SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY (Somethings never change)

Anti-war protesters boast that there will be "no business as usual" until the war in Iraq ends. In Washington, San Francisco, and New York, peace activists have taken to the streets to block traffic, burn the President in effigy, and vomit on the steps of federal buildings. These activists represent a variety of causes but most share the belief that America, an evil nation, deserves to be defeated. In the May/June 1997 issue of The American Enterprise, James Webb took a closer look at what the Vietnam era protesters--many of whom are at anti-war protests today--really wanted:

It is difficult to explain to my children that in my teens and early twenties the most frequently heard voices of my peers were trying to destroy the foundations of American society, so that it might be rebuilt according to their own narcissistic notions. In retrospect it's hard even for some of us who went through those times to understand how highly educated people--most of them spawned from the comforts of the upper-middle class--could have seriously advanced the destructive ideas that were in the air during the late '60s and early '70s. Even Congress was influenced by the virus.

After President Nixon resigned in August of 1974, that fall's congressional elections brought 76 new Democrats to the House, and eight to the Senate. A preponderance of these freshmen had run on McGovernesque platforms. Many had been viewed as weak candidates before Nixon's resignation, and some were glaringly unqualified, such as then-26-year-old Tom Downey of New York, who had never really held a job in his life and was still living at home with his mother.

This so-called Watergate Congress rode into town with an overriding mission that had become the rallying point of the American Left: to end all American assistance in any form to the besieged government of South Vietnam. Make no mistake--this was not the cry of a few years earlier to stop young Americans from dying. It had been two years since the last American soldiers left Vietnam, and fully four years since the last serious American casualty calls there.

For reasons that escape historical justification, even after America's military withdrawal the Left continued to try to bring down the incipient South Vietnamese democracy. Future White House aide Harold Ickes and others at "Project Pursestrings"--assisted at one point by an ambitious young Bill Clinton--worked to cut off all congressional funding intended to help the South Vietnamese defend themselves. The Indochina Peace Coalition, run by David Dellinger and headlined by Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, coordinated closely with Hanoi throughout 1973 and 1974, and barnstormed across America's campuses, rallying students to the supposed evils of the South Vietnamese government. Congressional allies repeatedly added amendments to spending bills to end U.S. support of Vietnamese anti-Communists, precluding even air strikes to help South Vietnamese soldiers under attack by North Vietnamese units that were assisted by Soviet-bloc forces.

Then in early 1975 the Watergate Congress dealt non-Communist Indochina the final blow. The new Congress icily resisted President Gerald Ford's January request for additional military aid to South Vietnam and Cambodia. This appropriation would have provided the beleaguered Cambodian and South Vietnamese militaries with ammunition, spare parts, and tactical weapons needed to continue their own defense. Despite the fact that the 1973 Paris Peace Accords called specifically for "unlimited military replacement aid" for South Vietnam, by March the House Democratic Caucus voted overwhelmingly, 189-49, against any additional military assistance to Vietnam or Cambodia.

The rhetoric of the antiwar Left during these debates was filled with condemnation of America's war-torn allies, and promises of a better life for them under the Communism that was sure to follow. Then-Congressman Christopher Dodd typified the hopeless naiveté of his peers when he intoned that "calling the Lon Nol regime an ally is to debase the word.... The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now." Tom Downey, having become a foreign policy expert in the two months since being freed from his mother's apron strings, pooh-poohed the coming Cambodian holocaust that would kill more than one-third of the country's population, saying, "The administration has warned that if we leave there will be a bloodbath. But to warn of a new bloodbath is no justification for extending the current bloodbath."

On the battlefields of Vietnam the elimination of all U.S. logistical support was stunning and unanticipated news. South Vietnamese commanders had been assured of material support as the American military withdrew--the same sort of aid the U.S. routinely provided allies from South Korea to West Germany--and of renewed U.S. air strikes if the North attacked the South in violation of the 1973 Paris Peace Accords. Now they were staring at a terrifyingly uncertain future, even as the Soviets continued to assist the Communist North.

