Quote of the week 1/21/2008

captainamericavshitler33-cap.jpgMartin Niemoller said of failing to oppose the Nazi regime: “First they came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me.”

The problem in Germany was that there was no one left in the country but Jews, Nazis, Communists, Trade Unionists and Martin Niemoller.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Quote of the week 1/21/2008

  1. Niemoller, of course, was saying that we need to stand up for the rights of others or it will be a matter of justice that no one will stand up for ours.

    The “analysis” that follows it, beggining with the words, “The problem in Germany…” draws its humor from, first, taking the sentence too literally, as if the only people in Germany were the groups he mentioned, and, second, suggesting that the skewed demographic picture thus painted indicates a cultural decline.

  2. To the contrary, the Nazis did not define “cultural decline” as a society in which they had outlasted all but three other demographic groups and were busily and successfully eliminating those.

    The point of most jokes, Mrs. Troy, is the enjoyment of laughter. This one has the added, though admittedly secondary, benefit of stimulating thought on the very legitimate topic of speaking up against evil, even when it is neither safe nor popular AND the growing propensity of the cult of “diversity” to weigh issues and the makeup of society by external characteristics of its constituent parts, ethnic, political and occupational.
    Blacks for Obama, Women for Hillary, Evangelicals for Huckabee, Mormons for Romney; it’s all “identity politics” and unfortunate. But, you know, while a fool may curse the darkness, a wise man lights a candle that, when you blow it out, re-lights itself a second later. Wait, is that a wise man or a wise “guy?”

  3. The Nazis definitely defined a society in which “the only people in Germany were the groups he (Niemoller) mentioned,” i.e., Jews, Communists, etc. as being in decline.

    I know a great many people who are supporters of Hillary and supporters of Obama. All supporters of Hillary are by no means female, nor do most of her female supporters advocate voting for Hillary merely because she is female. All supporters of Obama are by no means black, nor do most of his black supporters advocate voting for Obama merely because he is black. The complaint you have about multiculturalism is especially ridiculous when you try to somehow twist the Niemoller statement into a warning about it.

    It’s not the liberals or “multiculturalists” here in the US who’ve eliminated habeas corpus, advocated the secret detention and torture of detainees, and even in some cases suggested that Muslims be rounded up and interned. It’s not the liberals or “multiculturalists” who are echoing the Nazi canard about the “stab in the back.” It’s not the liberals or “multiculturalists” who are equating dissent with treason. As far as I know, Ann “we have to physically intimidate liberals” Coulter is not a “multiculturalist.”

    Are you SURE you understand the Niemoller Statement?

  4. Mrs. Troy,
    I’d like to comment on your first paragraph, but since it borders on grammatic incoherence, I’ll just ask you to clear it up.

    Did you mean to say, ‘The Nazis attempted to create a society in which “the groups he (Niemoller) mentioned,” were in decline’? That is not a sentence related to what I had just said. We were talking about how the Nazis defined the phrase “cultural decline,” not how they defined “society” either in general, or as a Nazi goal.

    Did you mean to say, “The Nazis defined a society where such groups as Niemoller mentioned SHOULD be in decline.” or “The Nazis defined a society as being in “cultural decline” if it included such groups.” ?
    It is not possible to tell which you meant. Please tell me what you did mean.

    In any case, The phrase “skewed demographic picture” in my post (at 2) refers to all the groups, including the Nazis. The fact is that Niemoller mentioned the Nazis, themselves, by repeated use of the pronoun, “they”, and our “quote of the week” comment about his quotation also specifically mentions the Nazis, lumping them together with the other groups.
    The Nazis, obviously did not define “cultural decline” as a society in which there was an emergence of Nazis. They would have thought of that as an improvement. Nor would they have thought of a society typified by the elimination of their enemies as being in “cultural decline” but, rather, improvement. So the Nazi’s definition of “cultural decline,” not being mentioned or referenced, either in my post (at 2) or the original article, should not be at issue. Why do you bring it up?

    You say, “ I know a great many people who are supporters of Hillary and supporters of Obama. All supporters of Hillary are by no means female, nor do most of her female supporters advocate voting for Hillary merely because she is female. All supporters of Obama are by no means black, nor do most of his black supporters advocate voting for Obama merely because he is black.” This obvious fact rises to the level of non-sequitur. What point could you possibly be making by repeating it?

    You reference “The complaint you [meaning me] have about multiculturalism,” but I did not state any complaint about multiculturalism. None exists in the text. That’s why no such “complaint” of mine could possibly be “ridiculous.” Nor did I “twist” the Niemoller statement in any direction. I never made any suggestion that Neimoller’s statement had anything to do with multiculturalism. I said that the joke following his statement stimulated thought about multiculturalism. Your current comment is literal proof I was right.

    Your paragraph about habeas corpus, torture, Muslim round-ups, “stab in the back,” and “equating dissent with treason” is a venture into irrelevent diatribe. None of it has anything to do with my replies to your comment and you’ve not attempted to connect it to the original article, either. In my opinion your thinly-veiled attempts, in that paragraph, to smear unnamed “conservatives” with vague insinuations is a bit cowardly. If you have accusations to make, make them. Who are you accusing? What specifically, did they say or do? What does any of it have to do with the Niemoller post?

    I know of no conservative, specifically including Ann Coulter, who has equated dissent with treason. Of course she is not a multiculturalist. No intelligent, good-willed person is.

    Liberals have, however, fought a war on our freedoms for a long time. Their entire economic agenda is composed of such attacks. Thought crime legislation is being regularly proposed by liberals and Democrats at every level of American Government as well as other restrictions on political and non-political speech. All of that is a direct assault on the First Amendment and American political freedom.
    Are you sure YOU understand the Niemoller Statement?

  5. It’s quite simple.

    You wrote, in the course of explaining your joke, that it “draws its humor from, first, taking the sentence too literally, as if the only people in Germany were the groups he mentioned, and, second, suggesting that the skewed demographic picture thus painted indicates a cultural decline.”

    The groups Niemoller mentioned were “Jews, Communists, etc.”

    I observed that the Nazis certainly viewed as being “in decline” any country in which the only people left were “Jews, Communists, etc.” They would even view as being “in decline” any country in which the only people aside form Nazis were “Jews, Communists, etc.” That certainly seems to have been how many of them viewed the Weimar Republic.

    As for my point about Obama, Hillary, etc, it was a direct response to your following comment:

    “Blacks for Obama, Women for Hillary, Evangelicals for Huckabee, Mormons for Romney; it’s all ‘identity politics’ and unfortunate. But, you know, while a fool may curse the darkness, a wise man lights a candle that, when you blow it out, re-lights itself a second later. Wait, is that a wise man or a wise ‘guy?'”

    You appeared to be equating “identity politics” with support for Obama and Hillary. If you weren’t, what was your point?

    Whether you refer to it as “diversity” or “multiculturalism,” your attempt to fold, spindle and mutilate the Niemoller Statement as a warning against “diversity” or “mulitculturalism” is ridiculous.

    And of course, Ann Coulter has equated dissent with treason. How else should I interpret the following quotes?:

    “We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn into outright traitors.”

    “Even fanatical Muslim terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do.”

    “Liberals weren’t hiding under the bed during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nations ability to defend itself, while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy’s name. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as Nazis.”

    As for liberals fighting “a war on our freedoms for a long time,” I’m old enough to remember liberals traveling to the American south, at considerable personal risk, to register black southerners for the vote. I’m old enough to remember the names of liberals like Michael Schwerner and Viola Liuzzo, both of whom paid the ultimate price. I’ve known liberals who fought in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War. Think they “hated” America as Ann Coulter claims they did? Does the liberalism of my father-in-law, who saw combat in the Pacific, mean that he “hated” America? How about his liberal brother who was captured by the Germans and spent much of the war in a prison camp? His liberal family who, for much of the war, thought their eldest son was dead?

    Yes, I do understand the Niemoller Statement. I’m familiar enough with the history of the Third Reich to know exactly what Niemoller was describing. In the wake of the Reichstag fire, Hitler began rounding up Communists, carrying them off by the truckload. They were “terrorists,” you see, (The government said so!) responsible for the arson. It was the first big round-up under Nazism, and the rationale offered was that, in the wake of this terrible crime, extreme measures had to be taken.

    An unnamed German in the book THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE FREE put it best:

    “What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise, to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, could not be released because of national security…

    Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ would resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

    Pastor Niemoller spoke for thousands and thousands of men like me… “

  6. Gosh, Mrs. Troy,
    If it’s so simple, how do you keep missing it?
    The “groups mentioned,” from the beginning, INCLUDED THE NAZIS. Niemoller mentioned them, the comment in the original post mentioned them, I mentioned them again in my first response to you (at 2), I mentioned them again in my second response to you (at 4). Just in case you had missed it, I repeated it, again, in my post (at 6), explaining, in detail, how you had clearly mis-read or intentionally mis-quoted the post, pointing out FIVE TIMES in the fourth paragraph that the Nazis were one of the groups and, hence, could not have been included in any Nazi “definition” of cultural decline.
    Yet you have persisted in eliminating the Nazis as a portion of the collective (fantastic and, hence, humorous) demographic, asserting that “the Nazis certainly viewed as being “in decline” any country in which the only people left were “Jews, Communists, etc.”
    Most particularly ridiculous is your continued insistence that anyone on earth could have thought that the only people left in Germany, prior to Nazi arrests, were Jews, Nazis, Communists, Trade Unionists and Martin Niemoller. It is my recollection that there were some Catholics in white collar occupations… or am I hoplessly misinformed?
    You say, “You appeared to be equating ‘identity politics’ with support for Obama and Hillary.” I have no doubt that it appeared that way to you, but that is more attributable to your ongoing moral and political myopia than anything I said, and, perhaps some ongoing reading comprehension challenges. I made no such equasion. There is no question that some of each of those demographic groups will vote for those candidates because they identify with each demograpic attribute. Is that too hard for you to follow? The liberal media covers it constantly.
    You say, “Whether you refer to it as “diversity” or “multiculturalism,” your attempt to fold, spindle and mutilate the Niemoller Statement as a warning against “diversity” or “mulitculturalism” is ridiculous.”
    This has been adequately explained to you already. There was no attempt by me to interpret the Niemoller statement at all. Your persistent assertion that I have done so is now, given that you have had ample time and material to straighten out any unintentional misunderstanding, best referred to as: a lie. You are lying.
    You are, similarly, lying about Ann Coulter. Everything she said in the excerpts you quoted was literally true and none of it adds up to equating simple “dissent” with treason.
    When people set about to destroy their own nation, from the foundation up, they are embarked on treasonous venture. It is treason. Undoubtedly, of course, in every case of treason, the underlying motive of the traitors, reduced to rhetoric, whether or not they actually express it, would be “dissent.” Certainly, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had their reasons for betraying America to the Communists – they “dissented” from U.S. Policy. Certainly Alger Hiss had reasons to work for the Communist Party and its intended overthrow of the U.S. Government and that body of Hiss’ opinion could rightly be called “dissent.” But it was not the “dissent” that was the treason. It was the betrayal. Coulter points to a pattern of betrayal and calls it “treason.” You attempt to point out that it ivolved “dissent” as if “dissent” was an excuse for treason. That is not sane.
    That shouldn’t be that hard to follow, but, given your track record, I’m not optimistic you’ll get it.

  7. If you were not attempting to “interpret the Niemoller statement” by citing it as a warning against what you call “the cult of diversity,” why did you drag the “cult of diversity” into a conversation specifically dealing with the meaning of the Niemoller statement? I did not bring up Obama and Clinton in the course of this discussion. You did.

    No, I am not “lying about Ann Coulter.” As you know, I didn’t make up those quotes. And aside from the fact that she wrote a book entitled TREASON: LIBERAL TREACHERY FROM THE COLD WAR TO THE WAR ON TERRORISM, the things she accuses liberals of certainly fit the definition of the term “treason,” which is “disloyalty or treachery to one’s country or its government; any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one’s government.”

    Saying that liberals are only restrained from becoming traitors by fear of execution, that liberals hate America as much as the men who flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon, that liberals were “systematically undermining the nation’s ability to defend itself” during the McCarthy period, is saying that liberals are guilty of treason. What, for heaven’s sake, do you think treason is? Your claim that she’s not accusing liberals and Democrats of treason is as absurd as someone saying, “Yes, she’s accused you of deliberately and with premeditation killing your parents with an axe in order to inherit their fortune – but she’s not accusing you of MURDER!”

    It’s not just the Rosenbergs or Alger Hiss she’s accusing of treason. It’s liberals in general. You tell me that those Coulter quotes I offered are “literally true.” Is it really your contention that my parents, my siblings, my husband and I are only restrained from giving aid and comfort to Osama Bin Laden by our fear of being executed? Can you explain to me exactly why, as a feminist, a liberal, and an atheist, I would have the slightest interest in helping out a bunch of fundamentalist thugs who are diametrically opposed to everything I believe in? Are you saying that my liberal WWII veteran father-in-law and his family had an even deeper hatred for America than the men who murdered 3,000 people on 9/11? How about the liberal victims of the 9/11 terrorists? After all, this WAS in New York City, and there were bound to be quite a few. Were the liberals among the 3,000 who died that day a bunch of traitors and America haters?

    And are you truly unable to conceive that someone can be a liberal and still love this country very deeply and profoundly?

  8. Mrs. Troy,
    Your inability to follow reasoned exposition is staggering. At first I thought you were faking it, just to make offensive statements, but it seems to me you are sincere and that is truly astounding.
    Let’s start with Coulter.
    You began by falsely accusing Coulter of equating dissent with treason. Dissent may accompany treason, but it is not the same thing and she never said it was. When I pointed this out, you responded as if I had claimed she never made any accusations of treason. Where do you get this stuff?
    She accuses specific liberals, specifically, in the past, of treason, and her accusations are accurate. She shows how the intent of those so engaged is identical to the traditional instincts of “liberalism” (as the term is currently used – to distinguish it from classic liberalism which actually had something to do with freedom).
    The undeniable tendency of modern liberalism is to government collectivism. Government collectivism is the very heart and soul of tyranny. That is why liberals always gravitate to supporting the enemies of American Freedom: liberals oppose that freedom. The difference between a communist and a liberal is that a communist takes a liberal’s inclinations to its logical conclusions and a liberal, as resistant to logic as he is to freedom, does not. So while a communist would openly argue that we must smash the private medical industry and replace it with a government system, a liberal would propose a series of “progressive” reforms to gradually accomplish the exact same thing, but might even sincerely deny that that is what he is doing. The same applies to every private industry and the track record of both the communists and the liberals on this is long and irrefutable.
    Government control is not freedom. In the Soviet Union they had Government Control of everything. In America liberals are working to accomplish it one program at a time.
    When America finds itself in international conflict with Communists or Islamists for whom the destruction of America is a primary goal, true liberals always fight, in the propaganda war, on the side of America’s enemies. They have a heart of treason. They have not all committed treason. Coulter never made any such claim that they had. I must assume that your claim that she has done so is based on your inability to parse English sentences rationally.

    Let me help you. If I tell you that blacks have been lynched by Southern whites, I am reciting a fact of history, but I am not indicting all Southern whites for lynching. When Coulter says liberals have committed treason she is not indicting all liberals. If I tell you that cooks have made hamburgers it does not constitute a claim that ALL cooks have made hamburgers. Many Asian cooks, for instance, have not.
    If the above, self-evident logic, which, apparently, is beyond you, were not enough, Coulter makes the distinction clear in a passage you, yourself, quote: “We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn into outright traitors.” What she is suggesting is that he natural liberal inclination to side with America’s enemies can be kept in the sphere of dissent, and not allowed to grow into treason by the simple expediency of continuing to execute those that cross the line.

    The fact that many men and women serving in the armed forces have fought, struggled and died for America, but are ideologically susceptible to the errors of liberalism is not an excuse for, or recommendation of, liberalism. It has nothing to do with it.

    You ask, “If you were not attempting to “interpret the Niemoller statement” by citing it as a warning against what you call “the cult of diversity,” why did you drag the “cult of diversity” into a conversation specifically dealing with the meaning of the Niemoller statement?” Here, again, you are lying. The conversation had nothing to do with the meaning of the Niemoller statement. The issue at hand concerned the portion of the original post that was added to the Niemoller statement, and, even in that context, did not claim that any portion of the article “warned against multiculturalism” but, rather, could “stimulate thought” about multiculturalism. I never did anything that could remotely be construed as citing the Niemoller statement “as a warning against ‘the cult of diversity.’” The statement, by itself, has absolutely nothing to do with “diversity.” You know this. We’ve been over it repeatedly. The text of the Niemoller quote, the additional language of the original article, and all my commentary is here, above, for anyone to read, right on this page, yet you continue to dishonestly and repeatedly mis-represent it. You are a liar.
    As a liberal, you swim in an imaginary universe, re-creating reality in your mind to match the architecture of your personal darkness. As an activist and author you work to obscure the truth to spread your spiritual darkness to others. I pray that you may be given grace to repentance.
    Bless your dirty heart.

