The Quisling Effect

There at times in human history where those who are out of power will trade away independence for vassalage to another power if that action gives them access to the throne. This betrayal, trading independence for servitude to gain power is something we must keep in mind in regards to the Democrat Party as history shows us so many times:

Vidkun Abraham Lauritz Jonssøn Quisling. Quisling was the son of a Church of Norway pastor and genealogist Jon Lauritz Qvisling from Fyresdal, and both of his parents belonged to some of the oldest and most distinguished families of Telemark.

His early life was mixed and successful; he became the country's best ever war academy cadet upon graduation in 1911, and achieved the rank of major in the Norwegian army. He worked with Fridtjof Nansen in the Soviet Union during the famine of the 1920s. For his services in looking after British interests after diplomatic relations were broken with the Bolshevik government, Great Britain awarded him the C.B.E.. He later served as defence minister in the Agrarian governments 1931-1933.

During World War II, Great Britain would divest Quisling of his CBE. Let us see how he rose to power in Norway:

On May 17, 1933, Norwegian Constitution Day, Quisling and lawyer Johan Bernhard Hjort formed Nasjonal Samling ("National Unity"), the Norwegian fascist political party. Nasjonal Samling had an anti-democratic, Führerprinzip-based political structure, and Quisling was to be the party's Fører (Norwegian: "leader", equivalent of the German "Führer"). He was sometimes referred to as "the Hitler of Norway".

The party went on to have modest successes; in the election of 1933, four months after the party was formed, it garnered 27,850 votes (approximately 2%), following support from the Norwegian Farmers' Aid Association, with which Quisling had connections from his time as a member of the Agrarian government. However, as the party line changed from a religiously rooted one to a more pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic policy from 1935, the support from the Church waned, and in the 1936 elections the party received fewer votes than in 1933. The party became increasingly extremist, and party membership dwindled to an estimated 2,000 members before the German invasion, but under the German occupation by 1945 some 45,000 Norwegians were members of the party.

Some how I doubt the Norwegians became enlightened with his rule in spite of the increased party membership.

When Germany invaded Norway on April 9, 1940, Quisling became the first person in history to announce a coup d'etat during a news broadcast, declaring an ad-hoc government during the confusion of the invasion, hoping that Hitler would support it.

The background for this action was the flight northwards of the king and government, resulting in a temporary power vacuum. Quisling had visited Adolf Hitler in Germany the year before, but Hitler thought Quisling was of "no use" to him. Quisling had low popular support, and the Quisling government lasted only five days, after which Josef Terboven was installed as Reichskommissar, the highest official in Norway, reporting directly to Hitler.

The relationship between Quisling and Terboven was tense, although Terboven, presumably seeing an advantage in having a Norwegian in an apparent position of power to reduce resentment in the population, named Quisling to the post of Minister President in 1942, a position the self-appointed Fører assumed on February 1, 1942.

Quisling stayed in power until he was arrested on May 9, 1945, in a mansion on Bygdøy in Oslo that he called "Gimle" after the place in Norse mythology where the survivors of Ragnarok were to live. The house, now called Villa Grande, is today a Holocaust museum.

The Democrats today suffer from the Quisling Effect. They have positioned their political platform on the premise that America must be defeated in Iraq in order for them to take political power back from Republicans. As the Islamic Terrorists are the hammer on the battlefield killing American soldiers, the Democrats are the anvil on the homefront by killing the budget that allows America to make war against these very terrorists not only in Iraq but throughout the world. This indefensible position can only be recognized for what it is: betrayal.

The Democrats sacrificed South Vietnam for political expediency in the mid-seventies to gain power in America and they will do it again in Southwest Asia in the 21st Century. This singular act in 1975 of cutting off funding for South Vietnam and allowing Saigon to fall to our communist enemies did in fact create a domino-effect felt not just in Southeast Asia but throughout the world. From the Soviets invading Afghanistan just two years later to the overthrow of the Shah by Islamic Shia radicals and the rise of communist regimes all throughout Central Africa and Central America was a direct manifestation of this miserable and cheap political maneuver until it was arrested by the advent of President Ronald Reagan. Have things changed since 1975?

Even terrorists throughout the world today recognize the Quisling Effect in the Democrat Party in 2007:

Democratic presidential hopefuls flashing their anti-war credentials last night at a national debate by stating they would immediately withdraw from Iraq, encouraged Palestinian terrorist leaders here, who labeled the debate a victory for Iraqi insurgents and "resistance movements" throughout the world.

The debate was widely covered today by the Palestinian and pan-Arab media.

"We see Hillary (Clinton) and other candidates are competing on who will withdraw from Iraq and who is guilty of supporting the Iraqi invasion. This is a moment of glory for the revolutionary movements in the Arab world in general and for the Iraqi resistance movement specifically," said Abu Jihad, one of the overall leaders of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization.

I think democrats will do good if they will withdraw as soon as they are in power," he said.

But it only gets worse:

Abu Jihad said he believes if elected to the White House, the Democrats will immediately order a withdrawal from Iraq. He warned if a retreat is not carried out, the U.S. will likely be attacked on the home front.

"The (Democrat) debate showed that like in Vietnam the American people needed these thousands of soldiers killed to see that invading other people will always result in a failure. ... I think the Democrats will win and apply an immediate withdrawal, but if they don't (withdraw), the revolutionary movements in Iraq will intensify attacks, and I think you should prepare for another big attack in the U.S."

Democrats have shown throughout history that if they must sacrifice the sovereignty of other nations to gain power then surely they will have no problem sacrificing American interests when terrorists attack us overseas. The blood of Quisling courses through Democrat veins and they are proud of it.