This video turned up on my Facebook feed, where a beautiful young girl makes the point, “Black people have scarier things on the horizon than the almost endangered species of white supremacy.”

So do people of every color.

As she points out, the media are still carrying on about what Pres. Trump said/didn’t say at a press conference three days ago.

Harry Stein states What Trump got right in the press conference:

Objecting to the tearing down of these monuments does not make one a Nazi, or a racist, or even passingly unreasonable, much as Trump’s adversaries wish it were so.

I was a student at the University of Georgia in the early 1970s. Jimmy Carter was governor and segregationist Lester Maddox his lieutenant governor.

I had transferred from the University of Puerto Rico with sketchy knowledge of the history of the South, but even then I realized that the Civil War, which caused 620,000 deaths on both sides, was America’s defining moment. The Civil War is worthy of study and reflection, and trying to wipe out unpleasantness by destroying any amount of public monuments will not erase that: “Our history doesn’t change when a monument is removed.”

The young girl in the video posits that the media is creating a narrative. I’m not sure who originated the narrative at this point, but I agree with her that the media is simulating a reality of sorts. Hours, days, of sundry talking heads opining about a press conference have priority over news such as

  1. Mike Pence’s official visits to Colombia, Argentina, Chile and Panama, the latter being cut short over the North Korea situation
  2. Colombia’s FARC official disarmament day while dissenting FARC factions fight government forces
  3. Russia arming Venezuela’s government in exchange for oil
  4. al-Qaeda taking territorial control in Syria
  5. and of course, yesterday’s terrorist attack in Spain.

The Guardian has the latest on item #4:

Hours after van killed 13 people and injured 100 in Las Ramblas, seaside town of Cambrils hit by second vehicle attack, leaving one dead and six wounded

Predictably, there’s a Trump-associated headline on this.

Journalism used to go by “if it bleeds, it leads.” Now so-called journalists are the ones deciding what bleeds where, and they’re bleeding Trump from every one of their pores.

Attention: See Da Tech Guy’s pinned post!

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz writes on U. S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog

A week ago I spoke at the Friday Morning Group in Lexington Ma. Old friend Janet Aldrich was kind enough to record this speech:

Janet by the way has, for a decade, done yeoman’s work in covering state hearings. I interviewed her after this event.

Her youtube channel Beacon Hill Flagg that is THE go to site for actual pubic hearings that I suspect a lot of people in government wish would not see the light of day, such as the weeding out of Christians from the adpotion services in Massachusetts.

She is a state treasure.


We are $380 from my next paycheck goal that we hope to make by Aug 20th.

If you like the work we do here and would care to support it please consider hitting DaTipJar below




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



20 years ago the Media found itself in a situation they didn’t want to be in. The had gone all in on the death and funeral of Princess Diana when the day before her funeral Mother Theresa of Calcutta died. This invariably produced coverage comparisons that didn’t make the MSM look good like this from Mike Barnicle at the globe:

Realistically, nobody expects the coverage of Mother Teresa’s passing to equal the volume accorded Princess Diana. After all, Mother Teresa does not have two handsome children to appear in solemn procession behind her casket. Will not have millions of bouquets tossed in the street outside her palatial home. Wore only one outfit. Touched the emotions of a largely invisible group and did so far from the light of glamour.

That cut the MSM to the quick and they were put on the spot as a network exec admitted

One network news executive who requested anonymity said, “Honestly, we wouldn’t be sending all of our anchors and covering Mother Teresa’s funeral so extensively if it weren’t for all the Diana coverage.

“We’d be strongly criticized if we didn’t cover Mother Teresa in a big way.”

And while he made up for it by giving Christopher Hitchens one more chance to hit her during the funeral,the late Peter Jennings didn’t like being in a box.

ABC’s Jennings said TV news is in a no-win situation: “Mother Teresa’s death has not led to the worldwide frenzy that led us to break into coverage (for Diana). Given the extent to which the media covered Princess Diana, we will invariably be criticized for our coverage of Mother Teresa. But Mother Teresa is a very important story, and I don’t think the two should be compared.”

And that Brings us to Claire McCaskill and Missouri State Senator Maria Chappelle.

