A video from last year by Bill Whittle. It touches on my two favorite topics, politics and LORD OF THE RINGS.
Note that neither Democrat, the Evil Party, nor Republican, the Stupid Party, bestirred themselves to overturn these egregious and blatant violations of the laws of God and Man. The party leaders in both cases are members of the same party, the party that wants power, the Cratocrats.
The Democrats are corrupt from top to bottom, bowsprit to rudder, because they have corrupted their language with Political Correctness which therefore corrupts their thought process.
They are capable only of emoting; their arguments are accusations and ad hominem. That is the only argument they have, and, given the work of public education in the modern day, the only argument their audience is emotionally and mentally mature enough to understand: two legs bad, four legs good.
Republicans still have a healthy core in the Tea Party and Goldwater leaning wing of the party, but the stalwarts of the conservative movement can no longer be trusted, and the Republican leadership is vile.
The inability to put forward a strong candidate with a clear conservative message in this last election, or to win over voters rushing toward the day when their votes no longer would have any meaning — a day I believe is soon, if not already past — shows the corruption of the voters and of the Republican leadership. To stop Obamacare, we put up the candidate responsible for Romneycare, and the conservatives stayed home.
Even National Review, once the flagship of intellectual Republicanism, canned John Derbyshire to appease the racebaiters. National Review routinely excuses constitutional violations in the name of national security.
Who, then, can be trusted?
The answer is that no one can be trusted with the One Ring of power. No one.
Are you volunteering to take the Ring, Frodo?
How is a plea for the return to Constitutional government being interpreted as an expression of power lust? The whole point was to destroy the ring. No one can be trusted with it. No one.
Which part of ‘no one’ was unclear? The ‘no’? or the ‘one’?
If I may play devil’s advocate a moment…
Things almost seem like they have gotten to the point now that the only way to be rid of this metaphorical ring, is to take absolute governmental power, and then smash everything back to its original state. Sort of like how to destroy the Ring, Frodo had to carry it back to Mordor.
…and then found that right where he had to destroy it, its power was greatest and even he was overcome. (actually the more I think about it, the scarier the parallels become)
My only comfort is that at least the metaphor of current political power might soon collapse under its own weight (unlike the Ring which was eternal). Shame, I really liked this country.
To the contrary, what is required is a return to Constitutional government. Such a government is not possible, and is not desirable, outside of the Christian worldview. Atheists and agnostics can live in and support such a government if and only if they adhere, for whatever reasons seem good to them, to Christian norms and notions of decency and honor. Thanks to the Leftwing subversion of education, of courts of law, of the legal profession and political class and entertainment and opinion-makers, the Christian worldview, albeit numerically the majority, is unable and unwilling to put forth and strong and coherent message, vision, and program for a return to sanity. The insane, the suicidal lovers of jihadists, and the perverted lovers of sodomites, the proud promoters of self-esteem, the feminist man-haters, the slothful haters of authority in any form, have won a major victory over the last few decades, and use mob-tactics on a rhetorical and sometimes on a physical level (as with Occupy Wall Street) to cow the Christians into silence.
The fundamental weakness of this form of argument, that is, saying SHUT UP, is that if the other party does not shut up, there is then no more argument to be had. It is a fragile philosophy in much the same way Communism was fragile: it cannot endure contract with reality.
All we need to do is to stop insulating the Left from reality. Stop helping them lie; stop cooperating with our own destroyers. The Left will not return to reality– they would rather die, for death is their unspoken longing and goal–but any undecided bystanders in the culture wars would surely have the scales ripped from their eyes.
I am sorry that my quip caused offense. Please allow me to explain the thought behind the bad joke.
I basically agree with all of your points. Your post reminded me of Frodo not because I see him or you as lustful for power, but because your tone reminded me of the Council of Elrond when they reached the conclusion that for any of the assembled powers, the One Ring was too dangerous to use, too dangerous to keep, and too dangerous to destroy.
Humble Frodo Baggins broke the impasse not out of a desire for power, but out of sincere good will. But we know that even that humble, sincere good will couldn’t hold out against the Ring’s power to corrupt.
“Constitutional government” is a great ideal, but my fear is that if government power is our all-corrupting One Ring, we have a huge how-do-we-get-there-from-here problem. Even if we could time-warp our political and social institutions back to the pre-Wilson water line, even if we could arrange a 100% turn-over of our political class, I come close to despair when I think that we are the generation that as our nation and way of life declines and we sell our children and grandchildren into seventeen-trillion-dollar debt slavery, we thought it would be okay to give Barack Obama another four years (to party while pretending to manage our further decline, I guess).
“All will be well, all will be well, and all manner of things will be well. ” — Julian of Norwich
The current generation is not willing to fight and die for liberty. Indeed, they are not willing to vote for it or agitate for it. We have enjoyed liberty for so long, and heard the word used so often to refer to things that have nothing to do with liberty, or are the opposite, that the stark manliness of being an individual seems too cold and harsh to the precious self-esteemed darlings raised by hippies of the last generation, and they rush to the comforting arms of the Nanny State.
We have sold our legacy for a mess of pottage, by which I mean, we have borrowed all the money in the world and spent it all, and have nothing to show for it, and our government no longer even makes or passes a budget any more.
Despair, however, is a sin. Humble Sam the gardener never gives up, and evil does have a tendency to destroy itself.
I believe that Edward Gibbons gave the full measure of the current generation more than two hundred years ago:
“In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.”
― Edward Gibbon
*raises a toast to John*
What I’m angriest about is not that they sold their liberty for porridge, but they insist on trying to sell mine too for it. I don’t want it and I’d rather fall attempting to be a man than survive pampered.
Heh, maybe we should adopt Sam as the symbol of the tea party. “Just leave us to our gardens!”
Can we adopt the Captain of the AXIOM as well? “I don’t want to survive! I want to live!”
I don’t think it despair, personally. If the car I’m riding in leaves the road at 70mph and begins tumbling down the embankment toward the river, assuming that at very minimum I’m about to suffer injuries is not despair, but rather recognition of the probable outcome. Is there a chance that I could emerge miraculously unscathed? Sure. But it’s not likely.
I would LOVE, and work toward as best I can, a return of our country to at least something of it’s better past. Again, it’s possible, but it’s not likely.
“The stupid, strong, unteachable monsters are certain to be victorious at last, And every man of decent blood is on the losing side.”
Eh…… I would call Obama more Saruman or Denethor. “Thinks” he’s doing the right thing.
No. John Roberts is Saruman. John Behner is Denethor. Joe Biden is Gollum.
Good Heavens. Such doom. Such gloom. The Democrats couldn’t pay you to serve them as well as you do here……..
Let us look at the situation with “Eyes unclouded by hate”. “the stalwarts of the conservative movement can no longer be trusted, and the Republican leadership is vile.”? Really? What has the leadership or movement done that you think is “vile”? Did they fight for the “right” to murder children who survived their abortion “treatment” as the Democrats did? Did they put those ethnically close to our enemies into concentration camps, as the Democrats did? Did they fail in their duty to pass a budget, as the Democrats did? Do you have an actual complaint, or just a disagreement over tactics? The Republicans seem to be doing pretty good, considering they are the minority party, and have only slight control of one of the five branches of government. I, for one, am quite happy that the Republicans were able to hold the Democrats to only one of the alphabet kludges they love so much. Remember, the Democrats had two years of as close to absolute power as our system allows. Filibuster proof control of the Senate. Veto proof control of the House. The Presidency. A press that puts the Soviet Era Pravda to shame. The permanent government stacked top to bottom with Democrats. All they got was Obamacare. And they had to politically assassinate Senator Ted Stevens to do that.
“The current generation is not willing to fight and die for liberty.”? I must ask you to retract this Slur sir. You know better. This generation fills the ranks of our military, volunteers all, and they proudly fight to bring freedom to the enslaved whenever their orders allow them to do so. No, it is the older generation that sold their freedom for a mess of porridge. The current generation is the one stuck with the bill, and yet they still strive to work and pay their taxes, for programs they won’t see a dime of (a shining contrast to the Democrats, who cannot be bothered to pay their taxes, in Detroit or Washington……..).
Last, for all the frothing about “The One Ring”, the Republican governors seem to be doing O.K.. Perhaps your belief would be on a more solid footing, if you could point out a Republican “Failed State”, a Detroit, a California, a Vietnam. The Republicans have certainly been the one party willing and able to return power to the citizens (Witness the amazing rollback of gun control measures over the last twenty years, which the Democrats fought every step of the way. Witness the amazing rollback of Union power, despite the frenzied and criminal stunts the Democrats pulled in their attempts to stop it.). The record seems clear. The Republicans are able to say “No” to power. The Democrats are Totalitarians, and must control everything. This odd absolutism you are showing here is what gave us “Porkbusters”, which gave control of Congress to the Democrats, who promptly showed us what “out of control” spending really was. They got rid of the reporting requirement for earmarks as well, remember? Be calm. Letting the Perfect be the Enemy of the Good never works. Given your own failure to convince your mother in law that Adultery is wrong, show the Republicans a little love for all their successes…….
John McCain undermined Rand Paul’s principled stand for the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Jarl Rove organized a political action committee to undermine the Tea Party. John Boehner removed chairmanships from Conservatives and awarded them to RINOs. And so on.
Strawman. I am not arguing that the stupid Republicans are as evil as the evil Democrats.
Here we are in agreement. I just happen to be of the generation older than you, and I am complaining about my contemporaries.
Ah, a complaint about tactics. It would seem you disagree with the tactics and statements of some Republicans. “Vile” would seem to be the wrong word to use then. Let us save that word for when we have a Bill or Ted, yes? Especially since, for all the fun Goldwater was, his campaign for President was a total route. “Porkbusters” was a total failure. As much fun as the bombthrowers can be, I can see a reason people might be reluctant to put them into places of power……..
Vile? Bill and Ted? What’s wrong with Bill and Ted?
Ah, Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy, one of whom tried to get a troublesome girl imprisoned for “stalking”, and the other, who left a woman to die in, perhaps, five feet of water. People I consider actually vile…….
Don’t put words in my mouth, Mr Strawman. I am not complaining about tactics. Reread what I said.
I have carefully read what you said, and I must be missing something. I fail to see how your examples are “vile”. They seem, to me, to be the ordinary actions of politics, the simple squabbles of free men in disagreement.
“I fail to see how your examples are “vile”.”
Mr. Wright wrote this: “John McCain undermined Rand Paul’s principled stand for the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.”
We must agree on this, else these words are arbitrary drawings:
It is wrong, in the moral sense, to undermine such rights as those guaranteed by the 5th amendment. (Relativists not welcome.) Indeed, these particular rights are among those most cherished by those who enjoy them.
Then:
Vile means: “1.Extremely unpleasant. 2.Morally bad; wicked” -google
To deprive someone of their most cherished rights is thus ‘extremely unpleasant’ and ‘morally wrong.’ Therefore such action is vile. By corollary, to assist depriving someone of their rights is also vile.
John McCain, by undermining a defender of 5th Amendment rights, assisted those currently in power who are actively infringing on those rights. Therefore his action was ‘vile.’
“They seem, to me, to be the ordinary actions of politics, the simple squabbles of free men in disagreement.”
This is a disturbing attitude. Our Attorney General just stated that the President has the authority to drop bombs on you and your family whenever he pleases, and those who oppose him are undermined. Your response to this: ‘just politics.’
Sir, you are mistaken, a fool, or a coward.
Perhaps a difference in perception. Mr. McCain, did not, actually do anything to undermine Mr. Paul’s filibusterer. He spoke of it in less then glowing terms after the fact. Perhaps because of Envy, perhaps because he disagreed with the tactics. I was not there to heard the words, and the Press has certainly not proven trustworthy when it comes to Republicans quotes. We don’t actually know the context or if the quote is accurate or if that was what Mr. McCain meant to say. Certainly I am sympathetic, given my own issues with clarity and typos. You can certainly argue that the tactic was bad, insofar as many think the 5th amendment has been protected, and have gone back to sleep, when all we got was a very vague and utterly nonbinding statement from a spokesman for a President known for breaking promises. Certainly the worse we can say is that Mr. McCain was petty.
John McCain is indeed vile.
To say that “Republican leadership is vile” would group the likes of Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, and Paul Ryan with the execrable McCain, and that I believe would be unfair.
Let us remember that for a decade the mainstream media has been offering McCain a doggie treat every time he sits up on camera to trash conservatism. The fact that McCain shows up every ten minutes on a “news” show in response to those treats does not make him a “leader”.
Well said. I am happy to find a matter where we agree. And I agree with you with all my heart on this point, and admire how you said it.
Mr. McCain vile? I think not. I think “The Old Men” from Kipling is the best explanation here, sad though it is.
Back in 2006, when President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. I read the full text of the bill and was shocked to find provisions under which, given certain circumstances, it could be argued that American citizens could be detained without allowing for habeas corpus. This kept my up for an entire night. I distinctly remember believing at this time that I could no longer consider myself “free” as I had been raised to understand that term. I can only describe the feeling or disgust, horror, and betrayal through analogy.
As an undergraduate I took an ethics course, (lucky for me, taught by an objectivist Roman Catholic who insisted on rational argument to support claims). We first studied relativism, which I had encountered in practice, but had never tried to rigorously state its basic properties and assumptions. So, our lecturer put on the board a plain statement of ethical relativism. Upon reading this, I was _dumbstruck_ by its absurdity. Recovering, I re-read in order to ensure I had the correct interpretation, and and came up with several conclusions which this ethical relativism must logically (math major) support, but which also violated every intuition I had about morality.
So I raised my hand, presented my interpretation and asked the lecturer if I had the thoery correct; he replied with a simple affirmative, gave me a “duh” kind of look, and moved on. No other student objected to my interpretation, so I sat for the remainder of the class unable to participate, as I was too busy considering how a room full of Americans, the very kind of people who go to war to spread freedom and democracy, had just provided moral support for slavers (one of my counterexamples), and furthermore, how this could be the accepted belief of so many people.
I was in my early 20′s and still somewhat naive, in that I thought it could be expected for people to conform their beliefs to actions in a rational manner, similar to the way, in math, I must believe a theorem from the very moment I understand its proof, regardless of how crazy the theorem might appear at first.
In 2006, told members of my family and friends, most of whom vote Republican, that one of their most fundamental rights had just been undermined by the Military Commissions Act, and that such laws could be used as the basis, in the future, for further violations. I hardly received any responses. They believed I was overreacting, had misinterpreted the bill, or didn’t care at all as long as football season starts on schedule. Some did not even know they have the right to habeas corpus; apparently they assume the American justice system is just because it must be.
Since this time there as been: the assassination of an American citizen has been ordered by the American President, this “National Defense” Act, which seemingly takes denial of habeas corpus of citizens from only being possible in rare circumstances to more common, and ObamaCare.
I specifically remember my father denying that we would ever see Americans denied habeas corpus as a result of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. He was perhaps only right because the next president decided to skip a step in the slippery slope and simply ordered the death of the citizen he didn’t like, rather than detain him indefinitely.
Even I, convinced that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and similar laws would be the basis of a slippery slope in the future, thought it would be decades before progressing this far.
What I find hilarious is that those same people who defended Military Commissions Act of 2006, on the basis that it would not be used as a basis to further deprive Americans of their rights, now defend the succeeding laws and government actions which do in fact deprive them of rights.
For example, I can convince no one that it was wrong for the President to order the assassination of a citizen, even older conservatives (50+ to me) who presumably can remember times when Americans were considerably more free.
Now, we see people defending critiques of ObamaCare, saying for example that rationing and “death panels” could never happen.
Rationing of government-funded health care is already happening. Any physician or hospital administrator involved in the Medicare or Medicaid programs can tell you exactly how.
And as long as we have to endure the existence of government-funded health care, it should at least be operated on an actuarially sound basis, with revenues and expenses kept in approximate harmony. This means either substantial cuts in benefits or substantial increases in taxes or both.
Hear, hear.