Immediately following the awful shooting incident in Tucson, Arizona, the local sheriff called upon everyone to tone down the rhetoric, which he claimed was at a maximum in Arizona. He implied that the shooter, who turns out to be an incoherent and truly weird leftist of some sort, performed his evil deed because the rhetoric was so angry. Many others have joined the sheriff in calling for a reduction in the rhetoric. This is simply a pulse in such calls ever since the agenda of the Progressive Socialist Elitists began to meet considerable resistance as the Tea Party movement grew. Before that, for decades, the Progressive Socialist Elitists felt very much at home with such groups as the Students for a Democratic Society, the Socialist Workers Party, the Weatherman underground, the Black Panthers, socialist labor unions with numerous thugs on-board to intimidate companies and workers, and a constant propensity to support one new government program after another to force people to kowtow to one government mandate, act of thievery, or act of enslavement after another while threatening to use as much force as necessary to intimidate the people from asserting their individual rights. It was the left who continuously made the governments more and more powerful so that special interests were induced to fight for the power over them to either protect themselves or to take advantage of that huge, unbounded power.
To some degree in 1980, the people woke up from their usual inattention and backed Ronald Reagan to rein in the growth of government. When George H. W. Bush betrayed them with tax increases and allowed the government to grow more, they rebelled a bit again. They put Clinton in office, who tried to thumb his nose at them with a government takeover of the medical system in his first two years. The People became enough aroused that he backed off and soon said the era of big government was over. After that, with a Republican Congress to hold him in check, he mostly backed policies favorable to the economy and the private sector. For a Democrat, he was thereafter surprisingly decent on economic matters and the economy did grow, albeit with too much easy credit. When George Bush became president, the economy was slammed both with 9/11 and with the first collapse of the bubble economy in the dot.com recession. After his tax cuts, the economy grew, but was held back by a huge growth in the size of government at all levels and it was still plagued with too much easy credit. Then came the oil price spike in 2007 and the precarious easy credit market collapsed.
Obama came in with his agenda to massively redistribute the income and wealth of the private sector. He came straight from the tradition of revolutionary socialism with his links to the Weatherman Bill Ayers and many other such people. His onslaught of government theft backed by all the force of the government soon riled up many long comatose Americans, who rediscovered the fundamental American Principle that that government which did more than protect the equal, sovereign individual rights to life, liberty, property, the ownership of one's own body and mind, and the pursuit of happiness, must of necessity be an illegitimate government as defined by our Declaration of Independence. These Americans often recalled that the Constitution established a contract with the People for a highly limited government mostly dedicated to dealing with foreign nations and peoples and with very few powers internally. When the politicians in power, mostly Democrats, but sometimes Republicans, refused even to listen to them and did everything they could to pass unread bills in the middle of the night and even bills whose content was mostly to be determined by unelected bureaucrats over the course of years so that no one would know what effects they would have for years, the People sometimes became angry. This anger was pointed at by the Progressive Socialist Elitists as the equivalent of violence or at least as an incitement to violence. They followed this up with accusations that the Tea Party people were racist and insisted on their gun rights for the purpose of promoting violence in our society.
It is clear that the calls for a reduction in the intensity of rhetoric are mostly designed to keep the People from asserting their new-found interest in their liberties. This has been a clear attempt to reduce the calls of the People for a reduction in the size and scope of government. Much of the latest rhetoric that the People must be moderate and meekly ask the politicians and special interests to return their rights to them, is an attempt to keep the power of government as it is now. We ought not to give up in the least on our demands that government's size and scope be greatly reduced.
It was a serious breach of our trust in the Republicans when they backed off on the effort this week to repeal ObamaCare. Removing the massive and blatant acts of force to be aimed at the People under ObamaCare is one of the most important ways we can reduce violence and the use of force in our society. We must not be intimidated from calling for the removal of that violence to the very ownership of our bodies by our own government. Imagine the violence in throwing someone in jail for 5 years because he claims he owns his own body. Imagine the violence directed at anyone who would assert his right to his body by refusing to go to jail for 5 years or paying outrageous fines. If the Progressive Socialist Elitists actually wanted no violence, they would not be backers of ObamaCare. They are complete hypocrites. The movement to reduce the size and scope of government, that monopoly on the use of force and violence, is that of the side actually opposed to violence.
No comments:
Post a Comment