Reading the headline "White House Still Believes Global Warming is Happening" illustrates primary drivers for those who's convictions lead them to push for great collectivism of society.

One need not assume nefarious intent, although there are those with such.  I think that the left is predominantly made up of those who's intent is "good" as they define it.  The problem is that they seek such good for emotional satisfaction in themselves.  They want to *feel* as if THEY are "good" and "caring" and "compassionate".  To achieve these feelings they are willing to set aside positive values and factual data.

Positive values such as individual liberty.  Such as personal accountability.  Family, Church and community caring for their own freely and not from artificial coercion of those who "think its right".  These things aren't positive good values to many leftists.  While wailing that "all people are basically good" they demand that what they think is right should be imposed upon others.  This certainly belies any belief in inherent goodness of others.

Instead, in pursuit of feeling good, liberals *believe* in things regardless of fact or sense.  They believe government can fix social ills despite the long history of failure.  They believe in global warming (or global climate change) despite no conclusive evidence (and what evidence so far put forth is fraudulent).  They believe that peace can be achieved without war despite the history of Hitler, Khan, Tamerlane, Louis XIV, Stalin, Mao etc.

Such intellectual constructs of believing something to maintain your own emotional satisfaction is cancerous to society, community and liberty.  It allows you to justify the abrogation of others freedoms by coercion.  It empowers those who seek power by giving them a (false) rationale to "legislate" or decree law that degrades the Constitution and imperils the citizenry's unalienable rights.  No one, ethically and morally, has the right to abridge an individuals liberties that do not interfere with the freedoms of others.  Life, liberty and property are the cornerstones.  Every law, regulation or other external control to the life, liberty and property of others is wrong as long as the same rights are protected from others.  There are no "rights" that impose a burden on others.  None whatsoever.  No matter how that makes you "feel".

Cancers must be treated or cut out.  The chemo and radiation for cancerous beliefs are education of the lost collectivist mind.  The surgeon's knife is political action to take back the government and return it to its Constitutional bounds.

Why are 20 percent of the population liberal?  Why does the President state with surety that "only the government" can solve economic problems?  Health care coverage disparities?  Save the environment?  It is because he belongs to a segment of the dependency mass.

Where comes this confidence in government.  Even supposed conservatives "admit the need" for "government action" on a plethora of issues.  They, conservative and liberal alike, disregard any mention of such action being outside the scope and authority of Federal Government.  Government programs have consistently failed since the depression.  The New Deal failed, the "War on Poverty" failed.  Medicare is a mess that's getting worse, as is Social (in)Security.  Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  Let's look at the dependency mass that perpetuates this fantasy of government goodness.

The dependency mass includes the 20 percent identified above, the leftist collectivist politicians who claim to represent them and another, difficult to size group of "moderate" or "independent" types.  Within this mass there are several types.

The Professional Victims: This is a very diverse group who choose to divide rather than unite America.  They are incapable of seeing "Americans" but must subcategorize them in to victim groups.  Their aim is to gain power, influence and money for themselves while claiming to be "protecting" those they identify as "oppressed".  Oppression in the U.S. only exists in the fevered imaginations of these professional victims and their organizers.  One benefit of modern American culture is that everyone realizes that liberty is for everyone and that success is available to ANYONE willing to work hard for it.  Unless of course the Sheople herders of the dependency mass complete their collectivization of America.  Perhaps if these professional victims didn't perpetuate racism (and all other "isms") and a victim mentality in their sheople the U.S would get even better.  But that would eliminate their true purpose, to gain power, influence and money.

The trained dependents:  This is a group that through the cultural changes and the liberal's control of public schools and academia have come to believe that the government's role is to provide them with things.  Money, houses, health care, jobs.  They believe they are entitled to these things for no reason other than that they want them provided.

The emotional idealists: Deciding based on feeling good.  The donor base of the donkey party.  They struggle with guilt at their own fortune, afforded them by freedom.  They think that it is only right and good that others be required to give, by coercion, to "those in need"as deemed by the idealist.  They believe that government is good and that people are inherently good.  Their morals are relative.  Things are moral if it feels emotionally good to them.  Freedom is just a smoke screen for "mean" or "selfish" people. All people are entitled to whatever wish or believe they need.  All should be required to provide it.  Earning things, respect, goods, status is just a concept used by "cruel" people.  The greatest feature of this type is their all consuming self-centeredness.  All things must work in a way that allows them to feel good about themselves.

