Main Menu

Taking the country back

“Taking the country back” is a common theme on conservative web sites these days. I’ve always found it a little funny that those on the left want to take the country back from those on the right, and those on the right want to take it back from those on the left.

I was slumming over at the Dr. Kate’s View blog, and she has some writing about taking the country back. She has some videos posted about strategy. In another article she give some definite steps, prefacing them with:

The Constitution doesn’t need to be thrown out, the federal government does.

We held municipal elections in this area yesterday. They remind me of how Americans have always “thrown the bums out” when we become dissatisfied with the government. Even an insanely crazy idea such as Barack Obama being born in Africa gets traction through the Internet even though it’s universally panned by the media. There’s nothing to stop any grass roots movement from taking over the country – except apathy and that’s not the government’s fault.

Nevertheless, Dr. Kate doesn’t seem to be aware of the electoral process because her way of throwing out the federal government is to demand that they resign. That’s pretty silly don’t you think? Why would the federal government resign because some crank hydrologist says so on her web site? Dr.  Kate makes a big deal of how the US Constitution is “law” but she doesn’t seem to believe in it. She would rather people take to the streets with demands than go vote the way the Constitution says.

It’s all just angry talk She can have her manifesto –I have my vote.

40 Responses to Taking the country back

  1. avatar
    sactosintolerant November 9, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    What’s with the random chemtrails pictures in her post???

  2. avatar
    realist November 9, 2011 at 1:38 pm #

    sactosintolerant:
    What’s with the random chemtrails pictures in her post???

    The vast majority of posters at drkate’s (including constitutional the hydrologist herself) are big believers in “chemtrails” and that what they are spraying is slowly killing us (all, I suppose) and in HAARP causing strange weather patterns and tornadoes (even in tornado alley) and earthquakes in targeted areas, etc., etc.

  3. avatar
    Tarrant November 9, 2011 at 1:46 pm #

    Dr. Kate has been big on removing Obama by the 25th Amendment lately, saying that all (“all”) that’s needed is for Biden and a number of Cabinet officers to say Obama should go, and Biden takes over. And while that is true, she conveniently ignores the fax that if that is done, than the instant the President says “Actually, no, I’m good”, he immediately re-assumes his office.

    If at that point the VP/Cabinet still want to press the issue, it takes a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress – essentially, impeachment by another name – to overrule the President’s claim to his office.

    If you’re going to push for that sort of remedy, she may as well push for regular impeachment – except of course many birthers claim you can’t impeach a “usurper” (but you can use the 25th Amendment against them? Huh?).

  4. avatar
    Scientist November 9, 2011 at 1:59 pm #

    Doc- Perhaps I am misreading you, and I certainly have no truck with the ludicrous Dr Kate, but some of what you wrote-“I have my vote”- could be interpreted as a put-down of those who choose to work outside (or alongside) the electoral mechanism, such as Occupy Wall Street. I am sure you would agree that street protests are a completely legitimate means for people to express their discontent. One could argue whether such protests will ultimately achieve their ends, though I would argue that OWS has had a powerful impact on the political discourse even after a short time in existence and may yet see some of what they want enacted.

    I have visited the local encampment outside the state capital (Albany, NY) and spoken with some of them. Many of them feel that the choices presented at election time are not representing them. I suppose Dr Kate might say the same. Of course OWS’s cause is serious and real and Kate’s is frivolous and phony. OWS can get large numbers of people all over the country and the world to camp out in all kinds of weather for many weeks. Kate can’t get enough people to play a game of hearts to show up for an hour. But that does not mean that protest outside of the voting booth is not legitimate.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 9, 2011 at 2:11 pm #

    I have nothing against political speech outside of the electoral process; it is a time-honored American tradition. However, in the case of who is President, the means of change are so obvious and straightforward (the election is just 12 months from now) that Dr. Kate’s demands are silly. They are also silly in context, where she’s claiming that Obama should be removed by the 25th amendment and that the Income Tax is unconstitutional.

