rhetoric political discourse

A Question Of Rhetoric

Posted 7/8/05

Of all the feedback I get from what I have written on this site, by far the most common remark is, "well, yea I agree with what you're saying, but why don't you turn down the rhetoric", or "I think you're right, but you're not going to convince anyone with the way you're saying it." Most often the complaints center around so-called 'inciteful' 'rhetoric' words that I often use like: 'stealing', 'criminal', 'killing', 'thieving', 'kidnapping', in reference to our current government, other governments, or current government officials. Before addressing these complaints, let me first point out what real 'rhetoric' is: exaggerated language or comparison intended to inflame emotions rather than present facts. Some examples:

U.S. Senator calls the Family Research Council the Anti-Christ

4/27/05 US news wire Focus on the Family today dismissed as "overheated rhetoric" and "suspect theology" comments from U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar that the ministry is the "antichrist of the world." <.> "In my view," Salazar said of the ministry, whose 1,400 employees he represents, "they are the antichrist of the world."

Family Research Council Poster

4/24/05 Poster that accused Democrats of a "Filibuster against people of faith".

These posturings insinuate and infer that a religious group is Satan and that Democrats are people of no faith. Obviously this sort of ridiculousness has no place in political discourse and says volumes about those using them, not those targeted by them.

Now, let us compare this to the 'rhetoric' I've been using. First, it is my belief that we are so programmed to think of our government as a benevolent benefactor, a divine savior, laboring with the best of intentions to cure all societal ills, that we are nearly totally blind to the terrible blight government consistently inflects on society. When discussing government we seem to have a complete double standard. It's not entirely clear from whence this attitude comes from, but it most likely emerges from government itself (public schools) and regulations that traditionally favor a biased media. This disconnect can be illustrated when we replace the abstract notion of 'government' with 'neighbor', or other more easily understood concepts.

Say you hire a babysitter for $50 for a night. All is well for a few nights, but then the babysitter demands you pay her $75 dollars a night. At first you laugh, "No way, I'll hire somebody else.", but then, to your horror, you discover that the law is written in such a way you CANNOT fire her. This is exactly what Unions do. This is how our labor laws are written. Unions use the law to extort money from employers and then donate $5 dollars of that extra $25 back to the politicians that made/perpetuate the law. The only difference is that, in real life, when these companies go bankrupt (as they usually do), the 'public' is often forced to pick up the bloated union pensions and medical benefits. Unions and union members are thieves and a scourge to society. This is not 'rhetoric' it is accurately stating what the Unions do and are.

The Teachers Unions in public schools, local and national, donate, often without their members consent, to politicians who then vote for more money to the bloated and failing schools, which in turn raise the salary of the union members. This is theft.

Farmers do the same thing to keep their bloated subsidies. This is stealing. University researchers and professors also donate to politicians who ensure more research funding and general funds are earmarked to their schools, which then raise their salaries. This is robbery.

Trade associations, corporations, professionals, from doctors to lawyers, to barbers, to manicurists, to truckers, every interest group you can think of, all give money to politicians to create expensive and mandatory 'licensing', and 'qualifications', and give these groups monopolies over certain 'private' services the public needs. This regulation prevents competition and enables these groups to restrict their membership, further raising their salaries. In return, these groups give a portion of their ill gotten money back to the politicians that passed the laws. This is stealing and corruption of the highest order.

The Canadian government prevents its citizens from purchasing private health insurance, forcing its citizens into the long and, sometimes fatal, public health system waitlists. The Canadian government's policy, as well as the theft of their citizen's money to support it, is killing their own citizens (see link for documentation). Some US state governments kidnap the children of their citizens when they don't follow government prescribed medical treatment (see link for neighbor analogy). How are these descriptions not accurate?

In a previous post, I asked what your reaction would be if your neighbor started worrying about how much you weighed and demanded you give them money so they could further analyze the situation, create useless charts and graphs and undertake further research of your weight problem. You would probably think they were NUTS! So when our government forcibly confiscates our money to do the same thing why do we judge them differently? Our government is a power hungry, money sucking, criminal entity. This is not 'rhetoric', it is backed up with facts throughout this website. Prove me wrong and I will apologize and change my opinions. Let's again revisit 'Republican' Senator Trent Lott:

Still, during his more than 30 years in Congress, Lott said he has learned something about how to keep the likes of Coburn from stopping his pet projects from becoming law. "The way I do it is, I fold them into bills where you can't find it," Lott said. "I've been around here long enough to know how to bury it."

Senator Lott should be thrown in jail for theft! Why isn't he? Why do some think that, 'Senator Lott should be thrown in jail for theft' is 'extreme rhetoric'? I profess it is a reasonable and logical conclusion. If you were out walking your dog and someone from Mississippi, Lott's state, drove up and pointed a gun at you and demanded $100, took it and drove back to Mississippi, what would you call for? You would demand this person be thrown in jail for theft. Yet when Senator Lott does the same thing, we whither and dither over what to call it.

Perhaps we do this because what Senator Lott does is legal, yet what the Mississippi robber did is illegal. If I want Senator Lott to be thrown in jail I must not have respect for the law. You are exactly right! We respect the law because we have unjustifiable respect for our government. Government steals from us by making their stealing legal and figuring the stupid populace will continue to blindly respect the law.

It is time we call a spade a spade. It is time we respect a higher law than government law. Government is not God and we should not have to submit to their constant criminality. This is what some religious Conservatives are getting at when they talk about 'moral clarity', yet one does not have to be religious to denounce the practices of our government. Logic and reason clearly illustrate the contempt government has for its own laws and the pervasive criminality of those in government is beyond dispute. (Why would Congress opt itself out of Social Security and Medicare, yet force the rest of us, under threat of imprisonment, to pay for and use them?)

The idea that all laws should be obeyed is pure propoganda, yet so pervasive in the common culture that to suggest otherwise is to be branded a radical. Laws should not be obeyed because they are 'laws', but rather because they are right and just. Laws that are unjust should be broken without guilt and legal actions that are wrong/unjust should be illegal and the apathetic people should not rest until these actions are exposed and codified as such.

It reminds me of this 'flag burning' amendment passed by the (sigh) 'Republican' House. As one Veteran put it to me (paraphrasing), "I don't respect and salute the flag. I respect and salute the principles it stand for and by criminalizing flag burning they are stomping on the principles it represents, while still keeping the original symbol, which now represents different and abhorrent principles. Just like those who commit crimes in the name of religion and morality are guilty of the ultimate debasement, this distortion of our liberty committed in the name of the very thing they are destroying is most repugnant."

Is not government guilty of the same transgression? Those charged with enforcing and making the laws and upholding our liberty are some of the worst criminals among us, yet, by their own laws, they are immune from prosecution.

But there is hope. A majority of us do not respect the law, although we may not analyze the reasons for our disrespect and in fact, may even feel guilty about it. Parents might have a beer with their underage kid, marijuana is smoked, tax evasion is rife, poker tournaments, fishing/hunting without a license, riding without a helmet, writing a fake note to government (public) school saying that your child is sick when he/she is not, speeding, buying prescription drugs off the internet, paying a friend to braid or cut your hair, paying a friend for just about anything!, tax shelters for inheritance or other purposes, sports pool betting, illegal immigration, smuggling, under the table wages, setting off or buying fireworks, outsourcing, 'price gouging', mid wives, alternative medicine/healing, home brewing alcohol, deliberate breaking of burdensome regulations, some forms of homeschooling, not registering a car, gun, or the many other things we are now required to register, and falsification of government demanded papers/forms.

All around us we see people breaking the law, attaining freedom despite the attempts of our oppressive government. And why shouldn't we break the law? Why shouldn't we break it with our heads held high and turn with withering gaze upon those who would deny us our freedoms with one hand while keeping the other in our pocketbooks? How dare they preach to us the morality of the law and punish us for its violations, whilst they slyly profit from their legal stealing, legal robbery, legal kidnapping, and legal extortion. We need to put our government on notice that we will not be standing for their intrusions into our freedom and we will not put up with their reckless criminality any longer.

So, in conclusion, no, I don't believe my 'rhetoric' in these matters is anything but justifiable and completely accurate. Stealing is stealing, robbing is robbing, criminal behavior is criminal behavior, legal or not. I can think for myself and know what these things are without the government telling me what to think about them. If people are turned off by the truth, then so be it. I will not temper my criticisms to try to 'change minds' and be more 'reasonable'. This has been done for far too long. I'd rather call it as it is. Refreshing isn't it? :)

(Posted 7/8/05)

Regarding the above post, I do not want to take away anything from the relative freedom we have. That is not the purpose in exposing the frauds perpetrated upon us. America is the freest country on earth (hence the most prosperous), and the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Yet, even here, there is a constant battle with those who would destroy what freedom we have.

Also notice I do not propose vigilantism on the legal criminals. Government is the only entity which can provide justice and the equal rule of law. This is one of the only useful functions of government and one which it, of course, does poorly. However, to open the door to unbridled vigilantism is to open the door to anarchy. That said, defending oneself, one's family, one's property, and one's country from a tyrannical government, by any means necessary, is justified.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.

- Edward Abbey

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

- Noah Webster

6/11/07 (By Travis)

Campaign Funds for Alaskan; Road Aid to Florida

6/7/07 New York Times

The road, a stretch of pavement near Fort Myers, Fla., that touches five golf clubs on its way to the Gulf of Mexico, is the target of a $10 million earmark that appeared mysteriously in a 2006 transportation bill written by Representative Don Young, Republican of Alaska. <.> His campaign records show that he received more than $40,000 in contributions on one day around that time, mostly from southwestern Florida developers and builders.

Mr. Young, who last year steered more than $200 million to a so-called bridge to nowhere reaching 80 people on Gravina Island, Alaska, has no constituents in Florida.

The Republican congressman whose district does include Coconut Road says he did not seek the money. County authorities have twice voted not to use it, until Mr. Young and the district congressman wrote letters warning that a refusal could jeopardize future federal money for the county.
Some more quotes from Congressmen Young:

"I'd like to be a little oinker, myself," Mr. Young told a Republican lunch crowd here, taking mock offense at the suggestion that Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, directs more pork to their state than he does. "If he's the chief porker, I'm upset." <.>

He said he would support an increase in the federal tax on gasoline — a "user fee," he called it — to pay for even more projects than were included in the newly passed bill. <.>

"It's not a good way to legislate, although I got a lot of stuff in it," Mr. Young told The Anchorage Daily News in December. "I mean I stuffed it like a turkey."

Meet Congressmen, I mean Common Criminal, Don Young, and he's not even a polite felon at that:

When he was approached near the House floor by a reporter, Mr. Young responded with an obscene gesture.

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress."

- Mark Twain

Posted 6/14/07 (By Travis)

Another Government Shakedown
6/13/07 Cato

Politicians are agitating for a big tax hike on the private equity industry, but the motive for this talk may involve more than just a desire to have more money to spend. Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal explains that politicians threaten an industry in order to extract campaign contributions. The column suggests this is what spurred the attack on the so-called junk-bond industry in the 1980s. Another good example would be the assaults on Microsoft and Intel. This does not mean politicians are like mobsters. Mobsters, after all, don’t add insult to injury by trying to rationalize their protection rackets as being for the public good.