Posts Tagged ‘red scare’

Are Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Thomas Sowell taking the U.S. down a Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

Are Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Thomas Sowell  taking the U.S. down a Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

By Ishtarmuz  Posted 06/26/10

In rebuttal to:  Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

Not this guy: View Enlarged Image Thomas Sowell

Adolf Hitler built up the Nazi movement in the 1920s by activating people who did not normally pay much attention to politics by his loud emotional appeals to patriotism (the fatherland), scapegoats, and all manner of fallacies in the manner of Glenn Beck and Thomas Sowell.

The value of people who blindly follow the political base of the tea party, like the Nazi party, is that  they are particularly susceptible to Hitlerian rhetoric and have far less basis for questioning Glenn Beck’s or Thomas Sowell’s assumptions which lead to their unwarranted conclusions.

Useful idiots” was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin, but really was invented by the McCarthyites, to describe liberal thinkers that considered socialism, but were painted as red sympathizers of  the Soviet Union. This is much like what Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Thomas Sowell do today in regard to supporters of the Barack Obama administration.

Put differently, the tea party movement needs to disinform citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.

In our times, the tea party movement is attempting to dismantle the protections of the citizens from corporate greed, piece by piece, before our very eyes. This by the very people that claim to love those freedoms most, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

The tea party numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with their half baked ideas, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond any particular half baked idea .

Many Presidents from Jefferson on down have warned the nation of the power of corporations taking away the rights of individuals. Today the multinational corporations have more power than nations and the President has the authority to bargain with nations. So just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to make a deal with a corporation? I don’t know, but in the BP incident I would have preferred the President to have asked the solicitor general to seize BP’s assets and put it into receivership until the crisis had passed, rather than allowing BP to voluntarily put aside any amount of money to be administered by an independent third party.  The BP damage is as much an attack as the terrorists and we thought nothing of freezing the assets of suspected terrorist around the world without due process.

The  $20 billion voluntary fund provided by BP to compensate people is in no way an abrogation of their due process, but rather it is BP’s wise decision to avoid due process where they risked a lot more.

Many people think this issue is simply whether BP’s oil gusher has done damage to those who ought to be compensated. If that was the case then they could deny blame in court and tie up any pay out for years. No, it is much more than just a legal haggling over such unconscionable minutia.

When the tea party say that our government is supposed to be “a government of laws and not of men ” and they speak of the rule of law and tort reform, they are really talking about limiting the rights of the individual and increasing those of the corporation by the same pettifogging they use on all other issues.  Sadly this is the exact twisted process that our legal system has gone down for years. Law meant to protect people have come to protect corporations.

If our laws and our institutions determine what we ought to do, according to the tea party, then like the laws made in Nazi Germany should we sterilize imbeciles and homosexuals if such a law was passed? Or should we take up arms against such a government as the second amendment clearly was intended to allow?

The tea party says that the Constitution states that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without “due process of law,” but fail to mention that such a right was used to justify slave ownership and deny women property rights. When a man has a gun in his hand, I will take it, and he should be thankful that I did not lawfully blow his head off.

BP has agreed to the confiscation of the gun pointed at the head of the American people, this means they have agreed for us to not blow their head off, a wise move.

With vastly expanded rhetoric of the tea party available at the discretion of  each day’s events,  if accepted, we will see private individuals forced into accepting the imposition of a world of robber barons again, a power removed from the Constitution long ago.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you believe in the values of the tea party, not the Constitution.

%d bloggers like this: