8/06 Meaning Of Lieberman’s Defeat To Gun Owners

Meaning Of Lieberman’s Defeat To Gun Owners
Larry Pratt

Both Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Ned Lamont who defeated him in the Connecticut Democrat primary are anti-gun. Nevertheless, gun owners should pay attention to the outcome of this race. Indeed, anyone interested in survival should pay attention.

From all that anyone can determine, the only issue that separated Lieberman and Lamont is the war against terrorists. Lieberman, although an enemy of personal self defense, was an unabashed supporter of defending America from Muslim crusaders intent on killing every man, woman and child on earth who does not proclaim themselves to be Muslim.

Fourteen hundred years of jihad is not enough evidence for the Democrat left. They are unconcerned about those who today proclaim jihad even while beheading and exploding as many people as possible in the name of their religion.

Since the left is typically unconcerned about religion, they seem to be incapable of accepting the reality that anybody else might be motivated by religious beliefs.

The students of the ’60’s who lionized mass murderers such as Che Guevara, Mao Tse Dung and Fidel Castro are now the professors, media elite and other Democrat party activists who still lionize their old heroes — and now also are apologists for Muslim terrorists.

The self-destructive view of the Democrat left goes well beyond the naïve mantra that “violence never solved anything.” Tell that to the people of the south of Sudan. They stopped the genocide of some 2,000,000 non-Muslims by the jihadi regime that illegitimately rules the country. The Sudanese People’s Liberation Army did not stop the jihad by talking. They did it by shooting and killing Muslim crusaders before they could kill any more.

The Democrat Left’s support of terrorists derives from self-hatred. They are convinced that Americans, and Westerners in general (but also including African Christians who were slaughtered without a peep from the Left), are the source of violence and resentment in the world. Because we have caused the problem, they believe, we deserve to be attacked. This belief is so deep set that the Left believes self defense and retaliation are morally unacceptable.

We should not think that the Democrat Left’s hatred is reserved for President Bush. They hate him because he is fighting back against terrorists. Thus, anyone connected with national defense – even a socialist such as Sen. Lieberman — gets treated to the same scathing hatred that has been directed toward President Bush.

If Lieberman’s defeat is a harbinger of future elections, any Democrat who believes in self defense, be it personal or national, can expect to get the same treatment. And of course, Republicans can expect to get more of the same as long as they support self defense.

The issue of our age is self defense. The Democrat Left has drawn a line in the sand in Connecticut. They are against survival.