Now we have yet another flap about a preacher and Obama. Last Sunday, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, an Obama adviser, gave a tub-thumping speech at Obama's Chicago church in which he imnplied that Hillary Clinton believes she will win the Democratic nomination because of "white entitlement." Pfleger, a white Catholic priest who practices black liberation theology, is a regular guest speaker at Trinity United Church of Christ. Here is a description of how Pfleger mocked Clinton at the church:
Pfleger told the Trinity congregation, "We must be honest enough to expose white entitlement and supremacy wherever it raises its head."
He continued: "Reverand Moss (Trinity's new pastor), when Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don't believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, 'This is mine. I'm Bill's wife. I'm white. And this is mine. I just got to get up and step into the plate.'
"And then out of nowhere came, hey, I'm Barack Obama. And she said, 'Oh damn, where did you come from? I'm white. I'm entitled. There's a black man stealing my show.'"
Pfleger then mimicked Clinton crying as the audience erupted into applause and gave Pfleger's remarks a standing ovation. In his sermon, Pfleger added, "She wasn't the only one crying. There was a whole lot of white people cryin'."
Obama was quick to distance himself from his friend by condemning Pfleger's remarks for their divisiveness. Devisive as they may have been, was there any truth to those remarks? While Pfleger may have gone a little overboard with his dramatic delivery, most of what he said had a certain ring of truth to it.
From the very beginning until well after Obama started to win most of the Democratic delegates, the Clinton campaign had been run on the basis of Hillary and Bill's belief that she was entitled to the presidency. Once they realized Obama was a formidable opponent, the Clintons resorted to a daily trashing of the young senator from Illinois. Both also played the race card, with Bill comparing Obama's campaign to the prior campaigns of Jessie Jackson and with Hillary championing working class whites.
Of course, the Pfleger speech is just one of several controversies that have embroiled Obama following remarks made by some of his friends and advisers. The most prominent controversy involved the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's inflammatory and hateful anti-white and anti-American sermons. After Wright's "God Damn America" diatribes appeared all over television, Obama claimed he had been unaware of the sermons because he was not in church when his pastor gave them.
Obama did not condemn his long-time friend and pastor's sermons until after it became apparent that his campaign was being badly hurt by Wright's hate mongering. However, he did not disassociate himself from Wright until after the reverend appeared on several television shows to justify his hateful remarks and to claim that when Obama condemned the sermons, he was just playing politics. And just today, a day late and a dollar short, it was revealed that Obama had finally quit his controversial church.
In my blog, APOLOGY NOT CALLED FOR (March 7, 2008), I quoted Samantha Power, one of Obama's foreign policy advisers, as she described Hillary Clinton: "She is a monster too ... she is stooping to anything. You just look at her and think: ergh. But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."
Then there was the occasion when Austan Goolsbee, Obama's senior economic adviser, was reported to have told the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago that the Canadian government need not worry about Obama's campaign promises to opt out of NAFTA. Goolsbee reportedly told the Canadian official that the promises were "just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously."
Obama should not have found it necesssary to distance himself from Pfleger, Power, and Goolsbee as they were all calling their shots as they saw them. Power's description of Hillary Clinton was right on the mark. Goolsbee's reference to Obama's stance on NAFTA as mere campaign rhetoric was undoubtably true. And while Pfleger was somewhat overly dramatic in his scathing attack on Hillary, he nevertheless put the Clintons in their rightful place.
Obama was slow to repudiate Jeremiah Wright's inflammatory sermons and even slower to disassoiate himself from that hate mongering preacher. However, he was quick to distance himself from Pfleger, Power and Goolsbee. It's too bad political expediency ruled the day with Obama distancing himself from friends who told the truth and thought they were helping him in his campaign.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
OBAMA'S HILLARY-LIKE "SNIPER FIRE" SNAFU
It must be because John McCain is a war hero that Clinton and Obama keep making up lies to prove their readiness to be commander-in-chief. Hillary cannot talk about what she learned from hubby Bill's war exploits because he is a notorious Viet Nam War draft dodger. So, she lied several times about having landed in Kosovo and running for cover under sniper fire.
Obama, who like Hillary has not served in the military, talks about his family's wartime service. But in doing so, he flat out lies about their military records. In his recent campaign speeches, Obama talked about an uncle's (later corrected to great-uncle) participation in the liberation of Auschwitz and his grandfather's day after Pearl Harbor enlistment and subsequent comabt with Patton's 3rd Army.
During a campaign stop Obama said, "I had a uncle who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camp." Unfortunately for Obama, Auschwitz, which is in Poland, was liberated by the Soviet's Red Army on January 27, 1945. SNAFU, as we often exclaimed during my World War II army days.
When it became known that Auschwitz was not liberated by the Americans, Obama's campaign issued a correction, saying he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald and that the uncle he referred to was his grandmother's brother, Rolla Charles Payne. According to Obama's campaign, Payne served in the 89th Infantry Division which liberated Ohrdruf, a satellite camp of Buchenwald, in April 1945.
I believe that Obama deliberately misidentified the concentration camps because everyone has heard of Auschwitz, while very few have ever heard of Ohrdruf. Because many 89th Infantry records were accidentally destroyed, there is no way of verifying Payne's service in that division. Since Payne was born August 23, 1892, he would have been 53 years of age in 1945. With an average age of 26 for American World War II combatants, it would seem somewhat unlikely that Payne participated in the liberation of Ohrdruf.
In a 2002 anti-war speech, Obama told an audience, "My grandfather signed up for war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed and fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe." However, Army records show that his grandfather signed up June 18, 1942, some six months after Pearl Harbor. Another Obama SNAFU.
This past Memorial Day, Obama again told a campaign audience that "My grandfather marched with Patton's army." But, those Army records do not show that his grandfather, Stanley Dunham, saw any combat with Gen. George S. Patton's 3rd Army. Astonishingly, Obama must have forgotten that in his autobiography, "Dreams of My Father," he had written, "Gramps returned from the war never having seen real combat." SNAFU, again.
Why has Obama joined Hillary as a serial liar? It is well known Obama has a problem with veterans and with Jewish voters. Obama's Memorial Day speech dealt with his support of veterans benefits and the reference to his grandfather fighting in Patton's army was designed to establish a bond with America's veterans. And, when he talked about his uncle's participation in the liberation of Auschwitz he was using the Holocaust to ingratiate himself with Jewish voters.
Why should anyone believe anything Hillary and Obama are saying? And since many of his advisers have sided with the Palestinians, why should Jewish voters believe Obama's assertions that he is a strong supporter of Israel? Shame on Obama! As one observer put it, "trying to use the Holocaust for political gain is sickening -- especially when it is a bold faced lie." As for me, I would vote for Mortimer Snerd before I would ever vote for Obama or Clinton.
Obama, who like Hillary has not served in the military, talks about his family's wartime service. But in doing so, he flat out lies about their military records. In his recent campaign speeches, Obama talked about an uncle's (later corrected to great-uncle) participation in the liberation of Auschwitz and his grandfather's day after Pearl Harbor enlistment and subsequent comabt with Patton's 3rd Army.
During a campaign stop Obama said, "I had a uncle who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camp." Unfortunately for Obama, Auschwitz, which is in Poland, was liberated by the Soviet's Red Army on January 27, 1945. SNAFU, as we often exclaimed during my World War II army days.
When it became known that Auschwitz was not liberated by the Americans, Obama's campaign issued a correction, saying he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald and that the uncle he referred to was his grandmother's brother, Rolla Charles Payne. According to Obama's campaign, Payne served in the 89th Infantry Division which liberated Ohrdruf, a satellite camp of Buchenwald, in April 1945.
I believe that Obama deliberately misidentified the concentration camps because everyone has heard of Auschwitz, while very few have ever heard of Ohrdruf. Because many 89th Infantry records were accidentally destroyed, there is no way of verifying Payne's service in that division. Since Payne was born August 23, 1892, he would have been 53 years of age in 1945. With an average age of 26 for American World War II combatants, it would seem somewhat unlikely that Payne participated in the liberation of Ohrdruf.
In a 2002 anti-war speech, Obama told an audience, "My grandfather signed up for war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed and fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe." However, Army records show that his grandfather signed up June 18, 1942, some six months after Pearl Harbor. Another Obama SNAFU.
This past Memorial Day, Obama again told a campaign audience that "My grandfather marched with Patton's army." But, those Army records do not show that his grandfather, Stanley Dunham, saw any combat with Gen. George S. Patton's 3rd Army. Astonishingly, Obama must have forgotten that in his autobiography, "Dreams of My Father," he had written, "Gramps returned from the war never having seen real combat." SNAFU, again.
Why has Obama joined Hillary as a serial liar? It is well known Obama has a problem with veterans and with Jewish voters. Obama's Memorial Day speech dealt with his support of veterans benefits and the reference to his grandfather fighting in Patton's army was designed to establish a bond with America's veterans. And, when he talked about his uncle's participation in the liberation of Auschwitz he was using the Holocaust to ingratiate himself with Jewish voters.
Why should anyone believe anything Hillary and Obama are saying? And since many of his advisers have sided with the Palestinians, why should Jewish voters believe Obama's assertions that he is a strong supporter of Israel? Shame on Obama! As one observer put it, "trying to use the Holocaust for political gain is sickening -- especially when it is a bold faced lie." As for me, I would vote for Mortimer Snerd before I would ever vote for Obama or Clinton.
Monday, May 26, 2008
IDEOLOGUES IN THE COLLEGE CLASSROOM
If you've been reading my blogs, you know that a number of times I have ranted about the danger posed by Marxist college instructors in their efforts to iondoctrinate sudents to their way of thinking. I have never thought about feminists posing the same danger because at my school, College of the Marxists, that was not, as far as I could tell, a problem. There were only two feminists on campus. One was a lesbian physical education instructor, the other was the Marxist leader's girlfriend.
Guess what? I have just learned that feminists can be almost as dangerous as Marxists. In today's TownHall.com Daily, criminology professor Mike Adams addressed that problem at his school, the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. In his column, Adams commented on the promotion of radical feminist Kathleen Berkeley from classroom professor to Associate Dean in the College of Arts and Sciences, an important admiistrative position at the university.
Here is what some of Dr. Berkeley's students had to say about her on http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/:
"One word: feminazi"
"I agree with everyone who points out Dr. Berkeley's militant feminist attitude. She seemed to think that anyone who was not angry with all males to be an enemy."
"Angry- feminist bomb- throwing leftist."
"Worst teacher I've ever had. Seems clueless about any history other than her brand of leftist ‘I Am Woman Hear Me Roar’ rhetoric."
"NEVER EVER EVER TAKE ONE OF DR BERKELEY'S COURSES. she is mean, never satisfied, won't answer a question, and expects WAY TOO MUCH!!! she is a horrible teacher and a hardcore feminist and will rip you apart! STAY AS FAR AWAY AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN!!!"
"Dr. Berkley is a mean spirited woman that cannot teach a class without her militant feminism directing her agenda."
"Dr. Berkley is not a good professor. She is mean-spirited and a militant feminist. She is not open to all points of view. She publicly chastises students and drives the class towards her liberal points of view. In her defense, she is very intelligent."
Dr. Adams was quick to point out that anonymous student comments on that web site can be dangerous, but he went on to say that "no other feminist professor at UNC-Wilmington – and there are scores – has been criticized as often on RateMyProfessors.com for imposing her militant political views on a captive audience of students."
Adams believes Berkeley's promotion to an administrative position will actually benefit UNC-Wilmington students in that they will no longer be subjected to her strident feminist ideology. He said, "I am willing to support an increase in fanaticism in the administration if it will give students at least a small break from their constant exposure to fanaticism in the classroom." Excellent point!
Which brings me back to College of the Marxists. When the Board of Trustees fired the college's president in 1983, the position was offered to the head of the Marxist faction. How do I know this? Roy Eckert, the Board president at the time, told me so himself. He said the offer was turned down for the reason that "you need to get someone else because I'm too controversial." Eckert then asked for the Marxist's recommendation. He suggested it be Larry Stanley, a music teacher without any real administrative experience. That's how Stanley became the college's puppet president.
I am convinced that when the Marxist turned down the president's position, it had absolutely nothing to do with his being too controversial. As president, he would be giving up his ability to stand in front of the classroom to indoctrinate his students and he was not willing to do that. The Principles of Academic Freedom prohibit classroom teachers from advocating a personal ideology to their students. There should be no place in the college classroom for any ideologues, be they Marxists, feminists, or right wing radicals.
Guess what? I have just learned that feminists can be almost as dangerous as Marxists. In today's TownHall.com Daily, criminology professor Mike Adams addressed that problem at his school, the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. In his column, Adams commented on the promotion of radical feminist Kathleen Berkeley from classroom professor to Associate Dean in the College of Arts and Sciences, an important admiistrative position at the university.
Here is what some of Dr. Berkeley's students had to say about her on http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/:
"One word: feminazi"
"I agree with everyone who points out Dr. Berkeley's militant feminist attitude. She seemed to think that anyone who was not angry with all males to be an enemy."
"Angry- feminist bomb- throwing leftist."
"Worst teacher I've ever had. Seems clueless about any history other than her brand of leftist ‘I Am Woman Hear Me Roar’ rhetoric."
"NEVER EVER EVER TAKE ONE OF DR BERKELEY'S COURSES. she is mean, never satisfied, won't answer a question, and expects WAY TOO MUCH!!! she is a horrible teacher and a hardcore feminist and will rip you apart! STAY AS FAR AWAY AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN!!!"
"Dr. Berkley is a mean spirited woman that cannot teach a class without her militant feminism directing her agenda."
"Dr. Berkley is not a good professor. She is mean-spirited and a militant feminist. She is not open to all points of view. She publicly chastises students and drives the class towards her liberal points of view. In her defense, she is very intelligent."
Dr. Adams was quick to point out that anonymous student comments on that web site can be dangerous, but he went on to say that "no other feminist professor at UNC-Wilmington – and there are scores – has been criticized as often on RateMyProfessors.com for imposing her militant political views on a captive audience of students."
Adams believes Berkeley's promotion to an administrative position will actually benefit UNC-Wilmington students in that they will no longer be subjected to her strident feminist ideology. He said, "I am willing to support an increase in fanaticism in the administration if it will give students at least a small break from their constant exposure to fanaticism in the classroom." Excellent point!
Which brings me back to College of the Marxists. When the Board of Trustees fired the college's president in 1983, the position was offered to the head of the Marxist faction. How do I know this? Roy Eckert, the Board president at the time, told me so himself. He said the offer was turned down for the reason that "you need to get someone else because I'm too controversial." Eckert then asked for the Marxist's recommendation. He suggested it be Larry Stanley, a music teacher without any real administrative experience. That's how Stanley became the college's puppet president.
I am convinced that when the Marxist turned down the president's position, it had absolutely nothing to do with his being too controversial. As president, he would be giving up his ability to stand in front of the classroom to indoctrinate his students and he was not willing to do that. The Principles of Academic Freedom prohibit classroom teachers from advocating a personal ideology to their students. There should be no place in the college classroom for any ideologues, be they Marxists, feminists, or right wing radicals.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
WHEN AN APOLOGY IS NOT AN APOLOGY
Today I watched "ABC News: This Week with George Stephanopoulos" as I usually do on Sunday mornings. The show always has a panel discussion during the latter half of the program, with George Will as a regualar panelist. When the panel covered Hillary Clinton's gaffe about Robert F. Kennedy, E. J. Dionne, a guest panelist, made a remarkable comment that is well worth repeating.
Clinton, who had been under increasing pressure to drop out of the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, cited the June 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as a reason to keep on campaigning. Some of Obama's supporters took her remarks to mean it was possible that Obama might get killed before the end of the campaign. That is not what she meant.
Clinton quickly issued this apology: "I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever." Apparently, Clinton merely meant to point out that the campaigns of RFK and her husband's in 1992 were still in full swing during the month of June.
During the panel's discussion of Hillary's apology, Dionne, a long-time op-ed columnist for the Washington Post, piped in with the following statement: "My wife tells me that when an apology contains an 'if' it's not really an apology." Great statement! Dionne's wife is obviously a very sharp lady.
Just think about it. How many times have you heard a politician or other public figure issue an apology which said, "I'm sorry IF I have offneded anyone" or, "I apologize IF my words offended anyone."? Countless of times no doubt! Mrs. Dionne is exactly right - they are not really apologizing for what they said. They are only expressing regret over having offended somebody.
An honest apology would not contain any "ifs, ands or buts." If a politician or other public figure were to be sincere, they would apologize by saying, "I'm sorry" for what they said or did and leave it at that. No matter how aggrieveous the statement or behavior may have been, when they inject an "if" into their apology, they are saying to those who were not offended that no apology is called for.
Clinton, who had been under increasing pressure to drop out of the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, cited the June 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as a reason to keep on campaigning. Some of Obama's supporters took her remarks to mean it was possible that Obama might get killed before the end of the campaign. That is not what she meant.
Clinton quickly issued this apology: "I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever." Apparently, Clinton merely meant to point out that the campaigns of RFK and her husband's in 1992 were still in full swing during the month of June.
During the panel's discussion of Hillary's apology, Dionne, a long-time op-ed columnist for the Washington Post, piped in with the following statement: "My wife tells me that when an apology contains an 'if' it's not really an apology." Great statement! Dionne's wife is obviously a very sharp lady.
Just think about it. How many times have you heard a politician or other public figure issue an apology which said, "I'm sorry IF I have offneded anyone" or, "I apologize IF my words offended anyone."? Countless of times no doubt! Mrs. Dionne is exactly right - they are not really apologizing for what they said. They are only expressing regret over having offended somebody.
An honest apology would not contain any "ifs, ands or buts." If a politician or other public figure were to be sincere, they would apologize by saying, "I'm sorry" for what they said or did and leave it at that. No matter how aggrieveous the statement or behavior may have been, when they inject an "if" into their apology, they are saying to those who were not offended that no apology is called for.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
DREAM TEAM OR MENAGE A TROIS NIGHTMARE?
It would seem that Hillary Cinton's entitlement to the presidency is about to fade into the sunset. However, it ain't really over until the fat lady sings - lest we forget Al Gore's eleventh hour loss to Bush. Faced with her likely loss, philandering hubby Bill is now asserting that if Hillary can't be President, she is entitled to be Obama's Vice-President. Maureen Dowd, the New York Times columnist, writes that " ........ she and Bill want to force Barack Obama to take her as his vice president ..... ."
While many Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of an Obama-Clinton "dream team" if it comes to pass, others worry that a White House "menage a trois" would turn into a horrible nightmare. Instead of a President and Vice-President you could end up with three feuding "presidents" - Barack, Hillary and Bill - elbowing each other out of the way to gain the public spotlight.
In the current administration, President Bush has given his Vice-President unprecedented powers. Unlike his predecessors, Dick Cheney does more than just cut ribbons, attend funerals and preside occasionally over the Senate. Nevertheless, Cheney keeps a low profile and Lynne, his wife, is rarely seen or heard from. That's definitely not the way it would be in an Obama-Clinton-Clinton White House.
If Obama is dumb and desperate enough to ask "the Clintons" to be his Vice-President, they will demand that he guarantees her powers equal to, if not exceeding those now given to Cheney. The Clintons have a hidden agenda though - restoring Hillary's entitlement to be President. If Obama fails to get elected, Hillary will run again in 2012. If he becomes President and declines to seek a second term, she can run again in 2016. In any event, I'm betting that deep down in their devious hearts, Hillary and Bill are pulling for McCain to win the presidency.
Maureen Dowd describes the latest Clinton- Clinton plan as "Billary's hostile takeover attempt on the vice president's mansion." An Obama-Clinton-Clinton White House would make one helluva soap opera. Unlike Lynne Cheney, Bill Clinton would never languish silently in the background. That's not the nature of the beast. He thrives on public attention and would surely, sooner or later, become an embarrassment to the President and the nation. And then there would be the frosty relationship between Michelle Obama and Hillary. It is no secret that Michelle detests her with a purple passion.
So, is Obama-Clinton a dream team or a menage a trois nightmare? We would not be getting two for the price of one. It would be three for the price of one, as Bill would expect nothing less than to be the co-President of the United States. If Obama selects Billary as his running mate and they get elected, I'm betting on the nightmare.
While many Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of an Obama-Clinton "dream team" if it comes to pass, others worry that a White House "menage a trois" would turn into a horrible nightmare. Instead of a President and Vice-President you could end up with three feuding "presidents" - Barack, Hillary and Bill - elbowing each other out of the way to gain the public spotlight.
In the current administration, President Bush has given his Vice-President unprecedented powers. Unlike his predecessors, Dick Cheney does more than just cut ribbons, attend funerals and preside occasionally over the Senate. Nevertheless, Cheney keeps a low profile and Lynne, his wife, is rarely seen or heard from. That's definitely not the way it would be in an Obama-Clinton-Clinton White House.
If Obama is dumb and desperate enough to ask "the Clintons" to be his Vice-President, they will demand that he guarantees her powers equal to, if not exceeding those now given to Cheney. The Clintons have a hidden agenda though - restoring Hillary's entitlement to be President. If Obama fails to get elected, Hillary will run again in 2012. If he becomes President and declines to seek a second term, she can run again in 2016. In any event, I'm betting that deep down in their devious hearts, Hillary and Bill are pulling for McCain to win the presidency.
Maureen Dowd describes the latest Clinton- Clinton plan as "Billary's hostile takeover attempt on the vice president's mansion." An Obama-Clinton-Clinton White House would make one helluva soap opera. Unlike Lynne Cheney, Bill Clinton would never languish silently in the background. That's not the nature of the beast. He thrives on public attention and would surely, sooner or later, become an embarrassment to the President and the nation. And then there would be the frosty relationship between Michelle Obama and Hillary. It is no secret that Michelle detests her with a purple passion.
So, is Obama-Clinton a dream team or a menage a trois nightmare? We would not be getting two for the price of one. It would be three for the price of one, as Bill would expect nothing less than to be the co-President of the United States. If Obama selects Billary as his running mate and they get elected, I'm betting on the nightmare.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
GOOD ADVICE FOR COLLEGE GRADUATES
Mike Adams is a Criminology Professor at the University of North Carolina at Wilmingotn. Dr. Adams is politically conservative and has long been a vocal opponent of Marxist and feminist ideology in higher education. He is a regular contributor to Townhall.com Daily and his column in today's Daily led me to do this blog.
His column consisted of a set of questions and answers, following a speech, with a student reporter from the university's newspaper. I suspect he never actually conducted that interview and that his column was intended to mock the warped beliefs acquired by many of our college students. According to the column, the reporter seemed pissed-off because Dr. Adams had written that he gets erectile dysfunction every time he hears a feminist speak. Anyhow, this is the way part of that Q&A session, real or not, went:
(Reporter) The one part of your speech that I disagreed with was about the communists killing 100 million in 72 years. I mean, capitalists have killed just as many people.
(Adams) No, now stop that, you’ve been taking a sociology class this semester, haven’t you?
(Reporter) Well, what about the Clinton administration and Kosovo and all the collateral damage and the same thing in Iraq?
(Adams) Look there is a huge difference between killing people on accident and killing people on purpose. ........ even small children understand the difference between an accidental harm and an intentional one. If you accuse them of something they say "I didn’t do it." If you say you saw them do it they will say "But I didn’t mean to." If a little child can understand the importance of criminal intent so can you.
That part of the column reminded me of the malarkey students are fed at the school where I taught, the one I derisively refer to as College of the Marxists. Its Marxist facultly members also had their students believing that our imperialistic terrorist state with its evil expansionist capitalism has been responsible for killing millions and millions of innocent people throughout the world.
Mike Adams concluded the interview with this advice to the reporter: After you graduate, please try to forget everything you’ve learned in your social science and humanities classes and read, read, read. You’re a bright kid, I can see that. But you need to educate yourself and try to lose your affinity for identity politics (feminism in her case). Fascism can only survive as long as there are scapegoats. The Nazis had the Jews. The feminists have the rich, white male patriarchy.
Speaking of identity politics, that is what the current Democratic Party presidential nomination campaign is all about. Blacks for Obama. Young educated people for Obama. Middle aged and older white women for Clinton. White blue collar working men against Obama. How many voters in those blocks actually considered supporting the best candidate?
The advice Dr. Adams gave the reporter should be a required part of every commencement address. Instead of the usual bullshit about how the graduates can make this a better world as they go on to face life after college, commencement speakers should be required to tell them they should forget everything they learned in their social science and humanities classes if they expect to make it in the real world.
His column consisted of a set of questions and answers, following a speech, with a student reporter from the university's newspaper. I suspect he never actually conducted that interview and that his column was intended to mock the warped beliefs acquired by many of our college students. According to the column, the reporter seemed pissed-off because Dr. Adams had written that he gets erectile dysfunction every time he hears a feminist speak. Anyhow, this is the way part of that Q&A session, real or not, went:
(Reporter) The one part of your speech that I disagreed with was about the communists killing 100 million in 72 years. I mean, capitalists have killed just as many people.
(Adams) No, now stop that, you’ve been taking a sociology class this semester, haven’t you?
(Reporter) Well, what about the Clinton administration and Kosovo and all the collateral damage and the same thing in Iraq?
(Adams) Look there is a huge difference between killing people on accident and killing people on purpose. ........ even small children understand the difference between an accidental harm and an intentional one. If you accuse them of something they say "I didn’t do it." If you say you saw them do it they will say "But I didn’t mean to." If a little child can understand the importance of criminal intent so can you.
That part of the column reminded me of the malarkey students are fed at the school where I taught, the one I derisively refer to as College of the Marxists. Its Marxist facultly members also had their students believing that our imperialistic terrorist state with its evil expansionist capitalism has been responsible for killing millions and millions of innocent people throughout the world.
Mike Adams concluded the interview with this advice to the reporter: After you graduate, please try to forget everything you’ve learned in your social science and humanities classes and read, read, read. You’re a bright kid, I can see that. But you need to educate yourself and try to lose your affinity for identity politics (feminism in her case). Fascism can only survive as long as there are scapegoats. The Nazis had the Jews. The feminists have the rich, white male patriarchy.
Speaking of identity politics, that is what the current Democratic Party presidential nomination campaign is all about. Blacks for Obama. Young educated people for Obama. Middle aged and older white women for Clinton. White blue collar working men against Obama. How many voters in those blocks actually considered supporting the best candidate?
The advice Dr. Adams gave the reporter should be a required part of every commencement address. Instead of the usual bullshit about how the graduates can make this a better world as they go on to face life after college, commencement speakers should be required to tell them they should forget everything they learned in their social science and humanities classes if they expect to make it in the real world.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
GAY MARRIAGES
Last week, the California Supreme Court came down on the side of gay marriage, ruling that in California, gay couples were entitled to the full benefits of traditional marriages and that denying homosexuals the right to marry violated the State's constitution. Unlike the uproar over Massachusetts' gay marriage laws, this ruling has caused hardly a ripple of public reaction.
When Massachusetts legalized gay marriages, I tended to side with those who believed that marriages should be restricted to the union of a man and woman. Why? Probably because I was just simply old fashioned. At the time, I had long gotten over any ill feelings toward homosexuals. My acceptance of gays came about because I have had a number of colleagues who were homosexual. They minded their own business and were very competent professionals. At this time, I still have several gay friends.
My attitude toward gays has evolved over the years. At first, I had very strong feelings against gays because in 1944, right after I started my army basic training, a homosexual sergeant tried to coerce me into having sex with him. After I rejected his advances he begged me not to report him, then threatened to kill me if I did. I was a 17-year old recruit and he was an army drill sergeant. I believed he was quite capable of carrying out his threat. Through the rest of basic, I kept looking over my shoulder and avoided being by myself.
And back in the '50s, when I worked vice, we made frequent bar checks of the gay bars in Riverside County (California). Those bar checks were conducted to reduce acts of violence among and between gay couples and acquaintances, and were not intended to harrass homosexuals. The behavior I observed during those bar checks served to reinforce the feelings I had against gays.
To be honest, like all of my friends and fellow officers, I viewed homosexuality as an abnormal "sicko" kind of abhorrent behavior. Whenever I saw men dancing cheek-to-cheek in those gay bars, I couldn't help but laugh outloud. The first time I saw men "French kissing" each other, it almost made me want to puke. My fellow officers and I referred to homosexuals as queers, fags, faggots, fairies and some other names not fit to be mentioned here. But that was then and this is now.
What changed my views? Well, as I got to know homosexuals better I no longer saw them as disgusting individuals. Leaving aside their gay lifestyle, they are really no different from us heterosexual folks. And why do I now support gay marriage? For starters, half of all traditional first marriages and 60 percent of all second marriages now end in divorce. And today, there are millions of couples living together out of wedlock. What then makes marriage between man and woman so sacred?
When gay and lesbian couples are as committed, or more committed to each other than heterosexual couples why shouldn't they be afforded the same legal rights and benefits accruing from state sanctioned marriages? Frankly, I can't think of any good reason. In an initiative measure on this November's ballot, Californians may yet vote to overturn the court's decision. But, if gay marriages remain legal, I don't think the wrath of God will be brought down on the people of California.
When Massachusetts legalized gay marriages, I tended to side with those who believed that marriages should be restricted to the union of a man and woman. Why? Probably because I was just simply old fashioned. At the time, I had long gotten over any ill feelings toward homosexuals. My acceptance of gays came about because I have had a number of colleagues who were homosexual. They minded their own business and were very competent professionals. At this time, I still have several gay friends.
My attitude toward gays has evolved over the years. At first, I had very strong feelings against gays because in 1944, right after I started my army basic training, a homosexual sergeant tried to coerce me into having sex with him. After I rejected his advances he begged me not to report him, then threatened to kill me if I did. I was a 17-year old recruit and he was an army drill sergeant. I believed he was quite capable of carrying out his threat. Through the rest of basic, I kept looking over my shoulder and avoided being by myself.
And back in the '50s, when I worked vice, we made frequent bar checks of the gay bars in Riverside County (California). Those bar checks were conducted to reduce acts of violence among and between gay couples and acquaintances, and were not intended to harrass homosexuals. The behavior I observed during those bar checks served to reinforce the feelings I had against gays.
To be honest, like all of my friends and fellow officers, I viewed homosexuality as an abnormal "sicko" kind of abhorrent behavior. Whenever I saw men dancing cheek-to-cheek in those gay bars, I couldn't help but laugh outloud. The first time I saw men "French kissing" each other, it almost made me want to puke. My fellow officers and I referred to homosexuals as queers, fags, faggots, fairies and some other names not fit to be mentioned here. But that was then and this is now.
What changed my views? Well, as I got to know homosexuals better I no longer saw them as disgusting individuals. Leaving aside their gay lifestyle, they are really no different from us heterosexual folks. And why do I now support gay marriage? For starters, half of all traditional first marriages and 60 percent of all second marriages now end in divorce. And today, there are millions of couples living together out of wedlock. What then makes marriage between man and woman so sacred?
When gay and lesbian couples are as committed, or more committed to each other than heterosexual couples why shouldn't they be afforded the same legal rights and benefits accruing from state sanctioned marriages? Frankly, I can't think of any good reason. In an initiative measure on this November's ballot, Californians may yet vote to overturn the court's decision. But, if gay marriages remain legal, I don't think the wrath of God will be brought down on the people of California.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
BUSH WAS RIGHT, DEMS WENT BALLISTIC
The Democrats squealed like stuck pigs after President Bush gave his "appeasement" address before the Knesset during Israel's 60th birthday celebration. Here, in part, is what Bush told the Israeli parliament: "The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. .. Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator (William Borah, R-Idaho) declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Bush must have touched a real sore spot because the Democrats went ballistic. Although Bush did not mention anyone by name, Obama and his fellow dems apparently believed he was the target of Bush's appeasement remarks. Even though Obama had said he would meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Islamist President of Iran, WITHOUT PRE-CONDITIONS, it was more likely that Bush directed his comments at Jimmy Carter because the former president met last month with Hamas despite State Department requests that he not do so.
Obama was quick to take offense to Bush's remarks, calling the President a liar and claiming that he never said he would talk with terrorists. Hillary Clinton, who had previously criticized Obama's pledge to meet with Ahmadinejad, said, "President Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it."
Senator Joe Biden really went ape, saying: "This is bullshit. This is malarkey. Outrageous for the president of the United States to ................. make this kind of ridiculous statement." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Bush "has fired yet another reckless and reprehensible round." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "I think what the president did in that regard is beneath the dignity of the office of president ................ ."
The problem Democrats have is that President Bush was absolutely right when he characterized diplomatic meetings with terrorists and radicals as appeasement. Obama pledged to meet with Ahmadinejad, the chief financial backer, weapons supplier and military training provider of Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which have been designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S. and the European Union.
Ahmadinejad has referred to Israel as a DEAD RAT., a SAVAGE ANIMAL and a BLACK AND DIRTY MICROBE. In 2005 he said: "There is no doubt that the new wave (the second intifada) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world. Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, (while) any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world. The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
Ahmadinejad has repeadly called for the destruction of Israel and has also called for DEATH TO AMERICA. And this sponsor of terrorism with his radical rhetoric is the guy Obama has pledged to talk to WITHOUT PRE-CONDITIONS. If that's not appeasement, then what in the world is it? Is Obama so naive as to believe that he can persuade Ahmadinejad to kiss and make up with Israel and with America? If so, Obama must still believe in the tooth fairy.
Speaking of appeasement, a year before Borah wished he could have talked with Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister, was convinced he had appeased Hitler out of going to war by conceding part of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany. This is how Wikipedia describes the grinning Prime Minister's "triumphant" return to England - Neville Chamberlain holding the paper containing the resolution to commit to peaceful methods signed by both Hitler and himself on his return from Munich. Showing the piece of paper to a crowd at Heston Aerodrome, he said:
"...the settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine (waves paper to the crowd - receiving loud cheers and "Hear Hears"). Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you ...".
Later that day he stood outside Number 10 Downing Street and again read from the document and concluded: '"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is PEACE FOR OUR TIME." The rest is history - World War II.
Having learned nothing from Chamberlain's failed "peace for our time" legacy, President Bill Clinton played his hand at trying to appease Yasser Arafat by pressuring Israel into agreeing to make concessions to the Palestinians, concessions that would have damaged the security of the Jewish State. Clinton thought he had obtained Arafat's agreement to make peace with Israel, but instead of peace, the PLO leader chose to bring on the first intifada.
Bush had it exactly right. It truly is a "foolish delusion" to think that you can make deals with fanatics and tyrants. History has shown repeatedly that appeasement, as was the case with Hitler and Arafat, merely whets the appetite of those bent on further conquests, a lesson apparently lost on Bill Cinton, Carter and Obama, as well as on Hillary Clinton, Biden, Reid, Pelosi and other leading Democrats.
As for Israel, Charles Krauthammer, the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist, recently wrote: "Israel's crime is not its policies but its insistence on living. On the day the Arabs -- and the Palestinians in particular -- make a collective decision to accept the Jewish state, there will be peace, as Israel proved with its treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Until that day, there will be nothing but war. And every 'peace process', however cynical or well-meaning, will come to nothing."
And when might we expect peace between Issrael and the Arabs? Not anytime in the near future. As several analysts have noted, the Islamists want to kill all Christians and all Jews, whereas the moderate Muslims only want to kill all the Jews. Bush had it right when he implied that Carter and Obama were APPEASERS. So, if Obama becomes President and carries out his pledge to talk with Ahmadinejad, he will be, like Chamberlain and Bill Clinton before him, tilting at windmills.
Bush must have touched a real sore spot because the Democrats went ballistic. Although Bush did not mention anyone by name, Obama and his fellow dems apparently believed he was the target of Bush's appeasement remarks. Even though Obama had said he would meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Islamist President of Iran, WITHOUT PRE-CONDITIONS, it was more likely that Bush directed his comments at Jimmy Carter because the former president met last month with Hamas despite State Department requests that he not do so.
Obama was quick to take offense to Bush's remarks, calling the President a liar and claiming that he never said he would talk with terrorists. Hillary Clinton, who had previously criticized Obama's pledge to meet with Ahmadinejad, said, "President Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it."
Senator Joe Biden really went ape, saying: "This is bullshit. This is malarkey. Outrageous for the president of the United States to ................. make this kind of ridiculous statement." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Bush "has fired yet another reckless and reprehensible round." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "I think what the president did in that regard is beneath the dignity of the office of president ................ ."
The problem Democrats have is that President Bush was absolutely right when he characterized diplomatic meetings with terrorists and radicals as appeasement. Obama pledged to meet with Ahmadinejad, the chief financial backer, weapons supplier and military training provider of Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which have been designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S. and the European Union.
Ahmadinejad has referred to Israel as a DEAD RAT., a SAVAGE ANIMAL and a BLACK AND DIRTY MICROBE. In 2005 he said: "There is no doubt that the new wave (the second intifada) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world. Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, (while) any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world. The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
Ahmadinejad has repeadly called for the destruction of Israel and has also called for DEATH TO AMERICA. And this sponsor of terrorism with his radical rhetoric is the guy Obama has pledged to talk to WITHOUT PRE-CONDITIONS. If that's not appeasement, then what in the world is it? Is Obama so naive as to believe that he can persuade Ahmadinejad to kiss and make up with Israel and with America? If so, Obama must still believe in the tooth fairy.
Speaking of appeasement, a year before Borah wished he could have talked with Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister, was convinced he had appeased Hitler out of going to war by conceding part of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany. This is how Wikipedia describes the grinning Prime Minister's "triumphant" return to England - Neville Chamberlain holding the paper containing the resolution to commit to peaceful methods signed by both Hitler and himself on his return from Munich. Showing the piece of paper to a crowd at Heston Aerodrome, he said:
"...the settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine (waves paper to the crowd - receiving loud cheers and "Hear Hears"). Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you ...".
Later that day he stood outside Number 10 Downing Street and again read from the document and concluded: '"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is PEACE FOR OUR TIME." The rest is history - World War II.
Having learned nothing from Chamberlain's failed "peace for our time" legacy, President Bill Clinton played his hand at trying to appease Yasser Arafat by pressuring Israel into agreeing to make concessions to the Palestinians, concessions that would have damaged the security of the Jewish State. Clinton thought he had obtained Arafat's agreement to make peace with Israel, but instead of peace, the PLO leader chose to bring on the first intifada.
Bush had it exactly right. It truly is a "foolish delusion" to think that you can make deals with fanatics and tyrants. History has shown repeatedly that appeasement, as was the case with Hitler and Arafat, merely whets the appetite of those bent on further conquests, a lesson apparently lost on Bill Cinton, Carter and Obama, as well as on Hillary Clinton, Biden, Reid, Pelosi and other leading Democrats.
As for Israel, Charles Krauthammer, the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist, recently wrote: "Israel's crime is not its policies but its insistence on living. On the day the Arabs -- and the Palestinians in particular -- make a collective decision to accept the Jewish state, there will be peace, as Israel proved with its treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Until that day, there will be nothing but war. And every 'peace process', however cynical or well-meaning, will come to nothing."
And when might we expect peace between Issrael and the Arabs? Not anytime in the near future. As several analysts have noted, the Islamists want to kill all Christians and all Jews, whereas the moderate Muslims only want to kill all the Jews. Bush had it right when he implied that Carter and Obama were APPEASERS. So, if Obama becomes President and carries out his pledge to talk with Ahmadinejad, he will be, like Chamberlain and Bill Clinton before him, tilting at windmills.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
NO MORE COPS UNDER 60
I'm sure a lot of cops wish that policing would return to the good old days, like when I was a cop. In those days cops were not prejudiced - we just kicked the shit out of everybody. It took only a couple of smacks to the head to get a juvenile's attention and that was usually enough to keep him in line. We didn't take any crap from anyone. If someone mouthed off at us, they would be collecting a handful of their teeth from the sidewalk.
In the good old days people rarely gave us cops any crap. Despite frequent "kick ass and take names later" incidents, most people respected police officers. And crime rates were lower to boot. In those days, we didn't have or need any of those college educated pussy cops with their fuzzy pointy-headed liberal nonsense of sweet-talking to turds. And thankfully, in the good old days there were no women cops to get in the way of us doing our jobs.
It's too bad the good old days are gone. Today's ass-kissing policing has little to do with civil rights. It has more to do with capitulating to the sensitivities of the various constituencies police are having to deal with. It almost seems as if today's cops are expected to salute the Mexican flag and to make Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton honorary policemen. Fuck all those thin-skinned assholes and their feelings! I say, let's return to the good old days! And the way to do that is by not hiring any police officers under the age of 60. Here's why:
Researchers say those in their twenties think about sex every 10 seconds. Those of us over 60 think about sex at most twice a day, leaving us more than 28,000 additional seconds per day to concentrate on our work.
Young officers haven't lived long enough to be cranky, and a cranky cop is an aggressive cop. Us older guys complain a lot about our physical ailments. We are an impatient lot and by letting us kick the living shit out of some asshole who desperately deserves it, maybe that will make us feel better and shut us up for a while.
Young guys don't even like to get up before 10 AM. Us old guys alway get up early to pee, so what the hell. And since we're already up, we might as well be up kicking the shit out of some sorry son-of-a-bitch.
Some of the physical training exercises would have to be easier for us old guys. They could do away with the obstacle course because in all my years as a cop, I never saw any 20 foot wall with rope hanging over the side. And after I finished my basic training, I never had to go hand over hand under a long set of crossbars or do any pushups and pull-ups. The running part is kind of a waste of energy too - I've never seen anyone outrun a bullet.
And, those basic training instructors would not have to yell and scream at us like they do at the younger guys. We're used to getting yelled and screamed at by our wives and kids. We've also developed an appreciation for guns. We've been using guns for years as an excuse to get out of the house, away from all the yelling and screaming.
So, stop hiring young cops and let us old guys go out on the streets to confront any dirty rotten troublemakers. The last thing those assholes want to see is a bunch of pissed-off armed and dangerous old farts with attitudes who don't give a shit anymore because they know their best years are already way behind them.
In the good old days people rarely gave us cops any crap. Despite frequent "kick ass and take names later" incidents, most people respected police officers. And crime rates were lower to boot. In those days, we didn't have or need any of those college educated pussy cops with their fuzzy pointy-headed liberal nonsense of sweet-talking to turds. And thankfully, in the good old days there were no women cops to get in the way of us doing our jobs.
It's too bad the good old days are gone. Today's ass-kissing policing has little to do with civil rights. It has more to do with capitulating to the sensitivities of the various constituencies police are having to deal with. It almost seems as if today's cops are expected to salute the Mexican flag and to make Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton honorary policemen. Fuck all those thin-skinned assholes and their feelings! I say, let's return to the good old days! And the way to do that is by not hiring any police officers under the age of 60. Here's why:
Researchers say those in their twenties think about sex every 10 seconds. Those of us over 60 think about sex at most twice a day, leaving us more than 28,000 additional seconds per day to concentrate on our work.
Young officers haven't lived long enough to be cranky, and a cranky cop is an aggressive cop. Us older guys complain a lot about our physical ailments. We are an impatient lot and by letting us kick the living shit out of some asshole who desperately deserves it, maybe that will make us feel better and shut us up for a while.
Young guys don't even like to get up before 10 AM. Us old guys alway get up early to pee, so what the hell. And since we're already up, we might as well be up kicking the shit out of some sorry son-of-a-bitch.
Some of the physical training exercises would have to be easier for us old guys. They could do away with the obstacle course because in all my years as a cop, I never saw any 20 foot wall with rope hanging over the side. And after I finished my basic training, I never had to go hand over hand under a long set of crossbars or do any pushups and pull-ups. The running part is kind of a waste of energy too - I've never seen anyone outrun a bullet.
And, those basic training instructors would not have to yell and scream at us like they do at the younger guys. We're used to getting yelled and screamed at by our wives and kids. We've also developed an appreciation for guns. We've been using guns for years as an excuse to get out of the house, away from all the yelling and screaming.
So, stop hiring young cops and let us old guys go out on the streets to confront any dirty rotten troublemakers. The last thing those assholes want to see is a bunch of pissed-off armed and dangerous old farts with attitudes who don't give a shit anymore because they know their best years are already way behind them.
Monday, May 12, 2008
TRUMAN'S GUTSY RECOGNITION OF ISRAEL
For many years. I have believed that Harry Truman was one of our greatest Presidents, if not the greatest. Likewise, I have believed that General George Marshall was one of our greatest Secretaries of State. According to Richard Holbrooke, a former high ranking State Department official, Marshall along with Dean Rusk, Dean Acheson, and several other top level government officials strongly opposed the recognition of the State of Israel when it declared its independence 60 years ago.
Whether one likes Truman or not, no one can deny the gutsiness of the former President. He did not hesitate to order the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thereby bringing about an early end to the WWII conflict in the Pacific. That act saved countless of American and allied lives (probably my life too) and, yes, even Japanese lives. Truman also did not hesitate to fire General Douglas MacArthur for disobeying his orders during the Korean War. That really took a lot of guts since MacArthur was extremely popular and considered by many as a likely future President.
Holbrooke writes about the conflict between Truman and his top advisers over the recognition of Israel. It seems that opposition to the State of Israel was rooted as much in anti-Semitism as it was in a fear of the Arab World's reaction to the formation of a Jewish State. And suprisingly, even some prominent American Jews were dead set against letting Zionists establish their own state. Here is how Holbrooke described the conflict in a recent Washington Post column (May 7, Page A21):
Washington's battle over Israel's birth
By Richard Holbrooke
In the celebrations next week surrounding Israel's 60th anniversary, it should not be forgotten that there was an epic struggle in Washington over how to respond to Israel's declaration of independence on May 14, 1948. It led to the most serious disagreement President Harry Truman ever had with his revered secretary of state, George Marshall -- and with most of the foreign policy establishment. Twenty years ago, when I was helping Clark Clifford write his memoirs, I reviewed the historical record and interviewed all the living participants in that drama. The battle lines drawn then resonate still.
The British planned to leave Palestine at midnight on May 14. At that moment, the Jewish Agency, led by David Ben-Gurion, would proclaim the new (and still unnamed) Jewish state. The neighboring Arab states warned that fighting, which had already begun, would erupt into full-scale war at that moment.
The Jewish Agency proposed partitioning Palestine into two parts -- one Jewish, one Arab. But the State and Defense departments backed the British plan to turn Palestine over to the United Nations. In March, Truman privately promised Chaim Weizmann, the future president of Israel, that he would support partition -- only to learn the next day that the American ambassador to the United Nations had voted for U.N. trusteeship. Enraged, Truman wrote a private note on his calendar: "The State Dept. pulled the rug from under me today. The first I know about it is what I read in the newspapers! Isn't that hell? I'm now in the position of a liar and double-crosser. I've never felt so low in my life. ..."
Truman blamed "third and fourth level" State Department officials -- especially the director of U.N. affairs, Dean Rusk, and the agency's counselor, Charles Bohlen. But opposition really came from an even more formidable group: the "wise men" who were simultaneously creating the great Truman foreign policy of the late 1940s -- among them Marshall, James Forrestal, George Kennan, Robert Lovett, John McCloy, Paul Nitze and Dean Acheson. To overrule State would mean Truman taking on Marshall, whom he regarded as "the greatest living American," a daunting task for a very unpopular president.
Beneath the surface lay unspoken but real anti-Semitism on the part of some (but not all) policymakers. The position of those opposing recognition was simple -- oil, numbers and history. "There are thirty million Arabs on one side and about 600,000 Jews on the other," Defense Secretary Forrestal told Clifford. "Why don't you face up to the realities?"
On May 12, Truman held a meeting in the Oval Office to decide the issue. Marshall and his universally respected deputy, Robert Lovett, made the case for delaying recognition -- and "delay" really meant "deny." Truman asked his young aide, Clark Clifford, to present the case for immediate recognition. When Clifford finished, Marshall, uncharacteristically, exploded. "I don't even know why Clifford is here. He is a domestic adviser, and this is a foreign policy matter. The only reason Clifford is here is that he is pressing a political consideration."
Marshall then uttered what Clifford would later call "the most remarkable threat I ever heard anyone make directly to a President." In an unusual top-secret memorandum Marshall wrote for the historical files after the meeting, the great general recorded his own words: "I said bluntly that if the President were to follow Mr. Clifford's advice and if in the elections I were to vote, I would vote against the President."
After this stunning moment, the meeting adjourned in disarray. In the next two days, Clifford looked for ways to get Marshall to accept recognition. Lovett, though still opposed to recognition, finally talked a reluctant Marshall into remaining silent if Truman acted. With only a few hours left until midnight in Tel Aviv, Clifford told the Jewish Agency to request immediate recognition of the new state, which still lacked a name. Truman announced recognition at 6:11 p.m. on May 14 -- 11 minutes after Ben-Gurion's declaration of independence in Tel Aviv. So rapidly was this done that in the official announcement, the typed words "Jewish State" are crossed out, replaced in Clifford's handwriting with "State of Israel." Thus the United States became the first nation to recognize Israel, as Truman and Clifford wanted. The secret of the Oval Office confrontation held for years, and a crisis in both domestic politics and foreign policy was narrowly averted.
Clifford insisted to me and others in countless discussions over the next 40 years that politics was not at the root of his position -- moral conviction was. Noting sharp divisions within the American Jewish community -- the substantial anti-Zionist faction among leading Jews included the publishers of both The Washington Post and the New York Times -- Clifford had told Truman in his famous 1947 blueprint for Truman's presidential campaign that "a continued commitment to liberal political and economic policies" was the key to Jewish support.
But to this day, many think that Marshall and Lovett were right on the merits and that domestic politics was the real reason for Truman's decision. Israel, they argue, has been nothing but trouble for the United States.
I think this misses the point. Israel was going to come into existence whether or not Washington recognized it. But without American support from the very beginning, Israel's survival would have been at even greater risk. Even if European Jewry had not just emerged from the horrors of World War II, it would have been an unthinkable act of abandonment by the United States. Truman's decision, though opposed by almost the entire foreign policy establishment, was the right one -- and despite complicated consequences that continue to this day, it is a decision all Americans should recognize and admire.
Whether one likes Truman or not, no one can deny the gutsiness of the former President. He did not hesitate to order the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thereby bringing about an early end to the WWII conflict in the Pacific. That act saved countless of American and allied lives (probably my life too) and, yes, even Japanese lives. Truman also did not hesitate to fire General Douglas MacArthur for disobeying his orders during the Korean War. That really took a lot of guts since MacArthur was extremely popular and considered by many as a likely future President.
Holbrooke writes about the conflict between Truman and his top advisers over the recognition of Israel. It seems that opposition to the State of Israel was rooted as much in anti-Semitism as it was in a fear of the Arab World's reaction to the formation of a Jewish State. And suprisingly, even some prominent American Jews were dead set against letting Zionists establish their own state. Here is how Holbrooke described the conflict in a recent Washington Post column (May 7, Page A21):
Washington's battle over Israel's birth
By Richard Holbrooke
In the celebrations next week surrounding Israel's 60th anniversary, it should not be forgotten that there was an epic struggle in Washington over how to respond to Israel's declaration of independence on May 14, 1948. It led to the most serious disagreement President Harry Truman ever had with his revered secretary of state, George Marshall -- and with most of the foreign policy establishment. Twenty years ago, when I was helping Clark Clifford write his memoirs, I reviewed the historical record and interviewed all the living participants in that drama. The battle lines drawn then resonate still.
The British planned to leave Palestine at midnight on May 14. At that moment, the Jewish Agency, led by David Ben-Gurion, would proclaim the new (and still unnamed) Jewish state. The neighboring Arab states warned that fighting, which had already begun, would erupt into full-scale war at that moment.
The Jewish Agency proposed partitioning Palestine into two parts -- one Jewish, one Arab. But the State and Defense departments backed the British plan to turn Palestine over to the United Nations. In March, Truman privately promised Chaim Weizmann, the future president of Israel, that he would support partition -- only to learn the next day that the American ambassador to the United Nations had voted for U.N. trusteeship. Enraged, Truman wrote a private note on his calendar: "The State Dept. pulled the rug from under me today. The first I know about it is what I read in the newspapers! Isn't that hell? I'm now in the position of a liar and double-crosser. I've never felt so low in my life. ..."
Truman blamed "third and fourth level" State Department officials -- especially the director of U.N. affairs, Dean Rusk, and the agency's counselor, Charles Bohlen. But opposition really came from an even more formidable group: the "wise men" who were simultaneously creating the great Truman foreign policy of the late 1940s -- among them Marshall, James Forrestal, George Kennan, Robert Lovett, John McCloy, Paul Nitze and Dean Acheson. To overrule State would mean Truman taking on Marshall, whom he regarded as "the greatest living American," a daunting task for a very unpopular president.
Beneath the surface lay unspoken but real anti-Semitism on the part of some (but not all) policymakers. The position of those opposing recognition was simple -- oil, numbers and history. "There are thirty million Arabs on one side and about 600,000 Jews on the other," Defense Secretary Forrestal told Clifford. "Why don't you face up to the realities?"
On May 12, Truman held a meeting in the Oval Office to decide the issue. Marshall and his universally respected deputy, Robert Lovett, made the case for delaying recognition -- and "delay" really meant "deny." Truman asked his young aide, Clark Clifford, to present the case for immediate recognition. When Clifford finished, Marshall, uncharacteristically, exploded. "I don't even know why Clifford is here. He is a domestic adviser, and this is a foreign policy matter. The only reason Clifford is here is that he is pressing a political consideration."
Marshall then uttered what Clifford would later call "the most remarkable threat I ever heard anyone make directly to a President." In an unusual top-secret memorandum Marshall wrote for the historical files after the meeting, the great general recorded his own words: "I said bluntly that if the President were to follow Mr. Clifford's advice and if in the elections I were to vote, I would vote against the President."
After this stunning moment, the meeting adjourned in disarray. In the next two days, Clifford looked for ways to get Marshall to accept recognition. Lovett, though still opposed to recognition, finally talked a reluctant Marshall into remaining silent if Truman acted. With only a few hours left until midnight in Tel Aviv, Clifford told the Jewish Agency to request immediate recognition of the new state, which still lacked a name. Truman announced recognition at 6:11 p.m. on May 14 -- 11 minutes after Ben-Gurion's declaration of independence in Tel Aviv. So rapidly was this done that in the official announcement, the typed words "Jewish State" are crossed out, replaced in Clifford's handwriting with "State of Israel." Thus the United States became the first nation to recognize Israel, as Truman and Clifford wanted. The secret of the Oval Office confrontation held for years, and a crisis in both domestic politics and foreign policy was narrowly averted.
Clifford insisted to me and others in countless discussions over the next 40 years that politics was not at the root of his position -- moral conviction was. Noting sharp divisions within the American Jewish community -- the substantial anti-Zionist faction among leading Jews included the publishers of both The Washington Post and the New York Times -- Clifford had told Truman in his famous 1947 blueprint for Truman's presidential campaign that "a continued commitment to liberal political and economic policies" was the key to Jewish support.
But to this day, many think that Marshall and Lovett were right on the merits and that domestic politics was the real reason for Truman's decision. Israel, they argue, has been nothing but trouble for the United States.
I think this misses the point. Israel was going to come into existence whether or not Washington recognized it. But without American support from the very beginning, Israel's survival would have been at even greater risk. Even if European Jewry had not just emerged from the horrors of World War II, it would have been an unthinkable act of abandonment by the United States. Truman's decision, though opposed by almost the entire foreign policy establishment, was the right one -- and despite complicated consequences that continue to this day, it is a decision all Americans should recognize and admire.
HALL OF FAME OR HALL OF SHAME?
Roger Clemens, the uberpitcher, was on a certain path to Baseball's Hall of Fame when Brian McNamee, his former trainer, accused him of taking growth hormnes and steroids. He has vehemntly denied taking any performance enhancing substances and is suing McNamee for defamation of character. He is currently under investigation by the Justice Department to determine if he committed perjury while testifying before Congress.
If that's not bad enough, Clemens is now facing a public relations nightmare of allegations that, for many years, he has been cheating on his wife with a number of different women. The Daily News, a New York tabloid, has reported that Clemens had a 10-year long intimate relationship with country singer Mindy McCready.
According to the initial story in The News, Clemens met McCready at The Hired Hand, a karaoke bar in Fort Myers, Florida, when she was a 15-year old aspiring singer and, at 28, he was the ace Red Sox pitcher and married father of two. That report indicated Clemens began the affair that night in his hotel room. When contacted by The News, McCready said, "I cannot refute anything in the story." Thereafter though, sources told The News that Clemens and McCready did not have sex that night and that the intimacies did not begin until after she had moved to Nashville in pursuit of her singing career.
Rusty Hardin, Clemens' Houston attorney, rushed to release this statement: "At no time did Roger engage in any kind of inappropriate or improper relationship with her. It is unfortunate that the Daily News has chosen to report anonymous allegations that are completely unfounded, have no basis in fact, and have nothing to do with Roger's baseball career or the issue of steroid use in baseball." That statement was made before McCready told The News she could not refute anything in the story. Hardin accused McNamee's attorney of planting the story in an attempt to influence the defamation lawsuit.
Gayle Inge, McCready's mother, told The News, "I know Roger was infatuated with Mindy." Inge admitted knowing that her daughter had traveled to Las Vegas and other cities with Clemens. Apparently, Mindy was not the only object of Roger's affection. He was reported to have had a romantic relationship with Paulette Daly, former wife of golfer John Daly. Paulette did not deny the allegations, telling The News, "You know what, I'm really uncomfortable talking about this. I'm just going to have to say, 'No comment'."
Clemens is also reported to have had an intimate relationship with Angela Moyer, a former Manhattan bartender, now a real estate agent in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania. A New Orleans woman by the name of Jennifer is reported to have accompanied Clemens on a private jet to a University of Florida basketball game. On that occasion he gave Jennifer a pair of diamond earrings in the presence of at least two friends. And, sources told The News that, throughout his baseball career, Clemens also hung out with several other women in California and Boston.
In response to the Daily News stories, Clemens denied the extra-marital affairs accusations. But he did issue a public apology to his family and fans for having made "mistakes in my personal life." He did not specify what those mistakes were.
In my blog, AMAZING AMUSING ALIBIS (January 7, 2008), I wrote about the steroid and human growth hormone allegations. At the time, I came to believe that Clemens was lying when he denied using any performance enhanding substances. Here are some excerpts from that blog which strongly indicate Clemens was lying:
"Clemens claims that McNamee injected him with lidocaine to relieve pain in his joints and with Vitamin B-12 which he said he takes on a regular basis for his health. He insisted that he has never taken any steroids or human growth hormones.
Lidocaine is a local anesthetic used topically to relieve itching, burning and pain from skin inflammations. It is injected as a dental anesthetic and in minor surgeries. While a lidocaine shot in his butt might relieve Clemens of a pain in the ass, it is impossible for that injection to have any effect on a pain in his joints."
Subsequently, in the presence of Hardin, "Clemens changed his story about why he was taking lidocaine. Instead of 'It's for my joints' as he explained it on 60 Minutes, he now claims to have taken the lidocaine injections for back pains. While his butt is clearly closer to his back than to his joints, lidocaine must be injected directly into the immediate site of the pain for it to have any effect. Thus, a butt injection could not possibly relieve a pain in his back."
I could care less if Clemens used performance enhancing drugs. And his philandering ways with several women, including another man's wife, don't bother me either. Spousal cheating goes on all the time, especially among professional athletes. Ironically, Mindy McCready had a No. 1 single in 1996 with GUYS DO IT ALL THE TIME.
What does bother me is that Clemens has pretended to be a role model to the nation's youths, when in fact it appears as though he has been a liar and cheat all along. The Hall of Fame? No, no! He belongs more appropriately in the Hall of Shame, along with such other baseball greats as Pete Rose and Barry Bonds. Or if, considering the initial Daily News story which McCready said she could not refute, the 28-year old Clemens did have sex with Mindy when she was only 15 - Hmmm, how about the Hall of Justice?
If that's not bad enough, Clemens is now facing a public relations nightmare of allegations that, for many years, he has been cheating on his wife with a number of different women. The Daily News, a New York tabloid, has reported that Clemens had a 10-year long intimate relationship with country singer Mindy McCready.
According to the initial story in The News, Clemens met McCready at The Hired Hand, a karaoke bar in Fort Myers, Florida, when she was a 15-year old aspiring singer and, at 28, he was the ace Red Sox pitcher and married father of two. That report indicated Clemens began the affair that night in his hotel room. When contacted by The News, McCready said, "I cannot refute anything in the story." Thereafter though, sources told The News that Clemens and McCready did not have sex that night and that the intimacies did not begin until after she had moved to Nashville in pursuit of her singing career.
Rusty Hardin, Clemens' Houston attorney, rushed to release this statement: "At no time did Roger engage in any kind of inappropriate or improper relationship with her. It is unfortunate that the Daily News has chosen to report anonymous allegations that are completely unfounded, have no basis in fact, and have nothing to do with Roger's baseball career or the issue of steroid use in baseball." That statement was made before McCready told The News she could not refute anything in the story. Hardin accused McNamee's attorney of planting the story in an attempt to influence the defamation lawsuit.
Gayle Inge, McCready's mother, told The News, "I know Roger was infatuated with Mindy." Inge admitted knowing that her daughter had traveled to Las Vegas and other cities with Clemens. Apparently, Mindy was not the only object of Roger's affection. He was reported to have had a romantic relationship with Paulette Daly, former wife of golfer John Daly. Paulette did not deny the allegations, telling The News, "You know what, I'm really uncomfortable talking about this. I'm just going to have to say, 'No comment'."
Clemens is also reported to have had an intimate relationship with Angela Moyer, a former Manhattan bartender, now a real estate agent in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania. A New Orleans woman by the name of Jennifer is reported to have accompanied Clemens on a private jet to a University of Florida basketball game. On that occasion he gave Jennifer a pair of diamond earrings in the presence of at least two friends. And, sources told The News that, throughout his baseball career, Clemens also hung out with several other women in California and Boston.
In response to the Daily News stories, Clemens denied the extra-marital affairs accusations. But he did issue a public apology to his family and fans for having made "mistakes in my personal life." He did not specify what those mistakes were.
In my blog, AMAZING AMUSING ALIBIS (January 7, 2008), I wrote about the steroid and human growth hormone allegations. At the time, I came to believe that Clemens was lying when he denied using any performance enhanding substances. Here are some excerpts from that blog which strongly indicate Clemens was lying:
"Clemens claims that McNamee injected him with lidocaine to relieve pain in his joints and with Vitamin B-12 which he said he takes on a regular basis for his health. He insisted that he has never taken any steroids or human growth hormones.
Lidocaine is a local anesthetic used topically to relieve itching, burning and pain from skin inflammations. It is injected as a dental anesthetic and in minor surgeries. While a lidocaine shot in his butt might relieve Clemens of a pain in the ass, it is impossible for that injection to have any effect on a pain in his joints."
Subsequently, in the presence of Hardin, "Clemens changed his story about why he was taking lidocaine. Instead of 'It's for my joints' as he explained it on 60 Minutes, he now claims to have taken the lidocaine injections for back pains. While his butt is clearly closer to his back than to his joints, lidocaine must be injected directly into the immediate site of the pain for it to have any effect. Thus, a butt injection could not possibly relieve a pain in his back."
I could care less if Clemens used performance enhancing drugs. And his philandering ways with several women, including another man's wife, don't bother me either. Spousal cheating goes on all the time, especially among professional athletes. Ironically, Mindy McCready had a No. 1 single in 1996 with GUYS DO IT ALL THE TIME.
What does bother me is that Clemens has pretended to be a role model to the nation's youths, when in fact it appears as though he has been a liar and cheat all along. The Hall of Fame? No, no! He belongs more appropriately in the Hall of Shame, along with such other baseball greats as Pete Rose and Barry Bonds. Or if, considering the initial Daily News story which McCready said she could not refute, the 28-year old Clemens did have sex with Mindy when she was only 15 - Hmmm, how about the Hall of Justice?
Sunday, May 11, 2008
HAMAS ENDORSES OBAMA
Recently, Aron Klein and John Batchelor interviewed Ahmed Yousef, a leading Hamas official, on WABC radio. Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Yousef explained, "He has a vision to change America." Hamas believes that with Obama as President, his administration will be more supportive of the Palestinian demands in peace negotiations with Israel.
Yousef also described Jimmy Carter as "this noble man" who "did an excellent job as President." When asked about Obama's condemnation of Carter's meetings with Hamas leaders, Yousef did not take the condemnation seriously, attributing it to politics during an American election campaign where every politician wants to sound like a friend of Israel.
Why in the world would Hamas believe that Obama would shift American foreign policy more in the direction of the Palestinians? All you have to do is to look at Obama's supporters and advisers for the answer. George Soros, a wealthy Obama supporter and campaign contributor, has a long history of harsh condemnations of Israel. Jimmy Carter has referred to Israel as an "apartheid" state and characterized Israel's response to the Hamas rocket launchings from Gaza as a "crime."
Robert Malley, one of Obama's Middle East policy advisers, recently told the The Times of London that he has held regular meetings with Hamas. Obama advisers Zbigniew Brezezinski and Samantha Power, like Malley, are both well known for their long time anti-Israeli positions. Other reported Obama foreign policy advisers are also known to be hostile toward Israel.
Then there is Obama's long time relationship with Jeremiah Wright, his "former" dear friend, pastor and spiritual adviser of some 20 years. Wright has a long history of sermonizing against Israel, calling it a terrorist state, and has repeatedly praised Louis Farrakhan, a virulent anit-Semite and long time supporter of the Palestinians. Wright has also reproduced the "Hamas Manifesto" in one of his church publications.
Obama has repudiated Malley and Power while downplaying Carter's and Brezezinski's role as foreign policy advisers. He has finally broken off his relationship with Wright because it was hurting him in the polls. He has addressed Jewish groups, assuring them of his strong support for Israel.
I don't for one minute believe Obama was sincere in repudiating his foreing policy advisers and the Reverend Wright. And, I certainly don't believe he was telling Jewish groups the truth about his support for Israel. Wright, saying that Obama was forced to play politics, doesn't believe him either. AND NEITHER DOES HAMAS! That is why Hamas has endorsed Obama for President.
Yousef also described Jimmy Carter as "this noble man" who "did an excellent job as President." When asked about Obama's condemnation of Carter's meetings with Hamas leaders, Yousef did not take the condemnation seriously, attributing it to politics during an American election campaign where every politician wants to sound like a friend of Israel.
Why in the world would Hamas believe that Obama would shift American foreign policy more in the direction of the Palestinians? All you have to do is to look at Obama's supporters and advisers for the answer. George Soros, a wealthy Obama supporter and campaign contributor, has a long history of harsh condemnations of Israel. Jimmy Carter has referred to Israel as an "apartheid" state and characterized Israel's response to the Hamas rocket launchings from Gaza as a "crime."
Robert Malley, one of Obama's Middle East policy advisers, recently told the The Times of London that he has held regular meetings with Hamas. Obama advisers Zbigniew Brezezinski and Samantha Power, like Malley, are both well known for their long time anti-Israeli positions. Other reported Obama foreign policy advisers are also known to be hostile toward Israel.
Then there is Obama's long time relationship with Jeremiah Wright, his "former" dear friend, pastor and spiritual adviser of some 20 years. Wright has a long history of sermonizing against Israel, calling it a terrorist state, and has repeatedly praised Louis Farrakhan, a virulent anit-Semite and long time supporter of the Palestinians. Wright has also reproduced the "Hamas Manifesto" in one of his church publications.
Obama has repudiated Malley and Power while downplaying Carter's and Brezezinski's role as foreign policy advisers. He has finally broken off his relationship with Wright because it was hurting him in the polls. He has addressed Jewish groups, assuring them of his strong support for Israel.
I don't for one minute believe Obama was sincere in repudiating his foreing policy advisers and the Reverend Wright. And, I certainly don't believe he was telling Jewish groups the truth about his support for Israel. Wright, saying that Obama was forced to play politics, doesn't believe him either. AND NEITHER DOES HAMAS! That is why Hamas has endorsed Obama for President.
Friday, May 09, 2008
CLINT STRAATMAN, PATRIOT
Froylan Camelo, a student at Minico High School in Rupert, Idaho, has been contacted by the ACLU (American Communist Liberties Union) about filing a law suit against Clint Straatman, a physical education teacher. What did Straatman do to Camelo that raised the ire of the ACLU? He took away the Mexican flag Camelo was waving and put it in a garbage can.
Camelo and a number of other students of Mexican descent had brought Mexican flags to the school in clebration of Stinko, oops, I meant Cinco De Mayo. According to Camelo, he was changing into gym clothes when Straatman approached him and said, "Give me the flag." Camelo said he asked, "What's the problem?" and that Straatman replied, "The problem is that we are in the United States and not in Mexico." Camelo claimed that Straatman grabbed the flag from him and threw it in a garbage can.
Because he had been told the flag would be returned later, Camelo claimed that when he later asked, "Where is my flag?" Straatman replied, "What, the U.S. flag?" Camelo said he told Straatman, "No, the one for Mexico." When Straatman did not give him the flag, Camelo retrieved it from the garbage can himself.
Straatman gave a somewhat different version of the events, saying that Camelo was waving the Mexican flag in the gym and he confiscated it because he was afraid that Camelo's act would lead to trouble between Mexican and Anglo students. Straatman claims that he may have been misunderstood because of Camelo's poor English speaking skills.
About a third of the Minico student body is Hispanic. The Superintendent of the Minidoka County Joint School District is now investigating the Stinko De Mayo incident. He stated that, "We believe in nondiscriminatory practices and cultural diversity. ........ If there is a teacher making derogatory comments we don't approve of that. We also don't approve of a student disrupting the classroom."
Derogatory comments? There is certainly nothing derogatory in telling a student, "....... we are in the United States and not in Mexico." Nor is it derogatory, when asked where the student's flag was, to respond, "What, the U.S. flag?" The only thing derogatory in this incident was that Hispanic students brought Mexican flags to the school and waved them in the faces of their Anglo classmates.
In my opinion, Clint Straatman is a patriot! He should be commended, not condemned, for taking the Mexican flag away from Camelo. Unfortunately, it looks like the ACLU is going to file a law suit against Straatman. Instead of investigating the actions of this patriot, the Superintendent should investigate the school's Principal for allowing Mexican flags on campus.
Camelo and a number of other students of Mexican descent had brought Mexican flags to the school in clebration of Stinko, oops, I meant Cinco De Mayo. According to Camelo, he was changing into gym clothes when Straatman approached him and said, "Give me the flag." Camelo said he asked, "What's the problem?" and that Straatman replied, "The problem is that we are in the United States and not in Mexico." Camelo claimed that Straatman grabbed the flag from him and threw it in a garbage can.
Because he had been told the flag would be returned later, Camelo claimed that when he later asked, "Where is my flag?" Straatman replied, "What, the U.S. flag?" Camelo said he told Straatman, "No, the one for Mexico." When Straatman did not give him the flag, Camelo retrieved it from the garbage can himself.
Straatman gave a somewhat different version of the events, saying that Camelo was waving the Mexican flag in the gym and he confiscated it because he was afraid that Camelo's act would lead to trouble between Mexican and Anglo students. Straatman claims that he may have been misunderstood because of Camelo's poor English speaking skills.
About a third of the Minico student body is Hispanic. The Superintendent of the Minidoka County Joint School District is now investigating the Stinko De Mayo incident. He stated that, "We believe in nondiscriminatory practices and cultural diversity. ........ If there is a teacher making derogatory comments we don't approve of that. We also don't approve of a student disrupting the classroom."
Derogatory comments? There is certainly nothing derogatory in telling a student, "....... we are in the United States and not in Mexico." Nor is it derogatory, when asked where the student's flag was, to respond, "What, the U.S. flag?" The only thing derogatory in this incident was that Hispanic students brought Mexican flags to the school and waved them in the faces of their Anglo classmates.
In my opinion, Clint Straatman is a patriot! He should be commended, not condemned, for taking the Mexican flag away from Camelo. Unfortunately, it looks like the ACLU is going to file a law suit against Straatman. Instead of investigating the actions of this patriot, the Superintendent should investigate the school's Principal for allowing Mexican flags on campus.
ICE LIES
The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) has the impossible task of trying to keep the illegal immigration problem in check. ICE can neither prevent illegals from swarming across the Mexican border nor can it catch and deport the estimated 20 million illegals already in this country. Besides, most of us really don't want all of them deported because that would deprive us of a pool of hard working cheap laborers.
The best that can be expected of ICE is the apprhension of a tiny fraction of illegals as they cross the border. And ICE can make a few sporadic raids on businesses known to employ illegals, thereby catching an insignificant number of illegal aliens for deportation, more for show than for effect.
If what has happened to Mauricio Barragan is any indication, ICE agents and attorneys must be awfully desperate to show us they are succeeding in their mission. Barragan, 26, was brought here illegally from Bolivia by his parents when he was only one year old. Both parents became U.S. citizens. His father is disabled and his mother is a part-time teacher.
Before his arrest for driving with a suspended driver's license, Barragan had been making 50 percent of the mortgage and utility payments on the home he bought for his parents and sister. He had also been providing financial support for his illegitimate nine-year-old son and, according to the mother, had been actively involved in raising the boy.
Barragan graduated in the top quarter of his high school class and, while employed, attended the University of Houston, where he was a senior at the time of his arrest. He had worked at Target for almost eight years and had been promoted to a leadership position in the electronics department. Barragan became a legal resident in February 2007. At the time of his arrest he had already applied for citizenship.
Barragan's record is not squeaky clean. He had a drug conviction when he was a 15-year-old juvenile. At 17, he was convicted of a Class B misdemeanor for possessing a small amount of marijuana. He was placed on probation for one year and given deferred adjudication. He sucessfully completed his probation, thereby having his conviction set aside.
During the traffic stop, the arresting officer ran a record check which revealed that Barragan had been convicted on a drug charge. The law requires that all aliens, even those here legally, be detained for deportation if they have a past drug conviction.
However, if that conviction was for less than 30 grams of marijuana and if his deportation would cause an immediate relative "extreme hardship," a judge can rule that a legal alien can stay in this country. Barragan's deportation would certainly have resulted in extreme hardship for his parents and for his son.
ICE was determined to have Barragan deported to Bolivia, a country he had not seen since he was one-year-old and where he had no known relatives. ICE opposed all efforts to obtain Barragan's release and to allow him to remain in this country.
He remained in jail for thirteen months. During that time, foreclosure proceedings were started against his parents who, without Mauricio's assitance, could not keep up with their mortgage payments. If Rick Casey, a Houston Chronicle columnist, had not called attention to his plight, Barragon would probably be back in Bolivia by now, his parents would have lost their home, and his son would not be getting child support payments or playing with his father on weekends.
When a judge reinstated Barragan's legal residency allowing him to stay and work in this country, ICE appealed his decision. Here are the "facts" James Manning, Assistant General Counsel for ICE, filed with the court as required by the appeal. Barragan had multiple drug convictions as a juvenile. A LIE! Barragan was a habitual drug dealer and user. A WHOPPER OF A LIE!
Here are more of the "facts" Manning filed in the appeal. Barragan quit school to work. ANOTHER LIE! Barragan never held a job for more than 18 months and was unemployed at the time of his arrest. ANOTHER BIG LIE! Barragan owns no real property. ANOTHER LIE! Barragan has no significant social ties outside the home (ignores that he had a son). ALSO A LIE!
Manning's "facts" directly contradicted the court records. In his brief to the appellate court, Manning did not repeat the false statements he presented in the filings. Without any substantial facts to justify deportation, ICE had no case. The appellate court ruled unanimously in Barragan's favor.
What the hell was going on here? Did ICE agents deliberately present a pack of lies to Manning? If so, did the attorney fail to verify the allegations presented to him? Or, did Manning take it upon himself to deliberately lie about Barragan's background?
Is ICE so hard up to score a victory in the war on illegal immigration that they have to resort to lies and shaft a poor hard working slob who has been in this country for 25 years, getting educated while working and looking after his parents and his son? For sure, Barragan broke the law by using dope, but when they were around Mauricio's age, so did Presidents Clinton and Bush.
Those liars at ICE ought to be ashamed of themselves. After all, they were not dealing with some habitual criminal. They were not dealing with someone who presented a threat against the United States. Barragan's deportation would not have made a dime's worth of difference in the war against illegal immigration.
The assholes who were responsible for the 13 months Barragan was confined should be made to face disciplinary proceedings for their reprehensible behavior. On the other hand, Rick Casey deserves a humanitarian award for bringing the injustices perpetrated against Barragan to the pulic's attention.
The best that can be expected of ICE is the apprhension of a tiny fraction of illegals as they cross the border. And ICE can make a few sporadic raids on businesses known to employ illegals, thereby catching an insignificant number of illegal aliens for deportation, more for show than for effect.
If what has happened to Mauricio Barragan is any indication, ICE agents and attorneys must be awfully desperate to show us they are succeeding in their mission. Barragan, 26, was brought here illegally from Bolivia by his parents when he was only one year old. Both parents became U.S. citizens. His father is disabled and his mother is a part-time teacher.
Before his arrest for driving with a suspended driver's license, Barragan had been making 50 percent of the mortgage and utility payments on the home he bought for his parents and sister. He had also been providing financial support for his illegitimate nine-year-old son and, according to the mother, had been actively involved in raising the boy.
Barragan graduated in the top quarter of his high school class and, while employed, attended the University of Houston, where he was a senior at the time of his arrest. He had worked at Target for almost eight years and had been promoted to a leadership position in the electronics department. Barragan became a legal resident in February 2007. At the time of his arrest he had already applied for citizenship.
Barragan's record is not squeaky clean. He had a drug conviction when he was a 15-year-old juvenile. At 17, he was convicted of a Class B misdemeanor for possessing a small amount of marijuana. He was placed on probation for one year and given deferred adjudication. He sucessfully completed his probation, thereby having his conviction set aside.
During the traffic stop, the arresting officer ran a record check which revealed that Barragan had been convicted on a drug charge. The law requires that all aliens, even those here legally, be detained for deportation if they have a past drug conviction.
However, if that conviction was for less than 30 grams of marijuana and if his deportation would cause an immediate relative "extreme hardship," a judge can rule that a legal alien can stay in this country. Barragan's deportation would certainly have resulted in extreme hardship for his parents and for his son.
ICE was determined to have Barragan deported to Bolivia, a country he had not seen since he was one-year-old and where he had no known relatives. ICE opposed all efforts to obtain Barragan's release and to allow him to remain in this country.
He remained in jail for thirteen months. During that time, foreclosure proceedings were started against his parents who, without Mauricio's assitance, could not keep up with their mortgage payments. If Rick Casey, a Houston Chronicle columnist, had not called attention to his plight, Barragon would probably be back in Bolivia by now, his parents would have lost their home, and his son would not be getting child support payments or playing with his father on weekends.
When a judge reinstated Barragan's legal residency allowing him to stay and work in this country, ICE appealed his decision. Here are the "facts" James Manning, Assistant General Counsel for ICE, filed with the court as required by the appeal. Barragan had multiple drug convictions as a juvenile. A LIE! Barragan was a habitual drug dealer and user. A WHOPPER OF A LIE!
Here are more of the "facts" Manning filed in the appeal. Barragan quit school to work. ANOTHER LIE! Barragan never held a job for more than 18 months and was unemployed at the time of his arrest. ANOTHER BIG LIE! Barragan owns no real property. ANOTHER LIE! Barragan has no significant social ties outside the home (ignores that he had a son). ALSO A LIE!
Manning's "facts" directly contradicted the court records. In his brief to the appellate court, Manning did not repeat the false statements he presented in the filings. Without any substantial facts to justify deportation, ICE had no case. The appellate court ruled unanimously in Barragan's favor.
What the hell was going on here? Did ICE agents deliberately present a pack of lies to Manning? If so, did the attorney fail to verify the allegations presented to him? Or, did Manning take it upon himself to deliberately lie about Barragan's background?
Is ICE so hard up to score a victory in the war on illegal immigration that they have to resort to lies and shaft a poor hard working slob who has been in this country for 25 years, getting educated while working and looking after his parents and his son? For sure, Barragan broke the law by using dope, but when they were around Mauricio's age, so did Presidents Clinton and Bush.
Those liars at ICE ought to be ashamed of themselves. After all, they were not dealing with some habitual criminal. They were not dealing with someone who presented a threat against the United States. Barragan's deportation would not have made a dime's worth of difference in the war against illegal immigration.
The assholes who were responsible for the 13 months Barragan was confined should be made to face disciplinary proceedings for their reprehensible behavior. On the other hand, Rick Casey deserves a humanitarian award for bringing the injustices perpetrated against Barragan to the pulic's attention.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
DOPE AND DOPE(R)S ON CAMPUS
By now, most of you know that 75 San Diego State University (SDSU) students and 21 others were arrested the other day on various drug charges. The investigation began a year ago after freshman student Shirley Poliakoff died from a cocaine overdose. Campus police suspected wide-spread campus drug violations and asked for the DEA's assistance in their investigation. Undercover agents made numerous buys of marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy and meth on and off campus.
Many of the undercover buys were made at the university's fraternity houses. One of the students arrested was about to graduate with a degree in Criminal Justice. Another student was about to get his Masters Degree in Homeland Security. The arrests gave SDSU a well-deserved black eye. Why? Because, had it not been for Poliakoff's overdose and the cocaine overdose death last February of a Mesa College student at a SDSU frat house, the university would have continued to turn a blind eye to a problem they were sure to have been aware of.
Shirley Poliakoff's brother appeared this morning on NBC's Today Show. He believes that illegal drug sales and use are widespread on college campuses all over our country and that parents are not aware of how extensive this problem is. He was also critical of parents who take a lackadasical attitude about their kids experimenting with drugs because that is just "part of growing up."
Dope and dope(r)s on campus is not a recent problem. Back in the 1960's, I investigated the use of drugs on the campus of the University of California at Riverside. Guess what? It wasn't just students. Several of the university's English professors, several Social Science professors, and a couple of math professors were heavily involved in the illegal purchase and use of LSD and other mind altering drugs. So were a good number of the university's non-teaching staff. Worse yet, some students obtained illegal drugs from their professors. And, some professors and students were using drugs together.
What is really sad is that many colleges and universties do not take campus drug use seriously until they are the recipients of bad publicity arising from the overdose death of a young student. The illegal sales and use of drugs on college campuses is no secret to most students. Thus, college administrators are certain to be aware of the drug dealings taking place right under their noses.
The trouble with both College and High School administrators is that they will often try to hide unlawful campus activities from the public, believing that any bad publicity will reflect poorly on them personally. When colleges end up with tragedies like those at SDSU, college adminstrators should be held legally culpable whenever one of their students dies of a drug overdose.
Many of the undercover buys were made at the university's fraternity houses. One of the students arrested was about to graduate with a degree in Criminal Justice. Another student was about to get his Masters Degree in Homeland Security. The arrests gave SDSU a well-deserved black eye. Why? Because, had it not been for Poliakoff's overdose and the cocaine overdose death last February of a Mesa College student at a SDSU frat house, the university would have continued to turn a blind eye to a problem they were sure to have been aware of.
Shirley Poliakoff's brother appeared this morning on NBC's Today Show. He believes that illegal drug sales and use are widespread on college campuses all over our country and that parents are not aware of how extensive this problem is. He was also critical of parents who take a lackadasical attitude about their kids experimenting with drugs because that is just "part of growing up."
Dope and dope(r)s on campus is not a recent problem. Back in the 1960's, I investigated the use of drugs on the campus of the University of California at Riverside. Guess what? It wasn't just students. Several of the university's English professors, several Social Science professors, and a couple of math professors were heavily involved in the illegal purchase and use of LSD and other mind altering drugs. So were a good number of the university's non-teaching staff. Worse yet, some students obtained illegal drugs from their professors. And, some professors and students were using drugs together.
What is really sad is that many colleges and universties do not take campus drug use seriously until they are the recipients of bad publicity arising from the overdose death of a young student. The illegal sales and use of drugs on college campuses is no secret to most students. Thus, college administrators are certain to be aware of the drug dealings taking place right under their noses.
The trouble with both College and High School administrators is that they will often try to hide unlawful campus activities from the public, believing that any bad publicity will reflect poorly on them personally. When colleges end up with tragedies like those at SDSU, college adminstrators should be held legally culpable whenever one of their students dies of a drug overdose.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
ANOTHER STINKO DE MAYO - TAKE YOUR MEXICAN FLAGS SOUTH OF THE BORDER
Here we go again. Another Stinko De Mayo. Mexicans living in the United States, including U.S. citizens, "guest workers" and illegal aliens, are celebrating Mexico's victory over the French at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. There will be parades, demonstrations, picnics and other activities where the flag of Mexico will be on prominent public display. To that I say: "This is the United States of America. If you want to celebrate a Mexican national holiday, take your parades AND ESPECIALLY YOUR MEXICAN FLAGS south of the border. Do not disrespect our country by flaunting a foreign flag in our faces."
Don't get me wrong. I am not against immigration. I happen to be an immigrant myself. But, I am proud to be an American. I do not have a flag of the country where I came from. Nor do I have a flag of Israel, the Jewish homeland. I have a lighted flagpole in front of my house and it flies the American flag 24/7. I don't have a problem with Mexican nationals having a Mexican flag inside their homes so long as they do not display it in public. And, I see nothing wrong when Mexican nationals celebrate one of Mexico's national holidays so long as they do so in the privacy of their homes or in a rented meeting hall.
Here are the only appropriate public places to display the flag of Mexico in this country: In front of a Mexican consulate; in front of the Mexican embassy; at an official ceremony welcoming a Mexican dignitary; at a sporting event, like a boxing match or automobile race, to show support for a participant from Mexico.
What is this country coming to when Mexican students at Montebello (California) High School lower the American flag from the school's flagpole, turn it upside down and haul it back up beneath the flag of Mexico. Pictures (below) show the students celebrating with the Mexican flag flying on top of an upside down American flag. Do these outrageous pictures infuriate you? If not, don't call yourself a proud American!
What is going on here? Now some colleges are flying the Flag of Mexico alongside the American flag. It seems as though we are surrendering parts of the United States to Mexico. When are our public school authorities and our college administrators going to stand up for America? Has this country lost its self-respect? If any flags are going to be burned, it should be Mexican flags, not American flags!
Don't get me wrong. I am not against immigration. I happen to be an immigrant myself. But, I am proud to be an American. I do not have a flag of the country where I came from. Nor do I have a flag of Israel, the Jewish homeland. I have a lighted flagpole in front of my house and it flies the American flag 24/7. I don't have a problem with Mexican nationals having a Mexican flag inside their homes so long as they do not display it in public. And, I see nothing wrong when Mexican nationals celebrate one of Mexico's national holidays so long as they do so in the privacy of their homes or in a rented meeting hall.
Here are the only appropriate public places to display the flag of Mexico in this country: In front of a Mexican consulate; in front of the Mexican embassy; at an official ceremony welcoming a Mexican dignitary; at a sporting event, like a boxing match or automobile race, to show support for a participant from Mexico.
Likewise, here are the only appropiate places to fly the flag of the United States in a foreign country: In front of a U.S. consulate; in front of the U.S. embassy; on an American military base in that country; at a sporting event when one of the participants is from the U.S.. Americans living in Mexico, or any other foreign country, should not fly the Stars and Stripes in public.
What is this country coming to when Mexican students at Montebello (California) High School lower the American flag from the school's flagpole, turn it upside down and haul it back up beneath the flag of Mexico. Pictures (below) show the students celebrating with the Mexican flag flying on top of an upside down American flag. Do these outrageous pictures infuriate you? If not, don't call yourself a proud American!
What is going on here? Now some colleges are flying the Flag of Mexico alongside the American flag. It seems as though we are surrendering parts of the United States to Mexico. When are our public school authorities and our college administrators going to stand up for America? Has this country lost its self-respect? If any flags are going to be burned, it should be Mexican flags, not American flags!
Foreign flag displays, like the one in Montebello, would never be tolerated in other countries, including those with rights of free speech. This country's citizens ought to express their pride in America by organizing NON-VIOLENT counter-demonstrations anytime it is likely that a group is going to flaunt a foreign flag in our faces.
We should tell those Cinco De Mayo celebrators to TAKE YOUR MEXICAN FLAGS SOUTH OF THE BORDER! The flag that should be waved during public celebrations or demonstrations is the American flag, the banner under which hundreds of thousands of heroic soldiers, sailors and marines have given their lives in the service of our country.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
ENVIRONMENTALISTS FUEL WORLD HUNGER
There have been food riots in Africa and, closer to home, in Haiti. The price of food has risen so much that many people in the third world can no longer afford to eat, hence the riots. And what has led to the high cost of food? The environmentalists are resonsible because they have successfully pushed legislation mandating the use of biofuels, primarily ethanol, in order to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
At the behest of environmental groups, backed by agricultural conglomerates, Congress passed the 2005 energy bill which mandated that 4 billion gallons of renewable fuel (mostly corn-based ethanol) must be added to the gasoline supply in 2006. That amount rises to 4.7 billion gallons for 2007 and 7.5 billion in 2012. These targets represent a large percentage increase in ethanol use but are still only a small fraction of the 140 billion gallons of gasoline that the U.S. currently uses every year.
The 2005 energy bill resulted in a demand for the use of corn to produce ethanol. This year, about 25 percent of our corn production will be used for biofuel. Next year it will be a third of our corn production. Because the biofuel industry is enriching corn growers, farmers are growing less corn for use as food and livestock feed. To cash in on the higher profits from supplying ethanol plants with corn, wheat farmers are now switching to the production of corn. That is why the world is facing a shortage of both wheat and corn.
These shortages have driven up the price of grains, with corn prices rising over 60 percent from 2005-07. Since most of our cattle, hogs and chickens are grain fed, and by factoring in the skyrocketing cost of fuel for transportation, the price of meat, milk and eggs has increased significantly. The price of cereals, bread and other grain related products has also increased to the extent that elderly Americans who subsist on fixed retirement incomes are now finding it exceedingly difficult to feed themselves adequately.
Will the change to ethanol and other biofuels reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? Not to any meaningful degree, according to a number of studies. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency has found that plants which convert corn into the gasoline additive ethanol are releasing carbon monoxide, methanol and some carcinogens at levels "many times greater" than they promised. The EPA said the problem is common to "most, if not all, ethanol facilities." On top of that, a recent study from Stanford University suggests that pollution from ethanol could be even worse than from traditional gasoline.
Admittedly, part of the food shortage problem in Africa can be attributed to a severe drought which environmentalists, of course, blame on global warming. However, the main problem is that we have created a "food for fuel nightmare" which has reduced our export of grains while raising the price of corn, flour and other staples beyond the means of most Africans and Haitians to pay for them. The next time you see pictures from Africa of those starving skeletal children with their bloated bellies and bulging eyes, THINK AND BLAME ENVIRONMENTALISTS!
At the behest of environmental groups, backed by agricultural conglomerates, Congress passed the 2005 energy bill which mandated that 4 billion gallons of renewable fuel (mostly corn-based ethanol) must be added to the gasoline supply in 2006. That amount rises to 4.7 billion gallons for 2007 and 7.5 billion in 2012. These targets represent a large percentage increase in ethanol use but are still only a small fraction of the 140 billion gallons of gasoline that the U.S. currently uses every year.
The 2005 energy bill resulted in a demand for the use of corn to produce ethanol. This year, about 25 percent of our corn production will be used for biofuel. Next year it will be a third of our corn production. Because the biofuel industry is enriching corn growers, farmers are growing less corn for use as food and livestock feed. To cash in on the higher profits from supplying ethanol plants with corn, wheat farmers are now switching to the production of corn. That is why the world is facing a shortage of both wheat and corn.
These shortages have driven up the price of grains, with corn prices rising over 60 percent from 2005-07. Since most of our cattle, hogs and chickens are grain fed, and by factoring in the skyrocketing cost of fuel for transportation, the price of meat, milk and eggs has increased significantly. The price of cereals, bread and other grain related products has also increased to the extent that elderly Americans who subsist on fixed retirement incomes are now finding it exceedingly difficult to feed themselves adequately.
Will the change to ethanol and other biofuels reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? Not to any meaningful degree, according to a number of studies. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency has found that plants which convert corn into the gasoline additive ethanol are releasing carbon monoxide, methanol and some carcinogens at levels "many times greater" than they promised. The EPA said the problem is common to "most, if not all, ethanol facilities." On top of that, a recent study from Stanford University suggests that pollution from ethanol could be even worse than from traditional gasoline.
Admittedly, part of the food shortage problem in Africa can be attributed to a severe drought which environmentalists, of course, blame on global warming. However, the main problem is that we have created a "food for fuel nightmare" which has reduced our export of grains while raising the price of corn, flour and other staples beyond the means of most Africans and Haitians to pay for them. The next time you see pictures from Africa of those starving skeletal children with their bloated bellies and bulging eyes, THINK AND BLAME ENVIRONMENTALISTS!
Friday, May 02, 2008
JIMMY CARTER'S SORRY-ASS PEACE PARTNERS
This morning, on my way to the nature center to do some volunteer work, I listened to a local radio newscaster interview Jimmy Carter about his trip last month to the Middle East. Asked how he could defend his meetings with Hamas leaders, Carter replied: "For the past twenty years, I've dedicated my life to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors." He went on to say that Hamas was a very popular legitimate organization that, along with Syria, would have to be included as a negotiating partner before any Palestinian peace accord with Israel could succeed.
At the very same time he was meeting with Hamas leaders, Hamas TV broadcast an "educational program" which taught that the murder of Jews in the Holocaust was a Zionist plot with two goals:
(1) To eliminate "disabled and handicapped" Jews by sending them to death camps, so they would not be a burden on the future state of Israel.
(2) At the same time, the Holocaust served to make "the Jews seem persecuted" so they could "benefit from international sympathy."
Amin Dabur, head of the Palestinian "Center for Strategic Research" explained that "the Israeli Holocaust - the whole thing was a joke, and part of the perfect show that [Zionist leader and future Israeli prime minister] Ben Gurion put on." The "young energetic and able" were sent to Israel, while the handicapped were sent "so there would be a Holocaust."
Here is the transcript of this "educational program" as it was broadcast on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV (April 18, 2008).
Narrator:
"The disabled and handicapped are a heavy burden on the state," said the terrorist leader, Ben Gurion. The Satanic Jews thought up an evil plot [the Holocaust] to be rid of the burden of the disabled and handicapped, in twisted criminal ways.
[Pictures were shown of a Holocaust death camp and dead bodies]
While they accuse the Nazis or others so the Jews would seem persecuted, and try to benefit from international sympathy. They were the first to invent the methods of evil and oppression."
Amin Dabur:
"About the Israeli Holocaust, the whole thing was a joke and part of the perfect show that Ben Gurion put on, who focused on strong and energetic youth [for Israel], while the rest- the disabled, the handicapped, and people with special needs, they were sent to [to die]- if it can be proven historically. They were sent [to die] so there would be a holocaust, so Israel could "play" it for world sympathy."
Narrator:
"The alleged numbers of Jews [killed in the Holocaust] were merely for propaganda."
Dedicated his life to help Israel? What a crock! During his trip, while in Egypt, Jimmy Carter told a student and faculty audience at the American University that Israel's response to the rocket attacks from Gaza was "a crime." Is that his way of helping Israel? Previously, in his book PALESTINE: PEACE NOT APARTHEID, Carter described Israel as an "apartheid" state, thus comparing the Jewish State to the former white racist government of South Africa.
Carter's book is sharply critical of Israeli policy and concludes that "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land." The prestigious Simon Wiesenthal Center reacted to his defamatory book by contending that Carter "abandons all objectivity and unabashedly acts as a virtual spokesman for the Palestinian cause."
Jimmy Carter's sorry-ass Hamas peace partners have made a mockery of the Holocaust. Both sets of my grandparents were among the six million Jews slaughtered by Nazi Germany. I can assure you they were neither disabled nor handicapped - they just happened to be Jews.
Carter's new found peace partners are the very same people who cheered and danced in the streets when they received news of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon. And lest we forget, at the time of the Holocaust the Palestinians, together with the rest of the Arab world, sided with Hitler and openly applauded Nazi Germany's extermination the Jews.
Carter's "peace" efforts, if successful, will not achieve a lasting peace - they will merely lead to the eventual destruction of the one and only place of refuge for Jews who are persecuted in other parts of the world. Jimmy Carter is either an old fool or nothing more than a big fraud!
At the very same time he was meeting with Hamas leaders, Hamas TV broadcast an "educational program" which taught that the murder of Jews in the Holocaust was a Zionist plot with two goals:
(1) To eliminate "disabled and handicapped" Jews by sending them to death camps, so they would not be a burden on the future state of Israel.
(2) At the same time, the Holocaust served to make "the Jews seem persecuted" so they could "benefit from international sympathy."
Amin Dabur, head of the Palestinian "Center for Strategic Research" explained that "the Israeli Holocaust - the whole thing was a joke, and part of the perfect show that [Zionist leader and future Israeli prime minister] Ben Gurion put on." The "young energetic and able" were sent to Israel, while the handicapped were sent "so there would be a Holocaust."
Here is the transcript of this "educational program" as it was broadcast on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV (April 18, 2008).
Narrator:
"The disabled and handicapped are a heavy burden on the state," said the terrorist leader, Ben Gurion. The Satanic Jews thought up an evil plot [the Holocaust] to be rid of the burden of the disabled and handicapped, in twisted criminal ways.
[Pictures were shown of a Holocaust death camp and dead bodies]
While they accuse the Nazis or others so the Jews would seem persecuted, and try to benefit from international sympathy. They were the first to invent the methods of evil and oppression."
Amin Dabur:
"About the Israeli Holocaust, the whole thing was a joke and part of the perfect show that Ben Gurion put on, who focused on strong and energetic youth [for Israel], while the rest- the disabled, the handicapped, and people with special needs, they were sent to [to die]- if it can be proven historically. They were sent [to die] so there would be a holocaust, so Israel could "play" it for world sympathy."
Narrator:
"The alleged numbers of Jews [killed in the Holocaust] were merely for propaganda."
Dedicated his life to help Israel? What a crock! During his trip, while in Egypt, Jimmy Carter told a student and faculty audience at the American University that Israel's response to the rocket attacks from Gaza was "a crime." Is that his way of helping Israel? Previously, in his book PALESTINE: PEACE NOT APARTHEID, Carter described Israel as an "apartheid" state, thus comparing the Jewish State to the former white racist government of South Africa.
Carter's book is sharply critical of Israeli policy and concludes that "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land." The prestigious Simon Wiesenthal Center reacted to his defamatory book by contending that Carter "abandons all objectivity and unabashedly acts as a virtual spokesman for the Palestinian cause."
Jimmy Carter's sorry-ass Hamas peace partners have made a mockery of the Holocaust. Both sets of my grandparents were among the six million Jews slaughtered by Nazi Germany. I can assure you they were neither disabled nor handicapped - they just happened to be Jews.
Carter's new found peace partners are the very same people who cheered and danced in the streets when they received news of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon. And lest we forget, at the time of the Holocaust the Palestinians, together with the rest of the Arab world, sided with Hitler and openly applauded Nazi Germany's extermination the Jews.
Carter's "peace" efforts, if successful, will not achieve a lasting peace - they will merely lead to the eventual destruction of the one and only place of refuge for Jews who are persecuted in other parts of the world. Jimmy Carter is either an old fool or nothing more than a big fraud!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)