An American Insurgency
In recent weeks, there have been a slew of neo-conservative and GOP talking heads coming out in support of Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman. The one statement I would like to discuss here is that of Newt Gingrich, who referred to supporters of Lieberman challenger, Ned Lamont, as an 'insurgency'.
As A. Alexander points out, Gingrich unknowingly let slip the neo-con mentality toward the opposition:
This fear of such an opposition would go a long way to explain why the government has chosen to monitor the activities of anti-war protesters under the guise of combating terrorism.
Alexander concludes with:
We must never forget that this nation was born on the backs of a similar citizenry (sans DSL) who stood up to the ruling class that chose to ignore the will of the people. No doubt they were once considered an "insurgency" as well.
As A. Alexander points out, Gingrich unknowingly let slip the neo-con mentality toward the opposition:
From a personal perspective, Gingrich was correct in obliquely referring to America's blogosphere and directly Lamont supporters, as being an "insurgency". Gingrich, of course, meant the term to be derogatory and a means of linking those that oppose Bush's war follies with terrorists. Still, Crazy Newt the serial divorcer was correct in more ways than he fully understands and, too, revealed the Neo-Conservative agenda in a clear and yet, unintended way.
That Gingrich would openly refer to those who oppose Bush-Republican Neo-Conservative madness as being an "insurgency" is, in a very real sense, the first public admission that the Bush regime and Republicans are at war with the American people. It is a blatant confession of the ultimate Neo-Conservative agenda, i.e. a deliberate and swift movement toward a very real Executive dictatorship wherein those who dissent or disagree are "the enemy" or members of an "insurgency". Gingrich's use of the term "insurgency" when referring to fellow Americans reveals in no uncertain terms the reality that the Neo-Cons recognize a movement forming that consists of the American people and that is designed to directly challenge their drive toward a nationalist imperialistic dictatorship.
This fear of such an opposition would go a long way to explain why the government has chosen to monitor the activities of anti-war protesters under the guise of combating terrorism.
Alexander concludes with:
What choice do the American people have, but to form an "insurgency" when the current government has consolidated its power in such a way that the people have no legal or Constitutional means through which to protect themselves and their civil liberties? If Gingrich chooses to label fellow Americans as "enemies" or being part of an "insurgency", I personally welcome his unintended honesty. If fighting for the American way of life, freedom, liberty, and the Constitution makes the blogosphere an "insurgency" the label should be worn with pride.
We must never forget that this nation was born on the backs of a similar citizenry (sans DSL) who stood up to the ruling class that chose to ignore the will of the people. No doubt they were once considered an "insurgency" as well.
Lew Scannon reminded me that I probably qualify as one of Newt's insurgents, but you know I'd much rather be known as a partisan. So much sexier.
Posted by
Anonymous |
8/09/2006 01:29:00 AM
I prefer the term 'patriot' myself.
Posted by
Anonymous |
8/09/2006 03:36:00 AM
Post a Comment