"Their View" Archives:

May 2, 2004

• A Family Of Spies
  (Oh The Webs We Weave...)
• Grab Your Sweater: D.C.'s Feeling a Draft
• America First is Populism in Action

April 25, 2004

• A Place Called Perfect
• Articles of Confederation Was Preferable

April 18, 2004

• The Day I Learned To Shoot
• The Problem With Shock And Awe
  (Cleaning Up The Rest Of The Mess)

April 11, 2004

• Look, Boys! Now You Can Fight Like Real Men!
• Benighted Brains
  (It Only Makes Sense To ‘Thems’ and ‘Dems’)

April 4, 2004

• The Governor is a Harsh Mistress
• Hanoi John and Mutha Theresa
  (Benedict Arnold Takes Aim at Benedict Arnold)

March 28, 2004

• 9/11: Blood On Bush's Hands?
• Entangling Alliances (Not On My Tires, You Don't!

March 21, 2004

• Creating Iraq In Our Image
• The New Face of America
  (Ranting Sheep Are But A Tempest In A Tea Pot)

March 14, 2004

• To Rock the Vote, Knock It, or Block It
• Why I Still Like Bush (A Word to the Pseudo Cons)

What They Thought May 9, 2004

R.A. Hawkins
Jonathan David Morris
SARTRE

Click here for columnist bios

Lady Liberty is pleased to welcome
well-known Internet columnist SARTRE to our selective group of regular editorial contributors. SARTRE is currently on hiatus from writing, but he has generously offered us encore presentations of some of his best commentaries of the past. Once he returns to his writing desk, we're pleased to say we'll continue his columns by offering the best of his current musings on these pages. Those of you who are unfamiliar with SARTRE's work are in for a treat; all of you who've come to know and appreciate his views over the years will enjoy revisiting his always relevant work. Welcome, SARTRE!

R.A. Hawkins

Vietnam And Current Demographics
(So You Wanna Talk About Vietnam? Part 1)

The primary reason the liberals are attempting to use the image of Vietnam is that it is an image that conjures war without end. Kerry recently got together with twelve disgruntled Veterans in a diner for a photo-op regarding the veteran’s benefits and how atrocious they are. Before I mention that Kerry was there as Judas Iscariot, I need to mention one very important thing. Kerry is in favor of universal healthcare. Current veteran’s benefits are exactly what that program would look like, too. Veteran’s benefits are like government anything: A mess! I was going to mention that Judas Iscariot thing and it looks like I already did, so on with the next major point other than the one on Kerry’s head. Does anyone out there know if all of Kerry’s purple hearts were for head wounds?

For the most part people don’t really remember what Vietnam was or why it was. There are a lot of people who are forty-five and under who really have no idea what Vietnam was all about. If you talk to them many will know that it was under Nixon that we left but that’s really about all they know. Many of them will not even know that. To them it is almost ancient history. That being said I decided to tell a little story, just to update everyone who is unaware.  

First off, the Vietnam conflict was started by John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s placing advisors in the country in order to help the French who were doing what they do best, and that is losing. We went in to help the imperialist French fight the Communist insurgents off. The French finished losing and left us holding the bag. Hey there’s a Vietnam/Iraq parallel right there. Wow. The French were a lot snottier this time however. At the start of the Vietnam War we were fighting Russians helping the North Vietnamese and we ended up fighting the Chinese helping the same.

When we entered that conflict we were there to prevent the spread of Communism and we were also, due to momentum and ease, backing a very unpopular regime. The government of Diem was hated in both North and South Vietnam. By the time Diem was out of there and pushing daisies it was a little too late and the communists had all of the support, and therefore momentum, they needed to pull it off. I’m certain some of the more astute readers have noticed that we didn’t remove the government of Diem like we did the government of Saddam. Not a parallel there now is it? We started this one off right. There are a few parallels that I should mention here though. The Russian advisors were present for the Iraq war just like the last Gulf war and Vietnam. There’s a parallel for you.

The same collection of people (and I use that term loosely) is trying their dead level best to turn this war into the same mess they turned Vietnam into. If this war were anything like the Vietnam War, we would have backed the French and Saddam. We would have told the Russians they weren’t welcome, even if France is starting to look politically a lot like Russia these days. We would in all likelihood have attacked the Kurds since they are in the north in this instance. The Shiites would have had some serious problems too.

In all actuality this war is nothing like Vietnam except as usual the liberals are on the other side. They are going nuts over the collapsing of a coalition they said didn’t even exist. They are on the side of France and Russia again. Let’s just say they aren’t very American. Before you liberals start up that email you’re thinking about writing to ask me why I’m not celebrating the rights of the protestors out there exercising their First Amendment Rights, I am celebrating it. I’m celebrating it in my own way. You have your freedom of speech. Go ahead and exercise it. I certainly am. That is my celebration of your rights to speak out. I am speaking out too.

Now back to that demographics issue I started out with. I see the same age group protesting this war as I see protesting every war. We have the unrealistic young ideologists being led in many cases by a bunch of ageing protestors who never grew up and have bean dying for a ‘cause’ to come along. The young are being led by the “Bombs for peace are okay as long as you only throw them at your own government” crowd. It is a simple case of the ill-considered leading the ill advised.

The reason so many liberals are grasping for the Vietnam analogy is that they can claim to understand something they didn’t understand in the first place. It is their lie and they can twist it, fold it and spindle it until it meets their needs. They are trying to reach the young and impressionable so they can retake the government at the ballot box. It reminds me of something I read a few years back: “Eagles may soar higher, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.” Anonymous

R.A. Hawkins       Web Site       Contact       Back to Top

Want more opinions? Don't forget the Lady Liberty "Our View" and "Your View" pages!

Lady Liberty's "Their View" Contributors:

R.A. Hawkins
Richard Hawkins was born in Aurora, Colorado and grew up in Littleton, Colorado in a quiet little neighborhood nobody has ever heard of called Columbine Knolls. He has been married to the same woman for twenty-six years, and worked for the same aerospace company for twenty-eight. His primary interests over the years have been his family, sociology, mastering his survival skills, windsurfing, music, politics, raising wolves, art of all types, mycology, perma-culture, archeological anomalies, geo-politics and staying gainfully employed; not necessarily in that order. He often describes himself as a separate subspecies of human – ‘Eclecticus-Iconoclastimus’. His primary driving force is his unwavering belief that as sovereign citizens we are each responsible not only for our own beliefs and actions, but where those beliefs and actions take us in life: That the truly intelligent person learns to determine what the consequences might be for our beliefs and actions and then acts accordingly. Our individual actions always affect far more than we can imagine. R.A. Hawkins is the author of "Through Eyes of Shiva," available via Amazon.com. More of Mr. Hawkins' commentaries can be found on his web site, Entropical Paradise.

Jonathan David Morris
Jonathan David Morris is a political writer based in New Jersey. A strong believer in small government, JDM often takes aim at oppressive taxes, entitlements, and laws, writing about incompetence at the highest levels of culture and government. Catch his weekly ramblings on his web site.

SARTRE
SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed former political operative. This pundit's formal instruction in history, philosophy and political science served as training for activism on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic public service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. As a small business owner and entrepreneur, several successful ventures expanded opportunities for customers and employees. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. SARTRE's intent is to stir the conscience of those who desire to bring back a common-sense moral and traditional value culture for America. So who is SARTRE? He is really an ordinary man just like you, who invites you to join in on this journey.

Blue Ribbon Campaign
for Free Speech Online

Jonathan David Morris:
This Just In: John Kerry Is Dull

In the Village Voice last week, James Ridgeway suggested the Democrats should pick a new presidential candidate.

"With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon," he wrote, "it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go. As arrogant and out of it as the Democratic political establishment is, even these pols know the party's got to have someone to run against George Bush."

A few days later, on Fox News Watch, the Fox News Channel's in-house media critics wondered if maybe -- just maybe -- the media's underwhelmed with Kerry and ready to turn on him. Now, that may well be, but where's the newsflash here? So Kerry's about as likable as the bird flu. So what? This isn't new news. Welcome to one year ago.

The Democrats didn't want a compelling candidate. The media didn't want one, either. They already had one, and his name was Howard Dean. He was the only Democrat who caught on with voters, and the Democrats, in turn, said no one would vote for him.

He was too liberal, they said. Unelectable.

And the media played along with it.

