Cindy Sheehan: The Bigger Picture
Allan J. Ashinoff
August 29, 2005
I’m forever bewildered by the sheer hypocrisy shown by the radical fringe in America. It’s a given that all men, myself included, are hypocrites to some degree but the looney left deserves distinction for the routine casualness and denials of their hypocrisy. To oppose the ideology of the liberal left is to be considered totally stupid, poorly if not completely uneducated, ignorant of all heart and sensibility, and hopelessly un-American. Those who have lived in the Blue states and now live in a Red state, such as myself, are considered throwbacks to a regressive age, a dinosaur, a religious zealot, a patriotic antique, and a complete fool. Yet there is one undeniable fact that really burns in the throats of the Blue state liberals: there are more conservatives than liberals in all fifty states who re-elected President Bush back into office in 2004 by, of all things, a majority vote. Naturally, they would say the election was stolen.
Cindy Sheehan a ‘Gold Star Mom’ is anything but worthy of a gold star. What did she do or is she doing to deserve any degree of honor, give birth? Raise a child to manhood? To give a mother her due she certainly raised a responsible man who voluntarily gave his life to a cause greater than himself. He died for a cause which keeps the war on terror and its destruction “over there” and not in American streets; a cause which has freed fifty million Arabic people, established two emerging Arabic democracies, and has removed a homicidal dictator from absolute power over his people. He died for a cause which his mother seems determined to invalidate as she absorbs the media attention that should be reserved for her son.
After my last article ‘On Cindy Sheehan and honoring the Dead’ feedback was received from people less than pleased with my observations and opinions regarding Mrs. Sheehan’s conduct. The e-mails received ranged from poorly thought-out juvenile rants concluding in my death, to semi-intellectual attempts to validate a view not expressed in my article, to delusional mothers who believe because I have a differing opinion that I am un-American. It is an amusing response from a group which typically calls itself “progressive” “open minded” and “patriotic Americans in support of free speech.” Perhaps, as I reminded one mother, I would feel differently about Mrs. Sheehan if I personally were not a Veteran, or a father, or a husband, or a discussion website owner, or an American. After sifting through the negative feedback, which was limited to 5 e-mails from about 200 replies to my article, I couldn’t find a single one which addressed the core issue on which my work was focused. The issue concerning how Mrs., soon to be Ms., Sheehan is honoring her son’s life with her current actions. Not one crass, sarcastic or witty topical change explained how Mrs. Sheehan or her Shee-head minions and her handlers hoped to honor her son’s life by invalidating the war. The most common attempt at rational discussion was a topic change to the validity of the war which wasn’t remotely the subject of my writings. A conclusion can be surmised that those accustomed to being on the fringe of society, who had a taste of the limelight and want the recognition of being authorities once again, are nothing more than single topic myopic blowhards which can not discuss diverse ideas, string together events with known knowledge and experience and come to rational conclusion or present a sincere debate. In fact, the concept of the “American good” or “American Interests” “or American being good” apparently completely escapes their concept of reality.
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of Sheehan is the media’s determination to keep this story alive. Notice the focus is not on Mrs. Sheehan’s loss but on her inability to gain a second audience with the President. If this were Aruba, Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, or Lacy Peterson we’d be bludgeoned by what her son Casey’s last letter had said, what he was like as a child, we’d be privy to his first steps and his first bike ride, and perhaps what his favorite MRE was. But this isn’t about her son is it? There is a concerted effort by the media to enforce the perception that the President is dodging this woman because he is guilty and stubbornly refuses to admit that she is right. Already there are reports on how Sheehan may well be the turning point of public opinion on the war. What the press, the left, and the Shee-heads are trying to accomplish isn’t remotely new. It’s the same strategy the DNC employed in a failed effort to get John “I’m a hero” Kerry elected without a platform. During the 2004 Presidential campaign the rabidity of the dogs was abundantly evident in their desperate quest to regain the Whitehouse; Iraq must be another Vietnam. The democrats went so far left that they are no longer seen as credible by moderates and independents. To regain their credibility the left must, through dupes like Mrs. Sheehan, force the withdrawal of the troops from Iraq. To do this they must undermine the national spirit which can only be done by removing any and all honor from America’s actions. The most expedient avenue to attack the honor for the rationale behind the war is to attack its leaders. The easiest way to attack its leader, President Bush, is to attack his credibility. The easiest way to destroy President Bush’s credibility is to attack his morality. The easiest way to place in question someone’s morality is to attack someone’s motives. As anyone knows motives, and consequent actions, are subjective to perception and information on hand. The ambiguousness in attacking motives is the arena the left prefers working in and supports another liberal mantra that morality is subjective. That’s quite a bit of ‘attacking’ for groups that by their own press statements are supposed to be pacifists.
In Phoenix two days ago there was a rally by a group opposed to Mrs. Sheehan’s cause called ‘You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy' by the Move America Forward organization. This organization which consists of American Gold Star military families and veterans, many whom have lost children in the war, but do not necessarily agree with the reasons for the war. The Phoenix rally consisted of three hundred or so people and lasted about 2 hours. Naturally demonstrators made their presence known, about 15 people, and quickly departed after the media left the rally. Local radio KFYI-AM 550 provided live radio coverage of the event and afterward provided post analysis of what transpired. The next day callers who attended the anti-Cindy event reported that the anti-war demonstrators were rude, obnoxious, and some even physically laid hands on those attending the rally who disagreed with Cindy’s message. Yes, open minded, debate oriented, free speech defending peaceniks are always the first to tell people to shut up, sit down, “you have no business talking here if you voted for Bush (Kerry)”, and “everyone has a right to their own opinion”. After all it’s the conservative movement in America, the Neo-Cons, which squelch free speech and rush to conflict.
Judging from my e-mails the only opinions that liberals, Shee-heads, or indoctrinated college students wish to hear is that which they have been fed and feel competent enough to regurgitate. To not be Politically Correct, as one responder educated me, is to go against the contemporary ruling party’s ideology. So I would conclude from this scholarly logic that in order to not be “PC” I would have to be against the conservative machine and its ideologies in power today. Consequently, eight years ago I would have had to be against all things liberal since liberals were in power at that time. This line of thinking makes one wonder when an individual or group can no longer have any core personal convictions which transcend the chicness of a term. It also makes one think of such politically correct things as avoiding the word “illegal” in favor of “undocumented” when discussing our southern immigration problems; or when at the airport the bearded guy with the turban doesn’t get searched by security but the eight year old boy carrying a GI Joe action figure get pulled out of the line; or why racial profiling is taboo with regard to finding terrorists in society. Yes, I suppose PC is all about countering the ruling ideology.
Political Correctness N: “The avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against”
Cindy Sheehan was nothing more than a grieving mother until some left wing groups saw an opportunity to exploit this woman’s mental duress to gain the media spotlight. Mrs. Sheehan’s vigil is not about her son, nor is it about getting answers; her cause is entirely about defaming the President to give the left an opportunity to regain seats in the Senate and the House and possibly a shot at the White House in 2008. Constant negative media pounding of the President has reduced his poll numbers just as they did during the year prior to the 2004 Presidential election. Despite what must be perceived by the Demlibopeans as a stupid American populace the remainder of the country who are not the “fringe” do actually think for themselves and reach their own conclusions. One of those conclusions, which the left loathes, was to re-elect Bush and rejected Kerry. Until such time the Blue states and their party faithful deem the Red States as anything more than the “Fly over” states they will continue to lose elections. America is fortunate to have a leader who can and will stay the course and has little concern over poll numbers.
Mrs. Sheehan, despite giving birth to a noble son does not deserve any honor or attention whatever for what she is doing to her son’s memory, to her son’s decision to serve his country, or to the nation he voluntarily chose to defend. What she is doing, unwittingly or not, is seeking to disgrace his country, to dishonor his comrades, to dishonor his Commander and Chief , and strengthen his killers resolve to fight so more American mothers sons can grieve. Aside from a rooting pocket of radicals, her refocused energy after her son’s death is poised to cost Mrs. Sheehan her family and her husband. I do hope that her liberal handlers treat her well because one day the cameras will stop coming around and Ms. Sheehan will no longer have a voice her handlers want to hear and this mother will find herself very alone and, if there’s any justice, overwhelmed with the guilt of her betrayal.
