So, He Wants to be Like Teddy, Eh?

I'm reading through Andrew Breitbart's Righteous Indignation, and am very much enjoying his tale of everything he has seen since his political awakening and re-education in the 1990s.  Mostly because he's only nine months older than I, and I well remember everything he recalls from then until now.

He gives a little history lesson on the development of progtardianism, starting with Marx's materialistic dialectic, and going on to other major figures in proglodytianism as they have affected our country.  I am now at the point where he discusses Teddy Roosevelt, who was not a Conservative, but a Progressive.

Breitbart relates two quotes.  One, the famous "We grudge no man a fortune in civil life" line which morphs into "only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community."

The second quote is far more ominous:  "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!"  The link leads to The Mises Institute's book review on Thomas Woods' 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask.  In the review, the article's author states:

"But who bears responsibility for this 'imperial presidency'? Woods places much of the blame on Theodore Roosevelt, who 'loathed inactivity' (p. 136). Though highly intelligent — my late friend Mel Bradford rated him the brightest of all the presidents — he was dominated by passions he made little effort to control."

Such passions led him to hold the Constitution in contempt every so often.

So, Obama's speech in Kansas two weeks ago, with his attempt to invoke the ghost of TR, should have prompted more foreboding about how worse things can get if this type of mentality occupies the Oval Office for another four years.

Autocratic Hypocrisy

Those of us who lived through the Cold War well remember the rather paradoxical names of the Communist countries.  The "Deutsche Demokratische Republik" (German Democratic Republic), The "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", "People's Republic of China," "People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia," "Democratic Republic of Vietnam," and so on.

And, we well remember that none of the above were Democratic Republics.

Well, here's another misleading name:  "Constitutional Scholar," as applied to Øbama.  Remember back in 2007 when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."

 

My, how times have changed.  Too bad there isn't any published works attached to his name, his academic transcripts are still not available to the public, and I don't think there have been any interviews with any former students of his.

And how's this for another whopper, as found over at Cato (Will Congress Stop King Barack the First?): 

"But the worst hypocrisy here is Obama's. 'I've studied the Constitution as a student, I've taught it as a teacher,' he piously intoned in 2009: 'I know that we must never, ever, turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience's sake.'"

*snort*  *guffaw*

Well, we've already had a good look at how enduring these principles are in the eyes of Obama when his agenda must be expedited.

Extremist?

I get these emails from Obama For (sodomizing) America. I really didn't ask for them. All I wanted to do was give Obama a snarky question about how a Constitutional Scholar can have nothing published to his name, and in return, I get these "gimme" emails from the likes of Chairman Zero, his body man Love, the Wookiee, and Jim Messina.

It's interesting to see the sort of message being promulgated by the White House.  Here's one of the latest ones I've gotten:

Vidarebefordrat brev:

Från: "Jim Messina, BarackObama.com"
Datum: 3. jan. 2012 23.50.32 GMT-09.00
Till: Mad Hatter
Ämne: This is not a joke
Svara till: info@barackobama.com

Friend -- These Republican candidates spent in some cases more than a year -- in Mitt Romney's case seven years -- campaigning in Iowa to be the next president. But tonight, GOP voters there couldn't decisively get behind anyone. Who exactly leads the Republican race going forward isn't clear, but we do know two things: 1) The extremist Tea Party agenda won a clear victory. No matter who the Republicans nominate, we'll be running against someone who has embraced that agenda in order to win -- vowing to let Wall Street write its own rules, end Medicare as we know it, roll back gay rights, leave the troops in Iraq indefinitely, restrict a woman's right to choose, and gut Social Security to pay for more tax cuts for millionaires and corporations.

*snip*

"The extremist Tea Party."  I've heard this thrown around a lot.  "That Tea Party--it's extremist."  When I ask a Leftie to clarify "extremist," I usually get a lot of stammering.  They can parrot the punch-words and party lines circulating in their circles, but they can't back them up.

I'll tell you what "extremist" is--an extremist circumvents Rule of Law for the sake of an agenda.

- An Extremist will Violate the War Powers Act to engage in a conflict we have no national interest in, to score political points.

- An Extremist will Ignore the Constitution to install political appointees.

- An Extremist will Ignore Judicial Ruling on a matter unfavorable to his agenda.

- An Extremist will Circumvent the Legislative Process when his agenda is not pushed through.

- An Extremist will Arbitrarily Wave Off Items in a Law He Signed that he does not agree with.

- An Extremist will Confide in His Allies that the Constitution can be Circumvented.

You get the idea.  I'm telling you, Obama is a member of the Autocrat Party, not Democrat.

But here's another thing about "extremist" and "right-wing."  People who throw these terms around usually tend to be so far to the Left that even Woodrow Wilson looks Conservative.


The main disseminators of information in this country--Media and Academia, are demonstrably left-leaning.  And since both groups tend to move in ideologically incestuous circles (the likes of which would make the rednecks they like to mock blush), the lack of cross-pollination leaves them to conclude that their views are "normal" while all others are "extreme."

So, when I hear a Leftie--be it a Progtard, Occupooper, Demorrhoid, what have you--talk about the Tea Party as "extremist," I know it's because they really don't get out much.