrants like Stalin and Mao, but the same can be said for conservatives.  On the right, they are accompanied by the Nazis and fascists.  That’s just how the political spectrum is, there are moderates and radicals.  However, Right-wing media and conservatives don’t want you to know this.  They want to brainwash easily fooled Americans into believing that Obama is a dictator who will create a totalitarian state by creating big government, just like Stalin, Mao, or Castro.  This is the idea they present, but it completely disregards the fact that 9.7 million jobs in the private sector have been created during the Obama administration, and thousands of government jobs have been cut because of our President.  But somehow, according to the Republicans (and we all know how trustworthy they are), he’s a Marxist?  He’s extremely pro-capitalism for a socialist, let alone a Marxist.  If he wasn’t the President of the United States, but rather a regular democrat, and entered a room full of Marxists, he’d probably be immediately thrown out for his pro-capitalist views.  Also, when Cruz aimlessly states that in Marxism, “you have to eliminate the concept of God because government has to become your God”, he hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about.  Although Karl Marx was an atheist and called religion the “opium of the people”, he viewed it positively for spiritually saving the suffering masses from the oppression they constantly endure.  It was Lenin who first associated atheism with Marxism, but he never asserted that the government itself must be worshiped as a god.  That would go against his principles of being an atheist.  He would be advocating the same propaganda and intolerance that he denounced for being common aspects of religion.

The notion that Barack Obama, a Christian, is secretly planning to eliminate religious freedom is even more absurd than the idea that he’s a socialist.  Just like anyone who knows about Obama and can think reasonably, I wonder…where and how does Cruz get these outrageous ideas?  Where is his evidence that Obama is attacking religious freedom, let alone being anti-religious?  He doesn’t have it because it doesn’t exist!  Obama isn’t agnostic or atheistic like Republicans try to frame him as.  Cruz doesn’t know that he’s persecuting a fellow Christian.  In what instances has there been in which Obama has been caught limiting people’s freedom of religion?   There aren’t any! This is because we aren’t witnessing “a tremendous attack on religious freedom” under Obama.  A real attack on religious freedom was when the Bolsheviks demolished entire churches and cathedrals in minutes to establish state atheism in the RSFSR.  Those kind of attacks aren’t occurring anywhere in the U.S., and aren’t being promoted by Obama, which proves that Cruz’s fear of Obama declaring state atheism is complete nonsense.  That’s why Cruz can’t use any evidence to support his claim that Obama threatens self reliance or reliance on religion.  He just makes it up as he goes, like little children telling their friends or family made-up stories.

And of course, the infringement on our civil liberties that we see  an encroachment more and more and more everyday.  Whether it is through taxation or regulation.  The EPA is controlling almost every aspects of our lives, and we see our liberties curtail more and more and more.

Just like every Republican, Cruz goes so far as to accuse Obama of infringing upon our civil liberties with his big government policies.  Why is it that whenever a Republican President assumes more authority than he’s allowed, conservatives don’t react, but when a Democrat President like Clinton or Obama does anything questionable, they automatically label his as a tyrant, and scream for impeachment?  Idiot conservatives like Cruz are always so quick to criticize Democrats on their actions, but don’t bat an eye when Republicans do anything unconstitutional.  Did they disapprove Bush when he suspended Habeas corpus, incarcerated political protesters in detention camps, or when he opened the Guantanamo Bay prison?  Did they condemn his actions in May 2007 when he issued a “presidential directive” allowing him to assume absolute power over the government following a “catastrophic event”?  Of course not, because they’re on his side. When they’re in control, they don’t have to stand up for freedom or protest against tyrannical actions.  If they did, they’d be defying their party’s leadership.  Now that a democrat is occupying the White House, the Republicans are at the other extreme.  We should be a little thankful that Republican congressmen are actually doing their job and standing up for the American people, even if they’re persecuting Obama way too often.

