Relatively speaking, libs are children

I’ve had it with Tom Roeser. One time too many have I been skimming my email alerts from hither and (also) yon, and he slows me down, and this when I am on my way to another sparkling chapter in my book yet to be announced.

This time, in discussion at Chicago Daily Observer of getting bogged down in land war in Asia and elsewhere:

. . . [U]nderstand that the emotional Leftrootless of principle, relativist to the core has been the trigger in all war involvements starting with WWIs make the world safe for democracycontinuing up to WWII and propagandist William Allen Whites Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies White the small town Kansas editor (bankrolled by Wall Street interventionists) notice how these programs extolled by White rolled off the tongue?Lend LeaseCash and Carry then the savageness of Pearl Harbor, caused by FDRs tightening the embargo noose that made an attack on us a possibility (although journalist White was winding down then) then in 1950 the crusade by the Luce press,spare heroic, doughty little South Korea from invasion by the awful Red North in the late `50s from of all papers The New York Times urging Ike to do what the French failed at by defending South Vietnam from the hideous NorthAll these wars were originally validated by the idealistic Left; then suddenly the Left swung back to non-involvementnot so much with Korea but certainly with South Vietnam.

Relativist to the core, yes. Rootless, impulsive, prey to the latest to hit them in headline, cutline, opening news shot. Not the only ones that way, but they do have a corner on that noxious commodity.