The Audacity of War
Posted: August 24, 2009, 8:59PMThe Democrat Party and President Obama had spent the good part of this decade politicizing and denouncing our war on terror. They disgraced our military, calling our troops murderers and torturers, at times on foreign soil while our troops were in harms way.
Senator Dick Durbin, (D-Ill), went as far as to say, "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings.”
Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said, this war is lost. U.S. can't win. President Obama and his 'the war is lost' brigage discounted the surge in Iraq saying it would only worsen the situation.
When these democrats had an opportunity to confront real terrorists who beheaded Americans, blew up embassies, hijacked airplanes and flew them into buildings they ducked, instead turning their vitriol on President Bush and accorded the terrorists constitutional rights. Never once did democrats chastise their far left antiwar fringe that openly displayed hatred for the U.S. military.
This month, President Obama and the Democrat Party had the audacity to declare war on the American people. While the war against terror in Afghanistan spirals out of control President Obama and the Democrat Party have chosen to flex their muscles at town hall meetings, inciting violence and intimidation tactics in a failing effort to silence opposition.
Last week, Indiana democrat congressman, Baron Hill, called the people’s town hall meetings an act of political terrorism. The White house called the constitutional uprising un-American and called the American people crazed, angry mobs. House majority leader, Nancy Pelosi, falsely accused citizens of wearing Nazis swastikas.
This is the same Democrat Party and President Obama who have prohibited the use of the words “terror” and “terrorists,” “jihadist” and “global war on terror.” Terrorists are now referred to as “enemy combatants” but the American people are swastikas-carrying, crazy mobs, political terrorists.
The democrats and President Obama have underestimated the American people. They thought they could push the healthcare bill through both branches of congress prior to their August recess before anybody had a chance to read it.
As it appeared unlikely that was going to happen, they started the blame game. First, it was the Republican Party, but the GOP is too far out of power. When the leader of the free world is complaining about a posting on the former governor of Alaska’s Facebook page, he’s got problems.
Team Obama tried blaming special interest, and that was a bust. The president’s deal with the pharmaceutical industry gets him $150 million worth of ads to boost his plan, a plan he doesn’t even have.
They turned to the old playbook and went after Rush and talk radio and that failed too, as it always has. Some never learn. Now, while on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, President Obama is blaming his admiring media.
You see, this was not supposed to happen. They have no plan B and certainly no plan as to how to handle an informed and descending constituency. So they react instinctively, and their natural instinct is taken directly from Saul Alinsky’s, Rules for Radicals, rule number 12.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
President Obama called up his union thugs. The President’s “mobs” were seen on camera pushing little old ladies around, grabbing citizens by the throats and pressing them against the walls. They were intimidating and threatening, they were there to silence freedom of speech.
Sure, our President is one tough son-of-a-gun when it comes to harmless, ordinary citizens and American democracy. He can take over companies, fire CEOs, threaten our constitutional rights with thug politics, step on our liberty and demean our way of life by ramming socialism and radical agendas through congress while promoting fear and victimhood among innocent people, but outside our borders he is not taken seriously. He is perceived as nothing more than a college frat boy. Why not? He acts like it when it comes to foreign affairs. Outside of our water’s edge he is a laughing stock.
What happened when President Obama shamefully asked Gaddafi to not have a hero's welcome for Abdel Basset al-Megrahi on his return to Libya after being freed from a life sentence in a Scottish jail on compassionate grounds because he is dying of cancer? Gaddafi responded with a hometown parade and national hero's welcome, and he sent his son to escort Abdel Basset al-Megrahi back to Libya - a high honor in the Middle East.
So, how dare the American people express their constitutional right and question President Obama’s healthcare bill? This was not supposed to happen. President Obama and his democrat minions had no plan B for an informed constituency so they had to react instinctively. Isolate, attack, declare war on the American people.
God forbid they declare war on real terror.
Chuck
Comments
Great writing, Chuck. It always amazes me that the left can just assume that because they currently hold the majority, they can just rail-road the american people into what they want and if you have the audacity to disagree, then by all means you are an un-american, card-carrying nazi. And with the election of this president, they became even more brazen because they recognized that, once elected, he became his true self, a radical, left-winger who thinks nothing of our constitution. So, it's o.k. to label the citizens of this country with names that should never leave our elected official's mouths when talking about their constituents, but he would never call a real terrorist a terrorist? And this should make the american people feel safer? Pandering to the terrorists will not earn their respect, quite the opposite, in fact, and calling americans names and demeaning their concerns? Well, that won't get this president any respect either. And plan B? How can you have a plan B when you fully expected that campaigning, smooth talk could elevate you above the masses?
I don't even know where to begin in comment of this editorial. Hate, hate, and more hate is all I hear from. Any of us can write up a fiery speech and present it to like-minded folks. A real test would be whether or not you can efficiently debate a mindset all together - at least enough to bilaterally reach a resolution with them for the good of all. I don't believe politics can ever be successful for the good of America when a side isn't capable of reasonable dialogue - and yes, I mean Democrats also. Shout, shout, shout. Can we not all think logically together and resolve that no one is suggesting your constitutional rights are any less important than the ruling party's is? Can we not learn that there is a good way of going about achieving our goals and a wrong way (Nazi comparisons are flat out asanine and inappropriate); and finger-pointing while proliferating ridiculous claims against an adversary isn't the good way. I accept both sides are guilty of this. Can you admit to yours?
Your constitutional rights to argue against Healthcare Reform are just as safe and legitimate today as Anti-War Protesters constitutional rights were during the W. Bush administration (which I imagine you disagree with.) And they will continue to remain so as long as they don't impede on someone else's constitutional rights. Meaning, you can't move in next door and raise a hog farm while holding concerts. Seems logical enough to many, but why not all? Hmmm. I believe that is the way protest has been since the Constitution was written.
"What happened when President Obama shamefully asked Gaddafi to not have a hero’s welcome for Abdel Basset al-Megrahi on his return to Libya after being freed from a life sentence in a Scottish jail on compassionate grounds because he is dying of cancer?" Are you making that statement up? First of all it wasn't U.S.A.'s call to even make. So it is President Obama's fault that Libya acted the way they did? Under your logic, it's okay for America to dictate to people of another country how they should act and feel as long as they can't make us act or feel how they want us to? Listen, I was driving down the road today and a bird flew into the path of my car and cracked my windshield. Is that President Obama's fault too? Ridiculous. I'm sorry sir, but your vision of liberty is SO out of whack; it was not drafted to serve YOUR needs/wants and yours alone. It's all good as long as it fits your agenda, I guess; nevermind there are 6 billion other individuals living in this world as well as you. I suppose it takes a mighty big ego to have this mindset. Seriously though, a statement was made by President Obama's administration condemning Libya's actions. Period.
"So, how dare the American people express their constitutional right and question President Obama’s healthcare bill? This was not supposed to happen. President Obama and his democrat minions had no plan B for an informed constituency so they had to react instinctively. Isolate, attack, declare war on the American people." I wonder why the President can't reply to the critics without being called an "attacker". When you have a plan and someone doesn't understands it, questions it (in some cases flat out lies about it), and wants an answer...do you not respond to answer the concerns. I do, but never have I been accused of sending my "minions" and "declare war" on the ones asking the question. Just like the President has done, I rise up and calm the storm of doubt and vanquish the lies so we can all press forward and move on.
"So they react instinctively, and their natural instinct is taken directly from Saul Alinsky’s, Rules for Radicals, rule number 12.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effec tive. Direct, per so na li zed cri ticism and ridi cule works.)" It's interesting (and sad) that Chuck can't look in the mirror and simply see he is guilty of the same Rule #12. Does this then make Chuck a Leftist Radical? Hee hee hee. Classic case of the Pot calling the Kettle black.
Honesty truly is the best strategy to take. The GOP lost this election largely because they lost their moderate voters. If their agenda is to gain any ground whatsoever they must win back these votes. Hate-speech, carrying AR-15 assualt rifles to town hall meetings on healthcare, and useless finger pointing will not win this political "war" for the GOP. Each and every day they appear more and more lost and crazy like the left-wing radicals they condemn. WWJD?
Former Republican Voter.
Come now!
1) This is not hate. It appears that word is quite overused these days among liberal, Obama supporters. Interesting.
2) We are now seeing what a weak United States of America lead by a weak, radical President means to world peace.
3) When you're done attacking the messenger, I think you would be a good liberal to debate, if there is such a thing.
4) I wasn't a student of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and I publicly denounce it. President Obama was and it was his political template in Chicago.
5) If I don't reply for a little while, it's cause I'm working on my next column, The Audacity of Wag the Dog. You'll love it!
Thanks for your comments!
1)I'm unsure what other word to use than "hate" when your article continuously attacks the President. Some of the thoughts I find interesting but others are easily-proven wrong yet the bullets are shot from the bloggers gun shamelessly regardless; I'm finding it difficult to think of another reason other than "hate". Nation won't be "won back" with hate speech. Also, it's not a word that just began to be used politically the last 8 months, mind you. I seem to recall it being used quite frequently on conservative radio/t.v. during the Bush years in reference to the "luny left-wing radical" as well. I could probably pull some Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity transcripts to verify it further. Sorry, I'm just humbly trying to be fair and balanced.
