Splitting Hairs, Splitting America
By: Eddie Clements
In the old soviet empireâ€™s heyday, dissent was characterized as â€œcrimes against the stateâ€. Dissenters were rounded up and handled in one or a combination of ways. Some were hauled before show trials, so-called because they were for show rather than legal reasons. Some were declared â€œinsaneâ€ and sent to aâ€¦.well, somewhere unpleasant. The justification offered for popular consumption (read: warning) was that a person who rebelled against the benevolent leaders of the benevolent soviet peoples government had to be crazy. Right, but for the wrong reason.
Some were â€œre-educatedâ€ â€“ much like poor Winston Smith in the novel 1984 (a novel now come to life in real-time in America.) Smith was mercilessly beaten and psychologically savaged until he professed love for Big Brother and confessed his â€œcrimesâ€, then subsequently executed publicly, as a warning. Isnâ€™t it funny how many warnings in despotic regimes feature a death component?
Leaders of despotic states need enemies they can defeat publicly to exhibit their skill and power. The idea is to intimidate potential political opponents from even attempting to replace the despot du jour. Democracies have not needed imaginary enemies to beat up, especially America. One after another would-be dictator has challenged U.S. power, giving our politicians plenty of targets to practice their skills on. Successfully defeating enemies almost guarantees continuation in power even for elected officials.
Most challenges to U.S. power have been unsuccessful; Vietnam is a sad exception. That war was fought and lost in the press, which in America has proven to be a lousy battlefield for sincere advocates of truth and freedom. A new war is being waged by Democrats against American citizens. You may not know it, but you are either with them or against them, a dichotomy the left rejected when applied to actual evil enemies of American traditions and ideals. The dark side has the upper hand for now. Once again, the press assumes the role of battlefield, only it is thankfully larger with expanded outlets on cable/satellite venues and the internet. The Big Three networks and long-standing print media no longer own a monopoly on information, but they are powerful adversaries of free thinking nonetheless. The effectiveness of their monotone political coverage should not be misunderestimated.
Obama has proven adept at the diversion, the bait and switch, and the lawyerly evasion. He plays class warfare effectively as his game of choice, taking a lesson from socialist playbooks. Instead of concentrating on threats to American interests from without, Obama has opted to flay straw men within our own borders.
Despite the promise to become united, we have become polarized. Now the aroused rabble proposes show trials for former duly elected or appointed officials in the Bush administration. They may deepen political divisions, because such would be political persecution. Liberal-progressives have long assigned dark motives to the inner workings of the Bush administration regarding their methods used to protect U.S. citizens from further attacks by terrorists. Or is the threat of ripping the American political and social fabric asunder yet another contrived diversion? The Presidential mind could be re-directed should the Taliban successfully consume Pakistan; they are on their way to its capitol. A nuclear Al-Qaida/Taliban could alter the equations quickly.
While calling waterboarding or caterpillar room-mating torture is arguable, they arenâ€™t pulling out fingernails or psychological scarring. The usefulness of the techniques is shown by intelligence gathered as a result. Liberal-progressives trot out the worn semantic trick â€œthe information could have been gained by other methodsâ€, which cannot be demonstrated, because the opportunity has passed. Would it stretch their tortured imaginations too far to suggest other methods short of waterboarding were tried before resorting to harsher techniques? That using such techniques was a last resort, knowing the information obtained could be unreliable? That President Bushâ€™s prime responsibility under the Constitution is to protect Americans from harm, a duty he took seriously? Liberals cannot admit conservatives are lawful and conscientious, because it would crash and burn their worldview, thanks again to demagogic politicians cast in the mold of Barack Obama.
But what about the possibility of legal charges against former administration officials? We can argue torture all day, but prosecution of lawyers for offering legal opinions cannot possibly be an application of law. Eric Holder is entirely disingenuous, his statements to the effect he has a duty to uphold the law notwithstanding. This person is a progenitor of the Waco disaster. Prosecutions would be entirely political persecutions.
The straight faces on newscasts and in print talk of setting a precedent where honest opinions would be chilled for fear of prosecution. There are bigger issues here. One, this is being called the â€œrule of lawâ€, but it is points of law by fine-toothed comb. This is inventing enemies to conquer as a demonstration of power, and what better enemies than those already perceived as such by your supporters. After successfully dispensing with them, the ones who are still at liberty, well, take this as a warning! Get out of line and you could be next! We can contrive ways to be rid of you!
The second issue is that this flies in the face of our democratic republic, and all our traditions. America stands to lose its way. Putting political opponents in jail for executing their duties of office replaces benevolent democratic philosophy with malevolent despotic philosophy, a theme in banana republics, or 1984. If Americans allow the Obama administration to gut the Constitution in this manner, it will dwarf the attempts to destroy the hard-won American philosophy of property and contract rights by nationalization. This doesnâ€™t go to property, this goes to YOUR FREEDOM from unlawful prosecution. â€œLawfulâ€ will mean whatever the next higher legal controlling authority over you says it means.
In practice, it means forced subjugation, with Democrats as masters. Donâ€™t offer opinions the left may not like, and donâ€™t just obey Big Brother. Love Big Brother and accept him as your new god, above your own God, for he holds the power over your life or death on Earth.