- The
Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why
America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat
President)
by
Mia T, 6.04.04

(viewing
movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
|
The Bush
Doctine is built on two pillars, one -- that the
United States must maintain its absolute
military superiority in every part of the world,
and second -- that the United States has the
right for preemptive action.
Now, both
these propositions, taken on their own, are
quite valid propositions, but if you put them
together, they establish two kinds of
sovereignty in the world, the sovereignty of the
United States, which is inviolate, not subject
to any international constraints, and the rest
of the world, which is subject to the Bush
Doctrine.
To me, it
is reminiscent to [sic] George Orwell's
"Animal Farm," that "All animals are created
equal, but some animals are more equal than
others."
George
Soros
|

eorge
Soros could not
have more clearly enunciated the lethal danger that he and
John Kerry and the clintons and the rest of his leftist
cabal pose for America.
Yesterday, at the
"progressive," i.e., ultra-extremist left-wing liberal,
"Take Back America" confab, Mr. Soros confirmed the obvious:
9/11
was dispositive for the Dems;
that is, 9/11 accelerated what eight years of the clintons
had set into motion, namely, the demise of a Democratic
party that is increasingly irrelevant, unflinchingly
corrupt, unwaveringly self-serving, chronically moribund and
above all, lethally,
seditiously dangerous.
"All animals are
created equal, but some animals are more equal than
others."
Apparently missing the
irony, George Soros chastised America with these words even
as he was trying his $25,000,000, 527-end-run damnedest to
render himself "more equal than others" in order to
foist his radical, paranoic, deadly dementia on an entire
nation.
"Animal Farm" is
George Orwell's satirical allegory of the Russian
Revolution; but it could just as easily be the story of the
Democratic Party of today, with the
Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton
(either--"one for the price of two," I say)
-Sulzberger-Soros-Moore
construct
its porcine
manifestation.
SOROS TSURIS
Soros' little speech
reveals everything we need to know about the Left, to wit:
- its naivete about
the War on Terror,
- its preference for
demagoguery over rational argument, and ideology and
reacquisition of power over national security,
- its mindset, which
is inextricably bound to its failed, tortuous, reckless
schemes, relics of a different time, a different war and
a different enemy.
Soros is correct when
he states that each of the two pillars of the Bush
Doctine--the United States maintenance of absolute military
superiority and the United States right of preemptive
action--are "valid propositions" [in a post-9/11
world].
But when he proceeds
from there to argue that the validity of each of these two
[essential] pillars is somehow nullified by
the resultant unequalled power that these two pillars, when
taken together, vest in the United States, rational thought
and national-security primacy give way to dogmatic Leftist
neo-neoliberal
ideology.
What is, in fact,
"inviolate" here is the neo-neoliberal doctrine of U.S.
sovereignty, which states simply that there must be none,
that we must yield our sovereignty to the United Nations.
Because this Leftist tenet is inviolate, and because it is
the antithesis of the concept of U.S. sovereignty enunciated
by the Bush Doctrine and the concept of U.S. sovereignty
required by the War on Terror, rabid Leftists like Soros
conclude that we must trash the latter two inconvenient
concepts--even if critical to the survival of our
country.
It is precisely here
where Soros and the Left fail utterly to understand the War
on Terror. They cannot see beyond their own ideology and
lust for power. They have become a danger to this country no
less lethal than the
terrorists they aid and abet.
|
I think
this administration has the right strategic
vision and has taken many of the steps needed to
get that long-term strategy rolling.
Where I give
them the failing grade is in explaining that
vision to the American public and the world. Key
example: this White House enshrines preemptive
war in the latest National Security Strategy and
that scares the hell out of a lot of Americans,
not to mention our allies. Why? This
administration fails to distinguish sufficiently
under what conditions that strategy makes
reasonable sense.
My point is
this: when you are explicit about the world
being divided into globalization's Core and Gap,
you can distinguish between the different
security rule sets at work in each.
Nothing has
changed about strategic deterrence or the
concept of mutual-assured destruction (or MAD)
within the Core, so fears about preemptive wars
triggering World War III are misplaced.
When this
administration talks about preemption, they're
talking strictly about the Gap - not the Core.
The strategic stability that defines the Core is
not altered one whit by this new strategy,
because preemption is all about striking first
against actors or states you believe - quite
reasonably - are undeterrable in the normal
sense.
Thomas
P.M.
Barnett
The
Pentagon's New
Map
NB:
Dr. Barnett is a lifelong DEMOCRAT
|
|
I'm a
single-issue voter, as I guess must have become
apparent.
I'm not a
Republican. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a
very great admirer of the president in many
ways, but I think that my condition is... that
this is an administration that wakes up every
morning wondering how to make life hard for the
forces of Jihad and how to make as hard as
possible an unapologetic defense of civilization
against this kind of barbarism... and though
the Bush administration has been rife with
disappointment on this and incompetent, I
nonetheless feel that they have some sense of
that spirit.
I don't get that... I don't get that feeling
from anyone who even sought the Democratic
nomination.
I would [therefore] have to vote for the
reelection of President Bush.
Christopher
Hitchens
Washington Journal, 6.01.04
C-SPAN
|
COPYRIGHT
MIA T 2004
|