Category Archives: Leftists/Socialism

Hillary Clinton is the true RACIST!

Racism is not always as obvious as someone saying some words. too many times the racist could seem to not be racist if he or she just does not say anything derogatory about someone else’s race. So, therefore, to be able to identify a racist, often one needs to look at their actions and decisions. If someone takes an action, or makes a decision, which results in damage or adversely affect a specific race (even if other races are affected as well).

racismNorth American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which went into force in 1994, changed relations between the U.S. and Mexico in two significant ways. It virtually eliminated tariffs between the two countries, and it made it easier for U.S. firms to invest in Mexico. Quoting an Economic Policy Institute article, by By Robert E. Scott • November 17, 2003, titled, “The high price of ‘free’ trade – NAFTA’s failure has cost the United States jobs across the nation,” I have included the following:

Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs. Most of those lost jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The loss of these jobs is just the most visible tip of NAFTA’s impact on the U.S. economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers’ collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions and reduced fringe benefits.

Increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in this country, but increases in imports tend to reduce jobs because the imports displace goods that otherwise would have been made in the United States by domestic workers.

In fact, most U.S. exports to Mexico are parts and components that are shipped to Mexico and assembled into final products that are then returned to the United States. The number of products that Mexico assembles and exports—such as refrigerators, TVs, automobiles, and computers—has mushroomed under the NAFTA agreement. Many of these products are produced in the Maquiladora export processing zones in Mexico, where parts enter duty-free and are re-exported to the United States in assembled products, with duties paid only on the value added in Mexico. The share of total U.S. exports to Mexico that is represented by Maquiladora imports has risen from 39% of U.S. exports in 1993 to 61% in 2002.2 The number of such plants increased from 2,114 in 1993 to 3,251 in 2002 (INEGI 2003a, 2003b).

Between 1994 (when NAFTA was implemented) and 2000, total employment rose rapidly in the United States, causing overall unemployment to fall to record low levels. But unemployment began to rise early in 2001, and 2.4 million jobs were lost in the domestic economy between March 2001 and October 2003 (BLS 2003). These job losses have been primarily concentrated in the manufacturing sector, which has experienced a total decline of 2.4 million jobs since March 2001. As job growth has dried up in the economy, the underlying problems caused by U.S. trade deficits have become much more apparent, especially in manufacturing.

If we look throughout the United States and look for areas where this is most clear, we can find that in areas where black and Latino US citizens live were strongly and adversely affected. They had to know ahead of time of the possible results, which were that specific races in the US would be impacted more than others. Though this fact was hidden from the public beneath the “positive” accolades which were supposed to occur. This implies intent. If this is true, and I believe it is, then the actors here (the Clintons) knew that blacks and Latinos were in danger of losing jobs (which would move out of the United States) and still took the action they did. They consciously took action which directly impacted and adversely affected the black and Latino US citizens. This is a signal of racism.

One more point, there is no question that Mexican citizens live in danger from drug cartels, rogue military units, and too often, from their own government. The Syrian refugees that Obama wants to bring into the United States, and with whom Hillary agrees, also live in danger, except that apart from suffering danger from Radical Islamic Terrorists, they were not in danger from their own government. Why are the Syrians more important than Mexicanos? Why does Hillary believe that Syrians are in greater need of US residency and citizenship, than Mexicans? Leftists Democrats love to accuse others (like Donald Trump), of racism, but their own actions prove to me that, in fact, it is they who are the racists.

Racist?????

shout_racist_640-590x590Let’s take a look at this overused word. According to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, the definition has two parts:

  • Poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race

  • The belief that some races of people are better than others

See that, “because of their race.” Now days, leftists use the word to attack anything they can’t attack legitimately. For example, the left wingers accuse Donald Trump of being a “racist.” For this to be true, Trump would either have to commit poor treatment or violence against a person, or persons, of racial groups other than his own, and there is no evidence he has ever done that. Secondly, He would have to believe his race is better than other races. And, again, there has been no real evidence of this either.

