The O’Reilly Factor went after the John Adams Project yesterday. Kudos to O’Reilly for doing this. The project is to follow CIA officials around and photograph them and show the photographs to Guantanamo terrorists. O’Reilly condemned this exposure of America’s defenders to America’s enemies as disgusting. And he zeroed in on the olympic hypocrisy of liberals who pretended to be concerned over the exposure of Valerie Plame’s covert identity but think nothing of exposing other CIA officials (who don’t share Plame’s leftwing agendas). Yes, but hypocrisy is second nature to radicals because they are on a mission from their god and like the Islamic terrorists they believe that lying to infidels is fair game. What O’Reilly doesn’t concede yet (you could gather this from his discussion with Glenn Beck in the next segment of his show) is that radicals like these ACLUers are willing and self-conscioius accomplices of America’s enemies.
In Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, I explained why they are. I described who the leaders of the the ACLU are and why their campaign to get nearly 400 American city councils to pass resolutions saying they would not cooperate with Homeland Security was an expression of their desire that our enemies would win the war on terror. Oh yes they deplore some of terrorist’s tactics (while explaining why we made them do it). But the goals — the destruction of the free market system (Michael Moore’s got the film coming up) — the defeat of “imperialist” America, that they’re for.
In Unholy Alliance I showed how the ACLU works with pro-Communist and pro-Hamas organizations like the Center for Constitutional Rights to defend terrorists and undermine America’s security. What we are witnessing in this conflation of “liberal” with “radical” is a 21st century version of the 1930’s popular front between Communists and liberals.
In Unholy Alliance I described the new radicals as “neo-Communists” because they shared the same view of American society as the old communists and their prescriptions for radical change were drawn from same the moth-eaten and bloody pages of the Marxist left. It’s interesting that people think nothing of referring to neo-conservatives (even though the neo-conservatives think of themselves as old fashioned liberals) but if you call anti-American, marxist radicals “neo-communists” you’re a McCarthyite. I failed to resurrect the term, but now that Van Jones has surfaced as a protege of liberals (Alan Colmes has even described Jones as “a mainstream liberal”) perhaps conservatives and patriotic Americans will start to call neo-communists by a name that actually describes them (as “liberal” does not).
The Democratic Party has major task in front of it, which is to dissociate itself from the Communists in its ranks and in its alliances. This happened before in 1948 and the years that followed when socialists like Walter Reuther purged Communists from the CIO and Harry Truman nudged them out of the Democratic Party (they formed the Progressive Party to run against Truman in 1948).
Unfortunately, the Communists — now neo-Communists — came back into the Democratic Party in the McGovern campaign of 1972. It’s time to eject them again. Unfortunately this will not be as easy a task since the “progressive caucus” of the Democratic Party in the House numbers over 100 representatives. Because that is not really a feasible task it is doubly important for conservatives to make the distinction between radicals and liberals, between patriots and self-conceived enemies and to hope that the Democratic Party will come back to its senses before it is too late.