You know, I'm just so glad the president reassured me that tyranny isn't around the corner back on the 5th of this month. I mean, sure, as I mentioned (in passing) earlier this week, he was busy prying into the lives of journalists and their parents, but that's small potatoes, water under the bridge.
Having remembered his reassurance, I can go back to completely trusting the government to not abuse its power.
I mean, it's not like the government was using its most powerful agency to target conservatives.
Wait, what was that?
...Ah. I see.
On some level, I understand the impulse some people have to recoil at "extreme" descriptions of actions taken by the administration or the government. It may very well drive away some from our side. The question is, is it better to cater to people's weakness, hyper-sensitivity and ignorance, or is it better to be accurate?
I choose the latter when I call this administration's tactics fascistic.
What else can you call them? Abusive and evil most certainly fit the bill, but it does not pin down the depth of the administration's lawlessness.
The only real way, I feel, to grasp what the administration has been revealed to be doing is to give it historical context. And this is the early behavior of every fascist regime that has ever existed. The suppression of political and ideological dissent is a must for statists/totalitarians. Otherwise, their opponents may challenge their rule.
And now our own government is repeating these tactics. They are using the power of the IRS to suppress political and other speech. Tea Party groups have been bogged down in a maze of audits and neglect attempting to file for 501(c)4 tax-exempt status since 2010. With these organizations distracted by this sort of thing, is it hard to imagine that this did not have an impact on their ability to organize last year? Is it really so farfetched to believe that money was spent on lawyers and overhead instead of commercials and rallies?
And political organizations are not the only targets. Conservative Christian organizations were also audited. Even now, it has come out that large numbers of audits were targeted at adoptive families.
Considering the IRS's function, it is not unfathomable to believe that any of these groups wouldn't get audited. Every ideology has its dubious groups and individuals. But to see such widespread targeting of the groups the current administration does not like and/or outright opposes is almost unfathomable.
Barack Obama and other leftists constantly push the idea that the government can solve our problems and fix our lives. The speech I referenced in my opening even tried to conflate the idea of "self-governance" with the physical "federal government." The federal government is an entity unto itself, especially with the explosive growth of the bureaucracy beyond the representatives we vote for.
And the IRS scandal is a clear demonstration of what the president would rather have us ignore: the tyranny of a government run amok.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Monday, May 20, 2013
On Scandalpalooza, Part I
So, you may have noted I did not have an article last week. It is a bit of a (possibly bad) habit of mine to watch when news breaks rather than write.
That said, last week was rather interesting. Not just because of the various breaking scandals, either. But more because the media at large covered them. It was not just Fox News Channel or various (and smaller) conservative outlets. It was the mainstream media at large.
Of course, this sudden interest in the shady actions and coverups likely has little to do with the media suddenly realizing how badly it has neglected its duty as the adversaries to power. Rather, it has much to do with the AP scandal. Once the other outlets realized that the largest news organization in America had its records seized unilaterally by the government, the scandals of this administration became personal for them. Suddenly, the administration was no longer their friend; it treated them like adversaries despite all the friendly press they had given it.
Of course, some on the left are complaining about criticism over the administration's handling of the AP's records. They say it is much ado about nothing, that what the administration did was perfectly legal. Amazingly (and perhaps disturbingly), this is true.
However, what is legal is not necessarily always ethical.
And that is where the AP story goes from routine to potentially scandalous. Legality is irrelevant in the face of the government taking the phone records of the AP in the shadows. Normally, this sort of action would be done in the open, where the press organization in question would be able to challenge and/or negotiate for the records. This time, however, claiming "national security" reasons, the government took the records unilaterally.
And now we have learned today that the government pursued the personal emails and phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen (among others) for much flimsier reasons. Some expressed concern that the scandals, after getting a week of play in the media, would slowly fade from the headlines as the press fell back into its old Obama-covering habits. However, with yet another attack on free press, there is an emerging pattern of abuse of power and suppression of the press
Even the media water carriers of Barack Obama understand this could very easily become them. They may not like FNC, but when the Department of Justice declares journalists "criminal co-conspirators" simply as an excuse to seize their private information, this steps over a line.
It is an understatement to say that this is chilling.
It is disturbing. Frightening, Alarming.
One of the keys to the continued success of our republic is a free press. It was a free press that, in many ways, allowed the country to become what it is, from inflaming the War for Independance to keeping the government in check for the better part of two centuries.
What happens when the government uses its power and reach to intimidate journalists and their sources?
That said, last week was rather interesting. Not just because of the various breaking scandals, either. But more because the media at large covered them. It was not just Fox News Channel or various (and smaller) conservative outlets. It was the mainstream media at large.
Of course, this sudden interest in the shady actions and coverups likely has little to do with the media suddenly realizing how badly it has neglected its duty as the adversaries to power. Rather, it has much to do with the AP scandal. Once the other outlets realized that the largest news organization in America had its records seized unilaterally by the government, the scandals of this administration became personal for them. Suddenly, the administration was no longer their friend; it treated them like adversaries despite all the friendly press they had given it.
Of course, some on the left are complaining about criticism over the administration's handling of the AP's records. They say it is much ado about nothing, that what the administration did was perfectly legal. Amazingly (and perhaps disturbingly), this is true.
However, what is legal is not necessarily always ethical.
And that is where the AP story goes from routine to potentially scandalous. Legality is irrelevant in the face of the government taking the phone records of the AP in the shadows. Normally, this sort of action would be done in the open, where the press organization in question would be able to challenge and/or negotiate for the records. This time, however, claiming "national security" reasons, the government took the records unilaterally.
And now we have learned today that the government pursued the personal emails and phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen (among others) for much flimsier reasons. Some expressed concern that the scandals, after getting a week of play in the media, would slowly fade from the headlines as the press fell back into its old Obama-covering habits. However, with yet another attack on free press, there is an emerging pattern of abuse of power and suppression of the press
Even the media water carriers of Barack Obama understand this could very easily become them. They may not like FNC, but when the Department of Justice declares journalists "criminal co-conspirators" simply as an excuse to seize their private information, this steps over a line.
It is an understatement to say that this is chilling.
It is disturbing. Frightening, Alarming.
One of the keys to the continued success of our republic is a free press. It was a free press that, in many ways, allowed the country to become what it is, from inflaming the War for Independance to keeping the government in check for the better part of two centuries.
What happens when the government uses its power and reach to intimidate journalists and their sources?
Tuesday, May 07, 2013
On Tolerance and Acceptance
Something leftists love to do is berate conservatives for being "intolerant." After all, who wants to be intolerant except for a bunch of angry hate-mongers?
Not me, that's for certain. It's why I tolerate even the most ridiculous and disgusting things in life.*
"That isn't true!" you might say, particularly if you are one of my liberal friends. "You're a Christian conservative! You aren't tolerant of my abortion views, or gays and bla...well, gays!"
"On the contrary," I would reply. "I'm talking to you, aren't I?"
One of the most subversive leftist redefinitions of recent decades is the conflation of the words "tolerance" and "acceptance."
Obviously, these two words have very similar meanings and are quite interchangeable in many circumstances. However, when it comes to opinions and choices, those two words can mean two very different things.
Let's take the joke from before about my "lack of tolerance" for abortion and gays. Is that actually true? Considering I've known people who embrace the homosexual lifestyle and would have even called them friends seems to indicate that I'm fully tolerant of them. Same goes for all my friends who hold pro-abortion positions. I disagree with them, sometimes vehemently, but I do not necessarily set myself apart from them, either.
What I do not do, however, is embrace, let alone celebrate, their worldviews or lifestyles. I don't even go far enough to accept the idea that their views and choices are equivalent to what I believe. I will challenge their beliefs when appropriate and will not back down from my own. The mere existence of homosexuality or abortion is not enough for me to say they are okay, let alone good.
This is the fundamental difference between "tolerance" and "acceptance." The former concedes that there are people who think, feel or act a certain way. That they exist is an unavoidable reality and we must live with it (though not necessarily without challenging their views). The latter is actually embracing those ways of thinking, feeling or acting. It is the point where one believes that they are good and/or should be imitated.
Leftists turn the right into haters and bigots by expanding the definition of "tolerance" (as I have put forth) to include "acceptance." It is how, in their own circles, they can be perfectly comfortable with painting those on the right as "intolerant," whether or not that is an accurate descriptor. Of course, once the right's refusal to accept that which is wrong is seen as "intolerant," the left can use that fact as a "moral" justification to call us "evil."
And once our point-of-view becomes evil, it becomes fully justified (in the leftist's mind) not to tolerate it.
*Except silverfish. Disgusting creatures.
Not me, that's for certain. It's why I tolerate even the most ridiculous and disgusting things in life.*
"That isn't true!" you might say, particularly if you are one of my liberal friends. "You're a Christian conservative! You aren't tolerant of my abortion views, or gays and bla...well, gays!"
"On the contrary," I would reply. "I'm talking to you, aren't I?"
One of the most subversive leftist redefinitions of recent decades is the conflation of the words "tolerance" and "acceptance."
Obviously, these two words have very similar meanings and are quite interchangeable in many circumstances. However, when it comes to opinions and choices, those two words can mean two very different things.
Let's take the joke from before about my "lack of tolerance" for abortion and gays. Is that actually true? Considering I've known people who embrace the homosexual lifestyle and would have even called them friends seems to indicate that I'm fully tolerant of them. Same goes for all my friends who hold pro-abortion positions. I disagree with them, sometimes vehemently, but I do not necessarily set myself apart from them, either.
What I do not do, however, is embrace, let alone celebrate, their worldviews or lifestyles. I don't even go far enough to accept the idea that their views and choices are equivalent to what I believe. I will challenge their beliefs when appropriate and will not back down from my own. The mere existence of homosexuality or abortion is not enough for me to say they are okay, let alone good.
This is the fundamental difference between "tolerance" and "acceptance." The former concedes that there are people who think, feel or act a certain way. That they exist is an unavoidable reality and we must live with it (though not necessarily without challenging their views). The latter is actually embracing those ways of thinking, feeling or acting. It is the point where one believes that they are good and/or should be imitated.
Leftists turn the right into haters and bigots by expanding the definition of "tolerance" (as I have put forth) to include "acceptance." It is how, in their own circles, they can be perfectly comfortable with painting those on the right as "intolerant," whether or not that is an accurate descriptor. Of course, once the right's refusal to accept that which is wrong is seen as "intolerant," the left can use that fact as a "moral" justification to call us "evil."
And once our point-of-view becomes evil, it becomes fully justified (in the leftist's mind) not to tolerate it.
*Except silverfish. Disgusting creatures.
 |
| Hey look, it's Dan Savage, whose lack of self-awareness of his own intolerance proves my point! |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)