Friday, June 04, 2004

George Soros: Billionaire Betrayer

Members of the Committee of Public Safety, fellow citizens:

I come before you today in the matter of George Soros. Like most leftists, Soros hates the current administration and is willing to lie to see it removed come November. He gave a speech laying out his seditious position on Thursday.

Naturally, Soros focused primarily on the Bush Administration's handling of foreign affairs, particularly the Iraq War. Soros recited the typical liberal lies:

We went to war in Iraq on false pretences. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. There were no weapons of mass destruction… (source here)

But the truly bizarre, treasonous, and nearly libelous statements came in the forms of false moral equivalences. One of the left's favorite tactics is to take some position on the conservative side and "compare" it to some massive tragedy. As Dave Eberhart at NewsMax notes, in this case Soros
compared the “Bush Doctrine” with fascism and communism. “The common ground between fascists and communists is that they both want to impose their point of view on the world.” Soros said the Bush Doctrine was similarly aimed at imposing a point of view on the world.

Actually, there's a lot more common ground than that between fascists and communists, but that's not really germane to this column. That said, consider some of the more relevant similarities:
--Neither fascist nor communist regimes display an iota of concern for human rights, whether economic (both ideologies promote statist economic systems) or political.
--Both fascist and communist regimes show no qualms about imprisoning or killing ANYONE, whether enemies, neutrals, or allies (remember that Stalin routinely "purged" his top leaders, fearful that they were murmuring against him). These ideologies are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions worldwide, between internal repression and external aggression, which leads to the next point.
--Both ideologies promote ultra-aggressive foreign policies of conquest. The italicized words are important. Communist nations adopt aggressive postures against "counter-revolutionary threats" while fascist nations become aggressive based on a xenophobic fear of outsiders, but in both cases behind this aggression lies a desire to conquer more land and people.

Why do I make these rather basic points? Because Soros knows that typical Americans have certain notions that come to mind when they hear the words "fascist" and "communist". "Fascism" evokes images of Nazis and the things associated with them, like the Gestapo, the Blitzkrieg and the Holocaust. "Communism," similarly, brings to mind the Soviets with the Gulag and the Cold War. By mentioning President Bush in the same breath as the words "fascists" and "communists," Soros is trying to link the notions tied with these words to President Bush. It's a slick rhetorical ploy, a way of calling the President a fascist without actually coming out at saying it. The talk about "forcing a viewpoint" on others is mere window dressing -- this is red meat for liberals who lump anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton (who introduced Soros at this speech, by the way) with Hitler.

Soros also equated the Abu Ghraib scandal with 9/11 itself:
But there is, I'm afraid, a direct connection between those two events, because the way President Bush conducted the war on terror converted us from victims into perpetrators. (Source here)

The best response to this leftist quackery came from GOP Chairman Ed Gillespie:
For Democrats to say that the abuse of Iraqi fighters is the moral equivalent of the slaughter of 3,000 innocent Americans is outrageous. Their hatred of the president is fueling a blame-America-first mentality that is troubling. (Source here)


Let's review. George Soros, a billionaire who has already invested millions into left-wing 527 campaign groups, took to the stage Thursday and 1) lied about the justifications for the Iraq war, 2) called the President a fascist, and 3) equated the already corrected Abu Ghraib scandal with the murder of 3,000 innocents on American soil.

In response, George Soros is denounced as a traitor.

|

Monday, May 31, 2004

Thoughts on Treason in the Media Age

This will be a bit of a less formal entry, something of a thought piece. For the past few weeks, this blog has been naming people or organizations that I consider to have sought to aid our enemies in the war on terror. Some might complain about this. "Treason is a serious matter," they might say. Or, "How exactly do the things you are blogging about amount to treason, however reprehensible they might be?"

Let's begin by defining treason. A good, non-dictionary definition would be that treason is willfully undermining your own country. (If you insist on being pedantic, Dictionary.com defines it as "Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.") Generally, when we think of treason, we think of people switching sides in a conflict (like Benedict Arnold) or a citizen passing sensitive information to hostile powers (like Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs). But I think that changes in the relationship between media and politics in recent years should cause us to expand our definition of treason.

That media and politics are inextricably linked is hardly a novel concept. I'd be willing to bet that anyone with enough interest in politics to read this or any other political blog understands that you cannot separate politics from media effects (save, perhaps, local offices in rural areas). But I think it's still worth talking about this media-politics axis.

Think about this: how is it that you know the things that you know? How do facts and statistics and the opinions of others take up residence in your head? Well, if you accept the theories of Walter Lippmann (an early 20th century scholar, a sociologist, I believe), then we learn about events in one of two ways. Either we experience the events first-hand, or we hear about events from others, whether personally or through intermediaries such as the media, who filter the information out of necessity, although sometimes insidious biases creep in. The media also set the political agenda. Whatever is in the media is what viewers, listeners, and readers think about.

But the transfer of information is instantaneous today. And more importantly, this easily accessed information can be used as a weapon. And this is exactly what is happening -- foreign media outlets seize upon various utterances by high-profile individuals and organizations and use their statements as propaganda. Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya propagandize on TV while countless newspapers propagandize on the ground. These outlets will take our chattering classes' anti-American rantings and play them to inflame the already unhinged "Arab Street". They use these statements side-by-side with "news pieces" that amount to apologia and recruiting videos for terrorists. This anti-American propaganda makes it harder for Arab leaders who might side with the US to do so. In short, when Al Gore or Ted Kennedy goes before the cameras to launch anti-war diatribes, they are undermining the US position in several strategic and tactical ways. And, of course, let's not forget the "Fonda Effect": the demoralizing effect that these statements have on our troops.

I am not saying that the First Amendment should be ignored. Our First Amendment rights are part of what make us American and should never be taken away. Nor am I saying that every American citizen should fall in lockstep with every policy promoted by the government. For instance, I opposed action in Somalia, Haiti, and Kosovo as not being critical to US interests (although I did not protest). I have liberal friends who opposed action in Iraq for what I consider to be rational reasons, and although I disagreed with them, they weren't shrill or anti-American about the positions they took. But shrill anti-Americanism replete with half-truths, distortions, and outright lies is the stock-in-trade of the Gores and Moores, Kennedys and Kucinichs, and Fritz Hollingses and Howard Deans. Hostile media forces are using their words against us. And they know it. Think about it: They ignore evidence of WMDs and banned missile systems in Iraq, they refuse to acknowledge that the world is better of with Saddam Hussein out of power, and some, like MoveOn, opposed the Afghan campaign. Instead, they equate President Bush with Hitler, liken a few abuses at Abu Ghraib to the systematic torture and murder of the Soviet Gulag, claim that President Bush went to war to win over Jewish voters, and some even say that we would have deserved 9/11 if it weren't liberal New Yorkers getting killed. The Arab media seizes upon this and uses it against us.

This is obviously not a new form of treason: I've already referenced Jane obviously. But its scope seems to be widening. We're not seeing this just among a few buffoons with nothing better to do. When former and current government officials knowingly say these outlandish things for the consumption of the propagandist arms of our enemies, the phenomenon has reached new heights.

|

Friday, May 28, 2004

Updates on the Gore's venomous monologue:

Slow news day today, except for some reviews of Gore's speech. Here are some of the better ones:

John Podhoretz in the New York Post (here).
Byron York (here), Barbara Comstock (here) and David Frum (here), all at National Review Online.
George Neumayr at The American Spectator Online (here).
Hindrocket at Powerline (here).
Whiskey at the Captain's Quarters (here).
The always incisive American Patriot at Patriots for Bush (here).

|

Thursday, May 27, 2004

Vice President Al Gore, Traitor
MoveOn, Traitorous Organization


Members of the Committee of Public Safety, fellow citizens,

I come before you today to condemn the remarks of former Vice president Al Gore. Today, Gore committed an incredibly egregious breach of decorum in verbally assaulting the present administration and its war conduct. MoveOn, a gaggle of shrill leftists which sees nothing wrong with comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler, sponsored this speech, and is complicit in Gore's treasonous rantings. While I will comment on Gore's speech, I will not link it, as I do not wish to legitimize MoveOn.

Gore began his speech by invoking the "successful strategy of containment." Containment is an outdated doctrine that applied to the bipolar, Cold War world of the 1940s through the 1980s. Containment only works when enemies are states, that is, they have defined borders, easily identifiable power centers, and some sort of easily defined and contacted leadership structure. The enemy today has almost none of that. We are fighting against forces that containment cannot contain, as terror networks commingle with rogue states and cult-ish, underground, ideological leaders. We are not dealing with traditional armies and navies and air forces. The enemy today consists of terror cells which are trained and funded in these rogue states then covertly slip across our borders. How can containment prevent such elements from striking in our society?

The answer is: it cannot. The 1993 WTC bombing, the embassy bombings in 1998, Khobar Towers, the attack on the USS Cole, and 9/11 all demonstrate that terrorists cannot be contained. Action must be taken to remove regimes which fund terror or allow terrorist organizations to use their soil. Furthermore, reverence for the Cold War-era containment doctrine is misplaced. Containment, as a doctrine, consigned billions to slavery and tens of millions to death under totalitarian systems. Rollback, President Reagan's approach, ended up bringing freedom to these countries and ended the Cold-War nuclear threat. Rollback in the 21st century will similarly end dictatorial control over the state-terror group networks and severely limit the terrorist threat posed to the West.

Also contained in this speech were the typical-but-patently-untrue liberal talking points: first "Bush lied about the WMDs." First of all, Bush relied on intelligence estimates. That WMDs were not immediately found in the quantities expected is hardly the fault of the President, as others with access to the same intelligence came to the conclusion that Iraq possessed WMDs, including President Clinton, and Senators Kerry and Kennedy. In any case, the "nonexistent WMDs" argument is fiction. As Ann Coulter notes:

So far, we have found chemical and biological weapons – brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, ricin, sarin, aflatoxin – and long-range missiles in Iraq.

Another Gore gem and standard liberal talking-point-lie was the claim that civil liberties were being infringed upon by the Patriot Act, most notably the line that your library records are now endangered. Andrew McCarthy in NRO's Corner debunks this myth here. The Patriot act, in all cases, requires judicial approval to examine business records.

Then we have the ever-so-common claim that the US is acting unilaterally. The White House website lists 48 nations publicly committed to the Iraq war, a number which does not count covert aid from other nations.

Gore then trots out another leftist canard: that we have been made less safe since the Iraq war. Gore argued that al-Qaida now has over 18,000 terrorists worldwide. As Jihad Watch reports (here) somewhere between 70,000 and 120,000 fighters went through al-Qaida camps. They now only have 18,000 fighters worldwide? More from Jihad Watch:
The idea that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have boosted Al-Qaida is dear to the hearts of people like Ted Kennedy, but where would we be now if there had been no response to 9/11, or if that response had amounted to just a few cruise missiles lobbed into Waziristan? Would the al-Qaida members who already existed before 9/11 have folded up shop and stopped attacking Westerners?

Perhaps more importantly, we have captured or killed a large portion of the al-Qaida leadership, which certainly crimps the planning and training phases of any terrorist plots.

Gore also offers some very strange statements in his speech. He talks about American "dominance," then cites the sexual theories of Freud and De Sade in reference to Abu Ghraib. He then advises Senator Kerry not to make any definitive statements about how he would solve the "rapidly changing" Iraq situation, a courtesy that he would certainly not grant to the President. He finished his speech by waving the liberal equivalent of the "bloody shirt": he claimed that the 2000 election was fraudulent.

Barbara Comstock of the Capital Report offered this critique of Gore's performance:
Al Gore is proving to be the most irrelevant, comically absurd former Vice President since Spiro Agnew. He is no longer a serious political figure. (Source)


I've come to the same conclusion. The man is clearly unhinged. As a former Vice President who had access to intelligence estimates and national security briefings, Gore should know full well the threat posed by the combination of rogue states, terrorist tactics, and WMDs. Instead, he takes to the stage and the airwaves to call for the resignation of loyal public servants like Secretary Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Rice, to claim that an administration that has taken as its central policy rooting out terrorist threats has in fact increased the danger, and to peddle the longstanding, tired, and patently false positions of the American and international left. As Right Wing News so eloquently put it (here):
For the most part, liberals have been worse than dead weight in the war on terrorism. In their zeal to attack Bush and other Republicans, they've gotten so carried away that they've in effect turned into a giant PR agency for America's enemies, including Al-Qaida.

For this reason, Al Gore is denounced as a traitor.

MoveOn, for promoting his traitorous discourse, as well as its persistent comparisons of the Bush Administration to Nazi Germany, and its opposition to the war in Afghanistan, is complicit in this treason and denounced as well.

|

Monday, May 24, 2004

E.L. Doctorow, treasonous literatus
Professor Cynthia Bogard, fool

Members of the Committee of Public Safety, fellow citizens,

I come before you today to offer an example of a growing phenomenon that poses a threat to the republic. The chattering class of writers and academics, no longer content to entertain, enlighten, or educate, has instead long engaged in anti-American slander and indoctrination. Today, at a commencement address at Hofstra University, E.L. Doctorow attacked the administration's Iraq policy and the Patriot Act. His verbal assault exceeded free speech, however, inasmuch as he spread lies about both. The full story is here.

What exactly did Doctorow say? First, he likened himself, as a "storyteller" to President Bush:

One story he told was that the country of Iraq had nuclear and biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction and was intending shortly to use them on us. That was an exciting story all right, it was designed to send shivers up our spines. But it was not true....

Another story was that the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, was in league with the terrorists of al-Qaida. And that turned out to be not true. But anyway we went off to war on the basis of these stories.

These Ted Kennedy-esque falsehoods have already been dealt with, here and by others. Saddam had WMDs -- we have found sarin. We have found illegal weapon delivery systems. He had used chemical weapons in the past and sought to acquire nuclear weapons. And we know he supported terrorism, both by al-Qaida and other groups. To ignore these facts and call President Bush a "storyteller" who lied is slanderous and treasonous.

Secondly, Doctorow criticizes the Patriot Act, passed to grand the government greater powers to pursue terrorists. Doctorow repeated the common falsehood that the Patriot Act would allow the government to monitor citizens' library use. The Patriot Act, however, requires a court order for the FBI to look into library records, the same way a warrant is needed to search a domicile or business. (A good defense of the Patriot Act is here at Townhall.com.)

Doctorow got the crowd response he deserved: a chorus of boos from most students and their families. Many were upset that their commencement had been politicized, others were angered by the content and tone of the speech itself. The jeering was so intense that Hofstra's president had to calm the crowd before the address could continue. Many of the faculty, however, cheered Doctorow's comments. One faculty member, Cynthia Bogard (fittingly enough, a sociologist) offered this nugget of asininity: "I thought this was a totally appropriate place to talk about politics because that's the world our students are entering." Then in a piece of arrogance that floored me, Bogard said, "I only wish their parents had provided them a better role model." Professor Bogard, how dare you insult the students and parents that expressed their clear-headed opinion on a seditious speech?

The students and parents who jeered Doctorow are commended.

E.L. Doctorow is denounced as a traitor.
Cynthia Bogard is exposed as a fool.

|

Thursday, May 20, 2004

John Lehman: 9/11 Commissioner and Fool

Members of the Committee of Public Safety, fellow citizens,

I come before you today to condemn the statement of John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission. Mr. Lehman's words do not rise to the level of treason, but they are clearly absurd.

Earlier today, former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani (and other members of his administration) testified before the commission. Commissioner Lehman offered this tidbit of inanity, as reported in the American Spectator:

Commissioner John Lehman's description of the mishaps among emergency responders as "not worthy of the Boy Scouts, let alone this great city." (Source here)

Commissioner Lehman was utterly out of line. The fact is, the NYPD and FDNY did a spectacular job on that tragic day, as the same article reports:
Roughly 25,000 people were evacuated. Giuliani, in his testimony Wednesday, speculated that "maybe 8,000 more, maybe 9,000 more than anyone could rightfully expect" had been saved.

For his outlandish statement, John Lehman is exposed as a fool.

Mayor Guiliani is commended for the following statement before the commission, in the face of misplaced criticism from the committee and the crowd of 9/11 survivors:
The blame should clearly be directed at one source and one source alone, the terrorists who killed our loved ones. (AP, via JihadWatch.com. See also THIS story at Patriots for Bush)

|

Wednesday, May 19, 2004

Michael Moore, Propagandist and Traitor

Members of the Committee of Public Safety, fellow citizens,

I come before you to denounce Michael Moore, a notorious leftist propagaindist. Moore's denunciation, long inevitable, was cemented by the screening of his anti-American screed, "Farenheit 9/11," the point of which, as Moore himself expliticly states, is to turn public opinion against the administration during an election year.

Moore clearly hates the United States of America. Following 9/11, Moore was one of the first to take to the airwaves to blame President Bush, although the planning of such an intricate attack clearly began under Clinton's watch. Further, in one of the most disgusting comments by anyone following the murders of 3,000 innocent civilians, Moore lamented that the terrorists attacked New York City, a predominantly Democratic city, rather than a city that served as home to Republicans. Then, Moore praised the reprehensible crackpot Cynthia McKinney, then a Congresswoman, for voting against military action against the Taliban, the brutal regime which housed the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. (McKinney later tried to accept money from a Saudi prince who blamed America's Israeli policy for 9/11. She was defeated in a reelection primary in 2002. After her defeat, her father blamed the Jews.)

Moore's filmmaking can be charitably described as dishonest. His distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies have spawned numerous websites by clear-thinking individuals debunking his outlandish claims. His previous film, "Bowling for Columbine", won an Academy Award from the Hollywood left. It also created calls for the revokation of his Oscar, as he clearly did not live up to documentary standards in his film (see "Bowling For Truth"). It is also worth noting that Moore called President Bush a "fictitious president" waging a "fictitious war" during his Oscar acceptence speech, a declaration that got him booed by even the Hollywood Left.

Now, Moore is at the Cannes Film Festival, screening "Farenheit 9/11." The first showing of his film garnered him a 20-minute ovation from the anti-American glitterati and French fans on hand.

In interviews promoting the film, Moore displays not only left-wing loonery, but a clear messianic complex:

Referring to Bush as "the dumbest man who ever ran for the presidency," Moore said Al Gore (news - web sites) and the Democrats were unable to inspire voters to turn out for the 2000 election. So the film is important: "We decided we were not going to leave it up to the Democrats to fuck it up again and lose it."

And:
Asked... if people will view his attacks on the administration as unpatriotic, he said, "I'm the most patriotic American who believes the principles of his country." Saying America had created a lot of global havoc, he added, "My job is to be an American and try to turn things around." (source here)

Essentially, Moore has cast himself and his film as the savior of the Democratic Party in 2004. (This from a man who endorsed retired general and full-time kook Wesley Clark in the primaries.) The Democratic Party is already planning to utilize the movie as a fundraising tool and campaign weapon (source here).

I keep returning to Moore's claim to be a "patriotic American." Patriotic Americans do not express regret that the 3,000 killed in the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11 were probably Democrats instead of Republicans. Patriotic Americans do not laud as corageous leftist kooks who oppose legitimate retaliation for those murders. And patriotic Americans certainly do not use their fame to assemble and promote a film full of lies and distortions in an effort to sway voters into believing that the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States of America is at once a dimwitted buffoon and a sly conspirator, with the end goal of undermining America's standing in the world.

A negative review of "Farenhiet 9/11," written by a fan of "Columbine," is here.

Michael Moore, propagandist, is denounced as a traitor.

I am,
Robespierre the Incorruptable

|
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com