He’s responsible for endorsing some of Washington’s most lawless policies. His rap sheet reveals great cause for concern. More on him below.
Post-9/11, police state terror followed. Obama expanded it.
It’s unprecedented in size, scope and ruthlessness.
DHS is America’s Gestapo. The November 25, 2002 Homeland Security Act established it. Twenty-two federal agencies were combined under one authority.
They include Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Transportation Security, the Secret Service, FEMA, National Protection and Programs Directorate, and the Coast Guard among others.
DHS concentrates unprecedented executive branch military and law enforcement empowerment. It’s a rogue agency. It’s insidious. It’s a police state apparatus writ large. It’s a dagger at the heart of freedom.
Its four main mandates include:
- border and transportation security;
- emergency and disaster preparedness;
- developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons countermeasures; and
- centralizing storage and analysis of potential threat information.
US Northern Command (NORTHCOM) was established months earlier (April 25, 2002). Doing so was unprecedented.
For the first time, America’s mainland, Alaska, Canada, Mexico, Gulf waters, Florida straits, and portions of the Caribbean were militarized. Troops may be deployed on US streets.
Doing so violates core 1807 Insurrection Act and 1878 Posse Comitatus Act principles.
They prohibit using federal and National Guard forces for domestic law enforcement except as constitutionally allowed or expressly authorized by Congress in times of insurrection or other national emergency.
No longer. Usurped diktat authority lets presidents claim emergency powers, declare martial law, suspend the Constitution, and deploy federal and/or National Guard troops on US streets to suppress whatever is called disorder.
Fundamental freedoms are endangered. First Amendment ones matter most. Without them all others are at risk. They include free expression, assembly, religion, and right to petition government for redress.
Police state ruthlessness defines today’s America. International, constitutional and US statute laws no longer matter. They lie in history’s dustbin.
Diktat power replaced them. No one any longer is safe. Doing the right thing is dangerous. Guilt by accusation is policy.
Anyone can be arrested, held uncharged, and detained indefinitely. Due process, judicial fairness, and other civil rights no longer protect.
If confirmed, Johnson will replace Janet Napolitano. She reflected the worst of repressive governance. Throughout her tenure, she violated fundamental rule of law principles.
She terrorized Latino immigrants. She waged war on Occupy Wall Street. She obstructed FOIA requests.
She advanced America toward full-blown tyranny. Expect Johnson to pick up where she left off. His record gives pause for concern.
His legal career combined private and government service. From 1989 – 1991, he was GHW Bush’s Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
From 1998 – 2001, he was Clinton’s Air Force Department general counsel. He’s currently a Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison partner.
His former Defense Department responsibilities included legal review and approval of all military related operations.
An unnamed senior Obama administration official said:
“The president is selecting Johnson because he is one the most highly qualified and respected national security leaders, having served as the senior lawyer for the largest government agency in the world.”
“During his tenure at the Department of Defense he was known for his sound judgment and counsel.”
It includes defending military commission prosecutions. They’re for so-called “unprivileged enemy belligerents.” Bush called them “unlawful enemy combatants.”
Francis Boyle called this designation a “quasi-category to create an anti-matter universe of legal nihilism where human beings (including US citizens) can be disappeared, detained incommunicado, denied access to attorneys and regular courts, tried by kangaroo courts, executed, tortured, assassinated and subjected to numerous other manifestations of State Terrorism.”
Johnson supports all of the above. Doing so qualifies him to head DHS. He endorses targeted assassinations by drones or other means.
He defends lawless NSA spying. He champions waging war on terror at home and abroad.
On November 30, 2012, he addressed the Oxford Union in London. He titled his talk “The Conflict Against Al Qaeda and its Affiliates: How Will It End?”
He claimed credit for working with Congress “to enact the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2009.” It renewed its initial 2006 authorization.
It scrapped habeas protection. It granted sweeping police state powers. They’re unchanged today. MCA states:
“(N)o (civil) court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause for action whatsoever…relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission (including) challenges to the lawfulness of (its) procedures…”
With or without evidence, “Any person is punishable who aids, abets, counsels, commands, procures,” or in any way provides “material support” to alleged terrorists.
Charged suspects are guilty by accusation. Enhanced interrogations (aka torture) are authorized.
So is denying detainees international law protections. Presidents can authorize military commissions at their discretion.
Torture coerced confessions are admissible. Hearsay and secret evidence is permitted. Kangaroo court justice follows.
Johnson vowed to keep fighting Al Qaeda. “(W)e are taking the fight directly to AQAP (Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula),” he said.
He omitted explaining that Washington uses Al Qaeda and similar groups strategically as enemies and allies.
He called targeting Al Qaeda “a new kind of war. It is an unconventional war against an unconventional enemy.”
He implied that old rules don’t apply. Waging war on Al Qaeda won’t “end in conventional terms,” he said.
The most “unconventional” tactics are used. Fundamental rule of law principles are violated doing so.
On February 16, 2012, New York City Bar President Samuel Seymour wrote Johnson, saying:
“(W)e write to express our concern with the Order Governing Written Communications Management for Detainees Involved in Military Commissions, dated December 27, 2011.”
“The Association is alarmed at the dramatic impingement on the attorney-client privilege resulting from the procedures set forth in the Order.”
“The sanctity of the attorney-client privilege is fundamental to our system of justice.”
“If the Order is implemented, (it) will be gravely undermined.”
“We urge the appropriate authority to vacate the Order and (replace it with) a (proper) legal framework.”
It’s in stark contrast to civil proceedings. It’s fundamentally unfair and unjust.
Seymour’s letter was comprehensive. It was lengthy. It ran nine pages.
He concluded saying “the Association believes the Written Communications Order is problematic because it invades the attorney-client privilege, inappropriately inserts outsiders into the defense team, and reverses the presumption that the privilege should be respected, all on a blanket basis and without any particularized showing of need.”
“We believe the Order threatens to undermine the proper functioning of the adversary system and” helps delegitimize military commission prosecutions.
On March 18, 2013, Johnson spoke at the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School.” He titled his address “A ‘Drone Court:’ Some Pros and Cons.”
He claimed “appropriate lethal force” made America’s homeland safer. It’s never been less safe.
He advocates drone killings. He asked what about establishing a drone court? He’s comfortable about an authority acting as judge, jury and executioner.
He wants it kept within the executive branch. Targeted assassination authorizations aren’t suited for judicial review. Quick action is needed to implement them.
Doing so violates core international, constitutional and US statute laws. Johnson didn’t explain. Nor that drones mostly kill innocent civilians.
A tiny fraction of deaths are so-called “high value targets.” Innocent men, women and children comprise most others. It doesn’t matter.
Johnson calls “targeted lethal force” justifiable. “The essential mission of the US military is to capture or kill an enemy,” he said.
In a February 2012 Yale Law School address, he called US citizens fair game.
“Belligerents who also happen to be US citizens do not enjoy immunity where non-citizen belligerents are valid military objectives,” he said.
“(U)nder well-settled legal principles, lethal force against a valid military objective, in an armed conflict, is consistent with the law of war and does not, by definition, constitute an ‘assassination.’ ”
America’s domestic “war on terror” will be in good hands with Johnson. Expect freedom to suffer another major body blow. Perhaps it won’t survive his tenure. Ends justifying means alone matters.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at email@example.com.
His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
For the past several years, America finds itself fragmenting at the seams. We suffer a gridlocked Congress that watches problems grow and grow—but it fails to take action to solve anything. It continues endless wars abroad. It watches our educational systems disintegrate, but does nothing. Endless millions of minorities and the Middle Class cannot secure jobs, but Congress continues to import 100,000 green card holding immigrants every 30 days.
A mind-blowing 47 million Americans subsist on food stamps, but our U.S. Congress continues to offshore jobs, insource jobs and outsource jobs. Those 535 congressional critters do everything in their power to subvert the Middle Class of America.
Across America, illiteracy grows as 7,000 kids quit high school every day of the nine-month school cycle. CBS anchor Scott Pelley said, “Our educational results cannot sustain America.”
In other words, we cannot keep kicking illiterate kids into the job market and hope they can read, write and perform simple math—when they can’t.
We suffer Black-America revolting with marches over Latino-American Zimmerman killing African-American Martin with calls of racism, when, at the same time, 1,300 blacks killed 1,300 blacks from the Martin killing to the trial date. Black on black crime killed 1,299 black kids while blacks protested over one shooting of a Latino killing a black. It never occurs to them that black on black and black on white crime runs 1,000 to 1.
The Main Stream Media censors the phenomenon known as “Black Flash Mobs” where young blacks in cities like Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago and Minneapolis—run wild in streets beating up white people and looting stores.
Why? Those kids don’t enjoy fathers to mentor them toward responsible adulthood as 68 percent of all black kids in America are raised by single mothers. About 99 percent of them live on welfare and in poverty. (Source: Denver Post, Dottie Lamm) Yet, the Congress sits and knits, picks its nose and yawns and scratches its rear-end, but won’t get off its collective butt to solve the problems.
Our nation faces $16.5 trillion debt, entrenched poverty class, growing illiteracy, accelerating killings, intractable crime, drugs and unemployment.
Yet, it imports 100,000 legal Third World immigrants every 30 days. In 2013, we feature over 40 million people not born in this country. As they continue to bring in their families and birth their babies, whole communities in cities like Chicago, Miami, Houston and LA do not resemble America or speak our language.
Every American sees the mess exploding, but most remain clueless as to its origins.
On a recent radio show where I interview weekly, www.KGAB.com with Dave Chaffin on the “Morning Zone,” a caller asked a poignant question: “Will we ever get back to the America that I knew growing up as a kid?”
First of all, the America of 50 years ago with Norman Rockwell paintings of paper boys throwing papers onto the steps of nicely painted houses with picket fences—will not be seen again. Instead, we see violent mega-cities exploding beyond the sky line with air pollution and gridlock.
Since 1965, we imported 100 million third world immigrants because of Teddy Kennedy’s Immigration Reform Act. That bill continues today as it adds 1.2 million third world people annually.
We contorted America from three major ethnic tribal groups with the same Christian religion to over a dozen tribal groups with aggressive religions like Islam. If the current amnesty bill passes, it will import 1.5 million third world immigrants annually, or, about 125,000 new comers each month. Total: 100 million by 2050.
Where are they coming from? This two-minute video on Bangladesh will stun you, but this will be our end result: http://safeshare.tv/w/vwncRciSFb
That video probably shocked the daylights out of you, but that’s what all of China, India, Bangladesh, Indochina and many other parts of the world face with their population loads. I’ve witnessed it first hand on my world bicycle travels. Worse, they come to America for a better life, but they continue propagating beyond reason.
Back to the question: Can we return America back to the way it was before this mass immigration juggernaut?
If we don’t reduce all immigration to less than 100,000 annually, instead of 100,000 monthly—we will never, ever return to what it meant to be an unhyphenated American. We will never enjoy religious civility as the Muslims grow their numbers and aggressively push for Sharia Law within America. We will never again enjoy a flourishing Middle Class. We will never again enjoy clean air and plenty of water.
We will not enjoy a single language or culture. We will never again enjoy unlimited freedom as we compact ourselves into cities and begin to resemble China, India and even Bangladesh before this century expires.
What to do? How to take action?
1. Do everything in your power to stop S744 amnesty bill. Call, write, visit your Senators and House reps. Write letters to the editor, call your radio shows and push the issue to stop mass immigration.
2. Join every organization you see on my website: www.frostywooldridge.com in order to make collective impact to stop passage of S744.
3. Vote out any senator or congressman that thinks importing the entire third world or the projected 100 million new immigrants to this country within 37 years.
4. Call or email Charlie Rose CharlieRose@pbs.org and ask him to interview top environmental/population experts as to our future if we allow another 100 million people to be imported via mass immigration. Write Matt Lauer, Katie Couric, Diane Sawyer, 60 Minutes, Dateline, Primetime, and ask them to interview top speakers as to our survival prospects of an America that grew from 316 million to 625 million people within this century.
5. Join www.CapsWeb.org, www.NumbersUSA.org, www.FairUS.org, www.alipacus.com in order to join over 1.5 million Americans of all persuasions who collectively possess the power to stop mass immigration into America and work toward a viable and sustainable future for our civilization. It’s free and powerful because you can send in pre-written faxes to your reps to enlighten them as to the consequences of a mass amnesty and jumping legal immigration to two million annually. You will become part of an armada of parents, grandparents, citizens and more to change course toward a positive future.
6. Send me your thoughts on more ideas I can share with Americans in order to regain or at least not lose any more of America than we have already.
The goon thug psychopaths no longer only brutalize minorities–it is open season on all of us –the latest victim is a petite young white mother of two small children.
The worse threat every American faces comes from his/her own government.
At the federal level the threat is a seventh war (Syria) in 12 years, leading on to the eighth and ninth (Iran and Lebanon) and then on to nuclear war with Russia and China.
The criminal psychopaths in Washington have squandered trillions of dollars on their wars, killing and dispossessing millions of Muslims while millions of American citizens have been dispossessed of their homes and careers. Now the entire social safety net is on the chopping bloc so that Washington can finance more wars.
At the state and local level every American faces brutal, armed psychopaths known as the police. The “law and order” conservatives and the “compassionate” liberals stand silent while police psychopaths brutalize children and grandmothers, murder double amputees in wheel chairs, break into the wrong homes, murder the family dogs, and terrify the occupants, pointing their automatic assault weapons in the faces of small children.
The American police perform no positive function. They pose a much larger threat to citizens than do the criminals who operate without a police badge. Americans would be safer if the police forces were abolished.
The police have been militarized and largely federalized by the Pentagon and the gestapo Homeland Security. The role of the federal government in equipping state and local police with military weapons, including tanks, and training in their use has essentially removed the police from state and local control. No matter how brutal any police officer, it is rare that any suffer more than a few months suspension, usually with full pay, while a report is concocted that clears them of any wrong doing.
In America today, police murder with impunity. All the psychopaths have to say is, “I thought his wallet was a gun,” or “we had to taser the unconscious guy we found lying on the ground, because he wouldn’t obey our commands to get up.”
There are innumerable cases of 240 pound cop psychopaths beating a 115 pound woman black and blue. Or handcuffing and carting off to jail 6 and 7 year old boys for having a dispute on the school playground.
Many Americans take solace in their erroneous belief that this only happens to minorities who they believe deserve it, but psychopaths use their unaccountable power against everyone. The American police are a brutal criminal gang free of civilian control.
Unaccountable power, which the police have, always attracts psychopaths. You are lucky if you only get bullies, but mainly police forces attract people who enjoy hurting people and tyrannizing them. To inflict harm on the public is why psychopaths join police forces.
Calling the police is a risky thing to do. Often it is the person who calls for help or some innocent person who ends up brutalized or murdered by the police. For example, on September 15 CNN reported a case of a young man who wrecked his car and went to a nearby house for help. The woman, made paranoid by the “war on crime,” imagined that she was in danger and called police. When the police arrived, the young man ran up to them, and the police shot him dead.http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/15/justice/north-carolina-police-shooting/
People who say the solution is better police training are unaware of how the police are trained. Police are trained to perceive the public as the enemy and to use maximum force. I have watched local police forces train. Two or three dozen officers will simultaneously empty their high-capacity magazines at the same target, a minimum of 300 bullets fired at one target. The purpose is to completely destroy whatever is on the receiving end of police fire.
US prosecutors seem to be the equal to police in terms of the psychopaths in their ranks. The United States, “the light unto the world,” not only has the highest percentage of its population in prison of every other country in the world, but also has the largest absolute number of people in prison. The US prison population is much larger in absolute numbers that the prison populations of China and India, countries with four times the US population.
Just try to find a prosecutor who gives a hoot about the innocence or guilt of the accused who is in his clutches. All the prosecutor cares about is his conviction rate. The higher his conviction rate, the greater his success even if every person convicted is innocent. The higher his conviction rate, the more likely he can run for public office.
