For Democrats politics is a war of extermination against their opponents

Gerard Jackson
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 25 August 2008

How many times have we heard the old saying that all's fair in love and war? Well it ain't. Although politics is basically about power it is not about war. Once war ceases to become a metaphor in politics and becomes the real thing it is not a pretty sight. All rules, conventions, manners, traditions and respect for constitutions are abandoned, with even venerable institutions becoming targets for destruction.

This is what happened in Florida. The Democrats were not playing politics, they were waging war and they waged it regardless of the cost to America's body politic or its civic institutions. It was, and still is, a war waged by people who have the mentality of a Leninist. They are prepared to sacrifice anyone and any institution on the alter of their so-called 'progressive' beliefs.

Anything that stands in their way is evil, especially Republicans, and deserves to be destroyed. Clinton meant it when he told an aid that Dole's policies were evil. Gore was just as serious when he said this election is a battle between "good and evil". But what is good? To Leninists and Nazis it was by definition whatever served their cause.

"Progressive", it's a word that Hollywood's celluloid intellectuals bandy around as they would a badge of honour. As one lefty once said to me about socialism: "But it's progressive." "So's cancer", I retorted, "but I still wouldn't recommend it to anyone." And that's why the American Constitution is constantly under attack from the Democrats' Leninist core. It's a barrier to those who feel they not only have a right to shape society but a duty to do it. These people have categorically stated that they represent the "true will" of the people.

This justifies political garbage like Kennedy, the Great Toad of Boston, and his cronies using the committee system and filibusters to sabotage judicial appointments by shredding the Constitution. It rationalised the actions of those Texas Democrats who used extra-legal means to paralyse the state legislature and sabotage a vote on redistricting plan. It provided Richard Ben-Veniste and former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick, both rabid Democrats, with the justification to use the independent commission investigating the 9/11 attacks to grossly malign Bush while whitewashing Clinton's refusal to accept the Sudan's offer of taking bin Laden.

The totalitarian mindset that dominates the Democratic Party not only sees itself as representing the people's Will but the only one capable of divining that Will. They and only they know what is good for the people. And anyone who challenges this view is branded as evil. That is why Bill 'the Resurrectionist' Daley, for example, could say with a straight face, and mean it, that it was Gore who represented the "true will" of the people and not the electoral system.

And that is why the duly elected Katherine Harris was subjected to the most vile abuse and criminal accusations, even though she was only upholding the rule of law. Her real crime was that she challenged the "true will" of the people as divined by would-be kommissars like Bill Daley. (This dangerous hypocrite considers himself so adept at divining people's real voting intentions that he felt free to change their ballots in favour of Gore).

As every American used to know, the Constitution was designed to check the arbitrary use of power by the state because only through the power of the state can the Gores, Daleys, Kennedys, Clintons and Obama's of this world impose their will. They must destroy every check and balance in the system because unless they do so they cannot defeat their evil opponents.

Therefore the situation in Florida was more than just a struggle for the presidency, one that had already been decided by constitutional rules: it was a vital battle for the US Constitution. If Gore had succeeded in cheating his way into the presidency what would that have meant for judicial activism? The same goes for Obama who made it clear that judicial appointments will not be decided on competence and loyalty to the Constitution but according to the Democrats' ideological template and the Constitution be damned

Does anyone who is acquainted with the thinking of the Democrats' hardcore supporters really believe that Gore would have appointed judges to the Supreme Court who respected the Constitution? What he would have done is appoint those who would effectively legislate it out of existence until it had as much significance for liberty as did Stalin's constitution. Anyone who doubts this need only look at the disgusting efforts of the Democrats to gut the Constitution in order to destroy the president's constitutional right to appoint judges. Efforts that had Obama's unstinting support.

The half-witted Cher was right when she screamed it's the Constitution. Cher is a committed Democrat. To the likes of her, meaning most of the Hollywood elite, the Constitution has no meaning whatsoever. That's why they throw tantrums when anyone mentions 'strict constructivist'. And what is a 'strict constructivist'? It's a person who believes the Constitution means exactly what it says. No more and no less. Yet from this the Democrats were able to insinuate that a 'constructivist' view of the Constitution would support slavery. (Although I am an Australian, I challenge anyone to show me any part of the American Constitution that supports slavery).

Those who treat the US Constitution with the same contempt that the Democrats have shown are a serious threat to liberty.

The battle for Florida is still being waged with Obama and his corrupt media cohorts leading the charge against the Constitution. This battle will continue until either the Democrats have turned the US into a one-party state or until they have been beaten to the point where they will permanently cease to be a threat to American liberties. And that also goes for the their media pals.

Gerard Jackson is Brookes' economics editor