A number of your listeners have suggested that I attempt to refute or otherwise question what you stated in your September 22 column (below.)
I would like to embed, if I may, my comments directly within your column, delimiting my remarks between <> marks.
Alena (a pseudonym)
Was Lord Cornwallis or Benedict Arnold
the Greater Threat?
September 22, 2000
I submit that a hidden enemy within the camp is more dangerous than is an uniformed enemy outside the camp. <That is true, Chuck, if both the parties inside and outside the camp are enemies. However, you have yet to make the case that the one ‘within the camp’ is an enemy. Perhaps you will do so later in this column.> I believe that a known, identifiable adversary is much preferred over one that has successfully penetrated the ranks of friends. <True. A targetable enemy is a known quantity; betrayal is not.> Therefore, Benedict Arnold was a much greater threat to America’s fight for independence than was Lord Cornwallis. <It does not automatically follow, Chuck, that Arnold was the more dangerous of the two. Indeed, by any numeric measure, Cornwallis actually did far more damage.>
In the same fashion, politicians who cloak themselves in the garb of conservatism, but who clandestinely share the mind and philosophy of liberalism, are a greater threat to the independence and freedom of our nation than those who are openly liberal. <Specious, Chuck. For one thing, in order to be a ‘stealth’ liberal, one must appear to be conservative. That means doing conservative types of things, something we all want, while attempting to further the liberal agenda in other ways. Failing to look like a conservative means exposure as a liberal, something that is incompatible with ‘stealth’. Another part of your statement that is flat wrong is that ‘stealth’ liberals, as I call moderate Republicans, will do more damage than openly liberal Democrats. For one thing, elected liberals will be able to point to their election as evidence of a mandate. That gives them enormous leverage, something a ‘stealth’ liberal will not have. Therefore they will be actually weaker and able to do LESS damage.>
Without the assistance of clandestine liberals within the Republican Party, Bill Clinton would not be in office today. <What don’t you understand about 900 FBI files, Chuck? And what don’t you understand about the Arkansas Flu?> Without the assistance from these same Republicans, many of Clinton’s socialistic, New World Order goals could never have materialized.
Two of Clinton’s top priorities for his final year in office are the passage of permanent MFN for Communist China and the passage of "hate crimes" legislation favoring homosexuality. Permanent MFN for China passed both houses of Congress, thanks mostly to New World Order Republicans. His "hate crimes" legislation is on the verge of being passed with the aid and assistance of these same phony conservatives. <I deplore both just as much as you, Chuck. But surely you’ve observed the American political method long enough to know that what can be legislated can also be un-legislated.>
In fact, it is doubtful that the "hate crimes" bill would have passed the House without the help of Republican Representative, Bill McCollum of Florida. Now McCollum and the Republican leadership have quietly affixed the "hate crimes" bill to a Defense Department spending bill, trying to covertly sneak it through Congress. <I doubt that will work. However, I’ve been wrong before.>
Many conservative and libertarian groups fear that this "hate crimes" legislation is nothing less than the precursor for Orwellian-style tyranny. The next step for this type of legislation is to jail preachers who proclaim homosexuality to be sinful or immoral. It is a small step from "hate crimes" to "hate speech." Another possible application of this legislation would be to require pastors to unite homosexual couples or force employers (including churches) to hire homosexuals. <All this is possible, if unlikely.>
From the beginning of his presidency, Clinton has been aided and abetted by these liberal wolves in conservative clothes. It was Republicans that helped Clinton pass NAFTA & GATT. <NAFTA was a Republican idea, in fact.> It was Republicans that helped Clinton spend more tax dollars than any Congress since the one led by "Tip" O’Neal. <Specious. Name any period of economic expansion in the US that wasn’t also accompanied by increased federal spending.> It was the Republican leadership that sold out the US Constitution and rule of law by deliberately choosing not to remove Clinton from office. <Agreed. A bunch of spineless, whimpering hand-wringers. However, I cite again 900 FBI files and the Arkansas flu . . .> It has been Republicans who have been the most outspoken proponents of granting the murderous regime of Communist China permanent MFN. <Pro-business with the world’s most populous country; at least that’s consistent with conservative ideas.> It is these Benedict Arnold type Republicans that are attempting to pass this draconian "hate crimes" legislation. <We shall see.>
It is my belief that these sissified, weak-kneed, pusillanimous Republicans are a greater threat to America’s freedom and independence than are the in-your-face socialists within the Democratic Party. <I believe I’ve already dealt with this argument a few paragraphs above.> With Democrats, we at least know what we are dealing with; our adversaries are easily identified. With Republicans at the helm, the Town Crier assures us that "all is well," when in fact our liberties are being stolen out from under us while we sleep. <So be sure to kill all your friends lest you be betrayed, so that all you have left is enemies, from whom you know what to expect. That way you can’t be betrayed. Does that sound illogical to you, Chuck? That’s what you’re advocating.>
Alena's Home Page
Alena's Political Page