BALTIMORE, Maryland May 14, 2014 - The voracious and unquenchable appetite the Uber Left has for the utter devastation of perceived enemies remains something that I am, even now, still stunned by. And "stunned" is, in truth, quite the mild expression of the way I feel when I witness this manifestation of what I have come to realize is a virtually irresistable urge these people possess to decimate and to destroy. There was a time when I thought these uber leftist folk were my brothers, my kindred spirits. I said in conversation and expressed in writing that they were my brothers. I defended them without failing. But in time this ugly and apparently addictive propensity to attack, decimate and destroy the poor souls who happen not to agree with them showed itself to be, for the uber left, more and more of a raison d'être for them, more and more an essential dollop on their palette, the dollop being a sinister mixture of debauched anger and the banal thrill of watching people twist painfully and suffer greatly. I began to realize that these uber leftists could not resist dipping their brush in this omnipresent dollop. And when I knew they could not resist this uggliest of urges, I found I had no choice but to back away from them, and quickly. When anyone dares attack something the Left deems sacred, everything else stops and, as one, all good Leftists pounce like wolves on a cornered fawn, ripping, tearing, eviscerating, devouring to their hearts' content. Even on those occassions when the ‘victim’ is a veteran at the political game and knows the far left's calling cards, traits and tendencies, one still cannot help but feel that something very untoward is taking place. And I am constantly surprised at the roll call of folks who I was sure were not really uber leftists but who - when the uber left mob starts circling, do not at least disassociate themselves with the most vicious of their displayed behavior. I would have thought that some of the senators and congressmen, governors, even judges, would want to make it clear that they do not condone the activities of the rabble when they start in with the mob behavior. I was really appalled when Obama, very early in his first term, was perfectly okay with the mob showing up at a bank exec's home and demonstrating there, blocking the street, blocking the driveway, making the people inside the equivalent of prisoners, and quite petrified prisoners at that. I was uneasy when, during the leadup to the obamacare vote, the Democrats had union 'strong men' at political meetings to pull people out who came to confront their elected representative. Protesting, demonstrating, leafleting, all of that is perfectly okay and quite American, but when our elected leaders walk down the street to personal destruction because some person happens to see it the otherway, that is not okay. One day that shoe will be on the other foot - believe it or not - so what will happen when it is? The uber leftists who take to writing even manage to make that an embarassing venue. A written essay supporting political views is absolutely American. But take a look at some of the far left blogs. Every sentence has a collection of foul-mouthed cursing that would make anyone blush, even the most hardened politician. Why? The authors have the absolute right to say anything they desire, but the practice of lacing every post with enough filthy language to make the post more about the foul language than the topic du jour seems almost to be saying, "you are so (bleep)ing worthless, so (bleep)ing (bleep)ed up that I can't stand looking at your (bleep)-(bleep) self.... This is certainly a retreat from a millenium-long trend in the direction of being more civilized. Historians will look at this type of political behavior some years hence and say this is the point when it started to fall apart for these United States. Rome in the centuries after the birth of Christ was no longer progressing as a civilization. There are exceptions, but generally speaking, the art, writing, culture, and drama all hit a plateau for the Romans and then fell back. Isn't this the same thing? Some poor soul like, say, Joe the Plumber, asks a simple question and President Obama answers it honestly. It was, for me, one of the most candid and honest part of his initial campaign to be president. He was speaking from the heart, it was easy to tell, and Joe received an honest, unvarnished answer. So what happens? The uber leftists in the campaign start investigating Joe the Plumber. He gets trashed all over the uber left press. Why? Why did Obama and company fall to such depths of character? There are lots of Democrats who have had enough of Hilary Clinton. But every single time somebody says so these days, they put themselves in the mob's cross-hairs. Some hapless soul writes that he wants a person to run who isn't a strictly political animal. Some hapless soul writes that they are tired of the lying, deceit, parsing of words, lack of candor, political correctness, abandonment of all things American, that are part of the Clinton package. God help him. God help us. The attraction of power is addictively strong and, as is evident, absolutely corrupting. Power corrupts absolutely. Of that I am sure.
This week the hapless victim was Karl Rove, a political insider with a mildly conservative persuasion. I did not hear his original statement concerning the health of Hilary Clinton. In fact, few people heard it and it was supposed to be that way. He was appearing at some sort of private conference. He made a statement that raised questions for discussion. One of his points was about the general state of Hilary Clinton's health - both physical and mental - in the wake of the fall she admits to suffering. Another of the points he raised was about the candor of both her and the uber leftists who she keeps around her. He had cobbled together a timeline that indicated, he said, that the fall had been way more serious than we have been led to believe. The uber left has charged that Rove said that Hilary Clinton had sustained brain damage in the alleged fall. Rove denies that.
I did hear Mr. Rove’s initial explanation of his original statement. He was quick to push back against charges that he alleged Ms. Clinton has brain damage from the incident. I take him at his word, especially since no one has pointed me to a video or audio recording to the contrary, and if there is such a recording, you can bet your bottom dollar it would be getting incessant media play right now. Mr. Rove said Tuesday morning on Fox that he has what he argues are legitimate questions about Clinton’s overall physical and mental health, her fitness for office if she, as expected, actually runs for President.
I confess I am not totally familiar with the timeline of events that Rove says he has cobbled together to support his statement that Clinton’s injury cannot be a minor and transient condition quickly recovered from. He points to the eyeglasses Clinton had on when she finally testified before one of the Benghazi Committees, and uttered her now infamous “what difference does it make?” statement about Benghazi related events. The thick-rimmed implements are typically worn by those recovering from very serious traumatic brain injuries. He also put a red flag on her ‘peculiar’ absence from the Sunday morning talk shows in the immediate wake of Benghazi. Instead, then-Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice made the multiple appearances, and at each one she put the entire blame for Benghazi on a protest over a You Tube Video that spun out of control.
It is beyond question at this juncture that the White House and all of its operatives knew full well that the nonsense they were peddling about that video were all lies and nothing more. I don't want to rehash all of that, but Hilary Clinton's top aide wrote a letter or message to the President of Libya the day after the Benghazi Massacre that blamed Islamic Terrorists. All of the CIA and State Department people on the ground in Benghazi knew there was no protest about a video for the attack to spin out of. It was purely a planned terrorist attack. Even as Hilary ducked the Sunday talk shows that first Sunday after the attacks were made public - because of the head injury? - and weighed her now hideous situation with relation to the Benghazi falsifications, events began to spin out of control. Fox and conservative talk show hosts were on to the story and digging in, knowing they'd have to find all the explosive revelations themselves through pure hard work before the Benghazi narrative would move meaningfully into the mainstream media. Hilary knew she had a bit of time to plot her moves, and she would need that time because even in the days immediately after the Benghazi Massacre, Hilary Clinton knew that the decisions she made before the attack, during the attack, and right after the attack, were pretty darn stupid, completely unethical, morally reprehensible, and possibly career-ending. She would have to call in every favor, consider using every dirty trick in the book, and even then she would still need help to keep this one covered up. Plus, she had to deal with having the White House on her side. What a mess!
The fall Ms. Clinton and her operatives say she sustained is at the actual middle of the Benghazi events. I do not know the exact events that Rove believes took place. I have not heard him expound on that subject. But Brit Hume said on Tuesday evening, on Fox, that it is a safe bet to believe that Rove didn't raise these points about Hilary Clinton's health to assist her in running for President.
But this essay isn't about Benghazi and Hilary Clinton's central role in it. Instead, it is about what happened after Karl Rove raised the questions about Hilary Clinton's physical and mental health in the wake of the fall she admits she sustained.
What happened was the uber left went ballistic. They charged that Rove had invaded the privacy of Ms. Clinton, they charged that he was a scoundrel, they charged that he was out-of-control, they charged that he was ‘anti-woman’. Now Fox has pointed out that the Left has never hesitated to impune the health of conservative folk running for office. One clip, made during the 2008 campaign for President, depicts President Obama - who was then Senator Obama, running for President, making a thinly veiled assault on Sen. McCain’s physical and mental health. And Republicans have recalled many times in recent days all of the snide remarks about President Reagan’s health especially during his second term. They have further pointed out that Ms. Clinton is almost exactly President Reagan’s age when he ran for the nation’s highest office.
The point of all these recollections is the unrestrained assault mustered by the uber left when their candidate of choice is, in any way, criticized by anyone. Such assaults are extremely intimidating, especially for someone unprepared for it. Rove is at the far end of the spectrum, as far away from ‘unprepared’ as a person can be. He was President George W. Bush’s political point man, top political strategist, and career political junkie. Yet, even though all of it is true, it is still unsettling to see the collective vitriol unleashed on this bespectacled man. If you, like me, find yourself often in disagreement with Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton - nowhere near as often as does Mr. Rove or, say, Senator Ted Crews, but still often enough to know that the day is coming, maybe sooner than I think, that something I say or do will roil some uber leftist enough to have the wolves turned loose on me and my family. It is unsettling.
