The Rabid Conservative

Think Right, Act Right, Be Right.

The Occupy Movement Should Read More Aesop

with 16 comments

There is the fable of the North Wind and the Sun:

The North Wind and the Sun were disputing which was the stronger, when a traveler came along wrapped in a warm cloak.

They agreed that the one who first succeeded in making the traveler take his cloak off should be considered stronger than the other.

Then the North Wind blew as hard as he could, but the more he blew the more closely did the traveler fold his cloak around him; and at last the North Wind gave up the attempt. Then the Sun shined out warmly, and immediately the traveler took off his cloak.

And so the North Wind was obliged to confess that the Sun was the stronger of the two.

While those on Wall Street are not directly competing with the Occupy movement, it is notable that the Occupiers are just like the North Wind, blustering as they go to try to get us all to appeal to their cause in much the same way as how all the protests from the Tea Party movement have worked to bolster the conservative cause.  However, another foe is about to enter the fray that will really begin to test the resolve of the Occupiers, who is taking the Sun’s position:

Old man winter.

Turns out as the temperatures fall and the nights get colder, fewer and fewer Occupiers are seen in their places of protest.  Disallowed from using tents in public places (a move with which I agree), the Occupy group is beginning to have to decide if their cause is so important that they are willing to risk exposure to inclement weather to continue a tirade that, for the most part, is losing national attention.  It’s not like the “evil lovers of filthy corporate lucre” are really saying to themselves, “oh, look at these poor people, let me hate my own achievement and success, because after all, surely they wouldn’t be as greedy as I am if put in the same position, right”?

Of course not. (lol)

So the winds will blow and the snows will fall.  And maybe the Occupiers will give up their pointless socialistic, redistribute-the-wealth nonsense before they freeze to death.

The only protesters who are ready for Old Man Winter – snowmen protesting global warming.


Written by The Rabid Conservative

October 24, 2011 at 5:37 pm

16 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It will be interesting to see how winter affects the Occupy movements, especially up here in the North East of America. For much of history, huge and costly wars between nations were often put on hold when winter settled in – Occupy may need to do the same. If they do manage to somehow make it through the winter, holding their ground, it certainly would be a very powerful statement.

    Of course, these protests are not pointless by any stretch of the imagination. In Americas history, brief as it may be, the war between the 99% vs 1% has happened several times already and though the 99% has lost it’s share of battles, they have never lost a war.


    November 29, 1999 at 5:00 pm

  2. This thing isn’t a battle; it is a nonsensical display of malcontent being driven by the progressives who are playing the class warfare card in an attempt to distort the truth of what their real agenda is: to bring about a societal change of forced wealth distribution in the name of so-called social justice.  The whole thing angers me because these people will undoubtedly try playing the victim card – of how they are suffering for those of us who are not as affluent as the so-called Wall Street fat cats.  Thing is, the Occupiers don’t represent me, so their protest is meaningless as far as I am concerned.


    October 25, 2011 at 8:58 pm

  3. Well, as they say, they only call it ‘class warfare’ when the 99% fight back.

    You have to appreciate the problem(s) OWS are addressing have been developing for over 30 years, and they are real and very serious issues. There has been a lot of talk about ‘their real agenda’ yet, in the same sentence, we hear ‘these people are completely incoherent’! Certainly, they can’t be incoherent with a ‘real agenda’. What would we fight against?

    I’ll tell you exactly what their agenda is. “Look! Look here. This is the problem. All other issues can be addressed, but first, look here.” Conservatives place blame at the government. Liberals place blame at the corporations. They both have it only half right. The issue is corporations using their money to influence and elect leaders who make sure the corporations have the tax breaks and the tax code that favors them. That giant sucking sound of money we hear going to the 1%? It’s the corporate/government union that has drowned out the voice of the 99%.

    It’s a very American war. We’ve battled it several times already.


    October 26, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    • You are right about one thing, we have seen the stuff that OWS has done before, but despite the Mainstream Media’s attempt to paint the OWS nonsense in a positive light (a stark double-standard to how it’s reported on the Tea Party movement), we only see those that have been part of of the malcontents before: SEIU, union mobs, racists clamoring about so-called social justice, and anti-war hippies. This is just another example of special-interests trying to mimic the success of the Tea Party.

      They want general socialism with their wealth redistribution, anti-corporation rhetoric. They might be a “counter-establishment” movement if we saw the lot of them protesting the government as much as corporate entities. Instead, they are just a bunch of Big Government blowhards who are threatened by the fact that they can’t make it in a capitalistic society.

      I am not part of the 99%. And I would dare say neither is about half of America.


      October 28, 2011 at 10:41 pm

  4. If by ‘success’ you mean a true grass roots movement being astro-turfed and co-opted by multi-billion dollar corporations to repeat their own talking points between shouts of God, Guns & Gays, then I suppose we could call the Tea Party a success. However, this was not what the Tea Party was supposed to be.

    The original Tea Party was very much in-line with what OWS is today. They protested outside of Wall Street in effort to bring attention to the corrupting influence of big business on the democratic system. One of the founding members of the Tea Party, Karl Denninger, (who voted for Obama) organized the movement to show that the people would not be satisfied with the rhetoric of change, but expected results as well.

    Perhaps one of the most amazing qualities of OWS is it’s complete lack of special interests. It seems they have taken the lessons of the missteps of Tea Party and created something, by it’s very nature, cannot be taken over by outside forces.

    You say you’re not a part of the 99%, but by the numbers, if you make less than 500,000 a year, you are most certainly part of it. Listen, you don’t want to have the wool pulled over your eyes. You don’t want to be a dupe. Nobody respects those kinds of people, least of all the 1%.

    The richest 1 percent of the country now owns more than 40 percent of the wealth and takes home nearly a quarter of national income. That means there is a lot less for people like you and me. This 1% who have profited so abundantly as the nation suffers, well, they want even more, gunning for your pension, your social security, your medicare.

    “So what”, you say? Since the end of WWII to the 1970s, people like you and me got a much larger slice of the pie. In other words, the wealth we produced, we got a fair share. Since then, worker pay in relation to worker productivity has taken a sharp turn. Productivity has skyrocketed while pay has taken a slow and steady decline. The result has been a concentration of wealth and power at the very top, leaving the rest of us with less wealth, less power and far less influence in the government that was supposed to represent us.

    So, please, do the research. Check out the statistics. My blog is a very good resource. It gives facts and historical context to this movement without the heart-tugging pictures of police brutality and such.

    Thanks again. Enjoying the dialog!


    October 29, 2011 at 9:26 am

  5. I don’t know what Tea Party rallies you’re talking about but out of all the ones I attended, there were no multi-million dollar corporate types in attendance.  As we have an OWS rabble in the city park and all I see are angry faces and make shift tents that strangely look like the homeless tent city that the city shut down last year.I emphatically disagree with your comparison about how the Tea Party movement and OWS are the supposed “same”.  First, the Tea Party movement organizes and works within the framework of the political system.  They organize and win elections. In fact, the 2010 elections represented the largest shift in political power in nearly 50 years.  OWS seeks to upend the corporate system because they don’t have what the rich have.  Second, the main stream media has treated the Tea Party movement, from its very inception, with bias and derision, unlike how it has covered the OWS movement.  Third, the Tea Party actually cleans up after themselves, unlike how the areas where OWS and other liberal protests, like that million man march on the DC mall.Again, I’m not part of the 99%.  Cash flow aside, the 99% does not truly represent those below a certain amount of income, but rather, it’s a class warfare “us vs. them” term being used to draw battle lines.  You can call me what you will, but I refuse to accept that OWS represents my interests.  With the unions and SEIU, George Soros and the like, OWS’ strange bedfellows don’t make me feel included.  The fact that they attempt to rope me into their 99% definition is arrogant presumption. Additionally, the statement you made about me doing my research is seriously fallacious and actually irritates the crap out of me.  Just because I have a differing opinion than you, that I am somehow “uninformed” and “unlearned on the topic”. Astro-turf indeed..


    October 29, 2011 at 7:08 pm

  6. “I don’t know what Tea Party rallies you’re talking about but out of all the ones I attended, there were no multi-million dollar corporate types in attendance.”

    Well, not in the audience! The ‘multi-million dollar corporate types’ funneled tens of millions of dollars into the Tea Party through organizations such as FreedomWorks, a Washington D.C based non-profit which initially organized ‘Tea Party Patriots’. FreedomWorks was split off from ‘Citizens for a Sound Economy’ in 2004 which was started by Koch Industries, a wide ranging conglomerate of oil and investment trading with revenues of 100 billion in 2009 alone. From 1999 to 2003, Koch Industries were assessed “more than $400 million in fines, penalties and judgments” due to oil spills, violation of the Clean Water Act and simple criminal negligence for safety. It’s little wonder Koch would want to create a populist-like voice to speak to it’s own desires for Federal deregulation – it’s own voice lost any authenticity long ago. I’ve only scratched at the edge of the rabbit hole, it goes much deeper. I’ll leave it to you to dive in as far as you’d like.

    “As we have an OWS rabble in the city park and all I see are angry faces and make shift tents…”

    You ought to get out of that car and have a look around. Shake some hands. These are very bright and friendly folk. Anyway, that is what I found in New York and New Haven, CT..

    “I emphatically disagree with your comparison about how the Tea Party movement and OWS are the supposed “same””

    Hey, don’t take my word for it. That’s what one of the original grass roots organizers said. I found it hard to believe too, but before FreedomWorks stepped into the game, that’s exactly what it was.

    “First, the Tea Party movement organizes and works within the framework of the political system.  They organize and win elections. In fact, the 2010 elections represented the largest shift in political power in nearly 50 years.”

    True. Tens of millions of dollars well spent! Of course, the First Amendment of the Constitution does not say the people have the right to Assemble ONLY between the hours of 9 to 5. Given the rapid fire 24/7 news cycle, you have to admit the brilliance of this. They can’t be forgotten because they’re not going away and OWS is certainly working well within the definitions of the Constitution as laid out by the Founding Fathers.

    “Second, the main stream media has treated the Tea Party movement, from its very inception, with bias and derision…”

    Now just hold your horses there cowboy. I clearly remember a certain media stream called Fox news who advertised the Tea Party events BEFORE they occurred, called on it’s viewers to attend said events and even had their own news reporters rallying the crowd on from the stage. Super stars such as Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly praised the Tea Party as ‘true patriots’ taking up the fallen flag of our founding fathers. OWS, on the other hand, was completely ignored for the first three weeks of it’s occupation in Zucatti Park and only pushed into the news cycle when YouTube videos appeared of white shirted cops indiscriminately macing young girls peaceably corralled into an orange net. Even today, the majority of mass-media seems completely unable to take the very simple message of OWS and communicate it. Talk about bias and derision. Sheesh!

    “Additionally, the statement you made about me doing my research is seriously fallacious and actually irritates the crap out of me.  Just because I have a differing opinion than you…”

    I KNOW! RIGHT? That is annoying. I entered into this dialog with you precisely because your opinion was different than mine. I don’t want my voice lost inside the echo chamber of my own true believers. If this movement is going to work, and I think it will, I need to be able to talk to people just like you. I do this because I believe that if you knew what I know, if you saw what I saw and if I can urge you to step outside of your own echo chamber of true believers – we both have a real shot at working together.

    Despite everything you’ve heard, OWS isn’t a conservative vs. liberal issue. It’s not Republican vs. Democrat issue. Hell, it’s not even Libertarian vs. Progressive issue. It’s larger than all of those labels. Quite simply, it’s an American issue. As I’ve said, we’ve fought this battle many times before in our nations history. You’re a writer. You can be a part of this history too.

    Lastly, don’t take anything you know for granted and certainly don’t take anything I’ve said for granted. Revisit it, test it, shake it up a bit and see if ‘it’ holds up to the light of truth. Let me know what you find.


    October 29, 2011 at 9:28 pm

    • “Well, not in the audience!”

      The audience is all I care about – real people who love their country and are trying to make their voice heard, and not get busted for having sex in the bushes, pushing drugs, and catering to the fecal-smelling homeless. I don’t need to get out of my car – I would prefer to not have my wallet stolen by some of the miscreants that I see in the park. Undoubtedly you will tag me as some close-minded judgmentalist for taking this position, but again, I didn’t even have to get out of my car to see that what I saw wasn’t anything I wanted to shake hands with.

      As for funding, OWS is nothing more than ACORN rebooted, with much funding being pulled, not surprisingly, from labor unions. It’s interesting that you mentioned Zuccotti Park because thousands of union types which, quite possibily is funneling their money from the Stimulus. In other words, the OWS rabble is using conventional union tactics, stealing from the American taxpayer to protest the very society that, if the situations were reversed, they would be a part of. In other words, it’s jealousy rhetoric.

      That’s what’s different between OWS and the Tea Party. Both the Tea Party and OWS wants the people against who they protest to have less than what they have: the Tea Party wants government to have less power, OWS wants the rich to have less money. The stark difference is that the Tea Party doesn’t want what the government control for themselves. In other words, the Tea Party wants limited government, OWS wants wealth redistribution.

      You mention Fox News? Okay, I’ll half-step back and say they are the only ones who have reported on the Tea Party in an objective fashion, but ABC, CBS, and NBC as well as CNN and (P)MSNBC have all reported in a very nasty way against the Tea Party. Only only has to listen to people like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann (before his disgraceful end), Katie Couric (before her end…seeing a positive trend here), and quite a few others who have called the Tea Party racists, and tea-baggers (sheesh, how juvenile). The thing is, they can spew their hate, but the amount of arrests are mounting with the OWS crowd and the MSM (except for Fox) is NOT reporing on it as much as they threw their vitriol at the Tea Party.

      At the end, don’t come here thinking that we are fighting the same battle, because we’re not. And you continue to make this “if you knew what I knew, you would believe as I do” logical fallacy (appeal to ignorance) which galvanizes me even more against OWS. My battle is with progressives and government, with SEIU, ACLU, labor unions, the left-wing media, and what not. I’m not interested in working with progressives and socialists; I’m interested in defeating them and restoring our country back to its roots. That’s the history I want to be a part of, none of this liberal idiocy masquerading as the populist vox populi.

      And by the way, don’t come here calling me names. That’s a good way to get yourself banned from The Rabid Conservative. If you want to name call, do it on your own site, not mine.


      October 31, 2011 at 12:37 pm

  7. You don’t care that the audience of ‘real people who love their country’ were manipulated by corporate special interest groups who used them in effort to roll back regulations, environmental and safety laws so those corporations could enjoy even more profits? You’re saying you simply don’t care who was paying for the stages, the PA systems, permits, the people who spoke to the crowd or the huge dura-trans wrapped tour buses which drove them across the country? You’re not even a little bit curious how all that happened – or why?

    I agree that anything which gives rise to licentious and lewd behavior must be stopped! I once heard people are having sex in passenger jets and becoming members of a ‘mile-high club’. We must stop these sky orgies at once by grounding the entire fleet of jets!

    OWS is nothing like ACORN in any shape or fashion, but how sad to go after and destroy an organization which ‘…advocated for low- and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing, and other social issues’. It’s yearly budget was 25 million which includes a paltry 2.5 million in Federal funding (Just 10%). If you were to put that sum in a slice on the Federal discretionary spending pie chart, you’d need to magnify it with an electron microscope to even see it. BTW, ACORN was cleared of any wrong doing in the ‘pimp and ho’ scandal and independent agencies confirm ACORN had little effect on the mortgage crises.

    I have no doubt Labor Unions may have donated some money to OWS, but you’re only guessing here. You remember Unions, they gave you the weekend and 40hr work weeks and made sure you received a fair wage. Coincidentally, as the strength of Unions have declined in the past 30 years, so has our wages in comparison to productivity.

    I wouldn’t call Fox News reporting of the Tea Party either ‘fair’ or ‘balanced’ but lets just say that’s a matter of opinion. In truth, the reporting by other news outlets was more like going to than actual news reporting. I’ll grant you this. I’d suspect they could have gotten a fair shake had they removed the God, Guns & Gays dialog which was not a part of the original Tea Party message.

    And about ‘getting back to the original roots’ of our country. What does that exactly mean? If you’re a Libertarian at heart, you’d have to appreciate that Libertarianism actually has no roots in this country at all – or any other country for that matter. How about the roots of the country when Andrew Jackson killed the 2nd National Bank. Or when FDR built our national social safety net and split the financial/investment banks in two. Or when Eisenhower created the national highway system and warned us about the dangers of the military industrial complex? How about we look back into our history and take what made America great and do them even better?


    November 1, 2011 at 11:52 am

    • Once again, you keep talking the liberal party line and it’s really starting to make me want to just throw up everywhere. You talk about how it’s not an “us vs. them, liberal vs. conservative” issue, but with the lib-crat progressocialist line, attacking corporations for everything that’s wrong with the country, well, it just continues to prove my point. You’re not out here to have a conversation, but rather, to try and prove your liberal nonsense by attempting to take on the voice of the “everyman” and say that we want the same things. I don’t want what you want so stop trying to make it sound like we do.

      Ground all the airlines because people are having sex in the lavatory? I guess all the best comedy does come from liberals.

      I’m not even going to articulate all the crap that ACORN did under the guise of its “mission statement”. As for the “pimp and ho” scandal, well, I guess it’s easy to get cleared of wrongdoing when the guy who does it is Charles Hynes, the Brooklyn DA who got an endorsement from ACORN as a party hack. Nice job, Chuck. SEIU-ACORN-OWS-WFP…all one interconnected blob of discontented lib-crat mess.

      Unions did not give me anything. I’ve never been a part of a union, nor will I ever be. I haven’t found any use for them. And as long as people keep playing that same tired old line of how unions “did this or that”, rather than what they do now, which is basically raping the corporations and using that to strong-arm government to doing their bidding, well, they continue to show their irrelevance. I get my fair wage from the quality of my work. I kick butt; I get paid. Enough said.

      I’m quite sure that the Tea Party would have gotten a more positive attention without talking about God, Guns and Gays, but doesn’t that just make sense. God-loving, gun-toting, straight-laced people, if left to probability would be conservative anyway – definitely not the MSM’s style. But it’s just like you’ve been trying to do out here in the TRC comments area, in the harbor of my patience, convince me that if I just saw all of your lib-crat information, I’d see it your way. Thing is, I don’t. I know what I believe and that’s the way it is.

      When I look at getting back to the roots of the Country, I look at the spirit and letter of the Declaration of Independence, a document that is generally ignored by progressives. I look at what the Constitution with respect to those who wrote it, not what some lib-crat says it should say based on his “finger in the air” feelings at the time. I read the Federalist Papers and think about what liberty is. Original intent is the roots of the country, not changing the goal posts every time someone cries foul.

      By the way, as my Dad once said, God, Guns, and Guts made America. Let’s keep all three. And he is a Democrat.

      Sheesh…this is really beginning to bore the heck out of me.


      November 3, 2011 at 8:31 pm

  8. Unless liberals managed to win a patent on ‘facts’, there really is nothing liberal about who was behind the Tea Party (though, I admit facts tend to have a liberal bias). This misdirection of ‘liberal party line’ regarding the special interests behind the Tea Party movement doesn’t make your side of the argument any stronger. Furthermore, you didn’t answer the question. You really never wondered? Sadly, the question is only rhetorical as this point…

    Actually, I am trying to have a conversation. I admit it’s difficult. I’m giving you facts, I’m engaging you to think about what you think, I’m laying out a historical perspective, I’m challenging the propaganda that has been fed into the American media. Despite all this, the only thing I receive from you is “I know what I believe and that’s the way it is.”

    For instance, why do you believe Charles Hynes was improperly affiliated with ACORN? Why do you believe Unions have not positively benefited you? Why do you believe progressives/liberals ignore the Declaration of Independence/Constitution?


    November 4, 2011 at 5:53 am

    • I was bored before, but this is really starting to grate.

      I never asked the question because the answer is really irrelevant. When I go to a Tea Party rally and listen to people who have developed a healthy dislike for overreaching government, I really could care less who paid the city for park rental, who is furnishing books, or the like – and neither is the old woman on my left or the young man on my right.

      “I am trying…I’m giving…I’m engaging…I’m challenging…and the only thing I receive from you…”

      Only one thing I have to say about this…”poor baby”. By the way, this is MY blog – so if I decide I want to respond to your posts with facts or just dismiss your liberal rhetoric outright is my prerrogative. If you don’t like it, you should go hang out on Media (doesn’t) Matters, Huff-and-PuffPo, or some other site who will appreciate your liberal slant. As I said, your intent isn’t an exchange of information, but rather, the vain hope that, if I hear all of your “facts”, “historical perspective”, “propaganda challenge” and what not, that I’ll believe as you. I don’t want to believe as you or think like you.

      As for the last questions, the only one I’ll answer is the one I’ll discuss is the one relating to the Declaration of Independence. I never said liberals ignore the Constitution. They love the Constitution because they believe, through this “living document” BS that they can keep changing things that they don’t like and force the citizenry to accept it.

      The Declaration of Independence is a document sorely forgotten my liberals, primarily because it says that “rights” are bestowed by a “Creator”. Liberals aren’t too keen on the whole God thing and certainly don’t enjoy knowing that a Power bigger themselves is out there giving rights. Liberals don’t worship God as the Founders did – instead, their deity is “government”. Liberals and Progressives love government because it can be changed. God never changes, so He’s right out when it comes to “progress”.

      The Declaration is important because it sets the “why” to the Constitution’s “how”. If you get rid of the “why”, then the “how” can be changed to suit the capricious desires of people. They can change the Constitution’s interpretation from Original Intent to something more palatible. Original Intent cannot be changed – all the Founders are dead. But the Living Consitution crowd looks at what the document says and then warps it to what they want. Need an example, try the individual mandate for ObamaCare, which is a gross violation of Article 1 Section 8 with respect to powers enumerated to Congress. The Founders started a revolution when government got intrusive and they even indicated in the Declaration that when government gets too overreaching, that it was the right and duty of citizens to throw that government off. The Founders weren’t big on Big Government. They’d shriek at the government we have now.

      Anyway, we’re done here.


      November 6, 2011 at 9:21 pm

  9. “Liberals don’t worship God as the Founders did”, well, there we can agree completely.

    The very idea of Deism is lost on the majority of the American public, most especially conservatives. It is the philosophy George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson subscribed to. Deism is the belief that a creator set everything in motion and packed his bags and left, meaning the idea of prophecy, prayer, miracles and divine intervention is null and void.

    These founding fathers were men of the Enlightenment, a movement which sought to mobilize the power of reason in order to reform society and promote intellectual interchange in science. It opposed intolerance and abuses in Church and state.

    In fact, Jefferson was outright derisive towards Christianity and ‘its superstitions’, believing religion was historically hostile against the concept of liberty and actively sought to suppress ideas and science.

    These ‘inalienable rights’ you are referring to came from John Locke, another very important figure in the Enlightenment.

    If you believe the Founding Fathers would be shocked at the government, consider how disappointed they would be in the people it’s supposed to represent.


    November 7, 2011 at 8:27 am

  10. Good grief. Some liberals just don’t know when to quit – or you’re just trying to irritate me.

    Actually, Washington’s religious beliefs have been the subject of much debate but the historical evidence generally supports that he believed along Church of England lines and was generally understood to have a very deep spiritual life, if not a very private one. In my view, no one is entitled to say “so-and-so is this religion” or “so-and-so is anti-religion” because only God can judge. It is grossly inappropriate to arrogantly label someone else, particularly in matters of faith.

    If the evidence tells us anything, the Founders had great tolerance for Christianity, including Franklin and Jefferson. They were very supporting of Christian values and beliefs, because, as Franklin enumerated to his Letter to Ezra Stiles in 1790, the system of Chrisitianity was the best the world had ever saw or was likely to see. He himself, however, found no reason to adopt them for himself. Sad, because if he did not accept Jesus, this great thinker of his time would be in the lake of fire.

    Jefferson was not the “hater” of Christians that you paint him to be in your comment. While his quotes show an adamant personal disbelief and a general lack of utility for religion in his own life, he wasn’t against the idea of people having a personal belief in something. He was rather supportive of the individual. What he and many other Founders had a problem with was the “establishment” of “religion”.

    It might be interesting to point out that the Bible mentions “religion” seven times, and of those seven, six are in negative consequence. God has a dim view of religion too. He is more about having a “relationship” with those who seek Him; rather than interested in people who do a bunch of things to try to earn their own salvation.

    That is what seperates Christianity from every other system of belief. True Christianity is based on the person having a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ, not a faith-based religion of works that glorifies the practitioner. I believe the Founders would resonate well with this distinction, rather than some established system of religion.

    The Declaration of Independence states that the inalienable rights are endowed by the Creator, not John Locke. Despite who coined the phrase, all of the signers were willing to put their name on a document that supported this belief, including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. I find it highly unlikely that Franklin and Jefferson, very strong-willed in their writings, would attach their names to a document if they didn’t believe in all of it.

    There’s no doubt in my mind that the Founders would also be shockingly sad at those that bear the citizenship of America, because they had a very high hope for people to do for themselves. That’s why Today, many of the people have become grossly reliant and dependent on the government for their very lives, based on this need for “entitlement”, something that lib-crats love to use for their advantage.

    And they would be appalled with how OWS protesters rolled over a 78-year old woman and sent her to the hospital because of their stupidity. Or is this how progressocialists “peaceably assemble”?


    November 7, 2011 at 6:49 pm

  11. Very nice post! I think that was your best yet.

    Of course, the image of our Founding Fathers damned eternally to burn in a flaming pit of Hell is a bit disturbing, but I can forgive this. However, it’s harder to forgive the idea that I must ‘leave to God’ rational statements of a persons faith since their actions and words are empirical evidence that I may accurately reference.

    Washington was Americas most amazing Founding Father. Many are not aware of a holiday known as ‘Popes Day’, but it was huge in colonial America. Celebrated on the 5th of November, an effigy of the Pope would be burned in a public square along with quite a bit of fighting and drinking. Good times. It was Washington who stopped this holiday as he believed it was savage and against the ideals of religious tolerance. Also, Washington’s officers offered him to be the King of America, which he politely refused. In 1783, at the close of the Revolutionary war, Washington stopped a rebellion of American officers who feared their pensions would be cut by Congress simply by addressing to them “[I need] my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country.”

    Jefferson, on the other hand, hated all things Christian, and not just the trappings of religion.

    “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.” -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

    As far as ‘true Christianity’ is concerned, I’m afraid that’s something you’d have to take up with every Christian faith individually since the very idea of having a ‘personal relationship’ with God is a fairly new concept. To Martin Luthers own horror, his ideas in 1517 gave rise to a new sect of Christianity called Protestantism which believed everyone could talk to God directly. The Catholic Church, which had a monopoly on God since Roman times, took great exception to this idea.

    As I said before the idea of ‘inalienable rights endowed by a creator’ came from the writings of John Locke. You’ll notice the word GOD is not mentioned (as a Christian nation would surely do) but rather the more general term ‘creator’. This is very much in keeping with the ideals of the Enlightenment so it is not surprising the men who created this Nation would willingly put their names on it. Their idea of America was to be a nation built upon the firm foundations of the Enlightenment itself. God, in the minds of many of the Founding Fathers, was never to have a role in the nation at all.

    If you want to ‘take your country back’ to the original ideals of its creation, you would do well to understand what those ideals actually were. These Founding Fathers were intellectuals. Scientists. Polymaths. Men of reason who believed the salvation of mankind would be found not in God, but in mans progress.

    Lastly, the story of the 87 year old woman who fell down the steps is very sad, but the story appears to be without any evidence or testimony about what really happened. It’s certainly ridiculous to assert OWS makes a point to throw grandmothers down stairs.


    November 7, 2011 at 9:20 pm

  12. I don’t understand why you feel the need to continuously waste my time with your incessant need to argue, but it’s really beginning to grate. This thread has deviated from the original purpose of the post and I’m not going to keep wasting my time arguing with you, because it is really a meaningless gesture. This is my blog, not your platform to spout your liberal drivel; you can do that on your own blog.

    By the way, the evidence of the Occupy DC mob can be found on Richard Caster’s blog. As I said before, there’s nothing about what happened in DC that remotely resembles the Tea Party. OWS is nothing more than a bunch of socialistic hooligans who, after their performance in Oakland (another blog post) and in DC, have lost any credibility that they might have had. No one wants to listen to a rabble that destroys public property, accosts and harms people, and demonstrates their depravity repeatedly. No amount of so-called “facts” can justify OWS’ repulsive behavior.

    We’re done here. And this time, it’s done.


    November 8, 2011 at 10:02 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: