You might find it insulting, I don't. Who cares what he thinks? He is writing to an extreme to make a point, in my opinion. People all the time suggest we as Americans are this or that. Bush suggests that all Americans are this or that. He is wrong sometimes in his generalizations too, so are others. No one person can speak for all Americans. There is too much diversity of thought. I had no problem in the 60's with people suggesting revolution, why should I have a problem now? Is he really inciting people to riot and overthrow the administration? I don't see that. Many now see Malcom X as a great man, but he was condemned in the 60's by the right wing as too radical in his thought. Is he taking his argument to an extreme? Sure, but so does Rush, Hannity, Coulter, etc. Today we celebrate our independence, which came through military means. My hope is that we would never have to once again take up arms against the ruling government in this country, the way the colonists took up arms against Great Britain. However, we should never become so complacent to think the government is always on our side, or that we serve the government.....the government is supposed to serve the people. We should never lose sight of the fact, that revolting against any form or tyranny or oppression by our government was encouraged by the founding fathers. Do I see a time when we would need to take up arms against our own government? No, but it is possible, and we should never discount that possibility. We should not allow the government to think that we as a people are not willing to do so if our personal freedom is controlled by the government to a point that it becomes necessary to do so. The willingness to risk our personal lives for freedom in America is why we celebrate July 4th today, and hopefully every July 4th until the end of time.
I don't want to make too much out of the article: It is just one piece written by one individual. However, he was not, apparently, writing for a domestic audience, but rather for foreign readers, and his viewpoints, as I said, were of a type that would give license to the most extreme forms of anti-US behavior. It wasn't really so long ago that Germany hosted several high-profile, mostly homegrown terrorist organizations, among whom the most famous was the Baader-Meinhof Group. Islamist terrorists have used Hamburg and Frankfurt, among other places in Germany, as bases of operation, including for the planning and support of the 9/11 operations, and Islamist and extreme leftwing organizations were very active in the so-called "peace movement." In this context, propagandizing on behalf of extreme anti-American positions - the claim that the US is becoming a totalitarian state bent on aggressive warfare - strikes me as deplorable. I'd rather not see Germans on the far left furhter encouraged to look the other way or even to aid and abet anti-US groups of the type that not only sometimes mean what they say (no matter how insane), but are willing to fight for what they believe in. To whatever extent the author's status as an American lends further credence to his claims, his writing strikes me as even more questionable. I have no doubt that Coulter would consider his actions treasonous, or maybe treason-ish, and the charge wouldn't be ridiculous on its face. I don't think he needs to be charged with the high crime, but I certainly don't feel any hesitation about criticizing him strongly.
I used to think MrSubliminal was the funniest guy here. No more! AAA, you win the title! We owe a debt of gratitude to Joe McCarthy? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! McCarthysim: a synonym for the hatefulness of baseless defamation, or mudslinging. Alger Hiss would have gotten away with everything if Nixon did not have supernatural powers and the ability to find incriminating evidence hidden inside a pumpkin in Hiss's garden! And of course the foresight to have a photographer along with him to capture this magic moment. A shameful time in the history of America. A completely mad Senator from Wisconsin fuels a nation with fear and anger. And total bullshit. Two Presidents, one a Democrat and one a Republican had to take this madman into consideration on a daily basis. Paranoia became a household word. And a way of life. Maybe we do owe a debt to this liar and slanderer. But not for what he did, but for the after effects of his shameful "day in the sun". Hopefully never again will people have their lives ruined by innuendo. No proof, no reason, nothing but some maniac casting aspersions on people he never knew, or cared to know. All he did was seek power and he got it at the expense of the reputation of countless innocent people. Joe McCarthy was the greatest example of the abuse of power, and the abuse of free speech ever to have disgraced our government. Welcome to the Right Wing Twilight Zone! This would be humorous if it weren't so damn scary. Now again, we find our country coming closer daily to being a place where if you are not "RIGHT", you are a traitor. Hello Patriot Act. Hello Mr. Ashcroft. Hello MondoTrader who wanted all Democrats jailed for sedition. What a sick world if the extremists had their way. Right or Left! But somehow the "right" just seems scarier. Maybe because they have more guns. Or maybe because they have more money. Or maybe because they seem to be in bed with organized religion (which is unconstitutional, but the Constitution seems less and less relevant as we get further into Bush Country). Hello Haliburton, and hello to trashing our civil liberties for fun and profit. Where's Waldo? UBL? Saddam? Who cares? Who cares that our economy is sick? Who cares if unemployment is rising? Who cares if our soldiers are dying on fools missions? Peace, RS PS: AAA...."spie"? Twice?
the Constitution seems less and less relevant as we get further into Bush Country). If you look at the red and blue map of Bush vs Gore country, I think that you will find that the reverse of what you said is true. This is not a distanced observation but an everyday living experience and I challenge you to get involved and see if what you said is true.
