Posted on 09/30/2001 5:06:34 PM PDT by kristinn
For the first time since their campaign of roving city-to-city terrorism began in Seattle several years ago, Communist/anarchist, America-hating 'anti-globalization' protesters were met by citizens determined to stand up against their violence and intimidation. Led by the D.C. Chapter of Free Republic, a total of about two hundred Americans drew a 'line in the sand' at the Navy Memorial on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. today, where nine months earlier the Communist/anarchists had assaulted the memorial by trying to tear down the flags and signals on the masts there during the inaugural parade of President George W. Bush.
With America going to war as a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11 which destroyed the World Trade Center towers and damaged the Pentagon, killing approximately 7,000 people through the suicide hijackings of four airliners (one plane crashed without hitting its still-unknown target because the passengers fought back successfully), the counter-demonstrators did not want to see the Navy Memorial assaulted again.
They started gathering before 8 a.m., as news of anarchists planning to roam the city filled the airwaves. As the numbers of counter-demonstrators grew to about 40 by 10 a.m., small groups of the anarchists walked by peacefully.
Reporters from print and broadcast media soon swarmed around the counter-demonstrators, attracted by the many large American flags flying crisply in the strong morning breeze. The demonstrators faced the American flag atop the 50-foot high flagpole in the front of the memorial and said the Pledge of Allegiance. Given the circumstances, it was a very moving moment for all.
The demonstrators continued to prepare more signs declaring their support of America's armed forces, President Bush, the families and victims of those killed and injured in the terrorist attacks on September 11 and the country as a whole as it prepares to fight terrorism, while they waited for the anticipated several thousand 'antiwar, anti-racism' Communists and anarchists to march by on their way to a rally at the Capitol.
Former New York Senator Pat Moynihan (D), who lives in the neighborhood, came out to greet the patriotic demonstrators and give his support to them. The surprised demonstrators and media gathered around him as he spoke for a few minutes and shook hands with them. Along with his encouragement, he reminded the demonstrators of the violent nature of the protesters they would soon be facing and asked them to remain peaceful and let law enforcement handle them.
He was pleased to hear that that was their plan. He walked back to his home, shadowed by a few anarchists and some of the media. Before he left, the demonstrators thanked him for the work he is doing on President Bush's Social Security committee to partially privatize the retirement program.
Law enforcement officers from various federal agencies, along with D.C. Metropolitan Police, began to arrive at the memorial in large numbers and spoke with the demonstrators about their plans to counter the protesters. The LEOs explained to the counter-demonstrators that their goal of staying at the memorial to protect the flag was possible, but untenable because the protesters had obtained a permit for the memorial. At best, they would be allowed to stay close to the main flagpole in a small group of less than twenty-five while the rest would have to move across the street to the National Archives.
The demonstrators readily obeyed the orders of the LEOs and split up. As word spread of violence at the starting point of the protestors' march at Freedom Plaza four block away, the LEOs ordered the remaining demonstrators to go across the street and join the others at the Archives for their own protection.
The LEOs informed the demonstrators that they were under orders to not let the the protesters take the flags down like they tried to do on Inauguration Day. Confident that the flags would be protected, the demonstrators joined their compatriots across the street. By this time, around 11:30 a.m., their numbers had swelled to around 100--with the media hanging on in anticpation of a violent clash between the groups.
The protesters' rally at Freedom Plaza dragged as speaker after speaker basked in the glory of the C-Span cameras providing live coverage of the rally.
The demonstrators waited patiently for several hours for the protesters to begin their march. The demonstrators assured every reporter they spoke with that they intended to remain peaceful and let law enforcement handle any disturbance caused by the protesters. The demonstrators went so far as to pass around 'rules for protesting' to ensure the civil nature of their gathering.
Finally, the protesters started marching down Pennsylvania Avenue, led by a procession of police vehicles. A lead crew working for the protesters stopped and assembled a small stage and P.A. in front of the Navy Memorial. The moment finally arrived for the two groups to meet. The several thousand mostly young Communists and anarchists were stunned to see what by then were about two hundred flag waving patriotic Americans packed on the sidewalk in front of the Archives, standing up against their anti-American protest.
Around one hundred LEOs on foot and horseback, dressed in full riot gear (including the horses which wore clear eye-protecting face masks) formed a line between the two groups--a line which was unbroken despite repeated attempts by anarchists to break through. To their credit, the protesters had their own marshalls who also worked to hold back the anarchists.
The demonstrators and protesters faced off across the thin blue line, hurling insults and chants at each other--but not rocks and bottles.