I can be reached via yahoo messenger at thinker822@yahoo.com or via e-mail at thinker822@fedupwithpc.com or through my website www.fedupwithpc.com. Feedback is always welcome as is discussion on anything I’ve written.
Cindy Sheehan a ‘Gold Star Mom’ is anything but worthy of a gold star. What did she do or is she doing to deserve any degree of honor, give birth? Raise a child to manhood? To give a mother her due she certainly raised a responsible man who voluntarily gave his life to a cause greater than himself. He died for a cause which keeps the war on terror and its destruction “over there” and not in American streets; a cause which has freed fifty million Arabic people, established two emerging Arabic democracies, and has removed a homicidal dictator from absolute power over his people. He died for a cause which his mother seems determined to invalidate as she absorbs the media attention that should be reserved for her son.
After my last article ‘On Cindy Sheehan and honoring the Dead’ feedback was received from people less than pleased with my observations and opinions regarding Mrs. Sheehan’s conduct. The e-mails received ranged from poorly thought-out juvenile rants concluding in my death, to semi-intellectual attempts to validate a view not expressed in my article, to delusional mothers who believe because I have a differing opinion that I am un-American. It is an amusing response from a group which typically calls itself “progressive” “open minded” and “patriotic Americans in support of free speech.” Perhaps, as I reminded one mother, I would feel differently about Mrs. Sheehan if I personally were not a Veteran, or a father, or a husband, or a discussion website owner, or an American. After sifting through the negative feedback, which was limited to 5 e-mails from about 200 replies to my article, I couldn’t find a single one which addressed the core issue on which my work was focused. The issue concerning how Mrs., soon to be Ms., Sheehan is honoring her son’s life with her current actions. Not one crass, sarcastic or witty topical change explained how Mrs. Sheehan or her Shee-head minions and her handlers hoped to honor her son’s life by invalidating the war. The most common attempt at rational discussion was a topic change to the validity of the war which wasn’t remotely the subject of my writings. A conclusion can be surmised that those accustomed to being on the fringe of society, who had a taste of the limelight and want the recognition of being authorities once again, are nothing more than single topic myopic blowhards which can not discuss diverse ideas, string together events with known knowledge and experience and come to rational conclusion or present a sincere debate. In fact, the concept of the “American good” or “American Interests” “or American being good” apparently completely escapes their concept of reality.
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of Sheehan is the media’s determination to keep this story alive. Notice the focus is not on Mrs. Sheehan’s loss but on her inability to gain a second audience with the President. If this were Aruba, Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, or Lacy Peterson we’d be bludgeoned by what her son Casey’s last letter had said, what he was like as a child, we’d be privy to his first steps and his first bike ride, and perhaps what his favorite MRE was. But this isn’t about her son is it? There is a concerted effort by the media to enforce the perception that the President is dodging this woman because he is guilty and stubbornly refuses to admit that she is right. Already there are reports on how Sheehan may well be the turning point of public opinion on the war. What the press, the left, and the Shee-heads are trying to accomplish isn’t remotely new. It’s the same strategy the DNC employed in a failed effort to get John “I’m a hero” Kerry elected without a platform. During the 2004 Presidential campaign the rabidity of the dogs was abundantly evident in their desperate quest to regain the Whitehouse; Iraq must be another Vietnam. The democrats went so far left that they are no longer seen as credible by moderates and independents. To regain their credibility the left must, through dupes like Mrs. Sheehan, force the withdrawal of the troops from Iraq. To do this they must undermine the national spirit which can only be done by removing any and all honor from America’s actions. The most expedient avenue to attack the honor for the rationale behind the war is to attack its leaders. The easiest way to attack its leader, President Bush, is to attack his credibility. The easiest way to destroy President Bush’s credibility is to attack his morality. The easiest way to place in question someone’s morality is to attack someone’s motives. As anyone knows motives, and consequent actions, are subjective to perception and information on hand. The ambiguousness in attacking motives is the arena the left prefers working in and supports another liberal mantra that morality is subjective. That’s quite a bit of ‘attacking’ for groups that by their own press statements are supposed to be pacifists.
In Phoenix two days ago there was a rally by a group opposed to Mrs. Sheehan’s cause called ‘You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy' by the Move America Forward organization. This organization which consists of American Gold Star military families and veterans, many whom have lost children in the war, but do not necessarily agree with the reasons for the war. The Phoenix rally consisted of three hundred or so people and lasted about 2 hours. Naturally demonstrators made their presence known, about 15 people, and quickly departed after the media left the rally. Local radio KFYI-AM 550 provided live radio coverage of the event and afterward provided post analysis of what transpired. The next day callers who attended the anti-Cindy event reported that the anti-war demonstrators were rude, obnoxious, and some even physically laid hands on those attending the rally who disagreed with Cindy’s message. Yes, open minded, debate oriented, free speech defending peaceniks are always the first to tell people to shut up, sit down, “you have no business talking here if you voted for Bush (Kerry)”, and “everyone has a right to their own opinion”. After all it’s the conservative movement in America, the Neo-Cons, which squelch free speech and rush to conflict.
Judging from my e-mails the only opinions that liberals, Shee-heads, or indoctrinated college students wish to hear is that which they have been fed and feel competent enough to regurgitate. To not be Politically Correct, as one responder educated me, is to go against the contemporary ruling party’s ideology. So I would conclude from this scholarly logic that in order to not be “PC” I would have to be against the conservative machine and its ideologies in power today. Consequently, eight years ago I would have had to be against all things liberal since liberals were in power at that time. This line of thinking makes one wonder when an individual or group can no longer have any core personal convictions which transcend the chicness of a term. It also makes one think of such politically correct things as avoiding the word “illegal” in favor of “undocumented” when discussing our southern immigration problems; or when at the airport the bearded guy with the turban doesn’t get searched by security but the eight year old boy carrying a GI Joe action figure get pulled out of the line; or why racial profiling is taboo with regard to finding terrorists in society. Yes, I suppose PC is all about countering the ruling ideology.
Political Correctness N: “The avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against”
Cindy Sheehan was nothing more than a grieving mother until some left wing groups saw an opportunity to exploit this woman’s mental duress to gain the media spotlight. Mrs. Sheehan’s vigil is not about her son, nor is it about getting answers; her cause is entirely about defaming the President to give the left an opportunity to regain seats in the Senate and the House and possibly a shot at the White House in 2008. Constant negative media pounding of the President has reduced his poll numbers just as they did during the year prior to the 2004 Presidential election. Despite what must be perceived by the Demlibopeans as a stupid American populace the remainder of the country who are not the “fringe” do actually think for themselves and reach their own conclusions. One of those conclusions, which the left loathes, was to re-elect Bush and rejected Kerry. Until such time the Blue states and their party faithful deem the Red States as anything more than the “Fly over” states they will continue to lose elections. America is fortunate to have a leader who can and will stay the course and has little concern over poll numbers.
Mrs. Sheehan, despite giving birth to a noble son does not deserve any honor or attention whatever for what she is doing to her son’s memory, to her son’s decision to serve his country, or to the nation he voluntarily chose to defend. What she is doing, unwittingly or not, is seeking to disgrace his country, to dishonor his comrades, to dishonor his Commander and Chief , and strengthen his killers resolve to fight so more American mothers sons can grieve. Aside from a rooting pocket of radicals, her refocused energy after her son’s death is poised to cost Mrs. Sheehan her family and her husband. I do hope that her liberal handlers treat her well because one day the cameras will stop coming around and Ms. Sheehan will no longer have a voice her handlers want to hear and this mother will find herself very alone and, if there’s any justice, overwhelmed with the guilt of her betrayal.
I can be reached via yahoo messenger at thinker822@yahoo.com or via e-mail at thinker822@fedupwithpc.com or through my website www.fedupwithpc.com. Feedback is always welcome as is discussion on anything I’ve written.
Print
Email
