thedrifter
02-04-06, 06:49 AM
Emulating the Gipper
Written by Christian Hartsock
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Let’s say you find yourself fortunate enough to be stuck with a liberal roommate. Then one day your apartment becomes infested with sewer rats. You try to tell your roommate but he laughs it off and calls you a fascist. When the infestation becomes particularly prominent, however, your roommate insists on befriending the rats and begins providing them with generous servings of Swiss cheese.
One day you come home and find your roommate lying on the floor and being assaulted by the vicious rats. Immediately, you manage to grab each rat by your hand and throw it into the oven. When the oven is inundated with every single rat that invaded your apartment, you turn it on and they begin slowly suffocating in excruciating heat. Instead of thanking you for your heroic bravery in saving him from the rats, your roommate snobbily remarks that you were just in the right place at the right time.
Every time America finds itself faced with a threat from a certain enemy, liberals consistently show their usefulness by denying the existence of both the enemy and the threat. In 1939, for instance, after ex-Communist Whittaker Chambers gave President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s assistant secretary of state, Adolf Berle, the names of at least two dozen Soviet spies working for the Roosevelt administration and Berle reported it to Roosevelt, Roosevelt laughed and told Berle to go f--- himself. In the early 1950s, when the government was infested with Soviet spies and the heroic Sen. Joseph McCarthy stood up to weed them out, liberals called him (and still call him) a fascist and a reckless demagogue, calling his mission a “witch-hunt.” They claimed that McCarthy made “wild accusations” (except that the accusations turned out to be true as proven by the release of the Venona cables) and that he “ruined reputations” (when in fact he originally refused to name names while Democrats in the senate tried to bully him into it).
While the Cold War was still raging and the Soviet sphere of influence was expanding to the Americas, President Jimmy Carter spoke in a speech of “our inordinate fear of communism.” As the Sandinistas, who were funded and armed by Moscow and Havana, successfully toppled the country’s dictator, Anastasio Somoza, Carter did nothing, provided no aid to the Somoza government and even pushed through a $75 million aid package for the Sandinistas. After Maurice Bishop, a Marxist who had a close relationship with Fidel Castro and who received material support from the KGB, seized power in Grenada, the Carter administration, again, did nothing, dismissing Bishop as more of a nationalist than a Marxist.
After Islamic subhumans bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, then-President Bill Clinton did nothing, and throughout the following series of attacks on Americans that would occur under his watch – in 1995, 1996, 1998 and 2000 – Clinton insisted on confronting terrorism as a law enforcement issue rather than a national security issue. It took the bloody deaths of some 3,000 Americans in September 2001 to wake Americans up to the threat of terrorism. Well, most Americans. In October 2003, Michael Moore claimed, “There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we’ve been told.”
That year, when President George W. Bush was pushing for an invasion of Iraq in light of the mounting evidence that Saddam Hussein had been in cahoots with al-Qaeda and had weapons of mass destruction, topped off by his violation of seventeen U.N. resolutions regarding weapons inspections, liberals began acting like caged monkeys on crystal meth, screaming and ranting against the invasion and insisting that Saddam Hussein was gentle little lamb. Iraqi citizens are now free from tyranny, Saddam is in prison, and it is still quite possible, if not probable that he had weapons of mass destruction as well as ties to al-Qaeda, yet liberals are treasonously demanding that we surrender to the terrorist insurgents and wishing Saddam was still in power.
Now last month marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the greatest thing to ever happen to America – President Ronald Reagan’s inauguration. Reagan is the greatest president we ever had, and possibly will ever have, for three reasons: 1) his unapologetic discernment between good and evil, 2) his empirical wisdom as it pertained to communism, and 3) his ability to unmistakably identify the enemy of our culture and national security.
During his years in Hollywood, Reagan faced head-on the presence of the Communist Party which had been active there since 1935. As early as the 1940s, Reagan was denouncing communism and actively fighting against it. Judging from what happened before and after the release of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, if a patriotic non-conformist in Hollywood dared utter a word against communism today, liberals would waste no time in spreading rumors that he is an anti-Semite or something stupid like that.
When he was governor of California, Reagan did not differentiate between overseas communists and spastic, homegrown maggot-infested communist-sympathizers in Berkeley. While most moderates would dismiss the crowd as an assortment of youthful, peace-loving hippies, Reagan saw them for what they were – an animalistic mob of treasonous terrorist insurgents allied with foreign intelligence agents in Cuba and North Vietnam, armed with rifles, shotguns, dynamite and Molotov cocktails who set off bombs, threw rocks, assaulted policemen and Navy recruiters and tried to claim university-owned land as their own. Reagan rightly called the angry savages “brats,” “freaks,” and “cowardly fascists,” and had specifically campaigned against “the mess in Berkeley.”
As president, Reagan did not shrug off Soviet expansion in the Americas as Carter had. He fought communism as it extended to Nicaragua now that Carter’s friends were in power, and swiftly and successfully in Grenada after Bishop was deposed by communist hard-liner Bernard Coard. He was a president who would not cave in to concessions even at the expense of his popularity, as evidenced by his handling of the Reykjavik summit. Before that summit, concerned that Reagan would make dangerous concessions, political adviser Lyn Nofziger said to Reagan, “Mr. President, a lot of us are fearful of what is going to go on in Iceland. We think there is talk about making a deal, and I want you to know that there are a lot of people out there who support you because of your strong stand against the USSR.” Reagan simply grinned and said, “Lynwood, I don’t want you to ever worry. I still have the scars on my back from the fights with the communists in Hollywood. I am not going to give away anything.” Most egregiously, after Reagan stood up to the Soviet Union, called it what it was, spent it into the ground and preserved liberty throughout the world, liberals are to this day claiming that he was just in the right place at the right time.
Like Reagan, what makes our current president so exceptional is his uncompromising discernment between good and evil, as manifested by his 2002 “axis of evil” speech which was deeply reminiscent of Reagan’s “evil empire” speech in 1983 which had political prisoners tapping on walls and talking through toilets to share what the leader of the free world had said. Bush has not stood by idly in the face of foreign threats as did Carter and Clinton. Furthermore, he has also taken a tough stand in the culture war (which is a virtual continuation of our fight against communism inasmuch as it is a fight against a form of communism that goes by different names) by endorsing the Federal Marriage Amendment as well as by appointing pro-life judges to the Supreme Court such as the recently confirmed Samuel Alito as well as John Roberts, who has now finally proven that he is in fact pro-life on account of his position against Oregon’s assisted suicide law in the first Supreme Court case he dealt with.
Unlike Reagan, however, President Bush can be something of a paradox concerning both the war on terror and the culture war. He has defended domestic spying, yet he refuses to seal our borders. He has spoken loudly on the topic of moral values, yet he claimed that he slept through Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” in the 2004 Super Bowl and had nothing to say about it. Bush also seems blind to the undermining of our national security by those in our own government. After Rep. John Murtha committed treason by calling for surrender in Iraq in front of the whole world, Bush called him a “strong supporter of the United States military.” Furthermore, Bush does not seem to understand the flaws inherent in Islam itself as Reagan clearly understood the flaws inherent in communism – as Reagan once said, “How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.” In his recent State of the Union speech, Bush called the actions of Islamic terrorists “perversions” of a “noble faith.” Though a majority of Muslims are indeed noble individuals, what Bush does not seem to comprehend is that Muslim terrorists are not perverting Islam; they are simply acting on the very words of the Qur’an, specifically Surahs 9:73, 47:4 and 9:123.
Nevertheless, Bush is about the best we could do for now, and possibly the best we will ever do again as the country becomes more caught in the snares of liberal relativism and political correctness and as Republicans become more inured to it. Bush will hopefully be succeeded by yet another president in the tradition of Ronald Reagan which is why I am endorsing Sen. Sam Brownback as a possible 2008 candidate. Brownback has been outspoken on national defense, openly criticized my original choice, Sen. Bill Frist, when Frist expressed support for embryonic stem-cell research in July 2005, spoke out in defense of Terri Shiavo’s life, and has consistently voted against abortion.
If not Brownback, we need someone who will emulate Reagan, “The Man Who Made Those Pussyfooters and Weaklings Feel Ashamed” as one song about him goes, who will have at least half the discernment, fortitude, conviction and optimism that Reagan had. In a sobering remark made on September 10, 1974, that would certainly pertain to today, Reagan said, “The dustbin of history is littered with the remains of those countries that relied on diplomacy to secure their freedom. We must never forget…in the final analysis…that it is our military, industrial and economic strength that offers the best guarantee of peace for America in times of danger.”
What we need is a president who will say things like that while resolutely withholding the Swiss cheese.
About the Writer: Christian Lee Hartsock, 18, is a screenwriter, political columnist, and aspiring film director. His columns have been run in various newspapers and websites, including the World Magazine blog, Newsmax, Political Vanguard, American Daily, The Berkeley Daily Planet, Renew America, ConservativeVoice.com, and others. A native of Oakland, California, Chris is currently a student at Brooks Institute of Photography in Ventura, where he is pursuing a bachelor of arts degree in film and video production. You can visit his website at ChristianHartsock.com and e-mail him at ChrisHartsock86@aol.com.
Ellie
Written by Christian Hartsock
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Let’s say you find yourself fortunate enough to be stuck with a liberal roommate. Then one day your apartment becomes infested with sewer rats. You try to tell your roommate but he laughs it off and calls you a fascist. When the infestation becomes particularly prominent, however, your roommate insists on befriending the rats and begins providing them with generous servings of Swiss cheese.
One day you come home and find your roommate lying on the floor and being assaulted by the vicious rats. Immediately, you manage to grab each rat by your hand and throw it into the oven. When the oven is inundated with every single rat that invaded your apartment, you turn it on and they begin slowly suffocating in excruciating heat. Instead of thanking you for your heroic bravery in saving him from the rats, your roommate snobbily remarks that you were just in the right place at the right time.
Every time America finds itself faced with a threat from a certain enemy, liberals consistently show their usefulness by denying the existence of both the enemy and the threat. In 1939, for instance, after ex-Communist Whittaker Chambers gave President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s assistant secretary of state, Adolf Berle, the names of at least two dozen Soviet spies working for the Roosevelt administration and Berle reported it to Roosevelt, Roosevelt laughed and told Berle to go f--- himself. In the early 1950s, when the government was infested with Soviet spies and the heroic Sen. Joseph McCarthy stood up to weed them out, liberals called him (and still call him) a fascist and a reckless demagogue, calling his mission a “witch-hunt.” They claimed that McCarthy made “wild accusations” (except that the accusations turned out to be true as proven by the release of the Venona cables) and that he “ruined reputations” (when in fact he originally refused to name names while Democrats in the senate tried to bully him into it).
While the Cold War was still raging and the Soviet sphere of influence was expanding to the Americas, President Jimmy Carter spoke in a speech of “our inordinate fear of communism.” As the Sandinistas, who were funded and armed by Moscow and Havana, successfully toppled the country’s dictator, Anastasio Somoza, Carter did nothing, provided no aid to the Somoza government and even pushed through a $75 million aid package for the Sandinistas. After Maurice Bishop, a Marxist who had a close relationship with Fidel Castro and who received material support from the KGB, seized power in Grenada, the Carter administration, again, did nothing, dismissing Bishop as more of a nationalist than a Marxist.
After Islamic subhumans bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, then-President Bill Clinton did nothing, and throughout the following series of attacks on Americans that would occur under his watch – in 1995, 1996, 1998 and 2000 – Clinton insisted on confronting terrorism as a law enforcement issue rather than a national security issue. It took the bloody deaths of some 3,000 Americans in September 2001 to wake Americans up to the threat of terrorism. Well, most Americans. In October 2003, Michael Moore claimed, “There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we’ve been told.”
That year, when President George W. Bush was pushing for an invasion of Iraq in light of the mounting evidence that Saddam Hussein had been in cahoots with al-Qaeda and had weapons of mass destruction, topped off by his violation of seventeen U.N. resolutions regarding weapons inspections, liberals began acting like caged monkeys on crystal meth, screaming and ranting against the invasion and insisting that Saddam Hussein was gentle little lamb. Iraqi citizens are now free from tyranny, Saddam is in prison, and it is still quite possible, if not probable that he had weapons of mass destruction as well as ties to al-Qaeda, yet liberals are treasonously demanding that we surrender to the terrorist insurgents and wishing Saddam was still in power.
Now last month marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the greatest thing to ever happen to America – President Ronald Reagan’s inauguration. Reagan is the greatest president we ever had, and possibly will ever have, for three reasons: 1) his unapologetic discernment between good and evil, 2) his empirical wisdom as it pertained to communism, and 3) his ability to unmistakably identify the enemy of our culture and national security.
During his years in Hollywood, Reagan faced head-on the presence of the Communist Party which had been active there since 1935. As early as the 1940s, Reagan was denouncing communism and actively fighting against it. Judging from what happened before and after the release of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, if a patriotic non-conformist in Hollywood dared utter a word against communism today, liberals would waste no time in spreading rumors that he is an anti-Semite or something stupid like that.
When he was governor of California, Reagan did not differentiate between overseas communists and spastic, homegrown maggot-infested communist-sympathizers in Berkeley. While most moderates would dismiss the crowd as an assortment of youthful, peace-loving hippies, Reagan saw them for what they were – an animalistic mob of treasonous terrorist insurgents allied with foreign intelligence agents in Cuba and North Vietnam, armed with rifles, shotguns, dynamite and Molotov cocktails who set off bombs, threw rocks, assaulted policemen and Navy recruiters and tried to claim university-owned land as their own. Reagan rightly called the angry savages “brats,” “freaks,” and “cowardly fascists,” and had specifically campaigned against “the mess in Berkeley.”
