Speaking truth

There were three instances—events where truth was spoken this week. One was well known, another slightly less so, and the third was a TV show. I doubt many caught the connotations and the truth in that TV show although it was not hidden.

The TV show was NCIS-LA. In the episode shown February 19th, a 1970s violent, radical group reappeared. One of the original members was found murdered, the other remaining members were in prison or thought dead.

At the same time a new group, feeling the Occupy protests were ineffectual, decided to add violence, to exploit peaceful protests.  In the end, the perpetrator, the mentor behind the new radicals, was a member of that original group. He was their mentor. The show described him as the same as Hitler’s mentor, Dietrich Eckart. The character was a university history professor who had been indoctrinating his students over a thirty-year period. The last few minutes went into detail how socialist infiltration of our education system was fermenting disruption, dissent and terrorism.

It’s a rare event when Hollywood truthfully acknowledges the radical takeover of education and their real motives. This episode is worth viewing if you didn’t at the original broadcast.

The  next instance occurred on the Mark Levin radio show last night. He read most of an article by Angelo Codevilla in Forbe’s Magazine. The column is worth a full read. It is quite lengthy but confirms other reports about the ineffectiveness of the ‘Pub establishment and how they are now blocking reform movements in their home states.

As Country Club Republicans Link Up With The Democratic Ruling Class, Millions Of Voters Are Orphaned

By Angelo Codevilla, 2/20/2013 @ 4:49PM

On January 1, 2013 one third of Republican congressmen, following their leaders, joined with nearly all Democrats to legislate higher taxes and more subsidies for Democratic constituencies. Two thirds voted no, following the people who had elected them. For generations, the Republican Party had presented itself as the political vehicle for Americans whose opposition to ever-bigger government financed by ever-higher taxes makes them a “country class.”  Yet modern Republican leaders, with the exception of the Reagan Administration, have been partners in the expansion of government, indeed in the growth of a government-based “ruling class.” They have relished that role despite their voters. Thus these leaders gradually solidified their choice to no longer represent what had been their constituency, but to openly adopt the identity of junior partners in that ruling class. By repeatedly passing bills that contradict the identity of Republican voters and of the majority of Republican elected representatives, the Republican leadership has made political orphans of millions of Americans. In short, at the outset of 2013 a substantial portion of America finds itself un-represented, while Republican leaders increasingly represent only themselves.

By the law of supply and demand, millions of Americans, (arguably a majority) cannot remain without representation. Increasingly the top people in government, corporations, and the media collude and demand submission as did the royal courts of old. This marks these political orphans as a “country class.” In 1776 America’s country class responded to lack of representation by uniting under the concept: “all men are created equal.” In our time, its disparate sectors’ common sentiment is more like: “who the hell do they think they are?”

The ever-growing U.S. government has an edgy social, ethical, and political character. It is distasteful to a majority of persons who vote Republican and to independent voters, as well as to perhaps one fifth of those who vote Democrat. The Republican leadership’s kinship with the socio-political class that runs modern government is deep. Country class Americans have but to glance at the Media to hear themselves insulted from on high as greedy, racist, violent, ignorant extremists. Yet far has it been from the Republican leadership to defend them. Whenever possible, the Republican Establishment has chosen candidates for office – especially the Presidency – who have ignored, soft-pedaled or given mere lip service to their voters’ identities and concerns.

Thus public opinion polls confirm that some two thirds of Americans feel that government is “them” not “us,” that government has been taking the country in the wrong direction, and that such sentiments largely parallel partisan identification: While a majority of Democrats feel that officials who bear that label represent them well, only about a fourth of Republican voters and an even smaller proportion of independents trust Republican officials to be on their side. Again: While the ruling class is well represented by the Democratic Party, the country class is not represented politically – by the Republican Party or by any other. Well or badly, its demand for representation will be met.

If you read between the lines, this column is a call for the creation of a third party. The core premise is that the current republican party has isolated itself from its roots and those roots, acknowledging their isolation, are looking for alternatives—a new means to re-establish their representation in government.

As I said, it is lengthy. I urge you to read the entire column here.

The third instance acquired nation-wide attention and was the headline on the Drudge Report all yesterday afternoon. It was a monologue by Rush Limbaugh. I don’t know if he had read Angelo Codevilla’s article but it echoed many of the same tenets.

For the First Time in My Life, I Am Ashamed of My Country


RUSH:  Folks, I’m sorry here.  I can’t help but think that we are all being played for a bunch of fools, a bunch of suckers on this sequester business.  I don’t know.  Are you like me?  Do you really think 800,000 people are gonna lose their jobs in the Pentagon because we cut $22 billion?  Do you really think air traffic control’s gonna shut down?  Do you really think there aren’t gonna be any meat inspectors?  Do you really think that all of these horror stories are going to happen?  I don’t. 

I feel like I’ve been here.  This is deja vu all over again.  I remember the 1995 budget battle.  That involved a legitimate government shut down.  That wasn’t just $22 billion we were not gonna spend.  We’re still gonna spend $3.5 trillion.  We’re just not gonna spend $22 billion, if it happens.

RUSH: Everything gets repeated. The cycle, the claims, the threats, the crisis, Armageddon, it’s the same. And we’re talking $22 billion. It’s not as though we’re not gonna spend anything. If the sequester happens, the first year is $44 billion. Half of that’s defense. We’re still going to spend $3.5 trillion or $3.3 trillion, even if we don’t spend the $22 billion. Then there’s this guy who draws an analogy to the Oklahoma City bombing.

Plus, we have our old buddy Ron Fournier. He used to be at AP, and is now at the National Journal. This is quite instructive, actually. Let me just read a portion of this to you. “You May Be Right, Mr. President, But This Is Crazy — Your federal government is almost certain to blow past the March 1 deadline for averting $1.2 trillion in haphazard budget cuts that could cost 700,000 jobs.” But see, it’s not $1.2 trillion.

It is over ten years, but it’s not this year and it’s not next year. This year’s portion of it is $22 billion. Besides, does anybody really think that, even if the sequester happens, it’s not gonna get fixed for ten years? Anyway… “Don’t worry. We know who to blame. President Obama makes a credible case that he has reached farther toward compromise than House Republicans.” He has? Well, I guess he has, since the media says so. “President Obama makes a credible case that he has reached farther toward compromise…”

“But knowing who’s at fault,” writes Mr. Fournier, “doesn’t fix the problem. To loosely quote Billy Joel: You may be right, Mr. President, but this is crazy. Is this fiscal standoff (the fifth since Republicans took control of the House in 2011)…” Is that not an interesting perspective, by the way? It’s not “the fifth standoff since Obama was inaugurated.” No, no. It’s “the fifth standoff since Republicans took control of the House” two years ago. “Is this fiscal standoff … just about scoring political points, or is it about governing?”

Unbeknownst to Mr. Fournier, he has now swerved right into my theory: Political points versus governing, and he says it’s all about politics. “If it’s all about politics, bully for Obama. A majority of voters will likely side with the president over Republicans in a budget dispute because of his popularity and the GOP’s pathetic approval ratings.” Speaking of that, I don’t want to depress you out there, but Obama’s approval rating is as high as it’s been since 2009. It’s 55%.

The Republicans’ approval is as low as it’s been since 2009. Chris Christie goes on Letterman, eats a doughnut, and he’s at 74% approval. Christie is at 74%. Obama is at 55%, his highest approval in four years. But then Mr. Fournier writes, “If it’s all about politics, bully for Obama” but “[i]f it’s about governing, the story changes” for Obama ” Yes, siree, Bob. That’s my whole point. “You see,” as Mr. Fournier writes, totally unaware that he’s totally confirming my brilliant theorem of last week, “If it’s about governing, then the story changes for Obama.”

Fournier highlights an op-ed written by a Republican who blames everybody on both sides for it and we all gotta get together and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That’s what Fournier thinks Obama needs to read. “With a few tweaks, Obama could make it a presidential address. … ‘Americans are fed up with the jousting.… There is a lot of public posturing but apparently not much genuine conversation.'” That gets to the root of what’s bothering me here. The jousting never ends. I just feel like I’m being played for the fool here to get sucked into this narrative and this template every day.

I’ve cut a lot from his transcript due to space limitations.  A number of “pundits” are speculating Rush is calling for a third party due to the ineffectiveness of the establishment ‘Pubs and their lack of initiative and leadership combating the continuous push by the dems and libs toward tyranny. If the ‘Pubs won’t or can’t do that job, then, perhaps, it is time to find another party or organization that will. (No, I’m not joining the Libertarians. They are as much a collection of fools as are the dems and ‘Pub establishment.)

All three examples spoke truth this week—one, a Hollywood TV show acknowledged liberal infiltration in education. The second is another confirmation of the existence of The Ruling Class, how they work to maintain their personal political power at the expense of the country. The third documents the lack of leadership and the ineffectiveness—the uselessness of the ‘Pub establishment, in fighting the lies and propaganda of the left.

Levin commented on his show last night, as best I remember, “Perhaps, like the Whigs, it is time for the republican party to fade into history.