Please give Bill Clinton a job, Mr. Obama

Bill Clinton: my pick for the Supreme Court.

Yes, I understand that Clinton is an enemy of the Bill of Rights, and a champion of more centralized government. He is a thoroughgoing statist - but no more so than any other Obama appointee would be.


So what would be the upside to a Clinton nomination?


This: Justice Clinton wouldn't be on TV using his considerable dissembling skills to attack our rights. He'd be confined to casting one vote (the same vote any Obama appointee would cast) against freedom, in mostly hidden proceedings, as opposed to stirring up mass hysteria - possibly leading to violence - against freedom loving Americans exercising their first amendment rights of freedom to peaceably assemble and to voice grievances against their government.




This morning on ABC, Clinton regurgitated his favorite calumny against Conservatives, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists, insinuating that anger directed at government is creating an environment that could portend violence, just like in 1995, when, according to President Clinton, Rush Limbaugh helped create an atmosphere that led to the Oklahoma City bombing.


For the record, Clinton's scapegoating of Limbaugh in 1995 was designed to divert attention away from the real inspiration behind the Murrah bombing, which was....


Janet Reno, Clinton's attorney general.


Timothy McViegh, like all far-right vigilantes, had no affinity for Rush Limbaugh. He was outraged by two incidents of government tyranny:

1. The assassination of Vicky Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho by the FBI, under President George H.W. Bush (R-TX);
2. The tank and commando assault on the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, orchestrated by Reno for President Clinton (D-AR), which resulted in the incineration of several dozen men, women, and children.
   
   

Note that government tyranny has bipartisan support. Retired Senator John Danforth (R-MO), headed the official commission to minimize government culpability in the Waco assault. Surprise! The patrician Danforth absolved the federal government of serious wrongdoing! (See the Cato report and other sources showing the injustice of this.)


In the Ruby Ridge incident, FBI assassin Lon Horiuchi was charged by the local prosecutor, but Fed muscle pushed the matter into federal court, where... Surprise! Federal power was vindicated by federal power!


Decent Americans across the ideological spectrum were appalled by these incidents. I'm still plenty pissed about them, myself.


Some indecent Americans were upset, too, and a couple of them decided to take on the federal leviathon all by themselves. McVeigh and Terry Nichols were inspired by Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, not by Rush Limbaugh.


(Memo to Progressives: In the above paragraph, I deliberately used the word "indecent" to describe domestic terrorists.)


Some indecent Progressives, such as Bill Maher, Arianna Huffington, Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow, pretend that acts of government tyranny such as at Waco and Ruby Ridge never occurred, and that patriots who are angry with government for committing generational theft to the tune of $12 trillion and counting are to be dismissed as cranks and nascent terrorists.


(Memo to Progressives who believe rights are bestowed by government, not by God, and that concern about expanding central government amounts to stupidity: In the above paragraph the same adjective was applied to you as was used to describe domestic terrorists. I likened you to domestic terrorists, because you are domestic enemies of our Constitution.)


The Weavers and the Branch Davidians were not people with whom the average tea partier would associate. But Obama and his friends in the media and in the blogosphere work around the clock to suggest otherwise.


If Obama's Progressive allies succeed in making pariahs of tea partiers and other patriots, why would patriots not fear that their government would target them as it did Ruby Ridge and Waco?


Here I must inject some disclaimers for gentle souls who might have genuine concerns about my position vis-a-vis certain aforementioned racists and cultists:


***BEGIN DISCLAIMERS***


1. I approved of the death sentence given to McVeigh, and would have approved the death penalty for Nichols as well.
1a. But it was Janet Reno, not Rush Limbaugh, who inspired those two.
1b. Patriots don't start wars. We first pursue every legal remedy. Then, we engage in civil disobedience.
1c. Some of us offer imprecations to God, per the examples in the Psalms.
1d. We take up arms as a last resort.




2. Lon Horiuchi should not have been allowed to assassinate Vicki Weaver with impunity.
2a. The Weavers observed Hitler's birthday with the likes of Richard Butler and others.
2b. For that reason alone, I'd never have allowed my children to play with the Weavers' children.
2c. But I still don't think Lon Horiuchi should have been allowed to assassinate Vicki Weaver with impunity.


3. I generally eschew sensationalist doctrines predicting apocalyptic showdowns between government and religious folks.
3a. It would be great if the government hadn't given credence to such fantastic eschatology by sending tanks to Waco.
3b. But tea partiers and other patriots don't think the Waco outrage justifies violence - though...
3c. ...Some far-right fringe groups do. But they aren't inspired by Limbaugh, Beck, or even Breitbart. They are energized by the actions and policies of the last four presidents, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.


4. These disclaimers are for gentle souls. Corrupt souls, the priggish Progressive element, will call me a racist or terrorist no matter what I say, in order to avoid dealing with facts.


***END DISCLAIMERS***


And now, with government power expanding, American patriots are concerned about the future of freedom. The powers that be have turned a deaf ear to their concerns, and furthermore, President Obama never misses an opportunity to cast aspersions on their character.


Historically, governments demonize certain groups before moving to silence them.


We, the People, assert our constitutional rights.



They, the Plutocracy, answer, "shut up!"


Wrong answer.


We, the People, discovering that our government and its claque despise us, encourage one another with our heritage:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...