Giving license to the most extreme forms of anti-US behavior??? I don't agree. First of all Anti-Americanism is different from anti-Bushism. There were nearly half the participating voters who were "against" Bush in the election of 2000. I don't consider them anti-American because they did not vote for Bush. I fully expect that in the 2004 election, Bush will not gain every vote. Are those who don't vote for Bush anti-American? Are they giving license to extremists who see that there is disent at home, thus confirming their opinion that not all is right in America? We were not anti Iraq were we? No, we were anti Saddam and his regime. There is a difference between a country and their active regime. Without question, there are many in this country, and in other countries who are not in agreement with Bush's policies. I don't see that as anti-Americanism. Let's take your concerns to the ridiculous to make a point. Your concerns are of an American writing an article that speaks to his own opinions and concerns about the current administration, and the willingness of the American people to accept the policy and behavior of the administration without any question. You suggest his status as an American in some way give credibility to his opinions, and as such will flame the fires of those in Europe and elsewhere who do not support Bush's policies....thus feeding anti-American sentiment. Now, imagine the same article being written by an editorial writer and published in Podunk Iowa. Does an editorial writer in Podunk Iowa have the constitutional right to write exactly what the author did in his op ed piece (that is the recent focus of this thread), without fear of being called unpatriotic or accused of treason? Now imagine that article being read by someone in Podunk, and emailed to a friend in Germany, the Soviet Union, Iran, North Korea, Red China, etc. Those friends post it on the internet. The locals paper picks it up and prints it, etc. In effect, the article gets read by those who may not agree with Bush's policy. The author may not have initially intended to speak to anyone but Americans, his fellow citizens. Yet, now it is in the hands of "the enemy." If we take your position of fear, that such ideas give license to the enemy, then the natural step is to censor the editor in Podunk Iowa, for fear that what he publishes might end up being read by undesirables. This is the nature of fear, it is not based in reason. Fear seeks to control and restrict, understanding seeks to liberate and expand the mind. The moment we begin to censor what Americans write of a political nature out of fear of who might read it, be it intended for our nation or an international audience, that is the moment free speech is finished in this country.
Republican & Democrat, Liberal & Conservative, Left & Right, Carvill & Coulter fans, Limbaugh lovers and haters alike, I just hope all of you are as grateful as I am that we live in a country where we are free to argue amongst ourselves and publicly voice and write our opinions, pro or con, about our government and not fear being dragged away in the middle of the night never to be seen again for doing so. I feel very proud and fortunate to be a citizen of this great nation and live within her borders. Say a prayer for our soldier-citizens serving abroad and paying with their blood to maintain our freedom and ensure our survival. Happy Birthday, America!
As I've tried repeatedly to explain, in my opinion the anti-Bush position in that article went far beyond conventional criticism: The writer argues that "the United States under George Bush" is really controlled by a "ruling junta." The government itself was installed, he claims, by a kind of "judicial coup d'etat," is further in the grip of extremist religious organizations, and has declared "a policy of unilateral aggression." After a somewhat extended, likewise exaggerated but somewhat less alarmist depiction of Republican economic, environmental, social, and internal security policy, he returns again to his main theme: He claims that "a climate of militarism and fear, similar to any totalitarian state, permeates everything." He patches together stray elements and isolated incidents within Homeland Security policy in order to evoke images of dystopias from "science fiction films." Referring, apparently, to the one instance in which Bush donned a USAF flight suit, the writer goes on to claim that Bush "is the first American president in memory to swagger around in a military uniform." It's a not very subtle way of associating Bush with Hitler and other "great dictators." Pursuing this theme, the writer declares that the build-up to the war in Iraq in this "new America" offered "almost a casebook study in totalitarian techniques." After ignoring the massive dissent, debate, and public protests that took place, hardly the typical adjuncts of totalitarian societies, he then turns to the war itself with another slanted and inaccurate depiction, particularly of how the war itself was covered by the mass media, and, as I argued previously, extends it to an utterly false portrayal of how the aftermath of the major combat has been covered, and about what a supposed news blackout and supposed new propaganda efforts must portend - a new war in Iran. He sums up his tract by suggesting that what used to be "hyperbolic cliches of anti-Americanism... have now finally come true." He must be referring to the hyberbolic cliches of Soviet and extremist propaganda of the Cold War era, the kind of stuff that Alfonso and msfe seem to take on faith. At this point he raises his rhetoric to an even higher level: "[T]he most frightening American administration in modern times... appalling both to the left and to traditional conservatives... unabashed