[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 3:19 pm    Post subject: COMMUNIST TALKING POINTS IN NEW DEMOCRAT STRATEGY Reply with quote


Cold War danger from Communism? Nyet! Network of terrorists? Nyet! Jihad? Nyet!

Like the danger of Saddam’s WMDs, these were all concoctions of Republican presidents beginning with Ronald Reagan and extending up to George W. Bush. The purpose? To pedal a legacy of fear of danger from abroad in order to justify imperialistic interventions for foreign oil, and to reward friends with military/industrial contracts (especially Haliburton). But most of all, by scaring America, these Republican presidents were able to get elected. In contrast, John Kerry said that he would spend the first month of his presidency going around the world apologizing for Bush’s imperialistic policies, and mending relations with “allies” such as France, Germany and Russia. By so doing, he believed that he would return terrorism to mere nuisance status and said that like Clinton, he would treat it as a domestic law enforcement issue, and not launch preemptive attacks abroad without a consensus of opinion from European “allies.”

Exploring endlessly the reasons for their defeat in 2004, the Democrats gave three reasons. 1) The election was stolen again, particularly in Ohio. 2) They had gone too far to the left. 3) Kerry moved too much to the right, not running on the true principles of the party. Now there seems to be a consensus among Democrats who are uniting behind a new strategy which evidently believes they should have run much further left. Indeed, last week we heard Ted Kennedy saying that the Party could not win by moving more to the middle. And even though Hillary Clinton did participate in the Senate’s dog-and-pony show over the results of the Ohio election, her mouthpiece and former White House Communications director Ann Lewis appeared on CNN’s “Inside Politics” with Judy Woodruff to go public with the new strategy. Woodruff asked her, "Social Security, it's a huge topic, but in just a few words, is it smart for the president to be pushing the kind of reform that we gather he is pushing right now, Ann?"

When the topic comes up of whether or not the media has a liberal bias, one has to consider the incestuous relations of all the lib commentators. Woodruff is the wife of CNN’s al Hunt. Barney Frank is the brother of former White House Communications Director Ann Lewis. Leftist journalist Steve Roberts is the first cousin of Barney and Ann, whose wife is "Cokie" Roberts. Greta van Sustern is married to lawyer John Coal who does business with Hugh Rodham, Hillary’s brother. Certainly Hillary is looking forward to being the savior of Social Security when she is elected, so she can’t have Bush pre-empting her on this issue. So Lewis replied, “I'm going to tell you what, he's wrong. There is no crisis. I repeat, the people who are telling us it's a crisis now are the people who were telling us there were weapons of mass destruction. George Bush wants to lower the Social Security benefits by 25%. That's wrong. The market goes down again today by a hundred points. That's insecurity. It's a mistake. I don't think he'll do it.”

Never mind that all the bigwigs of the Democrat party had in previous years warned that Social Security would go belly up if not fixed. When asked what to do with a government surplus, Bill Clinton said, “Fix Social Security.” The new talking point here is that just as Bush tried to scare us over WMDs, so now over Social Security. So, too, they say, Bush is scaring us over terrorism. In September of 1998, Dems gathered in Washington for a “fix SS” rally keynoted by Gore, who said, “Social Security faces a serious fiscal crisis. Then, echoing Clinton, Gephardt, Kennedy, and Boxer all said, “Fix Social Security first.”

Either they were scaring us then, if they now say there is no crisis, or they are lying now; it has to be one or the other. Is it not appropriate then, that Ann Lewis, Communications Director for a Clinton administration characterized by prevarication, should now give us the NewsSpeak “truth” about Social Security. According to Orwell in 1984, “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. . . . Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc [English Socialism in 1984], since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality....

“The alteration of the past is necessary for two reasons.... But by far the most important reason for the readjustment of the past is the need to safeguard the infallibility of the Party. It is not merely that speeches, statistics, and records of every kind must be constantly brought up to date in order to show that the predictions of the Party were in all cases right. It is also that no change of doctrine or in political alignment can ever be admitted for to change one’s mind, or even one’s policy, is a confession of weakness. . . . Thus history is constantly rewritten. This day-to-day falsification of the past, carried out by the Ministry of Truth, is as necessary to the stability of the regime as the work of repression and espionage carried out by the Ministry of Love.”

Now for years you have heard me touting the Baran/Wallerstein theory (B/W) which states that Communism is now using Muslim terrorism (instead of the fat-cat “Workers of the World”) to destroy capitalism, and America in particular. With most of Western Europe already Socialist, it is but a small step to getting the populists to accept Communism, but “unilateral” America stands in the way. Once brought to its knees by Islam, then the utopian Communist Revolution can be implemented world wide. In the final assault on America, Russian, Chinese and North Korean nukes may be showered on us to finish the job.

