|Back to Back Issues Page|
Catholic American Thinker, Issue #004 -- The Marxist zeal of the American Left.
October 30, 2006
The Democratic Party: A little Liberal, or a lot Marxist?I just read an article on the CNSNews website - (the actual article may be found right here) - that draws on observations made by Martin Sharansky, a highly respected ex-Soviet citizen, ex-gulag prisoner, noted human rights activist, member of the Israeli Knesset who had been a minister in the governments of Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon, and noted author.
The position of Mr. Sharansky was put forth thus:
In the United States, the political left and right were united in bringing about the fall of the Soviet Union, Sharansky said, but that has not been the case in Iraq and the Middle East.With all due respect to Mr. Sharansky, I beg to differ. The American Left - with the Democratic Party in the lead - and the American Right were not united to bring down the Soviet empire. Quite the opposite.
The most vocal and public spokesmen for the Democratic Party and for the American SLIMC were howling for President Reagan's blood, screaming "The Deficit! The Deficit! The Deficit!" and predicting doom and gloom for the USA because of Reagan's policies.
President Reagan was, for them, their Great Satan and they absolutely despised him. They predicted his failure and the Soviet survival right up to the very day the Soviet Union fell. From the events in Lithuania, to Poland, to the Wall coming down in Germany, to the demise of the Evil Empire, the American Left was on the wrong side of every event, and greeted each inevitable victory for the West with reactions that ranged from stunned silence to attributing it to luck, to blind accident, which nobody could have predicted.
I have no idea how things looked from outside the USA during those times, but I believe it's safe now to categorically state that the Democratic Party, with a few possible exceptions, was flatly opposed to President Reagan on just about every single issue of contention, but most of all, on issues tied to National Defense.
They did not cooperate with him; in fact, they opposed him.
Today, when the drive-by media has to touch on Reagan's history at all they will try to put a negative spin on it. It just about killed them to put a sock in it during Reagan's funeral, because the outpouring showed that he remained, even in death, the most popular man in America, by a long shot. And it's hard to knock, on the airwaves and in print, someone truly and widely beloved while the funeral is still going on.
What those outside the USA need to know about our just about universally Leftist-Marxist SLIMC is this: They lie. They do it for a living. They are professional liars. It's what they do.
Take a look at the The SLIMC Vs. The Truth article for some quite typical crocumentaries. I mean documentaries. These are always made as "News" revelations to the public of shocking and shameful situations, almost always against (shudder!) Big Business, when it isn't demonizing some vast Right Wing Conspiracy. There you will see ABC's 20-20 false hit job on the Ford Pinto, CBS's 60-Minutes false hit job on the Jeep CJ, and NBC's Dateline false hit job on Chevy pickup trucks.
In each case, they made up a negative story to piss off the public, manufactured evidence and phony film to back it up, and passed it off as truth. They made it all up out of nothing.
Go to the Vietnam War page to see Dan Blather's quite typical CBS crocumentary titled "The Wall Within" for a classic example of what the drive-by media purposely did to Vietnam veterans. The whole thing was made up out of nothing.
There you will also see some of the flagrant categorical lies reported as "News" by all of the biggest names in Journalism, throughout the whole Vietnam War, but with a particular concentration of lies during the infamous Tet Offensive. Which was actually a lopsided victory for America, but, which our media managed to make into a defeat for America. It took a lot of effort, but they did it.
Like I said, they are professionals.
Now, our sitting President is doing his best to promote Democracy in Iraq, in the midst of Islamic dictatorships, with only Afghanistan as a similar Democratic nation, and both of them at some risk. And, predictably, the Democratic Party and their SLIMC are flat out opposed to that goal.
What they actually promote is dictatorship. Most won't say it out loud, and those that do say it soften it somewhat, by saying something like, the most we can realistically hope for is a benign dictatorship, writing Democracy off as hopeless and impossible because "those people" aren't really ready for Democracy.
To Hell with how they all voted. Shut up and get on the cattle car.
To be a Leftist is to oppose commitment to any Ally or neighbor or foreign nation whose direction is not specifically Marxist. Commitment? What's that? Duty? Why should we feel any sense of "duty" to those people? We should lay it on the line; if they (Afghanistan and Iraq) don't pick up the burden and absolutely perfect their nationhood overnight, we should redeploy our troops "just over the horizon" to the far Western Pacific.
In the Leftist view, what comes up second best to a Marxist organization is a flat out dictatorship. Our intellectual elitists know, just like all the current Eurabian intellectual elitists know, that Democracy is an old hat, failed system that can't work, and increased Democracy is not in the world's future. Nor is it in the world's own best interest. People, in general, are just too dumb to rule themselves; that's what an intellectual elite is for, see?
The planned, promised, grand, social programs involving all the unearned entitlements are designed to make us all see Bigger Government as a benign, warm and cuddly Mommy State that will take care of us all, from the cradle to the grave. In actual fact, that same Bigger Government is a quite sinister Leviathan State that will, if it can, control us all from the cradle to the grave.
Even looking at a so-called benign dictatorship we see no good mechanism for the change of power from one dictator to another. Even dictators don't live forever. No elections, so, we're left with deadly competition, in which the only rule is, may the most ruthless one win. Even when you look at dictatorships that have been stable for quite some time, such as the Monarchy in Saudi Arabia, you're looking at a government that could change rulers in a heartbeat. Whether the new ruler is in the family or not, it could happen tomorrow.
Whatever government you're looking at, in whatever nation, from Russia to Iraq to Saudi Arabia to China, you're only looking at the current government of that nation. There will be others. History is never going to stop, until He comes again.
Whether anyone likes it or not, whether it's a pretty situation or not, we have a moral responsibility to the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq to help them stabilize and get a good foothold on freedom, without being dropped like a hot potato when a serious military challenge arises. The Left doesn't think it's worth it. The Left didn't think Vietnam's freedom was worth it either. Freedom and Democracy are not even on the list of the goals of the Left. We may expect them to oppose increased freedom, and to support increased subjugation. Of course, they won't use those terms. But then, what does a dictatorship do?
Oh, but, it's a benign one that they want.
I'm starting to look forward to the next election, after the mid-terms. Even though I see no real Republican candidate at the moment, I see several who could win if they ran, and all of them would drive the Left nuts just by running. I think Cheney, Rummy and Condi are all prime candidates. Any one of them could beat anybody the Left put up, including Hilary and Bilary, and it would be a wonderful thing to watch, because the Left has spent so much time and effort demonizing each one of them. Unfortunately, none of them seem interested in running. I would vote for any or all of them. But, that's just wishful thinking on my part.
We remain at war, in a war that the Left denies even exists. And we must do whatever it takes to win this war.
Let me qualify that. Recent news indicates that "waterboarding" was used to gain serious strategic intelligence needed for the war effort.
While I favor clandestine operations, anywhere, any time, to gather such intelligence, and secret detention centers and so forth, and whatever measures the Commander In Chief deems necessary, under advisement of his staff, torture cannot be long condoned within a free society.
From where I sit, as I understand what it is, waterboarding is torture. As such, it should not be allowed. I'm not too crazy about some of the so-called "humiliation" practices either; but there is no way that a moral people can go down this road without becoming immoral. We have our guiding ethos to consider; if we abandon it, what's left for us?
We've seen graphic examples of the Left's guiding ethos of BMDFP and Democrats. Is that the way we want to go?
The more we disregard or deny the sacred humanity of even the most fallen among us, the more we deny our own spiritual side, and the more animalistic we become. To begin to behave as though we were not Christians is to gradually become not Christians.
There always needs to be some line we will not cross; we cannot ask a soldier or an intelligence officer to do terrible things to other human beings, nor can we stand by and allow those who are willing to do them. When they put on that uniform and/or put up their hand and take that oath, from that point on, they represent us.
All of us.
Torture is the stuff of Sadam, and Stalin, and Mao, and Ho, and Che. That is not what we are about. President Bush should put an end to this, by direct order. Whatever we might gain from it is not worth gaining.
Truth has a life of His own; Truth will win out eventually.
Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life.
This is the free periodic e-zine of the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center.
Forward this e-mail to a friend.
All previous articles are available right here.
|Back to Back Issues Page|