Many prosecutors, such as Rudy Giuliani, target well known people so that they can gain name recognition via the names of their victims.
The American justice (sic) system serves the political ambitions of prosecutors and the murderous lusts of police psychopaths. It serves the profit motives of the privatized prisons who need high occupancy rates for their balance sheets.
But you can bet your life that the American justice (sic) system does not serve justice.
While writing this article, I googled “police brutality,” and google delivered 4,100,000 results. If a person googles “police brutality videos,” he will discover that there are more videos than could be watched in a lifetime. And these are only those acts of police brutality that are witnessed and caught on camera.
It would take thousands of pages just to compile the information available.
The facts seem to support the case that police in the US commit more crimes and acts of violence against the public than do the criminals who do not wear badges. According to the FBI crime Statistics http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/summaryin 2010 there were 1,246,248 violent crimes committed by people without police badges. Keep in mind that the definition of violent crime can be an expansive definition. For example, simply to push someone is considered assault. If two people come to blows in an argument, both have committed assault. However, even with this expansive definition of violent crimes, police assaults are both more numerous and more dangerous, as it is usually a half dozen overweight goon thugs beating and tasering one person.
Reports of police brutality are commonplace, but hardly anything is ever done about them. For example, on September 10, AlterNet reported that Houston, Texas, police routinely beat and murder local citizens. http://www.alternet.org/investigations/cops-are-beating-unarmed-suspect-nearly-every-day-houston?akid=10911.81835.yRJa7d&rd=1&src=newsletter894783&t=9&paging=off
The threat posed to the public by police psychopaths is growing rapidly. Last July 19 the Wall Street Journal reported: “Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment–from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers–American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield. The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the US scene: the warrior cop–armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.”
The Wall Street Journal, being an establishment newspaper, has to put it as nicely as possible. The bald fact is that today’s cop in body armor with assault weapons, grenades, and tanks is not there to make arrests of suspected criminals. He is there in anticipation of protests to beat down the public for exercising constitutional rights.
To suppress public protests is also the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security Police, a federal para-military police force that is a new development for the United States. No one in their right mind could possibly think that the vast militarized police have been created because of “the terrorist threat.” Terrorists are so rare that the FBI has to round up demented people and talk them into a plot so that the “terrorist threat” can be kept alive in the public’s mind.
The American public is too brainwashed to be able to defend itself. Consider the factthat cops seldom face any consequence when they murder citizens. We never hear cops called “citizen killer.” But if a citizen kills some overbearing cop bully, the media go ballistic: “Cop killer, cop killer.” The screaming doesn’t stop until the cop killer is executed.
As long as a brainwashed public continues to accept that cop lives are more precious than their own, citizens will continue to be brutalized and murdered by police psychopaths.
I can remember when the police were different. If there was a fight, the police broke it up. If it was a case of people coming to blows over a dispute, charges were not filed. If it was a clear case of assault, unless it was brutal or done with use of a weapon, the police usually left it up to the victim to file charges.
When I lived in England, the police walked their beats armed only with their billysticks.
When and why did it all go wrong? Among the collection of probable causes are the growth or urban populations, the onslaught of heavy immigration on formerly stable and predictable neighborhoods, the war on drugs, and management consultants called in to improve efficiency who focused police on quantitative results, such as the number of arrests, and away from such traditional goals as keeping the peace and investigating reported crimes.
Each step of the way accountability was removed in order to more easily apprehend criminals and drug dealers. The “war on terror” was another step, resulting in the militarization of the police.
The replacement of jury trials with plea bargains meant that police investigations ceased to be tested in court or even to support the plea, usually a fictitious crime reached by negotiation in order to obtain a guilty plea. Police learned that all prosecutors needed was a charge and that little depended on police investigations. Police work became sloppy. It was easier simply to pick up a suspect who had a record of having committed a similar crime.
As justice receded as the goal, the quality of people drawn into police work changed. Idealistic people found that their motivations were not compatible with the process, while bullies and psychopaths were attracted by largely unaccountable power.
Much of the blame can be attributed to “law and order” conservatives. Years ago when New York liberals began to observe the growing high-handed behavior of police, they called for civilian police review boards. Conservatives, such as National Review’s William F. Buckley, went berserk, claiming that any oversight over the police would hamstring the police and cause crime to explode.
The conservatives could see no threat in the police, only in an effort to hold police accountable. As far as I can tell, this is still the mindset.
What we observed in the police response to the Boston Marathon bombing suggests that the situation is irretrievable. One of the country’s largest cities and its suburbs–100 square miles–was tightly locked down with no one permitted to leave their homes, while 10,000 heavily armed police, essentially combat soldiers armed with tanks, forced their way into people’s homes, ordering them out at gunpoint. The excuse given for this unprecedented gestapo police action was a search for one wounded 19-year old kid.
That such a completely unnecessary and unconstitutional event could occur in Boston without the responsible officials being removed from office indicates that “the land of the free” no longer exists. The American population of the past, suspicious of government and jealous of its liberty, has been replaced by a brainwashed and fearful people, who are increasingly referred to as “the sheeple.”
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/
Source: Paul Craig Roberts
After then-Congressman Joe Scarborough convinced me to endorse the neocon Bob Dole for President back in 1996, I vowed to myself that I would never vote for “the lesser of two evils” again. I haven’t; and I won’t.
Almost anytime one hears someone talking about voting for the lesser of two evils, it always means voting for a Republican instead of a third party or independent candidate. The argument is always the same: he or she (the third party candidate) cannot win. Therefore, voting for someone you presume cannot win is “wasting” your vote. I used to believe that, too, but no more.
One could even make the argument that voting for an unprincipled neocon Republican is actually voting for the greater evil, not the lesser. It seems we lose far more liberties under Republican administrations than under Democrat ones. That does not mean that Democrat presidents care more for the Constitution and limited government than Republican presidents. It simply means when Republicans occupy the White House, rank and file conservatives and freedomists go fast asleep. I mean deep sleep. I mean extended hibernation. The two administrations of G.W. Bush are prime examples.
In terms of foreign policy and the burgeoning police state at home, there is no distinguishable difference between Bush and Barack Obama. None! Except for the fact that with a Democrat in office, conservatives, Christians, and freedomists are much more alert and quick to oppose the administration’s draconian policies, whereas, with a Republican in office, those same people sit back and totally ignore identical policies. Yes, sometimes voting for a Democrat might be voting for the lesser of two evils.
I personally witnessed an election in which a vote for the Republican was not just a vote for the lesser of two evils; it was a vote for a politically evil candidate over a politically righteous candidate. I use the words “evil” and “righteous,” not in the true spiritual sense, of course, but in the overall political result of the two candidate’s positions on the issues.
I’m talking about the US Senate race in South Carolina in 2008. The Republican candidate was the pro-war, pro-police state, pro-big government, anti-Constitution incumbent Lindsey Graham. Lindsey Graham is the personification of everything that is wrong with Washington, D.C. Mind you, Graham is a US Senator from South Carolina. There are probably more evangelical Christians, more Christian schools, and more Christian influence per capita and per square mile in South Carolina than in any State in the country. Bar none! And Lindsey Graham is the best that South Carolina can send to Washington, D.C.? Egad!
In 2008, I was running for POTUS as the Constitution Party candidate. I spent some quality time in South Carolina during that campaign. I had previously spent time in the Palmetto State campaigning for Congressman Ron Paul. What I’m saying is I spent quite a bit of time in South Carolina that year.
While I was in South Carolina, I was introduced to the US Senate Democrat candidate Bob Conley. I spent much time getting to know Bob. I could not find one issue over which he and I disagreed. Bob was as straight as a gun barrel politically speaking. He was an awesome candidate. So, while I was in South Carolina, I was happy to publicly endorse Bob for that US Senate seat. In that race, a vote for the Republican candidate was to vote for the only “evil” candidate in the race. Yet, conservatives and Christians by the tens of thousands cast their vote for Graham simply because he was a Republican. You see, voting for the “lesser of two evils” does not apply to anything except voting for a Republican.
We had a similar situation here in Montana in 2012 for a State office race when there was only a choice between a liberal Democrat and a Libertarian Party candidate. No Republican was in the race. Without question, the “lesser of two evils” vote (in the jargon of so-called conservative Republicans) would have been cast for the Libertarian Party candidate. But what happened? A sizeable percentage of Republicans didn’t vote at all. They refused to vote for “the lesser of two evils.” This proves, once again, that the issue is not about voting for the “lesser of two evils,” it is only about voting for Republicans.
Obviously, there are numerous people who treat Democrat candidates the same way. It doesn’t matter one whit how unfaithful the person might be to Democrat positions, if there is a “D” behind the name, they will vote for him or her. President George Washington was right: this kind of loyalty to any political party is a bane of freedom.
Back to the aforementioned 1996 Presidential campaign: after leaving the airport where Scarborough and I had appeared alongside Bob Dole, I felt sick to my stomach. My radio talk show at that time was on a meteoric rise and I had enthusiastically campaigned for Pat Buchanan. I even hosted a major event for him in the Florida Panhandle during that campaign. I knew Bob Dole was no conservative; I knew he would never be faithful to the principles that I felt so deeply about. But, in the name of defeating Bill Clinton, I allowed Joe Scarborough to talk me into throwing my support behind Dole. As I walked away from that press conference, I vowed to myself, “Never again will I vote for the lesser of two evils.”
Now, that cliché, the lesser of two evils, means different things to different people. So, for sake of clarity, let me tell you what it means to me. I have a six-point litmus test. I don’t care whether the candidate is male or female, black or white, Democrat of Republican, conservative or liberal, Christian or pagan, if he or she violates fidelity to one of more of these principles, I will not vote for him or her; I don’t care how “evil” the opponent might be.
I will not vote for someone who would support or facilitate the legalization of abortion–a Republican candidacy notwithstanding. If neither major party candidate is pro-life, I will vote for someone else in the race that is, or I will leave my ballot blank on that race. I have done that numerous times. I will not vote for anyone who supports the killing of innocent unborn babies. Period!
I will not vote for a candidate (from any political party) who would support the attempt to redefine marriage as being between anyone except between a man and a woman. Marriage is a divine institution and our Creator has already defined it. Government didn’t invent marriage; and government cannot re-invent it. To tell you the truth, I don’t think government has any business being involved in marriage to any degree.
Mind you, I’m not talking about civil unions. That is another matter altogether. I have my opinions on that subject, but that issue does not rise to the level of marriage. And I most certainly am not talking about granting power to the government to invade people’s privacy. I don’t want government in the bedroom, living room, kitchen, or closet.
The Warfare State
Ever since World War II, and the advent of the United Nations, America’s foreign policy has been the antithesis of the principles of liberty and independence. Foreign interventionism, nation-building, and wars of aggression are the enemies of freedom. The vision of America’s founders was one of free trade and good will with all and foreign entanglements with none. Modern American leaders have completely inverted that concept. Now, it is foreign entanglements with all and free trade (the so-called “free trade” agreements in modern times are not free trade at all but government-manipulated trade) and good will with none.
The so-called “war on terror” (along with the “war on drugs”) is the cornerstone of all of the infringements upon the liberties of the American people at home and the excuse given to justify all sorts of military aggression abroad. The “war on terror” is actually a war on the liberties of the American citizenry. The “war on terror” has made us less free and less safe. And if it continues unabated, it will result in the enslavement of the American people.
Therefore, I will not vote for any candidate for public office, regardless of political party, that does not understand the evilness of the Warfare State and that will not aggressively oppose it. This includes those who support sending US military forces around the globe to fight undeclared, unprovoked wars, those who support the use of drones for the purpose of military assassination, and those who support interfering in the internal affairs of foreign countries without due process as prescribed by the US Constitution.
The Police State
The burgeoning police state currently being built in this country is the result of the Warfare State. Legislation that authorized such things as the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the NDAA, the DHS, USNORTHCOM, etc., tramples the Bill of Rights into the ground. For all intents and purposes, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth amendments to the Constitution have been thoroughly and absolutely shredded by every administration and congress of the Twenty First century.
I absolutely refuse to vote for any candidate of any political party that would facilitate the burgeoning police state. That would be like asking me to vote for the lesser evil of, say, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, or like asking me to choose between Nero and Caligula. No thanks.
The New World Order
Now, use this term and all kinds of ideas pop into people’s minds. To some, it means a “Jewish conspiracy.” To others, it means a “Catholic conspiracy.” To still others it means a “Masonic conspiracy.” Ad infinitum.
However, to me it simply means there are elitists within government, business, religion, private groups, etc., (from virtually any and every brand or type) who truly desire to strip countries (especially the United States) of their independence and sovereignty. This is nothing new. Its roots go back to the Tower of Babel.
There have always been rich and powerful individuals who have attempted to accrue riches and power unto themselves. And the best way to accomplish this is to erase national borders. It is always about money. Always. Sovereign nations are an encumbrance to a global anything, but especially to a global financial market. Trade restrictions, imposts, tariffs, regulations, etc., are anathema to global merchants. Therefore, in order to erect a global economy or global financial market, one must create some sort of global government to control it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the New World Order.
I believe the United Nations is a tool of globalists to pave the way for global government. I believe certain internationalist organizations were created to facilitate global government. Some of these organizations probably include the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, etc.
But from a political perspective, I refuse to vote for any candidate for public office, regardless of political party, that would support any legislation that would cede even the slightest bit of American sovereignty to any supranational or international body. Most of the so-called “free trade” deals fall into this category. The creation of any facsimile of a European or North American Union or North American Community (call it what you will) falls into this category; asking US armed forces to serve under, or at the behest of, the United Nations falls into this category; and legislation that would facilitate illegal immigration certainly falls into this category.
This is a no compromise, no negotiation-issue with me. I absolutely will not vote for any candidate, regardless of political party, that supports any additional gun control. We already have too many egregiously enslavish gun control laws on the books. If anything, our lawmakers should be expunging gun control laws, not adding new ones.
Friends, have you ever noticed the wording of the Second Amendment carefully? The Second Amendment is the only part of the Constitution that is said to be “necessary.” The only thing, the ONLY thing, that the Constitution says is “necessary” is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It doesn’t say that the Supreme Court is necessary, or that the US Congress is necessary, or that even the President is necessary. It says that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms is necessary. (A big word of thanks to my good friend, Dr. Ed Vieira, for recently pointing this out to me.)
I don’t care if a candidate for public office is a Democrat, Republican, or Whig, if he or she supports or facilitates in any way any further gun control, I absolutely and positively will not vote for them–regardless of how more “evil” their political opponent might be.
There you have it. These are the six criteria I use when I say I will not vote for the lesser of two evils. I don’t expect a candidate for public office to be perfect; I don’t expect to agree with them on every issue; I don’t expect them to be of my religious persuasion. I can differ with them on a wide array of issues. But these six issues are not negotiable. On these issues, there is no lesser of two evils. Transgression of any one of these issues means I will not vote for them–party affiliation notwithstanding. I concur with the words of John Quincy Adams, “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” And these are the six principles upon which I will either vote or not vote with the “sweetest reflection.”
Dear reader, I sincerely hope that you are not one of these folks who blindly support a political party with no regard to position or principle. A man or woman who has no principles they will not compromise has no principles at all. And if we need anything in the voting booth today, it is fidelity to principle–especially the principles of liberty upon which our freedoms rest.
“Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth.” — Pablo Picasso.
From George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World to the Wachowskis’ The Matrix, Stephen Spielberg’s Minority Report and most recently Neill Blomkamp’s Elysium, writers and filmmakers have used science fiction to both forecast the future while also holding up a mirror to the present. The best among these transcend what is largely escapist entertainment and engage their audiences in a critical dialogue about what happens when power, technology and militaristic governance converge.
With its dystopian vision of a post-apocalyptic Earth in which the majority of humanity is relegated to an overpopulated, diseased, warring planet while the elite live a life of luxury and perfect health on an orbiting space station, Elysium fits in perfectly alongside the futuristic books and films featured in my new book, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, which warn of a totalitarian future at our doorsteps.
However, while much has been said about Blomkamp’s use of Elysium to raise concerns about immigration, access to healthcare, worker’s rights, and socioeconomic stratification, what I found most striking and unnerving was its depiction of how the government will employ technologies such as drones, tasers and biometric scanners to track, target and control the populace, especially dissidents. Mind you, while these technologies are already in use today and being hailed for their potentially life-saving, cost-saving, time-saving benefits, it won’t be long before the drawbacks to having a government equipped with technology that makes it all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-powerful far outdistance the benefits.
For those who insist that such things are celluloid fantasies with no connection to the present, I offer the following.
Fiction: One of the most jarring scenes in Elysium occurs towards the beginning of the film, when the protagonist Max Da Costa waits to board a bus on his way to work. While standing in line, Max is approached by two large robotic police officers, who quickly scan Max’s biometrics, cross-check his data against government files, and identify him as a former convict in need of close inspection. They demand to search his bag, a request which Max resists, insisting that there is nothing for them to see. The robotic cops respond by manhandling Max, throwing him to the ground, and breaking his arm with a police baton. After determining that Max poses no threat, they leave him on the ground and continue their patrol.
Reality: The United States government is presently developing robot technology that can mimic human behavior. Consider ATLAS, an android being developed by the Department of Defense. Standing at 6 feet tall and 330 pounds, the robot moves, walks, and runs like a human. While still in testing stages, it bears an eerie resemblance to the robotic cops featured in Elysium. It’s not too far-fetched to imagine a time in the near future when artificial intelligence robots are responsible for policing citizens. Considering how difficult it is today to exercise one’s constitutional rights when confronted by SWAT-team attired police with little regard for the Constitution, imagine trying to assert your rights when confronted with autonomous machines programmed to maintain order at all costs?
Fiction: In another scene ripped from the present, Max Da Costa is hunted by four drones while attempting to elude the authorities. The drones, equipped with x-ray cameras, biometric readers, scanners and weapons, are able to scan whole neighborhoods, identify individuals from a distance—even through buildings, report their findings back to police handlers, pursue a suspect, and target them with tasers and an array of lethal weapons. These drones, strikingly similar to currently existing Quadrotor drones, are depicted in A Government of Wolves.
Reality: Comprising an $82 billion industry, at least 30,000 drones are expected to occupy U.S. airspace by 2020. These drones, some of which will be deceptively small and capable of videotaping the facial expressions of people on the ground from hundreds of feet in the air, will usher in a new age of surveillance in American society. Not even those indoors, in the privacy of their homes, will be safe from these aerial spies, which can be equipped with technology capable of peering through walls. In addition to their surveillance capabilities, drone manufacturers have confirmed that drones can also be equipped with automatic weapons, grenade launchers, tear gas, and tasers. The FBI, DEA, and US Border Patrol are already using drone technology for surveillance operations.
Biometric scanners and national IDs
Fiction: Throughout Elysium, citizens are identified, sorted and dealt with by way of various scanning devices that read their biometrics—irises, DNA, etc.—as well as their national ID numbers, imprinted by a laser into their skin. In this way, citizens are tracked, counted, and classified. The end result is that there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide to escape the government’s all-seeing eyes.
Reality: Given the vast troves of data that the government in its many forms (NSA, FBI, DHS, etc.) is collecting on all Americans, we are not far from a future where there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. In fact, between the facial recognition technology being handed out to police across the country, license plate readers being installed on police cruisers, local police creating DNA databases by extracting DNA from non-criminals, including the victims of crimes, and police collecting more and more biometric data such as iris scans, we are approaching the end of anonymity in America today. It won’t be long before police officers will be able to pull up a full biography on any given person instantaneously, including their family and medical history, bank accounts, and personal peccadilloes.
Fiction: In a meeting with his robotic parole officer, Max finds his mood and emotions being scanned, analyzed and assessed by his android counterpart. Perceiving a heightened level of stress and frustration in Max, who is finding it difficult to reason with an automaton lacking in reason, the robot offers him mood-altering pills to counteract his perceived “aggression.”
Reality: Advances in neuroscience indicate that future behavior can be predicted based upon activity in certain portions of the brain, potentially creating a nightmare scenario in which government officials select certain segments of the population for more invasive surveillance or quarantine based solely upon their brain chemistry. Most recently, researchers at the Mind Research Center scanned the brains of thousands of prison inmates in order to track their brain chemistry and their behavior after release. In one experiment, researchers determined that inmates with lower levels of activity in the area of the brain associated with error processing allegedly had a higher likelihood of committing a crime within four years of being released from prison. While researchers have cautioned against using the results of their research as a method of predicting future crime, soon it will undoubtedly become a focus of study for government officials.
Brain to Machine Interface
Fiction: In Blomkamp’s world of Elysium, humans are not only able to store computer data in their brains and transfer this data by way of brain-computer interfaces, but they can also plug directly into computer systems that control every aspect of society and government. In such a world, a single key stroke can establish a dictatorship or unchain an enslaved population.
Reality: Although still in its infancy, there’s no limit to what can be accomplished—for good or ill—using brain-computer interfaces. Scientists have already created machines that allow people to manipulate robotic arms using just their thoughts. In the near future, we may see scientists observing human thought using “smart dust”—nanomachines the size of dust—which can be placed in the brain to observe neural behavior. Furthermore, hackers have already been able to “steal” information from human brains using extant brain-computer interfaces which read brain waves and are commercially available for $200-300. Researchers at Duke University Medical Center have created a brain-to-brain interface between lab rats, which allows them to transfer information directly between brains. In one particular experiment, researchers trained a rat to perform a task where it would hit a lever when lit. The trained rat then had its brain connected to an untrained rat’s brain via electrodes. The untrained rat was then able to learn the trained rat’s behavior via electrical stimulation. This even worked over great distances using the internet, with a lab rat in North Carolina guiding the actions of a lab rat in Brazil.
Making the Leap from Fiction to Reality
When Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World in 1931, he was convinced that there was “still plenty of time” before his dystopian vision became a nightmare reality. It wasn’t long before he realized that his prophecies were coming true far sooner than he had imagined. The question that must be asked, writes Huxley in Brave New World Revisited, is what can be done about it?
Does a majority of the population think it worthwhile to take a good deal of trouble, in order to halt and, if possible, reverse the current drift toward totalitarian control of everything? … [R]ecent public opinion polls have revealed that an actual majority of young people in their teens, the voters of tomorrow, have no faith in democratic institutions, see no objection to the censorship of unpopular ideas, do not believe that government of the people by the people is possible and would be perfectly content, if they can continue to live in the style to which the boom has accustomed them, to be ruled, from above, by an oligarchy of assorted experts.
That so many of the well-fed young television-watchers in the world’s most powerful democracy should be so completely indifferent to the idea of self-government, so blankly uninterested in freedom of thought and the right to dissent, is distressing, but not too surprising.
“Free as a bird,” we say, and envy the winged creatures for their power of unrestricted movement in all the three dimensions. But, alas, we forget the dodo. Any bird that has learned how to grub up a good living without being compelled to use its wings will soon renounce the privilege of flight and remain forever grounded. Something analogous is true of human beings. If the bread is supplied regularly and copiously three times a day, many of them will be perfectly content to live by bread alone—or at least by bread and circuses alone.
“In the end,” says the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky’s parable, “in the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, ‘make us your slaves, but feed us.’” And when Alyosha Karamazov asks his brother, the teller of the story, if the Grand Inquisitor is speaking ironically, Ivan answers, “Not a bit of it! He claims it as a merit for himself and his Church that they have vanquished freedom and done so to make men happy.” Yes, to make men happy; “for nothing,” the Inquisitor insists, “has ever been more insupportable for a man or a human society than freedom.”
Nothing, except the absence of freedom; for when things go badly, and the rations are reduced, the grounded dodos will clamor again for their wings—only to renounce them, yet once more, when times grow better and the dodo-farmers become more lenient and generous. The young people who now think so poorly of democracy may grow up to become fighters for freedom. The cry of “Give me television and hamburgers, but don’t bother me with the responsibilities of liberty,” may give place, under altered circumstances, to the cry of “Give me liberty or give me death.”
Source: John W. Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute
Lebanon offers Palestinians fleeing death in Syria Ramadan greetings: “Eid Mubarak, dear brothers and sisters! Yalla! Go back where you came from!”
The Syria/Lebanon border crossing at Masnaa…
On 8/5/13 this observer decided, quite on the spur of the moment, to take a three day break from Damascus the next morning and make a quick trip to Beirut to do some errands because offices would be closed starting at dawn for Eid al Fitr celebrations (a day later for Shia Muslims). The annual Eid al-Fitr, being the festival of the breaking of the month long Ramadan fast, which observance is regarded as one of the Five Pillars of Islam. And by the way, this year has been undertaken, approximately 16 hours each day in inordinately hot weather in the Middle East.
Let me say from the start: I did not anticipate the delay into which I was about to run. In fact, I felt that with a little bit of luck—and by leaving Damascus by no later than six in the morning—I might even break my record of 205 minutes total from Sameriyeh bus station to my apartment in Dahiyeh, south Beirut.
Alas, it was not to happen. In fact, I ended up setting a record for my longest trip ever—a bit over eight hours for the usually much-quicker 88 km (55 mile) journey. It had not occurred to me that I would arrive at the new Lebanese border crossing building at Masnaa only to find not only was it swamped, but that it had been a scene of bedlam for the past 20 or more hours. There were Syrian and Palestinian refugees fleeing to Lebanon, plus hundreds of people traveling there for this year’s Eid el Fitra holiday.
I wasn’t the only one who miscalculated. Lebanon’s General Security, which oversees immigration facilities, apparently did so as well. When I got out of the car, the cross border processing center was surrounded by hundreds of travelers jostling and waiting. People were jammed and packed inside the building as well. Some shouted, waving their passports, trying to catch the eye of the overwhelmed but seriously under-numbered immigration officials behind their glass cages, while others were simply shocked, depressed by the mess they were in, and weak also from fasting.
Gape-mouthed, I stared at the steamy sweating assembly, and saw one of the supervisors (I know several of them from frequently crossing the border at Masnaa) and he immediately waved and summoned me to push my way through the massive crowd to his private office. When I finally made it, he immediately took my passport and told one of the clerks to stamp it. Suffering yet another lapse into sometimes weak character, I kept my mouth shut about why he was helping an American who just arrived before assisting his fellow Arabs who had been waiting, Allah only knows, for how long. I still feel some shame about this personal flaw and I know better than to jump a queue. But the General, sporting 4 gold stars on each of his two shoulder epaulets, did lecture me about what chaos he and his staff were in. A couple of security types held pistols above the travelers heads pointed at the ceiling as the crowd sometimes pressed sort of threateningly, against the counters and appeared that they might be about to storm them. Some immigration officers were scowling and shouting at people in the hall who were impatient to advance to the counters.
“You should write a story about what you saw here today Mr. Lamb. We need more staff! Look at my men! Have you ever seen anything like this?”
Frankly, I hadn’t. For sure the supervisors’ all male staff did indeed look utterly exhausted, even somewhat intimidated by the shouting throngs. But what I encountered next was even more disturbing. Grasping my stamped passport, I made my way out of the noisy, congested building, to the parking lot, and up to the door of our parked service-taxi. Here I found my two traveling companions, a middle-aged Palestinian couple from Yarmouk who I had just met at Samariyeh, taking their luggage out of the car. Why were they removing their luggage? I inquired of them, thinking perhaps we had to switch vehicles for some reason. The man put his hand on his heart and pointed toward Damascus. “Cham, (Damascus) we go Cham. Lebanon no!” he said as he flicked his chin upward.
I did not understand exactly what the problem was, but assumed his documents were not in order—but then suddenly I realized that that didn’t make sense because every Palestinian must go to the Interior Ministry in Damascus before leaving Syria, war or no war, and pay $5 to have their documents checked and to receive an exit visa. And on top of the $5 fee in Damascus, they have to pay a new, higher fee at the border crossing—of $11—which until last month was only half that amount. With little choice, we bade each other farewell. Alone now, I settled down to wait for my driver, who seemed to have lots of friends at Masnaa.
All at once, I noticed a lady dressed in full Hijab walking my way with a baby in her arms and with two small children, maybe three or four years old, clinging to her skirt. And I have to say: I will not forget this family for the rest of my life. The young mother looked as forlorn as ever I have seen someone. Her dust-covered cheeks were moistened and streaked by tears, her eyes red as she wept. The children were crying also, and kept saying “baba, baba.”
She was fleeing to Lebanon—after losing her husband and her home, although I did not learn all the details. But as with a couple of other Syrian refugees I have met, the poor dear did not have any relatives in Lebanon, and consequently planned, as have others in similar straits, to look for someone from her village in Palestine, hoping, praying, believing that such a person or persons would understand her plight and feel enough of a bond from the Nakba to help her.
But outrageously, immigration at Masnaa barred her from entering Lebanon, and didn’t even take the trouble to give her a reason. “Go back to Syria where you belong” she said the immigration clerk told her. “Ask UNWRA for help. They are responsible for you” she was told.
But no one from UNWRA was to be seen, nor was any other Palestinian NGO. I gave her the phone number of two friends in Damascus and the last of my Syrian and American money. It is still the case in Syria, due to American-led sanctions, that ATM’s and credit cards cannot be used. Consequently many westerners, like me, regularly arrive at Masnaa from Syria, pretty broke.
(photo: fplamb 8/6/13 at Masnas border crossing.. There appears to be an office of sorts of UNHCR at Masnaa. But it was closed for the Palestinian refugees from Syria desperately seeking help. Where were UNWRA, UNICEF, USAID, the Arab League, the IOIC, the 31 NGO’s in the USA and in Lebanon, as well as the European Union who claim to work for the wellbeing of the Palestinian refuges forced from their homes and into this unwelcoming land? Only God knows and she has been silent recently. This observer saw no sign of any, or even one of them.
This mother and her babies are dreams. What happened to them is an outrage, and who knows how many others met similar treatment on the Syrian-Lebanon border last week? On that day at any rate, 8/6/2013, it seemed very much that most Palestinians were being forced back into Syria.
Lebanese General Security officials need to get their stories straight. On 8/10/2013 a GS official denied any decision on the part of Lebanese authorities to prevent Palestinian refugees fleeing the fighting in Syria from entering Lebanon. In remarks to pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, the official, whose name was withheld, insisted, “The same measures are being applied on all the refugees (coming) to Lebanon from Syria whether they are Palestinians or Syrians.” General Security “is implementing the measures that were underway before the Syrian crisis started in terms of checking their documents and identification papers,” he added.
Speaking frankly, his statement is utter nonsense. This observer spent nearly two hours at the Masnaa crossing speaking with Palestinians who were prevented from entering Lebanon. At the same time, I heard of no Syrian refugees being turned back—nor, of course, should they have been.
Upon finally making it to Beirut, I emailed Amnesty International, UNHCR, and HRW among others. The GS’s spurious arguments that “their papers must not have been in order” insults ones intelligence.
It is well known, as noted above, that every Palestinian who wants to come to Lebanon or to leave Syria must first go to the Palestinian Refugees department of the Ministry of Interior in downtown Damascus and pay the aforementioned fee. Upon doing so, they are granted an exit permit. Every rejected Palestinian I spoke to that day at Masnaa showed me their permit from the Ministry of the Interior. In every single case their papers were in order.
