Punishing His Enemies: It’s What Tyrannical Dictators Do

In 2010, Obama told a Latino audience:  “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”  We, in the conservative blogosphere were horrified.  This sounded Nixonian, it sounded banana republic unethical.  Yes, the president sounded petty and self-important, but he was also proud in a bizarre way–as if, punishing enemies and rewarding friends was something that was not beneath him, as we might expect from someone in a position of such power, but was instead something that he actually relished.  It was mind-boggling, really, to think that the president’s political “enemies” (not “opponents,” not “loyal opposition,” but “enemies”!) were going to be labeled by the head of state as essentially “‘enemies’ of the state.”

Even those of us who heard it and understood the implications didn’t know how, exactly, these punishments would be doled out, what form they would take.  Perhaps, we hoped, he’d just keep calling us names, mocking and deriding us, sneering down at us from his Styrofoam pedestal.  Maybe he’d lie about us more than usual, urge his sheeple in the tabloid media and regressive groups to attack and attempt to discredit us more often.  Maybe he’d set up another version of “Flag the Fishy” and “Attack Watch” to get our fellow citizens to turn us into the state . . . for some reason, to locate all the “enemies” he has?  And to what end?  After all, this is America, you can’t “punish” Americans for political dissent or on the whim of a president.

You can’t, right?

Wrong.

This president has taken punishing his enemies (and often simultaneously rewarding his friends) and elevated it to an art form that would make history’s worst tyrants and dictators drool with envy:

His DOJ: in addition to suing Arizona for violating federal immigration laws (while ignoring violations of immigration law in “sanctuary” states and cities, of course–after all, what petty tyrant doesn’t pick and choose which laws he likes best?), also has a well-known policy of never prosecuting blacks for crimes against whites.  0’s DOJ also went after Gibson guitar on bogus “wood” crime allegations.

His TSA: in addition to gross abuses of power and zero ability to actually detect an actual terrorist, the TSA considers anyone who “opts out” of their porn scans and gate rapes to be “domestic extremists.”

His DHS: in addition to the unprecedented (and frankly bizarre) stock-piling of ammunition about which they decline to comment, issued a memo in April 2009 telling various law enforcement agencies across the country to be on the lookout for dastardly “. . .. groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority [i.e. that pesky 10th Amendment which protects citizens and states from a too-powerful central government]. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,’ the warning says.” I.e. conservatives, TEA Party groups, patriots.

His military: in addition to forcing its pastors to perform gay “marriages,” has also targeted Christians in a special effort to silence their free speech.  And the army has been told not to consider actual terrorists (Nidal Hissan, for example) as terrorists, but instead to focus on Christians, Jews, and Islamaphobes.

His press secretary: tried to exclude the “enemy” network Fox News from an interview.  Yes, it was one interview, but if they had succeeded, it would have been the end of Fox in the WH press pool.  It was a baby step to see how far they could go in ending the freedom of the press.

His NLRB: targeted Boeing in a bogus lawsuit in an attempt to bully them into opening a new plant where the administration (and its union thug friends) wanted it.

His DOE joined with his DOJ to effectively revoke the First Amendment on all college campuses receiving federal funding (the majority of them, in other words).

His IRS: the recent revelations that the IRS was intentionally and methodically targeting TEA Party, “patriot,” and those groups or individuals “educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights,” has created deep concern on the right–leftists, not being the targets this time, are perfectly happy to see this gross abuse of power to intimidate and silence opposition.  This isn’t that surprising; after all, if we’ve learned nothing else over the past four years, we’ve learned that leftists are perfectly happy with tyranny and oppression . . .  as long as they are the tyrants and oppressors.  Too bad for them that totalitarian takeovers historically end badly (very very badly) for the regime’s early supporters and apologists.

Not only are we, justly, concerned that political dissent will make us a target of IRS (or FBI, CIA, FDA, DOJ, or any other executive branch agency–keep in mind that the videographer 0 falsely blamed for Benghazi is still in prison.  Sure, he did something unrelated to the video wrong, but odd how he was only picked up after the attack in Benghazi when the president and secretary of state needed a scapegoat.  And believe me, every single person out there is guilty of some crime or violation of some regulation–there are so many that we don’t even know about. You could be harassed for collecting rain water, for growing vegetables or herbs on your porch, for who knows what else. So we are not only concerned about the IRS targeting us as taxpayers), but we also are concerned about what this means with the new role that the IRS has as the 0Care enforcers.  They now have, granted by the 0Care monstrosity, access to our personal bank accounts (actual access, not the power to freeze them–they’ve had that for ages), free reign to monitor our purchases and income, access to our personal medical files, and a list of other means by which to “enforce” the 0Care mandate.  These things could all be used to intimidate, bully, silence, even imprison any person “guilty” of political dissent.

And now we know, for a fact, that 0 is not only willing but actually relishes wielding the power of the presidency to “punish” his “enemies” (no, I won’t rant about his insistence that he can use drones to kill American citizens on American soil because he thinks them an “enemy,” but . . . well, not so tinfoil hatty now, huh?).  We, that is anyone who opposes this administration, are 0’s “enemies,” and no abuse of power, no strong-arm tactics, no bullying thuggery is beneath him.

These are the times that try men’s (and women’s) souls.  Luckily, we are Americans, and this tyrant wannabe will not intimidate, cow, or silence us.  We are not Germans defeated in spirit and nation, we are not Russian or Chinese peasants–isolated and disarmed, we are not, in other words, easy pickings.  And for that, I am forever grateful.

Fuzzy Rant: Voting Your Arrogance and Pretending It’s Your “Principles”

Okay, I’ve been holding in this rant for a while, but I just can’t do so any longer.  It’s been coming for some time, with Adrienne’s recent post feeding the fire.  But the last straw was some idiot Paulbot (redundant, I know) who keeps tweeting me inane crap about how establishment GOP are trying to “bully” her vote, so she’s going to vote for someone named Gary Johnson. You remember that guy who was in the GOP primary debates posing as Ron Paul lite?  No? You don’t remember? Don’t worry, he is not memorable.  Nor is he ever going to be president (neither will Ron Paul, of course).  But hey! The “principled” people will vote for him anyway!

The supreme sense of their own importance makes the “principled” ones infuriating.  [–let me interrupt this rant to note that I don’t mean all Ron Paul supporters and certainly not all libertarians, just the fringe ones who turn off the rest of us with their looniness] Like most self-centered people, they care only about themselves, their principles, their useless, pointless, self-indulgent “stand.”  It’s ignorant, sure, but I’ve come to believe that it’s mostly arrogance.  How else do you explain people who see the devastation that 0 has wrought in four years and think it’s better to have him win another destructive four years than to vote for Mitt Romney, the only person who has a chance of defeating him?  How else do you explain someone whose principles dictate that they collude in the destruction of our republic so that they can strut around declaring that they didn’t “sell out”?  What will they be strutting amongst?  The wreckage of America.  A totalitarian nightmare that they’d rather see our countrymen and women endure than vote for someone who isn’t pitch perfect, lockstep in line with their view of our republic (a view, I should note, that I do not share . . . nor do the majority of American non-leftists as evidenced by Mitt Romney’s nomination.  But they know best, these Paulbots).

Infuriating.

But, but, but whine and whinge and moan the Paulbots, 0 is just like George W. Bush. Just. Like. Him.  Really, we swear!  Bush spent big (he did); he expanded government unacceptably (he did), he got us into wars we probably shouldn’t have been in (he did). So seeeee!??!! Just exactly the exact same sameness.

Uh huh.

Two things are incredibly wrong with this childish thinking: one, Bush was a big-spender, possibly a progressive, but he didn’t hate America or Americans.  Two, Bush didn’t get away with it, not really.  By the end of his term his approval was at 25%; Americans didn’t approve of his big spending, nanny state, police state crap.  We’d had enough.  (This is essentially why I contend that had McCain been elected, the TEA Party would still have emerged. McCain, like Bush, is a big-spending, big-government nightmare. But like Bush, he’s not in the same Marxist league as 0.).  These arrogant “principle” voters for Johnson (whom they didn’t go to until Ron Paul completely failed, so how principled are they, I mean really?) think casting their vote for Johnson, or abstaining from voting, will change . . . well, actually, I’m not sure what the hell they think they’ll change by doing that. I’d have to have a significantly more inflated sense of my own importance to even begin to comprehend it.

The only way to change the Bush-type “compassionate conservative” / RINO / regressive crap is to vote them all out of office; we don’t do that by handing 0 another term in which he can potentially destroy both our economy and our Republic.  We do that, slowly, over time, with passionate dedication to correcting our own wrongs (if we supported Bush, as I did) or by steering our nation back on course with our votes, our vigilance, and our voice.  We do it by recognizing that we won’t always–may never–have the “perfect” choice, but the better of two will be evident, and that’s the one we want, even as a place-holder for a more acceptable constitutional conservative in the next election cycle.

We certainly don’t do it by stomping our feet, sticking out our pouty pouty lips, and demanding a return to American liberty and values NOW! We didn’t get here overnight, and we’re certainly not going to get out of here overnight.  But don’t try to tell that to a “principle” voter.  They just don’t get it.  I’m still not sure how a vote for what’s-his-name, er, Johnson, is a return to our core values, but whatever.  I gave up trying to reason with self-important, self-inflated, self-centered leftists long ago, and Paulbots are far too similar to leftists for me: trying to reason with a Paulbot is rather like trying to reason with a leftist.  In fact, it’s exactly like that, right down to their obsession with “following the money.”

Would I have preferred a different candidate?  Of course.  (Though, to be perfectly honest, I’m not unhappy with the Romney nomination.  Not anymore.  But that’s a different post for a different day.)  But we don’t have a different candidate; we have this one.  So it’s either Romney or 0.  Period.  It’s not rocket science.  It’s not an insolvable puzzle. It’s not even a particularly difficult choice . . . unless you are so arrogant, so unprincipled (yes! unprincipled) that you think voting on your “principles” justifies your role in America’s downfall (and make no mistake, surviving four more years of this radical, antiAmerican, unAmerican, pro-Islamofascist Marxist nightmare may well be more than even our great nation can manage).

But no, you go ahead and vote your arrogance principles.  You know best, after all.  You assert that voting for someone you would not choose–Isn’t Ron Paul your guy?–is better than voting for someone you . . . um, did not choose.

Or something.

Let’s see what’s at stake here:  the Supreme Court, with at least one and up to three appointments likely in the next four years and which is the go-to branch for leftists who can’t get a popular vote on their pet agenda projects (remember: “democracy” is only worth defending for leftists if it reinforces their totalitarian policies); the nation’s economy, but hey! who needs one of those?; global war, a very real possibility in light of 0’s horrific influence on the Middle East, China, Russia, and Europe and his acolytes’ support of the Islamofascist “Arab spring”; but hey! that’s not your problem, right? It’s the big, evil America who’s to blame for terrorism.  In India. In Bali. In Africa.  Uh huh, right; unconstitutional consolidation of power in the executive branch finalized, but gee, that’s going to happen anyway, right? One day. Why not next year?!; more and more people dragged down into poverty and onto welfare and food stamps, but hey! that’s not your problem, right?; the ObamaCareTax, it needs to be repealed and most assuredly won’t be under a second 0 term; the size of government, but hey, bigger is better, right?  Because that’s what your crap vote for Obama Johnson will guarantee; the First, Second, and Tenth Amendments, but hey! Who needs those as long as you can vote your “principles”?

The more of you who vote your “principles” (i.e. yourself), the larger the popular vote gap, the larger, in other words, the “mandate” that 0 and his traitorous horde will claim.  And use to further their destructive agenda.  But hey, who cares about the popular vote, right?  It’s only the electoral college that “matters.”  Right?  Wrong.  Ten kinds of wrong.  Sure, the electoral college decides the election, we all know that.  But the popular vote matters and not just in the history books but in the winner declaring a mandate. Most of us know that 0 won the popular vote by just over 9.5 million votes (in a country of over 300 million people).  And look what they did with that “mandate.”  Imagine what they’ll do with the one to which you are actively contributing by refusing to vote for Mitt Romney.

You are not happy with Romney.  You are not happy with either party.  They’re “just the same,” right?  So instead of bucking up, taking responsibility, and working to change the GOP, to shift it to a more limited government platform by electing constitutional conservatives and libertarians and by staying involved to ensure the party stays the course, you’ll just take your marbles and skip off to vote for that guy, what’s his name again?, who has zero chance of winning.  Genius.

You are not happy that things aren’t exactly as you wish them to be, so you’ll puff up your cheeks, hold your breath, thrash about on the floor in a temper tantrum . . . and ultimately–and make no mistake about this–aid and abet the single most dangerous president this nation has ever known (well, there are other contenders like Woodrow Wilson, but you get my drift).  And you’ll do it on “principle.”  Because, after all, that will make a “statement”; you’ll “let them know” they can’t “bully” you!  Your message will be heard “loud and clear.”

Uh huh, and what delusional, self-important world do you inhabit?

But yes, by all means, vote your “principles.”  After all, if you care more about yourself than your country, what choice do you really have?

Fuzzy Rant: We Stand Tall, Firm, and Bold Against Tyranny

Oh, it’s so rant-time at Fuzzy Central.  In case you missed it, Herr 0 has recently been channeling Elizabeth I have high cheek bones just like all the Indians do so deserve special favors Warren and her views on collectivism (actually, it’s all communism . . . if only people would listen).

0 on 7/13/12

Another zero, Warren oh, sometime in September 2011 (who cares when?):

That’s the what; here’s the rant . . .

Are you freaking kidding me?  You had a good teacher so you “owe” the government?  Really?  What about before the stupid, useless, wasteful, wanton and base Department of Education was formed?  That was in 1979.  Nineteen. Seventy. Nine.  Got that?  So what, 0? Before that America was an educational wasteland, full of stupid people?  Actually, quite the opposite.  You know when we started losing our academic leadership in the world?  Oh, on or about October 17, 1979 (thanks Carter, previously, the worst president in my lifetime, now replaced by 0, the worst president ever).  Give that a thought, you freaking moron.  The government lays waste to almost all it touches, yet you dare stand in front of the American people and belittle their ingenuity, ability, drive, and ambition?  You dare state that your Dept of Education–that foul, evil pit of the pedagogy of masturbation, sodomy, America-bashing, and communism–is responsible for any American small business?  You dare?!

You dare imply, if not explicitly state, that every successful American “owes” the federal government higher taxes for their own, hard-earned success?  Based on what?  Yep, tax-payer funded roads and rails, the internet, some bizarre notion that without government America would be full of starving, uneducated, incompetent losers.  Well, no.  Quite the opposite.  In fact, if you look at American history, we did far better in terms of scientific advancement, inventions, wealth-creation, education, and just about everything before the federal government became so freaking large, so cumbersome, so intrusive, that business, science, and industry can scarce function. Indeed, businesses are now hindered by so much regulation, so many taxes, so much “oversight” that it’s a wonder anyone starts a business at all.  Was it Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who said that they couldn’t have started up their company in today’s regulatory environment?

Do you seriously imagine, really, that there would be no freaking roads in America without the federal government?  Are you stupid?  Do you know who funded the nation’s roads prior to the New Deal communist nightmare?  That’s right, the states, the people.  Do you know that private roads existed, still exist?  Do you know that private railroads preceded government ones, that they, too, (at least for now) still exist? Do you know that Americans don’t look to or need the federal government beyond those offices explicitly stated in the United States Constitution?  Do you not know that we are not collectivists, that we are not socialists, that we are not now and never ever will be communists?  Do you know anything of America? Anything at all?

Apparently not.

And that, Sir, makes you singularly unfit to lead this great nation, this nation of people who are smart, capable, and driven.  This nation of ingenuity beyond your wildest dreams, this nation that has stood tall, firm, and bold in the face of every adversity, every tyrannical nightmare, yet thrown at her and will stand thus against every one to come.  Including your tyranny.  You are an abomination, a disgrace to America.  And we stand tall, firm, and bold against you and your anti-American, unAmerican traitorous horde.

As you will learn in November.  Rest assured of that, you communist bastard asshat loser.

BO Administration Stepping Up Fight Against (People They Term) "Domestic Terrorists"

Okay, is it just me or are things getting . . . scary?  Remember that DHS memo from April 2009 that defines potential “domestic terrorists” and further describes:

“rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. (source)

Yep, the new and improved definition of “domestic terrorists”:

“may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” the warning says. (source, same as above)

Let’s review.  If you believe in states’ rights (lots of us know this as the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution) OR are pro-life OR oppose illegal immigration . . . you may be a terrorist in the eyes of the United States government.  Oh, and let’s not forget veterans of our armed forces; they’re being tagged as potential “domestic terrorists,” too.  Nice. 

And remember the parade of BO nominees who variously stated that the biggest threat to America is from the right wing, those pesky white RAAAACISTS who are *gasp* pro-life?  And remember when BO told that audience that conservatives are “enemies” who must be “punished”?  And remember how Holder’s got that “my people” chip on his shoulder that is so large that there are reports that the DOJ has adopted a policy of ignoring crimes by black people against white people?  Let’s not forget that a certain member of Congress thinks that the TEA Party and pro-life Americans who want Planned Parenthood defunded “do not deserve Constitutional rights.”

So now we have a brand-new “rule” (not a law, mind you) that literally destroys the rights of “domestic terrorists.”  Is is just me or does all this fit together somehow?

Naw, can’t be.

Just ignore the weekend disaster exercise designed to train agents in combating “domestic terrorism” and featuring government officials taking down a group of “white supremacists” who oppose illegal immigration.

Nothing to see here.

.

.

.