Sunday, June 26, 2005

Sedition is what the far left does best

I am amazed at the idiocy of the far left. 3,000 dead in NYC is not enough to warrant a long term solution. Where is the alternate vision for fixing the problem. The utopian left is in denial.

I read the familiar blogs of bloggers I disagree with and there are missing names. I hear plenty of condemnation of Goerge Bush and the religious right described as terrorist. As far as I know Pat Robertson did not ever sing Cumbayah while beheading Gays or Muslims nor did he ever shoot school kids in the back.

There is a decided problem and the left has zero answers.

The far left is not interested in working through the system. Their goal is bringing down Capitalism and much of the furor over the war and against Israel is anti capitalist. Liberals who allow Communists and far left types into their coalition serve as useful idiots for Communists and apologists for terrorists. I have spoken at length about patriotic dissent but I see next to zero of it except in VT.

The far left is not about peace except in the clever words of Warren rest in peace as they have sent 100,000,000. The far left has a history of world wide sedition and human rights fiascos. Peace is only a gateway to bring others under their ageis.
Any comparison between Pat Robertson and a far left type like Tom Hayden is grossly unfair to Robertson as he never betrayed his country.

It is time for the anti war crew to come up with solutions and step away from the Commies. Working with Commies just discredits one and makes you look like a dupe.


Always On Watch said...

I absolutely agree with your posting here. I'd LOVE to see a plan of action from the left instead of reading diatribes against Bush and against Christians who, for whatever faults they have, do not commit acts of terrorism.

In fact, one reason that GWB was re-elected is that the Dems didn't put forth a rational plan of action. A lot of Dems I know voted for Bush because they felt safer under his administration.

"Patriotic dissent," as you put it, seems to be in short supply these days. Anti-patriotic diatribes, particularly those given in public, support the enemy.

PS: I'll be out for a while but will check back, later tonight or sometime tomorrow. I'm going to take a break from my watch and go to an organ recital, which one of my music-savant homeschoolers is giving at the National Shrine in downtown D.C. The Shrine has an 8000-pipe instrument, so I'm expecting to hear something quite special! The concert promises to provide peace to the soul--something I could use right now. Listening to Bach and Franck is mental and spiritual therapy.

Robert Bayn said...

Pat Robertson is not a terriost, however thier are also other issues that do not involve, the middle east going in our great country.

I think any american left or right, is right in pointing out social and foreign issues.

Anti-war protestors, basically want peace, the question in the end is how do we achieve peace. I'm not a anti-war demostrator, i was with the war in afghanastan, I'm against the war in Iraq for a few good reasons. Does it make me a pacifist, no not really in my book, does it make me a commie? Not as far as i'm concerned, it does however make me a concerned american.

There is a decided problem and the left has zero answers.

You are abosoloutley right, the left does not have any answers to this problem, so until they have a better option, Bush's way is the only way. Do i have a better option? Nope i don't, i think its all very complicated, no one wins in the end. Soldiers die, innocent people die, terroist will always be around, unless you drop a nuke on the entire area, you really can't fix this problem.

beakerkin said...


The problem for you is a person is judged by who they associate with. I am sure you are not a commie but 167 is ask Jason. I also called it way back when and you can ask Warren and he lied about it. Lindsay is more honest about it but you can ask Esther or Warren if he is an Antisemite.

The key is training the Iraqi army.
I think this will be viewed diferently five years from now and some of the loudest critics will be ducking for cover .

Robert Bayn said...

I don't know 167 on a personal level, never really had any debates with him, but as i told you over on my blog, i link to blogs i don't always agree with, basically because i think they offer diffrent points of views.

As far as five years down the road, you may be right, history in the end will tell us if this was right or wrong.