Sam Weaver
Open letter to Bill O'Reilly: Part II
By Sam Weaver
On behalf of you, my precious readers, and based upon several email responses, there are a few things that I must clarify in my "Open Letter to Bill O'Reilly."
First: In my opening paragraph, I was by no means attempting to speak for Black Americans. Nor was I speaking for the whole American people. I can speak only for myself and it would be absolutely ludicrous for me to think that I had any right or authority to speak for anyone else! I was merely agreeing with what I believe was a brilliant point that Fox News analyst Brit Hume made on an episode of The O'Reilly Factor. The rest of my column was basically an attempt to explain why I agreed with Hume's point. I realize, of course, that many Americans — both Black and White — were offended by Senator Reid's alleged (and, at least as yet, undenied) remarks. I can and do understand why any decent person might be offended! Perhaps I should have inserted the word "intentionally" before the word "denigrate" in my opening paragraph. But that would have implied that I know (or that I even think I know) Senator Reid's very thoughts and intentions. Of course, I do not.
Second: My parenthetical note at the end of the seventh paragraph was indeed a dig at Bill O'Reilly. Bill was indoctrinated ("educated") at Harvard. He believes in the conventional wisdom of the political spectrum. His shtick is "looking out for the 'little guy' — or the 'folks'"; meaning that we "little guys" can benefit from his wisdom and guidance. Shades of elitism, wouldn't you say?! He often talks about the "greater good." He believes that federal law always trumps state law. He believes that industries must be regulated by the Feds. These are all "progressive" and anti-conservative (anti-Liberty) ideas. I often wonder whether or not he knows this.
Some of you who got my gibe at Bill in that parenthetical note believe that I contradicted myself two paragraphs later. "But you are 'rich,' (Bill); therefore you are evil." The "'truly' educated" (i.e., the progressives, elitists, statists, modern "liberals"), for the most part, are rich. But, in their own minds, they are far from evil! They need all of their wealth (along with much of yours and mine) to stay in power so that they can inflict "social justice" upon the poor, idiotic masses. They are just looking out for the "folks"!
Bill O'Reilly is, fundamentally, a "traditionalist." He uses that word to describe himself because his tainted (Harvard) view of the political spectrum tells him that the word "conservative" denotes an ideologue. In the "progressive" mind, any strict ideology (other than, somehow, "progressive" ideology!) prevents a person — and a society — from reaching that "perfect ideal" of centrist philosophy; the perfect middle between the extreme "left" and the extreme "right." Nevertheless, O'Reilly adheres to many conservative principles and ideas. (I would love to meet his parents! They must be salt-of-the-earth types of people!) I would say that he has fallen from the progressive tree; but I doubt that he ever reached the top of that tree. At any rate, Mr. O'Reilly is not a true progressive. Therefore, his voice, his wealth and his influence are dangerous if not outright evil to all progressives. It would be a travesty for progressives if "the folks" were to rediscover the principles and ideas of Liberty and Justice that made the United States of America the freest, greatest, most prosperous, most generous nation the world has ever known!
Bill O'Reilly is the consummate moderate, or populist. His roots are basically conservative, but his understanding of Truth and Liberty is stunted, or defiled, by his progressive "education." When he is right, and he is often right, he is very right. But when he is wrong, he is very wrong!
Third: I should clarify the parenthetical note of the twelfth paragraph, of which I mistakenly omitted the final parenthesis. [That whole column was hastily typed and contained a number of gaffes.]:
"(Liberty is the near absolute right of every citizen to think, to say and/or to do anything and everything he wants as long as he does not violate the Laws and principles of Nature and of Nature's God. True Justice occurs whenever anyone is held equally accountable for any and every such violation.[)]"
Notice the verbs "think," "say" and "do." Thought, Word (or speech) and Deed. I am convinced — though, I could be very wrong! — that this is the tripartite image implied in Genesis 1:26. Mind (or soul), generating thought; Body, capable of speech and generating words; and Spirit, generating action or deeds. God, the Father (or Mastermind). Christ, the Son (or Body — or Word). The Holy Ghost (or Spirit). God in Three Persons; man in His Image.
The Laws of Nature, generally, refer to scientific (physical) laws and economic (fiscal) laws. The Laws of Nature's God refer to religious (moral) laws and political (ethical) laws. The Laws of Nature, for the most part, are deduced through experience, observation and discovery. The Laws of Nature's God are embedded within the conscience of every sane, rational human being who has not destroyed his conscience through abuse and/or neglect; or who has not been utterly fooled (e.g., propagandized or hoodwinked) by tyrants and/or charlatans.
Justice is not served and Liberty is betrayed whenever human government is afforded the power and authority to punish a person for his thoughts. Hate crimes legislation is anathema to Liberty. Only God knows the thoughts of any individual, besides the individual himself. Only God can bring to justice any person for that person's thoughts.
Free and unhindered speech is vital to Liberty. Any government that would suppress the speech of anyone or which would punish anyone for his words is a tyrannical government. However, Liberty fails whenever the lies of wannabe tyrants (elitists, "progressives," religious fanatics, various "do-gooders" etc., etc.) are not drowned out by patriots who choose to remain silent. The people (not the government!) have the duty and the responsibility to speak up and to speak out against the lies of tyrants and charlatans!
Of the three — thought, word and deed — government (via the courts) has the power, the authority, the duty and the responsibility to punish only deeds (actions). Any action that violates the law — that deprives another person of life, liberty, safety, morality, dignity or property — must be punished to the full extent of the law regardless of race, sex, class or creed.
Understand all of this, and you will basically know what American Liberty and Justice is all about!
Finally: In the last paragraph of my "Open Letter to Bill O'Reilly," I said "Let them all fail!" I meant what I said. I meant it especially from a government (specifically, from the federal, but even from a state level) perspective. It is the duty and the responsibility of every human being to love and to help his neighbor. However, rewarding or subsidizing failure is not compassion; it is folly! To give financial or material support while withholding any moral or spiritual support and/or guidance most often leads to dependence, or much worse.
Government is not — and can never be — compassionate! One hundred years of "progressive" policies — policies that see the U.S. Constitution as a "living and breathing document" to be manipulated and molded as times change — have enabled the federal government to redistribute wealth in the name of "social justice." Since at least FDR's New Deal, the federal government has been confiscating the wealth of some Americans to give to others. But where are the moral and spiritual lessons and guidance? Government can give financial or material aid, once it takes it from others, but it can offer no moral or spiritual comfort, support or guidance. Belief in government "compassion" is pure, unabashed folly.
Politicians, for the most part, look out for themselves and their own power. It has been that way throughout human history. Human nature never changes and never will. Why do so many of us today tolerate politicians' abuse of power? Why do we think government can "solve our problems," or "fix" things, for the "'greater good' of the people"? Why do we allow the existence of federal domestic policy? Why do federal regulations of businesses and industries work any better than the Rule of Law? Why do we abide state and federal intrusion into our lives? Aren't we Americans?!
Let's get back to our Founders' and Framers' original idea of limited government with specific and enumerated powers! Let us return to the U.S. Constitution and the idea of Liberty and Justice for all!
© Sam Weaver
February 6, 2010
On behalf of you, my precious readers, and based upon several email responses, there are a few things that I must clarify in my "Open Letter to Bill O'Reilly."
First: In my opening paragraph, I was by no means attempting to speak for Black Americans. Nor was I speaking for the whole American people. I can speak only for myself and it would be absolutely ludicrous for me to think that I had any right or authority to speak for anyone else! I was merely agreeing with what I believe was a brilliant point that Fox News analyst Brit Hume made on an episode of The O'Reilly Factor. The rest of my column was basically an attempt to explain why I agreed with Hume's point. I realize, of course, that many Americans — both Black and White — were offended by Senator Reid's alleged (and, at least as yet, undenied) remarks. I can and do understand why any decent person might be offended! Perhaps I should have inserted the word "intentionally" before the word "denigrate" in my opening paragraph. But that would have implied that I know (or that I even think I know) Senator Reid's very thoughts and intentions. Of course, I do not.
Second: My parenthetical note at the end of the seventh paragraph was indeed a dig at Bill O'Reilly. Bill was indoctrinated ("educated") at Harvard. He believes in the conventional wisdom of the political spectrum. His shtick is "looking out for the 'little guy' — or the 'folks'"; meaning that we "little guys" can benefit from his wisdom and guidance. Shades of elitism, wouldn't you say?! He often talks about the "greater good." He believes that federal law always trumps state law. He believes that industries must be regulated by the Feds. These are all "progressive" and anti-conservative (anti-Liberty) ideas. I often wonder whether or not he knows this.
Some of you who got my gibe at Bill in that parenthetical note believe that I contradicted myself two paragraphs later. "But you are 'rich,' (Bill); therefore you are evil." The "'truly' educated" (i.e., the progressives, elitists, statists, modern "liberals"), for the most part, are rich. But, in their own minds, they are far from evil! They need all of their wealth (along with much of yours and mine) to stay in power so that they can inflict "social justice" upon the poor, idiotic masses. They are just looking out for the "folks"!
Bill O'Reilly is, fundamentally, a "traditionalist." He uses that word to describe himself because his tainted (Harvard) view of the political spectrum tells him that the word "conservative" denotes an ideologue. In the "progressive" mind, any strict ideology (other than, somehow, "progressive" ideology!) prevents a person — and a society — from reaching that "perfect ideal" of centrist philosophy; the perfect middle between the extreme "left" and the extreme "right." Nevertheless, O'Reilly adheres to many conservative principles and ideas. (I would love to meet his parents! They must be salt-of-the-earth types of people!) I would say that he has fallen from the progressive tree; but I doubt that he ever reached the top of that tree. At any rate, Mr. O'Reilly is not a true progressive. Therefore, his voice, his wealth and his influence are dangerous if not outright evil to all progressives. It would be a travesty for progressives if "the folks" were to rediscover the principles and ideas of Liberty and Justice that made the United States of America the freest, greatest, most prosperous, most generous nation the world has ever known!
Bill O'Reilly is the consummate moderate, or populist. His roots are basically conservative, but his understanding of Truth and Liberty is stunted, or defiled, by his progressive "education." When he is right, and he is often right, he is very right. But when he is wrong, he is very wrong!
Third: I should clarify the parenthetical note of the twelfth paragraph, of which I mistakenly omitted the final parenthesis. [That whole column was hastily typed and contained a number of gaffes.]:
"(Liberty is the near absolute right of every citizen to think, to say and/or to do anything and everything he wants as long as he does not violate the Laws and principles of Nature and of Nature's God. True Justice occurs whenever anyone is held equally accountable for any and every such violation.[)]"
Notice the verbs "think," "say" and "do." Thought, Word (or speech) and Deed. I am convinced — though, I could be very wrong! — that this is the tripartite image implied in Genesis 1:26. Mind (or soul), generating thought; Body, capable of speech and generating words; and Spirit, generating action or deeds. God, the Father (or Mastermind). Christ, the Son (or Body — or Word). The Holy Ghost (or Spirit). God in Three Persons; man in His Image.
The Laws of Nature, generally, refer to scientific (physical) laws and economic (fiscal) laws. The Laws of Nature's God refer to religious (moral) laws and political (ethical) laws. The Laws of Nature, for the most part, are deduced through experience, observation and discovery. The Laws of Nature's God are embedded within the conscience of every sane, rational human being who has not destroyed his conscience through abuse and/or neglect; or who has not been utterly fooled (e.g., propagandized or hoodwinked) by tyrants and/or charlatans.
Justice is not served and Liberty is betrayed whenever human government is afforded the power and authority to punish a person for his thoughts. Hate crimes legislation is anathema to Liberty. Only God knows the thoughts of any individual, besides the individual himself. Only God can bring to justice any person for that person's thoughts.
Free and unhindered speech is vital to Liberty. Any government that would suppress the speech of anyone or which would punish anyone for his words is a tyrannical government. However, Liberty fails whenever the lies of wannabe tyrants (elitists, "progressives," religious fanatics, various "do-gooders" etc., etc.) are not drowned out by patriots who choose to remain silent. The people (not the government!) have the duty and the responsibility to speak up and to speak out against the lies of tyrants and charlatans!
Of the three — thought, word and deed — government (via the courts) has the power, the authority, the duty and the responsibility to punish only deeds (actions). Any action that violates the law — that deprives another person of life, liberty, safety, morality, dignity or property — must be punished to the full extent of the law regardless of race, sex, class or creed.
Understand all of this, and you will basically know what American Liberty and Justice is all about!
Finally: In the last paragraph of my "Open Letter to Bill O'Reilly," I said "Let them all fail!" I meant what I said. I meant it especially from a government (specifically, from the federal, but even from a state level) perspective. It is the duty and the responsibility of every human being to love and to help his neighbor. However, rewarding or subsidizing failure is not compassion; it is folly! To give financial or material support while withholding any moral or spiritual support and/or guidance most often leads to dependence, or much worse.
Government is not — and can never be — compassionate! One hundred years of "progressive" policies — policies that see the U.S. Constitution as a "living and breathing document" to be manipulated and molded as times change — have enabled the federal government to redistribute wealth in the name of "social justice." Since at least FDR's New Deal, the federal government has been confiscating the wealth of some Americans to give to others. But where are the moral and spiritual lessons and guidance? Government can give financial or material aid, once it takes it from others, but it can offer no moral or spiritual comfort, support or guidance. Belief in government "compassion" is pure, unabashed folly.
Politicians, for the most part, look out for themselves and their own power. It has been that way throughout human history. Human nature never changes and never will. Why do so many of us today tolerate politicians' abuse of power? Why do we think government can "solve our problems," or "fix" things, for the "'greater good' of the people"? Why do we allow the existence of federal domestic policy? Why do federal regulations of businesses and industries work any better than the Rule of Law? Why do we abide state and federal intrusion into our lives? Aren't we Americans?!
Let's get back to our Founders' and Framers' original idea of limited government with specific and enumerated powers! Let us return to the U.S. Constitution and the idea of Liberty and Justice for all!
© Sam Weaver
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.)
