Maybe we’ve been through this before. Maybe people in the 60′s and 70′s felt this helpless under LBJ and/or Nixon, but from everything I’ve read, it sure seems like the public was much more aware of things back then, even if a majority of the public was blasé. I dunno. Very emotional and hard to make comparisons when I wasn’t there, but the feeling that we’ve lost this country to a government that has devolved into a Putin-style autocracy is hard to get past. I hope something can crack my cynicism and give me some hope.

Then you have Virginia and its off-year Governor’s race where the two candidates couldn’t be more opposed ideologically. Right now, signs are good for Cuccinelli, but still lots of time left there.

What gives me hope is the gun-control fiasco of a few weeks ago. There are few issues that people remember like gun-control. The newly minted Democratic Senator in North Dakota, Heidi Heitkamp, voted against the measure even though she doesn’t have to worry about the ballot box for 6 years! She knows they’ll remember this vote over any other. With that, one hopes this means the GOP can chip away at the Dem Majority in the Senate, though it won’t mean much if they just get a bunch of Mark Kirks.

Regardless, the man to watch, and the only man who gives me real hope, is Ted Cruz. Even Carville has to admit he is the real deal. One would expect Carville to push that which he thinks Hillary can easily beat in 2016, but he is a pundit now and gets paid as such. Perhaps he does think Cruz would be easy to beat, but his words couldn’t be more true:

“A lot of Republicans feel this way, George. And you hear this a lot. If we only got someone who was articulate and was for what we were for, we would win elections. We get John McCains and Mitt Romneys and squishy guys that cannot do anything. One thing he is not, he’s not squishy.”

So true. Cruz is really the only shot the GOP has at winning in 2016. They have to go balls-to-the-wall conservative or it’s just gonna be Dole-McCain-Romney ad infinitum.

Cruz ’16!

Thus Spat Zarathustra

The answer to many, including myself, was no. He is an enemy combatant and should be dealt with militarily in a military court. However, the grey area to this was where his crimes were committed. Could the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center be considered a “battleground” or was the fact that it was in a “civilian” area mean that it’s a civilian crime and thus under the jurisdiction of the American civilian courts? Again, I say no as Osama bin Laden and his band of not-so-merry men were not Americans but enemies from foreign lands.

With bin Laden, we didn’t have to face that choice. He dead. But with KSM, it became a huge issue as Attorney General Eric Holder wanted him tried in a Manhattan Court.

Move ahead to today and you have a crime committed on U.S. soil, by at least one U.S. citizen but most likely in the name of Jihad. Does Dzhokhar Tsarnaev deserve to be treated as a civilian criminal or an “enemy combatant?” Senator Lindsey Graham’s argument is that “the homeland is a battlefield.” While I respect that there are grey areas when the rule of law and military operations collide, I have to strongly disagree and take a Rand Paulian position.

Bottom line, Tsarnaev was granted American citizenship. That is on us. Once you’re granted American citizenship, you get the rights that come with it. In America, one of our most treasured commandments is learned and reinforced in childhood: “No Backsies.” We can’t go down the slippery slope of saying, you’re an American citizen, but you committed what we deem to be an act of terror, so now you’re not. Just as it is ridiculous to read an foreign enemy combatant on foreign soil the U.S. Miranda Rights, it is equally wrong to say an American citizen doesn’t get these rights now because of vague definitions of the crime committed. This is a slippery slope to making any criminal an “enemy of the state.” And if the “homeland is a battlefield” we are on the road to tyranny.

One caveat on Miranda Rights. This is also something that gets a little overblown. You have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney whether or not you are read your Miranda Rights. The Miranda warning is for the completely ignorant and stupid who’ve never seen an episode of Law & Order. Whether Tsarnaev is read his rights is not the main issue for me…it’s whether he’s allowed to exercise those rights as an American citizen from here on out.

Naturally, I hope he is found guilty and put to death, but that desire doesn’t make me blind to the big picture.

“This country, which gives chance to everybody else to be treated as a human being, and to just be a human being.”

Sadly, that’s rare on planet earth, and extremely rare in the Muslim world. So while we complain about our lousy cell phone service or that there’s nothing good in the break-room vending machine, people like America’s new favorite Uncle, Ruslan Tsarni, know just how fortunate we all are to be here.

Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)

Max Baucus (D-Mont.)

Mark Begich (D-Alaska)

Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)

And guess what, 3 of them are up for re-election next year. So, to the Republicans that will run against them, your message to your prospective voters is simple: “How would they vote on the same bill in 2015?”

Simple. Easy.

