The 5th U.S. Circuit of Appeals has just upheld the 11 and 12 year prison sentences of two Border Patrol officers who shot a fleeing unarmed drug smuggler in the ass when he attempeted to escape back into Mexico. This case has been a flashpoint for conservative politicians, talk radio and blogs. It has angered and demoralized the rank and file officers of the Border Patrol.
As a former law enforcement officer, I tend to lean in favor of officers who get themselves involved in questionable situations. In this case it is hard for me to come down on the side of the officers. Long ago, the courts ruled that police officers cannot shoot a fleeing offender unless he constitutes an immediate threat to the pursuing officers or if his escape, based on the nature of his crime, would constitute a serious threat to the public at large.
The Border Patrol officers tried to cover up the incident by removing the spent shell casings from the scence and by failing to report the shooting. They lied to their supervisors about the shooting when it bacame public. And, they claimed that they shot the smuggler only because they saw him carrying something that looked like a weapon.
Here is the problem I have with these officers. They tried to cover up the shooting. Their failure to report the incident indicates to me that they knew they were wrong in shooting the fleeing smuggler. You can bet your life they did not pick up the shell casings in order to save the brass. They compounded their predicament by lying to their supervisors about the circumstances of the incident.
I never fault an officer for shooting an unarmed offender when he is really in fear for his life, even though it turns out that the perpetrator was unarmed. In this case, however, the failure to report the shooting and the subsequent lies lead me to question the claim that the officers thought the fleeing smuggler was armed.
I do have a problem though with the sentencing of the officers. The smuggler was shot in the ass and recovered from his wound. The officers were convicted of felonious assault and violation of civil rights, but a mandatory 10 years was added to their sentences because they were also convicted of "using a firearm during a crime of violence."
When Congress mandated an additional 10 year sentence for using a firearm during a crime of violence, the lawmakers obviously failed to consider that this law would also apply to peace officers in the performance of their duties. A major purpose of that law was to protect peace officers by discouraging the use of firearms by dope dealers and it was not intended to be used against the very people it was designed to protect.
The two officers have been imprisoned for nearly two years. Their law enforcement careers are over. Their "victim" has a long criminal history. Justice was not served with the additional 10 year sentences in this case. That is why I support those who are calling on President Bush to commute their sentences. I also support the efforts of those who want to change the law against using a firearm during a crime of violence by exempting from its provisions peace officers in the performance of their duties.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
ISRAEL'S DAY OF INFAMY
Recently I blogged about Israel's swap of Samir Kuntar, the murderous Lebanese terrorist ("Israelis Will Rue the Day They Made This Swap" /7-5-08 and "Hero to the Palestinians"/7-18-08) and the likelyhood that it would lead to further hostage taking by the Jewish nation's enemies. In the past I have referred to Prime Minister Olmert as "Ehud the Idiot." I have often stated that tiny Israel badly needs a strong resolute leader, namely Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud party, to resist the international community's call for the Jewish state to make suicidal concessions to the Palestinians.
Burt Prelutsky's column in today's Townhall.com contains some very notable comments on the Kuntar "swapping human garbage for human cadavers" fiasco. Prelutsky has been a humor columnist for the L.A. Times and a movie critic for Los Angeles magazine and has written a bunch of successful television series and movies. He is the author of "Conservatives Are From Mars (Liberals are from San Francisco)." Here is Prelutsky's column from Townhall.com:
"It's Time Israel Woke Up by Burt Prelutsky
Because December 7, 1941, was when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR quite aptly called it a day that would live in infamy. For Israel, July 15, 2008, is just such a date. That was the day that Ehud Olmert’s government swapped child murderer Samir Kuntar and four of his Lebanese cohorts to Hezbollah for the corpses of Israeli army reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Israel agreed to do this even though the Arabs reneged on their promise to disclose the present whereabouts of Israeli airman Ron Arad.
While one can sympathize with the families of Goldwasser and Regev, who desired closure and only wanted to give the young men a proper burial, one can’t help wondering what’s gone wrong with Israel’s leadership. Have they decided for some odd reason to take their lead from people like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama?
Once you begin trading live terrorists for dead soldiers, what have you done but encouraged your sworn enemies to abduct and murder your soldiers as well as your civilians? How do you trade for the corpses of Goldwasser and Regev, but not for the dead bodies of the next two Israelis or the next dozen or the next hundred? Once you open the door to such depraved swapping, how do you ever close it? How do you tell the next set of Jewish parents that the remains of these two were worth infinitely more than the corpses of their own sons and daughters?
Frankly, I have no idea how Israel has so far resisted the urge to unleash nuclear bombs on the likes of Syria, Iran and the Palestinians. But be that as it may, I do have a couple of suggestions I wish they’d take to heart. One, I wish they’d finally institute capital punishment. Until the day they begin to execute terrorists, they will leave themselves open to more of this same sort of emotional blackmail.
Until they can bring themselves to exterminating the likes of Samir Kuntar, who went home to a hero’s reception, the Israelis will continue to find themselves swapping human garbage for human cadavers. Furthermore, the next time Kuntar murders a Jewish child, and assuredly this unrepentant savage will, the child’s blood will not only be on his hands, but on the hands of Prime Minister Olmert, President Shimon Peres and the rest of the gutless politicians currently running things in Israel.
My second suggestion is that Israel announce that from this moment on, the remains of any suicide bomber, in fact of any Muslim terrorist captured and executed in Israel, will be buried carefully wrapped in pigskins. Not only should that policy act as a deterrent, but what could be a more appropriate fate for swine?"
Burt Prelutsky's column in today's Townhall.com contains some very notable comments on the Kuntar "swapping human garbage for human cadavers" fiasco. Prelutsky has been a humor columnist for the L.A. Times and a movie critic for Los Angeles magazine and has written a bunch of successful television series and movies. He is the author of "Conservatives Are From Mars (Liberals are from San Francisco)." Here is Prelutsky's column from Townhall.com:
"It's Time Israel Woke Up by Burt Prelutsky
Because December 7, 1941, was when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR quite aptly called it a day that would live in infamy. For Israel, July 15, 2008, is just such a date. That was the day that Ehud Olmert’s government swapped child murderer Samir Kuntar and four of his Lebanese cohorts to Hezbollah for the corpses of Israeli army reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Israel agreed to do this even though the Arabs reneged on their promise to disclose the present whereabouts of Israeli airman Ron Arad.
While one can sympathize with the families of Goldwasser and Regev, who desired closure and only wanted to give the young men a proper burial, one can’t help wondering what’s gone wrong with Israel’s leadership. Have they decided for some odd reason to take their lead from people like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama?
Once you begin trading live terrorists for dead soldiers, what have you done but encouraged your sworn enemies to abduct and murder your soldiers as well as your civilians? How do you trade for the corpses of Goldwasser and Regev, but not for the dead bodies of the next two Israelis or the next dozen or the next hundred? Once you open the door to such depraved swapping, how do you ever close it? How do you tell the next set of Jewish parents that the remains of these two were worth infinitely more than the corpses of their own sons and daughters?
Frankly, I have no idea how Israel has so far resisted the urge to unleash nuclear bombs on the likes of Syria, Iran and the Palestinians. But be that as it may, I do have a couple of suggestions I wish they’d take to heart. One, I wish they’d finally institute capital punishment. Until the day they begin to execute terrorists, they will leave themselves open to more of this same sort of emotional blackmail.
Until they can bring themselves to exterminating the likes of Samir Kuntar, who went home to a hero’s reception, the Israelis will continue to find themselves swapping human garbage for human cadavers. Furthermore, the next time Kuntar murders a Jewish child, and assuredly this unrepentant savage will, the child’s blood will not only be on his hands, but on the hands of Prime Minister Olmert, President Shimon Peres and the rest of the gutless politicians currently running things in Israel.
My second suggestion is that Israel announce that from this moment on, the remains of any suicide bomber, in fact of any Muslim terrorist captured and executed in Israel, will be buried carefully wrapped in pigskins. Not only should that policy act as a deterrent, but what could be a more appropriate fate for swine?"
Friday, July 25, 2008
ACADEMIA'S POISONOUS ATMOSPHERE
In yesterday's blog, "Colleges Now and Then." I wrote about today's poisonous campus atmosphere of political correctness, identity politics, radical feminism, militant marxism and thought control. I also mentioned that students who do not agree with the radical left are intimidated and even disciplined for expressing opposing viewpoints. This lunacy has also spread to include the prohibition of reading books on campus in front of anyone who might be offended by the subject matter. Here is a case in point.
Keith Sampson is a janitor and part-time student at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). He is in his early 50s and has been gradually accumulating credits at IUPUI for a degree in communications studies. He has 10 credit hours to go. Last year, while on a break from his janitorial duties, Sampson was reading "Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the KuKluxKlan," a book he had checked out from the public library.
Nakea Vincent, a black janitor, spotted Sampson reading and happened to get a glimpse of the book's title. She went ballistic and filed a racial harrassment complaint against Sampson with the IUPUI administration. Her complaint led to an inquiry of major proportions and caused an innocent Sampson considerable grief. In an initial letter, dated Nov. 25, 2007, Sampson was told by Lillian Charleston of the university's Affirmative Action Office that he "racially harassed" black coworkers by reading the book in their presence. Here is what the letter said:
"The Affirmative Action Office has completed its investigation of Ms. Nakea Vincent's allegation that you racially harassed her by repeatedly reading the book, Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan by Todd Tucker in the presence of Black employees. In conducting this investigation, we interviewed you, Nakea Vincent, and other employees with information relevant to the mailer.
Upon review of this matter, we conclude that your conduct constitutes racial harassment in that you demonstrated disdain and insensitivity to your co-workers who repeatedly requested that you refrain from reading the book which has such an inflammatory and offensive topic in their presence. You contend that you weren't aware of the offensive nature of the topic and were reading the book about the KKK to better understand discrimination. However you used extremely poor judgment by insisting on openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the presence of your Black co-workers. Furthermore, employing the legal "reasonable person standard," a majority of adults are aware of and understand how repugnant the KKK is to African Americans, their reactions to the Klan, and the reasonableness of the request that you not read the book in their presence.
During your meeting with Marguerite Watkins, Assistant Affirmative Action Officer you were instructed to stop reading the book in the immediate presence of your coworkers and when reading the book to sit apart from the immediate proximity of these co-workers. Please be advised, any future substantiated conduct of a similar nature could result in serious disciplinary action.
Racial harassment is very serious and can result in serious consequences for all involved. Please be advised that racial harassment and retaliation against any individual for having participated in the investigation of a complaint of this nature is a violation of University policy and will not be tolerated.
This concludes this matter with the Affirmative Action Office. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us."
Of course, it did not take long for Sampson's predicament to become public. After the university was battered by a blistering barrage of well-deserved outrage, Sampson received a second letter, dated Feb. 7, 2008. Here is what Charleston's second letter said:
"This letter will replace my prior letter to you dated November 25, 2007.
I wish to clarify that my prior letter was not meant to imply that it is impermissible for you or to limit your ability to read scholarly books or other such literature during break times. There is no University policy that prohibits reading such materials on break time. As was previously stated, you are permitted to read such materials during appropriate times.
I also wish to clarify that my prior letter to you was meant only to address conduct on your part that raised concern on the part of your co-workers. It was the perception of your co-workers that you were engaging in conduct for the purpose of creating a hostile atmosphere of antagonism. Your perception was that you were reading a scholarly work during break time, and should be permitted to do so whether or not the subject matter is of concern to your coworkers.
I am unable to draw any final conclusion concerning what was intended by the conduct. Of course, if the conduct was intended to cause disruption to the work environment, such behavior would be subject to action by the University. However, because I cannot draw any final conclusion in this instance, no such adverse disciplinary action has been or will be taken in connection with the circumstances at hand."
"........ I cannot draw any final conclusion in this instance ........" What an absolutely absurd statement! All that Sampson did was to read a book during a break from work. A scholarly book at that. He cannot be blamed for the fact that some nosy black female, afflicted with a severe case of victimitis, took a glimpse at what he was reading and was offended by the book's title.
I don't know who is more ignorant - Lillian Charleston, the ubernut affirmative action officer, or Sampson's black co-worker, Nakea Vincent? Vincent should have been disciplined for making a false racial harassment accusation and for causing disruption to the work environment by "creating a hostile atmosphere of antagonism." But instead of disciplining Vincent, the university left Sampson dangling under a cloud of suspicion. And so it goes on today's college campus.
Keith Sampson is a janitor and part-time student at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). He is in his early 50s and has been gradually accumulating credits at IUPUI for a degree in communications studies. He has 10 credit hours to go. Last year, while on a break from his janitorial duties, Sampson was reading "Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the KuKluxKlan," a book he had checked out from the public library.
Nakea Vincent, a black janitor, spotted Sampson reading and happened to get a glimpse of the book's title. She went ballistic and filed a racial harrassment complaint against Sampson with the IUPUI administration. Her complaint led to an inquiry of major proportions and caused an innocent Sampson considerable grief. In an initial letter, dated Nov. 25, 2007, Sampson was told by Lillian Charleston of the university's Affirmative Action Office that he "racially harassed" black coworkers by reading the book in their presence. Here is what the letter said:
"The Affirmative Action Office has completed its investigation of Ms. Nakea Vincent's allegation that you racially harassed her by repeatedly reading the book, Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan by Todd Tucker in the presence of Black employees. In conducting this investigation, we interviewed you, Nakea Vincent, and other employees with information relevant to the mailer.
Upon review of this matter, we conclude that your conduct constitutes racial harassment in that you demonstrated disdain and insensitivity to your co-workers who repeatedly requested that you refrain from reading the book which has such an inflammatory and offensive topic in their presence. You contend that you weren't aware of the offensive nature of the topic and were reading the book about the KKK to better understand discrimination. However you used extremely poor judgment by insisting on openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the presence of your Black co-workers. Furthermore, employing the legal "reasonable person standard," a majority of adults are aware of and understand how repugnant the KKK is to African Americans, their reactions to the Klan, and the reasonableness of the request that you not read the book in their presence.
During your meeting with Marguerite Watkins, Assistant Affirmative Action Officer you were instructed to stop reading the book in the immediate presence of your coworkers and when reading the book to sit apart from the immediate proximity of these co-workers. Please be advised, any future substantiated conduct of a similar nature could result in serious disciplinary action.
Racial harassment is very serious and can result in serious consequences for all involved. Please be advised that racial harassment and retaliation against any individual for having participated in the investigation of a complaint of this nature is a violation of University policy and will not be tolerated.
This concludes this matter with the Affirmative Action Office. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us."
Of course, it did not take long for Sampson's predicament to become public. After the university was battered by a blistering barrage of well-deserved outrage, Sampson received a second letter, dated Feb. 7, 2008. Here is what Charleston's second letter said:
"This letter will replace my prior letter to you dated November 25, 2007.
I wish to clarify that my prior letter was not meant to imply that it is impermissible for you or to limit your ability to read scholarly books or other such literature during break times. There is no University policy that prohibits reading such materials on break time. As was previously stated, you are permitted to read such materials during appropriate times.
I also wish to clarify that my prior letter to you was meant only to address conduct on your part that raised concern on the part of your co-workers. It was the perception of your co-workers that you were engaging in conduct for the purpose of creating a hostile atmosphere of antagonism. Your perception was that you were reading a scholarly work during break time, and should be permitted to do so whether or not the subject matter is of concern to your coworkers.
I am unable to draw any final conclusion concerning what was intended by the conduct. Of course, if the conduct was intended to cause disruption to the work environment, such behavior would be subject to action by the University. However, because I cannot draw any final conclusion in this instance, no such adverse disciplinary action has been or will be taken in connection with the circumstances at hand."
"........ I cannot draw any final conclusion in this instance ........" What an absolutely absurd statement! All that Sampson did was to read a book during a break from work. A scholarly book at that. He cannot be blamed for the fact that some nosy black female, afflicted with a severe case of victimitis, took a glimpse at what he was reading and was offended by the book's title.
