Tyrants v. wimps

Seal of Virginia. Translation: Thus Always to Tyrants. The first battle in a wider war took place in Charlottesville on or about 12 August 2017. A second battle may shortly take place...
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In today’s politically correct world we tend to throw political viewpoints into several categories. Generally we call them left-wing versus right-wing or liberal versus moderate versus conservative. But let’s call them what they really are: tyrants, wimps, and freedom fighters.

Tyrants and wimps in action

For me, the most offensive is the moderate. If you recall when Nancy Pelosi ruled as the tyrant of Congress, she said to the opposing Party,

We won. Get over it.

This attitude horrified many. But I give her kudos. At least the lady was passionate about the things she believed and met her opposition head on. Nancy Pelosi may be a tyrant, but she is no wimp.

Contrast Pelosi’s rule to the time when the “compassionate conservatives” controlled Congress. Everything was “let’s make a deal” and “we don’t want to look like tyrants.” So they became wimps – kowtowing to their opponents (the tyrants) to make friends, instead of doing what was right by the American people. No wonder the American people threw the wimps out.

I am a conservative with strong libertarian leanings. I can better understand liberals who are at least passionate about the things they believe, than moderates who are mediocre at best. I disagree philosophically with the viewpoint of liberals. But I also appreciate that their objective is noble – although in my opinion, unrealistic and dangerous. That’s what makes them tyrants.

Christ to wimps: “You make Me sick!”

I am not the only one to find the play-along-to-get-along philosophy of the mediocre moderates distasteful. So did Christ. In the Book of Revelation, chapter 3 verses 14-18, Christ writes to the church of Laodicea, which He calls “lukewarm.” He says clearly that He wishes they were hot or cold. Because they are not, He spits them out of his mouth. Strangely enough, that is not where the similarity ends. In verse 17 He goes on to say that they believe they are rich and have need of nothing, when in fact they are wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked. Unfortunately, this sounds like many modern-day political moderates who have taken control of the once noble Republican Party. They seem more concerned about preserving their power base through the fine art of deal making (in which they have proved woefully inadequate) than doing what is right. To them, making deals is right. To those who think like me, doing what is right is right. As a result, they achieve little and what they do achieve is watered down and practically worthless.

The wimps score a coup, and tyrants stay in place

Seal of Virginia. Translation: Thus Always to Tyrants

Seal of Virginia, designed by George Wythe. The Latin translates as "Thus Always to Tyrants."

The wimps we now call moderates have managed one coup. They have convinced the conservatives in this country that we must vote for them or have another liberal keep control. What do we do? We keep a clothespin handy to clip on our noses when we go to the polls on Election Day and vote for the person they tell us can beat the liberal. Like them or not, we have swallowed the argument that it’s a necessary evil.

We do have a better choice. We just have to stop believing the hype. Josef Goebbels, Hitler’s minister of propaganda, once said:

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Those now in control of the Republican Party have told us often enough and loud enough that these moderate wimps are our best choices, and we have believed them. When we have a better candidate, we must rise up, support that candidate to the absolute best of our ability, and do our best to convince others to do the same. Plato once said,

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics, is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.

History has shown that both Goebbels and Plato knew what they were talking about.

Are you lukewarm?

How do you know if you are lukewarm? Do you know about a candidate that you believe is better than the one the establishment backs? And if so, do you either not vote or vote for the establishment candidate, who they tell you has a better chance of winning? Then, my friend, you are lukewarm. You have accepted mediocrity when you had a better choice. You have become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. You have believed the self-fulfilling prophecy that your candidate cannot win. Because you have believed it you have made it real.

Yes, we do get the representation we deserve. The mediocre wimps that represent us, came to power with the votes of the mediocre wimps that go to the polls on Election Day. Actually, the truth is worse – they got the “votes” of the mediocre wimps that stay home on Election Day and don’t vote for the better candidate. Another truth – conservatives cannot win unless conservatives vote. More than that, conservatives must vote for true conservatives and not mediocre wimps. Often enough we have a better choice but are too afraid to stand by it. As long as this prevails, we are doomed to get what we deserve. Have I offended you? Then stand up and be counted. If you don’t have a good candidate to stand behind, go out and recruit one. And if you do have a good candidate to stand behind, then do stand behind them.

Where we stand and how to win

Right now we have tyrants and wimps representing us. That will not change until we have passionate conservatives seeking out and voting for passionate conservatives. I will end with another concept from the Book of Revelation – “he who overcomes.” Never mind looking to your neighbor to overcome the crisis this country is facing. It is up to you to stand up, be counted, and overcome. The real choice is not voting for the evils of two lesser; the real choice is either to submit to tyrants and wimps, or overcome. I pray for my country that you will choose the latter.

ARVE Error: need id and provider

“Stand up and be counted,” says an Army general (John Wayne) to Lieutenant Colonel David “Mickey” Marcus USAR (Kirk Douglas). Col Marcus goes on to “stand up” as Aluf Michael Stone of the Israel Defense Forces.

