The Rush to Destroy

 

Most people need to make sense of things. I’m no different. You may call me anything you like, including conspiracy theorist (and I mean that in the technical definition of the term rather than the politicized version), because that’s what I’m going to be writing about in this post: my conspiracy theory. I’ll keep it bullet-point-ish. This is just the tip of the iceberg too … I could go into the agenda of indoctrination in the schools; the fluidity of gender labels and the resulting uncertainty, confusion, and chaos; and the demonizing of half the American population for having their own opinions about what’s real. But I’m writing this on September 12 and I’m drained, so I’ll keep this one pithy.[1] Maybe.

The elites have demonstrated that they really are delusional. They really do believe the crap they dish out from their vat of ivy league Marxist ideologies accumulated and affirmed by other members of their Mutual Admiration Club who all live in the same bubble. (As an aside, I was taken aback by the analysis of George W. Bush’s speech Saturday, and I realized I may have missed the moment when he too moved into the bubble. I always liked him, so I’m a little sad.)

Anyway, getting back to our friends, the “elites,” with no capital E.

The greatest hope of the elites is to become players in the Global Community, a term they have coined to underscore their self-images of superiority over the American people (because we are the peasants and only one part of the global community), which means that if they don’t branch out, they’ll miss out on more and more and MORE power. (Envision elites drooling down the front of their expensive tailored suit jackets).

The problem for the current elites is that the United States has been too powerful, and the other global leaders want the US to step down off its higher horse before they consider any of our feckless elitist leaders for seats in the top-dog chairs alongside them, running the coming New World Order.

So, the elites, tasting the pleasure of wielding power in our own country, have sold their souls in trade for bringing down and turning over the reins of our beloved land to the collective of feckless elites in the EU, all who have already sold out to China and Russia. Our part of that whole deal was to sell out to the Taliban, the future enforcers of compliance. Which we have done, nearly overnight.

The problem for these idiots who think they’re more in touch with reality than those of us who actually are … is that we are.  And we remember things … like our history.  As I said before, freedom is in our DNA. It was put there by our brilliant founding fathers. And there are those of us Americans who are willing to oppose the elite. We can run for office and win, and we will, turning back the clock on their efforts to tear this country down at every turn. There are also those of us willing to get out and protest the tyrannical decisions of the puppet in chief. And they are stepping up.

And then there’s Trump, who scares the heck out of the elite because he loves this country, and the people who love this country want a leader who, like them, also loves this country. The elites, on the other hand, hate this country because it gets in the way of the little Jen Psaki’s of the world from taking their seats behind big fat gold-leaf-accented desks in the palace of those in charge of running the New World Order.

So, this means they have to destroy the load-bearing structures of the United States … destroy as many as possible, before the next election because … well, you understand … they could lose their coveted power positions in the New World Order. And oh no, what would they do then? How else could they go on committing acts of evil in service to the devil? Hence the rush to destroy and render our country as hapless and vulnerable as possible, as soon as possible.

To demonstrate what I’m talking about, here are some of the things the elites have accomplished so far:

  1. Made us a low and nearly-no-borders country, leaving us vulnerable to invasion
    • Example: Stopped construction of the wall, and revoked an expansion of immigration enforcement while extending a deferral of deportations for Liberians who need safe haven in the US.
    • Example: Modified the scope of census takers to include non-citizens.
    • Example: Reversed Trump’s travel ban for Muslim countries, countries known for training, harboring, and deploying terrorist actors.
  2. Removed national security safeguards beyond the borders
    • Like it or not, we have to “move the wire” to protect our country, which translates into having troops on the ground in countries across the world where they can stop attacks at the origin rather than risk attacks on our own soil.
    • Example: The debacle of the Administration’s ineptly executed Afghanistan withdrawal has brought us into a more vulnerable state than ever before. Here’s why I think “than ever before.” With time comes know-how and advances in technology … and when you leave a freakin’ entire military base behind, fully stocked with everything an enemy combatant force might need … well, it’s just hard to believe these super-smart elitists suffered from a “simple” oversight.
  3. Got us back into bad deals with the global community
    • Corruption, corruption, corruption. Just look at poor Hunter Biden … he learned it from his dad. And I’m serious when I say “poor” Hunter … he is the way he is because of his dad, an indifferent and callous man who uses stories about losing his son Beau to make us believe he has compassion, even as he has obviously ignored Hunter’s issues for years.
    • Example: WHO – cronyism central at the New World Order level. No, I have no proof, but I do know human nature.
    • Example: Paris Climate Accord – a bloated over-marketed ploy to justify collecting and hoarding financial resources while dictating economy-choking restrictions on the populous. The climate change believers want to completely eliminate our capacity for productivity, commerce, and growth as a country with a healthy economy where people make their own choices about how to steward our beautiful environment.
  4.  Turned up the brainwashing to divide and control the populous
    • Example: Mandated mask-wearing. Since masks apparently don’t work, and they know it, this is really a test of our naïve malleability as a populous. They need to know how far they can push us without us pushing back before they pull out the big guns.
    • Example: Mandated vaccinations without regard to the large percentage of citizens who have acquired immunity, religious, and/or health exemptions … exceptions for, of course, members of Congress and certain union organizations.
  5. Committed abuse of power; gaslighting the populous while undermining and, in some cases, violating the Constitution
    • The elites are pursuing potentially unconstitutional actions under the guise of serving a more righteous good than freedom and equality as defined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution … which is almost impossible.
    • Example: Extended the eviction moratorium, which is, in effect, an illegal seizure of private property without due process, and forbidden under the Constitution.
    • Example: Preserved DACA, an already illegal program instituted by Obama’s executive order despite Obama’s admission that he didn’t have the authority to do it.
  6. Initiated an effort to create a culture of dependency on government handouts
    • The administration is quickly trying to buy us off (I guess they think it will work with us since it works with them), eliminating the need for personal responsibility in trade for offering a nanny state of the Mommy Dearest ilk. What message does this send to young people? That they don’t have to be accountable for the choices they make? I think so. This leads to a creative and industrial lethargy of the populace, and allows the government to get further into our personal business.
    • Example: Paused student loans, both erasing basic financial responsibilities that should be upheld to maintain the financial integrity of the system, and undermining the sanctity of contract obligations between banks and private citizens.
    • Example: Canceled student loan debt for more than 300,000 Americans with severe disabilities, and almost $56 million in student debt for students of for-profit schools (private schools).
    • Example: Extended unemployment benefits far beyond the time when the economy had returned to sufficient health to support re-employment, in effect conditioning people to the idea of not working and instead living off the government dole.
  7. Trashed the economy to weaken the country and make us more dependent on the global community
    • Example: Canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would have furthered our status as energy independent (which makes us MUCH stronger as a country), and provided a bunch of new jobs. It would have made us more independent of the global community; a no-no for the elitists.
    • Example: Contributed massive amounts of debt to the deficit through passage of the COVID-19 stimulus packages, triggering a rapid increase in inflation.
    • Example: Increased the minimum wage for thousands of federal contractors to $15 an hour, to be paid by the taxpayers.
    • Example: (also impacting #6) Extended unemployment benefits far beyond the time when the economy had returned to sufficient health to support re-employment, in effect creating a staff shortage that slowed down national production, shut down services, and triggered rapid inflation.
  8. Supported Efforts to Rewrite and Obfuscate History to Fit the Agenda
    • Example: Rescinded the 1776 Commission, which was cast as an attempt by Trump to “rewrite history.” Talk about gaslighting … who’s trying to rewrite history, huh?
    • Example: The 1619 Project and all of that with some kind of Nobel Prize and tenured position for the author despite lacking credentials … a major league gaslighting effort. Tactic: tell the lie and then legitimize it with accolades and awards.

We have a big problem, people. And we need to figure out how to create a more level playing field to combat this assault before it’s too late. Considering the speed with which the Biden administration has damaged and destroyed many of the core fundamentals and safeguards for a free people’s country, I don’t think we can pursue business as usual. They don’t play by the rules. We need to anticipate their moves and make some preemptive strikes that slow, and if possible, stop their progress.

And it all has to be done with a pristine attention to our rule of law and a relentless drive and determination to save our country.

[1] I grabbed some of the examples from different sources on the fly, so if you have any others that fit into the categories I’ve defined, please make a comment.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 58 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    God-LovingWoman (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    I don’t know what GOPe means

    It stands for the GOP establishment — the party big donors, professional party operatives, and politicians who live by the brand with flexible stances on policies to limit opposition rather than gain supporters.

    Thanks, now what is DNCMSM?

    I think it’s Democrat National Committee Main Stream Media … but that’s just my guess.

    Yup. 