Many Palestinian refugees, without any money left from their many travails, are forced to walk from the Masnaa border crossing near the Syrian/Lebanese to the Jilil Palestinian Refugee camp near Baalbec. (photo: flamb 8/6/13)
International humanitarian law requires that Lebanon abide by the principle of non-refoulement, a standard which prohibits sending refugees or asylum seekers back to places where their lives or freedom are threatened. On the day of 8/6/2013, this observer was an eyewitness to the government of Lebanon turning back scores of Palestinian refugees while remaining seemingly oblivious to the risks to their lives. Palestinian families were, and still may be, stranded at Masnaa because they have no funds to return to Syria and were barred from entering Lebanon.
If you are a no account, low life, over the hill American like this observer and have some defect in your documentation you will likely be OK at Masnaa and allowed in. Not to worry.
But, God forbid if you are a Palestinian refugee, for you currently risk being barred, even if your papers are complete. As I saw the young family starts the trek on foot back toward Damascus. I could not help thinking, what kind of Arabs are these who give preference to a citizen of a country that has brought this Arab region nearly unimaginable destruction, yet shut out their own brothers and sisters who are fleeing death?
Every Lebanese citizen and every political party, from the anti-Palestinian Lebanese Forces, to the claimed champions of Palestinians, including Hezbollah, should immediately insist that the Lebanese government rescind, without delay, its decision to bar Palestinians from Syria from entering Lebanon. And while they are at it, General Security should stop hounding and threatening with arrest Palestinian refugees from Syria, who came to Lebanon during the last nearly 29 months and who cannot come up with the $200 fee to extend their expired visas.
This would require less than an hour to accomplish, and once it is done, there is another task that this observer submits is urgently needed: for the Lebanese President and the Prime Minister to issue, toute de suite, an emergency decree granting the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon the elementary right to work and to own a home. If and when Parliament stops posturing politically and actually does some of the work for the Lebanese people that they are paid huge sums to carry out, it can take 90 minutes to enact these basic civil rights into law. And Lebanon will benefit enormously in terms of growth of economy which is taking a nose-dive resulting from the Syrian crisis and the now collapsed summer tourism.
It is true that the Lebanese government is struggling to meet the needs of the growing refugee population, but as Joe Stork, HRW deputy Middle East director and friend of the late American Journalist Janet Lee Stevens, has pointed out, shutting them out is no answer.
It is egregious and illegal for a country to deny safe haven to any refugee fleeing probable death. It is doubly egregious for Lebanon to bar devoted Muslims sanctuary during the Holy month of Ramadan.
Not according to Obama, saying:
“We don’t have a domestic spying program. What we do have is some mechanisms that can track a phone number or an email address that is connected to a terrorist attack…That information is useful.”
An unnamed NSA official told The New York Times it’s not spying on America. It just “overcollect(ing)” data. Doublespeak duplicity is official US policy.
So is doublethink. US officials know what’s going on. They lie. They speak with forked tongue. They claim otherwise. They do it with a straight face.
They practice doublethink. They don’t lie. They just speak in the least truthful manner. Coverup, denial and stonewalling reflect it.
In 1984, Orwell wrote:
“Any sound that Winston (Smith) made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up.”
“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork.”
“It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.”
“You had to live – did live, from habit that became instinct – in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”
According to James Bamford:
“For a quarter of a century, the rules were followed and the NSA stayed out of trouble, but following the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration decided to illegally bypass the court and began its program of warrantless wiretapping.”
“â¤|NSA that keeps track of phone calls, monitors communications, and analyzes people’s thoughts through data mining of Google searches and other online activity.”
Adrienne Kinne told Bamford she and her superiors didn’t get warrants for monitoring.
“It was incredibly uncomfortable to be listening to private personal conversations of Americans,” she said.
“And it’s almost like going through and stumbling and finding somebody’s diary and reading it.”
Obama expanded the worst of previous policies. Snowden revealed them. The cat’s out of the bag. Lies and coverup don’t wash. According to Snowden:
“Any analyst at any time can target anyone, any selector, anywhere.”
“(S)itting at my desk, (I) certainly had the authority to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president, if I had a personal e-mail (address).”
Post-9/11, NSA secretly gained access to virtually all electronic and telephonic communications. It monitors them entering, leaving, or transmitted through the country.
It does so lawlessly. Former Senator Frank Church’s warning went unheeded.
He said NSA’s “capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such (is) the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter.”
“There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.”
“I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”
On August 6, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) headlined “DEA and NSA Team up to Share Intelligence, Leading to Secret Use of Surveillance in Ordinary Investigations.”
According to Reuters, so does IRS. Its “manual detailed DEA’s use of hidden intel evidence.”
“Details of a US Drug Enforcement Administration program that feeds tips to federal agents and then instructs them to alter the investigative trail were published in a manual used by agents of the Internal Revenue Service for two years,” said Reuters.
IRS officials get intelligence information from DEA’s Special Operations Division (SOD). It’s secret.
A 350-word entry in IRS’s manual instructs agents to omit any reference to DEA supplied information. Key is concealing affidavits, court proceedings, and/or investigative files.
The IRS is one of two dozen federal agencies working with DEA. Others include NSA, FBI and CIA.
DEA and NSA databases are independent of each other. They share information. Multiple levels of deception operate.
DEA conceals getting NSA intelligence. IRS, FBI, CIA and other federal agencies hide their source.
“Even worse,” said EFF, “the Justice Department closely guards” DEA obtained information. Reuters revealed a major surveillance state danger.
NSA shares intelligence with other federal agencies. It does so through DEA. Its SOD program shares it with law enforcement and other Washington agencies.
Doing so’s unconnected to terrorism or other national security concerns. Big Brother has lots of other Brothers watching.
They’re making a list. They’re checking it twice. They’re ‘gonna find out who’s naughty or nice.
They read your emails. They know web sites you visit. They know your medical and financial history.
They know the company you keep. They watch every move you make. They know what you do, where and when.
They know when you’re sleeping. They know when you’re awake. You better watch out. You better not pout. They know when you’re bad or good.
They know illegally. It doesn’t matter. They know anyway. They know secretly. They monitor everyone everywhere all the time. They lie. They claim otherwise.
Coverup and denial is official policy. It’s standard practice. It’s ongoing in virtually all federal agencies. They told to stonewall on SOD.
According to Reuters, it’s unmentioned in “investigative reports, affidavits, and discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony.”
Intelligence laundering is called “parallel construction.” It’s deceptive. It’s dishonest. It’s illegal. It persists anyway.
Insulating SOD from judges and prosecutors prevents federal courts from assessing surveillance policy constitutionality.
In 2012, Solicitor General Donald Verilli told Supreme Court justices that lawyers, journalists, human rights activists, and others in contact with NSA targets have no standing. They have no right to challenge the constitutionality of what’s ongoing.
The High Court agreed. It did so saying Washington must inform litigants when FISA Amendments Act (FAA) evidence is used against them.
Whether it happens and how often remains to be seen. In 2012, terrorism comprised 0.4% of federal criminal cases.
Drug cases account for 20%. They’re second only to immigration ones. Don’t expect FAA obtained evidence disclosed often. Likely seldom. Perhaps never.
“SOD bypasses the Constitution,” said EFF. Defendants charged on FISA evidence can’t examine what’s used against them. They can’t challenge it.
Doing so violates the Fifth Amendment. It states:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
It violates the Sixth America,” stating:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
Concealing evidence is unconstitutional. So is hiding its source. Doing so prevents defendants from challenging the legitimacy of government accusations.
It prevents judicial fairness. It smacks of police state justice. Courts, defendants, and counsel representing them have a constitutional right to full and accurate disclosure.
Fast, loose and lawless practices have no place in free societies. America never was one. For sure it’s not now. Rule of law principles don’t apply.
Secretly obtained evidence is one of many abuses. So is lawless spying. Sharing intelligence secretly with multiple federal agencies compounds things.
Doing so’s a fast track to tyranny. It’s already close to full-blown.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
“We’re extremely disappointed that the Russian government would take this step despite our very clear and lawful requests in public and in private to have Mr. Snowden expelled to the United States to face the charges against him,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said. He added that Barack Obama might now boycott a bilateral meeting with Putin in September, due to be held when the President travels to St. Petersburg for a G20 summit on September 5-6.
“Russia has stabbed us in the back, and each day that Mr. Snowden is allowed to roam free is another twist of the knife,” says Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). He urged Obama to insist on moving out of Russia the G20 summit.
Russia’s action is a “disgrace and a deliberate effort to embarrass the United States… a slap in the face of all Americans,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said. “Now is the time to fundamentally rethink our relationship with Putin’s Russia, he added. Mc Cain and his GOP colleague Lindsey Graham suggested the United States should retaliate by completing all missile-defense programs in Europe and proceeding with further expansion of NATO to include Russia’s neighbor Georgia.
Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) predicted that Snowden is “going to want to get back to the United States in any way possible after he realizes what it’s like to live in a totalitarian state.”
We are not going to discuss now which is more “totalitarian,” Putin’s Russia or Obama’s America; my views on the kind of society we live in are presented here. We are also not going to join the “Traitor or Hero” debate on Snowden. Two technical points need to be made in the context of the White House and Congressional reactions to Snowden’s Russian asylum: (1) America has granted asylum to the Chechen “foreign minister,” the spokesman for one of the most barbarian regimes in recent history, who is wanted in Russia for terrorism; and (2) America “renditions” Russian citizens from third countries to have them tried for crimes allegedly committed in Russia without informing the Russian authorities.
Imagine the No. 3 leader of a terrorist separatist movement in southern Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, a group guilty of murdering thousands of unarmed Anglos—airline passengers, theatergoers, women, hospital patients, and schoolchildren—being granted political asylum in Russia and living openly for over a decade in a posh part of Moscow, courtesy of Russia’s taxpayers. One can only imagine the paroxysm of rage in the White House and on the Hill. Diplomatic relations would be severed. McCain-Graham would urge nuking Russia.
No needs to imagine much, just reverse the roles. Ilyas Akhmadov, foreign minister and chief global media advocate of the short-lived “Chechen Republic,” until 2000 was the third highest-ranking leader of that blood-soaked monstrosity, after Aslan Maskhadov and Shamil Basayev. To take but one exampke, he was directly responsible for the atrocities of the Chechen terrorist regime, including the invasion of the Russian Republic of Dagestan in the summer of 1999 when hundreds of unarmed men, women, and children were murdered. According to the UNHCR, 32,000 people were driven from their homes. And yet Akhmadov was granted political asylum in the United States in 2003, in spite of Russia’s repeated and amply documented demands for his extradition for a variety of terrorist offenses. As Professor Robert Bruce Ware asked eight years ago (“Response to Brzezinski,” Johnson’s Russia List, March 20, 2005), if the U.S. was right to declare the entire Taliban government a terrorist organization, why is Russia not right to declare the self-designed Chechen government—Akhmadov included—a terrorist organization?
If we would think it wrong of Russia to grant political asylum to Mullah Omar, then why do we not think that it is wrong for the United States to grant political asylum to Illyas Akhmadov? Why didn’t Illyas Akhmadov resign from the Chechen government when Dagestan was invaded? … Exactly what record is there that Illyas Akhmadov ever issued a public statement repudiating the invasions of Dagestan while those invasions were in progress, or supporting the extradition of the invasions’ leaders? If the 9/11 [attacks] made Bin Laden a terrorist, and if the Oklahoma City blast made McVeigh a terrorist, then why didn’t his public acceptance of responsibility for the Ingushetia raids make Aslan Maskhadov a terrorist? And if his public acceptance of responsibility for those raids made Maskhadov a terrorist, then why doesn’t it implicate those who represented him, such as Illyas Akhmadov, in charges of terrorism? And if it does make Illyas Akhmadov a terrorist then why is he enjoying political asylum and a prestigious professional position at the expense of the American taxpayer?
“Harboring terrorists, their henchmen and sponsors undermines the unity and mutual trust of parties to the antiterrorist front,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at the U.N. General Assembly in 2004. “We cannot have double standards while fighting terrorism and it cannot be used as a geopolitical game,” President Vladimir Putin declared in December of that year. But Maskhadov remains in his Wodley Park mansion in Washington D.C. to this day, courtesy of your tax dollars. Back in 2004e was also given a generous State Department grant that enabled him to maintain an office with a secretary at the National Endowment for Democracy, to keep a busy travel schedule,e and to retain the services of a PR agency.
Akhmadov is an utterly nasty piece of work, so much so that in 2004 then-House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), and the Immigration and Border Security subcommittee chairman John Hostettler (R-IN) jointly demanded that Attorney General John Ashcroft review the ruling that granted Akhmadov political asylum. “If the United States had evidence that Mr. Akhmadov was involved in terrorist activities, it is unclear why he was not barred from asylum as a terrorist and as a danger to the security of our nation,” they wrote to Ashcroft in September of that year—but to no avail. “I’m not exaggerating when I say that one of the happiest days of my life was when I called Ilyas to tell him that he would be able to stay in America,” averred America’s über-Russophobe Zbigniew Brzezinski, as quoted by Akhmadov’s publicist and Zbig’s nephew Matthew in the Washington Post (March 20, 2005).
It would be equally interesting to imagine the reaction of McCain et al. if Russia routinely resorted to the arrest of American citizens in third countries—Belarus or Kazakhstan, say—and their extradition to Moscow for trial on various charges. That is exactly what the U.S. is doing to Russians. The most recent case concerns Aleksander Panin, a 24-year-old Russian computer programmer from Tver. Panin was arrested at the airport after visiting the Dominican Republic in May, swiftly transferred to a Federal prison in Georgia, and charged with a variety of cyber crimes committed in Russia—and all that without Moscow’s consent or knowledge. The case only became known a month later. “Of course, we are seriously concerned with yet another arrest of a Russian citizen with a U.S. warrant in a third country… The fact that such practices are becoming a vicious tendency is absolutely unacceptable and inadmissible,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. “We have repeatedly told the US that if there are demands for our citizens, it is necessary to send relevant requests to the Russian law enforcement authorities on the basis of the 1999-bilateral agreement on mutual legal assistance in criminal cases. However, this is still not being done.”
There are several cases similar to Panin’s. On July 22 Dmitry Ustinov, a Russian citizen, was extradited to the U.S. from Lithuania and accused of smuggling night-vision goggles. In November 2010, Russian citizen Viktor Bout was extradited from Bangkok to the United States, where he was convicted of involvement in the illegal arms trade. In May 2010 a Russian pilot, Konstantin Yaroshenko, was arrested in Liberia and taken to the U.S. on charges of drug trafficking. In 2011 was sentenced to 20 years in prison for allegedly conspiring to smuggle cocaine into the United States.
The practice of having Russian citizens arrested in some pliant third country and delivered to the U.S. to be tried for alleged crimes committed outside America is a legal novelty which has the potential to create a great deal of trouble for U.S. citizens, too, and especially for American businessmen working in the former Soviet Central Asia. But as the cases of Snowden and Akhmadov indicate, all too many people in Washington still act in accordance with Madeleine Albright’s psychotic doctrine of imperial exceptionalism—“we are America, we are the indispensable nation”—which is as profoundly un-American as it is irritating to the rest of the world. (Another gem of hers is “I’ve never seen America as an imperialist or colonialist or meddling country.”)
The delusions of late-imperial grandeur die hard, but in the fullness of time they will die nevertheless; the sooner, the better.
The fact that the initiation of the Zionist project had nothing to do with the Holocaust, as it developed more than a half century earlier, and the fact of the mostly indifference to the slaughter of Jews on the part of the founders of Israel, together with its collaboration with the Nazi Party, undermines Israel’s projected, and exploited, image as innocent victim.
Both Nazism and Zionism arose in tandem from small insignificant social movements in the early part of the 20th century, arguing, with equal force, that Jews were an alien and indigestible mass living in the midst of an otherwise pure Aryan population. Both movements contributed to the more general acceptance of this argument in Europe, and particularly in Germany, as mid-century approached, and both have to be responsible for the consequences.
In 1896, journalist Theodore Herzl’s book, Der Judenstaat (The Jews’ State), Herzl expressed his understanding of inevitability, permanence, and omnipresence of anti-Semitism and argued that the only solution was a separate state for Jews. Herzl stated, in his book:
The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in perceptable numbers. Where it does not exist, it is carried by Jews in the course of their migrations. We naturally move to those places where we are not persecuted, and there our presence produces persecution. …1
In 1912, Chaim Weizman, Israel’s first president, and the Zionist advocate who had the most to do with lobbying the British for the Balfour Declaration of 1917, echoed this view, speaking to a Berlin audience:
… each country can absorb only a limited number of Jews, if she doesn’t want disorder in her stomach. Germany already has too many Jews.2
Reflecting in 1949 in his autobiography, Trial and Error, Weizmann wrote:
Whenever the quantity of Jews in any country reaches the saturation point, that country reacts against them …
Weizmann, the chemist, invoking a metaphor from the sciences, added:
… the determining factor in this matter is not the is solubility of Jews, but the solvent power of the country. …
This cannot be looked upon as anti-Semitism in the ordinary or vulger sense of that word;
it is a universal social and economic concomitant of Jewish immigration, and we cannot shake it off …3
Ben Frommer, an American Revisionist, stated in 1935:
No matter what country he inhabits … [it] is not of the [his] tribal origins. … Consequently, the Jew’s attempt at complete identity with his country sounds spurious; his patriotism despite his vociferousness [sounds] hollow even to himself; and therefore his demand for complete equality with those who are of the essence of the nation naturally creates friction. This explains the intolerance of the Germans, Austrians, Poles and the increasing tide of antagonism in most European countries … It is presumptuous on the part of a Jew to demand that he be treated as lovingly as say a Teuton in a Teutonic country or a Pole in a Polish country. He must jealously guard his life and liberty, but he must candidly recognize that he does not ‘belong‘. The liberal fiction of perfect equality is doomed because is was unnatural. [Italics mine]4
Indeed, in 1925, Jacob Klatzkin, the co-editor of the massive Encyclopedia Judaica, wrote:
If our people is deserving and willing to live its own national life, then it is an alien body that insists on its own distinctive identity, reducing the domain of their life. It is right therefore, that they should fight against us for their national integrity … Instead of establishing societies for defense against the anti-Semites, who want to reduce our rights, we should establish societies for defense against our friends who desire to defend our rights.5
The understanding of Herzl, as well as the Zionists, about the inevitability of anti-Semitism was possibly self-fulfilling, for rather than opposing anti-Semitism in the first half of the 20th century, the Zionists found common cause with Hitler, Eichmann, and the Nazis and used anti-Semitism and Nazism as a means of achieving their end which was the establishment of a Jewish state. The two reactionary movements shared the view that German Jews were living in that country as a ‘foreign race’ and that the racial divide was essential to maintain. The Zionists’ use of Nazism involved, among other things, the blocking of avenues of escape to other countries of Europe’s Jews and diverting them to Palestine, even as the death trains began to roll in Europe. The rise of Nazism and Hitler to power was never, or almost never, opposed by the Zionists prior to the establishment of Israel.
Thus, in an article by Siegfried Moses, which appeared in the Rundschau, the official newspaper of the German Zionist Federation, and later, its head, stated:
… it is true that the defense against anti-Semitism is not our main task, it does not concern us to the same extent and is not of the same importance for us as is the work for Palestine …6
Rabbi Stephen S Wise
In 1934, Stephen Wise, head of the American Jewish Congress said:
… I cannot be indifferent to the Galuth [the Jewish diaspora living outside of Palestine] … if I had to choose between Eretz Israel and its upbuilding and the defense of the Galuth, I would say that then the Galuth must perish.7
On October 2, 1937, two SS officers, Herbert Hagen and Adolf Eichmann, disembarked in Haifa and were met by the Gestapo’s agent in Palestine, Fritz Reichert, and later in the day, Fevel Polkes, a Haganah agent, who showed the Nazi officials Haifa from Mt Carmel and then visited a kibbutz. Some years later, when Eichmann was hiding in Argentina, he taped a story of his excursion to Palestine, stating:
I did see enough to be very impressed with the way the Jewish colonists were building up their land. … In the years that followed I often said to Jews with whom I had dealings that had I been a Jew, I would have been a fanatical Zionist.8
Eichmann had read Herzl’s book, Der Judenstaat, and also studied Hebrew. In their trip report, the two SS officers paraphrased Polkes’s message to them:
The Zionist state must be established by all means and as soon as possible. … When the Jewish state is established according to the current proposals laid down in the Peel paper, and in line with England’s partial promises, then the borders may be pushed further outwards according to one wished.9
… in Jewish nationalist circles people were very pleased with the radical German policy, since the strength of the Jewish population in Palestine would be so far increased thereby that in the foreseeable future the Jews could reckon upon numerical superiority over the Arabs in Palestine.10
During his February trip to Berlin, Polkes proposed that the Haganah act as spies for the Nazi government and, as a sign of good faith, passed on intelligence information which was detrimental to their mutual enemies, the Communists. History might have been very different had the Zionist component of Jewry opposed Nazism; there might never have been a Holocaust. And there might never have been a state of Israel, as some Zionists well understood.
… of all of the active Jewish opponents of the boycott idea [of Nazi Germany], the most important was the world Zionists Organization (WZO). It not only bought German wares; it sold them, and even sought out new customers for Hitler and his industrialist backers.
The WZO saw Hitler’s victory in much the same way as its German affiliate, the ZVfD [the German Zionist Organization]: not primarily as a defeat for all Jewry, but as positive proof of the bankruptcy of assimilation and liberalism.11
Here Brenner is referring to the so-called Ha’avara agreement, or ‘transfer agreement’.
In 1933, Sam Cohen, owner of a citrus export company in Tel Aviv, approached the German government with the proposal that emigrants from Germany could avoid the flight tax by instead purchasing German products, which would then be shipped to Palestine, along with their purchasers, where the new arrivals in Palestine could then redeem their investments after the sale of the products by import merchants.
Heinrich Wolff, the German Consul in Jerusalem, quickly realized the utility of such an arrangement in tamping the international boycott effort of German import goods. He wrote to Berlin:
Whereas in April and May the Yishuv [the European Jewish community in Palestine] was waiting boycott instructions from the United States, it now seems that the situation has been transformed. It is Palestine which now gives the instructions… It is important to break the boycott first and foremost in Palestine, and the effect will inevitably be felt on the main front, in the United States.12
Cohen had promised Heinrich Wolff that he would work behind the scenes at the forthcoming Jewish conference in London to weaken or defeat any boycott resolution.
Dr Fritz Reichert, the Gestapo’s agent in Palestine, later wrote to his headquarters:
The London Boycott Conference was torpedoed from Tel Aviv because the head of the Transfer in Palestine, in close contact with the consulate in Jerusalem, sent cables to London. Our main function here is to prevent, from Palestine, the unification of world Jewry on a basis hostile to Germany … It is advisable to damage the political and economic strength of Jewry by sowing dissention in its ranks.12
Negotiations with the Nazi government were taken over by the World Zionist Organization and Cohen was replaced by Chaim Arlosoroff, the Political Secretary of the Jewish Agency. Arlosoroff traveled to Berlin in May of 1933. He and the Nazis reached a preliminary understanding to continue Cohen’s arrangement. Arlosoroff returned to Tel Aviv where he was assassinated, most probably by some members of the Revisionist wing of Zionism headed by Jabotinsky who opposed any accommodation with the Nazis.
Negotiations continued, however, and an agreement was signed in 1933 between the Nazis and the World Zionist Organization which persisted until 1939 and the German invasion of Poland. The Ha’arava grew to become a substantial banking and trading house with 137 specialists in its Jerusalem office at the height of its activities. The sale of German products expanded to include destinations outside of Palestine, but the arrangement remained essentially the same as the one originally negotiated by Sam Cohen – that German Jews wishing to emigrate, rather giving up most or all of their wealth to the German government, could invest their money in a German bank which would be used for purchasing German export goods. The purchaser could then redeem his investment when the goods had been sold and after he had arrived in Palestine. The German government set the rules and the emigrant would lose typically in excess of 30% of his investment and, eventually, 50%.
Indeed, there was a fundamental incompatibility with the upbuilding of a Jewish state in Palestine and opposition to the Nazi program of extermination of Europe’s Jews. The Ha’avara agreement allowed the transfer of LP 8,100,000 (Palestinian Pounds; then $40,419,000) to Palestine along with 60,000 German Jews between 1933 and 1939. But it also had the effect of undercutting the international boycott effort and providing an inflow of capital to the German government owing to the sale of German manufactured goods abroad.
This understanding is important, as the Holocaust has been central in provoking sympathy for the State of Israel and in amplifying the claims for reparations from European governments. Sympathy for the victims of the Holocaust, whether Jews or Roma, is no less justified, but the state of Israel cannot maintain an air of complete innocence nor be the justified recipient of billions of dollars or reparations, very little of which is actually dispersed to Holocaust survivors.
Nor has Israel accepted the universal principle that states must pay reparations to ethnicities whom it has harmed, as Israel has ignored or denied the catastrophe of ethnic cleansing and massacres which it prosecuted against the Palestinian people in 1948.
The model of Jews fleeing a burning building; i.e., the Nazi Holocaust, and thus creating a redoubt of safety in the form of the state of Israel cannot be maintained. Aside from the fact that the Zionist project was initiated at least by the time of Herzl’s Der Judenstaat of 1896 and his founding of the World Zionist Congress a year later, and well before the Nazi ascension to power in the 1930s, the Zionists were little concerned with the slaughter of Jews in Europe and almost exclusively focused on building a state in Palestine.
Delegates at First Zionist Congress.
A proposal by the British, in the aftermath of Kristallnacht, of November 1938, that Britain admit a thousand children directly into Britain was sternly opposed by Ben Gurion who told a meeting of the Labor Zionist in December:
If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transferring them to Eretz Israel, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history of the People of Israel.13
By 1943, ample reports of massacres of Europe’s Jews were arriving in the US, though it garnered little of the mainstream press.
Jabotinsky’s “revisionist zionism”At this time, Peter Bergson, a Palestinian Jew and member of the Irgun, a militant offspring of the Revisionist Zionists, and his young colleagues, shifted their attention to saving Europe’s Jews. Bergson, who had been sent to New York City, by Revisionists leader, Jaobtinsky, in order to create American support of the establishment of a Jewish army in Palestine, and his colleagues formed the Emergency Committee to Save Europe’s Jews and initiated it with a conference attended by 1500 delegates including former President Herbert Hoover and New York Mayor Fiorello La Guardia. The delegates ultimately adopted an eight-point rescue program, the primary feature of which was the creation of a US government agency charged with saving Europe’s Jews. They also called for their allies to immediately attack the concentration camps and bomb railroads lines leading to them.
The conference’s program sought to avoid the issue of a Jewish state in Palestine, preferring to leave that to another day. Indeed, the efforts of Bergson were perceived by the American Jewish organizations, and especially by Rabbi Stephen Wise, head of the American Jewish Conference, as an effort to divert energy and attention away from Zionism and the upbuilding of a Jewish state in Palestine.
Bergson’s group sponsored full page advertisements in the New York Timesand other newspapers with such bold headlines as, “HELP Prevent 4,000,000 People from Becoming Ghosts.” Another read, “THIS IS STRICTLY A RACE AGAINST DEATH.”
The Emergency Committee also organized public events and rallies and a march by 450 Orthodox rabbis to the White House and the US Capitol. They also staged a theatrical production, entitled, We Will Never Die, authored by Academy Award winning screen writer Ben Hecht and included actors such as Edward G. Robinson with music written by Bertoldt Brecht. The play chronicled the contributions of Jews and addressed the current situation of Europe’s Jews.
The production played to 40,000 in Madison Square Garden and, in Washington, was viewed by Eleanor Roosevelt and hundreds of members of Congress.
Though the Emergency Committee had raised the consciousness of Americans for the plight of Europe’s Jews, their efforts were strongly opposed by America’s organized Jewish groups including Rabbi Stephen Wise and his American Jewish Congress.
In Buffalo, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh, local mainstream Jewish organizations attempted to block the production of We Will Never Die.
Most significant of the Emergency Committees’ actions was to provoke the sponsorship of a resolution, introduced in the House by Baldwin and Will Rogers Jr., and in the Senate by Guy Gillette, on November 9, 1943.
The full text follows:
Whereas the Congress of the United States, by concurrent resolution adopted on March 15 of this year, expressed its condemnation of Nazi Germany’s ‘mass murder of Jewish men, women, and children,’ a mass crime which has already exterminated close to two million human beings, about 30 per centum of the total Jewish population of Europe, and which is growing in intensity as Germany approaches defeat; and
Whereas the American tradition of justice and humanity dictates that all possible means be employed to save from this fate the surviving Jews of Europe, some four million souls who have been rendered homeless and destitute by the Nazis: therefore be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives recommends and urges the creation by the President of a commission of diplomatic, economic, and military experts to formulate and effectuate a plan of immediate action designed to save the surviving Jewish people of Europe from extinction at the hands of Nazi Germany.
Senator Gillette emphasized that the bill focused only on rescue and not on the issue of Palestine or a Jewish state.
It is not to be confused with the dispute over the future of Palestine, over a Jewish state or a Jewish army. The issue is non-sectarian. The sole object here is to rescue as many as possible of Hitler’s victims, pending complete Allied victory.
Stephen Wise tried unsuccessfully to persuade the sponsors of the bill to withdraw their support. But failing that, Wise traveled to Washington and testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by Sol Bloom, stating that the resolution was ‘“inadequate” because it did not urge the British government to open Palestine to Jewish refugees” [italics mine].14
The lack of a reference to Palestine was, of course, intentionally absent from the bill.
Congressman Rogers also faced strong pressure from Zionists groups:
When it became known that I was becoming a member of the Bergson group, there was a terrific amount of pressure from all sorts of areas. I went back to Beverly Hills and I remember meeting with Rabbi Stephen S Wise in a synagogue. … He took me aside and said, ‘Now, young man. I knew your father very well. Now you are getting confused, you are getting mixed up with the wrong type of people. Let me tell you and steer you clear when it comes on, or want to meet the right people, the responsible people.’ He was quite the diplomat. He didn’t say, ‘If you get mixed up with them, you are not going to be reelected.’ He wasn’t that direct, but he made every pressure that he could, and where he know it would be effective.15
Gillette also faced strong opposition.
These people used every effort, every means at their disposal, to block the resolution. … [They] tried to defeat it by offering and amendment, insisting on an amendment to it that would raise the question, the controversial question of Zionism or anti-Zionism … or anything that might stop or block the action that we were seeking.15
On stationary with the letterhead of the American Jewish Congress, Stephen Wise wrote to Secretary of the Interior, Harold L. Ickles on December 23, 1943:
I was very sorry to note, as were others among your friends, that you had accepted the Chairmanship of the Washington Division of the Committee to Rescue European Jews. … I do not like to speak ill of you, not of us, concerning a group of Jews, but I am under the inexorable necessity of saying to you that the time will come, and come soon, when you will find it necessary to withdraw from this irresponsible group, which exists and obtains funds through being permitted to use the names of non-Jews like yourself.
Nor was Bergson beyond the crosshairs of the American Zionists. Bergson received an offer from Congressman Samuel Dickstein (D-NY) to meet with him in his DC office where it turned out that several other US Congressmen had also assembled. He was told, as paraphrased by Bergson, that unless he ‘behaved”, “we will deport you. … One shouldn’t mistake democracy with lawlessness, and don’t feel that you can just come to this country without – on temporary visitor’s visa and do whatever you wish …”15
Despite the opposition of the American Zionist community, the bill passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously only to die in the entire Senate.
According to a State Department memorandum, Rabbi Stephen Wise had expressed to State Department John Pehle, that Wise “had gone so far as to inform Mr Pehle that he regarded Bergson as equally great an enemy of the Jews as Hitler, for reasons that his activities could only lead to increased anti-Semitism.”11
Reports of atrocities and mass murders in the Ukraine began arriving in the west in 1941. In January 1942, the Soviets issued a report of the working of the Einsatzgruppen, or the SS, and in May of that year, the Bund, the Jewish Workers Union of Poland and Russia, which was anti-Zionist, sent London a radio message that 700,000 people, most Jews, were exterminated in Poland. This message was repeated on the BBC two months later.
In April, even before the Bund broadcast, Moshe Shertok, later to become Israel’s second Prime Minister, wrote to British General and commander of the British Eight Army in North Africa:
The destruction of the Jewish race is a fundamental tenet of the Nazi doctrine. The authoritative reports recently published show that that policy is being carried out with a ruthlessness which defies description … An even swifter destruction, it must be feared, would overtake the Jews of Palestine.16
The focus here is on the hypothetical Nazi attack on Palestine, not on the slaughter actually taking place in Europe, but based, nonetheless, on Shertok’s understanding that such a slaughter was, in fact, taking place.
Despite the amply sufficient reports of massacres and exterminations, essentially nothing at all was done by the Zionist organizations, and reports of atrocities were consistently minimized.
Bernard Joseph (later Dov Yosef)
Dov Joseph, acting director of the Jewish Agency’s Political Department cautioned:
… against publishing data exaggerating the number of Jewish victim, for if we announce that millions of Jews have been slaughtered by the Nazis, we will justifiably be asked where the millions of Jews are, for whom we claim that we shall need to provide a home in Eretz Israel after the war ends.17
Yitzhak Gruenbaum, leader of the Jewish Agency’s Vaad Hazalah (Rescue Committee) who, in 1942 also believed the reports of atrocities taking place in Europe were exaggerated, offers a defense in his post war book, Bi-mei Hurban ve Sho’ah (In the Days of Holocaust and Destruction):
I want to destroy this assumption [that the Zionist leadership was to blame that it did not do everything possible to help the European Jews] in order to take out people from the occupied countries … it would be necessary for the neutral countries to provide refuge, that the warring nations open their gates to the refugees. …
How is it possible that in a meeting in Yerushalayim people will call: “If you don’t have enough money you should take it from Keren Hayesod [the Palestine Foundation Fund], you should take the money from the bank, there is money there.” I thought it obligatory to stand before this wave … .
And this time in Eretz Yisrael, there are comments: “Don’t put Eretz Yisrael in priority in this difficult time, in the time of destruction and European Jewry.’ I do not accept such sayings. And when some asked me: ‘Can’t you give money from the Keren Hayesod to save Jews in the Diaspora’? I said: no! And again I say no! … I think we have to stand before this wave that is putting Zionist activity into second row. … I think it necessary to say here Zionism is over everything… [Italics mine]
… [W]e must guard Zionism. There are those who feel that this should not be said at the time a Holocaust is occurring, but believe me, lately we see worrisome manifestations in this respect: Zionism is above all – it is necessary to sound this whenever a Holocaust diverts us from our war of liberation in Zionism. Our war of liberation does not arise from the fact of the Holocaust in a straight forward manner and does not interlock with actions for the benefit of the Diaspora … And we must guard – especially in these times – the supremacy of the war of redemption [Italics mine].18
The irony is overwhelming. Though the memory and imagery of the Holocaust is not far from the lips of every Israel leader, particularly the present one, and though this imagery is exploited for the sake of gaining tolerance and forbearance from the international community, as well as reparations which go well beyond actuarial merits, there was little serious concern on the part of organized Zionism for those facing extermination in Europe. Rather the Holocaust was regarded as a threat which had the potential of diverting energy and resources from the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine which was by far their highest priority.
The fact that the initiation of the Zionist project had nothing to do with the Holocaust, as it developed more than a half century earlier, and the fact of the mostly indifference to the slaughter of Jews on the part of the founders of Israel, together with its collaboration with the Nazi Party, undermines Israel’s projected, and exploited, image as innocent victim.
At the end of the war a document, dated 11 January 1941, produced by Avraham Stern, proposing a military alliance and an understanding between the Third Reich and the Zionists was found in the German embassy in Ankara. It had been presented to two German diplomats in Lebanon, under Vichy at that time. The document was entitled, “Proposal for the National Military Organization (Irgun Zvai Leumi) Concerning the Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe and the Participation of the NMO in the War on the side of Germany.” The NMO, later to adopt the name Lohamamei Herut Yisrael, or lehi for short, was universally known by its British designation as the Stern gang.
The document read:
The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for solving the Jewish question; but this can only be made possible and complete through the settlement of these masses in the home of the Jewish people, Palestine, and through the establishment of a Jewish state in its historical boundaries … The NMO, which is well acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans, is of the opinion that:
1. Common interests could exist between the establishment of a New Order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO.
2. Cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed volkish-national Hebrium would be possible; and,
3. The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.
Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement, are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively take part in the war on Germany’s side [italics mine].
This offer by the NMO … would be connected to the military training and organization of Jewish manpower in Europe, under the leadership and command of the NMO. These military units would take part in the fight to conquer Palestine, should such a front be decided upon.
The indirect participation of the Israeli freedom movement in the New Order in Europe, already in the preparatory stage, would be linked with a positive-radical solution of the European Jewish problem in conformity with the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Jewish people. This would extraordinarily strengthen the moral basis of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.19
The Irgun, (the MNO) under Manachem Begin, and the Stern Gang, are sometime blamed, by mainstream Zionism, as being uniquely responsible for the more grotesque atrocities of Israel’s fight against both the Arabs and against the British in its quest for statehood; for example, the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, in which 96 mostly civilians were killed, and the massacre at Deir Yassin. In fact, both of these actions involved the coordination of these ‘dissident groups’ with the Haganah — the military under the direction of David Ben Gurion.
Yitzhak Yzernitsky — later to call himself Yitzhak Shamir,
Yitzhak Yzernitsky — later to call himself Yitzhak Shamir, and later to become Israeli Prime Minister, in fact, the longest serving Prime Minister of Israel except for David Ben Gurion — became the operations commander of the Stern Gang after Avraham Stern was killed by the British army in February of 1942. Under Shamir’s leadership, 14 assassinations were attempted of British officials with two successful ones, of Lord Moyne, the British Minister Resident in the Middle East, sitting in Cairo, and the UN Representative to Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte, who received three bullets in the heart on the order of Stern’s operations commander and future Prime Minister – Yitzhak Shamir.
The Charter of the Stern Gang, or more accurately, the principles promulgated by Stern, included the establishment of a Jewish state “from the Nile to the Euphrates”, the ‘transfer of the Palestinian Arabs to regions outside of the Jewish state, and the building of the Third Temple in Jerusalem. It maintained offices outside of the Middle East – including Warsaw, Paris, London, and New York City, the latter headed by Benzion Netanyahu, the present Prime Minister’s father.
- Herzl, Theodore, The Jewish State, p 9, 2007, BN Publishing [?]
- Weizmann [?]
- Weizmann, Chaim, Trial and Error, pv90-91 [?]
- Frommer, Ben, The Significance of the Jewish State, Jewish Call, (Shanghai, 1935), p 10-11. [?]
- Agus, Jacob, The Meaning of Jewish History, vol II, p 435. [?]
- Edelheim-Muehsam, Margaret, Reactions of the Jewish Press to the Nazi Challenge, Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, vol V, (1960), p 312. [?]
- Rabbi Wise, The New Palestine (14 February 1934), p 5-7. [?]
- Eichmann, Adolf, “Eichmann Tells His Own Damning Story”, Life (28 Nov. 1960) p 22. [?]
- Polkehn, Klaus, “The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany 1933-41″, Journal of Palestine Studies (Spring 1976), p 337. [?]
- Hohne, Heinz, The Order of the Death’s Head, p 337. [?]
- Brenner, Lenni, Zionism in the Age of Dictators, Lawrence Hill, (1983). [?] [?]
- In Yisraeli, David, “The Third Reich and the Transfer Agreement,” Journal of Contemporary History, vol. VI (1971), P 131. [?] [?]
- Gelber, Yoav, “Zionism and the Fate of European Jewry (1939-42),” Yad Vashem Studies, vol. XII, p 171. [?]
- Brownfield, Peter Egill, “The Jewish Establishment’s Focus on Palestine: Did it Distract from Holocaust Efforts?” (Summer 2003). [?]
- Ibid. Also, Brenner Lenni, Zionism in the Age of Dictators. [?] [?] [?]
- Laqueur, “Jewish Denial and the Holocaust,” Commentary (December 1979, p 46. [?]
- Gelber, Zionist Policy and the Fate of European Jewry, p 195. [?]
- Gruenbaum, Yitzhak, Bi-Mei Hurban ve Sho’ah, p 62-70. [?]
- Brenner, op. cit., p 267. [?]
William James Martin has written many articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Middle East. He can be reached at : email@example.com.
As Washington loses its grip on the world, defied by Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and now Russia, the US government resorts to public temper tantrums. The constant demonstration of childishness on the part of the White House and Congress embarrasses every American.
Washington’s latest outburst of childish behavior is a response to the Russian Immigration Service granting US whistleblower Edward Snowden asylum in Russia for one year while his request for permanent asylum is considered. Washington, having turned the US into a lawless state, no longer has any conception of legal procedure. Law is whatever serves Washington. As Washington sees it, law is nothing but Washington’s will. Any person or country that interferes with Washington’s will is behaving unlawfully.
Because Obama, like Bush before him, routinely disobeys US law and the US Constitution, the White House actually thinks that Russian President Putin should disobey Russian and international law, overturn the Russian Immigration Service’s asylum decision, and hand over Snowden to Washington.
Washington expected Russia to hand over Snowden simply because Washington demanded it. Like a two-year old, Washington cannot conceive that its demands don’t take precedence over international law and the internal legal procedures of every country. How dare Russia stand up for law against “the indispensable nation.”
The White House spokesman, who is so unimpressive that I cannot remember his/her name/gender, declared that the White House moron might punish Putin by not going to visit him in Moscow next month. I doubt Putin cares whether the WH moron shows up.
The WH moron’s term of office is close to an end, but Putin, unless the CIA assassinates him, will be there for another decade. Moreover, every Russian leader has learned that a US president’s word means nothing. Clinton, the two Bushes and the current WH moron violated every agreement that Reagan made with Gorbachev. Why would the president of Russia, a nation ruled by law, want to meet with a tyrant?
Not to be outdone by the WH in childish behavior, members of the House and Senate added their two-bits to America’s embarrassment. Congressional morons “reacted furiously,” according to news reports, and warned “of serious repercussions in US-Russian relations.” Here we have another extraordinary demonstration of Washington’s hubris. Only Russia has to worry about repercussions in the relationship. Washington doesn’t have to worry. His Imperial Majesty will simply deny Putin an audience.
Congress seems unaware of its schizophrenia. On the one hand Congress is outraged about the National Stasi Agency’s illegal and unconstitutional spying–especially on Congress–and is attempting to defund the Stasi Agency’s surveillance program. The amendment to the military spending bill by Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan, almost passed. The amendment was barely defeated by votes purchased by the spy industry.
On the other hand, despite its outrage over being spied upon, Congress wants the scalp of the brave hero, Edward Snowden, who informed them that they were being spied upon. Here we have a demonstration of the historical stupidity of government–shoot the messenger.
Only a few right-wing crazies believe that universal surveillance of every American is necessary to US security. The National Stasi Agency will fight hard and blackmail every member of the House and Senate, but the blackmail itself will lead to the National Stasi Agency’s wings being clipped, or so we can hope. If it is not done soon, the Stasi Agency will have time to organize a false flag event that will terrify the sheeple and bring an end to the attempts to rein in the rogue agency.
The United States is on the verge of economic collapse. The alleged “superpower,” a bankrupt entity, was unable after 8 years of efforts to occupy Iraq and had to give up. After 11 years the “superpower” has been defeated in Afghanistan by a few thousand lightly armed Taliban, and is now running for cover with its tail between its legs.
Washington compensates for its military impotency by committing war crimes against civilians. The US military is a great killer of women, children, village elders, and aid workers. All the mighty “superpower” can do is to lob missiles shot from pilotless drones into farm houses, mud huts, schools, and medical centers.
The schizophrenic denizens of Washington have made Americans a hated people. Those with the foresight to know to escape from the growing tyranny also know that wherever they might seek refuge, they will be seen as vermin from the most hated nation and subjected to being scapegoated as spies and evil influences, and at risk of being decimated in reprisals against Washington’s latest atrocity.
Washington has destroyed the prospects of Americans both at home and abroad.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.
Source: Paul Craig Roberts
Thousands of African-Americans marched in protest of the “innocent” verdict for Hispanic Zimmerman. Ironically, no whites threatened blacks after the “innocent” verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial where he killed his wife and her new boyfriend with a knife. If you questioned that verdict, or the racial makeup of the jury — you were a racist. This past weekend, a jury found Hispanic George Zimmerman, innocent. If you’re not out on the street complaining about it — you’re a racist. Would this have even been a national story if the killer turned up black and the victim happened to be white? Not a peep from the national media. Black on white crime occurs daily without media attention.
With endless irony, in the 513 days since Zimmerman dispatched Trayvon Martin, 11,300 black people suffered deaths at the hands of nearly that same amount of black people. In other words, blacks kill blacks with growing alacrity.
Another black leader yelled to kill whites, but a blogger responded, “Who will pay for your welfare checks and grow your food?”
A blogger named SemperFiDave made an interesting comment, “Has there ever been such focused inattention as the case has produced? Nothing of importance is noticed, and everything lacking it is. The crucial fact to come out of the whole adventure—crucial, and therefore utterly overlooked–was that Rachel Jeantel, a prosecution witness and black girl aged nineteen years, can´t read. The grim implication of this fact is confirmed by the illiteracy of tweets from blacks regarding the case. “Ima kill dat dumass cracker be racis.” Here we see as neatly displayed as if in a jewelry box why so many young blacks will go nowhere in the remaining fifty years of their lives. They can´t read, or barely can. In a fading techno-industrial civilization—I use the latter word frivolously—this consigns them to a life on charity. Is this not of more note than who started what?”
Black illiteracy starts with the 76 percent high school dropout/flunkout rate in areas like Detroit, MI as reported by Brian Williams at NBC. Most other major cities feature at least 50 to 60 percent black dropout rates from high schools. A whopping 68 percent of black children face life with a single mother and 99 percent of them live on welfare checks, assisted housing and food stamps. (Source: Dotty Lamm of the Denver Post) A huge percentage of blacks utilize food stamps out of the 47 million Americans dependent on the program. A mind numbing 40 percent of African-American men lack jobs because they lack a high school diploma and skills. They suffer functional illiteracy: cannot read, write or perform simple math.
We see a self-induced complete breakdown of the black family unit in America that rivals anything in America’s history. Entrenched poverty, illiteracy and joblessness faces 40 to 50 percent of black Americans. Blacks find themselves in the richest country in the world with endless opportunities, but they drop out of school to insure their misery.
Black racism more vocal than white racism
SemperfiDave continued, “A measure of the limitless hypocrisy that pervades, that almost constitutes American political life is that Trayvon´s clear racial hostility from his Facebook rants—“creepy-ass cracker”—is ignored. Only whites can exhibit racial antagonism. Yet perhaps twice a week on the Drudge Report one encounters cell-phone video of young blacks seriously beating whites because they are white. Here you have to understand that racial attacks are not racial. The local police chief invariably says that race wasn´t involved, when in fact nothing else was, and the papers will speak of “teens.””
At some point, blacks and whites must come to terms with their biological separateness, but move toward respect toward each other. At some points, black leaders must encourage educational perseverance in every black youth, or many blacks will remain illiterate, jobless and hopelessly meshed in poverty.
Dave finished, “Anyone of sufficient intelligence can see that race relations in America are bad and getting worse. However, to judge by commentary regarding Zimmerman, very few meet this demanding intellectual standard. People achieving a lesser standard, partial sentience perhaps, can see that until blacks decide to essay literacy, even education, things will stay the same or deteriorate. The latter is the assured outcome. Why Jesse and Al don´t point this out to their constituents is, unfortunately, obvious, the purpose of race hustling being to profit the hustler.”
Finally, Barack Obama, half white and half black, must come to terms with black-white America instead of hovering above it. Unless he creates something remarkable like FDR’s CCC and other acronyms that engage, employ and thrust illiteracy-stricken blacks out of the ghettoes, we find ourselves facing scabrous times without end. “Ima kill dat dumass cracker be racis” will grow worse with black flash mobs killing whites and unending poverty engulfing an entire ethnic group in America.
1. Stop importing 100,000 legal immigrants every 30 days that displace America’s working poor, particularly America blacks.
2. Enforce employment immigration laws within America by DHS to give jobs to American blacks and Hispanics.
3. Create job programs for Hispanics and blacks in every major city.
4. Create after school recreation centers, job training and counselors in every inner city.
5. Fund those activities by ceasing foreign wars and foreign intervention with military bases all over the world.
6. Gather America’s top blacks like Colin Powell and create a series of infomercials that engage all minorities to lift themselves up with pride, honor and purpose.
Let’s do a little thought exercise here. Imagine that some force was flooding an indigenous people’s lands with millions of unassimilable foreigners, and it was understood that this influx would irretrievably change that land’s culture and replace the population. What would anthropologists call this phenomenon? Cultural genocide comes to mind.
Of course, in America we call it “immigration policy.”
Now, when King Edward I “Longshanks” said about dominating the Scots in the film Braveheart, “If we can’t get them out, we’ll breed them out,” it was to be expected from an enemy of Scotland. And how should we characterize America’s immigrationists, who have long been washing American culture away with endless waves of unassimilable foreigners?
Before answering, let’s first consider the testimony of Fredo Arias-King, ex-aide to former Mexican president-elect Vicente Fox (hat tip: Timothy Birdnow). About how he and his colleagues spoke to 50 US congressmen and senators back in 1999 and 2000 he writes:
Of those 50 legislators, 45 were unambiguously pro-immigration, even asking us at times to “send more.” This was true of both Democrats and Republicans.
…[Moreover] [m]ost of them seemed to be aware of the negative or at least doubtful consequences of mass immigration from Latin America, while still advocating mass immigration.
… [The Democrat legislators] seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and “dependable” in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers….
Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew…that they may not now receive their [the naturalized Mexicans’] votes, [but] they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and “teaching,” they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did.
…Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with “converted” Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized “new” United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would “go away” after tinkering with the People….
…I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them “rednecks,” and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United Statesas an end in itself.
This isn’t unusual in the West, either. In fact, it was revealed in 2009 that the UK’s immigrationists sought to socially engineer a “multicultural” Britain because they wanted to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date” but didn’t want to divulge the scheme lest they lose their “core working class vote.” With friends like that….
Now, what would you call people who visit such a thing upon their own culture solely to gain power? And what fate do they deserve?
G.K. Chesterton’s comment, “It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged,” comes to mind.
In fairness, Mr. Arias-King’s experiences predate the Tea Party revolution, and the House GOP did defeat John McCain’s shamnesty bill in 2007. I also suspect that it was legislators partial to immigration who were inclined to meet with him in the first place. And while I don’t doubt that closeted culturally genocidal maniacs still exist (in abundance), there are also those who genuinely believe that diversity should be “an end in itself.” Unfortunately, bad policy is equally destructive whether implemented out of malice or stupidity.
Speaking of which, multiculturalism can only ever be what it is, an ideology; it can never be a workable reality. Having many different cultures within the same borders is actually called balkanization, and its consequences have been repeatedly observed throughout history. If the differences among the disparate peoples become great enough, the nation may be partitioned so they can go their separate ways. And there are only two possibilities for avoiding this. One is if an iron fist of tyranny holds the competing cultures together, as Marshall Tito did in the former Yugoslavia (and we all know why it’s “former”); the other is if one group prevails over and subsumes the rest, as the Japanese have largely done with the Ainus, an aboriginal people who once dominated the island of Hokkaido.
This is absolutely the norm. Do the names, Saxons, Alans, Franks, Visigoths, Vandals, Avars, Alemanni and Frisians sound at all familiar? They were once distinct groups that occupied early medieval Europe, but they are no more, having been subsumed into a wider culture. This may be good thing if it’s a superior culture, it may be a bad thing if beauty was lost, or it may be a mixed bag. But it is an undeniable thing.
This brings us to the myth of diversity. All it can ever be is a liability to, hopefully, be overcome; it can never be the “strength” it’s billed as (without even a shred of evidence in support of the notion). And, interestingly, here’s what the Online Etymology Dictionary tells us about the origin of the term “diversity”: “mid-14c., from O.Fr. diversité (12c.) ‘difference, oddness, wickedness, perversity,’ from L. diversitatem ‘contrariety, disagreement, difference . . . .’” “Contrariety” and “disagreement”…. It certainly worked out that way in Yugoslavia, in the Soviet Union, in Czechoslovakia, in India (when two regions broke away and became Pakistan and Bangladesh). Why, even in Canada, where Quebecois and other Canadians are racially identical, there has often been talk of secession.
So how much more of a problem it is when a group not only has a different language, but is different racially, economically, culturally and ideologically? And what about when that group of diversifiers supposes it has a rightful claim to your territory (a poll showed a majority of Mexicans believing that the Southwest belongs to Mexico and that they have a “right to enter the U.S. without U.S. permission”)? What about when you try to teach these newcomers American history and they say, as a teacher respondent reported to me some years ago, “We don’t care about this — we’re Mexican.” When people have come to your land mainly to make money and have loyalty lying elsewhere, it doesn’t bode well for assimilation.
The kicker here is that flooding a nation with unassimilable foreigners may do no more for diversity over the long term than pythons in the Everglades. Sure, the swamp is currently more diverse — with tens of thousands of fascinating non-indigenous creatures added to the mix — but how diverse will the ecosystem be when they decimate native species? Thus have Florida authorities decided that amnesty for the snakes probably isn’t the best idea.
So it is with a cultural ecosystem. Harking back to my earlier point, the introduction of new cultural elements isn’t always just a matter of simple addition; subtraction and division can be factors as well. When worlds collide, when there is an incongruence of cultural elements, there may be mixing as with the wolf and coyote. Or there may be an extinction, as with how the Dodo on Mauritius was wiped out by rats. Of course, a new equilibrium is always established, but it may very well be less diverse. And, for sure, it will be different.
The good news here, if one can call it that, is embedded within the bad. The history of social engineers is that they possess no clearer a crystal ball than do futurists or science-fiction writers. If the immigrationist traitors simply want to destroy America, they will certainly get their way. But they will never have Mexico Norte, a republic they can comfortably rule as patrons of complacent clients. Because nature — in this case man’s — takes it course, and some people will likely realize that less is more — and that only divided we stand.
The antagonistic, mendacious, gangster like character of American politics has at times caused citizens to avoid it entirely and as the frantic pursuit of pleasure has become the core of life, the nation’s health is too often ignored. A spate of detrimental occurrences and a wide spread feeling of impotence has wounded the electorate. Recently a survey found that only 10 percent of Americans trust our congress to act in the best interests of the nation.
Though I believe it is futile to argue that our Constitution is a Christian document, in a world where freedom is scarce it is an outstanding and unique construct that has serve the nation well. Americans have enjoyed two centuries of liberty and prosperity unequalled in the civilized world.
This is where we were:
The taste of freedom that our ancestors experienced when they entered the hard life of pioneer America created a ferocious will to defend it. When Patrick Henry said “Give me liberty or give me death” he spoke for thousands of immigrants who had been living in European bondage for centuries. Feudalism was a form of slavery. Vassals could not own land. They spent their lives working and fighting for wealthy Lords. In America they could clear, till, harvest and own their land. The contrast was stark and of great value.
Unfortunately freedom was like a new car that had been driven a few thousand miles, lost its new smell, and acquired a few dents. In our time it has lost some of its value and is no longer washed, shined, inspected, and admired.
A number of factors have worked together to bring down the United States of America. The American Indians who were the rightful owners of the new found continent soon became enemies of the European immigrants who began settling land that Indians had historically hunted, fished, and occupied. The Indians were the first terrorists. Their ways of war were inferior and their weaponry was archaic. Justice was on their side but power overcomes justice and injustice wears a righteous cloak.
England became the next enemy seeking to enslave the new freedom addicts with taxes and oppressive troops. The settlers would have none of it. Freedom was seen as a religious right and Christian ministers urged their congregants to fight for it Though the nation was divided in its loyalty there were enough who believed liberty was worth fighting for to produce a rag tag army that was able to defeat the distance impaired British troops.
The next challenge to freedom came when Abraham Lincoln confirmed the odiferous fears of Patrick Henry (He smelled a rat!) by determining to preserve the Union by force. The Southern States who seceded for both economic and social reasons through ignominious defeat became prisoners in a union they deplored. The Union was preserved but freedom was dealt a serious blow.
As wealth and independence increased an omnipotent spirit began to overcome the America populace; the Indians were slaughtered, the continent was either purchase on the cheap or won by force. Florida; the Philippines and Cuba came from Spain; California, a part of Mexico, was won by the army; and Louisiana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase was purchased from France (Included in this purchase were parts of Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, North and South Dakota, New Mexico, Texas, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and some of the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan). It was an unconstitutional purchase but pragmatism started early in the new nation.
Through what many settlers thought was “Manifest Destiny” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
This is how we got to where we are:
Itinerant Jews became wise in banking and the use of money. They accumulated fortunes that could bail out nations and finance empires. They not only understand banking and money but also the need of nations for unlimited funds. They understand war and its potential for profit and became adept at manipulating nations into conflicts. They pull the power strings in the majority of nations throughout the world and are today a strategic force in the implementation of world government. Though not widely known Jewish financier, Hayman Solomon, was instrumental in providing funds to finance the American Revolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haym_Solomon
The United States of America has succumbed to the persistent debilitation caused by powerful, amoral bankers. They and their Talmudist kin occupy all of the power centers of our nation. They control the news you hear and do not hear, they control the movies you watch, the books and newspapers you read, they control our elections, they are responsible for persistent war and the suffocating quantity of immigrants that are destroying our culture. They are consistent promoters of conflicts and have defeated our Christian institutions and destroyed morality. The Federal Reserve banking system is controlled by the moneychangers. They create inflation and depression and then at the expense of the American taxpayer provide solutions to both. International banking is controlled by the same wise bankers who use debt to enslave nations throughout the world. They are a powerful and wily bunch..
This is where we are going:
Wholesale immigration will soon result in the indigenous White inhabitants becoming a minority in their own nation. Our European Christian based culture is being replaced by a secular legal system that is diametrical to the Law of the Bible. Obedience to these new legal codes is being actively enforced. We have been hijacked into a perpetual war that benefits a new world order program that is inimical to the best interests of the nation and threatens to start a much larger world conflict. The perpetual war and the social give away programs are creating a debt that even if the nation is fortunate enough to survive will saddle future generations with an insurmountable obligation. This is particularly true since the wealth producing manufacturing engine that used to eradicate our debt has been shipped overseas leaving us unable to satisfy even small obligations.
The astounding thing about all this is that many Americans are not only unaware of what is happening but unwilling to learn. They would rather not know.
Little by little the choices that have created freedom in United States are being lost. The tsunami of corporate mergers has driven out small businesses and severely reduced the choices of consumers who now are forced to deal with a small number of remote suppliers who give no heed to the individual. The depression has forced numerous retail establishments out of business reducing consumer choices. Chinese goods are being forced on American consumers because there is nothing else available. It has been decades since we had competitive daily newspapers and magazines have now become archaic. There is no longer a popular choice of political candidates which are preselected and promoted by a unified media owned by a handful of like minded oligarchs. The choices prosperity availed us are no longer there for the average American the work week has increased while his pay has decreased. Both husbands and wives are now working to sustain a standard of living that is inferior to a single wage family a half century ago.
Someone asked in today’s Letters to the Editor if the rape of the middle class was over. It is not over.
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” - – Voltaire (1694-1778)
After decades of documenting the mad consequences of an “Open Borders” policy, voices of rational and sane immigration, ready themselves for definitive betrayal from their phony conservative brethren. Mark Krikorian, Roy Beck, Peter Brimelow and Pat Buchanan have waged the crusade to save the nation from the forces of greedy corporatists and demented egalitarianism. Proponents of limitless immigration are committed to the unilateral destruction of what once made America, “A City upon a Hill“.The inauspicious application of previous illegal immigration amnesty is irrefutable. Even the Gipper resigned himself to Ronald Reagan’s Biggest Mistake – According to Reagan Himself on Ronald Reagan immigration amnesty, “Ronald Reagan was not comfortable with amnesty. He was pro-enforcement, and he admitted to Edwin Meese that the biggest mistake of his presidency was to sign the 1986 amnesty.”
The Radical Reactionary essay, The Gang of Eight Immigration Constituency, sums up the plight thusly, “The hype that meaningful security of the borders would be an important aspect of this Senate initiative ignores the countless promises previously pronounced that the first duty of the federal government is to secure the nation.”
A report in the Washington Times, Border security deal boosts immigration bill’s chances in Senate, signals Iacta alea est - translated, “The die is cast.”
“Senators struck a deal Thursday to boost border security in the immigration bill, including building 700 miles of fence and adding 20,000 Border Patrol agents to the Southwest, in a move those on both sides say could clear the way for a bipartisan vote next week.”
The next complicity cover comes from the bureaucratic CBO accomplice.
For the White House spin on the CBO Report: Immigration Reform Will Shrink the Deficit and Grow the Economy, the rosy fruits of the globalist economy are never mentioned. The projected convalescence in public debt is beyond credulity.
“CBO estimates that fixing our broken immigration system will reduce federal deficits by about $200 billion over the next 10 years, and about $700 billion in the second decade. The CBO analysis made clear that the additional taxes paid by new and legalizing immigrants would not only offset any new spending, but would be substantial enough to reduce the deficit over the 20-year window.”
In an accurate assessment of this same account, Neil Munro points out the obvious in the Daily Caller article; CBO says immigration bill aids investors, not wage earners.
“The Senate’s pending immigration bill would boost investors’ and owners’ share of the economy for at least twenty years, and shrink some Americans’ wages and salaries for at least 10 years, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office.”The rate of return on capital would be higher [than on labor] under the legislation than under current law throughout the next two decades,” says the report, titled “The Economic Impact of S. 744.”
Now review the video from the Heritage Foundation on Scoring the Immigration Reform Bill: An Analysis of the CBO’s Numbers. You can trust Krikorian, Beck, Brimelow and Buchanan on the immigration issue, so why not acknowledge that the Heritage’s assessment on the actual costs from the amnesty legislation is the valid appraisal.
Kudos to one Senator, Ted Cruz Launches National Petition Against Gang of Eight’s Bill, who is rallying grassroots opposition to this amnesty bill. He urges citizens to sign the petition demanding REAL border security. What is the saying – a little short and a couple of generation too late?So, who has the guts to stop this lunacy?
Usually, fair-minded citizens look to the House of Representatives to safeguard the national interest. Even so, what does the Speaker say: John Boehner: ‘Bipartisan’ immigration reform only way, “And while the rest of his party maligns the Congressional Budget Office’s report on the economic benefits of immigration reform, Boehner said: “If in fact those numbers are anywhere close to being accurate, it’ll be a real boon for the country.”It should be apparent that the entire political process, held hostage to international corporatism, wants to destroy the domestic economy. Slave labor wages, ensured by an endless flow of low skilled immigrants is a formula for national destruction.
The Washington Watcher in VDARE article, Conservatism Inc. Using IRS Scandal To Mask Amnesty Drive, laments the cold hard facts that the establishment speaks with one voice on destroying the remains of a common law republic.
“After the Citizens United ruling, I warned on VDARE.com: “No matter what the constitutional merits of the Supreme Court’s decision, this could be a disaster for patriotic immigration reform.”
If you listen to conservative talk radio, you will certainly be familiar with ads from the 501(c)4, Americans for a Conservative Direction, funded by that great conservative Mark Zuckerberg, claiming that Gang of 8 Amnesty-Surge bill is really ”toughest immigration-enforcement measures in the history of the United States” and gives us “border security on steroids.” And, of course, Crossroads has its own blitz of pro-amnesty ads, and a coalition of big money GOP donors who support amnesty.”
Amnesty is tantamount to the elimination of the last remains of the middle class. The prospect of derailing this juggernaut through Congressional action is inconceivable as long as cowardly conservatives capitulate to their corporate donors. Even more absurd are the lobotomized liberals. They purport to be champions of the worker, but are willing and eager to destroy any meaningful employment for their own compatriots.
Where is that elusive fairness for our own citizens? Soon the remnant economy will be reduced to the same level of third world exploitation, with the United States being the biggest loser. No wonder that the media presstitutes over at NBC, push their hit program – by the same name – to a dullard public.
Facts no longer matter to most masses. Understanding their self-interest is even more obscure. Exploiters use these shortcomings to their advantage. Accepting an amnesty capitulation illustrates the triumph of global corporatists over the merchant class that built the wealth creation economy. For this reason alone, it is imperative that sane citizens demand a reasonable and rational rejection of the proposed Senate bill.
The latest appeal from NumbersUSA says: Hold Nothing Back.
“Now, amnesty proponents know they have to shake up the game. The latest trick is an amendment by Sens. Corker (R-TN) and Hoeven (R-SD). The amendment solves nothing; the amnesty will still come before enforcement. It’s simply a ruse to give the impression that the bill has changed since all of your calls and faxes were sent.
We now expect a vote on the Corker-Hoeven amendment on Monday and a final vote on Thursday. Both need 60 votes for passage. Before Thursday’s vote, we need all our members to call their senators and tell them you still oppose amnesty before enforcement!
There has NEVER been a vote in Congress as critical for preserving America and its prosperity. This bill simply cannot pass. We’re glad that hundreds of thousands of you have used NumbersUSA’s toll-free calls, free services, and we are so grateful for your activism.”
How many Americans will gets off their back side and challenge their Senators? Register an ultimatum. A vote in favor of amnesty means all out political war. Any incumbent that refuses to secure the borders needs to face a serious primary challenge. Nevertheless, perceptive political onlookers have a chilling feeling that this round of legislation will be the toughest to defeat.
The reason is simple. The secular society is rooted in self-destruction. Common sense no longer has a place in the immigration hysteria. Relinquishing traditional standards and historic values in representative government has produced a Congress that walk lock step in unison with big business.
The opportunity culture has become the entitlement society.
Even a militant NeoCon like Ann Coulter can be correct once in a while, when she acknowledges, U.S. ‘finished’ if amnesty passes.
“If amnesty passes, is it time to ditch the GOP and start a new party? (Or would it already be too late?)
Too late. If the Rubio amnesty bill passes, the country will be finished. There will be no point in fighting for anything anymore. All we will have left to do is take revenge on the people who destroyed this country, starting with desecrating Teddy Kennedy’s grave and moving on to primarying every Republican who voted for it.”
There is a death wish bent on collapsing the productive economy. Transnational businesses want an implosion and the inevitable reduction and permanent subsistence level of wage scales. The mercantilist is in the business of manufacturing monopolies.
After eons of debating the particulars of the negative consequences inevitable from accepting any and all of those hallowed huddled masses, by skipping the Ellis Island examination, the final extermination of the American experiment is in sight. That profound are the stakes.
The public fears the label of racist, and shuns a healthy aspiration that earns the respect of defenders of our noble heritage. For many, surrendering to authoritarian progressivism is a badge of dishonor, but most view such submission as a small price to pay to be accepted.
Saying there’s a bright side to amnesty may seem much like talk of the advantages of malignant cancer. But this won’t be a pie-in-the-sky article about the “economic benefits” of new workers, expanding the tax base or the wonders of “diversity.” There is no Ayotte-Rubio flip-flop here; in fact, for those who don’t know me, I’ve long called for a halt to even legal immigration. And understanding why is necessary to put amnesty’s “bright side” in perspective.
It is an inconvenient and ignored truth that the main problems posed by illegal migration are essentially the same problems of legal immigration. Are you concerned about an influx of low-skilled workers driving down wages and competing with native Americans? Legal immigration also floods the nation with low-skilled workers. Do you worry that amnesty will grow Democrat voter rolls? A vast majority of legal immigrants also vote Democrat. Most significantly, do you fret that millions of unassimilable foreigners with values contrary to Western ideals are transforming our culture into something distinctly non-Western? Legal immigrants are essentially of the same demographic, with 1965’s Immigration Reform Act ensuring that 85 percent of them hail from the Third World and Asia. The lesson?
Illegal migration isn’t the problem.
It’s an exacerbation of the problem.
To worry about it while accepting our current legal-immigration model is like losing sleep over the occasional counterfeiter while batting nary an eye at our government’s legalized counterfeiting (“quantitative easing”).
Of course, there is the difference that we can’t scrutinize undocumented Democrats and ensure that they’re not carrying bombs along with their bad ideology. But with respect to the only thing that matters over the long term — the destruction of Western culture in America — the most relevant way to define the types of migration isn’t “legal” and “illegal,” but good and bad. And, for the most part, the US has only one kind: the bad.
For those who would dispute this and say “Hey, everyone eventually assimilates; it just may take a couple of generations,” know that neither today’s immigrants nor today’s US are what they once were. For starters, approximately 50 percent of our new arrivals hail from Mexico alone, and 67 percent of American Hispanics have origins in that nation. University of Edinburgh professor Stephen Tierney explains what this means in his book Multiculturalism and the Canadian Constitution, writing:
In a situation in which immigrants are divided into many different groups originating in distant countries, there is no feasible prospect of any particular immigrant group’s challenging the hegemony of the national language [Tim Kaine’s español, anyone?] and institutions. These groups may form an alliance among themselves to fight for better treatment and accommodations, but such an alliance can only be developed within the language and institutions of the host society and, hence, is integrative. In situations in which a single dominant immigrant group originates in a neighbouring country, the dynamics may be very different. The Arabs in Spain, and Mexicans in the United States, do not need allies among other immigrant groups. One could imagine claims for Arabic or Spanish to be declared a second official language, at least in regions where they are concentrated, and these immigrants could seek support from their neighbouring home country for such claims — in effect, establishing a kind of transnational extension of their original homeland in their new neighbouring country of residence.
And the blindness to the above helps explain the logic to many Republicans’ capitulation on amnesty. If the main threats posed by the two separated-by-legality migrations are the same and people don’t recognize them with respect to one, why should we be shocked that they don’t recognize them with respect to the other?
The truth is that amnesty is inevitable. If not the current version, a future one; if not today, tomorrow. This is because the nation has long been moving left, and when it slides far enough, all of the liberal agenda will be realized. And the importation of socialist-minded voters is a major factor in this transformation. Oh, I know that some — notably Ann Coulter in an article recently — point to polls showing that amnesty isn’t very high on Hispanics’ priority list. But this argument overlooks two things. First, all the polls mean is that Hispanics care about issues such as the economy and health care more, not that they don’t care about amnesty at all. Second, it’s much as with many blacks’ current opposition to amnesty. It’s irrelevant in a practical sense as long as, driven by anti-Republican prejudice and a desire for big government, these two groups continue supporting Democrats. People don’t smoke because they want tar in their lungs, but it comes with the choice.
Worse still, there will be no such thing as an amnesty with teeth, no matter what the Rubios of the world claim. Ultimately, there will be no significant border enforcement, no denial of benefits, no true accountability for illegal migrants. How do I know? It isn’t just that there never has been despite our having offered seven amnesties, and the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. It is because law means nothing without a certain necessary ingredient.
The left continually proves this. The Defense of Marriage Act is law, but Barack Obama simply refuses to enforce it. We have long had sanctuary (i.e., lawless) cities and those that refuse to obey federal drug laws. And, of course, there are literally thousands of more obscure laws on the books that are routinely ignored by states and localities, and our government has been trampling much of the supreme law of the land — the Constitution — for 100 years. Even more to the point here, the Obama administration has refused to enforce immigration laws already on the books and has granted a form of amnesty by executive order. So why suppose that a few more immigration laws would make a difference?
And the truth here is a sort of Catch-22: What would it mean if we really had the will to secure the border and enforce unwelcome rules on legalized illegals?
It would translate into our saying in the first place, unabashedly and unashamedly, “Get the heck out of our country.”
If our will is so wanting that we’ll pander on the big thing and not do what any sane nation does instinctively — deport invaders — it’s beyond silly to think we’ll suddenly man-up on the little things (especially since we have no history of doing that, either).
Given the dark picture I’ve painted, you may wonder what its bright side might be. Amnesty is inevitable, but even if it weren’t we’d still be finished because of our bad legal migration? Pass the hemlock. Yet there is a possible lemons-into-lemonade outcome .
Americans have become inured to the legal-immigration problem, accepting a no-go status quo like that proverbial frog in the frying pan of water. So the question is, how can you awaken reptilian-brain voters, who can’t sense steadily rising heat, to their impending 212-degree demise?
You turn up the flame.
And along with the other ways that power is causing the left to stir the pot — the IRS abuses, ObamaCare, the anti-traditionalist rhetoric and violence — amnesty may help do just that. This could add fuel to the only hope for avoiding a descent into Third World autocracy. What is that hope? Well, if you have a severely gangrenous limb, you don’t entertain the fancy that the infection won’t spread if you simply label necrotic tissue healthy.
You cut your losses.
And our only hope is just that: the secessionist movement.
Hopefully, before states have to try to separate from Mexico Norte.
Lest I be misunderstood, this doesn’t mean I won’t fight the good fight. I’ll still oppose amnesty because doing so accords with truth. But I’ll also say that inside-the-box solutions are hopeless because that is the truth. And I’ll point out, as Christians would say, that God can bring good out of bad because that is the truth.
And we’d better hope and pray that this happens because, as far as our options go, bad is all we’ve got.
Obedience, respect, and honor should be freely granted to Fathers; coercion destroys the structure. Families should expect the Father to provide leadership with authority, they should honor him and gratefully respond to his decisions.
When friendly adults are available children will shun authority and seek a conciliatory friendship. They are quick to notice that one parent defends them against the other. When parents are at odds over a child the child has justification for defiance. Adults who treat children as equals, who give them gifts and curry their favor outside of patriarchal government are doing them a disservice.
Mothers, grandfathers, grandmothers, teachers, neighbors, and other counselors who offer solace from the discipline of a father disparage the image of the Father in the eyes of the child. Children need to witness fathers being honored and respected by family members as well as society at large. When adults undermine the proper stature of a father they are contributing to delinquency.
The alien agents that control our media portray fathers as foolish, criminal, cruel, and demanding. They make heroes of those who defy parental authority. They do this for the same reason they saturate our society with pornography, promote homosexuality, multiculturalism, unlimited immigration, and discord; they do it to destroy our families and fracture the cohesion of our society.
We have emancipated women and sacrificed the authority of fathers in the process. Too often a child disciplined by a father goes to the mother who provides comfort. The father then becomes the illegitimate purveyor of misery and the children treat him accordingly.
For a family to function properly the father’s authority must be respected by the entire family and when he disciplines a child the entire family must join him. When another member of the family provides solace from the reprimand they do so in defiance of the father and to the detriment of the child and the proper functioning of the family.
Fathers are not always right but they are always fathers. When they are wrong a good wife will ask them to consider a possible error. If the father is in error and he changes his mind the wife has done a good deed. If he fails to see his error and makes a mistake she must affirm the mistake; defiance undermines the father’s authority and creates chaos.
Recently, the media’s alien agents told us that 1 in 4 wives now earn more money than their husband. This statistic infers that 1 wife in 4 is of more value than her husband. It is unnatural for women to exert authority over men and when they do they oppose the natural order. Women are the physically weaker sex and they should fill the role nature has given them. When businesses defy the natural order by promoting women over men, they disrupt the peace and order of creation.
It appears that humans are somewhere on a created scale of life that goes from miniscule to massive. We have not yet fathomed either its depth or its height. We are physically huge in comparison to the atom and equally tiny in comparison to the range of the Hubble Space Telescope. Pondering our physical stature should bring us to a humility that would preclude attempting to alter the creation. We can explore its beauty and mystery, learn more about it, move about in it, and use it to our advantage but attempts to alter a system that we did not and could not create is the height of chutzpah.
The family with a male and female at it genesis is a pattern that goes as far back into antiquity as human beings have been able to delve.
The absurdity of the agenda of the media’s alien agents is clearly shown in a video of Megyn Kelly’s stifling talk over. In typical tyrannical media fashion Kelly refuses to allow an honest discourse with Erick Erickson. She accuses Erickson of “judging” as if judging is evil (It isn’t). (Originally Lou Dobbs was on the same video but Kelly stifled him so completely, they apparently removed that portion of the video.)
Four Star Generals from each branch of the armed service testified before congress about sexual advances against women. One wonders how women who are unable to defend against friendly forces are going to do when they seek to defend against an enemy. It is a bogus discussion Four Star Generals who do not understand that women cannot be successfully mixed with men without sexual problems do not deserve to be leaders of our armed forces. Women are not physically able to protect themselves when they are put together with men. It is the natural role of men to defend women. We have destroyed that natural role by manipulating them into competition with men. Though they are often intellectually equal or superior they are almost never equal physically. There is a natural sexual attraction between males and females and all attempts to stifle that attraction will fail.
Modern humanists are trying to change the basic structure of creation. Genetically modified seeds are growing our food, human embryos are being created in test tubes, animals have been produced from DNA, and our fish and meat is being filled with weight making, profit producing chemicals.
Nature is replete with male and female specimens. Males are usually stronger, bigger, and dominant. Working against the natural order alien agents are attempting to blur the distinction between male and female. A recent newspaper had this headline: “Boy or Girl? Gender a new challenge for schools”. What insidious hogwash! Overwhelming children are born male or female and maintain that gender throughout their lives. If the idea that they may be of another gender is planted in their young minds by authority figures some of them will maintain that nature went awry. Questioning the gender of youngsters is an evil tactic of conniving humanity not a fact of nature.
Multiculturalism is another attempt to change the natural order. Mixing races tends to destroy diversity through amalgamation. It is an irrational procedure that has been accepted by too many rational minds.
When we allowed society’s alien agents to dethrone the father as head of the family we set in motion a huge array of mindless aberrations that have seriously injured the structure of our nation.
It is the work of the church and the family to restore order to our culture. Our government is in the process of imposing a despotic pagan legal system. School children are being indoctrinated with the homosexual agenda and churches are being forced to praise sodomites. It is time for the horde of Evangelicals and Charismatics to take up the banner of fatherhood and promote it in the face of this horrendous social evil.
The authority of the father is key to a free and orderly society; it must be re-established if righteous order and freedom is ever to return to our culture.