« I Am Not This Bad | Main | Saddam Tied to Multiple Insurgency Networks »
The story of how MoveOn.org attempted to infuse its operation with foreign cash has gotten a lot of press the last couple of days [second item]. For Americans to knowingly sell out our electoral process to people from other countries is hardly an act of patriotism, and such an underhanded and even traitorous action -- we are at war -- should reflect on its preferred candidates, Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, just as badly as it does on the organization itself.
That aspect of this scandal has already been covered by other bloggers. What irks me is the unmitigated gall that these Swedes have in attempting to interfere with our political process. These same people would be screaming bloody murder if so much as an editorial about Swedish politics were published in the New York Times, screeching about cultural imperialism and other varieties of crap that the Europeans are oh so good at spouting. For instance, this passage reveals their contempt for Americans and their ability to act on their own interests:
Soon there will be another election, and the campaigning has already started. An estimated 100 million Americans (half of those who are eligible) will cast their vote. As always, there is a vast amount of money involved. However, in our view the greatest scandal is not that American Presidents can be bought -- but rather that they are so cheap. One dollar per EU-citizen would suffice to raise more money than the entire Bush campaign budget for the elections in 2000.
Yes, I can see why that would work out well. Europeans have done so well in electing leaders. Why, it just seems like yesterday they elected people like Adolf Hitler. Now, of course, they just elect leaders who get rich doing business with homicidal tyrants -- leaders like Jacques Chirac, who has been a supplier of Saddam for over 30 years, including the period when France was supposed to be honoring military and economic sanctions.
In fact, let's take a look at Sweden's history with genocidal madmen, shall we? They managed to stay "neutral" during World War II by allowing the Germans to occupy them and transport troops across their country in order to invade and brutally oppress their Norwegian neighbors, who had the courage and gallantry to resist. From William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (p. 937fn):
On June 19 , fearing a direct attack by Germany, Sweden gave in to Hitler's pressure and agreed to permit the transport over Swedish railways of Nazi troops and war material to Norway on condition that the number of troops moving in each direction should balance so that the German garrisons in Norway would not be strengthened by the arrangement.
This was of immense help to Germany. By transporting fresh troops and war material by land through Sweden, Hitler avoided the risk of having them sunk at sea by the British. In the first six months of the accord, some 140,000 German troops in Norway were exchanged and the German forces there greatly strengthened by supplies. Later, just before the German onslaught on Russia, Sweden permitted the Nazi High Command to transport an entire army division, fully armed, from Norway across Sweden to Finland to be used to attack the Soviet Union [which it had refused to do for the Allies in 1939 when they had wanted to rescue the Finns from the Russians]. What it had refused the Allies the year before it accorded to Nazi Germany.
After the debacle of France, the King of Sweden personally appealed to Churchill to surrender to Adolf Hitler to preserve the peace (sound familiar?), which Churchill curtly replied that when Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, and France were freed of the Germans, he'd consider it.
So with this outstanding record of courage and gallant government, these Swedes have the nerve -- again -- to lecture us on how to operate a democracy. What's more, they feel like they have the right to corrupt American elections by bribing organizations to support their favorite internationalists. And they have the chutzpah to post this:
Should the rest of the world interfere with the choice of the US President? We claim that support for such action can be found in current theories of democracy. What the world needs is an American President who favours multilateral solutions, and who actively supports the UN's Millennium goals.
The rest of the world can participate in American democracy when they voluntarily give up their sovereignty and become a part of the United States. Just fill in the application and we'll have Congress vote on your annexation as soon as possible. I suspect that Sweden won't have much problem with this, as their sovereignty hasn't seemed too terribly precious to them in the past anyway.Sphere It View blog reactions
TrackBack URL for this entry is
My Other Blog!
Comment Moderation Policy - Please Read!
Skin The Site
Des Moines Register
International Herald Tribune
The Weekly Standard
The New Republic
AP News (Yahoo! Headlines)
Guardian Unlimited (UK)
New York Times
Los Angeles Times
- dave on Another National Health Care System Horror Story
- brooklyn on Hillary Not Hsu Happy
- rbj on Hillary Not Hsu Happy
- Robin S on Requiem For A Betrayed Hero
- Ken on Hillary Not Hsu Happy
- Robin S. on Requiem For A Betrayed Hero
- RBMN on Hillary Not Hsu Happy
- NoDonkey on Another National Health Care System Horror Story
- Robin Munn on Fred Thompson Interview Transcript
- filistro on When Exactly Did Art Die?
Proud Ex-Pat Member of the Bear Flag League!