As I’ve already written McCaskill when it comes to electoral politics McCaskill is one of the smartest pols in the game. She knew that 2012 was iffy and made sure post Obamacare she faced a Republican of her own choosing (instead of the one Sarah Palin had backed) She was willing to go after Harry Reid in a public way when it would be noticed but wouldn’t make a difference in terms of the Senate and knowing that she was going to need Trump voters tweeted out

and having made the statement against violent protests at the inauguration she backed them up despite loud objections from the left figuring it was all good:

So she will rejoice in stories like this and posts like this and highlight them to distance herself from the violent protests because regardless of the face she presents to the twitter world the radicals in her state who turned a thug like Michael Brown into a gentle giant know that the reality is she has their back.

Well unfortunately for her, one of those lefties Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal choose this time to on facebook her hope that the President of the United States be assassinated.

Missouri lawmaker acknowledged Thursday that she posted and later deleted a comment on Facebook about hoping for President Donald Trump’s assassination, saying she was frustrated with the president’s response to the white supremacist rally and violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.

and in a state that Donald Trump won by almost 20 points and the GOP controls both houses of the legislature by wide margins local democrats Democrats wasted no time calling for her head:

Stephen Webber, the Missouri Democratic Party Chair, said in a statement, “State Senator Chappelle-Nadal’s comments are indefensible. All sides need to agree that there is no room for suggestions of political violence in America — and the Missouri Democratic Party will absolutely not tolerate calls for the assassination of the President. I believe she should resign.”

The Senate Democratic Causus is condemning the comment. Senate Democratic Leader Gina Walsh said, “I strongly condemn and disavow Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal’s horrible comments. Promoting, supporting or suggesting violence against anyone, especially our elected leaders, is never acceptable. There is too much rancor and hate in today’s political discourse, and Sen. Chappelle-Nadal should be ashamed of herself for adding her voice to this toxic environment. Sen. Chappelle-Nadal’s unacceptable behavior has no place in our caucus, the Capitol, or the Democratic Party. Let me be clear, her views in no way represent the constituents of the 14th District or the great State of Missouri.”

And with the combination of political violence in the news her own statements about getting past last week’s violence, and the electoral polling in Missouri going in the wrong direction tide of Claire McCaskill joined in as well:

U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and the chairman of the Missouri Democratic Party both called Thursday for the resignation of Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, for posting a Facebook comment stating: “I hope Trump is assassinated!”

“I condemn it,” McCaskill said in a brief emailed statement. “It’s outrageous. And she should resign.”

Now that’s a very clear statement with no ambiguity at all, but there is one thing I find odd and interesting about her condemnation of Maria Chappelle Nadal.  While you can find Senator McCaskill’s condemnation of State Senator Maria Chappelle Nadal words mentioned in just about every news story on the subject, you know where you won’t find it, at least as of 8 PM Eastern time last night?  Anywhere on her twitter feed.

That might seem odd until you consider this story

Which was reported from Netroots nation

let’s keep in mind that Evans is a left-leaning candidate hoping to change Georgia from red to blue. But that’s not enough. It seems the issue is, at least in part, that Evans is white.

Evans, a Smyrna state legislator who is white, was drowned out by demonstrators supporting Stacey Abrams, an Atlanta lawmaker who is black. A phalanx of sign-wielding protesters formed a line in front of her as soon as she took the podium, while others chanted “support black women” and “trust black women.” What followed was several minutes of pleading – “ let’s talk through it,” Evans implored repeatedly – and an attempt to plow through the speech.

Like I said Claire McCaskill is a smart woman who knows that while she can’t win Missouri without Trump voters the last thing she needs is far left of the party that dominates social media coming down on her for daring to call for the resignation of a black woman Senator in her state.

That’s the type of thing that can produce a primary candidate of color who while not a big danger to win in a general election is likely to force her to make public statements that she really doesn’t want to make.

McCaskill may have had no choice but to condemn Senator Nadal but she’s no fool so she’ll do all she can to make sure her condemnation remains as local a story as possible.

That being the case let me repeat my advice of January to her potential opponents.

If I was running the RNC or a conservative pac I’d encourage donors to quietly start financing a radical leftists, possibly a black nationalist to primary her and point to this event as a reason to do so

Hell if it was my call I’d take a card out of McCaskill’s own deck and quietly finance a “Draft Maria Chappelle Nadal for US Senate” movement.  I suspect the end result would be quite efficacious for the GOP.

And remember any Democrat who does anything to prevent a black woman from running for that seat must be racist.


If you want a source of reporting other than the MSM please consider hitting DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



This is one of those “to tell the story I first have to tell you this story” posts, so please bear with.

During the early months of last year (February, to be precise), I posted a lengthy dissertation on my personal blog about my favorite guitar and its assorted adventures since coming into my possession a few years ago. Said guitar is a 1976 Gibson Les Paul Deluxe, which as noted in the aforementioned post is pretty much the absolute low end of desirability among electric guitar players/collectors in general and Les Paul aficionados in particulari. This holds firm even with the Les Paul being rivaled only by the Fender Stratocaster in terms of popularity among six-string gunslingers. Nevertheless, it is my instrument of choice.

In my case, I bought my Les Paul off of ebay (some hard-earned wisdom when it comes to guitar buying and ebay: don’t mix the two). It arrived sorely in need of some tender loving care, which after being applied transformed the guitar into a genuinely superb instrument despite all the slagging said model, made during said time period, usually receives.

Although it seems impossible given how you cannot find a rock’n’roll band of any stripe from the past forty-five years without a Les Paul being close at, if not in, hand, there was a time when Gibson dropped it from its product line due to years of steadily declining sales. Throughout nearly the entirety of the 1960s, not a single one was built. It was only in 1969 that demand created by the Eric Claptons and Jimmy Pages of this world among others reached a sufficient level for the guitar’s reintroduction, and even then haltingly; it would be two decades before new ownership both rescued Gibson from imminent demise and brought the Les Paul back in anything close to its original, highly prized form. How highly prized? The ones made from 1957 to 1960, after which production was halted, routinely command six figures, often with a crooked number leading the way.

Which leads from this story to the story, namely A.J. Delgado.

Ms. Delgado was, until the end of last year, a longtime member of conservative new media’s upper echelon. The daughter of Cuban immigrants, Ms. Delgado was an established lawyer before she started routinely gracing assorted high flyer publications and becoming a regular guest on political television. In last year’s Presidential election – which, by the way, is still over – she threw her support to Donald Trump, going so far as to directly work for his campaign. It was during this time period she met a man who also worked for the campaign, and as happens (not excusing it, just stating the facts) an office romance ensued. Yes, the man was married, but he swore to Ms. Delgado that he and his wife were separated. It later became apparent the man’s interpretation of what entails being separated from one’s spouse was quite different than the norm, as when Ms. Delgado informed him she was unexpectedly expecting, he responded with, “So is my wife.” Awkward.

After dropping a few quite unsubtle hints about what had been/was going on, Ms. Delgado went silent on social media for several months while most everyone who had feted her just weeks before dropped her like a hot potato. No more writing gigs. No more television appearances. It got to the point where a now thoroughly unemployed Ms. Delgado was forced to move in with her mother. She recently gave birth to a son, and has now re-emerged on social media talking not politics, but personal matters related to being a new, single mother.

A third element now enters the story, that being a story in and of itself: Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. When you read John’s account, note that there was no question of whether the woman was being falsely accused. She was guilty. The penalty for adultery under Mosaic law was being stoned to death. The law called for both guilty parties to be stoned to death, but apparently the man involved in this affair was either considered insufficiently guilty or was deemed inadequate for this exercise’s primary purpose which had nothing to do with following the law. It was an effort to trap Jesus in His own words. Say let her go, and Jesus would be violating the law. Say stone her, and all of Jesus’ words about forgiving sin and such would be exposed as hollow rhetoric. Let’s see you get out of this one, carpenter boy!

Jesus, rather than responding, said nothing; instead (depending on which translation you read) stooping over or sitting down on the ground and beginning to write in the dust with His finger. What He wrote was not recorded. Most theologians and such over the ensuing centuries have surmised Jesus was writing down a list of the sins committed by the would-be rock chuck gang. Could well be. Could also be He was writing, “Get ready to be disappointed, boys; you’re about to get the first and last word in mic drop a couple of thousand years before there are any mics to drop.” At this point Jesus stood up, said His famous few words about whoever was there that was without sin could go right ahead and start turning the adulteress into a miniature quarry, and resumed his writing as the crowd one by one dropped their stones in more ways than one and walked away, eventually leaving only Jesus and the adulteress.

