Suddenly and abruptly, after five long and loud years, the protests against "America's war against Islam" have stopped.
The question is WHY?
After all, we DIDN'T elect an "anti-war" President, if we had, we STILL wouldn't have the same number of troops in Iraq as we did last October. If we had, we STILL wouldn't be engaged in the war in Afghanistan...a war which has been ratcheted UP over the last 6 months and we STILL wouldn't have Gitmo open.
So, since we haven't elected an "anti-war" President and there are now MORE U.S. troops engaged in the war in the Mid-East then there were last year, and since the NSA surveillance programs are STILL in effect, why have the protests died down?
There's ONLY one reason...there were NEVER ANY "anti-war" protests, there were merely anti-Republican protests disguised as anti-war ones.
That's an undeniable FACT.
Same with homelessness, which first exploded due to Carter's "deintitutionalization" in the 1970s and ignored UNTIL a Republican (Ronald Reagan) occupied the White House and brought the U.S. economy back from the brink of annihilation (Carter's STAGFLATION and a record high 22 point Misery Index) to an economy of SINGLE DIGIT Misery Indexes within five years, where they remained through the rest of Reagan's tenure.
So, can we now say the "anti-war" protestors, who failed to utter a peep over another earlier "UN opposed, unilateral attack on a soveriegn nation" (Serbia and Croatia), screamed loudly over Bush's post 9-11 engagement in the war against global jihadism and now have returned to silence now that a Democrat presides over the same wars, with even MORE troops and with even MORE vigor is a F.O.S. astroturfed political phenomenon ginned up by Democrats?
I think the events prove that is exactly the case. And considering that it was three Supply Side leaders (Reagan, Clinton and Gingrich) who were most responsible for getting the government out of the way and allowing America's private sector to deliver a quarter century of unprecedented prosperity, there's no rational reason why ANY American would protest the GOP.....UNLESS, of course, they were protesting the Liberal "Moderate" (Country Club) wing of that Party.
15 comments:
excellent post, jmk. you are so right. the protests were never against the war, they were against bush. the crazy left must always have their way.
Well, it's all the "astroturfing" talk by both Pelosi and Axelrod (the king of astroturfing) that got me thinking about the disappearance of the so-called "anti-war" crowd, and the more you think about it, the clearer it becomes that that group isn't "anti-war" or "pro-poor" so much as anti-Republican and anti-capitalist.....and an "anti-capitalist" position is fundamentally an anti-Amrican one as well.
Thanks for being here and thanks for being you. You're great.
thanks, jmk! you're one of the great ones too.
;)
The anti war protesters were pure astroturf. Remember Cindy Sheehan's pathetic little protests that were treated like the entire nation was anti war? Today, poor Cindy couldn't even get a small time left wing blogger to pay her any attention even if she set her hair on fire!
The entire anti war movement was all about bring down Bush, national security be damned.
Cindy Sheehan.....seems like years since that name was heard.
I guess she became too much for the far-Left to deal with, but YES, it was ALL astroturfing much of it directed by people like David Axelrod ("the king of astroturfing") and it COULDN'T have worked except for a complicit "in the tank media."
Now that Fox News is beating the MSM in ratings and Tak Radio has syphoned off a lot of ears and lessened the credibility the likes of ABC, CBS and NBC once had, they're looking to stifle that medium.
THAT'S when things get messy...once any part of this administration looks to either (1) stifle free expression (Conservative Talk) or (2) undermine the democratic process by using ACORN's voter fraud tactics....it'll get bloody.
The military and the police don't support tyranny and won't defend that.
2010 COULD well be an armageddon type year!
There are those who believe "the deam" of the current administration is to (1) increase the dependancy of a growing number of Americans, (2) silence their media critics (3) undermine th democratic process via massive vote fraud and (4) exert local control via his "civilian defense force."
I'm not sure, thouh I'd say, at this point, I'm cautiously pessimistic about things.
So true...Embed journalist Michael Totten saw that as early as 2004. Well at least wrote about it.
You're right Rachel, Michael Totten is a great journalist, just as Michael Yon is...both fund hemselves independently (through donations, etc) and that kind of independence is really indispensable in today's tightly controlled and sterilized media environment.
It is striking, that considering we haven't exited Iraq or even reduced our presence there, Gitmo is still open despite some vague promises (If we can..."), the NSA Surveillance program is still going full bore and Afghanistan has been RAMPED UP (and STILL doesn't seem to be going all that well), there hasn't been a SINGLE peep from the "peaceniks."
The problem isn't just the "astroturfing" by Liberals like Axelrod, but the MSM being over 80% "in the tank" for the far-Left.
It's really hard to figure out where MoveOn ends and MSNBC begins...and yet, there is no outcry from the "fairness in the media" folks to bring diversity of opinion to such venues.
TWO things seem to bear watching right now, the first is what (if any) moves "Communications Czar" Lloyd makes (he wrote the 2007 strategy on "combatting Right-wing radio") AND the so-called "Civilian Defense Corps.
Either of those is a direct assault on the American people...the first would seek to gut the very limited freedom of expression that exists in the American media today and the second would, without question, target every productive (working) American, as the ONLY possible "enemy" such a domestic force COULD have would be US....after all, we already have the police and military to protect us from enemies foeign (the military) and domestic (the police)...so foreign invaders and thugs would not be the target of such a force.
Any move on either front, in my view, would be a direct challenge o the American people.
In either case, once either move is made, this entire administration will be branded "radical" and there'll be no turning back for either side....as they say, "Shit's on."
CLARIIFICATION: "It's really hard to figure out where MoveOn ends and MSNBC begins...and yet, there is no outcry from the "fairness in the media" folks to bring diversity of opinion to such venues."
<
<
I want to point that I'm not advocating such "diversity of opinion" be forced on ANYONE, and I have never heard Conservatives call for government to stifle Leftist opinion, in any way.
But what MSNBC does is far worse than anything Fox News can be accused of.....while virtually all of Fox News' Commentators (O'Reilly, Hannity, Bri Hume) lean Right, its news programs are indistinguishable from the other 24-hour networks. MSNBC,on the other hand has all it's commentators (Olbermann, Mathews, Maddow) leaning Left AND they actually have OPINION personnel like the batshit crazy Olbermann and the hyper-partisan Mathews covering news events, as they deliver their opinions over the "news."....and yet, there ae no howls over MSNBC's blatant abuses.
Of course, that's almost certainly why MSNBC's ratings are perennially at the bottom of the heap.
You are spot on with your observations.
When leftist Janeane Garofalo claimed that the Tea Parties which started under Obama but were silent under Bush's spending was due to RACISM she thought that she had everyone confounded.
Those she questioned were forced to prove that racism WAS NOT the motivating force.
Once I heard her claim the first thing that I fired back was to have her tell the world "What Happened To The Anti-Bush-War" protests.
The truth is that they were anti-Bush all along. The news media engaged in a incestuous cycle because they reported on these happenings.
To be honest with you I have to admit that SOME news media are reporting on the death in Afghanistan. It is the Anti-America Americans who now have a person in the White House that they don't want to hurt so they are not doing the anti-war protests which would clearly bring down his numbers.
They are smart enough to realize that a WEAKENED BARACK OBAMA means a stronger Republican Party.
Ironically their short term benefits will lead to long term damage. The Federal Democrats continue to fund the wars ($106 billion) AND are doing the block buster Democratic social spending.
It will be the new $9,000 billion of debt that will take us all down in the end.
no scheiss. I agree 100%. From an ex-lib 60's, this is BS. WTF does "THE MAN" think he's doing? Does he think he's getting ahead sh*tcanning his adversaries when he's THE STATE? I think not. In fact, I think he has compromised himself to the point where he has no options. He has masters he has sold himself to, and they can "out him".
Almost my sentiments exactly, my friend. The only difference is that I believe the "anti-war" protests were anti-American, not merely anti-Bush. Beyond that this post was spot on.
"...Does he think he's getting ahead sh*tcanning his adversaries when he's THE STATE? I think not. In fact, I think he has compromised himself to the point where he has no options. He has masters he has sold himself to, and they can "out him". (anonymous)
A fair point that ultimately proves the efficacy of the LIBERTARIAN philosophy - that ALL government action, ALL govenment power is antithetical to real "freedom" or INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.
Who benefits from government action?
Invariably, the well-connected (or politically connected) and the well-off.
Government's economic regulations are invariably designed to cement the gains of the HAVES in place.
The temptaions on the well-intentioned "social-reformer" to "play ball" with "the HAVES" is almost unavoidable, which is why "power corrupts..."
As Clarence Darrow said, Government is the tool by which the strong (the rich and well-connected) despoil the weak (the poor and dispossessed)."
In a sense, that's also why America's Founders were the greatest of social-reformers, as they rightly saw government power as a threat to all, they sought to limit and localize government and to maximize individual Liberty.
LIBERTY, like true Christianity is HARD.
How many self-professed "Christians" really follow Christ's teachings of "embrace and show affection toward those who revile you and focus ONLY on improving YOURSELF?"
NONE of those who quote the Old Testament, whose teachings run counter to EVERYTHING that Jesus preached. And NONE of those who "treat others as they are treated."
Same with Liberty, it's not merely a HARD choice, it is often a choice that is seen as TOO HARD even by many of its most ardent adherants.
"I believe the "anti-war" protests were anti-American, not merely anti-Bush." (Seane-Anna)
Some were, SOME were NOT, Seane-Anna.
The MoveOn and other Soros-backed protests were indeed anti-American and anti-Capitalist in their essence, BUT there were some, such as those from ardent Libertarians, like the Ron Paul contingent and others (ie. Pat Buchanan and Justin Raimondo) that were NOT.
Suffice to say, the Libertarians are GREATLY disappointed at the return of Keynesianism on such a HUGE scale and the combing of BOTH the welfare AND warfare states.
Those folks were RIGHTLY outraged that the Bush administration BEGAN this switch FROM a SUPPLY-SIDE approach that had delivered over a quarter century of unprecedented prosperity TO a Keynesian approach that had imploded the economy in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Indeed, from a purely LIBERTARIAN perspective, THIS is "the worst of ALL possible worlds."
The ardently anti-American Soros-brigades (the Kos kids, the Huff-poos, the MoveOn morons, etc.) are the ones who were bought and paid for as such "useful idiots" are always conned.
Aristotle called it over 2,000 years ago; "The strong take advantage of the weak and the smart (clever) take advantage of the strong."
Soros and those like him ARE pretty clever....almost as clever as they are immoral.
An excellent read and analysis. And what's more, when the Bela Pelosis refer to tea partys as "Nazis" or "an angry mob", yet commend the "anti-war" (Bush/Republicans) protestors, a blatant level of hypocrisy joins with the fraud of conservatives "organizing protests", while libs don't.
I know reason and rational logic should rule the day..but I am so sick of the talking commodes that make up the current power base on the Left, I simply lump them all into one category: the "unable to suspend disbelief at how incredibly unprincipled, unethical, dishonest, and disingenuous they are" category.
Small wonder Zell Miller (and others) have and are abandoning this collection of human fecal material.
SF, the irony is that while the tea parties and the healthcare townhall protests were all organic, the vast majority of the "anti-war"/anti-Bush protests were astroturfed(paid to play) by the likes of David (the king of astroturfing) Axelrod.
Funny stuff....funny STRANGE, not funny ha-ha.
Post a Comment