“I was just thinking, again, it’s early; it’s an early situation, but going after the Kennedy Library, not something at Bunker Hill, not something from the freedom trail or anything that kind of historic, but a modern political figure of the Democratic Party,” he said “Does that tell you anything?”

[...]

“Let me ask you about domestic terrorism as a category. Normally, domestic terrorists, people tend to be on the far right, well that’s not a good category, just extremists, let’s call them that. Do they advertise after they do something like this? Do they try to get credit as a group or do they just hate America so much or its politics or its government that they just want to do the damage, they don’t care if they get public credit, if you will?”

And David Axelrod:

“The word has taken on a different meaning since 9/11,” Axelrod said of the phrase “terrorist attack.”

“You use those words and it means something very specific in people’s mind. And I’m sure what was going through the president’s mind is — we really don’t know who did this — it was tax day. Was it someone who was pro–you know, you just don’t know. And so I think his attitude is, let’s not put any inference into this, let’s just make clear that we’re going to get the people responsible.”

I don’t generally have a problem with speculation. Look, it was tax day yesterday, and yes, there has been “right-wing” terrorism in this country from Tim McVeigh to that Eric Rudolph guy that bombed abortion clinics. What is so maddening is how politicians and journalists are constantly on the lookout for political opportunity. No matter what Rahm Emanuel does the rest of this life, he will be remembered for saying “Never let a crisis go to waste.” When Chris Matthews got word of the Boston Marathon bombing, he was praying for it to be right-wingers that did it. Like Paul Krugman and other fellow travelers on the left, they spend every minute of every day looking for anything that will prove their world view to be correct. When Matthews or Axelrod speculate that it’s tax day or try to convince us that most domestic terrorism is right-wing (just forget the Weather Underground or SLA), it’s just their version of praying to G-d. “Please let it be right-wingers so we can say ‘Told you so!’”

It’s sickening, but I’m not ready to pass sentence just yet. We all do this in one form or another. Part of me prays it’s not “right-wingers” because I don’t trust my government and fear that if this is so, it will be used by my government to take away more of my freedoms much the way they’re trying to use the Newtown shootings to do so. Many on the left are praying it’s not Islamic terrorism because they fear it gives credence to many on the pro-war Right.

What an absurd exercise it is being human.

Harris-Perry has been under fire for comment she made on a network promo that children do not “belong” to parents but rather belong to the community. In light of the criticism, she has held firm to her rhetoric and defended her position, though with just a dash of sedation.

“This isn’t about me wanting to take your kids, and this isn’t even about whether children are property. This is about whether we as a society, expressing our collective will through our public institutions, including our government, have a right to impinge on individual freedoms in order to advance a common good. And that is exactly the fight that we have been having for a couple hundred years.”

Quite right, Melissa, quite right! That is indeed what it’s all about and I applaud you for sticking to your guns and standing firmly on the side of fascism. In this age of mushy moderates and Senators not wanting to stand next to other Senators in public after politically fornicating with them in private, this radical stand is a breath of fresh air despite the gust of tyranny that soon follows.

In that foul year of our Lord, 2012 (to paraphrase Dr. Gonzo), the political discourse was littered with an arguably unprecedented number of straw men divisions unleashed on America’s political battlefield. For someone of the political right to offer up the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the federal government didn’t need to spend tax dollars to fund cowboy poetry festivals, the notion was quickly equated to wanting a form of anarchy in America akin to something out of the Road Warriors putting us all at the mercy of Master Blaster. This platform of anti-libertarian hysteria won over a public far too enamored with Snooki’s pregnancy, their Instagram accounts and, for reasons I still don’t fully understand, an insistence on calling me “maybe.” Couple that with a still demented fear of doing anything that might easily be construed as racist by the high council of race relations on Manhattan’s upper-east side, and you had the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States. This is a Cliff’s Note version of my answer to William S. Burroughs famous question: “When did I stop wanting to be president?” But that’s for another time.

Harris-Perry is quite right that battle between individual freedoms and the “common good” is a fight we’ve been having for some time whether it be hundreds or thousands of years. For our purposes here, let us stick to the last 50 or so. The true believers of the political left has always been experts on playing long ball. They know that events like the Democrats losing the House of Representatives in 1994 are mere speed bumps on a very long road that F.A. Hayek urged us all to avoid. They know full well (as do the bigger brains on the right) that once a government program is in place, it’s easier to move a mountain than to remove the program from layers of bureaucracy and public complacency. Republicans play prevent-defense, or play not to lose, you choose your sports metaphor…thus, they almost always lose except when a once-a-century leader comes along. But the likes of Reagan and Thatcher could only slow the descent so much before they are stabbed in the back by their own palace guards whether they be named Bush or Cameron. But still, the fight between individuality and collectivism continues in its many forms. Harris-Perry has shown some moxie in sticking to her position publicly even if said position may be even more radical privately. But as compassionate human-being, I feel compelled to warn her that she mustn’t forget that while she calls for all of us to be part of the “collective,” she will always be subservient to a sub-collective known as white liberals. The hard truth is, they call the shots.

When someone utters the “N-word,” who is the first to get the vapors? When the Amos-and-Andy radio show started getting criticism, where did it come from? When Robert Crumb drew black caricatures in his comics, from where was he feeling the heat?

White liberals put up with black punditry as long as they realize that they are and will always be victims. When they stray from this, shall we say, plantation? the consequences are dire. Dr. Ben Carson has been told by political pundits and public universities in no uncertain terms that his speech is not deemed by them to be worthy of First Amendment protection and therefore must not be uttered. They understand they can’t legally stop him from speaking, but to paraphrase Arte Johnson “We have vays of making you not talk.”

For white liberals, the scourge of the planet is quite simply white people. They are the imperialists, the rapers of the western lands, the bible-thumping, anarcho-capitalists who refuse to show the proper respect for cultures prone to cutting and appositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora of young girls. These scoundrels are also deemed guilty of referring to anyone not white as “brown people.” Peculiar then, the only time I hear that term “brown people” is from media entertainment produced in Hollywood, California. But I’ll take the bait. Brown people = good. White people = bad. That’s perhaps the most sacrosanct decree from Democratic Republic of the Limousine Liberal, so let’s go with it.

Ms. Harris-Perry, you have shown resolve and fortitude in sticking to your guns (no, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, that’s not a veiled message) on the virtues of collectivism. You are special. You could be wasting time ladling soup to the homeless or building houses for the downtrodden, but you’ve gone beyond that. You host a show on an extremely low-rated, hysterical “news” network where your message can be heard by literally hundreds of people. Showing us such bravery, it’s time to take things to the next level. Your masters’ have decreed that white people are the scourge of the planet, so it’s time for solutions. It’s time for these high-minded white people on the upper-east side of humanity, who truly understand the evil that lurks in their epidermis, to do what must be done: commit mass suicide.

Albert Camus wrote in the The Myth of Sisyphus:

There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.  Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy.  All the rest – whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories – comes afterwards.  These are games; one must first answer [the questions of suicide].

For white liberals and their cultist followers, the answer to this question has to be indisputable, incontestable and irrefutable. If planet earth is to be saved, white people en masse, as many as possible, must commit suicide and allow the “brown people” to finally, at long last, live in a grand, unfettered utopia, free of individualism and all of the unpleasantness and inconveniences that freedom and liberty bring. You, Ms. Harris-Perry may just be the right person to bring to the fore a solution who’s time has truly come. And if you feel any pangs of doubt, just remember that Janet Reno is available if you feel the process needs a gentle nudge.

Best of luck to you and yours.

Thus Spat Zarathustra

[Editor's note: If you fail to grasp the irony of this blog post, please include yourself in the hopefully eventual kool-aid party that will be held at Sardi's on West 44th street. Invitation only.]

But on the plus side, when tyranny overtakes us and bands of rebels gather to fight for a second-coming of freedom, it will be Thatcher and her ideological brethren that will be read in the dark corners of safe-houses and underground gatherings. The Iron Lady will rise again.

Thus Spat Zarathustra

But here, we’re discussing the so-called “wussification” of America. Eric Bolling of Fox News had this to say:

Rutgers University basketball coach Mike Rice was fired today for hitting, kicking and verbally abusing his players during practices — a decision that has met with widespread praise from many commentators in the news media, who found his actions abhorrent.

Not so Fox News co-host Eric Bolling, who said the decision to fire Rice was evidence that American culture was in decline because of the “wussification of American men.”

“We’re in the midst of political correctness crushing our ability to teach kinds, to discipline kids, to disagree with people or one another or kids,” Bolling said on today’s edition of “The Five.” “Our culture is in decline, and this is an example of our culture in free fall — and I’m saying this because he got fired, not because of what he did.”

Wrong. The real “wussification” lies with the players who put up with this kind of treatment. And I’m not talking about running to the Athletic Directors office or to their dads…I’m talking about right then and there.

Folks, anyone, and I mean anyone short of my own mother who throws a basketball at my head is going to be met with my fist thrown at their head within about 10 seconds. I am sympathetic to the argument that the alpha-male is being destroyed in this country, but what’s alpha-male about taking this kind of abuse in the name of “teaching” and “discipline?” How does a boy learn to be a red-blooded, all-American alpha-male by simply taking abuse and saying “Thank you sir, may I have another?” That’s the real issue here.