Jesus, doubtless thankful that Richard Rosenblatt and Ritchie Cordell had not yet written “I Think We’re Alone Now,” asked what to the woman most likely seemed like a bizarre question: where are your accusers? Has no one condemned you? She stifled the temptation of responding, “Uh … don’t you see there’s no one here? Why are you asking me the obvious?” Instead, she replied with a simple, “No, Lord.” Presumably she had heard of Jesus before this moment; He was the talk of the nation. Perhaps she had even heard Him speak, or heard one of His disciples when Jesus sent them out to evangelize. Perhaps not. Nevertheless, even in her utterly terrified state – remember, just a few minutes before this moment she was going to be brutally executed – she realized the Man before her was far, far more than just another itinerant preacher. Jesus had done what no mere man could have done. He had saved her life.

Jesus then said, “Neither do I (condemn you). Go and sin no more.” Mull this over for a moment. Jesus neither condemned the woman for her actions nor condoned them. Instead, he offered mercy and grace accompanied by a stern warning: leave your past life behind. No more adultery. You should be dead right now. Instead, this is your chance to begin life anew. Don’t blow it. (It has long and often been surmised the woman was Mary Magdalene, who would later reappear in the Gospels, but there is no hard Scriptural evidence for this either yea or nay.)

By now, the logical conclusion is, “Ah-HAH! He’s comparing the story of Jesus and the adulteress to A.J. Delgado’s story!” Actually, no, although it does serve a purpose of illustrating why people should lay off the judgmental junk. The real comparison is between Ms. Delgado and the Les Paul guitar in general, my Les Paul Deluxe in particular.

Like the Les Paul, Ms. Delgado’s glory days, if you will, came before she went offline to focus on her new role as a single mom. Like the Les Paul on its first go-around, Ms. Delgado was shunned. Like my Les Paul Deluxe, since her reentry into the public realm Ms. Delgado has been considered as quite the lesser to her former self, having had an affair with a married man and having birthed a child out of wedlock. This time last year she was the hot hand, the prominent feature. Now, she changes diapers in solitude, the cameras and clamor having long departed.

It is easy to say Ms. Delgado is reaping what she has sown, thus eliminating the need to extend any of that love, grace, and mercy stuff. Sure, give her credit for not murdering … er, aborting her son when it would have been all too easy to do so, deny all rumors of an affair, and carry on with everything as before. Other than that, forget about it. And her.

There is another option.

One could try the neither condoning nor condemning tack. You know, what would Jesus do. Or, in this case, did. He offered the adulteress a fresh start, bringing her back literally from the brink of death and telling her you have another chance; don’t throw it away by throwing yourself into the wrong man’s arms again. He offered her grace and mercy. All she had to do was accept it and, going forward, walk with Him figuratively by her side, following His teachings and allowing herself to be transformed by His love. You know … like my Les Paul Deluxe when it was properly treated, changing it from a somewhat battered and thoroughly unwanted relic to something of immense value. At least to me. And certainly Ms. Delgado is of infinitely greater value than any guitar.

So what do you say? Maybe extend the same love, grace, and mercy to her God has extended to each of us? Maybe send her some encouraging words and lift her up in prayer? Maybe, just maybe, acknowledge that in devoting herself to her son Ms. Delgado is doing something of great value, something that deserves a tip of the cap to the person doing this thing?

C’mon. We can do it.

Let’s do it.

I talked to Todd Zimmerman author of Oliver the Ornament at the Catholic Marketing network Conference

His website is here

The Rest of my Catholic Marketing Network posts are here.

It’s all the rage today for Antifa and “tolerance” groups to tear down monuments from our history that depict “known racists.” The majority of these actions have come against Confederate monuments, but even people like Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt have been mentioned as current or future targets.

If that’s the road they want to go down, there’s one more name to add to the list. Planned Parenthood in general and founder Margaret Sanger in particular should be their top target. Why? Because the abortion organization’s founder had a goal of advancing “the better racial elements in our society.”

Many on the right seem to know this. Apparently, Antifa and their cohorts are either ignorant or willfully accepting of an organization that has killed more minorities in recent years than the entire Confederate army.

Glenn Beck agrees:

Daniel Payne at The Federalist agrees:

The racist, eugenicist roots of Planned Parenthood are well-documented,as is the paranoid racial and eugenic visions of its founder, Margaret Sanger, who spoke of her desire to create “a new race with a racial soul” in the United States, once cheerfully spoke before a women’s Klan meetingdesired to “keep the doors of Immigration closed” to those “whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race,” and yearned to accentuate “the better racial elements in our society” so as to erase from the population “defective stocks—those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”

If the goal of Antifa is to take on fascism and racism, there’s a perfect living monument for them to try to tear down. I encourage them to join us in defunding this horrible organization.

Today are being greeted by a full quote press by the MSM not only suggesting that critiquing ANTIFA thugs for committing violence is “support” for modern Nazis but obscenely we’re actually seeing people who should know better equating World War 2 vets like my father who served in the Pacific, my Father-in-law who served in Europe, my uncle Joe who was badly wounded in Italy My uncle John who was wounded in France and my cousin died fighting the 3rd Reich with Antifa thugs.

We are also getting the completely expected sight of folks like Mitt Romney playing the same game ironically forgetting that the same leftists were calling him a Nazi just a few years ago (and thus justified if they choose to beat him or George W. Bush or any other member of the GOP who they have called Nazis).

Now I have no problem in coming down on Neo Nazis. Not only are Neo Nazis bad but they, after seeing the costs and the tyranny and the destruction that Nazism caused, still choose to embrace it. That makes them doubly wrong (and/or incredibly stupid) but this raises a rather obvious question.

All Americans, even ones who espouse foolish and destructive ideologies have the rights guaranteed by the first amendment. Therefore as long as people get the required permits for a public assembly, any Americans, even neo nazis, have an absolute right to make their case in the court of public opinion.

And that brings us to an obvious question: How hard is it to out argue a Nazi?

The National Socialist regime was murderous, repressive and led to one of the most costly wars in the history of the 20th century. I submit and suggest that given those facts and that America fought a 42 month war to destroy it , making the case against National Socialism should be one of the easiest tasks there is.

Yet the so called “ANTIFA” folks are not only unable to do so but can only counter the arguments of Neo Nazi’s by violence.

This would seem rather odd, how is it possible that ANTIFA can’t make a case persuasive enough to counter a bunch of National Socialists?

Again the answer is pretty simple. Their ideology is not any better.

Rather than National Socialism, what they argue for is anti-capitalist Communist Socialism. The same communist socialism that between the Soviet Union and China managed to slaughter 100 million people in the 20th century. Not only has their ideology been tried even more times than Nazism but because it has been tried in multiple countries on multiple continents it had a chance to cause even more slaughter, suffering and starvation that the National Socialists managed to achieve.

In other words their ideology is just as failed, just as murderous bad and consequently just as easy to counter.

And that’s why ANTIFA is all about violence, like the Nazi they can’t make a credible argument for their beliefs, but unlike these Nazi’s who apparently haven’t quite figured out that they have an argument that won’t sell, they knowing people won’t buy what they’re selling have decided to bypass the whole public assembly first amendment bit and decided to silence any who oppose them by violence because they know their argument is so pathetic they can’t even out argue a bunch of Nazis.

Closing thought: What does it say about the arguments of the professional left and the media left that they seem desperate to whitewash ANTIFA violence and make any critique of them beyond the pale, could it be that they understand that their own argument are weak and want to use ANTIFA as muscle to keep people afraid of countering them?


If you want a source of reporting other than the MSM please consider hitting DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



I speak to the “purgatory lady” Susan Tassone at the Catholic Marketing Network event in Chicago.

Her website is here Here author page is here. You can buy her latest book below

The Rest of my Catholic Marketing Network posts are here.

Last weekend was the 2nd weekend in August so once again it was time for the Madonna Della Cava Festival at St. Anthony of Padua Church in Fitchburg Mass.

As always the festival began with a procession

The 4th Degree of the Knights of Columbus were on hand as an escort as the Roma band of Boston played

The Banner processed into the Church to its spot as hymns were sung

Fitchburg Mayor Steve DiNatale gave a short talk on the history of the festival and his memories of it over the years

Fitchburg Mayor Steve DiNatale

After the mass the Banner again with the Roma Band and Knights Processed to the Church all where all were fed

A gallery of the processions follow.

Ever since the nomination of President Trump the media began to recycle those tired old clichés.  I’m sure you know the ones I’m talking about.  The most often recited claims are that all those on the political right are Fascists and those same people are all bigots.   Neither of those claims is remotely true but that does not stop the media from spreading them.

