The recent theatrics surrounding the Jena 6, the dictator of Iran speaking at Columbia, and the revival of the O. J. story provoke me to ask a question. Why is the Democratic party always sticking up for thugs, brutal dictators, murderers and other scoundrels?
The Jena 6 are 6 black high-school students who beat the crap out of a single white guy at their high school. They hit him from behind, knocking him unconscious, and then kicked him in the head when he was on the ground unmoving. These are the people that the Democrats think deserve their support. Why? Oh, because there is alleged racism involved. Apparently, the Democrats can't imagine any other reason why a prosecutor may have charged the kids with attempted murder other than racism, never mind that that they kicked him in the freaking head while he was on the ground unconscious and had to be pulled off by bystanders or who knows what they would have done. But even assuming that the prosecutor was actually a racist, is that any reason to defend a pack of violent juvenile thugs out to terrorize their high school? Can't you go after the prosecutor for racism without defending the violent criminals that he prosecuted? Don't the Democrats have that little module that sits in the back of the mind (it's called a "conscience") that is shocked by brutality? How can anyone with a conscience actively seek to help the Jena 6 avoid the consequences of their actions?
And then there is Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, who endorses the killing of homosexuals, the enslavement of all women, and the forced conversion of the entire world to his religion. He spoke at Columbia University this week to wild cheering by a group of people that I can guarantee you are largely fanatics in favor of gay rights, women's rights, and religious freedom, and always vote Democrat. And that in spite of the fact that these Democrats claim to care deeply about other people in other countries when there is any excuse at all to blame the US for bad things that happen, they still don't give a damn what happens to gays, women, and non-Muslims in those countries. Don't these people ever get tired of cheering on brutal dictators? From Stalin and Mao to Saddam, Arafat and Ahmadinejad, these people will cheer on any mass murderer, no matter how grotesque, as long as that mass murderer is sufficiently opposed to the United States. OK, I get it --they think that the United States has too much power, is too arrogant, and needs to be taken down a few pegs. But even believing that, don't they ever get tired of defending, honoring, and siding with mass murderers? Don't they ever stop and think to themselves, "Hey, this guy may be doing what I want in attacking the US, but geeze, he murders and imprisons a lot of people. Maybe I should tone down my hero worship a bit." Don't they ever think that?
And then there is O. J. Simpson, who murdered his wife and the party of hysterical measures against wife-abuse leaped to his defense. And when Ted Kennedy killed a woman while drunk driving, the party of hysterical penalties for drunk drivers sent him back to the Senate. Then there are all of the women who have murdered their own husbands or their own (already born) children that the Democrats have defended on the basis that they were really depressed and/or frightened when they did it. Well, OK, have some sympathy for depressed people, but crimeny, when a woman murders five of her own children, she needs to spend the rest of her freakin' life confined. Surely anyone with a healthy conscience recognizes that, don't they?
And it's not just thugs, despots, and murderers. The democrats also defend adulterous presidents, former-KKK senators, bribe-taking Congressmen, cocaine-snorting mayors and other scoundrels. It seems that being a Democrat (or anti-Republican, or in the international arena, an anti-American) is a free pass for just about any form unethical or criminal behavior imaginable. But don't they ever just get exhausted defending the indefensible? I know I get exhausted watching them do it.