"The most significant threat to our national security is our debt," Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, August 27,2010


Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Freedom of Speech, Rhetoric and Opportunism

TheFundamentals is a forum that is almost entirely based on the God given and constitutionally protected ability of law abiding, taxpaying, responsible citizens to voice their strong opinions about matters of import and consequence or even lesser matters. However, we do temper our statements due to a concern for safety, ours and others, or an awareness of “political correctness” mantras that now prevent real conversation; real dialogue and real truth about matters economic, financial, political and governmental.

Let us give an example. We recently had occasion to drive four or five miles of Detroit’s surface streets. All we saw was despair and destruction. Even those of us who had previously experienced and witnessed the destruction of this town were shocked at its continued deterioration and dismalness. Is Detroit the natural consequence of years of union, minority, Democratic Party leadership? Is this America’s future? It is now a town with no apparent hope or direction. Those who live by time tested fundamentals have left. Those with us who saw it for the first time were quiet; one could only bring herself to say, “It is grim.” We thought back to the nonsensical comment coming from the kid play acting as the American attorney general and his oblivious remark about Americans being afraid to dialogue on racial matters. What utter nonsense. Who is going to comment on Detroit? And take the risk of being deemed a “racist” or some other quick phrase turned by one of the aforementioned parties who must bear some responsibility for Detroit. Many Americans just move beyond their fear of Detroit’s occurring elsewhere. They leave it alone; try not to think about it; get on with their lives but in the back of their mind is the gnawing concern and fear that Detroit could happen elsewhere. But remember, political correctness says Detroit is not the result of years of union, minority, Democratic Party leadership.

Let’s move on. Let’s say you support change and voice that support. Is that rhetoric that could lead to violence? The answer appears to depend on whether or not your definition of change is “politically correct.” Apparently not if the change gets you in the “politically correct” category as defined by one side of the political spectrum and supported by the sycophantic press that depends greatly upon that political group for its life’s blood. Where would the news departments of NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS and CBS be without the Democratic Party? Without daily news briefings from the white house? Without racial incidents or homophobic incidents or discrimination incidents or right wing violence incidents or some other trumped up, politically correct, three day lasting news opportunity?

Change has been occurring in the US for some time now. The politically correct or mainstream media accepted forms of change started on some matters mentioned above. Discrimination, racial and otherwise, which expanded to other groups who sought protection for their members and these groups now include so many it is almost impossible to not be included: seniors; females; handicapped; obese; farmers; students; uninsured’s; animals; overfished fish; children toys; mothers against drunk drivers; war on poverty; any person who wants to control some other person’s use of their property; environmentalists; no more nuclear plants and on and on into tomorrow. All politically correct.

If you want to succeed in America and you are not in a special interest group with powerful lobbyists looking out for you (think bankers, insurance companies, government employees, unions, teachers, doctors and our favorite: lawyers, lawyers, lawyers) you had darn well better get into as many protected classes as possible and then you might get some of that change that the change people are spreading around. At least that is what lots of people believe. Many people vote based on that belief. Is it permissible to believe differently? Is it permissible to voice such differences? Or is there only one acceptable route? The politically correct route?

What appears to be happening is that there is one really big and growing group of working, law abiding, taxpaying, non special interest group joining, non protected class participating people in the middle and they are just plain fed up with the place we have become as all these changes have become the accepted “political correct” place to be. So, we ask that change group these simple questions: Just what are You going to do when that big group in the middle gets fed up and decides enough is enough? What are You going to do when they say, “Let's get back to the fundamentals?” What are You going to do when their fear of becoming another Detroit starts coming out of the closet? Call them names? Blame them irresponsibly for others acts?

Who is the “You” mentioned in the previous paragraph? Well one big group is those who belong to all the special interest groups; particularly the high paid; high benefited; high pensioned elected officials and government employees at all levels of government – local, state and federal . They are now starting to see; starting to detect; starting to feel; starting to worry about the possibility that change is going to come their way and derail their gravy train. They don’t like this kind of change. They only like the change that benefits them.

Watch carefully the rhetoric that is now flowing from the politically correct group. Is it about their change agenda and its failure? Or is it one more form of challenge to anyone who would challenge their politically correct mantras? What is their solution to the malaise that is now America and the destruction that is now Detroit? More of the same? Tomorrow will be better?

Remember that big group in the middle is also seeking change. It just may not be Your change or it just may not adhere to Your politically correct definition. That group is going to be heard also. It’s not just about you, “You.”

No comments: