Love of Country

[I wrote this two years ago; it was originally posted on October 20, 2009.  Little has changed, yet much has, and the dangers I noted have ramped up and become ever-more evident.  The conclusion I drew seems just as–maybe more–true.]

One of my cherished friends told me that she doesn’t understand my American sense of patriotism, and she asked me “what does it mean to love a country?”.  I had no answer for her, but her question is one that I periodically take out, turn over, hold up to the light, and poke at.  What does it mean to love a country?  What does it mean to love a country?

I believe that we are currently experiencing A Moment in History, that what happens in the next eighteen months or so will determine the future of our country, of ourselves, and of our descendants.  As we all cope with this knowledge (I know I’m not alone in believing this), lines are being drawn, allegiances decided.  Some of us are mentally assuming crash position, some are “stocking up on ammunition” (to quote a comment I read on someone’s blog–I can’t remember whose, but it may have been Opus’), some are working feverishly on next year’s midterm elections, and some are watching and waiting and praying.  All of us, though, are, beyond any shadow of doubt, patriots.  We love our country, what it stands for, what it means to us.

Now, I tend toward hyperbole, but I don’t believe that I am overstating this, at least not with my usual intention.  There are enough pieces of the puzzle that I feel pretty sure I can see what the finished picture will be, and I am deeply alarmed by the rapid takeovers that the BO administration has accomplished in such a short time.  BO and his followers (his partners in high crimes and misdemeanors) have, in a variety of ways, clearly stated that they intend to destroy our capitalist system and replace it with a socialist one–they’ve said this, sometimes in those exact words.  On the one hand, I don’t believe a word that BO utters, but this . . . this, I believe.  And I think this is why everything else he says is a lie; he knows that if he (or anyone) proposed essentially destroying America as a constitutional republic and replacing it with his vision, he would be (rightly) tagged a wingnut radical, that we would never agree to such a thing.  But our consent is not required, nor sought.  

I can’t recall him ever saying anything positive about America, unless you include how he’s going to “fundamentally transform” it.  Yet even then, he is not expressing love of country but love of himself.  His constant berating of our country, his perpetual attacks on this country and its citizens, and his stated intention of remaking it are not rooted in patriotism.  His is not a desire to improve our system of government; he seeks, I believe quite strongly, to totally destroy it.  We, who love our country, know that there are things that are wrong, that aren’t working perfectly (and some that aren’t working at all), that we’ve made bad foreign policy decisions, that we are hated by much of the world.  But we don’t see in that a thing to be reviled, obliterated.  We see in that a country that we love, fundamentally, a system of government that might be imperfect but is by far more appealing than any other.  We see the good in our country, and we believe–know in our hearts and in our souls–that our country is far more good than bad.  It always has been.

This hatred of our country will be, I believe, his undoing.  He is so blinded by his hatred, by his fantastical communist vision, that he is driven by contempt, ego, and faulty ideology.  I do not believe that he thinks socialism is the road to utopia:  he sees it as the road to communism.  He and his fellow plotters  know that communism means the absence of individual freedom and choice; they know that it depends on the people depending on the government.  And they know what this has led to every time it’s been tried.  They, like so many before them, believe they can do it better. 

They know that they have to shut down, silence dissent.  And this is something that they’ve tried clumsily before with the “flag the fishy” campaign, but that little McCarthy fish hunt didn’t pan out quite right.  Rather than looking at the basic problem of trying to silence citizens in a free and open society, they blame, in no particular order, Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the internet.  I find this intriguing, and I’m a little puzzled that they didn’t have a plan in place to silence us sooner, upon taking office and putting their true agenda in motion.  These, and we, are thorns in their sides.  Pesky problems to be solved by means of intimidation, ridicule, and government control.

