Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!

I’m beating John Hitchcock to the punch on this one — he has it on TRUTH BEFORE DISHONOR — because I don’t want Wagonwheel excluded from commenting on this post. It seems that the Democrites have expressed their real feelings: we all belong to the government!

This is a short clip from a video played at the Democrite National Convention today, which includes the repugnant line, “The Government is the only thing we all belong to.” No, no, a thousand times, no! We do not belong to the government; the government belongs to us.

It is this attitude by the Democrites which has led to the huge expansion of the federal government, their attitude that they know what is best for us, that they can and should tell us how to live our lives, and that we will comply.

Well, fornicate them! If there was ever a reason to vote out Democrites, this is it.

35 Comments

  1. I think that in using a colloquial sounding speaker with a Southern accent they’re aiming to shift the equivocal senses of “belong to” over to the “membership” rather than “possession” side.

    Cue up the WWII era “Why we Fight” theme.

    ‘We are all different … but here is what we share …’ Well, not so much anymore.

    So what we see with this strangely forced construction – we are not after all at war and existential risk with the Nazi’s at the moment – is the government posited as a kind of membership club of the last resort; as if it substantively represented some kind of human ideal, body of positive values, or affiliation worthy of our sacrifice to “government” per se.

    What we are really watching here, is a real-time playing out of the famous “political affiliation without a social affinity” problem, as originally brought to us, and now papered over by, the Democrat party USA.

    Now you may ask, if you are particularly dim, or a liberal: Why can’t the ideals propounded in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence serve as, or be properly said to substantively represent or characterize our government ideals? And, as such, be said to be the ideological “meat” or substance of our communal meal of last resort? Well, because, quite simply, the left does not see these old pre-suppositional values and social predicate constructs, (which did in the past to some extent condition our idea of valid government and its nature, limits, and duties) as objectively true, or as obtaining or respectable any more.

    We could easily cite dozens of instances. A certain Supreme Court justice whose opinion on the irrelevance of “natural rights” for our legal system is particularly well known.

    Thus, we share our “government” with a class of persons who think that rights are granted rather than inherent; that right and wrong and good and bad are purely subjective valuations; that social “evolution” defines what is right when society is “evolved” in the way they wish it, but not otherwise. Then its just change.

    The result is that we belong to, we share, in government, nothing but the sense of being irreconcilable inhabitants of the same coercive apparatus.

    Yeah … “belong to”: A phrase speciously promoted as a synonym for “identification”, in the sense of a common membership, in the supposedly extended sense of a shared allegiance and dedication through government to a common set of morally shared human values – which no longer exist.

    In “belonging to” such a government, it is no more implied that our shared membership represents a system of commonly held moral or legal values, or even a common notion of what constitutes the human person, his liberty, his security and a worthwhile life, than “belonging to” the same Continent or star system would.

    Of course that leaves the other meaning of “belong to” still in play.

    That’s the meaning we naturally object to. The proposition that says the government, rather than being the servant of a system of liberty, has a possessory stake in our persons and life energies – the notion that posits government as our master, or at least the mastering tool of those political progressives who would be masters and directors at will.

    That kind of government, the kind we now have, constitutes a values voided shell. It is the coercive apparatus still in place once the morally deconstructed appetites of the political left have thoroughly infested it, and claimed the levers of power for themselves in the name of community and “solidarity”: a system of submission erected in the name of shared pain and incompetence.

    One hell of a thing to “belong to”.

  2. DNW Said:

    That kind of government, the kind we now have, constitutes a values voided shell. It is the coercive apparatus still in place once the morally deconstructed appetites of the political left have thoroughly infested it, and claimed the levers of power for themselves in the name of community and “solidarity”: a system of submission erected in the name of shared pain and incompetence.

    One hell of a thing to “belong to”.

    Horray! Finally the truth!

    WW, do you understand the truth? I Do, thank you DNW!

  3. BTW, Wagonwheel, I’ve watched you dengenrate to complete stupidity over the weekend. Now every Republican is a “raaaacist” and every Republican is “a , well racist again” . Is that all you STUPID people have???? Idiots, the whole lot of you! Romney/Ryan are gonna kick your racist, classist, sextist asses and I’m gonna love it!

    My wife, a new AMERICAN is voting for ROMNEY/Ryan, so much for your racist crap. Ha Ha, we win!

    ( unless you guys get to vote dead people once again )

    WW, you’re so scared! I’d love to face you on a battlefield.

    LOOOOSer!

  4. DNW Wrote:

    That kind of government, the kind we now have, constitutes a values voided shell. It is the coercive apparatus still in place once the morally deconstructed appetites of the political left have thoroughly infested it, and claimed the levers of power for themselves in the name of community and “solidarity”: a system of submission erected in the name of shared pain and incompetence.

    I disagree. It isn’t that the Democratic agenda has no values, but that it is based on different values. The Democrats have removed all mention of God from their platform, but have included a call to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and support same-sex “marriage” as a legal institution, and support for unlimited access to abortion, without any restrictions, including any restrictions, “regardless of ability to pay.” (Meaning; the taxpayers will pay for your abortion, including late-term abortion, if you cannot.)

    The Democratic platform squishes on our Second Amendment rights, saying that they support the Second Amendment’s guarantee of teh right to keep and bear arms, but “believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation.

    No Word On Civil Liberties
    Obama has a questionable history when it comes to civil liberties, a criticism of the president that is often cited by Democrats and Republicans alike. As Mother Jones’ Adam Serwer points out, the Democrats’ 2012 platform abandons many of the positions it took on civil liberties just four years ago, when the party was eager to differentiate its nominee from the policies endorsed by President George W. Bush in the fight against al Qaeda.

    While the Democrats 2008 railed against indefinite detention (“We will not ship away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, or detain without trial or charge prisoners who can and should be brought to justice for their crimes, or maintain a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law”) there is absolutely no mention of the issue in the 2012 platform.

    The Obama administration, as has been widely reported, has maintained the practice of indefinitely detaining certain suspected terrorists.

    The platform is also silent when it comes to warrantless surveillance and the PATRIOT Act, issues Democrats vowed to revisit after the 2008 presidential election.

    Moreover, while Democrats promised to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in 2008, this year they basically acknowledged that isn’t going to happen any time soon. Instead, the platform says the U.S. is “substantially reducing the population at Guantanamo Bay without adding to it. And we remain committed to working with all branches of government to close the prison altogether because it is inconsistent with our national security interests and our values.”

    It appears that the Democrats’ values are whatever Obama Administration policy happens to be.

    In another thread, Wagonwheel criticized Eric’s statement taht President Obama was essentially a foreigner, regardless of where he was actually born, because his mother reared him as a foreigner, outside of the United States. Well, Eric was right, and the Democratic platform is just as foreign as is our President. Americans do not support same sex “marriage,” which has lost every single time it was actually put to the voters — including twice in liberal California — do not support unlimited abortion rights, certainly do not support taxpayers paying for abortions, but most Americans are religious to some extent. The Democratic platform is the antithesis of Americanism.

  5. Editor says:
    September 5, 2012 at 09:09

    DNW Wrote:

    That kind of government, the kind we now have, constitutes a values voided shell. It is the coercive apparatus still in place once the morally deconstructed appetites of the political left have thoroughly infested it, and claimed the levers of power for themselves in the name of community and “solidarity”: a system of submission erected in the name of shared pain and incompetence.

    I disagree. It isn’t that the Democratic agenda has no values, but that it is based on different values. The Democrats have removed all mention of God from their platform, but have included a call to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and support same-sex “marriage” as a legal institution, and support for unlimited access to abortion, without any restrictions, including any restrictions, “regardless of ability to pay.” (Meaning; the taxpayers will pay for your abortion, including late-term abortion, if you cannot.)

