Anti-War Or Anti-Reality?

Toogood Reports ^ | March 5, 2003 | Paul E. Scates

[Stand Watch Listen]

Identifying yourself as 'anti-war' makes about as much sense as announcing that you're 'pro-oxygen.' Isn't everyone?! Those against the U.S. war with Iraq simply disguise the true source of their protests: it's anti-Americanism. In fact, they're actually pro-war … as long as the assaults are on the fabric and foundations of this nation. White guilt, national guilt, or personal guilt for their (or their parents') prosperity explains most of it. The fantasy of equality of outcome for everyone on earth takes care of the rest of the idealistic fervor that drives these mostly elite and wealthy people — hey, can you take off for a couple days or a week to protest the war, or anything else? As Ann Coulter recently wrote, 'liberals' can man the battlements at these outings, but conservatives have jobs they must go to!

If you're 'anti-' anything, you are by definition 'pro' something else; if you're against war, you're ostensibly 'for' peace … but at what price? 'Peace' in Iraq means the continuation of one of the most brutal dictatorships in modern history. Is that what the protestors are 'for'? It's simply not enough to take some supposedly 'moral' stand, especially when your actions support a most immoral tyrant. Let's take a look at some examples of facts the perpetual 'anti' crowd never seem to address —

Anti-death penalty … but pro-absolution for murderous criminals . It translates into another anti … anti-accountability for ones' own willful actions. In other words, reward the guilty, punish the innocent. Nice foundation for a society, huh?

Pro-choice … but pro-death for unborn babies . Give the individual the power of life or death over another human being ('fetus' is the cowardly, hypocritical way of avoiding the inconvenient fact that women carry only human offspring during their pregnancies), while the 'choosing' person is in the midst of admittedly great psychological and emotional turmoil, and without benefit of judge, jury or outside counsel. As Alan Keyes says, then why not that same 'choice' regarding Grandma or Grandpa, Mom or Dad, when they're 'old and in the way'? Aren't their needs - constant attention and care, feeding, cleaning, medications, doctor's visits, hospital stays, etc. - just as inconvenient as the constant needs of a newborn baby? Supporting a 'woman's right to choose' equates to being 'for' a human's right to murder anyone who represents an unwanted inconvenience to their life. Why stop at the unborn infant?

The sobering fact is … they won't. Dr. Kevorkian, the Oregon assisted suicide legislation, et al, simply show the direction in which we're heading. Aside from the moral and Biblical admonitions to revere life, our Founding Declaration of Independence declares that all humans have the inalienable right to life — i.e., coming from G-d, it can't be rightfully taken away by man, except in rare, narrowly defined circumstances. Once that right becomes subject to man's changeable whims, regardless of the current standard, who can logically argue that it won't be applied elsewhere? When man declares his right to take the life that he can't create, who else but man will decide when and to whom that right will apply?

Anti-development … but pro-housing shortages and exorbitant rent levels . By giving the environment more value than the people who live upon it, the elitists create hardships for the underprivileged people they also claim to support. What an annoying thing life can sometimes be, when your values conflict. But enviro-wackos don't seem too conflicted; they choose the land, sea and air — and especially the wildlife — over people every time, regardless of the impact.

Pro-affirmative action … but anti-individual responsibility for choices and behavior . In the nearly forty years - that's almost three complete generations in sociologists' reckoning - since the first civil rights legislation mandated special treatment, benefits and exemptions from standards for black Americans, what has changed? Media reports would have us think little or nothing, but that is merely self-serving hype from pro-socialist do-gooders. The black people in this country who are going to work and create decent lives for themselves and their families are doing so; whether they would have done so without affirmative action or other government entitlements is something we'll never know.

What we can know, however, is that the percentage of black Americans still living in squalor, rampant crime, drug addiction, sexual promiscuity and illegitimate birthrates are there to stay. Why? Because they choose that life. Blaming the victims, Paul? Hardly. With the educational and occupational programs available (for free) to black Americans, with the quota systems that require a certain percentage of blacks in universities and jobs at all levels (except pro sports teams, of course), with government guaranteed loans available to start businesses, with the politically correct mindset of giving of jobs to under-qualified blacks, etc., many blacks have made it into the middle class and even into the upper class. Any black American who wants to attend college can do so with a minimum of scholastic effort during high school.

To insist on continuing the unequal treatment of all black Americans based on the existence of a permanently dependent underclass of welfare junkies simply adds insult to the injury of implementing such unfairness in the first place. At some point there must be a recognition that the playing field is at least level, and that those who have not taken advantage of special programs are simply never going to. A group that refuses to adopt the moral and behavioral standards or the work ethic of the majority of citizens should not be a continuing burden on that majority. After forty years of special opportunities not available to white citizens, any black American who accepts and feels they deserve such help is simply a parasite, and those who enable them are worse.

All Americans should be held to the same moral, behavioral and other standards; to do otherwise, for whatever ostensible reason, is destructive of the concept of equality before the law, a major foundation for liberty. By giving a free pass to the few, we have encouraged all manner of immoral and criminal behavior, in addition to rewarding slothful character and status as perpetual victims. If blacks are such victims, how does one explain the fact that the great majority of black Americans are working, obey the law, don't use or sell drugs, etc.? Equal rights and opportunity is what the Constitution calls for; that's what we should strive to ensure. Period.

Anti-war … but pro-tyranny, pro-oppression and pro-torture for innocent people under ruthless dictators . Jeanine Garafalo and the rest of the pampered and wealthy celebrities seem incapable of the rational thought required to acknowledge that evil exists in the world. I have my own qualms about the war with Iraq, but they do not involve questioning whether Saddam Hussein should remain in power. Nor do they involve the jaw-dropping, drooling stupidity of Garafalo and company about 'winning without war.' That has been tried for twelve years, with absolutely no practical effect except to allow Saddam time to beef up his arsenal and reacquire his eerily unrealistic arrogance about war with the U.S. As one wag recently wrote, why don't these anti-war types ask the Iraqi people what they think of the idea of deposing Saddam, and by whatever it takes? Like Hanoi Jane and her 'concern' for the Vietnamese people, these elites are in no danger of suffering from the evil of dictators they, in effect, support.

No rational person 'wants' war, for any reason. But the Hollywood and campus elites who thrive on peace protests simply refuse to accept reality - there is evil in the world that talking will not overcome. Twelve years of talk is too much. And leaving the decision up to the dictators and socialists in the UN is too, too much.

The economy, already staggered by 9/11, is suffering from the unknown impact of war with Iraq, yet we continue to allow those who'd see us on our knees to prolong the troubles and delay the inevitable. Didn't we hear dire warnings about the Arab street and world opinion just before going into Afghanistan, too? Have we forgotten the scenes of Afghanis dancing in the street? The Iraqi people certainly hope we haven't.

Here's an idea … how about Garafalo and Company holding a peace demonstration after Iraq is liberated … in Iraq, among the benefactors of the current 'peace.' That might give them the reality check they so desperately need.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Wed Mar 5, 2:06 AM ET

Australian students protest March 5, 2003, in Sydney against a possible war in Iraq.

[Stand Watch Listen]

Related Articles

Barbara Stanley: America: Land Of The Free, Even Free To Be Traitors
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: February 28, 2003; Authro: Barbara Stanley

If antiwar protesters succeed (by Iraqi citizen)
Source: CS Monitor; Publisghed: February 26, 2003; Author: unsigned opinion

Marxist Groups in the Anti-War Movement
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 25, 2003; Author: Paul M. Weyrich

Anti-war Protestors: Shades Of Stupidity
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 21, 2003; Author: Rachel Marsden

Who's Paying for It All? [re: anti-war demostrations]
Source: INSIGHT magazine; Published: February 18, 2003; Author: J. Michael Waller

Anti-War Protestors Are Warmongers for Our Enemies
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 11, 2003; Author: Alex Epstein

Reds Still [re: The story no one wants to hear about the antiwar movement]
Source: National Review; Published: January 23, 2003; Author: Byron York

[yonif]

Good article.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Good job. Though I do like to tell people that I'm Probiotic and Prooxident too. Confuses the heck out of them.