"Are Democrats the New Tories?"

Are Democrats the new Tories? In light of recent events concerning the war on terrorism, it would appear so. The Tories of the Revolutionary Era--or Loyalists as some called them-- chose to side with the British insteard of their fellow colonists. By siding against American interests in the war on terror, Democrats and their allies have taken on the role of the Tories.

History will not look favorably upon the Democrats due to their constant opposition to efforts to ensure American success in Iraq. The Tories of the Revolutionary War period were ''vilified as offenders against the public good who acted out of ignorance, cupidity, or moral obtuseness.''[1] That sure sounds like the Democrats of today. By standing on the wrong side in the war on terrorism, are Democrats to suffer the same fate?

As America comes under attack not only from the adherents of radical Islam, but also from other countries jealous of our strength and virtue, one must wonder whose side certain Americans are on. Democrats, their allies on the left, and American Muslim groups have crossed the line in their opposition to the actions of our country and their loyalty must be questioned. When does such opposition become treasonous? Madeline Albright telling the French that they were ''a little bit right'' is not the best way to display one's loyalty.

Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are leading the Democratic Party into an abyss from which they may never return. Their irresponsible and dangerous rhetoric, coupled with their failed campaign to defeat the $87 billion package for our troops and the rebuilding of Iraq, makes it obvious that they are opposed to any effort that would guarantee American success in Iraq.

Republican politicians need to take a tougher stance and begin questioning the loyalty of the Democrats. The American public is beginning to recognize that the Democratic Party does not want America to succeed in Iraq. Regardless of a politician's stance on Operation Iraqi Freedom, the fact remains that America is embroiled in conflict and should receive the full support of all in Congress. Despite the misrepresentation of the situation in Iraq by the liberal media and the Democrats, we are winning the battle in Iraq. It would be a tragedy if we were to lose it because of treachery at home.

The Democratic candidates for president have also crossed the line via their vicious attacks on the character of President Bush. What kind of message does that send to our soldiers? Several candidates have even demanded an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. What kind of message would this send to the world? Would they prove Saddam Hussein right, that by studying the film "Black Hawk Down," one could devise a strategy to best defeat the soft Americans? Imagine the reaction of terrorist organizations around the world. No wonder Al-Quada and the Communist Party of America are rooting for a victory by the Democrats in 2004. It's time for all Americans to recognize that the Democratic Party is not rooting for America to win this war. The alternative is unthinkable.

Sadly, it would appear that Muslim organizations in America are also choosing the wrong side in the war on terror. Despite claims that they are opposed to terrorism, groups such as CAIR and the AMC have acted in a manner that is in direct contradiction with such claims. American Muslim groups have made it clear that they will endorse the Democratic candidate in 2004. This speaks volumes about how sincere these Muslim groups are with regards to being a partner in the war on terrorism. Surely they realize that the citizens of the United States are not going to be very tolerant of their eccentric and secret ways if our country comes to resemble war-torn Israel. The message to Muslims should be clear: get serious about the war on terror and be a part of the solution, or face deportation and internment camps.

Speaking of others joining the Democrats in the Tory camp, Hollywood continues to shame the memory of Bob Hope. Just this week, actor Ben Affleck chose to attack the Patriot Act and President Bush in a most vicious manner. Haven't these Hollywood celebs learned anything from the Dixie Chicks? By siding against American interests in protecting itself, Hollywood also places itself on the wrong side of the battle. Rather than offering a united front versus terrorism, celebrities and leftists whine about perceived loss of liberty. Where are the gulags and mass graves in America? How many American citizens have been awakened by a knock on the door, only to be whisked away by men in trench coats? It would appear that those crying the loudest about lost liberties, while failing to list one freedom they have lost, must have something to hide. Why else would they be so vocal in their opposition? Has anyone noticed that all of these anti-war celebrities who made the claim that they support the troops, but not the war, have participated in zero USO tours to Iraq? I thought they were entertainers?

Patriots applaud the actions of the Bush administration in rooting out terrorist cells within this country. Their actions appear to be working, for arrests have been made and we have had no attacks since 9/11. Patriots stand by the Bush administration while it works to protect us at home and destroy terrorism abroad. The Democrats are walking a fine line with respect to their open opposition to American interests. Their continued actions to oppose and obstruct calls into question not only their patriotism, but also their loyalty. They may soon find themselves in the uncomfortable position of being seen as a friend to our enemies, a position the Tories of old discovered did not sit well with their fellow countrymen or the history books.

In England of years before the American Revolution, there were two major parties, the Tories and the Whigs. The Whigs tended to be the more outspoken and "progressive" party of its time, while the Tories considered their purpose in life was to preserve the royalty in all its aspects. Thus the "American Tories" could be judged to be protective of the rights and powers that rested with the British Crown. With the passing of the colonial status of the nascent United States to a republic, those Tories fled to either Canada or England, or modified their politics to conform with the new idealism of the land, and became Federalists, who believed in a clear distancing of the hand of government from the everyday lives of its citizens.

But there were "American Whigs" loose upon the land as well, and they had persevered in their relatively "progressive" agenda, finally alienating a sufficient number of people that the Whig designation as a formal party was effectively dissolved about the time James Buchanan served as President, and they were never a serious coherent national party again. It was from their ashes that a new and radical movement arose, calling itself "Republican", and dedicated to the abolition of slavery, their new rallying point.

It is an interesting observation, that the two major parties have, through the last half of the 19th Century and the first third of the 20th Century, gradually changed their emphasis, so now the Republicans are considered the more conservative party, and the Democrats have embraced the radical revolution. They claim to be trashing of the old values because they were no longer reflective of the standards they admired. Sometimes it appeared they were interested in change for the sake of change alone, with no consideration of the long-term effects of their rhetoric or its legal ramifications.

An open letter that clearly shows why Americans are behind this President and what he stands for leaving the Democtats/Socialists out in the cold.

THE WHITE HOUSE NOW

A lot has changed since George W. Bush became president-- executive orders that support a "culture of life," judicial appointees who respect the constitution and members of the Cabinet who are unapologetic about their faith. But perhaps nothing more clearly represents the new leadership we enjoy as a country than that place Mr. Bush now calls his temporary home, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The president is quick to point out that it is not his house, but the American people's house. And, as such, he treats it and the people who work there with respect. From the Secret Service to the grounds crew, the folks who work at the White House rave about the First Family.

The President and First Lady prefer to entertain family friends in their private quarters rather than ask the stewards and waiters to negotiate difficult formal dining rooms.

Harkening back to the days of Ronald Reagan, Bush will not allow any man to attend a meeting in the Oval Office without a jacket and tie. Gone are the days of blue jeans and pizza boxes.

One of the clearest ways to show respect for someone is to respect their time. Everyone who works with and around the President has noted his punctuality. Meetings begin and end on time. This stands in stark contrast to the previous occupant of the White House, who was notorious for keeping visitors and the media waiting.

And speaking of the former President, in his administration more than 500 staffers had access to the White House kitchen. One presidential aide said they turned it into a fast-food restaurant. These days, only 150 senior staff members have meal privileges.

Of course the Clinton years were known for worse things than that. US News & World Report reported recently that it was common for President Clinton to have violent and sex-laden R-rated films playing on Air Force One. Even seasoned reporters would blush at the images being played out before their eyes while trying to question the President on some issue of national importance. A Marine who worked at Camp David publicly stated that pornography was littered all over the retreat. In contrast, President Bush has said that even some of the new major motion picture releases, which are routinely sent to the White House for viewing by the First Family, are too vulgar for him.

I've visited the White House twice since President Bush moved in. As anyone might be, I was awed by the history of the place. Oil portraits of past occupants reminded me that some presidents have understood the honor of living there and others have wantonly dishonored it. My visits with President Bush at the White House were an opportunity to witness firsthand how much this man respects the office to which he was elected. He arrived at our meetings promptly and took the time to greet every person in attendance.

He was warm and polite to each of us. His manner conveyed the message that he knew he was only a temporary resident and his job is to leave this august home in better shape than he found it.

In one of my meetings, I made a point of speaking to a young man who is part of the military service assigned to the White House. His job is to escort guests and to help people find their way through the large hallways. His uniform was covered with ribbons and his shoes were perfectly polished. His face was emotionless and he drew no attention to himself, but for some reason he caught my eye.

"Thank you," I said, "for the work you do. You really represent us all in your service here. It must be wonderful work."

He paused and then allowed a big smile to cross his face. "Oh, yes, sir, it truly is."

Yes, things certainly are different in Washington.

Courtesy of: Rear Admiral Steve Brachet, USN (Ret) & Brigadier General Bob Clements, USAF (Ret)

You mean we've had a civil war already? ;) The war between the states was not a war for control of the central government...

But no. Not on this angle, or so soon. This is nothing.

War, as always, is the health of the state.

Should Democrats return to power, they will not repeal the Patriot act or the war on terrorism -- they are too useful instruments for imprisonment, seizure of property, and other domestic interventions and intrusions. No, what will change are the definitions of terrorist and traitor.

Civil war requires that those with arms be divided into opposing factions. For all practical purposes this means the US military. As long as the military is united, or at least united in obedience to civilian control, there can be no civil war. Rather, there will merely(!) be internal repression.

A possible longer-term scenario: As regional interests increasingly diverge, as the idea of the nation declines, accelerated by demographic changes and immigration, soldier loyalty may substantially switch from civilian superiors to the service itself -- as it did for the Romans. That would bring a period of real Caesars. The seeds for that are already there, IMO. Semper Fidelis doesn't specify to whom or what one is faithful, after all, and it is reserved as a greeting for other members of the corps.

The danger of a standing army (or even police force) does not come from the army's guns so much as the psychological division between professional, career protectors and those they protect.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

MANIFESTO
OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY