Phil Hendrie on Libs and WOT


PDA






hillbilly
August 4, 2005, 11:49 PM
I must confess, I'm not a Phil Hendrie fan. To be honest, I had never really even heard of Phil Hendrie until a couple of days ago.

But he's put up a blog with the URL "GeorgeBushisGod" just to anger fringe leftists.

But I thought this post of his from Aug. 1 was worth reading here.



George W. Bush is God.com
The Phil Hendrie BlogMain

August 01, 2005
The Left Vs. Fascism: Why We Gave Up
Good Morning!

During the last century, the battle against fascism, whether it's perpetrators were Franco's National Front, Mussolini's "New Roman Empire", Hitler's National Socialists or Tojo's Militarists, was led by liberals and leftists. It was fought primarily with the weapons of war and the consequence, besides ultimate victory, was bloodletting and death. It was marshaled by the leadership of Roosevelt and the propaganda of Hollywood. It was a battle from which no one on the left turned away. It was a fight against Super Power Fascism inhabiting major states on both sides of the globe, a fascism that was homophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-woman, anti-trade union and anti-democratic.

Today the heir to the murder machinery of 20Th century fascism is the Fundamentalist Islamic Theocratic movement which is no less homophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-woman, anti-trade union and anti-democratic. It seeks to force regional, if not, global hegemony. And making its lineage to the fascists of 20Th century Europe and Asia indelible, it's weapon is terror. Terror is a part of its charter. It is rationalized by the idea of a religious mission that would drive non-believers from designated "holy lands" and re-establishing Caliphate rule, an era of Islamic ascendancy, through force. This mission is, of course, no more religious than Hitler's "sacred vow" to wipe from the earth Bolshevism or Japan's "divine" drive to establish a "Prosperity Sphere" in Asia.

Today's leftist and liberal does not wish to fight this new fascism because its matrix is the Third World. The Third World is a sacred place to my leftist and liberal friends because beneath its sands and jungles and bazaars is buried, in their minds, any right America thought it had to self-defense, whether economic, political or religious.

The reason given for this, by my friends on the left, is that the United States created the The Third World as it exists today by way of slavery, military and political coercion, espionage and economic exploitation. Did I mention the CIA? It's impossible, they argue, for the U.S. to make any rightful claim against any agency or entity originating there, however morally degenerate, since the United States, through its actions, made this evil "necessary." They will tell you that American interest in any part of the world stems from American corporate interest. What they forget is that American corporate interest is the interest of corporations employing people and serving stockholders. Leftists and liberals work for corporations the same as everybody else. It's like the infant-minded, quasi-liberal suburban housewife gassing up her Ford Explorer to head down to the "No War For Oil" rally. Then they hit bottom. Their logic leads them to conclude that national suicide, or in the very least some form of acceptable casualty rate among our people, from terrorist attack is probably preferable to any further intercession in the time-line of life in The Third World. Hypocrites.

We liberals from time to time say we would endorse, without a tremor, the military option if convinced that the individual agency being targeted was "GUILTY." Hence the hand-wringing over "proof" of WMDs. This is like asking a cop to make sure the perpetrator he arrests is "GUILTY" before taking him into custody. What constrains a cop in his investigation of a crime should no less constrain a democracy similarly charged to protect its people. In short and in police parlance, following the mass murder of 9/11, the United States had "reasonable suspicion" to target not only Afghanistan but Iraq as well. Some of that "reasonable suspicion" with regard to Iraq may be found in the Clinton Administrations murder indictment of Osama Bin Laden where numerous links to Saddam Hussein are cited. ".....al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of
Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on
particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
It is uncomfortable terrain to traverse for some because it is resistant to factional rhetoric

In the end, however, I'm afraid I can't attribute to my friends on the left simply a lack of honest historical scrutiny any more than I can say that a stomach ache is caused by a stomach ache. The post-Vietnam war leftist and liberal is bourgeois. His battleground has been the living rooms of friends. He also makes the occasional field trip to WTO meetings where he hopes his demonstration of solidarity with the oppressed will shield him from the casually tossed backpack-full-of-nails-and-dynamite on a train. In his nostalgia for the halcyon days of anti-war action that was the Vietnam era, he is ignorant of the much larger historical picture that shows us why we are where we are. And he's a coward. The future is violent. The war is on. Everyday brings him closer to the edge he's been walking backwards toward since 9/11 but he just can't man up.

While the factionalism of conservatives and liberals continues to waste our precious time as a country, at least conservatives seem to have not only direction but, for the moment, a correct heading. The liberal movement in America, of which I have been a part since campaigning for Eugene McCarthy during my high school years, drifts further and further away from us. It is utterly deluded by the moneyed company it keeps. It's reduced to a reactionary rabble. It's cranky and noisy and complains about the draft from an open window like an old woman. It is the beginning of a new conservative movement. And we don't need one more of those.

Phil

Disclaimer: Despite our warnings that radio groupies and their chit-chat would not be tolerated, we've been forced to make an example out of several people. Again, no groupies wasting time on the 'net when they should be making their out-calls selling pen and pencil sets.

If you enjoyed reading about "Phil Hendrie on Libs and WOT" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Fletchette
August 5, 2005, 12:02 AM
One philosophical question that I have of liberals is, why do they view FDR and Truman as their ideal president? I have heard numerous references on Air America about this or that politician leading "in a Truman-esque manner" or "like FDR did".

I do not think either of these Presidents were particularly good. We are still paying for some of their mistakes today.

:confused:

Art Eatman
August 5, 2005, 12:16 AM
Fletchette, I can readily see where the seeds planted by FDR were cultivated and harvested by LBJ, insofar as social programs.

Truman's decisions saved many lives in the way he ended WW II. His people created the Marshall Plan and created the general policy of "containment" of the Soviet Empire. He was part of the political force that manipulated the UN in the effort to save South Korea from being a Communist puppet state.

In today's political world, he would be seen as way off to the right of Bush II. (For that matter, so would JFK: "Bear any burden, pay any price...")

So I'd ask that you explain what Truman did wrong that is still costing us, today.

:), Art

RevDisk
August 5, 2005, 04:39 AM
During the last century, the battle against fascism, whether it's perpetrators were Franco's National Front, Mussolini's "New Roman Empire", Hitler's National Socialists or Tojo's Militarists, was led by liberals and leftists. It was fought primarily with the weapons of war and the consequence, besides ultimate victory, was bloodletting and death. It was marshaled by the leadership of Roosevelt and the propaganda of Hollywood. It was a battle from which no one on the left turned away. It was a fight against Super Power Fascism inhabiting major states on both sides of the globe, a fascism that was homophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-woman, anti-trade union and anti-democratic.

Franco was neutral. Mussolini was just Hitler's minion. Hitler didn't want a war with the US. Tojo was the idiot that attacked us. Don't remember the excuse we used to attack Germany first instead of Japan. Must have taken a lot of propaganda for the public to swallow that one.

Oh ya, and our great ally, the USSR? They made the Nazis look like freakin school children when it came it genocide. Ended up swiping most of Eurasia and killing tens of millions. Sigh

Was it Patton that said whenever we got the Germans to surrender, we should immediately turn 'em around and tell 'em to start marching to the Eastern front? History might have turned out slightly different without 40 years of the Cold War. I doubt the Wahabbis would be as much of a concern as they are now.

Would it be impolite to point out that our current president's grandfather (Prescott Bush) had his business taken from him under the "Trading with Enemies Act" because he was still doing business with the Nazis after we declared war?


Today the heir to the murder machinery of 20Th century fascism is the Fundamentalist Islamic Theocratic movement which is no less homophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-woman, anti-trade union and anti-democratic. It seeks to force regional, if not, global hegemony. And making its lineage to the fascists of 20Th century Europe and Asia indelible, it's weapon is terror. Terror is a part of its charter. It is rationalized by the idea of a religious mission that would drive non-believers from designated "holy lands" and re-establishing Caliphate rule, an era of Islamic ascendancy, through force. This mission is, of course, no more religious than Hitler's "sacred vow" to wipe from the earth Bolshevism or Japan's "divine" drive to establish a "Prosperity Sphere" in Asia.

I kinda disagree. The Nazis were far worse folks. They killed millions of noncombatant civilians, and millions of soldiers died in the ETO. The Wahabbis killed a couple thousand. Not saying the Wahabbis are nice cuddly folks, but they barely rate when compared to the Nazis and the Commies.




Today's leftist and liberal does not wish to fight this new fascism because its matrix is the Third World. The Third World is a sacred place to my leftist and liberal friends because beneath its sands and jungles and bazaars is buried, in their minds, any right America thought it had to self-defense, whether economic, political or religious.

Uh. What? The Leftists aren't the ones that shifted the WoT from the Wahabbis to liberating Iraq. I'm annoyed because I believe we should be concentrating on killing Wahabbis and crushing their movement instead of "liberating" folks.


The reason given for this, by my friends on the left, is that the United States created the The Third World as it exists today by way of slavery, military and political coercion, espionage and economic exploitation. Did I mention the CIA? It's impossible, they argue, for the U.S. to make any rightful claim against any agency or entity originating there, however morally degenerate, since the United States, through its actions, made this evil "necessary." They will tell you that American interest in any part of the world stems from American corporate interest. What they forget is that American corporate interest is the interest of corporations employing people and serving stockholders. Leftists and liberals work for corporations the same as everybody else. It's like the infant-minded, quasi-liberal suburban housewife gassing up her Ford Explorer to head down to the "No War For Oil" rally. Then they hit bottom. Their logic leads them to conclude that national suicide, or in the very least some form of acceptable casualty rate among our people, from terrorist attack is probably preferable to any further intercession in the time-line of life in The Third World. Hypocrites.

Hmm. I wonder if the author ever heard of this guy called Smedley Darlington Butler. Probably not. But he's a model "infant-minded, quasi-liberal", who just happened to be a Major General in the Marine Corps and won TWO freakin MoH's.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm



We liberals from time to time say we would endorse, without a tremor, the military option if convinced that the individual agency being targeted was "GUILTY." Hence the hand-wringing over "proof" of WMDs. This is like asking a cop to make sure the perpetrator he arrests is "GUILTY" before taking him into custody. What constrains a cop in his investigation of a crime should no less constrain a democracy similarly charged to protect its people. In short and in police parlance, following the mass murder of 9/11, the United States had "reasonable suspicion" to target not only Afghanistan but Iraq as well. Some of that "reasonable suspicion" with regard to Iraq may be found in the Clinton Administrations murder indictment of Osama Bin Laden where numerous links to Saddam Hussein are cited. ".....al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of
Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on
particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
It is uncomfortable terrain to traverse for some because it is resistant to factional rhetoric

Uhm. The invasion/liberation of Iraq has nothing to do with the Wahabbi movement that have attacked the US. The Wahabbis HATED Saddam because he was a secular guy that didn't implement a theocracy according to their beliefs. Iraq under Saddam was not a nice place, but it was far from being the ultraconservative theocracy the Wahabbis want. Saddam didn't like the Wahabbis either, and imprisoned/tortured/executed a large number of ultraconservative religious types because they were a threat to his power.

Oh yea. The Iraqi Survey Group (the official WMD hunters from the Pentagon, CIA, et al) said no stockpiles of WMD currently in Iraq and no evidence that Saddam recently had any. A couple of shells or whatever probably slipped through the cracks, but the vastly overwhelming majority were gone. They also pointed out there was zero evidence that it was shipped out of Iraq. That's the official investigation, folks.


In the end, however, I'm afraid I can't attribute to my friends on the left simply a lack of honest historical scrutiny any more than I can say that a stomach ache is caused by a stomach ache. The post-Vietnam war leftist and liberal is bourgeois. His battleground has been the living rooms of friends. He also makes the occasional field trip to WTO meetings where he hopes his demonstration of solidarity with the oppressed will shield him from the casually tossed backpack-full-of-nails-and-dynamite on a train. In his nostalgia for the halcyon days of anti-war action that was the Vietnam era, he is ignorant of the much larger historical picture that shows us why we are where we are. And he's a coward. The future is violent. The war is on. Everyday brings him closer to the edge he's been walking backwards toward since 9/11 but he just can't man up.

Uh. Sure. I'm confused. Is he referring to people protesting the Iraqi invasion/liberation, or the Wahabbi hunt? I don't know of many folks that protested the invasion of Afghanistan, nor our Wahabbi/al-Qaeda hunt.

Again, *I* think we should be focusing on killing Wahabbi wackos instead of liberating countries that have nothing to do with the Wahabbis. So. Is he calling me a coward? Heh. That's almost funny. Almost, but not quite. I'm not sure if this Mr Hendrie has served in the military or is currently serving, but I'll compare the list of hellholes I visited at taxpayer expense to his.

I have my shiny "War on Terrorism" medal. Does he have one of those or anything equally 'impressive'? If not, why hasn't he enlisted? (Yea, I'm being a little overly sarcastic. So shoot me.)


While the factionalism of conservatives and liberals continues to waste our precious time as a country, at least conservatives seem to have not only direction but, for the moment, a correct heading. The liberal movement in America, of which I have been a part since campaigning for Eugene McCarthy during my high school years, drifts further and further away from us. It is utterly deluded by the moneyed company it keeps. It's reduced to a reactionary rabble. It's cranky and noisy and complains about the draft from an open window like an old woman. It is the beginning of a new conservative movement. And we don't need one more of those.

Here's a bit of a reality check. We're a Constitutional Republic. That means we have a right to our own opinion, even if it's not the politically correct one. The ability to dissent is what makes us strong. "Factionalism" must be some codeword to mean "Having the audacity to question The Powers That Be!"

"How dare people have their own opinion! How dare they not lockstep properly! How dare they bring up questions!"

:rolleyes:

I seem to have misplaced my jackboots. Perhaps Mr Hendrie could lend me one of his.

Skunkabilly
August 5, 2005, 12:55 PM
I seem to have misplaced my jackboots. Perhaps Mr Hendrie could lend me one of his.


Jackboots? Is Phil suggesting kicking down doors?

scottgun
August 5, 2005, 01:03 PM
Phil Hendrie does satire. On his radio shows he does the voices for his "guests". His "guests" come up with the most outrageous ideas just to tick people off and get a rise out of callers who don't know that its him doing his guest's voice. I wouldn't take anything that he says or writes seriously.

BigG
August 5, 2005, 01:21 PM
Truman dropped the bomb. That took cojones. Other than that, he was not all that great. LBJ :barf:

RevDisk
August 5, 2005, 02:58 PM
Phil Hendrie does satire. On his radio shows he does the voices for his "guests". His "guests" come up with the most outrageous ideas just to tick people off and get a rise out of callers who don't know that its him doing his guest's voice. I wouldn't take anything that he says or writes seriously.

Ah. My apologies if it was just satire. I took it at face value because many folks have somehow managed to say similiar things with a straight face.

scottgun
August 5, 2005, 03:17 PM
Ah. My apologies if it was just satire. I took it at face value because many folks have somehow managed to say similiar things with a straight face.


Honestly, its hard to tell if the article is satire, I just know from listening to him that he is a joker.

For example one of his guests, remember he does their voices and characters, was a gas station owner/attendant who wouldn't sell gas to teenagers or old people because they are more likely to get into accidents, and he didn't want his gasoline responsible for causing an accident.

Another show, his guest was a travel agent who wouldn't book trips out of the country for young blond white females because they are more likely to be kidnapped and disappear.

Another show his guest was a female, yes he does female voice impersonations too. The female was giving advice on how to take a punch if you live with an abusive husband.

The funniest thing is the callers who dont get it are completely irate at his guests and then Phil often sides with the caller and argues with his ficticious guest.

Try to catch his show sometime, its pretty amusing.

If you enjoyed reading about "Phil Hendrie on Libs and WOT" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!