    If the people believed Barack Obama ineligible, there would be no need for her to try to keep him off the ballot by lobbying state officials.

    Dr. Kate has the right to make her demands, just as I have the right to call them silly.

    Scientist: Doc- Perhaps I am misreading you, and I certainly have no truck with the ludicrous Dr Kate, but some of what you wrote-”I have my vote”- could be interpreted as a put-down of those who choose to work outside (or alongside) the electoral mechanism, such as Occupy Wall Street. I am sure you would agree that street protests are a completely legitimate means for people to express their discontent.

  6. avatar
    richCares November 9, 2011 at 4:31 pm #

    Birthers seceded and formed their own country, no need to take back the country. As their national antem they adopted the theme from the old Dragnet net show. (Dunb De Dumb Dumb)

  7. avatar
    Norbrook November 9, 2011 at 9:50 pm #

    Most of the “take back the country” types are trading on nostalgia for a country that never existed, except on television, a fantasy, or as a rose-colored memory. It’s the same thing for the “defend” or “restore” the Constitution wingnuts. They want to restore or defend a Constitution that doesn’t resemble the actual Constitution, as a quick reading of their claims side-by-side with the Constitution shows.

  8. avatar
    El Diablo Negro November 9, 2011 at 10:20 pm #

    Norbrook: They want to restore or defend a Constitution that doesn’t resemble the actual Constitution

    As an African American, the majority of us would balk at restoring the the original constitution (it belongs in a museum). I believe women to would have some issues also.

  9. avatar
    Majority Will November 9, 2011 at 10:24 pm #

    Norbrook:
    Most of the “take back the country” types are trading on nostalgia for a country that never existed, except on television, a fantasy, or as a rose-colored memory.It’s the same thing for the “defend” or “restore” the Constitution wingnuts.They want to restore or defend a Constitution that doesn’t resemble the actual Constitution, as a quick reading of their claims side-by-side with the Constitution shows.

    Putative attorney Mario Aputzo is a big fan of the Dred Scott decision.

  10. avatar
    GeorgetownJD November 9, 2011 at 10:43 pm #

    Doc, you call it “slumming.” I call it wading through sewage.

  11. avatar
    Sally HIll November 9, 2011 at 11:47 pm #

    I’m a little confused by this topic of ‘take back the country’ and being relegated to the right wingers. I believe the Wall Street protesters are also wanting to ‘take back the country’. Now, I could be totally wrong in that regard, since most of the protesters don’t have a clue what or why they are protesting – perhaps I’ve misunderstood their message….I think most people are not real clear on their message.

    At one point, I think I am in agreement with them, then another of them makes a different statement in which I’m in total opposition.

    I think it is foolhardy to lump everyone who wants to ‘take back the country’ into one group or even to label them as nostalgic. Although I will agree with Norbrook, that many Americans have a fantasy or fairy tale view of what they envision the US as having once been.

  12. avatar
    El Diablo Negro November 10, 2011 at 9:37 am #

    It is common to harken to the days of old when life was good. But life goes on and is apathetic to your/their comforts. When things are not going good, I would love to “turn back the clock” but none of us have time machines…yet. I think it is a selfish view to say “I want my country back”, there is more than just a few people living in the U.S.A.

  13. avatar
    Rickey November 10, 2011 at 10:15 am #

    Arizonans started to take their state back on Tuesday by successfully recalling Russell Pearce, the odious State Senate President.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-biggers/breaking-arizona-topples-_b_1083202.html

  14. avatar
    Majority Will November 10, 2011 at 10:50 am #

    El Diablo Negro: but none of us have time machines…yet.

    Sure we do. Memories take you to the past. Imagination takes you to the future. Boom. There’s your time machine. 😉

  15. avatar
    Horus November 10, 2011 at 11:23 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: They are also silly in context, where she’s claiming that Obama should be removed by the 25th amendment and that the Income Tax is unconstitutional.

    Has she never even read the Constitution?
    The 16th Amendment establishes an income tax, so how could it be “Unconstitutional”?
    And you’re spot on with her 25th Amendment BS, Obama would just have to say that He is able.

  16. avatar
    Horus November 10, 2011 at 11:26 am #

    Norbrook: They want to restore or defend a Constitution that doesn’t resemble the actual Constitution, as a quick reading of their claims side-by-side with the Constitution shows.

    They would like to abolish the Bill of Rights and every other Amendment they don’t agree with.

  17. avatar
    Horus November 10, 2011 at 11:30 am #

    Sally HIll: Americans have a fantasy or fairy tale view of what they envision the US as having once been.

    They believe that Ozzie & Harriet, and Leave it to Beaver were a reality shows!

  18. avatar
    Horus November 10, 2011 at 11:32 am #

    Rickey: Arizonans started to take their state back on Tuesday by successfully recalling Russell Pearce, the odious State Senate President.

    Although I do not live in his district, I am happy to see him go.
    He was a cancer on Arizona.
    Arpaio needs to go next.

  19. avatar
    thisoldhippie November 10, 2011 at 11:39 am #

    The 1950s were only good if you were a middle to upper class white, male. Which is exactly who is running the GOP and why they want to return to an ideal that suits them best. Just ask Pat Buchanan, who is afraid that “white America” will cease to exist.

  20. avatar
    Sef November 10, 2011 at 12:11 pm #

    Horus: They would like to abolish the Bill of Rights and every other Amendment they don’t agree with.

    Except, of course, for their beloved Amendment 2.

  21. avatar
    Daniel November 10, 2011 at 2:24 pm #

    Horus: Although I do not live in his district, I am happy to see him go.
    He was a cancer on Arizona.
    Arpaio needs to go next.

    Arpaio was a big supporter of Pearce and vice versa. I suspect he’ll be trying to further distance himself from the birther fallacy now that he realizes his support in the senate has been decapitated. Arpaio now knows he’s not invulnerable

  22. avatar
    Rickey November 10, 2011 at 3:51 pm #

    Daniel: Arpaio was a big supporter of Pearce and vice versa. I suspect he’ll be trying to further distance himself from the birther fallacy now that he realizes his support in the senate has been decapitated. Arpaio now knows he’s not invulnerable

    Apparently Orly is calling for a recount of the recall vote!

  23. avatar
    Daniel November 10, 2011 at 5:38 pm #

    Rickey: Apparently Orly is calling for a recount of the recall vote!

    Really? That’s completely out of character for Orly……

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

    Sorry, could not keep a straight face on that one.

  24. avatar
    Rickey November 10, 2011 at 6:19 pm #

    Daniel: Really? That’s completely out of character for Orly……

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

    Sorry, could not keep a straight face on that one.

    What makes it funnier is that the vote wasn’t even close. Pearce lost by 8 points.

  25. avatar
    G November 11, 2011 at 5:41 pm #

    You’ve made a valid point.

    We as a nation and diverse body of people are facing not only an every rapidly changing world, but also difficult times – both economically and in many other ways, where the gains of the past are now requiring repair and upgrade (all sorts of infrastructure & energy) and our unprecedented position of being almost #1 in everything has been slipping and being challenged in many directions, with no clear sense or path of how to fix it all. So there is both anxiety for the future…and a mercurial sense of loss as well.

    Different folks gravitate to different reasons and fingers to point to try to make sense of all this.

    It is just a shame that human nature can cause such times to pull us all apart instead of bond us together for common purpose.

    Sally HIll: I think it is foolhardy to lump everyone who wants to take back the country’ into one group or even to label them as nostalgic. Although I will agree with Norbrook, that many Americans have a fantasy or fairy tale view of what they envision the US as having once been.

