April 30, 2009
By Jack Kemp (not the politician)
In the 1961 comedy movie, "One, Two, Three," James Cagney was the manager of the West Berlin Coca-Cola bottling plant. At one point, he has to travel to East Berlin and negotiate for the freedom of the boyfriend of the Coca-Cola president's daughter's, an East German citizen who Cagney managed to get put in an East Berlin jail. Cagney now offers the Russian trade delegation/overseers his pretty secretary to be hired away. The Russians balk and want to trade for Soviet goods. The early conversation with a trade representative begins with this this offer:
"Russian: Would you take new automobile? 1961 Moskvitch hardtop convertable two-toned?
Cagney, speaking with disdain: You mean that Russian hot rod parked outside?
Russian: It's a wonderful car. Is exact copy of 1937 Nash."
For those of you readers not old enough to remember what a Nash was - or East Berlin was - the Nash was a cheaply made US car and looked similar to this photo of a 1934 model Nash: http://www.1motormart.com/gallery/34nash01.jpg
That's what a new car designed by a statist central government will look like.
Jack Kemp (not the politician)
Just saw this on Lucianne.com Must Read.
George Lucas is the producer of the movie "Red Tail" now filiming, about the Tuskeegee Airmen (their planes had a red tail, just like the F-16 escorting the presidential 747 over NY).
ALSO, the Obama administration did not notify the governments of all the New Jersey towns along the Lower Hudson River valley whose citizens traumatized on 9/11/01, causing more panic last Monday.
Jack Kemp, not the politician
"Reply 102 - Posted by: seminolesecure, 4/29/2009 10:12:39 AM (No. 5477244)
George Lucas gave $33 thou to Barry's campaign."
Writing in Human Events, the inimicable Ann Coulter discusses the "torture" that murderous thugs like Khalid Sheik Muhammed were forced to endure. Here are a few of the more malicious ones:
"(G)rasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator."
"And that's not all! As the torments were gradually increased, next up the interrogation ladder came "walling." This involves pushing the terrorist against a flexible wall, during which his "head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a C-collar effect to prevent whiplash."
People pay to have a lot rougher stuff done to them at Six Flags Great Adventure. Indeed, with plastic walls and soft neck collars, "walling" may be the world's first method of "torture" in which all the implements were made by Fisher-Price."
As the memo darkly notes, walling doesn't cause any pain, but is supposed to induce terror by making a "loud noise": "(T)he false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock and surprise." (!!!)"
and don`t forget:
"The CIA's interrogation techniques couldn't be more ridiculous if they were out of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition sketch:
Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions! ...
Hmm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch ... THE COMFY CHAIR!
So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! ...
Now -- you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunchtime, with only a cup of coffee at 11.
Further up the torture ladder -- from Guantanamo, not Monty Python -- comes the "insult slap," which is designed to be virtually painless, but involves the interrogator invading "the individual's personal space."
This got me to thinking; perhaps we could devise some new enhanced interrogation techniques for the Jihadists, ones that Obama, McCain, and Pee Wee Herman (all three of whom would make dandy enhancements for interrogation themselves) would agree were torture of prisoners. After all, the Messiah will not be in office forever (we hope) and at some point a degree of sanity will return to the debate-likely after we lose a city or two. It`s probably time to get cracking on some new schticks, since The One has taken away some powerful tools of the trade.
Let`s see what we can devise:
1. Watching Obama, McCain, and Pee Wee Herman on video for hours.
2. Watching "Benedict Arlen" Specter or Pauley Shore on video for hours.
3. Watching the entire Democrat Caucus on video for hours.
4. Scratching fingernails on a chalkboard next to the murderous thug`s ear.
5. Hiring an all-male ensemble from a San Francisco play, having them dress in schoolgirl uniforms, then telling the Jihadist that they are dead and here are their 72 virgins (get`s `em every time!)
6. Putting them in a steel cage ala the WWF and making them wrestle Ann Coulter.
7. Taking away their skullcaps and replacing them with one of those giant cowboy hats so when they pray their heads bounce off the floor.
8. Making them watch Al Gore`s "An Inconvenient Truth" and then quizzing them on it.
9. Forcing them to shower whenever they are caught in a lie.
10. Taking away their brie cheese in favor of gouda and saltines.
11. Forcing them to perform on stage with Riverdance.
12. Telling them that the camel testicle they just ate is really a chunk of ham.
13. Bringing in exotic dancers but putting slices of bacon down their g-strings.
14. Strapping explosive jackets on them that only release pot pourrie.
15. Playing a looped tape of "I am woman".
Diabolical? You betcha!
Feel free to contribute any other ideas; I think we have the start of something that will be most helpful in the training manuels.
It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future. -- Yogi Berra
April 29, 2009
Jack Kemp (not the politician) recently informed us of buzzing around the Staute of Liberty on Sunday. He theorized the One (Barack Obama) was making a political commercial using Lady Liberty as a prop. He thought perhaps that is why reason for the fighter jets and 747 flyover of New York. He suggests another possible explanation here:
"What was Obama's 747 flyover New York really about? American Thinker today has a blog piece stating the fighter plane had a red tail and may be an afterpart of George Lucas's latest movie about the Tuskeegee Airmen who flew planes with red tails."
April 28, 2009
Jack Kemp (not the politician)
On Sunday, I just so happened to be riding the Staten Island Ferry from Manhattan and passing by the Statue of Liberty. As we got near the Statue, a small red helicopter, with one of those hanging cameras, was circling the ferryboat and taking pictures of the crowd on deck. I walked through to th e opposite side and the helicopter came around to take photos of the people on that side as well.
It is my opinion that this all could have been part and parcel of Obama filming a political television commercial with the Air Force 747 photos added later from their infamous flight the following day. If you want a photo of the most tourists on deck on the ferry, you take it on Sunday, not Monday.
This information has been passed along to Matt Drudge and to the NY Post telephone newstip phoneline, where a reported showed great interest. I told him to contact the ferry captain and crew to verify. There were over 1000 witnesses.
Mexico`s foreign minister Jorge Castaneda has issued a plea to Mexican President Felipe Calderon to press U.S. President and Messiah Barack Obama for legalization of illegals and the institution of a guest worker program, according to this report by Jerry Kammer of the Center for Immigration Studies.
According to the piece:
"Castaneda observes that despite the recession in the U.S., the famous massive return (of Mexican illegals) hasn't taken place and isn't going to take place, the small decrease in (illegal) flows to the U.S. will be ephemeral, and the number of Mexicans who have lost their jobs in Mexico is reaching alarming proportions.
Drawing on figures from the Mexican Social Security Institute, Castaneda makes the case that his countrymen are going to want more access to the U.S. job market. He reports that 55,984 Mexicans lost their jobs in November, followed by 199,648 in December, 143,813 in January, 62,010 in February, and 20,002 in March. "We are almost at a half million, and it's very possible that by the end of the year, a million Mexicans will have lost the work they had," he writes, making no mention of much larger job losses north of the border.
Castaneda says that Calderon's job is to make the case that "without a temporary (worker) component for the future, legalization alone won't be enough."
This is interesting because at the same time we have the Obama Administration delaying (yet again) the compulsory use of E-Verify by Federal contractors, we have the Ford Foundation shelling out 30 million to advance Open Borders, and we have the Unions stumping for Amnesty.
The point of all this is that there is no longer any argument that can credibly be made for open borders; the thrush, er, thrust of the open borders argument was that there was essentially full employment in the United States, and that there were "jobs Americans just won`t do" that needed filling. This huge demand for labor made it imperative that we allow aliens to fill those positions so Americans could continue to enjoy the prosperity and reasonable prices that this cheap labor afforded. Yet now we have Americans looking for work, and there is little that they "just won`t do" at this point. The obvious solution to that dilemma is to send the illegal aliens back home, freeing those jobs for Americans.
It`s not as if there is anything cruel about such an approach; these people are here illegally, are hired illegally, and are working under the table. Many are not paying income tax, and are using the services that native born Americans have spent good money for. Furthermore, our jails are full of such illegals, our hospital emergency rooms chokes with them, our food pantries are emptied by them. These services were intended for our native born poor, not for alien invaders to raid.
And what is this for? So businessmen can get a competitive edge on their competition by circumventing the law. If any businessman hired a native born American but paid below minimum wage, did not withhold taxes, did not follow OSHA regulations or HHS standards, violated state and federal regulations, they would be raided and closed down. The Unions would be outside of their establishment picketing, they would be subject to death threats and slashed tires from the Rainbow coalition and Al Sharpton. Yet none of this is happening where illegals are concerned; they have become untouchable.
Granted, there is a lot of money being made for certain people, but that tells just part of the story. The Democrats (Republicans, too) want illegals to come here, become legal and vote for them. Then there are some internationalist types who want to create a new America, one no longer based on our traditional heritage. The more Mexicans, Central Americans, Canadians, etc. the better-this will water down the "racist" character of America, turning America from Lilly White (as if we ever were) to a healthy tan. This is a form of reverse racism, and it is part of the attraction of open borders to many groups who should by all rights oppose amnesty. How are African-Americans served by allowing Latinos to come here illegally and underbid them for jobs? How many poor blacks are on the dole or working at some criminal enterprise because the jobs that would have been theirs has been sold to some foreign invader?
The Unions hope to unionize these people once they get legal status. Of course, the desire for cheap labor means that we`ll simply have to start all over again, bringing more people in to fill these jobs as the legalized invaders move up the social ladder. Cheap labor is a terrible thing, because it necessitates efforts either to freeze mobility and innovation OR it means creating a system whereby we have to continue to bring in the poor to work in our sweat shops. We are being cruel to those very people because we are breaking up families, forcing them to wander the Earth in search of their daily bread, while allowing the corruption and failure of the elites in Mexico and Central America to continue to squeeze the life out of their own people. There will never be reform in these countries if we keep enabling them.
So, if Joe Biden was telling the truth when he said that this last election was about a three letter word J-O-B-S, then why is his boss not acting to make more of them available to American workers?
The fact is, this whole amnesty/illegal immigration business has little to do with economics; cheap labor is just the hook, the tool for grand ambitions on the part of many. It is as much about "the work of remaking America" as it is about giving hotels cheap maid service. Anyone who doubts that should give me some credible answers to the questions I have posed above.
History should teach us a few lessons; many nations have been swallowed by immigrants. Where are the Britons? Those that are left reside in Wales as vassals to the English. Once they ruled the entire southern half of the island of Britain. The Angles and Saxons, then the Normans, pushed them out of most of Britain onto the peninsula that is Wales. Where are the Lithuanians? They once ruled a large empire, but were pushed out by Russians. Where is the Iriqois Confederacy? For that matter, what became of the Christian state of Lebanon? The Christians were outbred by the Muslims who came in-including the Palestinians who were mercifully allowed to settle in refugee camps after getting kicked out of Israel. Now they, through the help of Syria, own the place.
America is no different; we can become a third world nation, a newly-minted part of Latin America. There is nothing wrong with being a latino nation, but America has a tradition and heritage that deserved to be respected and defended, and our success both in material and intellectual pursuits should make us the model for the third world, not the third world the model for us. Too many in this country seek to turn the United States into something that it is not and never has been, largely because they think it will be somehow more just, or because they believe it will be easier to "remake America", to integrate the U.S. into a new order of international brotherhood and socialist economic system.
If Obama truly cared about the American worker and American families, he would stand up for America`s territorial integrity. That he is unwilling to do so bespeaks a vision at odds with his words. His hypocrisy is galling.
Jack Kemp (not the politician)
An Englishman cuts through the false piety of the environmental movement to reveal its members distain for what Emma Lazarus called the "teeming masses." A worthy read. Here are a link and the concluding paragraphs:
The aristocracy’s embrace of environmentalism, their unflinching commitment to "protecting the planet" from slovenly tourists, African farmers, or the overly fecund classes, is striking indeed. What it reveals is how innately reactionary environmentalism is, to the extent that it can become the political refuge of the landed classes, the moneyed set, and even royals who, by rights, should be stripped of their state subsidies.
British aristocrats’ historic disdain for teeming cities - with their distasteful record of providing upward mobility to the lower orders - can now be respectably recast as a desire to protect the green countryside from polluting urban life. Their long-standing suspicion of working-class communities, who apparently have too many children and are too obsessed with material things, is rehabilitated in the language of "population reduction" to protect "Gaia". And their preference for the quiet local life, as lived in well-off villages where they are lord of the manor, is given a new lease on life in the discussion of the dangers of "cheap tourism" and of flying foreign food - planted and grown by Africans: yuck! - into the UK.
Most strikingly, environmentalism allows them to once again indulge their backward ideas about natural hierarchies and the rule of the intelligent, eco-minded few over the brash, greedy masses. As Charles says, his new film will remind us of the "natural order of things" - how convenient for the Prince to have discovered a new religion that endorses his long-lost divine right to rule.
April 27, 2009
Jack Kemp (not the politician) forwards this from Canada Free Press:
Gore lies to Congress about personal finances
By Steve Milloy Sunday, April 26, 2009
When Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn confronted Al Gore with his profiteering from global warming legislation at today’s House Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing on the Waxman-Markey climate bill, Al Gore said that every penny he ever made from his business activities went into non-profit efforts. [See transcript below.]
That is a flat-out lie, according to this March 6, 2008 Bloomberg report that indicates that Al Gore invested $35 million of his own money in various for-profit endeavors.
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore left the White House seven years ago with less than $2 million in assets, including a Virginia home and the family farm in Tennessee. Now he’s making enough to put $35 million in hedge funds and other private partnerships.
Gore invested the money with Capricorn Investment Group LLC, a Palo Alto, California, firm that selects the private funds for clients and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products, according to a Feb. 1 securities filing. Capricorn was founded by billionaire Jeffrey Skoll, former president of EBay Inc. and an executive producer of Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary film on global warming.
Kudos to Rep. Blackburn for asking one of the "10 Questions for Al Gore" and exposing Gore as the fundamentally dishonest operator that he is.
Here’s the transcript from the April 24, 2009 exchange between Al Gore and Rep. Blackburn. Note that not only does Al Gore lie to Rep. Blackburn, he tries to turn the tables by implicitly accusing her of being anti-business.
Rep. Blackburn: "You talked a little about [that] people have to have trust in what you’re doing and I think you know that this bill is going to fundamentally change the way America works and it’s going to effect families. We’ve all talked about how it affects individuals and what it’s going to do to their budgets and, ah, what it’s going to do to jobs in this country. And given the magnitude of those changes, I think it’s really important that no suspicion or shadow fall on the foremost advocates of climate change legislation. So I wanted to give you the opportunity to kind of clear the air about your motives and to set the record straight about your motives for some of your former constituents. And I’ve got an article from [the] October 8  New York Times Magazine about a firm called Kleiner Perkins" a capital firm called Kleiner Perkins. Are you aware of that company?
Al Gore: Well, yes. I’m a partner at Kleiner Perkins.
Rep. Blackburn: So you’re a partner in Kleiner Perkins. OK. Now they have invested about a billion dollars in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and-trade legislation. So is the legislation that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?
Al Gore: [Sigh]" I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us. And I have invested in it. But every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge. And, Congresswoman, if you’re, if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me."
Rep. Blackburn: No, sir, I’m not making accusations. I’m asking questions that have been asked of me. And individuals, constituents, that were seeking a point of clarity. So I am asking
Al Gore: I understand exactly what you’re doing Congresswoman. Everybody here does.
Rep. Blackburn: Well, are you willing to divest yourself of any profit. Does all of it go to a not-for-profit. Is it an education not-for-profit?
Al Gore: Every penny that I have made has gone to it. Every penny from the movie, the book, uh, from any investments from renewable energy. I’ve been willing to put my money where my mouth is. Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?
Rep. Blackburn: I am simply asking for clarification on the relationship.
Al Gore: I’m proud of it. I’m proud of it.
Rep. Blackburn: Thank you and I appreciate the answer…
Jack Kemp (not the politician)
Nat Hentoff, the old-time classic liberal journalist with a 1950s sensibility, has just decided to rip Castro's treatment of Afro-Cubans in a major American newspaper.
HENTOFF: The Castros are Dr. King's disciples?
The Congressional Black Caucus flies blind in visit
By Nat Hentoff | Monday, April 27, 2009
"This is the beginning of a new day! In my household [Fidel] is known as the ultimate survivor."
Fidel himself, in a letter in the state-run Granma newspaper, saluted "this legislative group. The aura of Martin Luther King is accompanying them."
To others of us who honor King, there is a barely surviving black Cuban disciple of King (and Mohandas Gandhi) whom the caucus visitors did not meet because he has been in a Castro brothers' cage for many years and was off-limits to them. He is Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, and he is among those designated by Amnesty International as "prisoners of conscience" in Cuban gulags.
Another visiting caucus member, Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, was reported by the April 11 New York Post to have said, "We've been led to believe that the Cuban people are not free, and they are repressed by a vicious dictator, and I saw nothing to match what we've been told." A government tour can lead you to believe anything.
The same article quoted Mr. Cleaver as saying of Cuba's current president, Raul Castro: "He's one of the most amazing human beings I've ever met." The international human rights organizations - which have pleaded repeatedly with the Castro brothers to release the blind physician - also find Dr. Biscet amazing in a vitally different sense.
Before he was arrested during Fidel Castro's 2003 mass crackdown on dissenters (an event infamously known as "Black Spring") and sentenced to 25 years in prison, Dr. Biscet had been put away on occasion for planning to organize small groups in private homes to work nonviolently for democratic rights.
Since 2003, Dr. Biscet, often brutalized and denied medical care for digestive and other ailments, has occasionally been thrown into an unlit 3-foot-wide underground "punishment" cell with a toilet in the floor. His highest crime of caged disobedience against the state was to protest vicious treatment of fellow prisoners from his cell. Yet, in a message slipped out, he maintains: "My conscience and spirit are well."
In a cruel irony, the caucus visitors laying flowers at the King memorial appear utterly unaware of this inspiration to many silenced Cubans in Castroland, though Dr. Biscet has been internationally covered by reporters, including myself. Nor were these visiting admirers of Fidel and Raul Castro seemingly aware that a biography of King - seized during the 2003 crackdown raids on independent libraries - was, among other subversive books, ordered burned by Castro judges in one-day trials.
Another Cuban follower of King is Iris Garcia, founder of the Rosa Parks Women's Civil Rights Movement. She and her husband, Afro-Cuban dissenter Jose Luis Garcia Perez, are on a hunger strike trying to bring justice to a family member in a Castro cage.
Mr. Garcia, himself often assaulted for disloyalty, told The Washington Post on April 9: "The authorities in my country have never tolerated that a black person [could dare to] oppose the regime." As I and others have reported, this racism in Cuba is one of the forbidden topics among American idolaters of Fidel Castro.
New Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post, who has made 10 reporting trips to Cuba, wrote April 14 that the Congressional Black Caucus delegation was either naive or disingenuous "not to notice ... [or] acknowledge - that Cuba is hardly the paradise of racial harmony and equality it pretends to be."
If these caucus members - so lauded by Fidel Castro for being accompanied by King's "aura" - had asked him and Raul Castro for permission to look around Cuba on their own, they would have heard considerable evidence from Afro-Cubans about their lower status in Michael Moore's paradise.
However, Mr. Robinson adds, "maybe they were too busy looking into Fidel's eyes."
As for President Obama's changes of policy regarding Cuba, it is indeed long past time to remove travel restrictions to that land by Cubans and Cuban-Americans in this country. Keeping families apart so long has been of value to the Castros' national security rationale for internal repression against "plots" by American enemies - along with the U.S. embargo, which Mr. Obama also should end soon.
But when Dan Restrepo - our National Security Council's senior director for Western Hemisphere affairs - speaks (as reported in the April 14 New York Times) of Mr. Obama's moves "to extend a hand to the Cuban people [so that they can] work on the kind of grass-roots democracy that is necessary to move Cuba to a better future," he omits the continuing stocking of the Castro gulags with pro-democracy "criminals."
In the April 7 Miami Herald, Myriam Marquez reminded the caucus visitors of the 300-plus prisoners of conscience and "the hundreds of dissidents working from their homes under the watch of a totalitarian regime."
Raul Castro, following the black caucus visit and Mr. Obama's policy changes, said he is willing to talk with Mr. Obama on "anything," including human rights and prisons. Well, how about including Dr. Biscet in the conversation once he's released? And Raul, if Fidel agrees, isn't it time finally to let the International Committee of the Red Cross into your prisons?
In 2007, former President George W. Bush gave Dr. Biscet the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Mr. Obama, why not invite Dr. Biscet to the White House?
Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. He is a member of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
Porter J. Goss, former CIA director, spells it out here. You all know the truth, and every word he says here will resonate. And you'll wonder how anybody could have voted for the kid in the White House...
This article is forwarded from the Wall Street Journal
Misconceptions About the Interrogation Memos
Their goal was to allow the CIA and military to stay within the parameters of a murky area of the law.
By WILLIAM M. MCSWAIN
President Barack Obama has reinvigorated the critics of George W. Bush's antiterror policies by opening the door to prosecuting or sanctioning those who crafted interrogation policy in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. These critics -- including the president -- are laboring under numerous misconceptions. Many of them have no experience with or understanding of military or CIA interrogation, the purpose of which is to gain actionable intelligence to safeguard our country. The recently released memos by lawyers in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel were written to assist interrogators in that critical mission. The memos cannot be fairly evaluated without that mission in mind.
Military and CIA interrogators are trained to use creative means of deception, and to play on detainee emotions and fears. This can be a nasty business. People unfamiliar with it, therefore, might even view a perfectly legitimate interrogation of a prisoner of war that is in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions as abhorrent by its very nature.
But military interrogation is not akin to a friendly chat across a conference table -- nor is it designed to gather evidence in a criminal trial, as an FBI interview might be. There is a fundamental distinction between law enforcement and military interrogations that we ignore at our peril.
Second-guessers can also fail to appreciate the increased importance of interrogation (and human intelligence in general) in the post 9/11 world. We face an enemy that wears no uniform, blends in with civilian populations, and operates in the shadows. This has made eliciting information from captured terrorists vital to the effort of finding other terrorists. As interrogation has become more important, drawing out useful information has become more difficult -- because hardened terrorists are often trained to resist traditional U.S. interrogation methods.
Fortunately, aggressive interrogation techniques like those outlined in the memos to the CIA are effective. As the memos explain, high-value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the mastermind of 9/11, and Abu Zubaydah, one of Osama bin Laden's key lieutenants, provided no actionable intelligence when facing traditional U.S. methods. It is doubtful that any high-level al Qaeda operative would ever provide useful intelligence in response to traditional methods.
Yet KSM and Zubaydah provided critical information after being waterboarded -- information that, among other things, helped to prevent a "Second Wave" attack in Los Angeles, according to the memos. Similarly, the 2005 report by Vice Adm. Albert Church on Defense Department interrogation policies, the "Church Report" -- of which I served as the executive editor -- documented the success of aggressive techniques against high-value detainees like Mohamed al Kahtani, 9/11's "20th hijacker."
The aggressive techniques in the CIA memos are also undeniably safe, having been adopted from Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape (SERE) training used with our own troops.
I have personally been waterboarded, put into stress positions, sleep deprived, slapped in the face. While none of this was enjoyable, I am none the worse for wear.
While such techniques are used in U.S. military training, some apparently consider them too brutal, too abusive, too inhumane -- in short, too much like "torture" -- to be used on fanatics like KSM who are bent on the mass murder of innocent American civilians. And if legal advisers such as Steven G. Bradbury, Jay S. Bybee and John Yoo are to be prosecuted for having sanctioned their use under careful controls, who's next? Every commander who ever implemented a SERE course?
Many critics also play the Abu Ghraib "trump card": The abuses of prisoners at that facility in Iraq allegedly "prove" the Bush administration's supposed policy of abuse, first codified in its legal memos. This ignores all relevant evidence.
As the Church Report concluded, after a thorough review of all Defense Department interrogation policies, the pictured abuses at Abu Ghraib bore no resemblance to approved policies at any level, in any theater. The 2004 Independent Panel to Review Department of Defense Detention Operations -- whose four members included two former secretaries of defense under President Jimmy Carter -- also stated that "no approved procedures called for or allowed the kinds of abuse that in fact occurred. There is no evidence of a policy of abuse promulgated by senior officials or military authorities."
Similarly, the critics like to default to Guantanamo as a symbol of the kind of abuse that Mr. Bush's antiterror policies allowed. Yet, at the time of the Church Report, there had been more than 24,000 interrogation sessions at Guantanamo and only three cases of substantiated interrogation-related abuse. All of them consisted of minor assaults in which military interrogators had exceeded the bounds of approved interrogation policy. Notably, the Church Report found that detainees at Guantanamo were more likely to have been injured playing recreational sports than in confrontations with interrogators or guards.
