American Crackpots

I love American whackos. I really do. As one writer put it:

This is a great country, in no small part because it is the best country ever devised in which to be a public crank. Never has a nation so dedicated itself to the proposition that not only should its people hold nutty ideas but they should cultivate them, treasure them, shine them up, and put them right there on the mantelpiece. This is still the best country ever in which to peddle complete public lunacy. The right to do so is there in our founding documents.

We're entering a special time for nutballs on the right wing; as their chosen party loses power, and the pressures of actually governing fall away, they're able to get deeply, wonderfully outrageous. Two recent examples are worth a chuckle, as well as a snort of well-tempered disgust.

Our first contender is exquisite nutballery. A group called Family Security Matters (why is every group with the name "Family" in its title a nut-group?), which contains a number of Reagan-era advisors on its board (Barbara Comstock, Laura Ingraham, Frank Gaffney, James Woolsey, and Dick Cheney) has published a real humdinger about El Presidente. A summary wouldn't do it justice, but here's a sample:

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world?

Full text, for the brave:

Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy

Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 3, 2007

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestige while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

The second example would be Stu Bykofsky of the Philadelpia Daily News, who argues, seriously, that America needs another 9/11-type attack. He literally wishes the death of thousands of Americans, all in the name of ending partisanship. Fox News' John Gibson has been giving this guy a lot of air time, for reasons that passeth all understanding. Enjoy.

Stu Bykofsky | To save America, we need another 9/11

ONE MONTH from The Anniversary, I'm thinking another 9/11 would help America.

What kind of a sick bastard would write such a thing?

A bastard so sick of how splintered we are politically - thanks mainly to our ineptitude in Iraq - that we have forgotten who the enemy is.

It is not Bush and it is not Hillary and it is not Daily Kos or Bill O'Reilly or Giuliani or Barack. It is global terrorists who use Islam to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children.

Iraq has fractured the U.S. into jigsaw pieces of competing interests that encourage our enemies. We are deeply divided and division is weakness.

Most Americans today believe Iraq was a mistake. Why?

Not because Americans are "anti-war."

Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don't have the patience for a long slog. We've been in Iraq for four years, but to some it seems like a century. In contrast, Britain just pulled its soldiers out of Northern Ireland where they had been, often being shot at, almost 40 years.

That's not the American way.

In Iraq, we don't believe our military is being beaten on the battleground. It's more that there is no formal "battleground." There is the drip of daily casualties and victory is not around the corner. Americans are impatient. We like fast food and fast war.

Americans loved the 1991 Gulf War. It raged for just 100 hours when George H.W. Bush ended it with a declaration of victory. He sent a half-million troops into harm's way and we suffered fewer than 300 deaths.

America likes wars shorter than the World Series.

Bush I did everything right, Bush II did everything wrong - but he did it with the backing of Congress.

Because the war has been a botch so far, Democrats and Republicans are attacking one another, when they aren't attacking themselves. The dialog of discord echoes across America.

Turn back to 9/11.

Remember the community of outrage and national resolve? America had not been so united since the first Day of Infamy - 12/7/41.

We knew who the enemy was then.

We knew who the enemy was shortly after 9/11.

Because we have mislaid 9/11, we have endless sideshow squabbles about whether the surge is working, if we are "safer" now, whether the FBI should listen in on foreign phone calls, whether cops should detain odd-acting "flying imams," whether those plotting alleged attacks on Fort Dix or Kennedy airport are serious threats or amateur bumblers. We bicker over the trees while the forest is ablaze.

America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.

What would sew us back together?

Another 9/11 attack.

The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago's Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda.

Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again?

If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.

The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever.

The first 9/11 proved that.

You have to wonder about those groups that chant "America is the greatest!", yet promote actions and viewpoints that are about as un-American as you can get. ~:rolleyes:

No disrespect meant, but President Bush has only one less thing in common with Julius Caesar than a Caesar salad does. :rtwno:

Just to be absolutely clear, I do not think that the right wing has a monopoly on loonies. There are plenty of fringe nutters to the left, and on every dimension of politics an causes. I just think that as any movement goes into eclipse, the freaks come out to howl at the moon. It's an exciting time if you enjoy nuttiness, as I do.

I prefer my nuttiness smothered in chocolate.


:inquisitive: ...I'm not sure that came out like I meant it.

Hahaha... people that don't vote Democrat are so stupid Hahaha....

You know, if Democrats spent more time coming up with their own ideas instead of laughing at and insulting people that don't agree with them, they might actually steal a middle of the road voters like me away. But sadly, not going to happen.... like you, the leaders of your party are too busy being smug and sanctimonious and telling people like me that because i don't appreciate their greatness on all matters, I'm feeble-minded. Remind me to start posting threads about what's been going on with your buddies on Slate.com and DailyKos for the past 10 years one day, then we'll really have some laughs.

