Terrorist Intimidation: Witnesses, Jurors Protection Overlooked in NYC Terrorist Trial
November 20, 2009
November 20, 2009
Views expressed in guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media.
Visit the complete Guest Column archives.
Welcome to the United States of Make-Believe
Guest Column | By Gabriel Garnica | January 14, 2009
In case you have not noticed, our country is at a crossroads. No, not between glory and disaster – that fork was fatally chosen on the first Tuesday in November. No, not between capitalism and socialism – that fork was chosen that day as well. This choice is not between government for the people and government by the media. That mess was allowed to brew for months and ripen on, you guessed it, that same November day. In fact, the fork in the road is not even between proactive leadership and reactive victimization. That circus trip has been festering in the hands of liberal efforts for some time now. No, the fork in the road facing this nation today is between rational reality and absurd delusion.
The Signs are In the Air
Just as dark clouds tell us that rain approaches and a frost in the air tells us that snow is on the way, so too the signs are everywhere of the fate that awaits America as a result of the recent election results. Rosie O’Donnell, Roseanne Barr, Joy Behar, Whoopie Goldberg and Bill Maher actually believe that the drivel that comes out of their mouths nearly represents what most Americans believe.
Furthermore, the media is allowing that drivel to spread as if it carried an ounce of relevance, accuracy and objectivity.
Political nightmares such as Cynthia McKinney, Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi are being allowed to impose their will and views on our ears as if their opinion on garden hoses much less our nation’s future meant anything to anyone beyond their immediate family, handlers and groupies. Hollywood and entertainment 
elites are increasingly deluded into thinking that they are not only qualified to preach about breakfast cereal, but also how one should lead one’s life, run one’s home, manage one’s relationships or make a difference in this world. Panting imbeciles are running to the newsstands to absorb marital, parenting and even wardrobe advice from Obama and Michelle.
Like it or not, the great pretense has started. This fable begins with the entrance of a new King and his Queen and the dawn of a new day full of possibilities and opportunities to make America the most popular kid on the world block again. The story continues with that King’s promises to juggle conflicting interests, match contradictory plans and carve marble masterpieces out of fertilizer. The formula seems simple: America is bad, Obama is good, and Obama will make America good again.
Yes, the dark clouds are surrounding us, but liberals and their pet media will have us believe that the resulting darkness is merely caused by the approaching evening rather than the impending doom.
The Naked Emperor with a Twist
We all know the story of the Emperor with no clothes. We now stand before an incoming Emperor whose qualifications for the most important office in the world present him as naked as the day he was born. Come to think of it, even the place of that birth seems a fabrication aided and abetted by a media whose main objective is to fashion delusion over determining any amount of truth.
We have an approaching leader who pretends to be a humble servant of the people while seriously comparing himself to Abraham Lincoln and JFK. We have seen him prop JFK’s daughter nearby and now plans to model his inauguration after Lincoln’s. Either he thinks that pretending to be a famous past leader will turn him into a present iconic one or, worse, he actually believes that he can and should be so compared, in which case psychiatric assistance should be sought. Speaking of iconic status, I will surely lose my lunch the next time I see some starry-eyed, fawning fool gazing at the chosen one speaking in his characteristic, halting, measured tones. I find it most amusing that the very same liberals who so passionately look to push the Messiah of millions out of society’s sight are ever so eager to crown the next clown who comes down the pike as their own messiah.
I would give a month’s pay to see Catholics as passionate about their historic Messiah as liberals blindly are about their political one. I can testify through personal observation that it is indeed possible to utter inane and fawning gibberish while drooling in adoration and anticipation that “something new is in the air.” What these liberals perceive as a breath of fresh air signaling a new era in American society I interpret as a dust storm of rehashed liberal propaganda signaling a new error in American society. It is all a matter of perception and clarity.
I will also become ill the next time I hear some panting liberal accuse anyone who opposes this new regime of being a racist simply because the one opposed happens to be a minority. I am a minority, but I do not blindly drool every time another minority is propped up by the liberal media as the answer to my problems or the role model I should admire. Sadly, most of my minority brethren resemble Pavlov’s test subject more than independent, rational and analytical voters and citizens who cannot be hypnotized with salsa, sombreros, rap songs and soul food.
It is both fitting and proper that Hollywood and most of the entertainment elites are behind this man. After all, most of his image is empty hype wrapped in daring pretense and facilitated by media hypocrisy and subjectivity. The emperor is indeed naked, but you would not know it from the way the media gazes at its conquering pretender in his birthday suit.
Blatant Bull Finds its Soapbox
Prepare to hear infamous imbeciles inform us on how to find ourselves, addicted celebrities suggest how we can overcome drugs and alcohol, and famous divorce combatants remind us of the keys to a happy marriage. Brace yourself to hear wealthy folks like Will Smith and Oprah whine about how African-Americans are constant victims of poverty, injustice and forgotten opportunities. Watch as liberals define our morality, our values and our national direction while not missing any opportunity to step into it with both feet.
We are about to enter the liberal roller-coaster of hypocrisy where liars preach about honesty, corrupt officials preach about service, pathetically partisan media preaches about objective journalism and fawning fools preach about holding our leaders accountable. Welcome passionate pleas for public education from yet another liberal whose children are comfortably ensconced in private school. Salute more Martha Stewart-like advice on everything from finding cheap clothing to eliminating rug stains from yet another liberal elite wife pretending to be a regular woman struggling to get the kids to school. It is so much about superficial pretense, fabricated connection to everyday Americans and flashy marketing hype selling well-off radical liberals as anything but. They will sell it to you 24/7 for the next 365/4. Whether that 365/4 becomes 365/8 is up to you.
Conclusion
We are entering the tunnel at the first sharp turn of this liberal roller-coaster ride. There is no way to go but straight ahead through that tunnel for the path has been chosen. We may wonder how much control we now have over the general direction of this ride, but we surely determine how we will weather it and what we will gain from the trip.
If we allow the journey to beat us into submission, we will have lost twice, both in November and in our future and that of our children. If we passively allow the trip to shake us into apathy, we will have wasted the sweat and tears shed through the experience. However, if we learn from our mistakes, grow stronger from our corrected weaknesses and reach for the opportunities that the future will surely hand us, we will come out of this nightmare all the stronger and better able to move this country back to the glory and greatness that is and should always be its destiny.
Those who question what those future opportunities may be need only remember that liberals do not so much obtain power as steal it when conservatives fail. As is their custom, they periodically rent power from careless conservatives, only to fumble it away through the utter disaster of their mismanagement of that power. History tells us that liberals begin to lose power the day they gain it, for their application and definition of leadership is fundamentally flawed and profoundly contradictory to much of what America and Americans stand for.
As we watch these childish, immature infants we call liberals gleefully play with their new found toy of government, we must prepare ourselves to be qualified and worthy to retake that leadership when the child drops the toy yet again. Government is no more a toy than matches are, for in the wrong hands both can destroy all that we hold dear. Let us remember that the only thing more foolish and tragic than allowing children to play with fire is not taking the matches away from them before they burn the house down.
FamilySecurityMatters.org contributing editor Gabriel Garnica, Esq., is a college professor and licensed attorney whose regular commentary also appears on New MediaJournal.us, The Daley Times-Post, and Michnews. He holds a law degree from New York University and a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from St. John’s University in New York.
Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.
14 Comments | Post a Comment
Your statement:
“Let us remember that the only thing more foolish and tragic than allowing children to play with fire is not taking the matches away from them before they burn the house down.”
Don’t you think your “advice” here is W-A-Y more relevant to the presidential election of 2004 than it is today?
Look what the Bush II administration has wrought! Bush II was a PROVEN failed commodity at the end of his first term - yet, as you call them, apparently “... childish, immature infants ...” RE-ELECTED him to a second term! Certainly no less a “joke” election than you claim occurred this past November.
If Obama does well - we ALL DO WELL! So, it would seem to me that the “adult, mature and grown-up” thing to do is to give him the benefit of the doubt until he proves otherwise - and give him the necessary time to see if he can successfully meet the current challenges.
Your article seems to be little more than an ideological screed.
Dear Mr. Garnica,
You wrote: “There is no way to go but straight ahead through that tunnel for the path has been chosen… remember that liberals do not so much obtain power as steal it when conservatives fail.” You present an argument against democracy. You argue that those with whom you do not agree should not be allowed to elect the government they prefer. You insist that if your side loses, it was only because the other side gained power illegally.
This set of attitudes is part of the foundations of Fascism, Nazism, Communism and, farther back in time, absolute monarchism. The United States of America was founded and has been preserved to reject utterly those ideologies.
It seems pretty clear that you are an enemy of the American way. Nonetheless, your right to criticize basic American ideals is protected by the Constitution. But if you act to destroy our system of government, you will be guilty of either sedition or treason. But as a lawyer, you know that.
Of course, none of the terrible events you predict are actually going to take place. A year from now, you will have been shown to be a hysterical moron. Yet you are allowed to teach in an institution of higher learning? Where, I wonder.
Brian R. Sullivan
Re: Post 3;
Heavens! I agree with a few of your points, here!
And - ALMOST - no namecalling! Just ONE “hysterical moron”!
You know, from time-to-time, what you say may be agreeable - - but the WAY you say it is often VERY disagreeable - - and that particular circumstance nearly always obscures and devalues the potentially positive elements of what you’re saying.
In fact, Mr. Garnica’s article above also seems pretty “hateful” in its intent - but I guess he’s exhibiting his hatefulness “politely”. (???)
Sounds like he could be a writer for the Michael Weiner Savage radio program.
This man is taking us down the road to socialism. I will do all I can to stop this tragedy. I will not blindly accept this fate. With Gods grace - we will weather this.
Dear Kansas Girl,
Would you please define what you mean by socialism?
Who is “this man” to whom you refer? I presume it is George Bush. He has headed the administration which has instituted the various economic and financial policies over the past four months to which I presume you object.
As for Barack Obama, far from indicating any intention to institute socialism, he has been advocating policies designed to save American capitalism and the free market. (You do seem to have a very feeble grasp of economics.) In particular, he has been calling for measures to safeguard private property. For most Americans, their most important property is their home or the equity invested in them. Why you think that preventing foreclosures and preserving other property (such as automobiles, bank accounts, stocks, bonds and investment funds) equates with socialism bewilders me.
You have written: ” I will do all I can to stop this tragedy. I will not blindly accept this fate.” All you can? What does that mean? Blow up the Congress? Set yourself on fire in protest?
Blindly accept this fate? But if you are aware of it, then you are not (metaphorically) blind. And if it is fate, by definition it can’t be avoided.
Dear TK,
Why you think I would be interested in your opinions in my regard astonishes me. I express myself as I please. Judging by your ignorance and foolishness, if I were to write in a manner that pleases you, I would be ashamed of myself.
You stated that how I write: “nearly always obscures and devalues the potentially positive elements of what you’re saying.” I think not, except in the case of persons such as yourself. If what I write seems obscure to you, the problem is that, in a Christian theological manner, your mind is clouded by sin. If devaluation seems involved, by whose standards? I don’t esteem what you value - in case you haven’t noticed.
As for name-calling, that’s what you have indulged in, not me. (Re-read your recent comments, if you have forgotten.)Instead, I describe people - based on what they have written - accurately. Mr. Garnica is a hysterical moron. And you remain an ignorant fool.
Brian R. Sullivan
The original definition of socialism was as a transitory system while converting from capitalism to communism. In modern vernacular however, it has come to mean state control of select private industry (which industry seems to vary) and progressive redistribution policies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist
While Brian R. Sullivan is correct in his assessment of George W. Bush’s socialistic tendencies he completely misses the mark on Obama’s economic policies.
Certainly saving people’s homes tugs at the heartstrings, it is also irrelevant. The method for saving these homes is an infusion of capital from the federal government, enough to allow for controlling interest in most of the companies that accept bailout money.
“Last night’s announcement was the second time this month that the federal government decided to use taxpayer money to rescue a private financial company. On Sept. 7, the Treasury seized mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Treasury said it would put up as much as $100 billion in each to keep them in the black. In exchange, the government now holds a controlling interest in both.”
-quote taken from http://tinyurl.com/75pcl2
The same happened with AIG and will more than likely end up happening with the Big 3. Which means that the federal government will have controlling interest in several major aspects of the private sector. Throw in universal health care and some progressive/aggressive wealth redistribution (think Joe the plumber) and you have yourself a socialistic government.
Sounds suspiciously close to Obama’s campaign promises…
Brian R. Sullivan,
LOL, you are a GREAT example of what he was referring to in the article. lol. Great backup of his observations.
TK wrote “Look what the Bush II administration has wrought! Bush II was a PROVEN failed commodity at the end of his first term - yet, as you call them, apparently ”... childish, immature infants ...” RE-ELECTED him to a second term! Certainly no less a “joke” election than you claim occurred this past November.”
You claim Bush II was a failed commodity, yet you site no examples. Actually the Democratic-controlled congress of the last two years is what failed, as they have the actual power (just like they will under Obama). The President asked over and over again for reforms to Freddie / Fannie, but the Democrat cronies wouldn’t let him. Now we are instituting socialism as an attempt to clean up the mess.
Dear TK,
You keep on returning to the vomit of your folly. I predicted that you would and you have proved me right.
I have accurately described you as both a fool and an ignoramus. You offer continual proof.
Who else but a fool would go on trying to insult me, when it’s obvious that I hold you in utter contempt? Who else but a fool would engage in such infantile name-calling?
As for your ignorance, how about offering some facts? You don’t and, I suspect, you can’t. Each time you have objected to something I have written, you have offered no rebuttal, just insults. While that’s not absolute proof, it certainly creates the extremely strong impression that you are an ignoramus.
“There is NO hope for you on any level.” That might or might not be true. But how would you know?
“No more benefit of the doubt”? What benefit could be derived from any opinion of yours?
