Read Paul's bio and previous columns
July 13, 2009
Dissent Is Not an
Option Under the Obama Regime
“It is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question
of who is – or is not – a patriot all too often poisons our political
debates, in ways that divide us rather than bring us together.” –
Barack Obama, prior to the November 2008 elections.
the wake of the “change” that took the country by storm on November 4,
it now appears perfectly acceptable – and even a dependable, primary
political tool – to pull the patriotism card under Democratic rule. This
was seen only last Tuesday when the powerful Democratic U.S. Rep. Henry
Waxman proclaimed that opposition to Obama by Republican leadership
signified that “they are rooting against the country.” (Emphasis
mine throughout this column.)
Unfortunately, this was hardly an isolated incident of what Obama
considered thoroughly repugnant politics only a year ago. A quick scan
of political history since the November elections can only reveal a
regrettable pattern – if not a systematic operation – of Democratic
leadership consistently demonizing opposition far beyond the call of
Under the rule of the Czar of Czars (whose mesmerizing 53 percent
victory, he reminds us often, evidently renders him infallible), the
dissent that was once the Democrats’ archetypal illustration of
patriotism is now nothing more than the first leap toward treason
all began even prior to the most recent elections, when Obama and dozens
of his Senate colleagues actually signed a letter labeling the words of
Rush Limbaugh – a private citizen – “unpatriotic,” after Limbaugh
criticized anti-war activists who falsely claimed to have fought in
But it really kicked into high gear right once victory was assured in
November. After pressure from President Bush and congressional Democrats
to waste taxpayer cash on Detroit automakers failed to sway a group of
Republican senators, Michigan’s Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm
deprecated the “behavior of these U.S. senators” as “un-American.”
Democratic Congressman John Dingell more closely approached an
allegation of treason when he declared: “Let’s be clear about what
happened in the Senate: Senators from states where international
automakers do considerable business unpatriotically blocked (the bill).”
The same theme was adopted after the Dear Leader’s gargantuan “stimulus”
package passed the Senate with the help of only three Republicans. (And
thankfully it did pass, or else unemployment would skyrock . . .
Oh wait). In high praise of the three Republicans (one of whom
actually has since become a Democrat), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
proclaimed: “I’m really at a lack of words
how to express my . . . respect for the love of our country, the
patriotism (of the three).” As if carefully coordinated, Obama also
called the three “to thank them for their patriotism in helping to
advance the bill at a critical time.”
if the three Republican senators were deemed patriotic for siding with
the Democrats on a $787 billion blind spending bill, where does that
leave the rest? Aren’t they, essentially by definition, unpatriotic?
They must be, if they are also considered enemies who cannot even be
heard. During the ongoing health care debate, the top aides to
Democratic Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus threateningly
warned Democratic lobbyists against having their clients attend a
meeting with Senate Republicans. In the words of a Democratic lobbyist:
“They said, ‘Republicans are having this meeting and you need to let all
of your clients know if they have someone there, that will be viewed
as a hostile act.’”
“hostile act” to merely talk to the other side? Where are we, Iran?
Perhaps. In April, after hundreds of thousands of Americans very
peacefully congregated at hundreds of Tea Parties around the country
(one arrest, for standing in the middle of a street) in support of small
government, David Axelrod, one of Obama’s closest advisors, announced
that the Tea Party movement could mutate into something “unhealthy.”
When pressed as to how such a peaceful expression of First Amendment
rights could be called “unhealthy,” he refused to backtrack and instead
added, “So far these are expressions.”
far? What is that supposed to mean? Would he ever say that a peaceful
left-wing movement is “so far” peaceful?
course not. Still, the administration decided that mere words were
insufficient – the opposition had to be officially demonized in writing.
Enter a threat assessment report released by the Obama Administration
warning, with virtually zero evidence, that “right-wing extremism”
in the form of opposition to illegal immigration, abortion, expanded
social programs, expanded government, gun control, and gay marriage has
the potential to translate into terrorism.
other words, if you’re conservative, you are potentially a terrorist.
Never have left-wing groups been attacked with such specificity even by
the same Bush Administration that we have been instructed is the root of
all partisanship, authoritarianism and pure evil.
Indeed the terrorism theme is one enthusiastically embraced by the Obama
team. Matthew Feldman, an attorney on the President’s Auto Task Force,
has referred to an opposing attorney in the Chrysler restructuring as a
“terrorist” after the latter insisted on the government’s
compliance with the law.
Sometimes more subtle words will do the job. When Dick Cheney criticized
Obama over interrogation of terrorism suspects, Obama appointee and CIA
director Leon Panetta voraciously jumped to his boss’s defense: “When
you read behind it, it’s almost as if (Cheney is) wishing that this
country would be attacked again, in order to make his point.” In an
almost purposeful attempt to make us chuckle at the astonishing irony,
Panetta added that Cheney was playing “dangerous politics.”
Most Obama supporters are so far giving the Czar of Czars a free
pass. While a
2006 poll showed that a majority of Democrats did not want
Bush to succeed, the Democratic leadership is now telling us that even
questioning authority is dangerous, unpatriotic and even terroristic.
But it is understandable that they wish to stay on the safe side. During
a closed-door meeting with House Democrats, Obama identified one of the
seven Democrats who dared vote against his “stimulus” and warned: “Don’t
think we’re not keeping score, brother.”
Dissent is not an option.
© 2009 North Star
Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback
about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
This is Column # PI173.
permission to publish here.