I will agree that “The Donald” put his foot in his mouth with that stupid statement about the judge handling his court case, but nothing in his ill-advised statement fits in with the definition above. Everybody knows that people often make decisions, and/or come to conclusions, based on their own race. Whites have hired other whites above other races simply because they were white. Blacks have backed other blacks simply because they were black. Latinos will often choose other Latinos over other racial groups, simply because they were Latino. Only a liar will argue that people do not do this. The problem is that Lefts will then accuse others, in this case, Trump, for doing something they do as well. This is hypocrisy on their part.

If I were to use the Leftist definition of racism, then Hillary Clinton is clearly a racist, as well. Her husband’s decision to enact NAFTA resulted, in part, with businesses fleeing the United States. In part, this resulted in major cities like Chicago and Detroit losing many jobs. The employment rate in this cities is atrocious. The majority of the people affected in these cities are blacks. Therefore since Hillary’s husband took action which harmed blacks, and she has stated publicly that she agreed with NAFTA, then she intentionally has harmed blacks. See, Hillary hates black people, she just wants their votes, so that she can continue to take action which will further harm them.

Finally, what’s all this crap about Trump being racist against Moslems? Moslems are not a race, they are a religion. Moslems and Christians both represent a religion. Neither of which represents a specific race. Both Moslems and Christians include blacks, whites, Latinos, and so forth. Moslems are a religion. If you want to accuse him of anything, at least don’t be stupid and just lie. When someone hates another religion, that is NOT racism. It may not be something good, but it is NOT racism. By the way, the race of the majority of Moslems, in the world, is Arabic, and Trump has yet to use disparaging language, or take any specific action, against Arabs.

Get it right, stupid Leftists.

Leftist Guide to Disinformation and Diversion.

Always state what you want to be understood as the truth, even if it is not.

Example: “If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan.”

The more you argue that something is true, the better your chance to convince the other person, or at least to break down their own conviction that they are right. Remember, “The wheel that squeaks the most gets the grease.” The point here is not whether you are right or wrong, you must always give the impression that you are right. Never agree that you may be wrong. If necessary, claim to be open to other options, while knowing that you will never change your mind. Say that something is, even if it is not, and say something is not, even if it is. Sound confident when you make your argument. Confidence makes people feel that you believe what you are saying, and that may be enough to convince them to agree with you. Even if they do not completely agree with you, you may keep them from joining with the opposition.

If your opponent makes a good point, laugh at them so that it seems they are just being silly.

The more you laugh, the better chance you have of making your opponent look bad in front of his own audience, or at least giving that impression. Make statements of derision regarding their views. The more you ridicule the opposing view, the more you imply the correctness of your own. If in public, you do not even have to laugh aloud, just smirk. The goal is to make your opponent look silly.

leftists

Never let your opponents complete a whole thought when speaking.

If possible, without if hurting your own credibility, interfere and argue, and then apologize for interfering. It is easier to ask for forgiveness, than to ask for permission. When your opponent interferes you, point out their “rude” and “unfair” behavior. Image is everything. People, in general, hate bullies. Make your opponent look like the bully, and make yourself look like the victim. This will cause those who are undecided to lean more to your side than the opposition’s. Allowing the opposition to voice complete thoughts can work against you. If you argue over their statements, even with just a word here or there, this should sufficiently distract the listeners from unconsciously understanding, and therefore agreeing with, your opponent.

When you do not have enough facts and data to defeat the arguments of your opponent, attack him or her personally.

This way you can distract them from their point, and cause them to go on the defense. This will make them look weak, so therefore their argument looks weak as well. Questions like, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” (As an example), should be used as often as possible. A question like this one is hard to answer. Either way the responder remains a bad person. Never accuse someone of something which can be proven false, but always use the power of the question.  We all have rights to our “opinions” right?

Lie. Yes, lie, but make the lie believable.

It is quite difficult for someone to defend against or argue a lie that is presented well. As long as your opponent is trying to argue the lie, they are distracted from making positive arguments on behalf of their interests. It will be important to make your lies plausible. Lies keep you from having to provide evidence, and serve to keep your opponent distracted from the issue at hand. As an example, regarding the Republican Party, always accuse them of intending, and doing, whatever will serve to distract the public from that Party’s real agenda. In that instance, if the Republicans try to pass a law in favor of national security which touches on the issue of immigration, publically proclaim that they are in fact attacking Latinos because they are racists who want to keep America white. Remember, it will be your opinion, you don’t have to prove opinions.

Repeat the lie as often as possible.

If a lie is repeated often enough, the public is more likely to start believing it. Especially if we can get famous people to repeat it. The more popular the person repeating the lie, the more truthful it will sound. Even if someone counters the lie with truth, do not admit the lie. Obama uses this strategy effectively. He has lied over and over. When proof surfaces that he lied, he just argues the lie some more. Use this tactic along with number 2 above or 8 below.

Play the victim.

When your argument starts to fail, or when your opponent begins to gain ground, become the victim. Complain and whine about the bad behavior of those with opposing perspectives. Blame your opponent’s side of anything that will confuse the issue, or at least be such as to distract your opponent enough to start arguing about your complaint instead of the real issue. Claim that they are attacking you personally, even if it is obvious that they are not. This will turn the discussion away from the issue and onto the opposition having to defend themselves. If possible, use real tears. The public is swayed by people who cry. Crying will make you look like the victim, and them like the bullies.

leftist_hatredDemean and belittle the opposition every chance you get, especially when they are not present to defend themselves.

If you tell people bad things about the other side, and they don’t hear a valid argument against your statements, those who hear your remarks are more likely to agree with you. Tell jokes about them, laugh at their misfortunes and bad judgment. Take every opportunity to ridicule them and make them the butts of every joke. On the contrary, publically decry any ridicule on their part. This will serve to give the impression that the opposition are a bunch of bullies, with even worse character.

Promise anything.

Example: “I will close Guantanamo Bay within a year.”

The question is not whether you can actually keep the promise, the aim is to convince people that you have every intention of keeping the promise. Keep in mind to prepare your argument for when the promise is not kept. Identify ways of blaming the opposition for your failure to keep the promise. The public must be led to believe that you are really trying to do something in their favor, and that the opposition wants to stop you from achieving the same. This will give the impression that you are on the public’s side and that the opposition is their enemy. You will notice that the opposition does not make many promises, usually it is because they realize they may not be able to keep them. In your case use this. Speak of how they are unwilling to make commitments for positive change for the future. And, when they make a promise and do not keep it, regardless of possible valid reasons, point out how they misled the public and never intended to keep their word.

Remember, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Your goal is not to side with the public, nor to have them side with you. The goal is to have them become the enemy of your enemy. This way you can give the public the impression that they have a “friend,” when in truth you just want to use them to achieve your own agenda. They might even thank you, thinking you are on their side. The numbers for your side are not great, so you need to give the impression that they are much larger than in reality. The more people you can convince to become “enemies” of your “enemy,” the larger your numbers will seem. And, the bigger the number of people who appear to agree with you becomes, the more right you will appear to be.

Use body language to make fun of your opponent.

When your opponent is making a good point that is hard to refute, make facial gestures. Roll your eyes, yawn, lower and shake your head sideways, or just close your eyes and grimace as though you have a headache. This will draw the attention of the listeners to you, just long enough to cause them not to hear the opposing remarks clearly. On the other hand, if your opponent does the same, point it out and give the impression of being offended by their rudeness and lack of professionalism.

Take “offense” as a tool and means of coercion.

If you find that you cannot control the actions of the opposition, then take “offense” to what they are doing. “Politically correct” is the term which may be used as a means to control the opposition. If you cannot pass a law against their behavior, or impose some legal restriction, then complain that you are offended. The “offense” does not have to make sense. Opinion is a “right,” that the opposition will find difficult to counter. If they try, they will come out looking like they are trying to deny you your right to your own opinion. This will serve to make people favor your side, by disagreeing with the opposition. In the “right” atmosphere, claiming offense can be tantamount to imposing legal restrictions on the opposition. It is especially important to claim offense in support of someone of color, their sexual preferences, or if they are women, poor, or some other attribute which is useful. This will serve to make more “enemies” for your “enemy.”

Change the meaning of words.shout_racist_640-590x590

Example: “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is (quoting Bill Clinton).

Use your language in such a manner as to never be caught by your own words. If you define the meaning of words in such manner that they will serve your purposes, then you can say or promise almost anything, and later be able to defend your statements. Remember, it is not what you say, but what you “meant to say” that you will later be able to defend. When the opposition brings up your own words, argue your “meaning” and “intention.” In this manner, you can take a lie and make it sound like you were really telling the truth. Those who are already on your side will support and defend you regardless, and those who are not sure can be fooled into at least not being against you.

Attack the opposition individually.

Find bad information about them. Everyone has something in their life that can be used against them. Even if the behavior or circumstance is not actually bad or wrong, it can still be misconstrued to appear that way. If you argue the point long and loud enough, many will come to believe the lie. This may hurt your opponent just enough for you to win the argument. At the very least, your opponent will be drawn into spending more time and possibly money defending themselves, and reduce their time and means of making solid arguments. This tactic will be useful in attacking a black person of the opposition; attack his character and avoid references regarding his race. The same will be true of Latinos, but in their case avoid references to language as well. Opponents who are homosexual can be attacked as traitors to their “real feelings.” White women can be attacked as just being white, and therefore one of the “rich” “oppressors.” Even if you yourself are white, speak as though you are black or Latino. The point is to convey the idea that you are “one of them” just by using your words effectively.

Use race, sex or anything at all.

If the opposition disagrees with the argument or point of view of someone on your side who is a person of color, claim racism. This will always work. Even if people do not believe that the opposition is being racist, then at least it will mean that the opponent has to spend time defending against the accusations. If you are able, find someone within your ranks that is of the race being referred to, and have them publically lie about the opposition’s racism. The same will work with gays and lesbians, use their fears to your benefit. Accuse the opposition as being homophobes as often as possible. This will make the homosexuals believe that you are on their side, while forcing the opposition to defend themselves against the accusations. This tactic is very useful for keeping the opposition busy defending, instead of possibly taking action which would have the possibility of winning over the hearts and minds of the voting public.

Claim to be in favor of immigration, while accusing the opposition of being racists who do not want people of color entering the United States.

This will serve to get the public focused on the racism aspect, while also distracting them from your agenda. Do not propose or offer any real and workable solutions to the immigration issue. It is necessary that the issue continue and gets worse. The worse the situation, the better for you to use it to further your agenda. It will be most important that Latinos believe that you are on their side. As long as they are angry with the Republicans and those on the Right, they will not notice that you are also not doing anything to really solve the issue. But, you will be perceived as doing everything you can.

Use only research and data that agrees with you.

Refer to surveys or general opinion of the public, whether they exist or not, but argue when the opposition does the same, and demand for them to prove their assertions. Using phrases like “the people,” “true Americans,” “studies show,” “common sense,” and many other the such, will give the impression that it is not just your opinion that you are arguing. Always claim that the majority of people feel like you do, but always argue that the opposing view is in the minority.

Attack the character of the person.Whoopee

If someone who opposes you is a person of color, do not mention race. Attack their political leanings and character. If possible, while being careful, find a way to give the impression that you are a “friend” of the person’s race, while still attacking their character. If they are black or Latino, then they have been blinded by the opposition and/or “sold out” against their own race. Show how they are “house Negros.” If those who disagree with you are homosexuals, then claim that they are victims who have been coerced into saying things they don’t really agree with. With all other persons of the opposition, attack their character. Claim that they are on the other side because of some faults of judgment or such. Being careful not to be seen as violating the “politically correct” agenda, attack their sanity, question their sexuality, imply impropriety with minors, or anything else which could serve to demean and reduce the person to little effect.