UN Calls for End to Female Genital Mutilation »« Fischer Declares Fiscal Cliff Bill ‘Demonic’

Rush: Founders Would Have Hanged Obama

No, not Rush Limbaugh but Erik Rush, the black Worldnutdaily columnist who thinks America suffers from an excess of “negrophilia.” In a recent column he went on an epic rant about how Obama is a dictator and then says that he, and most politicians today, would have been hanged by the founding fathers:

The elephant (or the communist, if you prefer) in the room behind all of the machinations I have described is that the federal government, already grown to Cyclopean proportions over the last hundred years by self-seeking narcissists, is under the control of abject radical Marxists and a kitchen cabinet of global socialists and crony corporate and banking interests intent upon transforming the very globe into a sterile dystopia.

For years, Americans have accepted the dictates of fiat regulatory agencies fabricated by our presidents, which have no constitutional authority to regulate anything. These have done little more than stultify the economy, attenuate our liberties, and bleed taxpayer resources under the pretext of operating for our own good. New federal regulations – recently called “illegal and unconstitutional” by veteran commentator Charles Krauthammer – are hitting the books every week; they all threaten to further cripple the economy, and indeed are calculated to do so, yet, when the axe falls, most Americans won’t even know that they were a factor. Using these regulations, an army of czars, and the instrument of the Executive Order, Barack Obama has become a veritable dictator.

This isn’t a time for discretion, subtlety, or conciliation. It is a time for calling out our government for what it is, and – as the Founders of our nation did – disengage from those who are too stupid or cowardly to resist slavery. Few in Congress, Democrat or Republican, and likely none of the current administration would escape hanging were America’s founders on the scene at present.

Well yes, some of the founders might have hanged Obama for being an escaped slave, or at least beat him severely.

Comments

  1. octoberfurst says

    Rush is a nut-case and a text-book definition of an “Uncle Tom.” He tells the right-wingers what they want to hear regarding race–i.e. Black culture is “lazy”, “violent”, etc. He also has said that Blacks have it too good in America and that all they want is entitlements. I can’t stand him.

  2. says

    I will never understand the deification of the “Founding Fathers” in the United States. They were mere humans and if they were alive today, I’m sure they wouldn’t be uniformly conservative or liberal.

  3. John Hinkle says

    … [New federal regulations ] threaten to further cripple the economy, and indeed are calculated to do so…

    Obama: Hmm, I think… I want to be Dictator for Life. What should be my first move? Ooh, I know! I’ll ruin the economy! With paperwork! What fun!

  4. Michael Heath says

    Tabby Lavalamp writes:

    I will never understand the deification of the “Founding Fathers” in the United States. They were mere humans . . .

    I suggest reading more history from that time. It might at least convince you to not rely solely on two conjoined strawmen.

  5. says

    I try to avoid implicit deification of the founding fathers. I will refer to their rationales for writing certain things in the Constitution when they’re good rationales. At least in those areas, they were better than today’s authoritarian wingnuts who don’t seem to know what a right is, only how to (badly) fake an understanding through buzz phrases. On race issues, the founding fathers weren’t nearly so good, so I can freely criticize them for owning slaves and such.

    …the federal government, already grown to Cyclopean proportions over the last hundred years by self-seeking narcissists, is under the control of abject radical Marxists and a kitchen cabinet of global socialists and crony corporate and banking interests intent upon transforming the very globe into a sterile dystopia.

    So, Communists, socialists, and crony capitalists are all working together?

  6. paul says

    I have no doubt that certain of the founders would have hanged Obama, along with whomever taught him to read. They were pretty adamant about keeping Africans illiterate.

  7. says

    Michael Heath, I didn’t say they didn’t go good things, but we are talking about people some of whom owned slaves, and they didn’t give women the right to vote. Mere humans.

    It might at least convince you to not rely solely on two conjoined strawmen.

    This is leaving me flummoxed. How is referring to them as “mere humans” in anyway strawmanning? Every person today and every person in history is a mere human full of all sorts of human flaws. I’m surprised to anyone around here take exception to that.

    Are you also saying there is no deification of the Founding Fathers in the States?

  8. postman says

    I’ll second the flummoxing. This is just a bizarre statement to say the least. Tabby’s statement is uncontroversially true.

  9. says

    I almost got the Gold in the Olympics in singles ice-skating, but I slipped after a triple axle when I tried to pull off not one but two conjoined strawmen. Broke my hip. True story.

  10. says

    “So, Communists, socialists, and crony capitalists are all working together?”