in its imperialist ambitions... enacting an Orwellian state... dismantling... fundamental tenets of American democracy." His final sentence advocates new departures in opposition based on the recognition that the current government is "unlike any other in this country's history... one for whom democracy is an obstacle." It is not too much to say that, to an impressionable audience already pre-disposed against American policy, this stuff amounts to a call to arms and a justification of resistance by any means necessary. You can't negotiate with, or seek rapproachment with, or offer compromises with a new Hitler and the powerful country he holds in thrall. Let me put it to you this way: What form of resistance against an appalling, extremist, imperialist, militaristic, aggressive, anti-democratic, virtually totalitarian regime would not be justified? Perhaps it "cannot be stopped," but, even if so, wouldn't you, say as a brave young German idealist, be justified in making some heroic gesture of defiance against this sci-fi nightmare? Or if you yourself aren't quite brave enough to lift the torch, wouldn't you at least feel justified in helping someone who was, and even if you perhaps differed over some relatively minor political, social, or religious issues? How could you bring yourself to help the authorities capture someone who was brave enough to lash out against this monstrous danger to the world? Maybe because you live here and can easily recognize the exaggerations "to make a point" in this polemic, it's easy for you just to shrug it off. For reasons that are unclear to me, you also seem to find it easy to ignore the outright falsehoods, as well as the larger implications of what this author is arguing. He's not content to depict Bush as wrong or misguided or incorrect. He's arguing that American conservatism is a serious disease, and that America is incurably sick with it, and is putting the fate of the world in jeopardy. You're old enough to have seen this kind of thing many times before, but you've apparently forgotten what it leads to among those naive enough to find it persuasive. Just imagine some Trader556 type, frowny faces and all, facing some personal crisis and being approached by a serious-looking, self-confident man with very clear ideas about what is to be done. Again, it's certainly unlikely that this one article is all by itself going to put someone in the frame of mind to make very harmful decisions about his own life and the lives of others, but it's the kind of material that does exactly that. I've seen it and lived it. I'll also say, as I think about it, that this is the thing about Ann Coulter's writing that I do find very objectionable. I can see what I think she means when she tosses around terms like "slander" and, even more inflammatory, "treason" to describe actions and attitudes that she honestly believes have directly harmed the interests of the US. I doubt she really believes that, say, Howard Dean needs to be tried and executed for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, but I don't doubt that, in a rather well-armed country of 300 million, there might not be a few people who are willing to realize the implications of her language for her. If some asshole takes a shot at Dean or some other leading political opponent of Bush's, and turns out later to have a copy of Coulter's book, a poster of her on his wall, and a bookmark of her website, no one will be able to say that she caused his foolish act, but I don't think anyone will be surprised either.
As I've tried repeatedly to explain, in my opinion the anti-Bush position in that article went far beyond conventional criticism. Just what is conventional criticism these days? Accusing the left of being loony, stupid, treasonous, suffering from mental illness, demonic, anti-American, etc.??? Seems these days anything goes from either the extreme left or extreme right. The writer argues that "the United States under George Bush" is really controlled by a "ruling junta." The government itself was installed, he claims, by a kind of "judicial coup d'etat," is further in the grip of extremist religious organizations, and has declared "a policy of unilateral aggression." After a somewhat extended, likewise exaggerated but somewhat less alarmist depiction of Republican economic, environmental, social, and internal security policy, he returns again to his main theme: He claims that "a climate of militarism and fear, similar to any totalitarian state, permeates everything." He patches together stray elements and isolated incidents within Homeland Security policy in order to evoke images of dystopias from "science fiction films." Referring, apparently, to the one instance in which Bush donned a USAF flight suit, the writer goes on to claim that Bush "is the first American president in memory to swagger around in a military uniform." It's a not very subtle way of associating Bush with Hitler and other "great dictators." I have heard the arguments put forth by other Americans. I don't find them any more extreme than the argument offered by the right against Clinton and company during his tenure. Pursuing this theme, the writer declares that the build-up to the war in Iraq in this "new America" offered "almost a casebook study in totalitarian techniques." After ignoring the massive dissent, debate, and public protests that took place, hardly the typical adjuncts of totalitarian societies, he then turns to the war itself with another slanted and inaccurate depiction, particularly of how the war itself was covered by the mass media, and, as I argued previously, extends it to an utterly false portrayal of how the aftermath of the major combat has been covered, and about what a supposed news blackout and supposed new propaganda efforts must portend - a new war in Iran. Does the author take his ideas to extreme levels? Sure, and probably does so as a response to the extreme right wing statement we have been hearing in response to those who criticize the war or the current administrative policy. It is reactionary in nature, no doubt in part responsive to reactionary statements from the right. I find them both disgusting actually, but in fairness we need to post both sides of the debate, no? He sums up his tract by suggesting that what used to be "hyperbolic cliches of anti-Americanism... have now finally come true." He must be referring to the hyberbolic cliches of Soviet and extremist propaganda of the Cold War era, the kind of stuff that Alfonso and msfe seem to take on faith. At this point he raises his rhetoric to an even higher level: "[T]he most frightening American administration in modern times... appalling both to the left and to traditional conservatives... unabashed in its imperialist ambitions... enacting an Orwellian state... dismantling... fundamental tenets of American democracy." His final sentence advocates new departures in opposition based on the recognition that the current government is "unlike any other in this country's history... one for whom democracy is an obstacle." Rhetoric from the right, rhetoric from the left. It is not too much to say that, to an impressionable audience already pre-disposed against American policy, this stuff amounts to a call to arms and a justification of resistance by any means necessary. You can't negotiate with, or seek rapproachment with, or offer compromises with a new Hitler and the powerful country he holds in thrall. Let me put it to you this way: What form of resistance against an appalling, extremist, imperialist, militaristic, aggressive, anti-democratic, virtually totalitarian regime would not be justified? Perhaps it "cannot be stopped," but, even if so, wouldn't you, say as a brave young German idealist, be justified in making some heroic gesture of defiance against this sci-fi nightmare? Or if you yourself aren't quite brave enough to lift the torch, wouldn't you at least feel justified in helping someone who was, and even if you perhaps differed over some relatively minor political, social, or religious issues? How could you bring yourself to help the authorities capture someone who was brave enough to lash out against this monstrous danger to the world? The audience of the youth everywhere is impressionable. The right wants to propagate their message, the left wants to propagate their message. I support independent thought, elimination of the right and left, and just deal with each issue on the basis of its own merits. Maybe because you live here and can easily recognize the exaggerations "to make a point" in this polemic, it's easy for you just to shrug it off. For reasons that are unclear to me, you also seem to find it easy to ignore the outright falsehoods, as well as the larger implications of what this author is arguing. He's not content to depict Bush as wrong or misguided or incorrect. He's arguing that American conservatism is a serious disease, and that America is incurably sick with it, and is putting the fate of the world in jeopardy. Yes I live here, and I support the author's right to his opinion. I don't find it treasonous nor anti-American. Just his perspective. Falsehoods? I don't think the left has a lock on extremist thought or propagation of fear. The author is generating fear to evoke a response, same with the right wing. You're old enough to have seen this kind of thing many times before, but you've apparently forgotten what it leads to among those naive enough to find it persuasive. Just imagine some Trader556 type, frowny faces and all, facing some personal crisis and being approached by a serious-looking, self-confident man with very clear ideas about what is to be done. Again, it's certainly unlikely that this one article is all by itself going to put someone in the frame of mind to make very harmful decisions about his own life and the lives of others, but it's the kind of material that does exactly that. I've seen it and lived it. Who are you to tell the naive what to think or what to read? I'll also say, as I think about it, that this is the thing about Ann Coulter's writing that I do find very objectionable. I can see what I think she means when she tosses around terms like "slander" and, even more inflammatory, "treason" to describe actions and attitudes that she honestly believes have directly harmed the interests of the US. I doubt she really believes that, say, Howard Dean needs to be tried and executed for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, but I don't doubt that, in a rather well-armed country of 300 million, there might not be a few people who are willing to realize the implications of her language for her. If some asshole takes a shot at Dean or some other leading political opponent of Bush's, and turns out later to have a copy of Coulter's book, a poster of her on his wall, and a bookmark of her website, no one will be able to say that she caused his foolish act, but I don't think anyone will be surprised either. I don't agree with Coulter's position. However, I support her right to express it, to write a book, to make money with that book, to propagate her brand of fear, etc. even though I think her tactic is ultimately un-American. Freedom of speech. She is a political commentator, and she deserves a certain latitude that government officials are not granted. Were she a senator bringing up people before her at a congressional committee hearing in an inquisitional manner accusing them of sedition, lack of patriotism, or treason.....that would be different.
Amplifying Officials, Squelching Dissent FAIR study finds democracy poorly served by war coverage Since the invasion of Iraq began in March, official voices have dominated U.S. network newscasts, while opponents of the war have been notably underrepresented, according to a study by FAIR. http://www.fair.org/extra/0305/warstudy.html
Federal land grabs transforming American society -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: July 5, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com The Pilgrim family in Alaska is not the only instance of the federal government forcing people off their land. Donald Scott was awakened in the middle of the night by someone breaking through his front door. He grabbed his gun and started down the stairs, when he was shot dead by federal agents. Bob Learzaf was taking a bath, when the feds stormed through his front door. They handcuffed him, put him in leg-irons, and hauled him to jail. The "crime" all these people have in common, is the ownership of land, coveted by the federal government. For every victim whose story reaches the national media, there are thousands of other victims who are harassed, coerced or regulated to the point that they have neither the funds, nor the will to fight. In the examples above, the landowners were "inholders," which means that their land is surrounded by so-called "public land." In each instance, the land was privately owned before the park was designated. The Clinton-Gore administration undertook an intensive program to rid the world of these pesky inholders, and consolidate all the land into the hands of the federal government. The federal land grab is not limited to inholders. Ranchers are being systematically removed from federal lands throughout the west. Entire communities that arose to support logging in the Northwest are vanishing. In Florida, an entire community in Collier County is facing eviction, caused by impossible flood-insurance fees dictated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This is only the latest in a series of regulatory maneuvers to force the people out of an area the federal government wants to return to its "natural wilderness" condition. We are witnessing the "wrenching transformation" of society that Al Gore said would be necessary to save the planet. The planet can only be saved, according to Mr. Gore and his crowd, if the government controls the use of all resources. Resources are the product of land, and therefore, control of land use results in the control of all resources. The government, prodded by environmental organizations, has been extremely creative in developing excuses to control land use. The wetlands policy, and the attendant environmental propaganda, turned mosquito-infested mud-puddles, and snake-infested swamps, into precious aquifer-recharge areas that could not be altered, without penalty, by private landowners. The Endangered Species Act has now allowed the listing of more than a thousand obscure weeds and bugs that must have hundreds of thousands of acres designated as "critical habitat" that cannot be altered, without penalty, by private landowners. Viewsheds, heritage areas, wilderness, corridors, buffer zones, archeological sites and a maze of other designations now prohibit the use of private property from one end of the country to the other. Land-use control does not stop at the city limits. In the past, urban dwellers have paid little attention to the "rural cleansing" that has been taking place across the countryside. With the emergence of "sustainable communities," land use in urban areas is also increasingly controlled by government. Behind the mask of "economic development areas," government has discovered that it can condemn and take private property from one individual, and sell it, at a profit, to another individual who wants to use it for a purpose that promises more tax revenue. Other urbanites are discovering that state-required local planning controls the use of their private property. Land held for years, in hopes that development would appreciate the value into a retirement nest-egg, can be devalued instantly by a line on a zoning map, drawn by an uncaring bureaucrat, to conform with a vision hatched by a "sustainable community" consultant. A free society cannot exist where government controls the use of land and its resources. Nevertheless, governments â pushed by environmental extremist organizations â continue to buy private property at an unprecedented rate, and to issue new regulations to control the land they cannot yet afford. People in rural areas have been fighting for years. Their screams of protest have been drowned out by the steady stream of propaganda about the wisdom of "protecting" the land for future generations. Things are changing. City dwellers are now beginning to feel the effects of too much government control, and they are organizing to resist it. They are discovering their country cousins, and joining forces to strengthen the groundswell of respect and appreciation of the principles on which this nation was founded. Chief among those principles is sacredness of private property. Politicians who continue to ignore the individual's right to own and control the use of his own property, paint a target on their back. A rapidly growing, enlightened, determined electorate is looking for those targets, and every opportunity to remove them. Bob Learzaf, Donald Scott, the Pilgrims and countless others, have already paid the price of government greed. It's time for an enraged electorate to turn the tables on land-hungry bureaucrats and politicians, and transform them into victims ... of unemployment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International 777 - You sound like one of those that call Mr. Lamb an extreme rightwing zealot. I think the main problem is that what you call the center ground has been forced so far left that the former mainstream people who believe in private property, individual rights, states and county rights you now label extreme right. There are literally thousands of more sad stories like those above forced on law abiding private citizens by Clinton/Gore and their henchmen. If you want examples there are literally volumes, all done in the name of "liberal tolerance".