I don't know who is more ignorant - Lillian Charleston, the ubernut affirmative action officer, or Sampson's black co-worker, Nakea Vincent? Vincent should have been disciplined for making a false racial harassment accusation and for causing disruption to the work environment by "creating a hostile atmosphere of antagonism." But instead of disciplining Vincent, the university left Sampson dangling under a cloud of suspicion. And so it goes on today's college campus.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
COLLEGES NOW AND THEN
Emmett Tyrrell, a conservative columnist, is the founder, publisher and editor-in-chief of The American Spectator. In today's Townhall.com, his column, "A Victory for Campus Diversity," included his observations of what is happening on college campuses today as compared to the way things were in the 1950s. Here are some excerpts from Tyrrell's Townhall column:
'The life of the mind nowadays is celebrated so rarely in academe. A livelier cultural atmosphere can be found at a Starbucks cafe or health food emporium. On most university campuses, the bulletin boards sulk with notices about "Rape Awareness Week," "Anger Management Counseling," "The Readings of the Prophet Obama."
A half-century ago, things were different. Learning was widespread on campus -- at least among the profs. Free thought was encouraged, even among the profs. In the humanities, there were distinguished professors, at least on the best campuses, where they wrote and taught and often seemed to live the good life. Even the faculty communists were relatively pleasant.
The university at the middle of the 20th century was a happy place, congenial to civilized thought.
Today it is gloomy, populated -- particularly in the humanities -- by narrowly opinionated adepts of identity politics and sham studies: the feminists, the black-studies lecturers and other special interests too esoteric to mention. The prevalence of these irritable sciolists explains why in the nation today there are so few historians of the stature of, say, Arthur M. Schlesinger or Samuel Eliot Morison; political philosophers of the stature of Leo Strauss; or political scientists of the stature of Hans J. Morgenthau.'
I believe that Tyrell has hit the nail right on the head. Once the Vietnam War protests gripped our nations colleges and universities, the curltural atmosphere on campuses began to spin out of control. And that is where we are today, still out of control. Students are subjected to political correctness, identity politics, radical feminism, militant marxism and thought control. Freedom of speech is encouraged, but only for those who agree with the radicals. Students who disagree will be intimidated and may even be disciplined for expressing opposite viewpoints.
When Tyrrell mentioned that "even the faculty communists were relatively pleasant" he wasn't whistling Dixie. That reminded me of my Economics class at the University of Texas right after World War II. The first thing the prof said when he introduced himself was, "I want all of you to know that I am a communist." But the way he taught the course, you would never have known he was a communist had he not mentioned it. He did not castigate capitalism, nor did he ever spew out a shitload of anti-Americanism.
With the prevalence of left-wing radicalism on many of today's campuses, it is no wonder that many of our college graduates are ill prepared to face the realities of life away from the halls of ivy. That is particularly true for those who majored in the social sciences and humanities, today's breeding grounds for educated idiots.
'The life of the mind nowadays is celebrated so rarely in academe. A livelier cultural atmosphere can be found at a Starbucks cafe or health food emporium. On most university campuses, the bulletin boards sulk with notices about "Rape Awareness Week," "Anger Management Counseling," "The Readings of the Prophet Obama."
A half-century ago, things were different. Learning was widespread on campus -- at least among the profs. Free thought was encouraged, even among the profs. In the humanities, there were distinguished professors, at least on the best campuses, where they wrote and taught and often seemed to live the good life. Even the faculty communists were relatively pleasant.
The university at the middle of the 20th century was a happy place, congenial to civilized thought.
Today it is gloomy, populated -- particularly in the humanities -- by narrowly opinionated adepts of identity politics and sham studies: the feminists, the black-studies lecturers and other special interests too esoteric to mention. The prevalence of these irritable sciolists explains why in the nation today there are so few historians of the stature of, say, Arthur M. Schlesinger or Samuel Eliot Morison; political philosophers of the stature of Leo Strauss; or political scientists of the stature of Hans J. Morgenthau.'
I believe that Tyrell has hit the nail right on the head. Once the Vietnam War protests gripped our nations colleges and universities, the curltural atmosphere on campuses began to spin out of control. And that is where we are today, still out of control. Students are subjected to political correctness, identity politics, radical feminism, militant marxism and thought control. Freedom of speech is encouraged, but only for those who agree with the radicals. Students who disagree will be intimidated and may even be disciplined for expressing opposite viewpoints.
When Tyrrell mentioned that "even the faculty communists were relatively pleasant" he wasn't whistling Dixie. That reminded me of my Economics class at the University of Texas right after World War II. The first thing the prof said when he introduced himself was, "I want all of you to know that I am a communist." But the way he taught the course, you would never have known he was a communist had he not mentioned it. He did not castigate capitalism, nor did he ever spew out a shitload of anti-Americanism.
With the prevalence of left-wing radicalism on many of today's campuses, it is no wonder that many of our college graduates are ill prepared to face the realities of life away from the halls of ivy. That is particularly true for those who majored in the social sciences and humanities, today's breeding grounds for educated idiots.
Monday, July 21, 2008
CITY OF UBERNUTS
Those who live on the West Coast, particularly those in California, are different from the rest of us. For one thing, they tend to be much more liberal than most other Americans. They are more innovative and, as such, are trend setters for the rest of the country. Some of their ideas are great, some turn out to be quite nutty. That is why many people refer to California as "the land of nuts and fruits."
If California is the land of nuts and fruits, then San Francisco is the city of ubernuts and fruits. This is the city that gave us Haight-Ashbury during the '60s and '70s with its young "hippies" and their wide open use of drugs and "free love." San Francisco has a large and politically powerful homosexual community. It is not uncommon to observe gay and lesbian couples "rolling" in the grass at the city's parks. Until stopped by a court ruling, the mayor ordered city hall to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. The city is a sanctuary for illegal aliens from south of the border.
Recently, some practical jokers were drinking beer at a San Francisco bar when they decided to "honor" the forty-third President of the United States, George W. Bush. They formed the "Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco" and proceeded to have the name of a sewage treatment facility adjacent to the city zoo changed from the "Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant," its present name, to the "George W. Bush Sewage Plant."
Normally, a plot hatched over some beers to name a sewage plant after our nation's president would have gotten some laughs and ended there. But not in San Francisco where it takes the signatures of only 7,168 city voters to place a measure on the election ballot. The city has certified that the "commission" had obtained the signatures of 8,500 ubernuts, 1,300 more than needed to include the sewage plant name change on the November ballot.
If the measure passes, the renaming would take effect on January 20, 2009, when the new president is sworn in. And regardless of the measure's outcome, its supporters plan to commemorate the inaugural with a synchronized flush of hundreds of thousands of San Francisco toilets, an action that would send a flood of water, pee and turds rushing toward the sewage treatment facility.
Will a majority of the city's electorate vote to rename that facility the George W. Bush Sewage Plant? That all depends on how many Bush hating ubernuts there are in San Francisco. Considering the ultra-liberal makeup of San Francisco's population with its hatred of conservatives and its particular hatred of President Bush, I'm willing to bet that what started out as a practical joke will become a humiliating remembrance of George W. Bush.
If California is the land of nuts and fruits, then San Francisco is the city of ubernuts and fruits. This is the city that gave us Haight-Ashbury during the '60s and '70s with its young "hippies" and their wide open use of drugs and "free love." San Francisco has a large and politically powerful homosexual community. It is not uncommon to observe gay and lesbian couples "rolling" in the grass at the city's parks. Until stopped by a court ruling, the mayor ordered city hall to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. The city is a sanctuary for illegal aliens from south of the border.
Recently, some practical jokers were drinking beer at a San Francisco bar when they decided to "honor" the forty-third President of the United States, George W. Bush. They formed the "Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco" and proceeded to have the name of a sewage treatment facility adjacent to the city zoo changed from the "Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant," its present name, to the "George W. Bush Sewage Plant."
Normally, a plot hatched over some beers to name a sewage plant after our nation's president would have gotten some laughs and ended there. But not in San Francisco where it takes the signatures of only 7,168 city voters to place a measure on the election ballot. The city has certified that the "commission" had obtained the signatures of 8,500 ubernuts, 1,300 more than needed to include the sewage plant name change on the November ballot.
If the measure passes, the renaming would take effect on January 20, 2009, when the new president is sworn in. And regardless of the measure's outcome, its supporters plan to commemorate the inaugural with a synchronized flush of hundreds of thousands of San Francisco toilets, an action that would send a flood of water, pee and turds rushing toward the sewage treatment facility.
Will a majority of the city's electorate vote to rename that facility the George W. Bush Sewage Plant? That all depends on how many Bush hating ubernuts there are in San Francisco. Considering the ultra-liberal makeup of San Francisco's population with its hatred of conservatives and its particular hatred of President Bush, I'm willing to bet that what started out as a practical joke will become a humiliating remembrance of George W. Bush.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS
Here we go again. Last October, I blogged INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE MEDDLES IN OUR DOMESTIC AFFAIRS (10-19-07) when Mexico went to the U.N.'s International Court of Justice (World Court) to claim that its nationals who were condemned to death for murder in the U.S. were deprived of their rights under the 1963 treaty known as the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
According to the Vienna Convention, whenever a citizen of a foreign country is arrested he must be advised of his right to obtain the assistance of his country's consulate. The World Court, acting on Mexico's request, ordered a halt to the execution of 51 Mexican nationals who were not afforded that right, ruling they must be granted new sentencing hearings. President Bush then ordered Texas and the other death penalty states to comply with the World Court order.
Texas and the other states appealed Bush's order to the U.S. Supreme Court. Last March, by a 6 - 3 majority, it decided that the President was wrong in ordering the States to hold those new sentencing hearings, ruling that the World Court had no right to impose its will on the sovereignty of the United States. (Refer to my blog WORLD COURT AND THE PRESIDENT REBUFFED, 4-2-08.)
Now Mexico and the World Court have done it again. Mexico asked the international tribunal to stop Texas from executing five of its nationals. The World Court complied, ordering the State of Texas to grant those five cold-blooded killers a stay of execution. After our Supreme Court's ruling, what part of "no" does the U.N.'s International Court of Justice fail to understand?
Here are the five sterling Mexican nationals whose executions have been ordered stayed by the World Court:
Jose Medellin, 33. In 1993, he was convicted for the strangulation, rape and kidnapping of two Houston teenagers.
Cesar Fierro, 51. He has been on death row since 1980 for shooting an El Paso taxi driver to death. That's 28 years on death row.
Ruben Cardenas, 38. He was convicted for the 1997 rape, beating and strangulation of his victim.
Hector Garcia, 47. He was convicted for the 1989 killing of a 14-year-old boy during a convenience store robbery in the Rio Grande Valley.
Robert Ramos, 54. He was convicted for the 1992 murders of his wife and their two children, aged 7 and 3.
One would think that Mexico would be loath to embrace any of these five sorry-ass murderers as their nationals. Each of the condemned would easily qualify as a poster boy for the death penalty. Medellin's date with death has been rescheduled for August 5, a date that can't come too soon for the loved ones of the young girls he fatally brutalized - two families that have been waiting 15 years for justice to take its course.
The Governor and the Attorney General of Texas have no intention of complying with the World Court order, and we can be thankful for that. Mexico, which does not have the death penalty, would be well advised to look after its own affairs. In recent years, thousands of its citizens, including police officials and prosecutors, have been killed in the turf wars fought by Mexico's drug cartels..
Mexico and the United Nations should stay out of the domestic affairs of the United States. The World Court should limit its rulings to international border disputes, to war crimes, and to crimes against humanity, none of which apply to any Texas executions. And above all, they should heed the anti-litter campaign slogan - DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS.
According to the Vienna Convention, whenever a citizen of a foreign country is arrested he must be advised of his right to obtain the assistance of his country's consulate. The World Court, acting on Mexico's request, ordered a halt to the execution of 51 Mexican nationals who were not afforded that right, ruling they must be granted new sentencing hearings. President Bush then ordered Texas and the other death penalty states to comply with the World Court order.
Texas and the other states appealed Bush's order to the U.S. Supreme Court. Last March, by a 6 - 3 majority, it decided that the President was wrong in ordering the States to hold those new sentencing hearings, ruling that the World Court had no right to impose its will on the sovereignty of the United States. (Refer to my blog WORLD COURT AND THE PRESIDENT REBUFFED, 4-2-08.)
Now Mexico and the World Court have done it again. Mexico asked the international tribunal to stop Texas from executing five of its nationals. The World Court complied, ordering the State of Texas to grant those five cold-blooded killers a stay of execution. After our Supreme Court's ruling, what part of "no" does the U.N.'s International Court of Justice fail to understand?
Here are the five sterling Mexican nationals whose executions have been ordered stayed by the World Court:
Jose Medellin, 33. In 1993, he was convicted for the strangulation, rape and kidnapping of two Houston teenagers.
Cesar Fierro, 51. He has been on death row since 1980 for shooting an El Paso taxi driver to death. That's 28 years on death row.
Ruben Cardenas, 38. He was convicted for the 1997 rape, beating and strangulation of his victim.
Hector Garcia, 47. He was convicted for the 1989 killing of a 14-year-old boy during a convenience store robbery in the Rio Grande Valley.
Robert Ramos, 54. He was convicted for the 1992 murders of his wife and their two children, aged 7 and 3.
One would think that Mexico would be loath to embrace any of these five sorry-ass murderers as their nationals. Each of the condemned would easily qualify as a poster boy for the death penalty. Medellin's date with death has been rescheduled for August 5, a date that can't come too soon for the loved ones of the young girls he fatally brutalized - two families that have been waiting 15 years for justice to take its course.
The Governor and the Attorney General of Texas have no intention of complying with the World Court order, and we can be thankful for that. Mexico, which does not have the death penalty, would be well advised to look after its own affairs. In recent years, thousands of its citizens, including police officials and prosecutors, have been killed in the turf wars fought by Mexico's drug cartels..
Mexico and the United Nations should stay out of the domestic affairs of the United States. The World Court should limit its rulings to international border disputes, to war crimes, and to crimes against humanity, none of which apply to any Texas executions. And above all, they should heed the anti-litter campaign slogan - DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS.
Friday, July 18, 2008
THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS
Trey, my "surrogate son," sent me this essay on Texas, explaining that "I received this from my friend, former co-worker and true Texan, Tommy Rodgers. It is worth reading." I agree, and that is why it is in this blog.
TEXAS
Have you ever looked at a map of the world? Look at Texas with me just for a second. That picture, with the Panhandle and the Gulf Coast , and the Red River and the Rio Grande is as much a part of you as anything ever will be. As soon as anyone anywhere in the world looks at it, they know what it is. It's Texas. Pick any kid off the street in Japan and draw him a picture of Texas in the dirt and he'll know what it is What happens if I show you a picture of any other state? You might get it, maybe after a second or two, but who else would? And even if you do, does it ever stir any feelings in you?
In every man, woman and child on this planet, there is a person who wishes just once he, or she, could be a real live Texan and get up on a horse, or ride off in a pickup. There is a little bit of Texas in everyone.
Texas is the Alamo . Texas is 183 men standing in a church, facing thousands of Mexican nationals, fighting for freedom, who had the chance to walk out and save themselves, but stayed instead to fight and die for the cause of freedom.
We send our kids to schools named William B. Travis and James Bowie and Davy Crockett, and do you know why? Because those men saw a line in the sand and they decided to cross it and be heroes. John Wayne paid to do the movie himself . That is the Spirit of Texas .
Texas is Sam Houston capturing Antonio Lopez De Santa Anna at San Jacinto.
Texas is huge forests of Piney Woods like the Davy Crockett and Sam Houston National Forests.
Texas is breathtaking mountains in the Big Bend.
Texas is the unparalleled beauty of bluebonnet fields in the Texas Hill Country.
Texas is the beautiful, warm beaches of the Gulf Coast of South Texas.
Texas is the shiny skyscrapers in Houston and Dallas.
Texas is world record bass from places like Lake Fork.
Texas is Mexican foods like nowhere else, not even Mexico.
Texas is the Fort Worth Stockyards, Bass Hall, the Ballpark in Arlington and the Astrodome. (guess now the Reliant Stadium too).
Texas is larger-than-life legends like Michael DeBakey, Denton Cooley, Willie Nelson, Buddy Holly, Gene Autry, Audie Murphy, Tommy Lee Jones, Waylon Jennings, Farrah Fawcett, Janis Joplin, Sandra Bullock, Kris Kristofferson, Tom Landry, Eva Longoria, Darrell Royal, ZZ Top, Eric Dickerson, Earl Campbell, Nolan Ryan, Sam Rayburn, Howard Hughes, George H. W. Bush, Lyndon B. Johnson, and let's not forget GEORGE STRAIT and PANTERA!!!!!!!!!!!!
Texas is great companies like Dell Computer, Texas Instruments and Compaq, Bell Helicopter and LOCKHEED MARTIN AEROSPACE, Home of the F-16 Jet Fighter and the JSF Fighter.
Texas is NASA.
Texas is huge herds of cattle and miles of crops.
Texas is home to the most amazing sunsets of gold over an empty field.
Texas is hundreds of deer running around neighborhoods and fields.
Texas is skies blackened with doves and fields full of deer.
Texas is a place where towns and cities shut down to watch the local high school football game on Friday nights and for the Cowboys on Monday Night Football, and for the night In Old San Antonio River Parade in San Antonio.
To drive across Texas is to drive 1/3 the way across the United States .
Texas is ocean beaches, deserts, lakes and rivers, mountains and prairies, and modern cities.
If it isn't already in Texas , you probably don't need it.
No one does anything bigger or better than it's done in Texas .
By federal law, Texas is the only state in the U.S. that can fly its flag at the same height as the U.S. flag Think about that for a second. You fly the Stars and Stripes at 20 feet in Maryland , California , or Maine , and your state flag, whatever it is, goes at 17 feet. You fly the Stars and Stripes in front of Klein Oak High or anyplace else at 20 feet, the Lone Star flies at the same height at 20 feet. Do you know why? Because it is the only state that was a Republic before it became a state.
Also, being a Texan is as high as being an American down here. Our capitol is the only one in the country that is taller than the capitol building in Washington , D.C. and we can divide our state into five states at any time if we wanted to!
We can become a republic again at any time the voters of Texas choose, and we included these things as part of the deal when we came on. That's the best part, right there.
Editor's Note: A few of these claims are in dispute. The Texas flag can fly at the same height as the U.S. flag only when there are two or four flags flying sid by side. When there are three flags, the Texas flag must be three feet lower. There are those who contend that there was never any agreement with the federal government permitting Texas to be divided into five states, nor was there any agreement permitting the Lone Star State to secede from the Union.
TEXAS
Have you ever looked at a map of the world? Look at Texas with me just for a second. That picture, with the Panhandle and the Gulf Coast , and the Red River and the Rio Grande is as much a part of you as anything ever will be. As soon as anyone anywhere in the world looks at it, they know what it is. It's Texas. Pick any kid off the street in Japan and draw him a picture of Texas in the dirt and he'll know what it is What happens if I show you a picture of any other state? You might get it, maybe after a second or two, but who else would? And even if you do, does it ever stir any feelings in you?
In every man, woman and child on this planet, there is a person who wishes just once he, or she, could be a real live Texan and get up on a horse, or ride off in a pickup. There is a little bit of Texas in everyone.
Texas is the Alamo . Texas is 183 men standing in a church, facing thousands of Mexican nationals, fighting for freedom, who had the chance to walk out and save themselves, but stayed instead to fight and die for the cause of freedom.
We send our kids to schools named William B. Travis and James Bowie and Davy Crockett, and do you know why? Because those men saw a line in the sand and they decided to cross it and be heroes. John Wayne paid to do the movie himself . That is the Spirit of Texas .
Texas is Sam Houston capturing Antonio Lopez De Santa Anna at San Jacinto.
Texas is huge forests of Piney Woods like the Davy Crockett and Sam Houston National Forests.
Texas is breathtaking mountains in the Big Bend.
Texas is the unparalleled beauty of bluebonnet fields in the Texas Hill Country.
Texas is the beautiful, warm beaches of the Gulf Coast of South Texas.
Texas is the shiny skyscrapers in Houston and Dallas.
Texas is world record bass from places like Lake Fork.
Texas is Mexican foods like nowhere else, not even Mexico.
Texas is the Fort Worth Stockyards, Bass Hall, the Ballpark in Arlington and the Astrodome. (guess now the Reliant Stadium too).
Texas is larger-than-life legends like Michael DeBakey, Denton Cooley, Willie Nelson, Buddy Holly, Gene Autry, Audie Murphy, Tommy Lee Jones, Waylon Jennings, Farrah Fawcett, Janis Joplin, Sandra Bullock, Kris Kristofferson, Tom Landry, Eva Longoria, Darrell Royal, ZZ Top, Eric Dickerson, Earl Campbell, Nolan Ryan, Sam Rayburn, Howard Hughes, George H. W. Bush, Lyndon B. Johnson, and let's not forget GEORGE STRAIT and PANTERA!!!!!!!!!!!!
Texas is great companies like Dell Computer, Texas Instruments and Compaq, Bell Helicopter and LOCKHEED MARTIN AEROSPACE, Home of the F-16 Jet Fighter and the JSF Fighter.
Texas is NASA.
Texas is huge herds of cattle and miles of crops.
Texas is home to the most amazing sunsets of gold over an empty field.
Texas is hundreds of deer running around neighborhoods and fields.
Texas is skies blackened with doves and fields full of deer.
Texas is a place where towns and cities shut down to watch the local high school football game on Friday nights and for the Cowboys on Monday Night Football, and for the night In Old San Antonio River Parade in San Antonio.
To drive across Texas is to drive 1/3 the way across the United States .
Texas is ocean beaches, deserts, lakes and rivers, mountains and prairies, and modern cities.
If it isn't already in Texas , you probably don't need it.
No one does anything bigger or better than it's done in Texas .
By federal law, Texas is the only state in the U.S. that can fly its flag at the same height as the U.S. flag Think about that for a second. You fly the Stars and Stripes at 20 feet in Maryland , California , or Maine , and your state flag, whatever it is, goes at 17 feet. You fly the Stars and Stripes in front of Klein Oak High or anyplace else at 20 feet, the Lone Star flies at the same height at 20 feet. Do you know why? Because it is the only state that was a Republic before it became a state.
Also, being a Texan is as high as being an American down here. Our capitol is the only one in the country that is taller than the capitol building in Washington , D.C. and we can divide our state into five states at any time if we wanted to!
We can become a republic again at any time the voters of Texas choose, and we included these things as part of the deal when we came on. That's the best part, right there.
Editor's Note: A few of these claims are in dispute. The Texas flag can fly at the same height as the U.S. flag only when there are two or four flags flying sid by side. When there are three flags, the Texas flag must be three feet lower. There are those who contend that there was never any agreement with the federal government permitting Texas to be divided into five states, nor was there any agreement permitting the Lone Star State to secede from the Union.
A PAIR OF FOUR-FLUSHING PHONIES
A week ago, I published "Cut His Nuts Off" (7-11-08) about Jessee Jackson saying he wanted to cut Obama's nuts off, a remark he made with an open mic while on a break during an interview on Fox News Channel. Unknown to me at the time was the fact that Fox deliberately concealed a much more damaging part of Jackson's remarks.
As you may recall, these are Jackson's remarks that Fox initially made available to the public: "See, Barack's been talking down to black people on this faith-based. I wanna cut his nuts off. Barack, he's talking down to black people." Unknown to the network, someone within the news organization leaked Jackson's remark containing the "N" word to the internet, a remark Fox had no intention of making public.
Here is what Jackson actually said: "See, Barack's been talking down to black people on this faith-based. I wanna cut his nuts off. Barack, he's talking down to black people, telling niggers how to behave." Whoa, what was that? Telling niggers how to behave? Had I known Jackson said that, the title of my blog would have been: "Cut his nuts off for telling niggers how to behave."
The words Fox attempted to conceal are from a preacher who has been on a crusade against the use of the "N" word. Jackson is the same guy who, two years ago, called for a boycott of the Seinfeld TV show DVD because Mike Richards, Kramer on the show, used the "N" word during an angry tirade at a West Hollywood comedy club. What I cannot fathom is why did Fox conceal Jackson's use of the "N" word when that network should have exposed his hypocricy?
When Jackson's use of the word "nigger" was brought to the attention of his buddy Al Sharpton, how did the other preacher react? The harshest thing Sharpton could say was that "I'm very dissapointed." Dissapointed? Now what do you suppose his raction would have been had some white radio or TV personality used the "N" word? Sharpton would have gone ballistic, demanding that he be fired.
Jackson and Sharpton are nothing more than a pair of four-flushing phonies. Why do politicians, like Obama and the Cintons, keep sucking up to these two hypocrites? Why does the media keep providing these two charlatans with a platform? When are African-Americans going to wake up and realize that Jackson and Sharpton have been playing them for suckers with their rabble-rousing gospel of black victimhood? It can't be too soon!
As you may recall, these are Jackson's remarks that Fox initially made available to the public: "See, Barack's been talking down to black people on this faith-based. I wanna cut his nuts off. Barack, he's talking down to black people." Unknown to the network, someone within the news organization leaked Jackson's remark containing the "N" word to the internet, a remark Fox had no intention of making public.
Here is what Jackson actually said: "See, Barack's been talking down to black people on this faith-based. I wanna cut his nuts off. Barack, he's talking down to black people, telling niggers how to behave." Whoa, what was that? Telling niggers how to behave? Had I known Jackson said that, the title of my blog would have been: "Cut his nuts off for telling niggers how to behave."
The words Fox attempted to conceal are from a preacher who has been on a crusade against the use of the "N" word. Jackson is the same guy who, two years ago, called for a boycott of the Seinfeld TV show DVD because Mike Richards, Kramer on the show, used the "N" word during an angry tirade at a West Hollywood comedy club. What I cannot fathom is why did Fox conceal Jackson's use of the "N" word when that network should have exposed his hypocricy?
When Jackson's use of the word "nigger" was brought to the attention of his buddy Al Sharpton, how did the other preacher react? The harshest thing Sharpton could say was that "I'm very dissapointed." Dissapointed? Now what do you suppose his raction would have been had some white radio or TV personality used the "N" word? Sharpton would have gone ballistic, demanding that he be fired.
Jackson and Sharpton are nothing more than a pair of four-flushing phonies. Why do politicians, like Obama and the Cintons, keep sucking up to these two hypocrites? Why does the media keep providing these two charlatans with a platform? When are African-Americans going to wake up and realize that Jackson and Sharpton have been playing them for suckers with their rabble-rousing gospel of black victimhood? It can't be too soon!
HERO TO THE PALESTINIANS
Since I starte blogging, I have frequently written on the Palestinian and Arab hatred of Jews and their determination to exterminate the State of Israel. I have included Mahmoud Abbas, the "moderate" Palestinian president, among those wanting to destroy Israel. Two weeks ago, I blogged about Israel's swap with Hezbollah of Samir Kuntar and four other Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorists for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers.
Kuntar, who in 1979 brutally murdered two Israeli men and killed a four-year-old child by repeatedly smashing her head with his rifle butt, has received a hero's welcome upon his return to Lebanon. Mahmoud Abbas sent "blessings to Samir Kuntar's family" and his spokesman Ahmad Abdul Rahman sent "warm blessings to Hezbollah on the return of the heroes of freedom headed by the great Samir Kuntar."
The support by Abbas and other "moderates" for those who have sworn to wipe Israel off the map is one of the reasons I have opposed the international community's call for Israel to make suicidal concessions to the Palestinians. The "Road Map to Peace," as envisioned by the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States, is a path paved with the stones of Israeli concessions, making it a roadway leading to the eventual dissapearance of the Jewish State.
In her column in today's Townhall.com, Mona Charen details Kuntar's brutality, the heroes welcome he received in Lebanon, and the likely consequences of the Israeli swap. Here is Mona Charen's Townhall column:
"A Child Killer's Homecoming" by Mona Charen
What can you say about a people who welcome a child murderer as a hero?
Most Americans are familiar with the brutal murder of wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer on the cruise ship Achille Laura in 1985. Terrorists led by Abu Abbas (who was later given safe haven in Baghdad by Saddam Hussein) took the ship captive and threw Klinghoffer overboard. But few recall that the ship was seized to bargain for the release of, among others, Samir Kuntar from an Israeli prison.
Kuntar had taken part in an earlier terror attack. In 1979, as a 16-year-old, he and four others had traveled to northern Israel by boat from Lebanon and come ashore in the seaside town of Nahariya. At midnight, Smadar Haran recalled, they burst into her apartment building. Peering out to see what the noise was, Smadar, mother of two, slammed shut her apartment door when she saw the terrorists -- but too late. Kuntar had glimpsed her. Her husband, Danny, helped Smadar and their younger daughter, 2-year-old Yael, to squeeze into a crawl space above the bedroom.
Smadar wrote later, "I will never forget the joy and the hatred in their voices as they swaggered about hunting for us, firing their guns and throwing grenades." As police began to arrive, Kuntar and the others dragged Danny and 4-year-old Einat down to the beach. With Einat watching, Kuntar shot Danny in the head and then threw his body into the surf. Kuntar then repeatedly smashed Einat's head against a rock with his rifle butt, killing her, too. Yael did not survive the attack either. In an effort to keep the baby from crying and betraying their hiding place, Smadar had accidentally suffocated her.
This week, Kuntar, dressed in fatigues and sporting a Hitlerian mustache and haircut, walked down a red carpet arrayed for him in Beirut. The government closed all offices and declared a national day of celebration. Tens of thousands of Lebanese cheered, waved flags, threw confetti, and set off fireworks as Hezbollah staged a rally to celebrate their "victory" over Israel. Mahmoud Abbas, the "moderate" leader of the Palestinian Authority, sent "blessings to Samir Kuntar's family." PA spokesman Ahmad Abdul Rahman sent "warm blessings to Hezbollah on the return of the heroes of freedom headed by the great Samir Kuntar."
The statement went on to laud the "heroic" actions of "martyr" Dalal Mughrabi, whose body was returned to Lebanon. She had participated in the worst terror attack ever against Israeli civilians, the hijacking of a tourist bus in which 37 people including 12 children were murdered. The Palestinian Authority spokesman took the opportunity to vow that the Fatah party "will continue to struggle in the way of the pure Martyrs, until the state is liberated and the Palestinian state is established with Jerusalem as its capital." Kuntar, acknowledging the adulation of the crowd, took the microphone and declared, "I return from Palestine only to go back to Palestine."
And what did Israel get in return? Two corpses. The bodies of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, the two reservists whose kidnapping in 2006 prompted the botched and inconclusive Israel/Hezbollah war. After this shameful and stupid trade of live terrorists for dead soldiers, Hezbollah has achieved its goal.
In 2006, Hezbollah had crossed the border and attacked two Israeli border patrol jeeps, killing three and wounding two. Two others, Regev and Goldwasser, also believed wounded in the attack, were kidnapped and taken into Lebanon on orders from Hezbollah leader Sheikh Nasrallah, who thought he could demand the release of all Lebanese terrorists in Israeli prisons in exchange for the two soldiers. (Hamas simultaneously kidnapped Gilad Shalit in the south.) Israel at first responded with a war. But while most of the civilized world rooted for the Israelis to destroy Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, Israel flinched and conducted a feckless conflict. Thousands of Lebanese and Israeli civilians were hurt and displaced, but nothing was settled -- until now. Now Hezbollah has achieved total victory.
Every Israeli is now at much higher risk for kidnapping and murder. Why in the world should Israel's enemies shrink from murdering their captives if they get just as much for corpses? Hamas continues to hold Shalit in Gaza. His life expectancy has just been radically reduced. It's inspiring that the Israeli government (like the U.S. armed forces) is devoted to bringing their people home dead or alive. But not like this. Not like this.
At the welcoming ceremony for Kuntar and his fellow terrorists, Sheikh Nasrallah made a brief appearance. In company with Lebanese president Michel Suleiman, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, and Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, Nasrallah hugged and kissed Kuntar and the rest. "The time of defeat is long gone," he said. "Today is the time of victory."
Who can deny it?
Kuntar, who in 1979 brutally murdered two Israeli men and killed a four-year-old child by repeatedly smashing her head with his rifle butt, has received a hero's welcome upon his return to Lebanon. Mahmoud Abbas sent "blessings to Samir Kuntar's family" and his spokesman Ahmad Abdul Rahman sent "warm blessings to Hezbollah on the return of the heroes of freedom headed by the great Samir Kuntar."
The support by Abbas and other "moderates" for those who have sworn to wipe Israel off the map is one of the reasons I have opposed the international community's call for Israel to make suicidal concessions to the Palestinians. The "Road Map to Peace," as envisioned by the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States, is a path paved with the stones of Israeli concessions, making it a roadway leading to the eventual dissapearance of the Jewish State.
In her column in today's Townhall.com, Mona Charen details Kuntar's brutality, the heroes welcome he received in Lebanon, and the likely consequences of the Israeli swap. Here is Mona Charen's Townhall column:
"A Child Killer's Homecoming" by Mona Charen
What can you say about a people who welcome a child murderer as a hero?
Most Americans are familiar with the brutal murder of wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer on the cruise ship Achille Laura in 1985. Terrorists led by Abu Abbas (who was later given safe haven in Baghdad by Saddam Hussein) took the ship captive and threw Klinghoffer overboard. But few recall that the ship was seized to bargain for the release of, among others, Samir Kuntar from an Israeli prison.
Kuntar had taken part in an earlier terror attack. In 1979, as a 16-year-old, he and four others had traveled to northern Israel by boat from Lebanon and come ashore in the seaside town of Nahariya. At midnight, Smadar Haran recalled, they burst into her apartment building. Peering out to see what the noise was, Smadar, mother of two, slammed shut her apartment door when she saw the terrorists -- but too late. Kuntar had glimpsed her. Her husband, Danny, helped Smadar and their younger daughter, 2-year-old Yael, to squeeze into a crawl space above the bedroom.
Smadar wrote later, "I will never forget the joy and the hatred in their voices as they swaggered about hunting for us, firing their guns and throwing grenades." As police began to arrive, Kuntar and the others dragged Danny and 4-year-old Einat down to the beach. With Einat watching, Kuntar shot Danny in the head and then threw his body into the surf. Kuntar then repeatedly smashed Einat's head against a rock with his rifle butt, killing her, too. Yael did not survive the attack either. In an effort to keep the baby from crying and betraying their hiding place, Smadar had accidentally suffocated her.
This week, Kuntar, dressed in fatigues and sporting a Hitlerian mustache and haircut, walked down a red carpet arrayed for him in Beirut. The government closed all offices and declared a national day of celebration. Tens of thousands of Lebanese cheered, waved flags, threw confetti, and set off fireworks as Hezbollah staged a rally to celebrate their "victory" over Israel. Mahmoud Abbas, the "moderate" leader of the Palestinian Authority, sent "blessings to Samir Kuntar's family." PA spokesman Ahmad Abdul Rahman sent "warm blessings to Hezbollah on the return of the heroes of freedom headed by the great Samir Kuntar."
The statement went on to laud the "heroic" actions of "martyr" Dalal Mughrabi, whose body was returned to Lebanon. She had participated in the worst terror attack ever against Israeli civilians, the hijacking of a tourist bus in which 37 people including 12 children were murdered. The Palestinian Authority spokesman took the opportunity to vow that the Fatah party "will continue to struggle in the way of the pure Martyrs, until the state is liberated and the Palestinian state is established with Jerusalem as its capital." Kuntar, acknowledging the adulation of the crowd, took the microphone and declared, "I return from Palestine only to go back to Palestine."
And what did Israel get in return? Two corpses. The bodies of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, the two reservists whose kidnapping in 2006 prompted the botched and inconclusive Israel/Hezbollah war. After this shameful and stupid trade of live terrorists for dead soldiers, Hezbollah has achieved its goal.
In 2006, Hezbollah had crossed the border and attacked two Israeli border patrol jeeps, killing three and wounding two. Two others, Regev and Goldwasser, also believed wounded in the attack, were kidnapped and taken into Lebanon on orders from Hezbollah leader Sheikh Nasrallah, who thought he could demand the release of all Lebanese terrorists in Israeli prisons in exchange for the two soldiers. (Hamas simultaneously kidnapped Gilad Shalit in the south.) Israel at first responded with a war. But while most of the civilized world rooted for the Israelis to destroy Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, Israel flinched and conducted a feckless conflict. Thousands of Lebanese and Israeli civilians were hurt and displaced, but nothing was settled -- until now. Now Hezbollah has achieved total victory.
Every Israeli is now at much higher risk for kidnapping and murder. Why in the world should Israel's enemies shrink from murdering their captives if they get just as much for corpses? Hamas continues to hold Shalit in Gaza. His life expectancy has just been radically reduced. It's inspiring that the Israeli government (like the U.S. armed forces) is devoted to bringing their people home dead or alive. But not like this. Not like this.
At the welcoming ceremony for Kuntar and his fellow terrorists, Sheikh Nasrallah made a brief appearance. In company with Lebanese president Michel Suleiman, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, and Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, Nasrallah hugged and kissed Kuntar and the rest. "The time of defeat is long gone," he said. "Today is the time of victory."
Who can deny it?
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
SAY WHAT?
"We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."
Say what? That was Barack Obama's solution for stopping jihad. It was published in a Chicago newspaper eight days after 9/11 and quoted again in the July 21, 2008 issue of the New Yorker, the one with the satirical cartoon on its cover depicting "President" Obama in the Oval Office dressed as a Muslim fist-bumping Michelle, an assault rifle and bandolier draped over her shoulder, an American flag burning in the fireplace and a portrait of Osama bin Laden over the mantelpiece.
Obama's explanation of how to stop Jihad, is typical intellectual gobbledygook. Michelle Malkin called it "a self-parody of blind, deaf and dumb Kumbaya liberalism." Whatever. Obama attributes the 9/11 attacks to a climate of poverty, ignorance, helplessness and despair. Say what? Osama bin Laden is a member of a wealthy Saudi family and attended Oxford. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama's second-in-command, comes from a wealthy Egyptian family and has a medical degree in surgery.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the instigator and prime organizer of the 9/11 attacks, received a degree in mechanical engineering from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, came from a wealthy Egyptian family, received a degree in architecture from Cairo University and studied urban planning at the Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg in Germany. Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, the beheader of journalist Daniel Pearl was born to a wealthy family in England and attended the London School of Economics, where he studied Applied Mathematics and Economics. And then there were those seven Muslim physicians who participated in the 2007 London and Glasgow bombings.
So much for poverty, ignorance, helplessness and despair. When you look at the terrorists either with or linked to al-Qaeda, and at the leadership of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian terrorist organizations, you will find that their leaders and operatives come from upper-middle class or wealthy families and are well educated. And that makes Obama's solution for stopping jihad sound like the musings of an educated idiot.
For those, like Obama, who don't seem to get why 9/11 happened, let me paraphrase Bill Clinton: It's the age-old struggle of the Islamic faithful against Western civilization, stupid!
Say what? That was Barack Obama's solution for stopping jihad. It was published in a Chicago newspaper eight days after 9/11 and quoted again in the July 21, 2008 issue of the New Yorker, the one with the satirical cartoon on its cover depicting "President" Obama in the Oval Office dressed as a Muslim fist-bumping Michelle, an assault rifle and bandolier draped over her shoulder, an American flag burning in the fireplace and a portrait of Osama bin Laden over the mantelpiece.
Obama's explanation of how to stop Jihad, is typical intellectual gobbledygook. Michelle Malkin called it "a self-parody of blind, deaf and dumb Kumbaya liberalism." Whatever. Obama attributes the 9/11 attacks to a climate of poverty, ignorance, helplessness and despair. Say what? Osama bin Laden is a member of a wealthy Saudi family and attended Oxford. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama's second-in-command, comes from a wealthy Egyptian family and has a medical degree in surgery.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the instigator and prime organizer of the 9/11 attacks, received a degree in mechanical engineering from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, came from a wealthy Egyptian family, received a degree in architecture from Cairo University and studied urban planning at the Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg in Germany. Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, the beheader of journalist Daniel Pearl was born to a wealthy family in England and attended the London School of Economics, where he studied Applied Mathematics and Economics. And then there were those seven Muslim physicians who participated in the 2007 London and Glasgow bombings.
So much for poverty, ignorance, helplessness and despair. When you look at the terrorists either with or linked to al-Qaeda, and at the leadership of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian terrorist organizations, you will find that their leaders and operatives come from upper-middle class or wealthy families and are well educated. And that makes Obama's solution for stopping jihad sound like the musings of an educated idiot.
For those, like Obama, who don't seem to get why 9/11 happened, let me paraphrase Bill Clinton: It's the age-old struggle of the Islamic faithful against Western civilization, stupid!
Sunday, July 13, 2008
A FORGERY CONTINUES TO FLOURISH (Part 2)
Here is the conclusion of Rev. Stokes article on the forgery and use of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
"When most think of religious influences around Nicholas II, attention is usually given to Grigori Rasputin, the mad monk who haunted that scene beginning about 1905. But often overlooked, and certainly more ominous as far as long-term impact on the world is concerned, is the influence of his cultic contemporary, Sergei Alexandrovich Nilus. He was a writer on religious matters and a self-styled spiritual mystic.
And he is also the man who first published Golovinski’s sinister forgery.
Initially placing the Protocols as a chapter in one of his books, Dr. Nilus saw to it that the potentate was fully briefed and convinced about the purported Jewish threat. And like Rasputin, he also had the ear of ruler’s wife – so the Tsar, never a man to have his own firm opinions, fell prey to the lie. And in the days following his nation’s defeat at the hands of the Japanese at a loss of several hundred thousand men, not to mention overwhelming financial expense, circumstances were ripe for the rotten fruit of a compelling scapegoat story.
On January 9, 1905, the Tsar’s troops opened fire on protesters who peacefully marched near the palace in St. Petersburg. This would become known as Bloody Sunday. The Tsar and his inner circle saw in the Protocols the real reason for the unrest – it was a big Jewish plot to overthrow the monarchy.
So it began – the gargantuan conspiratorial lie that has reared its hideous head time and time again over the past one hundred years. Jewish plotters were blamed for The Great War (1914-1918). Then in its aftermath, when Germany was struggling to recover from defeat, the big lie was discovered by the greatest demagogue of the day, Adolf Hitler. By the time the future German dictator was sent to prison in 1923, he was well versed in the Protocols and drew significantly from the forgery as he wrote his own hate-filled and delusional to me, Mein Kampf.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion became, to men already filled with anti-Semitic ideas, proof positive of a sinister Jewish agenda. To those who believed the lie, the writings were sufficient evidence for the indictment, condemnation, and eventual execution of these conspiratorial people. The Protocols in many ways fueled the Holocaust.
Yet all along, reasonable people – scholars, journalists, and statesmen – have gone to great lengths to expose the fraudulent nature of the Protocols. Beginning with a lengthy analysis in the Times of London in 1921, to a celebrated trial in Switzerland in 1935, to a report by the United States Senate in 1964, good people have said again and again: "the book’s a fake." Good people still do.
It’s the bad people who are the problem.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the biggest publishing hoax of the past one hundred years, is not going away. This is largely because Islamists are using it, with great effectiveness, to fan contemporary flames of hatred. In fact, it’s arguable that there are more copies of this lie-laden text extant, than ever before. The forgery is used by politicians and clerics in the Muslim world to justify their distorted and destructive world-view.
Gamal Abdel Nassar, the late president of Egypt, recommended the book to his countrymen. His Saudi contemporary, King Faisal, had the forgery put in hotels in his nation, like Gideon Bibles (he once gave a copy to Henry Kissinger). The Ayatollah Khomeini, who took over in Iran in 1979, made the Protocols a national bestseller. An entire generation of Islamic thinkers and scholars now aggressively promotes the forgery as literal fact.
Hamas owes Article 32 of its charter to these long-ago-discredited writings when it says things like: "Zionist scheming has no end…Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of Zion." And it’s, of course, a perennial favorite with Holocaust deniers such as that wacky Iranian, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Islamist anti-Semitism is at the root of the so-called War on Terror. The bad guys use the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as their proof-text. It would make sense that if we really want to eradicate the symptom we must deal frankly with the cause. Islamism isn’t an aberration. It’s an ideology based on prejudices rooted in the distant past and lies that won’t seem to go away.
Shortly before his death in early 2005, the legendary pioneer of twentieth-century graphic art, Will Eisner, a man who spent much of his life debunking the infamous forgery, called the Protocols a "terrifying vampire-like fraud."
Indeed."
"When most think of religious influences around Nicholas II, attention is usually given to Grigori Rasputin, the mad monk who haunted that scene beginning about 1905. But often overlooked, and certainly more ominous as far as long-term impact on the world is concerned, is the influence of his cultic contemporary, Sergei Alexandrovich Nilus. He was a writer on religious matters and a self-styled spiritual mystic.
And he is also the man who first published Golovinski’s sinister forgery.
Initially placing the Protocols as a chapter in one of his books, Dr. Nilus saw to it that the potentate was fully briefed and convinced about the purported Jewish threat. And like Rasputin, he also had the ear of ruler’s wife – so the Tsar, never a man to have his own firm opinions, fell prey to the lie. And in the days following his nation’s defeat at the hands of the Japanese at a loss of several hundred thousand men, not to mention overwhelming financial expense, circumstances were ripe for the rotten fruit of a compelling scapegoat story.
On January 9, 1905, the Tsar’s troops opened fire on protesters who peacefully marched near the palace in St. Petersburg. This would become known as Bloody Sunday. The Tsar and his inner circle saw in the Protocols the real reason for the unrest – it was a big Jewish plot to overthrow the monarchy.
So it began – the gargantuan conspiratorial lie that has reared its hideous head time and time again over the past one hundred years. Jewish plotters were blamed for The Great War (1914-1918). Then in its aftermath, when Germany was struggling to recover from defeat, the big lie was discovered by the greatest demagogue of the day, Adolf Hitler. By the time the future German dictator was sent to prison in 1923, he was well versed in the Protocols and drew significantly from the forgery as he wrote his own hate-filled and delusional to me, Mein Kampf.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion became, to men already filled with anti-Semitic ideas, proof positive of a sinister Jewish agenda. To those who believed the lie, the writings were sufficient evidence for the indictment, condemnation, and eventual execution of these conspiratorial people. The Protocols in many ways fueled the Holocaust.
Yet all along, reasonable people – scholars, journalists, and statesmen – have gone to great lengths to expose the fraudulent nature of the Protocols. Beginning with a lengthy analysis in the Times of London in 1921, to a celebrated trial in Switzerland in 1935, to a report by the United States Senate in 1964, good people have said again and again: "the book’s a fake." Good people still do.
It’s the bad people who are the problem.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the biggest publishing hoax of the past one hundred years, is not going away. This is largely because Islamists are using it, with great effectiveness, to fan contemporary flames of hatred. In fact, it’s arguable that there are more copies of this lie-laden text extant, than ever before. The forgery is used by politicians and clerics in the Muslim world to justify their distorted and destructive world-view.
Gamal Abdel Nassar, the late president of Egypt, recommended the book to his countrymen. His Saudi contemporary, King Faisal, had the forgery put in hotels in his nation, like Gideon Bibles (he once gave a copy to Henry Kissinger). The Ayatollah Khomeini, who took over in Iran in 1979, made the Protocols a national bestseller. An entire generation of Islamic thinkers and scholars now aggressively promotes the forgery as literal fact.
Hamas owes Article 32 of its charter to these long-ago-discredited writings when it says things like: "Zionist scheming has no end…Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of Zion." And it’s, of course, a perennial favorite with Holocaust deniers such as that wacky Iranian, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Islamist anti-Semitism is at the root of the so-called War on Terror. The bad guys use the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as their proof-text. It would make sense that if we really want to eradicate the symptom we must deal frankly with the cause. Islamism isn’t an aberration. It’s an ideology based on prejudices rooted in the distant past and lies that won’t seem to go away.
Shortly before his death in early 2005, the legendary pioneer of twentieth-century graphic art, Will Eisner, a man who spent much of his life debunking the infamous forgery, called the Protocols a "terrifying vampire-like fraud."
Indeed."
A FORGERY CONTINUES TO FLOURISH (Part 1)
David R. Stokes is the Senior Pastor of Fair Oaks Church in Fairfax, Virginia. He is also a prolific author. His most recent article, "The Big Anti-Semitic Lie That Won't Go Away" appeared in today's Townhall.com. The article deals with the forgery of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and the use of this forged document by Muslims and others to spread their hatred of Jews.
