THEIR DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS -- Part I
By Sara Pentz

Democrats like to tell us they are longing for ideas to support––that they are losing elections because they have lost their way. They appear to be honest, searching and idealistic. DNC Chairman Howard Dean, in his own particularly glaring style, declares this message. Other somewhat more sophisticated Democrats write about the problem with wide–eyed dismay and perpetual hope. It is the topic du jour.

Democrats like to talk about the problem because it gives them something to discuss. It makes them look like they are desperately searching for ideals. It makes them appear innocent and hopeful. It harkens them back to the good old days of the 60s and 70s when their core fought against nuclear proliferation and the Vietnam War––in the days when the media would call them idealistic, and they would march as a collective with a pretense of moral courage as they shouted banal slogans of love and peace.

It is now, as it always has been, the Big Lie…an attempt to cover up the truth. In fact, the liberal Democrats know exactly the nature of their convictions and values. But they don’t, won’t and can’t name them because the philosophy upon which they are based is repugnant––and it is their dirty little secret.

Their core ideas are based on anti–Americanism, anti–capitalism and anti–individual rights. Their basic intent, whether it is conscious or subconscious, is to tear up the U.S. Constitution and tear down this country, its patriotism, its loyalists, its entrepreneurs and its basic standing in the world. The liberal media that dominates newspapers and magazines around the world supports them. They have set an agenda that is permeating the culture of this country in a very dangerous way.

In fact, most Democrats are basically socialists––some have communist underpinnings. Others simply have no principles and are looking only for political power. Of course, they will deny these labels. They will shout like crazy about being called unpatriotic. But when they burn flags, call the president of the United States a Nazi with such vile hysterical hatred, allow fraudulent class action suits against often blameless businesses that benefit only the lawyers, and write laws confiscating private property for the sake of raising taxes––it’s hard to argue that they have a great love of this country.

The fact that people from all over the world are rushing to enter the United States––legally and illegally belies their message. Those who rush here choose to live here. They are not being forced to come here. Of course, some who come here do so because they can benefit without citizenship from the causes created by the Liberals––free medical care, free food and free education––the inevitable free ride propounded by socialists. Many of those here illegally vote for these Liberals, which is certainly an overwhelming reason why Liberals, like Hillary Clinton, want to give those people the right to vote them into power so they can get more free handouts––and the Liberals can have more power and money to change America into a socialist welfare state.

Notice that there was no great rush by those Liberals to flee this country and move to Canada after George W. Bush was elected to his second term as president––as they had promised and we had hoped. Remember how fearful and angry they were at the chance he would be re-elected. These are the hypocrites who hate America but stay here to enjoy all the privileges of the economy and the U.S. Constitution they wish to destroy.

Of course, there are many political Republicans and Independents who also don’t have strong and consistent convictions about this country. In fact, most people have mixed beliefs. They are inconsistent and conflicted, especially when it comes to politics. This is one reason Liberals get away with their arguments and intentions.

On June 1, 2005, columnist David Limbaugh wrote the following:

“If candidates of a major party truly don't have core beliefs and "don't know their underlying values," is there really any point to their participation, other than the raw acquisition of power? The reality is that Democrats do know what they believe, they just don't know if they can afford to "stand for" those things in an election for national office. They do know their underlying values, but they don't know whether they can be completely open about them without risking an electoral bloodbath. So on some issues they vacillate, saying one thing to certain people – their rabid left-wing constituency groups – and different things to others. Whether it's foreign policy, social issues or economic ones, Democrats have a tough time unmasking themselves.”

However, sometimes they are easily unmasked. For example, they are adamantly opposed to Social Security private accounts. Why? Because these accounts would allow individuals to determine the purpose and use of their own money––to the extent that the government allows. Listen to the strident protests of the Liberal leaders. They say they will “…never ever ever ever…” allow private accounts in the Social Security Reform Act––at least according to Rep. Nancy Polosi. Why do they protest so vehemently?––because they want to control the money, and they don’t think we are wise enough to save or invest our own money.

Let’s name these Democrats who are covering up their fundamental socialist philosophies. They are Sen. Ted Kennedy (D–MA), Sen. John Kerry (D–MA), Sen. Harry Reid (D–NV), Sen. Christopher Dodd (D–CT), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–CA), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D–VT), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D–NY). Listen to them talk. Listen to their message. Ask what do they really mean when they make their 30–second sound bites.

In a July 16, 2005 NewsMax article, for example, witness two liberal Democrats:

“New York's two senators, Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer - who have been complaining since the London bombing attacks that the federal government hasn't done enough to protect the U.S. from terrorists - voted against legislation to enhance border security on Thursday.”

“Clinton and Schumer turned thumbs down on two amendments to a Department of Homeland Security spending bill, which, according to the Washington Times, would have funded plans for 2,000 new Border Patrol agents and more than 5,000 new detention beds to house illegal aliens.”

According to the www.nation.com, Senator Ted Kennedy argues, “…that the reason the Democrats lost so many elections was that they had compromised too much and shed their distinct identity. "If the Democrats run for cover, if we become pale carbon copies of the opposition, we will lose--and deserve to lose. The last thing this country needs is two Republican parties."

According to www.enterstageright.com, “Kennedy's record reflects decades of appeasement toward Communism. He was an early and vocal supporter of admission of Red China to the UN. He was a consistent supporter of unilateral disarmament and nuclear freeze. He advocated negotiation with the Vietcong which he claimed "could lead to a confederation of North and South Vietnam under a truly neutral government." He supported the "rules of engagement" policy which protected North Vietnam from military action while American and South Vietnamese casualties were mounting. Finally, he voted to stop President Ford's aid package to South Vietnam in the year before it was crushed by the Communist North.” (New Republic 9/10/70 p14)

An article by Charles A. Morse web posted July 24, 2000, at www.enterstageright.com,
explains:

“Like so many other rich leftists, Kennedy often treats the law as something that applies to others not himself. Laws and taxes, in Kennedy's galaxy, exist as weapons against enemies or as a means of obtaining power. Increasingly concentrated power will, allegedly, be used to help the disadvantaged. The result is more power and our taxpayer money in the hands of an ever-widening number of bureaucrats. Whatever crumbs not consumed by the bloated bureaucracy will be passed on to the "disadvantaged" who will be expected to repay the favor with their votes.”

In his book, Unholy Alliance, author David Horowitz names the heart of the American Left:

“In their hearts, these leftists hate America, and they want any enemy, even if it's as horrible an enemy as Zarqawi, to triumph over us. And they will use all manner of sophistry to excuse and defend their position and say, “Oh yes, we’re critical of this and that in terms of what they do. We didn't actually like them blowing up the World Trade Center, because that gave a propaganda victory to the United States, and we don't like Zarqawi beheading people, because that makes it harder for us to sell their cause.” But these are minor points for them, that pale beside the fact that America is Nazi Germany. The clear allegiance of leftists… is with the enemy and against the United States. And this is true of hundreds of thousands of American leftists who get a pass, of course, from our media, because our media is so predisposed to support them.”

Horowitz is not talking about the hard American Leftists. He is speaking to those who incorporate their accusations into mainstream thought––the American media, grade schools and universities. This thought–control by the Left reminds us of George Orwell’s book “1984”. It will come back to haunt them––one way or another––in another future.

Isn’t it time we aired their dirty little secrets?

###