Also according to Rafael Cruz, the government’s attempts to protect us are actually limiting our liberties.  This too, just like everything Rafael Cruz says, is complete nonsense.  I often criticize the government for being so corrupt, but outside of congress and the courts, and in the offices of the hundreds of small government agencies, our government does so much to protect us from the wealthy capitalists.  Its so ironic that out of all the government agencies that exist, Cruz chooses the EPA to represent a tyrannical government.  The EPA regulates corporations so they won’t pollute the environment with carbon dioxide or pesticides.  It’s thanks to the EPA that we have relatively clean air and clean water.  Look at China as an example.  It’s a country dramatically impacted by industrialization, where wealthy capitalists run free and are allowed to exploit whoever they want and make them work extremely long hours in the worst working conditions imaginable.  These factories release immense amounts of carbon dioxide, pesticides, and harmful gases like Carbon Monoxide, depending upon what kind of factory it is and what it produces.  China doesn’t have an Environmental Protection Agency, so factories go on polluting the environment because they aren’t any laws or regulations to stop them.  This has left China terribly polluted.  Smog haunts and covers the streets of every industrial city, and the people must wear particle respirators over their mouths to prevent them from inhaling the gases.  Here are some pictures to show you what exactly the Chinese people must endure everyday of their lives:

BEIJING-articleLarge-v3 CHINAS

AirPollution2Smog hit Chinese cities


Cruz and every American should be thankful to the EPA for their regulations on carbon-emissions and all they do to protect our environment.  We should also be thankful to our government for establishing the EPA.  That’s one thing we can thank Nixon for.  If we didn’t have it, our environment might not look very different from the one in the pictures above.  Despite this, conservatives like Rafael Cruz continue to demonize the EPA as an instrument of big government, which they despise so strongly that they’d let industries do whatever they please.  “Curse you for saving the environment, EPA!  Let the businesses pollute it until we’re all dead!” they scream. If Cruz wanted to expose the government as being tyrannical, he should’ve used government agencies that limit our freedom and invade our privacy as an example, such as the NSA or CIA.  Both agencies overstep their boundaries of power, and spy on practically everyone.  If Cruz knew about either of them, he would’ve used them in his argument.  The fact that he doesn’t know about them further reveals that he knows very little about our government.  He should ask his son to explain it to him sometime.  After all, Ted Cruz is a Princeton and Harvard grad, and a U.S. Senator.  If he’s such a know-it-all, why doesn’t he just share all the information with his father?  His Dad clearly doesn’t know anything about our government.

As a matter of fact, I think: If the left had their way, they’d do away with the whole bill of rights.

This has to be the single most outrageous statement he’s made in the whole interview.  He seriously thinks that we want to repeal the bill of rights?  Libertarians and conservatives who want small government always praise the bill as a powerful document that protects individual rights from an oppressive government.  They often use it to draw a line between them and the government. It’s true that we leftists like big government, but only if that government respects and protects the rights of its people.  Our bill of rights is the legislation that perfectly represents this sentiment.  The idea that liberals want a totalitarian or autocratic regime is ridiculous.  We care more about freedom than the right does!  Totalitarianism is rooted in radically conservative beliefs, not liberal ones.   If Rafael Cruz had it his way, him and his conservative buddies would completely eliminate the government and let big corporations run the country.  It’s not hard to determine what would happen if such an event occurred.  The capitalists would enslave us all, and leftists like myself would be the first to be executed.

It really is quite amazing that one man could say so much foolish nonsense under two minutes.  I didn’t think such a feat was humanly possible, but Rafael Cruz did it.  Before listening to this clip and reading about him on Right Wing Watch, I hadn’t even known who Rafael Cruz was.  I had heard that Ted Cruz had come from a very conservative family, but I never would have guessed that his father would be this insane.  I’m sorry Mr. Cruz, but you’re never going to get anyone to believe you if you continue to say random things out of your ass without supporting it.  It’ll just make you look even more of an idiot to the public.  You should consider this the next time you’re interviewed, or anywhere in public if you’re going to say some ludicrous bullshit like you did in this interview with Dave Garrison.  I sincerely hope that there isn’t anyone insane enough to believe all the outrageous remarks Cruz made during the interview.  Such an individual seriously needs to be institutionalized.







Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Dinesh “D’Louza” Psychoanalyzes liberal thought

The Indian-American conservative political commentator and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza was a guest on Glenn Beck’s radio show last Friday, promoting “America: Imagine a world without her”, his latest book and movie.  While he was there, he explained to the show’s conservative audience the mentality of liberals and what causes them to think the way they do.  He claimed that liberals are driven by envy, and that we strive to carry out our envy against the rich by spreading the wealth.

Listen to his psycho-analysis for yourself:

Anyone who watches Dinesh’s argument and has any common sense will know that all the nonsense he just spit out of his filthy mouth is nothing but bullshit.  I will now counter it by developing my own argument.  Judging by how irrational Dinesh’s argument was and how it lacked evidence, it probably won’t be hard to make an argument that proves itself superior to his.

Firstly, Liberals aren’t envious of the rich like Dinesh thinks we are.  Although it is true that most of us aren’t rich, when we see all the luxuries that the rich enjoy, we are outraged that they are allowed to live so highly while the majority of the population suffers.  This outrage does not derive from envy, it comes from rationality and morality.  We believe that it’s immoral to have millions of people struggle to live, while a very small minority of wealthy individuals exploit the poor. Those who are envious of the rich are usually conservatives who wish to increase their own social status in this capitalist society.  They care not for all those who they push down along their way to success, they only care about enriching themselves.  Liberals don’t see income inequality this way.  They don’t just care about themselves individually like conservatives do, instead, they offer a solution to the problem, such as affordable health care.

In this analysis, Dinesh believes that only the working class are envious of the rich.  Yet, some of the most liberal states in the union have a large middle class, like New York or Maryland.  So, why are these middle class citizens so liberal, Dinesh?  Are they also envious of the rich?  A rational answer is no.  The reason why middle class Americans are liberal is because they too, do not support the culture of the ruling class, or their exploitation of the poor.  I should know, I’m middle class citizen who is deeply liberal, and its not because of envy for the rich (I despise the rich, I would never want to become one of them), it is because I care about the rights of average americans within the working class.  Dinesh D’Souza does not and cannot understand this because he is a member of the bourgeoisie, thus, he has become out of touch of what regular americans believe and how they think, so he makes up stuff like this psycho-analysis.  In reality, he is afraid of liberals and the fact that they want to spread the wealth.  Spreading the wealth would mean that wealthy capitalists like himself lose their immense wealth, and it is distributed among the proletarians they have exploited.

Dinesh is also hurting his claim that liberals are envious members of the working class when he remarks that President Obama is envious.  We can all agree that Obama is liberal.  Of course Republicans can, many conservatives make him out to be more liberal than he really is.  During his rant, Dinesh states that Obama is “suffused with envy”.  If this were true, who would Obama be envious of? Who is there for Obama to be envious of?  He is the President of the most powerful country on Earth, and probably the most most powerful world leader, after Putin.  Because Obama has so much power, there is no logical reason for him to be envious of anyone.  Even during his first presidential campaign, Obama was a successful U.S. senator who had plenty of wealth to support himself and his family.  There is no way Obama could be envious of anyone.  This damages Dinesh’s claim that liberalism only derives from envy.  If this were true, than there could be no way a man successful and envy-less as Obama could be liberal.  This alone, reveals Dinesh’s psycho-analysis as incorrect. It looks Dinesh D’Souza is “D’Louza” of this argument.

Ultimately, Dinesh D’Souza is just another conservative idiot who shouts out bullshit like this without any evidence, and isn’t able to defend it because he can’t construct a rational argument.  If he actually did think rationally and realistically, he would know that conclusions like this are crazy.  Last I checked, Dinesh doesn’t have a PhD or any experience in psychology, so he isn’t even qualified to make psycho-analysis on liberals, which also induces the question, why are we even listening to him?

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Right wingers blame airliner tragedy…on Obama?

I posted an article here on my blog yesterday about the tragedy that occurred on Thursday, in which the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was shot down in eastern Ukraine.  At this point, it isn’t known if it was Ukrainian or Pro-Russian rebel forces that brought the plane down.  Most of those who have been following the coverage of the story believe that it is the rebels who are to blame for the incident.  However, some right wing conservatives accuse President Obama of being behind the attack, or influencing it.  Even in its absurdity, it isn’t surprising at all.  It truly seems that whenever something bad happens, even if it doesn’t involve the U.S., republicans blame the 44th President.  Republican logic: If it’s freezing outside, it’s Obama to blame.  If there’s a shooting, blame Obama. If illegal immigrants are crossing the border, blame Obama.

Those who believe this ludicrous accusation support it by claiming that the President’s announcement on Wednesday, the day before the plane was shot down, of more sanctions on Russia provoked the rebels into shooting it down.  Firstly, why would the rebels be angry at sanctions targeted at Russia?  Sure, they might support Russia, but they don’t even live in Russia.  They’re in the Donetsk People’s Republic,  the self-proclaimed state in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine.  Second, if the rebels are angry at the U.S. for imposing sanctions on Russia, than how does taking down a plane they believed to be belonging to the Ukrainian military show their hatred for America?  It doesn’t.  That’s because it doesn’t have to do with America and it’s why the rebels wouldn’t do such a thing because they’re angry at the U.S.  If anything, it’s the Russians themselves who should be angry at the U.S., they’re the ones who will actually be affected by these sanctions.  Of course, this reasoning did not occur to the Republicans who blamed Obama for the disaster.


Those were some Tea Party conservatives or republicans making those statements, what’s even more ridiculous is that conspiracy theorists think that the downing of flight MH17 was a false flag operation intended to weaken international diplomacy and move the world towards WWIII.  Alex Jones, a conspiracy theorist journalist at InfoWars.com, if you haven’t heard of him yet, said this on the Friday broadcast of his show, the Alex Jones Show.

So my issue is: this could be a false flag.  The way the Russians are acting, and putting out this information and things, makes me begin to lean towards something even more complex.

Here’s what I do know about flight MH17, this Malaysian airliner: The globalists stand to gain from all of this.  It comes on the cusp of Israel completely destroying Gaza.



Although I don’t agree with conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones on this issue, their claims are a lot more developed and consist of much more evidence than the Republicans who accuse Obama of the tragedy.  They know that if they’re going to question reports by main-stream media and what officials have said about the attack, they need to create a good thesis  and use supporting evidence for why a bigger power would be behind this, but that’s not what they’re doing for this event!  Alex Jones presents the fact that international diplomacy is at an all-time low, with the crisis between Israel and Hamas and this event in Ukraine, and then uses it to claim that we’re heading toward another World War.  After that, he has no more evidence.  He doesn’t even know who to blame for being the master minds behind the whole attack.  If you’ve seen his show before, you know that he’s been saying this stuff for years, but none of it has happened yet.  After the Boston Bombings, he blamed it on the government and claimed it was a false flag. Whenever there’s trouble, he seems to think it’s because of NATO, or the Bilderberg group, or any mysterious, powerful group.  I don’t deny that those organizations exist, I’m just don’t believe that they have enough influence and power as the libertarians and conspiracy theorists make it out to be.  These conspiracy theorists don’t want to believe whatever the mainstream media or government says, they ignore facts they don’t believe, so they make up these absurd theories and struggle to find evidence for it.  Ultimately, that’s what they are, “theories”, not facts, just theories.  I wish people would enough common sense to believe the facts they’re presented with, but instead they’ll listen to whatever fools like Alex Jones says just because they don’t want to be on the side of big government.

If you’d like to watch it, here’s a link to the complete broadcast of Fridays’ episode of the Alex Jones show:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DfhnX2NTq8

Posted in Ukraine | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The tragedy of Malaysian Airlines flight 17


As most of you have probably already heard, a single, shocking event involving both Malaysian airlines and the war in Ukraine has molded the two together.  On Thursday, the Boeing 777 airliner, Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, which was flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lampur, was shot down by what is believed to be a surface-to-air missile (according to U.S. intelligence) in Pro-Russian rebel held territory in eastern Ukraine, close to the town of Grabove, only 25 miles from the Ukraine-Russian border.  Thankfully, the plane didn’t crash in a very populated area or kill any civilians, but everyone onboard the plane, all 298 people, including the crew and passengers, died.  Some of the locals who witnessed the explosion say they saw debris from the plane, along with bodies, falling from the sky.

You might be asking: Yet another incident involving Malaysian Airlines?  Assuming you remember the story of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370.  Instead of going to its destination of Beijing, the airliner went off course into the Indian Ocean.  Mainstream media covered the event for months, especially CNN, who practically covered it 24/7 for a few months, ignoring all other news.  As you could suspect, CNN is covering the story on flight 17 none stop as well.  Considering how that flight (MH370) went off course and crashed because of the pilot, one would likely assume that perhaps Malaysian Airlines doesn’t have good pilots, and that this event is in fault of the pilot for flying over a war zone. This is not the case.  The plane was flying at an altitude of 33,000 feet, which is allowed by air-traffic control, and it was flying its usual route.  In fact, it was traveling on a route usually used by commercial airliners.  So it in’t Malaysian Airlines’ fault, it’s just that this plane happened to be at the wrong place, at the wrong time.  It could’ve been any plane from any airline, really.

Believe it or not, it still isn’t even known who shot down the plane, the Ukrainian Army or the Pro-Russian separatists.  Neither side will take responsibility for the incident, but of course, you can’t blame them.  Who would want to take responsibility for a tragedy like this?  No one, unless you’re a terrorist who just wants to see innocent people die.  This is exactly why both sides are blaming the other.  The Ukrainians are blaming the separatists.  The press secretary of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko,  Svatoslav Tsegolko, made this statement for the President, when asked about the event.

“Poroshenko thinks this of the plane that was brought down: it is not an incident, not a catastrophe, but a terrorist act.”

What a minute, but an incident is a violent event, which is this story of the plane.  And a catastrophe is a disaster, which could also be applied to this event as well.  So really, it is both an incident and a catastrophe.  But never mind the phrasing of Poroshenko’s press secretary, what matters is what Poroshenko thinks and how he will handle it.

Poroshenko’s Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin said that he gives his condolences to the families of the victims, but also stated that if Kiev’s government never started its military campaign against the separatists in eastern Ukraine, than the whole plane disaster never would’ve happened.  With both Ukraine and Russia blaming each other, this will surely complicate the international investigation on the attack, which both governments have volunteered to contribute to, along with the U.S. and Malaysia.

70th anniversary of the Allied landings on D-Day

Russian President Vladimir Putin (right) and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko (left).

The whole discussion on who committed the attack has been a large and fiery debate on the internet over the last two days.  Overall, most seem to believe that it is the Russian separatists who are to blame.  It is known that both the Ukrainian army and Russian army posses the Buk missile system, a family of surface-to-air missile systems first developed by the Soviet Union in 1979.  A buk launcher can fire a missile up to an altitude of 72,000 feet.  With the airliner flying at 33,000, a missile launched from the Buk could easily hit and destroy the plane.  So how does this tell us that the separatists fired the missiles that shot down the plane?  Well, the rebels have bragged to have shot down planes before.  The most famous before the incident involving flight MH17 was when the rebels shot down a Ukraine military transport plane on Monday.  According to the Associated Press, rebels claimed to have shot down two Ukrainian Sukhoi-25 jets on Wednesday July 16th, the day before the airliner was shot down.  But how could’ve these rebels have shot down the jets if they don’t have surface-to-air missile systems? It’s been reported that these rebels don’t have efficient equipment. They couldn’t have, unless the Russian military armed them with Buk missile launchers, and now the rebels are making good use of them.

It still isn’t known and will probably be a while until we know for sure who is behind this incident.  I personally believe that it was the Pro-Russian rebels.  They’re not an organized army full of officials who give orders, unlike the Ukrainian Army.  They’re just groups of militiamen who aim their guns at any plane they suspect to be one belonging to the Ukrainians.  They have no civil order, which would explain why they would shoot down an airliner.  Whoever is responsible for the crash of the commercial airliner, this event is a harsh reminder to the world that the civil war in Ukraine is still very real, and very serious and it will receive much more attention from the international community due to this incident.

Posted in Ukraine | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

My Introduction

Greetings, fellow leftists! I’m Obscure Echo, a liberal who is very new here to WordPress.com. I hope to soon compose posts and write pages on topics that interest me, and my audience. For now, please be patient with me as I struggle to start my blog on WordPress. After all, I am a beginner who is justing now starting to learn the many features of the site. I’m sure they will all be beneficial to my blog.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments