Saturday, June 18, 2016

Does the government really care about you?

Good day to you, dear reader. Have you gotten on your hands and knees and praised the glory that is your government yet? Better get used to it before you're forced to do so. Think it can't happen? Look at North Korea.
Why is that a problem?, you ask. Isn't the government good and benevolent and full of public servants who know what's best for me and my family, because they care so much about us?
Well, here's the problem: There are entities known as special interests. Special interests give money to legislators in the government to ensure that certain agendas are carried through and never threatened. Money and special-interest agendas corrupt our public servants. As the saying goes, an individual goes into government to do good and they end up staying to do well.
Such an individual (let's just assume the individual is a he), be he a Congressman or governor, can be seen in his office with a portrait of himself behind the desk, surrounded by "yes men" and other assorted acolytes, talking about, say, worker's rights, even though the individual hasn't worked a day in twenty years. He puts his suit on, gives interviews, attends soirees, and can sometimes actually be found in the office he got elected to. That's about as much as you can expect of him. And when your phone doesn't ring, you know it's him getting back to you about just how concerned he is that you're upset or worried about something or other.
It's tricky because even though you, and all those you share your district with, are supposed to be his focus, he has overlords. They are known as lobbyists. They are many and varied, and almost none of them are good—in fact, many of them stand against whatever it was that made you vote for your public servant to represent you. The Saudi lobby is perhaps the largest, most powerful and certainly the most onerous. They pump billions into Washington so that our dear politicians will keep quiet about the Wahhabi poison they spread and their covert support for ISIS and other terrorist states and organizations. Even acknowledges this.
The other really powerful lobbies include the tech sector, led by such altruistic men like Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, the fine folks at Google, etc., who can't get enough HB1 visa holders into the country so they can sack American workers earning $40 in hour in favor of Indians earning $20. The Financial Lobby is another, working hard for its bailouts every time it mismanages our money. Big Pharma, which managed to worm its way into Obamacare legislation to ensure it wouldn't be left behind. Too much money from extended Medicaid rebate programs on the table, after all. The other free-wheeling members are the American Association of Retired Persons, "Big Oil," and the agribusiness, mining and defense industries. Yes, the National Rifle Association is there too, even though, unlike the others, its influence derives less from spending and more from its membership.
That is why the government is plagued by individuals like Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and John "Bonehead" Boehner before him, and Eric Cantor before him ... and on, and on ... Men who claim to stand on principles—the principles that built this nation and made it great, don'tcha know—but who roll over like a bitch on heat whenever the the money men come knocking. The media's job, of course, is to tell us, "Tonight, Congress is deliberating the passage of such-and-such a bill to facilitate this-and-that, so that the American people can blah-de-blah." And then the sheeple that make up the electorate whistle while they work, believing that they're part of some great system that loves them and will move heaven and earth to keep them secure and safeguard their values.
If that's true, then someone needs to explain why the aforementioned Paul Ryan will not utter a word when the executioner executive, Barry from Honolulu, has defied the Constitution repeatedly for seven-and-a-half years, but comes out with some bizarre reasoning to lambaste the Presidential nominee for his own party:
We are a separate but equal branch of government, and don't think for a second we're not going to stand up for the legislative branch's prerogatives and priorities. There's a question about the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act which is about whether that act gave the President discretion on certain things. That's a legal question that there's a good debate about. I would sue any President who exceeds his or her powers.
Thank you, Paulie. I would say, go back to your padded cell, but electing maniacs to office is the American way. That's why you can stand there and pontificate, knowing full well that last December you gave what is supposed to be your political opponent a total green light for spending, and therefore the path he wanted to pursue for the rest of his time in office, but reason that it was a great deal because it lifted the oil-export ban. Golly gee. Party hardy, folks.
You don't have millions flowing into your coffer like Mr. Obama, but I'm sure you can afford a pack of hamburgers to throw on your new state-of-the-art barbecue, the one you brought all your neighbors over to gawk at, while you drink your Pabst and posit, "I wonder how dem Steelers are goin' to do next season?" like it's the greatest philosophical question facing the country today. (Sorry, Pittsburghers, I'm not picking on you, honest. I had to choose something, so that's what popped into my head first.)
Oh well, doesn't matter. Keep that mind as blank as possible and pretend that you're still living in the land of the free and the brave. The country is not free because it is subjected to creeping sharia law from the over 1 million "Syrian refugees" Obama has shipped in and due to the constant push for amnesty for those who broke the law; and it's not brave because we're forever being lectured to about our need to engage in soul-searching after every slaughter that occurs as if it's our fault that it happened and the need to provide "safe spaces" for sensitive morons who can't handle differing points of view and who would strike down the First Amendment as enthusiastically as Obama tees off.
Dear reader, sleep well at night knowing that your hard-working government blames you for the deficiencies in this great land. A jihadist shoots forty-nine innocent people, American citizens, a crowd of gay and/or Hispanic revelers doing nothing wrong, and it is not only the fault of Joe Sixpack because he dares to believe in the sanctity of the Constitution, without which the United States would never and could never have been the great country it used to be, but the response to terror, not the terror itself, is the problem.
At least according to USA Today, who on June 16, just three days after the Orlando massacre, "reported" that the alleged growth of white supremacists in America is the bogeyman who we should all hide under the bed from. Omar Mateen doesn't come close to representing Muslims—and HOW DARE you believe for a moment that he does—but Dylann Roof somehow speaks for all white people, for all Trump voters especially. Because, you know, only white people are voting for Trump. Better inform Diamond and Silk that they must be white supremacists.
We have members of our "hard-working" government, Senator Mark Kirk, Senator Ben Sasse, Senator Lindsey Graham, Representative Fred Upton, Representative Steve King et al., bashing Trump, constantly scheming to strip him of his nomination at the Republican Convention and replace him with some effete stooge. None of these guys could ever bring themselves to put even an eighth of this fury into criticizing the Dear Leader. No, no, Obama's untouchable. The Never Trump brigade dials up the money guys like Mark Cuban, and disseminates the agenda through patsies like Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Michael Graham and Glenn Beck—who always needs a fresh supply of crushed-up Cheetos in the studio so that he can mock Trump. Former Representative and host of MSNBC's Morning Joe Joe Scarborough tells Republicans that they must disavow Donald Trump.
Hey, they're conservatives, though, so don't dare criticize them, you populist airheads, you. They're conservatives who believe Hillary Clinton is a much greater choice because she'll continue the great American tradition of unbalanced trade deals that wipe out entire American communities, the flow of "undocumented workers" who give the Chamber of Commerce its precious supply of cheap labor, and illegal wars to spread Jeffersonian democracy.
How about that one, folks? We can instruct foreigners, through guns and butter, how to live democratically, by knocking out their Western-friendly leaders, while instituting a kleptocracy advancing the cause of authoritarianism at home. Nice one.
Let's all skip to CPAC so we can listen to great conservatives like ... Eddie Munster ... I mean, Paul Ryan. How anyone who is a true conservative patriot can watch a man like that approach the podium and not immediately boo his ass off-stage is beyond me. In case you didn't attend CPAC this year, dear reader, you also missed such inspirational luminaries such as John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Ben Sasse, Dana Perino and Steve King. Better book time off for next year's conference, ladies and gents. You never know, they might have Ben Rhodes speaking. Wouldn't want to miss that, now would you? Hey, he knows how to manipulate the media, the conservative movement could use a guy like that!
Trump is the enemy, remember that. He's a racist, sexist bully. But we certainly won't hold it against anyone who worked for Obama, not for one second. Hey, the President is just a liberal in the traditional American sense. We don't know what all you rubes are getting so worked up about. Why don't you trust your government? The government is America, and don't you love your country?!
Honest to God, if this is what conservatism has become, count me out. At least the Left is honest about who they are. No pretenses there, ever. They're complete hypocrites, but that never gives them any pause for shame.
I turn again to Allen West, who addressed Department of Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson, his appalling reluctance to address Islamic terrorism as such, his equating of right-wing opposition to the government as a similar threat to national security and his declaration that gun control is now "part and parcel of Homeland Security".
I find it unconscionable that the person entrusted with the security of the American homeland is more concerned about "building trust" and "respect" of and for the Muslim community. I tend to believe it's the Muslim community that needs to earn the trust of the American people and display its respect and honor of our way of life and the rule of law in this Constitutional Republic. 
