Apparently I am just short of being a terrorist just because I went to a Tea Party! (weird, that never happened to my Grandmother in her heyday)
This, according to the Department of Homeland Security....Or as I like to call them The Department of Saying-Whatever-I-have-To-Say-To-Keep-My-Cushy-Ass-Government-Job.
“Right wing
extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups,
movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of
particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti government,
rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting
government authority entirely,” the report states. “It may include groups and
individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion
or immigration.”
I am sure most of you know that the previous quote is from the DHS report on Right Wing Extremism.
Well ain't that somthin'. Categorizing people into broad groups and labeling the mass for the attributes of a few. I wonder if that has ever happened before. Too bad I'm not up to speed on my Civil Rights Movement Era history. Maybe if I knew more about Germany around 1938 I would have a better idea of this grouping thing. Good thing they are on their toes into dividing the nation into manageable groups there at DHS.
For the record, I would happen to fall into the second group by their broad definition. And from what I gather there is some pretty good company in that group. Nathan Hale being one of my favorites. Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and George Washington to name a few more. If being put into the same group as those fine gentlemen requires a label of "Right Wing Extremist" then I'll take it.
I do dislike a strong Federal Government. So did the afore mentioned men of The Enlightenment. I know this because I actually read "The Federalist Papers" in Jr. High. I suppose instead of actually reading her assignment Janet Napolitano was passing notes to the cute beatnik in her class.
The Founding Fathers disliked a strong federal government also. There's a reason for this. The government is to be controled by the people. I know, that's quite the stretch to make, especially with "WE THE PEOPLE in great big ass bold letters at the very top of the constitution itself (I wonder what font they used). Keeping as much government in local hands as possible keeps the government from getting so large that it can no longer be controlled.
Despite me penchant for humor, I am quite serious on this matter. Let's take a fictional example of a concrete to demonstrate the abstract thought behind this distrust of "Big Government"
Suppose there was a bill being proposed to outlaw... I dunno.... using deodorant.
Suppose that this bill was in the U.S. Senate. Now, picture yourself getting ahold of your Senator. Go head, find their phone number on the website and call up to make an appointment. Now, while you're on hold make sure to book your airline flight or rental car to Washington DC, or if you are extremely lucky you can catch them in their district at their "home office".
Or maybe you would like to stage a peaceful protest to the proposed bill. Get some people that agree that deodorant shouldn't be banned, make some signs, think up some catchy slogans like "Hell no, we wont smell!" You do know you can do that right? It's right here in Amendment 1 of the US Constitution.
So, make sure to get all your friends schedules to line up, get the bus or car pool, spend the cash on gas, food and lodging, and get yourselves all the way to your representatives office and "peaceably assemble".
I don't mean to disparage U.S. Senate (or House) representatives. But quite honestly they cover a large territory and have a brazillion constituents. Even an honest one would have an extremely difficult time of listening to each of the "petitions [to] the Government for a redress of Grievances"
Now, lets say such legislation was brought up in your local area. Imagine that you live in Stinkyton. Also imagine that it was the City Council bringing this "Pro-Stench" legislation. Heck, maybe they might throw a catchy name onto it like "Stankowitz Law".
So, you being Pro Deodorant don't much care for this idea. Imagine yourself calling up your local City Council Reps office and scheduling an appointment. Imagine also, when you get there you find out that Mr. Representative (with a name like that, how could he NOT get elected!) lives just a couple of blocks down the road from you and went to the same grade school you did. So, how much influence do you think you would have? How much easier would it be to meet with your local Council member than your U.S. Senator?
We can go another rout if you would like. Let's say you and your buddies decide that it might help to peaceably assemble (gosh, there's that phrase again) in front of City Hall. Imagine the logistics that would involve. My goodness it might actually happen!
"Hey Bill...wanna protest that deodorant garbage at City Hall Friday afternoon?"
"Sure thing Ted"
"Excellent" (insert guitar noises here)
This also leads to the ability for you to leave an area that has laws that you feel are unjust.
Suppose again that you live in Stinkyton, yet you enjoy using deodorant. The populous of that area rather enjoys the 'au natural' thing leaving you as the odd person. You enjoy your deodorant so much that you are not about to give it up, so you decide to pack up and move to where it is legal to use deodorant. Which just happens to be a few blocks away, NOT an entirely different country.
That is why they wanted a small central government in the founding of The United States of America. The founding fathers intended for the people in government to have a healthy fear of the consequences of their actions in their duties. They also expected the people to have a healthy distrust of the government and question their every decision. This would keep the power in the hands of "We The People" (wow, another phrase I've seen somewhere before).
Need more evidence, click the above link and check out Amendment 10.
But apparently that makes George, Thomas, Nathan and quite a few other people "Right Wing Extremists" per Janet Napolitanos opinion. Yep, I am in quite good company!
But hey, if that is her opinion of me, then I suppose I get to from an opinion of her. I think I shall choose a label that has already been defined. Not to leave her alone, I will also include Keith Oberman, Jeneine Garofalo, and some guy born in Austria who became some sort of half assed leader around 1938.
The label, as coined by Red Foreman, "Dumbass".
I dunno...lumping in Olberman and Garafalo with Hitler seems a little much. :o)
ReplyDeleteIn any case, you are correct in that our government has turned into a bloated, unwieldy operation. But of course the politicians have to label anyone who wants a smaller government "extremists", because they know they have the cushy job, and don't want to be ousted by some upstart that actually *has* a brain in their head, and doesn't want (or need) the government's assistance in day to day matters.
But the current government has done such a good job at making the vocal minority so dependent on it, that when anyone makes a suggestion that we cut some spending, or leave off a few earmarks, they're seen as working against the people.
Even though it's the people who, through the taxes they pay, that pay for these programs in the first place. I laugh when people talk about public education being "free", or wanting socialized medicine because it's "free". It amazes me how little these people realize that it's the taxes we pay into the system that provide it.
It's a vicious cycle, and one that unfortunately is probably going to take a long time to break.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReality is truly a bastard when one writes a comment, then copies it to fix a bit of HTML in it, and then loses it all in a blaze of incompetence. Hence the previous deleted comment.
ReplyDeleteI'll try again.
I was just saying that both of you (JimBob and Katie) are on to the same problem - the US government has taken on the role of Bloated Octopus - trying to be everything for everyone, and sucking the place dry the process. (Don't feel too bad - we have the same problem in Canada, where the feds have gone apesh*t as well.)
I wanted to direct you to something you may have seen already, especially if you've been following the progress of the sovereignty resolutions that have been passed by numerous state legislatures. Randy Barnett has published (first in the Wall Street Journal, then in Forbes Magazine) something that would be far more hard-hitting: a proposal for a Federalism Amendment to the US Constitution.
Here is Mr. Barnett's backgrounder on his idea.
Here is the actual text of Mr. Barnett’s proposed amendment(s) to the US Constitution. I read it and was absolutely blown away.
It is only common sense for a leader to say, “The US federal government should not have a Department of Education,” or, “The US federal government should not require homeowners to install only a certain type of toilet in their homes,” or, “The US federal government cannot continue to spend $3.55 trillion every year, because it is financially unsustainable and morally unsupportable.” But even if a leader or group of leaders says these things, it does not matter: the beast has taken on a life of its own, and it is impossible to break the cycle. And the hangers-on in the Congress and in the bureaucracy will do everything they can to make sure these ideas disappear.
The only route left is to take the legs out from under the beast. If the Congress, the President and the bureaucracy cannot break the bad habits of government, then it is up to the people to forbid the bad habits, period. That’s what I like about every single one of Mr. Barnett’s Ten Articles of Amendment. They would limit the government in such a way that the bad habits should die on the vine.
And then if the people of California or Massachusetts want to regulate the size and flushing capacity of their damn toilets, they can go ahead and do it for and to themselves.
After hearing Governor Perry speak about the excesses of the federal government on the radio a few weeks ago, I think Texas ought to be the first to pass these Articles of Amendment. Make it happen, folks!
As far as lumping in Girrafe-olo and Olberman in with Hitler goes....meh...they are all Nationalist-Socialists, so what the heck :)
ReplyDeleteIts no different than calling an Orthodox Athiest Libertarian a Right Wing Extremist :)
WOW Mr. Barnett has certainly got his act together!!
That was an astounding read! Thank you VERY much for posting the link!