In my opinion, one of the best arguments to help us understand what is going on in this government comes from the very first paragraph of the very first Federalist Paper, Federalist #1, written by Alexander Hamilton. Replace the phrase “a new Constitution for” with “the future of” (that and emphasis mine):

AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on (a new Constitution for) [the future of] the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

Hamilton was trying to convince New Yorkers that the Articles of Confederation were not sufficient and that the Constitution needed to be adopted as a total replacement.  He begins by stating the claim that the existing government does not work, but he offers no support for this claim because he takes for granted that the people know it’s true; in this economy, and with such across-the-board desire to “throw the bums out”, I make the same claim of general understanding that our current government is a failure.  Then, specifically in the emphasized section, he was trying convince the public how to fix such problems by appealing to the true focus of the American Experiment- self government by choice, not big government of force.

Of course you can probably already see where I am going with this as it relates to the parallels today, but I will “remark” on it anyway.

Read More →

By now, we all reviewed Juan Williams’s comments to Bill O’Reilly about Muslims on airplanes, and we already knew that the MSM regards any negative speech regarding any Muslims as impermissible.  But there is another aspect of this event.  Before Williams spoke his main point, he prefaced it with this (emphasis mine):

I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country.

Williams purposely prefaced his fateful comments with the requisite liberal buzz words in order to appease his bosses at NPR.  You know, the same words that Liberals use to make loud-mouth retorts to Conservative opinions. Williams knew, as a member of the Left and of NPR, that before he said anything about Muslims, he had to put in some sort of disclaimer.  The irony here, of course, is that he was speaking directly to Bill O’Reilly, the same man who was totally unwilling to bow to MSM pressure only days before when appeared on “The View”, where he made comments about Muslims attacking the United States without any such qualification.  Funny how O’Reilly still has his job, but Williams does not, after both of them made appearances on shows whose hosts held generally opposing views to their guests.  But this is, of course, how Liberals see the world: free speech is allowed when it doesn’t offend Muslims and it isn’t Conservative, while Conservatives value free speech.  Hence, O’Reilly is still employed, but Whoopi Goldberg had to get up and leave the set of her own show.

But immediately before the disclaimer, Williams said something even more astonishing (emphasis mine):

I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.

And therein lies the biggest irony of all- he was fired because, to quote NPR (emphasis mine):

His remarks on The O’Reilly Factorthis past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130712737&ps=cprs (h/t Drudge)

So let’s review:

1) Williams says political correctness isn’t reality

2) Williams uses a Liberal-appeasing disclaimer anyway

3) Williams states his opinion immediately after and in context of the above two points

4) NPR fires Williams under a claim of questionable credibility

Apparently, in the MSM world, the desire to actually address reality is grounds for questioning a journalist’s credibility, even when the proper Liberal qualifying disclaimers are clearly made.  The MSM’s attempt to control free speech and what the general public is exposed to has now gone to another level, where one cannot even cover things with Liberal buzz words.

Now will the public finally see whose credibility is really undermined here?