Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

The Liberal-Fascist Axis Part II


I completely missed commentary on Part I but here's the link should anyone want to backtrack and start reading this series by columnist Ellis Washington from the beginning. Part II's article came out last weekend and I thank Mr. Washington for posting the accompanying picture (above) in which Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger is clearly seen speaking before a Ku Klux Klan rally. I've mentioned in several different, discussion forums in the past that it's a verifible fact that Sanger spoke before the Ku Klux Klan as she was inclined to buy into the pet, junk-science "raceology" theory, clap-trap that was somewhat popular at that time and thus, she found a kindred spirit with "the Klan".

Washington raises an interesting point in his article when he states...

"Abortion is the act of a woman causing the premature termination of her baby and pregnancy. Despite volumes written on abortion, few writers have made the unmistakable connection between the twin evils of abortion and slavery – such as, for every 1,000 black babies born in America, there are 472 unborn black babies aborted, or for every two black babies born, one black baby is aborted.

The NAACP and the civil-rights movement essentially support the genocide of their own race....."

And in reference to Eugenics: "Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species." Eugenics was founded by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. Margaret Sanger zealously propagated eugenics before becoming the founder of Planned Parenthood, one of the largest abortion providers in the world. Sanger's entire idea for eugenics (of which abortion is its logical consequence) was to bring genocide to the black race, which Sanger and many progressive intellectuals believed was by nature unworthy of full participation in civilization."

Washington raises other issues that connect modern, leftist liberalism to fascism (an association which has been discussed in this forum before). Some of the other issues cited by Washington include...

  • Slavery
  • Social Darwinism (evolution)
  • and how they relate to Fascism

Consider this site to be "Ellis Washington Central" and this particular entry to be an open thread for an honest and frank discussion of the points raised by Professor Washington. If it generates some interest and good discussion, then I'll post Part III as soon as it comes out.






19 comments:

Ginx said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Froggie said...

Ellis Washington...Hahahahahahahaha

WorldNetDaily....Hahahahahahaha

Is Glen Beck an Ellis Washington wannabe, or vice versa... Hahahahahahaha.

Froggie said...

Let's not forget that at one time the Klan was 100% right wing Christians.

ATVLC said...

Um Froggie, isn't it still 100% right-wing Christians.

(Note for JD. Not all right-wingers or Christians are KKK, not all left-wingers are Marxists.)

JD Curtis said...

Let's not forget that at one time the Klan was 100% right wing Christians

"Perhaps an even better indication of how little modern popular conceptions jibe with the historical reality during this period is the Ku Klux klan. For decades the Klan stood as the most obvious candidate for an American brand of fascism. That makes quite a bit of sense. The right-wing label, on the other hand, isn't nearly as clear a fit. The Klan of the Progressive Era was not the same Klan that arose after the Civil War. Rather it was a collection of loosely independent organizations spread across the United States. What united them besides their name and absurd getups, was that they were all inspired by the film Birth of a Nation. They were, in fact, a "creepy fan subculture" of the film. Founded the week of the film's release in 1915, the second Klan was certainly racist, but not much more than society in general. Of course this is less of a defense of the Klan than an indictment of the society that produced it."

JD Curtis said...

"For years the conventional view among scholars and laymen alike was that the Klan was rural and fundamentalist. The truth is it was often quite cosmopolitan and modern, thriving in cities like New York and Chicago. In many communities the Klan focused on the reform of local government and on maintaining social values. It was often the principal extralegal enforcer of Prohibition, the consumate progressive "reform". "These Klansmen," writes Jesse Walker in an illuminating survey of the latest scholarship, "were more likely to flog you for bootlegging or breaking your marraige vows than for being black or Jewish."



When modern liberals try to explain away the Klan membership of prominent Democrats-most frequently Robert Byrd-they cough up a few cliches about how good liberals "evolved" from their southern racial "conservatism." But the Klan of the 1920's was often seen as reformist and modern, and it had a close relationship with some progressive elements in the Democratic Party. The young Harry Truman as well as future Supreme Court justice Hugo Black were members. In 1924, at the famous "Klanbake" Democratic Convention, the KKK rallied around the future senator William McAdoo, William Wilson's secretary of the treasury (and son-in-law), a key architect of Wilson's war socialism, and a staunch Prohibitionist."



Goldberg, Jonah: Liberal Fascism, pgs 259-260, Doubleday

Froggie said...

You can paste quotes till hell freezes over but it will not change the fact that the Klan was right wing extremists and their legacy is the Tea Pary.

JD Curtis said...

If you provided one scitilla of evidence to counter what Goldberg has posited, you just might seem like something other than a atheist, left-wing crank.

OT- Froggie, check out SGA's latest post. Thought it might interest you. Link

ATVLC said...

(In case any lurkers are wondering, JD is using a different political spectrum to the left-right political spectrum that the rest of the world uses, confusingly he's also named the axis left and right. See here.)

JD Curtis said...

I wouldnt say it's different than "the rest of the world uses". It's only different to those who critically examine history/politics with anything resembling an honest and open mind and those who are bent on assigning some the worst regimes the world has to offer to the right in an off-hand sort of manner without actually studying and comparing criteria.

Jesus Will Save said...

"It's only different to those who critically examine history/politics with anything resembling an honest and open mind"

Yes.

His Lordship The Gun-Toting Atheist said...

Social Darwinism: If you are not from a rich family and cannot afford to go to college, you are out of luck.

Social Darwinism: If you are not from a rich family and cannot afford health insurance, you are out of luck.

Sounds like the real Social Darwinists are the Republicans and Conservatives in general. Survival of the fittest, right? Whatever happened to compassion and generosity?

JD Curtis said...

If you are not from a rich family and cannot afford to go to college, you are out of luck

Ever heard of the GI Bill or, how I did it, Guaranteed Student Loans?

If you are not from a rich family and cannot afford health insurance, you are out of luck

"Evidence for the Theory of Bureaucratic Displacement into US Hospital Care

(Milton) Friedman analysed US hospitals up to WWII and after the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. From 1929-1940 US hospital care costs rose 5% occupied beds rose 2.4 and cost per patient rose modestly ie, inputs rose and outputs rose. From 1946-1989 beds per thousand fell by half, occupancy rates fell by one eighth but input costs skyrocketed - (hospital personnel sevenfold and cost per patient day twenty sixfold ie, $21 to 545 in constant dollars). Inputs rose, outputs dropped.

From 1965 onwards, the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid in the US produced a meteoric rise in input and a rapid decline in output. Why? Advances in medical science creating less need for hospitals? Possibly. But why such a big rise in input costs? More sophisticated treatment? Doubtful. Improvements after 1965 no more rapid than before 1965 (in fact, research fell from 15% pa up to 1965 to 2% pa after 1965-1989). Occupied beds per thousand fell by 1% (1946-1964) and by 2.5% (1965-1989). Cost per patient per day rose 6% (1946-1964), 9% (1964-1989).

Why?

Friedman says the fresh pool of money from Medicare/Medicaid pushed up the number of personnel per occupied bed rapidly. Cost per patient per day which had tripled 1946-1965 multiplied eightfold after 1965 when Medicare was introduced." Link

I don't think that it was small-government conservatives that were pushing all of these federal mandates.

Chris Mackey said...

This sequence of comments made me laugh out loud.

ATVLC said...

(In case any lurkers are wondering, JD is using a different political spectrum to the left-right political spectrum that the rest of the world uses, confusingly he's also named the axis left and right. See here.)
June 16, 2010 5:12 AM

JD Curtis said...

I wouldnt say it's different than "the rest of the world uses". It's only different to those who critically examine history/politics with anything resembling an honest and open mind
...
June 16, 2010 5:52 AM

Jesus Will Save said...

"It's only different to those who critically examine history/politics with anything resembling an honest and open mind"

Yes
.

JD says his ideas are different from the ideas of people who critically examine history/politics with anything resembling an honest and open mind? Weird UFO Jesus freak leaves a one word comment: "yes". Heh.

JD Curtis said...

Chris,

You make the error of assuming that I am all alone, out there by myself in adhering to the particular version of the political spectrum that I do.

The fact that many others adhere to the political spectrum as I've laid out in these pages before would be obvious even to those that operate on a sub-Wikipedia level.

His Lordship The Gun-Toting Atheist said...

JD,

Student loans repayment is a a big financial burden. Contrast that with the FREE college education that I got in Canada. I graduated with zero debt. That's better than any loan.

In the US, you have to get loans. Loans have to be repaid. From finaid.org

Few students can afford to pay for college without some form of education financing. Two-thirds (65.6%) of 4-year undergraduate students graduated with a Bachelor's degree and some debt in 2007-08, and the average student loan debt among graduating seniors was $23,186 (excluding PLUS Loans but including Stafford, Perkins, state, college and private loans). Among graduating 4-year undergraduate students who applied for federal student aid, 86.3% borrowed to pay for their education and the average cumulative debt was $24,651. (For just federal student loan debt, excluding PLUS Loans, the figures are 61.6% and $17,878.) Average cumulative debt increased by 5.6% or $1,139 a year since 2003-04. When one includes PLUS loans in the total, 66.0% of 4-year undergraduate students graduated with some debt in 2007-08, and the average cumulative debt incurred was $27,803. (About two in fifteen (13.5%) of parents borrow PLUS loans for their children's college education, with a cumulative PLUS loan debt of $23,298.) link

But that's just undergraduates. Doctors graduate with tremendous amounts of debt. From the AMA website:
Medical Student Debt

Student debt statistics
$156,456 – According to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), the average educational debt of indebted graduates of the class of 2009.
79 percent of graduates have debt of at least $100,000.
58 precent of graduates have debt of at least $150,000.
87 percent of graduating medical students carry outstanding loans.
Source: AAMC 2009 Graduation Questionnaire

Why medical education debt has increased
Medical education debt is driven by rising tuition. AAMC data show that median private medical school tuition and fees increased by 50 percent (in real dollars) in the 20 years between 1984 and 2004. Median public medical school tuition and fees increased by 133 percent over the same time period. Other recent 20-year periods show similar trends.

Tuition is just one source of increasing debt burdens. Other causes include:

Interest accrued on loans over time significantly adds to the total cost of student debt.
Students are now entering medical school with more education debt from undergraduate education.
Increasing numbers of “non-traditional” students who have children to support.
Debt crisis harms both students and patients
The increase in debt not only burdens medical students, but can have effects on the entire health care system. Some of correlations found include:

Decrease in primary care physicians

Students with high debt may be less likely to pursue family practice and primary care specialties and instead seek specialties with higher income or more leisure time.
Decreased diversity of physician workforce

The cost of tuition can prevent students from low-income/minority and those with other financial responsibilities from attending medical school.
Physician diversity is necessary to address the needs of heterogeneous, multicultural patient populations.
Promoting unsafe physician behaviors

Residents with high debt are more likely to moonlight.
Increasing debt leads to more cynicism and depression among residents.
link

His Lordship The Gun-Toting Atheist said...

About medical costs: an MRI machine costs MILLIONS. Cost
MRI equipment varies in cost, depending on the strength of the scanner. Scanners with more strength produce more detailed images; therefore, these scanners cost more. MRI machines can range in cost between $1 and $3 million. Construction of MRI suites can easily add another $500,000 to the total cost. An extremity MRI machine alone costs $300,000 or more, and can only be used to scan hands, feet and knees. Purchasing a used-extremity MRI scanner can cost as much as $150,000.
Reimbursement
While Medicare, most HMOs and private insurance companies, as well as Workers' Compensation carriers, will cover at least some of the cost for a patient to have an MRI exam, government-sponsored health plans are now reimbursing less for the equipment charge. When the cost of the procedure is not covered by a patient's health plan, or a patient is uninsured, the provider will usually advise a patient of the costs at the time an appointment is scheduled. An MRI examination can cost several thousands of dollars, as it includes a charge for using the MRI machine to perform the scan, in addition to a professional charge for a radiologist to view the images. The equipment charge alone can cost somewhere in the range of $3,500. Add another $350 fee to that for a radiologist to take a look at the images and interpret the data. Another factor to consider when it comes medical facilities being reimbursed for the study is that many insurance companies require pre-approval before covering the cost of an MRI exam.
link

The rising cost of a medical education and technology are the PRIMARY factors behind rising health care costs. Insurance, as a result, is getting more and more expensive.

The Canadian health care system was great. I never had to pay a dime to see a doctor. Not sure why Americans are so opposed to the idea.

JD Curtis said...

Really?

What is the average wait time for an CAT scan or MRI in Ontario as opposed to New York?

His Lordship The Gun-Toting Atheist said...

Depends; emergency or non-emergency? Emergency gets priority and there is no wait time.