Somebody needs to explain to Nancy Pelosi that the Nazis were on the political left. Ahem — the National Socialist Party, anyone? If anybody is carrying swastikas to town hall meetings, as the House Speaker suggests, it’s darned likely that they are Democrats.
This whole thing is raging out of control. Democrats are working overtime to stifle and smother any sort of dissent with regard to their warp-speed implementation of the leftist agenda planned for more than 30 years and honed over the last fourteen years, most recently with the White House’s development of a Web site through which left-leaning Americans can report any other Americans who dare denigrate the crash course toward bankruptcy and ruin currently being spearheaded by the president and the Democratic Party majority.
The White House blog post is entitled “Facts Are Stubborn Things,” an homage to John Adams correctly identified by blog author Macon Phillips. The problem, however, is that Phillips failed to continue the statement to its natural fruition, or reveal its context.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
Perhaps a little background would be a good thing.
In 1765, the British government imposed the Duties in American Colonies Act, otherwise known as the “Stamp Act,” on the colonists in British America, requiring that nearly everything bought and sold in the colonies feature a tax stamp. The colonists rebelled, arguing that the parliamentary action spat in the face of their right as Englishmen to never be taxed without consent or representation. In fact, searches of colonists’ homes by British soldiers for signs of smuggling, which increased after the Stamp Act was enacted, served as much of the inspiration later for the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but that’s for another time and place.
About a year later, the Stamp Act was repealed, a short-lived victory for the colonists against the heavier and heavier hand of the British government. Short-lived, I mention, because the Declaratory Act soon followed, a measure that allowed the British Parliament to enact legislation impacting the colonies regardless of a lack of representation. Two years after voting itself the power to reach further and further into the daily lives of British colonists through the Declaratory Act, the government passed the Townshend Acts, which among other things set a bureaucracy in place by which the British government could more easily enforce laws and trade regulations put into place overseas, and provided Parliament with the right to tax the colonists on everyday goods such as paper, tea and glass.
The Townshend Acts, combined with a growing concentration of British military personnel in Boston, led to a natural outcry among the colonists living inside and outside the city. The massacre itself started with a snowball, thrown at a British soldier by a young boy, and ended with five dead in the street, victims of British musket fire.
John Adams was retained to defend the soldiers, aware that no other attorney would take the case, and strongly feeling that freedom permitted the right to legal counsel and a fair trial for any man, regardless of situation. In was in his closing argument that Adams made the statement referred to by Phillips in the White House blog post, but there’s more to it than that.
Adams described how the soldiers were not just being struck by snowballs, but by heavy oyster shells, rocks and sticks. He mentioned how one had been knocked over by a colonist wielding a club, and struck again as soon as he reached his feet. He noted how the crowd had been yelling “KILL THEM! KILL THEM!” at the soldiers. And he asked whether or not it was expected that the soldiers remain “like a stoic philosopher, lost in apathy” in the face of such violence. Furthermore, he defended those who characterized the angry colonists as a “mob”:
We have been entertained with a great variety of phrases to avoid calling this sort of people a mob. Some call them shavers, some call them geniuses. The plain English is, gentlemen, [that it was] most probably a motley rabble of saucy boys, negroes and mulattoes, Irish teagues and outlandish jacktars. And why we should scruple to call such a set of people a mob, I can’t conceive, unless the name is too respectable for them: The sun is not about to stand still or go out, nor the rivers to dry up because there was a mob in Boston on the 5th of March that attacked a party of soldiers. Such things are not new in the world, nor in the British dominions, though they are comparatively, rareties and novelties in this town.
Yet that’s exactly what the Democrats, mainstream media and, by extension, the Obama administration, is calling everyday concerned Americans who dare confront–with nary a stone, snowball or oyster shell in sight–their own elected officials with regard to an ever overreaching and out of control federal government. A mob.
And, instead, it’s the federal government which, despite looking more and more like the British Crown of the late 18th century in recent months, was this time playing the role of the Massachusetts colonists. It is the federal government which is stoning the American people, beating us down with unnecessary spending and hitting us again with more and more government interference each and every time we rise. Are we to behave like stoic philosophers, lost in apathy? Or are we to defend ourselves, defend our country, from threats without and within?
Musket fire, however, would do little to further if not harm outright the cause of the reasonable Americans reasonably concerned–and reasonably dressed, it seems–about unreasonable and irresponsible actions taken by Congress and the White House in the past seven-plus months. Instead, we leave our faith in the representative republic set up by founders like John Adams, like Thomas Jefferson, like George Washington. Unlike what we saw during protests by leftist groups over the course of the Bush years, we haven’t seen any physical violence at all from groups protesting Obama’s actions — in fact, following tea parties throughout the country, those attending the rallies were said to pick up trash and leave the site cleaner than it was when they arrived.
A mob? I don’t think so.
Later in the closing argument, Adams made another point, neglected of course by the White House bloggers:
Soldiers quartered in a populous town will always occasion two mobs where they prevent one. They are wretched conservators of the peace.
In other words, an overreaching government taking steps to maintain order and prevent backlash by force and by gathering more and more power over and interference in a population’s daily lives will only cause more and more backlash as it looks to acquire more control.
The more the Democrats push unwanted legislation upon the American people, the more they overtly lie to our faces, the more they dismiss our passionate but peaceful dissent as just the workings of “kooks” and examples of GOP thuggery, the more those of us who value our freedom and our nation will look upon this administration and this Congress with skepticism and scorn.
So, in the case of the ongoing healthcare debate, facts are indeed stubborn things. A public option will indeed shutter private insurers, and the end result of this legislation will be near total control of healthcare by the federal government. Facts are stubborn things, and that’s why the Democrats and the White House are forced to lie about their plans and agenda, be it healthcare or energy or the character of a Supreme Court nominee. The American people, should they somehow become aware of the facts despite every effort from Congress and the mainstream press, will not support any of it. Only by obfuscation and misrepresentation can the Democrats continue to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people, and they will stop at nothing to maintain that control.
The solution, as always, lies in our founders and their principles. Less government, not more. Limited federal power. Self-reliance. Then again, however, if the White House can fail to understand the nature of the quote it uses to support a shocking program designed to turn mindless liberals into domestic spies, why should we expect them to understand anything else about our founders?