| « | So Obama's FCC |
»
|
|
Saturday, May 08, 2010
Flog ‘Em: A Profession Of Commitment
Fran here.
Recently, I received a note from a Co-Conspirator who shall remain nameless, expressing a dismay so profound at the direction the nation has taken that it had precipitated that worthy into serious emotional and health consequences. That note left me speechless -- and if you know me, you know how hard a state that is to achieve.
I take my responsibilities as Eternity Road's proprietor and administrator quite seriously. I feel an almost parental concern for its Co-Conspirators and regular commenters. That sometimes leads me to thoughts...and actions...better imagined than described: proof positive that it really is possible to care too much.
It wasn't just a matter of sympathy for my Co-Conspirator. It was also my acknowledgement to myself that yes, the danger to the United States, to its citizens' freedom, and to the peace of the world really is that grave. It was my admission to myself that I've been controlling a reaction of equal magnitude, for the sake of my health, my family, and my ability to write coherently.
And as you might have inferred, my cogitations didn't stop there. I'm a physicist by education and an engineer by trade: my bent is to understand what I perceive, and then to repair it...if it's reparable.
Consider the recent "Cinco de Mayo" obscenity reported from a California public school:
On any other day at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Daniel Galli and his four friends would not even be noticed for wearing T-shirts with the American flag. But Cinco de Mayo is not any typical day especially on a campus with a large Mexican American student population.Galli says he and his friends were sitting at a table during brunch break when the vice principal asked two of the boys to remove American flag bandannas that they wearing on their heads and for the others to turn their American flag T-shirts inside out. When they refused, the boys were ordered to go to the principal's office.
"They said we could wear it on any other day," Daniel Galli said, "but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it's supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today."
The boys said the administrators called their T-shirts "incendiary" that would lead to fights on campus.
"They said if we tried to go back to class with our shirts not taken off, they said it was defiance and we would get suspended," Dominic Maciel, Galli's friend, said.
California is deeper in the grip of Leftist lunacy than any other state in the Union. Its "educators" deserve public flogging for what they've done to that once-functioning public school system. Remember, this is the state one of whose schools staged a mandatory "dress and act like a Muslim" day -- or was it a week?
The Left's reflexive denunciation of anything detectably American reveals itself most blatantly in incidents such as this for a simple reason: Leftists can pretend it's about being "sensitive" to others' beliefs. Quite frankly, the idea that the United States and its citizens have any obligation to respect allegiance to a country other than itself, among residents partaking of an American public education, strikes me as treasonous all by itself. It's certainly adequate grounds for the "educators'" permanent expulsion from employment by the public schools.
Let's not lose sight of the larger point. Transport this incident to Mexico. Ask what would have happened to Mexican students who wore the Mexican flag on America's Independence Day. Then ask what an American Leftist would say about that. As we mathematical types like to say, quod erat demonstrandum.
But not all our fruits and nuts reside in the Golden State. A broadly comparable incident occurred in Texas. (Sorry, no permalinks. See the entry for May 6, 2010.) No doubt other cases have gone unreported. (Applause to Big Dog for the links.) And of course, not all Leftist attacks on the United States occur in public schools.
Consider this bit of scurrility from the editors of the New York Times:
Congress, for example, is cowering before the gun lobby insistence that even terrorist suspects who are placed on the “no-fly list” must not be denied the right to buy and bear arms. Suspects on that list purchased more than 1,100 weapons in the last six years, but Congress has never summoned the gumption to stop this trade in the name of public safety and political sanity.Legislation to close this glaring threat continues to languish with little promise of enactment because a bipartisan mass of lawmakers fear retribution by the gun lobby’s campaign machine. Firsthand pleas this week from New York City’s mayor and police commissioner — testifying after the attempted Times Square bombing attributed to a suspect who was also carrying a legally obtained gun — showed no sign of budging a timorous Congress.
It is a sign of the gun lobby’s growing confidence that if feels free to keep up the pressure, public and private, after the near-disaster in New York. Normally, the lobby goes quiet for a decent interval after a particularly heinous crime occurs.
Was the "near-disaster in New York" a gun-related incident? Was a shot fired? Was the "glaring threat" Faisal Shahzad created a threat of a mass shooting? What is the relevance of his terrorist action to the right to keep and bear arms? How dare the Times suggest that that right, which has its own Constitutional amendment, can be abridged merely by having one's name placed on a list!