Back in the '70s, I was shocked to find a stack of the Protocols in the college bookstore at College of the Mainland where I taught. The Protocols were required reading for a course offered by one of the college's avowed Marxists (Robert H.). He used the Protocols to teach students that Jews have been plotting to control the world.
Due to the length of Rev. Stokes' article, I have divided it into two parts. Here is Part 1 of "The Big Anti-Semitic Lie That Won't Go Away":
"While fires were still smoldering at Ground Zero, the Pentagon, and in a Pennsylvanian pasture, malicious people conjured up an evil myth. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, many in the Arab world believed that the vicious attack on America was not the work of Islamists, but rather was an Israeli-driven Mossad operation. This legend soon developed muscular legs and is now widely regarded by millions of Muslims as the truth.
And why not? For decades school children in Muslim nations (not to mention their parents at home) have been baptized in anti-Semitic narratives. The opinions in their world about Jews in general, and Israel in particular, are concrete – thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
And the most persistent and pernicious ideas that have been accepted by millions as factual truth flowed from the poisonous pen of a guy named Mathieu Golovinski.
The spurious publication called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an Islamist must-read. The work tells a story that fits the pattern of long-standing prejudices. The words reinforce the visceral hatred Islamists have toward Jews.
Islamist anti-Semitism is not a new thing. It didn’t begin with the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948, or the Six-Day War in 1967. It was around long before there was a Hitler – in fact, it grew up alongside Islam from the beginning. It’s an enmity that can be traced back to Muhammad and what he said, wrote, and did. And to those looking for ammunition to use against people they have been historically conditioned to hate, the often denounced and repeatedly refuted forgery is just what the evil doctor ordered.
In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, it is true that non-Muslims and non-Nazis have at times bought into the notions set forth by the Protocols - some even in the name of Christianity. This is sad. But it is also statistically rare these days. Neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klan types apparently still peddle the book, but these people are the proverbial skunks at our national picnic. And eighty years ago, there were a few prominent Americans (automobile magnate Henry Ford notable among them) who endorsed the writings. But that was a passing, though very regrettable, thing.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion purports to be written evidence of a vast and secret Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world. It’s presented as a factual and detailed description of a late-nineteenth century meeting to plot international Hebrew hegemony through manipulation and treachery. These ideas are at the root of the mother of all conspiracy theories for those who live in the bizarre world of alternative historical reality.
In fact, the publication is a forgery – probably the most sinister and infamous fake in literary history.
The year is 1898, and Nicholas II rules a Russia that’s beginning to experience the revolutionary stirrings of modernism. The Tsar is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and tends to be easily led by strong people around him. He tries to take incremental steps toward leading the nation away from its feudal past, but some in his court are alarmed. Thus, evil men began to seek a way to short-circuit these liberalizing influences.
If only they could convince the Tsar that the voices of change he’s listening to are motivated by something other than the best interests of Russia – but how? It was in this environment that the greatest of all anti-Semitic lies was born. A threatening conspiracy would be manufactured - one that would bring Nicholas to his senses – and the Jews to their knees.
Mathieu Golovinski was living in Parisian exile at the time. Though he was Russian, having been born in the Simbirsk region in 1865, he was forced to flee after repeated clashes with Russian authorities, usually having to do with his tendency to fabricate documents and evidence in legal matters. He was a master of spin, innuendo, and dirty tricks. He was also very skilled in the arts of forgery and plagiarism.
And he worked for the Okhrana – the Tsar’s secret police.
He was approached by agents’ provocateur from the Tsar’s inner circle about creating a convincing anti-Jewish legend. They needed a narrative, one that would be seen as proof of a sinister plot behind the winds of change beginning to blow in Russia. Golovinski was commissioned to fabricate the evidence.
He came across an old book, written in 1864 by an anti-monarchist activist named Maurice Joly. It was entitled, Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquie and was written as a thinly disguised attack on Napoleon III’s rule in France. The book was suppressed by the French government and the writer was imprisoned. He committed suicide in 1878.
A plan was hatched to borrow from this obscure book, changing some of its cosmetics and phrasing. It would be recast, using Joly’s fictional dialogue for a model, as the actual deliberations of a secret cabal of Jews bent on taking over the world. When the fake was finished, it was spirited back to St. Petersburg, and all that would be needed was a way to get it before the ruler of the realm.
Enter the other religious zealot in and around the court of the Tsar."
Continued in Part 2.
Back in the '70s, I was shocked to find a stack of the Protocols in the college bookstore at College of the Mainland where I taught. The Protocols were required reading for a course offered by one of the college's avowed Marxists (Robert H.). He used the Protocols to teach students that Jews have been plotting to control the world.
Due to the length of Rev. Stokes' article, I have divided it into two parts. Here is Part 1 of "The Big Anti-Semitic Lie That Won't Go Away":
"While fires were still smoldering at Ground Zero, the Pentagon, and in a Pennsylvanian pasture, malicious people conjured up an evil myth. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, many in the Arab world believed that the vicious attack on America was not the work of Islamists, but rather was an Israeli-driven Mossad operation. This legend soon developed muscular legs and is now widely regarded by millions of Muslims as the truth.
And why not? For decades school children in Muslim nations (not to mention their parents at home) have been baptized in anti-Semitic narratives. The opinions in their world about Jews in general, and Israel in particular, are concrete – thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
And the most persistent and pernicious ideas that have been accepted by millions as factual truth flowed from the poisonous pen of a guy named Mathieu Golovinski.
The spurious publication called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an Islamist must-read. The work tells a story that fits the pattern of long-standing prejudices. The words reinforce the visceral hatred Islamists have toward Jews.
Islamist anti-Semitism is not a new thing. It didn’t begin with the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948, or the Six-Day War in 1967. It was around long before there was a Hitler – in fact, it grew up alongside Islam from the beginning. It’s an enmity that can be traced back to Muhammad and what he said, wrote, and did. And to those looking for ammunition to use against people they have been historically conditioned to hate, the often denounced and repeatedly refuted forgery is just what the evil doctor ordered.
In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, it is true that non-Muslims and non-Nazis have at times bought into the notions set forth by the Protocols - some even in the name of Christianity. This is sad. But it is also statistically rare these days. Neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klan types apparently still peddle the book, but these people are the proverbial skunks at our national picnic. And eighty years ago, there were a few prominent Americans (automobile magnate Henry Ford notable among them) who endorsed the writings. But that was a passing, though very regrettable, thing.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion purports to be written evidence of a vast and secret Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world. It’s presented as a factual and detailed description of a late-nineteenth century meeting to plot international Hebrew hegemony through manipulation and treachery. These ideas are at the root of the mother of all conspiracy theories for those who live in the bizarre world of alternative historical reality.
In fact, the publication is a forgery – probably the most sinister and infamous fake in literary history.
The year is 1898, and Nicholas II rules a Russia that’s beginning to experience the revolutionary stirrings of modernism. The Tsar is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and tends to be easily led by strong people around him. He tries to take incremental steps toward leading the nation away from its feudal past, but some in his court are alarmed. Thus, evil men began to seek a way to short-circuit these liberalizing influences.
If only they could convince the Tsar that the voices of change he’s listening to are motivated by something other than the best interests of Russia – but how? It was in this environment that the greatest of all anti-Semitic lies was born. A threatening conspiracy would be manufactured - one that would bring Nicholas to his senses – and the Jews to their knees.
Mathieu Golovinski was living in Parisian exile at the time. Though he was Russian, having been born in the Simbirsk region in 1865, he was forced to flee after repeated clashes with Russian authorities, usually having to do with his tendency to fabricate documents and evidence in legal matters. He was a master of spin, innuendo, and dirty tricks. He was also very skilled in the arts of forgery and plagiarism.
And he worked for the Okhrana – the Tsar’s secret police.
He was approached by agents’ provocateur from the Tsar’s inner circle about creating a convincing anti-Jewish legend. They needed a narrative, one that would be seen as proof of a sinister plot behind the winds of change beginning to blow in Russia. Golovinski was commissioned to fabricate the evidence.
He came across an old book, written in 1864 by an anti-monarchist activist named Maurice Joly. It was entitled, Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquie and was written as a thinly disguised attack on Napoleon III’s rule in France. The book was suppressed by the French government and the writer was imprisoned. He committed suicide in 1878.
A plan was hatched to borrow from this obscure book, changing some of its cosmetics and phrasing. It would be recast, using Joly’s fictional dialogue for a model, as the actual deliberations of a secret cabal of Jews bent on taking over the world. When the fake was finished, it was spirited back to St. Petersburg, and all that would be needed was a way to get it before the ruler of the realm.
Enter the other religious zealot in and around the court of the Tsar."
Continued in Part 2.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
DEEPLY DISSAPOINTING
As many of you know. I have been a supporter of John McCain since long before he started campaingning for the presidency. I have always admired his wartime heroism. During the Korean War, he endured years of cruel treatment as a POW. I've also admired his tenure in the U.S. Senate, where he was a maverick legislator standing up for what he thought was right, even if that meant voting against positions taken by his own party.
Unfortunately though, while he was a standup guy in the military and in the senate, McCain has been an utter dissapointment as a presidential candidate. He is a piss-poor campaigner. Yesterday, he could not even give an answer when someone asked him a simple question of why health insurance pays for Viagra prescriptions but not for birth control pills. As the country endures hard economic times, McCain does not seem to have the foggiest notion of how to turn this nation's sinking economy around.
On the other side, Obama is an excellent campaigner. But, according to the nation's leading economists, his solutions to our economic woes just will not work. And while he claims his programs will not require a tax increase for the middle class, there is no way they can be paid for without one. His voting record is that of a far-left politician, both in the Illinois state legislature and in the U.S. Senate. His foreign policy advisers have a long history of hostility toward Israel. Obama's call for an early withdrawal from Iraq could be the harbinger of a U.S. foreign policy disaster.
As I see it, what this country needs is a strong third party. The Democrats are dominated by a far-left fringe and the Republicans by the Christian right. The Libertarian Party wants government out of our lives, but is too insignificant to be anything other than a possible spoiler for one of the major party candidates. What we need is a Centrist party, one that takes the best of conservatism and of liberalism for its platform, one that protects and serves the average American rather than special interest groups, and one that ensures affordable health care for all of our citizens.
This election campaign has been deeply dissapointing. Obama, like Hillary Clinton, is totally untrustworthy. His own friends and advisers have assured some of those who have expressed concerns about his positions, that Obama's rhetoric is purely political. So, while my support for McCain has been on a steady decline, come November, I will hold my nose and vote for the Senator from Arizona.
Unfortunately though, while he was a standup guy in the military and in the senate, McCain has been an utter dissapointment as a presidential candidate. He is a piss-poor campaigner. Yesterday, he could not even give an answer when someone asked him a simple question of why health insurance pays for Viagra prescriptions but not for birth control pills. As the country endures hard economic times, McCain does not seem to have the foggiest notion of how to turn this nation's sinking economy around.
On the other side, Obama is an excellent campaigner. But, according to the nation's leading economists, his solutions to our economic woes just will not work. And while he claims his programs will not require a tax increase for the middle class, there is no way they can be paid for without one. His voting record is that of a far-left politician, both in the Illinois state legislature and in the U.S. Senate. His foreign policy advisers have a long history of hostility toward Israel. Obama's call for an early withdrawal from Iraq could be the harbinger of a U.S. foreign policy disaster.
As I see it, what this country needs is a strong third party. The Democrats are dominated by a far-left fringe and the Republicans by the Christian right. The Libertarian Party wants government out of our lives, but is too insignificant to be anything other than a possible spoiler for one of the major party candidates. What we need is a Centrist party, one that takes the best of conservatism and of liberalism for its platform, one that protects and serves the average American rather than special interest groups, and one that ensures affordable health care for all of our citizens.
This election campaign has been deeply dissapointing. Obama, like Hillary Clinton, is totally untrustworthy. His own friends and advisers have assured some of those who have expressed concerns about his positions, that Obama's rhetoric is purely political. So, while my support for McCain has been on a steady decline, come November, I will hold my nose and vote for the Senator from Arizona.
Friday, July 11, 2008
CUT HIS NUTS OFF
The other day, I listened to part of Jesse Jackson's press conference during which he tried to babble his way out of the open-mic comments he made about cutting Obama's nuts off. Jackson's remarks were unintelligible and incoherrent as he listed what sounded like a liturgy of all his past civil rights accomplishments. Age appears to have reduced Jesse from a flamboyant rhymer to a mumbling babbler.
By now everyone is aware of what led to Jackson's press conference. Last Sunday morning, while waiting during a break on Fox News Channel, Jackson turned to another guest and whispered some disparaging remarks about Obama. Apparently he was not aware that his mic was open.
Here is what Jesse Jackson said about Senator Obama: "See, Barack's been talking down to black people on this faith-based. I wanna cut his nuts off. Barack, he's talking down to black people."
What got Jackson's dander up was that Obama has been addressing audiences at black churches and, like Bill Cosby, chiding black men for failing to take responsibilty as fathers. Jackson had been one of many blacks who took offense to Cosby's criticisms and so he appeared to be no less critical of Obama.
Jackson, who was severely criticized for the remarks by his son, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., apologized profusely to Obama. Obama accepted his apologies.
Many people seemed shocked at Jackson's use of obscene language. I don't know why they should have been. Over the years, he's used obscenities on a number of occasions. On yesterday's NBC Today, Georgetown University professor Michael Dyson defended Jackson, describing him as a highly moral person. Highly moral? Hey, give us a break - this is a preacher who had a "love child."
What about Obama's admonition to irresponsible black fathers? His remarks are really not intended for the betterment of black folk. They are intended to leave white voters with the impression that he is not the black candidate for president.
As for Jackson, when is the media going to stop giving rabble rousers like him and Al Sharpton a platform from which to spew their phony baloney. When are black folk going to realize that these two reverends are nothing more than a couple of charlatans making their living off of preaching the gospel of black victimhood?
By now everyone is aware of what led to Jackson's press conference. Last Sunday morning, while waiting during a break on Fox News Channel, Jackson turned to another guest and whispered some disparaging remarks about Obama. Apparently he was not aware that his mic was open.
Here is what Jesse Jackson said about Senator Obama: "See, Barack's been talking down to black people on this faith-based. I wanna cut his nuts off. Barack, he's talking down to black people."
What got Jackson's dander up was that Obama has been addressing audiences at black churches and, like Bill Cosby, chiding black men for failing to take responsibilty as fathers. Jackson had been one of many blacks who took offense to Cosby's criticisms and so he appeared to be no less critical of Obama.
Jackson, who was severely criticized for the remarks by his son, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., apologized profusely to Obama. Obama accepted his apologies.
Many people seemed shocked at Jackson's use of obscene language. I don't know why they should have been. Over the years, he's used obscenities on a number of occasions. On yesterday's NBC Today, Georgetown University professor Michael Dyson defended Jackson, describing him as a highly moral person. Highly moral? Hey, give us a break - this is a preacher who had a "love child."
What about Obama's admonition to irresponsible black fathers? His remarks are really not intended for the betterment of black folk. They are intended to leave white voters with the impression that he is not the black candidate for president.
As for Jackson, when is the media going to stop giving rabble rousers like him and Al Sharpton a platform from which to spew their phony baloney. When are black folk going to realize that these two reverends are nothing more than a couple of charlatans making their living off of preaching the gospel of black victimhood?
ENGLISH LESSON
Every so often, someone sends me a joke which is not only hillarious, but also teaches a valuable lesson. This is one of those jokes:
On my 67th birthday, I got a gift certificate from my wife. The certificate paid for a visit to a witch doctor living on a nearby reservation who was rumored to have a wonderful cure for erectile dysfunction.
After being persuaded, I drove to the reservation, handed my certificate to the witch doctor, and wondered what I was in for. The old man slowly, methodically produced a potion, handed it to me, and with a grip on my shoulder, warned, "This is powerful medicine and it must be respected. You take only a teaspoonful and then say '1-2-3.' When you do that, you will become more manly than you have ever been in your life and you can perform as long as you want." I was encouraged.
As he walked away, I turned and asked, "How do I stop the medicine from working?" He responded, "Your partner must say '1-2-3-4 ,' but when she does, the medicine will not work again until the next full moon."
I was eager to see if it worked. I went home, showered, shaved, took a spoonful of the medicine, and then invited my wife to join me in the bedroom. When she came in, I took off my clothes and said, "1-2-3!" Immediately, I was the manliest of men. My wife was excited and began throwing off her clothes.
And then, just as she was getting into bed, she asked, "What did you say 1-2-3 for?"
And that, boys and girls, is why we should never end our sentences with a preposition.
On my 67th birthday, I got a gift certificate from my wife. The certificate paid for a visit to a witch doctor living on a nearby reservation who was rumored to have a wonderful cure for erectile dysfunction.
After being persuaded, I drove to the reservation, handed my certificate to the witch doctor, and wondered what I was in for. The old man slowly, methodically produced a potion, handed it to me, and with a grip on my shoulder, warned, "This is powerful medicine and it must be respected. You take only a teaspoonful and then say '1-2-3.' When you do that, you will become more manly than you have ever been in your life and you can perform as long as you want." I was encouraged.
As he walked away, I turned and asked, "How do I stop the medicine from working?" He responded, "Your partner must say '1-2-3-4 ,' but when she does, the medicine will not work again until the next full moon."
I was eager to see if it worked. I went home, showered, shaved, took a spoonful of the medicine, and then invited my wife to join me in the bedroom. When she came in, I took off my clothes and said, "1-2-3!" Immediately, I was the manliest of men. My wife was excited and began throwing off her clothes.
And then, just as she was getting into bed, she asked, "What did you say 1-2-3 for?"
And that, boys and girls, is why we should never end our sentences with a preposition.
SIX MANAGEMENT LESSONS
As you know, from time to time I pass on materials sent by friends. The other day, I received a piece on management lessons. Although written tongue-in-cheek - having taught management and administration courses - I found that these lessons have considerable merit.
Lesson 1:
A man is getting into the shower just as his wife is finishing up her shower, when the doorbell rings. The wife quickly wraps herself in a towel and runs downstairs. When she opens the door, there stands Bob, the next-door neighbor.
Before she says a word, Bob says, 'I'll give you $800 to drop that towel.'
After thinking for a moment, the woman drops her towel and stands naked in front of Bob. After a few seconds, Bob hands her $800 and leaves.
The woman wraps back up in the towel and goes back upstairs. When she gets to the bathroom, her husband asks, 'Who was that?' 'It was Bob, the next-door neighbor,' she replies.
'Great!' the husband says. 'Did he say anything about the $800 he owes me?'
CONCLUSION: If you share critical information pertaining to credit and risk with your shareholders in time, you may be in a position to prevent avoidable exposure.
Lesson 2:
A priest offered a nun a lift. She got in and crossed her legs, forcing her gown to reveal a leg. The priest nearly had an accident. After controlling the car, he stealthily slid his hand up her leg.
The nun said, 'Father, remember Psalm 129?' The priest removed his hand. But, changing gears, he let his hand slide up her leg again. The nun once again said, 'Father, remember Psalm 129?' The priest apologized, 'Sorry, Sister, but the flesh is weak.'
Arriving at the convent, the nun sighed heavily and went on her way.
On his arrival at the church, the priest rushed to look up Psalm 129. It said, 'Go forth and seek, further up, you will find glory.'
CONCLUSION: If you are not well informed in your job, opportunities for advancement will pass right by you.
Lesson 3:
A sales rep, an administration clerk, and the manager are walking to lunch when they find an antique oil lamp. They rub it and a Genie comes out. The Genie says, 'I'll give each of you just one wish.'
'Me first! Me first!' says the admin clerk. 'I want to be in the Bahamas , driving a speedboat, without a care in the world.' Puff! She's gone.
'Me next! Me next!' says the sales rep. 'I want to be in Hawaii , relaxing on the beach with my personal masseuse, an endless supply of Pina Coladas and the love of my life.' Puff! He's gone.
'OK, you're up,' the Genie says to the manager. The manager says, 'I want those two back in the office after lunch.'
CONCLUSION: Always let your boss have the first say.
Lesson 4:
An eagle was sitting on a tree resting, doing nothing. A small rabbit saw the eagle and asked him, 'Can I also sit like you and do nothing?' The eagle answered, 'Sure , why not.'
So, the rabbit sat on the ground below the eagle and rested. All of a sudden, a fox appeared, jumped on the rabbit and ate it.
CONCLUSION: To be sitting and doing nothing, you must be sitting very, very high up.
Lesson 5:
A turkey was chatting with a bull. 'I would love to be able to get to the top of that tree,' sighed the turkey, 'but I haven't got the energy.' 'Well, why don't you nibble on some of my droppings?' replied the bull. 'They're packed with nutrients.'
The turkey pecked at a lump of dung, and found it actually gave him enough strength to reach the lowest branch of the tree. The next day, after eating some more dung, he reached the second branch.
Finally after a fourth night, the turkey was proudly perched at the top of the tree. He was promptly spotted by a farmer, who shot him out of the tree.
CONCLUSION: Bull shit might get you to the top, but it won't keep you there.
Lesson 6:
A little bird was flying south for the Winter. It was so cold the bird froze and fell to the ground into a large field. While he was lying there, a cow came by and shit on him.
As the frozen bird lay there in the pile of cow dung, he began to realize how warm he was. The dung was actually thawing him out! He lay there all warm and happy, and soon began to sing for joy.
A passing cat heard the bird singing and came to investigate. Following the sound, the cat discovered the bird under the pile of cow dung, and promptly dug him out and ate him.
CONCLUSION: (1) Not everyone who shits on you is your enemy; (2) not everyone who gets you out of shit is your friend; and (3) when you're in deep shit, it's best to keep your mouth shut!
Lesson 1:
A man is getting into the shower just as his wife is finishing up her shower, when the doorbell rings. The wife quickly wraps herself in a towel and runs downstairs. When she opens the door, there stands Bob, the next-door neighbor.
Before she says a word, Bob says, 'I'll give you $800 to drop that towel.'
After thinking for a moment, the woman drops her towel and stands naked in front of Bob. After a few seconds, Bob hands her $800 and leaves.
The woman wraps back up in the towel and goes back upstairs. When she gets to the bathroom, her husband asks, 'Who was that?' 'It was Bob, the next-door neighbor,' she replies.
'Great!' the husband says. 'Did he say anything about the $800 he owes me?'
CONCLUSION: If you share critical information pertaining to credit and risk with your shareholders in time, you may be in a position to prevent avoidable exposure.
Lesson 2:
A priest offered a nun a lift. She got in and crossed her legs, forcing her gown to reveal a leg. The priest nearly had an accident. After controlling the car, he stealthily slid his hand up her leg.
The nun said, 'Father, remember Psalm 129?' The priest removed his hand. But, changing gears, he let his hand slide up her leg again. The nun once again said, 'Father, remember Psalm 129?' The priest apologized, 'Sorry, Sister, but the flesh is weak.'
Arriving at the convent, the nun sighed heavily and went on her way.
On his arrival at the church, the priest rushed to look up Psalm 129. It said, 'Go forth and seek, further up, you will find glory.'
CONCLUSION: If you are not well informed in your job, opportunities for advancement will pass right by you.
Lesson 3:
A sales rep, an administration clerk, and the manager are walking to lunch when they find an antique oil lamp. They rub it and a Genie comes out. The Genie says, 'I'll give each of you just one wish.'
'Me first! Me first!' says the admin clerk. 'I want to be in the Bahamas , driving a speedboat, without a care in the world.' Puff! She's gone.
'Me next! Me next!' says the sales rep. 'I want to be in Hawaii , relaxing on the beach with my personal masseuse, an endless supply of Pina Coladas and the love of my life.' Puff! He's gone.
'OK, you're up,' the Genie says to the manager. The manager says, 'I want those two back in the office after lunch.'
CONCLUSION: Always let your boss have the first say.
Lesson 4:
An eagle was sitting on a tree resting, doing nothing. A small rabbit saw the eagle and asked him, 'Can I also sit like you and do nothing?' The eagle answered, 'Sure , why not.'
So, the rabbit sat on the ground below the eagle and rested. All of a sudden, a fox appeared, jumped on the rabbit and ate it.
CONCLUSION: To be sitting and doing nothing, you must be sitting very, very high up.
Lesson 5:
A turkey was chatting with a bull. 'I would love to be able to get to the top of that tree,' sighed the turkey, 'but I haven't got the energy.' 'Well, why don't you nibble on some of my droppings?' replied the bull. 'They're packed with nutrients.'
The turkey pecked at a lump of dung, and found it actually gave him enough strength to reach the lowest branch of the tree. The next day, after eating some more dung, he reached the second branch.
Finally after a fourth night, the turkey was proudly perched at the top of the tree. He was promptly spotted by a farmer, who shot him out of the tree.
CONCLUSION: Bull shit might get you to the top, but it won't keep you there.
Lesson 6:
A little bird was flying south for the Winter. It was so cold the bird froze and fell to the ground into a large field. While he was lying there, a cow came by and shit on him.
As the frozen bird lay there in the pile of cow dung, he began to realize how warm he was. The dung was actually thawing him out! He lay there all warm and happy, and soon began to sing for joy.
A passing cat heard the bird singing and came to investigate. Following the sound, the cat discovered the bird under the pile of cow dung, and promptly dug him out and ate him.
CONCLUSION: (1) Not everyone who shits on you is your enemy; (2) not everyone who gets you out of shit is your friend; and (3) when you're in deep shit, it's best to keep your mouth shut!
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
ALIVE AND WELL IN DEUTCHLAND (PART 1)
William E. Grim is a writer who lives in Germany. He is a native of Columbus, Ohio. He is not Jewish. According to Grim, anti-Semitism is alive and well in today's Deutchland. Due to the length of his article, I have divided it into two parts. Here is Part 1 of his observations on anti-Semitism in Germany:
"A Gentile's View of Today's Germany by William E. Grim
I'm not Jewish. No one in my family died in the Holocaust. For me, anti-Semitism has always been one of those phenomena that doesn't really register on my radar, like tribal genocide in Rwanda, a horrible thing that happens to someone else. But I live in a small town outside of Munich on a street that until May of 1945 was named Adolf Hitler Strasse. I work in Munich, a pleasant metropolitan city of a little over a million inhabitants whose Bavarian charm tends to obscure the fact that this city was the birthplace and capital of the Nazi movement.
Every day when I go to work I pass by the sites of apartments Hitler lived in, extant buildings in which decisions were made to murder millions of innocent people, and plazas in which book burnings took place, SS troops paraded and people were executed. The proximity to evil has a way of concentrating one's attention, of putting a physical reality to the textbook narratives of the horrors perpetrated by the Germans.
Then the little things start to happen that over a period of time add up to something very sinister. I'm on a bus and a high school boy passes around Grandpa's red leather-bound copy of Mein Kampf to his friends who respond by saying "coooool!" He then takes out a VCR tape (produced in Switzerland) of "The Great Speeches of Joseph Goebbels." A few weeks later I'm at a business meeting with four young highly educated Germans who are polite, charming and soft-spoken to say the least. When the subject matter changes to a business deal with a man in New York named Rubinstein, their nostrils flair, their demeanors attain a threatening mien and one of them actually says, and I'm quoting verbatim here: "The problem with America is that the Jews have all the money." They start laughing and another one says, "Yeah, all the Jews care about is money."
I found that this type of anti-Semitic reference in my professional dealings with Germans soon became a leitmotif (to borrow a term made famous by Richard Wagner, another notorious German anti-Semite). In my private meetings with Germans it often happens that they will loosen up after a while and reveal personal opinions and political leanings that were thought to have ceased to exist in a Berlin bunker on April 30, 1945. Maybe it's because I have blond hair and my last name is of German origin that the Germans feel that I am, or could potentially be, "one of them." It shows how much they understand what it means to be an American.
Whatever the reason, the conversations generally have one or more of these components:
(1) It was unfortunate that America and Germany fought each other in World War II because the real enemy was Russia.
(2) Yes, the Nazis were excessive, but terrible things happen during wars, and anyway, the scope of the Holocaust has been greatly exaggerated by the American media, which is dominated by Jews.
(3) CNN is controlled by American Jews and is anti-Palestinian. (Yes, I know it sounds incredible, but even among the most highly intelligent Germans, even those with a near-native fluency in English, there is the widespread belief that the news network founded by Fidel Castro's friend Ted Turner, who was married to Hanoi Jane Fonda, is a hotbed of pro-Israeli propaganda.)
(4) Almost all Germans were opposed to the Third Reich and nobody i n Germany knew anything about the murder of the Jews, but the Jews themselves were really responsible for the Holocaust.
(5) Ariel Sharon was worse than Hitler and the Israelis are Nazis. America supports Israel only because Jews control the American government and media.
For the first time in my life, then, I became conscious of anti-Semitism. Sure, anti-Semitism exists elsewhere in the world, but nowhere have the consequences been as devastating as in Germany. Looking at it as objectively as possible, 2002 was a banner year for anti-Semitism in Germany. Synagogues were firebombed, Jewish cemeteries desecrated, the No. 1 best-selling novel, Martin Walser's Death of a Critic, was a thinly-veiled roman a clef containing a vicious anti-Semitic attack on Germany's best-known literary critic, Marcel Reich-Ranicki (who was a survivor of both the Warsaw ghetto and Auschwitz); the Free Democrat Party unofficially adopted anti-Semitism as a campaign tactic to attract Germany's sizeable Muslim minority; and German revisionist historians began to define German perpetration of World War II and the Holocaust not as crimes against humanity, but as early battles (with regrettable but understandable excesses) in the Cold War against communism.
The situation is so bad that German Jews are advised not to wear anything in public that would identify them as Jewish because their safety cannot be guaranteed. How can this be? Isn't this the "New Germany" that's gone 60 years without a Holocaust or even a pogrom, where truth, justice and the German way prevail amidst economic wealth, a high standard of living that is the envy of their European neighbors, and a constitution guaranteeing freedom for everyone regardless of race, creed or national origin?
What's changed? The answer is: absolutely nothing. My thesis is quite simple. While Germany no longer has the military power to enforce the racist ideology of the Nazis and while all extreme manifestations of Nazism are officially outlawed, the internal conditions -- that is, the attitudes, world view and cultural assumptions - that led to the rise of Nazism in Germany are still present because they constitute the basic components of German identity. Nazism was not an aberration; it was the distillation of the German psyche into its essential elements. External Nazism may have been utterly defeated in May of 1945; internal Nazism, however, remains, and will always remain, a potential threat as long as there exists a political and/or cultural entity known as Germany.
Now hold on a second, I hear many people saying. You can't possibly claim that Germans are as anti-Semitic today as they were during the years 1933-1945. It is true that Germany today is much different than during the Third Reich. What is different is that due to its total defeat by the allies, Germany today is a client state of America and must do its bidding. That means repression of overt anti-Semitism. It's bad for business. The other thing that has changed is that, even though Hitler lost World War II, he was phenomenally successful in carrying out his ideological agenda. Germany, indeed virtually all of Europe, is essentially Judenfrei (free of Jews) today due to the efficiency and zeal of the Germans as they perpetrated the Holocaust during the Third Reich. In fact, a very convincing case can be made that Nazism is one of the most success ful political programs of all time. It accomplished more of its goals in a shorter amount of time than any other comparable political movement and permanently changed the face and political structure of several continents."
Continued in Part 2.
"A Gentile's View of Today's Germany by William E. Grim
I'm not Jewish. No one in my family died in the Holocaust. For me, anti-Semitism has always been one of those phenomena that doesn't really register on my radar, like tribal genocide in Rwanda, a horrible thing that happens to someone else. But I live in a small town outside of Munich on a street that until May of 1945 was named Adolf Hitler Strasse. I work in Munich, a pleasant metropolitan city of a little over a million inhabitants whose Bavarian charm tends to obscure the fact that this city was the birthplace and capital of the Nazi movement.
Every day when I go to work I pass by the sites of apartments Hitler lived in, extant buildings in which decisions were made to murder millions of innocent people, and plazas in which book burnings took place, SS troops paraded and people were executed. The proximity to evil has a way of concentrating one's attention, of putting a physical reality to the textbook narratives of the horrors perpetrated by the Germans.
