Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Throughout his remarkable career, Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly been asked a variation on the question of how he handles the slings and arrows from the liberal community and his answer always intrigued me. He would, he said, remind himself that they were simply projecting their worst traits onto him, i.e., if they accused him of being an angry, bitter person, they were very likely describing themselves. His response had about it a rhetorical symmetry that made it automatically appealing, …an eye for an eye, a psychosis for a psychosis, that sort of thing. But lately I’ve been giving the response a closer look.
Why, for example, in the wake of the horrific Tuscon shootings in 2011, would President Obama implore us to, “pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that — that heals, not in a way that wounds,” and then stand by passively a few months later while Jimmy Hoffa announces a “war on workers,” and exhorts his audience to, “…take these sons of bitches out…” in reference to the Tea Party? The obvious answer, of course, is that Barack Obama would sooner denounce his own pancreas than denounce a union boss. But there is something else at work here.
How else to explain why former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi grew weepy expressing her concern over the non-existent violent implications of Tea Party protests which featured zero arrests, but thanked God above for the Occupy Protests which featured rapes, assaults, vandalism and accompanying arrests? She was simply accusing her political opponents of acting like many of her political supporters, the idea being to somehow define those who wish to preserve traditional American values as being outside of those values. Admittedly, it’s a tough sell and a desperate approach, the desperation having been midwifed by a series of failed collectivist experiments that wouldn’t have worked if King Solomon himself had tried them.
So it is that those who believe in such unalienable rights as are written in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (as opposed to those rights recently located in the left sleeve of John Roberts’ robe) become the object of ostracism, as in the case of a local television station in Raleigh, North Carolina. In the middle a story centering on the fact that rural areas within the state lead the way in concealed weapons permits, WRAL placed a data entry box with the caption, “Find concealed carry permit holders in your area.” Just type in your street, city, county and zip code, and presto, you too can learn who these people are in the same fashion as you might identify, say, sex offenders. The fact that there ought to be a distinction between identifying and tracking down law abiding citizens versus convicts seems never to have occurred to WRAL’s management. But I’m being harsh. Perhaps the thought had occurred after all, but took a distant second place to the priority of shining a spotlight of disdain on people whose belief in self defense reflects that of Thomas Jefferson.
Not to be outdone, the Department of Homeland Security recently released a study in which it described various groups capable of engaging in terrorist activity. Under the subject of “Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism-United States,” we find the heading “Extreme Right-Wing,” whose characteristics include,“…groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack, …anti global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty…” George III’s general displeasure with the authors of the Constitution is one thing, but that they would have raised the suspicious ire of today’s federal apparatchiks is telling indeed.
But that is precisely the point! While police and medics were still wading through the carnage of the outrageous massacre in Aurora, Colorado, reporter Brian Ross matched the name of the murderer with that of a Tea Party member and, without verifying its validity, proceeded to assassinate the character of a law abiding citizen on live television because it meshed with a preconceived narrative. What narrative? The narrative that imputes violent tendencies to non-violent people while turning a blind eye to a President’s association with a member of the Weather Underground; that assigns racism to the requirement that voters produce exactly as much identification as is needed to buy a pack of cigarettes but views actual voter intimidation by Black Panther goons as a non-event. It is a narrative that indicts the authors of the Constitution as outside the American mainstream, but enshrines anarchists and the non-productive as the very bedrock of society. It is a narrative advanced by a pastor who invoked The Almighty’s damnation of America, and whose congregant resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Yesterday’s iconoclast has becomes today’s wrecking ball, and the more he succeeds, the more our country fails.
So when the authors of this narrative accuse you of bitterly clinging to your faith and your God-given rights, it’s because they bitterly cling to their faith in omnipotent government. When they accuse you of racism, it’s because they are either unable or unwilling to break free of the chains of a twisted perspective in which everything is seen in a racial context. When they accuse you of being greedy for trying to provide for you and your family, it’s because they are the greedy ones, lusting after the property and liberty of others and the power they imagine will be theirs. When they accuse you of being a threat to society because you insist on having access to the weaponry required to protect yourself and your family, it’s because they view you as a threat to a utopia in which the government prefers to arm drug cartels over law-abiding citizens. When they accuse of you of trying to impose your morals on others, it’s because they desire to impose theirs on you whether through forcing you to subsidize the sex habits of others, or forcing you to purchase whatever product or service suits the egalitarian impulse of the moment.
But as the progressives’ poll numbers decline, it helps to remember that with every malicious slander, with each unfounded accusation, and with every sneer meant to mischaracterize you, these people are instead revealing themselves.
(Cartoon from taxingingtennessee.blogspot.com)