Could it be made any clearer that the Times is utterly opposed to the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms? Could it be made any clearer that its editorial board will seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to advocate the reduction or elimination of that right? This, from a paper that opposes the fortification of our borders against illegal entry! This, from the paper that holds that it was its right and duty to publicize the Bush Administration's highly classified and highly effective program for tracking the financial transactions of terrorist groups!
Does any Eternity Road reader know one of those editors personally, at proximity? If so, why haven't you published his name and residential address? Do it now! Double kudos if he owns a firearm; triple if he enjoys the services of an armed guard. Surely our "right to know" includes knowledge of where the Quislings and pseudo-patricians among us reside!
The man who currently occupies the Oval Office:
- is trying to disarm this country in the face of unprecedented threats;
- Routinely apologizes and kowtows to tyrants and totalitarian regimes;
- has pre-insulted the putative next Prime Minister of England, our longest and most important ally;
- has snubbed Israel's Prime Minister and instructed that nation that it may not build on its own land;
- has condemned a state government's attempts to protect itself from being overrun by illegal aliens;
- is busily contriving to destroy all rights of property and transfer huge amounts of money to his supporters in the financial industries.
He lies openly about the import of the bills he supports. He nominates tax evaders to Cabinet posts. He denies having close friendships with admitted terrorists, rabid Communists and anti-Americans, politicians removed from office for corruption, and other felons. He refuses all access to the records of his birth or his education. He used the State of the Union speech, with six Supreme Court Justices in attendance, to denigrate a Court decision his own words showed he didn't understand. He castigates his more prominent critics by name and characterizes opposition to his plainly social-fascist policies as "mean-spirited."
Why is this man allowed to pose as president of these United States? Didn't we reject a less offensive candidate for merely having lied about his war record?
Some time ago, I wrote a piece about our curious passivity before a major threat. The passion in that essay was plain. What wasn't evident was that I was made physically ill by its subject matter and general thrust. When I returned to it this morning, the physical reaction returned as well.
That piece concerned a single aspect of our multifaceted national crisis. The Co-Conspirator I mentioned at the beginning of this piece has many more facets in mind, and has written about them on several occasions, here and elsewhere.
Why more of us aren't apoplectic with rage over these obscenities, to the point of convulsions, violence, or both, I cannot imagine.
America's problems are the consequence of pernicious ideas. Those ideas are held not merely by the villains currently in power, but by a preponderance of our fellow citizens:
- The idea that our Constitution is no longer binding upon our governments.
- The idea that our national interests and integrity are not ours to defend according to our lights and our ability.
- The idea that a soulless institution such as a corporation can and should be protected from failure, at cost to ordinary individuals.
- The idea that the State can and should do for others what those others ought to be doing for themselves.
- The idea that property is conditional, to be dispensed with and redistributed according to government's notions of the "greater good."
- The idea that individual rights can and must be set aside in the name of a "compelling government interest."
- The idea that a "right" not to be offended trumps the rights of free expression and free association, among others.
- The idea, above all, that "the wise" should make our decisions and administer our lives for us, whether we will it or not.
Our many specific maladies are symptoms; the ideas are the disease. A wise physician doesn't treat a symptom without plumbing for its cause.
I have taken a vow. It might prove costly, even ruinously so; I can't yet tell. But I mean it as sincerely as anything I've ever said in my life.
I will have no truck with persons who seek to do harm to this country, to its citizens, or to its citizens' liberty. I will not interact with any such person or institution personally, commercially, or professionally, from the instant he displays his true colors. That includes persons who speak against freedom, or any aspect thereof; persons who maintain that the Constitution of these United States does not mean exactly and only what its text says; persons who argue that "natural individual rights are all very well as principles, but..." and then suggest even one reason, or one circumstance, where those principles do not apply. They promote division, bondage, and violence. They do not deserve to be Americans. They deserve to be flogged in public, and I will tell them so to their faces.
We will not succeed in taking this country back from the forces destroying it until a sufficient number of us have resolved to do the same.
Are you with me?
Comments
I’m with you, but—and this may sound like a cavil at first, but bear with me—I need to think through the implications. Not so much as to walk some of them back as to plot how best to implement them.
M
Posted by Mark Alger on 05/08/2010 at 09:26 AM1. We’re numb.
2. We are placing our hopes (perhaps too greatly) on the upcoming electoral term to at least slow the momentum. This especially because the ballot box is the last resort before That Which We Pray Will Never Be Necessary.
Posted by on 05/08/2010 at 11:43 AMI’ve been with you a long time. Still here. Just too busy to comment much.
But I’m with you.
Posted by Jim Sullivan on 05/08/2010 at 11:58 AMAgree, totally. What I don’t understand is why freedom-loving Americans have not pulled together to excise this growing cancer. It starts with cold, hard American cash. We must cancel newspaper and magazine subscriptions with a clear-cut letter as to why. Cancel the cable TV. Get involved in local schools. Put a cultural fance around our families to remove this pernicious threat. Hit ‘em the only place that matters, the wallet.
It’s past time to react. Cut of the oxygen, NOW. --jess
Posted by on 05/08/2010 at 12:13 PMIf I share the emotional tumult of a people experiencing a government out to enslave it, and live at or near a personal ground zero, the Curmudgeon’s words give me hope and strength where before there were little.
And drink in his words like someone thirsting in the desert takes a drink. I embrace them. I shall live by them.
Posted by on 05/08/2010 at 02:00 PM”..the Curmudgeon’s words give me hope and strength where before there were little.”
Me too, Rachel. Me too.
Posted by KG on 05/08/2010 at 03:07 PMMy husband hasn’t spoken to his only brother since we learned he voted for Obama. Bro called the other day to tell us he needs a kidney transplant. We won’t be returning his call.
What Jim Sullivan said.
Posted by on 05/08/2010 at 04:17 PMI have been thinking about all of this for the past 15 years. I am making serious preparations for it right now. I will not shut up or back up. Live free or die.
Posted by on 05/08/2010 at 05:16 PMThe Texas incident is not as it seems. http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/301344.php
That doesn’t dilute your message. You’re absolutely correct.
I am with you.
Posted by Deb S. on 05/08/2010 at 05:38 PMMoshe Ben/David, we stand with you shoulder to shoulder, an attack on one of us is an attack on all.
Posted by on 05/08/2010 at 06:31 PMNoble sentiments, but…
The first institution with which you would have to sever connections would be your federal government. Lots of luck with that. Whether you like it or not, you are going to have to engage with your enemies.
As a White South African who has already lost his country, let me assure you that you are in imminent danger of losing yours. The biggest threat facing America now is out-of-control third-world immigration. You can not have a first-world country with a third-world population. But if you identify the people and institutions that are facilitating the invasion of your country, you find that they are the people whom you depend on for food, housing, transportation… everything. Even the Catholic Church is complicit.
Where you gonna run to?
Posted by on 05/08/2010 at 06:51 PM"if you identify the people and institutions that are facilitating the invasion of your country, you find that they are the people whom you depend on for food, housing, transportation… everything”.
True, AnalogMan, and I respect your hard-won South African experience. But the reductio ad absurdum is that the “institutions that are facilitating...” are ALSO dependent on “food, housing, transport..”, and they too will ultimately become victims of this (their own) folly when the tipping point is reached.
What this means for those of us who can see this NOW is that pre-emptive action is required - which brings us back to your question: where you gonna run to? In your case, you came here. In America’s case, there’s nowhere better to go. Ergo, the fight is HERE. And that’s where we (and you) have to run to.Posted by on 05/08/2010 at 07:52 PM"Ergo, the fight is HERE. And that’s where we (and you) have to run to.”
yes indeed..’ride to the sound of the guns”.
Posted by KG on 05/08/2010 at 08:16 PMWonderful post. Lord, I hope many read this and gird up their loins. I actually do thank my Creator there are men like this, as Elijah once said,
“How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him. But the people said nothing.”
I can’t help but feel after what I have witnessed the last several months, our country hangs by a thread.
Posted by on 05/08/2010 at 10:25 PMLegalize the immigrants. Deport the principal. The only problem is that we might not have an extradition treaty with Cloud Cuckoo Land.
The immigrants without a PC principal are harmless. The principal without the immigrants will do something else insane.
Posted by Joseph Hertzlinger on 05/09/2010 at 12:15 AMNice and thorough. I have said many of the same things just not as elegantly or as orderly.
Posted by on 05/09/2010 at 12:12 PMI agree with you, Fran. It is past time that we stopped tolerating these things at all. However, I also agree with some of the commentators above, especially AnalogMan. To carry your vow to its logical conclusion is to advocate the overthrow of the government of the United States. Are we prepared to go that far? If not, how can we make this vow? More frightening still: what alternative is there?
Posted by on 05/09/2010 at 02:13 PMKirk, here’s my take on your excellent question. Fact is, I believe the Obama administration is advocating the overthrow of the government of the United States. If the framers were here to comment, I believe they’d be incensed at this administration. Calling political opponents Nazis, racists and advocates of sedition is disgraceful. When the shoe was on the other foot, they said dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Their lies are exceeded only by their hated for every ideal on which this nation was founded. It’s just my opinion. But I think it’s time I shouted it from the rooftops.
Posted by on 05/09/2010 at 06:43 PMFair enough, Rachel. But once we go there, we need to be ready to go the whole route, the very route our founding fathers traveled. To truly follow the kind of commitment Fran is advocating here would involve being entirely self-supporting (since all employers are now complicit in the collection of taxes to support this abominable government) and willing to defy the government’s power to lay and collect taxes. A violent reprisal is sure to follow any such action. My question is, are all those who purport to commit to Fran’s position prepared to go to war against the government? Because if we’re not, we’d best dial down the rhetoric right now. There is no other logical outcome of this kind of talk.
Posted by on 05/09/2010 at 07:23 PMKirk, the real problem is that government malfeasance becomes enshrined in legislation, and there’s a certain period laissez-faire/limbo/disbelief, call it what you will, before the real truth of it becomes apparent (this is how Hitler was able to gradually, then rapidly, take over. Many Jews thought they were safe BECAUSE they were German, until the truth turned out be the exact opposite). What happens after that is that the man of Good Conscience must inevtably come into conflict with what has become The Law. The question then becomes, where is the battle to be held, and when?
In America’s case, it may depend on whether the American miltary turn out to be “Americans” or merely “law-abiding” servants to scoundrels.Posted by on 05/10/2010 at 12:54 AMOne still open question and I’d have to hear it from Fran is his response to your questions.
I personally thought the question of willingness to go to war against our government was premature. Thinking of it in terms of assets, I have a serious question whether the Guard, police or whether any enforcement arm of the government would follow Obama orders and attack the American people. For Obama and co. are the ones who tend the dangers to this nation, not the people who want our government to follow our constitution.Posted by on 05/10/2010 at 03:08 AM(Francis, this is a re-send; apologies if it;s a duplication).
--------------
The real problem is that government malfeasance becomes enshrined in legislation, and there’s a certain period of laissez-faire/limbo/disbelief, call it what you will, before the real truth of it becomes apparent (this is how Hitler was able to gradually, then rapidly, take over. Many Jews thought they were safe BECAUSE they were German, until the truth turned out be the exact opposite). What happens after that is that the Man of Good Conscience must inevitably come into conflict with what has become The Law. The question then becomes, where is the battle to be held, and when? In America’s case, it may depend on whether the American military turn out to be “Americans” or merely “law-abiding” servants to scoundrels.Posted by on 05/10/2010 at 04:01 AMTo truly follow the kind of commitment Fran is advocating here would involve being entirely self-supporting…
No, it would not.
I am going to (rhetorical) war against persons and institutions that advocate intrusive, overweening government. If you’re being coerced—i.e., threatened with unacceptable, unavoidable consequences—into some form of cooperation with The Omnipotent State, such as collecting withholding taxes or sales taxes, you get a pass from me.
Every American is a victim of The State at this time. Our real enemies, who must be cowed and humbled if we’re to take the nation back, are those who clamored for this state of affairs, and are eager for more of it.
Sigh. Reading comprehension seems to be on the wane out there…
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 05/10/2010 at 05:02 AMNo not every American is victim of the leviathan state.
There is academia, the legacy media, certain preferred racial groups, Wall St bankers who agree to be flogged in the name of passing financial reform, reform every one knows they won’t be subject to. Unions who get paid off with whole corporations and sweetheart bargains with a government that owes them because of all the money and services they throw it’s way.
Posted by on 05/10/2010 at 05:59 AMFran, my point is that rhetorical wars have a way of leading to actual wars. As you say, you take your responsibility seriously. I am only trying to open a discussion about where this heated rhetoric is likely to lead. I will grant your point about those who are coerced. However, if those who read your words take them to heart, soon we will be faced with making very difficult and even dangerous choices. Dismissing the seriousness of the concern raised here with a flip comment about reading comprehension contributes little to the dialog. If we start down this road, where do we stop, and on what principle? That is my true question, and it is one I believe deserves consideration and discussion.
Posted by on 05/10/2010 at 08:58 AM...my point is that rhetorical wars have a way of leading to actual wars.
Neither your original statement nor your follow-up to it suggests that, Kirk. They suggest a fear of armed domestic conflict: a second American Revolution or Civil War. That would indeed be something to fear. In any case, it’s not what I’ve advocated, and you’re bright enough to discern that from what I wrote, so leave off with the strawman.
Lovers of freedom have backed away from confrontation with the Left for about eighty years now. They claim all sorts of noble intentions, and vilify us on the supposition that we want to see people come to harm. They routinely claim the moral high ground, despite the carnage and destitution their policies engender, and we let them get away with it. They exonerate themselves for their policy failures on the grounds that “things are more complex than they appear,” or that “it would have been worse if we hadn’t acted,” or that “the right people weren’t in charge,” and we let them get away with that, too. And every aspect of American society they disapprove is called a “crisis” that demands immediate, drastic government action, never mind the cost to Americans’ freedom or prosperity.
It must come to an end, and I am convinced that the only way to end it is to take the offensive against anyone who promotes an anti-freedom, anti-Constitutional position. They are moral monsters who hide behind a facade of “good intentions,” and it’s time they had to face the castigation they deserve. Or would you rather continue to defend yourself against their imputations, you greedy, heartless, drug-running exploiter of widows and orphans and running-dog lackey of the international capitalist elite?
Either we get onto the offensive, or the country is doomed.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 05/10/2010 at 09:21 AMI hope I got your message, Mr. Porretto. And I’m on the low end of the educated scale here. I do pretty well with reading comprehension...just not good at writing my thoughts, it’s the semantics. And I sometimes get hung up on one thing and forget the rest of it.
My husband and I see his brother and brother’s family as our enemy. They still say Obama inherited the problems, he needs time. With all the evidence, they even admit they don’t like the WAY heathcare was passed, they defend their vote. That’s the part that is unforgivable. Why continue the charade? Pretending not to see the danger because they don’t want to be wrong? Isn’t that arrogance? They are not part of any insiders group...they are being lead down the same path to socialism. So what are they going to do in 2012..how about this November?
To everyone, Bro is a good guy and smart-graduated from Wheeling. He’s like 99th degree in the Knights of Columbus, walks the beaches in NC saying rosary every day, Mass every Sunday, active in the church. He and wife are always on first name bases with the pastors, even vacationing with a few. He appears morally upstanding but how can he be? He knew of Obama’s associations with Wright, Ayers, Acorn, etc. He voted for him anyway. So we ‘confronted’ him… and now we don’t answer his calls, don’t answer letters or birthday cards, we’re certainly not giving up a kidney. We took a stand, Bro is the enemy. You gotta start small.
Posted by on 05/10/2010 at 11:47 AM"Fran, my point is that rhetorical wars have a way of leading to actual wars.”
Damn tootin’ they do - and this one began with Obama’s out-of-the-closet dhimmi, weird, hair-raising, come-and-get-us mea culpa in Cairo only minutes after he was elected. Where do YOU think the dangerous rhetoric began, Kirk?
Posted by on 05/10/2010 at 06:29 PMSince fertilizer was used in the Times Square attempt, perhaps it is time to outlaw manure. In which case, what will Liberals use to BS the American public?
Posted by bernie on 05/10/2010 at 06:55 PMBernie, that is truly a wonderful thought, one that I’ve read nowhere else. Not only that, you executed it with precision. Kudos to you. Exemplary piece of writing.
Posted by on 05/10/2010 at 10:53 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
