Back in 2006, Rabbi Aryeh Spero wrote this:
Why Do Liberal Media Despise Soldiers?
http://humanevents.com/2006/06/13/why-do-liberal-media-despise-soldiers/
Rabbi Aryeh Spero | Every six months or so, the liberal media search for any story that casts our soldiers in a bad light. Abu Ghraib was portrayed as indicative of almost the entire U.S. Army when, in fact, it consisted of less than 1/1000 %. Besides which, in the scheme of possible war atrocities, it doesn’t even rank. It was more uncouth behavior than atrocity.
As soon as a scenario is found where our soldiers defended themselves from enemy fire, road bombs or check-point crashing cars, the media indict our boys, without first considering the circumstances which necessitated the shooting response. Guilty! Guilty until proven innocent.
It is quite obvious the media have a preconceived attitude toward our men and women in uniform and look for events to affirm their view. It is equally obvious that the media do not wait to issue its guilty judgement, even before the facts come in. For in the media’s mind, the guilty outcome is a foregone conclusion given the liberal media’s notion of who our soldiers really are. They want to believe the worst.
In the mind of most of today’s smug liberals, our soldiers are rednecks — and rednecks, when let loose and not under control of "civilized" liberals, do what comes natural to rednecks — they act rednecky. Liberals feel that way since, in their parochial view, who would enlist and volunteer unless one is poor, has no chance for upward mobility, and has a tendecy and lust for violence?
They believe this since most have no friends or family in the military. These elitists perceive the soldier and the military as below their class. Perhaps they heard of a grandfather who served back in the days when there was a draft, but not today.
Why do they so despise our military? Why do they never come to its defense? Why do they never understand the frightful plight of the soldier who, when fired upon by the enemy, has no recourse but to fire back if he wishes to stay alive? Why does the liberal not understand what he has seen countless times, namely, that the Jihadist enemy positions women and children in his front while shooting at our soldiers?
It is because the liberal moralizer deep down knows that he does not have the physical courage and might of the soldier. Compared to the soldier, he is a coward and weakling. His strength lies only in bringing law suits and sounding morally superior to the rest of us.
The liberal moralizer needs to tear down the U.S. soldier as a way of guaranteeing that the soldier is never elevated to a more honored level in American life than is he, the liberal moralizer. Tear down the soldier and you destroy the honor we feel toward that soldier. Find anything to show you are better than the soldier so that you and your smug liberal friends can celebrate your superiority. Liberal media guys cannot abide that America has heroes who are not them.
For the media, the heroes are Woodward and Bernstein or Washington Post and New York Times reporters who splash across the world U.S. national security secrets. They admire not those who defend but who tear down. Many entered the business for precisely that reason: to indict our institutions and ways.
By and large, certain very liberal cosmopolitan men are jealous of what the soldier can do, and have a desire, a need, to destroy the object of their envy.
By pressuring our government not to allow our soldiers engaged in urban battles to respond quickly, liberals — especially the media — are heightening the possibility that our young men will be killed. Their school yard "legalities" are handcuffing our soldiers and are, I’m convinced, precipitating American deaths and casualties. Our soldiers are now hesitating to defend themselves out of fear of being brought up on charges at the hands of the ACLU.
Our home-grown leftists must know how their 24/7 finger pointing and accusations are endangering the lives of our boys. Perhaps that is why they do it, not to mention a desire to humiliate our military and cause the defeat of the U.S. They have become accessories to and instruments for death.
If we in the West decide that our soldiers can never fire back at the enemy when women and children are present, then we have handed the enemy a sure-fire method for our defeat. We might as well roll up the streets of the West, now, since the enemy can move forward with immunity house-by-house, building-by-building, in every urban setting in which they choose to fight, including London and New York.
Thank God our safety is in the hands of these guys from the Midwest and South and not those snivelly effeminates from Brown, Brandeis, Columbia and NYU. If it were so, we’d by now all be prayer rugs.
=============================================
Fast Forward to 2015. The Movie "American Sniper" comes out. Joe Public comes out to watch it. Joe tells Harry Jim and John, and exponentially, they tell their friends. The movie is viewed by a record number of people as evidenced by box office receipts. By financial returns, it is a proven hit with Middle America.
But, since this does not fit the Democrat/Liberal/Progressive Agenda, (DLP) several rocks turn over and out come the critics. The critique it and find several things to fault it for. My opinion: Mainly because it depicts the everlasting, enduring image of what a MAN should be, that he has a wife, not several sleep-ins, has children and cares for them, did his duty and did find an excuse or escape not to, and did not break down and turn to drugs or alcohol to soften the blow of what he had seen.
Oh, this does not sit well with the DLP. So, the creeps that crawled out from under the rocks, who are all very wealthy because the enjoyed the opportunities that Chris Kyle fought for-- lambast the movie on several accounts.
Although the movie is the obvious target, and the attempt to tear down Chris Kyle's reputation and accomplishments, and opinion of mine here: The simultaneous target was us out here in Fly Over Land, who revere SEALs, Marines Rangers--those who volunteered and had to prove themselves to gain the title. The message is--"Don't be worshiping these guys, after all, we just as worthy of adoration and respect as they are"
Fifteen years ago, the situation was this: These same creeps owned the media.
To oppose them was a sure result of being demonized with something you did --or failed to do in your past (And, if they could not find anything--They just made it up)
A criticism like those we have seen was intended to silence critics and preserve the status of those who had not achieved, or were guilty of several behavior misdeeds.
BUT-This time-- It ain't working. The miracle of the internet allows us to see information within seconds of it being published, and secondly, to retort to that with which we disagree. Respected people, in this case, veterans who served can speak from their experience- that experience which none of the creeps have .
The result is that Chis Kyle is a nationally known hero, and Michael Moore comes out a sore loser.
