Back in the halcyon days of the late 1960s, when "speaking truth to power" was as easy as marching in protest rallies and bravery was re-defined as fleeing the country to avoid serving in an unjust war, one of the slogans commonly bandied about was that we were "bringing the war back home.*" By "fighting in the streets", we would show the home front the horrors that were being inflicted, in our names, on the peace-loving, freedom fighters of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese.
*[Bonus points for anyone who can identify the provenance of the song, Bringing the War back Home. Double points if you can hum the tune. Googling is cheating in this instance.]
Much of what was accepted wisdom in the late 1960s has been superseded by reality since then but on the Left, the belief that the use of force by anyone in a position of power and authority was inherently corrupt and evil (except in those situations when the authority in question was on the Left and wielded power in the name of a Left wing ideology) has informed much of the behavior of the Left until the present. There is a touching, though inane, consistency to their positions, as well. Just as for the last 9 years the Left has done everything in its power to make the effective use of American power more difficult** now some of the same foolishness is being suggested for those who protect us at home.
**[Consider: multiple leaks of secret programs, restrictive ROEs, the assumption that our enemies were more credible than our own servicemen and women viz torture allegations, flushing Korans, etc, while exaggerating and generalizing from American errors and crimes as in >50 front page stories about Abu Graib in the NY Times, despite the abuse having been recognized and punished by the military itself; the list is endless.]
Two new examples courtesy of the mindless useful idiots of the Left:
Just another act of deadly treason
Yesterday, The New York Times published another front-page article based on a leaked classified document. This time, it was an order signed by Gen. David Petraeus authorizing black operations against adversaries and such dubious friends as Iran, Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
Gee, thanks. We really needed to know that. The world's a better place now.
Yet the Times' sin was the lesser one. The paper has long since given up any pretense of patriotism. (Ugh! Yuck!) Its editors are just publishing and perishing as citizens of the world.
It's whoever leaked the document that bears the burn-in-hell blame.
We must be able to keep secrets in wartime. But we can't. Because domestic political agendas trump national security in every administration nowadays.
Exposing that seven-page classified document warned our enemies (and pseudo friends) that we've expanded our efforts to uncover terror networks and potential targets. This not only increases the virulent paranoia in the region's police states, but poses a mortal danger to agents, special operators and the innocent.
People will be tortured and executed because of this. The New York Times will feel virtuous; someone in the Obama administration will feel pleased that he has increased his President's bona fides as a strong defender of America (does anyone actually fall for this any more?) and blood will be on their hands.
And then there is this; from the evil to the ridiculous:
An assemblywoman under fire for sponsoring a bill that asks cops to shoot gun-wielding suspects in the arms and legs brushed off the outrage yesterday -- although she admitted she is no expert on police work.
Asked about her critics' contention that the proposed legislation will put police lives at risk, Annette Robinson (D-Brooklyn) told The Post: "I understand that."
She insisted that cops use too much force, but acknowledged she is unqualified to assess the issue.
"Not being a police officer, I would not be able to discuss the instance or the time that happens, but I do know that it happens, most often in the communities that I represent, and it happens too often," she said.
For those who need it spelled out, Bookworm eviscerates this clown in her discussion of The “shoot to wound” proposal in New York:
This one is right up there with the medal the military is contemplating for courageous restraint — an honor, Rush Limbaugh says, correctly, will surely be awarded only posthumously.
Is there anyone else out there who thinks it utterly insane that we, as a society, blithely assume that our troops and police should take all of the risks on our behalf, while we systematically strip them of their right to defend themselves against the bad guys? Oh, wait. Of course it makes sense. I’m just looking at this whole thing wrong. If you’re a Progressive, the troops and police are the bad guys. It’s the ones on the receiving end of the evil cop and evil American soldier guns who are poor, misunderstood victims of the man, of America, of white imperialism, etc., and it’s only right and proper that they have the upper hand in any engagement.
Feh!
Presumably Assemblywoman Robinson buys into the meme that police disproportionately target minorities in our cities. The Left are adepts at Distorting the Truth About Crime and Race. I won't excerpt from Heather Mac Donald's excellent article (beyond the chart below) but want to point out that she actually uses numbers, rather than feelings, to support her conclusions.
In fact, New York City Police stop Blacks less often than would be warranted by actual crime statistics, a measure of their fear of the Race industry in our fair city. The losers, those who suffer higher rates of crime by these predators than warranted, are, of course, Black New Yorkers.
It all fits together nicely for the Left. Anyone who is a member or supporter of the White Power Structure, derived from the descendants of the White Europeans who established this country, is a priori guilty of oppression, while those who identify as persons of color, are a priori, innocent victims of assumed oppression ... even when such innocents have been forced to resort to violence by their oppressors. It all makes a twisted kind of sense. That it threatens to destroy our ability to think and perceive and impairs our ability to defend ourselves is only rarely acknowledged as the goal, and then only by those who are most enamored of their distaste for this coutnry.
Recent Comments