The Democrats: A Terrorist’s Best Friend
(expanded and revised from a History of Treason Pt I and II.)

By Robert Farrow

But Bush took a swipe at his critics during the day. “This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle,”
the president said.

And how do you think our enemies in Iran and Iraq took that message? The Democrats and sadly some Generals claimed the debate is not hurting the troop’s morale. But that assertion seems almost absurd as it definitely has raised the morale of the enemy, as I will show later. Perhaps one may think this was an isolated incident. Sorry, yet another rundown of the history of treason from the Democrats will convince the reader otherwise.

*Democratic presidential candidate Barrack Hussein Obama apologized yesterday for describing the lives of 3,000 U.S. troops killed in Iraq as “wasted.” He called the remark “a slip of the tongue.”

*In November, Democrat John Kerry apologized for implying that U.S. troops were uneducated. He called his statement, “a poorly stated joke.”

*Saying the “idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong,” Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.

*In June of 2005, Democrat Dick Durbin apologized on the Senate floor for likening U.S. troops to “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings…” He called the comparisons unintentional, stating “I never ever intended any disrespect for them.”

*Also in 2005, Democrat Ted Kennedy called the U.S. military torturers. Reading from a prepared text, Kennedy said, “…we now learn that Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management - US management.” Kennedy did not apologize.

*White House Postponing Loss of Iraq, Biden Says: “I have reached the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration, maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost,” Biden said. “They have no answer to deal with how badly they have screwed it up. I am not being facetious now. Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing on your watch and hand it off to the next guy — literally, not figuratively.” Joseph Biden

*Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) plans to introduce legislation designed to halt the Bush administration’s troop “surge” in Iraq by restricting military deployments - a move he is painting as one that will “support” U.S. forces.While he has been criticized by Republicans for advocating a “cut and run” strategy, Murtha has also received praise for his stance on the issue. In January 2006, he was given a “pink badge of courage” by the anti-war group Code Pink, and he received the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award later that year.

There is a theme here, a theme that repeats itself over and over in the circles of leadership in the Democratic Party. It is a theme of defeat, appeasement, surrender, and failure. And this is the party charting the future for the United States of America. So is it any wonder that Australian Prime Minister John Howard said that terrorists in Iraq would be praying for Democratic hopeful Barack Obama to become U.S. president. Apparently, the terrorists agree. As the leader of Iraq’s al Qaeda wing gloated over forcing outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to flee the Iraqi battlefield, the speaker of Iraq’s al Qaeda wing said his group would not rest until it blew up the White House. He also said the Democrats’ victory at U.S. Congressional elections on Tuesday were a step in the right direction. A step in the right direction to what? Well, what does Al Qaeda want? That is simple, they want our defeat. Thus, according to Al Qaeda, the Democratic victory is a step in the right direction to our defeat. I must say I agree, as Democratic defensive policy of late seems to be primarily wishful thinking. And sadly, many Republicans seem to be following their lead.

I cannot help but find it amusing that the pro-slavery, pro-communist, pro-terrorist party has the nerve to critique anyone. Iraq is not going according to plan, but even if it was, liberals would still oppose it. As a popular bumper sticker states: “I already oppose the next war.” Sadly, liberals are too busy with homosexual marriage and the rights to kill babies then actually confront real human right abuses in the Middle East, or fight for woman’s rights in Islam, or stop real genocide, or say, fight for freedom of religion or democracy. Even if there was no WMD’s (there was, they were moved to Syria,) and even if he had no ties to terrorists, (he did) the fact that we freed millions from a man who committed genocide and gave an oppressed people the gift of Democracy should alone justify the war. True, many conservatives are not happy with Bush’s views on immigration, the budget, the mistakes he made in Iraq, and the failure to build the wall. But the alternative is not to join the party that since the 50’s that has never lost an opportunity to side with America’s enemies. So let’s review (again) the history of that party of appeasement, that party of defeatism, that party of treason, the Democratic Party.

Let me restate before what I said in a History of Treason I and II, the Democratic party began their shameful history as the pro-slavery party that during Lincoln’s difficult re-election accused Lincoln of breaking the law and needlessly spilling blood for a war that could not be won. (Hmmm, doesn’t that sound familiar? ) To counter the charge that they were unpatriotic that many Northerners leveled, (and a strange foreshadowing of the very policies they use today) they brought out the general Lincoln fired, General McClellan, to campaign against him. Had the Democrats succeeded, slavery would have continued. One bright spot of the Democratic party was their brave confrontation of Fascism during WWII. However, except for John F, Kennedy, the Democrats have slid back into their defeatist origins as they tripped over themselves to grovel in front of Communistic aggression. Liberals attacked Senator McCarthy for his Communist “witch hunt,” while ignoring the fact that Communist sympathizers in the American government gave Stalin the bomb. It is difficult to imagine Stalin giving his approval to the North Korean invasion of the South, on June 25th, 1950, had he not already tested his own atomic bomb on Aug 29, 1949. Millions died in the Korean War thanks to these Communist sympathizers. But who does some on the left defend and embrace, why these very same Communist sympathizers. Imagine that.

This pattern continued until the Soviet Union fell, no thanks to the party of defeatism. Ann Coulter notes in Treason that Walter Mondale went along with Democratic opposition to Reagan’s confrontation of Communism by claimed that Reagan’s support for the Contras “embarrassed us, strengthened our opposition and undermined America’s moral authority.” The media, as they do today, decided to ignore an aggressor ideology as that NYT, carrying the torch lit by Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally, demanded to know “where the Russians were taking over.” Only in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Mongolia, Turkmenia, Uzberkistan, Tajikistan, Poland, Moldovia, Lithuania, Lativia, Estonia, Albania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany, Yugoslavia, North Korea, Cuba, Cambodia, Laos, South Vietnam, South Yemen, Congo, Guinea, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Grenada, and Afghanistan. However, Ann replies, “this could hardly be called a pattern.”

Carter, not to be left out, built up an impressive resume of coddling dictators and enemies to the point where he could teach a class on the subject. Carter once described Yugoslav strongman Marshal Josef Tito as “a man who believes in human rights.” Regarding North Korea’s dearly departed Kim Il-Sung, Carter found him “vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues, and in charge of the decisions about this country,” adding “I don’t see that [North Koreans] are an outlaw nation.” He was similarly generous regarding Manuel Noriega, Romanian dictator Nicolai Ceaucescu and, of course, Yasser Arafat. He said of Ceausescu and himself, “Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and politics . . . We believe in enhancing human rights.” from Vcrisis Now Carter has lowered himself to the ranks of the anti-Semites when he called Israel and Apartheid state and “worse then S. Africa” because the Palestinians refuse to accept land for a peace deal and still want to drive all the Jews into the sea. Carter started out pathetic, and amazingly just gets worse and worse. But somehow, according to our media, Bush is the worst President.

Carter and Clinton were both praised for their diplomacy during the North Korea crisis and Carter was awarded a Nobel Appease, excuse me, Peace Prize for, among other things, “containing” North Korean nuclear ambitions with a 1994 deal that North Korea quickly broke. To the surprise of Carter and leftists all over the place, North Korea now has nuclear weapons. Carter was equally shocked when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. This is the same group who called Bush a simpleton who sees the world in black and white after the “axis-of-evil” speech and after Bush broke off talks with North Korea because they would not honor any agreement that was reached. The same rant was raised after Reagan’s “Evil Empire” speech. Apparently liberals and Democrats think mass murderers and tyrants keep their word. Did the Japanese obey the Washington Treaties? Did Hitler obey Munich? Did North Korea keep their word? No, they never do. When are the stupid liberals ever going to learn? The answer appears to be never. Luckily, the public got so tired of Carter kissing the ass of every enemy of the United States, (Um, worst president?? Hello, Rolling Stones!!) that the public decided to actually elect a non-wuss as president. By the time Reagan left office, the Soviet Union was no more. The Soviet Union fell, in part due to an economic collapse spurned on by trying to match Reagan’s military buildup. Millions became free, however, the Democrats found little to celebrate, and instead began to clamor for hundreds of new social programs so our economy could be as weak as Europe’s is now.

Dinesh D’ Souza writes that it is important to note that the doves or appeasers (the forerunners of today’s antiwar movement) were wrong on every point. They showed a very poor understanding of the nature of communism. For example, when Reagan in 1983 called the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” columnist Anthony Lewis of The New York Times became so indignant at Reagan’s formulation that he searched through his repertoire for the appropriate adjective: “simplistic,” “sectarian,” “dangerous,” “outrageous.” Finally Lewis settled on “primitive…the only word for it.” Historian Barbara Tuchman argued that instead of employing a policy of confrontation, the West should ingratiate itself with the Soviet Union by pursuing “the stuffed-goose option–that is, providing them with all the grain and consumer goods they need.” If Reagan had taken this advice when it was offered in 1982, the Soviet empire would probably still be around today.

No one, and least of all an intellectual, likes to be proved wrong. Consequently there has been in the past decade a determined effort to rewrite the history of the Cold War. This revisionist view has now entered the textbooks, and is being pressed on a new generation that did not live through the Soviet collapse. There is no mystery about the end of the Soviet Union, the revisionists say, explaining that it suffered from chronic economic problems and collapsed of its own weight.

But that is a lie. It does not take an economics major to understand that declining economy coupled with a massive increase in military spending caused an unsustainable economic position that lead to a collapse. But once you have built your position with a series of lies, to stop now would be to discredit yourself. So the appeasement continued. Now with the Soviet Union no longer in existence, the Democrats lost little time in finding a new enemy to appease.

Bill Clinton, a president any dictator would love, continued to keep the proud tradition of Chamberlain alive with this great quote, “They have good reason to hate us, after all, we sent the Crusades to try and conquer them.” If Clinton wasn’t so busy getting oral sex from interns he maybe would have had time to understand that the Crusades were fought over control over the Holy Land. Perhaps Vince Foster or Mary Jo Kopechne was aware of the Muslim invasion of Europe that was finally stopped in the Battle of Tours and that the Muslim religion was spread for the most part by conquest, but they are not telling. To be fair, Billy did take time out from his adulterous activities to bomb Iraq to take the American public’s mind of his impending impeachment. Bill, with his foreign policy equivalent of roll over and play dead, seemed to echo the line liberals loved to say after 9-11, “Why do they hate us?” To this, Ann Coulter replied” Until we understand why rapists would rape a women instead of taking them to dinner, we cannot respond to the crime of rape.” Well that makes sense to me, let’s ignore all the bad things our enemies do and try to understand them, ignoring the fact that they have hated us for over 15 hundred years. Let us ignore Tours, Hattin, Constantinople, Las Navas de Toloso, Rhodes and Malta, or Lepanto, or more recently the 1882 Beruit bombings, the 1983 Marine Barracks, the 1985 Achille Lauro, 1986 Berlin Disco, 1988 Pam Am Flight 103, 1993 World Trade Center, 1996 Housing complex in Saudia Arabia, 1998 Kenya and Tanzania, USS Cole, 911 attacks, and the countless other attacks made by Muslims throughout the world that the media ignores. Let us ignore female genital mutilation, honor killings, abuses of women, and oppression of all major fundamental human rights by Islam because it is our fault they hate us.

Not only is it our fault, it appears, it is patriotic, as I quote again from my articles, a History of Treason I and II : (The History of the Democratic party)

I really do not want to do a “History of Treason Pt IV, V, and so on. But I know I would be able if I wanted to, as there will be more messages of aid and comfort to the enemy from this treasonist party because they simply cannot help it. The Democratic party is the party of the rabid left because it is the party of appeasement, defeatism, and failure. It is no wonder that all the America haters flock to this party. (and I love the fact that these intellectual idiots hate the forces that protect them and allow them to continue their foolish views and remain alive.) But appeasement does not work. It never has. There have been enough examples in history to prove this. This fact, however, does not stop the liberals from trying it and other foolish theories despite their record of failure. (Speaking of foolish theories, pacifism is nothing short of suicide, as pacifists depend on others of the opposite view to survive and thus cannot be considered a valid theory) All liberal appeasement has done and always does is encourage the enemy. But it does not stop there. The liberal left wing of the Democratic Party’s platform is a virtual smorgasbord of self-defeating belief systems. A simple comparison will show why Islam may not need to win any battles to destroy our country. The left preaches gay marriages and abortion, and demeans motherhood. Islam does not and are having the babies that our women won’t. Liberals calls the word “Natual Family” hate speech in California and calls the label “Mom and Dad” homophobic and has begun to demonize the very pillars of our own society. Too many of us demonize our own culture, our own faith and our own country. This could not be more dangerous. An European diplomat asked an Arab general how they lost the Israel War if Independence. He replied. “They outnumbered us 10 to 1.” The European replied “But you had ten times the population of the Jews.” The Arab replied, “But they had ten times the number of people ready to die for their country then we were.” Now the tables are reversed. They do not need to defeat us in any battle to win in the long run. Our own policies will do that for them.

We are in the middle of a world war, a war for our culture, a war for our religion, and a war for Democracy. If we will not fight for our culture and our country we will loose it. Our foes have said it themselves. The Democratic platform provides and comfort to our enemies, and only seeks to encourage attacks on our way of life. Just as if the liberal Democrats and the 5th column media were in power in 1941 would have resulted in us losing WWII, if we continue to follow these suicidal beliefs and listen to the lying media and the treasonist Democrats we will not only loose our country, but our political institutions, our religion, our way of life, and our country. And maybe we should. If too many of us seek to believe the enemy MSM and are too lazy to check once and see if the stories we read daily are true. Then we deserve to be lied to. If we are not willing to fight for the rest of our lives for the freedom of speech and religion against an enemy sworn to take it away from us, do we really deserve it? If we keep on electing those that give aid and comfort to the enemy of Democracy and freedom of religion in every war and refuse to fight against the forces that oppose Democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and basic rights for women, then we do not deserve to be free, but deserve to be oppressed and to be slaves.