Berkeley Daily Moonbat On Bush’s Legacy

August 15th, 2008 | by Sqotty |

The Berkeley Daily Moonbat has a truly interesting take on America, our government, our Constitution, and our history. I don’t know what they are smoking out there in California, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they got it from Barack Obama.

The piece in the Daily Moonbat I am referring to is an opinion piece entitled “The Legacy of President George W. Bush.” It is, as to be expected from a hard-left leaning rag, anything but flattering of Dubya, or the United States as a whole. It also has a few errors in its reporting of history.

Unless the earth reverses its rotation or gravity fails, future historians will look back and see in the Bush II presidency the start of a new America. Or, from the historian Arnold Toynbee’s point of view, America today is in its senescent stage. A simpler view is that the government presided over by the 43rd president has almost nothing in common with the original government. To be sure, the country has never fully realized those ideals on which its government was founded even though from time to time there have been sincere attempts to do so. The experiment launched in 1789 has produced interesting, exciting, unintended and sometimes admirable results as well as tragedies. Congressional representatives, for example, are not representative; “close to half” are millionaires (Associated Press, December 2002). The ship of state, once sturdy, is lost at sea like the “Flying Dutchman.” The American dream, for at least 99 out of 100, has morphed from an aspiration to an inspiration into a hallucination. The links “of,” “by” and “for” between government and people have been permanently severed.

This mish-mash of a paragraph, the opening of the piece, is peculiar in its asserting that the American dream is no longer an aspiration, but a (most likely drug-induced) hallucination. Okay, we’ll set aside the fact that the American dream is not something the hard-left aspires to, they much preferring governments like Castro’s Cuba, or Communist China. Sure, it is true that there are a lot of millionaires in Congress, but WHO PUT THEM THERE? That’s right, we “the People.” You get what you vote for, baby.

But the piece gets absolutely laughable.

Dubya himself had little to do with this turn of events but he presided over the legitimizing of what I will call the New United States of America (NUSA)

What? There’s a new United States? When did this happen? It didn’t. We still have a Constitution Republic. A Democratically controlled Congress that refuses to the people’s work and vote on drilling for new oil supplies. But I digress. A statement like that feeds into the leftist mantra of “I want my country back” as if only their leftist views are the ones that matter.

Specifically, whereas the USA was once governed by three independent branches with de jure checks and balances, the NUSA has a fourth branch, de facto unchecked and unbalanced, a cartel of corporate entities that has attained sui generis powers broad and strong enough to have its way with the other three.

This is where the writer shows their hard-left credentials by claiming (falsely) that corporations have control of our government. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, nutter organizations like the Sierra Club and the ACLU have more control and influence on our government than Exxon has, or ever had. They cause environmental havoc in California by banning the removal of dead wood from forests which results in tremendous forest fires. They block drilling for oil supplies on the outer-continental shelf, and the listing of polar bears as threatened due to the fraud of global warming.

And who are the pliant puppets of the nutter organizations? Predominantly Congressmen who are members of the Democratic Party. You know, Moonbats like Madam Pelosi.

The piece goes on to the signing of the “National Security Strategy” which provides to pursue terrorists and other hostiles wherever they might be. Not sure why that is a bad idea. But the writer sure seems to think it is. I guess they would rather have another 3,000 dead Americans in another 9/11 style attack rather than take out evil where it sprouts.

The writer speaks of only one “ideal” set forth by the Founding Fathers, one expressed specifically by George Washington in his Farewell Address: Beware foreign entanglements. He then asserts that the seeds for this hallucinatory “New” USA were sowed at the time of the Spanish-American War. Let’s see, our entry into that war was brought on by the attack on the U.S.S. Maine. This guy wants us to believe we provoked that attack as an excuse to expand U.S. territory.

This next paragraph shows what little this guy knows about U.S. history and the Constitution:

Congress, out of temerity, no longer exercises its congressional power to declare war (Article 1, Section 8). The Commander in Chief can order a military “rescue mission” (Panama, Grenada) and declare war based on Congressional resolutions he, as president, proposed and justified sometimes by lies (the Tonkin Gulf resolution, the Iraq War Resolution).

This guy acts as if it takes an act of Congress, specifically a Declaration of War, in order for the President, who is, by Constitutional authority, the Commander-in-Chief of all of our armed forces, to take military action when U.S. interests are threatened (or attacked, as they were on 9/11) or to intervene with U.S. citizens are threatened (as with Grenada). He is wrong. Precedent for this was set early in our nation’s history when John Adams took America to war against France in 1798. Since that time, there have been five wars where Congress issued a Declaration of War, 12 wars and actions fought with an authorization from Congress that was not such a declaration, and at least 125 other military actions purely on the order of the President. No Congressional authorization. Including the Korean War, Kosovo, Nicaragua (in 1927) and the longest running war, the one with the Apache Nation, from 1840 to 1846. (see wikipedia).

After the writer rambles on with the typical leftist class warfare dogma of Karl Marx, we get to another juicy statement:

The Statue of Liberty welcomed immigrants from the east but in the NUSA a border wall keeps our immigrants from the south.

Actually, that border wall in the south, if it is ever completed (don’t count on it with Obama in charge), is not to keep immigrants out of the country, whether they are from Mexico or anywhere else in the world. It is to keep illegal aliens out of the country, cutoff drug trafficking, and prevent terrorists from bringing nuclear materials sufficient to build a nuke into the United States. It is not, nor will it be, used to prevent people from legally immigrating to our great nation.

If this guy thinks America is so far off course, maybe he should move to Cuba. I’m sure Michael Moore can arrange a meeting for him with Castro.

Tags:

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , ,

Post a Comment