A thorough analysis of the first claim will prove it to be factually and historically flawed.  At the historical root of this claim is a tiny bit of truth.  Dating back to before the French Revolution, members of the Fascist party did sit on the right side of parliaments in Europe while the Socialists sat on the left side.  This artificial model, based on seating arrangements alone, is the historical basis for this claim. There is no commonality between the political philosophies of the European Fascists and the political philosophies of the right-wing political movements that exist in the United States.  The framers of the Constitution created their own model to describe the political spectrum, one that is based entirely on fundamental truths about the nature of government.  Using this model, which has been called the founders model, you can accurately place any form of government or political philosophy on the political spectrum based on its actual characteristics.  W. Cleon Skousen discussed the founders’ model in great detail in his masterpiece “The 5000 Year Leap.”

The founders’ model measures the size and scope of government for any given philosophy.  On the absolute right of this model is no government.  What results with no government is anarchy because people are not perfect; some injure others and interfere with the fights of others.  A certain level of government is needed to prevent this from happening.  On the left is an all powerful totalitarian government where no freedom exists.

The first constitution of the United States, the Articles of Confederation, created a government that was too far to the right.  This government was too limited and anarchy resulted.  The framers of the Constitution sought to correct this by creating a government a bit more to the left.  The government created by the US Constitution was powerful enough to prevent anarchy but limited enough to prevent it from interfering with the rights of individual citizens.  The fundamental characteristics of this government were: all government power rested with the people, a small and limited government of enumerated powers, a clearly spelled out written constitution, government power distributed between many levels, a free market economy, maximum freedom, and a focus placed entirely on individual rights.    The philosophy fully embraced by the framers of the Constitution when they wrote the Constitution is Classic Liberalism, which is the opposite of Modern Liberalism.  Classic Liberalism and the Constitution are to the right of center on the founders’ modem.

Right leaning Libertarians are the closest modern equivalent to classic liberals.  Conservativism is more to the left on the founders’ model because that philosophy wants the federal government to intrude more when it comes to social issues.  This move to the left results in a government large enough to move the needle just to the right of center.  Conservatives believe in individual rights, a constitutionally limited government, and free markets.  They however try to use the federal government to ban those practices that they find morally unacceptable.

Here is how Merriam Webster’s online dictionary defines Fascism.  As you can see Fascism is primarily characterized by a strong totalitarian central government, collective rather than individual rights, and a market that is not free at all.  Fascism in near the absolute left of the founders’ model.  Unlike Fascists, Conservatives believe in free speech so they do not silence those they disagree with.  Also conservatives do not focus on race.  Conservative favorites include Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Allen West, and so many other African Americans,

Socialism and Communism are both farther towards the absolute left of the founders’ model.  They feature more totalitarian government, more collectivism, and less freedom.  Modern Liberalism and Progressivism have a lot in common with Fascism, Socialism, and Communism.  Liberalism and Progressivism both feature much larger and oppressive government, less freedom, collective rights rather than individual rights, and a much less free market economy.  Also these philosophies focus extensively on race with identity politics.

Intolerance and bigotry are not the exclusive domain of the political right unfortunately the media continuously makes that claim.  Intolerance and bigotry are tragic human failings that encompass the entire political spectrum.  Because the political left believes in much larger governments intolerant and bigoted people on left can do more harm.  Hitler was a fascist therefore he was a left winger.  The Nazi Party was the National Socialist German Workers Party, sounds very left wing to me.

All hate groups such as the Klu Klux Klan and neo Nazis are labeled right wing but are they?  Democrats formed the Klan during reconstruction.  Most Klan members are Democrats.  The Southern, slave holding States were controlled by Democrats along with the Southern states during Segregation.  As I stated earlier Nazis were on the political left.  The Neo-Nazis advocate for the same National Socialism therefore they are also on the left. This article shares my assessment.

The Tea Party, which is the most right wing of all political movements based on its political philosophy, was vilified right from the start as a mob of racists and bigots.  There was never any proof of these accusations.  There were racist signs seen at Tea Party rallies but these racist signs made up roughly 3 percent of all Tea party signs, that is according to the a New York Times survey.

We must correct these incorrect statements whenever possible.