I'll never get tired of this one.
Posted on 11/24/2004 9:03:46 PM PST by CHARLITE
Apparently Senator John Edwards had a close brush with the truth some months back, though like the proverbial ''broken clock'' that shows the correct time twice each day, he didn’t linger for long on the cusps of reality. According to Edwards, we live in a split society, which he described as the ''two Americas.''
Edwards attempted to portray this nation as being divided between the ''haves'' and the ''have nots,'' by which he delineated between those who are financially well-off, as opposed to others who struggle to make ends meet. However, another far more insidious divide exists across the nation, as evidenced by the election results. But beyond his suggestion of national disunity, Edwards got things entirely wrong.
America does not suffer from a chasm separating its economic strata, but one that distinguishes between those who embrace the virtues and heritage that have cemented the nation in its greatness, and those who hold complete contempt for such things. The latter group would gladly shed them in exchange for the progressive philosophies of a fading and decaying Europe that fancies itself as enlightened.
President Bush’s impressive win notwithstanding, this breech holds the potential to completely tear the country in two. It exists in the hearts and souls of a populace whose differences so far outweigh their commonality that any pretense of national ''unity'' has simply ceased to be.
At one time, presidential races were conducted between two fundamentally moral and principled candidates, who may have differed on economic policy and other details of their approach to governing, but who ultimately stood on common ground regarding their fervent concern for the well being of the nation.
Candidates who lacked moral character, patriotism, or integrity were doomed to defeat before the campaign ever began. The recent ''near miss'' of a Kerry presidency shows that this situation has changed, and not for the better.
It may be heartening to point to the record vote received by President Bush, but the truth remains that John Kerry, despite having collaborated with the North Vietnamese in a time of war, received nearly as many votes as did the president. Furthermore, he openly professed a belief that American soldiers dying for the United Nations was more honorable than such a sacrifice on behalf of the Stars and Stripes.
In one America, deriding national sovereignty and collaborating with the enemy in wartime constitutes nothing short of treason. But in the other America, questioning the ''patriotism'' of such behavior is itself an unspeakable outrage. Much has changed since the decade of the 1980’s when Ronald Reagan, a real American hero, ably rescued the nation from the tempest of the Cold War.
During the Reagan years, any thought of cutting and running from the likes of Osama bin Laden would be considered cowardly and shameful. Yet only days before the election, Bin Laden essentially threatened those American states that would support President Bush. Though a warning of this nature would, at some former time, cause an enormous backlash, in the America of 2004, it barely resulted in a ripple among the tracking polls.
Following the election, left-wing mouthpieces such as Eleanor Clift have talked of ''Blue State'' secessions and a mass liberal exodus to Canada. With this prospect comes their threat of Middle America losing its most ''creative'' minds.
Despite the left’s reverence for the imagination and artistic propensities of those regions, it was not the poets and artists who distinguished themselves on 9/11, but crass and common firemen and police. Nor were the terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq routed by elitists in academia, but by the less than erudite efforts of the armed forces.
Of course, the U.S. military is itself symbolic of those testosteronal excesses that the left so deplores. In stark contrast, ''masculinity'' where any can be found in the blue zones of ''effeminate America'' manifests itself only in the animalistic sense, taking on the form of gang violence and the sexual exploitation of women.
More appalling still is the fact that it is actually celebrated by the liberal intelligentsia as such. True masculinity, of the variety that fosters fatherhood, character, and chivalry, is greatly reviled, hence the liberal obsession with destroying the Boy Scouts.
In truth, even within the so-called ''Blue States,'' liberal culture dominates only in a few concentrated areas. Fortunately for those tiny regions, a vast nation of traditional sense and values yet remains intact, shielding them from the grim consequences of their nihilistic ways.
About the Writer: Christopher Adamo is a freelance writer from southeastern Wyoming, where he has been involved in grassroots political activites for several years. He maintains a website at http://www.chrisadamo.com
Christopher receives e-mail at:adamo.chronwatch@lycos.com
kerry/edwards epitomized the differences between the "haves" (scumbag lawyers and pals) and the rest of society. They and the rest of the lawyers have declared war on morality, decency, and our contitutional republic.
Good article. The feminization of a good portion of America (plus the socialist-influenced, dumbed-down curricula of the public schools) goes a long way toward explaining why a Kerry presidency was a "near miss".
I'll never get tired of this one.
Let's put this in context--many here find it alarming that Kerry got so close, but that was because W had big drawbacks of his own, the economy and the war, plus high gas prices, a MSM gunning for him, the draft lie, his lousy 1st debate, a fully united anti-Bush democrat party.
Now, if the economy were booming and the war was going smoothly and Kerry managed to get this close, I'd be very disturbed. But in the context of all this, it's just impressive that W was left standing at the end. Any lesser republican candidate might've been dead meat long ago.
A divide between the "haves" and "have nots" - those who have faith in God, and those who have not.
That's SO FUNNY that I'm still laughing. I've sent this one to everyone on my email list. Perfect for WHO and WHAT this guy really IS. A good friend of mine is the writer, Judson Cox, who is just starting a conservative newspaper in N.C. He told me months ago that Edwards really is "dumb as a post." What is it, then...........that makes people think he's so smart? Channeling dead unborn infants? Winning major, serious money from juries who are dumber than he is? If he's so dumb, as Chris tells me, then why is he so rich?
I meant "if he as dumb as Judson tells me." Chris wrote the article to which we're responding. He thinks Edwards is rather dumb also, but a practiced, spinner.
Every Freeper knew this, but I doubt that 10% of the total voting public did.
Let's hope that we can Freep the hell outta whomever the DNC candidate is in 2008. Hitlerina, I assume. . . Killery The Hilldabeast. We need to Freep up a storm, if she's the one running.
There was a movie in the seventies or eighties that required the President allow an American city be nuked in exchange for our nuking an enemy city.... A few choices like that could turn the Country around. Easily nuked sites are along coasts.... Should it ever come to that, only the upper mid-west need be ceeded to Canada.
Actually most Dems I know are social conservatives and basically vote Dem over a single issue: unions, social security scares, the myth that Dems are better for the economy than Republicans,the idea that Dems will give them some free taxpayer goodies, etc. The nation is still overwhelmingly socially conservative as the anti-gay marriage votes proved. Undoubtedly many Kerry voters also voted against gay marriage.
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.