Terms I Put In Scare Quotes . . . And Why

When I was writing my dissertation, my dissertation chair complained (seemingly) endlessly about my use, misuse, and (too often, flagrant) abuse of scare quotes.  As it happens, she was right: dissertations are not really the place for the challenging of accepted ideas with such a simple device–actually, as it turned out, dissertations are not the place to challenge ideas accepted by leftist loons at all (but that’s another story for another day).  However, snapping on some scare quotes is fun for the snarky and, as far as I’m concerned, mandatory for tweeters (particularly snarky tweeters like me).  While I can’t seem to write complete blog posts at the moment (several half-started, half-hearted drafts languish in my Drafts folder), I am rather active on Twitter where expressions must be succinct (140 characters or less) and still make sense.

This is actually a wonderful exercise for me because I tend to be verbose to the point of rambling incoherence.  Okay, maybe not incoherent, but I can rock a simple stance into several pages with little effort.  Scare quotes are my saving grace on Twitter because I can say so much with only two additional characters: “”.  Hard not to love that . . . even as it makes me think of that Friends episode in which Joey tried so hard, and with hilarious results, to understand “sc-air” quotes (when you wave your fingers on both hands in the “quotation” gesture to undermine, question, or otherwise lampoon the word, term, or phrase being “sc-aired”).

“Gun control”–It’s never ever about controlling crime; it’s always about controlling people.  Leftists create gun-free zones and then are shocked (shocked, I say) that lunatics hell-bent on mass casualties “hit” these gun-free zones.  That makes sense how?

“Palestine”–D’oh.

“Marriage” (when used in conjunction with the word “gay”)–there is no such thing as “gay marriage.”  Marriage is what it is, and government plays exactly no role in its definition.  As long-time readers of this blog know, I was not always opposed to “gay marriage”; however, once it became clear that this was not about equality (civil rights–a term that never worked on me in this context) but about undermining religion, I realized just how wrong I was.

“Religion” (when used in conjunction with Islam)–Islam is not and never was “simply”  a religion (woot at the scare quotes).  It is, and always has been, a complete economic, political, religious, and socio-cultural dictate.  And it is, and always has been, a vehicle for barbarism, even evil.

“Compassionate Conservatism”–this one is SO annoying.  It means being a great big big-government leftist in faux-conservative clothing.  And yes, I do mean George W. Bush (his dad was, arguably, even worse because he was responsible for Agenda 21 in America).

“Progressive”–I always mean “regressive” because that’s what they are.  They anchor themselves in a destructive, regressive past that is fantastical (and/or evil: segregation, slavery, prohibition, eugenics, etc.).  For example, in the midst of the Great Depression, lunatic regressive FDR paid farmers NOT to farm.  People are starving, particularly in the South, and the government limits farmers’ crops or flat-out bars them from growing much-needed food.  This is not evil how?  FDR has earned his place among the worst presidents this country has ever had the misfortune of electing, and it’s no accident that the Constitution was amended (22nd Amendment) upon his death (he was barely cold in his grave before Americans ensured that two terms as president was quite enough).

“Conservative”–as expected, when I use scare quotes on this term, I mean establishment GOP (the big government “compassionate” conservatives–the “c” in “compassionate” more aptly stands for “communist”).  When I speak of Rubio, Christie, and/or Ben Carson, I use scare quotes.  These men are not conservatives.  Rubio is a corrupt little toad who used the state campaign credit card for his own personal use (yes, he repaid it, but not until he was caught . . . two years later), who claims that conservatives who oppose his amnesty idiocy are not “true conservatives,” and who refused to join the Senate TEA Party caucus (keeping in mind that he would have lost his race in FL if it weren’t for the TEA Party).  Christie, omg where do I even start?  He’s pro-Islamist (calls anyone who questions anything about Islamfascists “ignorant fools”), pro-big government “solutions,” and pro-Obama on far too many issues for my liking.  As for Carson, I love love loved him because of the prayer breakfast beat-down of 0, but he’s said that he thinks that the Second Amendment should only apply to people in rural areas.  Sorry, he’s lost the plot by too much for my comfort (or support).

“Feminist”–Okay, back to my dissertation director (she was a renowned “women’s and LGBT” scholar.  And, in case you were wondering, that’s worth exactly crap.).  She would get near-hysterical and down-right eye-bulgingly irate if I dared to mention anything that even remotely evoked what she sneeringly called “’80’s feminism.”  This was the so-called third wave of feminism, and as far as she was concerned was too pedestrian and intellectually barren for the would-be progressive academic she was intent in building (i.e. me).

I didn’t get it then.  But I do now.  “Feminism” had to change (to regress) to accommodate the new view that things like burqas and female genital mutilation (and honor killings, etc.) were actually–somehow–suddenly–okie dokey.  That being “tolerant” about these things was somehow more sophisticated, more intellectual.  You know, somehow.

I type that, and I see how insane it is, but these loons who still have the audacity to call themselves “feminists” (all the while actually hating women as women) actually defend such practices on the grounds of “tolerance.”  So feminists who once denounced female genital mutilation (as but one example) now look the other way when stats tell us it’s on the rise right here in America. A few of these faux feminists have even defended the practice.  All of this was anathema to me as an academic, a feminist, an American, and a woman.

So I’m bumbling along in my grad “training” to be a consummate Marxist; this just means that I wrote what was expected:  Marxist crap painted willy-nilly on every thought, word, and deed.  It was so easy, so mindless, that I didn’t even bother with it too much and would slap out a 25-page Marxist lunatic “analysis” in two hours . . . to rave reviews. (Yes, it was really that pathetic.).  It’s hard not to be good at manufacturing/ferreting out “inequality” in even the simplest prose; once you learn the basic premise, you see it everywhere . . . even though it exists exactly nowhere.   It’s like the hypochondriac who reads about the symptoms of a disease and immediately becomes convinced s/he has “it.”

“Mainstream”–let’s face it, “mainstream” actually means the 8-10% of Americans who are Obots (including, of course, the “mainstream” media).  What is actually mainstream is dismissed as “extremist” and lately as the behavior/thoughts of a “potential terrorist.”

“Racism”–One of the great travesties, I think, of leftism is the crazed notion that race is the root of any dissent.  This does nothing to advance debate and serves only, purposefully, to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with 0’s job-killing, middle-class-robbing tactics.

I used to feel insulted when some leftie accused me of racism for the simple act of verbalizing my dissent.   “You just hate him because he’s black,” was the accusation.  Um, well, I hated the same policies under Carter and some (NCLB) under Republican presidents.  Does this mean that I’m a sometimes racist? That I hate all white, Southern men?  It’s nuts; conservatives have nothing to prove here.  We’ve already lost the trenches; we’re evil, hate people, want them to die, blah, blah, blah.  If we don’t have “enough” black republicans, we’re racist.  If we have too many, we’re racist and only pandering.  The truth, of course, is harder for them to grasp.  Conservative values and principles actually empower people; less government intervention is GOOD for people of all races.

As I noted, I’ve actually felt guilty in the past for my views on 0’s destructive, disastrous policies.  He’s killing our economy, and he’s doing it on purpose.  This has zero to do with race and everything to do with policy (I hate what Reid and Pelosi are doing, too. Does that make me a hater of white men or women?  Of course not.).  But for scrambling, fearful leftists, it’s always–always–about race.  Even when it isn’t.  Even when the people don’t think about or care about race.

Obama Must Go ( #OMG ), And No, That’s Not A Free Pass For Romney

As the election draws near, I admit that I am anxious.  I’m certain that the devastation a second 0 term would bring will further harm our country; I’m not sure how much.  We are, after all, Americans and have survived all sorts of assaults on our Republic, the most harmful–excepting perhaps Islamofascist terrorists plotting and organizing overseas–from within (I’m thinking Wilson and FDR here), so yes, we are more than capable of pushing back the commie tide once more.  I’d just rather get started on that in 2013 than in 2017.  One thing about which I am certain is that I will never (again) be duped into supporting totalitarian, fascist, anti- and unAmerican actions from anyone.  The Patriot Act . . . yes, I did think it was a good idea at the time.  What a numbskull I was!  How naive!

Look at what 0 has done not only to add to the power of the executive branch–to powers far exceeding any the Founders had in mind; indeed, to encompass powers the Founders deliberately denied the president.  Actions rooted in the Patriot Act and that were and are cheered not only by leftists but by conservatives.  Violating Pakistan’s national sovereignty to “get” bin Laden? Woot! No problem!  Setting up a presidential “kill list” that directly violates the 4th Amendment, bypasses Congress, and is an affront to everything America stands for?  Woohoo! Let’s do it! shout both lefties and conservatives!  Let’s empower the president to unilaterally decide who lives and who dies–what a great idea!  Only the very best banana republic dictators enjoy such a privilege.

So I’m reading “The Progressive Case Against Obama” over at Slate (yes, that Slate, regressive central), and I’m struck by a few points–quoted in order, but without context (read the whole article for their context—it gets nuts in places, with typical regressive ramblings about the horrors of the free market, individual responsibility, equal justice, etc., but is worth the read):

So why oppose Obama? Simply, it is the shape of the society Obama is crafting that I oppose . . . .

I’d argue that Stoller, the article’s author, leans more libertarian than progressive/regressive, but in this point, he’s spot-on.  The society 0 is creating is more impoverished than ever before, the middle class is shrinking . . .by design.  The society 0 is creating is more contentious, more divided than ever before . . . by design.

It is as if America’s traditional racial segregationist tendencies have been reorganized, and the tools and tactics of that system have been repurposed for a multicultural elite colonizing a multicultural population.

Yes, it’s “as if” that, huh?  How about it IS that?

Yup, you heard that right — the Bush administration was willing to write down mortgages in response to Democratic pressure, but it was Obama who said no, we want a foreclosure crisis.

Yes, he did.  As did Clinton when his administration forced banks to offer mortgages that lendees could never afford . . . never pay back.  That was no accident, and neither was 0’s purposeful decision to encourage a foreclosure crisis.  After all, comfortable, happy people don’t engage in Marxist revolutions.

As Sheth also notes, there is a lot more to women’s rights than abortion. Predatory lending and foreclosures disproportionately impact women. The drug war impacts women. Under Obama, 1.6 million more women are now in poverty. 1.2 million migrants have been deported by the Department of Homeland Security. The teacher layoffs from Obama’s stimulus being inadequate to the task disproportionately hit women’s economic opportunity.

Not many regressives are willing to admit that women are more than the sum total of their reproductive organs, so kudos to Stoller here.

The case against Obama is that the people themselves will be better citizens under a Romney administration, distrusting him and placing constraints on his behavior the way they won’t on Obama. As a candidate, Obama promised a whole slew of civil liberties protections, lying the whole time. Obama has successfully organized the left part of the Democratic Party into a force that had rhetorically opposed war and civil liberties violations, but now cheerleads a weakened America too frightened to put Osama bin Laden on trial.

Now this, this I find interesting.  Leftists have always been more effective shrieking shrilly from the sidelines, speaking “truth to power,” whining and whingeing about “the man.”  When they become “the man,” they don’t know what to do.  Leftists are, by their actions and ideology, outsiders, complainers, radical outcasts stomping their feet to be heard.  That’s what they do best.  That’s actually the only thing they do well.

Leading is just too much for them, they get confused, bogged down in their own rhetoric (we HATE “pigs”; gee, you upstanding policemen and women are whom we are fighting for because you are union!  We hate wiretaps [or insert any Bush policy 0 continued]; gee, those wiretaps [or whatever] are freaking fantastic!), and ultimately, they lose their moral and ethical compass.  They can rage against inequity, but they don’t actually dislike it–they just don’t want the current “dominant” group to have power, wealth, whatever.  They can rage against war, but they don’t actually dislike it–they are more than happy to support 0’s war in Libya, even if it was/is illegal.  They can rage against . . . well, you name it, anything, everything.  But they cannot offer viable solutions.  They are best, are “better citizens” when they play watchdog not big dog.

Over at The Atlantic another regressive expresses his outrage at the 0 kill list in an article entitled “What If Mitt Romney Inherits Obama’s Killer Drone Fleet?“:

So to sum up, Obama has implemented a global killing program with zero checks and balances; he’s operated it out of the CIA rather than the Department of Defense; he invokes the state-secrets privilege to avoid defending it in court, even as he brags about its efficacy . . . .

And yes, if Romney is elected, he will indeed “inherit” this power.  Only now are regressives worried, however, only now do they suspect that an American president should not have the power to unilaterally and unconstitutionally order the deaths of American citizens. Short-sighted?  Stupid?  Yes, and yes.  But that’s the trouble with conservatives, too.  We supported (or at least I did) The Patriot Act against all logic.  But look what 0 has done with that power.  Look what the next president, whomever that may be, can do to expand it, to enshrine dictator-like power in the executive branch for all time.

Good-bye Congress.  Good-bye Supreme Court.  Good-bye Constitution.  Good-bye Republic.  Good-bye America.

And what are 0’s solutions to the very real problems in America?  Straight out of the commie handbook:  regulating salaries and establishing a “secretary of business.”  If that sounds familiar to you, you must be a student of history and know about the German Labour Front and the Reichsarbeitsdienst.  As I’ve written before, everything old is new again. 0’s solutions are communist solutions (call it “Marxist” if you prefer, but Marx co-authored The Communist Manifesto . . . not by accident. Well, okay, kind of by accident, but what Marx thought of his failed, hastily-written crap doesn’t really matter to today’s leftists/regressives/communists), and 0’s not just using Hitler’s playbook, he borrows heavily from Lenin, too.

American can and will survive . . . no matter who wins on November 6th.  But wouldn’t it be better if we could stem the communist tide and start rolling back harmful, anti- and unAmerican policies?  Wouldn’t it be better to change course now than in 2017?  I believe Romney will change our course, and I believe that with our insistence on his maintaining Constitutional values, he’ll not only do the right thing but will do so with dignity and humility.  If I’m wrong, I will be the first to say so, and I will be the first to hold his feet to the fire, call him out on every single thing he does that I would object to if 0 did it.  Every. Single. Thing.  I will never support Romney if he does the wrong thing, if he continues down the path of tyranny . . . even under a conservative banner.  I will not sell my soul for partisanship; I will not sell my morals and ethics for political points.  I will not, in short, be a hypocrite.  Regressives have lost whatever voice, whatever gravitas, they had before they got power by doing just that, and making that mistake is not something I will be party to.

This constitutional conservative is done being a patsy for big spending, big government tyrants.  Period.  But the first step to restoring our Republic is to get the most dangerous one of all out of office.

#RomneyRyan2012

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 1: Conservatives Are RAAACIST homophobic Islamaphobic xenophobic misogynists.

Okay, I have to admit that I sort of forgot about this series.  Oops.  But I had been reviewing the Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives, and here’s where we’ve been:

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 5: Conservatives are fascists.

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 4: Conservatives are anti-science neanderthals.

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 3: Conservatives are anti-government war-mongers.

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 2: Conservatives Hate the Poor.

And here’s where we’re going (exactly where you knew we were going):

Number 1: Conservatives Are RAAACIST homophobic Islamaphobic xenophobic misogynists.  No commas, probably should use hyphens, though, as that’s the breathless, said-as-one-word description of us that they have in their tiny little brains.  Wrapped up in this, of course, is the sense that we are drooling idiots who hate everyone who is unlike ourselves, toothless rednecks who shoot “others” on sight, a Bible-thumping God Squad intent on white supremacist isolationism.  And they believe it.  The “nuance” crowd, our supposed intellectual betters, have zero problem painting with broad brush every single conservative (though of course they are loathe to be so-stereotyped themselves).

I’ve thought about this post a lot, knowing it was coming, and have contemplated how I’ll approach it (a Fuzzy Rant seems so obviously in order, ya know?).  I settled on a focus on the mindset behind it rather than debunking (yet again) the idiocy of this belief.  After all, we know that we are not any of those things, with the possible exception of being Islamaphobic (that old “it’s not paranoia if ‘they’ really are out to get you” saw may be applicable here).  But it’s hardly going to be a complete post without at least mentioning the flaws on the face of that assumption, right?

Before I do that, though, I want to take a few moments (paragraphs) to examine leftist “thought.”

If your entire ideology is based on one tiny, ill-conceived, hastily-written (and later retracted) “manifesto,” it’s bound to be simple(-minded).  And if you have a wrong-headed belief that the way to transform something simple into something complex is to add more simple layers to it, then you just mire yourself in shallow thinking, tires spinning in tired mud.  Today’s leftists start with Marx, middle with Marx, and end with Marx.  Oh sure, they take their theoretical paintbrush and splash Marx paint around, but it’s always the same, simple(-minded) blather.

I used to feel so overwhelmed in graduate school, so inadequate, because my commie professors would keep insisting that [fill in the blank]ism was so “complex,” so mind-bogglingly brilliant . . .  and I just couldn’t see it.  I just sat there, nodding, thinking to myself that either they were complete morons . . . or I was.  As a graduate student, I naturally assumed the latter, and tried and tried to find something complex (or even interesting) in Showalter, Foucault,  Said, Derrida, Hegel . . . oh, the list goes on.  But it was all, all of it, at rock bottom, the same damn thing (even deconstruction, supposedly rendering a “text” “meaningless” only does so because the “meaning” is “indeterminate” or non-existent as constituting an all-out attack on . . . yep, [fill in the blank]ism. Besides, if there is no meaning, then we all need the government to step in and create it out of nothingness, right?  Uh huh.).

Being an English major at that (and this) time in our nation’s “intellectual” history was . . . shall we say, agony.  Literature wasn’t literature, every  novel, poem, play was not a novel, poem, or play; it was a “text” that had to be analyzed for oppression and for possible outlets for mass revolt sparked by one or more oppressed group.  This got tricky for the Marxists after a while, so after exhausting the dead-white-males-are-the-devil meme, they had to add to the canon works by Marxists that they claimed were “silenced” by dead, white male writers (who are, after all, the epitome of all that is wrong with the world and should therefore be . . . well, silenced.  But shhh, we don’t think too much about that).  That led to our reading, conveniently, assorted crap by radicals because they had a vagina or were black militants or . . . well, you get the picture.  We stopped reading literature and started reading political treatises disguised as literature.  All the better to dig out those “hidden” messages of oppression when we didn’t have to torture a “text” to locate them.

Every “ism” currently used to indoctrinate students is rooted in Marx (or in something he built on or that was built on his inchoate ramblings, so he becomes the secondary or tertiary conduit, but is still there, anchoring the whole mess or holding it down like some sort of ideological paper weight).  Every. Single. One.  Oh, sure, they add some layer to or under it, but it’s all the same thing: people belong to specialized “identity” groups (this is a fun spin on Marx’s focus on classes—the simple-minded just piled on layers of “oppressed” groups: women, blacks, Latinos/as, gays (then the entire spectrum of LGBT), even the planet), someone is exploiting someone else, and it’s all about money and power, and the only way to “reclaim” that money and/or power is to “revolt.”  The exploited class or gender or sexual orientation or [fill in the blank] is a victim of the exploiter (capitalist, white male, American, homophobes, whatever), and as such is “owed” recompense (or “social justice,” “economic justice,” blah-de-blah “justice”); if that recompense is not offered voluntarily (and of course it won’t be, or it wouldn’t be Marx), then it must be taken.  By any means necessary.  The ends always–always–justify the means.

RAAACIST? Misogynist? Homophobic? Really?!?

Racism, as we know, means hating someone or a group of someones because of their skin color or race.  It means thinking one’s own race superior to another, usually based on the belief that everyone else is inherently inferior because they do not share your same race.  It is narrow-minded, shallow, immoral, and basically evil.  Leftists have decided that conservatives are essentially “white males,” so any conservative, including non-white non-males, are automatically “racist.”  It’s really that simple.  They are really that simple(-minded).

Point out that TEA Party conservatives support minority, gay, and/or women candidates, and they simply declare that the minority, gay, or woman candidate is not “really” (or “authentically”) a minority, gay, or woman.  So, no, “racist” doesn’t mean what we think it means.  Not to leftists.  They can hate “niggers” all day long (and oh, yes, they all–white, black, whatever–use “the ‘N-word” with wild abandon), as long as they are conservative and therefore not authentically black.  They can publish rape fantasies about conservative women and gays, call us all sorts of horrible names, because we aren’t authentically women or gays.  To be “authentic” means to believe what they believe, to embrace victimhood and a sense of entitlement.  If you aren’t railing against every ism, outraged at every perceived slight or “coded” insult, and demanding government handouts, then you are simply not a “real” black person or a “real” woman or a “real” gay person, et al.

It’s so simple-minded, so naive, so childish, so truly wrong-headed that we’ve expended a lot of energy and time to point out leftist “hypocrisy.”  Don’t get me wrong, they are the worst sort of hypocrites, and we should absolutely call them out on it (ala Andrew Breitbart), but we need to do so in such a way that we address not only the hypocrisy but the fast and loose way they have with language and emotion.  Calling someone a racist is hurtful and damaging (well, okay, that particular card has been over-played to the point of invalidating it completely), but we may have to spend some time addressing what racism is and who is actually pushing policies that harm minorities (and gays and women) and who is pushing policies that help everyone.

Conservatives have lately been talking a lot about judging by the content of one’s character.  Leftists, on the other hand, are the ones who think that dark skin and/or a vagina are so debilitating that the government must step in to make up for them.  Darker skinned? Vaginally-afflicted?  Well, worry not, democrats have your impeded, hampered, inferior backs!  Woot!

Islamaphobic? Xenophobic? Seriously?

This one’s tougher in some ways, because I do think that I am indeed “Islamaphobic.” Something about the beheadings, the slaughter, the threats and intimidation, the homicide bombings, 9/11, the insistence that gays, women, and others that Islam considers to be subhuman should be killed in the name of Allah . . . well, go figure.  So yeah, I would have to hand this one to the leftists if it weren’t for the fact that they are also Islamaphobes, much more so and much less intelligently than we are (or than I am, can’t really call you an Islamaphobe, can I?).  They are so terrified of Islam that they seek to appease it; they ignore the treatment of women under Sharia (everything from the stonings, honor killings, sex slavery, lashings, to the second-class citizen status marked by the burkha), of gays (not allowed to live under Sharia. Period.), of all the “protected” classes they claim to defend.  They claim to abhor religious fundamentalism, but that only really means Christianity (and Judaism); they embrace Islamic fundamentalism, protect it almost jealously.

