CROSSING THE LINE BETWEEN DISSENT AND DESTRUCTIVE ANTI-AMERICANISM

The Iconoclast ^ | May 07, 2003 | by Paul Walfield

[BurkesLaw]

The problem for all of us is that dissent has in effect crossed a line. It has gone from an honest disagreement on policy, to lying and propaganda in the service of dismantling America...

[BurkesLaw]

A fine line that too many leftist media types and Hollywood celebrities have crossed.

[sauropod]

I find this site hard to use.

They need a link to a "print version" of the article.

[Lysander]

America has not enslaved populations nor taken anyone's land in the past 100 years.

Except to her own people.

[browardchad]

Nowadays, however, dissent has taken on a whole new meaning. Dissent by many today is actually against the continuation of the form of government that gives the dissenters the power to dissent. It is against the country they were born in, in favor of an ideology of world government dominated by nations other than America -- an ideology that demands the subordination of America to foreign leaders who are in all ways hostile to America.

Consequently, it is no longer simply dissent. It is no longer a free speech issue.

Instead, it has become an issue of Americans who want America to remain America, and those who don't.

It is the exact opposite of what dissent was in Revolutionary times. It is a call for foreign domination of America, rather than our release from foreign rule.

And the poster child of the ideology is none other than William Jefferson Clinton.

[Modernman]

I think this is one of the main reasons the anti-war movement was unable to make the leap from the fringe into the mainstream. There were probably many people who had reasonable, rational questions and/or objections to the Iraq war. However, when they saw the anti-American hatred being spewed by the main anti-war groups, such as A.N.S.W.E.R., they were turned off of the anti-war movement.

[wayoverontheright]

Consequently, it is no longer simply dissent. It is no longer a free speech issue.

If an individual lies, I'm afraid it is still free speech, subject only to libel laws and the built-in non legal consequences which rightly accrue to those who lie.

The author is somewhat right, a line is crossed when these people spew, but calling it a violation of free speech is not productive. These people should for the most part be called what they are, ANTI-AMERICAN.

The problem as I see it, is that their lies have been repeated and magnified for some time by a leftist dominant media. The usual consequence of being caught lying, loss of credibilty doesn't befall the liars because the media props them up. This problem is slowly but surely being rectified by the rise of the internet, Rush, Fox News, etc., all serving to cast the light of day on these lies, thereby neutering their effect.

The truth will win out.

[Wright is right!]

I don't believe that we are legally enjoined from posting full articles from this source. Posting only a link puts us at the peril of the link expiring or going dead, in which case the article is no longer here at FR either.

Michael

[randog]

I think this is one of the main reasons the anti-war movement was unable to make the leap from the fringe into the mainstream. There were probably many people who had reasonable, rational questions and/or objections to the Iraq war. However, when they saw the anti-American hatred being spewed by the main anti-war groups, such as A.N.S.W.E.R., they were turned off of the anti-war movement.

Absolutely. Any political group that allows the fringe element to define them is destined to be marginalized. The Republicans had that problem with the religious right and now the dems have the same problem with the religious left. That, IMO, is why conservatism is rebounding in this country.

[Savage Beast]

"Liberals" are slaves to a perverse sense of fashion that is actually a trendy form of groupthink (consensus reality). In their fuzzy-thinking little world, it is fashionable to be anti-American.

[Modernman]

Right, and the Dems are giving in to their left-wing fringe impulses. They lose in 2000 and 2002 and their instinct is to go to the left. Seems like they're determined to become the minority party for a generation or so.

Say what you will about Clinton, but he realized that the only way to get Dems elected was to drag the party, kicking and screaming, towards the center. Tony Blair realized the same thing, which is why the Labour Party can't get rid of him, no matter how annoyed the hard-liners might be.

This is why I'm praying the Dems pick the most left-wing candidate possible to be the sacrificial lamb in 2004. Go Al Sharpton!

[GOP_1900AD]

Sadly, there are many who claim to be on the Right who also fuel this atmosphere of corrosion of our national underpinnings and protective strata. Firstly, there are so called Libertarians who fail to recognize the social dimension of the assault on our nation. Then, there are well meaning but also well manipulated NWO phobics, who, instead of recognizing the ultimately foreign origins of the push to erode our sovereignty, overly focus on bankers, Jews and our own governing institutions rather than properly railing against the UN, the Islamists and the crypto Communists and resurgent East Bloc. We are in for rough sailing.

[randog]

Right, and the Dems are giving in to their left-wing fringe impulses. They lose in 2000 and 2002 and their instinct is to go to the left. Seems like they're determined to become the minority party for a generation or so.

Go figger, but the left has never been an entity that ever learned from history. In fact, if they don't like history they just re-write it.