Fifth Columnists Everywhere I Look
During the Spanish Civil War and, later, during World War II, there was a great deal of talk about fifth columnists. It was a reference to traitors, to those people in one’s own country who provided propaganda or even more overt assistance to the enemy. It does not, but might just as well, refer to the columnists for the New York Times.
I have no idea why the term has been retired. In the days of the big war, there were only a minority of German, Italian and Japanese-Americans, who were disloyal to the U.S., whereas today, motion picture and TV studios, editorial boardrooms, the halls of Congress and the Oval Office, are full of Americans who are actively working against the best interests of their country and who obviously regard the Constitution as a terrible waste of parchment.
During the Spanish Civil War and, later, during World War II, there was a great deal of talk about fifth columnists. It was a reference to traitors, to those people in one’s own country who provided propaganda or even more overt assistance to the enemy. It does not, but might just as well, refer to the columnists for the New York Times.
I have no idea why the term has been retired. In the days of the big war, there were only a minority of German, Italian and Japanese-Americans, who were disloyal to the U.S., whereas today, motion picture and TV studios, editorial boardrooms, the halls of Congress and the Oval Office, are full of Americans who are actively working against the best interests of their country and who obviously regard the Constitution as a terrible waste of parchment.
When they’re not trying to redistribute our wealth, they’re busy redistributing their lies. For instance, it’s a tossup whether the mainstream media spends more time trying to convince us that Barack Obama is a genius or that Sarah Palin is an ignoramus. And perhaps she is, compared to Einstein, Newton and Stephen Hawking. But compared to Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Joy Behar, Katie Couric, Leslie Marshall and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? Surely they jest.
If you want to know how hypocritical Hollywood is, you could read Ben Shapiro’s “Primetime Propaganda” and hear, in their own words, leading writer-producers and studio executives proudly boast about blacklisting conservatives. These are the same meatheads who still whine about card-carrying Communists who were temporarily blacklisted 60 years ago, but had to cough up $70 million in a class action lawsuit because they’ve taken part in a conspiracy to deprive older writers of employment.
But, as if that weren’t bad enough, there is their two-faced approach to the Second Amendment. We all know how much Hollywood hates guns, except, of course, when it comes to their movies and crime shows. However, when Charlton Heston became president of the NRA, he became an instant pariah in spite of the fact he had an Oscar on his mantel and had long-championed the Civil Rights movement.
What Hollywood’s top dogs, most of whom mirror Obama’s contempt for those who cling to their religion and their guns, don’t like to talk about is that their bodyguards are well-armed. Something else that they prefer to keep under wraps is that in the aftermath of the Charley Manson massacre of Sharon Tate and her friends, hundreds of them rushed out to buy guns and to register for lessons at the Beverly Hills Gun Club.
Hollywood liberals are not really opposed to gun ownership, you see. They just don’t want guns in the hands of conservatives. And if I were one of these fifth columnists, I guess I wouldn’t, either.
A lot of people keep insisting there’s really no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Which only goes to prove that a lot of stupid people like to listen to the sound of their own voices.
Aside from huge differences when it comes to such things as ObamaCare, trillion dollar pork barrel projects, global warming, the Israel-Arab conflict and the aforementioned Second Amendment, consider how the two parties deal with their own miscreants. Rep. Christopher Lee sends a photo of his naked chest to a dating site, and the GOP boots him out of Congress before he even has time to put on his shirt. But Anthony Weiner sends X-rated photos of himself to just about every woman in America, then lies about it for over a week and tries to get whistle-blower Andrew Breitbart lynched, and Nancy Pelosi hands it off to the House ethics committee. Frankly, I’m surprised that Pelosi didn’t ask the U.N. to make the call.
As I sit here, Weiner says he’s not going to resign, and his wife says he shouldn’t resign. Well, why should he? Barney Frank, whose boy friend was discovered to be running a homosexual call boy ring out of his condo, didn’t quit. Charles Rangel, whose criminal jacket ran nearly as long as Al Capone’s – and also included not paying his income taxes – is still around. And, lest we forget, Bill Clinton, who was guilty of perjury as well as sexual harassment, not only didn’t resign, but is now, according to polls, the most popular figure in American politics.
What’s more, about 56% of the people polled in Weiner’s liberal district, would vote to re-elect him. I’m not surprised. Democrats never care about the morals or integrity of their own candidates. That’s why they’re never reluctant to elect the shoddy likes of Rangel, Frank, Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Maxine Waters, John Kerry, Gary Hart or Robert Byrd.
Instead, they prefer to devote their time to letting us know that our candidates aren’t very bright or are too religious or too beholden to groups other than the private and public sector unions, criminal defense attorneys, welfare recipients and environmental jihadists.
At this time, nobody really knows who will be running against Obama, but I know a couple of slogans they could use. One would be: Barack Obama, the Only President Who Could Make You Long for Jimmy Carter. The other: Hope and Change We Can Really, Really, Really Believe In.
