Caller calls Rush a "Brainwashed Nazi"

[Omaha]

Hey, I just read Cc’s posts #142 an #146. He is claiming that three historical figures, whom I consider liberal, are really conservative! Holy cow! I think the great man is wrong…for the first time maybe.

To his credit, let me admit that life is complicated and so are people. No one is all one thing or another. But with the three he cites…I think he is twisting reality to make it fit into his worldview.

I believe he mistakenly labels Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, and Martin Luther King, Jr. as political conservatives [[in the way we now think of the word). But I could be wrong, maybe he was thinking of another Lincoln, another Douglass [[or maybe there is some great conservative with the last name Douglas), and another MLK [[possibly MLK, Jr.’s father before he had a son named after him)?

Please indulge me as I try to explain that to call these folks conservative, as I proudly use the word when I refer to myself as a Colbert Conservative, is a misuse of that proud term.

Abraham Lincoln was a great lover of the personal liberty. But it was the liberty of the slave and the average working man who he dearly cherished. Let me illustrate that with a few quotes:

“To secure to each laborer the whole product of his labor, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government.� [[1847) Illinois Congressman Abraham Lincoln, later to become 16th President of the United States

“Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much higher consideration.� Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States in his first message to Congress, December 3, 1861

As I read both quotes, Lincoln is implying that the government needs to side with labor against owners. And he is being consistent over time, implying that this was a core value of his! BTW his analysis of labor and capital in the second quote is pretty standard for the day. Adam Smith wrote something similar, but without the interpretation. Taken together, they imply that labor creates all wealth. Luckily for us Social Darwinists that capital has enough control of government that that kind of SOCIALISM hasn’t come to pass yet. .

“Labour was the first price, the original purchase - money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased.� Adam Smith, Scottish political economist and author of The Wealth of Nations

Then there is Frederick Douglass: BTW it is Frederick Douglass [[not Frederick Douglas). Here’s a Douglass quote showing is love of liberty.

“I prayed for freedom for twenty years, but received no answer until I prayed with my legs.� Frederick Douglass former slave, American abolitionist, editor, orator, author, statesman and reformer.

Now by running away he was depriving his Master of his property, and, if caught, would be sent back under Federal law [[Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution)…but he was preserving his freedom and at the same time depriving his Master of the liberty and freedom to unilaterally make decisions about Mr. Douglass’ quality of life as a slave.

Along the same theme of aiding the poor, the downtrodden, the little person here is Douglass commenting on what seems to be labor unions. I am on the other side of this kind of crazy talk. After all, Douglass is being consistent with the idea that “labor creates all wealth� and therefore is deserving of its “fair share� of the wealth it creates. That is an anathema to me as a Colbert Conservative.

“It is a great mistake for any class of laborers to isolate itself and thus weaken the bond of brotherhood between those on whom the burdens and hardship of labor [[fall). The fortunate ones of the Earth, who are abundant in land and money and know nothing of the anxious care and pinching poverty of the laboring classes, may be indifferent to the appeal to justice at this point, but the laboring classes cannot afford to be indifferent. What labor everywhere wants, what it ought to have, and will someday demand and receive, is an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. As the laborer becomes more intelligent he will develop what capital he already possesses --that is the power to organize and combine for its own protection.� Frederick Douglass, American Abolitionist, Orator, Labor Leader, and Statesman

Which brings us to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Again with the quotes:

“As I have said many times, and believe with all my heart, the coalition that can have the greatest impact in the struggle for human dignity here in America is that of the Negro and the forces of labor, because their fortunes are so closely intertwined.� Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in a letter to the Amalgamated Laundry Workers, January 1962.