    • #31
  2. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    GLW … you are wise and think creatively about the future, and I would suggest are motivated by the Holy Spirit … no mere conspiracy theorist.

    When you speak, I listen.

    A word to the wise and all …

    Keep posting!!

    • #32
  3. Rightfromthestart Coolidge
    Rightfromthestart
    @Rightfromthestart

    David Foster (View Comment):

    “So, this means they have to destroy the load bearing structures of United States”…well-phrased!

     

     

    This process has been underway since the mid 60s, my whole adult life. 

    • #33
  4. God-LovingWoman Coolidge
    God-LovingWoman
    @GodLovingWoman

    Columbo (View Comment):

    GLW … you are wise and think creatively about the future, and I would suggest are motivated by the Holy Spirit … no mere conspiracy theorist.

    When you speak, I listen.

    A word to the wise and all …

    Keep posting!!

    Oh man … thank you so much. I will. God is on the move!

    • #34
  5. God-LovingWoman Coolidge
    God-LovingWoman
    @GodLovingWoman

    Rightfromthestart (View Comment):

    David Foster (View Comment):

    “So, this means they have to destroy the load bearing structures of United States”…well-phrased!

     

     

    This process has been underway since the mid 60s, my whole adult life.

    I agree! I just said the same thing in a previous post a couple days ago!

    • #35
  6. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    that statement looks to be pretty boilerplate to me.

    I think the word you were looking for was “anodyne”. “Boilerplate” is what it was and reflects acceptance of whatever the dominant narrative of the moment is. The default GOPe position on January 6 was anti-Trump, “let’s turn the page”. and “just move on”. So they saw themselves as the target of the Trump rally, which in fact — given their stance — they were. The protesters saw real problems with the election tallies and felt that the Democrats and GOPe were engaged in an anti-constitutional coup. They saw themselves not as defying the constitution, but enforcing it. They saw themselves as resistance to the final stages of an unlawful coup that had been underway since 2017. The DNCMSM painted the protestors as traitors. How many times over the past few years had the Democrats been doing precisely what they accuse anyone else of doing?

    This is the context for President Bush’s remarks and its reception in certain parts of the electorate. If you perceive the constitution being overrun by the DNCMSM and GOPe, then President Bush’s characterization of protesters actions as unconstitutional seems a little rich. His statements are correct, if and only if, the motives of the January 6 rioters were to undermine the constitution rather than uphold it against usurpers.

    Now that I have consulted “the glossary” I see your point.  I would  point out that despite whomever is counted as the “GOP Establishment,”  2/3rds of the Republican Congressmen and nearly 1/3 of Republican Senators were planning on voting to  challenge the certification of electoral college votes on January 6.  After the riot, half of the Senators and a couple of Congressmen lost heart and declined to challenge the results upon resumption of the proceedings.

    https://www.vox.com/2021/1/6/22218058/republicans-objections-election-results

    In Bush’s statement he did not call the protesters actions unconstitutional, he said the riot was a “disruption of a Constitutionally-mandated meeting of Congress,” which is true, whether you believe the rioters actions were justified or not.  I agree that the mainstream media unfairly paints them as traitors and insurrectionists.  That is nonsense.  The ones who entered the building (the only ones who are in question) were vandals and trespassers.

    There is a related Ricochet post going on called “Babylon Bee: Summing it all up.”  The thread is taking a bizarre and disturbing turn where several members are promising to completely abandon the Republican Party and never vote for them again over this and other matters related to  George Bush.  I’m working on writing an overall response that they are probably not going to like.

    • #36
  7. God-LovingWoman Coolidge
    God-LovingWoman
    @GodLovingWoman

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    There is a related Ricochet post going on called “Babylon Bee: Summing it all up.”  The thread is taking a bizarre and disturbing turn where several members are promising to completely abandon the Republican Party and never vote for them again over this and other matters related to  George Bush.  I’m working on writing an overall response that they are probably not going to like.

    I say go for it. It’s important. I look forward to reading both the post you refer to and your response. All of this civil discourse is giving me new hope. 

    • #37
  8. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    Now that I have consulted “the glossary” I see your point.  I would  point out that despite whomever is counted as the “GOP Establishment,”  2/3rds of the Republican Congressmen and nearly 1/3 of Republican Senators were planning on voting to  challenge the certification of electoral college votes on January 6.  After the riot, half of the Senators and a couple of Congressmen lost heart and declined to challenge the results upon resumption of the proceedings.