As the shocked and demoralized South Vietnamese military sought to readjust its forces to cope with serious shortages, the newly refurbished North Vietnamese immediately launched a major offensive. Catching many units out of position, the North rolled down the countryside over a 55-day period. In the ensuing years I have interviewed South Vietnamese survivors of these battles, many of whom spent ten years and more in Communist concentration camps after the war. The litany is continuous: "I had no ammunition." "I was down to three artillery rounds per tube per day." "I had nothing to give my soldiers." "I had to turn off my radio because I could no longer bear to hear their calls for help."

The reaction in the United States to this debacle defines two distinct camps that continue to be identifiable in many of the issues we face today. For most of those who fought in Vietnam, and for their families, friends, and political compatriots, this was a dark and deeply depressing month. The faces we saw running in terror from the North Vietnamese assault were real and familiar, not simply video images. The bodies that fell like spinning snowflakes toward cruel deaths after having clung hopelessly to the outer parts of departing helicopters and aircraft may have been people we knew or tried to help. Even for those who had lost their faith in America's ability to defeat the Communists, this was not the way it was supposed to end.

For those who had evaded the war and come of age believing our country was somehow evil, even as they romanticized the intentions of the Communists, these few weeks brought denials of their own responsibility in the debacle, armchair criticisms of the South Vietnamese military, or open celebrations. At the Georgetown University Law Center where I was a student, the North's blatant discarding of the promises of peace and elections contained in the 1973 Paris Accords, followed by the rumbling of North Vietnamese tanks through the streets of Saigon, was treated by many as a cause for actual rejoicing.

Denial is rampant in 1997, but the truth is this end result was the very goal of the antiwar movement's continuing efforts in the years after American withdrawal. George McGovern, more forthcoming than most, bluntly stated as much to this writer during a break in taping a 1995 edition of cnn's "Crossfire." After I had argued that the war was clearly winnable even toward the end if we had changed our strategy, the 1972 presidential candidate who had offered to go to Hanoi on his knees commented, "What you don't understand is that I didn't want us to win that war." Mr. McGovern was not alone. He was part of a small but extremely influential minority who eventually had their way.

There is perhaps no greater testimony to the celebratory atmosphere that surrounded the Communist victory in Vietnam than the 1975 Academy Awards, which took place on April 8, just three weeks before the South's final surrender. The award for Best Feature Documentary went to the film Hearts and Minds, a vicious piece of propaganda that assailed American cultural values as well as our effort to assist South Vietnam's struggle for democracy. The producers, Peter Davis and Bert Schneider [who plays a role in David Horowitz's story--see page 31], jointly accepted the Oscar. Schneider was frank in his support of the Communists. As he stepped to the mike he commented that "It is ironic that we are here at a time just before Vietnam is about to be liberated." Then came one of the most stunning--if intentionally forgotten--moments in Hollywood history. As a struggling country many Americans had paid blood and tears to try to preserve was disappearing beneath a tank onslaught, Schneider pulled out a telegram from our enemy, the Vietnamese Communist delegation in Paris, and read aloud its congratulations to his film. Without hesitating, Hollywood's most powerful people rewarded Schneider's reading of the telegram with a standing ovation.

Those of us who either fought in Vietnam or supported our efforts there look at this 1975 "movie moment" with unforgetting and unmitigated amazement. Who were these people who so energetically poisoned the rest of the world's view of us? How had they turned so virulently against their own countrymen? How could they stand and applaud the victory of a Communist enemy who had taken 58,000 American lives and crushed a struggling, pro-democratic ally? Could they and the rest of us be said to be living in the same country anymore?

Not a peep was heard then, or since, from Hollywood regarding the people who disappeared behind Vietnam's bamboo curtain. No one has ever mentioned the concentration camps into which a million South Vietnamese soldiers were sent; 56,000 to die, 250,000 to stay for more than six years, and some for as long as 18. No one criticized the forced relocations, the corruption, or the continuing police state. More to the point, with the exception of the well-intentioned but artistically weak Hamburger Hill, one searches in vain for a single major film since that time that has portrayed American soldiers in Vietnam with dignity and in a true context.