“The labor movement was the principal force that transformed misery and despair into hope and progress. Out of its bold struggles, economic and social reform gave birth to unemployment insurance, old age pensions, government relief for the destitute and above all new wage levels that meant not mere survival, but a tolerable life. The captains of industry did not lead this transformation; they resisted it until they were overcome.� Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 1965

Judging by his words, Dr. King was a great lover of freedom and liberty. But whose? Now maybe Dr. King was saying that unions are not collectivist; and that they don’t use their collective power to redistribute wealth away from owners and to workers. Maybe he didn’t also sign onto the philosophy that “labor creates all wealth,� and therefore it’s only just that owners are forced to share it. Maybe he didn’t see the liberty and freedom of Negroes and employees as pushing up against the liberty and freedom of owners and a white-dominated class structure…but I think he did. So in my book Dr. King, like Lincoln and Douglass, was a liberal!

It’s just that, as with these other liberals, their assertion of liberty and freedom comes smack up against the property rights of others…the rich, the well-born, and the powerful. As a Social Darwinist, I am against this kind of “power to the people� philosophy espoused by the three people Cc mentions. I don’t know but maybe if Cc can’t see this liberalism, maybe I will have to reconsider my deep and abiding devotion to the Oracle of Conservatism on DY. Maybe I won’t be so awed by his many pearls of wisdom.

But I hope I am wrong, and he will give a detailed treatise on how I misinterpreted these men as liberals…but, alas, I doubt it.

[Lorax]

Omaha, what seems lost on you is that there is a reason the labor movement took off, and a reason why we've needed unionization.

Corporations left to their own devices have proven themselves time and time again to be unable to resist screwing their own workers.

Why do you think so many American corporations close shop and move to countries where no labor laws exist?

They have consistently proven themselves unfit to employ people in large numbers.

[ccbatson]

Lincoln was a Republican, as was Douglas. All were staunch advocates for the dignity and sanctity of individual liberty in opposition to slavery and oppression based on race/racism.

From this perspective, you don't get any more conservative...and thank G-d that they were.

Today's American liberals are collectivist and statist, falsely claiming that the good of the many outweighs the good of the one. Redistributing wealth, fomenting class envy, anti capitalistic, anti liberty agendas as best illustrated to our current President [[and Stalin/Castro/Chavez...who recently described Obama as more liberal then Castro and himself).

[Omaha]

I am so disappointed and shocked that THE conservative Oracle of DY, while writing more than just one sentence, wasn’t capable of responding to my detailed post [[#152) other than with rhetoric…rhetoric not based in reality but with words that mirror his apparently distorted misunderstanding of how the real world works.

While undeniably prolific, Cc appears incapable of adequately analyzing data. I laid out clearly LIBERAL positions of Lincoln and Douglass and he ignored them and repeated his mistaken belief that they are CONSERVATIVES. I couldn’t believe it. Cc ignores their defense of depriving owners of their property rights and blindly categorizes them as conservatives. I thought him an educated well-informed conservative. Now I am beginning to believe he just likes parroting words…over and over again ad nauseum.

Life is complicated. Historically there have been conservative Democrats [[Bourbon Democrats and Dixiecrats) and Liberal Republicans like Lincoln and Douglass. I try not to make blanket statements, but when I do and someone has the kindness to point out my inconsistency…I hope that I don’t react as Cc did and deny the obvious.

Cc is right about one thing. Lincoln and Douglass [[he even misspelled the name AGAIN after I clearly and kindly gave him the correct spelling in my post) indeed loved individual liberty…the liberty of the poor and downtrodden to get what they felt was their share of the “wealth they had helped create.� In their statements [[as I laid out in #152) and their actions, they promoted the rights of the poor and powerless over the property rights of the rich and well-born. Let me repeat Lincoln and Douglass advocated limiting the liberty and rights of private property! That kind of “people before profits� is a LIBERAL stance and NOT conservative. It is similar to those leaders he listed at the end of his post.

Then as if running away from his post #142 he refused to even acknowledge my quotes and proved that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a liberal and not a conservative. I am beginning to think that Cc is so caught up in repeating and writing his distorted version of the conservative mantra that he can’t see reality. I'm just glad that his views don’t limit his ability to earn a living. Nevertheless, I know that my disillusionment with his betrayal of a rigorous and factual defense of conservatism will not register and bounce off him. Alas, more's the pity.