    Well, if Muslims and atheists and gays can all work together, why not?

  11. Michael Heath says

    Tabby Lavalamp to me:

    This is leaving me flummoxed.

    Probably because you haven’t yet taken my advice to study history more ardently from that time. If you had you’d understood why your, “mere humans”, is an enormous strawman within the framework you created.

  12. postman says

    Michael Heath, are you serious? What is the framework that calling someone mere human would be a strawman?

  13. congenital cynic says

    I stopped after the first paragraph. There’s only so much weapons grade stupid a person can handle in one day. Guy’s a fucking idiot. I need to fetch another beer.

  14. naturalcynic says

    Not only would they have hung the president, he wouldn’t have been born because they would have hung his father and maybe his mother.

  15. steve oberski says

    There’s a good chance that one of the founding fathers would have been Obama’s father.

  16. says

    It goes without saying the people who deify the founding fathers treat their writings like fundies treat the babble (and there is no doubt, a lot of overlap between the two groups): infallible words from on high that they don’t understand and never bother to read.

    The FFs had some great ideas, many of which they failed to live up to personally, but they were mere humans.

    Getting back to Rush, I wonder he’s ever looked up the Alien and Sediton Act.

  17. Dee Emarr says

    Michael Heath:

    Tabby Lavalamp writes:
    I will never understand the deification of the “Founding Fathers” in the United States. They were mere humans . . .

    I suggest reading more history from that time. It might at least convince you to not rely solely on two conjoined strawmen.

    … what?

  18. postman says

    “If you had you’d understood why your, “mere humans”, is an enormous strawman within the framework you created.”

    Isn’t there a grammatical error there? I’m no native speaker and it seems wrong to me.

  19. matthewhodson says

    If Obama makes a decree that enables his presidency to linger beyond 2016 then maybe you could cry dictator.
    If the founding fathers had the policy of hanging “those who are too stupid or cowardly to resist slavery”, they would have been hanging many of themselves – this makes no sense.

  20. Akira MacKenzie says

    I would certainly say the Founders are deified by the Right. A week hardly goes by where Ed posts at least one story about Barton’s latest pseudo-historical shenanigans or some other conservative/libertarian mouth piece who invokes the allegedly flawless genius of the Founders and how everything they did and said is still relevant two centuries later, SO YOU BETTER NOT MESS WITH THE BILL O’ RIGHTS, YOU DURN COMMIES!

  21. Hercules Grytpype-Thynne says

    @Modusoperandi:

    I’m surprised the let vehicles with three axles onto the ice in the first place.

  22. yoav says

    New federal regulations – recently called “illegal and unconstitutional” by veteran commentator Charles Krauthammer

    And we should gives a rodent’s donkey about Krauthammer’s opinion because…

    as the Founders of our nation did – disengage from those who are too stupid or cowardly to resist slavery.

    This is why you shouldn’t learn history from David Barton and Michelle Bachmann.

  23. StevoR, fallible human being says

    New federal regulations – recently called “illegal and unconstitutional” by veteran commentator Charles Krauthammer ..

    Did Krauthammer really say that? Isn’t that one of the people who has a often pretty reasonable column in Time magazine or am I thinking of someone else?

  24. dingojack says

    “.It is a time for calling out our government for what it is, and – as the Founders of our nation did – disengage from those who are too stupid or cowardly to resist slavery”.

    Yep. See R v Knowles, ex parte Somersett (1772) 20 State Tr 1 and Emancipation Proclamation (1 Jan 1863) *

    Dingo
    ——–
    * Note this was an ‘instrument of the Executive Order’ too, I guess Mr Rush would prefer to be a slave, rather than follow the dictates of that ‘veritable dictator’ Abraham Lincoln

  25. stace says

    Did Krauthammer really say that? Isn’t that one of the people who has a often pretty reasonable column in Time magazine or am I thinking of someone else?

    Krauthammer reasonable? Maybe from the right angle. From my angle, just another right-wing d-bag who predicted that Romney would defeat Obama.

  26. says

    “Did Krauthammer really say that? Isn’t that one of the people who has a often pretty reasonable column in Time magazine or am I thinking of someone else?”

    Krauthammer is a douchewaffle’s douchewaffle and hasn’t written anything reasonable since at least 2000.

  27. Michael Heath says

    Tavvy writes @ 4:

    I will never understand the deification of the “Founding Fathers” in the United States. They were mere humans . . .

    I respond @ 6:

    I suggest reading more history from that time. It might at least convince you to not rely solely on two conjoined strawmen.

    Tavvy Lavalamp @ 9:

    How is referring to them as “mere humans” in anyway strawmanning?

    Postman @ 10:

    I’ll second the flummoxing. This is just a bizarre statement to say the least. Tabby’s statement is uncontroversially true.

    I respond @ 13:

    Probably because you haven’t yet taken my advice to study history more ardently from that time. If you had you’d understood why your, “mere humans”, is an enormous strawman within the framework you created.
    [emphasis here only - MH]

    postman @ 14:

    Michael Heath, are you serious? What is the framework that calling someone mere human would be a strawman?

    Dee Emar to me:

    … what?

    Of course ‘mere humans’ works in many contexts, but I was explictily and notably rebutting Tabby within her own framework as already noted.

    The framers weren’t “mere humans” within the double-strawman framework within which Tabby created to buttress her ‘argument from ignorance’; which makes for two defective rhetorical fallacies and one logical fallacy within merely 1.5 sentences. Instead within this context they were incredibly accomplished humans; which is why I suggested history lessons are imperative here.

    Their accomplishments helped secure many of liberty rights which those under the jurisdiction of the U.S. enjoy exercising and government protection for 220+ years now. The framers’ accomplishments were also one of a handful of accomplishments from that period to transform abstract enlightenment ideals about human rights into pervasively practiced political liberty that reverberates beyond the U.S. and across most of the civilized world.

  28. says

    The framers weren’t “mere humans” within the double-strawman framework within which Tabby created to buttress her ‘argument from ignorance’

    Speaking of arguments from ignorance, before you deigned to come down from your mighty fortress of intellect to patronize me, did it at all occur to you to ask me to clarify if what I said wasn’t clear to you? Granted, we’re not all the super-duper brainy types like your awesome self, but others people here seem to have caught the gist of my barely coherent droolings.

    No matter how incredibly accomplished a human is, he or she is still a human. A mere human loaded to the brim with faults (I can think of one off hand that you appear to have (two, if you want to include an apparent deification of your Founding Fathers)).

    You seem to have got caught up in the “mere human” part of the sentence and appear to have stopped reading at that point. If you also read where I wrote “and if they were alive today, I’m sure they wouldn’t be uniformly conservative or liberal,” perhaps my animalistic grunting would have made more sense. I’m not American, but I do know the founders of your nation weren’t a hive mind who agreed on everything (disagreement a thing that mere humans are wont to do). If they were alive today, well, you can read the rest where I quoted myself. Or not, because perhaps incredibly accomplished humans are some sort of super-species that I, in my barely sentient brain, could never hope to comprehend.

  29. postman says

    I still don’t understand your objection. The argument wasn’t that they were not accomplished. The point is that they made mistakes just as everybody else. Respect may be in order but to deify them, meaning to put them beyond criticism, is absurd.

  30. Alverant says

    Yeah Rush and the FF would have been A-OK with everything the GOP politicians have been doing for the past 30+ years. Forget hanging they would have gone to King George and said, “We’re sorry. Take us back.”

  31. kermit. says

    Michael, do you disagree with:

    “… the deification of the “Founding Fathers” in the United States [by some]”
    Is true and exists to a palpable degree?
    .
    “They were mere humans”
    Are you claiming that they were more than human?
    .
    “…if they were alive today, I’m sure they wouldn’t be uniformly conservative or liberal.”
    If you disagree with this, please explain which you think they would uniformly be.
    .
    American Fundamentalists frequently overemphasize the importance of founders of a movement, country, tribe, etc. Hence when discussing human origins they attack Darwin, thinking that successfully doing would would somehow refute evolutionary theory. Being American exceptionalists, they (nearly) deify the FF, and whitewash what would widely be seen as shortcoming and failures today. They do not acknowledge that they were mere humans. They also tend to simplify everybody’s political positions, and given their reverence for the FF, they assume that the FF all would have supported their own modern right wing political stance (much as they think the bible always supports their own prejudices).
    .
    I do not know what framework you see in Tabby’s post, nor which of her claims of fact you disagree with.

  32. caseloweraz says

    Erik Rush: “Few in Congress, Democrat or Republican, and likely none of the current administration would escape hanging were America’s founders on the scene at present.”

    Spoilsport that I am, I think that if America’s founders were on the scene at present, they would be too feeble with extreme age to hang anyone.

  33. scienceavenger says

    Thank you for that last post Tabby, I laughed so hard I cried.

    As for deification of the FFs, they themselves would have been almost uniformly aghast at such a notion, and at the thought of using their writings, mostly unchanged, to run our government 200+ years later. Jefferson in particular thought IIRC that we should have a new consitutional convention every generation or so. We have a lot of catching up to do.

  34. Michael Heath says

    tabby,

    I read all your posts in their entirety and comprehend everything you wrote.

    scienceavenger writes:

    As for deification of the FFs, they themselves would have been almost uniformly aghast at such a notion, and at the thought of using their writings, mostly unchanged, to run our government 200+ years later.

    Obviously, but Americans do not deify them, so again – more promotion of a strawman. Do a minority of Americans do so? I’m confident some do if we concede Tabby’s point is to be taken as hyperbole, which I originally granted when noting the falsehood of her post; but no such sub-population was named.

    As a human and champion of human rights, I’m incredibly proud of the U.S. framers; I’ve learned much studying them over the decades. So much so I continue to study them. I recognize how much humanity has benefitted from their accomplishments. I’m not very tolerant of bad arguments to being with, especially three fallacies in 1.5 sentences, and especially so when someone uses dishonesty to misconstrue a group whose benefitted billions.

  35. says

    if we concede Tabby’s point is to be taken as hyperbole

    Do you seriously think that I seriously think there are people literally deifying the FFs? Perhaps if we start finding temples being sanctified in their names. So was “deifying” hyperbole? Well, duh. But the hyperbole is apt, making “deify” a perfectly good word to describe how many Americans will brook no criticism of those incredibly accomplished humans.

    You might not like it, but they were incredibly accomplished while also being very flawed… Mere humans. Einstein was a mere human. Galileo was a mere human. Da Vinci was a mere human. They were brilliant humans, but they were mere humans. They lived, they died, they advanced knowledge, and they also made mistakes. They ate, slept, pooped, had sex, and had good and bad thoughts. They weren’t gods. They were mere humans with all the good and bad that comes with that.

    I’m sorry, I don’t see anything wrong with being a mere human – it’s our state of being. I refuse to put any other human on a pedestal and make idols out of them. Your reaction to my original statement is awfully damned close to someone getting upset of an act of blasphemy.

    “Americans do not deify them…”

    According to reports, Hal Rounds, the Fayette County attorney and spokesman for the group, said during a recent news conference that there has been “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/tea-party-tennessee-textbooks-slavery_n_1224157.html

    That’s awfully close to all the stories in this very blog about religions not tolerating any criticism. If you doing like my use of the word “deify”, please feel free to provide a better one. The fact is that it works. Granted, Hal Rounds is extreme in his feelings… You know what? Fuck it. I’m sick and tired of people on the Internet getting upset when every little friggin’ word isn’t qualified. Jesus Thor, what kind of buffoon thinks I meant that every single person in the United States literally thinks the Founding Fathers are gods?

    And I’m strawmanning The point of a strawman is to have something you can easily tear down while making an argument. The only argument I made in my original post is that if they were alive today, some of the FFs would be liberals and some would be conservatives. It’s strange enough that you think I was strawmanning, but it’s downright insulting that you think I’d strawman so stupidly in a way that has no bearing on the argument I’m actually trying to make.

    especially so when someone uses dishonesty to misconstrue a group whose benefitted billions.

    Speaking of hyperbole… Billions? Really?

    Now, just for you I’m going to finish off with a logical fallacy – Argumentum ad populum. Everyone else in this thread who has commented understood what I was saying and many of them seem to generally agree with what I was saying, with many of them not knowing what you were going on about.

  36. says

    Tabby Lavalamp “Da Vinci was a mere human. They were brilliant humans, but they were mere humans…They ate, slept, pooped, had sex, and had good and bad thoughts”
    Lies! Da Vinci never pooped. “No poop”. That’s what “Da Vinci” means.

  37. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    Your reaction to my original statement is awfully damned close to someone getting upset of an act of blasphemy.

    With a Courtier’s Reply thrown in for good measure.

  38. Michael Heath says

    Me earlier:

    . . . Americans do not deify [the founding fathers], so again – more promotion of a strawman. Do a minority of Americans do so? I’m confident some do if we concede Tabby’s point is to be taken as hyperbole, which I originally granted when noting the falsehood of her post; but no such sub-population was named.

    Tabby Lavalamp responds:

    Do you seriously think that I seriously think there are people literally deifying the FFs?

    I just wrote that it was obvious you didn’t intend for your deification quip to be taken literally. I’m responding within your framework as you intended it and have since my first attempted rebuttal. Wow. . . just . . . wow.

Leave a Reply