Stephanie
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,865
- 2,040
Gerard Jackson
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 27 March 2006
Many of those on the left who are attacking President Bush for toppling Saddam Hussein were not so particular when Clinton was president. The man who sent American troops into Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, etc, did so with the support of liberal-leaning Congressmen and Senators. This fact needs to be borne in mind because I think provides a clue as to why the same Liberals are now snapping at President Bushs heels.
Taking a look at the 1972 George McGovern presidential campaign we find that it provided the means by which those who are deeply hostile to American values and contemptuous of its history and traditions were able to worm their way into mainstream politics. It is now their ideological values that dominate the Democratic Party whose only genuine resemblance to the party of Truman and Kennedy is in name only something that much of the American public is beginning to understand.
These are the people who supported Hanois bloody conquest of South Vietnam and who deliberately broke a solemn pledge to supply Saigon with the means to protect itself against communist aggression. These are the same liberals whose political treachery made Pol Pots murderous regime possible.
The same ones who opposed the Reagan military build-up that finally broke the back of the Soviet Empire. Didnt these very people oppose every initiative and action that curtailed Soviet expansion? Arent these the people who supported the Marxist-Leninist Sandinistas and still rationalise Castros vicious regime?
The very same people who, during the Clinton presidency, willingly put at risk the lives of American troops now squawk about US losses in a war that liberated the Iraqis from the sadistic Saddam and which is killing thousands of terrorists.
Maybe readers will put these liberals attitude down to left-wing inconsistency or hypocrisy. This would be a grave mistake because there is a very definite pattern here. Every policy these left-wing Senators, Congressmen and their media and academic supporters strenuously opposed promoted American interests. They broke the agreement with Saigon because it was in the interest of America and its allies to prevent a communist victory.
They defended resistance to the Marxist-Leninist Sandinista regime for the same reason. On the other hand, they strongly support and defend treaties that violate US sovereignty, infringe on the Constitution and undermine national security.
There is no conspiracy here but a deep rooted hatred of America. To them, America is a racist, sexist, oppressive and exploitative capitalist state. Therefore, because it is unjust and aggressive, actions, treaties and agreements that serve its interests must be unjust by definition and must therefore be opposed. Breaking the agreement with Saigon that put the South Vietnamese under communist tyranny was, in their eyes, just because the North was a socialist state.
This is what the likes of Tom Hayden thought and it is what they still think. And what happened to the treasonous Hayden? He got himself a Senate seat in California. Had he changed his views? Of course not. But Hayden is but one of many. There is Henry Waxman of Hollywood, Maxine Waters of California, Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, Rep. Major Owens of New York, Rep. Lane Evans of Illinois. What these members of Congress have in common is their open connection with the Democratic Socialists of America. (Former Congressman Ron Dellums is still associated with the organisation).
These are the people who would send your sons and daughters to a Bosnia or a Kosovo while voting against a missile defence system. Why? Because they do not believe that former served US interests while the latter clearly does.
Ron Dellums, former Congressman and closet socialist, is a typical specimen of this brand of anti-Americanism. He made his hateful feelings plain when he attacked America [as] a nation of ******* . . . If you are black, you are a ******. If you are blind, you're a ******. If you are an amputee, you're a ******...Blind people, poor whites, those far to the left are all ******* . . .
This is the same humane socialist who voted for breaking the agreement with the Cambodian and Saigon governments, resulting in the deaths of millions. Dellums is so enamoured of Castros totalitarian regime that he once turned over his offices for the use of committees set up by Cuban agents. Youre right the word for this is treason.
Recent events have amply demonstrated that the majority of Democratic Senators and members of Congress are to varying degrees still within the Waxman/Dellums socialist camp. This is the real problem. Not conspiracy but ideology. So why wont Republicans attack these peoples socialist views and expose them to the American public? Because they still fear the mainstream medias vicious smear machine. They know the Democrats media storm troopers would immediately leap into action with screams of McCarthyism, reds under the beds, political persecution, etc.
Between 1979 and 1980 S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman interviewed 240 journalists employed by the countrys leading media outlets. Less than 20 per cent had ever voted Republican and 56 per cent believed that America exploited the Third World and was the cause of its poverty.
Since then things have only gotten worse far worse. In April 1998 Freedom Forum released a nationwide survey conducted by the Roper Organization which showed that 89 per cent of all journalists had voted for Clinton and that only 4 per cent are Republicans. Not only that, 96 per cent of these journalists thought it was their role to educate the public rather than simply report the news.
(Grossly distorted reporting from Iraq is another brutal reminder of how corrupt and bigoted the mainstream media is. Fortunately the net and radio talk-back shows are seriously eroding the influence of the leftwing MainStream Media Party. The knowledge that more and more Americans are getting their news from conservative talk-shows is driving liberals crazy).
Now you know why the media covered up for Clinton and supports military intervention in areas that they think are of no strategic or political interest to the US while still attacking the strategic defense initiative that is designed to protect Americans against a nuclear attack. The same goes for Saddam his enemy, the USA, is their enemy: hence their anti-war stance.
Those who believe that the mainstream American media is corrupt are absolutely right. But it is ideological corruption. And where did this lot get its ideas from? The universities humanity departments, of course. Without a doubt the enemy is within and a good slice of the Democratic Party has joined it, including much of Hollywood. Perhaps the Dems should change their name to the Fifth Column Party. At least that would be honest.