Very sincerely,
Brian R. Sullivan
Dear Mr. Rodgers,
“The original definition of socialism was as a transitory system while converting from capitalism to communism. In modern vernacular however, it has come to mean state control of select private industry (which industry seems to vary) and progressive redistribution policies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist”
Using the Wikipedia as a source of information indicates you have little or no sense of how to research a topic in a serious manner. The various entries in the Wikipedia contain a huge number of factual errors.
In this case, it offers a Marxian definition of socialism. But socialism was conceived long before Marx was born. (Read Plato’s Republic or the Utopia of Thomas More, for starters.) During Marx’s lifetime, there were many other socialist thinkers who disagreed with him. (Bakunin, for example.) After Marx died, still others rejected Marx’s ideas in favor of toher concepts of socialism. Consider Bernstein, for example.
State control of one or more industries characterizes Fascism, Nazism and even Mercantilism. Indeed, what alternative is there under Capitalism to state control of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, bacteriological weapons and poison gas? Would you like those industries in private hands?
Finally progressive redistribution of wealth is hardly restricted to socialism. Consider how the Huns and Vandals or the Apaches and Comanches behaved. Were they socialists? What about the way the representatives of the Third Reich plundered German-occuped territories? Where they socialists?
If you think Obama is advocating socialism, you have neither studied his remarks carefully nor possess an understanding of socialism.
Brian R. Sullivan
Brian R. Wilson:
It’s true that both Fascism and Nazism are defined in part by national control of industry. Unfortunately you left out several other defining factors that differentiate these philosophies from socialism (or any other form of government). Since you seem so sure of your research skills I’ll leave it as an exercise for you to find those differences. Also, I would like to hear how you define socialism since the definition I offered isn’t acceptable to you.
As for Mercantilism, you’re a little off the mark. Mercantilism is a rather vague philosophy that promotes government backing of currency with a stockpile of precious metals (gold, silver, etc) and discouraging imports while encouraging exports with tariffs and/or taxes. No where in this philosophy do I see government taking direct control of private industry.
And finally: If you think Obama is advocating capitalism, you have neither studied his remarks carefully nor possess an understanding of capitalism.
Post 11;
” ... go on trying to insult me ... “
You gotta’ be kiddin’?!?
You insult yourself, Ace, MUCH better than anyone could ever, EVER do it!
Ya know, folks, at the end of the day…
—President-elect Obama will be forced by reality to behave at least centristically in much of his foreign policy decisions. Campaign rhetoric and a pile of Soros’ cash does not a re-electable man make. People getting killed on American soil won’t play well, even on MSNBC.
—George W. Bush was not nearly as bad a President as so many want him to have been, and this from a poster who certainly found many of his domestic policy decisions absurd.
—Today, a loaded up US Airways A320 Airbus was skillfully set down on the Hudson River, and everyone walked away.
—Agree, disagree, educate each other on the definition of socialism, capitalism, and witicism, but tonight, all of you will go to bed in your homes, safe, warm, and sleepy.
—Flexing ones Internet Beer Muscles is for the intellectually vapid (*BURP*), as is referencing the Bakunin v. Marx spat. Puh-lease…
But hell, if ya gotta go there, how ‘bout ol’ Bak and his one-time BFF Nachaev? Kinda like Barack, and his one-time pals-he-always-ignored-at-just-the-“Wright”-times Ayers, Rezko, Daly, et al?
The Democrat’s own Wizard of Oz (co-starring Hillary Clinton as Glenda, but only ‘cuz she made a lousy Toto and couldn’t make Chris Matthews wet himself), George Soros has launched his balloon, wouldn’t you say?*1
—Goodnight everyone, and God Bless.
With all due respect,
JimBob the WV Redneck
*1) Readers will note that I made no reference to monkeys, flying or otherwise, nor to midgets, in my brief Wizard of Oz analogy. Hence, I am neither racist nor biggoted, though I do confess to a rather liberal assignment of the descriptor “lazy fatasses” to many of my fellow citizens. This would include, but is not limited to, those who think they understand socialism, Marxism, Rothschildism, and any other damned ism, better than say, my sister, to whom I am also married.
January 14 at 3:37 pm | #1 | Link
WHAT WE TRULY NEED ARE TERM LIMITS IN CONGRESS AS THEY ARE WITH THE PRESIDENCY.
WE GET THESE PEOPLE LIKE KENNEDY,REED AND THAT OTHER IDIOT,PELOSI IN THERE AND THEN WE CAN’T GET RID OF THEM.
THEY ARE SO OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IT IS NOT A JOKE ANYMORE.
SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE.
I DID NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA BUT HE IS OUR PRESIDENT NOW AND WE HAVE TO SUPPORT HIM.
ENOUGH OF ALL THE BULL THAT’S GOING ON IN CONGRESS AND GET THE JOB DONE.