The New 'PC' Censor Emerges
We have entered into a new age. Neighbors who once were considered friends are jumping ship and are running away to join the
circus. The bazaar they are molding is a morphosis that was once condemned as the province of the Left. Now the stalwarts
of the neoconservatives are leading the cause that merges into the mood that the new 'PC' is the standard. You say, what is
this latest political correctness called? Of course it is the Patriotic Consensus.
Before you mistake the credentials
of this author, and falsely conclude that this is just another diatribe of the hate America crowd, examine the record. Advocacy
for the moral sanity of our Nation has been at the core of all arguments. Our position can be characterized as being POP-TV-LIB.
Now that you are excited that you have the proof that this pundit has finally revealed that he is part of the subversive Left,
let's outline exactly what this position promotes. POP, short for Populism, defined as government of the common man, based
upon the consent of the individual; not rule by elite's. TV, encompasses the traditional values that is the heritage of America.
And LIB, Liberty as the purpose of society, best reflected and achieved, within a Republic.
The tradition that
is defended is entirely consistent with the admonitions of Washington and Jefferson, now best exemplified in the positions
of Pat Buchanan. So now you have it! Classical Liberalism, Merchant Economics, and America First is hardly a description of
the social liberals Corporate/Statists.
When the arrows target the voices of restraint as the means of Foreign
Policy intervention, we should not be surprised that a transformation has occurred within the ranks of what is known as the
RIGHT. In their desire to act out a sense of purpose, the neoconservative seeks to integrate their personal identity with
that of their government. Their heart drives them to rally around the flag, while the lessons learned through their experience
and rational inquiry are placed in abeyance. Waving the flag is proper, if that banner bears thirteen stars . . .
warmonger hysteria is the Viet Nam nightmare, all over again. Deja vu, thirty five years later proves that nothing was learned
by a perplexed public. Will another generation need to pay for the errors and arrogance of their elders, yet again?
Attempts to articulate the essence of our moral crisis are systematically squelched and demonized. No better example
is the uproar over remarks that Reverend Jerry Falwell made on the 700 Club, when he sought to explain that America has abandoned
much of her moral foundation, in light of the terror horror. Consider just what he said:
"And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological
warfare available to these monsters; the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats, what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it
is, could be miniscule if, in fact, if in fact God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give
us probably what we deserve."
He goes on to say:
"And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court
system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this
because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that
the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an
alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the
finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen'."
Where are there any errors in these statements? What exactly is inappropriate with the authority of TRUTH? Are my fellow conservative
minded friends willing to allow the censorship in a debate about self retrospection that includes our own failures in deed
and policy? I hope you will rethink your impulsive passion to stamp out dissenting voices. Put your anger in proper perspective.
During the 90's Americans made the willful choice to abort an average of 4,000 unborn each day. The death toll
on September 11th, as horrible as it was criminal, is less than a two day toll of our own genocide. Those that perished in
the fire and collapse of structures were murdered. They did not choose death, so why do so many Americans allow our own bloodbath,
consciously made, one murder at a time?
What's next, condemning this message? Ask yourselves the relevant question,
is this so? You may not like facing the issue, but it deserves to be stated.
When the case is made that our Foreign
Policy bears the animosity of Empire, are you so afraid to answer the question that you approve of muzzling the pundit? When
the argument is presented that continued U.S. support of Israel will result in 'Blowback' and domestic carnage, do you favor
suppressing this message? And when the assertion is reasoned that America carries the shame of immoral conduct and coercive
government, are you elated to remove the voice of conscience?
The new 'PC' is not a sincere love of country. It
is a distortion in the meaning of the Nation and the idea of America. If your identity is now defined AS your government,
while their policies are flawed, are you the 'True Patriot' or just a 'True Believer', that is willing to impose Justice by
ANY means. Are the neoconservatives now the protege of Machiavelli, or are they willing to return to their assent in the 'Just
War' philosophy of Aquinas?
Muting those who speak a warning that few wish to hear or face, will produce the butchery
of Robespierre. When we stop talking, we start killing . . . Or is that your secret desire in your zeal to expand the State?
SARTRE - September 22, 2001
The new political-correctness police by Joseph Farah - WND