Jane, You Ignorant Slut!

On Friday evening, January 16, 2015, the Weinberg Center for The Arts in Frederick, MD played host to an American traitor and seditionist.  The Center billed her speaking engagement as an opportunity to address a variety of issues including motivation, health and wellness, business, women’s issues, achievement and perseverance.  There was zero mention of her radical activism, calls for revolution, her support of the Black Panthers or that little thing in Hanoi.

For four decades the actress woman slut known as “Hanoi Jane” has been met with protesters for her propagandist machinations in support of one of the worst regimes in human history.

It all began in 1972 when Jane Fonda traveled to North Vietnam to show her solidarity with the Viet Cong and to collect evidence at the behest of radical activist Tom Hayden that the United States was deliberately bombing river dikes in Nam Dinh.  Upon seeing the aftermath, she asked the VC if she could go on Radio Hanoi to plead with American bomber pilots to stop the bombing.  She broadcast 19 propaganda interviews.  She made a hero out of Vietnamese hijacker Nguyen Thai Binh who was killed trying to seize a plane from Saigon going to Hanoi.

Broadcast on August 9, 1972:  "This is Jane Fonda speaking from Hanoi. Like tens of thousands of other Americans, I'm extremely concerned these days about the betrayal of everything that my country stands for—about the betrayal of our flag, about the betrayal of the very precepts upon which our country was founded: equality for all people, liberty, and freedom." 

"Richard Nixon, history will one day report you as the new Hitler…It is no wonder that you are so cynically manipulating the American public into believing that you are striving for peace, when you are in fact committing the most heinous crimes against the innocent civilians of Vietnam."

Her utterances and movements are a testament to the skilled indoctrination of the Viet Cong and the Communists who were supporting them. To the extent there may be any sympathy at all for Fonda among Americans, it's probably because they’ve never known what she actually said in Hanoi and what was attributed to her.

Excerpted from Mark Holzer’s book Aid and Comfort:  Jane Fonda in North Vietnam:

“Fonda's own words make plain beyond any reasonable doubt the intent and import of her statements. They contained lies about the United States, its leaders, their motives and their acts.  They maligned the President of the United States.  They spouted the Communist propaganda line in every respect.  They sought to undermine the moral and military effort of our soldiers in the field and our prisoners in jungle camps and North Vietnamese prisons.  And her words even encouraged mutiny and desertion.”

Emboldened by her willingness to be a propaganda tool for Ho Chi Minh’s guerrillas, she was taken to visit an air defense installation on the outskirts of Hanoi.  While donning a VC helmet, she hopped onto the seat of an anti-aircraft battery holding a gun. 

The picture quickly circled the globe and by the time she arrived back home proudly wearing a coolie hat and black Vietnamese pajamas, she was heckled and cursed with cries of “Hanoi Jane” and rightly accused of being a traitor.

“What is a traitor? What is a patriot? I cried every day when I was in Vietnam. I cried for the Vietnamese and I cried for the Americans, too,” Fonda said.

Even before her treachery in Hanoi, she had been romantically involved with actor Donald Sutherland, her co-star in the film Klute.  Together they took a political vaudeville show called FTA—slang for Fuck The Army—across the country outside military bases and along the Pacific Rim at bases from Guam to the Philippines.  The troupe was under surveillance by both the CIA and FBI.  Fonda’s FBI dossier extended to 22,000 pages.

Eventually, Fonda split from Sutherland, saying she was moving into a “different phase” of her life and she couldn’t share it with just one man. She had always been hedonistic and soon there were rumors of affairs with various activists.  Some time before 1971, Fonda confessed during a feminist consciousness-raising session, “My biggest regret is I never got to fuck Che Guevara.”  Yep, that was her biggest regret.

Now, of course, Fonda would have you believe that she is consumed with guilt about her repugnance for America’s soldiers and her “mistake” at being photographed on that anti-aircraft battery.  She “claims” she wasn’t against them when she visited Vietnam.  Oh no, she wasn’t giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  Not little ‘ol me. “Whenever possible I try to sit down with vets and talk with them, because I understand and it makes me sad.  It hurts me and it will to my grave that I made a huge, huge mistake that made a lot of people think I was against the soldiers.”

Fonda has endeavored, unsuccessfully, to rehabilitate her reputation as a traitor.  By describing herself as a “lightning rod” Fonda demurs, “This famous person goes and does something that looks like I’m against the troops, which wasn’t true, but it looked that way, and I’m a convenient target.”

To this day she maintains, "I don't regret going to North Vietnam. I'm glad I went. I'm glad I did everything I did.”

Et Tu, Marco?

Thirty Pieces Of Silver

It is said that there is nothing like wounded affection for giving poignancy to anger.

Waaaaay back in May of 2009, four days after the National Republican Senatorial Committee betrayed its mission, betrayed Republican voters, and betrayed the Reagan legacy; I, along with eleven other bloggers, came together to co-blog at a site known as Not One Red Cent.

Back then I was the proprietor of a blog called No Sheeples Here.  That site was taken down in June of 2011.  I felt that my effort to get the message out for conservatism was falling on deaf ears.  I had poured so much of myself into politics that I was burned out.

Before I had reached the end of my rope though, I penned a blog post at Not One Red Cent that I thought was pretty powerful.

Our posts at Not One Red Cent gained the notice of Professor William A. Jacobson following the 2010 mid-term elections.  Writing at Legal Insurrection, Professor Jacobson wrote, “In those first few months they blogged like crazy, and they were voices in the wilderness.”

“Over time Marco Rubio began to pick up recognition and support and went mainstream, and NORC posts dropped off as others picked up the cudgel elsewhere. The rest, as they say, is history.”

“When that history is written, I hope people will recognize the impact a few bloggers had in the revolution of 2010.”

The mistake was mine for trusting Rubio.

On Thursday, June 28, 2013 the Senate voted to pass an immigration reform bill that most true conservatives believe gives amnesty to illegal immigrants.  The following day, The Insufferable Airhorn called Marco Rubio (R-FL) to congratulate him on passage of the bill in the Senate.  Rubio didn’t answer the call.

The day before, when the bill passed 68-32, there was an impromptu press conference and Rubio wasn’t there.  He avoided it like the plague.

Why didn’t he show his face at the press conference?  Why didn’t he take the phone call?  It’s obvious to this observer that the candidate who was adamant three years ago that an earned path to citizenship was “code for amnesty” was afraid that his slip in the polls would fall even farther.

His evolution flip-flop has caused his public support to take hits.  In fact, his favorability has dropped 15 points since February 2013, according the latest Rasmussen polling data.

If the bill is enacted it would flood our borders with 10 million more immigrants by 2023 and 16 million more between 2023 and 2033. It would also provide a permanent welcome for 8 million illegal immigrants who are already in the country. Most infuriating of all is those immigrants are expected to be low-skill workers and Democrat-friendly.  And if that doesn’t set your hair on fire, they would pay less in taxes than they would receive in benefits.

The bill would also reduce the nation’s average wages and education, increase unemployment and shift more of the nation’s earnings away from wages and into investments, according to a June 16 report by the Congressional Budget Office.

Is it any wonder then, that Sarah Palin jabbed Rubio with a tweet saying, “Hope it was worth the 30 pieces of silver.”

Allahpundit asked, “Should we still love Marco Rubio?”

“He was deceitful. Not to beat a long-dead horse, but this guy—and Ayotte, and Dean Heller, and even McCain—all lied to greater or lesser degrees about this subject to get elected by posing as stalwart border hawks.”

“One of the most dispiriting moments I’ve had in this process came this morning on Twitter when some righties argued to me that I’m overreacting to Rubio’s lies because all politicians lie. It’s part of their job description. If that’s the new standard—lie your ass off to get elected because we expect you to—then there’s no reason to prefer any one Republican candidate to another on actual policy grounds. They’re all liars, so let’s just elect the guy with the best retail skills and hope he doesn’t screw us too much once in office. (That’s basically Rubio’s 2016 campaign slogan.) Two problems with that logic, though.” 

“One: Immigration isn’t just any issue. Rubio didn’t lie about whether he’d support a farm bill or a tweak to student-loan interest rates, only to renege. Immigration was a core part of his appeal to conservatives. He ran as an eloquent spokesman for border security despite left/media identity-politics expectations that any Latino politician must ultimately support comprehensive immigration reform. And now he supports comprehensive immigration reform. It’d be like someone running as a staunch hawk and then, once in office, deciding that Ron Paul had some really good ideas about foreign policy. Should hawks let that guy slide because ‘all politicians lie’?” 

“Two: Rubio wasn’t elected as just any Republican pol. He was a self-described ‘movement conservative’ who caught the tea-party wave against the Republican establishment and surfed it all the way to the Senate. Three years later, despite lots of red-meat conservative rhetoric over that time, the two policy pushes with which he’s most identified, I think, are this sham immigration reform bill and international interventionism in various forms, including in Syria. He has, in other words, become a sort of successor to McCain in the Senate. Has anyone who ran on an anti-establishment tide ever embraced the establishment as quickly as that? Even now, even after everything, I strongly prefer his flip-flopping to the grotesque omnibus opportunism of Charlie Crist. But it’s worth asking: How different would the Senate have looked since 2010 with Crist in there instead of Rubio? What would have changed in terms of actual policy? If anything, without Rubio to woo conservatives, the Senate immigration effort would have been in deeper trouble than it is now. The fact that we have to pause and even consider this sort of ‘what if Crist won?’ hypothetical makes me think maybe we should hold off on the Rubio tributes. For now.”

In life, it’s the coward who abandons himself first.  Following that, all other betrayals become easier.  I’m grieved to find that Rubio lied to us and saddened that now we can no longer believe him.  I don’t want him in the White House in 2016 or ever.