Why Liberals Think Conservatives Are Racist

By Rachel Lu

The sighs of relief from the left are almost audible. Racism lives! The hate is out there! 

It would be unfitting to throw a party for the occasion of hateful comments from Donald Sterling and Cliven Bundy, but some liberal journalists are probably tempted. “I’m trying to wring some grim humor out of the news, but I’m getting my racists all mixed up,” quipped Robin Abcarian of the Los Angeles Times. “Believe it or not,” wrote Mary Curtis in the Washington Post, “something good might arise from the racist swamp of recent news cycles.” It’s all right, Ms. Curtis. You may proceed with your heel clicks. We all know that multiple high-profile racists in a 2-week period make for high times for liberals. 

Liberals need racist foes to vanquish. Most of the time they have to resort to finding them where they obviously aren’t there. Ross Douthat could print his mother’s best cookie recipes, and his New York Times readers would still lambast him as a bigot. (Perhaps we would learn that snickerdoodles are a well-known symbol of oppression in certain sub-cultures.) Paul Ryan can hardly order a sandwich without liberal pundits combing through in search of the racist “coding” that they know to be hidden within all Republican rhetoric. 

To conservative eyes, these accusations rarely achieve escape velocity from the farcical world of liberal paranoia. Figures like Bundy or Sterling predictably set off a tiresome string of rants about hidden racism and conservative denial, but the universality with which racist sentiments are condemned tells the real story. It’s hard to see how conservatives could sprint away from racists at top speed, while simultaneously wooing voters who mostly share their sentiments. As usual, liberal “reflections” on what Bundy and Sterling tell us about conservatives were mostly just silly. 

It’s too bad to get back to business as usual in the racism blame game, because quite recently, Jonathan Chait’s feature in New York Magazine offered some surprisingly helpful insights into liberals and their need for conservative “racism.” Chait’s piece, and the firestorm that followed, make a fascinating tutorial in liberal paradigms concerning racism. Looking through their eyes for a moment, it almost starts to make sense why they’re so certain that racism is a significant moving force behind American conservatism. 

The Paranoia of 'Coding'

Initially it can be a bit startling to remind oneself that liberals really don’t see their accusations as the political equivalent to calling us poopy-heads; they actually believe that ethnic hatred is an important motivator for conservatives. Some even get frustrated that conservatives have gotten so clever about “coding” our racist messages, hiding them in subtle subtexts that liberal journalists can’t easily expose (even while our barely-literate backwoods voters apparently hear them loud and clear). You can almost picture liberals playing Ryan’s speeches backwards, hoping to catch that “Paul McCartney is dead” moment when the mild-mannered and professorial Ryan secretly taps into the seething cauldron of bigoted rage that he knows to be driving his base.

Apparently some of them do actually realize that they’re overreaching, though it isn’t something they like to hear. Chait poked the bear by explaining some of the history behind the “coding” paranoia and agreeing that conservatives have some reason to resent it. More importantly, Chait explains with admirable clarity one important reason why the racist-conservative dogma is so important for liberals. A second emerges from the responses to Chait’s piece. 

Reason 1: Everyone Hates Reruns

The Ballad of the Civil Rights Movement has long been liberals’ favorite bed-time story. Martin Luther King Day may be the only day of the year when they feel completely, unambiguously proud to be Americans. It’s hard to exaggerate how important this is to liberal political thinking. They are perpetually looking for new ways to recapture that high. 

Conservatives tend to miss this because we see the Civil Rights story as settled history. We’re all pleased to have sloughed off the bigotry of our ancestors. Of course we want people to be judged “by the content of their character” and not by their skin. What’s left to debate here? 

Liberals have yet to turn that page. This is their favorite series, and like every loyal fan base, they always want another sequel. Indeed, as Chait acknowledges, one of the most appealing things about a 2008 Senator Obama was the perception that he could be the star of a particularly thrilling new episode. Of course, if that’s the storyline, it’s no mystery which role was available for conservatives. “Racial coding” became a convenient fix for a glaring plot hole: Republican politicians’ refusal to follow their racist script. 

Of course, for conservatives this is a pretty bad deal. We can’t stop being the racist party if that’s the only “role” our political enemies have available. At most we can ask liberals to consider who is served by their implicit demand that racism never die. A film director can afford to keep resurrecting Moriarty or Lex Luther for the amusement of his story-hungry audiences; in politics we should leave our vanquished villains in their historical chapters. Modern liberal oppression narratives are far and away the most expensive dramas ever produced, and we all get dragged to see them whether we’re interested or not. 

As grim as this sounds, it may actually be the more remediable liberal fixation. Another liberal paradigm (which is well articulated by Brian Beutler of The New Republic), leaves even less wiggle-room for a conservatism that actually serves the common good. 

Reason 2: What Else Besides Racism Could Persuade Middle-Class Schmucks To Support Plutocracy?

Beutler is gracious enough to agree with Chait that, “the left’s racial analysis of conservative politics might lend itself to careless or opportunistic, overreaching accusations of racism.” But he doesn’t feel too bad about it, because as he goes on to argue, liberals are fundamentally right about conservative racism. White racial resentment is one of the primary sources of energy behind American conservatism. It has to be, because that’s the only plausible explanation for why anyone but the rich and privileged would support the GOP. 

To his credit, Beutler doesn’t probe the sub-conscious of high-profile conservatives for unconfessed bigotry. He is cheerfully prepared to admit (and he thinks most liberals would agree) that racial hatred plays a small role in the motivations of the major players. For them, it’s all about greed. Their policies are pitched to protect their own wealth and privilege at the expense of the poor. 

But the ultra-wealthy (as we have been reminded ad nauseum) are a small minority in America, and poorer voters have little reason to support a plutocratic agenda that doesn’t serve them. In order to stay viable, therefore, Republicans need a populist hook. That hook, Beutler believes, is racial resentment. 

Conservative readers might be asking: why in the world would he believe that? To liberals it seems obvious. Conservatives are ferocious in their assault on programs that disproportionately enlist ethnic minorities, including Medicaid, food stamps and welfare. How else to explain that except as a manifestation of white Republicans’ racist schadenfreude? 

It’s hard to know where to begin with such convoluted reasoning. The conservative distaste for entitlements is deeply connected to our political philosophy; all of our most cherished values come into play here. And we have plenty of sociological evidence to present, now that the scars of entitlement dependency blight every major city in America, bequeathing to our poorest children a legacy of dysfunction and vice. But sure, let’s write all of that off as a manifestation of conservative greed and hatred. That would make so much more sense. 

In order to make sense of such an apparently-crazy view, we need to remind ourselves of some further features of liberal ideology. To conservatives it seems crazy and wildly uncharitable to dismiss their (well-grounded) views as manifestations of an irrational animus against ethnic minorities. But to liberals this seems reasonable, because embedded deep within the liberal worldview is the idea that the end of the day all political activity can be seen as part of a story about warring classes. It’s another trope that we can lay at the feet of our still-fashionable friend, Karl Marx. 

Marx declares early in The Communist Manifesto that, “The history of all hitherto existing societies is a history of class struggles.” This is one of those sweeping interpretive claims that sounds silly to the uninitiated, but that starts to seem all-important to those who have adopted it as their central political paradigm. Marx was a wonderful storyteller, and his fairy tale still holds much power over the minds of modern people, as we’ve recently seen in the furor over Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.” 

As Marx understands it, societies are made up of multiple classes that perpetually jockey for relative advantage. Open warfare is avoided through a complex balance of agreements that enable each class to “hold its own” in the larger social structure. Some are better off than others, but all have something to lose if the arrangement collapses and turns into open warfare. Before the Industrial Revolution humans had crafted a fairly well-functioning “class ecosystem”, but rapidly expanding markets interrupted that balance by massively empowering one particular class (specifically the medieval burghers) to bring all others to heel. Now called “the bourgeoisie”, these new overlords wielded the immense power of the modern market as a weapon, harnessing all the other classes in an exploitative system that overwhelmingly benefited themselves. 

It’s a story we all know, whether or not we’ve read. For liberals especially, The Communist Manifesto is far more important than Cinderella. It wafts its way through their dreams and colors their entire social outlook. Of course we know that capitalists are castigated as exploiters and tyrants. That’s only the beginning, however. Everything is a zero-sum game in this outlook. That means that every move Republicans make must represent an attempt to win some marbles away from Democratic voters, which of course will be tossed into the overflowing treasure chests of Republican elite. 

How do we know that Republicans are racist? Well, we don’t get much support from ethnic minorities, and we dislike entitlement programs. If you see the world through a Marxist class-warfare paradigm, that really does look like adequate evidence to make the case. 

Spreading the Good News

Conservatives have favorite stories too. We love our Constitutional Convention and our melting-pot of immigration. We get misty-eyed over the Greatest Generation and their triumphs in World War II. We believe that America is a special country.

Conservative narratives have a level of transcendence that liberals simply don’t understand, which means that they can reject the dreary sameness of perpetual class warfare. 

In fairness, some of the ideas that spring from those commitments are surprising, and may even seem naive. For example, most conservatives seem fairly confident that the racism of our ancestors can just be discarded in the dust bin of history. Historically, this might seem unlikely, since racial resentment often burns on for centuries, consuming generation after generation in blood feuds and bitter grudge-matches. To Marxists, the cheerful conservative determination just to shut the book and move on comes across as childishly obtuse. Surely we at least need to roil in resentment and self-recrimination first? 

Most incredible to liberals, however, is our claim that good economic policy (especially when combined with a well-ordered social structure) is actually good for everyone. We’re not all jockeying for the same pot of goods. It isn’t a zero-sum game. More opportunity for me can mean more prosperity for you, and vice-versa. We can all win. 

This is the conservative Gospel, as it were. Conservatives tell Americans: we don’t have to fight over the pie! Let’s just make it bigger! Success is not a rationed commodity! 

Like another piece of Good News two millennia ago, this just seems absurd to most liberals. Free markets are good for everyone? Get out. Can you people please just fess up and admit that you’re closeted racists? 

Setting these two “political narratives” side by side, it’s not hard to choose the more appealing. Why aren’t we winning more elections, again? 

Rachel Lu teaches philosophy at the University of St. Thomas. Follow her on Twitter.

SoRo:

The Race Card Rules - Don't Leave Home Without Them

 

One day – probably too late - race-baiters are going to realise that if everything is racist, then nothing is. The race card has been so devalued during the Obama administration alone that one hopes that the light at the end of the tunnel isn’t actually a train.

But, until then, what are the rules of race card etiquette?

Obama does something wrong or lies?

It’s racist to criticise him.

Holder does something wrong or lies?

It’s racist to criticise him.

Cummings does something wrong or lies?

It’s racist to criticise him.

Sharpton does something wrong or lies?

It’s racist to criticise him.

Sheila Jackson-Lee does something wrong or lies?

It’s racist to criticise her.

Jesse Jackson does something wrong or lies?

It’s racist to criticise him.

 

 

If Justice Clarence Thomas, Sen Tim Scott, Alan West or Dr Ben Carson - like Nelson Mandela before them - support Voter ID laws?

It is NOT racist for the Left to criticise them, call them or even say they should 'go back to the plantation'... because they're evil or something.

But, if Justice Clarence Thomas, Sen Tim Scott, Alan West or Dr Ben Carson criticise Obama or Holder, then he is a racist, self-loathing 'Uncle Tom.'

If Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Marco Rubio, Gov Susanna Martinez or Gov Brian Sandoval disapproves of Obamacare?

It is NOT racist for the Left to criticise them or claim that 'they hate the poor, especially black people' ... because they're evil or something.

But, if Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Marco Rubio, Gov Susanna Martinez or Gov Brian Sandoval criticises Justice Sandra Sotomayor, Sen Bob Menendez, Rep Luis Guiterrez, Secretary of Labour Thomas Perez, or La Raza, then s/he is a racist, self-loathing 'coconut'.

If Mark Levin, Jonah Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer, or David Horowitz condemns the executions of gays or the stoning of women by Islamists, refuse the idea of a '67 Borders Solution', vocally denounce Hamas, or disagree with J Street?

It is NOT racist for the Left to criticise them or call them 'Israel Firsters,' scream 'Death to the Jews,' or yell 'Israel-Firster!' ... because they're evil or something.

But, if Mark Levin, Jonah Goldberg, or David Horowitz criticises Justice Stephen Breyer, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, Senator Chuck Schumer, Rep Jan Schakowsky or Jon Stewart, then he is a racist, self-loathing 'Neo-con!!! (wink, wink).'

If Rep Raúl Labrador, Charles Krauthammer, Dinesh D'Souza or Sophie Ro opposes ILLEGAL immigration?

It is NOT racist for the Left to criticise them, call them 'xenophobes,' or tell them to 'GTFHome!' ... because they're evil or something.

But, if Rep Raúl Labrador, Charles Krauthammer, Dinesh D'Souza or Sophie Ro criticises Sen Mazie Hirono, Rep Xavier Becerra, Ambassador to China Gary Locke, former Governor Jennifer Granholm, or Univision presenter Jorge Ramos, then s/he is a self-loathing naturalised American, who is also hypocritical and racist.

If Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Dr Zuhdi Jasser condemns the treatment of women by many Muslim countries, don't fall over themselves defending the Palestinians, or opposes CAIR?

It is NOT racist for the Left to criticise them, call them 'Islamophobes,' or fail to condemn Islamists, who demand their executions ... because they're evil or something.

But, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Dr Zuhdi Jasser criticises Rep Keith Ellison, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Cooper, President Obama's official adviser on Muslim matters Farah Pandith, comedian Dean Obeidallah or journalist Fareed Zakaria, then s/he is a racist, self-loathing "apostate.'

If Doreen Borelli, Star Parker, or Stacey Dash is against welfare or higher taxes?

It is NOT racist for the Left to criticise them, claim that they are traitors to their gender and race, or assert that they are 'acting white' ... because they're evil or something.

But, if Doreen Borelli, Star Parker, or Stacey Dash criticises Michelle Obama, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Rep Maxine Waters, MSNBC presenter Melissa Harris-Perry or Oprah Winfrey, then she is a racist, self-loathing 'Auhntie Thomasina.'

Mr Republican says or does something...anything that doesn't square with Progressive orthodoxy, then he’s a racist.

Mrs Conservative believes in something...anything that doesn't square with Progressive orthodoxy, then she’s a racist.

Ms Libertarian opposes Obamacare just like she does the NHS (and would have HillaryCare, McCainCare, NixonCare, TrumanCare, TeddyRooseveltCare, etc), she’s a racist…for real, dude.

And, so on…

I know so many people – on both sides of the aisle – who now roll their eyes when someone whips out the race card.

'There is (a) class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. ... There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.'

- Booker T Washington, 1911

The Benghazi '15'

 

1.       President Barack Obama

2.      Vice-President Joe Biden

3.      Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton

4.      American Ambassador to the United States, Susan Rice

5.      National Security Advisor, Robert Cutler

6.      Press Secretary, Jay Carney

7.      Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence, Agency Mike Morrell

8.      National Security Council adviser, Samantha Power

9.      Secretary of Defence, Leon Panetta

10.   Director of the CIA, David Petraeus

11.    Director of the National Security Agency, Keith Alexander

12.   Deputy NSA  for Counterterrorism & Asst to the POTUS, John Brennan

13.   Deputy NSA for Strategic Communication for the President, Ben Rhodes

14.   Spokesman for the National Security Administration, Tommy Vietor

15.   Political strategist, David Plouffe

Related Reading:

Benghazi: The Definitive Timeline

 Apartheid in Israel? Have You No Decency, Secretary of State, John Forbes Kerry? At Long Last, Have You No Sense of Decency?

Israel, The Un-Apartheid State: A Comparison With Australia 

Judge Richard Goldstone’s Mea Culpa, in the Pages of the New York Times!

Damn Right I Taped Kerry’s ‘Apartheid’ Talk...And If I Had To Do It All Over Again, I’d Do It In The Exact Same Way.

The Left's Hysterical Israelaphobia: If You Rape, You're A Sexist Pig; If You Don't, You're A Racist

A Century of Palestinian Rejectionism

 Bust Pallywood In A Fraud...And Get Sued For Defamation In France

Islamic Naziism 

Islamists Get Their Nazi Salute On (Photo Essay With A Little Real History Thrown In)

Another Year, Another Anniversary. 11 Years Without Vadim and Yossef. Tears Still Fall.

Behind the Humanitarian Mask: The Nordic Countries, Israel and the Jews

The Massacre of the Fogel Family

A Lib Dem MP Gives Voice To Britain's National Sickness 

The True Perpetrators of the Antisemitic Attacks in Toulouse and Throughout the World

Hitler's Ghost Haunts Europe

John Forbes Kerry: Born To Be Wild(ly)...Off The Diplomatic Reservation

'There’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like ‘apartheid’ into the discussion doesn’t advance the goal. It’s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it’s not what I believe.'

- Senator Barack Obama, 2008

By Joan Vennochi

When President Obama chose John Kerry as his secretary of state, a headline in Foreign Policy magazine declared that the longtime Massachusetts senator and son of a career Foreign Service officer was about to get the job “he was always meant to have.” 

As that old saying goes, be careful what you wish for.

 

Fast forward two years, and a recent headline in the same publication now advises: “How John Kerry can find success in the ashes of Middle East peace.” Kerry deserves credit for pushing the dialogue forward between the Israelis and Palestinians, and given the politics and history of similar efforts, it’s hard to pin a failed Mideast deal solely on him. That hasn’t stopped related media coverage from being far less generous — thanks to another of the secretary’s serial gaffes. 

Kerry generated serious backlash after he told a group of senior officials that Israel runs the risk of becoming “an apartheid state” if no peace deal with Palestine is reached in the near future. The meeting was supposed to be off the record, but no one, from Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling to the US secretary of state, should ever count on privacy anymore. A tape recording was made, and the news, first reported by the Daily Beast, spun out from there. 

 'My name is John Kerry and I served in Vietnam, by the way, and I'm reporting for duty.'

Please, please, please, with sugar on top...and chocolate sprinkles...and marshmallows...and pistachios...and Oreo crumbles...and chocolate chunks...and Reese's Pieces...and walnuts...and M&Ms...and chocolate whipped cream...and Irish coffee-flavoured whipped cream...and a cherry...no, make that three cherries...stay home!  Haven't you purchased enough Pottery Barns already? - SoRo

Was Kerry jet-lagged from trying too hard in too many places? Or was the diplomat simply going rogue, saying what he thinks should be said in a tough, Putin-colored world? 

Desmond Tutu, South Africa’s renowned anti-apartheid leader, approved, but Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, did not. Via Twitter, Boxer said: “Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and any linkage between Israel and apartheid is nonsensical and ridiculous.” 

It goes without saying Republicans jumped on it. Texas Senator Ted Cruz went as far as to call for Kerry to resign. 

From a diplomatic perspective, the remark angered Jewish leaders and Israeli officials — even if it is a reference some themselves have used. 

But probably most awkward for Kerry: His words ran up against Obama’s views. In a 2008 interview, then-Senator Obama said, “” 

Still, the White House stuck by Kerry after he apologized for the comparison, even backing him up on the basic sentiment that the “desired outcome here [is] via a two-state solution in which there is a sovereign Palestinian state and a democratic, Jewish state of Israel that is secure and safe.” 

Perhaps Kerry is hoping the “apartheid” remark will somehow end up in the winning category like the off-hand remark he made last summer that an American military campaign in Syria could be avoided if only Syrian president Bashar Assad turned over his country’s chemical weapons cache. In that case, the State Department similarly rushed to walk back the quip as it did with the “apartheid” comment this week. But then Syria and close ally Russia surprised everyone by suggesting Kerry’s unscripted solution could work. 

Unfortunately, though he managed to avoid sending US bombers into Syria, Kerry has done little to deter Assad from waging war on his own people. 

And it is not hard to foresee similar results in recent efforts to convince Vladimir Putin to leave Ukraine in peace. The Russian president seems likewise dismissive of US warnings — despite the State Department tweets that critics have derided as a “hashtag war on Putin.” 

The American public usually pays scant attention to the nuances of foreign policy. It’s far more fascinated by the nuances of V. Stiviano’s relationship with Sterling, the 80-year-old billionaire she tape-recorded. But Americans do understand the general proposition that words have power and so must Kerry. He certainly has been tripped up by them before. (“I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”) 

If Kerry were truly born to be secretary of state, it’s time for him to reclaim his diplomatic birthright.

John Kerry Reminds Israeli Critics That He Served In Vietnam And He Isn’t Going To Be Intimidated

By Doug Powers

John Kerry has about had it with his Israeli critics and he’s now engaging in “stick and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me” diplomacy:

CNN’s Jake Tapper presented Kerry with an opportunity to respond to Bennett and other Israeli critics during an interview Wednesday. 

“My comments need to be properly represented, not distorted. I did not do anything except cite what other people are talking about as a problem,” Kerry said. ”But I also have always opposed boycotts. I have 100 percent voting record in support of Israel for 29 years in the United States Senate. Unfortunately, there are some people in Israel and in Palestine and in the Arab World and around the world that don’t support the peace process.”

“Israel needs to understand we will always stand by its security needs,” he continued. “But no one should distort what we’re doing or saying because they’re opposed to the peace process or don’t like two states or whatever. And, you know, words — I have to tell you, my friend, I’ve been, quote, attacked before by people using real bullets, not words, and I am not going to be intimidated. I am not going to stand down with respect to President Obama’s commitment to trying to find peace in the Middle East.” 

Glenn Reynolds writes at Instapundit: 

'Yes, those effete Israelis know nothing of such things.'

 
Maybe Kerry thinks the Iron Dome is just a big bug zapper.

Now, that's who John Forbes Kerry was born to be:  An Anti-American, lawbreaking (by his own admission...U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953: 'A U.S. citizen cannot go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power') traitor, who tells self-aggrandizing lies...like the one about 'President Richard Nixon' sending him into Cambodia on Christmas Day 1968 even though Nixon wasn't even President at the time...and conducts his own peace negotiations with America's enemies with the express disapproval of his own country because he is more in love with himself and his ideology, which is shared by people like Jane Fonda and Madam Nguyen Thi Binh, the PVR's negotiator).

John Kerry’s Meeting With North Vietnamese Communists Broke American Law

By Marc Morano, CNSNews.com, Thursday, 20 May 2004

The 1970 meeting that John Kerry conducted with North Vietnamese communists violated U.S. law, according to an author and researcher who has studied the issue.

Kerry met with representatives from “both delegations” of the Vietnamese in Paris in 1970, according to Kerry’s own testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971. But Kerry’s meetings with the Vietnamese delegations were in direct violation of laws forbidding private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers, according to researcher and author Jerry Corsi, who began studying the anti-war movement in the early 1970s. 

According to U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953 - “A U.S. citizen cannot go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power' - Kerry violated US law. *

By Kerry’s own admission, he met in 1970 with delegations from the North Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should be stopped. 

Kerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright (as flaming a racist**, segregationist**, and one world governor*** as there ever was...and, of course, because he was such a stalwart and behemoth in the Democratic Party for these reasons, America's 'first black President,' Bill Clinton  in a question-and-answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped “immediately and unilaterally.” Then Kerry added: “I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government.” 

However, both of the delegations to which Kerry referred were communist. Neither included the U.S. allied, South Vietnamese or any members of the U.S. delegation. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam was the government of the North Vietnamese communists, and the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PVR) was an arm of the North Vietnamese government that included the Vietcong. 

Kerry did meet face-to-face with the PVR’s negotiator Madam Nguyen Thi Binh, according to his presidential campaign spokesman Michael Meehan. Madam Binh’s peace plan was being proposed by the North Vietnamese communists as a way to bring a quick end to the war. 

But Corsi alleged that Kerry’s meeting with Madam Binh and the government of North Vietnam was a direct violation of U.S. law. 

“In [Kerry's] first meeting in 1970, meeting with Madam Binh, Kerry was still a naval reservist – not only a U.S. citizen, but a naval reservist – stepping outside the boundaries to meet with one of the principle figures of our enemy in Vietnam, Madam Binh, and the Viet Cong at the same time. [Former Nixon administration aide Henry] Kissinger was trying to negotiate with them formally.”

It has also been asserted that by 1971, Kerry might have violated another law by completely adopting the rhetoric and objectives of the North Vietnamese communists. 

Definition of Treason 

'Article three: Section three [of the U.S. Constitution], which defines treason, says you cannot give support to the enemy in time of war, and here you have Kerry giving a press conference in Washington on July 22, 1971 (a year after his meeting with the communist delegations in Paris) advocating the North Vietnamese peace plan and saying that is what President to accept...If Madam Binh had been there herself at that press conference, she would have said exactly what Kerry said. The only difference is she would not have done it with a Boston accent...The 7 Point Plan created by the North Vietnamese communists was nothing more than a “surrender” for the United States...You don’t advocate that [7 point] plan unless you are on the communist side. It was seen as surrender. [The U.S.] would have had to pay reparations and agree that we essentially lost the war.'

Communist Shill

“Kerry was openly advocating that the communist position was correct and that we were wrong. He had become a spokesman for the communist party,” intones Dr Jerome Corsi (who is often far-far-out-there, but he has documented his findings at wintersoldier.com.  So, give however much weight to his claims as you deem appropriate). 

Kerry’s presidential campaign did not return repeated phone calls seeking comment, but campaign spokesman Michael Meehan told the Boston Globe in March, “Kerry had no role whatsoever in the Paris peace talks or negotiations. 

‘From Their Point of View’

Kerry “went to Paris on a private trip, where he had one brief meeting with Madam Binh and others. In an effort to find facts, he learned that status of the peace talks from their point of view and about any progress in resolving the conflict, particularly as it related to the fate of the POWs,” Meehan added. Kerry was reportedly on his honeymoon with his first wife, Julia Thorne, when he met with the communist delegations. 

But Corsi does not accept the Kerry campaign’s explanation. 

“Meehan made it sound like they were just there on a honeymoon and they got a meeting with Madam Bin, but not every American honeymooner got to meet with Madam Binh. Unless you had a political objective and they identified you as somebody as sympathetic, you were not going to get invited to a meeting with Madam Binh,” Corsi said. 

* SoRo:  According to his own FBI files, Senator Ted Kennedy broke this law at least twice.  Once when meeting with the Soviets to undermine the foreign policy of President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and, again, when he pulled the same stunt with when a Republican, Ronald Reagan, was POTUS.  It's strange how Democratic heavyweights like Kennedy and Kerry never seem to get prosecuted for something that would result in our being thrown under the jail forever.  Of course, this is a long-standing tradition.  For example, from 1934 to 1937 (wiki), 'the Special Committee on Un-American Activities Authorized to Investigate Nazi Propaganda and Certain Other Propaganda Activities, chaired by John W. McCormack (D-MA) and Samuel Dickstein (D-NY), held public and private hearings and collected testimony filling 4,300 pages. Its mandate was to get 'information on how foreign subversive propaganda entered the U.S. and the organizations that were spreading it.' The committee was widely known as the McCormack-Dickstein committee.' 

Some of you are probably saying: 'And, so?  It was widely-known that there were Nazi and Mussolini followers and agents in the United State spreading subversive propaganda.'  True enough.  BUT, what does it say about the quality of a committee's work, who it targets, to whom it gives tacit approval, etc, when one of the refs is on the payroll of one of the teams?  No, I'm not referring to Lois Lerner and Barack Obama's Internal Revenue Service.  Rather, I am pointing to The Right Honourable Samuel Dickstein, Congressman, who for decades, worked as a reliable informer and agent for The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).  

I guess the moral of the story is:  If you are a Democrat and conduct illegal activities with members or countries of the socialist/communist persuasion, you're golden, baby.  Just golden!'

** Fulbright signed The Southern Manifesto, which denounced the Supreme Court's historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act all the while remaining a member of the Democratic Party in most excellent standing.  Yes, you can!   Because in the Democratic Party, the Bobby Byrds never coommme hoooooommme toooorooooooossssttttt!

*** By strange coincidence, I'm sure, most of the leading proponents, especially in the United States, for the creation of the United Nations were staunch multilateralists...and either Soviet sympathisers or downright agents. For two examples:  Alger Hiss (Instrumental in the establishment of the United Nations both as a U.S. State Department and U.N. official, member of the Communist Party, Soviet Spy, convicted perjurer, and slanderer of truth-tellers); Harry Dexter White (senior Treasury official, big wig at Bretton Woods, archenemy of John Maynard Keynes, who disagreed with his monetary approach and post-war programmes, architect of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund for whom he served as that institution's first US Director, and leading proponent of improved relations with the Soviet Union, which evidently included delivering classified information to his handlers).  Note:  On this particular issue, 'the science is (really, really, really) settled.'  All of the deniers, McCarthy smear merchants, apologists, appeasers, etc, have been denuded of even their tiniest fig-leaves of protestations.  After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the implosion of the Soviet Union, both of which granted cover to the Hiss lovers, etc, and provided them with reams of 'information and intelligence accumulated' through the black art of dezinformatsiya.

If you don't think that the United Nations is very much an anti-American institution created by the Soviets, its agents/sympathisers, and others, all of whom wanted to knock the United States down more than a few notches and relieve it of superpower status, and continues to do so to this day, just keep this date in mind every year: October 24th.  Over at the UN, the 24th of October is referred to as 'Alger Hiss Day.'

Related Reading:

 Apartheid in Israel? Have You No Decency, Secretary of State, John Forbes Kerry? At Long Last, Have You No Sense of Decency?

Israel, The Un-Apartheid State: A Comparison With Australia 

Judge Richard Goldstone’s Mea Culpa, in the Pages of the New York Times!

Damn Right I Taped Kerry’s ‘Apartheid’ Talk...And If I Had To Do It All Over Again, I’d Do It In The Exact Same Way.

The Left's Hysterical Israelaphobia: If You Rape, You're A Sexist Pig; If You Don't, You're A Racist

A Century of Palestinian Rejectionism

 Bust Pallywood In A Fraud...And Get Sued For Defamation In France

Islamic Naziism 

Islamists Get Their Nazi Salute On (Photo Essay With A Little Real History Thrown In)

Another Year, Another Anniversary. 11 Years Without Vadim and Yossef. Tears Still Fall.

Behind the Humanitarian Mask: The Nordic Countries, Israel and the Jews

The Massacre of the Fogel Family

A Lib Dem MP Gives Voice To Britain's National Sickness 

The True Perpetrators of the Antisemitic Attacks in Toulouse and Throughout the World

Hitler's Ghost Haunts Europe

http://tinyurl.com/k2cz59w