  26. avatar
    Jim F November 15, 2011 at 5:11 am #

    It just gets better and better. Check in on Orly’s site for the Russian news item. The Kenyan bc is back on track and the COURTS (!)ordered that Major Cook should not be sent to Afghanistan. According to Orly, the Russians are now warning the military that the Geneva Convention will not apply in any conflict because of Obama is not legal.
    She seemed very comfortable being interviewed on a T.V. station in a country that she is very keen to disparage in other circumstances. I always had a certain view of California and Californians have provided good copy over the years but!!!!! how could nearly half a million of them put an X opposite her name in a ballot? I wonder if it has anything to do with vapours escaping from the San Andreas fault?

  27. avatar
    Horus November 16, 2011 at 10:40 am #

    ” I wonder if it has anything to do with vapours escaping from the San Andreas fault?”

    It’s the Subsonic Harmonics emanating from the crack.

  28. avatar
    Daniel November 16, 2011 at 12:07 pm #

    Horus:
    ” I wonder if it has anything to do with vapours escaping from the San Andreas fault?”

    It’s the Subsonic Harmonics emanating from the crack.

    Orly’s?

  29. avatar
    Sef November 16, 2011 at 8:14 pm #

    Horus:
    ” I wonder if it has anything to do with vapours escaping from the San Andreas fault?”

    It’s the Subsonic Harmonics emanating from the crack.

    Are you saying that Orly has a case of the vapors?

  30. avatar
    Keith November 17, 2011 at 3:55 am #

    Sally HIll: I’m a little confused by this topic of take back the country’ and being relegated to the right wingers.

    You have a small point.

    The “take back the country” meme is not really limited to right wingers. It is the fundamental catch cry of “populism” everywhere all over the world and throughout all time.

    In the words of Don Watson from the essay Palin Politics (emphasis mine)

    The difference between what is orthodox or mainstream and what is generally called populism is commonly held to be the difference between the rational and the irrational. One confronts a complex reality with reasoned arguments and solutions; the other escapes it in a make-believe world of conspiracies, supernatural forces and flat taxes. In one, metaphors help to explain reality; in the other there is no distinction. A pipeline built by capital, labour, machinery and graft is a pipeline willed by God. A government that bailed out Wall Street is a government of socialists. A health system that affords insurance to the majority of citizens is a system of death panels’.

    The striking thing about populist arguments is how they seem to gain force in proportion to their unreason. Enlightened self-interest, the country’s watchword, becomes its opposite. Self-interested plantation owners persuaded the South’s poor white trash that slavery was also in their interest and, as Ulysses S Grant observed, on this fallacy the Rebel army safely depended for cannon fodder. The Tea Party – and the Republican Party – attracts hordes of poor citizens by vowing to abolish the government welfare on which they depend. The Tea Party states receive anything from twice to three times the government assistance received by New York or California.

    But it wasn’t always so that populism was a tool of the right wing. Huey Long was a populist too. To hear Huey describe it, a President that supported the regulation of the financial system is in the thrall of Wall Street and the big banks.

    But really, who is not just content to sell snake oil these days, but positively demanding to shove shite down our throats on an daily basis?

    Does that answer your question?

  31. avatar
    G November 17, 2011 at 6:53 pm #

    Excellent post & article, Keith! Thanks for sharing.

    Keith: In the words of Don Watson from the essay Palin Politics (emphasis mine)

  32. avatar
    Keith November 20, 2011 at 5:27 am #

    Here is a bit more justification why the association of the ‘TBTC’ hypocrisy is hung on the right wing nutbaggers:

    Washington Post: The e-mail rumor mill is run by conservatives

    Will Medicare premiums go up nearly 2 1 / 2 t imesover the next two years in order to pay for the health-care legislation signed by President Obama last year? Well, no, they won’t. But you might think an increase is coming if you read a chain e-mail that has spread across the country in the past few months. “Send this to all seniors that you know,” it says. “So they will know who’s throwing them under the bus.”

