Curtis Dahlgren
Four words of wisdom from Mt. Rushmore -- for the O.W.S. Nihilists
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By Curtis Dahlgren
November 19, 2011

"[T]here is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained . . " — George Washington (1st inaugural address)

"Relying, then, on the patronage of your good will, I advance with obedience to the work, ready to retire from it whenever you become sensible how much better choice it is in your power to make. And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them favorable issue for your peace and prosperity." — Thomas Jefferson (conclusion to 1st inaugural)

"We shall meanly lose or nobly save this last hope on earth." — A. Lincoln

"We here in America hold in our hands the hope of the world, the fate of the coming years, and shame and disgrace will be ours if in our eyes the light of the high resolve is dimmed, if we trail in the dust the golden hopes of man." — Theodore Roosevelt

"SHAME, SHAME," chanted the demon-strators in Madison. I thought they were talking about the college education that produced them. That or their I.Q. Washington and Jefferson do not compute in their minds. If you asked them to name four people they'd rather have on Mt. Rushmore, they'd probably say the Beatles. I think they spent too many hours sitting too close to the TV set in their formative days.

The UP magazine asks "Why do the people who know the least know it the loudest?"

If you asked them what's Fannie, Freddie, and Sallie, the Occupy Wall-streeters would probably think it was a three-some. Some people live in the basement of themselves, but I think the OWS crowd lives in the sub-basement. Ask them what they want and they have no answer. It was bad enough when females didn't know what they wanted. The OWSers have achieved true unisexuality.

If they think that the 99ers could live comfortably if the "one percent" paid "just a little bit more," they must have flunked every math course ever taken. They've been bangin' their heads against a wall too long. They couldn't pass a blood test. Their silo doesn't have a roof on it, and the ladder doesn't go all the way to the top. The barn light's on, but the cows never came home.

Edmund Burke once said that just because all you can hear in the pasture are the grasshoppers and crickets, that doesn't mean they're the only occupants; the contented cows are quietly chewing the cud beneath the English oak (a good analogy for the Tea Partiers). Regarding our Founders, Hamilton said:

"The history of ancient and modern republics had taught them that many of the evils which those republics suffered arose from the want of a certain balance, and that mutual control indispensable to a wise administration. They were convinced that popular assemblies are frequently misguided by ignorance, by sudden impulses, and the intrigue of ambitious men; and that some firm barrier against these operations was necessary. They, therefore, instituted your Senate."

President James Monroe, in his first inaugural, asked, "Had the people been less independent, less virtuous, would we have been BLESSED with the same success?"

No, he said, and "it is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt" that they can't choose competent and faithful representatives for office, and "usurpation becomes an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found."

President Kennedy said, "The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."

Such are the kind of lies being perpetrated by the "Occupy" nihilists. And when they are encouraged by an Administration willing to outright lie on top of the myths — and do end runs around Congress with Executive Orders — the Days of Usurpation are already coming upon us!

Here's this column's quote-of-the-year:

"Once we know that people are human and have some Homer Simpson in them, then there's a lot that can be done to manipulate them." — Cass Sunstein

Contrast that modern philosophy with the wisdom of our Founding Fathers:

"But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
-
James Madison (Federalist paper # 51)

P.S. The times they are a-changin' and the times are getting serious.

Maybe that's why Ann Coulter suggested this week that counter-revolutionaries had better make up their minds pretty quick on an alternative. She suggests Romney and she could be right.

[I did some house cleaning the other day and found a 1968 George Romney-for-President poster. I not only had forgotten I had it, but had forgotten that George ran against Nixon in 1968. Nixon had paid his "dues" to the GOP and got the nomination, but almost anyone could have beaten the Democrats that year after the fiasco at the Chicago convention!]

Anyway, I'm not jumping on anyone's bandwagon, but I would say "Anybody but Newt." And there's a little noticed cycle we need to break this year:

Nixon had two daughters; LBJ had two daughters; Carter had one daughter; Clinton had one daughter; "Dubya" had two daughters; and the Prez 44 has two daughters — and they all had mixed-to-terrible results in office. SO — let's elect someone for a change who produced a son or two, eh? That's not a sexist remark; another cycle I'd prefer to see broken is the Yale-Harvard-Yale-Harvard cycle in the White House!

PPS: Forget what the major networks and the press prefers. Forget the polls. Polls can lie, as do people who give answers to pollsters. In 1852 the Whig party nominated a former prisoner-of-war because they thought "he could win." He lost and that was the last convention the Whigs ever held. BY THE WAY:

Rush Limbaugh isn't being stampeded. He says, "I'm just warning you: If 'he can win' is the reason we choose a nominee, we're gonna be disappointed. It's a defensive posture, it's a defensive position, and it has nothing to do with policy. It has nothing to do with affirmative, upbeat, cheerful aspects of who we are, what we believe, and what this country needs."

To be continued, I hope (if you look closely, you can see tears going down the right side of Washington's face).



© Curtis Dahlgren

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)


Curtis Dahlgren

Curtis Dahlgren is semi-retired in southern Wisconsin, and is the author of "Massey-Harris 101." His career has had some rough similarities to one of his favorite writers, Ferrar Fenton... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Curtis Dahlgren: Click here

More by this author