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, 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

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 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."

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


Tuesday, May 18, 2004

Senator Edward Kennedy

Members of the Committee of Public Safety, fellow citizens,

I come before you today to denounce Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. For most of you, I am sure this does not come as a surprise. Senator Kennedy, after all, is a notorious leftist who seems to undermine America at every turn. But this past week, Kennedy crossed the line. Kennedy took to the Senate floor (full text here) and offered downright treasonous rhetoric on the current war effort, particularly regarding Abu Ghraib.

Kennedy began by attacking the rationale for war:

Protection of the Iraqi people from the cruelty of Saddam had become one of the administration's last remaining rationalizations for going to war. All of the other trumped-up rationalizations have collapsed.
Saddam was not on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. He had no persuasive link to Al-Qaida. He had nothing to do with 9/11. We have found no weapons of mass destruction.

All of the above statements are lies. First, the administration never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. The whole point of preemption is to remove a potential threat before it becomes imminent. The administration argued that Saddam's regime had tried in the past to acquire nuclear weapons. The administration argued that he would likely attempt to do so in the future. Therefore, the administration reasoned, we need to remove him before he does.

Secondly: No persuasive link to al-Qaida? What about Ansar al-Islam, Senator? According to a article (available here) makes it clear that Ansar al-Islam was an al-Qaida affiliate operating in Iraq. Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi (of Nick Berg execution infamy) was one al-Qaida operative working with Ansar al-Islam. The US military even found documents tying the two groups together (source here).

Third, on Iraq and 9/11. Various outlets have reported on meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaida members. Iraqi intelligence had a hand in the 93 WTC bombing. And, as Ann Coulter notes in her May 12 column: "a Clinton-appointed federal judge, U.S. District Court judge Harold Baer, has made a legal finding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks -- a ruling upheld by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last October." Certainly, there must be some factual evidence, Senator, that Iraq was somehow involved, if the US court system found that they were.

Finally, on weapons of mass destruction. We're awaiting the Senator's retraction of this statement based on today's news that sarin agent was detected in a bomb exploded in Iraq (Yahoo story here and FoxNews story here, first seen at BostonIrish). We doubt a retraction is coming, however.

Kennedy manages four lies in just one paragraph. Yet his speech continues:
On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked: ``Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?'' Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management--U.S. management.

Kennedy has essentially argued that the United States is morally equivalent to the Hussein regime. If that is the case, Senator, where are the American rape rooms (apart from a few Boston activists' fake photos)? Where are the American mass graves? Where is the widespread permanent and brutal disfigurment caused at the hands of Americans? Where are the thousands of Iraqis disappearing, never to be heard from again because of Americans? Nowhere, Senator, because these incidents of state terror were ended when the United States military, led by President Bush, removed Saddam Hussein from power.

Kennedy finished his diatribe by calling for an independent investigation. No doubt, he would like to see one like the 9/11 Commission, whose liberal members (Gorelick, Ben-Veneste, and Kerrey) make outlandish statements that get parroted by the media.

This is not the only forum to criticize Senator Kennedy on this score.

From an editorial in the Mobile Register, which called for Kennedy's resignation:

This comes on top of Mr. Kennedy saying last year that the entire war effort was a "fraud" undertaken for political advantage, while accusing President Bush of using "bribery" to secure the support of foreign leaders....
This is all hate speech, pure and simple, coming from a man whose own moral compass has time and again been notoriously skewed.
But to go so far as to impugn the Bush administration, and the U.S. armed services, as having deliberately "re-opened" Saddam Hussein's "torture chambers" is to go beyond the acceptable limits of public discourse.

From a New York Post editorial:
Unfortunately, because such slanderous nonsense was uttered by a senator with the magic "Kennedy" name, it's impossible to ignore - even if it comes straight from Michael Moore's playbook.
If Ted Kennedy cannot tell the difference between the abuses at Abu Ghraib, disturbing as they are, and the systematic, decades-long litany of torture and torment inflicted on thousands of Iraqis by Saddam Hussein's henchmen, then he has no business sitting in the United States Senate.

Even President Bush's re-election website blog mentions Kennedy's speech (here).

Given all of this, Senator Edward Kennedy is denounced as a traitor. He has spread outright lies about the administration's war effort, slandered American troops, and has drawn fallacious parallels between the Abu Ghraib 'abuses' by a handful of servicemen and the long-term, systematic, and disgusting torture perpetrated by Saddam's Baathists. And he does all of these things to undermine the administration's standing at home and abroad.

I am,
Robespierre the Incorruptible.


