Re-posting of diary June 17, 2009
It's a question often asked in ethics classes. What if someone knew the future acts of a Hitler, would it have been a moral act to have killed him before he usurped democracy in his country.
A tyrant is defined by Merriam Websters as
: an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b: a usurper of sovereignty
Surely an elected leader who plans to become "President for Life" fits the description. And to the degree that this is believed, it justifies the strongest action to prevent it. There are those who would argue that if this were known, killing the tyrant, would not only be justified, but demanded.
Believing that he was a tyrant was the stated justification of America's first Presidential assassination. Most of us know this story too well.
"Booth has, in his left hand, his bowie knife. In his right hand, he clutches the derringer pistol. He hears that line, and he levels his right hand and almost touches the back of Lincoln's head with the derringer pistol, and fires.
"Booth sat on that balustrade; he swung one leg over, then the other; he jumped to the stage — about an 11-foot drop — then Booth ran to center stage. This was his final and greatest performance on the American stage. So he raised his bloody dagger in the air and cried out the state motto of Virginia, 'Sic semper tyrannis — thus always to tyrants.'
Now back to the twenty first century, where conspiracies to kill can fester in ways unknown. Surely, with weapons widely available, and every possible vulnerability impossible to anticipate, the danger is real.
I've always been hesitant to accept the concept of "dog whistles" messages to the fringe that are coded so outsiders don't recognize them. So I perked up when I saw this yesterday while watching Glen Beck, more out of amazement than anything else.
These were his words, even though he carefully didn't move his lips for the final comment.
Lets just assume Obama was like the Messiah
and President for life, O.K?
Can't ever vote him out, heh
who doesn't think this isn't coming!
Who doesn't think that President Obama will become President for Life, which is a title only held in countries that do not have elections. They are only countries that suppress, jail or kill any dissidents, so that the President for life can claim that he governs by consensus.
Now, let me say that Glen was smiling when he said this. And he was careful not to move his lips. Perhaps this was to imply that he wasn't really saying these words, but that they were out there in the ether, something that is so certain that he could say, "who doesn't think this isn't coming."
Dog whistle? No, this is the a case of the lunatic fringe, no longer being on the outside, but gaining a seat in one of the primary cable channels purporting to be providing news. It is suggesting that a president sworn to uphold the constitution is dedicated to subverting it.
I suppose this would be laughable if those millions who watch Glen Beck did not admire him, and also possess the rage and the means to "end the certainty of tyranny" that he so cleverly enunciated without even moving his lips.
And so far, no one has noticed. A rec of this diary might bring this to light, and stop Beck before the damage he does to our country is beyond repair