    Will Americans be subjected to international gun-control laws under a new U.N. treaty signed by Hillary Rodham Clinton? Is the president honoring Jane Fonda as one of the “women of the century”? Was suspected Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan an adviserto the Obama administration?

    Like the Medicare story, these claims are demonstrably false, too. Nevertheless, they are popular on the thriving underground e-mail circuit, a carnival of nonsense whose star attractions have included the canard that Obama is a secret Muslim and variations on the “birther” claims about his origins.

    Grass-roots whisper campaigns such as these predate the invention of the “send” button, of course. No one needed a Facebook page or an e-mail account to spread the word about Thomas Jefferson’s secret love child or Grover Cleveland’s out-of-wedlock offspring (both won elections despite the stories, which in Jefferson’s case were very likely true).

    But it has become a truism that in their modern, Internet-driven form, these persistent narratives spread far faster and run deeper than ever. And they share an unexpected trait: Most of the time, Democrats (or liberals) are the ones under attack. Yes, George W. Bush had some whoppers told about him — such as his alleged scoffing that the French “don’t have a word for entrepreneur’ ” — but when it comes to generating and sustaining specious and shocking stories, there’s no contest. The majority of the junk comes from the right, aimed at the left.

  33. avatar
    G November 20, 2011 at 11:52 am #

    An all too sad but true unfortunate reality. I’ve had to tell various friends & family (all right-leaning) not to send me this crap. I usually give them a polite link to snopes or some other ACTUAL source that debunks the heck out of their cr*p and try to explain that they need to be less gullible and think before they post. I also inform them that by sending this stuff on willy-nilly, they are just as culpable and gullible for the misinformation garbage that they spread. *sigh*

    Keith: Here is a bit more justification why the association of the TBTC’ hypocrisy is hung on the right wing nutbaggers:

  34. avatar
    Rickey November 20, 2011 at 2:36 pm #

    G:
    An all too sad but true unfortunate reality.I’ve had to tell various friends & family (all right-leaning) not to send me this crap.I usually give them a polite link to snopes or some other ACTUAL source that debunks the heck out of their cr*p and try to explain that they need to be less gullible and think before they post.I also inform them that by sending this stuff on willy-nilly, they are just as culpable and gullible for the misinformation garbage that they spread.*sigh*

    Same here. In the past couple of weeks I have received the e-mails about Obama and Jane Fonda (she was declared by Barbara Walters to be a “woman of the century” back in 1999 and obviously Obama had nothing to do with it) and the Fulbright scholarship. I too forward the senders links to Snopes which debunk the e-mails, but I’m convinced that people who are afflicted with ODS have no interest in fact-checking.

  35. avatar
    Obsolete November 22, 2011 at 6:51 pm #

    The best new RWNJ (right-wing nut job) chain emails now contain a claim that “Snopes CONFIRMS this is TRUE!!!” in the hopes that it will dissuade the recipient from actually checking Snopes.

    The last-ditch fallback is to accuse Snopes of being a liberal front for Soros, of course…

  36. avatar
    G November 22, 2011 at 9:50 pm #

    Yeah, I’ve seen that shameful tactic being used a lot. It is not that new and has been done for quite a few years.

    Basically, the con artists that send out this bogus tripe know their “marks”. Their audience is the gullible and reactionary. These folks don’t actually read articles or links, they just take for granted as true whatever garbage headline and summary is tossed as red meat towards them that fits their preconceived viewpoints.

    So the con artists have little to lose by lying about snopes, etc. as supporting them, (when those sites actually prove their claims are bold LIES), because their audience is unlikely to ever actually read the link or article anyways.

    The 2nd tactic is even much older and much sadder. It is the simplest way to brainwash and control their followers and to maintain their self-delusions. Simply “dismiss” any reality or facts which contradict their nonsense as an evil plot or political agenda against them.

    It works because of projection. The people that do this and that fall for this junk value “belief” over reality and support the tactics of using propoganda to support their own agendas over the truth. Therefore, they automatically assume the worst about anything which disproves or debunks them and dismiss it as propoganda, as that is what THEY would do, if given the chance.

    This simply reflects on the shallowness of the mindset and core values of those that fall for this junk and who promote it. They are truly willfully ignorant and yes, such an ideological mindset is a choice. For some, they’ve just become conditioned and it is just an impulse based bad habit, but that is no excuse. Bad habits need to be broken.

    Obsolete: The best new RWNJ (right-wing nut job) chain emails now contain a claim that “Snopes CONFIRMS this is TRUE!!!” in the hopes that it will dissuade the recipient from actually checking Snopes. The last-ditch fallback is to accuse Snopes of being a liberal front for Soros, of course…

  37. avatar
    The Magic M November 23, 2011 at 4:23 am #

    G: So the con artists have little to lose by lying about snopes, etc. as supporting them, (when those sites actually prove their claims are bold LIES), because their audience is unlikely to ever actually read the link or article anyways.

    That even works with less gullible audiences.

    I’ve seen some con artists doing promotion for their crappy software by claiming “ranked #1 by software magazine XY” (the biggest one in my country) though it of course never was tested by anybody. They just thought they’d make enough money with it before the mag’s attorneys could shut them down.

  38. avatar
    G November 23, 2011 at 7:09 am #

    Most of the MLM (multi-level marketing), work from home and other get rich quick schemes work on that same principal.

    They are able to pump people up with claims that they know will rarely be looked into and often use a chain of add-on “motivational” books and cds, etc. to keep them properly hooked and brainwashed. Many times they are structured in a cult-like way of “community”…that really is more about keeping an eye on them and keeping them pumping in their money and time and not be discouraged by outside sources that notice they are being “taken for a ride”.

    I’d add that a lot of late night infomercial stuff for crappy products (note: there are some good legit ones out there….but a lot are crap) work on similar principal too. A lot of overhyped endorsements and claims that don’t hold up under scrutiny at all…but that the vulnerable “call now” audience is never going to find out about until it is way too late…

    The Magic M: That even works with less gullible audiences.I’ve seen some con artists doing promotion for their crappy software by claiming “ranked #1 by software magazine XY” (the biggest one in my country) though it of course never was tested by anybody. They just thought they’d make enough money with it before the mag’s attorneys could shut them down.

  39. avatar
    The Magic M November 23, 2011 at 7:34 am #

    G: A lot of overhyped endorsements and claims that don’t hold up under scrutiny at all

    At least most of them hide behind vague references that can never be positively verified (such as “test winner” or “award-winning” or “best of 2008” without ever giving a source as to what test or award was won). Those who make explicit false claims (“ranked #1 by TopSoft magazine”) are an exception.

    Same with the propaganda claims – usually they’re vague (“it has been reported”, “several Republican representatives admit”, “verified by ex-CIA agents”), so it stands out when an openly false claim (“as John Smith said before Congress on June 6th, 2012”) is made.

  40. avatar
    G November 23, 2011 at 7:47 am #

    Points well taken! I agree.

    Certainly, the most common and succussful tactic in this line of scamming is the vague reference.

    That is why it is so striking to see the examples in which the con artist becomes so lax and bold as to make such specific and directly sourced references.

    It is the internet equivalent of “lying with a straight face, while looking someone in the eye”.

    If anything, such a tactic is really a “tell” that shows us just what kind of pathological and cynical person the author is as well as how low his regard is for his audience.

    The Magic M: At least most of them hide behind vague references that can never be positively verified (such as “test winner” or “award-winning” or “best of 2008‘ without ever giving a source as to what test or award was won). Those who make explicit false claims (“ranked #1 by TopSoft magazine”) are an exception.Same with the propaganda claims – usually they’re vague (“it has been reported”, “several Republican representatives admit”, “verified by ex-CIA agents”), so it stands out when an openly false claim (“as John Smith said before Congress on June 6th, 2012‘) is made.