Politics and Insights from History

Do words have meanings? Is it important? To some the answer is no. We are currently witnessing a change in terminology and its true denotations. Take the phrase rights, for instance. When you hear the word “rights”, what comes to mind? Do you think of life and liberty, or do you think of “the right to own a home”? What it comes down to, what is a right?

A right is an extension of our humanity; a liberty that comes from God. It does not come from man or any government body. If the government gives you something, it can easily take it away. That is why the Declaration of Independence speaks of natural rights. Many of the Founders speak of natural rights or rights from God. The Constitution was written to protect individual rights, not people’s needs or wants.

When Franklin Roosevelt spoke about the “right to own a home” in his first inaugural speech, he was purposely distorting the meaning of the word right. You do not have a right to own a home. Food, shelter, medical care, electricity: these are commodities. They are purchased and sold. You are responsible of fulfilling your own basic needs by working hard to earn the money necessary to purchase a home, or whatever you desire.

Why did F.D.R. refer to home ownership as a right? He needed public support for his New Deal programs. To acquire that support, he convinced people that they had a right to the provision of their basic needs. Since the federal government is charged with protecting people’s liberties, this left the door open for it step in and regulate sectors of the economy.

President Obama is pulling the same stunt F.D.R. did in the 1930s. Obama has said that home ownership is a right so as to justify the federal government’s action of buying people’s mortgages. When you purchase a home, you usually have to go to a bank and take out a loan, also known as a home mortgage. By doing so, the bank owns your home until the loan is paid off. You have also entered into a contract with the bank to make payments every month; and as long as you do you get to stay in your house. Within about 15-30 years you will have paid off your mortgage and the deed to the house will be transferred to you, making it, legally, your home.

Two years ago the housing market crashed and many people who overbought, found it difficult to maintain their mortgage payments. Naturally their homes were repossessed and they were without a place to live. Well, along came Obama declaring that people have a right to keep their homes even if they cannot make their payments. He signed the Recovery and Reinvestment Act (as it is called now) into law in January 2009 which bailed many people out of their mortgages. This act not only declared legal and binding contracts void, illegally by the way, but also allowed the government to claim ownership of people’s homes. Those who are overjoyed by the bailouts of mortgages should beware. When you sign an agreement with the bank, they have to follow certain legal steps before kicking you out of your home because of missed payments. The government is not bound by such legal constraints and can evict you from your house at will. Where is the security in that?

When the homosexual movement began its rise in the early 20^th century, they chose to refer to themselves as gay. This was no accident. The original meaning of the word gay is happy. (So if you read a 19^th century poem where the author talks of being gay, he is not referring to being homosexual.) By using the word gay to refer to themselves, the homosexual movement was subtly implying that their choice of lifestyle is a happy one. They did this to garner a bigger following and acceptance by those who are disgusted by this perversion of nature.

The Gay Rights activists continue to present this façade of gaiety (no pun intended) to keep their numbers up. They need to keep attracting new members because they have chosen a dead lifestyle. Besides the rise of STDs among them, shortening their lifespan, the emotional turmoil of many partners and breakups, homosexuals cannot propagate. Not naturally. So they continue to refer to themselves as gay to attract members, especially young people. Of course, the Gay Rights crowd has gone beyond the pretense of happiness to telling children that homosexuality is not only ok, but a right, that there is no right or wrong, and that straight people are homophobic.

Two other words that have been twisted by the left, and are in use quite a lot these days, are progressive and liberal. The original meaning of Progressive was someone who advocates for improvements and attains it; they are forward thinking and are for progress. Many of your progressives of the 19^th century were of this kind. They ended child labor, unsafe working conditions, and advocated for public education so that children of poor families would be allowed to learn and improve their lives. When socialism began to rise up in America in the 1880s and 1890s, they adopted the title progressive because of its positive connotations. This allowed them to infiltrate all levels of government in the early 1900s and institute their Marxist policies.

As people caught on to this in the 19 teens, the title progressive began to receive notoriety. So many of your “Progressives” adopted the title Liberal. The original many of the word liberal is someone who is noble, generous, free, open-minded, and non-traditional. The socialists, communists, and Marxists in this country used the term liberal to describe themselves and gain more influence in public policy making. It worked well in the thirties and throughout most of the 20^th century.

But now the term liberal has achieved the same notoriety that the word progressive did in the 19 teens. When people hear the word liberal, they immediately think of big government, diminished freedom, and redistribution of wealth. That is why many of those on the left, such as Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, are referring to themselves as progressive. It is a word game to them. The left always use words that sound good and have positive meanings to describe themselves. That is how they mislead the populace and stay alive, besides all of the money they get from unions, lobbyists, shady deals, and payoffs.

This tactic of distorting words is nothing new. It has gone on throughout the ages. It is a popular method by those who desire power. The left in this country have always altered the meaning of words. As the meaning of words changed, so did America.

October 23, 2009

Dear Mr. President,

Pardon me while I refuse to worship the very ground you walk on and refuse to sing praises to you. You already have a bunch of children indoctrinated by useful idiots to sing praises to a man who cares only for himself and his selfish gains. You must be proud that children are being taught to worship you. I’m sure you watch the video daily on You Tube with that smug smile on your face while fulfilling your constant need for praise and to be admired. These songs used to be sung to praise Jesus or America’s heritage. Now the lyrics have been changed to honor you, you who has done nothing to earn your lot in life. You are a tyrant who has betrayed this country so that you can bring about your socialist reforms all in the name of social justice. The ninth level of hell awaits you, sir, as it does all traitors.

But this praise does fall in line with the current school system in this country that rewards failure instead of success and you are failing to win the war in Afghanistan. General McChrystal has asked for more troops. Why have you not sent them? Why do you continue to piddle around with indecision? You meet with a war council to determine the proper strategy for Afghanistan when your general on the field has a strategy and undoubtedly informed you of it, assuming that you even bother to listen to him. You are not a military man, Mr. President, and neither are any of the members of your council. General McChrystal has a strategy and needs more troops to see it through. Send him the troops. We have a chance to win this war. Your indecision will cause us to lose. But, this is what you want, isn’t it? You talked about winning in Afghanistan during your presidential campaign and have yet to follow through. I do not think you ever had any intention of winning the war. Those speeches were a ploy to get you elected.

When was the last time you had a conversation with General McChrystal? February? Do you even care what he has to say about the situation in Afghanistan? He is the General leading our men and women against the terrorists in Afghanistan and unless you have someone better able to do the job, I suggest you listen to him and give him what he needs to win. Considering your lack of leadership, it is unlikely that you could appoint anyone to do a better job than General McChrystal.

Let me get to the real reasons why you refuse to send General McChrystal more troops:

1. It would make General McChrystal the center of attention, thus taking the spotlight away from you.

2. It would mean a stronger stance on the War On Terror; something you are afraid of doing. You do not even call this the War on Terror anymore. You pander to the Islamic world; frightened of angering the poor little Muslims. (Unless you have secretly retained your Muslim identity and therefore are helping them take over Western Civilization by weakening the United States.)

3. Following General McChrystal’s advice would prove that George Bush was correct in invading Iraq and Afghanistan. This would go against your desire to ruin your predecessor by constantly blaming him for your troubles and for a needless war. You knew what you were inheriting when you first campaigned for the presidency. What the nation is currently suffering now is a direct result of YOUR policies. You are incapable of accepting responsibility for your actions. Instead, you continue to blame Bush and ram legislation down America’s throat that will result in bloating the size of the Federal government, a bigger deficit, higher taxes, higher unemployment, less jobs in the private sector, and a collapsed economy as America’s prosperity weakens and the vulturous nations of the world pick us apart.

4. You do not want to win in Afghanistan. A victory would mean a stronger and more powerful America. You do not want America to be strong. Your refusal to do what needs to be done in Afghanistan is proof enough. But you have also vowed to disarm the United States of her nuclear weapons at a time when our enemies have grown bolder and show no fear of retaliation from us should we be attacked. The closing of Gitmo without any plan of what to do with its prisoners and the pulling out of Iraq before we even finished freeing them from the terrorists that moved there are other examples of your wish to weaken the U.S.

It appears that the only war you are waging is that on freedom of speech, the press, and the right of the people to openly oppose you. For now your focus has been discrediting Fox News. Your problem with Fox News is the fact that they are reporting the facts about ACORN’s corruption, its influence on you, and that it will receive federal money thanks to your “stimulus” bill. Fox News continues to report the number of czars you continue to appoint without senate approval, save for maybe 9 of the 35. Fox reports who these czars are, their radical ideas and rantings, and how they are the ones advising you. They report on the special interests that will benefit from you Health Care Bill: SEIU, ACORN, the Drug Companies that gave $100 million to support your socializing of medicine.[i] Fox News even reports the promises that you have broken thus far. They are the only news organization that is critical of you. And you cannot stand criticism. Your disdain for Fox News, and any opposition, comes through in your speeches. Your press secretary, Robert Gibbs, treats the Fox News correspondent with disgust and continually demonstrates his loathing for Fox. His haughty reference to Glen Beck’s and Sean Hannity’s shows on Fox portrays his hatred of the dissenting opinion offered by the network.

You hate Beck and Hannity because they report what the media will not, but they freely tell people what they think of you and any politician who is endangering this country. You and your ilk have yet to refute any of their claims. If what they say if false, present the evidence. Instead you engage in character assassination. You attempt to make people feel guilty for listening to them. None of you can prove that Fox News has made false claims.

Let us face the facts, Mr. President. You hate Fox News because they, unlike the other networks, refused to bow before you and worship at your feet. You hate Fox because they report the news whether it makes you look good or bad. You hate them because they offer shows with more conservative viewpoints than what ABC or NBC has to offer. But most importantly, you hate Fox News because people are listening to them and waking up. People are no longer remaining ignorant of what you and your minions are doing in Washington. These same people are wondering if they made the right choice in voting for you. These people are getting together in open opposition to the direction you wish to take America. Fox News is a messenger that refused to fall in line with your demands. They are a messenger that people are listening to. People like you thrive on the ignorance of others. Therefore you have waged war against Fox in the hopes of killing the messenger and forcing people to once again be subjected to the beat of the Marxist drum.

So you have had people from your administration accusing Fox News of being an arm of the GOP, a form of talk radio, or more commentary and therefore not a real news organization like CNN. By painting Fox as an opinion piece, you are hoping people will dismiss them as rhetoric. Your tactics have had the opposite effect. Fox’s ratings have skyrocketed and continue to climb. Continue on your course if you will. The more you attack Fox News, the more people listen to them. For a man who was trumped up as being intelligent your common sense is lacking.

Talk radio is also under attack by you and your people. Your efforts to reinstate the so called Fairness Doctrine under a different name is an effort to silence those like Rush Limbaugh by limiting the number of conservative voices allowed on the airwaves if not eradicating them completely. You state that there aren’t enough liberal voices on talk radio and that it’s just unfair. Well, Mr. President, that is how the free market works. People tune into talk radio for the conservative viewpoint and the bits of news they cannot find anywhere else. Why would people wish to listen to whiny liberals on talk radio when they can listen to them all day on every street corner and when they are forced to listen to the likes of you, Pelosi, and Reid every night on ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC?

There are other targets in your sights. Those individuals who oppose you and have begun questioning you and your policies. You and your ilk dismissed the Tea Party goers as ignorant, racist, homophobic rednecks acting in accordance with Fox News, talk radio, and the GOP. Naturally you have no evidence to back up your claims. The Tea Party participants are average folk who are tired of being lied to, tired of being used by people like you, and tired of the government doing whatever it pleases with no regard for the health of the country and the liberties it is charged to protect. The U.S. Constitution was written to shield people from the government and radical politicians such as you, Mr. President. Quit circumventing it.

Lastly, there are your attempts to control the internet. All of those individual bloggers who question you and report news stories that NBC &c. will not. The internet breathed new life into conservatives allowing them to voice their views and find others who felt and thought as they do. It provided an outlet to escape the hum drum of progressives. They are able to refute the progressive movement which has sickened American since the late 1800s. Mr. President, you have been pushing for legislation that will allow you control over the internet in an attempt to silence the opposition there. (Siezing power over those businesses that conduct commerce over the internet would be an added bonus.) If you silence the bloggers you can isolate them and make conservatives feel alone and fearful of standing against you.

All of these measures are a direct violation of the first amendment. I do not expect a tyrant like you to care about such violations. You have disregarded the U.S. Constitution your entire political career by voting for legislation that expanded government, when you did bother to vote while in the Senate. Marxists, such as yourself, cannot stand dissenting opinion.

Mr. President, you have an insatiable need to be loved, admired, and worshipped the way those school children are being taught to do. So you do what you do best. You attempt to take away people’s rights, rights that are not of man. You take away individual choice by eliminating the free market through imposed regulations.

But be warned, Mr. President. You may win, but it will only be a Pyrrhic victory. History has shown that traitors and tyrants meet bitter ends.

Sincerely,

Lady Liberty