Indeed. In 2003 Obama's Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Czar wrote this book/essay:
This is the same guy who now wants the WH to control all the media.
Posted on 04/10/2010 6:14:01 AM PDT by all the best
You'd think that, after a couple of centuries of major American figures describing government as, at most, something to be tolerated, political pundits would have made their peace with the idea that skepticism toward state power has a core place in American political life. If your toes tingle at the thought of more coercive programs, laws, politicians and bureaucrats, you're the (very) odd duck, not the folks with anti-government views. And yet, we still get the likes of Frank Rich throwing high-profile hissy fits because "the unhinged and sometimes armed anti-government right that was thought to have vaporized after its Oklahoma apotheosis is making a comeback," as heralded by ... Andrew Joseph Stack III's Kamikaze-style airborne attack on the Internal Revenue Service building in Austin, Texas?
For those not in the know, Stack, like many people, had a bone to pick with the I.R.S. and with the federal government. But the manifesto he left behind also accused drug and insurance companies of "murdering tens of thousands of people a year," charged that poor people get to die for the mistakes of the wealthy, and quoted Karl Marx. Anti-government Stack was, but his ideology, such as it was, doesn't appear to have been coherently right-wing or left-wing so much as ticked-off and populist.
Rich does appear to be aware that Stack isn't a very logical stick with which to beat the Tea Party movement that has him and his government-cheerleading chums so knicker-twisted. At least, he concedes "it would be both glib and inaccurate to call him a card-carrying Tea Partier or a 'Tea Party terrorist.' But he did leave behind a manifesto whose frothing anti-government, anti-tax rage overlaps with some of those marching under the Tea Party banner."
Nice how Rich works that gratuitous "Tea Party terrorist" bit in there,eh?
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
It’s dangerous to be right- when the government is wrong.
When the government takes away the rights of American citizens.
What was Obama sworn in?
That would be the date you were supposed to switch from anti-government to pro-government.
Leftists have never been about liberty. They are power hungry, nasty, ignorant, lying, destructive freaks of nature. The worst part is that the country is infected with countless millions of these disease carrying agents.
Indeed. In 2003 Obama's Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Czar wrote this book/essay:
This is the same guy who now wants the WH to control all the media.
My guess for the answer to the title question is sometime around 1861.
“When Did Anti-Government Become a Bad Thing?”
When lovers of big-government began to feel threatened with tax-cuts, talk of freedom, and making government small.
IMHO
When the Dems got control of the government. Duh!
Most libs, like Rich, have deep contempt for average Americans. I doubt Rich has talked to one since he’s worked for the Slimes. To people like Rich, what the government does is “good for you.” Rich would have been a “great” scribbler for Stalin’s Soviet Union. He would have had a large picture of the Wisest of the Wise in his bedroom. Just as he now has one for Obama.
1828 democrat party founded 1884 Fabian Society founded.
No. Actually the Dems are very pro-government. The more the better. Never enough government as far as those leftists are concerned. To them government is god.
According to Hillary Clinton, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.