Democrat agenda is published
By Henry Lamb
These goals arise from his belief that:
"... many of the civil institutions [are] debased by the power of wealth, under the thin guise of the constitutional protection of property"
"..in the future children [will be] trained from infancy [so] that they can measurably conquer their troubles by the force of mind, a new era will have come to man"
"The strong will help the weak, the rich will share with the poor, and it will not be called charity, but it will be known as justice. The man or woman who fails to do his duty, not as he sees it, but as society at large sees it, will be held up to the contempt of mankind"
"Our Constitution and our laws served us well for the first hundred years of our existence, but under the conditions of today they are not only obsolete, but even grotesque"
Does this sound like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Al Gore, James Carville - or a combination of all of them?
While all of the above have made similar statements, the strategist quoted here was the campaign manager for Woodrow Wilson: Colonel Edward Mendell House.
Colonel House is no longer a subject of study in public education, but his influence is forever stamped across American Society. As Wilson's chief advisor, he led the campaign to:
Now, nearly a hundred years after the House-Wilson era, Democrats are simply updating the lyrics of the same song: more taxes, more government control, more global governance.
Like House's vision of the League of Nations, today's Democrats seem to have a dream-world vision of the war against terrorism. Their goal, of course, is to get out of Iraq under the thin guise of "phased re-deployment." Their reasoning - give the Iraqi government a U.S. withdrawal date so they will feel the urgency of taking control - sounds reasonable. Except for the "what if."
What if the new Iraqi government cannot compromise on the outstanding issues, and the government collapses? Would the Democrats send the troops back into Iraq? Or, would they turn the problem over to the U.N.? Or, would they simply take the line of least resistence, and let the Islamo-fascists turn Iraq into a more powerful pre-war Afghanistan, a safe harbor for terrorists and a launching pad for their global jihad?
One thing the Democrats will not do: go after the terrorists on their own turf.
The Islamo-fascist terrorists who are waging this jihad against the United States understand and respect only one thing: force - brute military force. They are not only willing to die for their misguided cause, they are willing to kill innocent Muslims, and anyone else who happens to be between them and the death of an American. As the recent up-tick of violence in Iraq demonstrates, they are willing to suffer extravagant Muslim losses, for the joy of killing a single American.
The House-Wilson brand of Democrats would contend that had the League of Nations not been killed by the United States, there would have been no World War II, no Korean war, no Viet
History is clear evidence that when the Democrats are in power, taxes increase, government expands, regulatory control tightens, property rights and individual freedom shrink, and the relevance of the U.S. Constitution is diminished. Even more important, when Carter was in power, the Iranian embassy was captured by Islamo-fascists; Carter's response was to crash helicopters in the desert - and then retreat. When Clinton was in power, Islamo-fascists shot down a blackhawk helicopter in Mogadishu; Clinton's response was to spout retaliation - and then retreat. Had Al Gore been in power when Islamo-fascists attacked the World Trade Centers....