<snip>
Posted on June 29, 2002
America's Enemies' List, 70 names you need to rememberby Daniel Clark
Earlier this month, seventy American citizens declared their opposition to the U.S. war effort by signing a statement entitled, "Not In Our Name: A Statement of Conscience." The letter was a declaration to the rest of the world that our enemies still have some reliable allies here in the states. They don't come right out and call themselves "traitors," of course, but what else would you call Americans who claim that the United States is the single greatest threat to civilization? They did just that when they agreed that, "The signers of this statement call on the people of the U.S. to resist the policies and overall political direction that have emerged since September 11, 2001, and which pose grave dangers to the people of the world."
"We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11, 2001," they write. Not "anger," mind you, but only "shock." They couldn't afford to be judgmental, though, while setting up a moral equivalency like this one: "We too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City and, a generation ago, Vietnam." Get it? What the terrorists did was really no worse than what the United States does in every military campaign. Anyone who isn't an inveterate anti-American can easily see the absurdity. These people can't recall any similar scenes to September 11th -- except, maybe, from a really bad LSD trip.
<snip>
Below are the names and descriptions of the seventy people who signed the statement. A few of them are recognizable as celebrities, but many, many others are respected members of academia. If you are in college, or you have a son or daughter who is, you might want to print this list, and watch to see how often these people's writings are assigned to unwitting students, who are taught to accept them as enlightened thinkers.
********************
Michael Albert -- The socialist economic theorist, who calls himself a "market abolitionist," is a founder of an online publication called Z Magazine. Here's a sampling, from one of his columns in that magazine, of how Mr. Albert looks at the war: "In the case of
McVeigh, bombing Montana wouldn't benefit elites. In the case of September 11, elites think bombing diverse targets will benefit their capitalist profit-making and geopolitical interests." Oh ... so that's why we didn't bomb Montana.
Laurie Anderson -- A performance artist and NEA grant recipient. She performs benefit concerts for the pro-abortion movement with the Feminist Majority Foundation's "Rock for Choice" project. She admits she "slept through the Eighties, politically," as is evident when she blames Ronald Reagan for the spread of AIDS.
Ed Asner -- The dean of Hollywood liberalism, Asner is remembered by many for his rambling, belching, telemarketing ad for the Gore 2000 campaign, in which he groused about G.W. Bush's plans for Social Security privatization. He has been an activist on behalf of extremely guilty criminals like Mumia Abu-Jamal (more on him later) and Leonard Peltier. A vociferous critic of U.S. involvement in Central America during the Reagan administration, Asner raised funds for Communist rebels in El Salvador. More recently, he has become a vegan, and a participant in National Meat Out Day. In an interview with VegTV, he moaned, "In these trying days of the threat of meat to all of us, I think it's good to make people aware that there are alternatives, healthy alternatives, healthy for both the individual and for the land on which we grow our food. The desecration of the land that takes place by creating meat is one of the worst problems." Meat is a threat, Communism is not. Go figure.
<snip>
Howard Zinn -- The Boston University professor and alleged historian authored a book called A People's History of the United States: 1492 - Present. No doubt, you immediately noticed two strange things about that title. First, it calls itself "a" history. If it's true, shouldn't it be recognized as just plain "history"? Not in left-wing academia, where the very idea of an objective truth is discarded in favor of "competing truths." Once that ground rule is set, two competing "histories" can directly conflict with each other, yet each remain "a history." Indeed, he defends his work against charges of inaccuracy by responding that the dominant history is equally biased.
Second, and even more obviously, the United States did not exist in 1492. Zinn chose that date because he has denounced Christopher Columbus as a genocidal maniac, and wants to pin his "atrocities" on the U.S. The Salem witch trials happened before the U.S. was founded also, but they took place on this continent. Is our nation responsible for them as well? Perhaps it's better not to ask.
<MORE>
http://shinbone.home.att.net/enelist.htm
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
