Sunday, December 03, 2006

Not-So-Strange Bedfellows: Democrats and Destroyers

Normally, I would simply link to the fisking below of what passes for Democratic foreign policy -- an uncreative, insecure and envious stew -- and suggest you go read it for yourself. However, I know that many of you (we are soul brothers/sisters, after all) are as lazy as I am. Not to mention that it’s hard to believe you haven’t read this all somewhere else already. Which is true, but you haven’t seen it put together so succinctly. I’m a sucker for spine-tingling bullet points. Thus, I am going to save you the trouble of clicking on yet another link by the cut and paste job I will execute below.

This list is not pleasant reading, but it is essential truth and Sunday morning is an especially good time for essential truth reading.

The article has already been widely linked; I picked up the first reference at One Cosmos, who had this to say on our fight to survive:

… In other words, our task in the ‘war on terror’ has nothing to do with land, oil, or territory per se, but with the inevitable problems caused by a more primitive mode of psychological development that has access to weapons that, on its own, it could never have developed (because of its primitiveness). This is a war between different levels of psychological development.

In our triangulated global war between Islam, the left, and classical American liberalism, it seems that we and the Islamists are fully aware of their alliance with the left. Only the clueless left are in the dark about this dynamic. Since they flatter themselves with the designation “progressive,” they literally cannot recognize their deep alliance with the most backward and regressive force on the planet, radical Islam. But the Islamists are a bit more sophisticated than the left — just as the Palestinian PR machine has always been more sophisticated than the liberal media, and has been relying upon these useful MSM jihadiots to propagandize on their behalf for 30 years.

The jihad does more than merely “rely” on the MSM “jihadiots” (elegant term, that - but the mind of One Cosmos is always forming Joycean or even Shakespearian neologisms that shake your spinal cord). The jihad would not be sustainable had the MSM not taken them under their wing. If we were in the FDR era, he would have long since jailed the lot of them (FDR’s economics and his views on the constitution in time of war were part of a larger whole but that’s as much digression as we can give the matter now without wandering down another ADD-induced tangential lane). Alas, FDR is not here to send them off to the clink, so it is up to the rest of us to do what we can to expose not only their delusions, but also their derelictions.

So on to the essay already: [emphases are mine]

In one of the most startling incidents in our history, America’s sworn enemy used the term ‘brotherly’ when referring to one of our major political parties. The remarkable pronouncement came amidst the celebrations that erupted in the terrorist ranks after the democratic victory in the latest elections.

Given all that the democrats have done, the affection in which they are held by our foes is neither unjustified nor surprising. They have more than earned it by systematically subverting this country’s war effort while simultaneously proffering assistance to those who have pledged to destroy us.

Democrats’ devious deeds are too numerous to be fully recounted, but here at least are some of the highlights:

  • They have tried to prevent us from listening on terrorists’ phone calls
  • They have sought to stop us from properly interrogating captured terrorists
  • They have tried to stop us from monitoring terrorists’ financial transactions
  • They have revealed the existence of secret national security programs
  • They have opposed vital components of the Patriot Act
  • They have sought to confer unmerited legal rights on terrorists
  • They have opposed profiling to identify the terrorists in our midst
  • They have impugned and demeaned our military
  • They have insinuated that the president is a war criminal
  • They have forced the resignation of a committed defense secretary
  • They have repeatedly tried to de-legitimize our war effort
  • They want to quit the battlefield in the midst of war.

To see just how bad things really are, ponder this question: If the terrorists were represented by a party in our political system, how would their foreign policy program substantially differ from that of the present-day democrats?

Mr. Kohlmayer has posed the central question. The Democrat policies are a clear and present danger to our country. Were it not for the treacherous triangle of academics, journalists, and politicians currently in place, America would be in a much healthier, stronger position vis-à-vis its neighbors, allies, and its enemies. As Mr. Kohlmayer points out:
- - - - - - - - - -
The suspicion that many democrats are not on our side has been grating on the American psyche for some time now. But since most people can’t fathom why some Americans would want us to lose, the suspicion has not coalesced into a firm conviction. To put it differently, there is a reluctance to conclude the obvious, because we don’t want to believe that such treachery could possibly reside in American hearts.

The inability to grasp their motive, however, should not preclude us from making the correct inference based on the evidence of their actions. And the mass of that evidence points overwhelmingly toward this conclusion: America’s liberal elites want us to lose this war and they are using the Democratic Party to accomplish their objective.

[…]

The terrorists’ exhilaration at the election results show just how certain they are where the democrats’ allegiance lies. Even though they live behind the ocean, they understand something we have tried so hard to overlook: The Democratic establishment will give them its support and assistance all the while stripping America of the tools and abilities to carry on the fight.

The economic ignorance of the Dems on the home front is dangerous enough; it is a tunneling from within. But their unwitting (we hope) pimping for fascism is even more dangerous, and more evil. They are touts for tyranny as represented by the Islamic factions who both fervently pray for our destruction and cheer on terrorist acts like 9-11.

