Darren Weeks
NewsWithViews.com
April 19, 2007
As someone who is tuned into the planned and ongoing annihilation of our country, there isn't much that shocks this writer anymore. I've watched treacherous acts from one administration and naively hoped it would become better with the next; invariably, it always gets worse.
One president provides secrets to our enemies, such as the communist Chinese, the next president continues where the first abated. One CONgress votes to take away our privacy and property, the next continues the policy. No one in CONgress ever seeks to prosecute a president for his crimes against our country. Even if they did, who would replace him? Another elite-selected psychopath, courtesy of our rigged national election system.
The high crimes that are being committed today against our country and its people are insidious and outrageous, and would not have been tolerated when our nation was in its infancy. The people, having been burned badly by tyrannical governance, had a very effective method for dealing with treachery in high office. I won't venture any further on this point, lest I receive a visit from the reptiles at the Office of Homeland Insanity.
Today, the American people are gladly willing to accept the chains of oppression upon their shoulders. As long as the burden which saddles them is softened with a velvet cushion of entertainment, sports, trips to the mall, and television, they won't complain too much about the ever-increasing load. As long as they have their air conditioned homes, heated condos, steak dinners, and movies, why bother with government? Why not just leave it to the professionals?
Then, there are the few who really do care. There are those who research into the dark hours of the night, worrying over the outcome of some bill, or United Nations conference. There are those who spend time on their knees begging God to help them awaken the sleeping masses. They work and become weary, and want to quit. They question their motives and their effectiveness, but they are driven to continue against the odds, against the insanity.
Throughout history, it has been this remnant that has preserved the united States of America. It has been a small group of American heroes who have accomplished amazing feats, without fanfare or fortune. Had they given up, our cup would have been much more bitter than it is today. Without them, we might never have been blessed to breathe the air of liberty or to taste the sweet freedom we've enjoyed.
But alas, the sweetness is disappearing; the cup is running empty. There is poison in the air as pseudo patriots seek profits, and real patriots have withdrawn, suffering burnout from years at battle.
Meanwhile, the governing Satan's Club continues its crazed reign of abuse on the population. All of these crimes are done despite party affiliation. The party duopoly are committing high crimes and treason against the united States, our Constitution, and our people, daily — all with the silent consent of the collective majority.
As I said, I am rarely surprised by those in government. I've come to expect the onslaught, the abuse, the assaults on our intelligence. I've grieved for my daughters and for future generations, as I've pondered the relentless attack on our privacy and property rights, and our human dignity. I've anguished over the uncertainty of their futures, as international treaties and entanglements with slave-ship foreign governments have rendered our country a barren, industrial dustbowl.
Yet, even as I've become numb to the continuing treachery, once in a while, an event will happen that will pierce the deadened nerves of my heart and awaken my emotions anew to the pain of our betrayal.
Such was the case when I read of George W. Bush's trip to Vietnam, last month.
It wasn't that I was surprised that our pathetic excuse for a president was rubbing shoulders with the communists. This has been going on for at least a half century, regardless of which man was in office, or without regard to party affiliation. Clinton certainly visited Vietnam.
Perhaps the reason for the vortex of despondent emotions that I felt was this headline that I read in the New York Times on November 18th: Bush Praises Vietnam's Rise.
The Judas Iscariot we have occupying the Oval Office was in Vietnam last month to attend an economic summit. While there, he used the occasion to exalt the ascension of that brutal communist country as an economic power.
Further adding insult to injury, he presented the obscene point of view that Vietnam's successful rebound from the U.S. invasion and our subsequent, humiliating defeat in the conflict of 30 years ago, was somehow a source of hope for him. If Vietnam could rebound from a U.S. attack and become a strong economic, albeit communist power, then what of Iraq? What could be built there, if we stay the course?
"We'll succeed, unless we quit", Bush exclaimed, as if "success" was a carefully defined parameter.
Meanwhile, as Bush spoke of the virtues of the increasing powers of Vietnam's economy, hidden in work camps, bamboo prison cells, and mass graves were the bodies of American servicemen, likely living and dead. The POW/MIAs, referred to in the Helms Congressional report, still exist somewhere. Congressional staffers wrote about many live sighting reports that the government never saw fit to investigate. Some are likely still alive, abandoned by the country for which they fought, betrayed by a government in which they believed.
We'll set aside the nagging questions of why America's finest were dispatched to 'Nam to purportedly fight communism, then forced to retreat because of the defeatist policies and rules of engagement, passed down from Washington.
Bush's appearance, like Clinton's before him, represents a profound betrayal of all Vietnam vets, as well as military men and women who are currently fighting the Vietnam of today.
Quoting from The Times,
"History has a long march to it," Mr. Bush said in response to a question about how he felt about arriving here, the second American president to visit since the war's end. "Societies change and relationships can constantly be altered to the good....
White House officials knew that Mr. Bush's arrival, for an economic summit meeting that is to start Saturday, would prompt all kinds of comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, and Mr. Bush seemed determined not to get drawn into that discussion. Instead he talked about modern Vietnam as a place that is putting its economic future in order, an example of "how people can reconcile and move beyond past differences."
What differences, Mr. Bush? Communism?
I would like to ask Mr. Bush what society has changed? Have the Vietnamese become any less oriented toward communism? Have the leaders of that country, having had a few decades to ponder the errors of their ways, had a change of heart? Have they repented of their dastardly deeds, choosing instead to re-pattern their government after the U.S. Constitution?
Or is it America that has shifted from its Constitutional values as a representative "republic" in favor of a socialist-capitalist "democracy" hybrid?
The dictionary defines "reconciliation" as "the process of making consistent or compatable." By its very nature, a "reconciliation" requires one or more parties to move from their previous position toward a compromise.
The question to be pondered is if, in fact, a "reconciliation" has occurred, which party has shifted? Certainly not the power which stood its ground against an invading force that, in this writer's opinion, had no business playing global cop.
As much as this writer would like to share in the joy of two former rivals uniting in goodwill and economic partnership, I cannot. My thoughts are with the POW/MIAs who still inhabit that and many other foreign lands. I grieve for those who fought for the America that now refuses to fight for them � whose government that would rather classify them as killed in action (KIA), rather than making efforts at getting them back.
Indeed, given the fact that Vietnam obviously has not changed, this observer is confused as to not only the original purpose of the war, but the new alliance. For what reason does this new attitude of conciliation and cooperation pervade? What new insight or revelation have we underwent that we could not see during the era of the war? Perhaps, Hanoi Bush could articulate for us an explanation of the new paradigm.
Better still, Mr. Bush, why don't you explain it to the families of the service men who never returned. Explain your new-found friendship with those who still hold the Americans captive. Explain it to the fatherless, the husbandless, the grieving mothers and widows who never saw their loved ones again. Explain it to the soldiers who returned without an arm, a leg, or without a mind that was capable of functioning in a peaceful society, after witnessing the worst in humanity. Explain how the cause of today's fight in Iraq is justifiable, while you hail the virtues of communist Vietnam.
One thing that becomes unequivocally certain, is that for those who have sold their souls for positions of power, wealth, and prestige, there is no shame. If they ever had a conscience, it has long been seared into ashes — it's voice never more to be heard.
Despite the positive spin many politicians and analysts attempt to put on the Vietnam war, most Americans continue to recognize it as a loss. Given America's move away from Constitutional principles, coupled with the collaberation of our leaders with various communist regimes, perhaps America's loss in Vietnam was merely a reflection of a much greater loss.
In 1972, Jane Fonda went to Hanoi and offered her support to the enemy. She was rightfully and hotly criticized by countless Americans, including then United Nations "ambassador" George Herbert Walker Bush.
Three decades later, the son of that same UN "ambassador" — and the president of the United States — stood in Hanoi doing virtually the same, and scarcely anyone took notice.
Darren Weeks hosts Govern America, airing Saturdays at 11AM Eastern time. Live streams of the broadcast can be found here. Weeks is also a contributor at NewsWithViews.com where this article first appeared.
