But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow.
– The Beatles, “Revolution,” 1968
Even John Lennon, primary author of the Beatles’ “Revolution,” lefty though he was, knew that China’s Chairman Mao Zedong was not someone to be lionized. After all, he had murdered millions of his own people.
That, as they say, was then; now, it is no longer objectionable for an American – say, the president – as well as his colleagues and hirelings, to embrace such villains. In fact, whether it is objectionable or not has become academic; we’re not even supposed to talk about it.
Are you reminded of anything in particular by our current government’s practice of ruthlessly assailing any and all who criticize it, resulting in people’s reluctance to speak out against same? If so, does this alarm or even frighten you?
It damn well should …
Recently, progressive operatives (members of Congress, activists, the establishment press and other far-left elites) have cautioned that those who oppose the Obama administration’s policies (the tea-party activists foremost among them) are creating a climate that has the potential to give rise to violence and even domestic terrorism. The admonitions are patently absurd, but these parties are banking on believers in their cause and less-informed Americans who can’t or won’t investigate the accusations to determine their veracity. They have charged talk radio and other conservative media similarly, and have even floated the concept of regulating the Internet.
All of this is calculated to silence those who disagree with them – nothing less. From the baseless allegations of hostile tendencies and designs, to their reflexive, non sequitur accusations of racism and homophobia, these tactics are the stuff of totalitarian regimes, not representative republics.
Last week, at a symposium commemorating the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, former President Bill Clinton presaged that the anger and resentment evidenced by members of the tea-party movement might foment the kind of right-wing extremism that resulted in the 1995 bombing. His statements might be called grossly irresponsible were he simply ignorant, but that’s not the case; Clinton deliberately engaged in propaganda, capitalizing upon his dubious credibility to legitimize the above claims.
If those on the right who would advocate violence and those who support Congress’ and the Obama administration’s policies are on opposing political fringes (a fair assessment, if you ask me), then the tea-party activists are, if anything, the voice of reason. Yet, these peaceful and (ideologically) well-grounded citizens are being demonized like the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and violent militias.
So, why are progressives intimating that the opposition might resort to violence?
- Because the left are masters of projection (accusing enemies of engaging in nefarious activities in which oneself is engaged). It is they who are inherently belligerent. It bears mentioning that the left is the side that advocated for the violent overthrow of our government 40 years ago; Obama’s pal Bill Ayers even bombed some buildings toward that end, and Obama himself has proposed forming “a civilian national-security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military.
- Those on the left realize, relative to the spirit of America’s founding values, that their actions to date might arguably merit an armed uprising. Were the tea-party activists as committed as Revolutionary War–era Minutemen, they would have laid siege to the Capitol and the White House months ago, rather than holding peaceful rallies.
In this climate of progressives leveling these wild accusations and extrapolating others’ statements to their most bizarre conclusions, I find it prudent at this time to assert that I am not advocating armed rebellion against our current government.
In a free society, citizens can criticize the government, but the radicals who are currently executing a quiet coup in our nation’s capital don’t believe in a free society. So, Congress and the Obama administration need to shut us up.
They don’t want us to ask why they favored government insinuation into the health-care system that will cost trillions, rather than simple and inexpensive market solutions. They don’t want us to ask why the federal government believes they need to raise taxes and consider such things as implementing a Value-Added Tax, which will drastically raise the price of everything Americans purchase. They don’t want us to ask why their energy proposals – like most of their “remedies” for crises they in fact manufactured – promise to imperil all Americans economically.
They don’t want us thinking about the answer to these questions – that being, because they are spending in order to secure and maintain immoral, illegal, and unprecedented levels of power.
If that answer is considered, then the solution is obviously to starve the beast, not feed it – and they most assuredly don’t want us thinking about that.
I’ll leave it to the reader to determine why they desire all that power, but here’s a hint: I’ve answered this question before.