    That that represents their agenda when actualized so to speak, is probably something with which no one would disagree. And I suppose we could parse this indefinitely and wind up in nearly the same place.

    Your position I take it is that the Democrats have after toppling the goddess of liberty from the dome of the temple put up a new idol inside: the god of government dispensed, bureaucratically managed, love. Or at least an idol which is formally portrayed as such, actual application of love benefits subject to the whims and caprices and provisos of the Progressive place holder empowered to do the dispensing.

    On the other hand, we have undeniably witnessed throughout most of our lives an unremitting attempt by most on the left, whatever their governing policies have been, to argue that the state should be a life-values neutral institution showing preference or bias toward no moral or ethical sensibility over any other.

    Yes, other leftists have had problems with the concept of the “values neutral state” as a long-term proposition even while arguing for it. They, seeing it as insufficient to guarantee their long term ascendancy. Because, while they may argue for a values neutral state when inveighing against libertarian patriarchy or culturally Christian conservative values cropping up in any recognizable form in government, they recognize that a wind-swept house can be reentered by whomever dares.

    So, is government under a modern liberal regime a values neutral coercive apparatus which makes the very notion of it as an ethical ideal held “in common” and to which we all “belong”, preposterous? (As I was arguing?)

    Or has the state now been successfully melded with leftist “values”, and transformed by the communitarian leaning, social solidarity pimping atheist left, into a suffocating room having no exit, and no real rules, other than “obey”?

    Dana:

    “It appears that the Democrats’ values are whatever Obama Administration policy happens to be. “

    DNW:

    “Thus, we share our “government” with a class of persons who think that … social “evolution” defines what is right when society is “evolved” in the way they wish it, but not otherwise. Then its just change.”

  6. Hoagie says:
    September 4, 2012 at 22:51

    DNW Said:

    That kind of government, the kind we now have, constitutes a values voided shell. It is the coercive apparatus still in place once the morally deconstructed appetites of the political left have thoroughly infested it, and claimed the levers of power for themselves in the name of community and “solidarity”: a system of submission erected in the name of shared pain and incompetence.

    One hell of a thing to “belong to”.

    Horray! Finally the truth!

    WW, do you understand the truth? I Do, thank you DNW!

    I’m just reiterating what we have all said, you in particular too, many time before when confronted with somewhat similar issues.

    In re-reading the passage you have quoted, I am reminded that the disagreement between Dana and myself may even be narrower than I remarked just a moment ago.

    I make no claim that the left has no “values”. Nor do I disagree that they wish at some point, when or as they feel secure enough, to try and inject their values into the very warp and woof of the fabric of government; so as to ensure that the state is woven in such a manner that it shelters not indifferently, but only on their predicate, and according to their sensibilities.

    My point is that – switching metaphors here – they wish to remove the governor (mechanical analogy) from the engine so that they can rev it up to whatever speed and for whatever purpose they wish. The governing mechanism was placed on the state deliberately. It was was placed there in the name of certain liberty biased human values; values traceable in large part to Judeo-Christian notions of the person; notions which the appetite entities of the left do not share, and the outgrowths of which they wish to detach from the institutions of the state as impediments to their unhindered rule.

    In that sense then, the state at least for a time – or during a phase – constitutes a “values voided shell”, where eventually,

    “the political left … claimed the levers of power for themselves in the name of community and “solidarity”: a system of submission …”

  7. “I’m beating John Hitchcock to the punch on this one — he has it on TRUTH BEFORE DISHONOR — because I don’t want Wagonwheel excluded from commenting on this post.”

    I’d suppose that carrying Obama’s water down in Charlotte takes precedence.

  8. Mr Editor says in his topic piece:

    ” It seems that the Democrites have expressed their real feelings: we all belong to the government!”

    I don’t know where this idea comes from, but certainly not from the Democrats, one of whose main themes yesterday was families first, the passing of values from one generation to the next, of the American Dream in which parents strive to work hard and sacrifice, to prepare their children for the future, that their future will be better than our present has been.

    “You see, Barack and I were both raised by families who didn’t have much in the way of money or material possessions but who had given us something far more valuable – their unconditional love, their unflinching sacrifice, and the chance to go places they had never imagined for themselves.

    My father was a pump operator at the city water plant, and he was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis when my brother and I were young.

    And even as a kid, I knew there were plenty of days when he was in pain…I knew there were plenty of mornings when it was a struggle for him to simply get out of bed.

    But every morning, I watched my father wake up with a smile, grab his walker, prop himself up against the bathroom sink, and slowly shave and button his uniform.

    And when he returned home after a long day’s work, my brother and I would stand at the top of the stairs to our little apartment, patiently waiting to greet him…watching as he reached down to lift one leg, and then the other, to slowly climb his way into our arms.

    But despite these challenges, my dad hardly ever missed a day of work…he and my mom were determined to give me and my brother the kind of education they could only dream of.

    And when my brother and I finally made it to college, nearly all of our tuition came from student loans and grants.

    But my dad still had to pay a tiny portion of that tuition himself.

    And every semester, he was determined to pay that bill right on time, even taking out loans when he fell short.

    He was so proud to be sending his kids to college…and he made sure we never missed a registration deadline because his check was late.

    You see, for my dad, that’s what it meant to be a man.

    Like so many of us, that was the measure of his success in life – being able to earn a decent living that allowed him to support his family.”

    This is not a “foreign” value, as folks like our Editor and Eric claim in anger for ideological purposes, this is an American value, and this is a universal value.

    There were many values like this expressed by a multitude of speakers yesterday. And they are not exclusively Democratic values, or exclusively Republican values, they are universal values held by people far and wide.

  9. Dude, get your eyes examined. The whole thing about all of us belonging to the government was played in a video at the Democrat Convention, on the big screen. And a clip of the video is even available here for you to watch it. You truly are dense.

  10. Not to worry, Michelle’s daddy doesn’t have to scrape his meager savings together anymore, his daughter’s hit the big time. She wears $8,000 dresses, rides around in a big shinny black limo, sends her daughters to snooty private schools, and she can take plane loads of her pals on Air Force jumbo jets to luxury vacation spots in Spain, Hawaii, and Aspen on the taxpayer’s dime and let them eat arugula.

    And she loves it, she really really loves it.

  11. “You see, Barack and I were both raised by families who didn’t have much in the way of money or material possessions but who had given us something far more valuable – their unconditional love, their unflinching sacrifice, and the chance to go places they had never imagined for themselves.”

    So what did Obama’s drunken bigamist and absent father give him, other than a curious fascination with socialism, a disrupted childhood, and abandonment issues, again?

    “”I think he didn’t want the impediment of being responsible for a family. He expected great things of himself and he was going off to achieve them.” eventually … ” … Abercrombie and another grad school friend looked up their old pal during a trip through Africa.

    At that point, the senior Obama was a bitter man, according to the congressman, feeling that he had been denied due opportunities to influence the running of his country. “He was drinking too much; his frustration was apparent,” Abercrombie said.

    To Abercrombie’s surprise, Obama never asked about his ex-wife or his son.

    And his flitting crackpot of a mother? Her unflinching sacrifice was just what … dumping him off on his American grandparents? http://web.archive.org/web/20080112195046/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0703270151mar27,0,3977057,print.story

    And his Hawaii dwelling, bank vice president grandmother, lacked just what material possessions? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/Ann_Dunham_with_father_and_children_%28enhanced%29.jpg

    (Released, or let it escape from moderation. Went there when two or more links are included. Ys)

  12. Perry rhapsodizes, Michelle’s narrates, and it’s up to us to look to see how all this actually breaks out. Perry says that Michelle says:

    “… when my brother and I finally made it to college, nearly all of our tuition came from student loans and grants.

    But my dad still had to pay a tiny portion of that tuition himself.

    And every semester, he was determined to pay that bill right on time, even taking out loans when he fell short.

    He was so proud to be sending his kids to college…and he made sure we never missed a registration deadline because his check was late.

