Decision Time

Today is the day.  Election day.  Finally.  If you have not already voted early, today is the day for you to do so.  To vote.  It is a rare and wonderful right that we possess as citizens of a magnificent and exceptional country.  But in this election it is especially so.  Certainly each individual candidate has his or her own distinctive strengths and weaknesses, his or her own policies they seek to support or oppose.  And while those considerations should be given their due weight, try to put those aside for a moment and think about something much larger.  No matter the personal peculiarities of the contestants, and their specific policy views, the decisions we make about those whom we choose to send to Washington will have far-reaching consequences for the greater future of this country, and for your own future as well.   For this is a time to decide what kind of nation we want America to be. 

The Democrats, and their leader President Obama, have made the choice a very clear one from the start.  They believe that a large and expanding central government offers the best solutions to the problems we face as a nation.  Obama, himself, has repeatedly said that government—and only government—can adequately address the challenges we have before us.  On the other hand most Republicans—at least those who are truly conservative—see things the other way.  That individuals, living and acting for themselves and interacting with one another through free exchange, are best able to make their own decisions about their own lives.  Indeed, government, they argue, has proven itself capable of only getting in the way; and the larger and more intrusive government becomes, the more it gets in the way, or worse.  It is an age-old struggle: the freedom of the individual against the ever-encroaching power of the government. 

The “Progressive” ideology advanced by Obama, and his followers in Congress, maintains that America must always be moving forward—changing, transforming, progressing ever-closer toward becoming something, and that the power and machinery of government are to be fully utilized in that endeavor.   But becoming what?  Becoming what they see as their idea of the ultimate society.  It is a grand vision they have.  One in which the individual, and the choices allowed to the individual about his employment, his compensation, his finances, his health, where he lives, how he moves about, what he eats, what he drinks, the air he breathes, and even the very speech he utters, are all in one way or another, monitored, measured, influenced, controlled or compelled by government.  It is a vision of a nation and society where everyone pulls together in a common purpose and towards a common goal, a goal that is predetermined by government, or specifically by a small elite within government. 

And this goes to the prime difference between the ideology of Liberal-Progressivism, as embraced by the Democrats, and the conservative philosophy of Republicans and the Tea Party groups that are having such an influential role within the Republican Party and in this election.  And that difference is this: Progressives start with a vision—their vision—of what society should be and they seek, through government, to compel individuals to comply with that which is needed to bring about that utopian vision.  Conservatives, on the other hand, start with an understanding of individual human nature—its strengths and its weaknesses, its aspirations and its limitations—and upon that foundational understanding, they craft the rules upon which to build a successful government and society.

The Progressive belief in a common, top-driven, overriding principle of society has been tried before, in many nations and at many times throughout human history.  It has come forward in many guises, under many banners, called many different names, but it is always the same and it has always failed.  Indeed, it has done much worse than fail, it has destroyed; destroyed economies, destroyed societies, destroyed cultures, destroyed families and destroyed lives. 

History has shown us that great civilizations will rise and they will fall.  But to the extent that they have succeeded, it has always been because they have stayed true to their founding principles.  If they have failed, it is because they have strayed from them.  If our founding fathers were alive today, being the men they were, as champions of a limited, judicious and ethical government, knowledgeable as they were about human nature and the tragedies of human history, how do you think they would vote in this election?  How would they decide the question: what kind of nation do we want to be?

Related Posts:

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it/

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/to-be-american/

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/coming-undone/

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/why-you-don%e2%80%99t-have-a-right-to-healthcare/

 

A Republic, If You Can Keep It

 

“Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature … If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”

–James Garfield, the twentieth president of the United States, 1877

James Garfield

James Garfield was not one of our more distinguished presidents.  But then he didn’t have time to be: he was assassinated by a deranged individual in 1881, after serving only 200 days in office.  It would seem, however, that Garfield at least had a clear understanding of what was required of the nation if it were to continue to exist as a constitutional republic.

With that in mind, and with this all important mid-term election finally upon us, I thought it might be worth looking at some of the devious (not to say illegal) things our opponents have been up to lately.  And for those of you who might be first time readers to this blog, our opponents are the Democrats, the Liberals, the Progressives, or whatever the hell they choose to call themselves these days.  Let’s take a look at some key races.

