Friends, let's all take a moment to congratulate Democrats and Trump-haters, who have already won the 2020 election...in their heads. Truthfully, they won that election long ago, but they managed to defer the public victory lap to yesterday around noon, when the networks called the election for Joe Biden. Personally, though, until the Electoral College gives the win to Sleepy Joe, until Mike Pence forwards that result to Congress, until Congress officially accepts it, and until Donald Trump vacates the White House and Biden takes the oath on the steps of the Capitol, I refuse to accept that the election is over. Many lawsuits have been lodged in the battleground states, and we're told that many more are coming. There are a lot of tools that can be used to test the hypothesis that Democratic wins in key states were powered by fraud or malfeasance. The media and the Dems themselves would prefer not to use those tools. They would prefer that we all prostrate ourselves before the altar of Bidenism and be done with it. Not so fast, I say! You better believe that there would have been a flurry of court cases if Biden had ended up slightly behind in the vote count. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I await the ruling of the new-and-improved Supreme Court, in particular.
Whatever happens with the race for the White House, we Republicans can give ourselves a big pat on the back for outperforming expectations at every level of Election 2020: state legislatures, governorships, the House, the Senate, and the electoral college and popular vote for President. Blue wave? Ha! Come what may in the next few weeks, our Republican Party is strong, and we are fully capable of blocking most of the Left's wild schemes. Granted, the media and social media may be emboldened by Biden's apparent win, and that will make it harder than ever to make our voices heard. Be that as it may, we won't be silenced, and we won't give up!
President Trump told us repeatedly on the campaign trail that the "best is yet to come" for America. That can still be true, if We the People make it so.
Well, let's take a time out from the bias media, say a prayer. I believe we are in the "10 days of darkness". It is going to get rough...
ReplyDeleteP.S. Since I know Ray will eventually see this post, let me answer his question from a previous post/comment.
ReplyDeleteRay,
I am working two jobs; the #1 retailer and the teaching job (unfort there is a strong feeling of the schools closing at Thanksgiving). Right now, I am helping with online/virtual homework questions. It's best I keep my job with the #1 retailer right now due to the thought of school closings (??). Yes, its tough, but we have a plan to either exit the state or move to the country.
Linda,
DeleteThanks for your reply. If you exit the state (which is an excellent idea), consider moving to another state that is, and will probably remain fairly red. if not solid red.
Dr.Waddy et al: Let's consider some verities. The Federal executive branch will, if Kamalafornia prevails, be delivered to the far left. That means an unrelenting regime of "struggle sessions", comprehensive surveys to seek out any hint of politically incorrect heresy or any chance of insolent opposition, an all out regulatory assault on the fossil fuel industry and institutional reforms from within designed to prevent any revanchist democratic return within the branch, should the American people throw another of their periodic ignorant tantrums in 2024.
ReplyDeleteDr. Nick,
ReplyDeleteStop right there! Did I miss something? If there is an established process that Joe Biden had to go through before he could be officially declared the President Elect, then why is he in that position, and hold that title now? Why was last night's "victory lap" held if that process was not completed?
Let's say the "process of validation" continues, if only as a formality, then what? Does anyone really believe, that if the election is somehow overturned, that Biden and his followers are going to accept that? Of course not! If Trump were declared the winner, there would be massive demonstrations across the nation, which would turn into riots and looting, with extreme violence.
As a friend of mine said yesterday, "we are now totally f****d, at least for the next four years, and possibly longer. That list you made of what will happen in a Biden Presidency will come true, if not all of it, most of it.
I have said this before, and will say it again and again. Unless Republicans control the media, academia, and the film industry, they will be at constant war with The Left. Add to that High Tech, and Big Corporate Money, against them (The Right) daily survival is touch and go.
Also, the worst is yet to come if Harris takes over from an "incapacitated" Biden. This is a distinct possibility, and Harris is a radical to the core, and smart, and dangerous.
That shit storm I predicted has arrived, and the blowers have been turned on.
Dr.Waddy et al from Jack: Having been part of state government bureaucracy in lala land NY I pity those lawful Federal executive employees who will be tasked so! But: We now have a solidly lawful Scotus and we probably have a Senate controlled by Mitch McConnell, the most consequential Senate Majority Leader since Lyndon Johnson. What is the left to do? "Dismiss Parliament" yes? Well, the left would do that if it could. And Supreme Court packing? Unlikely,unlikely! The left must resign itself to the virtual certainty of denial of the totalitarian power it seeks over the "unwashed and ignorant". Good luck; we presumptuously charged so are staying right where we belong, in the heart of the real America.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy, Donald Trump won three states last time by a margin of 70,000 votes. Yet, there were no lawsuits filed by the Dems.
ReplyDeleteDonald Trump is just a poor loser and will continue to sew seeds of divisiveness on his way out.
There are lots of charges out there, but no proof of any fraud.
You can hold out whatever hope that you want, but, come January, Joe Biden is President and Kamala Harris is Vice-President. As for Donald Trump, he (and perhaps his children) will be spending years fending off criminal and civil litigation.
Dr. Waddy:We can expect from that branch a tsunami of terribly pent up vindictive and bigoted far left decrees and the consummate imposition of political correctness in all aspects of public and private life in which it can meddle. The branch would embrace the Cuomoesque view of the real America as subject, not citizen. But. . .
ReplyDeleteLinda, I didn't realize you were still working both jobs. No wonder we haven't seen you as much lately at WaddyIsRight! Try to keep your head above water, huh?
ReplyDeleteMoving to a deep red state seems like a better idea all the time. Assuming we can keep the Senate (and maybe the presidency), I'd say armageddon has been deferred, but it sure would be nice to live among like-minded folks. Florida seems to be on the mend!
Jack, one of the worst features of a Biden presidency would be that the Deep State would be emboldened, and all the progress we've made in rooting out swamp creatures, or at least driving them temporarily underground, would be erased. In fact, the Swamp would redouble its efforts to ensure that no one Trump-like ever took power again. Is there cheating in our elections? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm pretty sure there'll be lots more soon, if the Dems have anything to say about it.
Ray, you're right that, because we're at a disadvantage in so many key institutions, it becomes critical for us to keep control of one or more branches of the federal government, just to make sure that we conservatives aren't steamrolled by arrogant leftists. The Senate is a good start, but the White House is the big prize. Still, I think the Supreme Court may end up being the best "brake" of all on the ascendant Dems. They will struggle to reverse the major gains we've made in the judiciary -- unless they decide someday to thumb their noses at the judiciary, which we can't entirely rule out. In the main, though, I agree with Jack: the Left is, assuming they take the presidency, about to experience all the downsides of "power": great responsibility, vast expectations, but little prospect of major accomplishments.
Rod, thanks for the reminder that the entire Trump family faces a leftist vendetta if Trump concedes and leaves office. Keep it up, and you may convince Trump to burrow himself so deep in the White House basement that only high explosives will blast him out. Really, keep it up. Please! :)
Jack, the question is: what can be accomplished by mere Executive Order and rhetorical flourish? I think Trump has answered that question: not a great deal. Certainly not a great deal that can't easily be undone.
I think Dr. Waddy, if Biden/Harris do become president/VP, I don't think any place will be safe to live. Just saying. Yes, indeed, working two jobs.
ReplyDeleteLinda, my goodness. It must be terrible to live with such paranoia. There will be incremental change in the first term of Biden-Harris. The far-left contingent of the Democratic Party is few in number, and Biden is a centrist. His focus will be controlling the pandemic, building the country back up and undoing some of the other damage to our institutions (like education and public lands) that occurred under Trump.
ReplyDeleteCentrist? Biden/Harris? Your the one who is delusional.
DeleteTest from Jack
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy et al:Joe Manchin has said he would not vote for elimination of filibuster. That puts another nail in the coffin of Court packing. Good for him! I wish he'd come in from the cold; I'd bet most West Virginians would welcome that.
ReplyDeleteRod from Jack: In considering the progress of the Democrat party from that of the 50's and early 60's to that of today I see very obvious embrace of Marxism, eg: Obama's embrace of William Ayers, Obama's promise of "fundamental transformation" of the US, the nomination of a draft dodger to the Presidency, a possibility impossible to contemplate before the boomer generation, which has corrupted our polity beyond measure, made it's ultimately ungracious and ungrateful debut. Further: the empowerment of such as Van Jones, a frank and open advocate of the sociopathic creed of communism. Why Kennedy, Johnson, Jackson and maybe even Humphrey would have considered such spinelessness to be revolting! Biden may be a relative centrist but he stands ready to support all that very, very powerful faction of the Democrat party which manifests obvious Marxist convictions.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt gets real tedious having to deal with all the misinformation being spread here. In the interest of full disclosure, I know Bill Ayers from sociology conferences, and we're friendly with one another. He would laugh at the notion that President Obama embraced any of Ayers' ideology. In point of fact, President Obama and Ayers only had a handful of interactions since 1996, being at conferences and panels on education together. The only significant interaction they ever had was when Ayers and his partner, Bernadine Dorhn, held a coffee for President Obama when he ran for state senate. They also contributed $200 to President Obama.
DeleteVan Jones is not a communist. He helped found STORM in the mid-90s, which was viewed a socialist because, when it came to police brutality, advocated revolutionary change,. Rather, Jones is a major voice for criminal justice reform and environmentalism. He has worked with the Democratic and Republican Party.
Yes, in the past, being a draft dodger like Donald Trump would have doomed a candidacy.
Rod from Jack: Marxism advocates unrelenting intolerance for the bourgeoisie (the middle class). Yet measured social progress has brought so many of the working class to middle class prosperity! I saw it first hand when I worked in a Buffalo steel plant. Lots of those guys who had started out in the '30's had nice houses in the suburbs. Capitalism, under measured, well considered, modification, is fully capable of delivering such life redeeming well being. But your Democrats today would blithely destroy the fossil fuel basis of this good thing. The radical "environmental" movement, which is about to make it's fantastic influence felt once again in our Federal executive branch may be motivated by aesthetic concerns but it is the pawn of Marxists, who see it as yet another way to destroy the capitalism which so offends them. I know there are many Democrats of good will, but they are being cuckooed by amoral, ultimately murderous Marxist sociopaths.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what brand of Marxism (there are many flavors of Marxism), but in classical Marxism, the bourgeoisie are the ones who own the means of production -- in other words, the business owners, or the wealthy. Small business owners are petty bourgeoisie. In classical Marxism, the communists (educated revolutionaries) would help the proletariat to create a more equitable classless society.
ReplyDeleteAs I have noted before, there are the hard core Green New Dealers, but they represent a small minority of the Democratic Party. Most Democrats, including President-Elect Biden, see the Green New Deal as establishing long term goals in making for a more sustainable planet. One goal is a transition away from an economy so dependent on fossil fuel and moving to cleaner, renewable, sustainable energy sources -- a place that all major energy companies are already moving to.
I don't know who you are referring to a Marxist sociopaths in the Democratic Party. If there are any, they are very few in number.
Is Biden a "centrist"? I guess the center is now defined by refusing to abolish the police? Yeah, by that measure he's a centrist.
ReplyDeleteManchin's announcement that he won't vote to end the filibuster or to pack the court is a BIG deal. It means a Biden administration, if it ever comes to pass, won't accomplish much of anything, except revoking Trump's executive orders, torpedoing border enforcement, and terrorizing all Americans with threats of federal lawsuits if they don't comply with "wokeness". It's not a pretty picture, but with SCOTUS intact and the Senate in semi-responsible hands, America can at least "resist" and make a comeback.
I personally don't care much who dodged the draft. Who went on the "peace train" to Moscow, however, while our "boys" were being killed in Vietnam with Soviet-supplied weapons -- now that seems like a question worth asking.
I expect Rod is right that the transition that Biden would achieve away from fossil fuels would be gradual. I mean, anything else would destroy our economy forthwith! Even Biden doesn't want that. As I see it, the main purpose of the Green New Deal is virtue-signalling and the enrichment of green energy companies owned by Democratic donors. None of what we do here will have a meaningful impact on climate change, which is driven by global emissions.
Dr.Waddyet al: Rod: Marxists are by definition sociopaths. They support a doctrine which dehumanizes vast swaths of whole populations for political incorrectness and in practice backs this up with wholesale slaughter. The Nazis did the same, though not on as grand a scale and Marxists are condemned as thoroughly as those monsters would be,had they any power today. Classical Marxism posited the certainty of class warfare and blamed both the owners of the means of production and those who supported them. Marxism Leninism though,advanced the idea that since the triumph of the working class ( as it were) was inevitable, why not jump start it with ehh, affirmative action to the tune ,it turned out of 100,000,000 + deaths and incalculably more lives ruined. For what? Marxism in power collapsed of it's very dead weight. Its denial of human status to myriad millions fulfills a definition of sociopathy which holds that it manifests a commanding lack of empathy of sympathy for human suffering (Eg Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy et al: Rod: Naziism stands completely discredited and advanced only by a miniscule minority with no power. Marxism's fiendish record in power should condemn it equally if not more. Some contemporary Marxists maintain " oh we just didn't do it right the first time!" OK,how many hundred millions more deaths should we expect this time? I think it certain that the Dem party is infested with Marxist principles. Obviously there is an appreciable relatively moderate faction in the party but that it countenances the very presence of Marxists within it's bounds, condemns it!