Oh, Hahahahaha. :laugh4:

By the way, that wasn't just a kneejerk reaction. The whole point of the first article was that in a Democracy, the right thing isn't always the popular thing. You might want to go check FDR's ratings in the summer of 1941. Or Truman's in 1951. Nothing Republican about either of them, but they did make some hard choices, out of a sense of duty, not what was politically expedient. Do they indulge in some classical hero worship? Sure. But personally, and get your laugh box ready, there, oh king of scorn, I'd personally rather be led by a guy that did what he thought was right than by a guy who did what he thought would get him the most votes. Guess that's why I vote for my party and you vote for yours.

As for Stu Bykofsky... who the hell is he? When did he become my spokesman? I go find some crackpot from San Francisco's blog and I can attribute it you?

Okay, so much for dialogue. I guess I need a break from the Backroom for a while. When people I usually used to respect post trash like this to ridicule me, they're going to get the reaction they probably expected. In other words, kiss my 2nd ammendment empowered, homeland protectin, tax evading Shhhh :daisy: big guy.

Yuo, I think those two essays are hilarious. I also tried to make painfully clear:

1. Neither essay represents mainstream thought, be it Republican, Democratic or Indie.
2. The Right does not have a monopoly on crackpots.

I really didn't post these guys to mock you, Don, but rather because I think they're sterling examples of the Great American Nutball. And interestingly, one of them is from a foundation with some heavy hitters on the board, and the other is being given major air time. So they're not only glorious kooks, they're kooks with an audience.

Sorry I offended you so deeply, and rest assured it wasn't my intent. Please, feel free to contribute some nutballery from the left as well.

P.S.: I ain't no Dem, and I never will be. As I have explained previously, my political ideology is much closer to Goldwater Republicanism than anything on the left. So please refrain from accusing me of (a) political affiliation, and (b) reading Daily Kos, which I must confess I have never even opened. You'll note that I post way more links to the Heritage Foundation and NRO than I do to anyplace else. Only in the post-Rove America can a small-c conservative be accused of being a granola-crunching socialist.

I come down harder on the Republicans because I feel utterly betrayed by them. Liberal democracy, free markets, balanced budgets and a light governmental hand are very, very dear to my heart, and the party that ought to represent those values manifestly does not.

That was fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I come down harder on the Republicans because I feel utterly betrayed by them. Liberal democracy, free markets, balanced budgets and a light governmental hand are very, very dear to my heart, and the party that ought to represent those values manifestly does not.

---

We work within the party to change the party. Republicans want what you want, but they have failed to deliver and that is why we have Democrats in control of both houses and a very real liklihood of a Democrat in the White house.

To run off to to the Democrats is absolutely NUTS if you actually care about "Liberal democracy, free markets, balanced budgets and a light governmental hand". The Democrats vocally desire European-style socialism, restricted free speech, government regulation, and redistribution of wealth.


If you want your team to win, then you play hard and you get better team members that share your goals. You don't join the other team!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

If you want your team to win, then you play hard and you get better team members that share your goals. You don't join the other team!

---

This is going to sound ridiculously corny, but the only team I'm on is the United States. Both the Republican and Democratic party could vanish tomorrow and I wouldn't mind at all.

I am a conservative. I want to conserve what's best about America. Frankly, the Republicans have been much more radical in the last ten years than the Dems. They're ready to pass constitutional amendments at the drop of the hat, and their deliberate pandering to the Christian right is at least as much of a threat to our way of life as the class-warfare demagoguery of John Edwards.

Let's accept the utterly false premise that Dems want Socialism and Repubs want Theocracy. Which end-point is more dangerous? How long does it take a country to recover from Socialism? How long does it take a nation to recover from theocracy?

I want a strong, solvent America to last for at least a couple hundred more years. I want America to remain a great power. I think this is eminently do-able, and not even difficult. Radicals of all stripes are a threat to this, and they turn me off in a big way. I promise you, those who seem like the least radical candidates will get my vote, and I couldn't give a flying Gah over what party they're in. If my ballot says Whig Versus Tory, nothing will change for me.

All of which I find amusing, my rat-monkey friend. You have been on the left of every issue I can recall here at our beloved Org so long as I can remember. Never once did I think to myself, as I typed so furiously, "Gee, this Lemur guy really gets it. We think alike in alot of ways".

I see you with the Jags and Tribesmen and Red Whatevers of the Backroom.


I've got my problems with the GOP. But that doesn't make me want to be a jackass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

You have been on the left of every issue I can recall here at our beloved Org so long as I can remember.

---

And does this say more about me or more about you? And does it even matter? Frankly, I think current Republican leadership is far to the right of the founding fathers; if Ben Franklin or George Washington tried to speak up on Fox News, I have no doubt they would be shouted down as traitors and soft-on-terror weenies.

To conserve means you have something precious to lose. Hence you want to "conserve" that precious thing, you have a fear of loss, a desire to preserve what is good. How the label "conservative" got stuck onto a movement of radicals is beyond me.

But then again, this is probably gist for a different thread. I really, truly just wanted to wade in the joy of crackpot loonies spouting insane ideas ...

This thread has gone badly off course. :captain:

Don, the crackpot nature Lemur relishes to in his first example has nothing to do with Bush or his decisions, but rather that the author suggests that Bush seize power and declare himself "president-for-life" thus ending democracy in America much in the same way Caesar put an end to the Roman Republic. That is crackpot in my book regardless of who is president.

How about shining the spotlight on some leftwing crackpots? There's got to more of them than you can shake a tax increase at.

A light-hearted, fun thread has taken a nasty turn into serious waters. :titanic:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

A light-hearted, fun thread has taken a nasty turn into serious waters. :titanic:

---

Nah. Just a bunch of would-be politicians enoying an evening frollick in the field of daffodils and landmines that we call debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

By the way, that wasn't just a kneejerk reaction. The whole point of the first article was that in a Democracy, the right thing isn't always the popular thing. [...] But personally, and get your laugh box ready, there, oh king of scorn, I'd personally rather be led by a guy that did what he thought was right than by a guy who did what he thought would get him the most votes. Guess that's why I vote for my party and you vote for yours.

---

Nothing against you Don, but did you read the first article?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by first article

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

---

:laugh4:

I stopped reading shortly after that myself, lunatic isn't strong enough a word to describe the person who wrote that. It borders Nazi propaganda to be precise.:thumbsdown:

Careful, Husar, else somebody's gonna call on you for pulling a Godwin's Law. The Backroom has been rather thin-skinned and contrarian lately. :yes:

I think I'll commit internet suicide now and get the hell out of the Backroom for a while. If people can't laugh at this [flowery insertion] then it's not a place for a left wing scumbag like me to run around unprotected. The Grey Wolves might get to me.

https://img165.imageshack.us/img165/6854/suicidepp1.gif
Commemorating my first ever internet suicide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Nah. Just a bunch of would-be politicians enoying an evening frollick in the field of daffodils and landmines that we call debate.

---

So we are just Happy Together...

Imagine me and you, I do
I debate with you day and night, we always fight
To think about the Democrats versus the Right
So Happy Together

If I should call you up, invest some time
And you say I'm completely wrong and lost my mind
Imagine how the world could be, when its all mine
So happy together

I can't see me debatin' nobody but you
For all the strife
When you've dissed me, baby your side will be screwed
On my web site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Careful, Husar, else somebody's gonna call on you for pulling a Godwin's Law. The Backroom has been rather thin-skinned and contrarian lately. :yes:

---

I had to look up what that is, but I was nonetheless aware of what I was doing and that some people will choose to laugh it off just for being a Nazi reference. But then again, there may actually be some truth in it, think about the Dolchstosslegende. Maybe it is really bad that everybody compares the Bush regime and some of it's supporters(especially Don is not included here) to Nazis, but I really wouldn't do that if they wouldn't remind me of Nazis.:shrug:
Yet again, I have to say that I actually liked Bush when he was elected, but his actions led me to think different about him now.

Genocide and crying: "oh noez, we are losers because all those cowards betrayed us!!!11111" are soo 1920s to 1940s, it's almost not even funny anymore.:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Let's accept the utterly false premise that Dems want Socialism

---

What? How in the seven seas is that false? The democrat base, led by the kossacks, practically screams for socialized health care and a thousand other implementations of socialism while fighting any sort of school vouchers.

Most ordinary democrats may not want it, but the democrat party is now led by the nose by the fringe.

Quote:

---

Frankly, I think current Republican leadership is far to the right of the founding fathers; if Ben Franklin or George Washington tried to speak up on Fox News, I have no doubt they would be shouted down as traitors and soft-on-terror weenies.

---

Republicans are far more authoritarian than the founding fathers, but in terms of gun rights and other freedoms (taxes, business, property) they are practically socialists. Shouted down as traitors? That's hyperbolic.

Quote:

---

Which end-point is more dangerous? How long does it take a country to recover from Socialism? How long does it take a nation to recover from theocracy?

---

Hmm - let's look at North and South Korea. Or maybe even realize that back in 1780, the nation was much more of a theocracy, despite what ignorant, whining democrat activists may say about the present.

Crazed Rabbit

I think this thread could do with a long lie down, having lost its way in a dark and gloomy wood.

Tsk, tsk.


:closed: