Old
Gadfly: Gentlemen, did you follow any of
today’s Congressional hearing testimony
from groups targeted by the IRS?
IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind): I did, and it was disturbing.
AM
(an American seasoned aviator with an inquiring mind): It was clear to me the exchanges demonstrated
two different frames. Republicans
evaluated the circumstances from a Judeo-Christian view that once upon a time underwrote
our Nation’s founding principles.
Democrats evaluated the circumstances from a progressive view.
Old
Gadfly: Interesting, AM. How would you characterize the major
distinctions between the two views?
AM: One view centers on God, the other around
Prog the god of progressivism, and each view with clear, respective tenets for
how to live our lives.
IM: Tell us more about the tenets.
AM: The Judeo-Christian frame subscribes to what
are called the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:4-21). I know this sounds old-fashioned, but our
laws are based on these tenets. The
progressive view mirrors the same concepts in contrary ways. The following Table summarizes the
differences.
Old
Gadfly: Very impressive AM—the tenets
really need no further explanation to comprehend the implications of the
different views.
IM: Ironically, with AM’s explanation, and
recalling how the hearing played out, I realized the Democrats at the hearing feared
blaspheming Prog. The following image came to my mind:
AM: Clever, IM.
Yet, when Democratic politicians did speak, arguments were pretty lame
and obviously structured in such a way as to (a) distract the logic of
discussions by inserting Bush into the context, a blasphemous adherent to the
Judeo-Christian view; and (b) demonstrate sycophantic loyalty in a patent
defense of Prog’s tenets and his symbolic representative—Obama.
Old
Gadfly: It seemed as though committee Democrats,
in an obviously deliberate and collaborative way, sought to protect any
appearances that Obama and his disciples in the White House were somehow
connected to IRS’s censorship of conservative views and clear intimidation of
those who express them. The timing of
these actions is as disturbing as the suppression of the truth in the Benghazi
incident, especially in relation to midterm and Presidential elections. Does this pattern sound similar to our Club
Mentality discussion?
IM: Amazingly, the language was very transparent
in revealing how ingrained the tenets of progressivism are with people like Congressman
McDermott, a Democrat from the State of Washington. He argued, with obvious disdain toward the
individuals testifying, that the only question the Committee should be
examining is whether the American taxpayer should subsidize efforts of these
targeted organizations. In other words,
to McDermott, tax exempted contributions are considered government subsidies,
not charitable contributions freely and “voluntarily” given by individuals to a
service or program they choose to support.
This “subsidy” meme is a common misunderstanding of most progressives. For example, if I donate $1,000 to a
501(c)(4) organization, then I can include the $1,000 as a tax deduction when
calculating my annual income tax liability.
At a 30% tax rate, the donation would reduce my tax liability by
$300. This amount is $300 less than what
I would ordinarily pay to subsidize the government. Yet, progressives would say the government is
subsidizing my income by $300. If this
were true, then where did the government come by this $300? I’ll tell you where—from those who pay taxes
to the government. And to add further
insult to this progressive delusion, it’s perfectly alright for the federal
government to subsidize Planned Parenthood, a 501(c)3 organization, in the
amount of $500 million annually—all from taxes mandatorily paid by income
earning individuals who comply with tax laws.
AM: Good arguments, IM. Yet, as many of us wonder where these IRS
targeting hearings may end up, I tend to agree with Herbert Meyer, former Special
Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the
CIA's National Intelligence Council, who contends
there will be no “smoking gun.” To explain, Meyer argued there is no need for
traceable telephone calls or written memos.
And, while he used Hitler as an analogy, the purpose was to explain how
only a “leader’s” public tone is sufficient in generating actions by followers
within a regime. There are ample records
of Obama denigrating the Tea Party. For
example, according
to Kenneth Walsh, with U.S.
News & World Report, “Obama, in his most
candid moments, acknowledged that race was still a problem. In May 2010, he
told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key
component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially
right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent ‘Tea Party’ movement that was then
surging across the country.”
IM: This entire discussion
is disturbing. There are far too many Americans, the so called “independents”
straddling the ideological fence so as not to be accused of being ideological,
that passively acquiesce to the same Zeitgeist the Chinese and other
totalitarian leaders exploited in the recent past.
Old Gadfly: What do you
mean by Zeitgeist in regard to the Chinese?
IM: I’m talking about Mao Zedong’s
coercive efforts to instill communism in China.
I highly recommend you read a fascinating article by Bret Stephens, who wrote about Yang Jisheng, a 72-year old
Chinese journalist, and his book, Tombstone. To whet your appetite, here is a quote from
Stephen’s article: “Mr. Yang quickly saw that in Hayek's warnings
about the dangers of economic centralization lay both the ultimate explanation
for the tragedies of his youth—and the predicaments of China's present. ‘In a
country where the sole employer is the state,’ Hayek had observed, ‘opposition
means death by slow starvation.’"
Yang was referring to Hayek’s book, The
Road to Serfdom.
AM:
History is well documented. Being
very familiar with information operations from years of military experiences, I
am convinced the Administration is orchestrating a very sinister strategy to
further distance the American public from gross and impeachable dereliction of duty in the Benghazi incident, which is perhaps a
culmination of other foreign policy failures.
With its unholy alliance with progressives in Congress, an increasingly
unionized federal bureaucracy (nearly 40%), and news media (not to mention
academia and the Hollywood cohorts), the Administration’s strategy involves
three layers of shields to keep Benghazi buried: first the IRS issue, then the AP issue, then the
James Rosen and Fox News issue. This
strategy should consume enough time for progressives to regain control of both Houses
of Congress by 2014. Then, progressives will
have two full years to completely kill remaining threats to the progressive
agenda.
Old Gadfly:
I noticed this evening that Diane Sawyer with ABC News found it more important to have a segment on window
washers in costumes than any mention of the IRS hearing. Unfortunately, when so many Copernican drones are content to believe Obama and a large
central government can really deliver hope for the masses, history may not be
complimentary of how the great American experiment in life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness was derailed by the delusional orthodoxy of progressivism.
