Issues & Views - The Blog

To all those friends I never met

2011-06-20T18:05:00.000-04:00

If all goes according to plan, I shall be entering a hospice for cancer care. I wish I knew how to show my appreciation for all the fine minds I was able to interact with over the years, thanks to this technology. There are so many who I truly admire, and you know who you are. Your sensible and intelligent approach to politics and to life in general kept me sane throughout many crazed actions by our "leaders."

I regret the many writings, especially responses, unaccomplished, and the many deeds undone or unfinished. I do hope many find the posts on this blog worthwhile, and continue to read some of them.

Goodnight and goodnight.

-- Elizabeth

The scarcity of posts

2011-05-11T19:16:00.000-04:00

It occurs to me that, since I entered only one post in March, and none in April, I'm overdue for an explanation for the scarcity of my opinionated outbursts.

It has to do with poor health. I have discovered that nothing saps the energy more than pulmonary troubles. Yes, nothing focuses the mind more than trying to breathe, and not always succeeding. And nothing is more disappointing than spending 10 days in the hospital and returning home feeling worse than ever -- and guessing that one will never feel better.

Unfortunately, the reconstruction of the new Issues & Views Archive has been interrupted due to above problems, but will soon be underway again.

As energy permits, I shall return to regularly posting on this blog. It's frustrating to watch the news go by, yet be unable to summon the energy to say what's on my mind.

Continuing to make war on the world

2011-03-22T23:41:00.000-04:00

So, when is the big, tough USA going to bring its wars to China? Still too busy going after the small fry? It's so much easier to beat up on countries whose military weaponry nowhere nearly match those of the overstocked USA.

Today, it's Libya. Now, let's see. Are we there to unearth Moammar Gadhafi's Weapons of Mass Destruction? Or is it to bring liberation and democracy to the Libyan population? Oh, no, this time, it's to keep Gadhafi from "killing his own people." The missions just keep changing, don't they? Well, that's the way it is when you have the responsibility to police and supervise the entire world.

When you're in the driver's seat, it matters not how much the lies pile on top of one another. All that is necessary for such lies to succeed, writes Paul Craig Roberts, "is for the government to have its story ready and to have a compliant media. Once the official story is in place, thought and investigation is precluded." As is now conventional, the capper at the top of the lies is the one that claims that even the most contemptible actions are performed "for the sake of national security," that is, in defense of our homeland. Who could have a problem with that?

Paul Gottfried, in describing the ease with which the supposedly leftist Barack Obama incorporated all those conservative patriotic rhetorical themes into his January State of the Union address, shows how the phony "vision" thing is accomplished, whether by Republican "patriots" or by cynical neocons, or by even more cynical liberals.

All one has to do is follow Obama's lead as he gushes over how good we Americans are, and how the unfortunates who happen to live outside the U.S. simply "dream" of enjoying a democracy such as ours. We see that Obama quickly learned the tricks of the trade, and this is how the trade works: Talk ceaselessly about American "exceptionalism," the neocons' clever bit of hyperbole designed to convince the slow-witted public that America was conceived as a "propositional" nation, not one founded on a specific ethnic or cultural identity.

Once the "propositional" thing has been established, it matters not if you're a left-wing progressive or a Republican Evangelical Tea Party patriot. This is why Obama can successfully co-opt right wing rhetoric in such a bald-faced manner. Gottfried writes, "Once we've defined our country as some kind of propositional thing, then the leader is free to identify what the country is and how to force its citizens to comply with that proposition." Whatever the "proposition" of the day might be. Egalitarianism, inclusiveness, diversity. George W. Bush managed this trick very well.

Gottfried contends that once you enunciate this propositional idea, "then you can fit your own program into it, e.g., launching wars to spread democracy or throwing tax money at one's favorite donors such as teachers' unions." Instead of challenging the Republicans' hubristic notions of "exceptionalism," Obama learned that, "It's better to celebrate America as an exceptional place held together by an 'idea,' as long as you get to define that idea and use it to push your own stuff."

It should be clear by now that no President who comes along will ever have a problem pushing the Pentagon's "stuff" on this country, since there will never be any significant noise of protest from the white boys on whom falls the primary responsibility to suit up and lead the fight in these worthless entanglements. There is little chance you will ever hear complaints from these misguided patriots who are ever eager to serve as cannon fodder. They can't get to the next front soon enough. Their right wing evangelical Moms and Dads have done too good a job teaching them their duty to obey any and all calls issued forth by the Pentagon's Puppets. What, me question?

Even as the wheelchairs filled with broken, mutilated bodies come rolling home, there's another batch of prospective heroes waiting to become the next victims. One would think that the dauntless Major General Smedley Butler had never opened his mouth to disclose the heartless truths he had learned in his 33 years in the Marines. What is it he called himself? "A muscle-man for Big Business." Essentially, a sucker.

One supposed good piece of news for these wounded young men, according to a New York Times report, is that their survival rates are now higher, even though a great many are missing multiple limbs (multiple, mind you) and genitals. Well, what's a lost testicle or two for your country? To sacrifice your body when fighting an invading enemy in your own homeland, while defending hearth and home, is horrible enough. However, to end up as a 21-year-old basket case at the behest of war racketeers is insufferable.

And those that were left, well, we tried to survive
In that mad world of blood, death and fire.
And for ten weary weeks I kept myself alive
Though around me the corpses piled higher.
Then a big Turkish shell knocked me arse over head,
And when I woke up in me hospital bed
And saw what it had done, well, I wished I was dead --
Never knew there was worse things than dying.

For I'll go no more "Waltzing Matilda,"
All around the green bush far and free --
To hump tents and pegs, a man needs both legs,
No more "Waltzing Matilda" for me.

Last year, in Afghanistan, greater numbers American soldiers fell from explosive devices, suffering what is described as "grievous injury," that is, bodies that will never be the same again. But, hey, what 20-year-old warrior still harbors plans to date another girl, anyway? After engaging in the vicious wars of the 20th century, white men are accustomed to dying before passing on their sperm. In the last century, they were kept busy expiring as youth in their country's misrepresented World Wars of I and II, to say nothing of Korea and Vietnam. Who needs more white folks, anyway? Whites don't appear to give a damn about their own race's demise, so why should anyone else?

Speaking of white folks, when are we going to have that candid discussion about the possible connection between genes and the warrior mentality, that the soon-to-be-former Senator James Webb hints at in his remarkable book Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America? It may not matter who appears to be running the military machine, but what do we know about why the machine is driven at all? What propels this machine? Is it merely dirty lucre, or is it some natural internal engine at work in the hearts and souls of particular white ethnics, that cannot be turned off, although totally irrelevant to the genuine welfare of this country?

Is this military machine genetically-driven by a people who just can't help themselves and must create reasons to make war, so they can be excused for killing? Are we dealing with an unstoppable Terminator of sorts, a relentless machine that just cannot be shut down? Let's face it, this country has never, ever required military protection. There has never been a country less in need of military protection throughout its history.

Webb, along with other observers, recounts what appear to be deep-seated behaviors among the population that migrated to the colonies in the 18th century, mainly from the borderlands of Scotland and northern England. He tells of "this peculiar culture," in which the surest way for an ambitious young man to make his mark was through military performance or "conspicuous acts of bravado." Webb writes, "By selecting leaders based on military skill and a penchant for action rather than educational or commercial acumen, a dilemma would evolve in later centuries, manifested clearly in the Scots-Irish of today's America."

But how well these men did fit into yesterday's America. As cited by historians like Grady McWhiney, Frederick Law Olmstead and David Hackett Fischer, this population from the British Isles brought cultural mores and social patterns that appeared so inborn they would almost guarantee ongoing conflicts and violence. They persisted in finding ways to justify fighting with everybody, from outsiders to those within their own familial circles. Was it their DNA? Was this behavior chromosome-driven?

As far as the rulers of this new world were concerned, what better breed of men could be asked for in a society that would forever devote itself to war making? These new migrants were first put to work helping to mop up the Indians, and would henceforth become the indispensable warrior force in all of this country's subsequent battles and wars. Fischer called the migrants from that turbulent region of northern England, where the Scots and English had made war and committed atrocities against each other for centuries, "some of the most disorderly inhabitants of a deeply disordered land." This disorderly band found their own unique niche in the new world.

After political leaders finished setting American citizens against one another in a bloody civil war, they then set about warring against the world. Here's some of what the twice-decorated Medal of Honor winner, Major General Smedley Butler, speaking in 1933, had to say about America's "noble" wars:

I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street.

The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

If General Butler lived today, would he be charged as a WikiLeaks snitch? Even after these right wing patriots learn, via leaked cables, of this government's use of deceit and intimidation to undermine the governments of other countries, and to control the American public, this information is merely looked upon as real politik. In other words, this is how the real world works, these wild-eyed evangelicals will tell you. And they send off the next generation of their sons to die or lose their genitals for the deceivers.

It ain't me, It ain't me,
I ain't no senator's son,
It ain't me, It ain't me,
I ain't no fortunate one, no,

Yeh, some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, how much should we give,
oh, they only answer, more, more, more, yoh,

Nothing reaches these religious sycophants, whose perverted sense of patriotism is second only to their perverted attachment to the Republican party. Not even the wisest men among them can get a hearing. Take the case of Rev. Chuck Baldwin, for instance, an evangelical himself. He writes:

George W. Bush and Karl Rove have made mincemeat out of the Religious Right. They have shown everyone that once you win the support of the Christian Right with rhetoric, you can get by with just about anything.

Sadly, this is what the Christian Right just doesn't get: ninety percent of the time, it doesn't matter a tinker's dam whether a Republican or Democrat wins the White House. Both parties are mostly dominated and controlled by the same interests. Both major parties carry water for Big Money conglomerates. Both parties are heavily influenced by globalists and internationalists. Neither party has any loyalty to the U.S.
Constitution or the principles of liberty.

Rev. Baldwin is exasperated with those he calls "gullible pawns" and "robotic foot soldiers for universal and everlasting war," who will not resist even the most reprehensible government policy, if it is demanded by The Leaders. "They see no harm in the decimation of individual liberties," says Baldwin, "as long as it is a Republican who is stealing them."

This is why even a blatantly unconstitutional law like the Patriot Act meets with no resistance on the part of this "conservative" camp. If the phony Tea Partiers possessed just an iota of regard for the Founders' Constitution, they would be out in the streets protesting the existence of this travesty. Instead, it is their camp that recently voted for its renewal.

Susan Lindauer, one of the first victims of this un-American legislation, who was imprisoned for more than a year without trial, writes: "Nobody who has supported that wretched law should ever be allowed to brag of defending liberty again. That goes for the Tea Party. By voting to extend surveillance of American citizens, they have abandoned the principles of freedom that brought about their rise to power. They have shown their true face."

These right wing, military-loving robots will not tolerate any messing with a chance to engage this country in war. At one time, they were enthusiastic supporters of Patrick Buchanan, whom they even put forward as a presidential candidate. He was considered a super patriot among them. That is, until Buchanan took positions against George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. At that moment he became toxic, and was drummed out of the patriot corps. Buchanan put his money where his principles were and, along with two partners, founded a new magazine to give voice to obstinate dissidents like himself.

During the clamor over the comments of the singing Dixie Chicks, who dissed the execrable George W. Bush at one of their concerts, for which they were duly punished by southern "patriots," an interesting thread appeared on the Country Music Television site. In it, a commenter, Leanne, wondered out loud if country music fans would be respectful towards the incoming President Obama. She speculated:

"Will they get up in arms if someone like Trace Adkins or Toby Keith [both adamant rightwing supporters of Bush and critics of the Dixie Chicks] says something disrespectful about soon-to-be President Obama -- here in the U.S. or even on foreign soil? I’m thinking Mr. Keith will be able to say whatever he wants about Obama at his concerts and the majority of country music fans will simply cheer him on.

"So, it’s somewhat disingenuous to suggest that the uproar over [Natalie] Maine’s remarks was a result of someone saying something negative against the President. I’m more inclined to believe that the anger was because she dared to say something about a Republican president, because I’m sure Obama will not be shown such patriotic respect by the fans who currently claim to be so respectful of the office of the president.

"I just don’t believe that they would have been so angry if Natalie had spoken out against Clinton in the ’90s, and I don’t believe they will be angry if country artists say something disrespectful about Obama in the next four years, no matter what soil it’s said on."

I wondered about this, too. But I wondered more specifically if the white boys would be so willing to suit up and take their bodies abroad to fight in a war attributed to Obama, such as we have today in Libya. Well, as it turns out, there was nothing to wonder about. Just put a military uniform on any one of these men, point him in the direction of something to bomb or some civilians to slaughter ("collateral damage"), and he will salute and shout "Hallelujah!"

Indeed, it matters not who sits in the White House. Who cares if a white or a colored or a Klingon orders the charge? Besides, the white boys probably are smart enough to figure out that Obama, like every other President, amounts to nothing more than a Pentagon Puppet. They understand where the orders really come from.

After all, these are the descendants of those sturdy combatants of World War I, a worthless enterprise of murder, if ever there was one. And soon followed by yet another worthless excursion of murder, dubbed World War II, the symbol of white heroism, the ultimate propaganda offered up by Hollywood in more films than it's possible to count. General Butler could have told us that the race or ethnicity of the Pentagon's Puppet in the White House matters nothing. For it is the military machine that runs the show.

Because so many of the military and political leaders come from the same stock and culture as the young men they recruit, they know not only how to dupe these boys through the language and terminology they employ, they're clued in to the right clichés to use, even down to the biblical references. And, what with dear, old Mom and Dad egging them on, in their own blind Christian fervor, these young men don't stand a chance to offer rebuttal.

He's five foot two, and he's six foot four,
He fights with missiles and with spears,
He's all of thirty-one and he's only seventeen,
He's been a soldier for a thousand years.

He's a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist, a Baptist, and a Jew.
He knows he shouldn't kill, but he knows he always will,
Kill you for me, my friend, and me for you.

Eric Peters describes the breathtaking stockpile of weaponry supposedly required for our "national defense" – fleets of aircraft carriers, a million-man army, fleets of "stealth" aircraft, nuclear submarines loaded with ICBMs – any one of which could lay waste to most of the world and would certainly, utterly destroy any single country. He writes: "It's really all about projecting power on others, who have done nothing to us, other than resist American hegemony, or otherwise behave uncooperatively. All for the sake of the military industrial cartel."

In keeping with these facts, some time ago, Paul Craig Roberts offered this droll suggestion. He claimed that since the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with America's national interests, but everything to do with armament profits for the military-security complex, why not just allocate a percentage of the federal budget to this dangerous gang? Why work at concocting reasons for invading country after country, so that special lobbies can extort entitlements for their weapons manufacturing clients?

Roberts says we should skip the middlemen in these transactions and simply give these arms manufacturers and their shareholders the money directly, with the provision that they cease producing new armaments. He explains, "No one, at home or abroad, would have to be killed, and the taxpayer would be better off." This ought to keep the Lockheed-Martin missiles crowd happy, while not threatening their big bonuses. And there would be no more young men without limbs, eyes, or genitalia.

Vietnam Vet with a cardboard sign
Sitting there by the left turn line
Flag on the wheelchair flapping in the breeze
One leg missing, both hands free
No one's paying much mind to him
The V.A. budget's stretched so thin
And there's more comin' home from the Mideast war
We can't make it here anymore

Should I hate a people for the shade of their skin
Or the shape of their eyes or the shape I'm in
Should I hate 'em for having our jobs today
No I hate the men sent the jobs away
I can see them all now, they haunt my dreams
All lily white and squeaky clean
They've never known want, they'll never know need
Their shit don't stink and their kids won't bleed
Their kids won't bleed in the damn little war
And we can't make it here anymore

Will work for food
Will die for oil
Will kill for power and to us the spoils
The billionaires get to pay less tax
The working poor get to fall through the cracks
Let 'em eat jellybeans let 'em eat cake
Let 'em eat shit, whatever it takes
They can join the Air Force, or join the Corps
If they can't make it here anymore

Are all-boys schools a radical idea?

2011-02-09T19:49:00.000-05:00

This brief piece by William Kilpatrick ran in the hard copy edition of Issues & Views, Spring 1994. It is excerpted from his book, Why Johnny Can't Tell Right From Wrong: Moral Illiteracy and the Case for Character Education. As we learn of current efforts to create schools for boys, and as we settle into a new consciousness of what constitutes a "family," should Kilpatrick be considered a purveyor of old, passé ideas?

Boys Should Be Taught by Men
by William Kilpatrick
The idea of all-male schools makes sense. The lives of inner-city youth are so much at risk that radical measures are in order. And the principle behind this particular measure is a sound one. In fact, it is not especially radical. The idea that boys should be taught by men is an ancient and honorable one, practiced for centuries across a wide variety of cultures and settings, ranging from primitive tribes to English boarding schools.

This idea also has a substantial basis in psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology, and criminology. It has long been known in these fields that boys have a more difficult time than girls in the formation of sex identity. The fewer strong male models in a boy's life, the more trouble he has. In the absence of an involved and committed male, boys tend to form simplified and stereotyped notions of maleness. Surrounded by women, desperately anxious to establish their maleness, they often compensate for their insecure sense of identity by adoptint a hypermasculine aggressive pose.

As is now well known, boys without fathers are substantially more involved in delinquency and violence than boys with fathers at home. When they go to scfhool, they bring this aggressiveness with them. The answer to masculine overcompensation is not to surround boys with more women at school and expect them to adopt a "let's-be-nice-to-each-other" attitude. They need to do something with their aggressiveness. Either it has to be channeled by adults who are strong enough to channel it, or it erupts in ways that are destructive both to the individual and to society.

No gender separation allowed

2011-02-09T19:46:00.000-05:00

Here is another item from the Spring 1994 edition of Issues & Views. It is by the intrepid Washington Post columnist William Raspberry, who was a black voice crying in the wilderness of political correctness and Title IX insanity. This was a period when the feminists' influence was riding high, as they challenged and terminated several attempts by educators to create single-gender public schools.

When Disembodied "Rights" Come Before Children
by William Raspberry
Thank heaven it's not a public school, or St. Stephen's and St. Agnes would be in trouble. No, the private Episcopal school in Alexandria, Virginia, is not overcharging kids, or abusing them, or oppressing them. It's educating them very well indeed.

But it is doing so by (among other things) operating single-sex classrooms for math and science in 6th, 7th, and 8th grades. The rationale for this gender separation is the well-documented fact that, in math and science, girls tend not to do as well as boys of equal intelligence. Whether the difference is the result of nature or merely of socialization, of male-oriented teaching styles or of lowered self-esteem for girls, the result often is that girls have their subsequent academic and career choices curtailed.

I've heard all manner of explanations. One is that girls prefer cooperative learning, while boys turn learning—and everything else—into a competition. Some of the explanations may not be true. This is true: if the St. Stephen's and St. Agnes experiment were taking place in a public school, somebody would be out to stop it.

They just stopped one in Philadelphia, where John Coats, a teacher at Stanton Elementary School had initiated a model five-year program for a group of 20 first-grade boys who had had learning problems in kindergarten. The program was working—indeed was the subject of a documentary, "I Am a Promise," that reportedly is up for an Oscar. Nine of these erstwhile slow-learning boys made the honor roll. But the program is dead now. The American Civil Liberties Union threatened to file a lawsuit against it on the ground that boys-only classes are unconstitutional, and the school district folded.

Detroit's attempt to establish all-male academies as a way of rescuing boys at risk of becoming dropouts (and worse) ran into similar legal opposition, as did an earlier effort in Miami in which I, quite indirectly, had a hand.

My limited involvement was a column I had written on Spencer Holland, then with the D.C. school system and now at Morgan State University in Baltimore. Holland, an educational psychologist, had told me of his dream to establish all-male kindergarten and primary classes headed by male teachers. Particularly in the inner cities, where young boys may go for days at a time without directly encountering a literate adult male, he thought it might make an important difference.

Willie Wright, a Miami elementary school principal, saw the column, and asked me to help him get in touch with Holland. In the fall of 1987, the two men implemented Holland's idea. As Wright told me later, "It was a total success, academically and socially. There were no fights, no kids sent out for discipline. They not only improved academically, they became their brothers' keepers, something not generally found in low socioeconomic schools. Not a single parent complained. In fact, virtually all of the parents of boys wanted their sons in the classes."

But, after two years of unquestioned success, the Department of Education's regional office killed the experiment—said it was a violation of Title IX (of the federal Civil Rights Act) guarantees against gender discrimination.

Where do they get these people who are so solicitous of disembodied "rights" that they are willing to do demonstrable damage to actual children? There's a lot we don't know about educating children. That's what makes it so sad when these self-righteous monomaniacs are willing to kill a program that clearly works for actual children out of deference to the possibility that somebody's theoretical rights might somehow be damaged.
• • •
Raspberry's pleas call to mind similar pleas of those black educators and parents who, after the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education court decision, did not want to dismantle the country's networks of all-black public schools. Instead, they desired to upgrade and improve these institutions with the additional (and fairer) funding that would then be available. Of course, black professional elites had other ideas, as they set about carving out new careers for themselves by concocting the endless programs now possible in the new world of forced integration.

Read about Title IX.

A February Remembrance

2011-02-06T12:14:00.003-05:00

Thaddeus Kosciuszko
Polish Son of Liberty
Born on February 4, 1746

A memorial by Booker T. Washington, from his Autobiographical Writings

I knew from my school history what Kosciuszko had done for America in its early struggle for independence. I did not know, however, until my attention was called to it in Cracow, what Kosciuszko had done for the freedom and education of my own people.

After his second visit to this country in 1797 Kosciuszko, I learned, made a will in which he bequeathed part of his property in this country in trust to Thomas Jefferson to be used for the purpose of purchasing the freedom of Negro slaves and giving them instruction in the trades and otherwise.

Seven years after his death a school of Negroes, known as the Kosciuszko school, was established in Newark, N.J. The sum left for the benefit of this school amounted to thirteen thousand dollars.

The Polish patriot is buried in the cathedral at Cracow, which is the Westminster Abbey of Poland, and is filled with memorials of the honoured names of that country. Kosciuszko lies in a vault beneath the marble floor of the cathedral. As I looked upon his tomb I thought how small the world is after all, and how curiously interwoven are the interests that bind people together. Here I was in this strange land, farther from my home than I had ever expected to be in my life, and yet I was paying my respects to a man to whom the members of my race owed one of the first permanent schools for them in the United States.

When I visited the tomb of Kosciuszko I placed a rose on it in the name of my race.

From the Will of Kosciuszko
I, Thaddeus Kosciuszko, being just on my departure from America, do hereby declare and direct, that, should I make no other testamentary disposition of my property in the United States, I hereby authorize my friend, Thomas Jefferson, to employ the whole thereof in purchasing Negroes from his own or any others, and giving them liberty in my name, in giving them an education in trade or otherwise, and in having them instructed for their new condition in the duties of morality, which may make them good neighbors, good fathers or mothers, husbands or wives in their duties as citizens, teaching them to be defenders of their liberty and country, and of the good order of society, and in whatsoever may make them happy and useful. And I make said Thomas Jefferson my executor of this.

(Signed) T. Kosciuszko. May 5, 1798.

Visit the Polish American Cultural Center

The smear machine grinds on

2011-01-30T23:42:00.003-05:00

In my 2009 post, David Irving, the Thought Criminal, I asked, "How is it possible, in these United States, that a group of people, who wish to get together to discuss a historical topic, must relentlessly hide their intention, obfuscate their meeting place, and keep their identities secret, if they don't wish to be hounded like wanted criminals? How is it that citizens who wish to meet peacefully do not have the protection of the law, in order to practice what the law supposedly guarantees, that is, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly?" Well, I'm back again, with the same question, this time, it's raised not for historian David Irving, but in behalf of American Renaissance (Amren).

Professor Irving faced the same impediments as did Amren when its directors organized its 2010 conference, that is, hotel managers were physically threatened for renting meeting space to the group, and hotel staff were generally harassed by a band of self-appointed "anti-fascists." That there are self-elected Enforcers who usurp power over other citizens is not surprising. What is offensive is the failure of government to provide appropriate protections that it is mandated to provide.

There will always be those who claim the right to judge which points of view should be permitted to prevail, and which ones shall be banned from the public square. The operation is pretty much the same: With malice aforethought, the Enforcers mischaracterize those they oppose in the most extreme fashion, and venomously misinterpret their theses or positions. It's critical that the dissenting sinner not be allowed to bring his views directly to the public, and everything is done to prevent the opponent from being given the opportunity to offer any type of clarification – in his own words.

This year, an even more detestable situation presents itself, as Amren attempts to hold its 2011 meeting. A government official, in the form of a black Charlotte (NC) city councilman, has joined the ranks of the Enforcers by lobbying (coercing?) hotels to refuse to book the conference. Here's an official making it clear that he's not about to uphold citizens' free speech as provided in the Constitution. (Does Maryland require its oath-taking officials to conform to federal law? Do they take oaths?) Patrick Cannon's grinning face let's us know that he knows who's boss. Mr. Black Bourgeoisie is so proud of himself.

During the agitation that followed the recent Arizona shootings, when Amren was deliberately mischaracterized by that specious and bizarre memo, which originated not from the cited source, but from another alien government agency, even the leaders of the conventional "anti-hate" groups had to disassociate themselves from the charges of anti-Semitism and racism leveled at Amren. The Anti-Defamation League's Abe Foxman, in one of his rare moments of lucidity, knew to pull the plug on this bit of craziness, admitting that anti-Semitism was not an issue. And, as inconceivable as it was, the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose directors never miss an opportunity to jump on the race bandwagon to exploit their favorite theme of "hate," restrained its rhetoric once it was clear that nothing linked the deranged shooter to motives of racism.

But the mainstream media, eagerly craving to make an ugly story even uglier, and seeking, by whatever means possible, to fill up all that empty time and empty spaces on all those channels and websites, did as they always do, that is, they hung on the SPLC's initial generalizations and delusions about "militias" and "hate groups."

If there's one thing the media understands, it's that the gullible American public will readily buy any fantasies that purport to expose "evil white racists." The public bought the entire package of those who succeeded in smearing Timothy McVeigh as a racist, although his murderous response to a murderous government's actions had nothing to do with racial grievances. But, to fit the spirit of the times, McVeigh's heinous act of retaliation somehow had to be tied to his being a "bigot." Such a connection then made him a truly bad person. Hence, the immediate need to tie the Arizona psychopath to conscious "anti-Semitism/racism."

Because the typical liberal is incapable of comprehending nuance or differences among the individuals, groups and publications on the political right, with which he disagrees, all such ideological enemies are clustered in one common heap. This is one explanation for why so many accepted, without question, the claims in that fraudulent memo, which supposedly came from the Department of Homeland Security and targeted American Renaissance, a publication most of them never heard of. Once they got wind of AmRen's main thematic focus, however, what it describes as "racial-realism," our pundits, reporters and anchors were enthusiastically on the case. Might they be lucky enough to expose a collection of "white supremacists?"

In our weirdly racially over-hyped universe, there is no latitude offered to those who would focus their sights on the subject of race and ethnicity in any other manner than that prescribed by the country's race monitors. Any aspect of the subject must be scrutinized only within the limits currently deemed permissible by a "diversity" obsessed society. Scientists and other researchers who have the temerity to explore such subjects as native ability, intelligence and I.Q., or other particular studies about biological differences between groups, are suppressed, and often denied an institutional affiliation. Some have been blackballed and banished.

This unenlightened, unscholarly approach, that leads to ignorance, is encouraged by liberals, who deem themselves the country's "intellectuals." They run most of the country's academic institutions, yet tremble at the prospect of applying their academic wits to subjects they have made taboo. To this mentality, the very act of investigating the taboo is an act of "hate." Yet, how can there be a subject that cannot be explored, researched, discussed and debated? What are these people afraid of discovering?

Take note that it was the conservative Fox news channel that grabbed and ran with that fictitious memo now totally discredited by the agency from which it supposedly originated. It's not surprising that the Fox reporters spent not one minute on verifying the memo's claims, or giving a courtesy phone call to Amren's director, Jared Taylor. Whites tend to be the first to run for the hills at the slightest chance of either being linked to dissenters on the race issue, or being perceived as not showing the appropriate indignation against "racists." This is especially so in the conservative camp. What, me get in trouble, along with you? So much for unity among "conservatives."

Although the supposedly neutral Politico finally took the time to learn the truth about the memo's sleazy origins, its editors initially took the SPLC's bait and added to the slurs against American Renaissance. Here's how Accuracy in Media reported on the Fox episode:

Those on the left were not cautious, because they wanted to exploit the shootings for political gain. Fox News, perceived as the “conservative” channel, was the perfect vehicle for the smear. This will go down as a case study of how the left used a conservative news source to smear conservatives. They all ended up with egg on their faces because they ran with erroneous information that wasn’t checked out and which only contributed to the confusion and chaos and smeared an innocent group in the process. Ironically, the false report about a “hate” group generated more hate.

Indeed, it did generate more hate and more obstacles to the Amren meeting -- enough to cause a fearful hotel manager to take seriously the current threats from publicity-hungry bands of ragtag "anarchists," the Jewish Defense Organization (always searching for signs of anti-Semitism even when it has to be invented), as well as something called the "Southern Anti-Racism Network," which brags that they don't "rely on the cops to do our work for us." They can now rely on city councilmen to do their work for them.

As of this date, the Amren conference, scheduled to run February 4-6, is in limbo.

UPDATE - Monday, January 31, 2011

American Renaissance's director Jared Taylor issued a press statement today giving further details of the events surrounding the cancellation by the Sheraton Hotel of the Amren conference. Here are excerpts:

Perhaps what the Sheraton actually found out was that Patrick Cannon, Mayor Pro-tem of the city of Charlotte, does not want AR to come to Charlotte. In an e-mail message to a constituent he wrote: “I have all hotels, motels, and gotels [sic] on notice and they seem to be cooperating well still.” The date of this e-mail was January 25, the very day the Sheraton canceled its contract.

We can only imagine that the Sheraton must have come under very heavy pressure to walk away from tens of thousands of dollars in revenues—100 hotel rooms for two nights, a formal banquet, bar and meal tabs—and to subject itself to a five-figure cancellation fee.

We have heard that another city councilman, Warren Turner, has also urged hotels not to do business with us. Both Mr. Turner and Mr. Cannon are black.

Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam has been to Charlotte four or five times since 1990. Minister Farrakhan has said things about Jews and whites of a vileness that has not the slightest parallel in the writings of American Renaissance. On September 12, 2005, he was in Charlotte to tell you the US government deliberately broke the levees in New Orleans so as to flood black neighborhoods. Imagine the outrage if two white city councilmen pressured the hospitality industry to keep Minister Farrakhan out of the city. ...

Shortly after he was named US Attorney General, Eric Holder famously called Americans “a nation of cowards” because we do not talk about race, and urged us to “be honest with each other.” AR is 100 percent honest about race—and look how we are treated. Is it a wonder Americans have become cowards on race? ...

Read entire statement here.

Conservative sponges

2011-01-23T18:23:00.001-05:00

Get ready for another round of watching the farce that goes something like this: Scene 1: Staunchly determined conservatives resist yet another leftwing social trend; Scene 2: Less determined conservatives resist leftwing social trend; Scene 3: Conservatives relent and accept leftwing social trend.

Since when have the people in this country, who so arrogantly label themselves "conservative," ever held to any conservative principle for very long? We now learn that the founders and directors of a dozen or more conservative organizations, that represent several thousand members, will boycott the major annual conference sponsored by the American Conservative Union (ACU).

Known as CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference), a regular February event, this is where conservatives of like mind interact, large and small organizations, with the smaller groups attempting to acquire greater visibility. Over the last couple of years it has also become a place where homosexual activists have been busily infiltrating their dogma and agendas. Last year, such activists, represented most especially by GOProud established a base at CPAC. This year, the group is returning to continue its drive to win a permanent place within the political right.

These interlopers have learned just the right buttons to push in order to ingratiate themselves to conservatives: abortion (end taxpayer funding), guns (for ownership, of course), economy (opposed to wasteful spending), etc. And they have made sure to put their money up front by generously supporting Republican political candidates.

In opposition to this intrusion into "conservative" territory come the longstanding groups such as Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council and even the heavy weight Heritage Foundation. These "traditionalist" groups claim to have found their principled voice and are supposedly drawing a "line in the sand" when it comes to participating in an event that offers homosexual activists a forum in which to expand their influence.

In addition to Heritage, FRC and CWA, others joining the boycott include: the American Family Association, the Center for Military Readiness, Capital Research Center, American Values, the National Organization for Marriage, American Vision, and the American Principles Project. (APP is a major organizer of the boycott.)

Representatives from these groups claim that marriage between a man and a woman is a "core principle of conservatism." Yes, one would think that those who are devoted to advocacy of the traditional family could never sanction the marriage of a man to a man. But among this American breed of "conservative," principle is seldom an obstacle.

After all, these are the good people who, contrary to previous generations of conservatives, encourage unmarried girls and women to randomly engage in sex, in order to produce illegitimate babies and, a la Sarah Palin, celebrate when they do.

These were the people who once vociferously fought against women "soldiers" being sent to the battlefields of war. Currently, however, they have nothing to say about this issue, since today's conservative is perfectly at home with this country's policy of initiating needless altercations around the world, for which the military machine requires all the warrior bodies it can send, even mothers of infants.

And don't forget how these good conservatives once sensibly scorned and ridiculed the left's politically correct censorship of language and the attempts to suppress certain ideas and words. Remember how they complained about the liberals' excessive overuse of such smears as "racist" and sexist?"

Well, that story changed once Sarah Palin came on the scene. The Good Sarah, right from her first speech at that Republican convention, made clear her complete concurrence with liberals over the roles of the sexes, as she excoriated those who would deny women the right to break those "glass ceilings." Not much later, Ms. Palin got on everyone's case for the use of the word "retard." Thanks to her, the conservative Thought Police now are just as diligent about preventing "hurt feelings" as are fixated liberals, who promoted such notions in the first place.

Like their current leaders, today's conservatives prove themselves to be like sponges, absorbing and imbibing almost every liberal and feminist tenet, and passing on such convictions to their children – all the while caterwauling about the "wickedness" of the Left.

They talk endlessly about "conservative values," but exactly what is a conservative value? As we've learned from Sarah Palin, when a conservative adopts some progressive trend or way of life, this is automatically transposed into a conservative value. Publicly exposing your unmarried, pregnant teenage daughter at a national political convention, along with the stud who knocked her up, is now a "conservative value."

So, given this track record of today's conservatives for snubbing their noses at tradition, why should anyone believe that this crew will stand and resist the latest round of social activists, who claim, like all those earlier social activists, to have the "right" to intrude their predilections into any venue they choose? And if the CPAC boycotters do take their stand this time around, how little time will elapse before they relent and wind up throwing baby showers to celebrate homosexual adoptions?

Greed rules

2011-01-01T15:59:00.001-05:00

A discourse for the start of a new year. Excerpts from some unwanted but wise words of New York State's former Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer. In How to Ground the Street, he offers advice on the best way to avoid another economic meltdown by keeping financial markets in check:

• • •
First, we must confront head-on the pervasive misunderstanding of what constitutes a "free market." For long stretches of the past 30 years, too many Americans fell prey to the ideology that a free market requires nearly complete deregulation of banks and other financial institutions and a government with a hands-off approach to enforcement. "We can regulate ourselves," the mantra went.

Those of us who raised red flags about this were scoffed at for failing to understand or even believe in "the market." During my tenure as New York state attorney general, my colleagues and I sought to require investment banking analysts to provide their clients with unbiased recommendations, devoid of undisclosed and structural conflicts. But powerful voices with heavily vested interests accused us of meddling in the market.

When my office, along with the Department of Justice, warned that some of American International Group's (AIG) reinsurance transactions were little more than efforts to create the false impression of extra capital on the company's balance sheet, we were jeered at for attacking one of the nation's great insurance companies, which surely knew how to balance risk and reward.

And when the attorneys general of all 50 states sought to investigate subprime lending, believing that some lending practices might be toxic, we were blocked by a coalition of the major banks and the Bush administration, which invoked a rarely used statute to preempt the states' ability to probe. The administration claimed that it had the situation under control and that our inquiry was unnecessary.

Time and again, whether at the state level, in Congress or at the Securities and Exchange Commission under Bill Donaldson, those who tried to enforce the basic principles that would allow the market to survive were told that the "invisible hand" of the market and self-regulation could handle the task alone.

The reality is that unregulated competition drives corporate behavior and risk-taking to unacceptable levels. This is simply one of the ways in which some market participants try to gain a competitive advantage. As one lawyer for a company charged with malfeasance stated in a meeting in my office (amazingly, this was intended as a winning defense): "You're right about our behavior, but we're not as bad as our competitors."

No major market problem has been resolved through self-regulation, because individual competitive behavior doesn't concern itself with the larger market. Individual actors care only about performing better than the next guy, doing whatever is permitted -- or will go undetected.

Look at the major bubbles and market crises. Long-Term Capital Management, Enron, the subprime lending scandals: All are classic demonstrations of the bitter reality that greed, not self-discipline, rules where unfettered behavior is allowed.

Those who truly understand economics, as did Adam Smith, do not preach an absence of government participation. A market doesn't exist in a vacuum. Rather, a market is a product of laws, rules and enforcement. It needs transparency, capital requirements and fidelity to fiduciary duty. The alternative, as we are seeing, is anarchy.

Read entire article here.

The global collusion to silence dissent

2010-12-22T12:00:00.001-05:00

The feminist loons are at it again, as some of their leading lights join their efforts to those of a quasi-"criminal justice" system, in a common quest to bring down Julian Assange.

And, of course, it all makes sense. Take a man home with you, in fact, take him into your bed, and then charge him with rape, when the sex doesn't come off exactly as you prefer. Did he break through your window and assault you? Were you forcibly pushed into your apartment, as you unlocked your door? Did he drug you against your will? No, to all these speculations. But, to determined man-haters, that's all beside the point.

Proving that not every woman who professes feminist sensibilities is a whack job, author Naomi Wolf takes on the case of Assange and the spurious "rape" charges against him. Or, more accurately, the "rape" allegations. In a caustic letter to Interpol, the so-called international police force, Wolf mocks this ridiculous organization's arrest of Assange and his placement at the top of its "Most Wanted List." Referring to Interpol as the "World's Dating Police," she wrote,

Dear Interpol:
As a longtime feminist activist, I have been overjoyed to discover your new commitment to engaging in global manhunts to arrest and prosecute men who behave like narcissistic jerks to women they are dating.

I see that Julian Assange is accused of having consensual sex with two women, in one case using a condom that broke. I understand, from the alleged victims' complaints to the media, that Assange is also accused of texting and tweeting in the taxi on the way to one of the women's apartments while on a date, and, disgustingly enough, 'reading stories about himself online' in the cab.

Both alleged victims are also upset that he began dating a second woman while still being in a relationship with the first. (Of course, as a feminist, I am also pleased that the alleged victims are using feminist-inspired rhetoric and law to assuage what appears to be personal injured feelings. That's what our brave suffragette foremothers intended!).

Thank you again, Interpol. I know you will now prioritize the global manhunt for 1.3 million guys I have heard similar complaints about personally in the US alone -- there is an entire fraternity at the University of Texas you need to arrest immediately. I also have firsthand information that John Smith in Providence, Rhode Island, went to a stag party -- with strippers! -- that his girlfriend wanted him to skip, and that Mark Levinson in Corvallis, Oregon, did not notice that his girlfriend got a really cute new haircut -- even though it was THREE INCHES SHORTER.

Terrorists. Go get 'em, Interpol!

Yours gratefully,
Naomi Wolf

Is there anything more bitter than a woman scorned? Yes, two women scorned! Julian Assange has had to learn this the hard way.

As a follow-up to her letter, Wolf expressed her outrage at those who are exploiting the tragedy of genuine rape, in order to punish the founder of the WikiLeaks whistle blowing website. Following are excerpts:
• • •
How do I know that Interpol, Britain and Sweden's treatment of Julian Assange is a form of theater? Because I know what happens in rape accusations against men that don't involve the embarrassing of powerful governments.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is in solitary confinement in Wandsworth prison in advance of questioning on state charges of sexual molestation. Lots of people have opinions about the charges. But I increasingly believe that only those of us who have spent years working with rape and sexual assault survivors worldwide, and know the standard legal response to sex crime accusations, fully understand what a travesty this situation is against those who have to live through how sex crime charges are ordinarily handled -- and what a deep, even nauseating insult this situation is to survivors of rape and sexual assault worldwide. ...

I have spent two decades traveling the world reporting on and interviewing survivors of sexual assault, and their advocates, in countries as diverse as Sierra Leone and Morocco, Norway and Holland, Israel and Jordan and the Occupied Territories, Bosnia and Croatia, Britain, Ireland and the United States.

I tell you this as a recorder of firsthand accounts. Tens of thousand of teenage girls were kidnapped at gunpoint and held as sex slaves in Sierra Leone during that country's civil war. They were tied to trees and to stakes in the ground and raped by dozens of soldiers at a time. Many of them were as young as twelve or thirteen. Their rapists are free.

I met a fifteen-year-old girl who risked her life to escape from her captor in the middle of the night, taking the baby that resulted from her rape by hundreds of men. She walked from Liberia to a refugee camp in Sierra Leone, barefoot and bleeding, living on roots in the bush. Her rapist, whose name she knows, is free.

Women -- and girls -- are drugged, kidnapped and trafficked by the tens of thousands for the sex industry in Thailand and across Eastern Europe. They are held as virtual prisoners by pimps. If you interview the women who spend their lives trying to rescue and rehabilitate them, they attest to the fact that these women's kidnappers and rapists are well known to local and even national authorities -- but these men never face charges. These rapists are free.

In the Bosnian conflict, rape was a weapon of war. Women were imprisoned in barracks utilized for this purpose, and raped, again at gunpoint, for weeks at a time. They could not escape. Minimalist hearings after the conflict resulted in slap-on-the-wrist sentences for a handful of perpetrators. The vast majority of rapists, whose names are known, did not face charges. The military who condoned these assaults, whose names are known, are free.

Never in twenty-three years of reporting on and supporting victims of sexual assault around the world have I ever heard of a case of a man sought by two nations, and held in solitary confinement without bail in advance of being questioned -- for any alleged rape, even the most brutal or easily proven. In terms of a case involving the kinds of ambiguities and complexities of the alleged victims' complaints -- sex that began consensually that allegedly became non-consensual when dispute arose around a condom -- please find me, anywhere in the world, another man in prison today without bail on charges of anything comparable. ...

For all the tens of thousands of women who have been kidnapped and raped, raped at gunpoint, gang-raped, raped with sharp objects, beaten and raped, raped as children, raped by acquaintances -- who are still awaiting the least whisper of justice -- the highly unusual reaction of Sweden and Britain to this situation is a slap in the face. It seems to send the message to women in the UK and Sweden that if you ever want anyone to take sex crime against you seriously, you had better be sure the man you accuse of wrongdoing has also happened to embarrass the most powerful government on earth. ...

Interpol, Britain and Sweden must, if they are not to be guilty of hateful manipulation of a serious women's issue for cynical political purposes, imprison as well -- at once -- the hundreds of thousands of men in Britain, Sweden and around the world who are accused in far less ambiguous terms of far graver forms of assault.

Anyone who works in supporting women who have been raped knows from this grossly disproportionate response that Britain and Sweden, surely under pressure from the US, are cynically using the serious issue of rape as a ﬁg leaf to cover the shameful issue of mafioso-like global collusion in silencing dissent. That is not the State embracing feminism. That is the State pimping feminism.

Read complete article here.

Related

The Authoritarian Left Comes Out of the Closet, by Justin Raimondo
How the Left has changed its tune on military interventionism, now that the warmonger Obama is in the driver's seat working to repress dissidents.

The world's war capital

2010-12-22T11:56:00.000-05:00

On his blog, Dennis Mangan conducted a lively discussion about today's American military and nationalist sentiment. He tells how his views on the military have altered over time, as this country's "foreign military adventure has become the American military's main mission." He writes:

The great swath of red state supporters of "our troops" have become dupes in our government's mission of forever being at war abroad, with little discernible national interest involved. On the contrary, I'd say the war in Afghanistan, for example, actively hurts our national interest.

Patriotism, said Johnson, is the last refuge of a scoundrel, and in the U.S., the scoundrels have decidedly taken refuge in it, and have co-opted the real patriots' support of the military into support for their endless wars abroad. One needs to distinguish between the military as a bulwark of the American nation and as a tool of the government, and too many Americans can't make this distinction.

Like most Americans, I've supported the military and had a positive attitude toward it for most of my life, but in recent years I've come to think that the majority of wars that we've fought in our history have been huge mistakes, actions of the government that furthered its own interests, not those of the nation as a whole.

In this same spirit, Brad Birzer, reviewing Tom Engelhardt's book, The American Way of War: How Bush's Wars Became Obama's, for The American Conservative magazine, claims that the relaxation of the Cold War during Ronald Reagan's tenure should have offered the West "some breathing room," that is, "a time to rethink the purpose of our nation and reinvigorate republican ideals."

Instead, Birzer maintains, "the past two decades, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike, have revealed America and the West as morally and spiritually bankrupt. Plunder and torture best symbolize the bloated American Empire of the last 20 years, a force that exists merely for the sake of self-perpetuation." He further observes:
• • •
When voters elected Barack Obama in 2008, his supporters acclaimed him higher than a prophet; he was messianic. ... What the Obama administration has delivered, of course, is not only the continuation of the policies of the previous three administrations but a profound exaggeration of them. If anything, we suffer more violations of our privacy and civil liberties now than at any time during the Bush administration, all in the name of a national-security state that keeps the populace in its place while perpetuating war abroad. ...

[In his book], Tom Englehardt probes deeply into the war culture of Washington, D.C. As Englehardt writes, when it comes to conflict overseas “however contentious the disputes in Washington, however dismally the public viewed the war, however much the president’s war coalition might threaten to crack open, the only choices were between more and more.” More drones, more troops, more nation-building. So much for campaign promises and the new messiah who would end war and poverty permanently.

The first military budget Obama submitted, Engelhardt notes, was larger than the last one tendered by the Bush administration. “Because the United States does not look like a militarized country, it’s hard for Americans to grasp that Washington is a war capital, that the United States is a war state, that it garrisons much of the planet, and that the norm for us is to be at war somewhere (usually, in fact, many places) at any moment.” ...

As further evidence of our degeneration into a martial empire, the U.S. sells 70 percent of the weapons in the international arms trade. In almost every way, Engelhardt contends, the United States precipitates the militarization of the globe.

How far and fast we’ve fallen since the relatively peaceful days of the Reagan era. Four interventionist administrations later, we find ourselves as the leaders of international vice and terror. What happened, Englehardt asks, to the republic our Founders bequeathed to us? What have we done with and to our inheritance? ...

Engelhardt develops the fascinating argument that the history of the past 11 decades is the history of the airplane and our use of it for war, from the Sopwith Camel to the drone piloted remotely out of Las Vegas. In rather Chomsky-like (or perhaps Orwellian) fashion, one of Engelhardt’s later chapters explores the perversion of words in the English language to make the idea of war more palatable for the public and keep perpetual conflict “hidden in plain sight.” Engelhardt claims the Bush administration redefined patriotism and American identity, polarizing the country. Anyone who challenged the war, the Bush line went, must either be a “wuss” or a traitor.

Read complete article here.

Obedient citizens, WikiLeaks, and a delusional foreign policy

2010-12-13T20:56:00.000-05:00

Let's face it. Americans who so willingly accept silence and secrecy from our government rulers do not want the responsibility of thinking too deeply about what others might be doing in their name. Why be forced to make decisions about reprehensible, inhumane actions performed under the guise of patriotism?

How wrong this country's Founders were to believe that its citizens would welcome an open society, in order to keep government functionaries on a leash, to see what they were up to at all times. The Founders sought to insure that these dignitaries, from congressional representatives to military bureaucrats, and their multitude of hirelings, would be answerable to the people, not the other way around.

In Focus on the Policy, Not WikiLeaks, Congressman Ron Paul declares, "In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, however, we are in big trouble." He writes:
• • •
At its core, the WikiLeaks controversy serves as a diversion from the real issue of what our foreign policy should be. But the mainstream media, along with neoconservatives from both political parties, insist on asking the wrong question. When presented with embarrassing disclosures about U.S. spying and meddling, the policy that requires so much spying and meddling is not questioned. Instead, the media focus on how so much sensitive information could have been leaked, or how authorities might prosecute the publishers of such information.

No one questions the status quo or suggests a wholesale rethinking of our foreign policy. No one suggests that the White House or the State Department should be embarrassed that the U.S. engages in spying and meddling. The only embarrassment is that it was made public. This allows ordinary people to actually know and talk about what the government does. But state secrecy is anathema to a free society. Why exactly should Americans be prevented from knowing what their government is doing in their name?

The truth is that our foreign spying, meddling, and outright military intervention in the post–World War II era has made us less secure, not more. And we have lost countless lives and spent trillions of dollars for our trouble. Too often "official" government lies have provided justification for endless, illegal wars and hundreds of thousands of resulting deaths and casualties.

Take the recent hostilities in Korea as only one example. More than fifty years after the end of the Korean War, American taxpayers continue to spend billions for the U.S. military to defend a modern and wealthy South Korea. The continued presence of the U.S. military places American lives between the two factions. The U.S. presence only serves to prolong the conflict, further drain our empty treasury, and place our military at risk. ...

There is always an enemy to slay, whether communist or terrorist. In the neoconservative vision, a constant state of alarm must be fostered among the people to keep them focused on something greater than themselves – namely their great protector, the state. This is why the neoconservative reaction to the WikiLeaks revelations is so predictable: “See, we told you the world was a dangerous place,” goes the story. They claim we must prosecute – or even assassinate – those responsible for publishing the leaks. And we must redouble our efforts to police the world by spying and meddling better, with no more leaks.

We should view the WikiLeaks controversy in the larger context of American foreign policy. Rather than worry about the disclosure of embarrassing secrets, we should focus on our delusional foreign policy. We are kidding ourselves when we believe spying, intrigue, and outright military intervention can maintain our international status as a superpower while our domestic economy crumbles in an orgy of debt and monetary debasement.

Related - More by Ron Paul

Don't Start Another Korean War
South Korean leaders, emboldened by the U.S. protection, seek to provoke North Korean reaction rather than to work for a way to finally end the conflict

The War That's Not a War
The sad story is, this war is against ourselves, our values, our Constitution, our financial well-being and common sense

NPR-NYC and endless race stories

2010-12-12T19:32:00.003-05:00

How painful it must have been for National Public Radio (NPR) to fire a person of color. For a network whose major reason for being centers around pandering to, condescending to, and promoting all racial coloreds (most especially blacks), terminating the contract of Juan Williams, regardless of past gripes with him, must have caused much anguish. It would not be surprising if most of the staff felt inclined to spend some time in counseling.

Here in New York City, NPR programming is distributed through station WNYC, a clone that is indistinguishable from NPR in its icky editorial policies and its overall politics. In listening to the never-ending programs of racial proselytizing and racial handholding, it's hard to know where NPR leaves off and WNYC begins.

There's hardly a program that does not somehow tangentially include some kind of encomium to blacks. No matter the subject, no matter the period in history, no matter the figure under discussion, at least every couple of hours there must be a remembrance of the wrongs done to blacks. To fail to remember such wrongs can only be construed as gross neglect and racism.

When someone like Rush Limbaugh claims that NPR's programming has little to do with blacks, they just don't get it. Yes, white hosts dominate the broadcasts and, yes, they appear to be focusing on what might seem to be white-oriented themes, but listen more closely. There are no two consecutive hours when the racial grievances of the coloreds are not explored. Is there a program about cooking and restaurants? Well, wait until you hear about all those good jobs that were denied to black chefs. Is there a program about camping and outdoor life? Well, wait until you hear about how unwelcome blacks feel in the environment of national parks and the lack of "inclusiveness."

The point is that the whites who listen to NPR-NYC want to hear endless colored sob stories, no matter the initial story themes, and NPR-NYC delivers.

Limbaugh mocks NPR-NYC by claiming that there is only one black-hosted program, "Tell Me More." However, he is wrong. Besides this show, there are two weekend programs hosted by the black Tavis Smiley. On Saturday it's the "Tavis Smiley" show, and on Sundays Smiley co-hosts another program with Princeton Professor Cornel West. Both programs are non-stop colored grievance machines.

What Limbaugh does not understand is that there is no need for black hosts, since the white ones will do more than their share to keep the colored themes prominent. After all, whites love this stuff, so obviously it's good for ratings.

Even when a story focuses on a white figure, such as a popular sportsman, who has been accused of indiscreet or immoral conduct, the underlying idea conveyed is that it's not only black men who are "bad boys." Look at that bad, immoral white man!

As part of the daily pablum, ways are found to elevate the public image of the coloreds, while denigrating traditions or customs attributed to whites. After all, what kind of customs could be worthy of praise if those customs failed to include colored people?

One of my favorite NPR-NYC programs was cited in my 2008 post, Those quaint Indians, in which the white host was flummoxed when two men from India insisted that they preferred to return to their homeland to choose wives from among their own race and traditions. What could be more politically incorrect than such a notion? Is there a greater no-no among the NPR-NYC crowd than disdaining full and total integration? You refuse to mix it up socially? Won't date someone of another race? Well, now, we all know what that makes you!

Do we find enlightenment in any of this programming? On a recent Smiley-West show, a black man called in to tell the truth about who he has to worry about whenever he's on the streets, that is, other blacks who only want to "take from him" and harm him. And what is Brother Cornel West's response to such frankness? He informs the caller that the reason for this seemingly negative behavior on the part of blacks is due to the 19th century Confederacy, where blacks were "terrorized and traumatized." And that, Brothers and Sisters, is your enlightenment for the day.

Needless to say, sacred organizations like the NAACP and the many other civil rights bloviaters, who preach the party line on race, are prominent, frequent guests on NPR-NYC. The black-hosted "Tell Me More," includes "The Barbershop," a segment that is laden with conventional civil rights stories. You might think that you've bumped across some re-play of an old 1970s tape when listening to the whining about "injustice," but, no, it's just another day in the life of NPR-NYC.

Related

Dredging up the past - Part 2

Sweden's folly

2010-12-12T16:11:00.000-05:00

And so we learn of the reality that has come to Sweden. Having avoided terrorist attacks in the past, two explosions on December 11, in busy shopping centers in Stockholm, brought an end to the calm.

Such attacks can no longer come as a surprise to those countries that, like Sweden, are aiding and abetting the Americans' wars against Middle East Arabs. Ongoing assaults will probably become as common in foreign lands as attacks against the invading American troops in Arab territories. Arabs are simply saying to the Swedes, "If you join with our U.S. enemy to help them in their invasions against us, then you, too, will pay the price."

Or, to use the very words of the recorded email message sent by those responsible for the Stockholm attacks: “Now, your children — daughters and sisters — will die like our brothers and sisters and children die."

Would Americans consider this unreasonable, if a years-long invasion was underway on U.S. soil and Canada allied with the invaders and sent its troops to help kill Americans?

Last month, Sweden's foolish prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt claimed that plans were underway to withdraw Swedish combat forces from Afghanistan over the next four years. Four years?! Now how much terrorist damage do you think can be done to the Swedish people over four years? The Swedes ought to run Reinfeldt out of town.

These years of military actions, in which thousands of young American men have died and tens of thousands of Arabs have perished, are totally meaningless to the American cause. They are for nothing! What possible meaning can this gross injustice hold for the Swedes? What folly.

Keep the myth alive

2010-12-12T16:08:00.000-05:00

Do we have to do this again? Every single year, in December?

Well, yes, the story with its assorted lies must be told over and over, to make sure it remains part of the American myth. What else makes white men feel so good about themselves other than that monumental WWII, that supposedly saved the world? The war where they got to kill off hundreds of thousands of other white men, along with some yellow ones -- for the sake of what exactly? Perhaps just for the sake of being able to brag to future generations about their superior courage and military prowess, and to make all those repetitious and insufferable Hollywood war movies.

In It’s Pearl Harbor Day – Trot Out the Official Fable, Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute informs us that historians have long known that the true story of the war with Japan was nothing like the "patriotic fable dispensed each year on December 7 for popular consumption." In two insightful articles, Higgs offers detailed accounts of the facts having to do with America's Beloved War on both fronts. See How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor and How Americans Have Been Misled about World War II.

Higgs writes: "It behooves every educated American to learn this honest history and to pass it along to others when an opportunity arises, because the myth has long contributed, and continues to contribute, to a false view of the U.S. place in the world and to a grave misunderstanding of U.S. foreign policy.

"Ceaseless dissemination and widespread acceptance of this view is the very model of how the U.S. government tends to do foreign policy: provoke foreigners to attack Americans, then tell the American people that foreigners have attacked us for no reason and therefore we must strike back to defeat them or at least to teach them a lesson about treating the United States with deference."

Oh, yes, show deference to the USA! USA! USA! Or else.

Twenty years of offshoring and nine years of pointless US wars

2010-12-12T16:02:00.000-05:00

Will it ever be possible to return the American economy to what it was like when the U.S. was a leading manufacturer of goods? Or does offshoring spell doom for the American future? And is China really the problem?

In American Job Loss Is Permanent, economist Paul Craig Roberts talks about the advocates of globalism who, over the years, have insisted that the offshoring of jobs by U.S. corporations increases employment and wages in the U.S. Economist Matthew Slaughter and William Cohen, a former Bill Clinton Cabinet member, have actually made this claim. In Cohen's words: “The fact is that for every job outsourced to Bangalore, nearly two jobs are created in Buffalo and other American cities.” Roberts wonders just where are these jobs in Buffalo, which no one has yet been able to locate. He writes:
• • •
The claim that jobs offshoring by US corporations increases domestic employment in the US is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated. ... Slaughter reached his erroneous conclusion by counting the growth in multinational jobs in the U.S. without adjusting the data to reflect the acquisition of existing firms by multinationals and for existing firms turning themselves into multinationals by establishing foreign operations for the first time. There was no new multinational employment in the U.S. ...

Over the last decade, the net new jobs created in the U.S. have nothing to do with multinational corporations. The jobs consist of waitresses and bartenders, health care and social services (largely ambulatory health care), retail clerks, and, while the bubble lasted, construction.

These are not the high-tech, high-paying jobs that the “New Economy” promised, and they are not jobs that can be associated with global corporations. Moreover, these domestic service jobs are themselves scarce. ...

To keep eyes off of the loss of jobs to offshoring, policymakers and their minions in the financial press blame US unemployment on alleged currency manipulation by China and on the financial crisis. The financial crisis itself is blamed by Republicans on low income Americans who took out mortgages that they could not afford.

In other words, the problem is China and the greedy American poor who tried to live above their means. With this being the American mindset, you can see why nothing can be done to save the economy.

No government will admit its mistakes, especially when it can blame foreigners. China is being made the scapegoat for American failure. An entire industry has grown up that points its finger at China and away from 20 years of corporate offshoring of US jobs and 9 years of expensive and pointless US wars. ...

The major cause of the US trade deficit with China is “globalism” or the practice, enforced by Wall Street and Wal-Mart, of US corporations offshoring their production for US markets to China in order to improve the bottom line by lowering labor costs. Most of the tariffs that the congressional idiots want to put on “Chinese” imports would, therefore, fall on the offshored production of US corporations. When these American brand goods, such as Apple computers, are brought to US markets, they enter the US as imports. Thus, the tariffs will be applied to US corporate offshored output as well as to the exports of Chinese companies to the US.

The correct conclusion is that the US trade deficit with China is the result of “globalism” or jobs offshoring, not Chinese currency manipulation.

Read complete article here.

Uncle Sam soldiers on

2010-11-29T20:49:00.001-05:00

"We can’t let go," says Pat Buchanan, referring to this country's unnecessary wars and military interventions, "because we don’t know what else to do. We live in yesterday — and our rivals look to tomorrow."

This country's "patriotic" Anglo-Euro men, who love so much to fight, live in the past, and will go to war and stay at war for anyone who comes along and pulls their "USA!" chain. Throw in some sentimental jargon about "God," and you've got them hooked. As one soldier recently indicated, all a recognized "leader" has to do is point said soldier in the direction of a so-called enemy, and he becomes a willing killer. So what if it was all a mistake? No questions asked. At least it keeps unemployed men like him occupied.

This warrior has been a willing tool to fight and die a worthless death for the safety of Israel, like a good goy boy. Now we learn that Saudis, Arabs, mind you, are calling on this eager American soldier to risk his life by attacking Iran. No doubt, Mr. Tough Marine will be just as willing to die or be maimed and deformed for the benefit of A-rabs. And next will come the Koreans -- again. Just give him a weapon and point him in the direction . . . . No questions asked.

For how much longer will the world tolerate this imperial behavior on the part of these self-indulgent American "patriots?" Here are excerpts from Buchanan's latest column, Why Are We Still in Korea?:
• • •
Fifty-seven years after that armistice [in Korea, June 1953], a U.S. carrier task force is steaming toward the Yellow Sea in a show of force after the North fired 80 shells into a South Korean village. We will stand by our Korean allies, says President Obama. And with our security treaty and 28,000 U.S. troops in South Korea, many on the DMZ, we can do no other. But why, 60 years after the first Korean War, should Americans be the first to die in a second Korean War?

Unlike 1950, South Korea is not an impoverished ex-colony of Japan. She is the largest of all the “Asian tigers,” a nation with twice the population and 40 times the economy of the North. Seoul just hosted the G-20. And there is no Maoist China or Stalinist Soviet Union equipping Pyongyang’s armies. The planes, guns, tanks and ships of the South are far superior in quality.

Why, then, are we still in South Korea? Why is this quarrel our quarrel? Why is this war, should it come, America’s war?

High among the reasons we fought in Korea was Japan, then a nation rising from the ashes after half its cities had been reduced to rubble. But, for 50 years now, Japan has had the second largest economy and is among the most advanced nations on earth. Why cannot Japan defend herself? Why does this remain our responsibility, 65 years after MacArthur took the surrender in Tokyo Bay? ...

Why, when the Cold War has been over for 20 years, do all these Cold War alliances still exist?

Obama has just returned from a Lisbon summit of NATO, an alliance formed in 1949 to defend Western Europe from Soviet tank armies on the other side of the Iron Curtain that threatened to roll to the Channel. Today, that Red Army no longer exists, the captive nations are free, and Russia’s president was in Lisbon as an honored guest of NATO.

Yet we still have tens of thousands of U.S. troops in the same bases they were in when Gen. Eisenhower became supreme allied commander more than 60 years ago. Across Europe, our NATO allies are slashing defense to maintain social safety nets. But Uncle Sam, he soldiers on.

We borrow from Europe to defend Europe. We borrow from Japan and China to defend Japan from China. We borrow from the Gulf Arabs to defend the Gulf Arabs. ...

How to explain why America behaves as she does? ... Like an aging athlete, we keep trying to relive the glory days when all the world looked with awe upon us. We can’t let go, because we don’t know what else to do. We live in yesterday — and our rivals look to tomorrow.

What might have been

2010-11-29T20:39:00.002-05:00

On September 10, 2001, I announced on the Issues & Views website the formation of a unique coalition whose aim would be to make war on the "War on Drugs." This was on September 10, just one day before Doomsday. September 11, of course, would force the postponement and outright termination of so many prospective events and potential good works.

The new organization that did not get to breathe life was to be part of the Free Congress Foundation's "Coalition for Constitutional Liberties," and was initiated by an array of conservative thinkers and activists. It had the blessings of such stalwarts as Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum. Eagle Forum chapters in Wisconsin, Nevada, North Carolina, Texas and Tennessee were to play leading roles in helping to expand the Coalition's reach. Among the more than two dozen groups allied with the Coalition were the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, and the Republican Leadership Council.

On September 10, Weyrich released this statement, which was sent directly to Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

We are part of a broad coalition of groups concerned that the war on drugs has degraded our privacy and civil liberties. We respectfully ask that the members of Committee consider raising the following privacy and civil liberties issues in connection with the nomination of John Walters to be the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (Office of the White House).

We intend by issuing this letter to signal neither support nor opposition to Mr. Walters' nomination. Rather, we are issuing this letter to urge members of the Committee to explore these issues in connection with Mr. Walters' nomination. As we set forth below, these issues include the use of new surveillance and investigative technologies, including the Carnivore/DCS1000 and Echelon systems, the "Know Your Customer" proposal of the Financial Action Task Force, asset forfeiture abuses, wiretaps and the drug war's sometimes corrupting influence on law enforcement itself.