Yet Dean was one of the more conservative candidates from either major party. In Vermont, for example, he worked to balance budgets. He also defaulted to states' rights on gay marriage and gun control, putting him to the Right of many federalist Republicans.

Dean wasn't a peacenik, either. He opposed the Second Gulf War, but supported the First, and supported the war in Afghanistan. He even supported sending troops to Liberia. As noted anti-war writer Justin Raimondo put it, "[Dean] is no more opposed to our imperial foreign policy than is Joe Lieberman -- or George W. Bush."

When Dean "imploded" on stage after the Iowa caucuses, however, the establishment kicked it into high gear. Dean was unstable, they said. He wasn't fit to lead.

Can any man seeking the presidency -- and the power to end the world with the push of a single button -- possibly be "stable" by any conventional stretch? Good question, but never you mind. By the time the New Hampshire primaries rolled around, clips of Dean screaming were overplayed -- and played out -- to a level usually reserved for rock radio staples like Pink Floyd and Queen. Is it any wonder no one wanted to hear him anymore? Lord knows, after thirteen years, I'm sick of hearing Pearl Jam's "Jeremy" on the radio every hour.

Now, that's not to say Dean's scream wasn't silly. It was. And he was also becoming arrogant by that time (telling a man at an open forum to "sit down, you've had your say" couldn't've helped his cause). But the media was pushing Kerry's electability long before Dean's "meltdown." For a time there, Kerry was polling on par with Carol Moseley Braun. But still, the pundits said, Dean's anti-war traction wouldn't -- indeed, couldn't -- translate in the general election.

Yes, it was Kerry, they said, who could beat George Bush -- even as Kerry made Dean's "unelectable" war platform his own.

So now that's who the Democrats are left with. John F'n Kerry. Mr. Electable. For all the talk of George Bush being dumb, this guy is about as empty a vessel as empty vessels come. Not intellectually, but charismatically. He's like a computer. Computers process complex information. They accomplish grand tasks. Yet they only know two things: Zero and One. And that's how John Kerry operates. His mouth is a disk drive. He'll say what he's programmed to say.

Oh, the Iraq war isn't going well? Insert Anti-War 2.004.

Oh, the economy's not creating jobs? Insert Tax-the-Rich Pro, Outsourcing Expansion Pack.

Even John Kerry's most ardent supporters don't seem to support John Kerry. They support the idea of John Kerry. They support this notion that he's electable. But what, exactly, is this notion based on?

Is it his long and undistinguished Senate career?

Is it his haircut?

Is it anything at all?

As far as I can tell, Kerry is only electable because we were told he's electable. Other than that, he's uninspiring.

And what an interesting choice, I might add, for the Anyone-But-Bush crowd. I guess they mean it when they say "anyone." He certainly isn't less militaristic. According to a quote on his campaign site: "Americans deserve a principled diplomacy... backed by undoubted military might... based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics." Why doesn't he come right out and say America knows what's best for the rest of the world? And how is this different than our current policy of democracy-from-above?

Kerry says he'll internationalize the Iraq effort. He'll bring in NATO and the U.N., and sink us further into the world-government mire.

Yeah.

Because the current bureaucracy just isn't big enough.

So now let's return to the question up top: Can John Kerry win the White House? As it stands, he's running neck-and-neck -- but only neck-and-neck -- with a once impossibly-popular president coming off his toughest month yet. According to James Ridgeway, this means Kerry is doomed. "If things proceed as they are," Ridgeway concludes, "the dim-bulb Dem leaders are going to be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean." That may be, but, in fairness, we've got several months to go.

A more important question, then, is: Why did the Democrats want a boring -- I'm sorry, "electable" -- candidate anyway?

Is it because Kerry's just a placeholder for Hillary Clinton? Or is it because Bush and Kerry -- both members of a secret society, Skull and Bones -- are placeholders for each other? Those are the theories right now, and I won't rule them out. But still, I'd like to believe our political parties are too dumb to come up with such elaborate schemes.

As a friend of mine -- who couldn't care less about politics -- puts it, the Skull and Bones connection means Bush and Kerry have probably spanked each other with paddles at some point in their lives. What an excellent way of looking at the '04 election. This is the era of the "closely divided" electorate, after all. Bush and Kerry want the White House, and the media's going to help them win it -- provided they both do just enough to lose.

Jonathan David Morris      Web Site      Contact     Back to Top    

SARTRE Encore Presentation from 01-24-02
None Dare Call It Conspiracy! 

"The Carl Sandburgs of the future will spend whole lifetimes trying to analyze the drama of this week and this scene. What it all comes down to - after the assassination of a president, the wounding of a governor, the slaying of a policeman, and the killing of a man nobody really knew - is little Jack Ruby." - Syndicated columnist Dorothy Kilgallen, February 1964

Well, the CIA has on their site an account by Max Hollard that argues that Oliver Stone was reading from the disinformation file. Whether you agree with Mark Lane or accept the Warren Commission is strictly up to you. Consider what is known and draw your own conclusions, but there is one conclusion we all can agree upon, the country changed forever after the JFK assassination.

Oliver Stone Discusses His Film JFK and Introduces the Real "Man X"

Author Lee Israel is often quoted about the tragic death of Kilgallen. From her jailhouse interview with Jack Ruby, she learned that he was friends with the slain policeman, J.D. Tippit. Wonder why Dan Rather didn't report this little tidbit on the nightly news? That's right, he didn't get that job until years later . . .  As she prepared to release the details that were going to break the whole JFK assassination mystery wide open, Dorothy was found dead.

When Norma Jeane left the scene, both Kennedy boys sighed a feeling of relief. "What did she know and when did she know it", doesn't apply any longer. But we have a different question to ask on the passing of both women. Let them rest in peace, what they knew, you really dont need to know . . . So why keep asking?

Most Americans have some doubt about the sudden and mysterious circumstance of their deaths, but the denial of the American culture is too strong to risk falling into those extremist circles. We really don't want to know! Because if it could be true that sinister forces shape public policy, how could we go on with living our normal existence? We might just have to face serious issues that are not just unpleasant, but are quintessential to our form of government and a free society.

So we settle into the comfort of the Max Holland narration because it gives cover and provides relief from our worse fears. We hope his next work will be a segment from that CBS hit show - The Agency, or maybe the screenplay for the sequel to "Enemy of the State", Will Smith needs another hit . . .

Those long lists of coincidental deaths just confuse the facts! Could it be that this Dorothy was 'killed' because she was 'gallent' in confronting the Wizard called Oz?  But those kinds of questions might raise the wrath of Gerald Posner, and we all know that this "Case Closed" is shut tight. It's best for all to accept that she was just an intelligent woman, but an unreliable drunk, who just took her life. Seems we heard the same description about Marilyn, if we just substitute beauty for smarts . . .

We all know that a good American places their trust in our government. In times that try the souls of the best of citizens, surely we need not drag up the past! There are so many more policies to sell and wars to fight that we don't want to be distracted by all those 'kooks'. That Garrison Group were all a bunch of nuts, and that Dezinformatsiya about Clay Shaw smacks of intrigue from the DA's office itself. Max Hollard says it is so! That Paese Sera's disinformation came from a Communist-owned Italian publication. Mr Hollard says it is so! And recent declassified CIA records document that those stories were all lies. Who are you going to believe, Max or those wacko's?

There is no reason to worry about all those other Warren Commission Report files that are still sealed to 2039, we can trust our government to be straight with us! Can't we? Bill Clinton taught us that being tagged a crazed crackpot is worse than treason on the highest level. So why risk being known as a demon? When it comes to stating, "What's My Line", we all need to follow the official view. Max Hollard says we should, doesn't he? Everybody knows that if there was a real plot, Dan Rather would tell us so. RIGHT?

MM is missed more than Kilgallen, but Dorothy was a true hero. When was the last time you watched fearless reporting from the current crop of Info Babes? Katie Couric is no Murphy Brown, let alone a Dorothy Kilgallen. As a people, Americans are willing to watch the tube in a constant daze. Let no one dare raise the ire of the controllers of perception, less he be slammed as one of those conspirator freaks. The abettor label wears well on the facilitators of silence. Reality resides in Kansas. Dorothy knew there's no place like home! At the end of this rainbow is no gold, only lies and denial for almost forty years. Sleep well, people; we live in the era of the death of outrage . . .

SARTRE      Web Site       Contact       Back to Top