Saturday, May 15, 2004

Chuck Turner, Sadiki Kambon, Akbar Muhammad, and The Boston Globe

Members of the Committee of Public Safety, fellow citizens,

Recently, The Boston Globe published a story, promoted by Boston City councilor Chuck Turner and 'activist' Sadiki Kambon. In this story, Turner and Kambon claimed to have photographs of United States soldiers raping Iraqi women. The photographs were shown in the Globe in an incidental manner -- photographs of Turner and Kambon holding the images in question were printed.

The Globe has since offered an apology for the appearance of these images in print. In the words of Christine Chinlund, ombudsman for the Globe: "[T]here are things in there that are in fact inappropriate for a family newspaper." (Source:, story here)

I first read the above story yesterday and did not think much of it. It turns out, however, that the images showing the purported 'rapes' were in fact not authentic, but taken from a pornographic website, a story I first saw in a May 12 post by BostonIrish and fully chronicled by WorldNetDaily (story here). According to WorldNetDaily, Akbar Muhammad of the Nation of Islam passed the photographs to activist Sadiki Kambon, who along with Boston City councilor Chuck Turner distributed them at a new conference.

As the Patriots For Bush blog passionately argues here, Turner and Kambon took to the airwaves to inflame opponents of the Iraq war, both here and abroad. As their post notes: "What they did was attempt to turn people against America. That ladies and gentlemen is clear cut treason." Muhammad's passing off of the photographs as authentic to Kambon is a treasonous act as well, as he knew full well what the photographs would be used for. Patriots For Bush deconstructs the motivations of Turner and Kambon and their ilk very eloquently. I need not say anything more than read the post linked above.

The Boston Globe is exposed as a fool for missing the point about these images. Their apology focused on the explicit nature of the images, completely missing the fact that the images did not in fact represent what Turner and Kambon (and Muhammad) claimed they did. Journalists are supposed to fact check before printing stories, particularly stories of such a sensitive nature.

Chuck Turner, Sadiki Kambon, and Akbar Muhammad are denounced as traitors for willfully circulating false images in an effort to inflame opposition to the United States in both domestic and foreign quarters and, by extension, undermine American national security.


Addendum to the Denunciation of Michael Berg, Traitor
I have located even more bizarre and treasonous statements by Michael Berg:

"It was a coup d'etat. At first a bloodless coup d'etat, but, unfortunately, afterward it has become very bloody."

--(ed., This is either about the Patriot Act or President Bush's election; the context is not entirely clear.)

"The al-Qaida people are probably just as bad as they are, but this administration did this."

Sources: First seen here at Wizbangblog; entire story here at the Times-Herald.

I took some criticism from some people in another setting for my position, not because they agreed with Michael Berg, but because they thought it was out of line to criticize someone who recently lost his son. They generally argue that Michael Berg was just lashing out in anger and grief.

While I can understand this viewpoint, I disagree with it. Michael Berg willingly stepped in front of microphones to offer his warped leftist opinions. He could have retreated to mourn privately. He did not. He could have offered a short statement of grief and praise for his son. He did not. Instead, he took to the airwaves to issue a screed against the administration, a screed not limited to the events surrounding his son's death, but including the policies that the government enacted in the wake of 9/11 and perhaps even the election of the current administration. Making matters worse, Michael Berg even claimed that al-Qaida, a terrorist organization dedicated to the spread of radical Islam throughout the world and to the destruction of Western civilization, was morally equivalent, if not superior, to the Bush Administration. He is publicly stating that the terrorists are better than America, and this statement is only the latest in a long line of left-wing buffoonery offered by this man. Now, however, he's waving his own son's bloody shirt from his treasonous soapbox, an utterly disgusting political ploy.

The denunciation of Michael Berg stands.


Friday, May 14, 2004

Michael Berg

Members of the Committee of Public Safety, fellow citizens,

I come before you today to offer my first denunciation. This is a denunciation that I initially struggled with, but I believe wholeheartedly that it is warranted.

The past few days, our republic has mourned the death of Nick Berg, a fellow citizen murdered by the very forces of barbarism that our nation vowed to exterminate. The Central Intelligence Agency believes that citizen Berg was mercilessly beheaded by a top lieutenant to Osama Bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (Source here).

We are all saddened at the shedding of innocent blood, particularly the blood of our fellow countrymen, and our hearts go out to those who knew Mr. Berg.

But fellow citizens, I am sickened by the political grandstanding of Mr. Berg's father, Michael Berg. In an interview, Michael Berg offered up this piece of drivel: "My son died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. This administration did this."

Now, it is one thing to express anger and frustration after such a painful loss. It is quite another to use your loss, and the memory of your fallen son, to malign the administration unfairly. Then, in a total non-sequitur, Michael Berg went on to criticize the passage of the Patriot Act, saying: "It's not the same America I grew up in." (Source here)

Further, Micheal Berg refused to blame the thugs actually responsible for death of his son. Instead, he offers to the press a half-baked rhetorical concoction about how his son would have seen only the good in his murderers. These hooded killers would do the same to any American they could capture, a fact that Michael Berg willfully ignores in the aftermath of 9/11 and other worldwide terror attacks.

Upon further research, I found that Michael Berg has an axe to grind with the sitting administration. He appears to have ties to the ANSWER organization, an anti-war cabal, and participated in the anti-war and anti-administration demonstrations in New York City earlier this year. (Source here)

Members of the Committee of Public Safety, fellow citizens, here we have a man taking a no doubt heart wrenching personal tragedy, and using it to undermine the American government and its war effort, while excusing the actions of those truly responsible. Michael Berg has a history of anti-war agitation and this is one more example of it, an example far more disgusting than anyone would ever imagine. This is political opportunism and treachery at its worst.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is targeted as an enemy.
Michael Berg is denounced as a traitor.

I am,
Robespierre the Incorruptible


Thursday, May 13, 2004

The Formation of the Committee of Public Safety

Members of the Committee of Public Safety, fellow citizens,

I have created this forum in order to make known the threats against our nation from without and from within. There are those among us who, quite vocally, wish to undermine this nation during this time of international turmoil, a time when our nation, and all of the civilized world stands against the forces of barbarism, despotism, and terror. Those who would do violence upon this nation, its citizens, and upon civilization as a whole must be broken and destroyed; those who impede the quest to defend civilization and free those under the barbaric despotism of these killers and their regimes must be exposed and denounced. And expose them and denounce them we will.

I have named this forum after a famous speech given by Pavel Miliukov, a member of the Russian Duma during the Tsarist era. Miliukov pointed out the failings of the Tsarist regime in its prosecution of the First World War and in its handling of internal political stress. After each charge Miliukov leveled against the Tsar's government, he would ask, "What was this, treason or stupidity?"

I am well aware of the irony of this selection: Miliukov was critical of his regime, while I am defending mine. But Miliukov wanted what was truly best for Russia, and sought the removal of Tsarist ministers that obstructed that end. The Tsar and Tsarina's ministers were indeed corrupt, incompetent, and in one case, clinically insane. I, too, what want is best for my beloved America. And there is indeed room for legitimate criticism of the current war effort. But the shrill critics of this country and its current administration have neither the interests of the nation nor of Western civilization at heart. They seek the failure of America in our fight against the agents of despotism and repression. They seek the failure of America in order to subordinate America and her citizens to external control from the so-called "international community," a community populated by petty tin-pot dictators, corrupt international organizations, and outright ruthless murderers. Above all, they seek the failure of this administration to seize power for themselves. To do this, they spread lies and half-truths about the administration, ignore or downplay its accomplishments, coddle the barbarians that wish to kill us, and worship at the unholy altar of the corrupt "international community."

This brings us back to Miliukov: What is this, treason or stupidity? Are those who would undermine America traitors or fools? The answer is, of course, both. Some are traitors who would willingly subjugate American citizens to international forces beyond our control, in the name of "internationalism" or "cosmopolitanism." Others are dupes who refuse to believe that terrorists who have repeatedly expressed a desire to kill us and conquer liberalized, capitalized Western nations can be "understood" and "reasoned with." Still others are mindless sheep, shock troops led by the traitors and the fools. They must and will be exposed for what they are.

I have taken my nom de cyber from Maximilien Robespierre, leader of the Committee of Public Safety during the French Revolution. He brought stability to France, and denounced counter-revolutionary threats to the new regime. He himself was later executed. But throughout it all, he did not shrink. On the eve of his death, he said "Shall we say that all is well? We would ruin the country!" We cannot stand idly by and ignore threats to America silently. We must expose the statements and misdeeds of these enemies, traitors, and fools to the harsh light of day and the withering scrutiny of the republic.

In 1794, Robespierre said: "This terrible war waged by liberty against tyranny- is it not indivisible? Are the enemies within not the allies of the enemies without?" Today I take his name and his mantle, and will expose the enemies, and traitors and fools who would undermine us. I follow in the footsteps of many bloggers before me, and hope to work with them in due time.

I am,
Robespierre the Incorruptible

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by