When Soccer Moms Go Viral

When an Internet post goes ‘viral' it is expectedly subject to both veneration, and venom.  Venom of the absurd from anonymous Leftists can be quite entertaining.  Strings of four letter words and vulgar references to the female form can be put together in the most surprising of combinations.

Venom from treasured, long-standing friends, none of whom are amoral or unthinking, can be a bit harder to dismiss.  How can our two sides agree on so much, including the source of this country's greatness -- the individual -- and be so divergent in our definitions of the governed, and the governing?

There is a great exchange in the movie, "Jerry Maguire," between the cocky, talented football star, played by Cuba Gooding, Jr., and his sport's agent, Tom Cruise.  After an exasperated rant from Cruise, Gooding, Jr. responds laughingly, "See, that's the difference between us.  You think we're fighting.  I think we're finally talking."

Amen to that.

Discourse is a great and peculiar bedfellow, particularly in politics and friendships.  It was taxation and lack of discourse that was the impetus for the revolt of freedom-seeking colonists.  And the reason we sing "The Star-spangled Banner," and not "God Save The Queen."  Both civil and not very civil discourse is found in the roots of our legislative process, judicial system, presidential elections, the roots of bipartisanship, well-meaning social and entitlement programs, and documents that protect our liberties from over-reaching government.  If there's anything threaded throughout our history and modern daily life, it's discourse.

Leftists don't particularly care for discourse, civil or otherwise, unless it benefits their narrative:  which is why someone like Sarah Palin has a hard time defending herself against charges of inciting murder without being further accused of ‘politicizing.'  The truth is, for Leftists, calls for ‘civil' discourse aren't so much about quelling the uncivil, so much as dictating the discourse.

Civility has never been better played by the Left.  If civil is the new incivility; civil discourse is the new ‘crisis' of opportunity.  Who needs net neutrality if ‘fairness' and peer pressure will do the trick?  It's worked before.  Anyone who has studied China's Cultural Revolution knows this.  Or, just ask Juan Williams, or Carrie Prejean. 

Honestly, if true civility were the goal of this administration we would already have "Discourse Czars" running about the country moderating Beer Summits.

At a very choreographed circus for the grieving, President Obama called for "more civility in our public discourse," or, collective amnesia of the past 24 months.  Just three days later, Bill Maher had this to say to Tea Party members:

Now, I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing:  while you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them, and smell like them, I think it's pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would have hated your guts.  And what's more, you would've hated them.  They were everything you despise.  They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit.

Hello, Pot o' civility?   Kettle calling.

Bill Maher has actually never been to a Tea Party event, or he would know his fellow "We The People" are not the simpletons; a convenient narrative though it may be.  Tea Party members may be the few citizens that still understand they are, in a true representative republic, the government.  Which should really scare someone like Maher since he holds them in such esteem.   

When did Maher and fellow Leftists go from "power to the people," to "hail to the chief...and his 34 Czars"?  It must be a crushing blow to realize it's your mother now carrying the Gadsden Flag and calling for freedom of speech - all speech -- and you're the Statist.  And this time around, the government you so adore really is your enemy.

The Tea Party may be the one group who does not capitulate to the Left, or Right for that matter, which is likely what has Maher so befuddled.  Save for a rather understandable devotion to McCain, the same unflinching bravado can be said of Sarah Palin.  Scott Brown, Richard Lugar, Newt Gingrich, and Lisa Murkowski, take note. 

Friends respond to my being an unapologetic conservative with "but, you seem so happy," and "so open-minded," -- "so without a stick up your (insert uncivil word here)."  And before I can draw a chuckle of defense, I know what comes next.  The ultimate in leftist rebuttal, "you just don't get it."

Perhaps it's time for some soul-searching on the Left?  What might YOU not be getting?  Why does the Right think it's so darn important...as it has been since they sought freedom from colonialism, slavery, Communism, and tyrannical governments and other  ‘-isms' ....to fight the freedom-sucking policies of the Left, including the censure of discourse?  You may begin to understand why thinking conservatives - of all walks of life - are not so consumed with self-preservation, so much as everyone's preservation.

Consider just a few questions:

Is anything about a health ‘reform' bill, written by convicted felon, Robert Creamer, while in prison, and its inevitable destruction of private insurance, doctors, and the medical system as we know it, increased taxes, job loss, rationed and diminished care, and utter bureaucratic control of your life, defensible?

Do tax increases, particularly on the ‘wealthy,' directly benefit the poor, or the middle class?

Is there anything that explains the deplorable state of cities such as Detroit, Michigan, ruled for decades by corrupt, liberal, egocentric politicians other than the aftermath of liberalism?

Have any government programs of the last two centuries alleviated poverty?

Does crippling business with exorbitant taxes and regulations help businesses to prosper and, in turn, their employees to prosper?

Would denying the millions of legal and responsible gun owners their 2nd Amendment rights prevent a Jared Loughner from obtaining and using a gun?

And, does unchecked spending, the tripling of our deficit in just two years, massive increases in entitlements, joblessness, and growth of the federal government at every level, protect our security, sovereignty, and ensure sustainability?

If you answered ‘no' to any of the above, you may be getting a glimpse into what conservatives have long known - that the only way to truly empower the individual is to limit government.  Dictating civil discourse would mean the Left never has to answer that charge.  They can continue to blame the fallout of their warped government love affair on incivility, racism, and a lack of  ‘fairness.'

It shouldn't really be surprising that over-reaching government is at odds with the most civic, independent, and productive among us.  In this fight there's no room for capitulation, my moderate friends.  The subjugation you help usher in, will also be your own.
When an Internet post goes ‘viral' it is expectedly subject to both veneration, and venom.  Venom of the absurd from anonymous Leftists can be quite entertaining.  Strings of four letter words and vulgar references to the female form can be put together in the most surprising of combinations.

Venom from treasured, long-standing friends, none of whom are amoral or unthinking, can be a bit harder to dismiss.  How can our two sides agree on so much, including the source of this country's greatness -- the individual -- and be so divergent in our definitions of the governed, and the governing?

There is a great exchange in the movie, "Jerry Maguire," between the cocky, talented football star, played by Cuba Gooding, Jr., and his sport's agent, Tom Cruise.  After an exasperated rant from Cruise, Gooding, Jr. responds laughingly, "See, that's the difference between us.  You think we're fighting.  I think we're finally talking."

Amen to that.

Discourse is a great and peculiar bedfellow, particularly in politics and friendships.  It was taxation and lack of discourse that was the impetus for the revolt of freedom-seeking colonists.  And the reason we sing "The Star-spangled Banner," and not "God Save The Queen."  Both civil and not very civil discourse is found in the roots of our legislative process, judicial system, presidential elections, the roots of bipartisanship, well-meaning social and entitlement programs, and documents that protect our liberties from over-reaching government.  If there's anything threaded throughout our history and modern daily life, it's discourse.

Leftists don't particularly care for discourse, civil or otherwise, unless it benefits their narrative:  which is why someone like Sarah Palin has a hard time defending herself against charges of inciting murder without being further accused of ‘politicizing.'  The truth is, for Leftists, calls for ‘civil' discourse aren't so much about quelling the uncivil, so much as dictating the discourse.

Civility has never been better played by the Left.  If civil is the new incivility; civil discourse is the new ‘crisis' of opportunity.  Who needs net neutrality if ‘fairness' and peer pressure will do the trick?  It's worked before.  Anyone who has studied China's Cultural Revolution knows this.  Or, just ask Juan Williams, or Carrie Prejean. 

Honestly, if true civility were the goal of this administration we would already have "Discourse Czars" running about the country moderating Beer Summits.

At a very choreographed circus for the grieving, President Obama called for "more civility in our public discourse," or, collective amnesia of the past 24 months.  Just three days later, Bill Maher had this to say to Tea Party members:

Now, I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing:  while you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them, and smell like them, I think it's pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would have hated your guts.  And what's more, you would've hated them.  They were everything you despise.  They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit.

Hello, Pot o' civility?   Kettle calling.

Bill Maher has actually never been to a Tea Party event, or he would know his fellow "We The People" are not the simpletons; a convenient narrative though it may be.  Tea Party members may be the few citizens that still understand they are, in a true representative republic, the government.  Which should really scare someone like Maher since he holds them in such esteem.   

When did Maher and fellow Leftists go from "power to the people," to "hail to the chief...and his 34 Czars"?  It must be a crushing blow to realize it's your mother now carrying the Gadsden Flag and calling for freedom of speech - all speech -- and you're the Statist.  And this time around, the government you so adore really is your enemy.

The Tea Party may be the one group who does not capitulate to the Left, or Right for that matter, which is likely what has Maher so befuddled.  Save for a rather understandable devotion to McCain, the same unflinching bravado can be said of Sarah Palin.  Scott Brown, Richard Lugar, Newt Gingrich, and Lisa Murkowski, take note. 

Friends respond to my being an unapologetic conservative with "but, you seem so happy," and "so open-minded," -- "so without a stick up your (insert uncivil word here)."  And before I can draw a chuckle of defense, I know what comes next.  The ultimate in leftist rebuttal, "you just don't get it."

Perhaps it's time for some soul-searching on the Left?  What might YOU not be getting?  Why does the Right think it's so darn important...as it has been since they sought freedom from colonialism, slavery, Communism, and tyrannical governments and other  ‘-isms' ....to fight the freedom-sucking policies of the Left, including the censure of discourse?  You may begin to understand why thinking conservatives - of all walks of life - are not so consumed with self-preservation, so much as everyone's preservation.

Consider just a few questions:

Is anything about a health ‘reform' bill, written by convicted felon, Robert Creamer, while in prison, and its inevitable destruction of private insurance, doctors, and the medical system as we know it, increased taxes, job loss, rationed and diminished care, and utter bureaucratic control of your life, defensible?

Do tax increases, particularly on the ‘wealthy,' directly benefit the poor, or the middle class?

Is there anything that explains the deplorable state of cities such as Detroit, Michigan, ruled for decades by corrupt, liberal, egocentric politicians other than the aftermath of liberalism?

Have any government programs of the last two centuries alleviated poverty?

Does crippling business with exorbitant taxes and regulations help businesses to prosper and, in turn, their employees to prosper?

Would denying the millions of legal and responsible gun owners their 2nd Amendment rights prevent a Jared Loughner from obtaining and using a gun?

And, does unchecked spending, the tripling of our deficit in just two years, massive increases in entitlements, joblessness, and growth of the federal government at every level, protect our security, sovereignty, and ensure sustainability?

If you answered ‘no' to any of the above, you may be getting a glimpse into what conservatives have long known - that the only way to truly empower the individual is to limit government.  Dictating civil discourse would mean the Left never has to answer that charge.  They can continue to blame the fallout of their warped government love affair on incivility, racism, and a lack of  ‘fairness.'

It shouldn't really be surprising that over-reaching government is at odds with the most civic, independent, and productive among us.  In this fight there's no room for capitulation, my moderate friends.  The subjugation you help usher in, will also be your own.