The Revolution Will Be Televised
The minions of Barack Obama and the officialdom of the federal government apparently have another tactic in their arsenal when the people become angry and protest their government- shut the people up:One million tea bags delivered to a Washington, D.C., park were reloaded and sent away because tea party organizers did not have the proper permit.
The massive shipment of tea to Lafayette Park was meant to be the start of a day of protests expected across the country by people fed up with high taxes and excess spending.
But the tea was reloaded back onto a truck and sent away, protest organizer Rebecca Wales told FOX News.
The demonstrations are part of a larger grassroots movement to protest massive government spending called Taxed Enough Already, or TEA -- giving name to the Tax Day Tea Parties -- more than 235 years after the original Boston Tea Party revolt against taxes.
Another D.C. rally scheduled to take place outside the Treasury Department was canceled when the U.S. Secret Service prevented protesters from gathering outside for lacking a proper permit.
Anyone who has ever been involved in a public protest knows how "permit" rules can be used to stifle freedom of speech. We will likely see the double standard of the Left at work today, for when liberals protest, it is free speech, but when conservatives are angry, they must be made to be quiet.
Our friends on the other side really do not seem to understand that these protests are not a part of some highly organized Republican conspiracy. The party had nothing to do with the organization of these events, it was entirely the work of groups like the Sam Adams Alliance, the American Family Association, and a lot of small mom and pop gatherings around the country not affiliated with any specific group. Former U.S. House Republican Leader Dick Armey spoke on Hannity last night about his participation in the Atlanta Tea Party today, saying "look, I am going because I was invited by the Atlanta organizers. I do not know any of these people. I do, however, agree with what these protests are about and so I want to participate." It is probably safe to assume that the same is true with appearances by Republican leaders past and present at protests around the country today. The party would be politically stupid not to jump on the bandwagon of what amounts to a populist uprising against the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress.
People are deeply concerned about the spending habits of the administration and they know that despite the President's repeated assurances to the contrary, there is no way on this side of Paradise that the federal government can spend the amount of money that Barack Obama says that he wants to spend, and run the kind of deficits that Obama admits his administration will be running before they are finished without the taxes of every taxpayer in this nation going through the roof. Both parties have abused the American electorate, and we collectively have had quite enough.
In addition, Obama's Homeland Security statement which basically characterized all conservatives in the general population as a potential terrorist threat is nothing less than an open declaration of war on conservatives and conservatism. In issuing this wicked memorandum, the Obama Administration has chosen to make the federal government the clear and present enemy of a huge swath of the American population. Patriotism in the world of Obama is now defined as personal loyalty to the President, his government, and the Democratic party, as opposed to loyalty to the Constitution of the United States. In opposing the PATRIOT Act, I warned of a day when a liberal Democratic administration could and would use its provisions against conservative Americans who actively oppose that regime. It would appear that the dreaded time of reckoning has very hastily arrived.
This man in Washington really expects people will bow at his feet and proclaim him Lord, and it seems that he honestly thought that everyone would accept his program without question. He bails out banks and attempts to run automobile manufacturers while admitting that he intends to run a 9.3 trillion dollar deficit by the end of his term, all the while declaring that his opponents and veterans of the war could be potential terrorists. The President and the mainstream press who support him really expect no serious opposition after such a heinous record in his first 100 days?
No sir, Mr. Obama-no more, and not today.
Labels: Congress, Conservatism, Democrats, Elections, Federal politics, News Media, Political correctness, Republican Party, Tennessee politics
posted by Deacon David Oatney @ 11:52 AM
13 Comments:
The more I read your rantings, the more I realize that you are completely divorced from reality.
I know that you have a deep-seated fear of those things you decry as liberal - personal freedoms, self-determination, change, etc. You also demonstrate a racial hatred that literally seethes from your keyboard. Your fear of gays makes me wonder if there's not some sort of pathological projection going on. There's a lot going on in that small mind of yours and it's a scary sight to watch as you devolve into your hateful, fearful and paranoid fantasy world.
The greatest erosion of our civil liberties occurred on the watch of George Bush and we heard nary a peep out of you. He and his cronies bled you dry by shifting tax burdens to the poor and middle-class and still, not a peep out of you. Bush promised you an ethical administration and then proceeded to break every law in the country - still not a peep out of you. Obama has been in office for less than 90 days and the hate that spews from you will surely damn you to the hell that you so damn on others - it either has to be a pathological hate or mental illness. I hope and pray every day that you find some peace in your life or I fear that we will be reading about you holed up in your house with an AK-47 threatening to kill the world. Please seek out refuge in your church, your Bible and find some inner peace - learn from the teachings of Jesus - start with the beatitudes and take them to heart.
Why do you associate the KKK, Neo-Nazis and such with conservatism?
So which is it? Does the Prez want people bowing at his feet or did he bow to the Saudis? Seems to me you can't have it both ways...Just saying...
Wow anon... talk about unloading with both barrels.
Too bad, you had to hide behind the anon function in order to do it.
While I'm no fan of David Oatney - there is only one thing to say to people like you.
Coward.
David,
There are several topics under discussion in your latest post. Lewt me start with the first one. This is an example of what happens when you fail to adequately plan ahead. 1x(10)^6 tea bags is a lot of tea bags which would correspond to a significant volume (L x W x H) of tea bags. What??? They were just going to magically disapear when the circus, ahem, excuse me, rally, when the rally was over? David, anyone who planned any type of function at, or in, a public space needs to address trash issues. The planners of this circle jerk screwed up!! Eat it! No evil mind/speech control going on, just you whining about how the incompetence of others upset your dog and pony show.
Secondly, the DC tea baggers, at least, are lucky they weren't herded into a "Free Speech" zone!
I could go on, and will later, but dog-gone-it David, all you're doing is whinning!!
SteveMule
PS Tim McViegh was a Gulf War vet.
In response to A. Renee Daley -
Why is it so important to you that you know my identity? After all, isn't it the thought that should be the focus of one's posting as opposed to the identity of the one posting it? Go back to the start of this great country and look at the authors of pamphlets that were designed to rile up the colonists against the King. Ben Franklin published Poor Richard's Almanack under a pseudonym so that he could say such inflammatory things without the fear of the English shutting him down. The ideas were what were important, not the identities.
There are times when a person's identity is properly known, but publishing identities on blog comments is not necessarily one of them. I appreciate your concern, however, I will continue to post anonymously because it's a right that I cherish.
Anon;
You're right, many people use pseudonyms for writing purposes. But this isn't England, and there's a little thing called the First Amendment that protects ALL speech. So that pretty much shreds your argument to continue use of the anon function.
Create a fake name for all I care. No one is going to know the difference. But at least have the grapefruits to take credit for your opinions.
A. Renee -
Do you know anything at all about the 1st Amendment? Nowhere in the 1st Amendment is there anything dealing with anonymity. In pertinent part, it reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." I would think that publishing one's opinion anonymously celebrates the very spirit of the 1st Amendment - see, there's no government regulation telling me how I am to express my opinion or if I have to identify myself in order to express said opinion. Isn't it a wonderful country we live in?!
On the other hand, Dave could institute a policy of only allowing comments from people who choose to identify themselves - and that would be cool - but that's Dave's decision, not one covered by the 1st Amendment.
My second issue, however, is my concern about your knowledge of history. Do you know who Benjamin Franklin is? (Hint: Look at a $50 bill) Do you know the history of pamphlet writing in the 1700's? The 1st Amendment was a direct result of the English trying to stop the colonists from publishing articles critical of the government. Why do you say "this isn't England"? My point is that anonymous publishing is a very American activity and has always been considered very patriotic speech.
Publish your name all over the country as far as I'm concerned, as for me and my grapefruits, we'll continue to remain anonymous.
I'm also curious about A. Renee's statement "this isn't England, and there's a little thing called the First Amendment that protects ALL speech. So that pretty much shreds your argument to continue use of the anon function."
How does this shred the argument that one can or can't use the "anonymous" feature that Dave has on his blog? The First Amendment to the US Constitution, as you say, protects the rights of the citizens from having their speech censored by the government. But it doesn't prevent anonymity. What is your point and how does it "shred" any argument? From your other postings on the web, you appear to be an anti-choice advocate. I suppose that you also believe that the Constitution doesn't protect the privacy of the citizens of this country?
While you are free to make any argument that you wish on any subject, in order to gain my attention or respect, your argument must have a valid point. Here's one: The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution specifically reserves all powers to the states that are not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. The United States is not granted the power to regulate speed limits on state highways, thus the power to set speed limits is empowered to the states solely.
See, that's the basis for an argument. If you'll study the structure, you'll be better prepared next time you want to argue your position.
Anonymous -
Excellent point! Like most conservatives, A. Renee seems to confuse her opinion with a valid argument. Just because something is based in the form of an opinion, doesn't mean it's not grounded in fact and, thus, the valid basis for an argument. However, conservatives for too long have gotten away with stating an opinion as fact and not being called out on that. A good example is an anti-choice person stating that abortion is "wrong", "immoral" or "murder". While I don't agree with these opinions, there's nothing wrong with having them - however, none of those is a "fact". For example, many don't believe any of the above and none of them are codified into law. the point is, A. Renee, you can't just make a statement and then say it "shreds" an argument without saying why. Please go back to your post and re-frame your argument so that it makes some sort of sense. At that point, I may find that I agree with you, but as of now, I don't think you know of which you speak.
Forget, please, "conservatism." It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
PS – And “Mr. Worldly Wiseman” Rush Limbaugh never made a bigger ass of himself than at CPAC where he told that blasphemous “joke” about himself and God.
John,
Our country is not collapsing because we turned our back on God, the collapse is because we elected people who used the name of God to act in evil ways - who, claiming rightousness, fixed the tax code to steal from the poor and middle-class and give to the rich. They used their perverted views of religion to mislead weak-minded Republic Party voters to accept the tyranny that they were perpetrating in their name. I pray to God that we return to a secular progressive government that allows us to freely practice - or not practice - our religions. That we can be free from the oppressive surveillance state that the Bush administration created. That we can spread the country's wealth to the working men and women whose work creates that wealth. That we can become a peaceful, prosperous, secular nation again.
When you elect "people who used the name of God to act in evil ways," YOUR COUNTRY HAS COLLAPSED!
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
Post a Comment
<< Home