While the protesters chanted "war is not the answer" to the terrorist attacks, the demonstrators responded by parodying a 1960s peace song by loudly singing, "All we are saying, is give war a chance". This brought shocked, perplexed looks to faces of the self-styled peace protesters.
The protesters' chants became disorganized and dispirited as the demonstrators launched a continuous barrage of counter chants that ranged from serious rebuttal to outright ridicule: "Peace through love" was answered with "Peace through superior firepower".
The demonstrators turned an old tactic of the left against them, pointing to signs they carried featuring photos of the World Trade Center attacks while chanting, "Shame, shame, shame", and, "No justice, no peace", as the protesters demanded no retaliation for the heinous attacks.
Many of the Communist/anarchist protesters were reduced to swearing at the demonstrators as they continued to mock them with chants of, "We don't care what you say, we're going to bomb them anyway"; and were repeatedly invited to "swim to Cuba" if life in the United States was so bad (none of them accepted the offer).
Out-protested and out-foxed by the patriotic demonstrators, the Communist/anarchist protesters surrendered, leaving the memorial without giving any speeches from the stage they had set-up at that sacred site and sullenly marched off to finish their protest at Senators Park on Capitol Hill.
As the demoralized stragglers quietly brought up the rear carrying anti-meat, pro-vegetarian banners, they were rhetorically given a parting kick in the ass with mocking cries of "Gardening is murder! Weeds have rights, too!" from the demonstrators, which brought howls of laughter from the LEOs--who could finally relax now that trouble had passed.
The LEOs expressed gratitude for the presence of the patriotic Americans. For once, they had citizens present standing with them in the face of violent, avowed enemies of the United States.
The presence of the demonstrators threw a monkey-wrench in the plans of the Communist/anarchist protesters, a blow from which they did not recover. Less than an hour later, they were seen departing Senators Park with no trace of joy or victory on their faces. They had been beaten at their own game--and they knew it.
The adults had finally spoken up and said, 'NO', to these insolent, indulged brats, and it broke their spirit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, to break their will. Honor Roll for today: Angelwood, Doctor Raoul,Dave Dilegge, tgslTakoma, Taxman (+2), The Glaswegian(+1), ELS, Jimmy Valentine's brother, Gore_War_Vet, viadexter, FreeTheHostages (+1), testforecho, Scholastic, endzt, Federal Farmer, rabidralph, Clay more, GunsareOK, stand watie, sauropod, leadpenny, Hail Caesar, Ravens Warlord, maica, Freedame, tomkat (+1), TBP, and El Negro (should be a new FReeper as of tonight). I'm sure I missed a few of you, so please chime in. We also had several lurkers come out. In addition, we were joined by a bunch of tourists who agreed with our stand. We didn't see any tourists go out and join the other side :-) Thanks go out to: the Maryland TRT for 'plan B'; James Parmalee of NorthernVirgianiaGOP.com for helping to get the word out about today; and special thanks to Sean Hannity, whose mention of our demonstration on his newly syndicated radio show yesterday brought out dozens of people from up and down the East Coast. I left out many details, such as signs and conversations, so please add your observations and comments. EAGLES UP !!!
All this crap about Guatemala and Cuba has zilch to do with the topic of MidEast history! And the few "factoids" he has about the U.S. in the MidEast are all BS -
Eagles Up!
“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
[Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800.]
what stunts did they pull?
kinda. Libertarians, as i take it, see that power should not be concentrated in govt -- that the people should have power -- more importantly, the individual. A socialist recognizes that there are other sources of power, for example, wealth, which are fundamentally undemocratic (even more so than, for example, a democratically organized govt) and can be used to deprive an individual of his liberties. Its how some solve the paradox that libertarians don't think its ok for everyone to get to together and tell someone what they can or cannot do (ie, democratic govt) but an individual with a lot of economic power can tell others what they can or cannot do (ie, a monopolist, or even better, a monopsonist -- a single buyer). I prefer the term anarchist myself, i know there are nuances in the "definition" but i haven't gotten to them.
And to the commie leaders, hopefully loose.
"Pro-Terrorist ersatz Pacifist Krypto-Nazi Camel Butt Traitors Demand America Surrender to Terrorists."
“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
[Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800.]
God bless you and God bless America!
Of course it is true that capital is owned by capitalists, so that the owners of newspapers are capitalists. But it does not follow that they tell other capitalists' truth otherwise than in advertising.
In my observation they are much more likely to do hit pieces on other businesses upon which we all depend--because that forces us to pay attention to them.