Yesterday, or actually the day before yesterday, I caught a “special report” on CNN about conservative talk radio.  The story was going to be told in parts, and the part that I caught was about the “anger” of conservative radio personalities and the “dangerous” way that they instill in their listeners a sense of anger and outrage (like we really need Rush for that).   I always find it interesting that BO admonishes the right for “straw man” tactics while still using Bush as his own personal straw man every single time he gives a speech or “interview”; that he accuses the right of deceit and lies when it is he who is deceitful and lying; that he and his traitorous hoard point to the Tea Parties as examples of “violent mobs” while completely ignoring the fact that only the left has been violent (witness the G20 protests, peopled by white, middle-class youth who were violent and disorderly enough to warrant police in full riot gear!); that he accuses the right of using fear tactics while in the next breath warning of our imminent death and loss of our homes; that he points to conservatives as ill-informed racists, sexists, and homophobes when it is the left who are clueless and who rely on race, gender, and sexual orientation to “manage” the population; that he speaks of unity while actively working to ensure that there is a wide partisan divide peppered with stereotypes and myths about conservatives; that he speaks about the evils of Bush, his pet straw man, while retaining many of Bush’s policies; that he preaches to the world about a country’s citizens’ rights to free speech and dissent while working to silence the people of his own country; that he preaches tolerance while fostering a climate of intolerance against anyone who does not tow the liberal line.  Ugh, he is disgusting.

Anyway, back to CNN.  There was a two-fold message in this short narrative about conservative talk radio.  The first points to their perception of the “unfair” and “disproportionate” number of conservative talk radio shows compared to liberal ones.  Because, goes this line of “reasoning,” there are more conservative radio shows, they are monopolizing the airwaves that might otherwise be well-attended by liberals listening to liberal crap.  Of course this is all pure invention. Liberal talk radio doesn’t have an audience because most of the newspapers and all but one of the news channels provide more than enough fodder for liberal listeners.  Conservatives were forced, if you will, to this lesser venue because there were no alternatives in any other media (Fox News is only about ten years old).  Now that talk radio, coupled with the internet and Fox News, are attracting more and more listeners (and viewers), liberals want the “wasteland” that was public radio back.  No fair!  You made that work, and we really didn’t think you could, and now we want it.  Gimme!

But it doesn’t work that way.  They can load every AM station with liberal loons, and none of them will ever attract the audience that a Rush or a Laura have. One reason for this is the liberal inability to deal with complexity.  It seems that more liberals are “single cause”-obsessed than conservatives, so their range of knowledge and interest is severely limited.  They know all about green energy or anti-war protests or denying American citizens the right to display an American flag on American soil or keeping an eagle eye out for any evidence of Christian faith or sniffing around for a whiff of homophobia or whatever.  But usually just one thing; they can’t seem to see beyond the scope of their pet protest, and this severely limits the ability of talk radio to reach them. But they have a plan.  The diversity czar is going to fine conservative stations and programs something like 100% of their overhead and drive them out of business so that he can give the shows to minority and liberal personalities.  It won’t make a difference to listener ratings, and they’ll all go belly up within a year, but then again, this is not about diversity, this is about silencing dissent.

But that is always the liberal methodology:  pull off the most reprehensible acts in the name of the common good or in the name of parity and equality. We see this constantly; indeed, we are seeing it daily in the healthcare “debate.”  This healthcare proposal is not about helping the uninsured, it’s about centralizing power in Washington.  Period.  If they wanted to help the uninsured, they would look at why people are uninsured and address those problems (like say fixing the economy so people can get back to work, allow shopping across state lines, provide the same rates for individuals that businesses get, limit lawsuit awards for “emotional stress” etc., and change the requirements for Medicaid so that more people can qualify).  But they won’t even consider these options, all of which would address the actual problem without dismantling our healthcare system.  But they don’t want to help the uninsured, they want to further their agenda and to do that they need total control.

I digress.  Back to silencing dissent.  The latest fun times involve the president of the United States of America whining that Fox News is being mean to him.  This is embarrassing and incredibly stupid (as well as very smart, but I’ll get to that part in a minute).  Waaaaah, those meanies at Fox News are not being nice to me.   Sniffle.  So the BO administration wanders around the fringe media talk shows on Sunday morning berating Fox as an “arm of the Republican party” and cautioning the state-run media (ironic, right?) not to pick up any Fox stories.  Um, like ACORN and Van Jones and the rest of the horrific news, real news, about BO and his fellow plotters.  Of course this is simply too ridiculous for words, and any journalist in his or her right mind would immediately jump on this story and shout it from the rooftops as the assault on free speech that it is.

In addition to discrediting Fox, BO is also trying to stop the fringe media from reporting more fairly, from doing their real job, as the network execs must surely have been considering given Fox’s high and rapidly increasing ratings.  Let’s face it, news organizations (including Fox) are businesses first, so seeing the huge growth of Fox’s viewership must have given them pause, they had to–after ACORN and Van Jones, two stories that they ignored until they couldn’t any longer–consider giving in to the free market idea of supply and demand.  Fox is serving up something that people want:  news.  No one wants to watch CNN spend one second on a “story” that fact checks an SNL skit.  That’s so bizarre, so ludicrous that it’s laughable.  And they are laughing stocks.  They know it, and BO knows it.  Thus the slander against Fox News. The president is trying to discredit Fox, to destroy them.

And where is this being covered?  On Fox.  Only on Fox.  Every journalist in this country should be ashamed of themselves for losing their way, dropping their true role in our society, and instead functioning as an arm, not of the democratic party, but of the White House, as BO’s personal propaganda machines (I don’t believe that BO actually represents the democratic party, only the far fringes that are cluttered up with loony toon liberals so far out in their ideology that it’s not recognizable to anyone who hasn’t studied history, who doesn’t know what Castro, Chavez, Saddam Hussein, Chairman Mao, et al. are/were about).  This is seriously troubling, and again, BO points to conservatives and accuses them of doing, being, and saying exactly what he and his partners do, are, and say.  This is nothing new.  In fact, it’s old–right back to Alinsky, right?

This attack on Fox is serving, I believe, a dual purpose.  Not only is BO truly interested in silencing Fox or at least in luring away moderate and independent viewers and in warning the fringe media against reporting any stories that Fox breaks (i.e. that show BO for what he is, that tips his hand before he’s ready), but he is also tossing out another red herring for us to frenzy feed on, to distract us from the healthcare situation and the slick move he pulled to avoid making a decision about sending the troops that General McChrystal requested.  Sadly, Fox is doing just that.  I suppose it’s understandable.  What is not understandable is why no other media outlet has expressed any outrage at all.  BO and his conspirators are lying about Fox, and they know it (“they” being the administration AND the other news outlets).  “Real” news outlets investigate, they report on their findings in these things called “news stories.”  They don’t dissect a comedy skit in between crooning orgasmically about the president on the one hand and demonizing half the country’s population on the other.  Perhaps this is a small, easily-missed detail, but I give the American people far more credit than BO ever has.  We’re not stupid, and we know what’s going on with this “war on Fox.”

While CNN is “exposing” the inequity of the anger-inducing conservative radio airwaves and the president is attacking Fox News, BO’s plans to control the internet are coming closer and closer to fruition.  Slamming the door on internet communications amongst conservatives has to be a primary goal of this administration, so they are feeling their way on that angle, too.  But here’s the deal.  BO can shut down the internet, pull the plug on Fox, cram the AM airwaves with tree hugging communist whackjobs, and we’ll still win.  We will win because we have something he does not:  love of our country.

The country that we love already exists; it’s here, all around us.  Fighting to keep something, to preserve our Constitution and our great nation, is far easier than fighting to take something away, to destroy and obliterate it.  We have will, determination, American pride and ingenuity.  We are the ones who thoroughly, to our marrow, understand the phrase “Give me liberty or give me death.” This love of country, this patriotism, is not something you learn in a book, it’s not something you ponder out of the ether while standing around in ice-cream coats and munching on fancy herring snacks.  It is deep, it is enduring–it lives in us and is who we are.




5 thoughts on “Love of Country

  1. On the Fox criticism, it's like my daddy used to tell me, “They only try to tackle the guy with the ball.”

    I heard Ken Blackwell on the radio and he said his dad' saying was, “a dog don't chase a parked car.”

    MSNBC and the other lefty outlets are a parked car. We laugh at them.

    What I find troubling, three years into the Obamamerica experiment, is how bald-faces socialism has become fashionable. Used to be, that was a dirty word, and the socialists hid behind progressivism or liberalism, now they proudly proclaim their socialism.

  2. Our Founders built into this country something easy to Love I believe by design. Yes, I would also call it Patriotism. Explaining it is sometimes difficult. Is it standing up proud to serve my country even though I were drafted or is it getting a tear in my eye when the Star Spangled Banner is sung well? How about all of the above.

    I'm in Love …..

  3. IMHO, any investor that buys into this scheme will get exactly what they deserve. Greece will end up defaulting and the banks will get a haircut much worse than 30%. so, the can gets kicked down the road a few more feet.Great topic, Fuzzy. It is difficult to put into words what patriotism and love for America means. Part of the problem, I think, is that people confuse America with our government. America is not our government. I think that we love the ideal of America that our founders had in mind not what our elected politicians have made of this country over the last many decades.

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s