    This fact alone should raise massive questions of false flag potential. From the weakened security to capitol police suicides, from the near schizophrenic behavior of the two groups (peaceful tourists vs riotous window breakers) that entered to the massive cover up of Babbitt’s  killing.

    The motives to disrupt the hearing were not solely on Trump supporters.

    • #38
  9. hoowitts Coolidge
    hoowitts
    @hoowitts

    God-LovingWoman (View Comment):
    He’s an empty suit surrounded by intimidated sycophants, and drunk on power. He’s also dumber than a bag of hammers.

    Now, now…let’s keep it civil. This is an insult to hammers everywhere

    • #39
  10. God-LovingWoman Coolidge
    God-LovingWoman
    @GodLovingWoman

    hoowitts (View Comment):

    God-LovingWoman (View Comment):
    He’s an empty suit surrounded by intimidated sycophants, and drunk on power. He’s also dumber than a bag of hammers.

    Now, now…let’s keep it civil. This is an insult to hammers everywhere

    Bah ha ha ha!!! Totally cracked me up. Woke up the cat. 

    • #40
  11. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    God-LovingWoman (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    There is a related Ricochet post going on called “Babylon Bee: Summing it all up.” The thread is taking a bizarre and disturbing turn where several members are promising to completely abandon the Republican Party and never vote for them again over this and other matters related to George Bush. I’m working on writing an overall response that they are probably not going to like.

    I say go for it. It’s important. I look forward to reading both the post you refer to and your response. All of this civil discourse is giving me new hope.

    I took your advice and responded.  For anybody who’s interested, comment #70 is what I would consider to be the most outrageous and ridiculous  comment I have seen by a Ricochet member in my six years on this site.

    • #41
  12. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    God-LovingWoman: (As an aside, I was taken aback by the analysis of George W. Bush’s speech Saturday, and I realized I may have missed the moment when he too moved into the bubble. I always liked him, so I’m a little sad.)

    Bush is a likable guy. But the key policies of his wing of the Uniparty are poison. Take immigration. What connection does that have to 9/11, you ask? Mark Steyn answers:

    Bush owed a debt to these men for acting while he was invisible. Yet his brief remarks barely mentioned those heroes, and none by name. Instead, he retreated to the lame tropes of the ruling class, and started yakking on about “nativism” and “religious bigotry” (ours, not the hijackers’) in contrast to those admirable Americans who “reaffirm their welcome to immigrants and refugees”. These are surely pitiful consolations for the Afghan debacle, and weirdly irrelevant to the heroes of Flight 93, who were rather deplorably unicultural – “white male frat jock yuppies”. As for “welcoming immigrants”, one might think that, even for as oblivious a ruling-class man as Bush, that would be in somewhat bad taste given what happened twenty years ago. From page 249 of After America:

    In the 7-Eleven parking lot in Falls Church, Virginia… four young men obtained the picture ID with which they boarded their flight on September 11th.

    They did so by bribing a Salvadorean illegal immigrant to certify that they all lived at his address. Hundreds lived in his modest flat: it’s part of the non-gaming of the non-system that is not only tolerated but venerated by the Uniparty.

    Steyn goes on:

    One final vignette from my 2002 piece:

    Prince Bandar and his family dropped by the Bush ranch at Crawford a couple of months ago. Bush must have known for the best part of a year that in the run-up to 11 September Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa, had been making regular transfers from her Washington bank account to a couple of known associates of the terrorists. Bandar must have known Bush knew. Each party knows the other party knows they’re engaged in a charade, but they observe the niceties, with Laura showing Princess Haifa the ranch, Bush hailing the ‘eternal friendship’ between the Saudi and American people, and Bandar regretting, as the Saudis always do, that they’re unable to be more helpful.

    And so it goes, twenty years on.

    • #42
  13. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

     

    Bush is a likable guy. But the key policies of his wing of the Uniparty are poison. Take immigration. What connection does that have to 9/11, you ask? Mark Steyn answers:

    Bush owed a debt to these men for acting while he was invisible. Yet his brief remarks barely mentioned those heroes, and none by name. Instead, he retreated to the lame tropes of the ruling class, and started yakking on about “nativism” and “religious bigotry” (ours, not the hijackers’) in contrast to those admirable Americans who “reaffirm their welcome to immigrants and refugees”. These are surely pitiful consolations for the Afghan debacle, and weirdly irrelevant to the heroes of Flight 93, who were rather deplorably unicultural – “white male frat jock yuppies”. As for “welcoming immigrants”, one might think that, even for as oblivious a ruling-class man as Bush, that would be in somewhat bad taste given what happened twenty years ago. From page 249 of After America:

    In the 7-Eleven parking lot in Falls Church, Virginia… four young men obtained the picture ID with which they boarded their flight on September 11th.

