The Difference between Disappointing and Dangerous

Thomas Sowell recently commented, “The Republicans are disappointing and the Democrats are dangerous.” The first assertion, an accurate commentary on all forms of liberalism, has been addressed in a previous posting entitled, “How Would a Patriot Act?” Today, let’s direct our thoughts to his second insight, “Democrats are dangerous.”

The election results produced the unexpected defeat of several prominent neo- and paleo-conservative Republicans in Congress (men who were not really conservatives, just marginally less liberal than Democrats), most notably J.D. Hayworth of Arizona, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, George Allen of Virginia and Conrad Burns of Montana. Now is as good a time as any to turn our attention to the Democratic Party’s leadership. Given as many facts as possible, and historical propensities, are Democrats really as dangerous as they were portrayed in the weeks prior to the election? If not, the logical conclusion would be that the caterwauling of the losers is only self-serving and a moot issue as they try to reinvent themselves.

Had Republicans been conservatives, there would be no need today for them to get back to their roots, to reinvent themselves, to adhere more closely to their core beliefs. You can’t lose something you never had. Had Congressional Republicans been conservatives, they would never have lost sight of their constituency – which is first and foremost, the United States of America and not the Republican Party.

Yes, Republicans were intensely targeted by MoveOn.Org and the Democratic Party. Yes, 3.6 billion dollars was spent nationwide in 2006, much of it orchestrating the defeat of Republicans in general and the few remaining Congressional quasi-conservatives in particular. Yes there was widespread voter fraud. Some things we cannot change and some things politicians clearly don’t want to change. Those Democrats whose vote was motivated by a desire for more socialism, assuming they understood the difference, will deserve what they’re going to get, but in hindsight their children won’t.

How many times have you heard honest, trustworthy, patriotic Democrats (a rare multiple oxymoron) in Congress assert that they “support our troops?” After first voting to go to war ONLY as a political expediency immediately after the carnage of September 11, the Democratic Party’s policies, strategies and tactics have been, from the beginning of the War on Terror, a conscious effort to undermine the Administration’s ability to wage the war and to defend America. Democrats are not so obtuse that they don’t understand exactly what they are doing. They know full well that their behavior ONLY benefits the Islamic terrorists. Incredible as it is, that’s reality. There is nothing naive about a cunning liberal politician.

You would be surprised to learn how many Americans see clearly that the main stream media led by the New York Times (the propaganda arm of the socialist movement) either adopted or originated the anti-war strategy of the Democratic Party. In close concert with Democrats, the print, visual and entertainment media has willfully and recklessly spent (denigrated, demeaned, openly discarded as worthless, wasted) the lives of many young servicemen and women in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention countless non-combatant civilians, with their intentionally biased and inaccurate reporting, incessant public criticisms of the President, revelations of classified information and open celebration of America’s war dead.

Why, (1) Americans have not risen up in moral outrage, and why (2), Democrats who live only in service to themselves in an intellectual and moral vacuum, have not been tarred and feathered as human defects, is beyond rational comprehension - unless one takes into consideration that liberal (neocon and paleocon) Republicans have behave no differently. Even the Japanese during World War II, renowned for their brutality and inhumanity, didn’t orgasm over the death of every American soldier as do members of the Democratic Party leadership and the United States main stream media. History will someday show, if written by a conservative, that the United States 2006 mid-term Congressional elections were not a competition between moral, ethical and philosophical agendas, but a crass amoral competition for power at the expense of the lives of U.S. servicemen and women.

The inescapable conclusion is that the combination of the American main stream media, the Democratic Party and the Islamic terrorists really did materially influence the outcome of the United States 2006 mid-term elections, just as they did in Spain. Instead of a national outpouring of patriotism and a mandate to President Bush to take it to the bad guys, and in doing so, to orchestrate a quick, decisive and severe end to the madness in the Middle East, the United States electorate instead voted into political office the nation’s most accomplished appeasers, moral and ethical degenerates, and experts on defeat. The United States sent to the world an undeniable and searing message of cowardice with our votes. Thank-you notes from Islamic regimes to the New York and LA Times have likely been mailed, received, framed and displayed in a trophy room with the names of the war dead.

Do Democrats or the main-stream-media really support our troops? In a few words, Democrats and liberal Republicans don’t even support this nation! A conservative’s philosophy is “God, country, and family.” A liberal’s philosophy begins at “self” and it abruptly ends there. Is the Democratic Party dangerous - only in the view of those who were not born brain dead at birth.

Red State Patriot

Posted November 28, 2006 09:35 AM
Read more on Articles - Red State Patriot ~ Domestic Issues and Politics ~ Socialism ~ U.S. Armed Forces