Mr. Bush's advisers were public servants with the memory of 9/11 still fresh in their minds, doing their best to give legitimate legal advice in a murky, largely undefined area of the law. Is this the stuff of which federal prosecutions, or even sanctions, are made?
As a former federal prosecutor, I know a good case from a bad one. I know a case based on solid evidence and even-handed application of the law versus one based on scoring political points. Mr. Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, have professed their desire to take politics out of the Justice Department, to restore integrity to a department that they believe had gone astray under Mr. Bush. Their recent actions, however, speak otherwise.
The bottom line is that any attempt to prosecute or sanction lawyers such as Messrs. Bradbury, Bybee or Yoo would be a fool's errand. And whatever our new president and his attorney general are, they aren't fools. Or at least I don't think they are. For the good of the country, I hope they don't prove me wrong.
Mr. McSwain, a former scout/sniper platoon commander in the Marines and assistant U.S. attorney, was executive editor of the 2005 Review of Department of Defense Detention Operations and Detainee Interrogation Techniques (The Church Report). He is an attorney in private practice in Philadelphia.
Ah, nature; red in tooth and sharp in claw. How often do we hear the gaseous ruminations from Liberals about the joys of the natural, how Man is somehow become alienated from the balance of Life and if, by golly, we could only get ourselves re-attuned to the natural world we could build that paradise which they are SURE must exist here and now! Man and society are perfectible, the modern material girls believe, and that perfectability means that our current IMPERFECT state must arise from some fundamental mistake made in the past. There is not a person alive who fails to see that something is wrong with society and with individual members of society, but the Left is convinced that this problem is merely a result of ignorance and wrong-thinking. The idea that perhaps Man ISN`T perfectible is so horrible to them (since they seek to build an eternal kingdom here on this Earth) that they reject it out-of-hand. The Judeo-Christian notion of Sin, that Man is inherently flawed and that the root societal ill stems from this fundamentally evil nature that must be combatted on a personal level, is anathema; the only sin is to oppose Liberal thought!
Of course, to hold such a notion that is contrary to human experience is difficult, and as a result an enormous amount of fact twisting and intellectual permutation is required.
The childlike faith in the Natural is but one example, and there is a plethora of aspects to this one article of faith. In fact, I would argue that this faith is at the root of all Liberalism. The twin forces of neopaganism and the materialistic visions of the atheists, advocates of scientism, and secular humanists converge in the modern assault on our entire Western heritage, steeped as it is in the Christian and Jewish religions, in the Greco-Roman acceptance of concrete reality, in the view of history as a process leading to a conclusion rather than a pointless, cyclical phonomenon.
Everything old is new again, as the old saying goes; both paganism and atheism predate Christianity and Judaism, and they have returned in dazzling style, pythonlike in their efforts to embrace and squeeze the life out of the usurper faiths. That there is a strong streak of anti-rationalism in both movements is beyond doubt, yet both argue that theirs is the rational approach (this is particularly true of those advocating scientism, the worship of science as holding the answer to all things, even while the limitations of science are dramatic, for example the Global Warming mythology or Darwinism`s many weak points.)
At any rate, the belief in Nature as perfect and pure leads to some mighty twisted ideas. Many are the stories of people walking into the Alaskan bush to commune with the natural, only to have their emaciated bodies found by hunters months later. Consider the case of Chris McCandless aka Alexander Supertramp (who had a movie made about his adventure and subsequent death), of Victor Rosellini who committed suicide when his decades-long attempt at "sustainability" and primitive living proved too difficult, of John Mallon Waterman who died mountain climbing with few provisions or supplies, of Carl McGunn who had a plane deliver him to the Brooks Range but forgot to have one come to pick him up and died of starvation. (These examples all come from the book Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer.) These characters all had elements in common; all tended toward a Liberal worldview, all had read Thoreau, Jack London, and other romantic crackpots. All tended to believe that nature was the road to their salvation. All were wrong.
That`s why I had to laugh when I read this story in Science Daily about the genetic basis of the 8 hour workday. This is so clearly a case of science being made to fit a particular paradigm that it was actually comical. This is completely at odds with even a casual observation of reality and the employment of common sense.
In the wild creatures spend much of their waking time in search for food. Bears eat continuously through most of the day, for example, and as do almost all grazing beasts. Hunters fare better when they can make a kill, but still there is no set work time; they hunt when and where they can.
The early premen, too, devoted large amounts of time to foraging for food. Studies of Neanderthals, for instance, suggest they wandered many miles during the day, suggesting that they were searching for food.
But one need merely look at the reality of everyday life in historic hunter/gatherer societies. While the hunting aspect may have only required a few hours, there was constant work to be done; fetching water, skinning the kill, cooking the food, gathering berries, nuts, and grain, repairing tools and lodging, making clothes by hand, building lodging, gathering firewood, etc. The entire day was taken up with one form of work or another, and that can be seen in aboriginal peoples in New Guinnea or Yucatan today. Living is a lot of work, moreso without the modern conveniences of modernity. Try doing your laundry on a rock in a river rather than using a washing machine! Imagine if you had to make every stitch of those clothes so that you had something to wash.
Life outside of civilization is one of unremitting toil.
Granted, if we need to sleep eight hours we then have 16 hours to work and do whatever else is to be done. That would include leisure activities, sexual congress, ceremonies, eating, etc. so we whittle that 16 hours down by a few. Still, what these researchers have done is make the notion of work a set thing, subtracting the many other requirements that demand attention.
In our own lives we see that; we "work" 8 (or 10 or12) hours then go home to do a different sort of work for several more hours. That our formal employment is predicated on 8 hour shifts hardly changes the fact that nobody works just 8 hours.
But the modern paradigm is that Man was better served in a natural state, and that today we should not demand too much of our workers-or ourselves-so junk science claiming an 8 hour workday is somehow genetic is printed as Science from on high. This is just another example of science at the service of Liberalism, something we see in greater and greater measures these days.
By buttressing their case with "science" the Left can convince the average person that they should not argue, and gives them a reason to vote for a Barack Obama; he`ll cut your work day! This is like the psychological theories that justified the crazier social experiments in schools, such as getting rid of grades in favor of pass/fail, of "conflict resolution" in grammar schools, of cultural relativism, of all the things that have destroyed our educational system and the lives of those abused by it. This was science, you see, and so the application of what common sense says is tomfoolery became inarguable. We see this today with Global Warming being taught as Gospel to preteens.
At any rate, Liberalism has hijacked science for their own purposes for decades. Eventually it will catch up with them, but that requires an educated citizenry, and they have destroyed our educational system. It`s not possible to be trained to be a Liberal and expect to have common sense.
No, what will happpen is that we will continue to slip, to slide into superstition, into foolish ideas, until a great collapse occurs. How that will occur is anyone`s guess, but unless these trends are reversed we will find ourselves sinking into the quicksand of ignorance.
Ignorance is very costly for society, but quite beneficial for the Left. I suspect they know that.
April 26, 2009
by Jack Kemp (not the politician)
In American Thinker today, Dr. Stuart Schwartz wrote an article called "Singing the Jews Blues," http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/singing_the_jews_blues.html about growing anti-semitism in America and the world. Why I agree with much of what he said, the sad fact is that it is harder for Jews who want to support their own kind when they have to deal with actions and associations in people's minds of things done by culturally powerful Jews who have abandoned any support of Jewish religious or cultural values.
Besides such obvious examples as Nazi collaborator George Soros, who do I mean by this?
In Dr. Schwartz's piece he mentioned,
"Anti-Semitism in America has become as ubiquitous as McDonalds. Thirty years ago the pronouncement by one of the nation's most respected liberal magazines that violent entertainment in Hollywood comes from "Jewish executives (who) worship money above all else" would have outraged our mainstream elites. However, now our leaders simply shrug: Move on, nothing to see here..."
END OF QUOTE
Clicking on the link marked "comes" in this paragraph, we find the full text about the criticism of Hollywood Jewish executives:
"Corporate sidelight: Kill Bill is distributed by Miramax, a Disney studio. Disney seeks profit by wallowing in gore--Kill Bill opens with an entire family being graphically slaughtered for the personal amusement of the killers--and by depicting violence and murder as pleasurable sport. Disney's Miramax has been behind a significant share of Hollywood's recent violence-glorifying junk, including Scream, whose thesis was that murdering your friends and teachers is a fun way for high-school kids to get back at anyone who teases them. Scream was the favorite movie of the Columbine killers.
Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself."
END OF QUOTE
Speaking as a Jew, I have to agree with this criticism and not consider it anti-semitic. In fact, the criticism stands up for Judeo-Christian values. If Michael Eisner and Harvey Weinstein had any consideration for standards and what a movie like "Kill Bill" is teaching the young people of the world about standards of behavior, they would not have given it the platform it got at the Disney Corporation. It culturally cheapens the value of life for Jew and Gentile alike in all communities, even those living in Beverly Hills behind gates and with private guards. The same thing can be said - and has been said by Bill Bennett and C. DeLores Tucker of the Parents Television Council - of Gerald Levin of Time Warner for his past promotion and selling of vulgar gangsta rap music with its misogynistic attacks on black women in particular.
Recently I heard Evan Sayet's 2007 talk on "How Modern Liberals Think" on YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c Sayet, a Jew who has worked in Hollywood for years and who became a "9/12" conservative, criticized the left for their embracing of indiscriminate "value free" multicultural thinking. The examples I gave above would fit perfectly in Mr. Sayet's speeches. One cannot excuse criticism of the behavior of "value free" Jews as being anti-semitism. As Sayet said in his first Heritage Foundation speech, "this modern liberalism is nihilism."
Glorifying nihilism and sadism in a movie like "Kill Bill" doesn't shield a Jewish executive from criticism because he Dr. Schwartz has indirectly take up his cause and claimed the criticism of Hollywood Jews is anti-semitism. I contend that the filth coming out of Hollywood IS inherently the anti-semitism Dr. Schwartz is deploring.
After Sayet's follow-up 2009 Heritage Foundation speech, "Hating what's Right," a question was asked from the audience:
"(Steve): Well my name is (Steve) I'm an intern at the Heritage Foundation and my manicured campus is American University. But my question is regarding the anti-Semitism of the left. And I know you mentioned it briefly. But I have always wondered why so many Jewish Americans are active loyal supporters of the Democratic party when the far left base, particularly the Answer Coalition and the Anti-War movement.
I remember seeing a rally where a lot of the anti-war protestors were protesting across the street from a group of pro-Israel protestors. And these Answer people were saying go back to the oven.
Evan Sayet: That's right. That's really vicious. Hatred for the Jew is endemic to the dominant force in today's Democratic party. Anywhere you find leftism whether it was national socialism, Nazism, whether it was communism, whether it was socialism now in Europe or whether it was in the Democrat party today. Not all Democrats but the modern liberal force within the Democrat party, Jew hatred is endemic to modern liberalism.
So why do Jews support it? Two basic reasons: one, there is something very attractive to people who have been persecuted to the notion that nothing will be judged, because if nothing is judged, then they can't judge the Jew. The Jew can't be evil, the Jew can't be put in an oven. There is just something attractive about that.
The second salient point is if you're called a Jew is different than any other religion that is out there. To be called a Christian you have to believe something. You have to believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior. And from that belief stems other beliefs, other practices, cultural things, behaviors, rights, and rituals.
To be called a Muslim you have to believe something. You have to believe that the Koran is the final testament of God and Mohammed is perfect messenger. From that belief stems certain rights, and rituals, practices and behaviors.
To be called a Jew you don't have to believe anything. All you have to do is plop out of the Jewish womb, they call you a Jew. All right, so lets call these people the plopping Jews. It is the plopping Jew that votes Democrat. And as you go down the line to first the reform Jew who is basically a plopping Jew with a better social calendar.
All the way up to Conservative and Orthodox, that's people who actually have Judaism as part of their moral cultural upbringing, not just an accidental Jew. The more Jewish you are by practice, by choice, not just by accident, the more likely you are to support the Republicans. And not just the Republican candidate, but down the line on every single issue. The Republican Party and the practicing Jew shares values."
END OF QUOTE
Mr. Sayet, has got it right. Dr. Schwartz should not be grouping those "Plopping Jews" who practice few, if any, aspects of Judaism and want to be respected as Jews while claiming an attack on them is an attack on Free Speech and also Judaism. No, it is an attack on low-life "values" and amoral, nihilistic and anarchic behavior.
In the 1980s, I went to a meeting of adult children of Holocaust survivors (of which I am one) where another man in his thirties claimed to be an Orthodox Jew. He did not wear a Jewish skullcap and he was also clean shaven (or perhaps he used a depilatory as a technical device to get around the Biblical prohibition on putting a blade to one's face). In other words, he wanted the rest of us to greatly respect him as a religious Jew while he refused to be be seen as a Jew in public. Needless to say, the other people in the room would not do that and we all turned rather cold towards him. He left the room within minutes.
Dr. Schwartz, when he defends Hollywood while placing the the details of the incident involved in a far away link to another story rather than posting the full text of the criticism of the Jews involved, is essentially defending the hypocrisy of "Plopping Jews" and others who do not practice what they claim to be. A former liberal like Even Sayet is much more honest in who he is than the example of the Jews from Hollywood that Schwartz alluded to in his article's link.
Years ago, I read a book about assimilation in which a woman went to a rabbi to complain that her son was marrying outside the faith. My recollection of the exact wording is rusty, but is a close approximation. The rabbi asked her, "Did you light candles of Friday night? Did you attend synagogue? Did you ever take him to Israel?" The woman answered "no" to all these questions. The rabbi then stated, "Well, what did you expect?"
Yes, what did you expect, Dr. Schwartz, from the producers of Kill Bill and gansta rap? An increase in respect for Jews? Think again.
Jack Kemp (not the politician) forwards this terrific essay:
Walking the plank
Bradley R. Gitz
Posted on Sunday, April 26, 2009
Email this story | Printer-friendly version
The headline over a recent Washington Post op-ed by former Reagan administration official Fred Ikle read, "Kill the Pirates."
How utterly refreshing. Not just that Navy SEALS ended up doing precisely that to free Capt. Richard Phillips, but that someone could so brazenly advocate something so brutally effective in our touchy-feely era. How refreshing because so completely at odds with contemporary liberal sensibilities.
The piracy issue is a major one in only a symbolic sense; it serves as a barometer of our culture's confidence in dealing with "enemies of mankind."
All of the arguments of the wimp world view are predictably trotted out on issues like this: that violence only begets more violence, that we shouldn't in our arrogance claim the right to police the high seas and summarily dispatch justice, that this and other problems can only be addressed in multilateral fashion with U.N. approval.
All of it is completely wrong.
Piracy is a criminal act and a criminal act only. For hundreds of years, pirates have preyed on shipping on the high seas, and for most of those hundreds of years law-abiding nations have hung any pirates they catch as the obvious means of discouraging the scourge. As Jonah Goldberg recently noted, piracy is a purely economic enterprise without a whit of ideological or political rationale. The way to discourage economically motivated activity of any kind is to raise the cost of engaging in it.
Piracy is not a political issue. Nor is it a human rights issue, except perhaps as an assault on human rights. It is nothing more or less than an attack upon civilization by those operating deliberately outside of it. The only victims in such scenarios are those the pirates victimize, so why not simply shoot as many of them as we can find? Why not have a few American F-18s operating from an American carrier off the coast of Somalia blow to smithereens the bases from which the ragtag pirate bands operate, not just to discourage them, but simply as a matter of (belatedly applied) principle?
One of the great fallacies of politics in the modern age is the idea that all problems must have complex solutions, that simplicity is somehow evidence of lack of analytical rigor or sophistication.
Some problems-reforming the American health care system, acquiring energy independence-do, indeed, require lots of deep thought and complicated solutions. But piracy doesn't remotely fall into this category. The issue contains no subtlety or nuance by which to bedevil us. It is as straightforward as issues get so long as we don't tie ourselves into knots by overthinking it.
We don't create more pirates by blowing existing ones out of the water. If that were true, piracy would be far more pervasive in the past 100 years than it has been, and therefore decidedly less exotic than it now appears. Blowing them out of the water is, after all, what the American and British navies did over time to virtually wipe the plague out. What reason is there to think that it no longer works?
Effectively responding to the pirate challenge is, in many respects, a litmus test of our capacity to deal with more serious problems. If we can't handle scraggly bands of buccaneers operating out of dinky pontoons, how can we ever stare down Kim Jong Il or counter al-Qa'ida?
About 20 years ago, Tom Wolfe penned an exquisite little essay called "The Great Re-Learning." Its central thesis was that at periodic intervals throughout history we have to "re-learn" things that our grandparents took as simple common sense. How to deal with piracy would seem to be one of those things.
That the United States relies too much on military force has become a staple of liberal criticism, often captured in the idea that if you have a big hammer, everything looks like a nail. Perhaps. But hammers sometimes come in handy, and the pirate menace is looking an awful lot like a big nail just asking to get hammered.
That Barack Obama could take a break from apologizing for his country's alleged sins to actually order up the use of military force tells us that even liberal Democrats can occasionally grasp the obvious.
Piracy has suddenly intruded into the headlines precisely because we didn't deal with it decisively at an earlier stage. But that's no reason not to deal with it decisively now so we can get back to the urgent business of turning America into a giant version of Sweden.
Free-lance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.
April 25, 2009
Well, it looks like there is one! Really! Guess where?
April 24, 2009
For those of you who missed it, I appeared on The Gathering Storm radio program this afternoon. The brilliant and gracious Always On Watch (www.Alwaysonwatch2.blogspot.com/) invited me to rant and rave on TGS at the bottom of the hour, and hosts AOW, WC, and yours truly had a great discussion and a marvelous time.
If you would like to catch it, go to http://blogtalkradio.com/the-gathering-storm and catch it in the archives.
This letter was sent to the Wall Street Journal on August 8, 2008 by Alisa Wilson, Ph.D. Of Beverly Hills , CA . In response to the Wall Street Journal article titled "Where's The Outrage?" that appeared July 31,2008.
Really. I can tell you where the outrage is. The outrage is here, in this middle-aged, well-educated, upper-middle class woman. The outrage is here, but I have no representation, no voice. The outrage is here, but no one is listening for who am I!
I am not a billionaire like George Soros that can fund an entire political movement.
I am not a celebrity like Barbra Streisand that can garner the attention of the press to promote political candidates.
I am not a film maker like Michael Moore or Al Gore that can deliver misleading movies to the public.
The outrage is here, but unlike those with money or power, I don't know how to reach those who feel similarly in order to effect change.
Why am I outraged? I am outraged that my country, the United States of America, is in a state of moral and ethical decline. There is no right or wrong anymore, just what's fair.
Is it fair that millions of Americans who overreached and borrowed more than they could afford are now being bailed out by the government and lending institutions to stave off foreclosure? Why shouldn't these people be made to pay the consequences for their poor judgment?
When my husband and I purchased our home, we were careful to purchase only what we could afford. Believe me, there are much larger, much nicer homes that I would have loved to have purchased. But, taking responsibility for my behavior and my life, I went with the house that we could afford, not the house that we could not afford. The notion of personal responsibility has all but died in our country.
I am outraged, that the country that welcomed my mother as an immigrant from Hitler's Nazi Germany and required that she and her family learn English now allows itself to be overrun with illegal immigrants and worse, caters to those illegal immigrants.
I am outraged that my hard-earned taxes help support those here illegally. That the Los Angeles Public School District is in such disarray that I felt it incumbent to send my child to private school, that every time I go to the ATM, I see "do you want to continue in English or Spanish?", that every time I call the bank, the phone company , or similar business, I hear "press 1 for English or press 2 for Spanish". WHY? This is America, our common language is English and attempts to promote a bi- or multi-lingual society are sure to fail and to marginalize those who cannot communicate in English.
I am outraged at our country's weakness in the face of new threats on American traditions from Muslims. Just this week, Tyson's Food negotiated with its union to permit Muslims to have Eid-al-Fitr as a holiday instead of Labor Day. What am I missing? Yes, there is a large Somali Muslim population working at the Tyson's plant in Tennessee. Tennessee, last I checked, is still part of the United States. If Muslims want to live and work here they should be required to live and work by our American Laws and not impose their will on our long history.
In the same week, Random House announced that they had indefinitely delayed the publication of The Jewel of Medina, by Sherry Jones, a book about the life of Mohammed's wife, Aisha due to fear of retribution and violence by Muslims. When did we become a nation ruled by fear of what other immigrant groups want? It makes me so sad to see large corporations cave rather than stand proudly on the principles that built this country.
I am outraged because appeasement has never worked as a political policy, yet appeasing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is exactly what we are trying to do. An excellent article, also published recently in the Wall Street Journal, went through over 20 years of history and why talking with Iran has been and will continue to be ineffective. Yet talk, with a madman no less, we continue to do. Have we so lost our moral compass and its ability to detect evil that we will not go in and destroy Iran 's nuclear program? Would we rather wait for another Holocaust for the Jews -- one which they would be unlikely to survive? When does it end?
As if the battle for good and evil isn't enough, now come the Environmentalists who are so afraid of global warming that they want to put a Bag tax on grocery bags in California; to eliminate Mylar balloons; to establish something as insidious as the recycle police in San Francisco. I do my share for the environment: I recycle, I use water wisely, I installed an energy efficient air conditioning unit. But when and where does the lunacy stop? Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map, the California economy is being overrun by illegal immigrants, and the United States of America no longer knows right from wrong, good from evil. So what does California do? Tax grocery bags..
So, America, although I can tell you where the outrage is, this one middle-aged, well-educated, upper middle class woman is powerless to do anything about it. I don't even feel like my vote counts because I am so outnumbered by those who disagree with me.
Alisa Wilson, Ph.D. Beverly Hills, California
There are a lot more out there who think just like Alisa Wilson. The only difference, she put her thoughts in an email that will reach thousands. I would like to keep this going and see how big it gets.
I just finished another Taylor Caldwell book. Published in 1959, and set in the Roman Empire around the time of Jesus, it is a fictionalized biography of Lucanus (St. Luke), who wrote the second gospel. This is making me a real Caldwell fan, I tell you!
Here's a paragraph that made the hair stand up on my neck. Except for the fact that it's one person talking to another, and that it talks about Rome (background: this is set during the latter part of the reign of Tiberius, the second dictator of Rome), this could perfectly describe what's happening to America today! I present it verbatim. Here Lucanus is addressing his half-brother, who is an officer in the Roman army.
"You misunderstand me, Priscus. I know that it was inevitable that Rome become what she is. Republics decay into democracies, and democracies degenerate into dictatorships. That fact is immutable. When there is equality -- and democracies always bring equality -- the people become faceless, they lose power and initiative, they lose pride and independence, they lose their splendor. Republics are masculine, and so they beget the sciences and the arts; they are prideful, heroic and virile. They emphasize God, and glorify Him. But Rome has decayed into a confused democracy, and has acquired feminine traits, such as materialism, greed, the lust for power, and expediency. Masculinity in nations and men is demonstrated by law, idealism, justice and poesy, femininity by materialism, dependency on others, gross emotionalism, and absence of genius. Masculinity seeks what is right; femininity seeks what is immediately satisfying. Masculinity is vision; femininity ridicules vision. A masculine nation produces philosophers, and has a respect for the individual; a feminine nation has an insensate desire to control and dominate. Masculinity is aristocratic; femininity has no aristocracy, and is happy only if it finds about it a multitude of faces resembling it exactly, and a multitude of voices echoing its own tiny sentiments and desires and fears and follies. Rome has become feminine, Priscus. And feminine nations and feminine men inevitably die or are destroyed by a masculine people."
(from "Dear and Glorious Physician")
Jack Kemp (not the politician)
The only NY Republican with ba..errr..courage...takes a stand.
King: Torture trial should spark "scorched earth"
New York Republican Rep. Peter King thinks his party needs to go nuke if Bush era officials are prosecuted on torture charges.
King, the outspoken ranking member of the House homeland security committee, said Republicans should "shut down [legislative] activity across the board" if any Bush-era officials are hauled into court.
"We would need to have a scorched-earth policy and use procedural means to bring the place to a halt - go to war," he told POLITICO.
"If we have another 2,000 people killed, I want Nancy Pelosi and [liberal philanthropist] George Soros, John Conyers and Pat Leahy to go to the funeral and say, 'Your son was vaporized because we didn’t want to dump some guy's head under water for 30 seconds.'"
Pelosi, Leahy and Conyers haven't called for prosecutions but have said more information needs to be gathered to determine if officials who authorized waterboarding violated the law.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.