« WTF?!? Enough from the #teaparty terrorists, okay!? | vallor's Blog | Could the "teaparty terrorists" get any worse? Of course! »
A pattern continues to emerge -- #teaparty terrorist hubris now pinning the meter
Please consider:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2295624/posts
...in which we find one Jim Robertson advocating the drafting of a document & the execution of a bloodless coup.
Let's cut the crap for a second.
Rational folks paying attention to these right-wing groups are shaking their heads at their hubris, wondering how anybody could take them seriously.
But the fact is: they take themselves seriously, and they purposely surround themselves with the apparatus and media to whip each other into a frenzy, manifesting an irresponsible self-contained delusion.
The likes of Glenn Beck -- hell, all of Fox News -- as well as Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and yes, this Jim Robertson -- perpetuate the illusion. And I don't know how much of it is circular references, and how much lies, but I do know this: there are people out there whose political ideas feed off this type of fevor, enough that they might (say) shoot up the Nat'l Holocaust Museum, or gun down political opponents in their own churches.
Often those of this "coup ilk" will express some kind of non-violence directive. This is a good thing -- but is it enough? Such caveats are often postscripts to the wacked-out epistles they foist upon their hapless victims -- personally, I think they need to both prefix _and_ suffix their screeds with calls to non-violence.
Now, regarding the situation of Mr. Robertson & his epistle to his faithful: As much as I disagree with what he has to say, I think he has the right to say it. (I would call it irresponsible in the manner he has done so, but he still has the right to be irresponsible.) Indeed, his call for a demonstration, on the face of it, is very much one of the rights we guarantee under our U.S. Constitution. The matter of choking the workings of DC doesn't sound constitutional to me, though -- but I'm trying to point out that not all of what the guy says is wrong.
But then, we enter a whole new gray area: what can we say to him to convince him that a rabble -- no matter how large, and how peaceful -- does not have the authority to repeal amendments to the U.S. Constitution?
I'm not just splitting hairs. When I joined the military, I swore to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign or _domestic_. So when someone starts feeling his oats, "pinning the hubris meter", and talking about millions of people ignoring our U.S. Constitution, I start to wonder what that could mean.
No, it doesn't worry me sick -- but I do feel a twinge of concern that if folks were to try to undermine U.S. government, people could get hurt -- especially if any calls to non-violent protest appear after pages of screed making grandiose statements against our U.S. Constitution: which is the very foundation of our government.
But having said all that, I have no idea how to address this. But I do advocate that someone in disagreement with their positions open some kind of dialogue with them.
Because, even if it proves to be fruitless, at least we tried. I'd do it, but I really don't know how to handle that kind of talk, except through parody and ridicule...and I'm not sure that will help at this stage.
Take care. Please.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2295624/posts
...in which we find one Jim Robertson advocating the drafting of a document & the execution of a bloodless coup.
Let's cut the crap for a second.
Rational folks paying attention to these right-wing groups are shaking their heads at their hubris, wondering how anybody could take them seriously.
But the fact is: they take themselves seriously, and they purposely surround themselves with the apparatus and media to whip each other into a frenzy, manifesting an irresponsible self-contained delusion.
The likes of Glenn Beck -- hell, all of Fox News -- as well as Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and yes, this Jim Robertson -- perpetuate the illusion. And I don't know how much of it is circular references, and how much lies, but I do know this: there are people out there whose political ideas feed off this type of fevor, enough that they might (say) shoot up the Nat'l Holocaust Museum, or gun down political opponents in their own churches.
Often those of this "coup ilk" will express some kind of non-violence directive. This is a good thing -- but is it enough? Such caveats are often postscripts to the wacked-out epistles they foist upon their hapless victims -- personally, I think they need to both prefix _and_ suffix their screeds with calls to non-violence.
Now, regarding the situation of Mr. Robertson & his epistle to his faithful: As much as I disagree with what he has to say, I think he has the right to say it. (I would call it irresponsible in the manner he has done so, but he still has the right to be irresponsible.) Indeed, his call for a demonstration, on the face of it, is very much one of the rights we guarantee under our U.S. Constitution. The matter of choking the workings of DC doesn't sound constitutional to me, though -- but I'm trying to point out that not all of what the guy says is wrong.
But then, we enter a whole new gray area: what can we say to him to convince him that a rabble -- no matter how large, and how peaceful -- does not have the authority to repeal amendments to the U.S. Constitution?
I'm not just splitting hairs. When I joined the military, I swore to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign or _domestic_. So when someone starts feeling his oats, "pinning the hubris meter", and talking about millions of people ignoring our U.S. Constitution, I start to wonder what that could mean.
No, it doesn't worry me sick -- but I do feel a twinge of concern that if folks were to try to undermine U.S. government, people could get hurt -- especially if any calls to non-violent protest appear after pages of screed making grandiose statements against our U.S. Constitution: which is the very foundation of our government.
But having said all that, I have no idea how to address this. But I do advocate that someone in disagreement with their positions open some kind of dialogue with them.
Because, even if it proves to be fruitless, at least we tried. I'd do it, but I really don't know how to handle that kind of talk, except through parody and ridicule...and I'm not sure that will help at this stage.
Take care. Please.
Advertisement
Leave a comment