    You see, for my dad, that’s what it meant to be a man.

    Like so many of us, that was the measure of his success in life – being able to earn a decent living that allowed him to support his family.

    So, Michelle’s education was mainly paid for with grants and loans. She does not say who the loans were given to, but since she has publicly complained about the burden of responsibility for her student loans, it is safe to say that they were made, by and large, to her.

    Where these grant monies originally came from, or who made the loans, and what the proportions were of grants to loans, she doesn’t say.

    Hell, maybe she even worked in a 7-11 part time during the evenings for tuition money. But if so, she doesn’t recount that detail as part of her struggles.

    Now her father, who worked in a municipal water plant, that is to say in a government or quasi-government job, paid ” … a tiny portion of that tuition himself”. A tiny portion, she says.

    But you know, “He was so proud to be sending his kids to college …”.

    Yes, apparently “he … was sending” his kids to school. Sort of.

    They were going certainly. And someone was paying. But it was someone else who was really paying through grants and loans. Perhaps Michelle merely meant he was sending them off in the morning?

    But, then again, she noted, he did pay a “tiny portion”. And so I guess he felt – so she says – as though he was doing the sending. And she also says that he even took out loans for a portion of the tiny portion that he did pay.

    So, grant a proud father his pride if you will … but grant reality its due as well when it comes to taking a serious look at what actually transpired and the supposed moral virtue claims these lefties are making on behalf of themselves.

    The measure of their success in life, the cold, hard, facts reveal, was a municipal context job, and grants and loans, with a little personal contribution – earned from the water plant job – thrown back in.

    And that’s the moral template they see for America … That is their story, and they think it is not only a respectable story when taken within context (which it probably is) but somehow the same morally admirable template and story that built America.

    And it just isn’t.

  13. “You see, Barack and I were both raised by families who didn’t have much in the way of money or material possessions but who had given us something far more valuable – their unconditional love, their unflinching sacrifice, and the chance to go places they had never imagined for themselves.

    Moochelle may have been raised poor, but someone paid for Obama’s snooty private school in Hawaii and his exotic vacations around the globe. And it should be noted that she said nothing about the 20 years they spent in Rev Wright’s church. Obama was a loyal parishoner all that time, then, when it was politically expedient to do so, he stabbed their old pastor in the back.

  14. “And it just isn’t.”

    A trivial conclusion this is, from the fingers of one DNW, who grudgingly grants the Obama family a wee little kudo!

    I assume that you know well, DNW, that there are many templates for success in our country, the Obama’s paths being two of them.

    Some of these templates were delineated by many speakers last night, hard work being a recurring theme.

    What then was Willard Romney’s template for success? Someone said that he was born on third base, and he claims he hit a triple! :)

    Were you also born on third base, DNW?

    And the rest of Mitt’s story is more sombre. Too many of Bain Capital’s “successes”, in terms of Mitt and his partners getting rich real fast, was to kill failing companies, employees’ jobs, and pensions. This does not sit right with me! It should at least be on his conscience.

    Mitt Romney not only does not connect with people, he also has no visible core values other than being a family man. He flits from one position to an opposite position based on the direction of the wind, seemingly hardly realizing this is what he is doing, in contrast to the core values of his opponent. Thus, I find him to be untrustworthy.

    Let us see how well he does in the debates. Let us see if he produces detailed plans for growing our economy while simultaneously getting our fiscal house in order. So far, he has been silent regarding details.

  15. Pingback: More government is not the answer! « THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.

  16. And the rest of Mitt’s story is more sombre. Too many of Bain Capital’s “successes”, in terms of Mitt and his partners getting rich real fast, was to kill failing companies, employees’ jobs, and pensions. This does not sit right with me! It should at least be on his conscience.

    You left wingers are just jealous of Romney’s business success and the tens of thousands of jobs he helped create. Contrast that to Obama, who never created a single job, indeed, who never even had a job in the private sector, not even a lemonade stand. Let’s face it, Romney was a typical all-American boy whereas Obama was a foreigner who hung out with extremists and weirdoes.