As president, Reagan did not shrug off Soviet expansion in the Americas as Carter had. He fought communism as it extended to Nicaragua now that Carter’s friends were in power, and swiftly and successfully in Grenada after Bishop was deposed by communist hard-liner Bernard Coard. He was a president who would not cave in to concessions even at the expense of his popularity, as evidenced by his handling of the Reykjavik summit. Before that summit, concerned that Reagan would make dangerous concessions, political adviser Lyn Nofziger said to Reagan, “Mr. President, a lot of us are fearful of what is going to go on in Iceland. We think there is talk about making a deal, and I want you to know that there are a lot of people out there who support you because of your strong stand against the USSR.” Reagan simply grinned and said, “Lynwood, I don’t want you to ever worry. I still have the scars on my back from the fights with the communists in Hollywood. I am not going to give away anything.” Most egregiously, after Reagan stood up to the Soviet Union, called it what it was, spent it into the ground and preserved liberty throughout the world, liberals are to this day claiming that he was just in the right place at the right time.
Like Reagan, what makes our current president so exceptional is his uncompromising discernment between good and evil, as manifested by his 2002 “axis of evil” speech which was deeply reminiscent of Reagan’s “evil empire” speech in 1983 which had political prisoners tapping on walls and talking through toilets to share what the leader of the free world had said. Bush has not stood by idly in the face of foreign threats as did Carter and Clinton. Furthermore, he has also taken a tough stand in the culture war (which is a virtual continuation of our fight against communism inasmuch as it is a fight against a form of communism that goes by different names) by endorsing the Federal Marriage Amendment as well as by appointing pro-life judges to the Supreme Court such as the recently confirmed Samuel Alito as well as John Roberts, who has now finally proven that he is in fact pro-life on account of his position against Oregon’s assisted suicide law in the first Supreme Court case he dealt with.
Unlike Reagan, however, President Bush can be something of a paradox concerning both the war on terror and the culture war. He has defended domestic spying, yet he refuses to seal our borders. He has spoken loudly on the topic of moral values, yet he claimed that he slept through Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” in the 2004 Super Bowl and had nothing to say about it. Bush also seems blind to the undermining of our national security by those in our own government. After Rep. John Murtha committed treason by calling for surrender in Iraq in front of the whole world, Bush called him a “strong supporter of the United States military.” Furthermore, Bush does not seem to understand the flaws inherent in Islam itself as Reagan clearly understood the flaws inherent in communism – as Reagan once said, “How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.” In his recent State of the Union speech, Bush called the actions of Islamic terrorists “perversions” of a “noble faith.” Though a majority of Muslims are indeed noble individuals, what Bush does not seem to comprehend is that Muslim terrorists are not perverting Islam; they are simply acting on the very words of the Qur’an, specifically Surahs 9:73, 47:4 and 9:123.
Nevertheless, Bush is about the best we could do for now, and possibly the best we will ever do again as the country becomes more caught in the snares of liberal relativism and political correctness and as Republicans become more inured to it. Bush will hopefully be succeeded by yet another president in the tradition of Ronald Reagan which is why I am endorsing Sen. Sam Brownback as a possible 2008 candidate. Brownback has been outspoken on national defense, openly criticized my original choice, Sen. Bill Frist, when Frist expressed support for embryonic stem-cell research in July 2005, spoke out in defense of Terri Shiavo’s life, and has consistently voted against abortion.
If not Brownback, we need someone who will emulate Reagan, “The Man Who Made Those Pussyfooters and Weaklings Feel Ashamed” as one song about him goes, who will have at least half the discernment, fortitude, conviction and optimism that Reagan had. In a sobering remark made on September 10, 1974, that would certainly pertain to today, Reagan said, “The dustbin of history is littered with the remains of those countries that relied on diplomacy to secure their freedom. We must never forget…in the final analysis…that it is our military, industrial and economic strength that offers the best guarantee of peace for America in times of danger.”
What we need is a president who will say things like that while resolutely withholding the Swiss cheese.
About the Writer: Christian Lee Hartsock, 18, is a screenwriter, political columnist, and aspiring film director. His columns have been run in various newspapers and websites, including the World Magazine blog, Newsmax, Political Vanguard, American Daily, The Berkeley Daily Planet, Renew America, ConservativeVoice.com, and others. A native of Oakland, California, Chris is currently a student at Brooks Institute of Photography in Ventura, where he is pursuing a bachelor of arts degree in film and video production. You can visit his website at ChristianHartsock.com and e-mail him at ChrisHartsock86@aol.com.
Ellie