Replies

Odd? It's not odd at all. For decades, no matter the makeup of the Regress, or which party the President belonged to, the Left enjoyed paramouncy; for so long indeed that the Left came to regard the power(s) so conferred as a matter of their natural ''right'' (no pun intended).

In 1994, they lost absolute control of the House of Dipsticks. Subsequently, they lost absolute control of the other house, in the figurative commissary of which waitress sandwiches were occasionally served (or should that be ''serviced''), and possibly still are today. Later on, because their well-honed tactic of electoral fraud failed them, the Left lost the Presidency.

These events were entirely contrary to the Left's perception of the natural order of things, and so, today, they pout, they cavil, they whine, they pettifog, they obstruct, and -- most of all -- they betray, consistently and every time, the Constitution to which each elected member of the Left (the very number of which speaks poorly for the existence of representative gov't) has, putatively, pledged and sworn an oath.

Orwell understood, and explained in full and in writing in his most famous dark satire, all our Clintons and Kennedys, Nixon (if you believe he was anything other than a Leftist, a totalitarian-wannabee, you're either historically illiterate or smoking ciggies w/o any lettering), the abominations and treachery of L B Johnson and Jimmuh, that one-worlder hypocrite G H W Bush, the assorted decades-spoiled garbage infesting the Dep't of State and the CIA, and the cooptation and practical ruination of that once classically American institution, the FBI. Orwell put it this way, in the words of his character O'Brien:

''The object of persecution IS persecution. The object of torture IS torture. The object of power IS power. Now do you begin to understand me?''

Nine years after the publication of ''1984'', Ayn Rand re-described this entirely parasitic philosophy, and its practitioners' presumption of its permanance as part of the natural order of things, in even more detail, most specifically in Floyd Ferris' speech to Henry Reardon (p. 411 of the Pocket Books edition of ''Atlas Shrugged'').

While I do not and would never pretend to belong to or even to aspire to the company of these two giants, I will add just a thought here: they were optimists, purely, simply, naively, and...sadly. They described the truth, but never the extent of its consequences, and only approached describing the explicit evil of the Left, these would-be controllers, these macromenaces to liberty, these Stalins-in-waiting. There is no describable depth of deceit, depravity, or dishonour to which the Left, of whatever nominal ''political'' or ''philosophical'' orientation, will sink in order to attempt to quench their craving and their lust. These filth never quit, and so also never will they acknowledge the advantages of liberty -- not to be confused with the misbegotten notion of universal license, anything goes, how dare one be ''judgmental'' -- to every person.

The only question that remains is whether there is a sufficient quantity of citizens, whether actually American or American in spirit, of whichever nation or nations by birth, to stand together and say to the tyrants of the Left, "Leave us. Leave us alone to prosper among ourselves, and if you refuse to do so, the consequence will be yours to ponder, and to suffer.''

The tyrants and their syncophants will not do so voluntarily, of course, and the next question will then become: at what point will Americans say to these thieves and murderers, in so many words, ''You refuse to leave us to our own lives -- we refuse to surrender our lives to you, any longer or any further. Draw your weapon.''

Privately, I would rather that matters not come to such event, but, I see no alternative, ultimately.

With best wishes to you and to all, ... FReegards!

Re: post 41. ... My hat is off to you Sir/Madame you have very eloquently told it as it is. There is one other VERY important point that you only very slightly touched on is the reference to "drawing a weapon". It is that weapon and the lefts realization that their nefarious lust for power can never come to complete fruition while those who oppose them still have that weapon to draw. That is the only TRUE reason why they rail against tham and attempt at every chance to disarm those who would stand in the way of their evil. Thank God that our founders had the wisdom to enumerate the right of the common man to "bear arms". It is that right that safeguards our liberty against those "Stalins Sadam Hussiensand Pol Pots in waiting" It is when we as a free people surrender our right to defend ourselves that we will no longer be free and "America" will cease to exist. I for one would rather go in to oblivion with my beloved country than to live in what would follow.

They described the truth, but never the extent of its consequences, and only approached describing the explicit evil of the Left, these would-be controllers, these macromenaces to liberty, these Stalins-in-waiting. There is no describable depth of deceit, depravity, or dishonour to which the Left, of whatever nominal ''political'' or ''philosophical'' orientation, will sink in order to attempt to quench their craving and their lust. These filth never quit, and so also never will they acknowledge the advantages of liberty -- not to be confused with the misbegotten notion of universal license, anything goes, how dare one be ''judgmental'' -- to every person.

Outstanding! It's precisely the consequences of of the Left's upending of reason, truth and logic that most everyone refuses to consider. It's the 'elephant in the living room' that no one wants to see, it's the crazy old uncle in the attic that no one talks about. A good portion of America's become a surly sullen drunk soused on the collectivist 'promise' - and it's in dire need of a family intervention.