Lazy People: Both the intellectually lazy who "believe things" just because considering another view involves intellectual effort.  They are perfectly willing to latch on to what "seems right" rather than think things through.  Academia strives to turn out such "thinkers" whether consciously or because the "instructors" are such themselves.  We mustn't forget the physically lazy who are more than willing to take hand outs and "programs" rather than better themselves by individual effort.  Doing so would take away from their video game and tv time.  Heaven forbid that work be required to get a check. 

Selfish People:  Many of the lazy, above, fit here too.  As do many in the other groupings.  Selfishness and greed are powerful emotional  motivators. I've heard people who receive government issued freebies ("programs", "benefits", checks) refer to them as "their" money.  Pontificate loudly on their "right" to them.  Fight vigorously against any idea or plan to "take away my" *insert free anything here*.  A humorous interview in Detroit was with some people who lined up for hours to get some "Obama money".  They didn't know or care where it came from ("Obama's stash"?!?).  Such gross ignorance and crass selfishness aren't unique, it is common.

Envious People:  Envy is another powerful emotion that causes liberal people to adopt and support collectivist government as needful and good.  To those who haven't achieved at the same level as others don't seek to raise themselves but to tear down those who have.  A term they love is "raise all boats" not caring that such attempts sink more boats than are raised.  To these types, achievers are "greedy", "mean" and "selfish".  They can't make a distinction between the ambition and self-interest of achievers and prefer to assign their own envious selfishness.  The envious are often lazy, make or made poor choices and ignorant of those things which achievers excel at.  Rather than achieve they prefer to dislike and attack those more successful than they have chosen to be.

Intellectual Elitists: A driving force of liberal and socialist collectivism.  There are people of all political stripes who suffer from this but it is pervasively liberal in academia and government and often used as political justification.  "We just know better than you" is the hallmark of such elitists.  They live in environments that reinforce and perpetuate their elitism.  When confronted with this concept the liberals defend their elitism by saying "I should disregard people who do know better" (than you)?  They continually claim to have "facts and knowledge" that non-liberals don't possess to justify their emotion based ideologies.  Intellectual arrogance is part and parcel to these types.

Collectivist Rulers:  Drawn from the intellectual elitists, the emotional idealists and just plain megalomaniac politicians (note: these types of politicians accrue to conservative as well as liberal groupings.  It only depends on what they see as the path to power).  Collectivist politicians often begin as any of the other groupings or some combination.  They tend however to be focused on an eye for the main chance.  The acquisition of power and the perks of power.  The reinforcement of their conviction that they know better and above all that the people of "flyover" country "clinging to their guns and bibles" truly need the caring knowledgeable control of such as themselves.

Such characteristics breed the condescending attitudes of collectivists, fuel their arrogance and pump up their hubris.

The only solution to problems is less Federal Government.  Uncle Sugar actually acting within its enumerated powers.  20 percent claim to be "liberal", unfortunately their political mass is swelled by folks such as those above.  We all suffer from such tendencies as we are not "inherently good", rather failed creatures with the ability to improve ourselves.  By our OWN EFFORTS not by the "programs" of elitists who wish to penalize success and empower only themselves.

Sally Morem has views worth reading.  Here is one her recent essays.  A fine contributor to our network and to maintaining American Freedom.  See the original post here on Scribd.

Take up America’s Torch
By Which We Remember December 7 and September 11
By Sally Morem
In Flanders’ fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place: And in the sky
The larks still bravely singing fly,
Scarce heard amidst the guns below.
We are the dead.
Short days ago we lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved and now we lie
In Flanders’ fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe,
To you from failing hands we throw
The Torch—be yours to hold it high;
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders’ fields.

Canadian Colonel John McCrae left us with this eloquent plea for the
defense of the free West, a very appropriate thing to ponder on the
anniversaries of Pearl Harbor and the attacks on New York and Washington,
DC. His poem, In Flanders’ Fields, depicted an image of cemeteries filled
dead Canadians, Englishmen, Frenchmen and Americans, buried under the
battlegrounds of World War I in Europe. The spirits of these dead ask us in
the poem to continue their brave efforts to defend freedom from the
depredations of tyranny. Perhaps they knew that the ‘war to end all wars’
wouldn’t.

Americans did what had to be done. After the sudden blows our forces
suffered in Hawaii and those we suffered later in the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon, we regrouped, struggled, and finally triumphed.
But, there are those who believe that Flanders’ Field was and is too high a
price to pay for freedom. They feel that peace should be our only concern.
Pacifists fear the results of war far more than the devastating effects
surrender would have on us. They don’t realize that appeasement to the
Kaisers, the Hitlers, the Tojos, the Stalins, and the bin Ladens would never
bring peace, but would instead lead to waves of future wars, endless wars of
oppression conducted by power-hungry tyrants, egged on by the weakness
displayed by their pacifist enemies.

The dictionary defines the pacifist as one who is in opposition to war or
violence as a means of settling disputes and who specifically refuses to bear
arms on moral or religious grounds. By so doing, he hopes to bring about a
permanent peace.
Unfortunately, this could never happen through unilateral disarmament. If a
pacific society were somehow established, its internal order would soon
break down under the pressure of criminal acts and outside aggression.
Pacifism is therefore an unstable strategy for any society to undertake. It, by
definition, cannot cope with violent domestic or foreign acts. Survivors
would have to cease acting as pacifists in short order. Or there would be no
survivors left to sweep up the shrapnel and put out the fires.
But, how can we preserve freedom and yet avoid future Flanders’ fields?
Perhaps we can’t. The military option is simply too attractive to too many
people. A show of force really works. People see the guns, the tanks, the
battleships, the bombers, and the soldiers…then they do what they are told
to do. They surrender. They give their conquerors anything they demand.
In any effort to ease the danger of war, certain facts of life must be attended
to. The first thing we must realize is that this world is filled with billions of
people who organize themselves into millions of groups, instantiating at
least as many differing dreams and goals and ideals. Not all of these groups
co-exist peaceably nor do they all conduct their affairs in an honorable
manner. In such a situation, conflict becomes unavoidable.
Any proposal for the demilitarization of the world must come to grips with
the harsh reality of human nature reflected in the operation of human
leadership of groups: There will always be leaders who will lie, cheat,
scheme, and murder to get their own way within their group and against
other groups. They will not be dissuaded by sweet talk of human love and
brotherhood.

Secondly, we must remember that human beings are just as capable of
cooperating with one another as they are of fighting. We see this every day
in peace as our armies and police keep the bad guys at bay, permitting us to
trade and associate in friendship, without threats or coercion.
Ironically enough, war itself illustrates the power of human cooperation.
While soldiers fight enemy soldiers on the battlefield, they also obey their
superior officers, protect one another, move the wounded to safety, and
move supplies to the front in an orderly fashion. War is organized conflict,
with emphasis on the adjective organized. We see the human capacity for
both beastliness and heroism magnified on the battlefield. Perhaps this is
why some of our most powerful stories are war stories.

The talent for cooperation is inherently human. Parents love, nurture and
protect their children. Business associates work together for their mutual
profit. People risk their lives to save others from the perils of fire and storm.
Any truly robust human culture dedicated to the preservation of peace must
allow human cooperation to flower naturally; it must not be forced.
Cooperation is inherently a voluntary act. A dictatorship enforcing
cooperation would be (and is) as counterproductive as a pacifist society
attempting to enforce peace.

From these two points we can deduce the following with reasonable
certainty: There can be no peace without freedom. Ever. Freedom is the
stuff of peace. Why? Because freedom is the stuff of a truly human life.
Cooperation may flourish in many different types of societies and conflict
may be bent to more positive ends through the workings of ancient
traditions, but only in societies where individual rights and responsibilities
are recognized as inviolable can such societies achieve a high level of trust
between large numbers of people, most of whom will never meet one
another. Freedom, then, has the capacity to engender a level of trust at least
high enough to ease ever-present tensions in very populous societies.
Freedom allows individuals to combine and covenant among themselves
without resort to force or threats of force. No gun to the head nor midnight
knock on the door required. Freedom also permits people to leave that
which they’ve created at any time. The “escape clause” of freedom
encourages both the free flow of commerce and of information and ideas
throughout the world as individuals enter and leave at will.

And by so doing, freedom discourages wars between free peoples. Free
peoples don’t fight one another. They don’t even threaten to fight one
another. Considering the history of armed conflict over the millennia, this is
a highly unusual and desirable situation to be in. If we would truly have
peace among the nations, freedom must be the means of its realization. It’s
the only thing that has ever been found by historians to have such a strong
dampening effect on war.

Albert Einstein was wrong when he said, “The first problem is to do away
with mutual fear and distrust.” These emotions cannot be waved away with
the magic wand of pacifism. The first problem is to do away with systems
and cultures of coercion. And this can only be done by guiding
inexperienced peoples through the process of creating societies of
freedom…all over the world. Maintaining the tender plants of newly
established free societies is a tricky task, but many peoples have already
succeeded in doing so in Eastern Europe and Latin America.
Free America has been a powerful force for peace in the last few decades.
But, it didn’t achieve the stability of the West through the use of lethal force.
It never threatened its allies with the use of tanks and troops if they didn’t
obey American orders. It led its allies by offering its own great strength as a
shield against a common enemy.

It has been said by history commentators that if the two great nuclear powers
who had emerged out of World War II into the Cold War had been
totalitarian, say, Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, all of humanity
would’ve been wiped out in a nuclear world war long ago. We only have to
remember what happened when Hitler betrayed the Hitler-Stalin Pact to get
an idea of the truth of this assertion. Thankfully, one of the two
superpowers had been in reality a true democratic republic. America had
been strong enough to enable the West to remain free long enough to outlast
an aggressive, and then a crumbling Soviet Empire.
Let’s consider an alternate historical possibility. If the two superpowers
emerging from the flames of World War II had both been free societies, they
never would have posed a nuclear threat to each other or the world. Wars do
not come about simply by the presence of dangerous weaponry; wars grow
out of the enmity of enemies.

We now have enough experience with a number of paired democratic states
sharing borders to know that they never put their forces on alert against one
another, let alone fire on one another in anger. Americans don’t fear British
or French nukes…with good reason. Our two imaginary democratic
superpowers would’ve acted towards each other much like post-war
Germany, Japan and America had—with peaceable trade and cultural
exchanges instead of ICBMs aimed at one another’s cities.
With all this in mind, America’s duty is clear. We must continue to foster
the development of free societies around the world. We must continue to
protect and defend ourselves and the free world from would-be oppressors.
Sneak attacks on America must never be permitted to happen again. When
we choose to be free, we give America’s Answer, written by R. W. Lillard,
to those who had given their lives for us nearly a century ago:

Rest in peace, ye Flanders dead,
The fight that ye so bravely led
We’ve taken up. And we will keep
True faith with you who lie asleep,
With each a cross to mark his bed,
Where once his own life-blood ran red.
So let your rest be sweet and deep
In Flanders’ field.
Fear not that ye have died for naught,
The Torch ye threw to us we caught,
Ten million hands will hold it high,
And Freedom’s light shall never die!
We’ve learned the lesson that ye taught
In Flanders’ field.

I miss my Mom.  Mom has been gone from this world for nearly 8 years.  As with all families and all Moms (or most perhaps) there were conflict issues, relationship challenges and multitudes of feelings.

I have been blessed in life with other “Mom” figures too.  To Mom who is gone and to Moms who are not, be sure to recognize them today.  No, not materialistically. Try a hug, a sincere statement of appreciation and just love them.

Moms provide central support to most people in childhood, youth and adulthood.  When you have no one to hear your pain, Mom will.  When you need a warm contentment outside of rationality and logic, Moms can provide it.  Moms are your biggest fans, your rock of origin and a relationship that is unique amongst all the ones you have.  Appreciate it.  Thoughtfully consider it, meditate on it.  Pray in thanksgiving for it.  Even Jesus’ Mother fit in this way.

I love you Mom even if I can’t hug you today.  I love the other Moms in my life too and wish each and all a joyous Mother’s day.  I encourage you all to make as many days a year as you can, some kind of “Mother’s Day”.

Brothers and Sisters?  How have YOU fulfilled the great commission this year?
=====================================================
Partially reprinted from 2006 and 2007 (© The American Freedom Network)
=====================================================
Secularists, Culturalists, Diversity advocates and other ignorant or willfully dishonest folks will disagree.  Those of other faith traditions often celebrate it but not for its real reason which they are prohibited from believing.  Commercialists don't care about the real reason.  Politicians want to posture about it while avoiding or politicizing the real reason.  However the Christmas season HAS A REAL REASON.  One to benefit all mankind that have the eyes to see and the ears to hear.

Secularists hate it and fight and litigate against it.  The lost reject it and get defensive when we promote it.  The Atheist rejects it by means of their own religions of evolution and antitheist philosophy.  However most of them welcome it and "celebrate" it, look forward to it and partake in the frenzied materialist and secular parts of it.  They even will be caught saying things like "peace on earth" and "good will toward men" (excuse me, persons).

It is Christmas.  Regardless of the arguments that may distract people from the true reason for Christmas.  The reason is Jesus, the Christ Child, the prophesied Savior of humanity.  His birth, of a virgin in Bethlehem some 2000 years ago is the reason for the season.  Our Redeemer's birth the hope of mankind, the Way, the Truth and the Light.  God's gift to mankind (excuse me, humankind).

Businesses won't mention it, Schools and "Public" entities won't acknowledge it and antichristian attack the faith component of it.  Yet they all want it.  They all set aside time for sales, activities and diatribes about it.  Find the business that doesn't realize a large portion of revenue from it.  Find a public or private entity that doesn't give time off for it, have parties specifically timed to coincide with it and often exchange gifts or grant pecuniary compensation during it.  Find secular/humanist/atheist activists who don't use it to gain notoriety to their causes from it (prior to going home to some sort of "celebration" of it).  In the midst of denying it, obfuscating it or attacking it, nearly everyone acknowledges and celebrates it.

Christ, the King, born in Bethlehem that he might minister to this world before freely going to the Cross to die that our fallen human sins might be forgiven by God's grace.  Holding forth the promise of eternal life for those who believe in his undeniable Good News.  Foretold, fulfilled and granted to an undeserving humanity.  Reinforcement of the most powerful, compelling and impactful moral code ever presented to man for his betterment.  Realization of man's inability to comply with "Law", a loving gracious God sent his Son to this world to be born of Mary and live as a man shining in sinless perfection before sacrificing himself to our undeserving benefit of eternal life.

This IS the reason for the Season, regardless of trees, presents, turkeys and family reunions.  Jesus Christ, Son of God, glorious and warranting our praise, instilling joy to a world believing and unbelieving during this season celebrating the Christ Child's birth.

I wish you a Merry Christmas and a New Year filled with peace.  I invite you to see the Good News in Luke and Matthew.

That which so many American citizens can not or will not.  Sean Gabb certainly has the sheople pegged it seems.
===================
Barack Obama and America's 1997:
Welcome to the Club!
by Sean Gabb

I have been asked by several of my American readers to comment on their
presidential election. I did think to ignore these requests. Having spent
very little time there, I cannot be regarded as an expert on America. Nor
am I particularly fond of the place. I think its war of independence was
brought on less by the Stamp Act than by Lord Mansfield's judgement on
the illegality of slavery at common law. I also think its war between the
states was won by the wrong side. It would have been better for humanity
had the Union been broken up and its member states made into British
satellites. Sadly, the United States survived, and was able to grow into
the mercantilist oligarchy that took the most significant - because
ultimately the most successful - place in the triumvirate of Soviet
communism and European national socialism that ended the hegemony of
English liberalism.

Having considered the request, though, I do have something to say. The
range of opinion about Mr Obama's election seems to be marked at its
limits by the BBC and by organisations like Vdare and American
Renaissance. The former believes he is a fusion of Nelson Mandela and
Martin Luther King, and has turned its news broadcasts into a hymn of
secular joy. The latter believes that he is indeed Messrs Mandela and
Luther King - the real ones, that is, not the constructs of the
politically correct classes - and that he will surround himself with
Black Panther bodyguards and declare Ebonics the official language of
America.

I think both opinions are wrong. The first is not worth commenting on.
The second is wrong because so many American conservatives are still in
shock at the thought of having a black man to rule over them. Mr Obama
got his campaign funds in the usual way - from business interests that
will now want their reward. He will need to operate within a system that
remains dominated by whites. Within a year or so, the non-whites who are
still celebrating his victory will have noticed that nothing much has
changed as it affects their lives, and will be denouncing him as a white
man with a black face.

This is not to say, however, that nothing important has happened.
Something has happened, and it is both important and dreadful for the
American people. America has just had its equivalent of our 1997
revolution. Looking at the eighty four years until then, power in England
had become both more oppressive and less accountable. But the main
features of our Constitution remained in place, and conservatives had
been able to retain sufficient institutional power to slow down the drift
into tyranny. The election of New Labour allowed the wholesale
remodelling of the Constitution, so that little now remains around which
conservatives can unite. I now live in a country where power is less
restrained than at any time since the sixteenth century - where formal
sovereignty has been passed to various foreign agencies, where the media
is controlled, where civil liberties have been casually squashed, where
the armed forces have been made into instruments of an imperial
aggression that brings neither glory to their nation nor better
government  to their victims.

So it is now in America. The American Constitution and Bill of Rights
have always been a fraud. From slavery to civil asset forfeiture, they
have never restrained any abuse of power on which the American ruling
class has been determined. But the country is very large, and there has
usually been strong local suspicion of Washington. Given a ruling class
interested mainly in dividing up the profits of commercial privilege, and
prepared to indulge any right that did not get seriously in the way of
this, the American people were left with the appearance, and often the
reality, of much freedom.

The new presidency is no more about having a black man in charge than New
Labour was about having all those Scotch voices in government. It is
about a change in the ruling class. This is the election in which those
whose minds were captured in the 1960s and 1970s by the neo-Marxists have
taken over from their parents. The Clinton presidency was largely a
failure because the new ruling class was still too young, and because the
old ruling class had not grown too old to cling to power - and because
the Clintons were too easy to hate and despise. All is different now. The
new ruling class has no political opposition but a group of
neo-conservatives who disgraced themselves during the Bush presidency,
and who are probably less interested in opposition than in a few
compromises on foreign policy. And it has a figurehead that cannot be
mocked or even criticised without risk of the most horrid accusations.
Mr Obama cannot be more stupid in his actions or more embarrassing in his
utterances than Mr Bush has been. But his essential function as President
will be to shield the new ruling class of America while it carries
through a total transformation of American life. I do not know exactly
how America will change. But I can predict that, come 2016, most
Americans will no longer recognise their country. It will be less free.
It will be less prosperous. It will be less American. What has happened
in England, and what is happening in Australia, will now happen in America.

All this is to be regretted. I think increasingly, however, that if those
who are transforming the English world are to be blamed, those who are
being transformed are no less to be despised. In 1917, power was seized
in Russia by men who were prepared to murder anyone who so much as raised
an eyebrow at them. Whether they murdered thirty million or sixty million
people is important in the obvious sense. Where ensuring absolute
docility of the ruled is concerned, it is the first million who matter.
No one can blame the Russian people for grovelling before Stalin. But
none of the almost equally radical governments that have taken over in
the English world has killed any of its own citizens, or is proposing to
kill any. We have been enslaved by a small minority of intellectuals
whose most potent weapon is words. Any people who can be so enslaved
deserves to be enslaved.

But I am about to digress. I will only say for now that the American
people deserve Barack Obama. To some extent, he is their punishment for
tolerating, if not welcoming, eight years of George W. Bush. More
generally, they are about to lose nothing more than they have long since
abdicated their right to possess.

So, welcome, America - welcome to the New Labour Club.

NB—Sean Gabb's book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives
Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from
http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3 Any American who wants to understand the nature
of the Obama Revolution should buy a ocpy.

Reading Ashley Herzog here on Townhall today begs a larger question.  Who actually perpetuates racism?  Who benefits from propagation of a perception of ongoing racism in American society?

It isn't your average American that I can see.  Rather it is the statist collectivists in our governments, "special interest" (read THEIR OWN interests) groups, public education and major media.  Focusing on suppression of free speech by outlawing "offensive" (but physically harmless) words and ideas.  Thinking people understand that racism is based in willful ignorance.

The socialist left will go so far as to claim that only one race can be racist.  They lampoon "crackers" and "rednecks" as the source of ongoing racism.  They claim that racism is "institutionalized".  They fail to show any large mainstream groupings of "crackers and rednecks" displaying any racist behaviors.  They can not demonstrate, factually, how any racism is institutionalized.  They won't discuss the ONE actual example.  Affirmative action.

Having Americans believe that racism is systemic and ongoing benefits the collectivists.  It justifies their assault on your liberties.  Americans with black, brown or other dark skin who are successful DUE TO American Freedom (this excludes "government", "media" or race "activists" who are generally socialist collectivists) don't seem oppressed and they speak out about it.  Read Walter Williams, La Shawn Barber, Thomas Sowell, Ken Blackwell, Larry Elder, Armstrong Williams or Ellis Washington (and many many others).  You won't find them whining about oppression or racism.  You'll find them SUCCEEDING.

People of this sort, Americans who believe in and live the American dream are denigrated, castigated and discounted by the collectivists elites.  Their example is written off as "selling out" and being "uncle tom" (isn't that racist?).  Why?  Because they don't subscribe to government power, socialism or collectivist ideologies.  They believe in FREEDOM, anathema to collectivists.

Let us know how you perceive racism in your life and community.  I love America and Americans who value liberty.  I don't need to classify them by the color of their skin.  Nor do the conservatives, libertarians and constitutional originalists I know.