The Islamaphobia and xenophobia charges are usually rooted in their above-discussed skewed and narrow-minded view of the world (the little bit they occupy … in their heads) and is manifested in multiculturalism, the left’s latest failed great experiment.  I’ve written about this at some length before, so will keep it short here, but the gist is that if you want America to be a “melting pot” in which many cultures and races come together and meld or merge into one larger something better, then you are denying the people who choose to come here of their own free will the chance to keep the same thing from which they fled.  Go figure.  Wanting English spoken in America, wanting to protect American culture and traditions, wanting immigrants to assimilate . . . these are “xenophobic” responses of the idiot masses.  Does it matter that it’s the exact opposite of xenophobia, that welcoming foreigners into our midst, into our culture and society is the furthest thing from xenophobia?  Of course not. Not to leftists who actually insist that foreigners stick to their “own kind” and have their own separate (but “equal”) sub “communities” . . . and then have the gall to call us xenophobic.

But then, this is no real surprise, is it?  Leftists love their isolated and controllable “communities” of managed “identities” beholden only to them.  So much so that when there aren’t such “communities,” they’re happy to create them out of nothing and cause division along every line they draw be it race, sexual orientation, religion, culture, class, income level, or gender.

This is the epitome of racist homophobic Islamaphobic xenophobic misogynists and is exactly who and what leftists are.  But then, we all know they are the masters of projection.  Anything they accuse conservatives of being, we can be confident that they are the embodiment of that thing.  On steroids.

Not Hypocrisy: Inequality is the Very Foundation of a Fundamentally-Transformed America

Joel Engel writing for Legal Insurrection has penned an interesting post about Obama’s apparent double-standard when it comes to freedom of speech. From his post “Barack Obama Cannot Be Serious“:

If Barack Obama consciously intended to demonstrate his contempt for this constitutional republic and its citizens—and who knows, maybe he does—he couldn’t do it any more dramatically than tomorrow night’s event.

Think about it.  Just a few days after trying to deprive a man no one had ever heard of from enjoying his free-speech rights because some foreigners claim they were offended, the President of the United States flies off to party with another man who’s earned a pasha’s fortune exercising his own free-speech rights with language that offends many more Americans than not.

Here’s my comment on that post:

Like all leftists, Obama thinks that there is “good” speech (i.e. approved) and “bad” speech (i.e. not approved). The list of things that fall under “bad” speech is far longer than that approved but can be surmised by this administration’s characterization of “terrorists” as Americans who hold conservative values. This was first detailed in the spring of ’09 with a DHS memo that was sent to the nation’s police departments. It has since been codified by other executive branch agencies, including but not limited to the FBI, ATF, and TSA.

There is nothing really contradictory here or hypocritical. This is how totalitarianism/tyranny/communism (pick your poison) works: there are literally two separate standards. One for the “friends” of the dictator, one for his “enemies.” We keep being outraged and whinging about apparent contradictions, but there simply are none. Remember when we dems were complaining about the deadlock in Congress, and we pointed out that it’s a feature not a flaw of the Constitution? [note: I fixed a typo. Obviously not “we dems”; while writing, I switched the order of the clauses and didn’t edit carefully enough]  Think of this sort of apparent contradiction as the same thing: it’s how their worldview is constructed. To them, it’s perfectly acceptable, indeed desirable, to claim to support free speech and religious freedom while actively working against it . . . for certain people (i.e. “enemies of the state”: Christians, Jews, conservatives, et al).

Every tyrant has his enemies, and those enemies are always treated to a separate “justice” than his friends. We need to understand this because it’s important. They aren’t thinking as Americans who are bound by and proud of a Constitution that establishes liberty and justice for all. They don’t believe in equal justice, and they don’t believe in individual liberty, so the moral relativism we often engage in (I do it, too) just doesn’t apply.

I wanted to expand on this because I do think it incredibly important, particularly in light of what is going on now in the Middle East.

Conservatives often and quite naturally (and accurately, for that matter) point to the flawed moral relativism of both leftists and Ron Paul libertarians when it comes to Islamofascists and terrorism.  Yet we often forget (again, I include myself here; much of this blog is dedicated to pointing out the “hypocrisies” of the 0 administration) that the 0 “Democrats” are not democrats at all, they are Marxists and as such reject not only our free market economy (well, it’s not now, I guess, but it’s what we want to restore) but also anything that resembles individual freedom, be that freedom of speech or freedom of religion.  Remember, there is no greater enemy of Marxism than God; God means freedom, a power higher than government, real hope, real strength in a people.  Marxism cannot work, of course, but it certainly can’t work on a free, hopeful people who depend on God and not government especially if they are free to express their divergent opinions (divergent opinions are labeled “sedition” and “treason.”).  Leftists revere Mao and Che, they denounce American values and our Constitution; they hate everything we love and love everything we recognize as evil.

While it’s important to point out the vast chasm between what they say and what they do, how they unfairly apply their “justice” and “values,” it’s even more important that we not imagine it will make any difference to them.  They intend, and are fully aware that they intend, to make inequality, censorship, tyranny the order of the day, of the world.  The people we need to show this to are those Americans who’ve not yet awakened, and we cannot show them the true horror of what leftists have in store for America if we merely point to apparent “hypocrisy.”  We must also point out that it’s not actually hypocrisy at all, that unequal justice and unequal application of laws and socio-cultural norms is a part of their plan.  Their entire agenda is build on what we think of as a double standard.  It doesn’t make sense to us because we believe in equal justice, in equal opportunity, in . . . well, equality.

They do not.

We kind of know this; we point it out often enough when we express our outrage at leftist attacks on conservative radio, on Fox News, on conservative bloggers.  We point it out when we express our shock when leftists attack black and female and Latino conservatives while purporting to support and defend women and minorities.  We point it out when leftists suggest censoring conservative speech and disallowing conservative businesses.  We point it out when the administration sends out the IRS or the NLRB or the FCC or the EPA to attack conservative businesses and business owners while ignoring similar or identical offenses from leftists.  We point it out when conservatives are singled-out for legal retribution while leftists committing the same crime are either ignored or heralded.  We point this out in the treatment of the TEA Party versus that of the Occudregs.

What we haven’t managed, yet, to do is to fully grasp that this is not hypocrisy, it’s not intellectually dishonest . . . it’s reflective of their worldview: a homogenous worldview in which everyone must comply with their agenda or be damned as the “enemy,” with the full power of the state brought to bear on them.  Remember, these are people who are proud to say they are “intolerant of intolerance” and that they “hate hate.”  It’s not the intolerance or the hate they dislike, they positively revel in and celebrate their own brand of intolerance and/or hate.

Their America is a place where there is an established, intended under-class, a set group of people who are singled out for attack, regulation, injustice, suppression, and oppression.  It’s a built-in, baked-in, part of the system they seek to establish.  In their vision for a fundamentally-transformed America, there are supposed to be oppressed, silenced people; there are supposed to be people who are beneath contempt and for whom special and separate laws must be made to ensure that oppression and silence; there are supposed to be people for whom established and future law simply does not apply.

Once we grasp that quite simple fact, we may be in a better position to combat leftism for what it is, for the evil it truly seeks to inflict on this nation and her people.

Open Letter to Mitt Romney and (Other) Establishment GOP

[insert salutation],

There seems to be some general, and perhaps understandable, confusion among both leftists and the establishment GOP about the TEA Party and its very real role in national politics.  I thought I’d take a few minutes to explain a few home truths to you so that you don’t misread a potential White House win as some sort of “mandate.”  That would be a big mistake.  Big.

Here’s why:

People–particularly fear-mongering, mentally-incompetent leftists, but also you establishment types–seem to be under the mistaken impression that the TEA Party is a reaction to 0.  It is, in part, but mostly it isn’t.  We’ve always been here, watching with varying degrees of horror as you, along with your progressive buddies across the aisle, spent this nation into oblivion, piling up entitlements we couldn’t afford and forking out our hard-earned money on your pet projects.  We watched as government expanded and the Nanny State ballooned under both GOP and leftist stewardship, and we didn’t like it.  At all.

Remember when President Bush (43) had the highest approval ratings of any president (92%)?  And then remember when he had the lowest approval rating of any president (22%)?  Why do you think that happened?  Surely, you aren’t naive enough to imagine that was all leftist and libertarian opposition to the war in Iraq or their stellar “hate Bush” communication campaign (that never bothered us, just so you know, we were getting tired of that by the summer of ’03).  No, that happened because We, the People, watched the government take control of K-12 education with arbitrary and ridiculous national “standards,” blanket standards dreamed up in DC and then forced on every state; added an unwieldy and, as we’ve since learned unnecessary, monstrous bureaucracy (the DHS) that does more to limit our freedoms and create distrust in the people than it does to fight Islamic terror; and peddled socialist policies to us in the form of the MediCare prescription drug boondoggle (socialist policies, by their very nature, are never sustainable, but certainly not when they are unfunded right out of the gate).

Oh, we were disgruntled going into the ’08 election.  Very much so, and we’d been slowly stirring from of our long, long slumber and starting to question so many things: the role of a rapidly-expanding government, the nature of government spending and taxation, the political correctness and failed “multicultural” experiment that were (are) undermining our liberty and our very culture and national identity.  All things that you support, propagate, and profit from . . . at our expense.   At the expense, really, of the fundamental principles on which this Constitutional Republic was formed.

So if you think, as so many leftists do, that we are a reaction to 0 and HIS overreach, please think again.  Yes, the 0Care debate and disgusting politics, the hubris of the Dems in particular, got us off our couches, but I would venture to guess that we’d have been motivated by some equally-offensive McCain overreach, as well.  Of course we’ll never know that for sure, but I rather think it’s true.

Or perhaps we WILL know that for sure.

If you, Mr. Romney, win the White House in November, and sink back into the “compassionate conservatism” of the Bush (43) years, you’re in for the surprise of your life.  And don’t think you can play the typical progressive “renaming” game; we didn’t fall for it when Bush did it, and we won’t should you decide to do so.  We will not blindly defend you and your policies, and perhaps more importantly, we will not stay silent and essentially–tacitly, by our silence–support you and your policies.  Those days are over.  Don’t doubt it, not for a minute.  When we say we want a return to our foundational principles, we aren’t just talking to hear ourselves talk.  We mean it. And we mean it no matter what letter follows the name of any politician (that means you). You’ll notice, if you’ve bothered to pay attention, that very few (if any?) TEA Party patriots refer to themselves as “Republicans”; most of us call ourselves “conservatives” or “constitutional conservatives,” and that includes libertarian and democrat TEA Party patriots.  “Conservative” does not mean “GOP” or “Republican” even if we are registered to vote in that party; we are bound by principle, not party.  You may want to take some time to think about the implications of that fact.

“Principle” is a word that I’ve used quite often thus far, isn’t it?  Do you remember what those are?  Did you ever know?  Well, rest assured that we in and of the TEA Party do remember and do know.  Unlike leftists who refuse to speak out against 0, no matter what he does or how they hated it when “Bush did it” and unlike leftists who, as admitted by Chairman of the CBC Cleaver, would be “marching against the White House” if 0 weren’t president, we actually have and stand by our principles and values.  No matter who is in the White House.  If you continue in the vein that you likely wish to, you won’t find us making excuses for you or defending you or bashing the other side to “distract” them from your failings.  And you will not find that we slump back into “silent majority” mode, awaiting the next election to shuffle listlessly into the voting booth and regretfully vote for the best of two bad options.  What you will find is us marching on you, protesting, blogging, tweeting, and oh yes “organizing” (we’ve become so very good at that, haven’t we?) against you and your administration.  Presidents and members of Congress are not our rulers, our “betters,” or our nannies.  Read the Constitution.  Your roles are clearly spelled out, as are the limits on your power.  We’ve read it, and we’ll be holding you to it starting on January 20, 2013.

Count on it.

A quick word on being a RINO in 2012 and beyond:  Not. a. good. idea.  Now, most of you are politicians–slick, wily, savvy, grasping–so you’ll probably understand this. The TEA Party is not going away; we’re everywhere, we’re the American people, you can’t stop us . . . but you CAN get on board with us.  We’re not just going to watch Mr. Romney should he win in November, but we’re watching–and have been watching–very closely all of our representatives and senators (actually all pols, right down to our local dog catcher).  We’ve been watching and noting what’s going on with all of you, and we simply won’t keep electing you.  It’s not because we know that you have been subverting our efforts, trying to marginalize us since 2009; it’s because you don’t represent us and our American values in the (too) powerful positions you hold.  You’ve forgotten who you are, you’ve become so bloated by your own sense of importance, that you dismiss and diminish the people.  That’s not acceptable.

We know very well that our work won’t be done should Mr. Romney win or even if we keep the House and take the Senate in November.  Please note: when I say “we,” I don’t mean you, I mean the American people who respect and uphold the Constitution; you’re just the vehicle for that at the moment.  That’s something you should probably understand before you start going off the rails thinking you have a “mandate” to carry on undermining America with your big government, nanny state spending, regulating, and legislating every detail of our lives.  Our work will never be done, not in our lifetimes, not in yours.  Each election cycle, we will replace politicians who do not hold and champion Constitutional values; we’ll be successful most of the time, we’ll fail some of the time, but we will never stop voting out failures.  If we miss you one year, we’ll get you the next time you’re up for reelection.  Take a good look at the TEA Party caucus you mock and belittle and try to flick away like pesky gnats; their numbers will grow.  Yours will dwindle, and yes, that includes TEA Party pols who lose their way.

We are “awake,” and that means so much more than you can conceive.  We are embracing our civic responsibility, taking it seriously as our forefathers did, being the informed and watchful citizenry our Founders knew was key to keeping our Republic.  We’re passing that on to our children, so they, too, will know the import and keep watch.

Do let me know if any of this confusing or unclear.

So very sincerely,

Fuzzy, TEA Party Hobbit and American Patriot