WorldNetDaily founder and editor Joseph Farah reportedly wrote in a recent email exchange with Salon's Justin Elliott, "Admittedly, we publish some misinformation by columnists." Indeed, Farah is right: WorldNetDaily columnists -- and reporters -- have published numerous falsehoods and smears as well as some of the most absurd anti-Obama conspiracy theories and falsehoods.
No, you didn't misread that. John Derbyshire, National Review Online contributor, today rehashed his 2003 argument that nonmilitary government employees shouldn't be allowed to vote. Here's today's post, written in response to fellow contributor Pat Sajak's article about how public employees have a "conflict of interest" when voting:
Pat Sajak: "I'm not suggesting that public employees should be denied the right to vote ..."
Go ahead, Pat: say it. I did, back in 2003.
[Quoting 2003 article:] "If you let public employees vote, what do you think they are going to vote for? For more public spending, more government jobs, higher government wages. Can you vote yourself a pay raise? No, and neither can I. Bill Bureaucrat and Pam Paperpusher can, though, and they do. Bill and Pam have no problem at all with ever-swelling public budgets, with ever-expanding public services, with the creeping socialism that is slowly throttling our liberties out of existence."
It's an idea whose time will soon come.
Other conservative commentators, like WorldNetDaily's Robert Ringer, have also advocated taking away public employees' voting rights. Using Derbyshire and Ringer's logic, I guess anyone who uses public services -- like the post office, roads, schools, libraries, police, firefighters -- probably has a "conflict of interest" when voting. So does anyone who pays taxes.
Elsewhere in the 2003 article, Derbyshire writes that public servants should be content with the "privilege" of working for the government: "Working for the State, or the nation, is a great privilege and an honor. It brings with it great security, since States and Nations very, very rarely go out of business. Let privilege, honor and security be rewards enough; let's not gild the lily with fripperies like voting rights."
Lest you think he's kidding, note that public employees are hardly the only group Derbyshire thinks unworthy of such "fripperies." In a 2009 interview with Alan Colmes, he also suggested we'd "probably" be a better country if women didn't vote.
Basically, he's saying our country would be a better place if people who don't agree with him couldn't vote. Who's "throttling our liberties out of existence," again?
From Robert Ringer's April 2 WorldNetDaily column:
But if BHO truly has his mind set on establishing a dictatorship -- and it is my personal belief that he does -- it's too risky for him to wait for a runaway inflation as an excuse to call a state of emergency. He knows that as long as there is a semblance of a free market in place, producers will continue to push back against the economy-killing effects of his policies.
Thus, he needs another excuse to declare a state of emergency. In previous articles, I've mentioned a nuke exchange between Iran and Israel as one possibility. Another is civil unrest due to unemployment rates that could reach 25 percent or more in the not-too-distant future.
These and others still remain possibilities, but last week Glenn Beck came up with one that may be even more likely. Beck believes that Obama will continue to keep the accelerator pressed to the floor - amnesty for illegal immigrants, a cap-and-trade bill that will eliminate the U.S. as a global business competitor, and more -- thus enraging an already angry public to the point of revolution.
In other words, purposely foment "civil unrest" rather than wait for something like unemployment or runaway inflation to make it happen. As Beck puts it, just continue to poke people in the eye, then use their predictable and justifiable backlash as an excuse to establish dictatorial powers.
Yep, I believe Glenn Beck might be on to something. But if the American public refuses to take the bait and doesn't resort to violence, BHO will have to go to Plan B to have an excuse to declare a state of emergency.
Having said all this, don't despair. No one, including myself, can predict the future with certainty. In a rapidly changing world, nothing is certain - which is why I don't make predictions; I just lay odds. And here are my odds based on what I know and see today:
- The chances of a declared state of emergency and ensuing dictatorship prior to the 2010 elections: 25 percent
- The chances of a declared state of emergency and ensuing dictatorship prior to the 2012 elections: 50 percent
- The chances of the Republicans cutting back on major entitlements if they regain power in the 2010 elections: zero
- The chances of the Republicans cutting back on major entitlements if they win the presidency and an overwhelming majority in Congress in 2012: 5 percent
Of course, I could be wrong about all this ... but what if I'm right?