First let me tell you, I'm a big fan. I listen to you every morning. Seriously.
But this morning, I had to turn off the radio. Your rant at a caller who didn't accept Barack Obama as "his" President was more than I could stand.
You actually called him un-American! And since I agreed with him, you were calling me un-American too. I was yelling at the radio...but you took no notice, so I thought I'd write.
Your argument was as follows:
1) because our elections are run according to the Constitution, accepting the results of those elections is Constitutional, and thus, American
2) because our elections are run according to the Constitution, not accepting the results of those elections is un-Constitutional, and thus, un-American.
As a free-standing rhetorical argument that may be true. But there is a context which cannot be ignored. How far must an election be corrupted before you are willing to say that it is not legitimate—that it is not constitutional?
The Founding Fathers established our nation according to the Constitution with its checks and balances, and with the understanding that differing political "factions" would also provide a check on each other—because of their conflicting self-interests—so that no one group ever gained too much power. They saw this as necessary and good.
But what happens when one "faction" includes virtually every organization from whom the vast majority of voters get their information? Do you think the Founding Fathers would consider that a proper, fair, free and constitutional election?
I don't think that's what they meant by "Freedom of the Press". Election "fraud" has many faces.
Oh, I acknowledge that Barack Obama "won the election". But I can't say, "fair & square". Because I don't believe it was. I believe he was "selected" by the media, and they did whatever was necessary to get him elected. (If this echoes the rantings of the BDS Moonbats, I can't help that. Just because they "cried wolf" doesn't mean the wolf isn't really chasing me!)
I believe Barack Obama is the Media's President—which is to say—the Left's President; their gift to themselves. They picked him, they packaged him and they sold him. The "election" was just the actual cash transaction.
I and your caller are not un-American for disapproving this result, Mr. Beck. The way this result was determined is un-American.
I am a patriot, sir, who believes passionately in the Constitution. But that document does not say that citizens are required to honor the results of a rigged election. And this election, in my opinion, was rigged by the mainstream media.
And secondly, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Obama was chosen in a fair election by a informed majority, it is my duty as a patriot to be loyal to the Constitution...not to the President, or the Chancellor, or the Führer, or the Messiah.
Shall I choose the Man over the Constitution? Because Obama has repeatedly demonstrated contempt for our Constitution, patriotism requires that I reject him—even if the majority elected him. It requires I "Stand Up", as you might say, and speak the truth, unafraid.
Remember, the German people duly elected Adolph Hitler too. I AM NOT SAYING OBAMA IS HITLER...just that the formality of an election does not require good, patriotic people to support bad men...or even to "wish them well".
The bald facts are that Barack Obama has demonstrated himself to be not a defender of the Constitution, not a truth teller, not a respecter of property, not a respecter of individual rights, not a defender of dissent, not a champion of prosperity & the free-market, not a proponent of liberty, not a crusader for tolerance, not a friend of free speech, not a believer in the Bill of Rights.
And that, by my reading of the Constitution, makes him un-American and unworthy of my support and approval.
Your caller and I believe that it's up to Barack Obama to demonstrate that he will not manifest these patently un-American values in Office. Should he actually govern well, against all expectation, your caller, I, and all who feel as we do, will be shocked and amazed...but delighted, and quite happy to embrace the man as "our" President.
Until then, I consider it my patriotic duty to sound the alarm about the potential for great harm Obama represents—based not on some immature blinding hatred of my own, but on the clear evidence of his own words and deeds.
Sincerely,
The Gunslinger
Point of fact, Obama is the President elect and when he takes office he WILL be OUR President (God help us). Glen Beck, like so many other political commentators, is a self serving blow hard. He's one guy with an opinion and a radio show, nothing more. He's not imbued with transcendental powers because someone gave him a job screaming into a microphone. What's alarming is people take as fact, the opinions of media personalities. The Democrats used this to their advantage and Omessiah won. Face facts, Bush lost this election for the Republican Party four years ago. All the Democrats needed was a candidate. They could have run a Mr. Potato Head doll or a sock puppet and won. The only possible way they could have lost that election would have been to have chosen Billary as their sacred calf.
ReplyDeleteIf McCain would have won using the same tactics as Omessiah, if he had become the media darling, would any conservative be asking, "was this election proper, fair, free and constitutional"? I think not. The only Americans we might accuse of being unpatriotic are those who could have voted but didn’t.
Actually, considering the massive negatives ranged against him from every quarter, it's miraculous that McCain did as well as he did.
ReplyDeleteWithout the total and complete promotion and coverup by the media for Obama, there is, frankly, no doubt in my mind the man would have lost.
Never in the history of this country has a man so unqualified, so morally compromised, so lacking in accomplishment and so extreme come close to being a major party candidate, let alone winning the Presidency.
And it's because the media acted as his Public Relations Department. They anointed him.
I can't stand Hillary. But I was shocked at the treatment she received at the hands of the media. I spoke up about it at the time, and I certainly would do so if my candidate was so unfairly advantaged...by essentially silencing the opposition.
I actually believe in freedom of speech, and the right of all candidates to be heard fairly.
Which was, after all, the whole point of "Freedom of the Press".
That's because I'm not a Liberal, who believes in suppressing opposition or dissent.
I'm sorry you imagine that I would approve the illegitimate election of MY candidate...just because it was my candidate.
When I said I was a passionate defender of the Constitution, didn't you believe me?
I'm a Radical. A Radical for truth, justice and freedom...not graft, corruption and fraud.
I think you misunderstand. Misery loves the loser; to the victor goes the spoils. If (the biggest word in our language) McCain would have become the MEDIA DARLING I doubt any conservative would cry foul. I view “the media” as a corrupt and morally bankrupt propaganda juggernaut seeking to change society for its own self interest. The media doesn’t reports the new, it interprets it and it decides what information Americans are allowed to consume. In my opinion, Billary was derailed by her own party with the help of the media.
ReplyDeleteIt isn’t enough to be defenders of the Constitution. We need to be students of it, to understand the spirit of it, the intent of it and the circumstances under which it was written.
Doesn't the antecedent of the Constitution, the Declaration, tell us that if we see something obviously wrong we have the right and the moral obligation to "just say no".
ReplyDeletegrenadier,
ReplyDeleteI don't want ANYONE being the "Media darling." And I wouldn't approve even if it was my guy.
That's called cheating; fraud; corruption, rigging.
Believe it or not, I actually have a sense of "fair play". Call me old-fashioned.
Obama is the Media's "president". And they can have him.