Uncivil Rights

This is a response to a comment made by "Edmund" on my previous post. My remarks are in paranthesis and italics.


I found a perfect thing in a blog you hate so much, Cracker. That may be found useful for you.
(First of all, I don’t hate any blogs. I find them all useful in one way or another.)

After defining wrong definitions of “democracy” and “republicanism” in “Republican Republic of the United States of America” let us see what the real self of the current political establishment in America may be called.
(I don’t know what this “Republican Republic of the United States of America” is.)

The present government of the US has based its principles of survival upon lies and misnomers by calling all its opponents within the country “unpatriotic forces” and outside the US – “terrorist groups and states”.
(I don’t believe the present government has ever called anyone or any group of Americans in this country “unpatriotic forces.” If you can find a source, please provide it. I, on the other hand, have called liberal-socialists unpatriotic because they wish to do away with capitalism and the free market economy, both of which have been effective in creating this great nation. Those that wish to bring the U.S. down into mediocrity to appease the rest of the world are unpatriotic. Outside groups that wish to kill us because we are not like them are “terrorists”, nothing more, nothing less. Those states and countries that are supporting these terrorists and their effort are “terrorist’s states.”)
Whoever dares to question America’s rightness is condemned to be included in the list of traitors and terrorists.
(Wrong again, but those that aid and abet terrorists are traitors. Open discussions and dissensions are welcome, however, there comes a point, much like Michael Moore’s film, that is pure propaganda that also perpetuates lies and creates hate and dissent toward Americans, and which also aids and abets the enemy. This too is traitorous.)
For internal rogue groups and individuals there is one more word in American neo-conservative vocabulary: “liberal”. To them Liberalism is a danger threatening “the republic”.
(Liberalism is a danger not only to our republic, but also our capitalism and free market economy by extolling and implementing socialistic and communistic ideals and philosophies.)

While originally “liberal” has got the meaning of intellectually independent, broad-minded, magnanimous, frank, open, and genial and according to unbiased dictionaries “liberalism” is “a political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favouring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority”.
(Autonomy of the individual unless that individual has more than you, then liberals want government to intervene and establish income redistribution through taxes and social programs, take from the haves and give to the have-nots, all in the name of “goodness of humans”.)
In other words, liberals are anti-anarchists and supporters of civil and political liberties. Now we know why the US establishment confronts them.
(Liberals are anti-anarchists and pro socialist and communist, all in the name of “common good”, that is why this libertarian wants to diminish their power and authority, and with the recent election, I would say, the majority of voters did not like or appreciate their agenda and philosophies.)

1. We mentioned American lies (yes, YOU mentioned it, however, a lie denotes intent to deceive and faulty information does NOT support that intent…), but the biggest one is obvious to everybody across the globe: the main excuse to attack on Iraq (….unless you wish to say that the other intelligence information from various countries that had the SAME information was all a lie and all these other countries are conspiring with the U.S.). The dangerous lethal weapons promised to be removed from Saddam’s disposal proved to be nothing more than a sheer lie (again, intent, and I guess the facts that he was bribing several other countries on the security council and the fact he could re-institute his WMD programs in less than 6 months-against UN sanctions, really doesn’t account for anything.) Weapons of Mass Destruction produced by America massively and distributed among its satellite states like Israel have not been discovered even by American survey groups in Iraq (this makes no sense). They lied repeatedly(intent) and officially even at the General Assembly and some people alongside with a few governments trusted in American words and backed the destructive “pre-emptive measures” of Bush. Nevertheless, the campaign is bound to be known as an illegal one in history (it did not violate any law, the US had the right to uphold UN resolutions and consequences), since it did not enjoy the UN’s approval (yes, it’s tough to gain approval when several members of the UN security council is taking bribes from Saddam). America got bogged down in Iraq quagmire (nice liberal word, did you get it from Teddy?) by means of Bush administration’s lies. This point indicates reactionary policy of the US government;( actually, a PRE-emptive strike indicates proactive policies).

2. The US still suffers from different types of chauvinism. American chauvinism exhibited by white Americans against black ones is not a subject of the past yet (yes, actually, except for a very few you would find in any society, most Americans don’t practice racism-except for Jesse Jackson who is one of the biggest racists of this country). Arabs and Muslims together with the French have joined the club of “untouchables” who get touched a lot at the airports and on the streets due to their origins (I don’t know what country you live in, but that is NOT happening here, although it should. Instead of examining a middle-eastern man between 25-35 years of age, TSA is targeting old white women. They are bending over backwards to be “politically correct” to the detriment of the security of this country).
And there is another kind of chauvinism observed in the relationship between the rich and the poor in the country (there is no “chauvinism” in this area. You see, here in America, everyone is born with the same opportunities to make of themselves what they want. Unfortunately, some do not take advantage of those opportunities, and those ride on the backs of the ones that work and earn a living. These “poor” are who liberals like to claim they are helping through income redistribution and social programs. Liberals have successfully created a welfare culture where people are encouraged not to work and live off the labor of others). An American journalist Charley Reece calls it “State chauvinism” and says: “This system has sucked both power and money away from the local and state governments, where they can be used most efficiently and democratically, to Washington, where the price of admission is
edmund | Email | Homepage | 01.18.05 - 1:21 pm | #
________________________________________
An American journalist Charley Reece calls it “State chauvinism” and says: “This system has sucked both power and money away from the local and state governments, where they can be used most efficiently and democratically, to Washington, where the price of admission is a lot of money. We just experienced a presidential contest between millionaires financed by millionaires.” (Yes, John Kerry was the richest guy that has run for president of the US. The founding fathers were always arguing about state’s rights and power versus the right’s and powers of the federal government. Unfortunately, liberals love a big federal government, the bigger the better, more government and more government intervention means more power to those that create a need for government-liberals.)

3. Whoever doubts in imperialistic nature of the US political establishment has to apply for a medical check-up (Count me in. If America was really imperialistic we would rule and own over half the globe, and I don’t see that, do you?). American imperialism is something very vivid and striking and you ought to be blind not to notice it (I need glasses). All the current US-led wars are being done in the name and for the sake of American imperialism (also called democracy and freedom-whatever) and its immense inexplicable expansionist lust (again, I don’t see the rewards we should be reaping since, according to you, we should own half the world). Just go to the link below to got shocked by a lengthy list of American imperialistic efforts to usurp the world’ control:
http://www.neravt.com/left/invade.htm (HAHAHAHAHAH, you quoted an associate professor from the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire – NOW THAT’S FUNNY!)

The current war is the latest proof of American imperialism as Michael Thorburn put it at an anti-war forum organized in Chicago by the Anti-Imperialist News Service on February 16, 2003: “This war is not about "eliminating weapons of mass destruction" or disarmament because it is U.S. imperialism itself which is militarizing the Persian Gulf and filling the region with nuclear weapons (we only need to fill Israel with nukes-they can reach anywhere, so the point is moot). The war is about U.S. imperialism imposing its military blackmail and domination throughout the Middle East.”(Again, if we wanted to dominate the world we could, no questions asked, no quarter taken.)

Thus, three points above could easily prove the existence of 3 elements in American politics: being reactionary (false), chauvinistic (false) and imperialist (false).
Now let’s compare these points with the general characteristics of fascism by American experts:

“. Fascism is commonly defined as an open terror-based dictatorship which is:
(Try this for fascism: Mussolini, who helped create modern fascism, viewed liberal ideas as the enemy. "The Fascist conception of life," he wrote, "stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual." (In 1932 Mussolini wrote, with the help of Giovanni Gentile, an entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism.)(You see, today’s liberal denies the individual in the name of the State, as I have stated many times on various posts throughout my blog.)

• Reactionary: makes policy based upon current circumstances rather than creating policies to prevent problems; piles lies and misnomers on top of more lies until the truth becomes indistinguishable, revised or forgotten. (This was Clinton to a T.)

• Chauvinistic: Two or more tiered legal systems, varying rights based upon superficial characteristics such as race, creed and origin. (Only if you're OJ.)

• Imperialist elements of finance capital: Extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political domination of one state over its allies. (Haven't seen it yet...I'm waiting...)

Though a dictatorship is the most common association with fascism, a democracy or republic can also be fascist when it strays away from its Tenets of sovereignty. In the 20th Century, many Fascist countries started out as republics.”

(I would love to know the source of this.)

And as our neo-conservative “friends” insist, The United States of America has started out as a republic too. (CORRECT! WE ARE A REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY!)
edmund | Email | Homepage | 01.18.05 - 1:23 pm | #

OK Edmund, you started with a false premise, and the argument went down from there. Conjecture, paranoia, and conspiracy theories seem to be running rampant from the left, any excuse for why they lost the election other than a honest evaluation of their socialistic and communistic agendas and philosophies that will always be rejected by this country.