Of course, few if any Islamo-fascists have any idea of the role they play in the Communist agenda, for by jihad, they have in mind quite another revolution: Purging the world of all those who will not convert to the radical Wahhabi faith. No matter, the Communists believe their military might would easily tame the Wahhabis. Previous evidence that I have cited that this Baran/Wallerstein strategy is being utilized already is the undeniable fact that France, Germany, Russia, and China provided Saddam with all the weapons he needed, and the U.N.’s Oil-for-Food scam provided the funds for him to buy these weapons (for which many are still owed). Moreover, we know that member nations of the U.N. Security Council had promised Saddam that they would never approve a resolution to remove him by force. So their stall game went on for years, but Bush took “unilateral” action with the help of thirty other nations.

The Democrats condemned Bush’s initiative, now saying we are in greater danger because of his preemptive action. Now they are saying to a man that terrorism, which previously was a nuisance that could be handled by domestic law enforcement, is now a quid-pro-quo reality, and growing greater every day that we stay in Iraq, because of Bush’s fear-mongering.

But now at last I can provide documentary evidence that my wild theory is true, by naming the source of the new Democrat strategy, just as I named johnkerry.com as the source of the fabricated General Killian letter about Bush’s Guard service used by Dan Rather. What you shall see is that this Democrat’s strategy utilizes the Communist party line from the Cold War up to the present. The Red Scare of the 1950s was just that, and Russia and China never presented a danger to America. Their arms buildup being merely a reaction to the arms race started by Reagan. After the Nazis were defeated, there was a chance for this to be the “Best of all possible worlds,” but the Republican scare-mongers mucked it all up.

Moreover, when 9/11 killed 3,000 Americans, Democrats such as Cynthia McKinney, (D.-Ga) asked, “What did this Administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?”

Then she answered her own question. “What is undeniable is that corporations close to the administration have directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath of September 11th.” This “spending” for corporations in what the Left has called the “military/industrial complex,” and for our intelligence services, constitutes what I call their psychological hang-up that prevents them from seeing any danger abroad, placing all the blame on America (per B/W), because of their collective and individual “military/industrial complexes.” Since the 1950s, however, this has also by no coincidence been the Communist party line.

Indeed, after the same party line appeared in the form of Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” a screening for the Democratic caucus at the Uptown Theater in D.C., brought them to their feet for a standing ovation. Need I point out that it is not necessary for anyone spouting the Communist Party line to have been a member of the CP, nor to have known any professed Communists. However, as Ann Coulter noted in Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terror, fellow- traveling has been the height of fashion chic for the American Left.

Personally I cannot speak for the loyalty of the American Left today, except to hoist them on the petard of their own words. Except in the case of Robert Scheer, columnist for the Los Angeles Times, whom I knew in San Francisco when he was organizing demonstrations to block cargo for our troops leaving from the Oakland Army Base, and when he took his coterie of Communist adherents to North Korea to be wined and dined in a country he praised as heaven on earth. Scheer, incidentally, got his lofty position by marrying into a newspaper publishing family.

Last week he did me and the nation a great favor, revealing the source of the new Democrat strategy, and thereby letting the Communist cat out of the bag of Democrat respectability. Scheer writes (Jan. 11), “Is it conceivable that Al Qaeda, as defined by President Bush as the center of a vast and well-organized international terrorist conspiracy, does not exist?

“To even raise the question amid all the officially inspired hysteria is heretical, especially in the context of the U.S. media's supine acceptance of administration claims relating to national security. Yet a brilliant new BBC film produced by one of Britain's leading documentary filmmakers systematically challenges this and many other accepted articles of faith in the so-called war on terror.

"The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear," a three-hour historical film by Adam Curtis recently aired by the British Broadcasting Corp., argues coherently that much of what we have been told about the threat of international terrorism ‘is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services and the international media.’ ...”

Quoting further from the BBC documentary, Scheer goes on to say, “Wherever one looks for this Al Qaeda organization, from the mountains of Afghanistan to the 'sleeper cells' in America, the British and Americans are chasing a phantom enemy." He adds, “Everything we know comes from two sides that both have a great stake in exaggerating the threat posed by Al Qaeda: the terrorists themselves and the military and intelligence agencies that have a vested interest in maintaining the facade of an overwhelmingly dangerous enemy. Such a state of national ignorance about an endless war is, as ‘The Power of Nightmares’ makes clear, simply unacceptable in a functioning democracy.”

We need to ask ourselves, if the Left is not in bed with Islamo-fascism, why did the al-Jazeera network promote Fahrenheit 9/11?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group