Apparently, someone appropriately labeled “in the tank” did not enjoy my recent post about Allen West (who I reiterate, is insane…) And so they posted this lengthy rebuttal, in which your humble blogger was referred to as “cheeky.” How “barmy” is that?
What truly amazes me about what passes for conservatism these days is how thoroughly it relies on a set of memorized chatter points: “statist” this and “Marxist” that, and “liberty loving Constitutional” the other, which are designed to make the person using the talking points sound intelligent and well-read, as if they’ve digested the full United States Constitution and the works of Karl Marx in toto, over years of careful study. In fact, these people, who generally can’t tell you the difference between Communism and Socialism without the help of wikipedia, are getting their marching orders from carnies like Glenn Beck, who supplies the jargon without supplying these poor souls with even a passing knowledge of American, European, philosophical or any other brand of history. It’s almost not worth responding to. But of course, I can’t resist. So here we go. Let’s examine our “tanky” friend, and his epic rant.
Here’s the money quote:
One thing West did say that is true, is that what we have to worry about is “an ideology that is totalitarian, theocratic, political and imperialistic in nature.” It’s called the American right wing.
How cheeky! The “American Right Wing” and its ‘totalitarian’ ideology, hmmmm. I suppose one can write a full length book in response to such an insipid and ignorant comment such as this one, but musings such as these are par for the course for the leftist blogosphere these days, as they are almost unwilling to compete in the arena of ideas to defend their policies as compatible with the Constitution, free markets, or a truly free people.
See how Sharky called me cheeky, and my comment “insipid” and “ignorant” without ever refuting a single word of what I said? To fill it out for him/her/whoever, let’s go through my charges against the right, which I described as:
Theocratic: the right wing in this country believes that there is no separation of church and state, that the founding fathers intended for this to be a Christian republic, and that the idea of such a separation is a liberal myth (as Sharron Angle has stated). All of these ideas are provably false, but the right believes them anyway:
The Texas Republican Party Platform, 2002:
“Our Party pledges to do everything within its power to dispel the mythof separation of church and state.”
Christian Coalition: Speakers at the Road To Victory rally sponsored by Christian Coalition just before the 2002 elections,
“seemed to compete with each other to say the worst things they could about this concept.” Coalition founder Pat Robertson who described church-state separation as “a lie” and “a distortion foisted on us over the past few years by left- wingers.” Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore termed separation “a fable” and insisted that the phrase “has so warped our society it’s unbelievable.” Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) upped the ante, calling concerns about church and state “the phoniest argument there is.”
But the award for the most vicious attack goes to Joyce Meyer, the TV preacher who cosponsored the Coalition’s national meeting. Meyer lambasted the constitutional concept as “really a deception from “Satan.”
William Pryor, President Bush’s stealth appointment for the 11th circuit court of appeals said in a speech that the First Amendment does not mandate “a strict separation of church and state.”
Tom DeLay, former House Majority leader, speaking at a luncheon for Congressional staff in July, 2001 called the Faith Based Initiative a way of:
“standing up and rebuking this notion of separation of church and state that has been imposed upon us over the last 40 or 50 years.”
DeLay’s history is a bit confused. The principle was articulated by Roger Williams, founder of the settlement in Rhode Island, in the 1600s. The framers of the US Constitution adopted the principle. It has been upheld by every Supreme Court since 1879 – that is until the year 2002 when the court approved school vouchers. DeLay went on to say “You see, I don’t believe there is a separation of church and state.”
“Who Is David Barton , And Why Is He Saying Such Awful Things About Separation Of Church And State?”
David Barton and the “Myth” of Church-State Separation, Beliefnet (a web site of faith and spirituality)
As a “Christian” nation activist, David Barton, Vice Chair of the Republican Party, was once considered so extreme he was not taken seriously. Now he is listed by Time magazine as one of the nation’s 25 most influential evangelicals.
He was also featured on the front page of The New York Times Week in Review, February 27, 2005: Putting God Back Into American History.
Supreme Court Justice Scalia
On January 12, 2003, Supreme Court Justice Scalia speaking at an event called Religious Freedom Day, publicly attacked the separation of church and state signaling the problems this important principle would have under a Supreme Court with a Scalia majority.
And by the way, David Barton is the “Constitutional expert” your friend and mine, Glenn Beck, is getting right wing suckers to pay money for to be lectured by at Beck University… you’re welcome.
Totalitarian: the right believes that because in their view this country is to be ruled by Christian doctrine, the state has the authority to intervene in the lives of individual women, to force them to have children, even if they are pregnant as a result of rape or incest. In their view, which is based largely on their abject fear of a competing religious doctrine — Islam — the federal government (so long as the president is a Republican) has the authority to conduct extensive telephone and email surveillance of its own citizens, to arrest American citizens and hold them without charges or trial, and to commit torture. If that’s not totalitarianism, as practiced by the right’s beloved president, George W. Bush, then what is?
Political: the right believes in one-party rule. In their view, any Democratic president is inherently illegitimate, and must be removed from office by any means necessary, including but not limited to impeachment, or even armed rebellion. The tenther, birther and Second Amendment movements are all based on this tenet, as they would not apply to a Republican president. For example, it was George W. Bush, not Barack Obama, who instituted the TARP program, which bailed out the banks. Obama was in the Senate at the time, and did not have the power to implement this “statist” economic remedy. And yet, the right raised barely a peep, and certainly did not pour into the streets with their guns.
Imperialistic. the right believes that hat it is compatible with America’s founding doctrines for the United States to attack and invade countries that did not attack us first, as Mr. Bush did in Iraq.
These things are evidence of of an ideology that, as I stated is “totalitarian, theocratic, political and imperialistic in nature.”
Now to the next part of sharky’s muddled rant, which is a keyboard full, so here it is:
Even as their hero-in-chief, Barrack H. Obama, imposes his statist political objectives on an ever more disapproving electorate – healthcare mandates, cap and trade, amnesty for illegals, unsustainable government spending, new entitlements, so called “stimulus” plans and bailouts that went right to his constituency groups, his appointment of avowed Communists and other progressive ideologues (Van Jones), the revival of the “Fairness Doctrine” and the misleadingly named “Net Neutrality”, Barack H. Obama is using one coercive measure after another as he crams down his neo-Marxist/socialist/fascist ideology on a public that now is beginning to see through his emperor’s clothes- and through the progressive rhetoric that masks his true intentions.
Ah, facts, facts, horrible facts! Where to begin with this one…
Healthcare mandates – Medicare and Medicaid are healthcare mandates of precisely the same brand as the new healthcare reforms, which simply extend those benefits to the non-aged and the middle class. On the other side of the ledger are those who apparently are asserting your right to bill the taxpayer for your emergency care when your illness finally gets so bad you have to go to the hospital, or you get hit by a bus and wind up in the ER, but are not insured. This is the principle of “the people’s right to pass their medical bills on to others,” and it apparently is a bedrock principle of the liberty-loving right. Either that or they want to bring back debtors prisons.
Cap and trade – not only not passed (unfortunately), and therefore not the law of the land, but also supported by a number of conservative Republicans, before they were infected by the tea party virus and forced to join the crazies just to stay in power.
Amnesty for illegals – See Ronald Wilson Reagan, the last president who offered amnesty for “illegals.” Not a single soul has proposed such a thing since then. The current proposals on the table involve long waiting lines for normalization of immigrants, not blanked amnesty like Reagan enacted in 1986.
Uunsustainable government spending - see Ronald Wilson Reagan, George W. Bush, the two presidents who added the most to the nation’s debt and deficits, more, in fact, than all previous presidents combined.
New entitlements - see George W. Bush, who added Medicare Part D to the nation’s entitlements, and did so in a way that effectively handed billions of tax dollars to private insurance companies to act as middle men in the process of providing the government benefit.
“So called ‘stimulus’ plans and bailouts that went right to his constituency groups” - Again, dear, it was BUSH who did TARP, which did indeed go to his constituency groups: Wall Street banks, just as Bush’s tax cuts went to his other constitutents: the wealthy. And it was even Bush’s idea to use TARP to bail out the auto industry (something conservatives like Pat Buchanan supported.) By the way, every credible economist, and the CBO, have already rendered their verdict on the stimulus. It saved this country from financial catastrophe.
“His appointment of avowed Communists and other progressive ideologues (Van Jones)” - really, Sharky? The red baiting again? I’m bored.
“The revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ - Not even on the table, and never ever proposed by anyone, even though constantly harped on by right wing talk radio hacks. Find the legislation and post it. I double dare you.
“And the misleadingly named ‘Net Neutrality’” – whose simple goal is to prevent big telephone companies from charging you higher and higher rates for access to the Internet at will, essentially allowing these companies to gouge you and me for Internet signals that they get from the government for free.