  9. From you: “If I tell you that blacks have been lynched by Southern whites, I am reciting a fact of history, but I am not indicting all Southern whites for lynching. When Coulter says liberals have committed treason she is not indicting all liberals.”

    If I announce “white southerners are always violent racists” and declare that the only thing preventing white southerners from lynching is the fear of being executed for it, I certainly am indicting all white southerners. Ann Coulter has said, “Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, LIBERALS ARE ALWAYS AGAINST AMERICA (Emphasis added,)” And her quote about the need to “physically intimidate liberals” claims that we are so inherently disloyal that only fear of execution prevents us from being “outright traitors.” The distinction you tout – “well, the liberals afraid of being executed aren’t traitors” still presumes that all liberals – including me, my husband, my siblings, my elderly parents and my in-laws — are incipient traitors prevented from engaging in treason only by “physical intimidation.”

    From you: “The fact that many men and women serving in the armed forces have fought, struggled and died for America, but are ideologically susceptible to the errors of liberalism is not an excuse for, or recommendation of, liberalism. It has nothing to do with it.”

    The fact that liberals in the armed forces have fought, struggled and died for America is part of what renders especially offensive Ann Coulter’s claim that “Liberals are always against America.” Really? Even those liberals who gave their lives for this country?

    Unless you are discussing the font, the spelling, the paper quality, or the grammatical structure, ANY discussion of a quote – including the Niemoller Statement — involves talking about its meaning. And no, anyone reading this knows that my saying that you were the one who introduced Obama and Clinton into the conversation is no lie.

  10. I appreciate your corrections. You now admit that Coulter did not accuse all liberals of treason, but of a tendency to it. There is, of course, no universal tendency to racism among white Southerners, but there is, by contrast, a universal tendency to oppose freedom among Liberals. The antipiathy to freedom that defines liberalism does, in fact, make their default position opposition to the interests of America.
    You complain that Coulter’s indictment of the perennial liberal opposition to America’s interests in international struggles should not fall on active members of the armed forces. Let’s take Viet Nam as a sample case. Liberal Jane Fonda broadcast from behind enemy lines to thwart the U.S. interests in that war. Liberal John Kerry defamed the troops in that war with false accusations of war crimes and atrocities (as well as faking throwing away his medals). Both of their actions opposed America and both of them were taking the liberal position. If “liberal” service men then in active duty were also fabricating false stories of war crimes or working to get their comrades in arms to withdraw from the full prosecution of the war, yes, they were “against America.” If they weren’t doing those things, they had, for that time and on that issue, abandoned liberalism.

    No, of course fear of execution is not the only thing that would keep a liberal’s anti-American tendencies from maturing into treason. Neither Coulter nor I said so. She said traitors should be executed as a deterrant and I agree. Just as all thieves are formerly people who wanted to steal and punishing convicted thieves has a deterrent effect on people that want to steal, but some could resist the urge without the deterrent, so some liberals would not yield to the temptation to help the enemy, even if they were not in fear of execution. And I admire that.

    Once again, your final paragraph is an exercise in distortion. Of course, as you say, “ANY discussion of a quote – including the Niemoller Statement — involves talking about its meaning.” But I was not discussing the Niemoller statement. I was, as has been pointed out more times than should be necessary for anyone older than 8, discussing the material in the original post added to the quote. No, your claim that I was the person who introduced Obama and Clinton (as well as Huckabee and Romney) into the conversation was not a lie. I never said it was a lie. Any implication that I said it was a lie is a lie.

  11. So your argument is, “Coulter didn’t accuse all liberals of being traitors. She accused all liberals of being INCIPIENT traitors?”

    That’s the best you can do?

    And if liberalism has an “antipathy to freedom,” how do you explain the very significant role liberals played in the black Civil Rights movement?

    No, Coulter didn’t just say executing traitors would be a “deterrant” to freedom. She said that executing traitors would be a deterrant keeping LIBERALS from committing treason, and strongly implied it was the only thing preventing us from treason.

    You are aware, aren’t you, of the traitors in our country’s history who were NOT liberals? Jefferson Davis? Timothy McVeigh? Robert Hanssen? Of the liberals in history who distinguished themselves by their courage and by their adherence to American ideals? George McGovern? (winner of the Distinguished Flying Cross) Michael Schwerner? (gave his life in the service of black civil rights) Martin Luther King Jr.?

  12. Mrs. Troy,
    You very much remind me of the Glenn Close character in the film Fatal Attraction. You put Ann’s pet rabbit on the stove to boil and then attack me with various rhetorical melee weapons but I turn back your assaults (on me, on Ann Coulter, on truth) and demonstrate that every attack is false, but you keep rising up, with some new distortion or fabrication, as from some psychic half-filled bathtub, with that sudden horror-movie shreiking sound effect.

    Now you ask if Coulter accused all liberals of being “incipient” traitors. We have made it clear that they are “potential” traitors, because they are antagonistic to freedom, but the word “incipient” could mean that they have, in some small way actually begun to commit treason. Based on your track record, I must assume that you are attempting to lay the predicate for some future distortion of my meaning or Coulter’s. Nice try.

    What we don’t get from you is any apology for all your past false accusations. Once they are disproved you quit making them, and come up with new ones, but you never admit your past sins.

    How do I “explain the very significant role liberals played in the black Civil Rights movement?” Easy. Most of them were not “liberals” in the modern sense, but in the “classical” sense I referred to earlier. The great Republican, Martin Luther King, Jr. is a perfect example. He fought racial discrimination to build a society that did not judge a man by his skin color. He was, as am I, a “classical” liberal, an advocate of freedom. He was targeted and persecuted by the Kennedy administration. Later, during the sixties the civil rights movement was systematically infiltrated, diluted and seduced by the Marxist movement and, as an adjunct to their takeover of the Democratic Party, coalesced around principles, not of freedom, but of government central control.
    It was part of a massive Cultural Revoltion that changed America in many ways, allmost all of them negative, and changed the definition of the words “liberal” and “conservative.” The Black Civil Rights Movement that Dr. King had founded, following Dr. King’s assassination, turned around completely and abandoned the idea of a “color-blind,” integrated society and began to pursue programs that would favor blacks on a separatist, racially discriminatory basis. They also began to teach anti-white racist hatred to young blacks, teaching them that racism was built in to “capitalism” and “white society,” much as you preach male hatred (misandry) based on (falsely) presumed misogyny.
    They have completely abandoned the classical liberalism (which is the essense of modern “conservatism”) Dr. King taught, but they still carry around his picture and claim his legacy. They have replaced his principles with those of Malcom X, with whom he has no common ground.

    You say, “No, Coulter didn’t just say executing traitors would be a ‘deterrant’ to freedom.” I assume this must be a typo. No one, least of all Coulter or I, would say executing traitors would be a “deterrant” to FREEDOM, no one has suggested that. I can’t imaging that even you would suggest anyone has claimed that Coulter said that. What did you mean?

    You say, “…strongly implied it was the only thing preventing us from treason.” Not true. You can’t “imply” a word as specific as “only.” That suggestion is an “inferrance” and comes entirely from the back of your mind, not Coulter’s.

    Regarding your list of “non-liberal” traitors, Jefferson Davis was certainly not a “classic liberal” (like MLK or myself), but he did lead a great body of people to accomplish cultural dominance over an oppressed minority based on the doctrine that they were “property” and less that fully human. That precisely duplicates the actions of “modern liberal” feminism (NOW, NARAL, PP, etc.), not with regard to blacks, of course, but making inhuman “property” of pre-natal children. It is interesting, further, to note the solid association by the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, with the Ku Klux Klan, when comparing her to Davis.
    Robert Hanssen was non-ideological, politically, but a materialist, like all atheists, having betrayed both his family and his country for cash, alone.
    Timothy McVeigh might have been a muslim or a fascist (a branch of socialism), but was certainly not a conservative, if that is what you meant to imply.

    I’ve already covered Martin Luther King, but it should be pointed out that Schwerner, as well, gave his life in the struggle for equality, not quota diversity, and I am not aware that he had any socialist beliefs. The struggle for racial equality founded the Republican Party, and Republicans, including Dr. King, were a driving force in the civil rights movement until the Marxist takeover in the ‘60s. The chief opponents of the civil rights movement, historically, were Democrats.

    You continue to bring up men with a distinguished or even heroic military record as some justification for liberalism, but there is no correlation. It is generally young men who go to combat in war and, hence, young men with partially developed philosophies, more influenced by what they grew up with than any independent development, that do heroic deeds in war and win medals. The kind of long-term philosophical deterioration that makes a true liberal isn’t usually accomplished ‘til years later. I doubt that George McGovern was seriously contemplating a government-guaranteed universal minimum income while he was flying combat missions over Europe in the early forties.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s