Little did these concerned citizens know what was on the horizon, as they expressed alarm over the potential of everyone becoming a "drug suspect" due to heavy-handed government intrusions into privacy. Given what the American people are now experiencing, how quaint seem the members of this Coalition, as they complained about Amtrak giving DEA officials access to its ticketing database, along with passengers' last names, destinations, method of payment, and data on whether they were going one-way or round trip. Would any of these worthy patriots back then ever have conceived of airport body scanners?

In concluding my article on the activities planned by the Coalition, I asked, "Is it too much to hope that some day there might be a light at the end of this dark tunnel now ruled over by the DEA, BATF, FBI, and sundry other bureaucracies?" Well, yes, it was too much to hope for, as the tunnel has grown darker than ever.

Seven years of hell

2010-11-14T12:24:00.001-05:00

The warnings were there early on. Think whatever you wish about Saddam Hussein, yet those with an understanding of the Middle East warned back in 2003, that it was his strong-arm policies that prevented Iraq's diverse religious groups from harming one another. Hussein himself told his executioners that they would be sorry when they dispensed with him due to the social disorder that inevitably would prevail upon his death.

In The Murderers of Christianity, Pat Buchanan tells us who is really responsible for the November 1 massacre of Iraqi Christians. Following are excerpts:
• • •
It was the worst massacre of Christians yet. For Assyrian Catholics known as Chaldeans, whose ancestors were converted by St. Thomas the Apostle, the U.S. war of liberation has been seven years of hell. Estimates of the number of Christians in Iraq in 2003 vary from 800,000 to 1.5 million. But hundreds of thousands have fled since the invasion. Seven of the 14 churches in Baghdad have closed, and two-thirds of the city’s 500,000 Christians are gone.

While Saddam Hussein, a secularist, had protected religious minorities, Muslim vigilantes — Shia, Sunni and Kurd, as well as al-Qaida — have attacked the Christians who have endured kidnappings, pillage, rapes, beheadings and assassinations.

And what has happened to this Christian community, which had lived peacefully alongside Muslim neighbors for centuries, must be marked down as one of the predictable and predicted consequences of America’s war in Iraq. In editor Tom Fleming’s Chronicles, just days before President Bush ordered the invasion, columnist Wayne Allensworth warned pointedly:

“Iraqi Christians fear they will be the first victims of a war that might dismember their country, unleashing ethnic and religious conflicts that Baghdad had previously suppressed. ... The Shiite uprising in southern Iraq during the first Gulf War — encouraged and then abandoned by Washington — targeted Christians. Many Christians had supported Saddam’s regime, in spite of creeping Islamicization, as their best hope of survival in the Islamic Middle East.”

Why is Christianity being murdered in its cradle by Muslim fanatics?

Multiple reasons. A return of Islamic militancy. The rise of ethnic nationalism that conflates tribal and religious identity. Hatred of America for its domination of the region, for our war on terror that they see as a war on Islam and for our support of Israel in its suppression of the Palestinians.

Christians across the Middle East are now seen as both members of an alien religion and a fifth column of the Crusaders inside their camp. Paul Marshall of Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom warns that we may be in another great wave of persecution, “as Christians flee the Palestinian areas, Lebanon, Turkey, and Egypt.” Christians are gone from Jerusalem, gone from Nazareth, gone from Bethlehem. From Egypt to Iran, the Vatican counts 17 million left. ...

America remains the most Christianized of the Western nations. Yet, the protests of the White House, State Department and major media over the eradication of Christianity in the Middle East is muted. ...

Of what worth these wars for democracy if we end up freeing fanatics to annihilate communities or expel populations of our own Christian brothers and sisters across the Middle East?

Read complete article here.

The joy of killing, and Don't ask treasonous questions

2010-11-14T12:14:00.004-05:00

Power corrupts, but does the military corrupt absolutely? Former military man (Vietnam veteran) Fred Reed offers his observations on a General's recent comments. With this new head of Central Command for a leader, what's to become of the young soldiers? Is this to be their model as they prepare to invade all those other Middle East and African countries that are sorely in need of Liberation -- Yemen, Iran, Somalia, etc? (Did I leave out a few?)

In Psychopathy Legitimized, Reed, who is no pansy, nor antiwar, expresses the view of many current and former soldiers -- at least, those who have not yet gone over to the Dark Side. Following are excerpts:

• • •
On Antiwar.com, I find a loutish American general, James Mattis, martial feminist, talking about the fun he has killing Afghans. Yes, fun, wheeee-oooo! and ooo-rah! too. He says, “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” adding “guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyways. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.” What must he do with prisoners?

A joyous killer, possibly orgasmic. Note mandatory flagly background, pickle suit, and stupid colorful gewgaws so he looks like a goddam stamp collection. Stern gaze is necessary to become a general. From defending the Constitution to the pleasure of watching Afghans die: The military has come a long way.

I’ll guess he fell just shy of graduating from third grade. He sure ain’t much of a general, no ways, I reckon. Just the fellow I want representing me in the world.

Does General Dworkin-Mattis speak of manhood? Odd, since his military is being badly outfought by the unmanly Afghans that are fun to kill. By the Pentagon’s figures the US military outnumbers the resistance several to one. The US has complete control of the air, enjoying F16s, helicopter gun-ships, transport choppers, and Predator drones, as well as armor, body armor, night-vision gear, heavy weaponry, medevac, hospitals, good food, and PXs. The Afghans have only AKs, RPGs, C4, and balls. Yet they are winning, or at least holding their own. How glorious.

Man for man, weapon for weapon, the Taliban are clearly superior. They take far heavier casualties, but keep on fighting. Their politics are not mine, but they are formidable on the ground. If I were General Dworkin, I’d change my name and go into hiding. Maybe he could wear a veil.

Perhaps the US should recognize that it has a second-rate military at phenomenal cost – an enormous, largely useless national codpiece. It is embarrassing. The Pentagon’s preferred enemies are lightly armed, poorly equipped peasants, which makes for a long war and thus hundreds of billions of dollars in juicy contracts for military industries. Yet the greatest military in history (ask it) gets run out of Southeast Asia, blown up and run out of Lebanon, shot down and run out of Somalia, with Afghanistan a disaster in progress and Iraq claimed as an American victory rather than Shiite. Do the aircraft carriers intimidate North Korea? No. Iran? No. China? No. For this, a trillion dollars a year? ...

Now, it is regarded as treasonous to question that Our Boys are the best trained, best armed, toughest troops in the world, and I’ll probably get punched out in bars for pointing out the awful truth. Let’s imagine an experiment. We take Killing-is-Fun General Mattis-Abzug, and a thousand GIs, and a thousand Taliban, and let them fight it out in any patch of wretched barren mountains of your choosing. On equal terms. What you think? Same weapons.

Good idea, General? You eat what they eat, wear what they wear, they have no medical care, and neither do you. If they get lung-shot and die the hard way, you do too. It will come down to guts and motivation.

Motivation: It counts, general. I believe it was Bedford Forrest who said of some of his troops, “Them cane-brake boys jest plain likes to fight.” I guess there must be just a whole lot of cane in Afghanistan. The Taliban will go to any length to cut your freaking throat because you have been killing their wives and children, fathers and brothers, and you will fight for… for…well. Uh. Big oil, AIPAC, Ann Coulter. Or a promotion for General Mathis-Abzug. Anybody want to put odds on the outcome?

And General, killing them might be a tad less fun when you couldn’t do it from the safety of a gunship. Just a thought, General. ...

Funny how things look if you think about them. Patriots talk about the tragic deaths of young Americans in Afghanistan. Well, okay. Other things being equal, young guys getting shot to death in a pointless war is not a swell idea. I’m against it. In fact, the more you see of it, and I’ve seen a lot, the worse an idea it seems. Of course, a logician might point out that if you didn’t send them to Afghanistan, they wouldn’t die there – would they?

Read complete article here.

The dying of Europe's light

2010-10-20T21:36:00.000-04:00

"Like all of Europe," writes Pat Buchanan, "Germany grows nervous." Are Germans finally, this late in the day, growing nervous about the five million Muslims, among other foreign groups, they have allowed to populate their country since the 1960s?

In Tribalism Returns to Europe, Buchanan describes the grim consequences of the glorious mosaic of multicultural diversity, that was supposed to bring harmony and progress to European nations. How was it ever possible to put aside common sense and buy the notion that a homogeneous people, one of shared history, language, values and disciplines, could benefit from the intrusion of heterogeneous masses of foreigners?

Because the United States was forced to make the best of its unique circumstances, as it dealt from the beginning with several existing ethnic groups, did observers come to think that this was normal? Did others not take notice that during America's best years a common culture prevailed, guided and steered by a dominant Anglo-Euro authority and sensibility? Although beset with social frictions, the country was not confronted with the challenge of an alien civilization in its midst.

In The Multicultural Cult, Thomas Sowell reminds us that, "In countries around the world, and over the centuries, peoples with jarring differences in language, cultures and values have been a major problem and, too often, sources of major disasters for the societies in which they co-exist." He mocks "the cult that has spawned mindless rhapsodies about 'diversity,' without a speck of evidence to substantiate its supposed benefits."

Of course, those who have been following this migrant scenario, know that it's much too late for Germany or any other European country to turn back the clock, as Buchanan has been warning for at least a couple of decades. Globalism may be "in retreat before tribalism," yet, he writes, "Germany’s problem is insoluble. She is running out of Germans. ... For not one European nation, save Iceland and Albania, has had a birth rate for decades that is not below zero population growth. Baby boomer Europe decided in the 1960s and 1970s it wanted La Dolce Vita, not the hassle of children. It had that sweet life. Now the bill comes due. And the bill is the end of their tribes and countries as we have known them."

In Europe, are the populist and nationalist stirrings of recent years just the last protests of those ethnically conscious whites who are, as Buchanan puts it, "raging against the dying of the light?"

Joseph Sobran, R.I.P.

2010-10-03T14:25:00.006-04:00

And so, Joe Sobran has left us, at age 64. Why not at 84 or 94? Why so soon? Unfortunately, ill health had slowed his pen during recent years, and many of us had already come to feel bereft of his profound ideas and insights.

I discovered Joe in the 1980s, in those pre-Internet browser days, and remember how I looked forward to each edition of his hard copy newsletter, as well as his column in The Wanderer newspaper. Because I sought out publications that carried his work, I inadvertently wound up learning a lot about the internal struggles going on in the Roman Catholic Church. I'm sure I learned more than I needed to know about particular disputes, like those between the editors of The Wanderer and The Remnant, but it was all enlightening and expanded my education in unexpected ways.

Joe was a fount of knowledge when it came to dissecting the neoconservative takeover and insidious sabotage of this country's conservative movement – the movement I thought I had joined. He was to pay dearly, via a form of secular ex-communication, for his candid observations on these perverters of conservative principles. "Never before," he wrote, "has enthusiasm for concentrated power and violent change been regarded as a conservative trait."

Here are excerpts from a column by Joe, in 2001:

Many of my favorite books are books that shook me up, even angered me, when I first read them. One of these is The Present Age, by the late Robert Nisbet. I knew Bob Nisbet slightly, and he was kind to me, especially considering what a young fool I was. He had the wisdom to know that a young fool can often be transformed by time alone. Or, as the poet William Blake put it, “If the fool would persist in his folly, he would become wise.”

Nisbet, a distinguished sociologist and conservative philosopher, published The Present Age in 1988. Though he hated Communism, he harbored a profound skepticism about the Cold War. In 1988 I still didn’t see how a man could hold both attitudes at the same time. Yet I respected Bob Nisbet enough to listen when he said things I didn’t want to hear.

Chief among those things was this: If the Founders of the American Republic could come back today, they would be most astounded, among all the vast changes that time has wrought, by the militarization of the United States. Since World War I, this country has been totally transformed by war and constant preparation for war.

American militarism has been the chief force in changing a decentralized federal republic into a centralized, bureaucratic monolith. During World War I the United States underwent an amazingly swift metamorphosis. World War II accelerated the alteration. The Cold War completed the transformation from isolated republic to global empire. We became inured to limitless government in the name of “defense” and “national security.”

The shock of September 11 has disposed countless Americans to accept, without demurral or reservation, the claim of new powers by the Federal Government — particularly by the executive branch.

But this disposition was made possible by a new tradition of equating patriotism with militarism, and militarism with “defense.” Most of us no longer recognize the new tradition as a break with our original tradition. So we beg the Federal Government to protect us from terrorism, even if that means letting it usurp powers never assigned or allowed to it.

Instead of asking ourselves the pragmatic question, “How can we defeat terrorism?” we should be asking ourselves the more basic question, “Is this the kind of situation we should let ourselves be maneuvered into?” How did a country that was once determined to remain aloof from the endless conflicts of the Old World manage to get itself embroiled in, of all things, the medieval Crusades?

It’s no concern of mine whether Osama bin Laden speaks with the voice of authentic Islam (whatever that may be) or as a crank who happens to have a lot of followers who have the means and determination to kill people I love. Either way, I want him stopped. The sooner the better.

But — and here’s the rub — stopping him may also create more like him. No doubt the U.S. military campaign will deter countless people from trying to emulate him, but it will also have the opposite effect on a few. And a few terrorists or guerrillas are enough to make a lot of trouble, as we have already seen.

The state of Israel has been cracking down on terrorism, hard, for thirty years. Has it worked? The problem is worse than ever. And that’s what we can expect over the next few decades if our own government follows Israel’s example. If we persist in our folly, will we become wise?
•
And more Sobran reflections from a column in 2002:

The Bush administration's threat to use nuclear weapons against Iraq, though thinly veiled in circumlocutions, should tell us all we need to know about the American image in the world today.

The United States, once so admired over most of the earth, is now seen as a nuclear bully. No wonder it's called "the great Satan" by Muslims and "arrogant" even by its European friends. And President Bush thinks they hate us for "our freedom, our democracy"?

The warning is supposed to deter Iraq from using weapons of mass destruction against American forces and allies, even though (1) we don't know that Iraq has such weapons, and (2) the administration has told us repeatedly that deterrence doesn't work against Iraq.

Iraq hasn't threatened the United States, in spite of Bush's raving on the subject. The United States definitely threatens Iraq. And it has forfeited the right to describe Iraq's or any other regime as "evil."

For decades Americans have worried about nukes falling into "the wrong hands," as if there were "right hands" for weapons of mass murder. Well, those weapons are in the wrong hands now: Bush's hands.

Maybe we should distinguish microterrorism, the terrorism of scattered groups of stateless, relatively helpless people with few other options, from the macroterrorism used by powerful states to back up their huge conventional military forces. When there were two superpowers, each had the plausible excuse of deterrence for amassing nuclear arsenals. Now that excuse is gone: the United States is the only superpower left. And it's still using its nukes.

Maybe it will be said that Bush doesn't really intend to use them. But he is already using them. When a bank robber points a pistol at the teller, he's using it, even if he doesn't fire it. He's also terrifying the bystanders, as Bush is doing.

Though history allegedly ended over a decade ago, we should notice that the U.S. Government is out of control, and it continues to make enemies frequently and unpredictably. Who imagined, when its army was bogged down in Vietnam, that it would go on to wage war (or "keep peace"), not long afterward, from Lebanon to Panama to Iraq to Serbia to Afghanistan and back to Iraq? Does anyone care to place a bet on where it will make future enemies?

The Inspiration of Joe Sobran, by Paul E. Gottfried

Joe Sobran: Martyr for truth, by Stephen J. Sniegoski

Joseph Sobran, Writer Whom Buckley Mentored, Dies at 64, by William Grimes, New York Times

Glenn Beck's carnival of repentance

2010-09-20T06:25:00.001-04:00

See my article, Carnival of Repentance: The Outcome of American Conservatism, at Alternative Right

Excerpt:
One has to wonder who these people are who will march on Washington to "restore" the country's "honor," as the rally's theme boasted, yet are in the forefront of supporting some of the most dishonorable acts engaged in by their country's interchangeable governments. Just what is special about the moral convictions of these advocates, who fervently sermonize on such issues as patriotism, war, family life, religion, the nature of government, ad nauseam?

Related

See The Infantilization of American Conservatism, by Paul Gottfried:

Excerpts

[Conservative] critics of the Left cannot bring themselves to find fault with any excess in the Civil Rights movement -- and especially not with its far leftist icon Martin Luther King. “Conservatives” are so terrified of being called “racists” or for that matter, sexists or homophobes, that they devote themselves tirelessly to showing they are just as sensitive as the next PC robot. ...

Such faux conservatives accuse long-dead Democratic presidents, who were well to the right of the current conservative movement, of being more radical than they actually were. It would be no exaggeration to say that Wilson and FDR were far more reactionary than any celebrity in the Tea Party movement. One could only imagine what such antediluvian Democrats would have said if they had heard last year’s “Conservative of the Year,” chosen by Human Events, Dick Cheney, weeping all over the floor about not allowing gays to marry each other. ...

The Tea Party sounds so often like the Left because it is for the most part a product of the Left. Its people were educated in public schools, watch mass entertainment, and have absorbed most of the leftist values of the elite class, to whose rule they object only quite selectively.

Usurping control of the Tea Parties

2010-08-19T22:44:00.002-04:00

Among the more interesting diversions these days is watching the Tea Party evolve, or devolve, depending on your point of view. It's no more than a couple of years old and yet "histories" of the origin of this movement are multiplying.

During the Mark Williams fiasco, we saw his version of the Party, i.e., the Tea Party Express, take a thrashing from leaders of something called the Tea Party Federation, which identified itself as a sort of "umbrella" group for all the Tea Parties.

Williams vigorously claimed that, as the co-founder of the Tea Party Express, he had never heard of the Tea Party Federation, and, further, the first time he heard of his group's membership in the "Federation" was when he was thrown out of said "Federation." He described the Tea Party movement as "millions of tea partiers involved in thousands of groups," and claimed that, "Every tea partier is a tea party leader." Translated this means that no group has power over another and certainly has no power to expel anyone from the movement.

But we all knew that nothing works that way for very long, didn't we? And it wasn't long before the proclaimed "leaders" began to emerge.

The Daily Bell offers an enlightening look at another maneuver to influence the direction of the Tea Parties. In Dick Armey's Tea-Party Coup, we learn of the recent activities of the former Congressman. Following are excerpts:
• • •
A number of months ago, we wrote a good many articles about the Tea Party movement. Along with everyone else we were trying to figure out what it was about and why there seemed to be several different movements and no real way of determining who was in charge or what the message was. ...

Fortunately, Dick Armey is willing to set us straight. Here is the history, as he recites it: "Today the ranks of this citizen rebellion can be counted in the millions. The rebellion's name derives from the glorious rant of CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, who in February 2009 called for a new 'tea party' from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. By doing so he reminded all of us that America was founded on the revolutionary principle of citizen participation, citizen activism and the primacy of the individual over the government. That's the tea party ethos."

Actually, as we understand it, the Tea Party phenomenon was inspired by the libertarian-republicanism of the Ron Paul presidential campaign that created small activist cells. Rick Santelli – and we have seen his "glorious rant" – had nothing to do with this spontaneous manifestation of anti-state protesting. Santelli's TV statement came much later. The reason we have concentrated on [Armey's] article is because it is a superb example of how the mainstream media reworks memes to make them palatable and useful to the powers-that-be.

The Tea Party, initially, was an amorphous and generalized uprising against the modern welfare/warfare state. It was libertarian in nature and fairly specific about its point of view. Today, that specificity has been mislaid (perhaps the movement is too big for one point of view) and the mythmaking has begun. Thus the Murdoch-controlled Wall Street Journal provides a vast platform for the appropriate tale. And Dick Armey provides it. (In fact Murdoch's media organization is also publisher of a book that Armey has written – Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto.)

Here is the insider's insider, a man who served as Majority Leader of the House of Representatives for a number of years and then as a $750,000 per annum lobbyist (a berth he has now vacated). Yet Armey, by dint of his connections, ability to raise funds and incessant ambition to shape the political horizon to his liking, has attempted to remake himself as political "outsider" and in the process has seemingly launched a takeover of the inchoate Tea Party. (He denies this of course and regularly emphasizes the Tea Party has no leadership – but certainly he is available to help.)

Not only has he somehow become a high profile, de facto leader of a movement and a definer of the history of a movement that deliberately has no organizational core, he has somehow managed to link himself to a Contract From America that many so-called Tea Party political candidates have "signed." The idea is that the Contract From America emerged out of the inchoate opinions of thousands of Tea Party activists and then were codified by Armey and his staff a the Tea-Party oriented Freedomworks, which he founded in the mid 2000s. ...

The military-industrial complex [whose expenditures are not mentioned in the Contract From America] is one of the largest appendages of the modern American warfare-welfare state. The lack of inclusion of central banking and military expenditures makes this Contract From America fairly useless in our humble opinion.

In fact, from our perspective, this article grants the opportunity to see clearly how a power elite dominant social theme is shaped in modern times. Murdoch provides the platform. Dick Armey poses as a radical Libertarian and rewrites history to his liking.

Read the Contract From America and the rest of this article here.

Statistical differences as grievances

2010-08-15T16:57:00.002-04:00

Did you know that baseball coaches of minority races are found more often coaching at first base than at third base? (Now what might this mean?!) And further, the third-base coaches become team Managers more often than first-base coaches. (Aha!) From the 1964 Civil Rights Act straight to the lunacy of today's quotas and discrimination lawsuits, one never knows what to expect next.

In Bean-Counters and Baloney, Thomas Sowell shows how the multiculturalists' relentless recitation of statistics is driven only by the desire to demonstrate "social injustices." No matter what! Nothing, of course, must suggest that there are genuine differences between and among ethnic and racial groups. Following are excerpts:
• • •
The bean-counters have struck again – this time in the sports pages. Two New York Times sport writers have discovered that baseball coaches from minority groups are found more often coaching at first base than at third base. Moreover, third-base coaches become managers more often than first-base coaches.

This may seem to be just another passing piece of silliness. But it is part of a more general bean-counting mentality that turns statistical differences into grievances. The time is long overdue to throw this race card out of the deck and start seeing it for the gross fallacy that it is.

At the heart of such statistics is the implicit assumption that different races, sexes and other subdivisions of the human species would be proportionately represented in institutions, occupations and income brackets if there was not something strange or sinister going on.

Although this notion has been repeated by all sorts of people, from local loudmouths on the street to the august chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States, there is not one speck of evidence behind it and a mountain of evidence against it.

Ask the bean-counters where in this wide world have different groups been proportionally represented. They can't tell you. In other words, something that nobody can demonstrate is taken as a norm, and any deviation from that norm is somebody's fault! ...

At our leading engineering schools – M.I.T., CalTech, etc. – whites are under-represented and Asians over-represented. Is this anti-white racism or pro-Asian racism? Or are different groups just different?

As for baseball, I have long noticed that there are more blacks playing centerfield than third-base. Since the same people hire centerfielders and third-basemen, it is hard to argue that racism explains the difference. No one says it is racism that explains why blacks are over-represented and whites under-represented in basketball. Bean-counters only make a fuss when there is a disparity that fits their vision or their agenda. ...

In countries around the world, all sorts of groups differ from each other in all sorts of ways, from rates of alcoholism to infant mortality, education and virtually everything that can be measured, as well as in some things that cannot be quantified. If black and white Americans were the same, they would be the only two groups on this planet who are the same. ...

The bean-counters are everywhere, pushing the idea that differences show injustices committed by society. As long as we keep buying it, they will keep selling it – and the polarization they create will sell this country down the river.

Read complete article here.

Dr. Laura joins the ranks of the fainthearted

2010-08-13T22:11:00.001-04:00

So, even the supposedly tough-minded talk show host Laura Schlessinger dissolves like putty when confronted with the noise of disapproval coming from the multicultural mob, for her use of the proscribed "Nigger" word. But what else could we expect on the heels of the black woman who telephoned the show, to get advice about her own "racist" white husband, his relatives and friends?

We've learned that even the take-no-prisoners Dr. Laura now accepts the notion that there is ONE word in the English language that is allowed to be spoken by members of only ONE group. Can we expect her to join with those insufferable whites who delight in telling of their disdain for the taboo word, and how they refuse to use it under any circumstances? "I won't even say it in private," they proudly prattle on, waiting for the pat of approval.

Dr. Laura might as well join in the campaign already underway to abolish the word "Nigger" from the lips of all non-blacks. Perhaps she will endorse a federal law to punish any non-black caught spewing it. This could sort of be an expansion of the New York City Council's Resolution of 2007, in which the public use of the word was symbolically "banned." Of course, this ban has meant nothing to those blacks who practice no restraint in their use of the prohibited term and are primarily responsible for extending its life, by keeping the epithet fresh in the popular lexicon.

Here are whites running from the accursed expression, while blacks fill New York City's air with it, and even sanctify the word. The gay website Queerty.com had fun by mocking the Council's ridiculous Resolution. Claiming that New York City was soon to be a "Nigger-free zone," the editor asked, "If the council's all about cleaning up people's politically incorrect potty mouths, where are the bans on spic, faggot, kike, chink and all those other nasties?"

Of course, those "other nasties" are generally terms well known to be spewed forth by blacks, more often than by members of any other group.

Most countries in Europe already have "word crime" laws, as part of their pernicious "hate crime" packages. Why not bring such innovation to these shores and join the Europeans? But, what am I thinking? All assaults on blacks (by non-blacks, of course) are first investigated to learn whether or not the "Nigger" word was hurled before the blows came. Then, thanks to "hate crime" statutes, the assaulter can be subject to extra penalties for the use of the term. Ooh, what he said! Since most assaults on blacks are perpetrated by fellow blacks, I wonder if there are any pre-assault verbiage investigations when the perp has an abundance of melanin. Want to guess?

By retreating on this issue of free speech, do whites really think that the cowardice they have displayed since the 1960s needs to be revealed any further? It is white cowardice that gave us those facets of that 1964 Civil Rights Act, that went over the top by stifling the movement for self-sufficiency and taking the wind out of the economic sails of blacks, while forcing whites to pick up the slack. It is white cowardice that made possible that outrageously unconstitutional Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. And how can we even keep count of the endless Affirmative Action and Quota laws around the land, that have undone any pretense at instilling fairness in society? All gifts of white cowardice.

Does Dr. Laura and her ilk really think the world needs any further evidence that whites are willing to submit to anything, but anything, to avoid offending black "sensitivities?" We get it. You will do anything, from overturning Articles in the Constitution, to denying free speech rights even to yourselves. We get it.

It is whites who fell to their knees in the 1960s, and have never gotten up. What fear of rioting and mayhem can do! And, even when a group declares, WE can do this, but YOU cannot, the whites' response isn't "That's what you think!" but, "Yes, Master, whatever you say." Dr. Laura confirms the three- to four-decade slide into docile obedience.

One of the games of the multiculturalists is to keep up front certain words and terminologies that are deemed off-limits to whites. In this way, whites can be raked over the coals whenever one strays. In 2005, black columnist Lovell Estell scorned the hypocrisy that he said envelops the word "Nigger," and offered his views on the forced resignation of a white baseball coach.

Estell suggested that in our PC-driven land, no white can be allowed exoneration, if he can be persecuted. Scoffing at the notion of the word "Nigger" as the "ultimate insult," he observed that "Most of the people who have called me one haven't been white folks." In defending the coach, Estell claimed that the man had never mistreated any of his black ballplayers, and was guilty only of "bad judgment" and an "idiotic faux pas," and, therefore, should be allowed to resume his career.

Did meaningful numbers of whites join in Estell's protest to reinstate the white coach? No, they ran, as usual, to hide under the bed or in a closet, abandoning the coach to his private hell. And, of course, like Dr. Laura, Senator Trent Lott, Doug Tracht (The Greaseman), and Don Imus, the coach apologized, and apologized, and apologized. But, hey, that's what white folks do.

In the early part of her dialogue with the black caller, who complained about whites making use of the Forbidden Word, Dr. Laura made an observation that would occur to anyone with common sense. She ruefully remarked, "Oh, I see. So, a word is restricted to race." But it was not too long afterward that she issued her initial apology, in which she whined that, after she realized she had "articulated the N-word all the way out," she was too upset to finish the show.

A final thought about the idiot black woman caller who spurred Dr. Laura's intemperate remarks. What kind of a dimwit, who marries out of her race, discovers that her white husband, his white relatives, and his white friends consider his black wife (namely, her) a daily punching bag for their humor, and then calls a stranger on the radio for advice? Is the husband trying to let the dense wife know that he's had enough of her, and desires to move on? Maybe it's time to take a hint, lady.

The "anchor baby" loophole

2010-08-05T21:14:00.001-04:00

In our 2008 post, Birthright citizenship is not constitutional, California State University Professor Edward Erler asks, "If the American Indians, who were certainly born in this country, were not considered automatic citizens by the Constitution's framers, how can it be that the offspring of foreigners who arrive here become automatic citizens?"

Erler debunks the fallacy of believing that anyone born within the geographical limits of the United States is automatically subject to its jurisdiction, and goes on to explain what the Constitution's 14th Amendment means by a person being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Jurisdiction is understood as owing exclusive political allegiance, Erler explains, not simply subject to American laws or courts. A foreign child born in the US is subject to the same jurisdiction to which is parent[s] are subject – that of their native country to which they owe political allegiance.

From this, the question is raised, Why would the newborn baby of an American couple, whose company happened to assign them to the Beijing office, be considered a Chinese citizen? Why wouldn't such a baby, instead, be subject, as are his parents, to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Children's allegiance "should follow that of their parents during their minority," observes Erler. Further, he argues, it is difficult to fathom how any sovereign nation could allow any other policy.

In a Vdare article How Mexican Law Undercuts 'Anchor Baby' Interpretation of U.S. 14th Amendment, Allan Wall looks at the subject from another perspective – that is, Mexican law. He describes birthright citizenship as a "loophole" in American law, and tells of new bills introduced in Congress to rectify this misinterpretation, as well as actions now being taken on the state level.

As to Mexican illegals, Wall indicates that the key to resolution is proving that the children of aliens are not completely "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." This can be done by using the laws of Mexico. He writes:

According to the Mexican Constitution, Capitulo II, Articulo 30, the child born to, or begotten by, a Mexican is a Mexican, regardless of where he is born.

The Mexicans by birth shall be…The individuals born abroad from Mexican parents who were born within national territory, from a Mexican father who was born within national territory or from a Mexican mother who was born within national territory…The Individuals born abroad from naturalized Mexican parents, from a naturalized Mexican father or from a naturalized Mexican mother…

Thus, any child born to a Mexican parent—either mother or father, regardless of whether that parent is a natural-born Mexican or naturalized Mexican—regardless of where he is born, is considered a Mexican.

And Mexican consulates have the authority to issue documentation to children born to Mexicans outside of Mexico, to confirm it.

Read the rest of Wall's discussion here.

The Threat to liberty is not from Islamic gangbangers

2010-08-05T21:03:00.004-04:00

Doug Newman at The Fountain of Truth is one of those rare practicing Christians one can truly admire. He has no truck with foolish believers in "My country, right or wrong" idolatry, or the immature ranters of USA! USA! Newman knows a warped Christian mind when he encounters one. That audacious warmongers invoke the name of Christ in their deathly causes angers him.

On his blog he reflects on this country's misguided actions centered around the 9/11 attacks, as well as the fall-out from the proposed Islamic center in lower Manhattan, and offers some provocative points:

• It has been centuries since a Muslim country conquered a non-Muslim country. The Islam world is militarily irrelevant. 911 was not a military invasion, but a suicide attack. The hijackers are all DEAD. You cannot take over a country, force everyone to speak Arabic, impose Islamic law, etc., when you are DEAD!
• A few thousand gangbangers who do not even control the government of Afghanistan are not going to come and take over the mightiest economic and military power on earth.
• When you station troops in 130 countries and throw your weight around militarily the way America does, don't complain when a lot of people hate you. And when you start wars with countries that haven't done anything to you and kill countless thousands of innocent people, don't complain when people hate you. You reap what you sow!
• Our liberty is not at all threatened by "radical Islam," but rather by the establishment that has ruled this country for close to a century. The greatest threat of all comes from the millions of Americans who have allowed this establishment so much power with no regard to the consequences.
• In the Great Commission - Matthew 28: 18-20 - Jesus tells us to "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." He doesn't tell us to bomb the crap out of countries that have never done anything to us and kill countless thousands of innocent people!
• The proper, moral, constitutional response to 9/11 was a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, that is, a warrant to go after the specific perps. It was NOT to start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threaten war with Iran, attack Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia and - are you cluing in? - kill countless thousands of innocent people!
• Millions of Christians are so biblically illiterate that they are easy prey for the Falwells, Hagees, Robertsons, Dobsons, etc., and their promotion of aggressive war as Christian. You reap what you sow and when you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

An afterthought
It sure doesn't take much to get those "easily led" evangelical types stirred up, does it? Just a few well-placed, inflammatory words from their trustworthy talk show host leaders and the stuff hits the fan – even to the point of suggesting the burning of another religion's holy book. Holy cow! Never mind the ethical issues here, how do you get this simpleminded?