    They did so by bribing a Salvadorean illegal immigrant to certify that they all lived at his address. Hundreds lived in his modest flat: it’s part of the non-gaming of the non-system that is not only tolerated but venerated by the Uniparty.

    Steyn goes on:

    One final vignette from my 2002 piece:

    Prince Bandar and his family dropped by the Bush ranch at Crawford a couple of months ago. Bush must have known for the best part of a year that in the run-up to 11 September Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa, had been making regular transfers from her Washington bank account to a couple of known associates of the terrorists. Bandar must have known Bush knew. Each party knows the other party knows they’re engaged in a charade, but they observe the niceties, with Laura showing Princess Haifa the ranch, Bush hailing the ‘eternal friendship’ between the Saudi and American people, and Bandar regretting, as the Saudis always do, that they’re unable to be more helpful.

    I had already heard the “money quotes” from Bush’s 9/11 speech and did not find anything offensive as many are claiming.  Mark Steyn is a writer I admire and trust, so I read his entire piece, and then carefully read over the entire Bush speech to find out what I was missing.

    I swear that somebody somewhere is making-up this offensive stuff out of thin air.  I can’t even imagine that Steyn read or listened to the speech.  I have already challenged readers to point out to me what Bush actually said that was so offensive, and I have not gotten any takers.  This is starting to look like the Charlottesville quote hoax, except perpetrated by Republicans.

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/full-transcript-president-george-bush-speaks-911-memorial/story?id=79959676

    • #43
  14. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    I swear that somebody somewhere is making-up this offensive stuff out of thin air. I can’t even imagine that Steyn read or listened to the speech. I have already challenged readers to point out to me what Bush actually said that was so offensive, and I have not gotten any takers. This is starting to look like the Charlottesville quote hoax, except perpetrated by Republicans.

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/full-transcript-president-george-bush-speaks-911-memorial/story?id=79959676

    These are not innocent words:

    There’s little cultural overlap between violent extremists abroad and violent extremists at home. But in their disdain for pluralism, in their disregard of human life, in their determination to defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul spirit, and it is our continuing duty to confront them.

    Unpack it: Who does the mainstream media mean by “violent extremists at home?” That’s a phrase whose meaning has been crafted by the woke tech/media/DNC machine. 

    Bush still has very skilled speechwriters, who chose their tropes carefully. He loathes Trump and his supporters. Bush is using the emotions attached to 9/11 to power the association of ideas that the woke establishment has been preparing for years.

    His rhetoric* slipped that pitch by your rational faculties, which is was designed to do.

    The five canons of rhetoric or phases of developing a persuasive speech were first codified in classical Rome: inventionarrangementstylememory, and delivery.

    Invention:

    According to Crowley and Hawhee, invention is the division of rhetoric that investigates the possible means by which proofs can be discovered. It supplies the speaker and writers with sets of instructions or ideas that help them to find and compose arguments that are appropriate for a given rhetorical situation.

    Sets of instructions or ideas. White nationalism = Trump = violent extremism. Bush endorsed this association while memorializing 9/11. Since, as others have pointed out, Bush rushed to make this connection in January, this is unlikely to have been coincidence.

    Arrangement: In formal rhetoric, the sentences in question are in the section of the talk in which Bush was laying out the “evidence.” In this section, 

    Quintilian explained that in the narratio “we shall for instance represent a person accused of theft as covetous, accused of adultery as lustful, accused of homicide as rash, or attribute the opposite qualities to these persons if we are defending them. . .

    This is where Bush used the invention: White nationalism = Trump = violent extremism. 

    Memory: self-evident on this occasion.

    Style and Delivery: Bush has real limitations as a speaker, but he has worked out ways of being very effective despite them. 

     

     

    • #44
  15. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    I swear that somebody somewhere is making-up this offensive stuff out of thin air. I can’t even imagine that Steyn read or listened to the speech. I have already challenged readers to point out to me what Bush actually said that was so offensive, and I have not gotten any takers. This is starting to look like the Charlottesville quote hoax, except perpetrated by Republicans.

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/full-transcript-president-george-bush-speaks-911-memorial/story?id=79959676

    These are not innocent words:

    There’s little cultural overlap between violent extremists abroad and violent extremists at home. But in their disdain for pluralism, in their disregard of human life, in their determination to defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul spirit, and it is our continuing duty to confront them.

    Unpack it: Who does the mainstream media mean by “violent extremists at home?” That’s a phrase whose meaning has been crafted by the woke tech/media/DNC machine.

    Bush still has very skilled speechwriters, who chose their tropes carefully. He loathes Trump and his supporters. Bush is using the emotions attached to 9/11 to power the association of ideas that the woke establishment has been preparing for years.

    His rhetoric* slipped that pitch by your rational faculties, which is was designed to do.

    The five canons of rhetoric or phases of developing a persuasive speech were first codified in classical Rome: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery.

    Invention:

    According to Crowley and Hawhee, invention is the division of rhetoric that investigates the possible means by which proofs can be discovered. It supplies the speaker and writers with sets of instructions or ideas that help them to find and compose arguments that are appropriate for a given rhetorical situation.

    Sets of instructions or ideas. White nationalism = Trump = violent extremism. Bush endorsed this association while memorializing 9/11. Since, as others have pointed out, Bush rushed to make this connection in January, this is unlikely to have been coincidence.

    Arrangement: In formal rhetoric, the sentences in question are in the section of the talk in which Bush was laying out the “evidence.” In this section,

    Quintilian explained that in the narratio “we shall for instance represent a person accused of theft as covetous, accused of adultery as lustful, accused of homicide as rash, or attribute the opposite qualities to these persons if we are defending them. . .

    This is where Bush used the invention: White nationalism = Trump = violent extremism.

    Memory: self-evident on this occasion.

    Style and Delivery: Bush has real limitations as a speaker, but he has worked out ways of being very effective despite them.

     

     

    This is a great breakdown and explanation of what was done here with Bush as the mouthpiece. I wonder if Cheney is still working in the background.

    • #45
  16. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    I swear that somebody somewhere is making-up this offensive stuff out of thin air. I can’t even imagine that Steyn read or listened to the speech. I have already challenged readers to point out to me what Bush actually said that was so offensive, and I have not gotten any takers. This is starting to look like the Charlottesville quote hoax, except perpetrated by Republicans.

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/full-transcript-president-george-bush-speaks-911-memorial/story?id=79959676

    These are not innocent words:

    There’s little cultural overlap between violent extremists abroad and violent extremists at home. But in their disdain for pluralism, in their disregard of human life, in their determination to defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul spirit, and it is our continuing duty to confront them.

    Unpack it: Who does the mainstream media mean by “violent extremists at home?” That’s a phrase whose meaning has been crafted by the woke tech/media/DNC machine.

    What does the mainstream media have to do with Bush’s words?    As I said to another commenter, “When did we start listening to  leftists to interpret our own words for us?”  It is nonsense to get your interpretation of events from the mainstream media.  “Violent extremists at home” is plain English.  It could mean the Muslim who killed 50 people at a Florida nightclub, or the guy who killed 57 people in Vegas, or the  Black Lives Matter riots, or any number of murders, bombings, and such that take place in the United States every year. 

    People like Mark Steyn, who  are trying to prove that Bush was talking about the January 6th protesters are full of hogwash.  This is exactly the kind of thing that leftist democrats have been doing to us and we have been complaining about  for years – “discovering dogwhistles” in Republican statements, cryptic words that only the nefarious Republicans can understand.  That’s how we get pundits claiming all the time that Trump is a racist without his ever uttering a single racist remark.  With this kind of standard you could twist anybody’s words into  any ridiculous  message that you wanted to espouse.

    • #46
  17. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    Bush still has very skilled speechwriters, who chose their tropes carefully. He loathes Trump and his supporters. Bush is using the emotions attached to 9/11 to power the association of ideas that the woke establishment has been preparing for years.

    His rhetoric* slipped that pitch by your rational faculties, which is was designed to do.

    Well apparently I don’t know how to  read minds.

    The five canons of rhetoric or phases of developing a persuasive speech were first codified in classical Rome: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery.

    Invention:

    According to Crowley and Hawhee, invention is the division of rhetoric that investigates the possible means by which proofs can be discovered. It supplies the speaker and writers with sets of instructions or ideas that help them to find and compose arguments that are appropriate for a given rhetorical situation.

    Sets of instructions or ideas. White nationalism = Trump = violent extremism. Bush endorsed this association while memorializing 9/11. Since, as others have pointed out, Bush rushed to make this connection in January, this is unlikely to have been coincidence.

    Arrangement: In formal rhetoric, the sentences in question are in the section of the talk in which Bush was laying out the “evidence.” In this section,

    Quintilian explained that in the narratio “we shall for instance represent a person accused of theft as covetous, accused of adultery as lustful, accused of homicide as rash, or attribute the opposite qualities to these persons if we are defending them. . .

    This is where Bush used the invention: White nationalism = Trump = violent extremism.

    Memory: self-evident on this occasion.

    Style and Delivery: Bush has real limitations as a speaker, but he has worked out ways of being very effective despite them.

    This  is all very interesting and I see that you have investigated these ideas thoroughly.   But I refuse to believe that Bush was delivering a speech “in code” and that only people like you and the left wing media are capable of deciphering the true message.

     

     

    • #47
  18. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    I had already heard the “money quotes” from Bush’s 9/11 speech and did not find anything offensive as many are claiming.  Mark Steyn is a writer I admire and trust, so I read his entire piece, and then carefully read over the entire Bush speech to find out what I was missing.

    It was no secret that one of the biggest messages coming out of the terrorism age of Bush and Obama was “diversity is our strength” and we can not let what these people did affect our view of Islam or keep us from immigrating more Muslims. Islam is the religion of peace.

    That was a huge HUGE centerpiece of how our government developed the strategy to deal with it, including the patriot act, that focused our efforts to stop terrorism at increased surveillance of people here rather than preventing more red flags from entering the country.

    Which cost US freedoms.

    It was an emotionally derived strategy, focusing more on not making people feel bad than actually being effective while maintaining American freedoms.

    • #48
  19. hoowitts Coolidge
    hoowitts
    @hoowitts

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    I swear that somebody somewhere is making-up this offensive stuff out of thin air.  I can’t even imagine that Steyn read or listened to the speech.  I have already challenged readers to point out to me what Bush actually said that was so offensive, and I have not gotten any takers.  This is starting to look like the Charlottesville quote hoax, except perpetrated by Republicans.

    Steven,

    I think what can’t be ignored is President George W. Bush’s previous pattern of behavior and speech toward his peer, President Donald J. Trump. Parsing his recent 9/11 speech in a vacuum might yield your assessment that nothing is untoward here. That seems naive or only attainable by ignoring President Bush’s observed animosity toward President Trump. President Bush has certainly not shown to be a friend of many conservative values both during and following his presidency.

    • #49
  20. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    This  is all very interesting and I see that you have investigated these ideas thoroughly.   But I refuse to believe that Bush was delivering a speech “in code” and that only people like you and the left wing media are capable of deciphering the true message.

     

    I’m not disputing your opinion here. That said, I think I was deceived during the Bush/Cheney Administration. I think it was quite a different thing than what I saw it as at the time. The 2008 financial debacle was an eye-opener.

    • #50
  21. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Stina (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    I had already heard the “money quotes” from Bush’s 9/11 speech and did not find anything offensive as many are claiming. Mark Steyn is a writer I admire and trust, so I read his entire piece, and then carefully read over the entire Bush speech to find out what I was missing.

    It was no secret that one of the biggest messages coming out of the terrorism age of Bush and Obama was “diversity is our strength” and we can not let what these people did affect our view of Islam or keep us from immigrating more Muslims. Islam is the religion of peace.

    That was a huge HUGE centerpiece of how our government developed the strategy to deal with it, including the patriot act, that focused our efforts to stop terrorism at increased surveillance of people here rather than preventing more red flags from entering the country.

    Which cost US freedoms.

    It was an emotionally derived strategy, focusing more on not making people feel bad than actually being effective while maintaining American freedoms.

    What you say is true with the exception that they really did clamp down on preventing more “red flags” from entering the country.  In fact maybe too much.  Remember all  the  silly searches of old ladies at airports?  The no  fly lists?  The ban on flights from other countries?  The targeting of Muslim immigrants as potential terrorists?

    • #51
  22. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    hoowitts (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    I swear that somebody somewhere is making-up this offensive stuff out of thin air. I can’t even imagine that Steyn read or listened to the speech. I have already challenged readers to point out to me what Bush actually said that was so offensive, and I have not gotten any takers. This is starting to look like the Charlottesville quote hoax, except perpetrated by Republicans.