How is it that Jeh Johnson can say something so asinine without any national outrage? Actually, Johnson should resign immediately, because his statements disqualify him from being objective in protecting the American people. I dare say President Obama won't relieve him of his duties because it seems to be the sentiment of Obama and his administration.
Better blacklist Allen West, all you purists. Doesn't sound much like a conservative to me. He doesn't want to go along to get along. He kinda sounds like Trump—you know, the evil guy who wants to make members of this government actually do some work? Imagine that. A government that actually worked for you? Oh, the horror! That's not America, that's not who we are!
So here's the reason why Islamo-Nazi terrorism continues to affect this great land of ours and why nothing ever gets done about it. You want to know how much your government cares about you? The Daily Caller has done an excellent job in providing the answer to that. According to this bombshell report, the FBI walked away from investigations of the Tsarnaev brothers, Syed Farook, Nidal Hassan and Omar Mateen because its training material related to Islamic terrorism was purged, preventing it from further pursuing these cases.
Jeh Johnson's DHS formed an advisory committee that would officially label such terrorist events as "home-grown terror," "workplace violence" or "man-made disasters." Johnson was urged by a so-called investigation subcommittee to not be focused on the activities of one religion and to consider right-wingers an equal and just as violent threat to the country, a.k.a. Tea Party activists, Cruz supporters, Trump supporters, pro-life groups, border control advocates, etc. The menacing, but entirely fictional (from what I can tell) angry, white military veteran. The country is full of "home-grown" terrorists like Dylann Roof. Connecting Roof with any of the aforementioned right-wing elements listed is fine, that's not offensive whatsoever. Just don't connect Farook, Hassan, the Tsarnaevs or Mateen with Islam. Adherents to the "religion of peace" must be protected from the First Amendment, which is why we must go after the Second, thereby setting a precedent. But, don't worry, we'll show our tolerance by ignoring the ever-growing demand for sharia law.
This government's Homeland Security operations care so much about you, my fellow citizens who love freedom and the American way, that it took the advice of a subcommittee participant, Syrian immigrant Laila Alawa. Alawa praised the 9/11 attack and has called the U.S. "evil" and "the great Satan" and advocates an end to free speech. Feeling safe and secure in your Department of Homeland Security and its castration of the FBI, mes amis?
An aside if I may: As Mark Levin recently put it, "Barack Obama seeks to draw attention away from his failed, his utterly failed, policies when it comes to securing this nation to an attack on the Bill of Rights." Ummm, Barry, if guns are so horrible, why don't you set the example, practice what you preach, and tell your Secret Service to ditch their firearms? Have them carry nightsticks. Demonstrate how much more safer you'll be without those big, scary guns, Mr., ahem, President. And the same goes for Seth Moulton and every other douche of a gun-grabbing politician out there. Set the example.
Levin also notes that we're having a debate not on how these failures occurred and what can be done to change course, but the same old tired chastisement on the need to disarm.
Where I am going with this? I don't trust human beings. But the way I see it, I have two choices available to me: To place my faith in government or the ordinary person just trying to eke out a living for him or herself. The government has a very strong tendency to centralize power and exert it. The average Joe or Jane does not. Therefore, I place my faith in the ordinary citizenry. That doesn't mean I'm an anarchist. I distrust government just like any other person with libertarian principles.
Yes, I know there are people who will rage with guns and their rampages can't always be predicted—though taking stock of what these people say on Facebook or Twitter would be helpful—and sometimes the guns will have been legally purchased and yadda-yadda. But there is no sort of legislation whatsoever that can prevent terrorist butchery with guns, even in these wonderful bastions of safety, gun-free zones. There isn't. You can argue with facts if you like, but they won't change.
As for the Left, if it has any integrity whatsoever, it needs to make a choice. Will it stand with women and gays or will it continue its absurd defense of radical Islam? What has to happen, if Orlando wasn't enough, for these people to make the distinction?
America doesn't need gun control. It needs another Joe McCarthy and a House Un-American Activities Committee, version two. It can't come soon enough. All you Paul Ryan-loving, Trump-hating "conservatives" had better get out of the way lest we investigate you as well.

No comments: