Friday, September 4, 2009

Election Puts Anti-American Radicals In Charge: The Inarguable Evidence

Dr. Alan Bates in his article, Election Puts Anti-American Radicals In Charge: The Inarguable Evidence, makes many claims. Much of what he says are highly opinionated assumptions expressed hyperbolically, and are derogatory. He uses exaggeration for emphasis or effect: Marxist, communist, dumbed down, sheeple followers, anti-American, racism, naïve masses, terrorist, totalitarian takeover. We are turning back to the McCarthy era when we use such words in our speech and writing for the purpose of igniting fear. Good writers should not have to turn to this tactic.

Although President Obama may have had or has had dealings with the people mentioned in the article, it does not mean an association in any greater sense than the political and constituent networking that is a necessary part and parcel of the work of all politicians. To promote their agendas and ideology, Dr. Bates and others purposely read more into those associations than in reality is there.

Dr. Bates asks, What did Obama's chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel mean when he said he wanted to use severe economic weakness as an opportunity to make changes in America? What Rahm Emanuel actually said, You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid, is a common business aphorism. In business, a crisis, something unforeseen -- a contingency -- usually forces review of policy, procedure, or induces new ways of thinking, resulting in changes that otherwise would not have been foreseen. Most often, in the end, the organization is stronger because of it. I am sure that Dr. Bates knows that too, but chose to use that false quote in a disingenuous way.

Like the Birthers, a conspiracy theory rejecting the legitimacy of the President of the United States, Barack Obama's citizenship and eligibility to be President, Dr. Bates talks about issues that were hashed out repeatedly during the campaign. It all was vetted. The personal as well as the political issues were debated repeatedly for about nineteen months, ever since Barack Obama announced his candidacy for President on February 10, 2007, and so he was not elected by poorly vetted, uninformed, or complacent voters.

Dr. Bates accuses Obama followers as not being able to figure out any better strategy than to insult their critics as being racists, since Barack Obama happens to be partially black. What convenient tools skin color and dwelling on past inequities are for disarming their adversaries!

I am sure some can be legitimately accused of this accusation. However, for the most part his premise is false.

Dr. Bates is correct when he says we cannot let our guard down; we must always be vigilant. However that applies not only to President Obama and his administration, congress, and the Supreme Judicial Court, but for all future Presidents, congresses and Judicial Courts as well.

Dr Bates seems to be blind to the fact of American statism and American style socialism as it exist today. He seems to be blind to the fact that we don’t have liberty in America today; it’s simply a nice sounding word to describe America’s presumed utopian social condition, which in de facto is false. He seems to be blind to the fact that authentic laissez faire capitalism does not exist in America today. He seems to be blind to the fact that to claim others to be anti-American is anti-American; in America under our freedom of speech doctrine, in essence there should be no such thing as anti-Americanism.

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty [as much as that is representative of today’s reality]: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo [nonviolent action first, but when all else fails pass the ammunition]. Please use in that order. Ed Howdershelt

If Dr. Bates’s theorizing holds water, if there are actual events or conditions that indicate it will come to fruition, and everything else fails, then I will be there with Dr. Bates in the combat zone, but to act now is as radical as the radicalism against which he rails.