Now is the time for Americans to reclaim liberalism; that which progressives commandeered, confiscated, stole from middle America early in the twentieth century. The Left has so stomped on liberalism, trashed liberalism, rejected and scoffed at liberalism; we can only expect, like a ruthlessly abused pet, liberalism is ready to bolt, flee, escape its current twenty-first century fascist handlers.
Wary of its adoption by the likes of Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt; liberalism during the early 1900s suffered severe cuffs, beatings, hunger, rough language, humiliation, and angry outbursts. Liberalism patiently through FDR’s and LBJ’s wars on poverty, through Obama’s war on the 1% is still waiting like Martin Luther King, Jr. waited for an opportunity to exclaim, “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, I’m free at last!”
America’s first definition of liberal, included in the first edition of Noah Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, was in part:
1. Of a free heart; free to give or bestow; not close or contracted; munificent; bountiful; generous; giving largely; as a liberal donor; the liberal founders of a college or hospital. It expresses less than profuse or extravagant.
2. Generous; ample; large; as a liberal donation; a liberal allowance.
3. Not selfish, narrow on contracted; catholic; enlarged; embracing other interests than one’s own; as liberal sentiments or views; a liberal mind; liberal policy.
4. General; extensive; embracing literature and the sciences generally; as a liberal education. This phrase is often but not necessarily synonymous with collegiate; as a collegiate education.
5. Free; open; candid; as a liberal communication of thoughts.
6. Large; profuse; as a liberal discharge of matter by secretions or excretions.
7. Free; not literal or strict; as a liberal construction of law.
8. Not mean; not low in birth or mind.
9. Licentious; free to excess.
Of note, Webster’s 1828 dictionary included a definition of liberal as an adjective, not a noun. Individuals were not referred to as liberals or conservatives. But they could hold liberal or conservative thoughts and do liberal or conservative things. Why is that thought useful? Because we better know politicians and journalists by what they do than by what they say or claim regarding themselves.
“I am a liberal” had no meaning then. Perhaps such a claim should have no meaning today, suggesting Americans had it more right in the 1800s than they do today. A quick perusal of the above definition again will reveal most Americans were enthusiastically pleased to be known world-wide for their liberal views and actions.
Yes. Some Scrooges and thieves lived among them, but not a single conservative by name or deed; unless by conservative was meant well preserved, like jarred marmalade or pickled beets. By and large America was full of liberal Americans, full of thoughts of liberty and freedom, hopeful for opportunities as entrepreneurs and landholders. All were Americans. No hate speech. No free speech zones were necessary.
Then in the early 1900s, as mentioned above, liberalism was taken for a ride, made use of by those who did not like liberty or freedom very much, if at all. Progressive big government central planners, after all, can get very little done if everyone they reign over is at liberty to do their own thing whenever they feel like doing their own little thing.
Which might miraculously lead many liberty loving Americans to reassess their disparaging notions regarding one Julian Assange. To do so it might be helpful to think of him as a Joseph for our time. The same Joseph famously known for his coat of many colors. That Joseph for our time. Significantly, a truly free people are allowed, permitted to look for truthful information, more likely explanations of world and national events wherever they can find it.
If they consistently receive lies from one direction, liberty loving individuals will look for truth regarding troubling matters arriving from other directions. Much like Pharaoh in a difficult time trusted Joseph with the interpretation of his dreams, liberty loving Americans faced with a false narrative description of myriad chicaneries perpetrated by the Left might well consider Assange a more faithful interpreter than those they have trusted so far.
A Joseph in any day or age is easy to identify. His brothers have all the markings and actions of a hate group. Hate groups truly identify themselves for who they are when they willy-nilly call everyone they disagree with haters and bigots. At his brothers’ hands one day Joseph Assange awoke imprisoned, deep inside an Ecuadoran embassy, all for unmasking in front of his brother media types leaks they had kept hidden; also for sporting a splendidly colorful coat, namely candidate Donald J Trump, given to Joseph presumably by Our Loving Father (from which all good things, including great presidents, come.)
As in a street gang drawn to a school boy’s pair of Nikes, Joseph, wearing Trump on his sleeve as it were, was ripe for pillaging by CNN, New York Times, and Washington Post. Pillaged by the media as it were, they awaited the arrival of a laden camel caravan led by establishment politicians willing to lead him on, then betray him at an opportunistic moment’s notice.
Now. Let’s leap ahead at an exhilarating rate even time travelers rarely experience, to this past January. We leave Joseph’s traumatic bonds behind. Trump is president holding more cards than likely any other human before him has managed to hold in one hand, much less hold sorted. Joseph Assange is second in command, holds almost as many cards, and just met his hate group media brothers three days before. It was the first time he had seen them since they dropped him in a hole, then pulled out to sell him out to mercenary Democrats and Republicans.
Joseph is struggling within himself: how can he possibly consider reuniting with his brothers again, to the same #FakeNews individuals that betrayed him long ago; that he in turn had accused just three days earlier of spying before he ordered them led to prison. Before they were sent away the text quotes brother Reuben, “Didn’t I tell you not to sin against the boy? But you wouldn’t listen! Now we must give an accounting for his blood.”
Interestingly the narrator says the brothers “did not realize that Joseph understood [Reuben’s complaint].” In other words, Joseph’s ruse of using an interpreter had worked, had helped hide the fact he was on to their game, being likewise a Hebrew, likewise an extremely competent journalist brother of theirs.
The text next reveals Joseph “turned away from [his brothers] and began to weep….” -Genesis 24:42a NIV Or as it later relates regarding another Joseph-like personage, also well acquainted with hate groups vengefully harboring irreconcilable differences against him, millenia later, “He came to [his fellow media leakers] that were his own and his own people gave him no welcome.” –John 1:11 Weymouth
Or let’s put it this way. Julian Joseph Assange, no different than any other media players of our day has been more honest, far less fake news than any of his media cohorts, has not held back his tears. Yes he did great damage to the United States of America. But so have The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN when they divulged state secrets and transcripts of private conversations no less harmful to us and our allies.
Julian Assange IS likely the most powerful, most liberty loving, liberty starved influential media voice of our time. Hate group politicians and media showed up to prove it.
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.