Everything Old Is New Again

Posted by Ray Robison on 05.02.2007

The similarities between the modern day Democrat Party and the objectives of the America First Committee of Charles Lindbergh are striking.

The liberal leadership speaks in a way that strikes the ears of many of us as unmitigated surrender. "The reasons we went to war were a lie" they claim. "We can not win" they want you to believe. But these words from the modern day Democrats and their media accomplices that sound so awkward to the average American are nothing knew. Today's Iraq war opposition caucus borrows heavily on the script and philosophy of the America First Committee (AFC) from the late 1930's.

That pre-WWII anti-war amalgamation was discredited by Japanese torpedoes at Pearl Harbor. At least those pundits had the reasonable claim of not being able to see into the future. Today's standard-bearers of defeatism have no excuse; the deeds of this nation's Islamic terrorist enemies have already been visited upon us and the anti-war crowd still denies the obvious. We are at war with Islamic extremism. That war was brought to us via the sponsorship of Saddam Hussein (among others) whose hand still acts against us even in his death via the al Qaeda-Ba'athist insurgency he planned and funded just as he helped to fund and plan terrorist attacks against Americans when he ruled Iraq.

Back in the 1930s, Charles Lindbergh as the AFC's most well known (the equivalent of a rock star back then) spokesman gave the public a multitude of reasons why they opposed American involvement in the European war. He showed that America First really meant ‘blame America first' when he said "If any one of these groups--the British, the Jewish, or the administration--stops agitating for war, I believe there will be little danger of our involvement." he stated on September 11, 1941 ignoring any notion of NAZI responsibility, just like the modern Democratic Party almost never speaks to the culpability of our enemies in this war. (http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/index.asp)

Does that sound familiar? How many times have you seen or heard liberals claim that American involvement in Iraq is due to a Jewish cabal? (Neocons is the most common euphemism although the correct usage of that word is in reference to former liberals turned conservative, irregardless of heritage.) How many times did you hear at the start of the war some Democrat say that Americans are dying to protect Jews from Saddam? And of course, there is always the "dancing Jews" whom many liberals claim were hanging out near the World Trade Center waiting for the planes to smash it, thereupon breaking out in frenzied dance…because that, of course, is what secret agents do, break into public dance when their mission succeeds.

The truth being that it was the Palestinians we saw on the news dancing that day. The same Palestinians who enjoyed the patronage of Saddam Hussein I might add.

The same tactic is used now by the Democrat leaders as it was by the AFC; disassociate the need for American responsibility by portraying this country as not the target but a blundering bystander with no real interest in the fight. At least in 1939, the bombs had not yet dropped.

Lindbergh toured German military facilities (at the request of the American government who did not instruct him to endorse the Germans so hardily) before the opening of hostilities and he proclaimed a war against Germany as un-winnable due to German "armies stronger than our own". For his efforts, he was awarded the Service Cross of the German Eagle by Hitler-crony and war criminal Hermann Goering. The echo of that visitation can be found in a modern day Democrat Party leadership that whispers in the ear of a ruthless Syrian regime but refuses to meet with our own President. Senator Harry Reid (D) has effectively parroted Lindbergh with his recent claim that the war in Iraq is "lost". At least in Lindbergh's case it was a reasonable guess, the German army was mighty, whereas in Reid's case, the success stories of the surge are flowing in from many non-mainstream media observers who have marked the start of the "Anbar Awakening" – a majority of Sunni Sheiks who have realized that the Americans are better than al Qaeda after all, no thanks to the American press of course.

As well, Lindbergh refused to see the NAZI Party for what it was, evil. He saw the conflict between European democracies and the socialist Germans as more of a misunderstanding based upon cultural divides. The same refrain can be heard today by the ‘realists' and ‘multiculturalists' who constantly blame the United States for not understanding how the Islamic world is intimidated by this country. It was just weeks ago that our own Congressman Lantos (D) went to the Syrian media and bragged about how they had foiled President Bush and embarrassed him in the name of reaching out to the Syrian government.

Charles Lindbergh, not satisfied at making his pro-Germany argument, ultimately began to question the factual arguments of the Roosevelt administration and indeed its very motives. Comparisons to modern day Democrats abound and there is no need to rehash all those claims here; we know them. Most glaring though is the case against Vice President Cheney (R) that Senator Carl Levin (D) makes when he argues that Saddam Hussein didn't support al Qaeda because - wait for it - Saddam said he didn't. The seed of disloyalty Lindbergh planted has grown ripe into a Democrat vine.

Just like the anti-war movement today, the AFC was heralded and sponsored by major media backers. Back then, such media accomplices felt free to identify themselves publicly. Today they lurk in the shadows of objectivity from which they constantly frag our own military in the name of "helping them" by belittling them with pejoratives such as "broken", "scrapping the bottom" for enlistees, calling our troops "mercenaries", and the "soldiers can't help it because they are victims" story line. I don't think even AFC media sponsors went that far.

And just like Lindbergh, the modern Democrat anti-Iraq war policy is based on racism but of a different sort. Lindbergh ultimately saw the potential war against Germany as the white race fighting among itself and thus to be avoided in the name of overt racial superiority. But the Democrat leaders have taken on a different brand of subtle, soft racism. The Arab-Asian masses are not capable of adopting the ideas of democracy the liberals whisper, thus not worthy of America's blood and toil. You know you have heard this; what did you think they meant? Islamic extremists pose no real threat to our nation because of western culture's innate superiority – read socialism - thus any American action is an overreaction according to the Democrats. The liberals seek to marginalize the threat posed by Islamic extremism in the name of western political and racial superiority. The modern Democrat Party leadership has set such a trap for all of us, just as Lindbergh did before the bombing of Pearl Harbor marginalized his argument of racial identity when the Germans declared war on another "white country" and sided with the Japanese imperialists.

To these liberals it is as though over a thousand years of back and forth campaigns between the Christian West and Muslim East never happened. They forget or do not know that Muslim armies have conquered in the west all the way to France. While the conquering Muslim armies of old are gone, it is today's Muslim-Arab/Southeast Asian demographic shifts to Europe combined with failure to integrate into western culture and their expectation that the host society should convert to Islamic practices that poses the real threat. Thus the cultural clash between the western society and the moderate Muslim becomes the requisite justification for Islamic extremists to attack westerners – see the rioting "youths" of France.

Despite the Democrat's low opinion of the capabilities of Muslims, Islamic extremism can impact our very way of life just like it has in France. There is no logical reason to ignore the fact that Islamic fundamentalism can get a hold anywhere, even in our closest ally, Britain. It is the liberal belief in western superiority that threatens this country the most. It leaves us open to manipulation. We need to recognize that Islamic extremism is quite capable of changing our world as we know it, today, right now. While religious freedom is a right that should be guaranteed under western values, using that religion to change our very legal systems is not a right.

It is a historical axiom that strong cultures fail when they become so convinced of there own superiority that they see no need to sacrifice of themselves to defend their way of life. Let the democrats have that position if they so chose, the rest of us realize that even a more tolerant, just and open society as ours can be defeated by a more ruthless culture if we should fail to defend it. Thankfully, we still have brave men and women to stand against those who would destroy our way of life, justice system, our very Constitution if they could in favor of Koran dictated Islamic law. And while the Democrats stand for their own political victory, the rest of us will stand for American victory.

Ray Robison is a military analyst and coauthor of the new ebook Both In One Trench