Hateful. That’s the manner in which the people who represent me in my own government now characterize me, merely because I have the temerity to disagree with them politically. Of course, that’s not how they choose to see the dilemma that continues to grow in size and scope as the gales of November draw closer.
No – it’s not that I disagree with them politically – how could that be? After all, they’re the enlightened few atop the cream of human society, and they clearly know far better than I do about such things.
No, there could not possibly be an American citizen with a modicum of common sense that could even consider standing in opposition to such glorious legislation and programs as universal health care, cap & trade, amnesty for people who have no legal right to be here, and alleged “stimulus” packages that suffocate the economy with a blanket of useless dollars. Nope. There’s not a single person who, in his right mind, would even consider the political stop, drop, & roll, because there’s no way an educated person could view our country as being ablaze in any way, shape, or form.
No – since I must be the only person in America who disagrees with the manner in which current events are unfolding, there can only be one possible explanation: I’m hateful. A white supremacist. I’m racist (naturally). Maybe even a tad stupid.
Of course, the common sense that has always been so much a part of our American character and culture, that sense that generally tells us when something just isn’t right, is steadily contributing to the vast number of people in this country who seem to be waking from their political slumber with each passing day. Further, it is that same sense that informs us that the nonsense that relentlessly spews from the mouthpieces of the Left–the vast majority of the media in addition to many of it signature elements in the blogosphere–is, quite simply, a cacophony of sound and fury that ultimately signifies nothing.
And therein lies the rub.
I began collecting some of these thoughts last week in the days leading up to the April 15 Tea Parties. By now it’s more than obvious that those firmly entrenched on the far left end of the political slider are becoming more and more desperate with seemingly each passing day. If something doesn’t change the current equation for them – say amnesty, for example, which certainly puts a premium on the ‘necessity’ for national ID cards, now doesn’t it? – an electoral bloodbath awaits them in November. Vilifying and smearing common-sense Americans is no longer enough; the people who constitute the Tea Party must be portrayed in the worst possible light, as people who live to hate others and as people who use various forms of violence as their primary political tool of choice, people who aren’t even intelligent enough to consider open dialogue and discussion. In a best-case scenario for the Left, these people must even be provoked into some type of physical confrontation.
Quite simply, conservatives must be seen as hateful.
The most ironic thing in all of this, of course, is that it couldn’t possibly be further from the truth. The people of this country who, for some reason, inexplicably support the Soviet-styled policies coming out of Washington are failing in their attempts to provoke us, and it’s driving them crazy. They continue to try new methods that will lead some of us to physically express the frustration with our irresponsible government that we feel in our hearts; I can only imagine what they might be willing to try as mid-term elections draw nearer. For right now, however, it’s not working. We continue to have a decided advantage in the court of public opinion, simply because we will not give them what they so desperately want. There are also fewer and fewer people around the country who are listening to the dribble that emanates from the angry, child-like minds of Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Bill Maher.
Let’s take a look, however, at all of this talk of ‘hatred’, ‘violence’, and ‘anger’ that seems to have lately become so much a part of the political discourse in this land of freedom. More specifically, who are the people who are willing to resort to violence, and, possibly more importantly, who are the people with a vested interest in stoking the flames of violence and racism?
Throughout history, the concept of ‘forcing’ one’s will on others has been almost exclusively the province of the political left. Why do they need to ‘force’ themselves on others? That’s easy – generally speaking, nobody wants to buy what they’re selling. There are only two groups that truly benefit from a leftist-run government, and those are the powerful elites and the lackeys that support them in exchange for the crumbs that fall off their sumptuous tables.
Everyone else? Who gives a damn?
Of course, the Left always tries to counter the fact that their form of governance – if accurately presented to the people – offers little of interest to people who just want to live a happy life. In response, those with a financially and emotionally vested interest in seeing a government operated by a collection of southpaws attempt to appeal to the softest target in the minds of the people – their heartstrings.
Should any individual question the absolute purity of the goals of the Left, they are initially branded as people who are just simply not bright enough to understand. If any degree of resistance continues, the nature of the response intensifies by degrees – the person(s) is not bright enough, then stupid, then angry/selfish, then hateful, and, of course, racist. When all of these avenues have been exhausted and no other viable political options present themselves any longer, force is applied.
How else do you explain Andy Stern’s (the former head of SEIU) statement? – “We’ll first try to use the power of persuasion. If that fails, we’ll use the persuasion of power.”
Much has been made during the course of the current administration of its eerie likeness in form and feature to the fictional world of George Orwell’s 1984. Indeed, while Orwell himself admitted that he leaned more to socialist tendencies, he also understood how a government run in such a fashion could quickly move to dangerous extremes. Since its publication in 1948, Orwell’s novel has historically been held up as a blueprint of the dangers inherent to a leftist-run government. I mention these points because, given all of the discussion of ‘hatred’ that is being loosely and dangerously thrown around lately in the political marketplace, I often can’t help but think of the aforementioned Olbermann and Maddow with regard to a particular passage from Orwell’s book, the portion that details what Winston (the main character who had a sense that ‘something wasn’t right’ with the world) called the “Two Minutes’ Hate”. I have a hard time not envisioning ‘Goldstein’ as a stand-in for either Glenn Beck or the collective notion of the Tea Party:
The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party’s purity. All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching. Somewhere or other he was still alive and hatching his conspiracies: perhaps somewhere beyond the sea, under the protection of his foreign paymasters, perhaps even – so it was occasionally rumoured – in some hiding-place in Oceania itself.
Goldstein was delivering his usual venemous attack upon the doctrines of the Party - an attack so exaggerated and perverse that a child should have been able to see through it, and yet just plausible enough to fill one with an alarmed feeling that other people, less level-headed than oneself, might be taken in by it. He was abusing BIG BROTHER, he was denouncing the dictatorship of the Party, he was demanding the immediate conclusion of peace with Eurasia, he was advocating freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought….
….his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were – in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less. Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by him. A day never passed when spies and saboteurs acting under his directions were not unmasked by the Thought Police. He was the commander of a vast shadowy army, an underground network of conspirators dedicated to the overthrow of the State….
…The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic…
Winston had heard the whispered story of a terrible book, a compendium of all the heresies, of which Goldstein was the author and which circulated clandestinely here and there. It was a book without title. People referred to it, if at all, simply as the book. But one knew of such things only through vague rumours. Neither the Brotherhood nor the book was a subject that any ordinary Party member would mention if there was a way of avoiding it.
Have there been any reports of violence at the Tea Parties?
In the most general sense, has Glenn Beck done anything but discuss the various ways by which the Constitution has been and continues to be violated?
To the best of my knowledge, the answer to both questions is “no”.
Yet, we now have Rachel Maddow comparing the people who constitute the Tea Party to the likes of Timothy McVeigh. If there’s an example out there that validates such a comparison, I’d like Andrew Breibart to offer another $100,000 to root it out, because I’d be really interested in seeing it and because I don’t have that kind of reward money to offer.
Are there violent extremists on the far Right?
Is the Tea Party the extreme Right? No way. And the Left knows it. And they’re scared. Why else would they pay such attention to such an allegedly ‘fringe’ movement? If they were actually as intelligent as the manner in which they so desperately want to see themselves, they’d ignore it altogether. They just can’t bring themselves to do that, though, because they know that the Tea Party generally represents what America was intended to be from the get-go. Now we understand that the various arms and vehicles of the political Left are even willing to go so far as to infiltrate the Tea Parties in an effort to act up and portray the protests against big government as consisting of a collection of racist, stupid, backward people.
Wait – isn’t that stereotyping or profiling? I thought liberals were against that sort of thing? Strange….
If the Tea Parties are, indeed, violent, racist, and stupid people, wouldn’t they do themselves in? Wouldn’t liberals around the country be able to sit back with their smug smiles and say,“I told you so?” Yet, the Left continues to coordinate and plan a reasonably trickly political undertaking that, we’ve even recently learned, Cass Sustein, our vaunted ‘Regulatory Czar’, even proposed a couple of years ago: infiltration of dissenting groups.
Wasn’t he appointed by President Obama? Strange….
I think, when all of the ideas that I’ve posited here come out in the wash, what really needs to fleshed out, a point to which I earlier alluded, is who the various lackeys are around the country that have such a vested interest in supporting what could otherwise be deemed ‘dictatorial’ policies. In short, who are the people that are willing to sell out their personal connection to their own country for the sake of their own skin?
When I was growing up here in little Rhody, there used to be a joke that went like this: “What’s orange, flat, and sleeps 8?” The answer? A flatbed truck for the Rhode Island Department of Public Works. While there are many, many agendas on the far, Progressive left, the one from which I simply can’t seem to extricate myself as one of the leading causes of our national dilemma is the detrimental effects of the public unions. Further, don’t misunderstand – I’d be the absolute first person to stand up and say that in some fields, especially those in which physical danger is involved, unions are an absolute necessity; however, the concept of ‘unionized public unions’ has grown to the point that it is now out of control, is trying to bleed blood from the proverbial stone without any regard to future consequences, and, in short, is now trying to globalize itself in a desperate effort to maintain the flow of financial plasma.
My own opinion – and the very nature of an article such as this is that I’m free (at least for now) to express such an opinion – is that one of (if not the most important one) the leading groups of ‘lackeys’ that are consciously supporting policies that run counter to the very fabric of our society is the members of the public-sector unions, simply because they’re now beginning to realize that (and I realize that I’m trivializing this, but this is merely to make my general point) their cushy, no-work jobs are threatened because the country has reached the point of insolvency.
Vested interest, indeed.
I could waste time and space here discussing all of the negative characteristics of the typical union, things that most of the America’s Right readership already understands. I think, though, that something that should be pointed out and one that will be seen as even more poignant in the context of both this article and our current national condition is this: during the 1940’s and 1950’s when America was coming out of World War II, recovering from the Depression, experiencing an industrial economic boom brought on as result of war-time production, and was moving in a decidedly more conservative direction, the factions of the political Left that had for over a decade been entrenched in American industry and unions began to lose their footing in the political power base of America. The Left needed to re-group, and they found a way by (amongst other things) introducing policies of ‘super-seniority’ in the workplace, policies that were meant to advance black workers over white workers without regard to qualifications. Should anyone doubt that, feel free to look it up.
In short, it has always been a foundational principal in the leftist’s work here in America to divide us, or, to be more blunt, to divide and conquer.
Sound familiar, as it applies to the Tea Parties?
So who has a more vested interest in fomenting hatred, violence, and racism? Who is going to be more motivated to force their political agenda to come to fruition, and who is more likely to acknowledge the natural process of the voting booth to bring about real change?
Allow me to further add that I’m fully well aware that there’s more to the Progressive left than merely the impact of unions; what these other facets and groups have done, however, is nothing more than to hitch their personal wagons to the politics that run counter to the cultural establishment. That is what this is all about. It’s not about being pro-government; it’s about changing the culture, period. Those on the left want to be re-affirmed, recognized, and legitimized.
If we don’t agree to it? They’ll force us to agree to it, if necessary.
Want to call me ‘hateful’? Have at it. Those who know me as a person already know the truth.
Want to call me ‘racist’? Go for it – that simply means that I’ve won the argument.
You will not provoke me. And in November, I’m going to remember everything that’s been perpetuated upon me.