You are hereBlogs / dlindorff's blog / Maintaining the Empire

Maintaining the Empire


By dlindorff - Posted on 19 August 2010

By John Grant

First it was Press Secretary Robert Gibbs attacking the “professional left” (whatever that means) for wanting to "eliminate the Pentagon." Then the liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd kicked the left for “constantly sniping at Obama" and for considering "pragmatism a moral compromise."

Next, pragmatist Senator Harry Reid announced he opposed building an Islamic mosque two blocks from Ground Zero in New York, the sort of pragmatism power-Democrats understand, ie. pandering to the intolerant bigot vote in a tough election, in Reid’s case against Republican nutcase Sharron Angle.

The fact the New York mosque is far from Nevada and is the project of a Sufi element of Islam that preaches peace and love didn’t seem to bother Harry.

The left does not oppose pragmatism or compromise; the left can’t stand the absence of backbone and a moral compass.

Consider the latest on Afghanistan. General David Petraeus is visiting all the major media outlets and employing his charm and facile language skills to insert a wedge into President Obama’s stated intent to remove troops from Afghanistan beginning in July of next year.

“I didn’t come out here to carry out a graceful exit or something like that. I came out here committed to achieving our objectives,” Petraeus told David Gregory of “Meet The Press.” And what are those objectives?

“It’s about rooting out every last guy, so that there’s not even somebody who can fire a single, solitary RPG round from some little galat out here." Then, "If you don’t want to have to kill or capture every bad guy in the country, you have to reintegrate those who are willing to be reconciled and become part of the solution instead of a continued part of the problem”...

For the rest of this article by JOHN GRANT in ThisCantBeHappening!, the new independent, collectively-owned, journalist-run online newspaper, please go to: ThisCantBeHappening!

Quote: "The left does not oppose pragmatism or compromise; the left can’t stand the absence of backbone and a moral compass".

The so-called left elected Obama when it was already clear that he was a rather criminal Senator; far from alone in that regard, but no sane, responsible, and informed person would vote for a known criminal even if the govt or politics hadn't declared the person was criminal. Some on the left claimed Obama was a "lesser evil"; right about evil, unable to prove "lesser". They continued this deceitful propaganda anyway.

It'd be difficult for McCain to have been worse than Obama. He might have possibly spoken more stupidly, but to be really worse is another matter.

Left and right in the U.S.? Little difference. They both work for the same ruling financial elites.

If the left really cared about having "backbone and a moral compass", then the left would not bitch about someone like Ralph Nader independently or otherwise running for President, f.e.; but the left has constantly bitched about this, anti-democratically, and based on lies. Many of the left claimed that his electoral campaign caused Al Gore to lose the 2000 election, which is a lie. For one thing, Al Gore was proven to have won that election and this news that came out in Fall 2001 just did not get around, with the country caught up in 9/11 hyseria. And he's not a particularly moral person. He's basically complicit with Bill Clinton's crimes when he was President, because Gore silently went along with the crimes. He never opposed any of Clinton's crimes and rogue manners.

The second thing is that the U.S. is a democracy and citizens have the Constitutional right to vote for whoever they believe is a fitting candidate. That would be understood by people with real moral consciences and backbone, but these've been seriously lacking features with "lefties", and "righties". Ralph Nader far surpassed Bush and Gore in terms of qualitative political representation (not vote counts), but the left prefers to lie and bitch about him causing the left's chosen candidate to lose elections. It's the left's fault for not choosing sufficiently qualified candidates. Pick criminals and then other voters have the Constitutional right (and duty) to not support these choices.

Many of the left supported evil Joseph Lieberman and other evil and racketeering candidates. Why should citizens with real consciences support such choices? They won't, if they're truly moral, Constitutional and informed.

Many of the left love to lie and to live in denial. That's their choice; not mine or any one else who prefers to be free of the left's perverted ways.

The left waged war of aggression on Kosovo and Yugoslavia in 1999, but we hardly will ever find any "lefties" admitting this. They also supported Clinton's two terms of genocide against Iraqis, who had done nothing at all to the U.S. or anyone else, really. The invasion of Kuwait was primarily because that country was stealing from Iraq's oil resources, committing a cross-border, so international crime against Iraq. "Lefties" supported these and plenty of other extreme crimes against humanity with their political or electoral choices. The genocidal sanctions Clinton maintained against Iraq started with Gulf War I of the U.S. and he did not command that war of aggression, which was also based on lies, but he maintained the genocidal, murderous sanctions and the "left" didn't complain.

Moral backbone, conscience, the left? Not much worthy of note. So far, the track record is very, very poor.

Left and right are pretty much merged, working for the same bunch of rober baron elites, but the left might possibly lie more than the right does. I'm not sure which of the two lies more. But I realize that both lie a lot and that neither is significantly representative of moral conscience and spine.

I'm neither right nor left. Instead, I make my own decisions. And I don't think anyone should pretend to be able to speak for the "left", for when people do that, they infer the whole "left". No single person represents the whole or even most of the left. "Individual conscience is primordial" and this requires being an [individual].

Be an [individual], for crying out loud. Lemmings are not representative of good ways for human society.

"Melting pot" culture is bs; it does not fit with essential individual conscience very well at all. Multiculturalism is better, but not a guarantee against mass brainwashing. Individual conscience is what's needed. When people of sound individual conscience unite, then there's potential for real strength. Otherwise, we tend towards mass brainwashing and dumbing down of the population. Only individual conscience provides real freedom. We might possibly be able to have freedom without IC, but it'd be superficial. Who wants superficial freedom? Not I.

If the left had real backbone and moral conscience, then it would not fear voting for or supporting independent electoral or political candidates, but this is far from what the left has illustrated of itself. Is the left going to miraculously change, for the better? It'd be great if that happened. Will that happen; is that change "in the works"? I don't know, but the November elections should give us a good idea of what the answer is.

Informed Activist

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.