Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Times of Troubles

"Crime is crime is crime. It is not political." ~ Margaret Thatcher.

I highlight the above quote, not because I agree with the Thatcher, but because she was a stalwart friend and stood shoulder to shoulder with Saint Ronnie. Ronnie was the champion of the plutocrats and laid the rock solid foundation of the Economic Collapse of Tipsy Canoe with his Piss Down Your Back Voodoo Economics and is the reference for all Republicans today.

Thatcher's comments were made so the British government could allow Irish Resisters to starve to death in prison. Prisoners who were captured during The Troubles, a period of open warfare in Ireland.

2 Time Iraqi War Veteran Chuck Norris has announced thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation. But Norris, Tea-bagging protesters and a youtube video by a "Marine" do not make a strong or popular movement. But even though I hope these are just the fringe elements, Frank Schaeffer highlights the comments by Norris may not just be some weird aberrations.

Norris is a champion Car-ate expert, but he and others are given a platform by those who would disavow any call to arms out one side of their mouth while engaging in the most vile and inflammatory rhetoric which hopes to bring about a visceral reaction amongst those whom they hate, control and abuse (the poor) but wish to use in order to keep the other half of the poor in check and divided.

Republicans are working for failure. Obama must fail so they may rule. Of course, the counter by the group has been Well you Democrats wanted Bush to fail, too! Nee Ner Nee Ner Nee Ner! As Dave Neiwert notes about Failure:
It would be one thing if Republicans were simply warning that Obama's stimulus plans were doomed to failure. We'd understand that. It certainly would mirror how we felt about the Iraq war: we believed it was a doomed enterprise that would not only cost far more in human lives than anything that might possibly be gained from it, but would actually worsen the conditions for terrorism it purportedly meant to combat. We recognized that Bush's rosy scenarios might come to pass, but we doubted it deeply -- and said so, and rightly.
And as Mahablog notes in When Failure is an Option: The Right "do not... see a difference between expressing the opinion that X is a bad idea and wanting X to fail."

From 09/12/2001 to 01/19/2009 disagreeing with the President was wrong-headed at best and at worst emboldened our enemies. However, dissent and the threat of civil war are now the highest form of patriotism. Before we had the simple conjectures to browbeat those who were against the destructive policies of Tipsy Canoe;

Supporting the Troops = Supporting the Mission = Supporting the President,
Not Supporting the President = Not Supporting the Troops + Treason.

Now supporting Obama is aiding the descent of America into a Islamo-Marxist Communist Dictatorship. And all sorts of things become acceptable to defeat that threat, especially when Republican Senator David Vitter calls the Obama government a "Dictaorship".

And so the election of Obama has given new vigor to an old enemy. The False Patriots standing up to denounce the excesses of the government. These men came to the forefront during the Clinton presidency and decryed all things government especially the Executive Branch. To them the government was coming for you and the revolution was at hand.

But, when a Republican "won", by a 5-4 vote, the White House, the rhetoric slowed, the furor subsided, the anger abated. The Southern Poverty Law Center noted by the Summer of 2001 there were 194 anti government Patriot groups a drop from the high of 858 in 1996. Why? Why did freedom lovers sit back when Tipsy Canoe and his Aides were crafting powers to curb laws, supressing the consitution, using the government to bilk Trillions, starting wars and keeping US safe, except for the whole 9/11 thing...

Well, the anger is back. Anger which began prior to Obama even taking office and which bubbled over by the Toxic Commentators declaring Obama equals the End of America. Recall how this was exacerbated when Republican VP candidate Sarah Hot and Palin and McCain spokeswoman Nancy Pfoentauer declared some parts of America are Real and "Pro"-America. The "Pro"-tectors of Eric Rudolph, who blew up women and abortion clinics, and found refugee amongst the Patriots in the Appalachians.

And now the Revolution is once again nigh.

But, the history of the English Occupation of Ireland and The Troubles is an apt comparison and should provide a blueprint for Norris, The Birthers and all the False Patriots of the consequences of their toxic rhetoric. Do they really want the bitter fruits which shall arise from planting the seeds of revolution? A militarized police force, captured persons being allowed to starve to death in prison, occupation by the military, outright street warfare, car bombs, indiscriminate shootings, a Kent State or a Waco or an Oklahoma City Bombing every month or worse in American cities?

But, the most terrible and most poisonous result coming from a call for armed resistance and open fighting would be the destruction of the Ideal The Founding Fathers crafted, a peaceful transition of power. Which once lost might never be found again.

Drinking Liberally in New Milford: Will the GOP upChuck on Norris support?


Nixon said...

This entire message campaign from pro-Obama elements has been a complete joke. They don't even bother relying on typical attacks of "racism" and hating the poor anymore. Probably because Obama's entire economic agenda is designed to create a massive middle-class welfare state dependent upon the government for health care, mortgage bailouts, whatever. A clever way to secure voter allegiance, but not what's best for the country. It's not about "the poor" anymore, so they've crafted this convenient little Republicans are unpatriotic message. And we're supposed to take these people seriously?

Grung_e_Gene said...

LT, I am by nature skeptical and desirous of a smaller government. But, the tactics being used by some (not all) Republicans and the myopic avoidance of the last 8 years pushes me away from their message. I don't need Malkin telling me I'm suffering derangement and colluding with Hitler for not denouncing Obama as anathema and for giving him a chance.

Calls of That's Unpatriotic ring loudly from either side when they want to quash opposition another wonderful residual from Bush.

It's possible his economic plans are wrong. And I'd rather not be responsible for someone else's mortgage. However, I'm more sympathetic to a person needing help (remember even Joe the Plumber was on welfare for a while) to stay in "their" home than throwing Billions to the Bankers and paper-shufflers who caused the mess.

But, then I didn't like the thought of my guys going back to Iraq 3 times. But, I recall hours and hours of TV and Radio telling Americans those protesting the War in Iraq (when it was going quite badly despite Bush's declarations of "making progress") were un-American.

So I'm giving Obama a chance, though I'm sure to be disappointed.

Nixon said...

I'm not here to defend some of the most ideological pundits on the right, but those on the left seem to be even more vile. People like David Neiwert, who has frequently accused returning Iraq vets of being the next cadre of Timothy McVeighs, are completely inaccurate in their characterization of people opposed to Obama's policies and just seem to be spinning tall tales of crazed wingnuts in order to humiliate the opposition. Modern liberal doctrine requires citizens to buy into the concept that we all pool our money (tax dollars) to be distributed by a group of DC politicians. When economic concerns like "Hey, we're running a pretty enormous debt here" are enough to criticize the administration, the people who stand to benefit from Obama's horrendous policies resort to lame Alinsky-style tactics. The worse things get, the more the American people will see through this charade.

Grung_e_Gene said...

Nix, Modern liberal doctrine requires citizens to buy into the concept that we all pool our money (tax dollars) to be distributed by a group of DC politicians.

I think that's incorrect. After the Republican revolution and Bush's assumption of power I don't recall federal spending decreasing. I don't recall tax rates dropping (for me at least). All DC politicians believe it is their right to use tax money as they see fit.

And as for Neiwart, smearing Vets as future McVeigh's is wrong. It's unacceptable and I didn't know that. But, it's similar to when Jonn Lilyea implies all IVAW members are lying lazy blue falcon malcontents.

With Obama in power a different group of the Plutocracy stand to gain while the same systems of control remain in place.

"Government, possessing the power to create and issue currency and credit as money and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by taxation and otherwise, need not and should not borrow capital at interest [from the private banking system or their affiliates] as a means of financing government work and public enterprise." - Abraham Lincoln