One main philosophical problem for the Dems is that they don’t really believe in evil or sin, though they will make an exception for anyone who professes faith in the individual or private enterprise. Those indeed are deeply evil principles according to the Gospel of Rangel and Company. That is why he will, if he can, decimate the military. That is why he will reduce the middle class to penury in order to swell the ranks of the underclass. That is why he wants to increase taxes and enlarge entitlement programs. His agenda serves to further destroy the soul of the underclass by eroding its belief in the ability to survive by one's own efforts -- thereby neatly tying the poor to Mommy’s apron strings. With this kind of script(ure), dependency is fostered and weaning from the breast of government is impossible. This is the whole point of the endeavor.

We must defeat such thinking and the legislation which follows behind. Otherwise, we may as well petition to join the EU and be done with it.

It’s going to be a long slog uphill for the next two years. Watch the Washington shenanigans carefully. Keep tabs and keep score. Neither the Dems nor their bedfellows, the jihadists, wish you well.

There is no such thing as the end of history. There will always be a new evil to rush in to fill the vacuum left by the implosion of the old one. The new one, decked out in different costumes, has the same principles and goals: the rule of the many by the enlightened few and the deep abhorrence for the sanctity of individual free will.

This is the meaning of “original” sin. It is always there, it is deeply imbedded in the human psyche, a left over from earlier tribal beliefs, all of which are founded on envy. In order for the doctrine of free will to flourish, envy must be vanquished. But in order for that to happen, we have to begin with the premise of individual liberty, of the primary, inalienable right of each of us to choose and to make mistakes, rather than allow those who know better than we to make larger, more grievous mistakes on our behalf.

Liberty is only for the political class. Everyone else should go bowling.

20 comments:

CanadaGoose said...

Am I ever glad I found this website. Sanity and intelligence please!

The personal challenge is how in the world to overturn the monstrous wheels now in motion.

There was a time when an English speaking Indian stepped out of the forest and taught survival skills to grateful pilgrims struggling to feed their families. The result was thanksgiving and gratitude amoungst a courageous people.

Now we have arrogance, public ridicule, name-calling, thanklessness, and darkest ignorance.

More light please!

Papa Ray said...

"There ought to be one day-- just one-- when there is open season on senators."
Will Rogers


Also please read this:

"The Shadows of Enlightenment"

Could this be the future Dymphna is warning us of?

Scary

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

drmiltown said...

We have become soft and fearful. We wish to step into some obscure place and not be seen. We would rather give up our friends in the hope that they will leave us alone. We do not know what to do. We have never been called on before to be brave adults. We have been talking about efete subjects for so long that disagreeable truths are not tollerable. We will pretend that all is well and you are wrong. We will not read, or speak, of it. We will hate you when you warn us.

Lady Hawk said...

I (like Winston Smith in "1984")do not understand why American politicians are destroying America. Is it power over people? Do liberal-democrats think they control the jihad? Are they really stupid enough to believe the islamofacists are on their side?

unaha-closp said...

Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Libya, Pakistan, Eygpt - friends and allies in Bush's WoT. Iran, Syria, Sudan, Islamic Court Somalia - villains and enemies in Bush's WoT. After about 5 years looking still can't exactly say why each falls into one camp and not the other. Now you're saying that the Dems are for helping the "enemy" and that the GOP are for sticking with the "friends". I would agree, but I cannot tell the difference between friendly and foesome Islamists.

Is it better to have America over there fighting "enemies" and protecting "friends" like the GOP want? What if the friends are really just using American friendship as a cover to spread Islamism?

Or if the Dems withdraw from the "enemy" will it become emboldened and attack the "friendly" Islamists in a bloody Muslim-only sectarian conflict? Or will friend and foe Islamists unite against us?

Harrison said...

Our reluctance to muster the will necessary to deal with this threat decisively has even spawned internal foes such as the MSM who advocate defeatism and surrender - tragically enough, the terrorists are adequately savvy in manipulating and broadcasting propagandistic rhetoric that blames us for all the carnage and mindless violence they have single-handedly perpetuated.

The worst thing is, the MSM doesn't even know it's being exploited. And a significant proportion of the public choose to accept such news passively without understanding just how potent, rational and intellectually ingenious our adversaries are.

Moral equivalence, cultural neo-relativism - call it whatever you want. The fact that our foes who are busily prepping their bombs, biological agents and diabolical blueprints can be considered as negotiating partners in securing stability in Iraq and the Middle East betrays a self-delusional penchant for revisiting the old myth of "peace of our time."

Bill Faith said...

Outstanding post. Linked from http://www.oldwardogs.us/2006/12/kohlmayer_on_br.html and http://www.oldwardogs.us/2006/12/kohlmayer_on_br.html.

Bill Faith said...

Oops, that second link was supposed to be http://www.smalltownveteran.net/bills_bites/2006/12/notsostrange_be.html.

Vol-in-Law said...

Do you really think the GOP is waging an effective campaign against Islamist expansionism? Look at the actions, not the words.

Stephen Renico said...

Vol in Law,

No, it hasn't been as effective as it should be. But much of the blame lies the Democrats' hamstringing every antiterror measure the Republicans attempt.

Moreover, any Democrat campaign against Islamist expansionism would be farce.

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

The last two items on the list aren't that bad. The Iraq war is a waste of money and human lives that will never end, or produce anything of value. It's like Don Quixote fighting the windmills, except not as funny.

Vol-in-Law said...

"But much of the blame lies the Democrats' hamstringing every antiterror measure the Republicans attempt."

? Until these last elections the GOP has controlled both houses of Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court! What attempted measures did the Democrats hamstring? As far as I can see both parties are happy to see the Saudis continuing to fund Islamist expansionism and terrorism worldwide; neither wants any decisive action to root Al Qaeda out of Pakistan, neither approves of 'racial profiling' of likely terrorists, and so on. Apart from some rhetorical differences I don't see this big schism between good-guy GOP and bad-guy Dems.

Stephen Renico said...

Vol-in-Law,

Do a search on the quote, "We killed the Patriot Act", and your questions will be answered.

Check the list which Dymphna posted in this entry, too. It appears you haven't read it. Also, the ACLU is an organization wholly in bed with the Democratic Party. They go to court against all of the things Dymphna mentioned.

I don't know what else to tell you except to keep up on current events.

I also ask would you feel safer if the Democrats were in charge?

troutjacki said...

Stephen:

Yes the poster would feel safer if the Democrats were in charge in the same way he felt safe on 9-10 It was merely the security of ignorance.

When you fight a war you make yourself less safe today in the hope of being safer tomorrow. After all, how would a resident of London in September 1940 respond to the question: "Do feel safer under Mr. Churchill today then a year ago (1939) under Mr. Chamberlin?"

If you are never willing to make yourself less secure today when facing an external threat then the only alternative is surrender.

And yes we are more secure today then we were on September 10, 2001 because that security was illusory.

unaha-closp said...

The Dems "...have repeatedly tried to de-legitimize our war effort."

Is support for Musharaf, Abdullah, Mubarak legitimate? Is it not the same as selling out the Poles, Latvians, Hungarians to Uncle Joe?

Vol-in-Law said...

"I also ask would you feel safer if the Democrats were in charge?"

Hm, probably not - it would largely depend which Democrat, though. It's complicated for me since I live in London-istan (in a neighbourhood full of terrorist suspectts). The Iraq war was stupid & Gore probably wouldn't have got us into it, saving several thousand British & American lives; but Democrats probably won't extricate us from that mess any more than the Republicans will, whoever makes the decision to leave will be tarred with the blame. An incoming Democrat President would benefit from a lot of international good will for not being Bush, whether that would translate into increased security, I don't know. Short of a Pat Buchanan presidency (which might offer some hope that global Islamisation would actually be faced up to, if he didn't side with them against Israel!), it seems pretty much a toss up at this stage.

Vol-in-Law said...

Here's a piece that expresses well what I believe:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006854.html#postcomment

"# Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.

# But we cannot destroy Islam.

# Nor can we democratize Islam.

# Nor can we assimilate Islam.

# Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam."

I'm not sure many Americans either of left or right have really engaged emotionally with just how big a real threat to the survival of the entirety of western civilisation Islam now is (this blog possibly an exception, it's hard to say.). It's not about "terror" - Americans, Brits, we're pretty tough, killing a few thousand of us here and there is not going to destroy our civilisation (my homeland Ulster lost 3,000 to IRA aggression during the Troubles without much impact on our culture or self-belief); but the Islamisation of Britain and Europe **may well do so**. "War on Terror" as currently waged is furthering the enemy's plans. The Republican leadership are not our friends. They don't seem to understand and don't seem to care.

Vol-in-Law said...

Another good piece from Auster:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006853.html

"Bush supporters cheer for the war. But the war they are cheering for does not exist. They imagine we are in a grand crusade against jihadism, and expend endless energy attacking the leftist critics of this crusade. But this grand crusade does not exist. Yes, it is what they would LIKE to exist, but it DOESN’T exist. They have never been able to face the fact that their hero Bush is not doing what they are applauding him for doing."

al fin said...

Hero Bush? Hardly that. But Bush has been closer than any world leader except John Howard to standing against muslim supremacist jihadi fanaticism. Until now.

Now that the democrats will control the US Congress, Bush looks ready to roll over and play dead concerning any issue that matters to defenders of western civ. There may be a few democrats who still care about freedom winning over dhimmitude. Most of them clearly would sell anyone dear to them to destroy the only enemies they recognise--those on the other side of the aisle in Congress, and in the White House. They can't see clearly, and will lead us all over the cliff if we let them.

Once I was a democrat, before they became dhimmicrats.

David said...

It is precisely the combination of external threat and *internal attitudes that minimize, excuse, and even justify the threat* that make the current situation so dangerous.

I've used the metaphor of the attrition mill: this is a machine consisting of two steel disks, rotating at high speed in opposite directions and crushing kernals of grain or other substance between them.