Posted on 04/25/2011 12:25:53 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
The anti-war movement was all over the news before President Obama was elected. But apparently they werent really anti-war ... they were just anti-President Bush. Two college professors just released a study of national protests between 2007 and 2009. What did they find?
After January 2007, the attendance at antiwar rallies [measured in] roughly the tens of thousands, or thousands, through the end of 2008.
After the election of Barack Obama as president, the order of magnitude of antiwar protests dropped [...] Organizers were hard pressed to stage a rally with participation in the thousands, or even in the hundreds. For example, we counted exactly 107 participants at a Chicago rally on October 7, 2009.
Amazing. Especially because the war in Afghanistan ramped up after Obama was elected. American fatalities shot up in 2009 and 2010.
The protesters have remained silent over Libya.
(Excerpt) Read more at stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com ...
They’ve gone to Zer0’s rallies, every one.
We all know that most war protesters are/were unemployed bums who got paid by Democrat and union organizers to go protest. They now have their man in the WH and the poor bums have to go without.
Same thing happened when they did away with the draft during the Viet Nam War. All those principled, compassionate anti-war types disappeared, and the anti-war movement dried up, and blew away.
You can’t get laid protesting a Democrat war.
The “anti-war” movement in the U.S. has a core that drives it’s organization and it’s function and that core is Marxist and outright communist in some instances, no matter what kind of fellow traveler sheeple it gets to join.
They would never protest against their Messiah; Obama.
It is never about “the war” or any “war”, it is 100% about who is in charge. They have their man in charge, he can do no wrong.
Here is their political psychology on the brutality and violence of rulers:
I have a close family friend who is very left of center. In one discussion we once had I was giving him some of the facts on how brutal, violent and dictatorial Chavez in Venezuela was acting, in his suppression of any opposition and how he was trying to make his personal rule permanent. Without a blink he answered: “Well at least he’s a socialist”.
My letter to the editor was printed in our local Gannett publication in late March. Here it is:
More liberal hypocrisy is in evidence in the wake of the bombing and missile attacks on Libyan forces.
President Obama has now started a war with no congressional authorization and exactly one resolution from the United Nations. George W. Bush had 17 U.N. resolutions before invading Iraq and the Democrat liberals whined that it was a rush to war.
Fast forward to the past week. Where are the street protests by the anti-war crowd? Oh, thats right; hes their guy, so that makes it OK.
It would be fun to watch the spokespersons for the administration squirm as they tried to justify the war, but the left wing media will not ask the hard questions that might embarrass their chosen ones. (end)
There were several replies (127 total) in the online version of the publication, and a number of them were stright down the Alinsky line.
Example: So once again, we have a conservative spin master, Rush Limbaugh wannabe like (JimRed) stirring up the hornets nest of neocons who will never accept anything that any Democrat says or does under any circumstances. But as usual, what we get from Mr.(JimRed) and his sort are half-truths and omissions. Fox News has taught you people well. (end)
You get the idea. You know you’re over the target when you start getting flak!
Democrat bombs are filled with love and jellybeans.
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.