[ About | Archive | Network | Latest | RSS/XML Feed]

Overheated Rhetoric

March 25, 2010 12:27 PM

At another crucial time in American history, a time even more dangerous to the American future than now, a political speaker from Virginia asked the rhetorical question, "Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense… [?]" An excellent question then, and an excellent question now. President Barack Hussein Obama, in one of his countless speeches to a crowd of his adoring followers, recently used the phrase "overheated rhetoric" to refer to the reactions of citizens speaking out against the obscenity of the health insurance takeover bill passed by Congress a few days ago. The mainstream media picked up the theme, and pretty soon allegations of "extremist" speech and actions filled the airwaves and the dead tree news outlets.

It has become clear that the latest tactic of our enemy, the "Progressive" Left, to to try to silence their critics and the majority of Americans who opposed the takeover legislation by an argument from intimidation: Allegations of death threats and verbal attacks on the "Democrat" protected classes (African-Americans and homosexuals) are everywhere, though up to now I have not seen videos or heard audio of such threats confirming that they happened. (Perhaps I have not tried hard enough to find them.) And, yes, citizens should avoid the temptation of overheated rhetoric.

To the rhetorical question just mentioned, follow-up questions emerge: is it dangerous at this time for opponents of semi-legal or illegal government seizures to speak out and make their grievances public, as I am doing now? That's a no-brainer: dangerous or not, it must be done. Silence is not only consent, it is surrender.

The second follow-up is a little trickier: should we allow our passion to show through when we speak out? I think my readers know my answer, for I believes my own passion shows through in each of my blogposts. Our enemies are trying to persuade us, however, to hide our passion, to moderate it, to damp it down, because we otherwise might scare off the skittish middle-of-the-roaders who fear the swastika-flying "teabagger" mobs. Yesterday I read a New York Times editorial (or was it a "news article"?) to that effect: our passion might backfire and yield the field of battle to the "Progressives." Well, frankly, I haven't been taking much advice from the New York Times lately.

In the first sentence of this blogpost, I mentioned a political speaker and his rhetorical question. His name, by the way was Patrick. No, not Pat Buchanan, Patrick Henry. He gave the speech on March 23, 1775. (The 235th anniversary was only a few days ago.) I'd like to give you excerpts from that speech, beginning with the rhetorical question:

"Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings… It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!… Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" 

Maybe Patrick Henry should have kept his mouth shut. I'm sure that if today's mainstream media worked for George III rather than for Barack Hussein Obama, that would have been their opinion.

[Keywords: impeach-them-all.org overheated passion patrick peace question rhetorical time ]