Category Archives: Liberals/Democrats/Left

Democrats are upset by this sign

Overpasses For America posted this photo to their Facebook page, on March 13, 2015, of a sign somewhere in America which says:

We used to hunt Communists. Now we elect them.

commie sign

The sign has struck a nerve and has gone viral.

There are T-shirts with that message. Zazzle even offers a sheet of 20 “We used to hunt communists” stickers for only $5.50!

Zazzle we used to hunt communists sticker

As American Overlook writes (via The Federalist Papers):

Just a few decades ago, America was anti-communist and fought valiantly in the name of freedom and democracy.

But when you look at the facts today, communism didn’t die with the U.S.S.R. Instead communists are alive and well in America, they’ve just changed their party affiliation to Democrat….

If you are not convinced by this statement, let’s take a look at President Obama’s actions.

  • Obama believes that if you’re a business owner, you didn’t create you business. Minimum wage workers and the government did.
  • Obama has aided Cuba’s communist government by returning spies, normalizing relations, and treating the communist leader there with more respect than he does members of the Republican Party here in America!
  • While growing up in Hawaii, Obama was mentored by Frank Marshall Davis, a communist, who had pledged allegiance to the Soviet Union.

American communists

Think the “We used to hunt communists, now we elect them” sign is hyperbole?

Think again.

Did you know that in 2010, Communist Party USA sued the Democratic Party for theft of its (CPUSA) party platform?

Two years later, CPUSA and the Democrats kissed and made up, and in the 2012 elections that year, Communist Party USA actually endorsed Obama and the Democrats.

See also:

Sucking the life out of America!

Sucking the life out of America!

~Éowyn

Dem resolution warns global warming could force women into prostitution

4F51291A-D258-455D-BAF7-746BDE5372EB_w640_r1_s

Fox News: Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., has re-introduced legislation that forces the government to address all “policies and programs in the United States that are globally related to climate change” through the lens of gender.

A California congresswoman warns global warming will be so detrimental to poor women, it will drive them to prostitution. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., has re-introduced legislation that forces the government to address all “policies and programs in the United States that are globally related to climate change” through the lens of gender.

Her resolution, “Recognizing the disparate impact of climate change on women and the efforts of women globally to address climate change,” asserts that long term and catastrophic weather changes will result in drought and destructive weather events such as flooding, which could lead to food shortages, joblessness and disease, along with economic and political crisis on a regional scale.

Since “women will disproportionately face harmful impacts from climate change, particularly in poor and developing nations where women regularly assume increased responsibility for growing the family’s food and collecting water, fuel, and other resources,” the measure reads, they will be the most desperate and vulnerable, forced into situations,“such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage.”

The picture that Lee, who has had a consistently high liberal voting record since she was elected to Congress in 1998, paints is grim. She says environmental crises will force women to migrate, often into refugee camps or other vulnerable circumstances, where they will have to scrounge for food and resources for their families. The resolution insists that the government should focus on poor women, as well as empower women to develop strategies to prepare for these eventualities.

Lee first introduced the measure in 2013, but it was not enacted.

drama

DCG

 

Tweeter wants you to make this disgusting “lincoln” pic go viral

A nobody named Joe Bernstein (@basher) is on Twitter. Joe Bernstein On March 24, 2015, Bernstein flatulated this tweet to his 2,694 followers, of a fat naked man engaged in an obscene act with the head of a statue, with the message:

please, for the love of god, help me make #lincolning go viral

Bernstein tweet By #lincolning, Joe Bernstein is referring to the obscene act that the chubby naked guy was doing to what Bernstein thinks is the statue of President Abraham Lincoln in the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.

In other words, Bernstein is applauding and encouraging the desecration of President Lincoln.

Sadly, Bernstein is mistaken. The statue isn’t that of Abraham Lincoln.

It’s the statue of Alexander Graham Bell in the front portico of the Bell Telephone Building of Brantford, Ontario, Canada. Lincoln Memorial & Alexander Graham Bell Alexander Graham Bell (1847-1922) is the Scottish-born scientist, inventor, engineer and innovator who is credited with inventing the first practical telephone.

And so, both the tubby man and Joe Bernstein (assuming Bernstein isn’t the fat naked guy himself) are actually dissing the statue of the inventor of the telephone. facepalm

Bernstein calls himself a “reporter for BuzzFeed.”

facepalm ~Éowyn

The brilliance that is Lena Dunham: “Dog or Jewish Boyfriend? A Quiz”

Lena Dunham's double date with Obama

New Yorker: Do the following statements refer to (a) my dog or (b) my Jewish boyfriend?

1. The first thing I noticed about him was his eyes.

2. We love to spend hours in bed together on Sunday mornings.

3. He’s crazy for cream cheese.

4. It hasn’t always been easy, but we currently live together and it’s going O.K.

5. Our anniversary is in two days and I’m not sure if he remembers.

6. If it were up to him, every room in our place would be carpeted.

7. But he has asthma.

8. I feel that he is judgmental about the food I serve him. When I make something from scratch, he doesn’t want to eat it, but he also rejects most store-bought dinners.

lena3

9. This is because he comes from a culture in which mothers focus every ounce of their attention on their offspring and don’t acknowledge their own need for independence as women. They are sucked dry by their children, who ultimately leave them as soon as they find suitable mates.

10. As a result of this dynamic, he expects to be waited on hand and foot by the women in his life, and anything less than that makes him whiny and distant.

11. I wish he were more excited about spending time with my friends.

12. At our local organic bistro, he will often leave three-quarters of his salmon fillet untouched, offering no explanation and offending the waiter, who will ask balefully, “Was it undercooked?”

13. He doesn’t tip.

14. And he never brings his wallet anywhere.

15. He came with me to therapy once and was restless and unexpressive.

dunham

16. When I go out of town on a business trip, he sleeps with a pair of my underwear.

17. When I get home from the business trip, he ignores me for hours, sometimes days, forcing me to wonder whether he would be better off with a woman who has a less demanding career. “Why don’t you find some catalogue model who just sits around all day and rubs your back? I bet you’d like that,” I hiss. “I apologize for my many accomplishments. I’m sorry they mean nothing to you.”

18. He respects my father but is intimidated by his Waspy, buttoned-up demeanor, flat cadence, and inability to express physical affection toward other men. The tension between them takes the form of passive-aggressive pissing matches and hostile silences.

19. He’s really more of an ass man.

dunham

20. He has a sensitive stomach and has to take two Dramamine before entering any moving vehicle.

21. I have more Instagram followers than he does.

22. He ripped up my copy of “Lean In.”

23. My grandma Dottie loves him and says he’s a “good, good boy.”

24. Every week it’s some new health issue: urine crystals, sprained foot, beef allergy.

25. He enjoys nature and I don’t, which would be fine except it’s important to share interests, and he also doesn’t like novellas, tag sales, or hip-hop dance.

26. He hates our upstairs neighbor Beverly and refuses to acknowledge her in the elevator, even if she tells him that she likes his haircut.

27. In fact, he has hair all over his body, like most males who share his background.

28. His best friend is named Archie.

29. He briefly dated another Lena, but she was black and a runner.

30. Bald men trigger a primal fear in him.

31. In addition, he is openly hostile toward the Hasidic community, focussing most of his rage on their bulky (but chic) fur hats.

32. He has an obsession with bellhops that is troubling to me.

dunham233. One spring afternoon, we walked to Dumbo to check out a new artisanal-Popsicle stand, when we ran into my friend Jill. Jill is actually more of an acquaintance—I don’t know her well, but I really like her; she curates high-end terrariums and she’s a clog designer on the side. She’s really slim and well dressed, in an all-American, J. Crew-model sort of way. He was immediately all over her, panting and making a fool of himself. It was humiliating. Because here’s the thing: I am not a Jill. I will never be a Jill. And if that’s what he is looking for—some anorexic hipster with a glossy braid and freaking Swedish clog boots she sewed by hand—he should never have set his sights on me in the first place.

34. He once vomited on his seatmate in United business class, then ran up and down the aisle in a panic.

35. He’s adopted.

Isn't she so witty?

Isn’t she so witty?

See also:

DCG

Hey guys! Your handy guide to dating a feminist!

feminist

Cosmopolitan: 14 Things You Should Know Before Dating a Feminist. She’s basically the most amazing person on the planet.

1. You’d better be prepared to look at the world/movies/TV shows/everything more closely than you used to. There might be a movie that you really love that you never noticed was super-crazy sexist, and you need to at least be open to hearing her explain why it is and looking at it from another perspective. I dated a guy who hated when I would do this and you will never guess how quickly I dumped him because haha no.

feminism

2. If you don’t identify as a feminist already, you should figure out why that is before going for her. Do you think she should make less than you make for doing the exact same job? No? Then you’re a feminist. This is not difficult, Jeremy.

3. You’re not necessarily going to offend her because she’s a feminist and you paid for her tea. I had a guy buy me an iced tea once and he acted like he wasn’t sure whether to pat himself on the back for being such a good guy or apologize for acting like he owned me. My tea was $1.50, dude. Calm down. If you’re doing a nice thing because you want to do a nice thing, I will love that. Who wouldn’t?

4. Please at least know some basic women’s history. See: Leslie Knope being pissed Officer Dave didn’t know who Madeline Albright was or me being pissed that a guy doesn’t know what riot grrrl music is.

5. “So do you hate men?” is a “joke” she has heard about 5,000 times. And if you make it, I will think you are both uncreative and kind of a dick. Like, are you serious? It’s not 1962 (and let’s be honest, no one thought it was funny then either.)

6. She thinks she’s just as entitled to an orgasm as you are, which will make sex really fun if you’re good in bed or very confusing if you’re not. One time I literally sat on a hookup’s bed after they’d had an orgasm and said, “I didn’t come. I’m not leaving this room until I do,” and I waited. Ohhhh, I waited.

7. It’s fine if you hold the door for her. Just don’t act totally shocked when she’s equally as polite and holds it for you.

8. She will debate anyone she meets who says they aren’t a feminist or expresses anti-feminist sentiments. It might be your dumb-dumb friends, it might be a random guy who said something shitty at a bar we’re at, but it could happen. I never pick fights with anyone, but I’m also not afraid to calmly call someone out for saying something bigoted and frankly, you shouldn’t be either.

9. You’d better be aware of what male privilege is and that you have it. One time my guy friend said to me, “Oh man, male privilege sounds nice. Wish I had some of that. Haha,” and I almost threw him across the room. It’s real. If you’re a guy, you have it. Next topic.

feminist

10. Any lingering anti-feminist beliefs you may still have can and will be challenged. And rightfully so. Ideally, you’d just take an interest in feminism on your own because everyone should, but if you’re going to be dating me, I’m definitely going to call you on the bullshit you may knowingly or unknowingly still say from time to time. Thank her for this. She’s going to save you from making a horrible rape joke in public (aka making any rape joke in public.)

11. She’s happy to teach you about feminism if you’re happy to learn. If you think Beyoncé can’t dance in a revealing outfit and call herself a feminist, you are wrong, but I’m happy to explain to you why that is if you actually want to know. Why? Because I like you.

beyonce3

12. Never, ever, ever tell her about how men are discriminated against too. This isn’t a competition for which gender had been treated more unfairly, but if it were, women will win every time.

13. If you seriously believe we’re all equal and feminism is unnecessary, keep walking. Also, what are you even doing with your life? Clearly it is not “reading literally any news website.”

14. She really, truly believes in equality for all. Feminists are the most amazing people on the planet because we believe in equality for all genders, races, sexual orientations, you name it. Seriously, would you want to date someone who believed anything less? No? Then it’s good that you picked me.

feminist

Go forth and date!

DCG

Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons

4-Star Admiral Slams Obama: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrated All Of Our National Security Agencies

Published on Jan 28, 2015

During a press conference on how to combat radical Islamic extremism, Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, stated that under the leadership of Barack Obama the Muslim Brotherhood have infiltrated all of the National Security Agencies of the United States. Furthermore, Lyons said that Obama is deliberately unilaterally disarming the military and spoke to the need for the new GOP controlled congress and Military leaders to stand up to the administration and uphold their oaths.


Marxist origin of the homosexual movement

Lana, a reader of FOTM, recently made a very insightful comment, citing the thesis of E. Michael Jones in his book Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control. Lana writes:

…the further the sexual deviance and permissiveness i.e. sexual liberation, the inevitability of the need for social control. In other words, there is a method to the madness. TPTB promote this extreme excess because it has been scientifically shown that it paves the way for political control and repression…. [T]he end-game of the so-called “sexual liberation” — of which women’s “liberation” and the homosexual movement are part and parcel — is a way for the state to gain control.

As constraints on behavior increasingly are loosened, the social fabric increasingly becomes frayed, resulting in increasing chaos and disorder. But a society cannot function under such circumstances, so citizens increasingly turn to the state as a solution, thereby expanding the powers of government.

Indeed, Numbers 26 and 40 of the 1963 Communist Goals For America, which was entered into the Congressional Record (Appendix, pp. A34-A35) on January 10, 1963, state:

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

40. Discredit the family as an institution.  Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

On March 16, Mike published a post on “Communists Conceived Women’s Liberation Movement.” Here’s a companion piece on the Marxist (aka communist) origin of the homosexual movement.

~Éowyn

Photo credit: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, www.aftah.org

A scene from San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair, 2010. Photo credit: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality http://www.aftah.org

The revolution of the family: the Marxist roots of ‘homosexualism’

by Hilary White
Life Site News
Aug 23, 2013

A few days ago in The Guardian, Peter Tatchell wrote a pretty good description not only of that ideology’s goals but its origins. This political ideology, often called “queer theory” by its proponents in academia, is what is being pushed, quite openly these days, by the “gay rights” movement. Despite what we are told all day by their collaborators in the mainstream media, from the six o’clock news to your favourite sit-com, this movement is not about “equal rights”. It is about re-writing the foundational concepts of our entire society. I predict that it will not be much longer before the pretense of “equality” is dropped, having done its work.

… Others have pointed out the Marxist origins of the Sexual Revolution as a whole, and it is clear that the sudden explosion of homosexualism is merely the next logical step in a systematic programme. A close cousin to radical feminism and grandchild of Marxism, homosexualism was developed out of the politico-academic pseudo-field of “gender studies” and has, for 30 or 40 years, been pushed on a mostly unwilling public, through “anti-discrimination” and “equalities” legislation by a coalition of lobbyists, NGOs and politicians on the extreme left, and in increasingly powerful international circles.

Peter Tatchell is a prominent British homosexualist, which means he is a proponent of a specific political and social ideology that he wants to see adopted in British society and elsewhere. He is also a homosexual man, that is, he experiences sexual attraction for other men, a condition whose origin is still debated by doctors, psychiatrists and geneticists. The two things are not the same. This is a fact that tends to escape a lot of people who read and write about the Culture Wars, especially in its current manifestation that seems to have suddenly become all about homosexuality. Not all homosexuals are homosexualists, and not all homosexualists are homosexuals.

Tatchell’s Guardian piece was a paean to a document put together in 1971 by what he describes as a collective of “anarchists, hippies, leftwingers, feminists, liberals and counter- culturalists” to bring about “a revolution in consciousness”. He called the “Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto” “a pioneering agenda for social and personal transformation” that started with the proposal that “subverting the supremacy of heterosexual masculinity was the key to genuine liberation.” Tatchell said it was the book that changed his life.

The Manifesto sums it all up, Tatchell says, by “critiquing” “homophobia, sexism, marriage, the nuclear family, monogamy, the cults of youth and beauty, patriarchy, the gay ghetto and rigid male and female gender roles” … the whole kaboodle of the sexual revolution.

The Manifesto itself is quite blunt about identifying the main enemies to defeat: “The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family.”

“Consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models. The very form of the family works against homosexuality.”

Most tellingly, the Manifesto says that “reform,” in other words “equality,” is never going to be enough; what is needed is a total social revolution, a complete reordering of civilisation. Reform, it said, “cannot change the deep-down attitude of straight people that homosexuality is at best inferior to their own way of life, at worst a sickening perversion. It will take more than reforms to change this attitude, because it is rooted in our society’s most basic institution – the Patriarchal Family.”

Far from being “the source of our happiness and comfort,” it says, the family is the oppressive “unit” in which the “dominant man and submissive woman” teach children “false beliefs” about traditional “gender roles” “almost before we can talk”.

The core concept of gender ideology is given: there is “no proven systematic differences between male and female, apart from the obvious biological ones. Male and female genitals and reproductive systems are different, and so are certain other physical characteristics, but all differences of temperament, aptitudes and so on, are the result of upbringing and social pressures. They are not inborn.”

“Human beings could be much more various than our constricted patterns of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ permit – we should be free to develop with greater individuality.”

“Our entire society,” the Manifesto says, “is built around the patriarchal family and its enshrinement of these masculine and feminine roles. Religion, popular morality art, literature and sport all reinforce these stereotypes. In other words, this society is a sexist society, in which one’s biological sex determines almost all of what one does and how one does it; a situation in which men are privileged, and women are mere adjuncts of men and objects for their use, both sexually and otherwise.”

It is this that must be overturned, entirely eradicated, before the true freedom we all deserve can be put in place.

It does not take a degree in political theory to recognise the origins of this kind of language: throw off your chains, comrades! Indeed, a very little digging will take you directly to the origins of the Gay Liberation Manifesto in the writing of the first Marxists: in this case, Friedrich Engels, who wrote a document describing what most of us call the traditional family in terms nearly identical to that of the Manifesto.

Engels called it “monogamous marriage” and said that it exists “not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period.”

“The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.”

“The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife, and modern society is a mass composed of these individual families as its molecules.” Engels’ solution, of course, we all know already.

The Gay Liberation Manifesto, like Mr. Engels’ work before it, proposes that once we throw off the ancient shackles of “heterosexism, male privilege and the tyranny of traditional gender roles” we all get to live in a glorious and shining “new sexual democracy” in which “erotic shame and guilt would be banished”. This means, in practice, more or less what we now have: everyone gets to sleep around with whomever, and nobody gets to have any long-term claims on anyone else either in marriage or as parents.

Now that it has started the global “gay marriage” snowball, the ideology’s promoters seem to have only a few mop-up operations left to accomplish. The pressure is already starting to widen the burst-open definition of marriage to include multiple partners of either sex and to legalise and accept paedophilia – as an expression of “children’s rights”.

But as with all utopian visions, homosexualism’s great weakness is the failure to consider the entirety of human nature. It proposes, essentially, a permanent state of self-indulgent adolescence, and to other self-indulgent adolescents, this sounds pretty good. Have all the cake you want, eat it for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and never get fat.

Unfortunately, since the 1960s, most of us have been raised to think that this programme is the very meaning of freedom and securing it the whole purpose of democracy. The ideology was already being promoted to children on television to children when I was a child. I remember the huge splash made in 1974 by an animated TV show called “Free to be you and me” that told us through a series of cute animated sketches, narrated by the icons of the 70s lefties Marlo Thomas and Alan Alda, that it was wrong to assume, or adopt, traditional sex roles. Gender ideology for tots.

For those who actually try to put it into practice, however, it quickly becomes obvious that humans were simply not meant to function this way, and basing an entire culture on the proposition, as we have since the 1960s, is going to create dismal state of emotional and social chaos, misery, loneliness, poverty and selfishness such as the world has never seen before.

The main problem with the homosexualist version of the Marxist dream is that you have to get everyone to agree. And I mean everyone. Marxist theorists have always known that utopia will only work if no one is allowed to raise any objection. Everyone has to agree, and no voice of dissent can be tolerated to pop the soap bubble logic of the enterprise.

The first voice to be aggressively silenced, as always, is therefore the Church that proposes something rather more rich and (ahem) fertile for man’s destiny than this facile materialism and sensualism. The Church that, furthermore, has a more comprehensive understanding of human nature, and knows that total license is not a recipe for human happiness… far from it.