In Nevada’s hotly contested Senate race, where Republican challenger Sharron Angle currently holds onto a slim lead over Democratic incumbent Harry Reid, otherwise known as the Progressive Prig of the Senate, the following chicanery has occurred:

• Reid’s supporters have propped up a fake Tea Party candidate, Scott Ashjian, to siphon off votes that would otherwise go to Angle.  Of course Harry Reid himself denies all knowledge of any such thing. 1
• Reid’s union thugs and other supporters are giving away free food and gift cards at early voting rallies, despite the fact that Nevada law expressly forbids such bribery. 2 
• The polls of at least one county in Nevada are controlled by Reid’s union supporters—the SEIU (Service Employees International Union)—and, not surprisingly, voters there have discovered that Reid’s name was automatically checked off on their ballots when they went to vote.  3

In Pennsylvania, where Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Joe Sestak are locked in a close Senate race, Democratic officials in the City of Philadelphia are literally handing out cash, otherwise known as “walking around money” or “street money” in order to buy votes.  Oh but don’t worry, it is a time-honored practice with roots in the corrupt politics of the nation’s inner-cities and involves campaigns actually making cash payouts to local political hacks and “community organizers” who then spread that money around to anyone who is willing to knock on doors and ratchet up voter turnout for Democratic candidates. 4

Turning to Arizona, the left-wing Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled against the state, striking down its law requiring proof of citizenship identification when residents are registering to vote thus making it much easier for illegal aliens, felons and others to fraudulently register and vote as though they were Arizona citizens. 5

Finally in Maryland, a state currently run by some of the most disgusting politicians in the country, Democratic officials are actually considering appealing a federal judge’s ruling that would extend the deadline for allowing absentee ballots for military personnel, currently serving on active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, to be counted—a situation that was created by that state’s failure to timely comply with the law in the first place. 6

Now call me a rube, but it would seem to me that safeguarding the right to vote should be among the most basic, if not sacred, of duties for any who would involve themselves in the politics of this nation.  Without the integrity of that process—one so fundamental to any political system that purports to abide by democratic principles—the entire foundation upon which government rests must ultimately fragment and fall apart.

This country’s founders, like President James Garfield after them, understood that the nation they had formed would last only if its people were morally good and decent, and if those same qualities were reflected in the individuals the people chose to represent them.  As John Adams, considering the fragility of the newly created government, once wrote: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  Perhaps even more to the point was Benjamin Franklin.  Upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked him what kind of government they had given the country.  Without hesitation, Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Can we indeed.

_________________________

Notes:

Fn. 1: http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/10/sharron-angle-builds-lead-on-harry-reid-in-nevada-race/

Fn. 2: http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=7539

Fn. 3: http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/10/26/the-seiu-harry-reid-and-voting-problems/

Fn. 4: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/28/walking-money-alive-election/

Fn. 5: http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/arizona-looses-9th-circuit-court-voter-identification-requirement

Fn. 6: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/29/maryland-weighs-appeal-military-voters-win-extension-absentee-ballots/

_____________________

Related Posts:

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/decision-time/

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/to-be-american/

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/coming-undone/

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/why-you-don%e2%80%99t-have-a-right-to-healthcare/

Al Gore: Extremist in Chief

 

Extremist

A few months ago, in a posting on this blog, I had dubbed Bill Clinton an extremist. Indeed, I anointed him “Extremist in Chief.”  You can read that entire posting by clicking here:

 https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/bill-clinton-extremist-in-chief/

Well, perhaps I went a little overboard with those remarks and I was wrong for that.  Bill Clinton is not the Extremist in Chief; his former Vice-President, Al Gore, is.  And to back that up, I draw your attention to the words of Bill Clinton himself: 

“Before the bombing occurred, there was a sort of fever in America… the fabric of American life had been unraveling. More and more people who had a hard time figuring out where they fit in, it is true that we see some of that today… Criticism is part of the lifeblood of democracy. No one is right all the time. But we should remember that there is a big difference between criticizing a policy or a politician and demonizing the government that guarantees our freedoms and the public servants who enforce our laws… We are again dealing with difficulties in a contentious, partisan time…. Fifteen years ago, the line was crossed in Oklahoma City. In the current climate, with so many threats against the president, members of Congress and other public servants, we owe it to the victims of Oklahoma City, and those who survived and responded so bravely, not to cross it again.”

At the time, Bill Clinton was criticizing the Tea Parties and trying to tie them in with nuts like Timothy McVeigh—saying, essentially, that the Tea Partiers should shut up and go home before they encourage some lunatic to do something nasty.  This of course was, and still is, all part of a concerted effort to marginalize and identify ordinary Americans as extremists simply because they object to the liberal, big government policies of the Democrats.

So what does this have to do with Al Gore?  Nothing really, until yesterday.  Yesterday, a crazed eco-terrorist, James Lee, was shot dead during a hostage standoff at the Discovery Channel Building in Silver Spring, Maryland after they “ignored his ideas for a TV show.”  Luckily, no one else was hurt.

James Lee

Among other wild ramblings found in posts by Lee on the Internet, he stated that humans are ruining the planet and that the Discovery Channel and its parent company Discovery Communications should develop programs to sound the alarm.  Well, I don’t know about you, but I’d say “Kate Plus Eight” makes a very compelling argument for birth control (and I’m not even talking about her kids.)  But I digress.  Lee’s alleged manifesto adds: “Nothing is more important than saving … the Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels. The humans?  The planet does not need humans.”  1

First of all, I don’t think I would’ve given such primacy to the Squirrels.  And, excuse me but, “Froggies?”  But I digress again.  Also among statements made by Lee, he claims to have experienced an “awakening” when he watched Al Gore’s environmental documentary “An Inconvenient Truth!” 

Well, there you have it Ladies and Gentlemen!  An admission: Al Gore made him do it.  By selling his alarmist, extremist view of the world to an America that is in a “sort of fever” Al Gore was just asking for trouble.  So I say we commence investigating this Gore character immediately.  Let’s look into him, his family, his friends, his finances, his supporters and all their families and friends and finances.  Who knows, they’re probably all crazed eco-nuts just like James Lee!

And I am sure, taking him at his own words, that no one other than Bill Clinton himself would agree.

Notes

Fn. 1:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38957020/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Democratic Voters: The Case for Literacy Tests

Alvin Greene, Democrat for United States Senate

A couple weeks ago, South Carolina Democratic primary voters elected a man by the name of Alvin Greene as their candidate to represent the Democratic Party for the general senatorial election in the fall.  But only after beating former state representative and judge, Vic Rawl, with 60 percent of the vote no less, did anyone notice that Mr. Greene has no job, no home, no political experience, no campaign headquarters, no campaign manager, and hadn’t even run much of a campaign.  It is also not entirely clear if he even knows who he will be running against in the general  election.  (Pssst!  Hey Alvin, it’s Republican Senator Jim DeMint!)  So he also might be a little, shall we say, mentally challenged.  But he does have a felony arrest (for allegedly showing pornography to a minor) and at least enough money to afford the $10,000 filing fee to run for the Senate.  So to be fair, he’s got that going for him. 

When all these facts came to light, Democratic operatives like David Axelrod and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews immediately concluded it must be a Republican dirty trick.  I mean, Democrats wouldn’t be soooo stupid as to actually vote for someone like this, would they?  Well, the more likely explanation, experts agree, is that they indeed are.  You see, Mr. Greene’s name sounds a lot like the legendary 1970s soul singer, Al Green.  You know, the guy who sang such hit singles as “You Oughta Be With Me,” and “Love and Happiness.”  And the sad but plausible explanation is that Democratic voters actually thought they were voting for this guy.

Al Green

Now, I’m all for the Democratic Party monumentally screwing up their own electoral chances, but ya really gotta wonder about those registered Democratic voters of theirs.  I mean, what kind of incredible idiots would elect for high office a young, African-American man, from clear out of nowhere, with no qualifications, no executive experience, questionable origins, suspect funding, and … oh, wait a minute.  Forget it.

TRAITORS ALL!

se·di·tion (n.)

1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.  2. Insurrection; rebellion.

There’s been a lot of throwing around of the word “sedition” by liberals these days.   (Funny how they never brought that word up during the Bush Presidency.)  Anyway, a few weeks ago, Time Magazine columnist and all-around Obama butt-boy, Joe Klein, said that comments made by Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck criticizing Obama come “close to being seditious.”1  And now just this week, uber-liberal Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick said that Republican opposition to the Obama agenda is “almost at the level of sedition.”2  

Of course, neither of these left-wing geniuses cited any examples to back up their assertions.  But that’s okay.  If they want to talk about sedition, let’s talk about sedition. 

The definition of sedition (above) entails language or conduct that either incites rebellion or is tantamount to rebellion against a state.  Well, what about the spectacle that took place on the floor of the U.S. Congress last week?  I’d say that just about qualifies.  There you had the leader of a foreign country, “El Presidente” Felipe Calderon of Mexico, appear as an invited guest of the Democrats in Congress, and bash the State of Arizona’s new immigration law.  Speaking from the podium, Calderon had this to say:

“I strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in Arizona.  It is a law that … ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree, [and] introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement.”3

Now, while this comment may have been ugly, tactless, undiplomatic and even insulting to most Americans — not to mention a display of complete ignorance of the law in question (Hey, maybe this guy should go to work for the Obama administration!), — none of what El Presidente had to say has anything to do with sedition.  Calderon is a foreign leader and, while he may be an indelicate third-world clown, he is allowed to say just about whatever he wants.  More the fools we as a country are for inviting him to say it in the House of Representatives during a joint session of Congress. 4

No, the sedition occurred immediately following Calderon’s remark: when every single Congressional Democrat, together with key Obama administration officials including the Vice-President, gave this obnoxious foreigner a standing ovation.  The sedition occurred when Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), acting in her capacity as Speaker of the House, chose an ovation to the leader of a foreign power over the duly enacted law of a sister state.  The sedition occurred when Eric Holder, acting in his capacity as Attorney General, chose an ovation to the leader of a foreign power over the duly enacted law of a sister state.  The sedition occurred when Janet Napolitano, acting in her capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, chose an ovation to the leader of a foreign power over the duly enacted law of a sister state.  The sedition occurred when Senator John Kerry (D-MA), acting in his capacity as an elected representative of the State of Massachusetts, chose an ovation to the leader of a foreign power over the duly enacted law of a sister state.  The sedition occurred when Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), acting in her capacity as an elected representative of the State of California, chose an ovation to the leader of a foreign power over the duly enacted law of a sister state.  The sedition occurred when Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), acting in his capacity as an elected representative of the State of New Jersey, chose an ovation to the leader of a foreign power over the duly enacted law of a sister state.

After Calderon made his offensive utterances, these legislators and these White House officials — supposed representatives of the American people — had a choice, and they chose to conduct themselves in the vile, seditious manner in which they did.  They chose the facile expediency of political correctness over fealty to their own country.  They chose the distorted, ill-informed, self-serving policy pronouncement of a corrupt foreign power over the duly enacted law of a State of the Republic.  In short, they publicly and flagrantly betrayed the State of Arizona and, in so doing, betrayed us all. 

What’s more, the sedition occurred (and continues to occur) when John Morton, the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — the man supposedly charged with enforcing the nation’s immigration laws — says he’s not necessarily going to enforce the law insofar as it pertains to Arizona.  Uh-huh.  Why?  Well, because he says he doesn’t think it’s all that great of a law.  “I don’t think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution,” he said. 5  Who the hell cares what you think you elitist asshole!  Who says you get to pick and choose which laws to enforce?!  Do your job and enforce the law! 

And so… [composure regained] these are all rank traitors.  So brazen are they in their treason that they are effectively pledging allegiance to a foreign sovereign state and a foreign flag: the Mexican flag.  They are doing so in their capacity as duly elected officials and government employees.  They are doing so on government soil and during a high-profile exercise of their solemn duty and sacred oath to represent the citizens of these United States, not the corrupt interests of a foreign sovereign.  They have betrayed that duty and that oath.  And they have betrayed the trust of the American people. 

It is one thing to use speech (language) to criticize a particular leader and his policies.  That is what Palin, Beck and many others including your humble writer here do.  That is political debate and political discourse and is at the essence of a free and open society.  However, it is quite another thing to attack the society itself and the very laws that undergird it; that is what these Democrat politicians are doing and that is sedition.  Simply, they are traitors all! 6

Now in the good old days, traitors were hanged, drawn, and quartered. Sadly that’s no longer the practice and as long as these thugs remain in power they will escape any punishment.  Elections have consequences, don’t cha know!  However in November, you the American voter can have your own little treason trial: where you get to be judge, jury, and hangman right there in the voting booth.  Be sure to make these villains pay for their high crimes.  And as for the biggest traitor of all, well I guess we’ll just have to wait for 2012 to come around.  But that’s okay.  We can wait, Mr. President. 

——————————————————————————–

Footnotes:

Fn. 1: Joe Klein:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36020.html

Fn. 2:  Deval Patrick:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/

2010/05/patrick_says_ob.html

Fn. 3:  Felipe Calderon before Congress:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2010/0520/Felipe-Calderon-calls-Arizona-immigration-law-racial-profiling 

(For a video excerpt of this speech, see the Comments Section of this post.)

Fn. 4:  As an aside, an inquiring mind might ask why he is so against the Arizona law? Is it because Señor Felipe Calderon is such a big proponent of civil rights in a country where he tolerates half of his population living in abject poverty?  No, it’s because Arizona just made it just that much more difficult for him to unload that half of his country into our country.  (According to official figures, in 2009 Mexico had more than 50 million people living in poverty, roughly 45 percent of the population, and those numbers are increasing.) 

Fn. 5:  John Morton:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/21/official-says-feds-process-illegals-referred-arizona/

Fn. 6:  Of course, throughout Calderon’s speech the Re-pubes just sat on their hands.  It would’ve been nice to have had a Patrick Henry moment and seen them get up and walk out en masse but I guess we just don’t have that kind of bravery anymore.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU BY OUR PROUD SPONSOR:

www.enforceazlaw.com

 

Gem of the Week: Woody the Fascist

 

“It is a fool’s prerogative to utter truths that no one else will speak.” 1

In a recent interview published by a Spanish language newspaper, film director and comedian Woody Allen had this to say about Barack Obama: “I am pleased with Obama. I think he’s brilliant. The Republican Party should get out of his way and stop trying to hurt him… It would be good…if he could be a dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly.” 2

Dictator? Really?  Sounds ridiculous, right?  And coming from a nutty—albeit highly accomplished and creative—guy like Woody Allen, it’s to be easily dismissed. Or is it?  Perhaps Woody himself is unaware of just how germane his comment really is. 

First, need we remind ourselves that Obama and his party control the White House and both houses of Congress.  As Commander in Chief, he of course has full control over the military.  And in less than two years, the Obama government:

• controls at least one-sixth of the American economy through the new healthcare law;
• controls a large part of the automotive industry with the bailout and takeover of General Motors;
• controls or exercises daunting power over the insurance and financial industries with the bailout of the banks and AIG;
• controls 96% of the housing market through quasi-government housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;
• will have unprecedented control over a large part of the energy sector with the passage of “Cap and Trade” legislation;
• will have unprecedented control over news and other media outlets that it doesn’t already have de facto control over (i.e., NBC and MSNBC) with the passage of the “fairness doctrine” or its equivalent.
• will have unprecedented control over the Internet with the passage of so-called “net neutrality” or its equivalent.
• is attempting to infiltrate and exercise control over the nation’s churches through a new faith-based initiative program that merges churches with the EPA.
• is attempting, through the Justice Department, to usurp control over a state’s right to duly enact laws to deal with immigration problems within the state (Arizona);
• is publicly contemplating, through the Justice Department, a modification to the Miranda laws with respect to certain U.S. citizens.

It would seem all President Obama needs now is some kind of national catastrophe or emergency (real or contrived) as justification for enacting his own form of “enabling” law to sweep away any remaining dissent and fully suspend all freedom of speech and civil rights.  So I’d say Woody is just one Reichstag Fire away from getting his wish. 3  But Woody may want to be careful what he wishes for.  His people don’t have a really good history with dictators, don’t cha know. 

——————————————————————————

Footnotes:

Fn. 1: Attributed to Neil Gaiman, in Dream Country

Fn. 2: For Woody Allen quote:

http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/17/woody-allen-president-obama-dictator/

Fn. 3: For more information on the German Reichstag fire click here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

Bill Clinton: Extremist in Chief

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty. —Thomas Jefferson

 

In a speech given last Friday, commemorating the fifteenth anniversary of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing in which 168 people were killed and hundreds more injured, former President Bill Clinton said, in part, the following:

“Before the bombing occurred, there was a sort of fever in America… the fabric of American life had been unraveling. More and more people who had a hard time figuring out where they fit in, it is true that we see some of that today. … This Tea Party movement can be a healthy thing if they’re making us justify every penny of taxes we raised and every dollar of public money we spend, but when you get mad, sometimes you wind up producing exactly the reverse result of what you say you are for.”  (Emphasis added.)

Then on Monday, in an article appearing in the New York Times’ Op-Ed section, Clinton drew similar parallels between the conditions leading up to the Oklahoma City bombing and the political climate of today. Here are some excerpts:

“Finally, we should never forget what drove the bombers, and how they justified their actions to themselves. They took to the ultimate extreme an idea advocated in the months and years before the bombing by an increasingly vocal minority: the belief that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government, and that public servants do not protect our freedoms, but abuse them. On that April 19, the second anniversary of the assault of the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, deeply alienated and disconnected Americans decided murder was a blow for liberty. Americans have more freedom and broader rights than citizens of almost any other nation in the world, including the capacity to criticize their government and their elected officials. But we do not have the right to resort to violence — or the threat of violence — when we don’t get our way. Our founders constructed a system of government so that reason could prevail over fear. Oklahoma City proved once again that without the law there is no freedom. Criticism is part of the lifeblood of democracy. No one is right all the time. But we should remember that there is a big difference between criticizing a policy or a politician and demonizing the government that guarantees our freedoms and the public servants who enforce our laws.

We are again dealing with difficulties in a contentious, partisan time…. Fifteen years ago, the line was crossed in Oklahoma City. In the current climate, with so many threats against the president, members of Congress and other public servants, we owe it to the victims of Oklahoma City, and those who survived and responded so bravely, not to cross it again.”  1 (Emphasis added.)

Get it? Get the picture? If you are a member of the Tea Party movement or even just sympathetic to the cause, you better watch out! You better watch what you say or else you may be viewed as an extremist or, if something really bad happens, a facilitator to mass murder! So all you grandmothers, disabled veterans and other radicals better just put down your signs, get back on the bus, and get along back on home before you get yourselves in a real heap of trouble.

Liberal shills and other propagandists in the mainstream media as well as some Democratic members of Congress are saying the same thing. It is the same exact message and in some cases they use the same language: this Tea Party thing is dangerous! A year ago, they were ridiculing them. Remember Nancy Pelosi’s Astroturf jibe where she made the cynical claim that the Tea Partiers were really just the artificially contrived invention of a cabal of Republican operators rather than a legitimate grassroots movement? Well, it seems a few defeats at the ballot box have changed their tune. Now, it’s time to pull out the big guns. To get out that big brush and smear the hell out of these folks for having the temerity to speak up against an overreaching government.  And who bigger than Bill Clinton? 

To say that this is not a coordinated effort to besmirch the Tea Partiers on the part of the White House, the Democratic Party and their enablers in the mainstream media is to deny the obvious. The political wisdom of alienating almost a third of the electorate (by some estimates) is highly questionable but riskier gambits have worked before. And this Administration, I believe, is determined to let nothing stand in the way of its Progressive agenda.

 

But I think there is an even more sinister motive at work here. With regard to the ex-President’s words in particular, on its face it would appear that Bill Clinton is merely stating the axiom that words matter; that inciting extremism is a bad thing. 2  Well, of course words matter. (And no one would know that better than “Mr. Depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-is-is!”) But the words that matter include your words too, Mr. President. Indeed, your words matter more than those of most Americans. One could argue that Mr. Clinton, by these series of statements alone, has done much more damage with his words than any home-made signs at a Tea Party rally could do. As Rush Limbaugh put it, Clinton has effectively set the stage for any nut-job, either on the extreme left or on the extreme right, to go out and commit violence. In effect, it legitimizes the motivations of, and provides an excuse for, any wacko who might want to do violence by permitting them to simply say, “Hey, I’m just agreeing with what them Tea Baggers are saying,” or “You know, like Bill Clinton said, ‘The Tea Party made me do it!’ ” And if this, God forbid, should happen, Rush would be absolutely right: the blame falls squarely on Mr. Clinton. Which, in that case, I think kind of makes Bill Clinton the de facto leader of all the extremists: The Extremist in Chief, one might say.

But maybe Bill Clinton isn’t worried all that much about that. Maybe he’s prepared to have the debate over who’s to blame. In fact, maybe that is the scenario that he and their side really want to come about. So that when something horrible happens, they can point and say, “A-ha! See! This is what we’ve been saying all along! We told you they were extremists!” And then they can take whatever measures they believe are necessary to maintain order.  Maybe start by cracking down on all “anti-government” speech.  Followed by a general move toward “regulating” all free speech and freedom of the press (bye-bye FoxNews and talk radio!) through something like the “Fairness Doctrine.”  Then of course you must outlaw all gun ownership.  And in order to accomplish that, freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures would have to be swept aside.  Etc. etc.  It would be like their own version of the Nazi’s Reichstag fire. 3   Sound far-fetched? Time will tell.

For now, what gets lost in all this commotion over so-called extremism is the fundamental right of these patriotic Americans to peacefully protest under the protections of the First Amendment.  Doesn’t their right to free speech come into play here? Certainly Mr. Clinton doesn’t seem to be a big fan of it. The First Amendment guaranteeing free speech and expression isn’t there just for porn stars and Howard Stern. Unfettered political speech, especially political speech that vexes the sensitivities of the governmental authority, is precisely what the founders had in mind as the kind of speech most needful of First Amendment protection. That a former President, even one as discredited as Bill Clinton, should publicly declare otherwise, is nothing less than an affront to the very Constitution he once swore to uphold. But why in the case of Mr. Clinton doesn’t that surprise me?

I realize all this sounds like a harsh indictment of the illustrious former President, but believe it or not I actually like Mr. Clinton. He’s just a likeable guy: especially as an ex-President. So therefore, I respectfully suggest if Mr. Clinton truly wishes to put his gift of gab to good use, that he go back to using it where it serves him best: picking up slutty fat chicks. That way, nobody gets hurt.

__________________________

Footnotes:

Fn. 1:  To link to the full New York Times Op-Ed article, click here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/opinion/19clinton.html?ref=todayspaper

Fn. 2:  Bill Clinton does have one point here: Inciting extremism is a bad thing. In fact, it’s almost as bad as pardoning extremist terrorists during the last months of your Presidency. In August of 1999, just months before his Presidency and under cover of night, Clinton pardoned 16 members of a terrorist group known as the FALN, or Armed Forces of National Liberation, a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group, who were responsible for two bombs that exploded in New York City on New Year’s Eve, 1982. In addition, the FBI linked FALN members to 146 other bombings and a string of armed robberies, resulting in nine deaths and hundreds of injured victims. According to the Wall Street Journal, Clinton claimed he granted the 16 pardons because those who were offered the pardons had “sentences that were disproportionate to the crimes.”  Oh, really?  Well, if Clinton wants to have a discussion about promoting or coddling extremism, let’s start with his pardoning of these vile scumbags rather than picking on grandmothers and disabled war vets who are angry over cuts in their Medicare.

 

Fn. 3: For more information on the German Reichstag fire click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

It’s Tax Day! So, We’re All Paying the IRS Double This Year, Right?

I mean, that is basically what Joe Biden said isn’t it?  It’s the “patriotic” thing to do, remember?  He said that about paying taxes back in 2008 when he and Mr. Obama were running to fundamentally transform America. 1   So to be good patriots, I’m assuming we’re all not only paying our fair share but we’re all going the extra mile this year and paying double what we owe to the federal government.  Right?

Well, I don’t expect everyone to be patriotic.  I certainly don’t expect those Tea Partiers or Republicans or anybody else who didn’t see the wisdom in voting for the Obama-Biden ticket to pay double, or even to pay just a little bit more.  Besides, those people are all just racists anyway.  I mean, they call Obama bad names like “socialist” so they must be racist, right? 

But I am confident that all patriotic Democrats can stand up and proudly say that this year they will be paying… What?  What’s that you say?  You’re a Democrat and you don’t want to pay double either?  But what about what Joe Biden said?  I mean, you do agree with your own Vice-President, don’t you?  You know, that it’s the patriotic thing to do?  Ok, well, how about just 30% more? No? 25% more? 10% more?  All right, well forget you guys then.

Ok, Liberal Democrats! Here we go!  All right, all you Liberal Democrats out there!  You guys are the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.  The party faithful!  Surely, you’d be willing to pony up at least… What?  Not even you guys?  I mean, c’mon, you guys are liberals!  Don’t you practice what you preach?  What about government being able to solve all our problems?  Help the needy and all that good stuff.  C’mon, they’re here to help us and they need your money.  The government needs your money!  I mean c’mon guys, you’re supposed to be liberals!  C’mon!  All right, forget you too! 

"We're from the government and we're here to help."

Ok, ok.   Progressive Democrats!  Surely, I can count on you guys! I mean, it is called the Progressive income tax!  I mean, this is your baby!  Now, I just know that you guys will … What? Not even you?  Obama’s your guy!  He’s a Progressive!  You know, spread the wealth and all that!  I just can’t believe…

Wait a minute…

Wait, a news bulletin: The news is reporting on who pays taxes in America.  What?  Over 50% of all Americans don’t even pay federal income tax! What? That can’t be!  Well, those definitely wouldn’t be Obama supporters, I know that!  Because that would be like saying they don’t support what he’s doing with all his big government programs and such.  That wouldn’t be patriotic!  And that would be hypocrisy.  No, I can’t believe that.  I won’t believe that, even if it’s true.  Ok, but let’s say it is true that over half of all Americans don’t even pay federal income tax.  Let’s think about this for a minute.  So you’re saying we now have a majority of Americans who can vote for policies that they don’t have to pay for, but that a minority of Americans do have to pay for?  Let’s see, is that a good thing for a democracy?  Huh. I’m gonna have to think about that one a little more and get back to you. 

Ok, what about just Democratic members of Congress?  Surely, you guys must pay more than your fair share.  I mean you vote for this stuff, so you definitely…  I mean just to set an example… wait a minute, who am I kidding?  Ok, ok, just Joe Biden then. Joe, you’re the one who said paying taxes makes you a patriot, so you must pay way more than…  What? Not even you, Joe?  But Joe, these were your own words!  Joe! Joe!  Say it ain’t so, Joe! 

Wow!  Oh well.  And here I thought we were a nation of patriots.  I guess not.  I guess we’re all just a bunch of unpatriotic, racist, extremist, tea-bagging traitors.  And if you disagree with me, then you must be one too.

  

—————————–

Footnotes:

Fn. 1: For Biden’s statement:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/18/biden-on-tax-increase-for-wealthier-citizens-time-to-be-patriotic/tab/article/

America, R.I.P.

Did you hear that? Just now. It was barely audible, no more than a gasp, not even a faint cry. If you really strained your ears and listened you might just have heard it. It was the dying breath of America as we knew her. She passed tonight but you could hardly hear above all the din and commotion. You would hardly know amid the spectacle of paunchy legislators, smiling fatuously, and the Queen of all legislators, grinning like Skeletor himself. Amid talk of evil insurance companies and unfinished business, of reform, fairness and social justice, America quietly died tonight and barely anyone noticed. She went out, not with a bang, but a whimper …

But, you say, the sun will still rise tomorrow. Yes, it will. And life must go on. Yes, it must, but with a difference. Even if this imminent law does not result in all the wild things we crazy right wingers have been saying — to wit: rationing of healthcare services to cover thirty million uninsured; cuts in Medicare resulting in tens of thousands of doctors, hospitals and outpatient clinics refusing to treat Medicare patients, having disastrous consequences for the elderly; virtual God-like control by government healthcare planners (i.e., bureaucrats) who will deny treatments and limit drug availability; all while adding hundreds of billions to the deficit when it becomes clear that the Democrats’ gerrymandering of the numbers to achieve so-called cost-containment is exposed for the fraud that it is — even if by some fantastic fairy-tale magic none of these things ever come to pass and we are all holding hands and skipping down the flower-strewn path to good health, this soon-to-be tragedy called universal healthcare will have ripped the very heart and soul out of this country.

And why is that, you ask? Because we have just entered the Age of Dependence: a time when we no longer possess our individual rights independent of the government, but instead beholden to the government. Government has gone from protector to provider, from neutral referee to biased participant. The government, it must be allowed, has now given us something, for a price. The price is liberty. We owe them now. And that which is given, can always be taken away. A passage of uncertain origin, but generally attributed to Scottish-born writer and lawyer Alexander Tytler, is of relevance here:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years… Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

If Mr. Tytler is anywhere near as prescient as he seems, we have only one more age to go, and tonight we’ve just paved the way there very nicely.

America died tonight. And if you still haven’t an inkling as to what I am talking about, then I’ll never be able to explain it to you.  You’ll just have to listen better.

For more on this topic, link to:

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/why-you-don%e2%80%99t-have-a-right-to-healthcare/

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/fortune-favors-the-brave/

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/the-arrogance-of-hope-change-%e2%80%a6-or-else/

Fortune Favors the Brave

There is a phrase in Latin that the ancient Romans were fond of saying: Aduentes Fortuna Juvat.  Roughly translated, it means “fortune favors the brave.” 

Earlier this week, as a part of his final push for universal healthcare and the fundamental transformation of American culture and society, President Barrack Obama staged a rally in Ohio attended by scores of his hardcore supporters and, notably, Congressman Dennis Kucinich.  Obama concluded his speech by saying, “We need courage, that’s what we need…  I want some courage!”  He then jetted back to Washington, D.C.  The next day, Congressman Kucinich, who had been treated by the President to a ride on Air Force One, announced he was changing his “No” vote on healthcare to “Yes.”  In a speech Kucinich declared, among other things, that healthcare is a “basic right.”  Time will tell whether or not fortune smiles upon Mr. Kucinich.

Well, with all this talk by politicians about being courageous, I thought it would be appropriate to take a moment to look at an American leader with real courage: George Washington.  Now, I am quite sure most of us all know at least a few generalities about the following story from our high school history.  Unless of course you are a student in high school today, in which case you are busy learning about much more important things like: The Influence of Hip-Hop on American Culture; The Proper Way to Use a Condom; and Why You Don’t Need a Daddy to Have a Family.  But be that as it may, here goes…

It was winter of the year 1776.  The new American nation had declared its independence from Great Britain the previous July and all-out war with the British was underway.  The American Continental Army, led by General George Washington, had been beaten and chased out of New York by the British forces and was in a desperate retreat.  British General Lord Cornwallis had pursued Washington’s diminishing army through New Jersey, until the Americans withdrew across the Delaware River and took refuge in Pennsylvania in early December.  Although General Washington’s skillful retreat had prevented the British from completely crushing the dwindling American force, the outlook for the Continental Army, and American prospects for winning the war, was very bleak indeed. 

George Washington had fewer than 5,000 men in his army, whose morale was now at its lowest.  The Congress, ever pessimistic, had turned tail from Philadelphia and fled to Baltimore.  There was no money left to finance the army.  Provisions were scarce and Washington’s men were starving and cold.  “These are the times that try men’s souls,” wrote Thomas Paine, who was actually with the army at the time.  Virtually everyone considered the American cause lost.  That is, everyone except George Washington.  At this dire hour, faced with these demoralizing circumstances, George Washington, a man of deep faith and courage, decided to go on the offensive.  He knew that, despite the forces arrayed against him, he had two things in his favor. First, the popular mood among the people against the British remained strong, and, second, he had the element of surprise on his side.  So rallying his men before dawn on December 26^th, he secretly led them back across the Delaware River, over land to Trenton, New Jersey where a force of some one thousand Hessian troops (German mercenaries engaged by the British) were quartered. Washington and his men took the Hessians by complete surprise and, after a brief engagement, defeated the entire force with negligible losses to their own side.  So overconfident were the Hessians that they were caught sleeping off the effects of their Christmas revelry from the night before.  As the story goes, after the battle the Hessian Colonel was found dead with a dispatch letter in his coat pocket warning him of the American sneak attack.  The letter was unopened.

Aduentes Fortuna Juvat!

After this victory, the American war effort was galvanized, the Congress found renewed confidence in General Washington, and enlistments in the Continental Army increased dramatically.  Eventually, the British were forced to retreat to their base in New York City.  Many consider this battle to be the turning point in the American Revolutionary War.  In later years, George Washington himself became convinced that America was guided by Divine Providence.  Fortune favors the brave.

In this the current battle over universal healthcare, we all of us are called once more unto the breach to defend what George Washington and his brave men risked so much to obtain.  On one side are the Republicans in Congress, some Democrats, and the vast majority of the American people whose mood against the proposed legislation remains strong.  On the other side are Mr. Obama and most Congressional Democrats.  In this process, we have seen secret deals made and Senators bribed, all manner of legislative chicanery used, deception and outright lies told by politicians at the highest levels, and a President who on the one hand expresses his ambivalence as to how his legislation is passed into law — as long as it is passed into law — while on the other hand talks about courage.  Courage?  Just what sort of courage do you mean Mr. President?

__________________________________

For more on the healthcare debate, link to:

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/why-you-don%e2%80%99t-have-a-right-to-healthcare/

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/the-arrogance-of-hope-change-%e2%80%a6-or-else/