ReplyDeleteExactly who in the Democratic Party is a Marxist and what evidence do you have that they are Marxist?
DeleteRod from Jack: I do not think a comparison of Donald Trump's not serving and the obvious poltroonery of slick willie's games holds up. Clinton embarked on a Fulbright at Oxford after having made a commitment to ROTC for when he returned for Law School.He was given a 1D deferment. In October 1969 he bade the draft board restore him to 1A (fully eligible for the draft). But onDec. 1 the new draft lottery afforded his birthday a number as high as to preclude drafting. Whyof course he could not have predicted this? But nonetheless his machinations had put him in position to profit from the lottery and had it not, well, he had his ways didn't he? And completely in to be confirmed character, he slithered out of his obligation. Why he had better things to do!Also so relevant is the haughty and ungrateful disdain he and Hillary displayed for the military. He had the nerve to show up at our Vietnam memorial despite a concerted campaign on our part to urge him, for decency's sake, to stay away. He gave Hillary leave to use the armed forces for a leftist social experimentation laboratory and Marine Officers as White House waiters? Indeed! Donald Trump had a standard student deferment for his undergraduate years and then received a temporary and then permanent 4F rating for bone spurs, which would have been problematic on the march, yes? Even a superlative athlete like Joe Namath got a 4F, so why is Trump's so suspect? And President Trump has been assertive and sincere in his high regard for the military.
ReplyDeleteThere are a number of legitimate accounts that Trump's bone spurs were a myth -- that the family bought off a doctor. As for his high regard for the military, calling them "losers" is not holding the military in high regard.
ReplyDeleteBTW, do you have a specific example of Bill Clinton, while as president, showing the military the kind of disdain that Trump did?
Jack, as always you make some great points about Marxism. The fact that fascism and Nazism are considered "beyond the pale", but Marxists are tolerated in polite society and considered, at worst, misguided, is ridiculous. If human suffering is the yardstick, then the Marxists should be at the top of EVERYONE's naughty list.
ReplyDeleteWho in the Democratic Party is a Marxist? I suppose we could start with the avowed socialists. Does not all modern socialism owe a debt to Marx?
I would further argue that anyone who propounds a rigidly racialized view of the world -- whites as the privileged bourgeoisie, "people of color" as the downtrodden proletariat -- is spinning a Marxist fairy tale of a different kind.
And, for the record, Trump never called U.S. soldiers "losers" and he never called neo-Nazis "good people". Saying it over and over doesn't make it so.
Dr.Waddy et al:Rod: Military morale was at a level so low during the Clinton reign that it equalled the post Vietnam era. That may well have been purposed by the Clintons. When B.Clinton announced he would pontificate at our Vietnam Memorial, we veterans organized a postcard campaign informing him that we considered his presence to be a prospect which would disgrace our memorial beyond measure. He disdained it and blithely polluted our monument. The Clintons empowered staff who gloried in displaying blatant contempt for military men who encountered them; "I don't speak to the military!" The Clintons were probably very much afraid that the recent masterful showing by our forces in Desert Storm would torpedo their realization of the cherished dream of every naive '60's baby boomer radical to put paid to our services. They considered them to have been a thoroughly negative influence on the world.
ReplyDeleteMemorial
Anonymous. Just because President Clinton decided to ignore that rantings of a small group of vets about his speaking at the Vietnam Memorial does not mean he had disdain for the military.
ReplyDeleteI also doubt that you can provide evidence that ANY of Clinton's staff ever stated "I don't speak to the military."
Finally, President Clinton did not want to fight in a war that we had no business being involved in. Neither did Donald Trump. Not wanting to fight in Vietnam means that you have disdain for the military.
Dr. Waddy et al: A pilot killed in the BLackhawk Down abomination came from a little town just down the road from ours. The Army had implored the Clinton administration to send more armor to Somalia but the disdainful Clintons nixed it. Not the last time for Hillary eh? (Benghazi). She unforgiveably directed the insult "General Betrayus" at distinguished General Petraeus at a Senate hearing in the setting of which he was duty bound to manifest respect for her august position. Betray us, really!? It takes real crust to say that!But Hillary probably never got over being told she was not Marine material in , if it happened,her obviously disingenuous effort to trap off a "dumb jarhead" recruiter who was alot smarter than she thought, maybe even smarter than her.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy et al: Another thought about Marxism: I know many who opposed the Vietnam War had good intentions but the bottom line was that they enabled the success of a characteristically vicious and totalitarian Marxist regime. N. Vietnamese General Giap said "The protestors kept us going". Many of the protestors , including the Clintons,carried and advanced an anti American Military animus into the post war years. At what point does very consequential support for a Marxist regime become Marxism itself and subject to most of the condemnation due this insane doctrine?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Hillary Clinton never directed the "General Betrayus" insult at General Petraeus at a Senate hearing. That is just a made-up LIE.
Second, the anti-war protests had nothing to do with the fate of the war. The Vietnam War was lost when we backed the murderous Diem regime. Beyond his not allowing for Vietnam reunification elections (thus losing trust with the North Vietnamese), his brutal and divisive repression of Buddhists and other religious groups led to the CIA's assassination of him. That created continued instability in South Vietnam, and a weak commitment to defeat North Vietnam.
Learn you're history before making such baseless comments.
Dr.Waddy et al from Jack: This is not the late 19th century nor is it 1917. Back then, creditable argument in favor of Marxism,among people many of whom manifested good will, obtained. But the 20th century witnessed a thorough trial of the doctrine, in many settings and it was proven tragically and insanely wrongheaded. All it ever provided was incalculable human misery. No amount of present day intellectual humbug from apologists many of whom display very recognizable Alinsky inspired disingenuousness about their beliefs and intentions can discredit this indisputable empirical evidence.
ReplyDeleteRod from Jack: Uh, well, I do know some history and I did live through that era. The main cause of the Vietnam war was Communist N.Vietnam's determination to impose it's totalitarian dictatorship on the South. (Surely you would not maintain that the N.Vietnamese "people"had any say in this decision, which was to kill so many of them, pray?)1954, when Communism was allowed to enslave the the North, 400,000 Vietnamese fled the North, not the South. Because of their proximity to 1954 Mao oppressed China, they knew what to expect. Of course the Commies determined to eliminate the threat of the yes, authoritarian but not totalitarian S.Vietnam. Also to consider are longstanding cultural and historical differences among the Vietnamese people themselves.
ReplyDeleteRod from Jack: US leadership,schooled as Kennedy said, in Hitler's war,to beware of his cynical nickle and diming, understandably saw this as Communist adoption of Hitler's tactic and took appropriate action. But then came the boomers,blessed by the anti totalian sacrifice of their parents with the best childhood ever, flocking to college, where they were seduced by theretofore and justifiably marginalized and suppressed, Marxist profs and actually bought the screed that America was fundamentally evil and that it deserved punishment and fundamental transformation. Because there were so many of us we had an inordinate effect on the American polity. And the degenerates in Hanoi picked right up on that!
ReplyDeletePp
Rod from Jack: And gee, it sure was convenient to have that readymade excuse to avoid that pesky obligation to defend a nation which had afforded the boomers unprecedented well being and prosperity.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, the Geneva Accord gave civilians of both North and South Vietnam the opportunity to move. About 250,000 civilians in South Vietnam moved north, and at least 500,000 civilians moved south, the vast majority being Catholics. Part of their motivation for leaving was the CIA psychological warfare campaign headed by Edward Lansdale that fueled the perception that Catholics would be mistreated by North Vietnam as well as starting rumors that Hanoi would be bombed.
ReplyDeleteI think it is both funny and sad that North Vietnam is seen as oppressing its people when it was the French who attempted to maintain Vietnam as a colony. I guess oppression of a people is fine when it is for capitalist colonizers, rather than communist defenders. BTW, Ho Chi Minh could be brutal, but no more brutal than Diem.
It is also funny and sad that when people don't know U.S. history. The notion that there were all these far left professors in universities was ridiculous. Universities, under pressure from HUAC and its related groups in the states, purged themselves of many liberal professors from the 1940s to 1960 as many were accused (often falsely) of being Communist. Then, in the 1960s, liberal professors were tolerated a bit more, but only if their protests were for Civil Rights, because so many institutions were getting government grants, often to support the Defense Department. Only starting in the late 1960s did college professors slowly start to be more open about the war, but were a distinct minority on campuses.
Jack, I hate to say it, but Slick Willy, huckster that he was, may be a good exemplar for turn-of-the-century American morals. He's a creep, sure, but he excelled in telling people what they wanted to hear and in manipulating our bleeding hearts. We get, arguably, the leaders we deserve, don't we?
ReplyDeleteJack, good point that taking the side of Marxist regimes, as leftists have so often done, amounts to an advocacy of Marxism.
Incidentally, we all know that Donald Trump didn't serve in Vietnam, but did he oppose our involvement there? Not to my knowledge. I've heard he was a fan of Nixon, which would seem to preclude anti-war sentiments.
Rod, you can't be serious in suggesting that the Vietnam War was lost in 1963. It wasn't even lost in 1973! As long as the most powerful nation on earth was committed to helping preserve the independence of South Vietnam, that country had a chance. When we decided to sneer at them instead and betray our promises, THAT's when the war was lost.
Quite right, Jack, that so often the "principled" opposition to the war in Vietnam was masking an entirely selfish, cowardly desire not to fight there oneself.
So North Vietnamese persecution of Catholics was a mere "perception", Rod? No doubt the terror that motivated the Boat People to flee was also a simple misunderstanding. You should visit some Vietnamese communities here in the States and enlighten them about how underrated Ho Chi Minh and his minions were... I'm sure they'd be bowled over by your acumen.
Now, by what standard are you equating North Vietnamese oppression and atrocities with those of the French and Diem? Show us your math, Rod. We'll get out our slide rules and check it for you.
Dr Waddy et al: Dr.Waddy: I agree completely with what you say above. B.Clinton is a graphic example, a very apt symbol of the shameful and astonishing baby boomer led degradation of our country's morals. No wonder so many countries understandably fear the baleful influence of so much of our popular culture. Rod: I stand corrected on the General Betrayus quote. Apparently it originated in a Moveon.org ad and was used as a byline by the Washington Post but was not expressed by Hillary. A contemporary Denver newspaper editorial took her to task for not actively denouncing the use of this execrable term. She had criticized his conduct of the surge in the Senate and was a much quoted Presidential prospect.
ReplyDeleteJack, you are magnanimous in victory and defeat, as well as veracity and error. I admire you for acknowledging when Rod (accidentally?) gets something right. Kudos!
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy et al from Jack: I think you could locate many hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans who would attest to Marxist oppression of Catholics. The CIA did not fabricate this reality. Of course it makes perfect sense that reflexively iconoclastic Marxists would loathe the Catholic Church. It made up much of the foundation of Western civilization for perhaps 1700 years and as such , had to go, every last bit of it. The boat people: many of them were ethnic Chinese. Southeast Asian resentment of the Chinese diaspora of the 19th century was widespread. I saw it first hand in Malaysia. The victorious N.Vietnamese made haste to settle old scores and ,well, that smacks of "RACISM" ! Oh gawd! Leftists apologizing for that "self evident" evil. Well!
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy: Thanx, much appreciated. In my opinion it is an intellectual obligation and I am very happy to be accepted in discourse by those whose intellectual accomplishments exceed mine.
ReplyDeleteJack, I had forgotten about the racial/ethnic dimensions of the purge the North Vietnamese unleashed. There was plenty of that in Stalin's day too, needless to say. In excusing (or at least minimizing) the depredations of commies, Rod is upholding a long and hallowed tradition on the Left: viewing nothing as truly "wrong", if it's done with the right intentions.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy, if you are going to make reference to me, please do me the courtesy of properly representing my position. What Ho Chi Minh did to his people was horrible. What Diem did to his people was terrible as well. Finally, the French could be brutal, as with the bombing of Haiphong or the torture of those not sufficiently loyal to the French.
DeleteMy point is, brutality is brutality. Murder is murder. It is no more horrific whether the North Vietnamese are doing it, the South Vietnamese or the French. Political ideology does not justify it.
That's all true, Rod, and we would all agree with it, BUT what you're doing is creating an equivalency between the French, Diem, and the North Vietnamese communists that ISN'T supported by historical fact. Ho Chi Minh unleashed a torrent of torture and death upon his own people the likes of which the world has seldom seen...but which Red China, just to the north, would have found unremarkable. Let's talk numbers of dead. Let's talk levels of depravity. Let's talk about the utter cancellation of liberties and civil rights. You wouldn't say, "Oh, Hitler was a dictator, and so was Castro, so they're the same", would you? Surely we can make some judicious distinctions.
ReplyDelete