Website | + posts

RoseAnn Salanitri is a published author and Acquisition Editor for the New Jersey Family Policy Council. She is a community activist who has founded the Sussex County Tea Party in her home state and launched a recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez. RoseAnn is also the founder of Veritas Christian Academy, as well as co-founder of Creation Science Alive, and a national creation science speaker.

17 Responses to Tyrants v. wimps

  1. DinsdaleP says:

    I thought the Book of Revelation was written by John of Patmos.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      I don’t expect you to believe in the premise of inspiration. But for the benefit of my other readers: no human scrivener writes a Book of the Bible. More correctly, he takes dictation, like a stenographer.

      • Fergus Mason says:

        Completely off topic – am I right in saying you live in Noo Joizy?

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          The author of the post, and myself, are both New Jersey residents.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “New Jersey”

            Sorry, I couldn’t resist being phonetic :-)

            I just wanted to say that, seeing as we’ve discussed the right to own firearms so often, I was amused to learn that both the Walther P22 and the L1A1 battle rifle are illegal to own under New Jersey state law.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            Did I ever tout New Jersey’s government as a perfectly good example of friendship toward human liberty? Or did you read that into one of my article, or my association?

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “Did I ever tout New Jersey’s government as a perfectly good example of friendship toward human liberty?”

            Honestly compels me to say that no, you haven’t.

            However as far as freedoms go, it appears that in some respects – gun ownership, for example – I have at least as much freedom as you. To own either of those firearms in NJ you’d have to mutilate them to the point where they were barely functional. Here you only have to prove that you’re not a drunk or a criminal and that you know how to operate them, all of which seem perfectly reasonable requirements – certainly more so than having to saw off two inches of the L1A1’s barrel, fit a hideous stock that barely lets you reach the trigger then destroy the largest component of the weapon with an acetylene torch and replace it with an absolutely identical part made in Barrington, Illinois. Perhaps our system of government isn’t entirely without its benefits?

      • Fergus Mason says:

        “no human scrivener writes a Book of the Bible. More correctly, he takes dictation, like a stenographer.”

        That’s certainly the traditional belief. However do you have any evidence that it’s actually true? After all Big Mo made similar claims for the koran, and I assume that you don’t believe him any more than I do.

      • DinsdaleP says:

        Oh I’m fully aware of the concept of sections of the Bible being the inspired Word of God, but when I went to (Roman Catholic) Church, the convention was to refer to authorship by the person the material was scribed by, as in “a reading from the First Letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians”, rather than “…from the first Letter of Christ to the Corinthians”.

    • Fergus Mason says:

      Yes, it was.

  2. DinsdaleP says:

    Regarding the material itself, I couldn’t agree more with the idea that people need to stand up for the values that are important to them, and it’s a credit to RoseAnn that she acknowledges the character of people who stand up strongly for their values, even when different from hers.

    However, in a nation comprised of people with different values, there are only three outcomes when compromise is not an option: total acceptance of a single set of values, total policy domination by one set of people over any others who disagree, or gridlock where nothing can be accomplished.

    In the absolutist view held by RoseAnn, the Founding Fathers would be considered “wimps” on at least two major points:

    -The issue of slavery was not settled conclusively one way or another, and the 3/5 principle was applied as a stopgap.

    -Representation in Congress was not purely by population or purely equal for each state, but a compromise where separate houses represented both weightings.

    In the absolutist view, there would be no compromise on such fundamental issues until one faction or another could push their preference exclusively into law. Instead, the Founders chose to compromise, with each faction gaining and losing something in the process, buy the nation moving forward as a result.

    Compare that to Congress today, where Republicans won’t even allow Republican-generated ideas to move forward when the result might be seen as progress while Obama’s in office. Instead, this “my way or no way” approach is holding back the recovery of this country, and that’s a real tragedy.

    If Romney were to win, for example, watch how fast the GOP starts to move on policies like debt ceiling increases or maintaining provisions of the PPACA and try to spin it like it’s anything different than what they were fighting against when Obama was president.

  3. DinsdaleP,

    You have actually supported my argument rather well. Yes, our founders did compromise on the issue of slavery and history has shown that was a monumental mistake – one that resulted in a Civil War that cost thousands of dollars and almost destroyed the nation in the process. The hostilities can still be detected in the southern regions of the country. To some extent it can be argued that racial tensions that persist until today can be attributed to the Civil War and the circumstances leading up to it and following it.

    Regarding our willingness to compromise as a way of going forward – step back a minute and consider if what we accomplish in the process is truly worth the trouble. Things are often so watered down or come with so many deals attached that the end results just might not be worth it. However, we have been conditioned to believing that compromise is necessary.

    What I believe we have forgotten is the virtue of leadership – perhaps because we have not seen true leadership in a very long time and we have become accustomed to settling for mediocrity. Leadership takes a talent for first knowing what is right and then being able to influence others. If you are right in any aspect of life, you should be able to articulate it and be persuasive. Of course, many have worldviews that will not allow concensus of any sort, but true leadership should ideally lead to consensus – or at least try. Granted, that will not always be possible but today it is rarely so much as a goal.

    You are correct about the divisions between the Republicans and the Democrats. Seeking what is right is no longer an motivation – preserving power is. And We, the American people, pay the price for the ambitions of special interests and party hacks. I must also remind you that when the Democrats were in full power they locked the Republicans out of the deliberations. Bullies in a sense, but at least honest about what was happening. On the other hand, the Republicans pretend to listen but have set their agendas none-the-less.

    Niether Party deserves our respect – IMHO.

  4. DinsdaleP says:

    RoseAnn,

    Would it really be so surprising that we don’t have common ground on some issues? In fact, I would go as far to say that there’s a lot of truth in this part of what you said (spelling corrected):

    “You are correct about the divisions between the Republicans and the Democrats. Seeking what is right is no longer a motivation – preserving power is. And We, the American people, pay the price for the ambitions of special interests and party hacks. I must also remind you that when the Democrats were in full power they locked the Republicans out of the deliberations. Bullies in a sense, but at least honest about what was happening. On the other hand, the Republicans pretend to listen but have set their agendas none-the-less.

    Neither Party deserves our respect”

    My general take after a being around for the past half century is that while many politicians start off with a values-based agenda, the combination of “paying your dues” and “being a team player for the party”, along with the desire to maintain and grow influence/power, inevitably becomes a corrupting force. Not necessarily corrupting in the criminal sense, but definitely in that self-preservation of office and growing in power become the primary focus, and acting on behalf of the constituents (especially at a political cost) is a distant second.

    I find it sadly ironic that as the GOP works to defeat the counterproductive influence of unions, it’s blind to the fact that as an institution, it embraces many of the union-like traits that it seeks to stamp out. The Democrats embrace the same traits, of course. The power brokers and bosses set agendas and pick the favored standard-bearers, who in turn have to pay back the patronage even if that means supporting things they’re personally against. How many big-party candidates truly set their own platforms and then persuade the party to get behind it, rather than the other way around?

    Dwight Eisenhower had a great quote about leadership:

    “Pull the string, and it will follow wherever you wish. Push it, and it will go nowhere at all.”

    We need more leaders like Washington, who despite being from the upper class in his time, has a true empathy for what mattered to all men and women, and was able to pull people to follow him for the common when he lacked the means to force them to. When he later had the means, he stayed true to his character, and continued to lead by pulling instead of pushing.

    “Leadership takes a talent for first knowing what is right and then being able to influence others. If you are right in any aspect of life, you should be able to articulate it and be persuasive.”

    Couldn’t agree more, with one distinction. I was a much more self-righteous person in my teens and 20s, and very judgmental of people who didn’t see the same “truths” in the world as I did. Time and experience have both humbled and tempered me – I’ve learned that I was wrong about more than a few things, and that few issues are truly black-and-white. In other areas my convictions only deepened, and as you said, I’ve learned the importance of being able to articulate my case for them effectively.

    The point I’m trying to make is that while it’s important to stand up for what you believe is right, it’s also important to acknowledge that you may not be 100% right about some things. People can hold different views in the broad sense, while sharing some common underlying values. (Non-political example – how many different faiths consider themselves authentically “Christian” despite major differences?) People need to be able to listen to dissenting views and acknowledge the truths that may be underlying them, rather than just dismissing them out of hand because the door to compromise might have to be opened instead.

    Washington understood compromise, and employed it. So did Reagan and Lincoln. Do we need leaders who can actually keep their values intact despite the lure of power and the pressure of major parties? Yes, and desperately. However, we can’t expect that anyone can be a leader in a nation of several hundred million and not expect a certain degree of compromise to be needed to get anything done. You don’t need to only hit home runs to win at baseball – put enough base hits together and you accomplish the same goal.

    In closing, consider the alternative. Racism and a tolerance for slavery were part of the European experience in the Americas since the time of Columbus. The Founders punted on that issue, but the issue was already dividing the colonies for generations by then. Even Washington refused to free his slaves while he and his wife were alive, because their livelihood was dependent on the underlying economics. I’ve never seen a proposal for how this issue could have been resolved, in an acceptable way for the slave states, that would have led to a single United States being formed within a decade or two of the end of the Revolution. The Franklin cartoon so many TEA Party types are fond of says “Join, or die”, not “Confirm, or die”. The Civil War happened because we chose to join in the 1780’s and that gave us a nation to fight for decades later. The alternative wouldn’t have been the abolition of slavery in that same time, but the division of the colonies into a patchwork of nations that likely would still be separate today, even with slavery eliminated.

    • DinsdaleP says:

      Ugh, I meant to say “Conform, or die” instead of “Confirm…”.

      If there’s ny ability in WordPress to enable commenters to edit their own comments after posting, it’d be greatly appreciated. :-)

      • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

        Why not go to WordPress.org, sign on to their forums, and raise that as a suggestion? Of course, an admin could offer that only to registered users. But I set it so that only registered users could comment, anyway, so that would be “covered.”

  5. […] top of all of this, we have wimps representing us in Congress and the Senate who do not legislate properly, and legislators on the […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.