2)Not sure I follow #2. Is that a response to the Libya terror party? If so, what more can you expect? President Obama and Prime Minister Brown condemned Libya and spoke their dissatisfaction with the terror convict's welcome home party. Should we bomb Tripoli? Would that make things better? The question of "weak" has nothing to do with this situation and the presumption is confusing. Scotland is a sovereign nation and free to make their own mistakes, but if you want to blame President Obama for what happened then we will be discussing "hate" again, won't we?
3)I'm not attacking the messenger. Simply speaking my mind as he does. My mind is open enough to hear what he has to say, evaluate it, and respond. I'm not bought and sold by any political party; they all have their good and bad qualities. I understand this is a site for "conservative" ideas and such, but what is one without the other. I'm not a liberal, but you can think what you want. I'm still carrying a Republican Voter Registration Card in my wallet as well as a registered firearms concealment license in case you were mislead by my comment on the assault rifle comment. I just don't find it necessary or sensical to carry my guns with me to a meeting on healthcare and I find it silly that some do. I mean, you wouldn't bring a basketball to a football game, would you? I was raised by two depression-era conservatives to think objectively, humbly, and to never underestimate the value of common sense. My parents are pretty die hard in their political views but they didn't raise me to be a lemming; what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong regardless of your party's line. Some have the guts to stand up for that and others keep toeing the line blindly. I love Jesus and I find that Republicans and Democrats are both at odds with his teachings. However, one party does indeed show a lot more compassion than the other.
Perhaps it would be better if I kept my differing viewpoints to myself and leave you to preach to your choir. I never met a Republican/Democrat who didn't like to have a healthy political discussion. Good day.
4)I look forward to reading your column "Audacity of Wag the Dog". I also appreciate you allowing comments to be made unlike other conservative forums that seem to squash any thought that isn't in line with theirs. Fox News.com member server for instance seems not to like my username "FormerRepublicanVoter" when I tried to sign up and denied me access. Whereas I registered again under "RepublicanVoter" and their server accepted that instantly. It's interesting how the idea of dissension is used by both parties to talk of the other.
I agree nazi comparisons are asinine and inappropriate, and I was quoting the left when I said it. Protesters at the town-halls were called and compared to nazis. I agree that anti-war protesters were and are constitutionally protected, but I don't think it's fair to compare it to health-care reform protesters, though. Talk about hate, is it not hate speech when your elected officials call their constituents names such as brownshirts, nazis, etc., but I guess it's only hate-speech when the right talks about legitimate concerns with this administration's policies. There are extremes on both sides but it is not fair to de-legitimize the concerns and questions that people have by citing one incident of someone carrying a gun? I seriously doubt that the people that were there to get questions answered controlled this person's actions, but it does take away from the legitimate debate, doesn't it? I happen to think all points of view are worth listening to and there's nothing wrong with dissention from both sides.
If I'm not mistaken, the Nazi reference was brought up by a town hall questioner to Barney Frank at his town hall meeting comparing the proposed healthcare plan to that of Nazi Germany's healthcare plan. Barney Frank was obviously horrified and angered that he was fielding what I agree was a ridiculous "question" (I use the word "question" loosely b/c it's becoming apparent it was a statement the lady questioner was trying to make). I watched it live and understand Barney Frank's frustration. Did he go a little overboard with calling the lady a "table"? Depends on who you talk to, really. So...from what I've watched of the town hall meetings I have to say it has been the people at the town hall meetings using the words "Nazis" etc. while referencing their fear of President Obama (i.e. they're trying to draw parallels between 1930s Nazi Germany and 2009 U.S.A.) I think it has been laid to rest. If a person asks a stupid question then Barney Frank responds to them with a stupid answer. We have a history of politicians like him. Some of them were known to take pistols and have a duel.
Nothing wrong with dissension at all. Except of course when it treads on another person's constitutional liberties. A few years ago I saw quite a few protesters accused of being "Anti-American" and "Un-Patriotic". They were expressing their minority dissent as well. It's a 2-way street.
Constitutional rights and the American way of life is as strong as it has ever been if you look at things objectively. I believe my comments have stayed pretty true in that regard.
With all due respect, the nazi aspect of this debate started with Nancy Pelosi and other dems weeks before Barney Frank's town-hall and isn't he just a shining example of the kind of politician we want? Can anyone say FannieMae,FreddieMac? He and Chris Dodd are at the heart of the problems that caused the housing collapse. Constitutional rights are strong because we do have a wonderful constitution, not because of anything the left has done, because they have done nothing but try and shut-up the protesters since the debate over government run health-care started. Anyone listening to the news has seen the actions and words coming out of elected officials mouths, and has to wonder why they can't take dissention from their constituents, dems and republicans? You can paint the protesters anyway you like, but the elected ones started the name calling because they do not like to be questioned? Imagine that, why would we want to question them over a little thing like a trillion dollars?
Add a Comment