Why? Because the film community, as with other elites, never liked, respected, or even understood those who answered the call and served. And at a time when a quiet but relentless battle is taking place over how history will remember our country's involvement in Vietnam, those who ridiculed government policy, avoided military service, and actively supported an enemy who turned out to be vicious and corrupt do not want to be remembered as having been so naive and so wrong.

Among everyday Americans, attitudes during this troubled time were much healthier. Behind the media filtering and distortion on Vietnam, the fact is that our citizenry agreed far more consistently with those of us who fought than with those who undermined our fight. This was especially true, interestingly, among the young Americans now portrayed as having rebelled against the war.

As reported in Public Opinion, Gallup surveys from 1966 to the end of U.S. involvement show that younger Americans actually supported the Vietnam war longer than any other age group. Even by January of 1973, when 68 percent of Americans over the age of 50 believed it had been a mistake to send troops to Vietnam, only 49 percent of those between 25 and 29 agreed. These findings that the youth cohort as a whole was distinctly unradical were buttressed by 1972 election results--where 18- to 29-year-olds preferred Richard Nixon to George McGovern by 52 to 46 percent.

Similarly, despite persistent allegations to the contrary by former protesters who now dominate media and academia, the 1970 invasion of Cambodia--which caused widespread campus demonstrations, including a riot that led to four deaths at Kent State University--was strongly supported by the public. According to Harris surveys, nearly 6 in 10 Americans believed the Cambodian invasion was justified. A majority in that same May 1970 survey supported an immediate resumption of bombings in North Vietnam, a complete repudiation of the antiwar movement.

Vietnam veterans, though persistently maligned in film, news reports, and classrooms as unwilling, unsuccessful soldiers, have been well thought of by average Americans. In the most comprehensive study ever done on Vietnam vets (Harris Survey, 1980, commissioned by the Veterans Administration), 73 percent of the general public and 89 percent of Vietnam veterans agreed with the statement that "The trouble in Vietnam was that our troops were asked to fight in a war which our political leaders in Washington would not let them win." Seventy percent of those who fought in Vietnam disagreed with the statement "It is shameful what my country did to the Vietnamese people." Fully 91 percent of those who served in Vietnam combat stated that they were glad they had served their country, and 74 percent said they had enjoyed their time in the military. Moreover, 71 percent of those who expressed an opinion indicated that they would go to Vietnam again, even knowing the end result and the ridicule that would be heaped on them when they returned.

This same survey contained what was called a "feelings thermometer," measuring the public's attitudes toward various groups on a scale of 1 to 10. Veterans who served in Vietnam rated a 9.8 on this scale. Doctors scored a 7.9, TV reporters a 6.1, politicians a 5.2, antiwar demonstrators a 5.0, and draft evaders who went to Canada came in at 3.3.

Contrary to persistent mythology, two-thirds of those who served during Vietnam were volunteers rather than draftees, and 77 percent of those who died were volunteers. Of those who died, 86 percent were Caucasian, 12.5 percent were African-American, and 1.2 percent were from other races. The common claim that it was minorities and the poor who were left to do the dirty work of military service in Vietnam is false. The main imbalance in the war was simply that the privileged avoided their obligations, and have persisted since that time in demeaning the experience in order to protect themselves from the judgment of history.

And what of these elites who misread not only a war but also their own countrymen? Where are they now, other than in the White House? On this vital historical issue that defined our generation, they now keep a low profile, and well they should.

What an eerie feeling it must have been for those who staked the journey of their youth on the idea that their own country was an evil force, to have watched their naiveté unravel in the years following 1975. How sobering it must have been for those who allowed themselves to move beyond their natural denial, to observe the spectacle of hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese fleeing the "pure flame of the revolution" on rickety boats that gave them a 50 percent chance of death at sea, or to see television pictures of thousands of Cambodian skulls lying in open fields, part of the millions killed by Communist "liberators." How hollow the memories of drug-drenched and sex-enshrined antiwar rallies must be; how false the music that beatified their supposedly noble dissent.

Indeed, let's be frank. How secretly humiliating to stare into the face of a disabled veteran, or to watch the valedictory speech of the latest Vietnamese-American kid whose late father fought alongside the Americans in a cause they openly mocked, derided, and despised. And what a shame that the system of government that allowed that student to be so quickly successful here is not in place in the country of her origin.

—James Webb, a Marine rifle platoon and company commander in Vietnam, has served as Secretary of the Navy and is the author of several novels.

While it is true that killing these vermin would entail becoming like the animals that these useful-idiots most surely are, nevertheless I would much relish their demise.

You are certainly correct that more lucid moments of reason would intervene in preventing the realization of this dark desire--this "rant" to which I am frequently inclined... I consider such ravings to be a pressure relief valve. But, you see, here lies the irony of the enemy's method: to wit, by their liberal disease they create the very atmosphere that is a pre-requisite to national suicide--Civil War.

However, that end will surely still be realized, if we do not act through some means more forcefull than the "democratic process." This being for reason that the matrix of socialists, marxists and anarchists have infiltrated and corrupted the very institutions required to contain their attack upon Western civilization in general and American culture in particular. Do you not agree?

Radical egalitarianism and non-discerning pluralistic rationalism have created all that is necessary to bring about the final victory over our republic. Denial of the absolute is the first aspect of societal chaos. From that seed all manner of abuse becomes possible. An American dictatorship is not so far-fetched, because we as a nation have allowed the progression of corrupt ideas within our culture to go unchallenged, and constructs foreign to our Constitution to remain unchecked.

The saying is that if you do not fight when you have the chance to obtain victory, the day will come when you must fight even though knowing you shall suffere certain defeat. I fear that we are now at that crossroad, and yet we only whistle in the dark--hoping that our adversary will suddenly become civil, rational, open to reasoned debate. We place the future of our posterity in vainly imagining that the communist intruder has departed from our home, but the invader has not departed--he has merely taken on a new identity.

Crazy, you may call my rant, but America will be cursed to suffer from the onslaught of these anarchists, because too many of her citizenry are preoccupied with maintaining their comfort zone, rather than maintaining vigilance against tyranny.

The fact is that we believe the majority Americans to be civil. We think our contemporaries to be governed by right reason and that sound minds will prevail. At the end of the day, most Americans know well their conscience, which gives us sober pause before carrying out retribution against our enemies. THAT very noble quality of fairness--of mercy, which is ingrained within our national DNA, is the very thing that will cause our most cruel distress. That is the reason why foreign beastial minds carried out September 11--AND that is also the reason why domestic beastial minds think they may deficate upon our flag, vomit within our public buildings, riot across our cities, and block commerce with impunity.

Our civility toward quislings is what will be our undoing! "Political genocide" not withstanding, the barbarians, who claim their constitutional right to "protest" may do so; but not at the expense of the national sovereignty and honor. It is one thing to demonstrate for the betterment of this republic--but quite another to desire its destruction.

Because it is now "fashionable" to be one with a seditious horde of politically correct thugs, the "enemy at the gate" has become "the enemy within." Make no distinction between these subversives and revolutionaries, because that is what we now face. Keep this in mind: Should their side prevail they will bring upon us all the nightmares of 1791 France--and more, for their Reign of Terror will make the maniacle cruelty of Robespierre and Morat appear saintly.

This Republic will cease to exist--other than in name only, if by the 'rule of law' these forces disarm the citizenry.

Much evil has been done under the pretext of the 'rule of law'. All that Hitler did, starting in 1938, was under color of law.

What we face here and now is similar to the axiom of putting the frog in a pot of water, and then slowly turning up the heat--the frog boils alive.

I read of all that is lauded upon the Constitution--and I too share those sentiments of respect. However, have those in power, specifically--the Judicial branch, respected the limits set forth by that document? Have the members of Legislative branch kept to the bounds prescribed therein?

We have an activist Supreme Court--its jurists believing the Constitution to be a "living document," which they may distort at will, and for the illicit purpose of legislating from the bench.

We have a Senate that denies the appointment of qualified jurists, by turning the Constitution on its head, using tactics of the "filibuster" and thereby through default requiring sixty votes for appointment--which is plainly unconstitutional.

We have a great number of local politicos--from D.A.s and local unelected judges upto state senators, who have done all in their power to destroy the plain meaning of the Second Amendment, the Forth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. At the same time the Appelate Courts--most notoriously those circuits in California and Massachusetts--have supported such abuses, while the Supreme Court simply ignores these issues altogether. So much for checks and balances against tyrannical abuse of power.

Should I even discuss the purgery, perfidy, malfeasence, and outright acts of treason, committed by the Executive branch during the reign of William I, that went unpunished? The Republicans, under Trent Lott, refuse to impeach Clinton, no matter the evidence. In Senator Lott's words: "I don't care if he was standing over the body with a bloody knife in his hand... we are not going to vote for impeachment." What more is there that we may say or do "within the bounds of law" when our leaders--on BOTH sides of the aisle--refuse to uphold or even recognize that such laws exist? When the Constitution has become but a reference of fond affection, rather than words whose import holds solemn meaning in duty and consequence, what options are we left to exercise?

I watch my country being overrun with sordid filth, I see the majority of its leaders ignoring the dictates of the laws upon which this republic is founded. I see our greatest institutions of learning being used to indoctrinate our most precious resource--our children--into marxist, femminist, narcissistic, and anarchist philosophies. And yet, you tell me that the "law" is going to save us? Maybe we are much closer to that unfortunate collision with "history's lessons unlearned" than even I imagined.

From the rhetoric of your posts and your general tone of exasperation, I'd guess that you are a younger poster. Perhaps not, but your stridency adds nothing to the power of your arguments.

You've said nothing that the vast majority of solid conservatives on these pages do not already know. Furthermore, you over simplify much and misquote to bolster your argument. I'm virtually certain that Sen. Lott didn't say: "I don't care if he was standing over the body with a bloody knife in his hand... we are not going to vote for impeachment" and I didn't say anything remotely similar to: "you tell me that the "law" is going to save us?"

The major difference between you and I is that I'm not convinced that every act against American ideals, tradition and law are reason to open the arms locker and storm the Capitol. Few people in this world advocate killing and warfare without sober reflection and regret. To rave about killing as though it were shooing away mosquitoes says more than you think about the kind of America you envision.

Now, I'll grant that we are in dire straights in many areas, but I would also wager that you haven't been a conservative or politically aware long enough to have a sense of history or change. In my estimation, the era we are in offers greater opportunities to restore American strengths and conservatism than any other in the last 70 years.

I'll also grant that, overall, our national morals have declined and cultural norms are pathetic. This is a great concern and can undo all that we seek to do as active, conservative Americans. Even so, killing anybody isn't going to solve these problems any better and once that genie is out of the bottle, you've nothing to offer but the kind of terror and brutal repression that we are currently engaged in war against.

No, the answers we need are achieved slowly. In fact, the founders intended change in the system to be glacially slow so as to assure an accurate reflection of popular support. This presumes moral climate change as well as political. Yes, enemies of the Republic are at work subverting things wherever they can, but this is an invitation for civic action -- not hit lists.

You may advocate a coup and pogroms all you wish, but I defy you to find a single thought that supports your rhetoric in any of the primary documents of Constitutional literature. Those guys weighed the costs of war very, very seriously before acting and did so to prevail, with force, on the Crown for recognition of self-determination and God-given rights. So far, you've made your case for civil insurrection based on invective, fear, palpable anger and the keen desire to punish others.

It seems your grasp of America and historical precedence is faulty, unless you follow John Brown as the principle disciple of American liberty. You have the right to your beliefs and opinions, but I remain unconvinced.

No, I am not all that young... and that is the reason for my "invective"... In a very short span of time, I have watched the American culture being dragged over a cliff--and since 1960 this "march on the institutions" has occurred at an alarmingly accelerated rate.

No, I do not advocate the "overthrow" of our government; but watching liberal politicos and unelected judges shred the Constitution on a daily basis, and without any palpable opposition, is demoralizing--and yes, frustrating.

BTW, Trent Lott DID say those words--Get a copy of the book 'Betrayal'... Sorry, that I do not recall the author at this moment.

I believe the general import of your original argument was that we Americans should place blind faith in the 'rule of law.' Perhaps I am mistaken on that observation. However, the point I contend is that a great number of legislators, who write the laws, and jurists, who interpret those laws, are morally-bankrupt cynics. Some are so grossly devient in their duties, as to suggest not incompetence--but a willfull intent to subvert the Constitution, and replace our representative republic with a socialist democracy. These individuals hold ideas that the writers of our Constitution would consider foreign--and even hostile. Such actions are a violation of the oath of office, but I challenge you to show me where any of these quislings have been held accoutable for these usurpations? How else do you explain the failure of the U.S. Senate to impeach President Clinton?

What causes my angst, and at times even rage, is that no matter the party in power, nothing appears to change; but rather each passing year our culture seems to degenerate more rapidly. Those things of gross imorality that twenty years ago I would have thought not possible here, have come to be promoted as noble: Good is labled to be evil, and evil is labled to be good!

People such as the late Senator Patrick Moynahan are rare these days. He was a Democrat and by good measure a liberal--BUT a liberal in the classical sense. Senator Moynahan was a very astute professor of history. He was a moral and wise man, who keenly observed that "defining deviancy down" was becoming the norm in American politics and jurisprudence.

I do not agree with your contention that my argument is an "oversimplification." The facts are fairly obvious: an increasing number of American political and cultural "leaders" demonstrate utter contempt for American traditions. Far worse, many political office holders demonstrate no respect whatsoever for the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Constitution. Oh, yes they parrot the words and phraseology, but that is all. This behavior is not restricted to any one political party affiliation. I see few "conservatives," in the traditional sense, occupying positions of power within American goverment. However, there are a great number of "moderates"--ie: those not having the courage of their convictions. I would wager you that the number of those individuals within the U.S. Congress, whose "bedrock principles" would never be compromised, is perhaps twenty. The majority have a rather flimsy set of "core beliefs" that ebb and flow with whatever public opinion is politically expedient. That is not leadership. How else do you explain the continued tenacity of perverse legislation, by which such bizarre horrors as homosexual "marriage" and partial birth abortion--to name a few--are introduced and maintained?

You state that change is a gradual process, I agree. But I also am aware that when a culture crosses over a certain critical point the inertia of its mass takes over. I believe we have reached that point--or are damn close to it. For instance: observe the number of those who demonstrate against this war vs. the relative few who show up for rallies of support. The fact that the polling data shows 77 percent of Americans favor America's actions is heartening; but where are they? Why do they allow such debauchels as San Fransisco, New York City, and Boston to go unanswered with an equal show of force? More pointedly why do our supposed LEADERS allow such travesties to go unpunished? Observe the hordes of young men and women on the college campuses today, who have been thoroughly indoctrinated into marxist ideology--these youth will soon be running the country in both the public and private spheres of influence, and I doubt that the pressures of reality will change their belief system too much, before they do significant damage.

Change is slow, but what counts is who is making the greater net gains--I do not see our side winning major battles. More often than not, I see these tepid souls cringing with fear in some dark corner of their office, worried more about how the press will damage their chances of re-election, rather than being courageous towards their civic duty and upholding the Constitution. Theirs is a world ruled by compromise, compromise with those who wish all of us much ill will. For this reason I am not so hopeful of our future as a free republic.

"No, I do not advocate the "overthrow" of our government; but watching liberal politicos and unelected judges shred the Constitution on a daily basis, and without any palpable opposition, is demoralizing--and yes, frustrating."

So, you'd just be doing the government and all of the rest of us a favor by enacting your, uh, ideas of improving our Republic by liquidating "tens of thousands" of those you hate? You might run into problems with your local constabulary following your previously recommended course of action:

"I would hasten their trip to "damnation"...The best way to deal with these so-called "peace" activists is via the business end of a rifle... I think the time is high past "creative discourse" with traitors. Let us see how well their rank and file do under sustained merciless firepower.

Let us make the so-called "tragedy" of Kent State into a stroll through the park. They tell of Kent State as though it were an evil thing in our history--I could not disagree more. I see Kent State as the proper way to dispatch these maggot-infested, dope-using, treasonous scumbags. Five dead? Hell no! That inane carnage does not even approach an acceptable body count. Better to slaughter the children of the "Sixties Generation" by the tens-of-thousands.

America is in desperate need of a second Civil War, where we may finally sweep clean the streets of these vermin... permanently."

"BTW, Trent Lott DID say those words--Get a copy of the book 'Betrayal'... Sorry, that I do not recall the author at this moment."

Again, I'd have to see the transcripts where he said this and in what context. An assertion carries no weight with me, especially when you don't seem to recall your own words or those of others clearly. Incidently, after the Impeachment, there was a Democrat that said something nearly identical to your quote, but his name escapes me.

"I believe the general import of your original argument was that we Americans should place blind faith in the 'rule of law.' Perhaps I am mistaken on that observation."

You are mistaken. I believe in the rule of law and seek to change it when it is onerous. Furthermore, I believe the rule of law to be better than anarchy and chaos. When the basis of our Republic, the Constitution, is made null and void, then we will have reason to take up arms. Until then, ranting about killing people is hardly the rationale discourse of patriots.

Regarding the rest of your post, I would direct you to any of my previous posts in this thread. You make no points regarding the cowardice and treachery of our enemies that any conservative would not agree with. The difference is that many of us prefer to fight within the system as long as it is available to us.

Now, you have said that you are an older poster. I don't know what that means, but I would hasten to point out to you that Republicans now hold both Houses and the Executive Office. This, in itself, is a rarity and worthy of note. The current administration is seeking the installment of judges that the Left hates and fears. The President has pursued a policy of tax-cuts, military spending, and a range of other policies favorable to conservatives and increasing American sovereignty. To be honest, Bush is not what I would term a solid Conservative, but many of his policies were impossible only three years ago. I could go on like this, but I am sure you already know these things - you just seem to ignore their import.

On the opposite side of the aisle, the Left is in a crisis state. The moral high ground they occupied for nearly 70 years has evaporated. In its stead, the extremist fringe pushes its repellant agendas into the face of America with increasing fervor. To their loss, America is responding with less and less tolerance. Each day brings new news of Leftist perversity and lies. The media, who has so faithfully served the Leftist cause, is approaching a zero sum credibility rating. I could go on like this, but I am sure you already know these things - you just choose to ignore their import.

In terms of culture, Conservatives have never been so prominent. Even the Republican establishment needs to tailor their agenda to that of grassroots Conservative activism. We have learned from the Left and now counter their antics with resolve like those FReepers in FL. that stormed the county offices where ballot counting was taken out of view of the monitors. The reaction made the national news and forced the hands of the Democrats to admit that they didn't have the votes Gore needed (and couldn't manufacture them under scrutiny). FR people broke into Gore's party line conference for the press and made a shambles of it by mocking him and his press lackeys (that was a glorious day here). FR activists also stood vigil outside Blair house during the recount and nearly drove Gore mad with incessant chants of "Get out of Cheny's house!" FR itself is evidence of the new wave of Conservative activism. Your presence and posts are evidence that you are drawn to the power and immediacy of the new mediums.

In my locale, a rally for supporting the troops and liberating Iraq drew 20,000+ attendants - in one case the press reported the number as a few thousand. They lie. We know this - and we no longer care about their lies because we have our own information sources. In the Clinton years, talk radio rallied Americans and provided a new consciousness we are still developing. In addition, the advent of the net opened the doors to the information treasure cave. The information brokers power is gone and uptake of events and meaning are instantaneous. The only people in the dark are the Left and the media brokers themselves.

In sum, America is far from lost -- yet.

"I do not see our side winning major battles."

The last decade has changed the equation radically in so many directions and, to my thinking, the greatest beneficiary has been Conservatism. We now have a defined enemy; we now have the moral high-ground; we now have an alternative to the media information control; we now have some sense of community identity; we now have enemies that fear us instead of laughing at us; we now have a fair degree of control on the national agenda AND that of global affairs; we now have a growing support base which is becoming ideologically indoctrinated in Constitutional freedoms; we now are poised on a decade or more or governmental dominance; we now are witnessing the growing internecine warfare among our enemies and their central strategies disintegrate; we now have leadership in the form of a range of personalities in media, government and the web; we now have inroads into ethnic and minority communities and are seeing success in delivering our message of freedom; we are steam-rolling state after state with pro-gun legislation; we are increasing our presence on campuses across the US to the detriment of Leftist faculty and their agendas; we are now in the running, if not the control, of the tax, welfare, social security and educational debates…I could go on, but I wonder if any of this means anything to you at all?

Paraphrasing the Beatles…when you go talking about destruction, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.

I DO NOT MUCH DISAGREE WITH ANY OF YOUR POINTS, especially that of the redistribution of power through the internet.

I am puzzled that you make the statement about the Constitution needing to be made "null and void," before you would take up some other method of persuasive force. Are you stating that you are confident in our system, as it NOW exists? To wit: you are not convinced that major portions of our constitutional liberties have already been insidiously diluted, "redefined," or else removed through various methods of legal pretense?

Living in Massachusetts, one hardly sees any of the most excellent developments of which you cite. Now by that statement I DO NOT IMPLY THAT PROGRESS HAS NOT BEEN MADE by conservatives; but, here--in the liberal la-la land of Kennedy and company--I see just the opposite... day after day... year after year. The seasons may change but the political landscape here never changes. To be blunt: The "Commonwealth of Massachusetts," more fondly known as the Peoples Republic of Taxachussets, is truly the pitts! And the surrounding states of New England are not much for conservatives to brag about either.

My posts are at their current level of vile RHETORIC because of a convenient game of sophistry that the so-called 'Massachusetts GOP' likes to play with its members--The game is called the "two-faced follies." For example, a typical line that is regularly bantered about these parts goes something like this: "Yes, I am a Republican, but I am a fiscally conservative and socially liberal." Oooh that's rich! Now, attempting to get these individuals to understand that "socially liberal" entails the SPENDING OF LARGE SUMS OF TAXPAYER MONEY and necessitates HIGHER TAX RATES, BUDGET DEFICITS, and the EMPOWERMENT OF THE WELFARE STATE does not much succeed, because the marxist gene is well-entrenched in the DNA of those people who were born and reared in these parts. Explaining to my former fellow "Republicans" that "social" liberalism and "fiscal" conservativism mix about as well as oil and water, goes right in one ear and out the other. Which, of course, is why I am now an "unaffiliated" registered voter.

We go to the trouble, here in Massachusetts, of obtaining tens of thousands of valid petition signatures, so that we citizens may put a 'Definition of Marriage' referendum question on the state ballot. The signatures are verified, the referendum goes on the ballot, the election comes and the votes are counted... The good guys appear to have won a battle--for once. BUT what does the State Legislature in Boston do? Take a wild guess... THEY IGNORE THE REFERENDUM VOTE, not even allowing the motion to come to the floor!!! So, the vote means absolutely didly in Massachusetts! The legislators defy the State Constitution AND the rule of law. Next the "Democratic machine" goes into high gear, and thwarts all attempts to effect a redress of the grievence! What is there left to do? The liberals make and break the rules as they go, and they own the courts.

Several years ago, I spent almost an hour explaining to my "Republican" state politicos the problem I had with their "working to bring home more funding from Washington." That I did not give them my votes, so they may find more creative ways to spend taxpayer money... that I prefer they CUT PORK--not grow more of it! I had to literally walk them through the logic! And these wiseguys call themselves Republicans? Now I realize that this occurred a bit in the past, but not much has changed around here. It is as if the water makes people brain dead.

Regarding state Gun Laws--are you kidding? Massachussets IS ANTI-GUN CENTRAL, outdone perhaps only by New York; but Connecticut is jealous, so their running a close second place!

If it were possible to move from the New England region I would do it today, but for now I am stuck here. That sad state of affairs, I suppose, makes my perspective quite jaundiced, and probably adds fuel to my fire.

BTW: I will find that Trent Lott quote, and cite you chapter, page, and verse... promise.

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.