How Democrats Confuse Patriotism and Treason

Here is a very representative statement made by the saintly Ronald Reagan: "Why do the Democrats always blame America first?" And here is the very representative retort made recently by Hillary Clinton: "I'm getting sick and tired of having my patriotism questioned every time I criticize this administration." The lies and shame in Hillary's retort are just too much. She knows that to bring socialism to America she has to pretend to be patriotic. But this is like a rapist sending flowers to his intended victim to lure her to her own murder scene. One has to wonder how it feels for Hillary to say she's patriotic toward a country that she wants to change in every essential way? Honesty would compel her to say, "I hate this country, but nevertheless feel a civic duty to change it into a country towards which I would feel genuine patriotism." But Democrats can't be honest. They must shamefully lie to retain their Trojan Horse presence at the table.

To make matters worse they go on to shamelessly pretend that criticism is by definition democratic and therefore nothing less than an indication of patriotism; not treason. This of course, is another wonderfully confusing trick. What they would have us believe is that all criticism is democratic and therefore patriotic, when nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we live in a constitutional democracy; not a mob rule democracy. The constitutionally mandated criticism here is supposed to be confined by the Constitution in the form of a competition to maximize individual liberty and freedom from Gov't. Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, and Sacony Mobilism are not considered to be contributions toward liberty and freedom. They are the exact opposite. Those, such as Hillary, who criticize Americans in furtherance of these weird un-American ideas are then legitimately challenged regarding their patriotism toward the real America. If Democrats are patriotic it is only toward their fantasy version of socialist America.

Interestingly, it was Jefferson in the election of 1800 who first solidified this Republican understanding of freedom. His interpretation dominated intellectual life until 1848 when Karl Marx published The Communist Manifesto which made no headway in a hugely thriving America until the great Depression, (132 years after Jefferson) at which point FDR, who had campaigned as a Jeffersonian, abruptly departed from American intellectual history by becoming a modern Democrat. Instead of believing in freedom from Gov't he, not coincidentally, believed in Gov't as did Marx, George lll, and Julias Ceasar. FDR's administration suddenly "saw the future" in Stalinist Russia, "and it worked," at least if you didn't count the 40 million dead bodies or the extreme poverty of those who managed to survive Stalin's version of liberalism. In the US we got off luckily after FDR's little change of heart with only 10 years of depression and 5 years of world war, not to mention LBJ's near genocidal welfare war on American blacks.

To the new Democrats, though, Stalin in Russia, and, depression, war, and welfare here were not necessarily an inauspicious beginning, and so to this day they are still fiddling with the mechanisms of an ever expanding gov't hoping to eventually stumble on socialist bureaucratic program that actually works.
______________________________________________
Joke Time
In an attempt to stem the tide of bird flu, US President George W. Bush just ordered the bombing of the Canary Islands.

__________________________________________________
Book Review Time
Manliness by Harvey C. Mansfield

Let's be honest and not feminist shall we? Women breed men to be different from them. Men have muscles and the attitude to use them simply because women mate for that trait. If women fell in love with wimpy effeminate men there would be only wimpy effeminate offspring. This is called..... e v o l u t i o n. It is also true that men have nipples because they start out life as females, and only later are bathed in testosterone to become males. Hence, they have female or human traits too. But if men were the same they would not exist; they would be women; they would not have a separate name, i.e., men.

Feminists exist in part because they are stupidly jealous and in part to legitimately help men and women keep pace with the naturally changing roles of men and women in a rapidly developing political and technological world. The value of Mansfield's book is that it throws his weight, and to a lesser extent, Harvard's weight, behind the basic evolutionary choices that women naturally make, while at the same time helping to minimize the jealous stupidity and lies that are a large part of neurotic feminism.

Ted Baiamonte
comments: bje1000@aol.com