  17. Mitt Romney not only does not connect with people

    Romney connected just fine with all the people he’s helped through charity and volunteer work. His only “Problem” is he’s too modest to brag about it. In contrast, how much charity work has Obama done? Do you have an answer to that, Perry?

  18. PS How much you wanna bet Obama spends the first half of his speech bragging about how, all alone, single handedly, without any help, he captured and killed Osama bin Laden?

  19. Hoagie says:
    September 5, 2012 at 15:18

    I don’t know Yorkshire, you’d have to show me a Democrat Party plank that isn’t a commie policy first.

    The Left is a wonderful world of make believe. And Make Believe is a requirement of the Commies to snare the unknowing into their trap. The make believers still haven’t figured Bubba’s success of moving closer to the middle. But their ideology prevents that.

  20. “I assume that you know well, DNW, that there are many templates for success in our country, the Obama’s paths being two of them.”

    No one is saying that they didn’t discover that one of them nowadays is mooching off the government and thus through government the productive portion of the citizenry. Why do you think that she is referred to as “Moochelle” by so many? You might just as well get indignant when someone sneers at John Gotti’s “achievements”.

  21. That’s really low-brow and pathetic, DNW. Better not write any more until the migraine eases up.

    On the other hand, Eric exhibits symptoms of chronic migraine syndrome, which hinder his willingness to do needed research with an open mind, and think things through logically, so he takes the easy way out, always!

  22. WW wrote:

    I assume that you know well, DNW, that there are many templates for success in our country, the Obama’s paths being two of them.

    Really? But it seems that you don’t approve of every template for success, do you?

    And the rest of Mitt’s story is more sombre. Too many of Bain Capital’s “successes”, in terms of Mitt and his partners getting rich real fast, was to kill failing companies, employees’ jobs, and pensions. This does not sit right with me! It should at least be on his conscience.

    It seems that Mr Romney has been successful in every job he has had, something President Obama certainly cannot say.

  23. “Really? But it seems that you don’t approve of every template for success, do you?”

    I certainly don’t approve in general of the Bain Capitol/Mitt Romney approach. I don’t approve of the approach which removes bargaining rights from workers. I don’t approve of the corporate mentality which refuses to reward employees for their productivity increases. And I don’t approve of paying women 75% of what is paid to men doing the same job.

    “It seems that Mr Romney has been successful in every job he has had, something President Obama certainly cannot say.”

    That depends on how one defines “success”. Although President Obama would not say so himself, I think he has been eminently successful with regard to his positive impacts on hundreds of millions of people, a comment which certainly cannot be made by a man some success of which has been achieved by starting on third base and then destroying the livelihoods and pensions of large numbers of people while he walks off with millions of dollars. Do you call this success?

  24. On the other hand, Eric exhibits symptoms of chronic migraine syndrome, which hinder his willingness to do needed research with an open mind, and think things through logically, so he takes the easy way out, always!

    So, do you approve of Obama stabbing his pastor of 20 years in the back, for purely political reasons? Loyalty isn’t exactly Obama’s strong suit, is it? You don’t see Mitt Romney acting that way, do you?

  25. That depends on how one defines “success”. Although President Obama would not say so himself, I think he has been eminently successful with regard to his positive impacts on hundreds of millions of people, a comment which certainly cannot be made by a man some success of which has been achieved by starting on third base and then destroying the livelihoods and pensions of large numbers of people while he walks off with millions of dollars. Do you call this success?

    Mitt Romney helped create tens of thousand of new jobs. In addition to that (unlike Obama) he found time to do lots of charity and volunteer work. And he’s a very successful family man, too. Obama, in contrast, has never had a private sector job, not even a paper route or a lemonade stand.

  26. The left wing has taken over the Denocrap party. They are militantly atheist (like Perry), virulently pro-abortion, and think government should run everything.

Comments are closed.