Simpson Column: No competition

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize — men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of intelligence.
But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build — a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the James Simpson Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it’s also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action — a call for all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

Seriously, I thank you for your kind words.  Having come to Northern Virginia after working many years overseas, I became more politically active and more politically vocal out of revulsion for the Bush Administration and its policies.  Not because I’m a liberal, mind you, because I’m not.  I’ve always been rather conservative in fiscal matters.  And I’ve always respected military service.  I, like many people, have serious problems with Big Government and Deficits.  But aren’t “Republicans” and “Conservatives” supposed to be good with money?  Didn’t the Republican Majority and the so-called Neocons just stand by while the economy blew up (and it’s not over yet!)?  I just don’t know what these words mean anymore: Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, Redsox, Yankees, etc.  Define them as you will, but they don’t mean much when the rubber hits the road.  I more interested in reality, results, common sense, decency, and taking care of business.  I have very little patience with ideologues and fools, like some OpinionWriters we know, who add to our confusion and whip the flames of rhetoric and nonsense.  I’m hoping for the best from the current administration (though I’m not holding my breath), or any other administration who will do what has to be done.  In fact, I would have perversely enjoyed a McCain victory (except for Palin, who made it impossible to consider such a ticket) for the simple reason that I wanted a Republican to clean up the mess they left, and either get the job done or finally driving home the point that all the GOP really wanted was to stay in power and play ball with their friends on Wall Street.  We still haven’t learned the lesson of this economic catastrophe, and Obama is diddling with the core problem of dealing with the financial system.  As things get tighter, Prince William County will probably have to deal with a lot tougher problems than simply golf courses.  PW might have to cut some muscle or bone to balance the budget.  People need to face up to what has happened to us.  In the meantime, I’ll take on the fools, like OpinionWriter, the hometown Taliban, and just about anybody who refuses to think on their feet out there in the real world.

Again, thank you for your confidence in me, and I will try to live up to the Simpson Award.

Al Mostonest,  a humble recipient

Jim,

“Do you think people who are oppressed by a democratically elected government have the right to use force against their oppressors?“

Your question makes no sense. This is equivalent to asking; if the ocean was orange, would we still call it blue water?

The people are choosing their government through the ballot box.  If they feel the government they chose has become oppressive, then they elect others, either through normally scheduled elections (like our system), a vote of no confidence (like a parliamentarian system), or impeachment (the way the Republicans tried to get Clinton out of office).  The entire purpose of elections is to eliminate the need for violent overthrow of a government - which is the only real means of changing government in a monarchy.

However, if a government is not democratically elected, and becomes oppressive, then the use of violence becomes a different question.  For example;  let’s say we had an election, and one party used various means and methods to steal the election.  We’re talking such techniques as installing software bugs in electronic voting machines and not putting enough machines in districts where the opposition party was strongest, so the people could not vote; using news media outlets favorable to the party stealing elections to broadcast incorrect voting information that causes confusion; organizing riots to disrupt ballot counting in districts where the vote was expected to be close but favor the opposition; and getting judges who favored the party stealing the election to rule in favor of suppressing ballot counting and arbitrarily declare the judge’s favored party as winner.

All hypothetical scenarios, of course.  This could never happen in America.

In this circumstance, the government was not democratically elected, and is not a legitimate government under the rules of Democracy. 

In this case, if the government turned oppressive as indicated by things such as blanket electronic wiretapping of all citizens; using a terrorist attack as excuse to suppress civil liberties for all citizens; denying Habius Corpus and torturing it’s citizens;  the chief executive declaring that laws passed by the legislative branch were invalid if the executive didn’t feel like obeying them; starting wars based on lies, then declaring that since the nation was at war any criticism of the government was tantamount to aiding and abetting the enemy; and allowing well-connected cronies to loot the national treasury through huge no-bid contacts and financial bailouts; 

under those circumstances, the citizens would in fact have the right to use force of arms, if needed, to get the oppressor out of office.

But - that would not be a democratically elected government.  That would, in fact, be a coup resulting in dictatorship. So the people would be overthrowing a dictatorship who was installed via coup.

In this case, my answer is “Yes,“ use force if necessary to get the SOB out.

Ron,

It’s a simple question ... you are welcome to answer with a “yes” or “no”.

Do you think people who are oppressed by a democratically elected government have the right to use force against their oppressors?

Jim Simpson

“These people did not reply to tyranny by throwing stones. Our government is currently diving headlong into financial ruin. You can’t just magically produce trillions of dollars and not have significant 
repercussions. You can’t have the government take over huge parts of the private sector and not have significant repercussions. It will not be long before our government turns oppressive.” – James Simpson, 3 July 2009

“I have never advocated the overthrow of the Obama Administration, nor do I advocate the overthrow of any government simply because I don’t agree with its administration or policies. I have disagreed significantly with all Presidential Administrations that have existed in my lifetime - even Bush I, Reagan and Bush II.” – James Simpson, today

To take us back to Simpson’s original Independence Day defense of owning guns for armed revolt (a column that resulted in several unanswered calls for explanation)…  Who, if not Obama, did Simpson want to revolt against if he was referring to “our current government?”  And if you take into consideration Simpson’s earlier (today) paranoid description of our country’s freely-elected government (“murder,” “tyranny,” “slavery”), then the moment for revolt must be very near in his mind…  It may be ok to “significantly disagree” with any administration, but I don’t recall Simpson bringing up the subject of armed revolt when he was urging us to vote Republican in previous elections or during other administrations.  Again, Simpson finds himself “hoisted by his own petard,” to quote Shakespeare’s Hamlet, or simply BUSTED by his own words, though he tries to weasel out of them, avoid them, deny them, or simply attack anyone taking their meaning seriously.
We are obviously dealing with a delusional mind who does not know how to use words responsibly or seriously or effectively and who mindlessly follows them down rat holes of absurd logic to his own discomfort when people take notice.  He then accuses them (including military and war veterans) of “twisting words” and “lying” when all they are doing is quoting his columns and taking umbrage at his total disloyalty to our country, its values and traditions.  Simpson is long overdue for a reality check.
Al Mostonest

“If I understand your constant attack on my position ... that a people who are oppressed by a tyrannical democratically elected government have a moral right to fight back. Then it would be ok ... in your opinions ... for people to be enslaved or murdered by their government without due process as long as that government was democratically elected. And they - nor anyone else in the country - would have any right to take up arms in self defense.” – James Simpson, 10 Oct 2009

“I am sure there were more lies ... but I couldn’t stand all the propaganda and had to turn the radio off before I started projectile vomiting!”  August 27, 2009 – James Simpson, Weinstein Letter

“Where did I write that I would ‘projectile vomit’ if I didn’t like something?  Provide your source.” – James Simpson, 9 Oct 2009

James Simpson in clearly off his rocker…  In which parallel Galaxy of his Star Trekian wormhole is there a United States of America doing the things he describes?  The major complaint, in his column, about Prince William County (the real one, the one I live in, I assume) is that it is providing too much recreation to its citizens.  Enslavement?  Tyranny?  Murder?  And he wants to overthrow our system because of this?  And he calls Ron Charest and I hateful and rude?  We are doing nothing more than a little “bio-feedback” (giving him back his own words to read), so maybe he can understand how the rest of us feel when we read his tripe.  I know that he is now in crisis (because he’s been ingloriously BUSTED), but this may spark growth, learning, and evolution.  It is called an experience.
Al Mostonest