More and more I find myself repulsed by how far uber leftists will go in furtherance of their objectives. And that is the word: objectives. The uber left is not wedded to political philosophy. I am not even sure anymore what their political or public policy guidelines are other than 'find and get power'. I don’t think they have any political philosophy. People used to think - hell, I used to think - that the uber left were merely liberals without the ability to compromise. I was wrong. More and more I am convinced that in reality they share little with liberals other than to occassionally take cover behind them when they deem it expedient. They clearly are not wedded to a philosophy of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. They are actually quick to set that belief aside if they have an opportunity to silence opposition and enhance their power. Practically the first thing Daniel Ortega did when he came to power in Nicaragua was close opposition newspapers. Another item high on the agenda when a far left person comes to power is the jailing of opposition leaders. Due process? Again, look what happens when the left comes to power. If you are an opposition leader, and are thrown in the slammer, don’t hold your breath waiting for a hearing. Don’t even open your mouth about your rights. You won’t have any. Even here in America, think about some of the recent presidential campaigns. Remember when the Swift Boat Vets published a book about their experiences with John Kerry in Vietnam? The uber left didn’t even hide the fact that they wanted the publisher of the book to back off and not publish, they wanted a judge to stop the book from being published, and they wanted television execs not to run the Swift Boat Advertisements. They didn’t want the Swift Boat vets to be interviewed on TV. They came up with threats of every kind of reprisal if they didn't get their way. The idea that a swift boat vet would sit on one side of the table and a Kerry operative on the other side and have a televised debate about the book and its contents? No way. One of my media heroes, the great Tim Russert, even failed here. He had the head of the swift boat vets on his Sunday morning show, but prevented him from making one comment about the substance of his book. The only thing he discussed, and his other guests discussed, was whether the book was a legitimate contribution to the campaign. They had a bunch of half-baked reasons why it wasn't. They couldn't just come out and say, it isn't legitimate because it cuts Kerry off at the knees. This is the egghead who started his acceptance speech with some jive about reporting for duty. Come to find out he took a movie camera to Vietnam when he went. And all the uber leftists insisted the Swift Boat vets were liars, all 100 of them, Dems and Republicans, were liars. Kerry, telling the whole truth. I was boiling that day. I watched the show because I wanted to see if even one member of the mainstream media would treat the vets with the respect they surely deserved. To me, the book and the issues it raised were everything wrong with the uber left, all wrapped up in one nice package.
The uber left hate all things military. Tell me I’m wrong. They hate the military. Remember Al Gore doing everything in his power to prevent write-in votes from soldiers in Iraq from being counted in Florida, and this, before anyone had any knowledge about who the soldiers had voted for. Consider what President Obama is doing to the Military budget over the last eight years. In case you’ve been asleep, it is being slashed deeper than to the bone, it is being decimated. When it is election time, however, every uber leftist goes around in public acting like he is as pro-military as the next guy. As we know, America, as a whole, is overwhelmingly sympathetic toward, and in support of, America’s Armed Forces. The left would love to change that, but so far they haven’t figured out how. In the meantime, they have to disguise themselves and fake it.
Uber leftists, you see, are also almost by definition elitists. They know more than everyone else. They alone know that militaries are bad. In fact, if you could put a bug on the wall, so to speak, when leftists are together and think no one is listening, uou would hear them trashing all things military, all things religious, and anything that has anything to do with freedom and liberty. Leftists also are absolutely sure that all of these nations that dot the earth are just recipes for war and all manner of trouble with the lower classes, who tend to riot, get into wars, and take other mob-related plunges into unsavory behavior. What the world really really needs, according to the uber left, is a one world government. That way, there wouldn’t be any wars because there wouldn’t be anyone to fight with. About forty years ago a book swept America that was entitled “The Fate of the Earth.” Its premise was that the world was on a downbound train toward nuclear annihilation. It was an absolutely unavoidable event in the present world climate, the book claimed. It then set off on a long, winding road of steps to be taken to pull back from the precipice of nuclear world destruction. The first critical step, the book argued, was to immediately destroy all of America’s stockpile of nuclear weapons. Every single one. Unilaterally. Even if Russia and China and North Korea and Iran and Pakistan wouldn't destroy even one of their nukes, we needed to destroy all of ours, and fast. And as soon as it was done, the second step was to tell everyone that we had gone ahead on our own and destroyed every weapon we had. The premise of that step was that no other nation would take advantage of us because what nation would want to nuke us and then take us over? Who would want all that nuclear wasteland? Over the short-term the book argued that conventional forces needed to be maintained. But only in the short-term. Over the long-term the real answer was a one-world government. That way, there wouldn’t be another nation to go to war with. The author never contemplated things like civil war, terrorist armies like Al Qaeda, and other rogue organizations. I was actually glad I read the book because all of the fallacies of the author's beliefs came racing forth from its pages.
The uber left also believe with all of its heart that government is the beat all and end of all of every societal problem. You, of course, have noticed that President Obama’s legislative agenda, and, of late, his edict agenda, is composed of ideas that have government taking over things that have, over the course of human history, been done by the individual or by the family. The Obama government wants to be able to tell parents what to feed their kids. in fact, not just tell them, but make them. Obamacare is government making health decisions for you and your family. Obama’s energy agenda is government telling us how to power our vehicles. Instead of fighting pollution the way government has always fought excesses of society, by setting limits on air quality and discharges by factories, and then enforcing them, Obama has turned the world on its ear. He wants to deny industry and citizens access to the only feasible energy sources on the market today: fossil fuel. Obama and company want to outlaw gasoline and coal and force us to get used to so-called green energy. If he succeeds it will expose a huge hole in leftist philosophy. American business will no longer be able to compete on the global market because everything coming out of America will cost way too much. The reason is that so called green energy is, as yet, too expensive. And Obama, for reasons I have never heard him explain, just will not cheerlead and push to make fossil fuels less and less polluting. What is it about technological advance that will not work when it comes to our most plentiful energy source? To a lesser degree, Obama and the uber left apply the same defeatist philosophy to nuclear fuel. We cannot just make nuclear energy more and more safe. Instead, we just make believe it doesn't exist.
And have you noticed how often the uber leftists of the world shred election laws and other laws that limit their ability to get elected and re-elected? Because they are smarter, they have to be in charge. They cannot lose elections. Anything that stands in their way has to be either ignored or violated, or both. That is what led to the IRS scandal. The Tea Party was a huge problem for them, and one way to get around that problem was to strangle their money sources. Hence, no Tea Party group would be tax exempt, which would limit the money contributed to such groups by a very high percentage. Wealthy people would not be able to contribute to a group if it wasn't tax exempt. Meanwhile, all of the uber left groups like Move On.org and the rest of them are tax exempt. It worked. It also explains the Acorn movement, which is very much alive today and has, as a sole reason for its existence, to cheat during elections. Acorn helped keep Democrats in power. In many respects it explains the fight over immigration. Unless America is regularly flooded with low income, “low information” illegal immigrants, the Democratic Party, now run by uber leftists, will start losing elections. How about, in the 238th year of our existence, the left is trying to do away with the way we elect our presidents. The left wants the President to be elected only by popular vote. Forget the electoral college. This would lead to elections being decided only by the big cities. Everybody else be damned. Day in and day out the uber left whine on about the Koch Brothers. What a bunch of hypocrites. George Soros makes the Koch Brothers seem like amateurs. During those two years when the uber left controlled everything in Washington they could have made the things that the Koch Brothers do illegal. But they didn't. Now, the Koch Brothers fund conservative politicians and conservative causes the same way that Soros and some others fund far left candidates and causes. There is no difference. None. But hypocrites like Harry Reid - and believe me, calling Reid a hypocrite is being nice to him - want you to believe that the Koch Brothers are evil but George Soros is good. Please.
Many of the uber left’s core ideas are distasteful to most Americans. If you read the folk uber leftists hold up as the ideal creators of a modern society - Noam Chomsky (who is a fine writer if you like his topics) and the late Saul Alinsky come to mind - you probably will be appalled at the world they envision. So the uber left holds their collective noses and disguises their ideas and beliefs. Obamacare is put forward as a piece of health legislation when, in fact, it is little more than an elaborate method of income redistribution. What about obamacare improves health care? When all is said and done, more people will not have health insurance. Poor people who will get insurance for free will have it. But the middle class folk, more and more, will not. It will cost too much and they won’t get a government subsidy. Their employers, almost certainly, will not be providing insurance like they do now or used to in the very recent past.
Very high gasoline and heating oil prices? A far left brainchild. Shutting down all coal mines in America? A far left idea, one that Obama is proud of. Making automobiles very expensive? A far left idea. Outlawing as much fast food and soda pop as possible? A far left idea. Making it difficult to put career criminals in jail for a long time? A far left idea. Leaving Israel out to dry? Far left, who for reasons that baffle the common folk, love Palestine but hate Israel.
The next time the far left descends on some poor soul, wonder out-loud what their alternative idea is. If you have the nerve.
No comments:
Post a Comment