Democrats' Protective Coloration

Commentary by Greg Lewis / NewMediaJournal.US
July 27, 2007

Like many species of plants and animals in nature, Democrats further their survival - actually, in this case, they cling to life rather precariously - by disguising their true identity. This protective coloration consists primarily in presenting themselves as promoting a humanitarian agenda when in fact they cover up the truly sinister deeds they long to commit.

In many ways, regaining control of the House and Senate in the 2006 elections was the worst thing that could happen to them, because it's essentially "outing" them to the American public. Now the more the American public learns about who the Democrats really are, the more they'll come to realize that there's no way these bozos can be given any more power than they've already grabbed, and in fact it will be time in 2008 to take it back away from them so this country can get on with the business at hand: continuing to win the war against Islamist terrorists and continuing to grow the American economy so this country's citizens can pursue life, liberty, and happiness, activities denied to a significant majority of this planet's denizens because they haven't had the incredible good fortune to be born in a Christian capitalist country.

One of the most effective protective coloration devices Dems have developed is the double standard. They judge other Democrats by their own virtually nonexistent moral and ethical standards, and they judge Republicans by Republican moral standards. This allows their moral turpitude to go unpunished, not to say practically unnoticed, while Republicans, whose constituencies also judge them by their own rather stricter moral standards, squirm, suffer, and ultimately resign when they act badly.

When a Republican does something stupid or depraved, he or she pays the price. When a Democrat does the same, he or she basks in the adulation of the party.
You'll recall Democratic Congressman Gerry Studds, a homosexual child molester who, in 1983, acknowledged that he had committed statutory rape against a 17-year-old male page and that he had made homosexual advances toward two others. Studds, you may also recall, did not resign, nor was he censured or in any other way chastized for his behavior by his party, the Democrats. Nor did the media demand that he resign from congress, nor did they campaign for criminal charges to be brought against Studds, as they certainly should have. Studds continued to run for congress, and he continued to get re-elected, retiring finally in 1997, nearly two decades after the criminal activity for which he was never punished.

And you'll also recall that the homosexual lover of Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) ran a male prostitution ring out of Frank's own apartment. Frank was censured in 1990 by his fellow congressmen, but, not surprisingly, the Democratic voters in Massachussetts have continued to re-elect him over the years.

On the other hand, Democrats and the media relentlessly castigated Representative Mark Foley for the somewhat less heinous misdeed of sending sexually inappropriate e-mails to several male congressional pages. Foley, you'll recall, was driven out of office for his conduct, finally succumbing to pressure from Democrats and the media in September, 2006, conveniently just before that year's congressional election, the one in which the Democrats took over control of both the House and the Senate.

The Democratic double standard doesn't just apply to moral issues, though. Politics falls under the same umbrella. Hillary Clinton last week suggested that if al Qaeda attacks the United States on our own shores before the next election, it will favor the Republicans. On the other hand, if al Qaeda doesn't attack us before the next election, it will favor, well, al Qaeda. That's because their not attacking will likely improve the chances that a Democrat will be elected Presdient, and thus the chances that our attitude toward terrorism will change from our current one of fighting terrorists to one of conciliation, nay sympathy to terrorist causes.

Let's look at the protective coloration Dems have come forth with about this topic. First, if you bring up the fact that we haven't been attacked by terrorists on our shores since the 9/11 atrocities, Democrats will tell you that it's a fluke, that the Bush administration has just gotten lucky, that al Qaeda is even stronger than it has been in the past. But try to say, as a recent Homeland Security report did, that al Qaeda is stronger than it has been since 9/11, and Democrats will counter with something like, "That's just the Bush administration crying 'wolf' to try to scare Americans." They're never satisfied unless they have it both ways.

Indeed, if the Dems are right and President Bush needs a couple of al Qaeda attacks in America to "scare" Americans into believing the Republican opinion that terrorists still present a danger to Americans, then why hasn't he engineered a few terrorist successes against us, as he engineered the collapse of the levees during the Hurricane Katrina disaster?

I guess that Dems might just be leaning toward what Barack Obama said a few weeks back: that "preventing genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason" for us to keep our military there. Then again, you never can tell, given that if it suits their political fortunes, Dems are willing to change their colors in a trice.
On the other hand, for those of us not so committed to living without positive values, preventing genocide in America is a good enough reason for us to reject a political party, now that we've seen through Democrats' protective coloration.