Thursday, July 1, 2010

Outrages.

"The Outrage of a Belgian Woman, 1854" by Antoine Wiertz (1806-1865)

Outrage
Noun.
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French utrage, outrage insult, excess, from outre, utre beyond, from Latin ultra — more at ultra-Date: 14th century

1 : an act of violence or brutality

2a : injury, insult

2b : an act that violates accepted standards of behavior or taste

3 : the anger and resentment aroused by injury or insult.

4 : 19th Century euphemism for rape. -- Merriam-Webster Dictionary.


The outrages -- in all senses of that word -- are coming so fast and furious and now that it is difficult to believe.

Pete Stark's sneering alternate reality.

Obama lies and twists, twists and lies, and demands amnesty. Or, as Rush Limbaugh characterizes it, "the largest voter registration project in history."

Elena Kagan refuses to acknowledge the Declaration of Independence and natural rights.

You know, Glen Beck played the Stark piece yesterday and commented in disbelief, "but we are all Americans." To which I fairly shouted at the screen, "WE are Americans. THEY are not."

Understand that. The Founders would not recognize these people as their descendants. They would view them at best as Tories, as traitors to the Republic that they left us.

We should too.

13 comments:

Stang said...

Even Rush is incorrect on this subject (surprise). The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Articles of Confederation and The Northwest Ordinances are all recognized by federal law as being the organic documents by which all law in this country is derived. Rush and Elena are both wrong here. The DOI IS part of our law.

Taylor H said...

It'll be a hot day when he passes blanket amnesty...

aughtsix said...

As a child in the fifties, it was made plain to me that the "House un American Activities Committee" was, well, un American. Later on, the John Birch Society was equally successfully vilified by the already complicit Fourth Estate, er, fifth column. And so on, to the present.

As with all patient, long term, insidious, devious conspiracies to destroy Liberty and enslave free peoples...

The answer is not some sort of patient, peaceful, long term reversal of misfortune by means of (re)education, the exercise of the vote and parliamentary procedure, however laudable and desirable such goals that may be....

It is the sudden and violent meting out of Justice upon the heads of those who would destroy Liberty.

Our enemies "appear" to have the upper hand. They think they have won. They are overplaying their hand, betraying their inept incompetence.

The folks are catching on to this.

The Enemy has never been weaker.

What are we waiting for?

Your "Moral Dilemma" is, what, exactly?

Jon

III

Josey Wales said...

Pete Stark is a soulless apprentice demon, in thrall to O'beelzebub.

He is, however, waaaaaayyy down the list...........

Vlad Tepes said...

Oh, yes.....

Elena Kagan.

Somewhat higher than Pete Stark on the list, unless she is "confirmed" to the Supremeanticonstitutionalists.
Then she vaults in to the top
fifty or so.........

Sean said...

Aughtsix, what we're waiting for is to be arrested, flung into CC, and wait out turn in the ovens. But we'll hold the MORAL HIGH GROUND! Meanwhile, our enemies, devoid of any morals whatsoever, will chuckle and puzzle over these things, much like their predecessors did, the SS.

Anonymous said...

I tried to read through the text of Obummer's speech, but just couldn't. I was getting WAYYYY to nauseated, and had to stop.

All these anti-freedom politians and their hangers-on and fellow hacks, they keep piling shit turds on top of shit turds. I wonder how surprised they will be when that entire wall comes tumbling down in the biggest stink pile ever.

B Woodman
III-per

Defender said...

Since aughtsix mentioned the complicit media, I can finally report that some newsreader bimbo on CBS recently repeated the Obama mistake of pronouncing "corpsman" as "corpse-man." They know so little, yet they talk so much, and with the voice of authority.
Thanks. I feel better now.
And I agree, they're supremely overconfident. Don't read their own popularity polls, apparently.
My congressman is sponsoring another job fair, again at a high school gym when it should be at the city's largest STADIUM. Out of touch? Hell, yeah.

Pat H. said...

Do y'all understand why the Republic can't be saved, yet?

Anonymous said...

It is his demeanor, his sense of self importance, his condescension, his attempts to belittle the very people he purports to "represent" that find so fucking infuriating!

This arrogant leech should be run out of town on a rail.

KPN3%

Dan said...

Domestic enemies is the only apt description.

Defender said...

Obama said: "These [Arizona immigration] laws also have the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound."
He has a point there, but the FIRST thing I thought of was the Border Patrol checkpoints 100 miles north of the border, where EVERYONE is stopped and questioned. But THAT'S OK with him.
Plus, if you decline the privacy- and choice-destroying Obamacare, you are no longer an "innocent American," you are a federal misdemeanant. Doubleplusungood, comrade.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Pete Stark was sneering at his constituents.

However, his point is valid: there is no such thing as "security", and the proposed solutions are often worse than the problem.

Build a wall? Like Stark said, you build a 10 ft wall, and all the immigrants need is an 11ft ladder. Don't have a ladder? Dig a tunnel. The East Germans tried to build a wall, too. Didn't stop people from leaving.

Deploy Troops? Well, first of all, that's a violation of Posse Comitatus. Second, domestic deployment of the military will have the same result for our Republic as Ceasar's crossing of the Rubicon did for Rome.

Police action, ala Arizona? Seems like a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments to me....it turns the "presumption of innocence" on its head, and encourages police harassment of disfavored minorities. Having police stop individuals and demand their papers smacks of Nazi Germany to my ears.

We already allow CBP to ignore the 4th & 5th amendments within 100mi of all borders. According to the courts, you CANNOT refuse a search from a CBP officer. Checkpoints such as Yuma, AZ, already catch far more Americans returning from the beach with a little bit of weed than they do illegal immigrants.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/aclu-assails-10/
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-03-13/news/border-patrol-checkpoints-near-yuma-nab-hordes-of-pot-users-headed-back-from-the-beach/

As far as I can tell, there are only two real solutions to the problems that immigration opponents complain about:

1. End the welfare state for everyone. The biggest complaint I hear is "immigrants are coming here and getting food stamps and welfare". The simple solution is to stop offering such lavish benefits.

2. End the war on drugs. The cartels are only as rich, powerful, and violent as they are because of Prohibiton. It's really no different than the 20's, when gangsters like Al Capone became exceedingly rich from the proceeds of bootleg liquor.

Of course, neither of those two real solutions will be tried, because their political lobbies are far too entrenched and powerful.