A depressing futuristic fantasy

2010-08-05T21:00:00.001-04:00

In The Year America Dissolved, economist Paul Craig Roberts indulges in a dystopian fantasy of life in America in the not-so-distant year of 2017:

• • •
It was 2017. Clans were governing America.

The first clans organized around local police forces. The conservatives’ war on crime during the late 20th century and the Bush/Obama war on terror during the first decade of the 21st century had resulted in the police becoming militarized and unaccountable.

As society broke down, the police became warlords. The state police broke apart, and the officers were subsumed into the local forces of their communities. The newly formed tribes expanded to encompass the relatives and friends of the police.

The dollar had collapsed as world reserve currency in 2012 when the worsening economic depression made it clear to Washington’s creditors that the federal budget deficit was too large to be financed except by the printing of money.

With the dollar’s demise, import prices skyrocketed. As Americans were unable to afford foreign-made goods, the transnational corporations that were producing offshore for US markets were bankrupted, further eroding the government’s revenue base.

The government was forced to print money in order to pay its bills, causing domestic prices to rise rapidly. Faced with hyperinflation, Washington took recourse in terminating Social Security and Medicare and followed up by confiscating the remnants of private pensions. This provided a one-year respite, but with no more resources to confiscate, money creation and hyperinflation resumed.

Organized food deliveries broke down when the government fought hyperinflation with fixed prices and the mandate that all purchases and sales had to be in US paper currency. Unwilling to trade appreciating goods for depreciating paper, goods disappeared from stores.

Read the rest of this sad tale of prediction here.

Make way for your replacement population

2010-07-29T14:13:00.000-04:00

In The Rape of Europa: How the West is Overrun, Mark Hackard describes the role played by the U.S. government in its ongoing drive to eliminate Russia as a rival and gain access to Central Asia's energy resources. Washington, of course, cares nothing about the consequences of policies that must inevitably result in altered population demographics throughout Europe. Following are excerpts:

• • •
The postmodern assault on traditional culture and Christianity that Poland and other Washington-allied East European nations are beginning to experience is already far advanced on the rest of the Continent, where secular hedonism and pop-democracy are more deeply entrenched. The European Union itself is but a grotesque parody of Charlemagne’s Holy Roman Empire. While EU governing elites and the complacent masses they rule carry ultimate responsibility for apostasy and decline, it is necessary that we recognize another driving force at work: U.S. power.

By its role in the NATO alliance and its network of bases, the United States has for 65 years shaped European strategic and political discourse and retained its dominant position. There is a shared, institutionalized worldview at work fostered by successive generations of transatlantic elites, from politicians and corporate leaders to policy experts and military officers. This may seem a rather obvious point, but it is crucial to acknowledge the ideological aspect of U.S. hegemony -- perpetuation of the liberalism and materialism that so define the “free world”. ...

With Marxism discredited at the end of the bipolar era, only one messianic ideology was left standing. In the two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, America has gloried in the triumph of the liberal revolution and ceaselessly proselytized its globalization. Perhaps the most important target of this effort has been the former Soviet space. To eliminate Moscow as a rival and gain Central Asia’s energy resources would bring Washington to a level of dominion over the world never yet achieved. ...

The comprehensive military presence the United States enjoys in Europe provides it not only unquestioned leadership in the “Euro-Atlantic Community”, but also a platform for expansion into Eurasia’s heartland and the prosecution of wars in the Middle East. The foreign-policy analyst Doug Bandow wonders aloud why the Army’s V Corps remains stationed in Heidelberg rather than stateside:

About 52,000 American troops are in Germany. Obviously the most populous and prosperous country at the center of Europe doesn't need defending. The likelihood of Russian troops marching on Berlin and clambering up the Bundestag building is somewhat akin to that of the Martians landing and conducting a modern War of the Worlds.

The only other reason to have forces in Germany is because that country is closer to other places where Washington wants to send U. S. personnel -- but shouldn't. German bases once devoted to preventing a Red Army conquest are now handling casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan. However, if the U. S. wasn't promiscuously warring on other nations, it wouldn't need a German way-station in Europe. ...

No study of Europe’s subjection to transatlantic elites would be complete without mentioning the use of Muslims to further divide and demoralize its peoples. For the past 30 years, beginning with covert U.S. support to the Afghan mujahideen, Washington has courted Islamic power as a vehicle of influence in Eurasia, and Europe is no exception in this regard. Through the course the 1990s NATO bombarded Serbs and introduced peacekeeping troops into the Balkans to create Muslim states Bosnia and Kosovo on the carcass of Tito’s Yugoslavia. ...

U.S. diplomacy also celebrates Turkey, with a foothold in Thrace and its two million countrymen in Germany, as an up-and-coming European nation. Washington has long advocated Turkey’s entry into the EU, with all its attendant consequences for native European populations. ...

Faced with waxing Turkish power and assertive and growing populations of Muslim migrants, Europeans may yet react and begin to reclaim their lands and heritage. But they must know that in their resistance, it is entirely likely they will receive not U.S. support, but hostility to their cause and possibly armed intervention on behalf of Muslim belligerents. ... The tribes of Europa are told to forget their past, reject their faith and ethnic identity, and their very place in the Cosmos. “Place no hope in the future,” they are commanded, “for your replacements have arrived.”

Read complete article here.

Instigating a new war to kill, cripple, disfigure, and dismember more of our soldiers—for nothing

2010-07-29T14:10:00.000-04:00

Philip Giraldi, in the American Conservative magazine blog, asks, "Who Voted for War With Iran, Mr. Obama?" Here is his post:

• • •
House of Representatives resolution 1553, introduced by Congressional Republicans, and currently working its way through the system will endorse an Israeli attack on Iran, which would be going to war by proxy as the US would almost immediately be drawn into the conflict when Tehran retaliates.

The resolution provides explicit US backing for Israel to bomb Iran, stating that Congress supports Israel’s use of “all means necessary…including the use of military force”. The resolution is non-binding, but it is dazzling in its disregard for the possible negative consequences that would ensue for the hundreds of thousands of US military and diplomatic personnel currently serving in the Near East region.

Even the Pentagon opposes any Israeli action against Iran, knowing that it would mean instant retaliation against US forces in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. The resolution has appeared, not coincidentally, at the same time as major articles by leading neoconservatives Reuel Marc Gerecht and Bill Kristol calling for military action. AIPAC thinks it is wonderful.

Ironically, the push against Iran comes at a time when the National Intelligence Estimate on the country is being finished. It might come out as soon as August, but it will be secret and its conclusions will either be leaked or released in summary. My sources inside the intelligence community insist that it will support the 2007 NIE that concluded that Iran no longer has a weapons program.

The White House has delayed the process seeking harder language to justify a range of options against Iran, including a military strike, but the analysts are reported to be resisting. So we spend $100 billion on intelligence annually and then ignore the best judgments on what is taking place. Might as well use a Ouija board.

Ensuring that ethnic majority

2010-07-29T14:07:00.001-04:00

Philip Weiss brings our attention to a CNN report on the eviction of Bedouins from a village in southern Israel. CNN staff writes:

Police evicted 200 Bedouins from their homes in a southern Israeli village on Tuesday and demolished their dwellings, an act decried by residents who said they are on ancestral land. The move occurred five miles north of Beer Sheva in a village called Al-Araqeeb, an enclave not recognized by the state of Israel.

Witnesses told CNN that the Israeli forces arrived at the village accompanied by busloads of civilians who cheered as the dwellings were demolished. They said armed police deployed with tear gas, water cannon, two helicopters and bulldozers. But Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said there were no disturbances and the operation went according to plan.

Weiss also cites a quote by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu at a recent Cabinet meeting. He sounded a warning that this was "a situation in which a demand for national rights will be made from some quarters inside Israel, for example in the Negev, should the area be left without a Jewish majority. Such things happened in the Balkans, and it is a real threat."

We're aware of the great delight that Zionists take in comparing the U.S. dispossession of the Indians to the Israelis' treatment of the Arabs in their region. Supposedly, this removes any right for an American to criticize, even though it's our billions of tax dollars that make the cruelties now being exacted on the Palestinians and others in the territory possible. Let's say Israel stops taking U.S. money, even to the point of paying for those Caterpillar machines, and let's see how effective their human removal will be.

What do you think the chances are that a U.S. official today would be heard to say that gentile whites must secure every region and that no area should be left without a "white gentile majority?" We can bet that 99% of the Jews in this country would go ballistic, yet they praise such an approach in dear, little, persecuted Israel. Gentile whites in the U.S. can, by their actions, secure all-white areas to live in, but they'd better not talk about it openly.

Bedouins, of course, have lived in the Negev region for centuries, and claim, as they do in the story above, to have "original deeds to the land." Did they get their deeds from a Sky God, too? I wonder.

How to subvert a law

2010-07-29T14:05:00.000-04:00

In The Arizona Lesson: What the state’s experiment with the rule of law has already taught us, Heather Mac Donald offers her observations on why the Los Angeles Times smeared Arizona Law SB 1070. Although her article was written just a couple of days before Judge Susan Bolton blocked from enforcement certain parts of the law, Mac Donald's article is still pertinent for its insights on why the media, most of whose members support open borders, ignore or embellish basic facts about immigration. Following is an excerpt:

As the start date of Arizona’s new immigration law, SB 1070, approaches, the Los Angeles Times has published an article on a nearly three-month-old homicide in Phoenix that no one but the victim’s family claims had anything to do with Arizona’s immigration initiative—not the Hispanic neighbors of the alleged killer and his victim, not the police, not even illegal-alien advocacy groups.

“It’s just weird to hear them say he’s racist,” one of the suspect’s Hispanic acquaintances marvels. The suspect had expressed his opposition to Arizona’s law just days before the May 6 shooting; he had invited his Hispanic neighbors to Thanksgiving last year. As for the victim, he “did not get shot because he was Mexican,” a local civil rights activist maintains.

And yet the Times has put the story on its front page as part of its coverage of SB 1070. Why? The official reason: as “an illustration of how incidents in the state now get interpreted through the prism of the new law.” The real reason: to suggest that the Arizona law—which officially authorizes a police officer, during a lawful police stop, to check the immigration status of people whom he suspects of being in the country illegally—is fueling a wave of possibly homicidal hatred against Hispanics. Evidence for this proposition, which has been embraced by editorialists and activists across the country? Zero.

Read entire article here.

Don't confuse Mark Williams with the facts

2010-07-25T08:39:00.001-04:00

See my article, House Slaves: The Tea Party Remains Captive to PC, at Alternative Right

Excerpt:

What is so disheartening about people like Mark Williams is that they have imbibed every cliché taught them by the Left, and yet they call themselves "conservative." For instance, his notions about the early NAACP and its origins, and of W.E.B. Du Bois, is boilerplate propaganda. He has obviously consecrated this history, as it was taught to him.

Liberal talking elites and immigration

2010-07-18T16:57:00.002-04:00

As liberals wax hysterical over Arizona's proposed immigration law, Michael Lind offers some sobering counsel to his fellow progressives, especially those known as the "commentariat." It appears to him that too many liberals have gone beyond denouncing what they view as "racial profiling" in certain laws, to condemning all immigration enforcement law. In Open borders or high-wage welfare state, Lind reflects on how far removed such thinking is "not only from the American public as a whole, but also from most Democratic and independent voters."

He writes: Since the economy crashed in the fall of 2008, public attitudes toward immigration, both legal and illegal, have been hardening. Between 2008 and the summer of 2009, the number of respondents telling Gallup that immigration should be decreased shot up from 39 percent to 50 percent.

And then there are those Democrats who actually support an increase in immigration. These are the people who worry Lind and he describes them: The mere 15 percent of Democrats who favor increased immigration make up the overwhelming majority of Democratic pundits, think tank operatives and other opinion leaders. Indeed, it appears that many prominent progressives are opposed to any enforcement of U.S. immigration laws at all.

He cites the liberal Nation magazine, whose provocative article, Arizona Burning, shows how clearly the left tends to view immigration policy as a race issue. Lind asks, Do the editors of the Nation want the U.S. to have any laws regulating entry by citizens of other countries into the U.S. or not? If so, then they have an obligation to explain the methods of law enforcement that they support.

He then offers sensible suggestions on how to make enforcement work, that would include reliable identification of foreign nationals and punishment of employers who break immigration laws. Lind cites the conflict so often expressed on the part of liberals, who don't want any forms of identification or government inspections of work places.

So, do they want American workers to be protected? he asks. Do liberals, by opposing workplace raids, really want to be on the side of meat-packing companies and union-busting janitorial firms that violate hard-won labor laws?

And Lind offers a zinger for the left: If progressives really believe that the U.S. should become the only sovereign country in the world that does not assert the right to regulate entry to its territory and participation in its labor markets, they should team up with the only other tiny sect in America that believes in open borders: right-wing libertarians.

Lind chastises those liberals who claim a concern for improving the lot of the foreign poor by keeping our borders open to them: It is surprising that any progressives are naive enough to fall for the insincere claim of conservatives and libertarians that their cheap-labor policies are motivated by altruistic concern for the foreign poor. ... The faux-humanitarian arguments of the open-borders, cheap-labor right come as part of a larger policy package that genuine progressives should reject as a whole.

Lind makes it clear that he is well aware of other pressing agendas among the left:

Much of the left's opposition to immigration law enforcement, of course, is based on a strategic appeal to the Latino vote, not on a rational analysis of what sort of immigration policy best suits U.S. labor market conditions in the 21st century. If most Latinos began voting for Republicans, undoubtedly many Democrats who object to border and workplace enforcement would fall silent pretty quickly.

Read complete article here.

George's new edifice

2010-07-17T23:52:00.007-04:00

About ten minutes after hearing the announcement of George Steinbrenner's death, I penned some rough notes that I knew would have to wait before being zapped into upload. It was too early to hit the negative button, what with all the effusive media hype that had only just begun.

For the past half dozen years, at least, I could not bear to hear this man's name mentioned because of its connection to the destruction and final demolition of Yankee Stadium. I didn't think I could put the right words in place and I hoped that some mighty soul would come along, right quick, and waste no time crashing the media's hypocritical love fest. Just who the hell are these people kidding, anyway?

So, I sent out a half-whispered query, as if to the wind: "Matt Taibbi, are you paying attention?" And, sure enough, good, old Matt was, indeed, paying attention to all that phony, sentimental claptrap being focused on "The Boss," that was filling up the airwaves.

In The Steinbrenner Slobituary," Taibbi describes the adulation that has taken over New York City's main sports radio station, WFAN, as it engages in a "round-the-clock Steinbrenner grovel-a-thon." Of course, these sports talk show hosts are always in desperate need to keep some featured story going, so it's understandable that the Steinbrenner death is splendid grist for their mill.

Taibbi calls the "mania for elegiac slobbering" a disgusting aspect of public life in this country. What surprised me were the saccharine calls from what sounded like ordinary guys eagerly repeating the cloying platitudes about Steinbrenner being put into the ether by ingratiating media types. Why on earth would these simple sounding callers identify with this vainglorious man, who never hid his contempt for the likes of them and whose ruthless methods transformed the nature of the game, which consequently led to tripling the costs of the average shlub's ticket and food prices. Taibbi writes:

Steinbrenner was in every conceivable way the prototypical office tyrant and the fact that he's being uninterruptedly worshipped after his death by a nation of cubicle slaves tells you almost everything you need to know about the modern American psyche. In no other country do people genuinely love their bosses the way Americans do. They'll go home after 12 hard hours of capricious superiors peeing in their faces, and the very first thing they'll do is call up some talk radio show and denounce the graduated income tax that gives them a break at their bosses' expense.

Taibbi claims that people's heads are so turned around that the terror of being thought of as poor and subordinate "has people reflexively worshipping their bosses, to the point where George Steinbrenner -- a workplace Caligula so stupid and self-centered that he could not be convinced George Constanza wasn't named after him -- is somehow thought of as cute and lovable."

Perhaps it had been taken for granted that Yankee Stadium was safely and officially land marked, and could no more be razed than the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building or the Woolworth Building or City Hall. But it was not land marked and, perhaps, even if it had been, the fear of Steinbrenner's powerful reach might have made even a Jackie Kennedy hesitate to protest.

The reality of the Stadium's disappearance was especially hard on us Bronxites who ride the No. 4 elevated subway on a regular basis. For me, it was an instinctive habit to look up momentarily from whatever I was reading for a glimpse of the Stadium, as the train pulled into the 161st Street station. For the past several years, however, I could not bring myself to look up at the site, since I did not want to see the daily or weekly stages of alteration. The House that Ruth built disappeared level by level, and is now replaced by the House that George built.

One talk show host will not refer to the new structure as "Yankee Stadium," but as "That Place Across the Street." Others refer to George's building as the Yankee Shopping Mall or the Yankee Food Court. I simply call it the New Edifice.

Late last season, I attended my first (and probably only) game in the New Edifice, since I felt I should see the interior of the place. Big deal! I was struck by the fact that you never have to sit in your assigned seat to view the game. Since the whole point of the place seems to be to keep the attendees roaming around, buying and eating, and roaming some more, there are dozens of picknicky type spots, with benches and eating counters, and big-screen TVs blasting the game on the field. The place seems to be designed to keep the wallet carriers engaged in everything except the ball game.

I wonder how those corporate executive suites are faring in the New Edifice, since they are the reason for which Yankee Stadium was destroyed in the first place. Last year, it was gratifying to hear about all those high-priced seats that embarrassingly stayed empty all season long. Hopefully, Taibbi's wish of last year will come true, that the Yankee management will "choke on their own greed."

And as for Steinbrenner? Taibbi suggests that we should have thrown a parade "the minute the guy drew his last breath." He asks, "Whatever happened to Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead?"

Related

The long-dead Brooklyn Dodgers still haunt New York

Calling the race-hustling Reverend

2010-07-15T17:22:00.001-04:00

The black blogger Aaron Laramore in If You Have to Call Al Sharpton for Help With Your Own Mayor, You Have No Power, tells of Sharpton's recent visit to Indianapolis, and writes, "He's here at the urgent behest of local ministers, some of whom pastor the largest black churches in Indianapolis, to help them pressure Mayor Ballard to meet with them regarding the police beat down of a teen during an arrest. Sharpton is scheduled to make several appearances around town and give a speech this evening at 7:00 at Eastern Star Church."

What does this signify about black leadership? "I'm not sure I can conceive of a more visible display of political impotence and irrelevance on the part of these ministers," says Laramore. "If you have to call in an out of town race hustler like Al Sharpton, in order to get the attention of the mayor of your own city, you are irrelevant."

Laramore claims that this scene has been played out in the past, when these ministers tried to make demands on the city's previous Mayor and administration. "This is all reaction that will not result in significant change and stands as an example of how faith leadership in Indianapolis fails to expand and develop the strategic value of their connection to thousands of people."

But do these elites really have a connection to "thousands of people?" Or are members of their congregations weary of the familiar pulpit bombast that ensues each time a "race incident" presents an opportunity for exploitation? Such black "leaders" are eager to show their constituents that they, at least, have the power to engage the Almighty Al Sharpton in their cause, as they hope for some of his luster to rub off on them.

Sharpton is a man for all seasons, and willingly answers the calls even of distressed white folks. Thanks to the white Don Imus who, during his radio troubles in 2007, resuscitated Sharpton's career, almost singlehandedly, the black race hustler still earns a comfortable living doing what he does best. And he is now the host of three (three!) radio programs here in the New York area. So, if white folks, like Imus, aren't calling for the good pastor Sharpton to forgive them their "racial sins," black preachers are keeping him busy hounding their political enemies.

Laramore concludes, "When you call Al Sharpton in from out of town just to have a conversation with your own Mayor, you are missing the boat."

See also here for Laramore's take on this recent NAACP Convention: "I wanted to find something to be encouraged about in this speech, I really did, but color me totally unimpressed. Black folk catching hell and she's touting school snack programs? the opening of a few college chapters; so-called curriculum reforms to teach civil rights history? That's it? That's the best you've got to tout as achievements? The speech has a constant focus on the wrongs done to us, not nearly enough of anything about problem solving in our communities. It was heavy on platitudes, way light on substance."

Our masters and liars

2010-07-15T01:48:00.004-04:00

What is this? Is the staunchly Zionist New York Times suggesting that much of life is a misery for the Palestinians trapped in the prison of Gaza? But, haven't we been led to believe, from Israeli propaganda, that life is coming up roses for Gaza residents, and that those who make claims to the contrary are just whining crybabies?

In Trapped by Gaza Blockade, Locked in Despair, we learn of the negative impact on people's lives through their inability to travel and to trade with other nations, in order to spark Gaza's economy and generate employment:

Israel is never far from people’s minds here. Its ships control the waters, its planes control the skies. Its whims, Gazans feel, control their fate. And while most here view Israel as the enemy, they want trade ties and to work there. In their lives the main source of income has been from and through Israel. Economists here say what is most needed now is not more goods coming in, as the easing of the blockade has permitted, but people and exports getting out. That is not going to happen soon.

And we learn, as well, the views of many Palestinians about their governing authorities:

As if the Palestinian people did not have enough trouble, they have not one government but two, the Fatah-dominated one in the West Bank city of Ramallah and the Hamas one here. The antagonism between them offers a depth of rivalry and rage that shows no sign of abating. ...

In fact, there is a paradox at work in Gaza: while Hamas has no competition for power, it also has a surprisingly small following. Dozens of interviews with all sorts of people found few willing to praise their government or that of its competitor. “They’re both liars,” Waleed Hassouna, a baker in Gaza City, said in a very common comment.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian people pay the price for the ongoing war between their masters, the Israelis, and their political leaders, the "liars."

Read complete article here.

The photo below is interesting, isn't it? In Israel, young Jewish woman harassing Palestinian woman by yanking on her scarf, while Jewish boy applies a kick to her leg. Israeli policemen nearby watch the fun. Everyday life in the Land of the Chosen. But, hey, those Palestinian leaders claim that they would like to see an end to Israel, so anything goes as far as treatment of Palestinians, in general, right? Sort of like that new "Black Panther" party in this country declaring death upon all whites, so this makes it fair game to go out on the streets and torment or mow down average American blacks, right? Is this picture reminiscent of photographs you've viewed of scenes in Europe during the middle of the 20th century?

Eminent domain and the Kelo backlash

2010-07-12T20:11:00.006-04:00

When, five years ago, the Kelo v. City of New London decision was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court, I thought, Well, that's the end of things for sure. When any government can systematically employ a ruse to legally confiscate citizens' homes, that's a sign that the Republic's days are numbered. I figured the Supreme Court had given a green light to every developer who salivated over some landowner's piece of property. I had followed the case closely since I couldn't think of many rulings that could be more significant than this one.

When a Supreme Court Justice himself claims that a ruling by his very Court is "unconstitutional," where do you go from there? What is one to think when the mighty "interpreters" of the Constitution admit to error by the Court? In Kelo Justice Clarence Thomas vehemently disagreed with the majority decision, as written by Justice John Paul Stevens. In his Dissent, Thomas wrote:

The Constitution’s text, in short, suggests that the Takings Clause authorizes the taking of property only if the public has a right to employ it, not if the public realizes any conceivable benefit from the taking. ... The Takings Clause is a prohibition, not a grant of power: The Constitution does not expressly grant the Federal Government the power to take property for any public purpose whatsoever. Instead, the Government may take property only when necessary and proper to the exercise of an expressly enumerated power. ... Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not. ... When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution’s original meaning.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, another emphatic dissenter, expressed it this way:

To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property – and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. ... The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. ... Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.

Here are excerpts from a view on the case offered by The Economist magazine, The worst decision of Justice Stevens:

[Justice Stevens'] opinion in Kelo v. New London (2005) was simply terrible. The case was about a private developer in New London, Connecticut, who wanted to raze some waterfront homes to build an office block and some posh apartments. The owners didn't want to sell. The city decided to force them to, calculating that the new development would create jobs and yield more taxes.

The city decided to use the power of "eminent domain." Under the Fifth amendment, the government may seize private property only in exceptional circumstances. The land seized must be put to “public use,” and “just compensation” must be paid. “Public use” has traditionally been taken to mean something like a public highway. Roads would obviously be much harder to build if a single homeowner could hold out forever or for excessive compensation. The government's powers of “eminent domain” have also been used to clean up blighted slums.

In this case, however, the area was not blighted, and the land was not going to be put to a public use, so the seizure was plainly unlawful. Amazingly, Justice Stevens – and a slim majority of the court – said it was fine. Rejecting “any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ...public,” he said it was enough that the seizure should serve some vaguely defined “public purpose” — such as those new taxes. This massively expanded the government's power of eminent domain. ...

The ruling had two effects. First, it told local governments and their developer chums that working-class neighbourhoods were up for grabs. In the year after Kelo, the Institute for Justice, a group that defends property rights, counted 5,783 homes, businesses, churches and other properties condemned or threatened with eminent domain to the benefit of a private party. ...

But second, Kelo provoked a backlash. Most Americans are repelled by the idea that the state might take your house and give it to Donald Trump. (This is not rhetoric: New Jersey once tried, unsuccessfully, to seize someone's home because The Donald needed somewhere to park limousines outside one of his casinos.) Since the Kelo ruling, no fewer than 34 states have passed laws or constitutional amendments aimed at curbing the abuse of eminent domain. At the mid-term elections, voters in ten states approved measures curbing politicians' power to seize private property, all by wide margins.

Public revulsion against such seizures is visceral and nearly uniform: polls find between 85% and 95% of Americans are opposed to them. Political affiliation makes no difference. Republicans hate to see property rights violated and individuals bullied by the state. Democrats hate to see the state's coercive power hired out to big corporations, and worry, correctly, that the chief victims of eminent domain abuse will be the working class and ethnic minorities.

And the discerning writer William Norman Grigg offers his inimitable reflections on the notorious Kelo case:

Prior to the closing of the frontier in 1890, "Manifest Destiny" was the incantation used by the government when it gave itself permission to steal property it coveted. Today, the preferred conjuration is "eminent domain." The phrase "eminent domain" reflects an assumption Karl Marx would find congenial: government is the default owner of everything, and that private ownership, however extensive, is merely a contingent arrangement. ...

In his recent book, Government Pirates, former real estate developer Don Corace offers a concise description of how eminent domain operated prior to the onset of the current depression: "Arrogant and corrupt city and county officials – with near limitless legal budgets ... align themselves with well-heeled developers, political cronies, and major corporations to prey on the politically less powerful and disenfranchised, particularly minority communities." ...

In recent weeks, the Illinois state government has begun the legal process of seizing a huge amount of private property in and around Peotone, a small town in Will County, about forty miles south of Chicago. The land is being taken for the supposed purpose of building a third Chicago-area airport to complement O'Hare and Midway – a project that has been discussed, studied, and debated since 1968.

The proposed "South Suburban Airport" – which would be three times the size of O'Hare International – is impractical, unwanted, and unnecessary. It doesn't enjoy the support of any major airline or the approval of the FAA. ...

Expanding the small international airport in depressed Rockford would provide additional runway space at a fraction of what would be spent on a third Chicago-area airport. But this would deprive the state's patronage pimps of an opportunity to lavish plundered wealth on their favored constituents. ...

Four Peotone-area condemnation cases are already working their way through the court system. Unless the land owners are successful in getting the cases dismissed outright, they will face a lengthy, protracted legal struggle in which their opponent – the criminal junta dominating Springfield and Chicago – will use money extorted from them as taxes to underwrite the effort to drive them from their land. ...

There's every reason to believe that the Peotone Landgrab – if it's successful – would be a template for similar acts of official larceny wherever fertile tracts can be seized by the political class at depressed "fair market value."

Following are conclusions about the Kelo case offered by the Institute for Justice, the public interest law firm that represented the New London residents:

The U.S. Supreme Court should have ruled in favor of the Kelo homeowners and established a federal baseline that would protect home and business owners throughout the nation. Instead, it threw the issue to the states, completely abdicating its role as guardian of Americans’ rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Less than one week after the decision was handed down, the Institute for Justice launched a national campaign called “Hands Off My Home.” IJ was determined to focus the outrage over Kelo and turn it into meaningful reform. In the five years since the decision, there has been an unprecedented backlash against the Kelo ruling in terms of public opinion, citizen activism, legislative changes, state court decisions, and lessons learned from the New London case:

• Citizen activists defeated at least 44 projects that sought to abuse eminent domain for private gain in the five-year period since Kelo.
• Forty-three states improved their laws in response to Kelo, more than half of those providing strong protection against eminent domain abuse.
• Nine state high courts restricted the use of eminent domain for private development since Kelo while only one (New York) has so far refused to do so. ...

Across the country, property owners and activists have testified before crowded public hearings and state legislatures. They have formed groups and started websites. They stood tall on the steps of City Hall and held press conferences demanding officials keep their hands off their property. They have held neighborhood meetings, which have turned into citywide meetings. ...

Following the public outcry about Kelo, constitutional amendments and legislation at the federal, state and local levels were introduced in legislative bodies nationwide. In the five years since the decision, 43 states have passed either constitutional amendments or statutes that have reformed eminent domain law to better protect private property rights. ...

When the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to correctly interpret the U.S. Constitution, the state high courts began to fill that void. Three state supreme courts — Ohio, Oklahoma and South Dakota — explicitly rejected the Kelo decision. Ohio cities had frequently abused eminent domain and Oklahoma cities had occasionally abused the power, but we have heard of no new abuses in either state since their respective court decisions. Moreover, the New Jersey Supreme Court implicitly rejected Kelo while also curtailing the use of redevelopment and blight as an excuse for private development.

The Institute for Justice describes the dismal facts of what ultimately happened to the land in New London that was sought by the developer Pfizer, Inc.:

Part of the package of incentives offered to Pfizer to come to New London was the redevelopment of the neighboring Fort Trumbull area. Fort Trumbull was a working-class neighborhood. It housed approximately 75 homes, as well as a few smaller businesses and an abandoned Navy base.

The plan called for this area to be replaced by an upscale hotel, office buildings and new housing. Now, five years after the Kelo ruling, there has been no new construction on any of the land that was acquired in Fort Trumbull. After the decision, the remaining residents who had fought to save their homes, including Susette Kelo, were forced out. The Fort Trumbull site was completely razed. And it has remained empty ever since — brown, barren fields no longer home to people but rather to feral cats and migratory birds. After much controversy and many extensions of time given to the chosen developer, the city terminated the development agreement.

Now, ten years after its initial plan was approved, the city has commissioned another study to see what might work in the area. Ironically, given that a majority of the area used to be filled with owner-occupied and residential rental property, the city is considering a proposal to build some rental property on a portion of the project area. Ten years lost and more than $80 million in taxpayer money spent to perhaps one day build a lesser version of what used to exist on the peninsula.

Related

Judicial vandalism

Eminent domain: Taking from Peter to give to Paul

Terry Anderson, R.I.P.

2010-07-11T20:03:00.004-04:00

"If you ain't mad, you ain't payin' attention!" I can't count the number of times I heard Terry Anderson recite that refrain on his radio show. I was hooked, and had to have my weekly Sunday night Terry fix. Thanks to the Internet, I was able to do so, and rarely missed his broadcast from Los Angeles.

Terry was a staunch opponent of illegal immigration, and had watched first hand as this social poison altered once stable communities in southern California. As a black working man, he and many of his friends had been directly impacted by the cheap labor resulting from the alien invasion. When the opportunity presented itself to host a radio program dedicated to the subject, he took it.

After his show went off the air last year, I would check from time to time to learn if it might return. I had no idea he was seriously ill. This week we all learned that Terry died of pancreatic cancer.

Following are excerpts from appreciative friends and listeners who will miss Terry's wit and determination.

Brenda Walker, on the Vdare Blog – Farewell to a Fearless Patriot, Terry Anderson

From his front-row seat in South Central Los Angeles, Terry saw the demographic invasion before other Americans who lived further from the border. He described the racism against blacks which Mexicans brought with them into his own city, but mostly he spoke as an American, for all citizens who care about the country.

Terry started out as a concerned citizen who phoned kindred spirit and talk-show host George Putnam on the radio (another late, great patriot). Those calls led to friendship and eventually to a radio program that was exclusively about immigration, The Terry Anderson Show.

Author Dan Sheehy devoted a chapter of his 2005 book which focused on patriotic activists, Fighting Immigration Anarchy, to Terry Anderson — his life, his immigration awakening and his radio activism.

Terry was a genuine everyman, a blue-collar guy who worked as an auto mechanic, and saw himself as “articulating the popular rage.” The lack of a fancy academic degree never stopped him from being a powerful speaker. And he didn’t just talk forcefully — although he was known for that — he was well versed in all the complex issues of immigration and blended them seamlessly into his thoughts.

Walter Moore, Remembering Terry Anderson

Terry’s articulation of the popular rage was therapeutic. When you heard Terry rant, you knew you weren’t alone. You also knew you were right, because Terry knew right from wrong, and knew how to explain it simply and clearly. Politicians could blow all the smoke they wanted to, but it never clouded Terry’s vision. He had uncommon common sense, and a unique ability to zero in on the truth.

Assembling parts so they work together was apparently second nature to Terry. After he passed away, I read an article about how, from a very early age, he had a knack for taking bits and pieces from wrecked cars, salvaging them, and putting them together to work, good as new.

That’s basically what he was doing with our country. He was salvaging those of us who had given up hope. He found some of us here in L.A., others in Nevada, still others in Illinois -- scattered people, all over America, who thought they were alone.

Terry united and connected people all over America who actually care about America. He was like Radio Free Europe and the French underground rolled into one. He provided important information we couldn’t find anywhere else.

William Gheen, President, Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC)

For those of you who did not know Terry Anderson, he was also called 'The Prisoner of South Central.' His radio show aired on Sunday nights for an hour on KRLA radio out of Los Angeles. The show was carried on 30 stations across America and Terry had a huge online listenership that either tuned in live each week or caught his podcasts.

Terry's show was created to fight against illegal immigration. Terry Anderson warned the nation about what was happening in South Central Los Angeles as the illegal alien invaders displaced poor Americans in the area turning parts of LA into a third world slum barrio with chickens and goats running around in the streets!

Terry Anderson was a very brave black man who educated America about the negative impacts of illegal immigration on the black community and he fearlessly spoke out and stood up in the face of the illegals on their home turf.

Over the past five years, it was my great honor to be on Terry Anderson's show over ten times. I got to work with him in person during Unite To Fight, 1 & 2, conducted by radio show host Mark Edwards in Las Vegas back in 2005 and 2006. I also worked with Terry in Washington, DC during Hold Their Feet To The Fire in 2007.

I hope those who have copies and podcasts of all of Terry Anderson's shows will place them in a prominent place on the web. I hope that another great patriot will step forward to take over Terry Anderson's show immediately, pick up his torch and run forward in his absence. ALIPAC will be happy to donate to help preserve Terry's podcasts and to continue his show.

Terry Anderson, I will miss you my friend and I want your family to know how much real Americans appreciate all that you have done for our nation. You cannot speak anymore Terry, but I will always speak out for you.

[See the ALIPAC site for videos of Terry Anderson's presentations]

The media enforcers

2010-07-09T16:26:00.001-04:00

Glenn Greenwald reflects on which journalists or pundits get fired for expressing politically incorrect opinions. Although it is the "Liberal Media" that has the power to destroy careers and reputations, punishment comes only at the behest of right wingers, especially the neoconservative media monitors. Here are excerpts from Greenwald's column at Salon.com:

• • •
First, consider which viewpoints cause someone to be fired from The Liberal Media. Last month, Helen Thomas' 60-year career as a journalist ended when she expressed the exact view about Jews which numerous public figures have expressed (with no consequence or even controversy) about Palestinians.

Just weeks ago, The Washington Post accepted the "resignation" of Dave Weigel because of scorn he heaped on right-wing figures such as Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh.

CNN's Chief News Executive, Eason Jordan, was previously forced to resign after he provoked a right-wing fit of fury over comments he made about the numerous -- and obviously disturbing -- incidents where the U.S. military had injured or killed journalists in war zones.

NBC fired Peter Arnett for criticizing the U.S. war plan on Iraqi television, which prompted accusations of Treason from the Right.

MSNBC demoted and then fired its rising star Ashleigh Banfield after she criticized American media war coverage for adhering to the Fox model of glorifying U.S. wars; the same network fired its top-rated host, Phil Donahue, due to its fear of being perceived as anti-war; and its former reporter, Jessica Yellin, confessed that journalists were "under enormous pressure from corporate executives" to present the news in a pro-war and pro-Bush manner.

What each of these firing offenses have in common is that they angered and offended the neocon Right. Isn't that a strange dynamic for the supposedly Liberal Media: the only viewpoint-based firings of journalists are ones where the journalist breaches neoconservative orthodoxy? Have there ever been any viewpoint-based firings of establishment journalists by The Liberal Media because of comments which offended liberals? None that I can recall.

I foolishly thought that when George Bush's own Press Secretary mocked the American media for being "too deferential" to the Bush administration, that would at least put a dent in that most fictitious American myth: The Liberal Media. But it didn't; nothing does, not even the endless spate of journalist firings for deviating from right-wing dogma.

Beyond journalism, speech codes concerning the Middle East are painfully biased and one-sided. Chas Freeman was barred from a government position -- despite a long and accomplished record of public service -- due to AIPAC-led anger over comments deemed insufficiently devoted to Israel.

Juan Cole was denied a tenured position at Yale after a vicious neocon campaign based on his allegedly anti-Israel remarks, and Norman Finklestein suffered the same fate, despite a unanimous committee recommendation for tenure, after an Alan-Dershowitz-led demonization campaign based on his blasphemous scholarship about Israel.

Does anyone ever suffer career-impeding injuries of this type -- the way Nasr and Thomas also just have -- for expressing anti-Muslim or anti-Arab views? No. The speech prohibitions and thought crimes on the Middle East all run in one direction: to enforce "pro-Israel" orthodoxies. Does this long list of examples leave room for doubt about that fact? ...

With the Octavia Nasr firing, here we find yet again exposed the central lie of American establishment journalism: that opinion-free "objectivity" is possible, required, and the governing rule. The exact opposite is true: very strong opinions are not only permitted but required. They just have to be the right opinions: the official, approved ones. ...

The reality is that "pro-Israel" is not considered a viewpoint at all; it's considered "objective." That's why there's no expression of it too extreme to result in the sort of punishment which Nasr just suffered (preceded by so many others before her). ...

It's true that much of the world sees some of Hezbollah's actions as Terrorism; much of the world sees Israel's that way as well. CNN requires the former view while prohibiting the latter. As usual, our brave journalistic outlets not only acquiesce to these suffocating and extremely subjective restrictions on what our political discourse allows; they lead the way in enforcing them.

Read complete article here.

Who needs black politicians?

2010-06-23T06:14:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post informs us that black political candidates around the country, running for statewide offices, are "struggling" to survive. According to the Post, there might be no black Governors or Senators by next year.

It seems that the presence of the ultimate Identity candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, has not ushered in an era of blind support for colored politicians – at least, not among those faithful white Obama devotees. Of course, as a black, I'm expected to vote for the Black Ticket, no matter who is on it. Although a New Yorker, I'm even supposed to care about a candidate in far off Alabama, if it means another "first." As in the First Black Governor of Alabama. Just why Alabama or any other state is in need of a black Governor is never clarified.

The paternalistic tone of the Post article, makes it clear that this is an urgent matter for Americans to worry over – that is, the necessity to keep increasing the numbers of black politicians throughout the land. The candidates themselves will tell you how they are needed to deal with unique "black issues." After all, haven't we seen how effective these figureheads are in reducing crime among blacks, in re-establishing black families, and in setting education as a priority among youth?

Black publications and websites rejoice every time another of their black favorites wins a national, state or municipal election. There is no end to the bean counting they employ when examining every state legislature and city council. Look at this city, there are 20 council members, but only four of them are black. Something is wrong here. And look at this state, there are 120 assemblymen and only eight of them are black. Obviously, some serious racism is at work here.

The fervent promotion of black for the sake of blackness reminds me of my conversation in the 1980s with that good, white libertarian lady in New York, who bemoaned the fact that the city, up to that time, had never had a black Mayor as had so many other cities, and this was a good reason to elect David Dinkins.

Putting aside the value, if any, to the country at large of these elected worthies, let's take a look at the benefits that blacks derive from the existence of these politicians. We could look at any number of the familiar social issues, but let's concentrate on immigration.

By now, most people are acquainted to some degree with the statistics that show the industries that have removed U.S.-born Americans from the workforce in favor of underpaid aliens. In plants around the country, from the furniture industry to meatpacking to the hotel industry, 20 years have taken their toll as companies have reorganized around the use of immigrant rather than native labor.

The Center for Immigration Studies describes how a company like IBP, the nation's leading meatpacking company, actually recruits workers from Mexico and directly along the border. Not too long ago, in Los Angeles, semi-skilled blacks could count on employment as janitors for $12 an hour, with benefits, but no longer. When companies discovered they could subcontract such labor for $3.35 an hour with "undocumented" immigrants, within two years the Americans were displaced. CIS reports that in the hotel industry, especially, immigrant workers "displaced native black workers en masse."

In California, black men also had been prominent as roofers, framers, drywallers and truck drivers. Prior to the immigration deluge, native-born minorities were able to sustain families on the salaries earned from such jobs.

As to youth employment, CIS calls the summer of 2009 "the worst summer ever experienced by U.S.-born teenagers." The jobs that teenagers once normally counted on during the summer season now went to mostly illegal immigrant laborers. As CIS suggests, reducing legal immigration and enforcing the law to reduce illegal immigration is no cure-all for the problems that afflict young black men, who are chronically unemployed, but such enforcement might re-open doors that have been shut.

Are any black politicians known to throw their efforts behind those reformers who are working to alleviate the economic effects of mass immigration? Not a one. Because they have been getting heat from some angry constituents, in March, members of the Congressional Black Caucus (which includes all black members of Congress) trekked to the White House to share with Obama their "concerns" about the black unemployment rate. As reported by Frank Morris in the Washington Times, the 43 members of the CBC, who represent primarily black constituencies, bear a large share of responsibility for neglect of this issue. These black legislators, writes Morris, have "consistently opposed tough enforcement of laws against employing illegal aliens."

As they have ever done, this claque of black politicians march in lockstep with all those who promote and protect illegal immigration. Not only are they in agreement with Obama's policies that have stopped immigration enforcement in the workplace, they have been "front and center in the effort to enact amnesty for millions of illegals." As Morris says, an amnesty bill "would provide nothing for black Americans except more competition for jobs, educational opportunities and increasingly scarce government resources." Remember, every time the overflow of immigrants forces a hospital to close its facilities, the poorest Americans are most negatively affected.

In 2006, in Immigration: Betrayal By Black Elites, I described the obnoxiously indifferent attitude of several black politicians who were called upon for help by displaced, unemployed blacks. It was clear then, as it is now, that notables such as Sheila Jackson-Lee, Maxine Waters and John Conyers seek only to expand their constituent base. As racial demographics change in their districts, they scramble only to court and win the confidence of the new foreigners. These deceivers cleverly make alliances with the elites of the incoming ethnic groups, disregarding the needs of those whom they perceive as their diminishing black base. However much they might bleat when it comes time to win the votes of fellow blacks, the typical black politician has never had an interest in anything except the protection of his/her career and political turf.

After all, when your district is filling up with Guatemalans, Ecuadoreans and Mexicans, you can't be expected to worry yourself about jobs these invaders are taking from the American citizens who initially put you in office.

Black politicians' message to the folks: Has the salary you relied on for years been cut in half and then in half again? Don't complain. That's how the market works. Just come down off your high horse of demanding that $12 an hour that the market once paid, and settle for $3.35, like a good alien, and the problem will be solved.

Unfortunately, there is no recourse to be had from that other political party, the one to which members of the Congressional Black Caucus do not belong. These Republicans have been among the most determined to keep the country's borders wide open for immigrants of all kinds, as their candidates for office spend most of the time flip-flopping on the subject.

Leaders of both the Democrats and Republicans would rather the matter not be brought up at all. On the immigration front, both of these political parties share the same need for ongoing importation of foreigners, that is, cheap labor for the constituencies of the Republicans and lots of brown and black prospective voters for the Democrats.

The Democrats' pitch to blacks, that works successfully, goes something like this: Since you owe us for your "liberation" and "civil rights," you should stick with us and our candidates, who will continue to devise laws, that will form policies, that will create programs to be engineered in your favor. If you don't continue your alliance with us, you might very well slip back into slavery, and fail to benefit from our spurious "job training" projects. After all, you can't trust those other folks to take care of you.

As revolting as this might sound, a look at the Republican offering might very well turn your stomach even more. For this is the War Party, and the employment they offer blacks, or any other unemployed, is grounded in a counterfeit "patriotism." Not just full employment, but all good things come through warmaking.

The Republicans would have all the idle apply for work in Uncle Sam's Army. A report issued last year by these advocates for the "greatest military in the world" laments the fact that so many thousands of American youth are "ineligible" to serve those whom Andrew Bacevich calls the "knaves and fools" who run the military.

It seems that most American youth lack the type of education required to handle today's magnificent military machine. They have enough education, mind you, to die as cannon fodder, but anybody can fill that bill. Our illustrious military leaders, however, want to maim and kill the better educated, those who can decipher all that intelligent technological weaponry, along with the grunts from Mississippi and Georgia, who cannot. You should have at least a high school diploma before you lose an eye or leg, have your brains scrambled, or die.

Another factor that makes so many of the young ineligible, the good Republicans tell us, is early involvement in criminal activities. The Generals would prefer such youth, before embarking on their private criminal careers, to wait until given the appropriate official weaponry and pointed in the direction of Arabia, instead of striking out on their own.

This political party also acts as the country's religious guide. Only its members understand the mind of their peculiar, inscrutable God. We're supposed to take seriously their "pro-life" admonitions, as they eagerly send their warrior sons off to kill the in utero babies of Arab women.

In their determination to "reach out" and to demonstrate their desire to uplift the unfortunates out of the depths of unemployment, members of this Republican party make a fuss about "free enterprise," but do not support such a system with their policies. They are not admirers of entrepreneurial talent, as such, but are worshippers of ruthless profiteering. Not only do they grant sainthood to the grossest corporate pirates, some of them have even been known to apologize to said pirates, when any are taken to task for criminal negligence and outright incompetence.

To these Republicans, there is no such thing as unethical corporate behavior. And anyone who says otherwise is a degenerate Commie. The market, you see, "channels" behavior and thereby keeps it honest. To profit, the businessman must follow the rules of the magic "market," which automatically will keep him on the straight and narrow, thus maintaining his integrity. Human nature or the temptations of the flesh do not come into play in the magic market. At least not in Republican la-la-land. In this land, there is no such thing as an inept corporate executive. And certainly no such thing as a malevolent money-grubbing one, no matter what the Bernie Madoff case might imply.

Just suggest to one of these Republicans that there's something obscene about the escalating sizes of executive pay packages, given the ratio to an average worker's salary, and then stand back for the tidal wave of epithets that will ensue, ranging from you being a denizen of "class envy," to being a brainwashed leftoid redistributionist. For it's not innate human greed, you see, but government interference, via Regulations, that makes business people turn bad. Our recent financial troubles do not stem from the revocation of the Glass-Steagall Act, as we are led to believe, but from exactly that kind of legal meddling with the marketplace.

Let's return to that initial grievance about black candidates now running for political office, and the dire news that many, if not most of them, will not attain their goals. All of these cynical descendants of slaves will be running as members of one of the two corrupt political parties. So, when assessing the overall welfare of the unemployed, would it make a dime's worth of difference whether or not any of these scurrilous flim-flam artists are elected? Let's see what happens to the nation if no blacks end up as winners in elections this year.

Arizona's war

2010-06-23T05:21:00.002-04:00

"Think about it," writes Roger Hedgecock, "a part of America is off limits to U.S. citizens because it is now controlled by an army of foreigners." And where is that part of America he speaks of? In Arizona, where citizens are fighting to restore control of the state's borders. He then goes on to tell a hair-raising story about how law has degenerated, as the federal administration in Washington, DC, is set to raise hell with Arizona's elected government. Hedgecock writes:

• • •
In a press conference ignored by the American national media, [Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County] described how his deputies were outmanned and outgunned by the cartel smugglers who increasingly operate using military tactics and weapons. The result, said Sheriff Babeu, was that a wide corridor of Arizona from the border North to the outskirts of Phoenix is effectively controlled by the cartels. "We do not have control of this area," the sheriff said.

At the same time as the sheriff's ignored press conference, the national media did cover assurances from the Obama Administration that crime was down at the border. ... The new reign of terror on the border in Arizona was airbrushed out of the picture. ...

Warning signs were posted this past month by the federal government 80 miles North of the border on the South side of I-8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend urging U.S. citizens not to camp or hike in the "Active Drug and Human Smuggling Area" because "Visitors May Encounter Armed Criminals." ...

U.S. Fish and Wildlife staffers report that the 3,500 acre Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in this area is closed to U.S. citizens as well and is "adversely affected" by cartel operations. The border between the U.S. and Mexico is almost 2,000 miles long. According to DEA sources, nearly half of all the cocaine and illegal aliens are smuggled into the U.S. over the 365 mile long Arizona border with Mexico. There's a war going on in Arizona which puts into perspective that state's new immigration law. ...

The only reason the cartels have not taken over all of Mexico is that they frequently fight each other in bloody, largely unreported battles for control of valuable drug trafficking routes. Beheading of rival gang members and Mexican police are now routine. ...

Frequent cross border incursions into the U.S. by cartel soldiers in Mexican Army uniforms driving American-made Humvees and toting automatic weapons support an increasingly sophisticated web of smuggling routes. Patrolling sheriff deputies or lone Border Patrol officers are no match for this firepower and are ordered to fall back when confronted with the cartels' military might.

Read the rest of Hedgecock's account here.

War as the permanent American condition could keep the Democrats in power forever

2010-06-23T05:14:00.003-04:00

Glenn Greenwald astutely ponders just how little attention all our various wars receive. Where is the debate that should be going on concerning these military engagements? He observes that one would hardly know this country is engaged in war at all, and writes: "Given the types of wars the U.S. chooses to wage, most Americans who express their support for them bear absolutely no perceived cost whatsoever. Worse, many who cheer for our wars enjoy that most intoxicating and distorting reward: cost-free benefits, in the form of vicarious feelings of strength, purpose, nobility and the like, all from a safe distance."

Because Americans do not feel directly affected by these conflicts, the failing economy receives so much attention and the wars do not. How can there be so little debate over something as serious as war? What happened to the partisan division over these invasions, Greenwald asks, that was apparent during George W. Bush's tenure?

He explains: "During the Bush presidency, war debates raged because those wars -- especially the Iraq war -- were a GOP liability and a Democratic Party asset." Genuine anger over the Iraq invasion drove the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006 and Obama's win in 2008.

But now, observes Greenwald, "America's wars are no longer Republican wars; they're Democratic wars as well. Both parties are thus vested in their defense, which guts any real debate or opposition." Which Republicans will now speak ill of wars that were started by their party, and which Democrats are going to malign wars that their President continues to wage?

The real reason why debate over the wars has disappeared, says Greenwald, is because it serves neither party to engage in them. Yet a major factor in understanding the lack of debate is the fact that war itself has become the permanent American condition. "We're essentially a war fighting state. We have been at 'war' the entire last decade (as well as largely non-stop for the decades which preceded it), and continue now to be at 'war' with no end in sight. ... The decree that we are 'at war' has been repeated over and over for a full decade, drummed into our heads from all directions without pause, sanctified as one of those Bipartisan Orthodoxies that nobody can dispute upon pain of having one's Seriousness credentials immediately and irrevocably revoked. With war this normalized, is it really surprising that nobody debates it any longer? It'd be like debating the color of the sky."

So, in keeping the country at war, Obama has put himself in a perfect position to maintain the support of the so-called Republican opposition, which favors war without question. Throw into that camp the Tea Party war-loving darlings, and the Democrats just might find themselves in power indefinitely.

Read the rest of Greenwald's insightful remarks here.

Chasing ships at sea

2010-06-23T05:05:00.002-04:00

Richard Silverstein, writing at Tikun Olam, describes a speech delivered by the Israeli novelist and journalist, Nir Baram, at a rally in Israel attended by 10,000 people, to protest the military actions against the flotilla to Gaza. Silverstein writes:

• • •
10,000 Israelis protested the failed Israeli attack on the Mavi Marmara and the Gaza siege a few days ago. What struck me especially about the rally was this electrifying speech by Israeli novelist and journalist, Nir Baram, decrying the blockheadedness of the Israeli leadership and the insularity of the Israeli public regarding the suffering it inflicts on the Palestinians. The conclusion of his speech was especially poignant to me as it presented a glorious vision of what the State of Israel could be – someday:

For the past eight years we have on our table a real peace proposal from the Arab League, a dramatic, unprecedented proposal for a final, lasting peace between Israel and the entire Arab world, which at long last would enable Israel to integrate into the region. But instead of making this initiative a priority on the public agenda, we opt for chasing ships out at sea…

We shut ourselves behind walls telling ourselves we have no other choice. We put one and a half million people under siege in Gaza, convincing ourselves that they want for nothing, and if there’s a bit of a water shortage they should drink from the sea. We intensify and reinforce the Occupation claiming there is no partner. We slight every peace proposal whether advanced by the Arab League, Syria or Abu Mazen, and all the while teach our children our fondest hope is for peace.

We are here to tell Jerusalem’s government of worthless incompetents and racists that we are bound to this place wholeheartedly, and prepared to do whatever it takes to turn Israel into a true, free, and fearless democracy, a home for all of us.

In days past, when there was some hope that the Israeli political system actually worked, such a speech would have marked him for a possible seat in the Knesset. So many in Israel would place such high hopes on Baram’s shoulders. Now, why would any half-way intelligent person want to sit in such a house of fools? Nevertheless, the fact that a Nir Baram exists and has the courage to express these words and that thousands cheer him on – this is enough to make me persevere in my own efforts. We must support the Nir Barams of Israel. They are the last, best hope that there is some humanity that lingers there.

Read the rest of article here.

Enticing young men with lies

2010-06-23T04:58:00.001-04:00

In "Things the Marine Corps Forgot to Mention," Laurence Vance tells of his experience, as a father, with Marine Corps recruiters. He writes about the freebies offered to young men like his son:

The Marine Corps recruiting literature sent to high school students is a little different each time. The first time I saw it the theme was preserving the American way of life. The student who sent in the reply card was entitled to receive dog tags, a duffle bag or a skullcap. I wrote about this in "The Few, the Proud, the High School Students." The theme the second time I saw it was defense. Offered this time was a choice between folding speakers, a T-shirt, or a wristband. I wrote about this in "The Marines Are Looking for a Few Good High School Students." Although it has been said that the third time’s the charm, I’m afraid the Marine Corps has failed once again to ensnare my son.

The recruiting literature that arrived in the mail this time, thanks yet again to the No Child Left Behind Act, consisted of an envelope with a short note and two reply cards – all of which have pictures of the free Marine Corps gear being offered this time: a duffle bag, sunglasses, or a watch. The note says that in order to become a Marine you have to want certain things.

Among those wanted things are Pushing your mind and body to its limits; Protecting freedom, democracy and every state in the nation; Being willing to work hard; and, of course, Wanting to be a Marine.

Except for the second item, which is a lie, Vance insists, i.e., "protection of freedom and democracy" (since Marines are doing nothing of the kind), the rest of the items are true. However, Vance has a problem with what the Marine Corps "forgot to mention," and elucidates:

What is not mentioned is that in order to become a Marine you also have to want certain other things:

• You have to want to intervene in the affairs of other countries.
• You have to want to do anything but actually defend the United States.
• You have to want to obey without reservation the orders of your superiors.
• You have to want to perpetuate the lie that the military defends our freedoms.
• You have to want to invade other countries that have not attacked the United States.
• You have to want to occupy other countries that resist being invaded.
• You have to want to kill foreigners that resist being invaded and occupied.
• You have to want to maintain the U.S. global empire of troops and bases.

If a high school student doesn’t want to do any of these things, then he has no business joining the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps is not preserving the American way of life, defending anyone’s freedoms, or protecting every state in the nation.

Vance concludes with quotes from the indomitable Major General Smedley Butler's little treatise, War Is a Racket. Nobody was better positioned to make such an observation about America's past time than this Congressional Medal of Honor winner, who spent 33 years in the military. Among his pithier remarks:

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

Read the full Vance article here.

Gaza and the lessons learned

2010-06-01T23:25:00.012-04:00

How many times must we explain this to you? We can do as we please, because we're the Chosen People. Look, your very own Christian loonies confirm this truism. You remember the mantra of these good evangelical folk: "We're all Israelis now."

You know that anything we do, we're going to be protected, by your very own. First of all, by that Congress of yours, of which we control all 531 members. They'd better toe the line, since each and every one of them knows that it's curtains to another term in office, if they make an attempt to cross us. Each of your Presidents, needless to say, has always understood his place. This goes ditto for those worthless members of Europe's many Parliaments.

Our major protector, of course, is your media, not only most of which we control, but almost all of which our ethnic compatriots own. The few who are not in our camp might as well be, since they're smart enough to know that they had better go along, if they want to get along.

Look, remember how we explained it to those miserable Palestinians, who we've worn down to a frazzle? Why don't you leave, already? We've warned them over and over again, that if they insist on building and maintaining their homes and replanting those olive trees, we're never going to stop bombing their behinds, bulldozing their homes, and burning their fields and orchards. But they keep ignoring us. And then, inevitably, one of their sons bursts a gasket and retaliates in venomous anger. Nothing delights us more than these "terrorist" incidents, since we, with out trusty media apologists, get to tell the story of what happened through the lens of our propaganda machine -- in each and every incident.

Whether we're bulldozing their homes and land or preventing them from making use of their natural shoreline to engage in trade or receive shipping, we get to determine when these Palestinians can breathe and when they cannot. And when we choose to board those "flotillas" that you help them arrange, you along with them will always be accused of responsibility for whatever conflict ensues, and we will laugh and laugh as you attempt to get your side of the story out. Out to whom? Even with all this expanded Internet media, do you notice how we prevail anyway?

Don't you know by now there's not a thing you can do, because your feckless "leaders," who do possess some iota of power, are too deceitful, too greedy, and much too chicken to oppose us. They are too stricken with fear of our power to even consider taking an opposing stance. As one of our illustrious Prime Ministers put it, back in the 1990s, you gentile fools are in his back pocket. You're in all of our back pockets.

Oh, yes, we allow some faux display of anger on the part of a few stray opponents, who pretend toughness by engaging in a wee bit of finger-pointing at the naughty, naughty Israelis. But then they remember who we are, and they soon suck it up. And in no time at all, the current episode blows over and everything returns to normal. In case you hadn't noticed, Normal is our total control of everything we consider in our best interests.

We must not allow these Palestinians to acquire supplies of any kind, for if we do, they will have the means to live on and on and on. That's not going to happen on our watch. For 60 years we've spent too much of our energy and resources (and yours, too, of course) to guarantee their ultimate demise. And their demise will come.

Remember, back in the late 1990s, when all those cameras were rolling, and that frightened father and young son were cringing against that wall, and our soldiers first shot the father -- and the cameras kept rolling? And, while the father was leaning over in an attempt to protect his son, our illustrious military heroes then shot the boy -- and the cameras kept rolling. Remember that?

What we learned from that incident, and others like it (remember Sabra and Shatila?), is that "world opinion" doesn't mean a damn thing. If we got away with that very public event, we were assured that the atrocities we pull off on a daily basis, away from rolling cameras, would never be challenged. All we have to say about any conflict that makes the news is, "The Palestinians started it first. We were simply defending ourselves." Then our propaganda machine goes into overdrive and sees to it that most of the world will hear only our side of the story.

We are the Chosen People.
• • •
Before the Journey to Gaza

From American Chronicle:

On to Gaza

5/8/10 -- A "Freedom Flotilla" is planning to sail for Gaza by the end of the month. It will be the ninth expedition to try to reach Gaza by sea. According to the Free Gaza movement, this time it will be bigger and better than ever. This time, there will be Turkish involvement.

The Free Gaza movement is calling it "the biggest internationally coordinated effort to directly challenge Israeli´s ongoing occupation, aggression and violence against the Palestinian people." The organizers apparently believe that, even if they don't succeed in reaching their destination in Gaza, the publicity value alone, highlighting the blockade of Gaza, sufficiently justifies this attempt.

The last attempt to reach Gaza by sea was in June 2009 -- then, Free Gaza ships were intercepted by the Israeli Navy off Gaza, and forced to proceed to the southern Israeli port of Ashdod, where the cargo was impounded. ... According to the organizers' plans, the Freedom Flotilla will include as many as nine boats, including several cargo ships, and perhaps five passenger ships with up to 600 high-profile international personalities, activists, and journalists aboard.

Some of the ships will reportedly be flying the Turkish flag. This means that any Israeli attack on those ships would be considered tantamount to an attack upon Turkey.

Another one of the cargo ships, refurbished and outfitted in Ireland, has been re-named the MV Rachel Corrie, after the American solidarity activist who died, crushed by an Israeli military bulldozer (the IDF said the driver could not see her) while she was trying to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian home in southern Gaza.

From Israel Shamir:

Gaza Ahoy! Godspeed to Gaza.

5/29/10 -- The Turks did it! The world as we know it has changed with the new-found independence of Turkey. Within one month, this erstwhile American semi-colony under the charismatic leadership of Recep Erdogan has made two strong moves that have brought it to the forefront of policy-making:

Together with Brazil, Turkey has arranged and signed the Tehran Declaration of a nuclear fuel swap deal with beleaguered Iran. This declaration derails the Israeli plans of sanctioning Iran to death prior to bombing it. ... However, world policy-making has changed, and decisions are not made exclusively in Washington, London or Moscow any more. Mid-size countries – regional powers – are back in vogue, and it is much better for all of us. ...

After derailing the sanctions against Iran, the indomitable Turk sent his vessels to relieve the siege of Gaza. A whole flotilla of small and medium boats is on its way to Gaza now, and among them, a large boat from Turkey, accompanied by a boat bought and equipped by another great friend of Palestine, Mahathir Mohammad of Malaysia. ...

This is the first time that the steering of this freedom regatta has passed from the hands of nice European volunteers to the locals, to the peoples of the region. This is a vast change, and a change that means a lot. While the Palestinian cause was only the cause celebré of Europeans with conscience, it was containable. Now, when it has become the concern of the local region, the countdown for the freak Zionist mini-Empire has begun.

From Nadia Kevorkova:

Freedom flotilla ready to break through blockade

5/30/10 -- The parliamentarians made up of Ireland’s Chris Andrews from ruling party Fianna Fail, Aengus Snodaigh from Sinn Fein, and senator Mark Daly; Swiss PM Mehmet Kaplan; former Italian senator Fernando Rossi; Hedy Epstein, an 86-year old US citizen whose parents were killed in the Holocaust; Kiriyak Tsonev, a former Bulgarian envoy to all Arabic countries; Oslo city council member Erling Folkvord; as well as Swedish journalists and writers from Sweden and France – all these people had spent 18 hours trying to board ships in Cypriot harbors to join the Gaza Freedom Flotilla that was waiting for them.

The flotilla, made up of nine ships, is to bring 10,000 tons of humanitarian cargo into Gaza, including medicines and notebooks, along with about 700 people: MPs from Israel and Germany, writers, scientists, two Al-Jazeera camera crews, newswire writers and TV journalists from Norway, Sweden, Bulgaria and France. ...

[Greta] Berlin believes that, regardless of whether the last group of campaigners will manage to join the rest of the flotilla, Israel’s blockade of Gaza will be breached. The world community’s attention is focused on the flotilla’s actions and plenty of resources have been gathered that are to go to the Palestinians.

The public isn’t quiet at all, however. One of the flotilla’s ships has been furbished by the European Union. European Union MPs and diplomats are present on board some of the ships. ...

Hedy Epstein, 86, who lost her parents in the Holocaust, is trying to enter Gaza for the fourth time. Yesterday, in Port Alaminos around 19:00 the group was blocked by four police cars, motor boats and a helicopter. The group had been urged to arrive in Port Alaminos by the Cyprus negotiators from the local government, who promised that from that point they would be able to send people to the flotilla.

After the Attack on the Freedom Flotilla

From Glenn Greenwald:

Israel attacks aid ship

5/31/10 -- Late last night, Israel attacked a flotilla of ships in international waters carrying food, medicine and other aid to Gaza, killing at least 10 civilians on board and injuring at least 30 more. ... The six-ship flotilla was carrying 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid along with 600 people, all civilians, which included 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire of Northern Ireland and European legislators. ...

At the end of 2009, a U.N. report found that "insufficient food and medicine is reaching Gazans, producing a further deterioration of the mental and physical health of the entire civilian population since Israel launched Operation Cast Lead against the territory," and also "blamed the blockade for continued breakdowns of the electricity and sanitation systems due to the Israeli refusal to let spare parts needed for repair get through the crossings."

It hardly seemed possible for Israel -- after its brutal devastation of Gaza and its ongoing blockade -- to engage in more heinous and repugnant crimes. But by attacking a flotilla in international waters carrying humanitarian aid, and slaughtering at least 10 people, Israel has managed to do exactly that. If Israel's goal were to provoke as much disgust and contempt for it as possible, it's hard to imagine how it could be doing a better job. ...

Israeli actions are a direct reflection on, and by-product of, the U.S. Government, because it is the U.S. which enables and protects the behavior. The one silver lining from these incidents is that the real face of Israel becomes increasingly revealed and undeniable. Not even the most intense propaganda systems can prettify a lethal military attack on ships carrying civilians and humanitarian aid to people living in some of the most wretched and tragic conditions anywhere in the world. ...

As Americans suffer extreme cuts in education for their own children and a further deterioration in basic economic security (including Social Security), will they continue to acquiesce to the transfer of billions of dollars every year to the Israelis, who -- unlike Americans -- enjoy full, universal health care coverage? ... How much longer will Americans be willing to pay the extreme prices for its endlessly entangled "alliance" with its prime Middle Eastern client state, whose capacity for criminal and inhumane acts appears limitless?

What does Israel fear from media coverage?

6/1/10 -- The New York Times reports: "A day after Israeli commandoes raided an aid flotilla seeking to breach the blockade of Gaza, Reuters reported that Israel was holding hundreds of activists incommunicado in and around the port city of Ashdod, refusing to permit journalists access to witnesses who might contradict Israel's version of events." ...

Isn't it strange how Plucky, Democratic Israel goes to such extreme lengths to prevent any media coverage of what they do, any journalistic interference with their propaganda machine, in light of the fact that -- as always -- They Did Absolutely Nothing Wrong? Is physically blocking the media from covering what happens the act of a government that is in the right? ...

Israel is now not only detaining the victims of its aggression, but also threatening to prosecute and imprison them. Israeli Internal Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch said yesterday: "All those who lifted a hand against a soldier will be punished to the full extent of the law." So when Israel seizes ships in international waters and kills anyone who resists (and others standing near them), that is an act of noble, plucky self-defense. But those who fail to submit completely to this lawless and barbarous act of aggression are the Real Criminals who will be prosecuted and imprisoned "to the fullest extent of the law." ...

But doesn't the victim of a crime usually want media coverage of what the criminal did? How odd for the victim in this case to take such extreme steps to ensure that the world cannot hear from the witnesses. ... "There won’t be any daylight between the US and Israel in the aftermath of the incident on the flotilla yesterday, which resulted in the deaths of 10 activists," ABC News reported today, in case that wasn't already obvious. ...

Finally, Newsweek's Ben Adler explains why the U.S. will never criticize Israel no matter what Israel does: because huge numbers of Republican and Democratic politicians are vehemently devoted to that foreign country, and the ones who aren't are petrified, especially in an election year. That, too, is some rare candor on the subject.

From Stephen Walt:

Israel's latest brutal blunder

5/31/10 -- By now you'll all have heard about the IDF's unwarranted attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, a fleet of six civilian vessels that was attempting to bring humanitarian aid (i.e., medicines, food, and building materials) to Gaza. The population of Gaza has been under a crippling Israeli siege since 2006. Israel imposed the blockade after Gaza's voters had the temerity to prefer Hamas in a free election held at the insistence of the Bush administration, which then refused to recognize the new government because it didn't like the results. ...

My first question when I heard the news was: "What could Israel's leaders have been thinking?" How could they possibly believe that a deadly assault against a humanitarian mission in international waters would play to their advantage? Israel's government and its hard-line supporters frequently complain about alleged efforts to "delegitimize" the country, but actions like this are the real reason Israel's standing around the world has plummeted to such low levels. ...

My second question is: "Will the Obama administration show some backbone on this issue, and go beyond the usual mealy-mouthed statements that U.S. presidents usually make when Israel acts foolishly and dangerously?" ... Attacking a humanitarian aid mission certainly isn't consistent with American values -- even when that aid mission is engaged in the provocative act of challenging a blockade -- and doing so in international waters is a direct violation of international law. Of course, it would be politically difficult for the administration to take a principled stand with midterm elections looming, but our values and commitment to the rule of law aren't worth much if a president will sacrifice them just to win votes. ...

Because the United States provides Israel with so much material aid and diplomatic protection, and because American politicians from the president on down repeatedly refer to the "unbreakable bonds" between the United States and Israel, people all over the world naturally associate us with most, if not all, of Israel's actions. Thus, Israel doesn't just tarnish its own image when it does something outlandish like this; it makes the United States look bad, too. ...

It will also cost us some moral standing with other friends around the world, especially if we downplay it. This is just more evidence, as if we needed any, that the special relationship with Israel has become a net liability. In short, unless the Obama administration demonstrates just how angry and appalled it is by this foolish act, and unless the U.S. reaction has some real teeth in it, other states will rightly see Washington as irretrievably weak and hypocritical.

From Gabriel Winant:

Why Israel will get away with it

6/1/10 -- The violence on the flotilla headed for Gaza would seem to be unambiguously bad news for Israel. In boarding a civilian ship carrying humanitarian aid supplies, and involving themselves in an incident that led to at least ten civilian deaths, it seems clear that the Israeli Defense Forces have incurred a political cost for Israel that far exceeds whatever national interest they thought they were protecting. Europe is outraged, Turkey is cutting off ties, and an explosion in the occupied territories looks possible. ...

The hard consensus at the elite level in favor of tolerating whatever Israel wants to do rests on a soft consensus in American public opinion. Both are likely to survive this in some slightly diminished form, as they've survived the two Lebanon wars (complete with thoroughly unprovoked massacres), the small Gaza war and the formation of an Israeli government including a quasi-fascist foreign minister.

Plus, even though Israeli commandos Israel boarded the ships as part of a broad, explicit, and indefensible effort to keep basic supplies out of a desperately needy Gaza, Israel's supporters are aggressively pushing a blame-the-victims counternarrative. ...

American conservatives are already doubling down on their attacks on the ship passengers. Writing at Commentary, Noah Pollak actually calls them "terrorist blockade runners." Apparently, you can be a terrorist even on the receiving end of the gunfire. At the National Review Online, Daniel Pipes writes, "Israel’s enemies… turned to other means -- weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and (most recently) political delegitimization. ...

Seeing conservatives rally to Israel's defense and liberals agonize and waffle, Americans who are paying even moderate attention will probably just figure that this is more of the usual. While the Obama administration has been trying to apply pressure to the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, we've yet to see any willingness to expend significant political capital on the effort. This latest might give President Obama more leverage, and lend weight to his warnings that Israel is undermining its own long-term political standing. But it seems equally likely that it won't have any significant short-term consequences, and Israeli conservatives will figure that everything turned out for the best. ...

But if the killings at sea do spark a new uprising or a wave of terrorism, Israel is likely only to entrench further, and the American and Israeli right wings will both once again blame the Palestinians for obstructing peace. ... Obviously, the situation is open. Prediction is something of a mug's game. But this mug, at least, thinks that Israel is going to get away with it. ...

At the moment, for [Netanyahu] and his allies on the right, the basic model of governance is to borrow against Israel's future position, in exchange for short-term gains of security or territory. In other words, in the long term, getting away with it is bad news for Israel. But, for the time being, that isn't especially important to the Israeli government.

On Rand Paul, blacks and capitalism

2010-06-01T22:42:00.000-04:00

See my article, The Civil Rights Myth: Integration and the End of Black Self-Reliance at Alternative Right

Excerpts:

White liberals were so intent on forced integration of white businesses because it never occurred to them to put the onus on blacks themselves, and to ask, Why should whites, or any other group, be compelled to go against their preferences to satisfy yours? Why aren't you taking care of these matters and fulfilling your own needs? ...

How is it possible to win the respect of others, if you produce nothing? This question was already being asked back in 1852 by the black Abolitionist Martin Delany, who denounced middle-class blacks that long ago for desiring only to ride on the coattails of whites ...

Why didn't whites support those blacks who, back in the 1950s and 1960s, challenged the strategies of the proliferating numbers of civil-rights leaders, and who insisted that blacks must not be taken down the road of dependency? One reason is that ever since the days of Abolition, whites had grown used to having this mass of people to pity. These black victims of the "bad" whites made the "good" whites feel expansive and noble, as they still do. The graphic depictions of past sufferings relentlessly offered up by the NAACP suited these whites just fine. ...

The [black] elites were not dumb. They surmised that the strategy of "civil rights" would lead more quickly to greater power than they could acquire at a slower economic pace. This is the key to why so much terrible stuff befell blacks and ultimately befell the country. The elites who ran such organizations as the NAACP cared nothing about the overall health or long-term welfare of the group, but only about how they might take short cuts to power via the beneficence of whites. With the help of their white compatriots they managed to turn what was essentially an economic problem to be solved into a moral crusade. And the typical white ate it up. After all, economic solutions would not have led to all that Freedom-Riding and marching and anthem singing. Oh, how those white folks loved all that melodrama! And still do. ...

The total acceptance of King by whites, confirmed when this preacher was granted a federal holiday, fixed for all time the notion that the path on which he took blacks was the only correct one.

Read complete article here.

A new war for the Empire

2010-05-20T23:53:00.003-04:00

At the end of an informative rant about the current economic woes of his birthplace Greece, Taki Theodoracopulos concludes, in his usual witty fashion:

Thinking about it, we Greeks are not all that bad. At least our leaders have not sent young men to die for the glory of Bush and Blair and Brown, despite enormous pressure to do so. So what’s a little stealing from the crooks of the EU, with a little help from Goldman Sachs, that is.

Yes, Greece could be a worse villain and in worse than just financial trouble. It could be acting like an Empire that has assumed the responsibility of monitoring the entire planet, along with the cosmos, sort of like the role the United States plays.

Let's see now. We only have three wars going on at the moment -- Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan -- with Iran on hold. But what's that over there in the East? That looks like Korea acting up again, with its North throwing missiles at the South. This is the signal for the Empire to hop to it. Oh boy, another war!

Surely, we can offer some of our inventive military equipment, troops, and other resources to bombing the stuffings out of Korea. Why not bomb both Koreas this time? After all, we should return and finish the job that was left incomplete in the 1950s, right? It's our moral duty.

We know we can count on those faithful Evangelical Christians to send more of their sons to die or be maimed. There are so many young American men still to be sent overseas to "protect our freedoms." What are they doing out of uniform anyway, sitting around playing with their iPods, watching TV, hiding out in college with musty, old books. Let's give them something substantial to do!

Let's send more units of soldiers as emissaries and give another part of the world reasons to hate us, as they are blown up by IEDs, or whatever the Koreans might think invaders deserve. We know those good capitalist Evangelicals will be thrilled to keep the prosthetic industry fat and prosperous, while assuring us that they Support the Troops. USA! USA! USA! Who can we go and kill today? Our own young men in another worthless conflict.

Who's the Commander-in-Chief?

2010-05-13T19:17:00.002-04:00

David Wood foresees a dismal future for Afghanistan, since there seems to be no joint political strategy between the White House and Afghan leaders. In Obama's Afghanistan: No Political Strategy, No Benchmarks, No End Point, Wood speculates on the results of President Obama's recent meetings with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

He writes, "Neither Karzai nor administration officials defined what they want Afghanistan to look like in one year, or five, or 10. Nor did anyone mention benchmarks that could help chart progress or lack of progress toward that goal." The main stated goal, of course, is the elimination of al-Qaida. But how can any force insure that the Afghan people will possess the will to maintain the new institutions that are now being intruded into their customs?

The hubris on the part of the Americans is astounding. With their mighty fire power, the Western bully entered another man's world and centuries-old culture, yet eight years later the foreigners are setting up unfamiliar political structures, while discussing their "key goals" to "make local government more able and willing to respond to local needs and grievances." Wood informs us that "Thousands of U.S. troops and civilians are working in Afghanistan today training local officials to draw up budgets and plan and manage projects."

For now, Afghans must cooperate with the Western bully, but will they want those structures and alien institutions once the bully has left their land? Stephen Biddle, in the Washington Post, claims that a system of bribery, even blackmail, using the carrot and stick approach, will probably be employed by the Obama administration. Since Afghanistan is "critically reliant on the United States for life support," he writes, "aid programs can be accelerated or slowed, ... logistical support can be provided or withheld, ... visas can be granted or denied." He claims, "The possibilities are nearly endless."

Yes, carrot and stick should make for a good foundation between the governments of the two countries. After all, it's worked before.

Whatever dreams there might be for the future, the present reality is a gruesome one and will be held in the long memories of Afghans for many years to come. It will take a lot of mental purging to forget what Westerners have done in their midst for almost a decade.

For instance, we learn from The New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh news that previously has been confirmed by soldiers in the field. In "US Troops Carrying Out Battlefield Executions," Hersh, in a videotaped conference discussion, tells of outright executions of prisoners by soldiers. "They're being executed on the battlefield." [See post below this one, Get out of our country, for comments of two soldiers.] Hersh explains it this way:

What they've done in the field now is, they tell the troops, you have to make a determination within a day or two or so whether or not the prisoners you have, the detainees, are Taliban. You must extract whatever tactical intelligence you can get, as opposed to strategic, long-range intelligence, immediately. And if you cannot conclude they're Taliban, you must turn them free. What it means is, and I've been told this anecdotally by five or six different people, battlefield executions are taking place. Well, if they can't prove they're Taliban, bam! If we don't do it ourselves, we turn them over to the nearby Afghan troops and, by the time we walk three feet, the bullets are flying. And that's going on now.

What long, long memories of the American invader the Afghans, and the Iraqis, will hold.

On another grim note, it would seem that Obama, the boy wonder President, similar to the previous boy wonder, George W. Bush, isn't exactly in charge of things. Hersh claims that Obama is "looking the other way," when it comes to atrocities being committed, because he is "dominated by the military." Obama is in real trouble, says Hersh, when it comes to geopolitics. "The military are dominating him on the important issues of the world: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Is the boy wonder the Commander-in-Chief, or isn't he? Who's in charge here, anyway?

Get out of our country

2010-05-12T14:43:00.001-04:00

It's hard to believe that grown-up men are still reciting George W. Bush's juvenile mantra of "why they hate us." You know, "because of our freedoms." Pat Buchanan nails the reason why this hackneyed refrain gets repeated, long after intelligent people have gained enough knowledge to know better.

For centuries, Muslims sat over in their part of the world hurling anathema at the licentious West for its immoral, decadent ways, while Westerners, in turn, scorned the Muslims' "backward" traditions. For years, there existed a grudging live and let live peace between the two diametrically opposed cultures. In recent decades, if there were Muslim oligarchs who would have liked to stir up trouble with the West, the weaponry of the Western nations, especially that of the United States, kept such notions in check. It was not until the United States, after being drawn into partisan conflicts in the Middle East and physically intruding into Muslim territories that their curses turned brutally vengeful.

In Is the War Coming Home?, Buchanan considers the factors that radicalized the men who most recently expressed their outrage through violent actions – the passenger who tried to blow up an airliner, the soldier who shot dead 13 fellow soldiers, another who sought to massacre scores of people in Times Square, and the imam who acts as inspiration to Muslims to commit jihad against Americans.

Were these men lifetime haters of the United States, including the one who was born here, and the other who became a naturalized citizen? Buchanan observes that, "All were converted in manhood into haters of America ... And the probability is high that there are many more like them living amongst us who wish to bring the war in the Af-Pak here to America."

Instead of working to decipher what in the minds of Muslims is behind this current burst of violence, immature American ideologues continue reciting their feeble clichés, none of which explains why Muslims, after centuries of non-violence towards the West, have reverted to horrific assaults from a bygone era. New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently added his canny insight, by explaining that we are hated because "this country is so great." And Wall Street Journal pundit Bret Stephens would like to believe that Muslim hatred is rooted in our "popular culture." It's because of "Lady Gaga," he writes, along with Madonna, Marilyn Monroe, and a host of other Hollywood sexpots, as well as Playboy, the pill, women's lib and gay rights.

Buchanan calls such rationalizations "comforting thoughts" to those who hold them, because they absolve us of the need to think. "Yet, this is as self-delusional," he writes, "as saying the FLN [National Liberation Front] set off bombs in movie theaters and cafes in Algiers to kill the French because of what Brigitte Bardot was doing on screen in And God Created Woman.

No doubt, this country's toxic culture gives devout Muslims reason to despise our way of life, but, says Buchanan, "It is not why they come here to kill us." In reality, "Mohammad Atta's friends did not target Hollywood, but centers and symbols of U.S. military and political power."

Buchanan reminds us that "U.S. Marines [in 1983] were not attacked by Hezbollah until we inserted those Marines into Lebanon's civil war. No Iraqi committed an act of terror against us before we invaded Iraq." He writes:

Osama bin Laden declared war on us, first and foremost, to end the massive U.S. presence on sacred Saudi soil that is home to Mecca and Medina. Some may insist this was not his real motive. But, apparently, the Saudis believed him, for they quickly kicked us out of Prince Sultan Air Base.

As for the Taliban ... their stated grievance is the same as Gen. Washington's in our war with the British: If you want this war to end, get out of our country.

What all of these angry men have in common is their desire to exact retribution for our killing their fellow Muslims. "We are being attacked over here because we are over there," declares Buchanan. Unlike the skimpy media coverage in this country that is given to the wars and occupation, Muslims all over the world are well informed of what is going on "over there." As reported to Lew Rockwell by an American soldier stationed in Afghanistan, here is the type of scenario that is raising the consciousness of people throughout Europe and Asia:

It is like the Wild West – no one cares what you do; we are just driving and walking around the desert shooting at dudes on motorcycles and getting shot and blown up by IEDs and RPGs. We are like 50 miles from the next patrol base and no one gives a f--k about what we do here.

And a soldier's letter to Laurence Vance, also at the Lew Rockwell site:

I wanted to let you know that as a current member of the U.S. military who has been deployed five times to the Middle East, we ARE NOT fighting to defend America's freedom – we are murdering innocent people and those just fighting to protect their family and livelihoods. My enlistment is up in just over a month and I cannot wait to get out there and be more vocal against this murderous evil empire. I hope that my being a veteran will help give me some credibility.

This is the manner in which the world's Greatest Super Power conducts its "wars." No accountability and random murder, not unlike the aggressions of ghetto gangbangers.

And they hate us for our "freedoms?"

A new role for the military

2010-05-10T20:40:00.003-04:00

Oh, my, the big chiefs of the military have a real problem. What to do? What to do?

According to journalist Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post, the Pentagon is begging Congress to cease dropping so much money on the troops, since this will eventually drain away resources for weapons and equipment maintenance.

It seems that our illustrious Senators and Representatives, the warmongers responsible for the two wars (or is it three?) in which American troops are engaged, are falling all over one another to show how much they "care" about the health and overall welfare of military personnel. These personnel expenses, that include health care costs, allowances for housing, and increased wages, constitute about one-quarter of defense spending.

Whitlock writes that "Pentagon officials see fiscal calamity" ahead. And, "In the midst of two long-running wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense officials are increasingly worried that the government's generosity is unsustainable and that it will leave them with less money to buy weapons and take care of equipment." Will a decision have to be made to use funds to produce more killing machines, while finding more victims to use them on? Or will the choice be to simply provide for the multitudes of maimed and soon-to-be-maimed soldiers and their families?

California Rep. Susan Davis asks, "Are we going to fund weapons or are we going to fund people?" What to do? What to do?

If we're lucky, perhaps the military will transform itself into a new institution that does nothing more than take care of men and women who have few prospects for employment in the private sector. Perhaps it could be turned into an organization whose members are deployed to regions within the United States, where they are needed for rescue service, to assist firemen, police departments, border agents, and to act as overall chivalrous commandos to deal with unexpected crises and catastrophes, and other Acts of God. Right here, within the USA.

And, as a side consequence of the military's transformation, perhaps the world might be spared the next onslaught of American fire power that's required when bringing our peculiar version of "democracy" abroad. Maybe the citizens of one more country might be spared the horror of experiencing the benefits of U.S. style "nation building." And perhaps by intruding less into other people's territories and cultures, we wind up tamping down the escalating hatred and resentment towards this country, and minimizing future quests for revenge.

Is the government really "us"?

2010-05-05T14:21:00.004-04:00

I guess the naive is still within me. Even with the knowledge of this government's dastardly treatment of Randy Weaver and his family and its extermination of the Waco religious sect, I still puzzled over the arrest of the members of the Hutaree militia. What possible case could be made, I wondered, of the expression of words, unaccompanied by deeds? How is it possible that these citizens would not be granted bail, at least, to await the judgment of the court? Are we really to believe that these eccentrics are too "dangerous" to return to their homes for this interim period?

And then I remembered another case, that of the "dangerous" Alex Curtis, who, for several months in 2000, was denied bail, and then spent three years in jail for nothing more than a series of harmless pranks. There should be little doubt that, when it comes to the targeted enemies of our government, no matter which presidential administration rules, anything can be contrived.

On May 1, President Barack Hussein Obama, in his commencement speech to graduates of the University of Michigan, berated Americans who persist in railing against government. Government should not be looked upon as a "menacing entity," he told his audience, and explained that those who fulminate against it have the effect of comparing it to "authoritarian, even murderous regimes." Obama claimed that the citizenry should not be so critical, since the government is "us."

So, it's "us" who murdered Randy Weaver's son and then his wife, as she stood in that doorway holding her baby. And it's "us" who, after an inhumane 50-day siege, murdered that little band of believers in Waco. And it's "us" who currently hand out 10-year prison sentences to youth who dare burn a cross on a lawn.

Is it also "us," as jack-booted swat teams, kick down doors in mistaken raids on the homes of innocent citizens? Is it "us" who allow an alien power, via its lobbyists and devotees, to set this country's foreign policy, that results in the unnecessary slaughter of American soldiers?

Do most of the vociferous protesters against government say there should be no government at all? Of course they don't. Even the Tea Party crazies and their ilk have never had any problem with the existence of government. In fact, they generally have no complaints about punitive treatment of citizens at the hands of federal, state or municipal governments. Most of the Partiers typically live by the "where there's smoke, there's fire" rule.

Think back to those horrendous days of Randy Weaver's troubles in the woods, and the later vile assaults on the Davidians at Waco. Throughout the harassment of each of these unfortunate victims, no right wing talk show hosts, including Rush Limbaugh and, here in New York, Bob Grant, could be roused by callers to add their influential voices to the protests against the atrocities being perpetrated by the God-almighty government. If anything, both of these fraudulent "constitutionalist" radio blabbers made it clear that the Waco "kooks" deserved what they got, for resisting government intervention. After all, if you are determined not to follow the rules, you should be prepared to be kicked around.

And now we have the Hutaree militia. Long-time government observer William Norman Grigg writes below about a Judge who probably possesses a memory of past injustices, and considers it her duty not to allow a repeat on her watch. (If one says, "Some day, I sure would like to get rid of that Sheriff Jones," is that the same as plotting to get rid of Jones?)

In The Hutaree Case Falls Apart, Grigg offers an update. Below are excerpts:
• • •
Federal District Judge Victoria Roberts has ruled that the nine members of the so-called Hutaree Militia accused of plotting to wage war against the Regime can be released on bail. Prosecutors had argued that bail should be denied because the group posed a severe danger to public safety.

The Hutaree group is accused of “seditious conspiracy” — specifically, plotting to murder a law enforcement officer and then follow up with opportunistic attacks on other LEOs who would attend the funeral. This would supposedly precipitate a wide-scale revolt.

Conversations discussing that scenario were reported by a federal informant who infiltrated the group and thoughtfully offered to teach them how to make improvised explosive devices. While federal prosecutors have provided ample evidence that members of the Hutaree are passionately anti-government — what decent person isn’t? — they haven’t been able to demonstrate that the group did anything more than engage in survivalist training and indulge in apocalyptic rhetoric. ...

Judge Roberts didn’t ﬁnd the government’s case compelling.
“Discussions about killing local law enforcement officers — and even discussions about killing members of the judicial branch of government — do not translate to conspiring to overthrow, or levy war against, the United States government,” she wrote, ordering that the Hutaree suspects be released on bail.

Since the federal case against the Hutaree rests entirely on what was said by the suspects, rather than anything specific that was done by them, it’s difficult to see what’s left of it.

Read entire article here.

See also:

The Myth of the Menacing Militias, by Jesse Walker, Reason magazine

Bribing the poor

2010-04-28T16:55:00.002-04:00

It is tacitly understood that most of the civil rights laws that were passed in the 1960s and 1970s were nothing more than bribery. All the legislation that eventually led to affirmative action mandates and expanded welfare benefits was designed primarily to keep the natives quiet, to mollify them, in the hopes that the prevailing rioting and other mayhem on the part of blacks would cease. The initial laws, amplified with promised goodies, offered incentives to the mobs to think twice before continuing to burn down neighborhoods. Many of those neighborhoods, by the way, were the very ones that members of the mobs lived in.

And so bribery on a massive scale was instituted under the camouflage of "justice" and "equality." Feckless whites, of course, would have agreed to any accommodation to end the disturbances and the threatened future chaos. Such whites might possibly have offered up their first born, as well as second born sons, in order to keep the peace. Keeping the peace, by any means necessary, was the order of the day. The thought that there were better means other than craven acquiescence never fluttered into their terrified souls.

All of this agitation and the consequent material rewards to blacks brought joy and delight to affluent middle class black elites who were, to use television journalist Tony Brown's stinging description of them, the "overseers of the bounty." As far as the race was concerned, declared Brown, the only role played by the black middle class is as "managers of resources allocated by government and corporate programs." Why risk your own resources by pooling capital to develop your own communities,
as so many blacks had done in the past, as well as every other ethnic group, when you can coerce substantial bonuses from a fearful government? Members of this well-off class, of course, always go to the front of the line with their pockets open, ready to become the "administrators" of the latest windfall, whenever the system deigns to dispense yet more gifts to the "downtrodden" poor.

A great many citizens may be familiar with this past history, but few know about the latest forms of bribery, as reported by Heather Mac Donald in Bribery Strikes Out:
It isn’t lack of opportunity that keeps poor people poor. Mac Donald describes that which she calls "a dangerously misguided antipoverty program."

Begun in New York City in 2007, under the auspices of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, this unusual initiative, Opportunity NYC-Family Rewards, bestows cash awards primarily on single mothers and their children, in order to induce them to, well, behave better. The project is modeled on a program in Mexico designed to target agricultural peasants, in spite of the fact that, according to Mac Donald, "multigenerational urban poverty in America is far different from Third World rural poverty." Although difficult for the welfare industry to accept, she argues, "the lives of America’s underclass are characterized by a degree of disorganization that is rarely grasped or acknowledged." Following are excerpts:
• • •
The much-heralded initiative that inspired Bloomberg’s program was based on the theory that Mexican campesinos were so trapped in the daily struggle for survival that they couldn’t undertake behaviors that would help them escape poverty over the long term. Facing grinding economic pressures, parents pull their children out of school to help with the harvest; mothers don’t take their children to the doctor because they can’t wrest time away from work in the fields or at home. Oportunidades, as the Mexican initiative was called, tried to change the perceived zero-sum relationship between self-improvement and present income by paying Mexican farm families for taking actions in their long-term self-interest, such as school work and medical visits.

Bloomberg’s version of Oportunidades officially pretended that New York’s underclass faced similar tragic choices. The poor failed to “plan for the future” because they were “so focused on surviving,” the mayor explained when inaugurating the program. They were engaged in a “struggle” for the very basics of existence, he said. Opportunity NYC–Family Rewards would alleviate the immediate pressure for survival that allegedly prevented the inner-city poor from investing in their future by paying them for self-improving behavior, thus offsetting the purported opportunity cost of future-oriented actions.

Of course, it’s ludicrous to suppose that what keeps America’s inner-city residents poor across generations is a struggle for subsistence in an economy of limited opportunities. The main drivers of poverty in America are family breakdown (in 2004, single-parent households nationally were six times as likely to be poor as married families). ... The antisocial behaviors that contribute to multigenerational poverty also have nothing to do with suffocating economic pressures: very few inner-city students cut classes or drop out of school to help their parents work; they do so because their peer culture is toxic and because their parents exercise little control over their lives.

Nor does American poverty bear any resemblance to Third World poverty. New York City is awash in welfare programs that confer on the poor benefits that would be unthinkable in rural Mexico or Africa, such as free high-tech medical care, monthly welfare checks, and free or subsidized housing. Family Rewards is an add-on to an already generous safety net; the Mexican version is the safety net. New York’s poor also enjoy a clean, reliable water supply, a public health system that controls environmentally borne infectious disease, a sound transportation infrastructure, and the rule of law. ...

Nevertheless, lurking beneath the Family Rewards rhetoric about “our impoverished campesinos” was an implicit acknowledgment of a truth rarely spoken in antipoverty circles: it’s the behavior of the inner-city poor that perpetuates poverty, not just “structural inequalities,” rapacious capitalism, or racism. That covert acknowledgment was enough to earn the initiative the opprobrium of many in the traditional poverty industry.

But the program’s proposed cure is potentially worse than the disease: paying families for activities that are part of the normal repertoire of what it means to be a responsible parent or student. ... Elementary- and middle-school students who make progress on annual academic tests net their parents $300 and $350, respectively. High school students get $600 each year that they accumulate 11 course credits (the bare minimum to stay on track to graduate) and another $600 for each New York State Regents exam that they pass.

Parents are paid $25 for attending a parent-teacher conference or discussing their child’s test results with a teacher; they receive $50 for getting their child a library card. Taking advantage of taxpayer-subsidized Medicaid services, such as free medical checkups, brings a $200 annual windfall; simply maintaining free Medicaid insurance earns the recipient $20 a month. Working full-time earns an additional $150 a month beyond the existing salary. Seeking education and training while working at least ten hours a week could net a parent $3,000 over three years.

The hubris behind this menu of bribes is breathtaking. Working on the premise that American society didn’t sufficiently reward self-discipline, effort, and achievement, the Family Rewards architects decided that they needed to correct the inadequate signals that the economy and the culture sent to the poor. ... The problem is that the poor don’t respond to incentives that are already abundantly present. Nevertheless, convinced of their own superior capacities to engineer sound social signals, the program’s planners arbitrarily made up a schedule of payments that would induce a welfare mother, for example, to make sure that her child went to school every day. Is monthly school attendance worth $25 or $100? Is a single Regents exam worth $600 or $1,200? ...

Once the expectation of payment for morally and socially responsible actions became widespread, there would be no dislodging it. Poor children would make an effort in school not because their parents had instilled in them the importance of education but because of the expectation of immediate cash. Once word got out that some students in a school were getting paid for their study habits, trying to withhold payments from every child in that school or indeed from every school in the system would be nearly impossible. ...

Those who worried about the long-term consequences of the conditional cash transfers (CCTs) need not have done so, however. Contrary to the expectations of both its supporters and critics, the Bloomberg experiment had almost no effect on its participants’ behavior. ... The program had no effect on students’ attendance rates compared with those of students in the control group; it had no effect on average test scores or academic proficiency rates; it had no effect on high school students’ overall accumulation of course credits or successfully passed Regents exams; it had only a negligible effect on the rate at which parents sought a free annual checkup for themselves or their children compared with parents in the control group; and it had a negative effect on the rate at which parents sought education or training for themselves. ...

“The premise of conditional cash transfers is that the stresses of poverty cause people to make choices that are not in their long-term interest,” MDRC president Gordon Berlin said at the press conference announcing the interim results. He may have it backward. It is the inability of some people to make choices in their long-term interest that causes poverty, as sociologist Edward Banfield argued four decades ago in The Unheavenly City. The poor have short time horizons, Banfield wrote, the rich, very long ones. No external force can change those psychological dispositions. ...

But the best solution for poverty reduction is the one that is the least likely to pass the lips of liberal policy makers: marriage. As was already abundantly clear before the CCTs, single-parent households are the primary source of long-term poverty in New York City and the country. Looked at from a purely economic standpoint (the least relevant one), a married father provides his children with additional material support and manpower backup when all hell breaks out in a household, as it periodically will. A father also serves as a more credible authority figure than a mother, on average, something that boys particularly need.

Read complete article here.

Where are honest journalists when it comes to Israel?

2010-04-28T16:53:00.001-04:00

In Why there is no mainstream investigative journalism about the Israel lobby, the intrepid Philip Weiss expresses anger over the mainstream media's pattern of relentless pursuit of the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church, while journalists gingerly skip around the scandal of the Israel lobby's ability to shut up all critics of Israeli policies.

Weiss describes a radio program and the manner in which reporters handled the subject of the Church's problems. The Catholic participants in the program, two of them journalists, wanted the scandal to be openly addressed, but they did not want it to hurt the Church. Following are excerpts:
• • •
Now let me get to the central dynamic of the show. The Catholic writers were performing damage control; still, [Marty] Moss-Coane [the woman host, not Catholic] bored in on them, and whenever a caller went further than she had gone, for instance, about sexuality and celibacy, she promptly echoed the caller’s point. She stood up for the Times coverage. She asked, wisely, Is the church treating a crime as a sin? She said, What signal does it send people when a former bishop who played an active role in covering up a sex scandal is awarded a sinecure? (The writers said, Well it’s a giant step down for the bishop…) She said, What about what that caller just asked, How is this affecting congregations?

And to every push by Moss-Coane, the Catholic writers pushed back and defended the church. And they would: because they love the church, they see it as a force for good.

Why do I think this was fine journalism? Because the host was behaving as a good broadcast journalist with smart questions, the New York Times was behaving like a good investigative zealous newspaper when it smells a disgraceful scandal, and the listeners were sharp and engaged, pushing the story. ...

When the Catholic writers protested that the memo the Times uncovered from the ’80s (describing slap-on-the-knuckles discipline in a pedophilia case, and the future Pope was cc’d) doesn’t implicate the Pope, because he was just part of a “culture,” I think, Don’t b.s. me. This was not a routine memo. And isn’t there a problem with an institution that wakes up 30 years after the fact to the idea that it’s not good to damage children?

The significance of this piece for me was wholly about the journalism of the Israel lobby. The central problem in that story is that the roles of the Journalist and the New York Times are being played by the Catholic writers! The very parochial attitudes that Moss-Coane found so distasteful in the Catholic story are exhibited by countless journalists when it comes to Israel. Because they are Jews who have an investment in the emotional goodness of the Jewish state. Yes, people like Dan Schorr and Wolf Blitzer and Tom Friedman and Jeffrey Goldberg and Ethan Bronner, but also a lot of fellow travelers whose investment is not as well known to me. And they all get away with their piety all the time!

In the Israel lobby case we have an allegation now several years old that is way more serious than the Catholic scandal: the allegation that the forcible conflation of American and Israeli interests is damaging our country’s reputation. It is a form of corruption as deep and “cultural” as the Catholic mess Moss-Coane is investigating, but this time the broker-journalists are implicated in the culture.

The former executive editor of the New York Times, Max Frankel, is vetting editorials to protect the Jewish state; my old newspaper the New York Observer is telling me to take a hike because I want to write about the Israel lobby; the Atlantic is killing Walt and Mearsheimer; Wolf Blitzer and Dan Schorr used to work for the lobby and are now all over cable; and Jeff Goldberg used to be an Israeli soldier and is interviewed on Meet the Press by David Gregory, who is studying Hebrew. Ethan Bronner’s son goes into the IDF (Israel Defense Forces), and Bronner is the lead reporter for the New York Times???!! And on it goes, it never stops.

I am saying that all the f—ing excuses that the two Catholic writers made for their beloved church are being made all the time for the Jewish state by our journalists; it is in the culture of our journalism; and meanwhile there is no Moss-Coane to jump on them and keep them honest. I wonder if she’s ever covered the Israel/Palestine situation with half the honesty she covered the Catholic scandal, let alone the question of how it is corrupting our politics. I bet she hasn’t. Has she ever had on Palestinians to talk about the separate roadways in the West Bank, and then asked, why Americans are supporting Jim Crow conditions?

Well you get the point. And again, the New York Times, which should be printing the Pentagon Papers of the Iraq war, which should be interrogating neoconservatives about their crazy theory that invading Baghdad would take the Arabs’ minds off Israel/Palestine, which should be asking John Mearsheimer what his evidence is that oil had nothing to do with the disastrous decision to go to war, which should be telling readers why Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban give so much money to the political parties, and asking whether Adelson’s $300,000 gift in 2000 had anything to do with the hiring of Douglas “One-Jerusalem” Feith to a big job at the Pentagon where he would pass cooked data to Congress – the Times is doing no investigative journalism about the lobby at all. ...

And now we have General Petraeus saying that the special relationship is hurting us; and Obama is trying to take Netanyahu on; and still these powerful men are getting no goddamn cover from the mainstream press in the form of investigative journalism that arouses the public about the abuses. If I were the Catholic church, I’d be mad.

Read entire article here.

Making peace across the ideological chasm

2010-04-28T16:50:00.000-04:00

In the May 2010 edition of The American Conservative magazine is a symposium in which we hear from conservatives and progressives on the subject of the ongoing militarism carried over from Bush to Obama. Entitled Left & Right: Prospects for Peace, 13 writers offer their views on the potential for long-term peace.

Is it possible that an effective end to war and empire will only come about through an alliance of progressives and conservatives? One of my favorite conservatives, Paul Gottfried, offers his observations:

• • •
I have no hope for any alliance between the antiwar Right and any significant leftist force. Individual liberals may establish informal relations with self-identified conservatives, but one should avoid generalizing from this observation. Individual libertarians, like Bill Kauffman and Justin Raimondo, may get on well with maverick leftists Alexander Cockburn and Gore Vidal. But this does not foreshadow larger trends. During the Bush administration, the antiwar Right struggled to connect with leftist opponents of the war, and they received hardly any attention from their would-be partners in organizing antiwar activity.

The reasons for this non-recognition seem self-evident. First, the Left has no interest in being allied to social reactionaries by becoming identified with the antiwar Right. The Left is happier to deal with “conservatives” like David Frum and David Brooks, with whom they agree on most social issues, even if they remain apart on foreign policy. For those who consider gay marriage, unrestricted abortion, and special rights for minorities to be paramount issues, having Catholic traditionalists or paleolibertarians as allies is not a genuine strategic option.

Second, there is no recognizable advantage for the Left to be allied to marginalized people on the Right. As long as neoconservatives control the media and financial resources of the conservative movement, no one, except for hopelessly deluded antiwar rightists, would consider an alliance with our side to be a political coup. Unless the antiwar Right can push itself into public attention and counteract the neoconservative-fashioned image of “conservatives,” the Left can have no practical interest in reaching across the ideological chasm.

Finally, unlike the antiwar Right, which has suffered grievously for its principled stand, most of the Left’s opposition to the war against terror was mere posturing. It was a means to get a Democrat elected president and to be able to advance a leftist social agenda. The noisy opposition to Bush’s war on terror turned into a whisper as soon as a black leftist president was put in charge of it. Liberals are much less concerned than the antiwar Right about how executive power is exercised. They have no problem with left-wing dictatorships that engage in massive social reform. What they object to is having politicians whom they don’t regard as leftists exercising power. Once Obama and his crew took over the ship of state, for most of the Left, opposition to the war ceased to matter.

Read complete article here.

A dereliction of duty

2010-04-28T16:48:00.001-04:00

Pat Buchanan once again offers his practical insights on the subject of immigration. In Whose Country Is This? he discusses the implications of Arizona's new law. Following are excerpts:

• • •
With the support of 70 percent of its citizens, Arizona has ordered sheriffs and police to secure the border and remove illegal aliens, half a million of whom now reside there. Arizona acted because the U.S. government has abdicated its constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and refuses to enforce America’s immigration laws.

“We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act,” said Gov. Jan Brewer. “But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created an unacceptable situation.” We have a crisis in Arizona because we have a failed state in Washington. What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to see to it that federal laws are faithfully executed?

He is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty. ...

The state has a fiscal crisis caused in part by the burden of providing schooling and social welfare for illegals and their families, who consume far more in services than they pay in taxes and who continue to pour in.

Police officers and a prominent rancher have been murdered. There have been kidnappings believed to be tied to the Mexican drug cartels. There are nightly high-speed chases through the barrios where innocent people are constantly at risk. If Arizona does not get control of the border and stop the invasion, U.S. citizens will stop coming to Arizona and will begin to depart, as they are already fleeing California. ...

The tasks that Arizonans are themselves undertaking are ones that belong by right, the Constitution and federal law, to the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Homeland Security. Arizona has been compelled to assume the feds’ role because the feds won’t do their job. And for that dereliction of duty the buck stops on the desk of the President of the United States.

Why is Obama paralyzed? Why does he not enforce the law, even if he dislikes it, by punishing the businessmen who hire illegals and by sending the 12 million to 20 million illegals back home? President Eisenhower did it. Why won’t he? Because he is politically correct. Because he owes a big debt to the Hispanic lobby that helped deliver two-thirds of that vote in 2008. Though most citizens of Hispanic descent in Arizona want the border protected and the laws enforced, the Hispanic lobby demands that the law be changed. ...

Let us see how many African-Americans, who are today frozen out of the 8 million jobs held by illegal aliens that might otherwise go to them or their children, will march to defend an invasion for which they are themselves paying the heaviest price. [See the role that black politicians play in promoting the invasion at the expense of working class blacks, in Immigration: Betrayal By Black Elites.]

Last year, while Americans were losing a net of 5 million jobs, the U.S. government — Bush and Obama both — issued 1,131,000 green cards to legal immigrants to come and take the jobs that did open up, a flood of immigrants equaled in only four other years in our history.

What are we doing to our own people? Whose country is this, anyway?

Read complete article here.

Tea Party folk love big government when it makes war, wiretaps, and waterboards

2010-04-28T16:42:00.001-04:00

So, the Tea Party folk are reported to be "wealthier and more educated than the general public," as opposed to that 1993 designation of this ilk as "largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command" (famously misquoted as "easily led"). In Tea party activists: Do they hate liberals more than they love liberty?, Jim Bovard reflects on this group, based on the Partiers' claims to being patriotic constitutionalists and the policies they have supported over recent years. Following are excerpts:

• • •
A recent "tea party" rally showed lots of anger toward President Obama, but little consistent support for liberty in America. Many “tea party” activists staunchly oppose big government, except when it is warring, wiretapping, or waterboarding. A movement that started out denouncing government power apparently has no beef with some of the worst abuses of modern times. Unfortunately, there is scant evidence that most tea partyers have studied the copies of the Constitution they generously hand out to bystanders.

Ken Timmerman, the author of Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on America and other hawkish books, declaimed that the US government must take every step to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Mr. Timmerman denounced the Obama administration for being soft on Tehran and urged support for legislation to impose harsh sanctions on Iran. Timmerman previously advocated a US naval blockade of Iran, which he claimed was planning a nuclear attack on the United States. [Easily led?]

Running through a litany of President Obama’s greatest failings, Timmerman denounced him for forcing US agents to “stop using enhanced interrogation methods. Has that made us safer?” “No!” the crowd hollered indignantly. ...

The rally featured a string of Republican candidates praising fiscal responsibility and denouncing the national debt. One would have thought that it had been 50 years, rather than 15 months, since the Republicans controlled the White House.

There was almost no dissent from any of the 300 attendees. One 50-something man in a faded green T-shirt walked around with a handmade sign declaring, “Stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – Bring Our Troops Home Now!” He told me that almost no one he’d talked to agreed with his message. Much more in tune with the crowd was the 20-something woman carrying a sign: “PROUD to be the Military Super Power.”

The fact that the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq thus far roughly equals the projected cost of the first decade of Obama’s health-care program is irrelevant. Military spending is viewed as holy water by many activists who otherwise despise Washington. While tea party activists rage over Obama’s alleged lies, they ignore the Bush administration’s deceptive justification to attack Iraq. ...

There are many decent Americans who understandably feel that the government has become too powerful and oppressive. Yet, seeking enlightenment from most tea party speakers is like searching in a dark room for a black cat that isn’t there.

Read complete article here.

See Jim Bovard's blog here.

You can't have your country back

2010-04-02T23:02:00.006-04:00

In two articles, the New York Times offers us essentially the same theme and point of view, first from a black columnist, Charles Blow, and then from a white one, Frank Rich. You could render the theme as: White people are dwindling away and there's nothing you can do about it, Ha, Ha! Each writer seems to impart satisfaction over the fact that, at long last, whites will have a minimum influence in the nation founded by their ancestors. The theme is in keeping with former President Bill Clinton's discourse when he exulted, back in the 1990s, over the fact that whites would soon be in the minority in this country. Like Rich, he, too, seemed quite pleased about the prospect for the demise of his own race.

In The Rage Is Not About Health Care, Rich writes about "an inexorable and immutable change in the very identity of America." In Whose Country Is It?, Blow snickers over the Tea Party movement, calling it "anachronistic to the direction of the country's demographics."

Rich claims that the "tsunami of anger" now being expressed by many whites is "illogical." But is it? Other than the current breed of Western whites, when has a group of people so willingly acquiesced in their own extinction, or submitted to the re-population of their space and territory without a bitter fight? Although we see the stirrings of consciousness among some whites, who have begun to understand what is taking place, most of them are still snoozing, enjoying the almost daily introduction of some new tech toy, while sending their sons off to Third World countries, apparently to fight for the "freedom" to continue enjoying the pleasures of said toys.

Blow is right to point out that the Tea Party "is not the future." If it were to have had any impact on the future, its members should have organized at least 20 years ago. Even then, the prospect of reversing immigration legislation or stemming the tide of social programs and biased laws created especially for certain "protected" groups would have been an upward struggle, given the nature of the Republican party, to which over 70% of Tea Party members belong. Yet it is feasible that the GOP might have been turned around a couple of decades ago had it been confronted with the kind of passion now on display.

In the face of a Hispanic population that is expected to triple over the next generation, that "inexorable and immutable change" is almost here. This will soon be a Latin American nation, with heavy doses of Asians and Africans, who will have options to write a new Constitution more befitting to the inclinations of its new owners. Kai Wright, in The Nation magazine, informs us that "Young, colored folks will drive the economy, the culture, the politics." Why shouldn't the formerly dominant white population resist its own displacement?

Blow cynically describes the new America as the "Remix," a land that is driven by "the relentless, irrepressible march of change." This demographic change, however, was not at all inevitable, but one engineered by those who opened the country's borders in the mid-60s to masses of foreigners, now correctly referred to as the "replacement population."

White Americans' counterparts in Europe also have opened their borders to masses of Third World immigrants. In one country after another, we see these outsiders rushing in to run for political office, in order to possess power and influence over the native European residents. Population replacement is swiftly underway, to the point where black Africans are strutting around calling themselves "Swedish," rendering the term meaningless. This is, indeed, "progress" for the African, as he flees his disordered lands and insists that he is capable of running the white man's countries, but, apparently, not his own.

The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, is calling for outright miscegenation between white Europeans and the immigrant invaders. Here's a white man who can't wait to let nature take its course, but would speed up the assimilation process, so that the world might finally be rid of white skin, blue eyes and straight, light hair. Perhaps Europeans like Sarkozy can engineer a short cut to this enchanting future, by sponsoring government laws that would make marriages within the same race illegal. If forced miscegenation became the law of the land, impatient whites would not have to wait too long to see Europe transformed into a Haiti or Detroit.

Meanwhile, back in the USA, obtuse whites continue to encourage their sons to go off to die in worthless military conflicts, or end up as vegetables, as IEDs scramble their brains or relieve them of their limbs and eyesight. And those Tea Party folk, as dumb as rocks when it comes to what is really at stake, throw parties for a warmonger and immigration enthusiast like John McCain. It is understandable that Charles Blow mocks these misguided souls and their desperate dreams of taking their country back. "You may want your country back," he cajoles, "but you can't have it."

Actually, they don't deserve it. How else can you feel about a people who cheered on the destruction of their once unique republic, as it morphed from the Founders' intentions into an insidious empire? How else can you feel about a people who acceded to their country's manipulation by foreign lobbyists determined to keep it in permanent war mode, thus bankrupting its coffers?

How else to feel about a people who insist that loyalty to a foreign power is an imperative litmus test, in order to prove loyalty to the land of Jefferson, Madison and Jay? And how else can one feel about a people whose warped religious obsessions compel them to buy the poisonous doctrine of America's responsibility to "liberate the world" from wicked, godless tyrants, no matter the financial or moral costs to its citizens? Do such people deserve to take this country back?

A terse response

2010-03-30T22:37:00.001-04:00

I caught up too late with comments on another blog concerning one of my posts on this blog. My initial post,
No apologies, please, excoriated the waste of American lives and the mutilated bodies of young soldiers, along with the thousands of dead Iraqis -- all for nothing.

Here is the comment that piqued my interest:
"I wonder if Ms. Wright would’ve opposed U.S. battling the Nazis in World War II, allowing the Nazis to kill even more millions of Jews, Gypsies, etc. After all, Germany never attacked the U.S. Also, since the U.S. helped install Iraq's Saddam Hussein in the first place, why did the U.S. not have a moral obligation to remove him?"

You got that right about WWII. This country's security was never in jeopardy in either of Europe's so-called World Wars -- not in No. 1, nor in No. 2. The U.S. was under no threat from Germany and in no danger of Hitler carrying on a war 3,000 miles from his shores. He could hardly handle the blitzing of that little island just across the pond. Europeans have been killing off one another since forever. We had no reason to meddle in yet another of their ludicrous and centuries-long squabbles. Of course, the Great WWII has been sanctified by all those ridiculous Hollywood movies, and by the men who fought in it and, understandably, don't want to think of their efforts as worthless. If ever there was an "entangling alliance" that we could have stayed out of, this was it.

And where did the ignorant notion come from that this country went to war to "save the Jews," or any of Hitler's other victims? This is obviously a trope that has become popular as we move further away in years from the actual conflict. Churchill and Roosevelt weren't conferencing over such matters to alter these events, even though there were rumors of atrocities going on.

And the justification for invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein is a new one. So, whenever we install a dictator in a country, that gives us an automatic right to return to that land, kill off endless numbers of its population, turn its society and culture upside down, while taking out the dictator we originally installed? This is so dumb, that it's un-effing-believable! Such a policy could keep the U.S. busy at war for the rest of its history. A "moral obligation" to kill Iraqis, so that we could murder the country's leader? What kind of twisted rationalization is that?

By the way, the blog being referenced is made up of "black conservatives." Most of the responding comments were pretty much along the lines of the above quoted one. They are heavy into justifying "collateral damage," i.e., our unfortunate soldiers and the unlucky Iraqi people. Ho-hum, somebody's got to die, after all.

Related

Wrecking what was left of the West

The wholesale irrelevance of public opinion

2010-03-26T00:10:00.000-04:00

Glenn Greenwald has been in his cups lately in drawing attention to the rank hypocrisy of America's wonderful rightwing "patriots." In "The GOP's newfound love of public opinion," he describes the Republicans who expressed outrage over the manner in which the health care bill was handled by the Democrats.

Greenwald writes, "One Republican leader after the next stood up yesterday to depict the health care bill as a grave threat to democracy because it was enacted in the face of disapproval from a majority of Americans." He cites Rep. John Boehner, who claimed, "We have failed to listen to America ... failed to reflect the will of our constituents. And when we fail to reflect that will -- we fail ourselves and we fail our country." Not to be outdone by Boehner's bluster, Rep. Mike Pence thundered, "We're breaking with our ﬁnest traditions ... the consent of the governed."

Can you imagine such dutiful concern for the people's preferences, coming from Republicans? These hysterical outbursts were instigated by the notion that the health care bill should never have been deliberated, because it was opposed by a majority of Americans. Greenwald retorts, "Of course, these are the same exact people who spent years funding the Iraq War without end and without conditions even in the face of extreme public opposition, which consistently remained in the 60-65% range." He reminds us that "the wholesale irrelevance of public opinion was a central tenet of GOP rule for eight years."

He recalls a recurring theme of the contemptuous Vice President Cheney who, when told in 2008 that two-thirds of American citizens said the Iraq war was not worth fighting, simply brushed off the people's opinion. Cheney expressed the prevailing GOP view of the American public, that their opinion did not matter in the slightest. Greenwald writes, "The view of our political class generally is that public opinion plays a role in how our government functions only during elections, and after that, those who win are free to do whatever they want regardless of what 'the people' want."

George W. Bush actually spelled this out by explaining, in 2005, why no one in his administration had been held accountable for the fraud that led to the war. He obnoxiously claimed that the 2004 election itself was that "accountability moment." Greenwald asserts, "Watching these same Republicans now pretend that public opinion must be honored and that our democracy is imperiled when bills are passed without majority support is truly nauseating."

And, again, in another column, "Rampant patriotism breaches on America's right," Greenwald cites the rightwing Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds who, during the Bush years accused opponents of the Iraq war of being "unpatriotic" and, in fact, committing "treason." Reynolds said of those who opposed the war, "They're not so much 'antiwar' as just on the other side."

However, today, Reynolds sees things differently. Greenwald quotes him: "If I were the Israelis, not only would I bomb Iran, but I'd do so in such a way as to create as much trouble for China, Russia, Europe and the United States as possible." Observes Greenwald, "Calling on a foreign country to act in a way that creates 'as much trouble as possible' for your
own country seems to be the very definition of being 'on the other side,' does it not?" And, "The action Reynolds is endorsing -- Israel's bombing of Iran -- likely would, according to America's top military official, directly result in the
deaths of American soldiers."

That official is Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, who warned on March 11, that an Israeli attack on Iran might lead to escalation, undermine the region's stability and endanger the lives of Americans in the Persian Gulf "who are under the threat envelope right now."

"By Reynolds' own standards," reasons Greenwald, "blithely endorsing such outcomes would seem, definitively, to place
one 'on the other side.'" So, who's "unpatriotic" now, and just who's guilty of "treason?"

During Bush times, when war opponents criticized Gen. David Petraeus, they were denounced for "endangering the troops," through their lack of respect for Petraeus' command. Yet, after Petraeus' recent remarks about how Israel's conflict with the Palestinians endangers the lives of American troops, the ADL's Abraham Foxman and others of his ilk condemned Petraeus, calling his remarks "dangerous and counterproductive," just stopping short of dumping the "anti-Semite" label on him.

Greenwald contends that Petraeus' remarks were, indeed, counterproductive "for those who want the U.S. to blindly support Israeli actions even when doing so directly harms American interests." What kind of person, asks Greenwald, would condemn the Commander in charge of the welfare of our troops "all in the name of serving the interests of a foreign government?" It is the peak of hypocrisy that the rightwing super patriots are ready to revoke their standards when it comes to Israel, and readily do so at the expense of their own country.

Ethnic ties as strong as ever

2010-03-19T07:20:00.001-04:00

Another truly brilliant insight from the pen and brain of Pat Buchanan. In The Wars of Tribe and Faith, he describes nationalist reality, as the Globalists continue on their hapless journey to undo the ties that bind, and to foist alien systems on the world's populations. Following is Buchanan's complete column:

• • •
When the Soviet Union disintegrated, most Americans likely had never heard of Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan. Yet the ethnonationalism of these Asian peoples, boiling to the surface after centuries of tsarist and communist repression, helped tear apart one of the great empires of history.

There swiftly followed the collapse of Yugoslavia. Yet, if one knew nothing of the Habsburg and Ottoman empires or the First and Second Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, one would likely have been surprised by the sudden emergence of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Kosovo on the map of Europe.

What the splintering of the Soviet Union and of a Yugoslavia whose baptismal certificate dated to the Paris peace conference of 1919 revealed was the accuracy of Arthur Schlesinger's insight in his 1991 Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society:

Nationalism remains after two centuries the most vital political emotion in the world -- far more vital than social ideologies such as communism or fascism or even democracy. ... Within nation-states, nationalism takes the form of ethnicity or tribalism.

Ethnic ties, Schlesinger wrote, might prove more powerful and historically important than the forces of globalism and democratism, which then seemed ascendant. He only neglected to mention religious faith as often a "far more vital" emotion than ideology.

And though the Iraq elections have been hailed as a triumph of democracy, they would seem to prove him right. Kurds voted for Kurds, Shia for Shia, Sunni for Sunni on a slate led by Ayad Allawi, a secular Shia who campaigned on a unity ticket. The election results resemble a national census.

In the struggle between Allawi and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to put together a government, both are courting the Kurds, whose near-term goal is Kirkuk, control of which would mean control of 40 percent of Iraq's oil reserves. If the Kurds, who have been forcing their way into Kirkuk and pushing Arabs out, can annex the city, they will have the economic base of a Kurdistan nation, the dream of a people whose kinfolk are spread across Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.

The Kurds are using democratic means for ethnonational ends. Maliki's strength is in the Shia south and the capital, Baghdad, that has been slowly cleansed of Sunni.

Among Allawi's weaknesses is that the Shia majority may not support as Iraq's prime minister a Shia secularist whose strength comes from a Sunni minority that was the bulwark of the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein. Among the Shia are leaders who spent the Iran-Iraq war in exile in Iran, and whose ties to the Iranian Shia seem stronger than any ties to their Sunni countrymen.

Hence, as we indulge in self-congratulation for having brought democracy to Iraq, Iraqis seem to be using the process to advance ethnonational and sectarian ends that are the antithesis of U.S. democracy. We see democracy as an end in itself. Many in that part of the world see it as a means of establishing their ascendancy and hegemony over other religious and ethnic minorities.

In 2005, George W. Bush, then promoting global democracy as the answer to all of mankind's ills and an essential precondition for any permanent security for the United States, demanded free elections in Egypt, Lebanon and Palestine. The winners: the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas. A perplexed Bush refused to accept the results or recognize and talk to the winners.

Before the invasion, most Americans were probably unaware of the tribal and sectarian divisions in Iraq that may yet produce a new Saddam to keep that country from coming apart in sectarian and civil war.

And how many Americans were aware of the ethnic divisions in Afghanistan, among Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and Pashtun, before we invaded? A program is underway to bring more Pashtun into the army and police, lest the Pashtun in the south feel invaded and occupied by alien tribes.

Globalization is no longer on the march, but on the defensive. Economic nationalism is rising. Across the Third World, we see an upsurge of ethnonationalism and fundamentalism, especially among the Islamic peoples. From Nigeria to Sudan to Mindanao, Muslims battle Christians, as Christians are persecuted in Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan.

In India and Thailand, Muslims battle Hindu and Buddhists. In the Northern Caucasus, they fight Russians.

Ethnonationalism, that relentless drive of peoples to secede and dwell apart, to establish their own nation-state, where their faith is predominant, their language spoken, their heroes and history revered, and they rule to the exclusion of all others, is rampant.

In China, Tibetans fight assimilation and the mass migration of Han Chinese into what was their country, as do the Uighurs in the west who dream of an East Turkestan breaking away and taking its place among the nations of the world.

In speaking of the rising tribalism abroad, Schlesinger added, "The ethnic upsurge in America, far from being unique, partakes of the global fever." Indeed, separatism and secessionism seem to be in the air.

The last accepted colonialism

2010-03-18T11:23:00.002-04:00

From an Indiana University press release, we learn of Professor Rafael Reuveny's statement concerning recent developments in the Middle East. Professor Reuveny, formerly a resident of Israel, who came to the US in 1992, served as an officer in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and is the author of several books on the Middle East, including The Last Colonialist: Israel in the Occupied Territories since 1967 [Independent Review]. Following is the full press release of March 15:

• • •
Indiana University
Monday, March 15, 2010

IU Professor: U.S. must immediately stop funding Israeli colonial project

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Vice President Joe Biden's rebuke of Israel over proposed settlement expansion in Greater East Jerusalem is not only ineffective, it's hypocritical, said Professor Rafael Reuveny, a researcher on Middle East violence and political economy at the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs in Bloomington.

"The United States has been funding the Israeli colonial project for decades," Reuveny said.

While Israel annually receives billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars and weapons, money and easy loans are then passed on to Israeli settlers to build homes and businesses in Palestinian territory. "It is terribly difficult for Palestinians who have very few rights in their homeland," Reuveny said. "Not only has such colonialism come to be rejected everywhere else in the world, it defeats U.S. and Israeli interests and gravely risks their national security."

As the United States struggles with security problems resulting from Israel-induced anti-Americanism, Israel faces a demographic bomb. "Because Palestinians have one of the highest fertility rates in the world, they will become the majority within approximately 10-15 years," he said. "When that happens, Israeli colonial control will resemble South Africa or Rhodesia, essentially creating a system of apartheid. As a result, international pressure will mount for a bi-national state, which is a receipt for endless violence in the Middle East and around the world."

According to Reuveny, who first arrived in the U.S. from Israel in 1992, the only way to secure peace is for Israel to dismantle all settlements, evacuate all settlers, and return to the 1967 border. "Obama's idea to freeze settlement expansion in order to bring about peace is not going to do a thing, similar to if we simply freeze the level of heroin consumption in order to bring about detoxification," he said. "By now, many Israeli citizens have come to agree with this, but religious Zionist settlers and the Israeli right wing do not, as in other efforts toward decolonization since 1945."

History has shown, he said, that a "cold-turkey," full-scale withdrawal is the only way to end wars of decolonization. "As Israel's bankroller, it is time for the United States to stop enabling Israel and force an immediate West Bank decolonization by cutting financial and military support to Israel if it does not comply. In 1991, George H. Bush was not afraid to stand up to Israel. And it worked."

Pointing to President Obama's speech in Cairo promising to bring peace to the region, Reuveny said the president has the opportunity to finally end this long-suffering conflict that plagues the world.

"He will then, undisputedly, deserve the Nobel Peace Prize," Reuveny said.

See Why don't you leave, already? [On the systematic bulldozing of Palestinians' homes and farmlands]
• • •
Related

Since it is unusual for someone in as high a position as General David Petraeus (CENTCOM Commander) to engage in any verbiage other than obfuscation or outright lies, his recent remarks before the US Senate are worth noting. Although his comments are nothing more than obvious observations known to any conscious citizen, there appears to be a ring of sincerity in them.

Excerpts from
Statement of General David H. Petraeus,
U.S. Army Commander
Before the Senate Armed Services Committee
March 16, 2010

The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [Area of Responsibility of CENTCOM]. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. ...

Unresolved issues of disputed territorial boundaries and disagreements over the sharing of vital resources, such as water, oil, and natural gas, serve as sources of tension and conflict between and within states in the region. ...

Finally, because we want lasting conditions of security and prosperity, we must seek long term, enduring solutions to the challenges in the region. To this end, we work to address the root causes of instability rather than apply quick fixes to their symptoms.

Related
Israel First? by Joe Klein

"This is starting to get dangerous"

2010-03-16T12:55:00.004-04:00

You mean there has been an intention, by some, at least, to resolve the mess this country has made in the Middle East, and to resolve what has become almost affectionately known as the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict?" Apparently so, as we learn from a remarkable report of events furnished by Foreign Policy magazine.

As conveyed by reporter Mark Perry, General David Petraeus, commander of US forces in the Middle East, in January, sent a team from US Central Command (CENTCOM) to the Pentagon, to brief the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen. This briefing consisted of explicit concerns expressed by Petraeus himself. Perry writes:

The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM's mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that envoy George Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) "too old, too slow ... and too late."

Perry calls the briefing "unprecedented." He declares, "No previous CENTCOM commander had ever expressed himself on what is essentially a political issue."

On instruction from Petraeus, the military team conferred with senior Arab leaders. Perry reports:

"Everywhere they went, the message was pretty humbling," a Pentagon officer familiar with the briefing says. "America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding." But Petraeus wasn't finished: two days after the Mullen briefing, Petraeus sent a paper to the White House requesting that the West Bank and Gaza (which, with Israel, is a part of the European Command -- or EUCOM), be made a part of his area of operations.

Didn't you always think that this area was well, sort of, kind of part of Petraeus's operations? (As it turns out, the paper was actually sent to Mullen; it is assumed that it was forwarded to the White House.)

Apparently, Petraeus thought it a sensible idea, since US troops are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the US appear to Arab leaders to be "engaged" [as opposed to being a puppet?] "in the region's most troublesome conflict," i.e., Israel-Palestine.

Given the fact of the thousands of American soldiers who have already dropped like flies throughout this pointless atrocity, Vice President Biden's angry retort to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, upon learning that Israel will be constructing new housing in East Jerusalem, is pitifully weak. As reported in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, Biden wailed, "This is starting to get dangerous for us." Starting to get dangerous? I think most would agree that we're well past the danger point for over 4,000 dead soldiers and tens of thousands of limbless and blind ones. What tough talk from Biden to the man who is really in charge of things. And, Biden dared to continue, "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan."

According to Yedioth Ahronoth:

"The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel's actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism."

Perry writes: "The message couldn't be plainer: Israel's intransigence could cost American lives."

Perry seems to harbor the hope that the US military, which he calls the country's most "powerful lobby," can assert itself above all those other lobbies with which we're so familiar, and deliver Petraeus's message. Perry interprets that message as a "stark warning," that is: "America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers."

Far more likely, instead of the assertion of American power, we shall witness yet another round of groveling, bootlicking politicians offering grand apologies for a "misunderstanding," as everything falls back into place again and returns to business as usual ... and our soldiers go on dying.

Related

Suddenly the 'special relationship' is… embarrassing, by Philip Weiss

Israel is putting American lives at risk, by Paul Woodward

The Poodle Gets Kicked [Biden, that is], by Pat Buchanan

Humiliating America, by Eric Margolis

Israel First? by Joe Klein

New immigration TV ads

2010-03-16T12:53:00.001-04:00

Here is a notice from Californians for Population Stabiliation (CAPS), an organization that has worked tirelessly, in spite of the bricks thrown at them over the years, to impact immigration reform. The new ads tie the massive unemployment in this country to a lack of immigration enforcement by a government that is still admitting more than a million foreign workers a year.

• • •
Californians for Population Stabiliation (CAPS) and its partners in the Coalition for the American Worker launched two new TV ads asking why the President and congressional leaders have cut job site enforcement of immigration laws at a time when at least 8 million jobs are held by illegal foreign workers and so many Americans are unemployed.

While President Obama says his top priority is jobs he apparently does not mean jobs for Americans. The Country faces the highest unemployment rate in decades. Americans desperately need jobs. Yet the Obama Administration is reducing worksite enforcement of immigration laws even though worksite enforcement opens jobs for Americans.

When illegal workers are caught, they're not often deported, which means they can take another American job. Also, the U.S. continues to admit more than a million foreign workers a year to take American jobs. Good paying jobs. Our ads ask viewers to call the White House at 202-456-1414 and tell the President that Americans want their jobs back!
• • •
Go to the CAPS website to view the ads.

Related

Immigration and the SPLC: How the Southern Poverty Law Center Invented a Smear, Served La Raza, Manipulated the Press, and Duped its Donors, published by CIS

If it's war, then it can't be a mistake

2010-03-14T20:06:00.002-04:00

Jack Hunter offers one of the best appraisals of the film, The Hurt Locker. Following are excerpts from "Why 'The Hurt Locker' Hurts":

• • •
The characters in this film do not talk about “victory,” or “winning” or the politics of the situation in which they find themselves. Indeed, given the everyday situations these soldiers experience, notions of victory seem almost laughable. The closest thing to political commentary is when an Iraqi taxi driver is manhandled by American soldiers, Renner’s character remarks “If he wasn’t an insurgent, he sure the hell is now.” Former CIA terrorism expert Michael Scheuer recently criticized “Obama’s brass” for “continuing to reassuringly chant the Bush-Clinton-Bush lie to Americans that Islamists attack us because of our way of life not because of our interventionism.”

Though still hard for some Americans to comprehend, Scheuer’s observation that US foreign military intervention breeds Islamic terrorists would not be considered controversial, but fairly obvious, to the soldiers in this film.

The film’s intention is to make us think about the Iraq war in realistic terms, and it accomplishes this, or as much as any Hollywood production possibly could. ... It is not the soldier’s job to ask questions. Soldiers simply do their duty, and hopefully, survive. Asking questions is our job. When leaving the theater after seeing this movie in July, my first, obvious question was “was Iraq worth all that?” Virtually everything we were told about our reasons for invading Iraq — Saddam Hussein being behind 9/11, possessing weapons of mass destruction or threatening the U.S. — turned out to be untrue. ...

Why do so many continue to still say the Iraq war was “worth it?” If this is true, then any war our government can possibly conceive of could be considered “worth it.” Americans too often tend to justify war for its own sake. As citizens we neglect our important role of questioning our government, and that neglect has translated into too many de facto endorsements of the reckless use of our military. It seems we would rather eternally send more soldiers into even more “hurt lockers” than ever confront and deal with gross government incompetence on foreign policy. As with Vietnam, if Iraq wasn’t a mistake, it’s hard to imagine Americans admitting any war was a mistake. ...

If our government decides to go to war — too many Americans assume that it is their patriotic “duty” to support those wars without question. This is obscene, as the only thing standing between a soldier and a bad government decision is the American public. With the invasion of Iraq, Americans did not “support the troops” — we needlessly abused them. “The Hurt Locker” is a movie about that abuse.
• • •Read complete article here.

Related

Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security, (former CIA), Harper's magazine

Why don't you leave, already?

2010-03-12T13:29:00.003-05:00

See, this is how it works. We bulldoze and destroy your olive groves and homes and all that you require for a livelihood, and eventually you will get the idea to leave for good. Why do you persist in staying here, when you know we will return, after you've done your best to restore your home and possessions, and bulldoze you again? How many decades, or is it centuries, will it take to stamp you out of this land? Why don't you go, damn it!

What follows is a description of habitual actions in Gaza, as the citizens of the region never know at what time of day or night to expect destruction of their lands and possessions. These are events that don't get reported in the American press, because they're so routine that they're boring. Who would care to hear yet another sob story like this one?
• • •
Homes and livelihoods gone in an instant

Radia Abu Sbaih, 47, lives with her sister and one niece on family land roughly 700 meters from the “green line” boundary between Israel and Gaza. Until 18 February 2010, they had nearly 600 olive, fruit, date and nut trees, an agricultural cistern, a water well, various vegetables and a house.

Around 8:00 am that morning, approximately five Israeli military bulldozers and upwards of 10 Israeli tanks, accompanied by more than 50 foot soldiers, invaded the farming region, according to locals. “We were in our home when we heard the Israeli tanks and bulldozers approaching. We ran off immediately,” says Sbaih.

“It’s all destroyed. Look, our clothes are buried,” she shouts, pulling at a sweater caught beneath the concrete block pile.
Household belongings are strewn on top of and beneath the pyramid of rubble. A gas range, several cooking pots, a plastic water bottle filled with olives, another with olive oil — both from their land and their destroyed olive trees — denote where the kitchen once stood.

“We were self-sufficient. Twenty people lived off this land. We had our own water source and we grew all our own vegetables: onions, spinach, carrots, cucumbers, tomatoes, potatoes, radishes, beans …” Nothing, save a stray sprig of green onion, remains. “Now we have no electricity, no shelter, no water. I walk one hour both ways every day to bring jugs of water for drinking,” says Sbaih.

But for her, it is the loss of their trees that hits the hardest. In the hour or less it took the bulldozers to raze all their property and possessions, Radia Sbaih’s trees were cut to the ground and plowed into the valley. Haggard limbs studding the earth and thick ground-level stumps are all the evidence of the 10 dunams (a dunam is the equivalent of 1,000 square meters) of formerly thick growth. “They were healthy trees, many over 50 years old. And so many fruit trees: guava, orange, lemon, pomegranate, date, almond, sugar cane, cactus fruit …” recalls Sbaih.

An Israeli warplane thunders over and Sbaih comments, “It’s normal, they’re always over us.” The roar is accompanied by the continual whine of Israeli “drones” (unmanned aerial vehicles) patrolling the skies.

Sbaih’s words and losses are echoed by the two other families half a kilometer south. Moin Abu Said says, "When the bulldozers and tanks came, I was taking my son Nassim to school, around 7:30 am. I heard the noise of the invasion even from the school.” Abu Said returned to find the house that he had worked eight years to build completely flattened. “We only lived in it one month,” he says in disbelief. Like most in the border region, this is not the first time Abu Said’s land has been razed. “Ten years ago they bulldozed everything, but we replanted. Now it’s all gone again.”
• • •
The arbitrary repetition of this barbarism is at the heart of the strategy to get these stubborn people to leave Gaza for good. Needless to say, over the years, thousands of Palestinians have left the region. Women like Sbaih learn to suffer the losses, and determine to start the journey towards subsistence again. But what does it do to the spirit of the boys who grow into men experiencing these degrading acts over and over, throughout their youth – those "superfluous young men," in the words of Harvard's Martin Kramer?

In addition to maintaining a high level of fear is a design to emasculate, and to let these Palestinians know who the real men are. Do you think such repeated humiliating brutalities might incite enough anger to wreak revenge, even without the promise of 72 virgins?

Homes and livelihoods gone in an instant

Related

Will Israel Join the March of Folly? by Uri Dromi, New York Times

The Prime Minister is failing in his duties, by Haaretz Editorial Staff

Anywhere but here: IDF protest in NY today gets ink, by Philip Weiss

Israel and Its Neighbors: Leveling the Playing Field, by Michael Neumann

"Cold cases" versus "warm cases"

2010-03-08T15:39:00.001-05:00

The black blogger Constructive Feedback (CF), after informing us about the FBI's focus on civil rights "cold cases," i.e., alleged civil rights crimes of the past, then asks whether this agency, or any other, will pursue the thugs who are killing blacks today. He writes: "In our conditioning we are made to believe that the White man who killed a Black person back in 1952 is a greater threat to our community than the Street Pirate who murdered two people last month and is still on the loose."

CF calls it "repulsive" when blacks who commit crimes against others are not held to a standard of "full equality." It is shameful that there are those whose brand of racism fails to ask of blacks "equal measure that is asked of his long time oppressor." Apparently, black inferiority is implied in the very nature of this approach to today's black criminals, since they are too "damaged" to be expected to uphold societal standards. But, of course, CF reasons, black inferiority is the activists' currency.

Here's how the cold case business came about. To show a determination to go after alleged criminals who have gone unpunished for their deeds, in 2007, bills were introduced in the House and Senate "to provide for the investigation of certain unsolved crimes." These laws granted agents of the FBI and Department of Justice authority to plow through old alleged crimes committed against blacks prior to 1969, i.e., during the civil rights period. [See Far from a "post-racial" society: Dredging up the past forever and Dredging up the past-Part 2.]

Over the recent decades, we have witnessed clever blacks who have profited off every conceivable angle involving race. It comes as no surprise that there have always been even cleverer white elites who have made lucrative livings off the story of blacks, as well. One of these whites is Jerry Mitchell, "investigative reporter," who, last year, was recipient of a MacArthur Foundation grant of a half million dollars. With this tidy sum, Mitchell is expected to continue his lifelong hobby of "ferreting out crimes of the 1960s."

I wonder if Mr. Mitchell might consider Constructive Feedback's suggestion, and apply his energies and this financial windfall to pursuing atrocities being committed among blacks in the here and now. Perhaps he could put aside his passionate interest in "cold cases," and pursue, instead, that which CF calls "warm cases."

No apologies, please

2010-03-08T15:32:00.002-05:00

While our rightwing "patriots" rant about the moral and physical superiority of the USA! USA! USA!, and spend so much of their time ostentatiously, very ostentatiously, thanking the troops for their "service" in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're not supposed to notice that these very patriots don't give a damn about the fact that not one of the thousands of soldiers who are gone forever died in the protection of this nation. It is uncool to emphasize the fact that they died for a foreign policy that was designed to protect somebody else's nation.

Nor do these loyalists care about the rest of those young soldiers who are not only left without arms that they can never wrap around a woman, but also without sexual organs that were blown away. The essence of their life wiped out for nothing. (Or is that too delicate a matter to bring up?) Is it also too delicate to mention the fact that only cold-blooded villains would have used government to rob these naive, young men of so much in an era when the U.S. need never have waged war against any country?

Is it likely that we will ever hear an apology to these men, or to the millions of innocents who happened to be in the way of U.S. imperial arrogance, as its missiles and drones and other life-exterminating devices exterminated life?

In his review of former Governor Mitt Romney's new book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Connor Boyack outlines several U.S. interventions abroad that have led to unfortunate and often unintentional catastrophes for civilians. He quotes the shallow (and might we say hollow) George H.W. Bush who, as Vice President in 1988, proclaimed, after a U.S. Navy missile destroyed an Iranian civilian airplane, killing all 290 passengers including 66 children, "I will never apologize for the United States. I don't care what the facts are. I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy."

Are such people part of the human race?

After detailing a multitude of instances of U.S. troops, driven by American hubris, stamping around the world, destroying ordinary people's institutions and livelihoods, Boyack asks:

Should America offer no apology for any of the aforementioned atrocities? Should our government be able to wash its hands so easily of these actions by merely declaring them necessary for "protecting America’s interests," "spreading democracy," or some similarly pathetic response? And should the ignorance and/or arrogance of current politicians be tolerated when they declare that "we should not apologize for America"?

Read complete article here.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, again

2010-03-08T15:28:00.003-05:00

In a post of 10/21/09, Exposing the charlatans at the Southern Poverty Law Center, I offered a profile of this intrusive, self-appointed "anti-racist" Watchdog of America's thoughts and social habits. I discussed its "hit list," to which the SPLC applies its own inscrutable standards, and the organization's regular practice of character assassination as it links and smears individuals and groups.

Joining what is now becoming a chorus of voices speaking out against the arbitrary practices of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Reason magazine's Jesse Walker reveals the weak evidence offered by the SPLC in its disparagement of various activists and groups. Citing "scaremongering" for fundraising as the primary goal of the SPLC, Walker writes:

As far as the SPLC is concerned, though, skinheads and Birchers and Glenn Beck fans are all tied together in one big ball of scary. The group delights in finding tenuous ties between the tendencies it tracks, then describing its discoveries in as ominous a tone as possible.

Read complete article here.

Related

‘Hate group’ masquerading as advocate of human rights?

Immigration & the SPLC: Stopping 'Hate' Is Really about Stopping Debate

Immigration and the SPLC: How the Southern Poverty Law Center Invented a Smear, Served La Raza, Manipulated the Press, and Duped its Donors, published by CIS

How to deal with shameless maligners

2010-02-28T16:08:00.004-05:00

If anybody knows what it's like to be smeared and maligned for expressing unpopular opinions, it is Stephen Walt. He and John Mearsheimer are co-authors of one of the most controversial documents, originally disseminated as an online manuscript, and then published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux as a book in 2007. Entitled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," it directly confronts the once taboo subject of the United States' involvement with Israel. Their book describes the role played by supporters of Israel in shaping U.S. foreign policy and distorting it in the interests of Israel. The authors have been credited with creating "political space" for the open discussion of this volatile topic.

Their impressive establishment credentials as leading academic scholars (University of Chicago and Harvard affiliations), and the fact that their presentation was carefully researched and documented, did not save them from vicious verbal assaults and personal vilification. In a current Foreign Policy magazine article, "On grabbing the third rail," Walt offers his advice to those who would dare to publicly dissent from orthodox canon, whatever the subject. He shares his ideas on how to deal with the inevitable personal attacks by people who never rationally address your arguments but, instead, stoop to assaults on your character, while purposely misrepresenting your position, and impugning your motives for expressing your dissident opinions in the first place.

Walt offers 10 guidelines to follow in dealing with such adversaries who "take the low road." It is a fascinating little discourse and should be read in its entirety. Following are excerpts from five of the guidelines:
• • •
3. Never Get Mad. Let your critics throw the mud, but you should always stick to the facts, especially when they are on your side. In my own case, many of the people who attacked me and my co-author proved to be unwitting allies, because they lost their cool in public or in print, made wild charges and ad hominem arguments, and generally acted in a transparently mean-spirited manner. It always works to your advantage when opponents act in an uncivil fashion, because it causes almost everyone else to swing your way. ... In short, the more ludicrous the charges, the more critics undermine their own case. So stick to the high ground; the view is nicer up there.

4. Don't Respond to Every Single Attack. A well-organized smear campaign will try to bury you in an avalanche flurry of bogus charges, many of which are simply not worth answering. It is easier for opponents to dream up false charges than it is for you to refute each one, and you will exhaust yourself rebutting every critical word directed at you. So focus mainly on answering the more intelligent criticisms while ignoring the more outrageous ones, which you should treat with the contempt they deserve. ...

6. The More Compelling Your Arguments Are, The Nastier the Attacks Will Be. If critics can refute your evidence or your logic, then that's what they will do and it will be very effective. However, if you have made a powerful case and there aren't any obvious weaknesses in it, your adversaries are likely to misrepresent what you have said and throw lots of mud at you. ... If you are in a very public spat about a controversial issue like gay marriage or abortion or gun control, a solid and well-documented argument will probably attract more scurrilous attacks than a flimsy argument that is easily refuted. So be prepared.

8. Be Willing to Admit When You're Wrong, But Don't Adopt a Defensive Crouch. Nobody writing on a controversial and contested subject is infallible, and you're bound to make a mistake or two along the way. There's no harm in admitting to errors when they occur; indeed, harm is done when you make a mistake and then try to deny it. More generally, however, it makes good sense to make your case assertively and not shy away from engaging your critics. In short, the best defense is a smart offense, even when you are acknowledging errors or offering a correction. ...

9. Challenging Orthodoxy Is a Form of "Asymmetric Conflict." You Win By "Not Losing." When someone challenges a taboo or takes on some well-entrenched conventional wisdom, his or her opponents invariably have the upper hand at first. They will seek to silence or discredit you as quickly as they can, so that your perspective, which they obviously won't like, does not gain any traction with the public. But this means that as long as you remain part of the debate, you're winning. Minds don't change overnight, and it is difficult to know how well an intellectual campaign is going at any particular point in time. So get ready for an emotional roller coaster. Some days you might think you're winning big, while other days the deck will appear to be stacked against you. But the real question is: are you still in the game?

Read complete article here.

Related

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt

The country that wouldn't grow up, by Tony Judt

Ferment Over "The Israel Lobby," by Philip Weiss

The Constitution: A fantasy from the beginning?

2010-02-25T09:16:00.001-05:00

Thomas J. DiLorenzo offers a depressing, yet probably correct, observation about enforcement of the Constitution. I'm sure many people have considered this idea, that is, the Founders' Constitution didn't stand a chance against government tyranny. James Madison talked about human nature and how hard it is for most of us, once in power, to behave ourselves. In fact, we cannot be expected to behave ourselves.

In "Doomed from the Start: The Myth of Limited Constitutional Government in America," DiLorenzo writes about John Calhoun's speculations:
• • •
After spending a lifetime in politics John C. Calhoun (U.S. Senator, Vice President of the United States, Secretary of War) wrote his brilliant treatise, A Disquisition on Government, which was published posthumously shortly after his death in 1850. In it Calhoun warned that it is an error to believe that a written constitution alone is “sufficient, of itself, without the aid of any organism except such as is necessary to separate its several departments, and render them independent of each other to counteract the tendency of the numerical majority to oppression and abuse of power.” The separation of powers is fine as far as it goes, in other words, but it would never be a sufficient defense against governmental tyranny, said Calhoun.

Moreover, it is a “great mistake,” Calhoun wrote, to suppose that “the mere insertion of provisions to restrict and limit the powers of the government, without investing those for whose protection they are inserted, with the means of enforcing their observance, will be sufficient to prevent the major and dominant party from abusing its powers.” The party “in possession of the government” will always be opposed to any and all restrictions on its powers. They “will have no need of these restrictions” and “would come, in time, to regard these limitations as unnecessary and improper restraints and endeavor to elude them . . .”

The “party in favor of the restrictions” (i.e., strict constructionists) would inevitably be overpowered. It is sheer folly, Calhoun argued, to suppose that “the party in possession of the ballot box and the physical force of the country, could be successfully resisted by an appeal to reason, truth, justice, or the obligations imposed by the constitution.” He predicted that “the restrictions [of government power in the Constitution] would ultimately be annulled, and the government be converted into one of unlimited powers.” He was right, of course.

Read complete article and learn more about those other colonials, the ones DiLorenzo calls the "Founding Fathers of Constitutional Subversion" here.

Google and the blocking of websites

2010-02-25T00:35:00.002-05:00

NOTICE: To anyone clicking a link from this Blog to articles on the Issues & Views website, depending on the browser you're using, you might encounter a statement by Google warning about "malware" on the Issues & Views website. Google has actually blocked the site, and put up a fearful message about possible "infections."

After giving the warning not to enter the site, Google then says:

"Over the past 90 days, issues-views.com did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites," and "This site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days."

Although Google has blocked the site in Firefox, it is not blocked in Google's own browser, Chrome. All pages of the site, including PayPal, open just fine with no warnings in Google's browser. Go figure!

There is no way to contact anyone directly at Google, and I am hopeful that my website's host will figure out something, so that this warning message will some day be removed. When did Google become the monitor of the Internet?

Palin, the exemplary role model

2010-02-23T10:13:00.003-05:00

It's been repeated so many times and it appears to be true. That is, conservatives take longer to internalize and promote the politically correct dictates that liberals concoct. In other words, liberals invent some platitude or piece of dogma that becomes standardized in the public mind. Conservatives initially fight the new mandate, but then, before you know it, they have joined the liberal bandwagon. They then set about denouncing others for a lack of enlightenment, as they help to disseminate the very terminology or social trend they once sensibly scorned and ridiculed.

Think of just about any exaggerated and over-abused expression. We all know how the "racist" tag has been done to death. Conservatives used to denounce libs for making a fetish of this term. Not any longer. Conservatives now can hardly wait to punish an opponent with the "racist" smear, just as heartily as a die-hard Democrat. The word is now as much a part of the conservative lexicon as are the smears "un-American" and "unpatriotic." In fact, many of these so-called independent thinkers on the right appear to equate a person who harbors sentiments that "exclude" others as un-American. "Inclusion" is the order of the day – because liberals taught them so. Now that Sarah Palin is on the scene, conservatives are warming to the task of smearing opponents as "sexist." Yet another victory for their liberal mentors.

If a "racist" is someone who prefers the company of members of his own ethnic group as opposed to others, why isn't this an individual choice that a true conservative would endorse? Apparently it is not, for such a person, no matter how benignly he expresses his preference, is generally attacked by conservatives just as belligerently as liberals. After all, doesn't he understand that rejection of others might result in "hurt" feelings? And isn't it "feelings" that count over individual rights?

Is a "sexist" someone who rejects the notion that Nature made the two sexes equal? The rejection of this notion was, until very recently, a foundation stone of conservatism. [See The emasculation is done.] But now that today's conservative worries, along with Sarah Palin, about breaking "glass ceilings," they must conform to the more "progressive" view on full equality of the sexes, as defined by liberal philosophy.

Palin now brings further enlightenment to old-fashioned conservatives, by endorsing still more politically correct language, that originally sprang straight from the liberal mindset. How conservatives used to laugh, as liberals made pests of themselves by scolding everyone in sight for using "insensitive" language, which might be offensive to some anonymous thin-skinned population. But they laugh no more. Mother Palin is teaching them to have the "correct" regard for language according to liberal ethics.

She has not only decreed the words "retard" and "retarded" politically incorrect to use, but would set the standard for the firing by one's employer for the use of these terms. And the good lady justifies her stance by linking these terms to the word "Nigger," implying, obviously, that anyone who makes use of this "N" word is also automatically deserving of job loss. Really?

When conservatives would read about some kid getting suspended from school for drawing a silly picture or teasing a schoolmate, they would be outraged at the over-the-top, zero tolerance policies practiced by some school administrators, and the expectation that everyone must agree to alter his/her sense of humor and manner of expression, to accommodate the leftist Thought Police. Palin would, no doubt, be right at home with the "sensitivity" training and "re-education" sessions that now inundate college campuses and the workplace, in order to bring all thought and expression into line with multicultural politics.

The former vice presidential candidate is, indeed, a piece of work. We watched in amazement as she publicly celebrated teenage sex and illegitimacy at a national political convention, we were astounded as she, apparently, condoned promiscuity among the young ("life happens"), we are stupefied, or is it bemused, as she promotes anti-conservative feminist doctrines, and our jaws drop even further as she now strives to ban particular words from our language.

Palin is so thoroughly a liberal in her instincts that she is tone-deaf to genuine conservative principles. Indeed, she possesses no conservative instincts. Whatever notion or policy she supports automatically becomes "conservative" in nature, simply because she deems it so. She repeatedly declares herself for small government and keeping that government at bay as much as possible, yet expresses admiration for Title IX, for years, a major nemesis of Phyllis Schlafly.

This federal statute, contrived at the behest of powerful feminist lobbyists, imposes gender quotas on sports in educational institutions that receive government funding. Although only a fraction of women in college seek to engage in competitive sports, the law rules that if a college has fewer than 56% of women on athletic teams, this would be judged as "sex discrimination," and a "gender quota discrepancy."

This quota equality mandate has compelled easily intimidated college administrators, fearful of losing government funds, to disband men's teams, even though these have a high degree of participation and membership. The loss of men's sports, such as track and field, swimming and gymnastics, is of no benefit to women, yet colleges still penalize male students, in order to reflect the same proportion of men to women in sports.

Although conservatives have fought this atrocious federal mandate for years, with Schlafly in the lead, this is the law with which Ms. Palin finds no fault. After all, it's "progressive," isn't it?

After she declared support of teachers' unions and spoke against school vouchers, and sided with ambulance-chasing lawyers who seek no financial caps on outrageous punitive damage awards, conservative newspaper columnist Paul Mulshine concluded about Palin: "Palin is motivated not by a coherent political philosophy so much as by a set of inchoate urges." He quotes the remarks of one of his readers, about Palin's fans: "They project whatever image they want onto her, and they keep repeating the mantra that she brings conservatism to the ticket, despite what she does and says."

Mulshine charges, "She has never given any indication that she has an identifiable political philosophy, conservative or liberal. She is not so much a political figure as a sort of national fertility symbol."

M.J. Rosenberg claims that Palin has been "kidnapped by the neocons." If she's been kidnapped by anything, it's by the prospect of accumulating a tidy bundle of wealth before the bloom is off the rose. Palin proves she is a thinking woman and understands some facts about Nature. She is smart enough to understand that if she is ever to get rich, it is now or never. It's called milking those final magic moments in a woman's physical development, before the beauty fades. Once she hits the wall, like all other women, people won't be quite so tolerant of her empty rhetoric, and all those smitten rightwing men won't be so eager to hand over $395 to hear her recitation of clichés and banalities, while ogling her lovely legs and stiletto heels.

Is there nothing that the cynical, popular media offers in which Palin will not partake? She quits her post as Governor of Alaska, because the media offers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get rich quick, while becoming a TV star. She further sullies what's left of her family's reputation by encouraging her teenage daughter to pose with her illegitimate baby on the cover of a national gossip magazine, while Mother Sarah shares the stage with daughter on the cover of yet another magazine. She uses her infant son as a stage prop at her speaking events.

Writer Bonnie Fuller calls the People magazine cover "a total promotion for teen pregnancy." Daughter Bristol is learning from Mom how best to exploit what conservatives once looked upon as an unfortunate circumstance, about which the less said the better. What a glamorous life has opened up for Bristol, writes Fuller, as she becomes the "poster girl for teen momhood." Did both Mom and Daughter receive a million dollars from People?

The magazine In Touch apparently did not consider the Palin duo worth any more than $100,000 for a cover spread. Their caution proved wise, as the alluring Mom/Daughter team did not get much pick-up from newstands, in spite of the engaging photos of them holding Trig and Tripp, or is it Track?

Palin, as has been observed by many, is a walking cliché factory, where never an original thought falls from her lips. Substance? Not a chance. When recently asked about her policy for handling America's foreign enemies, her response was, "They lose, we win." Now there's a policy! Repeated clichés and platitudes form her mindset, which is fixed in her own special style of demagoguery.

Traditionalist minister Chuck Baldwin warns true conservatives among the Tea Party movement not to be fooled by Sarah Palin. He writes, "Palin is currently playing both sides. She is promoting Big Government neocons such as John McCain on the one hand, and sincere conservative-libertarians such as Rand Paul on the other hand."

She and her minions constantly crow about their support of the Constitution, yet their actions show that they know little and care even less about the actual contents of this document. It is only when they believe that the Constitution can be used for their own pet causes, such as the abolition of abortion laws, that they climb out of the woodwork to tout the Constitution.

Palin's acolytes don't seem to know where liberal indoctrination leaves off, and where their supposed highly-touted "conservative values" begin. They rant about the desire for "small government," yet George W. Bush taught us what a lie that is. Big government is desirable whenever it can enhance Republican policies. One wonders why these people insist on labeling themselves "conservative." They are nothing more than Republican lackeys and, as such, they need take no ideological label at all.

The head of their political party is not the party's National Chairman, the dimwitted Michael Steele. It is not even the whip John Boehner or John McCain. Their party is led by a radio talk show host, the irrepressible Rush Limbaugh, that standard bearer for "family values." Actually, Limbaugh is the perfect representative for today's "conservative" who conforms to modern social trends, having been married and divorced three times. He wisely chooses women who also come out of multiple marriages, such as the last one for whom he was her fourth husband. (How many broken marriage vows between them does that make?) But, hey, "life happens," right? Lead on!

When criticism is made of Palin's obvious indifference to her teenage daughter's carefree lifestyle (as demonstrated by Levi, the not-quite-son-in-law, having access to her daughter's bedroom), her faithful camp followers chant, almost in unison, that ultimately children make their own choices, and parents cannot control the behavior of their offspring. But, of course, this is not the point. After all, liberals have been in the vanguard of teaching us such hackneyed facts of life. We all know one of their favorite mantras about sex and the young: "They're going to do it anyway." To claim that no one is responsible for their children's choices is the cop-out used by all parents, most especially the more derelict and irresponsible ones.

Here's the point. If there has been a clear demonstration that you not only have failed at your minimum duties to protect the weak and impressionable who depend upon you, and you don't even have the sense to handle the negative aftermath in an honorable manner, then you should get to the back of the leadership line. At the front of that line should be those people who have successfully navigated life's challenges, and are role models for others to do the same. Not everyone can be such a model. Who needs more bad role models and mentors in positions of leadership?

After pseudo-conservatives have spent a decade bringing some of the worst types to leadership – the fool George W. Bush, the abhorrent warmonger Dick Cheney, and various assortments of their avaricious cronies – it's time to conserve the last remnants of the Founders' original visions, which did not include subservience to a political party or to foreign lobbies. Nor did those visions include the killing of our young soldiers for the protection of a foreign country, or allowing minority special interests, whether race or gender, to gain power in order to undermine the constitutional rights of the majority. We need no charlatan like Sarah Palin to continue enabling this country's social and political decline.

Related

Thank you for nothing, Ms. Palin

Palin fills in those cracks in the ceiling

The good liberal Palin makes a mockery of conservatives

Pro-lifers bring underclass mores into the mainstream

Palin, still the darling of the mainstream media

Thanks to Sarah, we can do just about anything

Parading the unwed daughter

Teenage pregnancy should never be glorified

Book - Prude: How the Sex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls (and America, Too!), by Carol Platt Liebau

In a nutshell

2010-02-23T10:11:00.000-05:00

Referencing the Conservative Political Action Conference, here's a brief, little zinger from Lew Rockwell on his blog (2/18/10). In "CPACers Cheer Fascist," he writes:

When Liz Cheney, as a “surprise,” brought her war-criminal father to CPAC, the cheers rocked the hotel, especially when he said he was feeling so good he might run again. All the rich warmongers, who are careful to stay away from any army recruiting office, yelled for working class guys to die for Cheney’s portfolio, Middle Eastern wars, and dreams of global dominion. Endless hoorahs for Cheney from bloodthirsty non-combatants: there is conservatism in a nutshell.