Archive for July, 2010|Monthly archive page
It’s time to make the Party of Slavery go away.
I’ve been remiss in maintaining the site and missed this excellent comment by Educated Patriot to my The complete failure of the Democratic Party approacheth post. Patriot writes (in black italics [replies in blue]):A few things. This “essay,” this grouping of harmless words into ignorant babble only serves to show the stupidity breeding in the more close-minded parts of our country. [Like Washington, DC? Chicago? New York? LA? In my defense, I do call the site “Way Too Opinionated”.]
“The Democratic Party is, has been, an likely always will be the Party of Slavery.” [The Proud Legacy of the Democratic Party: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and Socialism.]
Take this for example. At first glance, and insightful and honest perspective on a tyrant of a government. But allow us to dive a little further in. First of all, the word ‘slavery’ should instill fear and anger deep in your heart. [Defiance is neither fear or anger] It’s a scary thing. [Only to the weak] You might also be reminded of the slavery that existed in our great nation before the leadership of the might[y] Abraham Lincoln and his heavenly warriors of freedom, justice, and equality. [You mean theses guys?]
Again, without a background, Abraham Lincoln seems like a smart [yes], freedom-loving [yes] Republican [yes. He was tall, too.]. He was, after all. He fought the civil war. And he won it. But the civil war was not fought to free slaves. [Lincoln was an Abolitionist from the time he sailed down the Mississippi and saw the Abomination with his own eyes. He rose to the top of The Republican Party that was created as the Emancipation Party from the remains of the Whig Party that tore itself apart trying to deal with the great divide. Lincoln prosecuted the War Between the States first and foremost to preserve the Union. But the war was about slavery whose survival or demise hinged on which side won. The Emancipation Proclamation, noble in concept, was simply a carefully crafted political tactic by Lincoln to renew support for a long drawn out and bloody war. But if it had not been for slavery, there would have been no war. And without a victory by the Union, there would be no end to it (slavery that is).] This war was a quest to hold together the country that Mr. Lincoln inherited as president. [Oh, my. This statement is so illuminating as to the mindset of the writer. Mr. Lincoln did not inherit a country. Lincoln inherited the Office of the President of the United States. He was the Chief Executive Officer of the Executive Branch of Government as defined by the US Constitution. Despite what the current resident of the same White House and his His supporters believe, a new president does not assume a throne, crown, or sovereignty over the country. What Lincoln did assume was the responsibility to preserve and protect the Country from all enemies foreign and domestic, which included the State in Rebellion against the United States.] To keep our great United States intact. You might be starting to get nervous here, [No, not even a little bit] that sounds a lot like big government doesn’t it? No? [No. It sounds like a government performing its Constitutionally mandated function.] Well perhaps that’s not enough detail. The Confederate States of America seceded from the Northern States because they felt they were being subjected to unjust governing [that might keep them from owning other people as chattel. I can see where they (the whites) might feel wronged. The chattel may have felt otherwise.], by the federal government, led by a Mr. Abraham Lincoln [South Carolina seceded before Lincoln’s inauguration. Facts are to liberals what kryptonite is to Superman. It just shuts them down.] . So, they decided to do the right thing [preserving their God given right to own other people as chattel]. They separated from this “big government,” to ensure the survival of state’s right [that would be the States’ Right to allow theirs white citizens to own their black residents], the cornerstone of today’s Republican philosophy. [Not even close. The Constitution allocated certain powers to the federal government. All other powers were given to the States or the People (who aren’t trying to own other people). The current federal government has far overstepped those bounds and bears little or no resemblance to the federal government of the 19th Century. The Civil War was not about “States Rights” as governing philosophy. It was about white people being allowed to own black people. You should read the Constitution. Especially if you’re going to call yourself educated. I have a copy of it on my iPhone. There’s an app for that!]
This is where our mighty president stepped in. In order to keep his country in one piece, Mr. Lincoln went to war. Not because he wanted to stop slavery [Oh, but he did. But first he had to keep the country in one piece.], but because he believed in America [and had a Constitutionally mandate to preserve it]. In the American government. The very government above compared to a “Communal Utopianism,” as if drawn from George Orwell’s 1984 itself! [No. What’s Orwellian is equating the Government of 1861 to the all consuming, wanna’ be all powerful Leviathan it has become. The cancerous growth of federal government didn’t get started until the “Progressive” period at the start of the 20th Century.]
Now, fighting for federal government [Lincoln was not fighting for ‘federal government’. That would be a concept only somebody who thought that Lincoln ‘inherited the country’ would believe. He was fighting for the preservation of the Union. The country is not the government. The government does not define the country. The government is an organization created by the People to perform certain functions defined and constrained by the Constitution. The government is not a sovereign answerable to no one. The country is sovereign.], that sounds like a very liberal idea doesn’t it? [Are we talking Classical Liberal (promoting individual rights) or Modern Liberal (promoting people as property of the government)?] But wasn’t Lincoln a patriot? [Absolutely]
Next, the word “Progressive.” What is progressive? In the illuminating passage above, it is directly compared to Fascism, and the Nazi’s. Again, if you don’t know what these words mean, it becomes a very dark and disturbing keyword, doesn’t it? [And if you don’t get sarcasm, you don’t know the meaning “progressive” in quotes. It means they may call themselves progressive, but their not. There is nothing progressive about the political Left.] So let’s examine it for a minute. Progressive (n.) – favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are Progressive. Progress. Well that makes sense! But what does it mean? [It doesn’t matter how it is defined. It matters how it is used and in this context, what it represents. George Orwell wrote a book about a “Progressive” government that actively misled the population by abusing and torturing the language. Intentionally mislabeling activities by using words whose meanings were the opposite of what the activity actually was. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?]
Could it mean… The abolition of slavery??? [It could, unless what the “Progressives” are really working towards is subjugation of the whole population to their government overlords.] Why, that would be considered Progressive, yes! As was the Civil Rights Movement and the Constitution of the United States. even the Declaration of Independence was considered Progressive in it’s time! [And I have a copy on my iPhone. There’s an app for that, too! But that would be ‘progressive’ as an adjective. Today’s “Progressives” actively trash both the Constitution and the concept of individual liberty embodied in the Declaration of Independence in their insatiable quest for power.]
But then… why are Progressive liberals called the “Party of Slavery” in the well-researched passage I just read? [There is progressive as an adjective matching the definition above (except for the noun part), and there is Progressive as a noun that claims to represent what the definition above describes but in reality its actions and policies are anything but.] Well, here we encounter the real route of corruption in American politics. Ignorance. [Willful blindness] Here we can see elementary name calling in effect. [i.e. describing a movement by its actions rather than its propaganda. Kind of like ‘Swiftboating” which is to maliciously defame a character by telling truths about them.] Let’s examine these terms. We will place an “x” next to each that applies. If it might apply under different viewpoint, or is up to debate, we will place a “d.” ( ) Socialist.
( ) Communal Utopianism.
(x) Progressive. (as we discussed earlier)
( ) Fascism.
( ) Nazism.
( ) Party of Slavery. (oh, my!)
Italian Fascism (that would be the real Fascist Party and not the ‘anybody who disagrees with the political left is a fascist!’) of Mussolini was a spin off of the Progressive Movement. As was socialism. National Socialism (contracted to Nazi in German) had more supernationalist and the big superrace elements in its governing philosophy than the other forms of Progressivism. But all of them share the same overarching concept – Statism. So called ‘progressivism’ is nothing more than the regression (that would be the opposite of progression) from classical liberal philosophies of individual liberties back to the sovereign rule of governments over subjugated people. Call them serfs. Call them slaves. Call them comrades. Doesn’t matter. In the old days statism was embodied in the sovereign monarchs. Now we get faceless commissariats, committees and bureaucracies. As I have said innumerable times – there is nothing progressive about the political Left that dominates the Democratic Party today. .Now, let us examine the “complete failure of the Democratic Party.” Take our congress, for example. Now, in an ideal congress, all parties would fight for the well-being of the nation as a whole. But this is not how ours works. As members of different groups contest for supremacy, things can get dirty. This, as I would guess, it what happened here. Which is how our president (a black man) gets called a member of the “Party of Slavery.” [Imagine the irony of the first half black president re-introducing slavery to the United States. A modern liberal dogma is that a black man can’t be a slave owner. Except, in colonial days, there were. Slavery is still openly practiced in the Sudan with blacks owning other blacks.]. With such ignorant babble, how can we PROGRESS as a society, and as a nation? Well that’s a good question. In order to truly help your country, you have to fight the urge to blast nonsensical rhetoric at people you disagree with, and promote intelligent conversation and debate. But yes, it’s a lot easier to scream “Fascist!” and crack open a beer. [I don’t drink beer. Educated Patriot, if you are educated, why don’t you know these things? Fascist is as real a political concept as Progressivism. Big government, big organizations, and big unions colluding together to accumulate power over the rest of the country is the definition of Fascism, as practiced by Mussolini who belonged to what? Oh, yeah. The Fascist Party (named for the fascista that were the symbols of the consuls of Rome). Don’t forget to add the thugocracy that uses threats and intimidation to strong arm compliance to the ruler’s will in contravention to the rule of law. Add them up and what we have in Washington today is an administration that is trying by every effort to recreate Mussolini’s government. You may want to open a history book to see how that turned out. And calling it what it is is not nonsensical rhetoric. I don’t call the government created by the Democratic Party supermajority Fascist as a smear. I call it that because it accurately describes their governing philosophy, their insatiable quest for power and desire to rule absolutely every aspect of life in this society as if they were gods looking down on the ‘small people’ from Mt. Olympus.]
Been a pleasure.