This Is Not the 1960s

Thank you for clarifying this. I hear people comparing the 1960's to now. I personally see no similarity, given the moral decay of today.

The leftist controlled media has glorified the leftist movements of the 1960's and 70's for decades, filling young heads of mush with brash concepts of universities as forums for political protest and personal statements of self-determination. It is also in university that defiance of authority seems to find a worthwhile underlying reason. Today's kiddos reach young adulthood with the inner "goal" of protesting SOMETHING before they become old, as they believe their forbearers did when they too were at their age. Little do these tots realize that all that trash the leftist media has been feeding them of the "glory days" of war protests and Woodstock was total B.S. It was in fact NOT popular to protest the Vietnam War on 95% of college campuses at the time with a vast majority of young "draft age males" at the time being PRO Vietnam War. It was mostly at our "usual suspect" universities, most notably east coast Ivy League schools, where these "made for TV" antics played out for ratings on the nightly news. In actuality, none of those protesting male students had any reason to worry about Vietnam, or the draft. Instead, they only protested to atone for unpatriotic cowardice... and to meet girls. Typical.

Once again, liberals want us to look at incidents in the PAST with TODAY'S eyes, When issues are examined out of context, inaccurate data leads to faulty conclusions. McCann is correct that the reasons for the 60s protests were not based on anti-Americanism, but rather outrage that American lives were being sacrificed in a war many thought had ill-defined reasons and non-existent goals. But American Thinker didn't go far enough. There's an enormous difference between yesterday's and today's protests---both sides now have access to AI, which is like having their finger on a nuclear button 24/7. In the 60s, America wasn't infiltrated with those who hate us and have a proven track record of trying to destroy us. Don't be fooled by those who blame the protests on the age-old restlessness of college students. Current demonstrations are MUCH different than a bunch of worked-up kids acting out to get attention. We can't ignore the reality of AI, however ironic that sounds.

"...protesting SOMETHING..." Indeed, #2. There were people in our office who would display rainbow placards in their cubicles. I assure you it was not as a memorial to God's promise after the Flood. Good conservative friend of mine saw them as supporting "every sorry cause that comes along."

This is from a Vietnam War novel I've been working on. Sound familiar? "Vietnam was not lost in the field, nor on the New York Times front pages or college campuses. It was lost in Washington D.C., even before America assumed sole responsibility for the fighting in 1965 and before they realized the country was at war, even before the first American units were deployed. The disaster in Vietnam was not the result of impersonal forces but a uniquely human failure, the responsibility shared by President Johnson and his principal military and civilian advisers. The failings were many and reinforcing: arrogance, weakness, lying in the pursuit of self-interest, and, above all, the abdication of responsibility to the American people." –LTG H.R. McMasters, Dereliction of Duty. Although General McMasters served as president's assistant for national security affairs, he nails it: Do not trust the Federal Government. Our nation's experience in Vietnam, long, complex, and bitterly divisive, was a tragic disaster we should have avoided that cost 58,000 American lives and from which our nation has never fully recovered. Dereliction of Duty is an authoritative look at the United States' involvement in and eventual defeat in Vietnam…. Johnson’s irresponsibility allowed the NVA to retain the initiative in the ground war. When losses became excessive, they simply withdrew and took time to recover. So, our “strategy” represented an open-ended commitment requiring unlimited resources and manpower, producing growing U.S. casualties without possible hope of victory. So why did Johnson commit so much to such a losing strategy? The answer is easy: hubris and Greed. Johnson and McNamara unleashed the "Military-Industrial Complex," the nation's military establishment and industries “supplin’ the Army with the tools of the trade,” something which, in his Beltway farewell address, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned threatened American democracy. They made billions feeding at the federal trough, supplying men fighting and dying in combat. Naturally, LBJ wanted and received their complete political support, and who knows how much else? Thank God for our incredible military, but our nation still pays for its government's treachery. Kennedy and Johnson and their Beltway cronies betrayed America. While Johnson’s withdrawal from the presidential race on March 31, 1968, shocked the nation, it ensured America’s eventual failure and did not end the war. Never believe politicians talking about wars they get us into. We should have charged the Joint Chiefs of Staff with dereliction of duty and McNamara and Johnson with treason. Moreover, Deep State treachery exactly like that remains a clear and present danger in America today. MAGA-Vet

This makes me think of the line at the end of "Quigley Down Under"..... This ain't Dodge City and you ain't Bill Hickock. How about: This ain't Selma, and you ain't Martin Luther King For your entertainment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwDmV1KWrKQ&t=133s

The 60s were people protesting. 2024 has paid professional agitators.