While it pains me deeply, I guess I will just have to attempt to ignore Cc when he criticizes or labels me in the future. I hope that DY has others who can join me in adequately defending the world views of Colbert Conservatives and Social Darwinists like myself.

[Lorax]

I just love how so-called conservatives have adopted [[i.e. shape shifting again) the term "social darwinism" since they don't believe in evolution, and prefer to inhabit the delusional world of talking snakes and virgin births.

As well, Omaha, you refuse to answer my previous post which in a few sentences negates your lenghty screed on the need for an organized society.

I guess if we lived in a jungle, social darwinsim would have it's place, but I would prefer governmnetal checks and balances on the activities of corporations. It's silly to expect that there is any hope we're going back to the era of robber barons and the Triangle Factory fires of a long ago fascist social regime.

We as liberals have fought and won the social/cultural wars, and we're not giving them back.

If you had your way, corporations would rule the nation, women wouldn't have the right to vote, and slavery would be the best and cheapest form of labor.

And what's with this "colbert conservative" nonsense?

I guess it's better for you guys to worship a comedian than a real fascist, so have at it!

[Pam]

And what's with this "colbert conservative" nonsense?

I guess it's better for you guys to worship a comedian than a real fascist, so have at it!

It's pretty self explanatory, yet still there are those who don't get it. Amazing.

[Lorax]

It's pretty self explanatory, yet still there are those who don't get it. Amazing.

Thrill me with your acumen......

[Pam]

Thrill me with your acumen......

Colbert is a fake conservative so someone calling themselves a "Colbert Conservative" is also fake.

[Lorax]

Colbert is a fake conservative so someone calling themselves a "Colbert Conservative" is also fake.

Fantastic! You passed with flying colors.

I knew that!

But today, with up being down, black being white, right being right-on, I was having my doubts!

[jams]

Damn, Omaha,you've been outed.

Although,please continue, the laughs I get from your posts and the reactions from both sides alone are worth far more than the price of admission.

[ccbatson]

Sorry Omaha, here are the answers you were looking for:

Wrong on Lincoln...labor is the allegory of productivity and renders capital irrelevant. This is the only possible definition given the sanctity of individual liberty at the core of his beliefs.

Wrong on Douglass as well...no individual human can ever be property as this is antithetical to the concept of individual liberty. This is what he was fighting against [[rightfully so). Opposing an unconstitutional seizure of individual liberty in the form of slavery cannot be equated to depriving someone of their rightful property [[ie a slave).

Wrong on MLK also as he was combatting the illegal and unfair seizure of individual property from Blacks by...whomever [[everyone at the time). He was using organized labor as a tool to accomplish this goal. Once this was complete [[after his untimely death), the union's primary role is dissolved, and so to should have been the unions themselves. What occurred instead is that organized labor, without a legitimate purpose, became the collectivist monstrosity that it is today. Ideally, the rule of law, and not unions, would have stepped up and asserted itself to arbitrate for just contractual relations between all individuals [[and groups of individuals). Since it failed to do so, MLK rebelled via the tools described above. Once rule of law was properly and constitutionally re-established, the temporary vehicles used during this "rebellion" should have dissolved [[but didn't).

Damn...I am good.

[Lorax]

Sorry Omaha, here are the answers you were looking for:

Wrong on Lincoln...labor is the allegory of productivity and renders capital irrelevant. This is the only possible definition given the sanctity of individual liberty at the core of his beliefs.

Wrong on Douglass as well...no individual human can ever be property as this is antithetical to the concept of individual liberty. This is what he was fighting against [[rightfully so). Opposing an unconstitutional seizure of individual liberty in the form of slavery cannot be equated to depriving someone of their rightful property [[ie a slave).

Wrong on MLK also as he was combatting the illegal and unfair seizure of individual property from Blacks by...whomever [[everyone at the time). He was using organized labor as a tool to accomplish this goal. Once this was complete [[after his untimely death), the union's primary role is dissolved, and so to should have been the unions themselves. What occurred instead is that organized labor, without a legitimate purpose, became the collectivist monstrosity that it is today. Ideally, the rule of law, and not unions, would have stepped up and asserted itself to arbitrate for just contractual relations between all individuals [[and groups of individuals). Since it failed to do so, MLK rebelled via the tools described above. Once rule of law was properly and constitutionally re-established, the temporary vehicles used during this "rebellion" should have dissolved [[but didn't).

Damn...I am good.

For what?

I didn't see anything you've written so far that passed the smell test.

[Omaha]

My worst fears have been realized. Cc has revealed why he doesn’t engage in longer posts. In post #162 he displays that he lives in a self-constructed alternative reality that only exists in his head. He again avers, for all who will read, that Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were conservatives and NOT liberals. Poppycock!

In his alternative world: white is black; up is down, good is bad, liberal is conservative and the Wings won last night’s game thereby winning back to back Stanley Cups. [[Oh, I wish that they had!) In my world, liberals like Lincoln, Douglass, and King are an anathema to Colbert Conservatives and Social Darwinists everywhere.


I gave this Lincoln quote as proof of Abe’s liberalism:

“Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much higher consideration.�

But Cc informs me that I misunderstood Lincoln’s quote because “labor is an allegory� for productivity…blah, blah, blah. Here’s my guess about how he’d interpret the part where Lincoln clearly says labor is superior to capital and deserves much higher consideration than capital. Cc would argue that Lincoln’s clear wording was really a fairy tale wrapped in an enigma, surrounded by a parable, enveloped by a metaphor that can only be decoded by Cc and his delusional rantings. My worst fears have indeed been realized: Cc is in his own fantasy alternative world.

After the enactment of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, Douglass [[Cc finally spelled his name correctly after my promptings) became the head of the National Negro Labor Union. Why? Two reasons: for the great majority of the time blacks were not allowed in white unions and secondly he understood that “uniting as one� limited an employer’s chance to engage in a reverse auction and drive down wages. “What labor everywhere wants, what it ought to have, and will someday demand and receive, is an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. As the laborer becomes more intelligent he will develop what capital he already possesses --that is the power to organize and combine for its own protection.�

Again Douglass was a liberal. Heck he was at Seneca Falls in 1848 and united with another group of disenfranchised people…white women.

In his alternative world, Cc is able to see into the future and claim that Dr. King would have abandoned organized labor at some undetermined point after his untimely assassination. The former conservative Oracle of DY goes on to imply that organized labor may have served a useful purpose then, but it has become a collectivist monstrosity today. Gee, I am glad that Cc has such a grip on reality: organized labor when it had 25-30% density was OK, and now that it is 12% it’s a collectivist monstrosity. King was a liberal. Most unions are liberal. Birds of a feather, flock together.

Alas, in Cc’s alternative universe white is black; up is down, good is bad, liberal is conservative and the Wings won last night’s game.

[vetalalumni]

ccbatson, you are [[rhetorically) done and done. It is almost not even fun anymore.

[Lorax]

The FBI has a file on every person ion this country that has somewhat of a footprint. Even you.

The FBI was interested in MLK because he forged allegiance with the communist party . Thats why they were interested in him.

Not only is your ideology bankrupt, you're also naive.

MLK was viewed as a political enemy, since his influence was growing exponentially over time. The FBI creates dossiers on anyone the sitting president wishes, and at that time with the direct influence of the cross-dressing, shape-shifting right wing fascist J. Edgar Hoover.

His murder was a snuff job ordered by the right wing. Better a martyr in their minds than a living agitator.

[ccbatson]

Omaha...you realize that you strengthened my arguments on balance, and offered no rational refuting arguments to my logic, don't you?

Are you being sarcastic again?