More Democratic
Treason
Imagine the morale of Nazi Baathists if the liberal press were
united against their evil, instead of united against America?
June 28
2005
Counterbias.com
by
Ted Baiamonte
R E P U B L I C A N V I E W
Ronald Reagan expressed it most famously when
he said, "why do they always blame America first?"
Ann Coulter recently wrote an entire book called Treason about the
Democrats. I recently turned on Air America, the liberal radio
network, to hear Al Franken pretending to shed tears about how much
he loved our troops in Iraq, but two minutes later his patriotism
seemed to fade instantly as he made fun of the troops in Afghanistan
for not finding Osama Bin Laden. A recent Paul Krugman
ultra-liberal column in the Times dismissed the American free
market, which is 100% responsibly for giving us the highest standard
of living in the history of the world, in favor of single payer
socialist healthcare.
So why do liberals hate America? The answer is simple: America,
since the Revolution, has been mostly about freedom from government and
therefore about freedom from Democrats. Throughout American History
the Democrats have always been for less and less freedom from government
despite the hundred million or so dead bodies government has caused
during that period. One has to consider that their philosophical
illegitimacy is what makes their loyalty so questionable and their
style so nasty and seemingly treasonous. They want to belong here
but the facts always paint them as anti-American. In a way you have
to feel sorry for the painful position in which they find
themselves, but you also have to wonder why it is that they seem to
have an absolute inability to learn to think?
The latest liberal treason award should probably go to the New York
Times. We are at war in Iraq against Saddam Hussein and his Baathist
Party. By almost any standard we are the most noble country in the
history of the world while Saddam Hussein's Iraq is among the most
ignoble. Recently, there was a story out of Iraq about an enemy
soldier who blew up a bomb in a public square killing about twenty
people, many of who turned out to be orphan children peddling
groceries in the street. Their idea of acceptable collateral damage
extends to any man, woman or child who might be near anyone who might
be vaguely associated, if only by geographic default, with the war
against them, and this is when they cannot behead a living, fully
conscious, captured soldier or hostage, and all this is in support
of a regime that is arguably more grotesque and has less electoral
legitimacy than even Adolph Hitler's.
So in the last year, how many times did the vaunted Times (the so
called "newspaper of record") run front page headlines about how
perhaps the scummiest, most illegitimate regime on earth conducts
war: zero! How many times did they run front page headlines about
how America conducts war? There have been 49 front page headlines
about our so called conduct at Abu Ghraib alone. It wasn't that we
were blowing up innocent children in the street or slowly cutting
off the heads of fully conscious prisoners as the insurgents do, it
was that a few Americans, later found to be criminals, were making
the prisoners get in human pyramids while naked or in women's
underwear.
Why is it that the liberal Times wants you to know more and care
more about the way America is conducting the war than the way
Saddam's Hussein's Nazi Baathists are conducting the war? The answer
is simple: the liberals hate America and always have. In Vietnam
they shouted, "Ho Ho, Ho Chi Minh." They are not yet shouting,
"Saddam Saddam, Saddam Hussein", but the effect is exactly the same.
They are seeking to undermine America; not America's evil enemy. So
what does that make a liberal?
Our troops, many of them kids, are on
the battlefield with the simple moral clarity to fight against pure
evil. When they get wounded they heal, when possible, and then
heroically and voluntarily return to fight again alongside their
fellow soldiers. Don't we owe them more than the treasonous,
undermining liberal commentary we get on the front page of the
Times? Don't the liberals know that once the war is on, and there is
no way out, we're all supposed to be on the same team? Are they so
alienated from the soul of America that they would rather see its
children die on the battlefield than prevail against evil?
Imagine what the morale of the Nazi Baathists would be if the
world's liberal press were united against their evil, instead of
united against America? Imagine what the morale of our troops would
be if the most significant and influential newspaper in the world at
least tried to be loyal to the truth, instead of, in effect, the
enemy? Imagine what the state of the world would be if the world's
liberal press organized the world's citizenry against evil, instead
of the American freedom that they blindly see, to the exclusion of
everything else, as insensitive and uncaring. But if that happened
it wouldn't be a liberal Democratic press would it?
Ted Baiamonte is author of
"Understanding the Difference Between Democrats and Republicans".
His blog is The Dumb
Democrat, and he can be reached at bje1000@aol.com.