    Steven,

    I think what can’t be ignored is President George W. Bush’s previous pattern of behavior and speech toward his peer, President Donald J. Trump. Parsing his recent 9/11 speech in a vacuum might yield your assessment that nothing is untoward here. That seems naive or only attainable by ignoring President Bush’s observed animosity toward President Trump. President Bush has certainly not shown to be a friend of many conservative values both during and following his presidency.

    That may all  well be true, but ascribing remarks to George Bush that he never said nor implied is a journalism crime.  I am frankly astonished that so many on Ricochet are willing to make up  their own interpretations of what Bush said that bear no  relation to the words he spoke.  It is fine to be upset with him because you think he doesn’t like Donald Trump.  Have at it.  But you can’t go around making-up stuff he never said.  Other people will start to doubt your opinions when they find this out.  We’ve endured six years of the mainstream press making up stuff that Trump never said.  Now I  see conservative doing the same thing. 

    Some  people  are trying to convince me that it doesn’t matter if you twist his words because “we really know what he thinks.”  That is BS.  Under this scenario there is  nothing at all that a “target” can say that will  ever be acceptable.  Words do matter.  Truth matters!

    • #52
  23. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    This is all very interesting and I see that you have investigated these ideas thoroughly. But I refuse to believe that Bush was delivering a speech “in code” and that only people like you and the left wing media are capable of deciphering the true message.

     

    I’m not disputing your opinion here. That said, I think I was deceived during the Bush/Cheney Administration. I think it was quite a different thing than what I saw it as at the time. The 2008 financial debacle was an eye-opener.

    What exactly were you deceived about?

    • #53
  24. God-LovingWoman Coolidge
    God-LovingWoman
    @GodLovingWoman

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    God-LovingWoman (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    There is a related Ricochet post going on called “Babylon Bee: Summing it all up.” The thread is taking a bizarre and disturbing turn where several members are promising to completely abandon the Republican Party and never vote for them again over this and other matters related to George Bush. I’m working on writing an overall response that they are probably not going to like.

    I say go for it. It’s important. I look forward to reading both the post you refer to and your response. All of this civil discourse is giving me new hope.

    I took your advice and responded. For anybody who’s interested, comment #70 is what I would consider to be the most outrageous and ridiculous comment I have seen by a Ricochet member in my six years on this site.

    I read the one comment. It’s quite halting. Not what I would consider representative of civil discourse. I haven’t read the whole thread but I will.  

    • #54
  25. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    Remember all  the  silly searches of old ladies at airports?  The no  fly lists?  The ban on flights from other countries?  The targeting of Muslim immigrants as potential terrorists?

    How many these were placed on domestic travel?

    • #55
  26. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    God-LovingWoman (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    God-LovingWoman (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    There is a related Ricochet post going on called “Babylon Bee: Summing it all up.” The thread is taking a bizarre and disturbing turn where several members are promising to completely abandon the Republican Party and never vote for them again over this and other matters related to George Bush. I’m working on writing an overall response that they are probably not going to like.

    I say go for it. It’s important. I look forward to reading both the post you refer to and your response. All of this civil discourse is giving me new hope.

    I took your advice and responded. For anybody who’s interested, comment #70 is what I would consider to be the most outrageous and ridiculous comment I have seen by a Ricochet member in my six years on this site.

    I read the one comment. It’s quite halting. Not what I would consider representative of civil discourse. I haven’t read the whole thread but I will.

    I agree. My thinking about how I was deceived by Bush and Cheney is more about how Angelo Codevilla describes the division between the Elites and the common people. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say I wasn’t paying attention to the degree necessary to understand what the powers that be were actually doing.  Here we are again talking about what someone says rather than what they do. This is why I thought Donald Trump was a blessing to the people because he made these people reveal themselves. America was founded as a federal republic (that is what I support) and Bush/Cheney worked against that concept along with the Republican Party. It took me too long to realize this.

    • #56
  27. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    What does the mainstream media have to do with Bush’s words?

    When was the last time you referred to a dominantly heterosexual social gathering as “gay?”

    • #57
  28. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    What does the mainstream media have to do with Bush’s words?

    When was the last time you referred to a dominantly heterosexual social gathering as “gay?”

    About 130 years ago!

    • #58
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.