RSS
Home
The failure of irony.
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Okay, so here's an open question for you, dear readers:
On the one hand, I am technically supposed to be focusing on Letcher County and, to a lesser extent, Kentucky generally. On the other hand, what the #$&% is going on with that image above? Let's start with the obvious. A Star of David on the "Obama for America" logo? What is that supposed to dog-whistle? Never mind the fact that "Obama for America" no longer exists (it's now "Organizing for America"), and that no one would be stupid enough to use a campaign logo in front of the White House (you'd use the Presidential seal); what am I supposed to take away from your oh-so-sly effort to tie Obama to some sort of Jewish whatever-it-is? That "the Jews" are behind Obama? I think I know a few organizations that might have something to say about that.
Next: an assertion that we are in the midst of a "bloodless coup." In other words, that someone (either Obama or those behind him) are subverting the rule of law to create a state in their own image. Setting aside the question of whether we should or shouldn't like the policy choices that the President and his allies are making, here's a fun fact: elections are, in fact, the way that we choose leaders in this country. You can take exception to the way we run elections here (American elections are basically fair because we say they're fair; they don't comply with U.N. and OSCE standards for fair elections, in large part because we don't allow observers), but you can't complain about the results unless you can prove that they were wrong. The 2004 Presidential elections, as heartbreaking as they were for Democrats and liberals generally, could not be proven to be stolen. While there was some evidence to suggest that something had gone wrong, nothing could be proven, so disappointed activists went home and started organizing for the next ball game.
All of that is to say that an election whose results you don't like is NOT a "bloodless coup." This is much the same sort of argument that cost "Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire," as she calls herself, $20,000 in sanctions for basically behaving like an idiot in open court and filing motions that were breathtaking in their frivolousness (see the PDFs on the left side of the page for the actual documents). The only difference is that this organization, dedicated to defeating the "radical socialists" who are "destroying America," will face exactly zero consequences for their action, because they can just take it down and pretend it was never said (assuming, probably incorrectly, that they would be unprotected by the First Amendment).
Next: WakeUpAmerica accuses those who oppose them of "hating America." So...Yeah.
Finally: We're supposed to listen to a "political activist...behind the Willie Horton advertisement...and ...among the first to [call for President] Clinton's impeachment"? That sounds more like a CV that would be burned by any rational human resources manager, given the noxious effects of both of those events on the body politic. Regardless of your position on the rightness of those particular actions, the Willie Horton ad both contributed to a hardening of the justice system (ambitious governors will no longer give criminals any sort of break, requiring the courts to order them to do so in their own laborious fashion) and rendered actions with unforeseeable consequences fair game for campaigns (it is at best an open question whether there was sufficient evidence to suggest that Willie Horton would commit crimes on furlough). President Clinton's impeachment, because the evidence for it was so thin and it was so open to charges of politicization, rendered impeachment impotent as a mechanism for actually removing Presidents who were engaged in "high crimes and misdemeanors." Now, these guys would do the same to President Obama. I don't know for sure, but I didn't hear a single breath of impeaching President Bush from these folks, for whom the argument for impeachment was at least as good as for either his predecessor or his successor. That sure suggests that their so-called "solution" is little more than an effort to hijack the electoral mechanism when it leads to results they don't like. In short - a bloodless coup. From the very people warning us of one!
But here's the problem: this is so clearly nonsense that it can't even be truly mocked. This is so far over the edge crazy that you can't say anything that doesn't sound crazy in response. For example, there's clearly another organization that blamed Jews for election results they didn't like, asserted that those who opposed them were destroying the country, and engaged in a use of legal mechanisms to eliminate the governmental processes standing in their way regardless of the people's intent, but you dare not mention them on the Internet. This, of course, is the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" phenomenon - once something comes along that really, truly is a wolf, no one believes it anymore. This may be the intent of WakeUpAmerica.com; by being obvious Nazis, they keep anyone from calling them Nazis.
And thus, the new question arises: how do you attack someone who is so far 'round the bend that they'd need a seeing-eye dog to find their rear end with both hands? (Examiner.com: metaphor mixing an additional benefit!) I don't know, dear readers (all two of you), how can you attack this and prove it to be what it is: a racist, anti-Semitic hate group?
Related Articles:
Comments