But it does follow that they will not tell harsh truth's about capitalism itself.
That is an easy assumption, and one which had me flummoxed for many years. The truth is that journalists are just like you, feckless and arrogant. They think nothing of sawing on the limb they are standing on, not even thinking of the consequence if they actually succeeded. They, like you, want a utopia. But not a real, existing one of course--Utopia means "nowhere," and no existing dictatorship will ever suit as well as the "horrible" US.
Free, competitive journalism is anticonservative in nature--always has been, always will be.
The truth is that journalists are not in control. to suggest that is offensive. do we suggest that workers on the line decides what kinds of cars, and in what kinds of colors, GM will make?
Trust me. if journalists p-off their bosses, they get fired. just like everyone else who has a boss. It doesn't happen so often because the ones likely to do something like that don't make it very far in the business -- they self-select or get out early enough to not make a splash. methinks you've bought the myth of the "liberal media".
Sorry to spoil your (and "breed"'s) little party here. I realize that if your audience knows little about MidEast history and doesn't have the time to use a web browser to check up on your "facts", then naturally you will assume that you can get away with murder as you gleefully rewrite history to paint the US as the cause of all that is wrong with the MidEast. The fact that the area has been a hotbed of violence for how many millenia now, doesn't faze Liberals as they make their baldfaced claims that the CIA is behind every instance of war, strife, or totalitarian government in the MidEast.
"None of these points you make can, by any stretch of the imagination, be called 'facts'."
Poppycock! Saddam was NOT a "puppet" of the U.S. A puppet is a puppet is a puppet! Words have meaning. The favorite liberal trick of redefining words may work well on campus, but not here. A "puppet" ruler of a country is understood to be (or at least understood by "normal" people - i.e. people other than liberals like you wishing to redefine a word at any given moment in order to produce the illusion of your winning an argument) ... is understood to be a ruler who does not hold real power, but rather is a "front" so to speak for the REAL ruler - who is running the country behind the scenes.
No matter how glibly you redefine words and wave off a fellow liberal's lies with excuses like, "One person says that America's support of Saddam was puppetry, one person disagrees, ...." - it does not change the fact that you and "breed" are both lying. Iran chose to make the U.S. an enemy (by holding our embassy staff hostage for 400+ days, among other things). We chose to SELL weapons to Iraq (the enemy of our enemy) - not GIVE them. Iraq had plenty of petrodollars to pay for all this hardware. And we shared satellite photos with them of Iranian troop dispositions. None of this made Iraq a "puppet" in ANY sense of the word. You can NOT "stretch" the word's definition that far.
Now, I realize that I should do the humane thing here and cut you liberals some slack. I realize that after 8+ years of Clinton, it's getting extremely difficult for liberals to distinguish between a "stretch" and a "lie". It may shock you, but F.R. is filled with people who still insist on distinguishing between those two words!
"I'm sure America wanted SOMETHING in return"
Of course. Iraq was in a war with Iran. Iran was our avowed enemy. So we gave Iraq some support. No brainer. What we "got in return" was the containment of Iran. Duh. This doesn't support the "Iraqi puppet" claim any more than anything else you've said. Iraq also got tons of support from other MidEast countries who wanted to contain Iran and their nasty policies.
"Now what is also a fact is that Saddam was as much of a brutal autocratic tyrrant when we supported him as when he was a sworn enemy. All talk of America 'making the world free for democracy' and such can hardly apply here.
Straw Dog! I challenge you to produce a single quote from anyone at that time who claimed that our support of a "friendly to US" dictator who was fighting against an "avowed enemy of US" dictator was "making the world safe for democracy" or anything similar to that!!!
The Cold War was FILLED with cases of "Nasty Undemocratic Country A fighting against Nasty Undemocratic Country B. The USSR is supporting Country B. What should US policy be here?" Well, duh! But our support of any "Country A" is now - and has always been - defined as "Evil US Hegemony" among The Liberati set.
".... US hegemony ..."
Funny, but I only recall hearing that phrase recently in the mouths of Red Chinese, Cubans, North Koreans, and (innocent?) victims of the typical American Liberal Arts (emphasis on "Liberal") Education. Are you a member of any of these groups, pray tell?
".... Timor ....."
Red Herring. Timor is in the western Pacific. Check it out on a globe. We were talking about the MidEast. .... But all right, if you want to talk about other countries -
"why is it we haven't defended a slew of other nations that have been invaded in recent history."
Actually, we HAVE. Who has been spoon-feeding you your "history" lately? We had no strategic interests in Somalia. We sent troops in a failed attempt to prevent starvation of innocent people who we knew almost nothing about, and had practically ZERO history with, and/or cultural associations with. Both Bush-I and Clinton tried to help Somalia, BTW. And what about Kosovo? And long before that - Bosnia? What were our strategic interests there? Bosnian oil? Kosovan oil? Somalian oil? Haitian oil? I'll agree that Clinton should have helped out in Rwanda ... I have no idea why he didn't. And there are other places we theoretically could have done some good, but the various US administrations chose not to, and perhaps they had good reasons not to that we weren't privy to. If you think that the lack of any Rwandan oil fields was the one and only reason we didn't help out there, you most certainly have "oil on the brain", and I have suspicions where you picked up this nasty affliction ... this mental block that serves to inhibit any rational thought whenever you attempt to cogitate on the topic of the USA's geopolitics.
"No lofty ideals were being upheld in the Gulf War. To claim otherwise would be fallacious. One more fact before I cut out. ....."
So, the desire to restore a little country - which has long been a friend of ours - to its rightful owners, by chasing out the murderous forces of a neighboring bully country, had absolutely nothing to do with America's decision to fight Iraq? I see. And is this meant by you to be numbered among the "facts" you wished to establish before you cut out? I'm glad to see that you got your money's worth out of your "higher education" - especially in the area of Critical Thinking - i.e. the ability to distinguish between facts, opinions and lies. (And just WHO got their money's worth here, if I may be so forward to ask? Did you pay the bills? Your Daddy? The taxpayers?)
"... Taliban ... Taliban ... Taliban ... I'm sure the connection isn't so nuanced that you can't figure it out"
Well, gee! Silly me! Here I thought I had caught "breed" in an out-and-out lie with that History Rewrite about how the US had financed a group (the Taliban) in a war against the USSR that had ended 6 years before the Taliban was even formed. But now I find out it wasn't a "lie." It was merely a "nuance"! Gosh, I better go back for another degree, so I can keep up with all the word redefinitions as well as the latest History Rewrites! Before you know it, they're going to try and redefine "is"! (..... All right. Just kidding of course. Even a Liberal wouldn't try and mess with that word ...... right?) I just LOVE this blatant liberal hypocrisy - on the one hand, you lecture us about how we RightWingers are so ignorant about Afghanistan and the rest of the MidEast. And then you go and treat as equivalent all the factions in Afghanistan at all times in recent history!
"Breed is factually correct in his view that America does not ALWAYS act altruistically, benevolently and non-hypocritically"
Oh, I'll agree with everything in your sentence starting at the word "America". But the FACT is that you and Breed have not said anything credible to prove this assertion, and have lied, distorted, "stretched" and "nuanced" yourselves silly here in your attempts to use US/MidEastern history to "explain" (which always eventually leads to "justify") the hatred for the US that was demonstrated so forcefully by the 9/11 attacks.
SUMMARY - This is the same old crap I saw ad nauseum in the old Usenet "talk.politics.*" groups just before, during and after the Gulf War. It's just been recycled/regurgitated into a new generation of unprotected minds by the same people who were circulating it before - burned out Baby Boomer profs.
Too bad scientists can't develop an "Anti-Liberal Brain Condom" Then there could be nationwide campaigns to warn students to place these over their brains whenever they go to the lectures. "Don't go to class without proper protection!"
Wasn't it Francis Fukuyama who said -
"He who is not a liberal when young does not have a Heart.
He who is not a conservative when old does not have a Brain."
Dang!! Guess that makes me all brain and no heart! (Though I used to be pro-abortion when I was a lot younger)
Oh man!! I wish I had saved that newspaper article I read many years ago regarding George McGovern in retirement! The gist of it was this ..... George had taken his retirement nest egg and gone back to his native South Dakota after leaving the Senate. And he went out to the Black Hills region and sunk most of it into a joint venture with a friend that was to be some kind of a resort. You know, some nice profitable little investment that should be guaranteed to keep one's retirement fund in the black for years to come?
Well anyway, there was one snafu after another involving this permit or that permit or this government agency or that required Eco- study (Endangered Species, etc.) to be paid for and endless hoops to jump thru. And the whole thing eventually fell apart. No resort. And not much left of the nest egg by that time. A rueful George said something along these lines -
If I had had any idea of what the cumulative impact of all these laws would be on small businessmen, I would never have voted for them.
Is that Justice, or what? Wish I had the exact quote!!
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.