Then the little things start to happen that over a period of time add up to something very sinister. I'm on a bus and a high school boy passes around Grandpa's red leather-bound copy of Mein Kampf to his friends who respond by saying "coooool!" He then takes out a VCR tape (produced in Switzerland) of "The Great Speeches of Joseph Goebbels." A few weeks later I'm at a business meeting with four young highly educated Germans who are polite, charming and soft-spoken to say the least. When the subject matter changes to a business deal with a man in New York named Rubinstein, their nostrils flair, their demeanors attain a threatening mien and one of them actually says, and I'm quoting verbatim here: "The problem with America is that the Jews have all the money." They start laughing and another one says, "Yeah, all the Jews care about is money."
I found that this type of anti-Semitic reference in my professional dealings with Germans soon became a leitmotif (to borrow a term made famous by Richard Wagner, another notorious German anti-Semite). In my private meetings with Germans it often happens that they will loosen up after a while and reveal personal opinions and political leanings that were thought to have ceased to exist in a Berlin bunker on April 30, 1945. Maybe it's because I have blond hair and my last name is of German origin that the Germans feel that I am, or could potentially be, "one of them." It shows how much they understand what it means to be an American.
Whatever the reason, the conversations generally have one or more of these components:
(1) It was unfortunate that America and Germany fought each other in World War II because the real enemy was Russia.
(2) Yes, the Nazis were excessive, but terrible things happen during wars, and anyway, the scope of the Holocaust has been greatly exaggerated by the American media, which is dominated by Jews.
(3) CNN is controlled by American Jews and is anti-Palestinian. (Yes, I know it sounds incredible, but even among the most highly intelligent Germans, even those with a near-native fluency in English, there is the widespread belief that the news network founded by Fidel Castro's friend Ted Turner, who was married to Hanoi Jane Fonda, is a hotbed of pro-Israeli propaganda.)
(4) Almost all Germans were opposed to the Third Reich and nobody i n Germany knew anything about the murder of the Jews, but the Jews themselves were really responsible for the Holocaust.
(5) Ariel Sharon was worse than Hitler and the Israelis are Nazis. America supports Israel only because Jews control the American government and media.
For the first time in my life, then, I became conscious of anti-Semitism. Sure, anti-Semitism exists elsewhere in the world, but nowhere have the consequences been as devastating as in Germany. Looking at it as objectively as possible, 2002 was a banner year for anti-Semitism in Germany. Synagogues were firebombed, Jewish cemeteries desecrated, the No. 1 best-selling novel, Martin Walser's Death of a Critic, was a thinly-veiled roman a clef containing a vicious anti-Semitic attack on Germany's best-known literary critic, Marcel Reich-Ranicki (who was a survivor of both the Warsaw ghetto and Auschwitz); the Free Democrat Party unofficially adopted anti-Semitism as a campaign tactic to attract Germany's sizeable Muslim minority; and German revisionist historians began to define German perpetration of World War II and the Holocaust not as crimes against humanity, but as early battles (with regrettable but understandable excesses) in the Cold War against communism.
The situation is so bad that German Jews are advised not to wear anything in public that would identify them as Jewish because their safety cannot be guaranteed. How can this be? Isn't this the "New Germany" that's gone 60 years without a Holocaust or even a pogrom, where truth, justice and the German way prevail amidst economic wealth, a high standard of living that is the envy of their European neighbors, and a constitution guaranteeing freedom for everyone regardless of race, creed or national origin?
What's changed? The answer is: absolutely nothing. My thesis is quite simple. While Germany no longer has the military power to enforce the racist ideology of the Nazis and while all extreme manifestations of Nazism are officially outlawed, the internal conditions -- that is, the attitudes, world view and cultural assumptions - that led to the rise of Nazism in Germany are still present because they constitute the basic components of German identity. Nazism was not an aberration; it was the distillation of the German psyche into its essential elements. External Nazism may have been utterly defeated in May of 1945; internal Nazism, however, remains, and will always remain, a potential threat as long as there exists a political and/or cultural entity known as Germany.
Now hold on a second, I hear many people saying. You can't possibly claim that Germans are as anti-Semitic today as they were during the years 1933-1945. It is true that Germany today is much different than during the Third Reich. What is different is that due to its total defeat by the allies, Germany today is a client state of America and must do its bidding. That means repression of overt anti-Semitism. It's bad for business. The other thing that has changed is that, even though Hitler lost World War II, he was phenomenally successful in carrying out his ideological agenda. Germany, indeed virtually all of Europe, is essentially Judenfrei (free of Jews) today due to the efficiency and zeal of the Germans as they perpetrated the Holocaust during the Third Reich. In fact, a very convincing case can be made that Nazism is one of the most success ful political programs of all time. It accomplished more of its goals in a shorter amount of time than any other comparable political movement and permanently changed the face and political structure of several continents."
Continued in Part 2.
ALIVE AND WELL IN DEUTCHLAND (PART 2)
Here is the conclusion of William E. Grim's observations on anti-Semitism in Germany:
"Germany is wealthy, stable, relentlessly bourgeois, and for all intents and purposes, free of Jews. Yes, there is a tiny minority of Jews, mostly centered in Berlin, and yes, there have been a number of Jews from the former Soviet Union who have emigrated to Germany, but most of the immigrants from Russia are not practicing Jews and do little if anything to promote a unique Jewish-German identity. The result of all this is that Germans today are able to reap the benefits of Hitler's anti-Semitic policies while paying lip service to the "need to remember." Young Fritz doesn't have to be overtly anti-Semitic today because his grandfather's generation did such a bang-up job of the Holocaust. There just aren't that many Jews left to hate any more, and besides, the G ermans have their old buddies, the Arabs, to do their hating for them. You might call the overwhelming German support for the Palestinians to be a form of anti-Semitism-by-proxy. The German government has made cash payments to the State of Israel, as well as to individual Jews, to settle claims of murder, torture, false imprisonment, slave labor and genocide. Talk to most Germans and you'll soon discover that they think that the score has been settled between Germany and the Jews, that somehow the return of just a portion of what the Germans stole from the Jews is fair recompense for the deliberate murder of millions of people. If you think the Germans are truly sorry for what they did to the Jews, think again. There's never been an official "tut mir leid" offered by the Germans to the victims of the Holocaust and their descendants because that would admit culpability. Germany has paid off all claims against it without acknowledging responsibility in the same way that the For d Motor Company engages in recalls of automobiles. It's all done to avoid liability.
I have previously mentioned that Germans overwhelmingly support the Palestinians as opposed to the Israelis, and that this overwhelming support represents a form of anti-Semitism-by-proxy. Germans may claim to be supporting the Palestinians because they think they are an "oppressed people," but let's be honest - they are supporting the Palestinians and their Arab handlers because the Palestinians and Arabs share the same ideals as the Nazis. There's a long-standing history of German co-operation with the Arabs. In 1942 Hitler personally assured the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem that as soon as German forces conquered Great Britain, the Jews in Palestine (which was then under control of the British Mandate) would be exterminated.
We should also keep in mind that the Arab terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 atrocities did their planning in Germany. There are several reasons for this. The first is the well-known bungling and de-centralized chaos of the German federal bureaucracy where literally the "linke" hand doesn't know what the "rechte" hand is doing. The second is that Arab terrorists can count on a substantial number of Germans who share their anti-American and anti-Semitic views. The former members of the SS and Hitler's praetorian guards, along with their neo-Nazi supporters, who gather weekly in Munich beer halls, made Osama bin Laden an "honorary Aryan" after the 9/11 attack. Mein Kampf is also a best seller in the Arab world, especially in Saudi Arabia, America 's putative "friend." Indeed, there is very little difference between the anti-Semitic rantings of Hitler and those of the so-called "spiritual leaders" of al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Fatah. The Arabs also owe Hitler and the Germans big time. Hitler killed off the Jews, and Konrad Adenauer and his "democratic" descendants replaced them with the Turks. Yes, the Turks aren't Arabs, but they are Muslim, and although Turkey is a member of NATO and has relations with Israel, many Turks identify and support their radical Arab co-religionists. Turkey remains as fragile a democracy as Weimar Germany during the 1920s. It wouldn't take much for Turkey to fall into the dark side of Muslim extremism. The end result of Muslim immigration into Germany has been twofold:
(1) It allows the Germans to feign liberalism and being open to freedom and diversity.
(2) By replacing the Jews they murdered with Muslims, who for the most part are as viciously anti-Semitic as were the Nazis, the Germans have cynically assured that those few Jews who remain in Germany will be unable to reassert political power even in a minority role.
A final point I would like to make concerning the reasons for the a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Germany is one that many will find at odds with the prima-facie evidence, or even appear to stretch the boundaries of common sense. Yet, I ask you to consider carefully my line of reasoning. In many respects Germany got away with the Holocaust without paying much of a price. Yes, many Germans died as a result of German perpetration of World War II and the Holocaust, and yes, there was much physical destruction in the country, but the situation is like the little boy who steals a cookie from the tray when it is cooling on the kitchen table. For his efforts he may have gotten his hand slapped by his mother, but the stolen cookie remains eaten nonetheless.
After having committed the worst crimes in the history of humankind, the Germans were allowed to regain their sovereignty after only ten years; their infrastructure was completely rebuilt thanks to the generosity of the American people; and relatively few Germans were brought to trial for their monstrous crimes. Even those who were tried and convicted received relatively short sentences or had those reduced or commuted in general amnesties. For example, some members of the Einsatzkommandos, those Germans who, before the construction of the death camps, hunted and murdered Jews by the hundreds of thousands, received sentences of as little as five years imprisonment. If there were true justice in the world, Germany would no longer exist as a separate country, but would have long ago had its territory divided up and dispersed among the Allies.
It was an unfortunate historical coincidence that the Cold War began just as Germany was at last being brought to task for its many crimes and atrocities extending back to the First World War. The new threat of the Soviet Union took precedence over a just settling of accounts with Germany. The tragic result is that many of the countries raped and despoiled by Germany, such as the Czech Republic and Poland, are just now coming out of decades of economic decline, while Germany - fat, sassy, arrogant, self-satisfied, and essentially Judenfrei- has enjoyed four decades of undeserved economic prosperity. We can't turn back the clock to redress all of the historical wrongs that have been committed by the Germans, but there are a number of things that can be done to assure that Germany can never again be in a position to threaten the rest of the civilized world.
First and foremost is the realization that, while not all Germans are anti-Semitic, there is an anti-Semitic tendency within German culture that extends back to the time of Martin Luther. Germans are instinctively anti-Semitic in the same way that Americans are instinctively freedom loving. Anti-Semitism has been and unfortunately remains the default ideology of the German people. All things being equal, Germans will instinctively support the enemies of the State of Israel. Therefore, America will need to monitor closely and be ready and politically willing to intervene at a moment's notice in German affairs when it appears that Germany is back-sliding into anti-Semitism. Additionally, it should be a goal of American foreign policy to oppose and to accelerate the dismemberment of the European Union. We must not allow German domination of t he EU to accomplish through parliamentary maneuvering and brokered deals what Hitler and the Germans were unable to accomplish during the Third Reich.
Given Germany's resurgent anti-Semitism (and that of France as well), a strong, German-dominated EU that tolerates and even benignly encourages anti-Semitism, and is diplomatically allied with the Arab world, is potentially the greatest threat to Judaism since Nazi Germany and a major threat to the United States as well. The enemies of Israel are the enemies of the United States. Let all Jews and Americans stand united as we proclaim never again to both the Holocaust and 9/11."
"Germany is wealthy, stable, relentlessly bourgeois, and for all intents and purposes, free of Jews. Yes, there is a tiny minority of Jews, mostly centered in Berlin, and yes, there have been a number of Jews from the former Soviet Union who have emigrated to Germany, but most of the immigrants from Russia are not practicing Jews and do little if anything to promote a unique Jewish-German identity. The result of all this is that Germans today are able to reap the benefits of Hitler's anti-Semitic policies while paying lip service to the "need to remember." Young Fritz doesn't have to be overtly anti-Semitic today because his grandfather's generation did such a bang-up job of the Holocaust. There just aren't that many Jews left to hate any more, and besides, the G ermans have their old buddies, the Arabs, to do their hating for them. You might call the overwhelming German support for the Palestinians to be a form of anti-Semitism-by-proxy. The German government has made cash payments to the State of Israel, as well as to individual Jews, to settle claims of murder, torture, false imprisonment, slave labor and genocide. Talk to most Germans and you'll soon discover that they think that the score has been settled between Germany and the Jews, that somehow the return of just a portion of what the Germans stole from the Jews is fair recompense for the deliberate murder of millions of people. If you think the Germans are truly sorry for what they did to the Jews, think again. There's never been an official "tut mir leid" offered by the Germans to the victims of the Holocaust and their descendants because that would admit culpability. Germany has paid off all claims against it without acknowledging responsibility in the same way that the For d Motor Company engages in recalls of automobiles. It's all done to avoid liability.
I have previously mentioned that Germans overwhelmingly support the Palestinians as opposed to the Israelis, and that this overwhelming support represents a form of anti-Semitism-by-proxy. Germans may claim to be supporting the Palestinians because they think they are an "oppressed people," but let's be honest - they are supporting the Palestinians and their Arab handlers because the Palestinians and Arabs share the same ideals as the Nazis. There's a long-standing history of German co-operation with the Arabs. In 1942 Hitler personally assured the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem that as soon as German forces conquered Great Britain, the Jews in Palestine (which was then under control of the British Mandate) would be exterminated.
We should also keep in mind that the Arab terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 atrocities did their planning in Germany. There are several reasons for this. The first is the well-known bungling and de-centralized chaos of the German federal bureaucracy where literally the "linke" hand doesn't know what the "rechte" hand is doing. The second is that Arab terrorists can count on a substantial number of Germans who share their anti-American and anti-Semitic views. The former members of the SS and Hitler's praetorian guards, along with their neo-Nazi supporters, who gather weekly in Munich beer halls, made Osama bin Laden an "honorary Aryan" after the 9/11 attack. Mein Kampf is also a best seller in the Arab world, especially in Saudi Arabia, America 's putative "friend." Indeed, there is very little difference between the anti-Semitic rantings of Hitler and those of the so-called "spiritual leaders" of al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Fatah. The Arabs also owe Hitler and the Germans big time. Hitler killed off the Jews, and Konrad Adenauer and his "democratic" descendants replaced them with the Turks. Yes, the Turks aren't Arabs, but they are Muslim, and although Turkey is a member of NATO and has relations with Israel, many Turks identify and support their radical Arab co-religionists. Turkey remains as fragile a democracy as Weimar Germany during the 1920s. It wouldn't take much for Turkey to fall into the dark side of Muslim extremism. The end result of Muslim immigration into Germany has been twofold:
(1) It allows the Germans to feign liberalism and being open to freedom and diversity.
(2) By replacing the Jews they murdered with Muslims, who for the most part are as viciously anti-Semitic as were the Nazis, the Germans have cynically assured that those few Jews who remain in Germany will be unable to reassert political power even in a minority role.
A final point I would like to make concerning the reasons for the a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Germany is one that many will find at odds with the prima-facie evidence, or even appear to stretch the boundaries of common sense. Yet, I ask you to consider carefully my line of reasoning. In many respects Germany got away with the Holocaust without paying much of a price. Yes, many Germans died as a result of German perpetration of World War II and the Holocaust, and yes, there was much physical destruction in the country, but the situation is like the little boy who steals a cookie from the tray when it is cooling on the kitchen table. For his efforts he may have gotten his hand slapped by his mother, but the stolen cookie remains eaten nonetheless.
After having committed the worst crimes in the history of humankind, the Germans were allowed to regain their sovereignty after only ten years; their infrastructure was completely rebuilt thanks to the generosity of the American people; and relatively few Germans were brought to trial for their monstrous crimes. Even those who were tried and convicted received relatively short sentences or had those reduced or commuted in general amnesties. For example, some members of the Einsatzkommandos, those Germans who, before the construction of the death camps, hunted and murdered Jews by the hundreds of thousands, received sentences of as little as five years imprisonment. If there were true justice in the world, Germany would no longer exist as a separate country, but would have long ago had its territory divided up and dispersed among the Allies.
It was an unfortunate historical coincidence that the Cold War began just as Germany was at last being brought to task for its many crimes and atrocities extending back to the First World War. The new threat of the Soviet Union took precedence over a just settling of accounts with Germany. The tragic result is that many of the countries raped and despoiled by Germany, such as the Czech Republic and Poland, are just now coming out of decades of economic decline, while Germany - fat, sassy, arrogant, self-satisfied, and essentially Judenfrei- has enjoyed four decades of undeserved economic prosperity. We can't turn back the clock to redress all of the historical wrongs that have been committed by the Germans, but there are a number of things that can be done to assure that Germany can never again be in a position to threaten the rest of the civilized world.
First and foremost is the realization that, while not all Germans are anti-Semitic, there is an anti-Semitic tendency within German culture that extends back to the time of Martin Luther. Germans are instinctively anti-Semitic in the same way that Americans are instinctively freedom loving. Anti-Semitism has been and unfortunately remains the default ideology of the German people. All things being equal, Germans will instinctively support the enemies of the State of Israel. Therefore, America will need to monitor closely and be ready and politically willing to intervene at a moment's notice in German affairs when it appears that Germany is back-sliding into anti-Semitism. Additionally, it should be a goal of American foreign policy to oppose and to accelerate the dismemberment of the European Union. We must not allow German domination of t he EU to accomplish through parliamentary maneuvering and brokered deals what Hitler and the Germans were unable to accomplish during the Third Reich.
Given Germany's resurgent anti-Semitism (and that of France as well), a strong, German-dominated EU that tolerates and even benignly encourages anti-Semitism, and is diplomatically allied with the Arab world, is potentially the greatest threat to Judaism since Nazi Germany and a major threat to the United States as well. The enemies of Israel are the enemies of the United States. Let all Jews and Americans stand united as we proclaim never again to both the Holocaust and 9/11."
Saturday, July 05, 2008
SWITCHING INTENET SERVICE PROVIDERS
Got a problem with your flat screen TV, your DVD recorder, your digital camera, your computer or your internet service provider? If you're like me, you'll dial an 800 number for technical assistance. After selecting the "english or spanish" menu option, you receive unintelligible instructions from a recording for selecting one out of four or five options, then one of three or four more options, and then one of another three or four options. After five or more irritating minutes of trying to figure out the appropriate options and pressing keys on the handset, if you're lucky, you may finally get to talk to a live person, most likely one in India.
A good friend, who has switched internet service providers, tried to find out if her new service would receive messages sent to her previous provider and if it would notify her correspondents of the new e-mail address. Her frustrations were so eloquently expressed, and with a good tinge of humor as well, that I could not resist the urge to include the notification she sent her correspondents in this blog.
Dear To Whom it May Concern:
After indescribable chaos, after garbled communication with a veritable compendium, nay, a veritable United Nations of alleged technicians who vowed on the chastity of their collective mothers that they speak English as a first language (fluently) and whose amassed IQs may rapidly be approaching room temperature, after being switched off-shore to on-shore and back again so often as to require dramamine for seasickness, after explaining patiently a million times how one spells "Kay" and "Bob,"after discussing the concept of the oxymoron by citing as example "Yahoo/Help desk," we have abandoned the valiant fight to have you formally notified by SBC of changes and informally inform you that we do, despite the inadequacies of AT&T in general and their alleged installation disks which do not in any event install, have DSL and new e-mail addresses.
Because TrueSwitch in all honesty cannot inform those in our address book of our new e-mail addresses automatically (their software contains not one but two trojan horses which their technical brilliance cannot circumvent), we have but faint hope that e-mail addressed to our old pdq.net address will come to us as promised for a month or so, and we, personally, send new addresses. Since our optimism is flaccid at this point about AT&T's ability to handle anything as monumental as forwarding, kindly replace old addresses as quickly as your computer allows. Thank you.
A good friend, who has switched internet service providers, tried to find out if her new service would receive messages sent to her previous provider and if it would notify her correspondents of the new e-mail address. Her frustrations were so eloquently expressed, and with a good tinge of humor as well, that I could not resist the urge to include the notification she sent her correspondents in this blog.
Dear To Whom it May Concern:
After indescribable chaos, after garbled communication with a veritable compendium, nay, a veritable United Nations of alleged technicians who vowed on the chastity of their collective mothers that they speak English as a first language (fluently) and whose amassed IQs may rapidly be approaching room temperature, after being switched off-shore to on-shore and back again so often as to require dramamine for seasickness, after explaining patiently a million times how one spells "Kay" and "Bob,"after discussing the concept of the oxymoron by citing as example "Yahoo/Help desk," we have abandoned the valiant fight to have you formally notified by SBC of changes and informally inform you that we do, despite the inadequacies of AT&T in general and their alleged installation disks which do not in any event install, have DSL and new e-mail addresses.
Because TrueSwitch in all honesty cannot inform those in our address book of our new e-mail addresses automatically (their software contains not one but two trojan horses which their technical brilliance cannot circumvent), we have but faint hope that e-mail addressed to our old pdq.net address will come to us as promised for a month or so, and we, personally, send new addresses. Since our optimism is flaccid at this point about AT&T's ability to handle anything as monumental as forwarding, kindly replace old addresses as quickly as your computer allows. Thank you.
ISRAELIS WILL RUE THE DAY THEY MADE THIS SWAP
Israel has made a foolish deal with Hezbollah. Israel has agreed to free Samir Kantar, a Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorist, along with four other prisoners from the PFLP and bodies of Hezbollah fighters. Kantar is serving a 542-year sentence for the brutal murder of two men and a four-year-old girl in a 1979 raid on northern Israel. In return, Hezbollah will release the remains of two Isaeli soldiers who died after their July 2006 capture by the Shiite militia during the cross-border raid which ignited the 34-day war in Lebanon.
Because Israel (pop. 7.3 million, of which only 5.5 million are Jews) is such a tiny nation, the death of a single Israeli soldier is seen like a death in the family, and when one of its soldiers is captured, it feels like a family member has been kidnapped. Thus, Israel has made some lopsided swaps to recover its fallen heros and to obtain the return of captive soldiers.
I can understand the obsession with burying its soldiers in Israeli soil and in obtaining the release of soldiers being held hostage by Hezbollah and Hamas. After all, the United States (pop. 301 million) is still trying to recover the missing bodies of American soldiers killed long ago in the Korean and Vietnam wars.
Israel has a long history of prisoner swaps. In 2004, Israel and Hezbollah exchanged an Israeli civilian and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers for 436 Arab prisoners and the bodies of 59 Lebanese fighters. In 1996, Israel freed 65 prisoners for the bodies of two soldiers. In 1991, Israel traded 51 prisoners for proof that one of its soldiers held in Lebanon was dead.
The most lopsided swaps ocurred in 1983 and 1985. In 1985, three Israeli soldiers captured in Lebanon in 1982 were traded for 1,150 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners. In 1983, Israel swapped 4,600 Palestinian and Lebanese captives for six Israeli soldiers abducted in 1982 from their forward post in Lebanon. Most of the Arab prisoners in the 1983 swap had been rounded up during Israel's invasion of Lebanon, while an additional 100 were freed from Israeli jails, where they were serving long sentences for terrorism.
Israel's prisoner swaps have not brought about a hoped for peace. The lopsided swaps have only led to more deaths and abductions of Israeli soldiers and civilians. In fact, they only serve to embolden Israel's enemies.
Hamas, which has demanded the exchange of 450 prisoners for the return of an Israeli soldier it abducted two years ago, has now indicated it will increase its demands in view of the fact that the captive soldier is still alive. The Hamas leadership has reasoned that since Israel has paid a hefty price for the return of dead soldiers, they should be willing to pay a higher price for the return of a live one.
The Israelis would have been far better served had they just bitten the bullet by not agreeing to this latest swap. Israel will rue the day it swapped Samir Kantar, the terrorist, and four other prisoners for the bodies of two fallen heros.
Because Israel (pop. 7.3 million, of which only 5.5 million are Jews) is such a tiny nation, the death of a single Israeli soldier is seen like a death in the family, and when one of its soldiers is captured, it feels like a family member has been kidnapped. Thus, Israel has made some lopsided swaps to recover its fallen heros and to obtain the return of captive soldiers.
I can understand the obsession with burying its soldiers in Israeli soil and in obtaining the release of soldiers being held hostage by Hezbollah and Hamas. After all, the United States (pop. 301 million) is still trying to recover the missing bodies of American soldiers killed long ago in the Korean and Vietnam wars.
Israel has a long history of prisoner swaps. In 2004, Israel and Hezbollah exchanged an Israeli civilian and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers for 436 Arab prisoners and the bodies of 59 Lebanese fighters. In 1996, Israel freed 65 prisoners for the bodies of two soldiers. In 1991, Israel traded 51 prisoners for proof that one of its soldiers held in Lebanon was dead.
The most lopsided swaps ocurred in 1983 and 1985. In 1985, three Israeli soldiers captured in Lebanon in 1982 were traded for 1,150 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners. In 1983, Israel swapped 4,600 Palestinian and Lebanese captives for six Israeli soldiers abducted in 1982 from their forward post in Lebanon. Most of the Arab prisoners in the 1983 swap had been rounded up during Israel's invasion of Lebanon, while an additional 100 were freed from Israeli jails, where they were serving long sentences for terrorism.
Israel's prisoner swaps have not brought about a hoped for peace. The lopsided swaps have only led to more deaths and abductions of Israeli soldiers and civilians. In fact, they only serve to embolden Israel's enemies.
Hamas, which has demanded the exchange of 450 prisoners for the return of an Israeli soldier it abducted two years ago, has now indicated it will increase its demands in view of the fact that the captive soldier is still alive. The Hamas leadership has reasoned that since Israel has paid a hefty price for the return of dead soldiers, they should be willing to pay a higher price for the return of a live one.
The Israelis would have been far better served had they just bitten the bullet by not agreeing to this latest swap. Israel will rue the day it swapped Samir Kantar, the terrorist, and four other prisoners for the bodies of two fallen heros.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
FUELING THE MYTH OF A RACIST CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
By now, the whole world knows that a grand jury in Houston refused to indict a retired elderly Pasadena homeowner for shooting two illegal aliens who had just burglarized his neighbor's house. The two dead scumbags, one of whom was on parole for a drug conviction, were dark skinned Columbians. The shooter was white. Minority "community activists" have turned the grand jury's decision into a racial issue, thereby fueling the myth of a racist criminal justice system.
Last November, Joe Horn saw two men burglarizing his neighbor's house. He called "911" and told the dispatcher he was going to stop the burglars, who by then had emerged from his neighbor's house and were crossing his property with $2,000 in loot. Despite instructions and repeated pleas for him to stay inside his home, Horn could be heard racking his shotgun and telling the dispatcher that he was going to kill the crooks. Although both were shot in the back, Horn claimed he feared for his life when he killed the burglars.
Horn's neighbors and conservative elements hailed him as a hero. Minorities and white liberals condemned Horn as a murderer and organized protests in front of his home. Horn's supporters then held counter demonstrations. Neighbors had to obtain a restraining order against the demonstrations before peace could be restored to their neighborhood.
The grand jury heard two weeks of testimony. Horn's claim of self-defense was not a factor in the jury's decision to "no-bill" him. The decision was based on a section of the Texas Penal Code which holds that deadly force is justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that it is the only way to stop thieves from escaping with stolen property. The Penal Code also justifies deadly force if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."
At this time, the minority community and liberals are in an uproar. Liberals are intent on changing the Penal Code. Black activists claim that had Horn been a person of color and the burglars white, he would have been arrested and indicted on a capital murder charge. Leaders of the League of United Latin American Citzens (LULAC) charged that "anyone with a Hispanic surname cannot get justice." And, black activists charged that a grand jury "of his peers" no-billed Horn only because it lacked adequate minority representation.
Unfortunately for Horn, his ordeal is far from over. Community activists are asking the federal government to intervene. An organization of black preachers has vowed that "we're going to fight this case until the Good Lord calls Mr. Horn into eternity and sends him to hell." The dead parolee's African-American "fiance" told a press conference that "this is not over" and is threatening a civil lawsuit against Horn.
Because of death threats, Horn no longer lives in his home. When this is finally over, Horn will be left destitute, with all of his assets and retirement savings gone to pay his legal expenses.
While I certainly do not approve of anyone taking the law into their own hands the way Horn did, I also do not have any sympathy whatsoever for the dead burglars. Both Columbians were in this country illegally and one was on parole from prison. Horn did society a favor by ridding this country of some scumbags who were preying on hardworking law-abiding citizens. The Texas Penal Code section on the justifiable use of deadly force should not be changed because it protects the rare fool who, like Horn, shoots a crook in the act of committing a felonious offense.
When Texas enacted its concealed weapons carry law, gun control groups predicted that the streets of the Lone Star State would come to resemble the shootout at the OK Corral. That dire prediction never came about. Now the anti-gunners are predicting that the grand jury's failure to indict Joe Horn will open the flood gates to vigilante justice. That's ridiculous and, like the predicted shootouts, will not happen either.
Had Horn been a person of color and the burlars white, the grand jury, in accordance with Texas law, would have reached the same decision. The complaint that the grand jury refused to indict Horn only because it did not have adequate minority representation is absurd and just serves to further fuel the myth of a racist criminal justice system.
Last November, Joe Horn saw two men burglarizing his neighbor's house. He called "911" and told the dispatcher he was going to stop the burglars, who by then had emerged from his neighbor's house and were crossing his property with $2,000 in loot. Despite instructions and repeated pleas for him to stay inside his home, Horn could be heard racking his shotgun and telling the dispatcher that he was going to kill the crooks. Although both were shot in the back, Horn claimed he feared for his life when he killed the burglars.
Horn's neighbors and conservative elements hailed him as a hero. Minorities and white liberals condemned Horn as a murderer and organized protests in front of his home. Horn's supporters then held counter demonstrations. Neighbors had to obtain a restraining order against the demonstrations before peace could be restored to their neighborhood.
The grand jury heard two weeks of testimony. Horn's claim of self-defense was not a factor in the jury's decision to "no-bill" him. The decision was based on a section of the Texas Penal Code which holds that deadly force is justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that it is the only way to stop thieves from escaping with stolen property. The Penal Code also justifies deadly force if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."
At this time, the minority community and liberals are in an uproar. Liberals are intent on changing the Penal Code. Black activists claim that had Horn been a person of color and the burglars white, he would have been arrested and indicted on a capital murder charge. Leaders of the League of United Latin American Citzens (LULAC) charged that "anyone with a Hispanic surname cannot get justice." And, black activists charged that a grand jury "of his peers" no-billed Horn only because it lacked adequate minority representation.
Unfortunately for Horn, his ordeal is far from over. Community activists are asking the federal government to intervene. An organization of black preachers has vowed that "we're going to fight this case until the Good Lord calls Mr. Horn into eternity and sends him to hell." The dead parolee's African-American "fiance" told a press conference that "this is not over" and is threatening a civil lawsuit against Horn.
Because of death threats, Horn no longer lives in his home. When this is finally over, Horn will be left destitute, with all of his assets and retirement savings gone to pay his legal expenses.
While I certainly do not approve of anyone taking the law into their own hands the way Horn did, I also do not have any sympathy whatsoever for the dead burglars. Both Columbians were in this country illegally and one was on parole from prison. Horn did society a favor by ridding this country of some scumbags who were preying on hardworking law-abiding citizens. The Texas Penal Code section on the justifiable use of deadly force should not be changed because it protects the rare fool who, like Horn, shoots a crook in the act of committing a felonious offense.
When Texas enacted its concealed weapons carry law, gun control groups predicted that the streets of the Lone Star State would come to resemble the shootout at the OK Corral. That dire prediction never came about. Now the anti-gunners are predicting that the grand jury's failure to indict Joe Horn will open the flood gates to vigilante justice. That's ridiculous and, like the predicted shootouts, will not happen either.
Had Horn been a person of color and the burlars white, the grand jury, in accordance with Texas law, would have reached the same decision. The complaint that the grand jury refused to indict Horn only because it did not have adequate minority representation is absurd and just serves to further fuel the myth of a racist criminal justice system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)