Gerard Jackson is Brookes economics editor
http://www.brookesnews.com/062703demswar.html
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 27 March 2006
Many of those on the left who are attacking President Bush for toppling Saddam Hussein were not so particular when Clinton was president. The man who sent American troops into Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, etc, did so with the support of liberal-leaning Congressmen and Senators. This fact needs to be borne in mind because I think provides a clue as to why the same Liberals are now snapping at President Bushs heels.
Taking a look at the 1972 George McGovern presidential campaign we find that it provided the means by which those who are deeply hostile to American values and contemptuous of its history and traditions were able to worm their way into mainstream politics. It is now their ideological values that dominate the Democratic Party whose only genuine resemblance to the party of Truman and Kennedy is in name only something that much of the American public is beginning to understand.
These are the people who supported Hanois bloody conquest of South Vietnam and who deliberately broke a solemn pledge to supply Saigon with the means to protect itself against communist aggression. These are the same liberals whose political treachery made Pol Pots murderous regime possible.
The same ones who opposed the Reagan military build-up that finally broke the back of the Soviet Empire. Didnt these very people oppose every initiative and action that curtailed Soviet expansion? Arent these the people who supported the Marxist-Leninist Sandinistas and still rationalise Castros vicious regime?
The very same people who, during the Clinton presidency, willingly put at risk the lives of American troops now squawk about US losses in a war that liberated the Iraqis from the sadistic Saddam and which is killing thousands of terrorists.
Maybe readers will put these liberals attitude down to left-wing inconsistency or hypocrisy. This would be a grave mistake because there is a very definite pattern here. Every policy these left-wing Senators, Congressmen and their media and academic supporters strenuously opposed promoted American interests. They broke the agreement with Saigon because it was in the interest of America and its allies to prevent a communist victory.
They defended resistance to the Marxist-Leninist Sandinista regime for the same reason. On the other hand, they strongly support and defend treaties that violate US sovereignty, infringe on the Constitution and undermine national security.
There is no conspiracy here but a deep rooted hatred of America. To them, America is a racist, sexist, oppressive and exploitative capitalist state. Therefore, because it is unjust and aggressive, actions, treaties and agreements that serve its interests must be unjust by definition and must therefore be opposed. Breaking the agreement with Saigon that put the South Vietnamese under communist tyranny was, in their eyes, just because the North was a socialist state.
This is what the likes of Tom Hayden thought and it is what they still think. And what happened to the treasonous Hayden? He got himself a Senate seat in California. Had he changed his views? Of course not. But Hayden is but one of many. There is Henry Waxman of Hollywood, Maxine Waters of California, Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, Rep. Major Owens of New York, Rep. Lane Evans of Illinois. What these members of Congress have in common is their open connection with the Democratic Socialists of America. (Former Congressman Ron Dellums is still associated with the organisation).
These are the people who would send your sons and daughters to a Bosnia or a Kosovo while voting against a missile defence system. Why? Because they do not believe that former served US interests while the latter clearly does.
Ron Dellums, former Congressman and closet socialist, is a typical specimen of this brand of anti-Americanism. He made his hateful feelings plain when he attacked America [as] a nation of ******* . . . If you are black, you are a ******. If you are blind, you're a ******. If you are an amputee, you're a ******...Blind people, poor whites, those far to the left are all ******* . . .
This is the same humane socialist who voted for breaking the agreement with the Cambodian and Saigon governments, resulting in the deaths of millions. Dellums is so enamoured of Castros totalitarian regime that he once turned over his offices for the use of committees set up by Cuban agents. Youre right the word for this is treason.
Recent events have amply demonstrated that the majority of Democratic Senators and members of Congress are to varying degrees still within the Waxman/Dellums socialist camp. This is the real problem. Not conspiracy but ideology. So why wont Republicans attack these peoples socialist views and expose them to the American public? Because they still fear the mainstream medias vicious smear machine. They know the Democrats media storm troopers would immediately leap into action with screams of McCarthyism, reds under the beds, political persecution, etc.
Between 1979 and 1980 S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman interviewed 240 journalists employed by the countrys leading media outlets. Less than 20 per cent had ever voted Republican and 56 per cent believed that America exploited the Third World and was the cause of its poverty.
Since then things have only gotten worse far worse. In April 1998 Freedom Forum released a nationwide survey conducted by the Roper Organization which showed that 89 per cent of all journalists had voted for Clinton and that only 4 per cent are Republicans. Not only that, 96 per cent of these journalists thought it was their role to educate the public rather than simply report the news.
(Grossly distorted reporting from Iraq is another brutal reminder of how corrupt and bigoted the mainstream media is. Fortunately the net and radio talk-back shows are seriously eroding the influence of the leftwing MainStream Media Party. The knowledge that more and more Americans are getting their news from conservative talk-shows is driving liberals crazy).
Now you know why the media covered up for Clinton and supports military intervention in areas that they think are of no strategic or political interest to the US while still attacking the strategic defense initiative that is designed to protect Americans against a nuclear attack. The same goes for Saddam his enemy, the USA, is their enemy: hence their anti-war stance.
Those who believe that the mainstream American media is corrupt are absolutely right. But it is ideological corruption. And where did this lot get its ideas from? The universities humanity departments, of course. Without a doubt the enemy is within and a good slice of the Democratic Party has joined it, including much of Hollywood. Perhaps the Dems should change their name to the Fifth Column Party. At least that would be honest.
Gerard Jackson is Brookes economics editor
http://www.brookesnews.com/062703demswar.html
