There's something going around about the definition of addiction and doing the same thing over and over again while vainly hoping for a different outcome.
This same sorry state of affairs seems to describe the Democrats, their leading bright lights, their willing accomplices in the mainstream media--at least in what passes as the public press and electronic journalism these days- - and their dupes and the like, and their Siamese like attachment to the ports, just the ports, and nothing but the ports, when it comes to their quest for the perfect weapon in the internecine wars on national defense with the Republicans.
For years the Democrats have bristled at the slightest thought and the merest hint that they are weak on defense, while they have publicly hailed themselves as the new Cincinnatus at each and every bridge they come to defend. Well, most of the time, anyway.
When the information that the Brooklyn Bridge was indeed a target finally surfaced, the immediate Democratic response was to invoke the tortuous unlit tunnels of FISa, to denigrate the President for his attempts to protect the oft sold span, and to scurrilously demand more rights for the very terrorists who were plotting to destroy John augustus Roebling's wunderwerk--to say nothing of Hillary Clinton's and Chuck Schumer's veto of the Patriot act. The conundrums abound.
and when one of these passing cogitations on Democratic protective weakness and liberal frailty are hammered into solidified fact and dragged to the top of a flag pole or trotted out onto a public stage for all to see, the immediate Democratic response is a j'accuse of their patriotism and the furious waving of the nearest bloody shirt, a Julius and Ethel Rosenberg-like condemnation of all such behavior and its dangerous consequences for the perfectly innocent and, in the final misadventure, the dragging of the tattered ghost of a care worn and battered Joseph McCarthy from his liberally opened grave to lend credence to their shrill cries of continuous crucifixion at the hands of the right. None of which, however, means a whit and indicates nothing real in their protection of our nation except to show their own shabby failures and the emptiness of their cheap, tawdry alibis.
But what is it about the ports which drags every liberal Democrat to their knees praying for more of the same, while the very joke of our borders, especially the vast yawning chasm to the south, which allows tens of millions of illegal immigrants and tens of thousands of violent felons loose in our country every year or is it every day--I seem to forget--goes unnoticed.
Every container in the world, if it was jammed full of thirst crazed Taliban fighters, with every crane operator alive opening them in 24 hour shifts, couldn't let in an equal number of outright mendicants, troubled miscreants and Islamist terrorists that we're allowing to pour across the borderline in the utter absence of controls every day. This activity doesn't bother the Democrats nearly as much as the ports.
How come the ports drive the Democrats to near apoplectic shock while the same liberal voices never demand an increase in the real size of our military forces to fight the same evil they see arising, like Moby Dick or Old Faithful, in our ports? Sure they'll kvetch over and over about Iraq and the lack of forces used on the ground, but not a liberal voice will rise to demand another aircraft carrier for the Navy, another mechanized brigade for the army, another tactical fighter wing for the air Force, or, God forbid, for additional Marines. You know, those dreaded, bestial, non-politically correct, outright purveyors of the warrior instinct, who still, despite years of yammering, mewling and disparagement from the finest liberal and Democratic voices available, those steeped in the pickle barrels of NaRaL and the feminine mystique--like Diane Feinstein, Gloria Steinem, Ted Kennedy and Pat Leahy--separate men from women in basic training and drill everybody as riflemen first. No. But as the last of the very finest are quick to point out--it must be the ports, the ports, the ports.
The Democrats were sure quick buy into the peace dividend, and start doing away with the Navy, cutting the army to the bone and reducing the air Force to a shadow of its former strength as soon as they could. Presto, no Soviets, no problem, retorted hollow profundities like Les aspin, who led the gutting process at the behest of the Commander in Chief with a gusto unsurpassed in historic liberal government. But the liberal boyos and their feminist accomplices, in their loathing of the military and with the plenary absence of courage from the corporate careerist military leaders they allowed to manage their own show trials, failed to predict that enemies, any enemies, might ever arise to challenge us. Foes are confronting us, today, all over the globe, killing our soldiers and our citizens with equal impunity-- sacking our foreign businesses, and torching our embassies and consulates. But the Democrats, in their serried wisdom, cry out only for the safety of our ports and nothing more.
as the madness of the cartoon murder rampage sweeps the Muslim world, nary a Democrat dares speaks up in defense of our freedom of expression, except for the pitifully small number of quarantined backbenchers like Joe Lieberman, who alone seems to understand the nature and danger of the terror afoot. But Mr. Lieberman has been marginalized for his pains and his vision while his erstwhile colleagues cry their crocodile tears and bleat preposterous rubbish about the woeful state of the sanctity and security of our ports, the sainted importance of their prized political donors among the longshoremen and little else.
and where is the vaunted liberal politically correct concern for the arabs? aren't they to be allowed a great big piece of the american pie, too? Why are they suddenly denigrated by the same kind-hearted folks who recently decried their treatment in Jeddah and who cow the TSa into shaking grandma down while letting Middle Eastern males scamper past the pat down line at the airport unmolested? ah, 'twas the power of the ports made 'em do it.
The ports, the ports, a kingdom for the ports. But for a nail, a shoe. But for a shoe, a horse. But for a horse, the messenger. But for the messenger, the ports. We shall fight in the landing grounds, in the fields and in the ports. Never have so many owed so much to so few ports. The buck stops at the ports. The Rolling Ports.
Sadly, in the final scene, as we arrive at the grandly illuminated and beautifully decorated Democratic restaurant, we are greeted by the most congenial, brightly dressed and glib staff imaginable. We are shown to our wondrously comfortable seats in a magnificent dining area, decorated with floor to ceiling mirrors, which give us an aura of the same mirage to be found in the palace at Versailles, all to the accompaniment of suitably evincive chamber music, where we are doted on by liveried wait staff with impeccable manners.
after being seated, we are presented with a grand leather bound menu, the inside of which is covered in beautiful calligraphy, with finely outlined borders. and as we open the first oversized parchment page we greeted by a sole resplendent topic on the inside page--Defense. Below is an easily discernable yet single magnificent word, printed in the finest of old English chirography and suitably underlined--Ports.
The Democrats, you see, have but a single answer to our national defense.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement