Wednesday, August 30, 2006

They Sold Those Pardons 


"If You Want To See the Sunshine, You've Got to Pay the Clintons Sometime"

Clayton Cramer caught the Usual Suspects Media engaged in their usual procurement:

"(AP): "Bush has now issued 99 pardons and sentence commutations during five years and seven months in office, ......He [Bush] remains the stingiest of postwar presidents in this regard. By comparison, Bill Clinton issued 457 in eight years in office."

On the corresponding date of Clinton's term (8/16/1998) Clinton had pardoned 74 and commuted 3, so the comparison should be Bush 99 v Clinton 77."

The more telling comparison however, is the one the AP somehow forgot to mention:

The Clintons' absolute lead over Bush in the exciting pardon categories of "number of pardons sold for cash" & "number of pardons traded for votes."

In fact, the otherwise unemployable Fat Tony Rodham is in court right now, begging a judge to let him keep his ill-gotten gains from the Clintons' Going-Out-of-Business/Great Pardon Fire Sale of 2000:

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's brother Anthony D. Rodham has been barred from accessing his bank account while a bankruptcy trustee demands that he repay more than $100,000 in loans from a carnival company whose founder was pardoned by President Clinton, filings in federal bankruptcy court in Alexandria show.

[Tony] Rodham, one of Mrs. Clinton's two brothers, received $107,000 in loans from United Shows of America Inc. after its owners obtained the presidential pardon over the objections of the Justice Department. [...]

Hugh Rodham, 56, also came under scrutiny for his role in Mr. Clinton's pardons. A lawyer, he returned about $400,000 he received for lobbying for a presidential pardon and prison commutation for two clients. [...]

United Shows' owners -- Edgar Gregory Jr. and his wife, Vonna Jo Gregory -- won a pardon from Mr. Clinton in March 2000. They were convicted of bank fraud in 1982 for illegally giving loans to friends."

So one family of carnival grifters in jail for writing illegal checks buys a pardon from another family of carnival grifters...and pays for it with more illegal checks!

Layers of irony. LAYERS.

But while the menfolk of the Clinton Crime Family largely confined themselves to prosaic money-grubbing by making the Mark Richs' of the world less rich, Ma Barker was busy swapping pardons for votes in her New York Senate race, corrupting the electoral process as well.

In one case, she had a crooked rabbi pardoned to gain Jewish votes. In another, she had Puerto Rican terrorists pardoned to gain the votes of that group. She sought the bombers out--they hadn't even asked for a pardon. They were in fact unrepentant and began setting the terms and conditions on which they would accept their pardons.

This is the exact opposite purpose for which the pardon power was created. Pardons were meant to be a last resort for the powerless and to temper justice with mercy, not as the first choice of the powerful for self-enrichment and to further entrench themselves in power at the expense of justice.

But, hey; once you've sold multiple-warhead nuke technology to China, what's selling a few pardons?

The Helen Keller Media has issued a pardon of its own to the Clintons in these matters (and, yes; that's unfair--to Miss Keller, who was, after all, handicapped through no fault of her own and did occasionally show a rebellious streak).

When one reporter worked up the nerve to question Evita about her Pardons-for-Votes program, she claimed that although she was in the room when the deals were cut, she didn't speak; therefore, no quid pro quo. The compliant Press Corpse slinked off, mumbling to themselves "Well, as long as she didn't SAY anything..."

I would be happy to call all this Whitewater under the Bridge to the 21st Century and MoveOn.org--except for one thing; Democrats seem hell-bent on re-installing Beelzebub & Beelzebubba in the White House. You know; because
of...the Culture of Corruption!

I voted for the Clintons in '92, a vote which I quickly regretted. The Clintons were an absolute disaster for this country. Those were long years for me, knowing I had help put a skirt-chasing Communist grifter in the White House. Not to mention her husband.

There is one more category of pardons that the Clintons issued, and they didn't even charge for these; the pardons issued to Arafat, Aidid, Hussein and especially bin Laden.

Although they didn't charge, these pardons were still issued in rank self-interest, either for short-term poll-ratings or for the longer-term poll-ratings called a "legacy". Ironically, Bush will have a legacy because he didn't seek one, while Clinton has none because he did.

In short, I would crawl across the broken glass from the Kennedys' latest car accident wearing nothing but a pair of Sandy Berger's stretched-out, reeking-of-fear-sweat Gianfranco Ruffini support socks to vote against the Ceausescus of Chappaqua.

I owe my country that much.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

"Among other instances, 


...that hardly anything contributed more to the downfall of Rome than her precipitate communication of the privileges of citizenship to the inhabitants of Italy at large. And how terribly was Syracuse scourged by perpetual seditions, when, after the overthrow of the tyrants, a great number of foreigners were suddenly admitted to the rights of citizenship?"--Alexander Hamilton, legal immigrant, 1802

Our immigration problem was distilled perfectly when "the INS mailed forms notifying a Florida flight school that two September 11 terrorists had received approval to change their immigration status from "visitors" to "students" six months after the terrorists attacks."

Our government was still operating on auto-pilot a half-year after Atta took his plane off of it.

And despite some improvements, it still is today. It is the little-known secret of this issue that millions of illegals did not enter illegally, but were granted invitations to visit. We simply must get visas, immigration and naturalization right; it's no longer optional.

For example, I have serious misgivings about dual citizenship. If a man said "I love your wife as much as I love my own wife," what would we call such a man? Besides "Bill Clinton", I mean?

The Founders wrestled with almost all the issues that face us today. And their answer was patriotic assimilation.

In the excellent "Making Citizens: The Case for Patriotic Assimilation", Matthew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation examines the views and actions of our Founding Fathers:

"Naturalization—the idea of the foreigner becoming an equal citizen as if by nature, based on reciprocal and voluntary consent of the immigrant and the citizens of the welcoming nation—is entirely consistent with and follows logically from the political theory of the American Founding. Individuals have a natural right to emigrate from their homeland, but that does not entail a right to immigrate to this country without the consent of the American people as expressed through the laws of the United States. But with that consent, the concept of naturalization works differently than it does in other countries: While an alien can immigrate to France or Germany but never become truly French or German, an alien of any ethnic heritage or racial background can immigrate to the United States and become, in every sense of the term, an American. Such a transformation is possible in America because the very openness of liberty to diverse backgrounds and differences of opinion, including religious opinions, stems from (and allows an emphasis on) the commonly held political principles that make free government possible in the first place."

The Founders rejected restricionism--but they also rejected the anarchy, the influx of criminals, the influence of foreign governments and the tribal identity politics that are part and parcel of our current system. And part and parcel of the atrocious Senate immigration bill passed by Democrats with a handful of Republican votes, which would reward criminality, fund segregationist groups such as LaRaza, prevent real enforcement and set up more and larger amnesties as far as the eye can see.

Democrats have largely given up on convincing current citizens, so they wish to import new voters and appeal to them through the politics of pigment and payoffs. This is politicians chosing voters instead of voters choosing politicians.

Others wish to populate America with a flood-tide of those who have no particular allegiance to America. But we already have millions of people wandering the country with little or no loyalty to the nation--they're called "Leftists".

Others dream of an endless stream of cheap labor, even though it is rank materialism and anti-human to consider a potential countryman as a mere economic unit.

Still others have simply resigned themselves to currying favor in a prospective Latino-majority country. If that means turning this country into a Latino-style banana republic or oligarchy with government by graft and street-mob, I cannot support it. And should this new majority arrive with our corrosive race-preference laws intact, that would create a new kind of Jim Crow regime, something I would fight til' my last breath.

But even then, if we have no right to control our borders or citizenship as some radicals aver, why couldn't we just as easily someday become a colony of China or a Nation of Islam?

Yet others see illegal immigration as a humanitarian issue, as a form of charity. I'm sympathetic to this--but charity must be freely given and freely received, not coerced nor demanded as a right.

I care little about race except as it pertains to national security, fighting real discrimination and getting the government out of the bean-counting business as was promised in 1964. I do however care about culture, tradition and especially creed, and reject such things as allowing Mexican consulates to teach Reconquista history to students in American schools.

Will they, for example, tell the students of Jose Maria Jesus Carvajal, signer of Texas' Declaration of Independence, or of the heroism of Senora Francisca Alvarez, "The Angel of Goliad"? Or of Col. Juan Seguin, the "Paul Revere of Texas", and how he and his Tejanos, men with with names like Rodriguez, Flores, Herrera, Cassiano and Menchaca stood shoulder-to-shoulder with fellow American heroes Travis, Bowie, Crockett, Austin and Houston against the dictator Santa Ana?

Will they tell them how the dictator bellowed "Where is Seguin--I want Seguin!" when the colonel escaped his grasp at the Alamo?

The Founders would be mortified by such a capitulation to a foreign government.

I do think America should have a holiday honoring the contributions of Americans of Mexican ancestry. I vote for "Veinteuno de Abril", but I'd settle for Cinco de Mayo; kicking France off the continent is always worth celebrating.

In his farewell address, Ronald Reagan spoke in glowing imagery of the "shining city on the hill":

"...in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here."

Yet we know Muhammed Atta also had the 'will and the heart to get here', as did thousands of foreign criminals who pack our jails, so that's not the all of it.

The phrase "living in peace and harmony" to me implies many things; a mutual consent, a common tongue and a shared allegience, whereby newcomers to the city enter through the front door in an orderly fashion, their names and their faces known to their new countrymen.

Our Founders asserted that all men were 'endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights', not that all 6 billion people on earth had the inalienable right to enter America next Tuesday afternoon. They would be aghast at claims of a legal right to illegality, and stupefied by claims of an absolute legal, moral and Constitutional right to enter this country at whim, regardless of the rule of law, the Consent of the Governed or the moral fact that inalienable rights must always come with inalienable duties.

Dr. Spalding again: "The American theory of citizenship necessitates that the words immigration and assimilation be linked in our political lexicon and closely connected in terms of public policy: Where there is one, there must be the other."

American citizenship is a precious thing, not to be taken for granted by those of us who have it, nor granted as taken by those who seek it. In this way, it will be preserved so that we may always welcome new Americans to our mutual home, this City on the Hill.

Sunday, August 20, 2006

While Others Played 


"All the great conceptual discoveries of the intellect seem obvious and inescapable once they have been revealed, but it requires a special genius to formulate them for the first time. The Jew has this gift. To them we owe the idea of equality before the law, both divine and human; of the sanctity of life and the dignity of the human person; of the individual conscience and so of personal redemption; of the collective conscience and so of social responsibility; of peace as an abstract ideal and love as the foundation of justice, and many other items which constitute the basic moral furniture of the human mind. Without the Jews, it might have been a much emptier place."--Paul Johnson

Contrary to Populist Opinion 


is not when some high-priced hairsprayed head from the Organ Grinder Media plays "Gotcha', Macaca!" with Tony Snow.

It looks like this.

Never forget it.

Saturday, August 19, 2006


"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."--F. Scott Fitzgerald

Holding two opposing ideas while retaining the ability to function is also the test of being a "Progressive".

If by "function", we mean "froth at the mouth, posit wild conspiracy theories, provide aid and comfort to our enemies and lose elections."

In short, their Bi-Polar ice caps are melting on their Gaza strip clubs.

To be a Leftie today, you must believe both...

...that Israel dictates American foreign policy--but George Bush can pick up the phone anytime and order Israel around.

...that the Constitution itself demands group profiling in law school admissions--but absolutely forbids it in jet airliner admissions.

...that the evil genius George Bush personally planted thermite in the Twin Towers--but forgot to plant WMDs in Iraq.

...that wearing jewelry in your tongue is really cool--but mining for the minerals to make that jewelry is a Crime against Nature.

...that after 230 years of democracy, America is ruled by an illegitimate fascist junta--but after a few years, Iraq should be a Jeffersonian republic.

...that dissent is the highest form of patriotism--unless you're Joe Lieberman, in which case it's the lowest, most despicable form of selfishness.

...that taxes are "investments"--but investors are greedy capitalists who aren't paying their fair share of taxes.

...that Big Drug companies have bribed lawmakers and foisted dangerous products on the public in a reckless quest for ever-higher profits--and should be trusted implicitly to manufacture new products out of human embryos.

...that mentioning the threat posed by terrorists is "fear-mongering"...but claiming that Ronald Reagan may yet blow up the world is not.

...that a 17 year-old criminal is but a misguided child--while 13 year-olds are mature sexual beings capable of deciding their own sexual destinies.

However, should those mature 13 year-olds later go on to join the military, they will automatically become "kids" and "children" again.

...that Usama bin Laden is an authentic leader of his people--who was created by us.

...that bin Laden is a Middle-Eastern Father Flanagan with a funny hat; a kindly man of God, a Minute Man, a Founding Father, really, who builds orphanages, roads, hospitals, schools and day-care centers--and we must hunt him down like the vicious dog that he is.

...that Laura Bush's birthday party is an "I Question the Timing!"-event--but a war unleashed by Iran on the eve of a UN nuclear sanctions vote is mere happenstance.




Hit it:

Well, he told us George Bush was the very best
Excitable Andy said
Until Mr. Bush failed his Litmus Test
then Excitable Andy fled.

"Well, we roughed 'em and we cuffed 'em down in Abu Gharib!",
Excitable Andy shouts
"How dare you...throw a party without inviting me?!!"
Excitable Andy pouts.

Conspiracy Theories at the Doily Dish
Excitable Andy posts
He's on the grassy knoll with Debbie Frisch
Excitable Andy's toast

"America's a rogue!" and "Rumsfeld is Goebbels!"
Excitable Andy wails
"Out of Iraq!" and "Rights for Gerbils!"
Excitable Andy flails.

Well, he's just our Excitable Andy...

Sunday, August 13, 2006

A Caddyshack Country 


"The prime minister of Lebanon protests loudly when real countries propose ways to save his imaginary one, but everybody’s in on the joke, so his concerns about having foreign troops on the fairway of his pitch-and-putt nation are given careful consideration, the way Tiger Woods might line up a shot through the clown’s mouth, out his ear and into the cup."

That, my friends, is how the game is played.

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Brothers in Arms 


James Lileks:

"Recent anti-Israel protests remind us again of our era’s peculiar alliance: the most violent, intolerant, militantly religious movement in modern times has the peace movement on its side.

The usual delusions are abundant. The progressives imagine they’re the vanguard shielding the last jot of human rights from the ever-gathering fascist storm. (Forget the executions in Somalia for the crime of watching the World Cup; there’s a rumor Wal-Mart won’t offer the usual new-release discount for DVDs of Al Gore’s eco-doc.) They imagine that conservatives support Israel because they want to convert Jews and usher in the last book in the “Left Behind” series. They have internalized the Palestinian narrative so deeply they blame the “occupation” for rocket attacks coming out of territory no longer occupied. [...]

In London, the wooly-minded pawns marched beneath banners that said “We are all Hizbullah.” Really? Is that why there’s a rocket launcher at my kid’s day care? Makes sense now."

Read the whole Katyusha.

Related: The thoughtful and funny Spengler examines the bond between American Christians and Israel here...and the spiritual link between Communo-Fascists and Islamo-Fascists here; Well said.



...even if Time sometimes isn't.

"...And so many of the blessings and advantages we have, so many of the reasons why our civilization, our culture, has flourished aren't understood; they're not appreciated. And if you don't have any appreciation of what people went through to get, to achieve, to build what you are benefiting from, then these things don't mean very much to you. You just think, well, that's the way it is. That's our birthright. That just happened. [But] it didn't just happen. And at what price? What grief? What disappointment? What suffering went on? I mean this. I think that to be ignorant or indifferent to history isn't just to be uneducated or stupid. It's to be rude, ungrateful. And ingratitude is an ugly failing in human beings."--David McCullough ..................

June 28, 1919: France's Marshal Foch:

"This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years."

Sept 12, 1936:

Sir Winston Churchill:

"I have, with some friends, put an Amendment on the Paper. It is the same as the Amendment which I submitted two years ago, and I have put it in exactly the same terms because I thought it would be a good thing to remind the House of what has happened in these two years. Our Amendment in November 1934 was the culmination of a long series of efforts by private Members and by the Conservative party in the country to warn His Majesty's Government of the dangers to Europe and to this country which were coming upon us through the vast process of German rearmament then already in full swing. The speech which I made on that occasion was much censured as being alarmist by leading Conservative newspapers, and I remember that Mr Lloyd George congratulated the Prime Minister, who was then Lord President, on having so satisfactorily demolished my extravagant fears.

What would have been said, I wonder, if I could two years ago have forecast to the House the actual course of events? [...] Suppose we had also been able to foresee the degeneration of the foreign situation, [...] Suppose all that had been forecast - why, no one would have believed in the truth of such a nightmare tale. Yet just two years have gone by and we see it all in broad daylight. Where shall we be this time two years? I hesitate now to predict.

Let me say, however, that I will not accept the mood of panic or of despair. There is another side - a side which deserves our study, and can be studied without derogating in any way from the urgency which ought to animate our military preparations. [...] It will be necessary for the Western democracies, even at some extension of their risks, to gather round them all the elements of collective security or of combined defensive strength against aggression [...]

He spoke of "the years that the locust hath eaten". Let us see which are these "years that the locust hath eaten" even if we do not pry too closely in search of the locusts who have eaten these precious years. [...]

No doubt as a whole His Majesty's Government were very slow in accepting the unwelcome fact of German rearmament. They still clung to the policy of one-sided disarmament. It was one of those experiments, we are told, which had to be, to use a vulgarism, 'tried out', just as the experiments of non-military sanctions against Italy had to be tried out. Both experiments have now been tried out, and Ministers are accustomed to plume themselves upon the very clear results of those experiments. They are held to prove conclusively that the policies subjected to the experiments were all wrong, utterly foolish, and should never be used again, and the very same men who were foremost in urging those experiments are now foremost in proclaiming and denouncing the fallacies upon which they were based. They have bought their knowledge, they have bought it dear, they have bought it at our expense, but at any rate let us be duly thankful that they now at last possess it. [...]

What will you know in a few weeks about this matter that you do not know now, that you ought not to have known a year ago, and have not been told any time in the last six months? What is going to happen in the next few weeks which will invalidate all these magnificent arguments by which you have been overwhelmed, and suddenly make it worth your while to paralyse the export trade, to destroy the finances, and to turn the country into a great munitions camp?

The First Lord of the Admiralty in his speech the other night went even farther. He said, 'We are always reviewing the position. Everything, he assured us is entirely fluid. I am sure that that is true. Anyone can see what the position is. The Government simply cannot make up their minds, or they cannot get the Prime Minister to make up his mind. So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent. So we go on preparing more months and years - precious, perhaps vital to the greatness of Britain - for the locusts to eat. They will say to me, 'A Minister of Supply is not necessary, for all is going well.' I deny it. 'The position is satisfactory.' It is not true. 'All is proceeding according to plan.' We know what that means. [...]

If we go on like this, and I do not see what power can prevent us from going on like this, some day there may be a terrible reckoning, and those who take the responsibility so entirely upon themselves are either of a hardy disposition or they are incapable of foreseeing the possibilities which may arise. [...]

Owing to past neglect, in the face of the plainest warnings, we have now entered upon a period of danger greater than has befallen Britain since the U-boat campaign was crushed; perhaps, indeed, it is a more grievous period than that, because at that time at least we were possessed of the means of securing ourselves and of defeating that campaign. Now we have no such assurance. The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences. [...] It is this lamentable conjunction of events which seems to present the danger of Europe in its most disquieting form. We cannot avoid this period; we are in it now. [...]

Two things, I confess, have staggered me, after a long Parliamentary experience, in these Debates. The first has been the dangers that have so swiftly come upon us in a few years, and have been transforming our position and the whole outlook of the world. Secondly, I have been staggered by the failure of the House of Commons to react effectively against those dangers. That, I am bound to say, I never expected. I never would have believed that we should have been allowed to go on getting into this plight, month by month and year by year, and that even the Government's own confessions of error would have produced no concentration of Parliamentary opinion and force capable of lifting our efforts to the level of emergency. I say that unless the House resolves to find out the truth for itself it will have committed an act of abdication of duty without parallel in its long history."

Sept. 30, 1938:

Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain:

"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for two countries and for Europe.

We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.

We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."

"My good friends this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time." [crowd cheers]

Autumn, 1938:

The Churchill Centre:

"Chamberlain returned to inform his Cabinet colleagues that Hitler's objective was only the Sudetenland. When French Prime Minister Daladier arrived to explore the possibility of a united front against Germany, he was told by his British colleague that Britain had no army to march to Czechoslovakia and it was a long way to send an air force.

On 20 September Churchill flew to Paris with General Spears to converse with Paul Reynaud and Georges Mandel, members of the French Cabinet who wanted to resist Hitler. On his return to England, Churchill issued a press statement which charged that a surrender to the Nazi threat of force would bring, not peace or safety, but ever-increasing weakness and danger. The loss of Czechoslovakia would free twenty-five German divisions and open a path to the Black Sea.

He personally, considered sending the following telegram to the President of Czechoslovakia but realized that he had no power to ensure the fact: "Fire your cannon, and all will be well."

As it was, Chamberlain submitted to Hitler's harangues and the German-speaking majority territories were to be transferred to Germany without a plebiscite. As well, the British Prime Minister now believed he could influence and trust the German Fuhrer.

Churchill was observed at the Other Club "in a towering rage and deepening gloom. " Clementine wanted to march on Downing Street and throw rocks through the window of Number 10.

In the debate on the terms of the Munich Agreement Churchill noted that all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe would have to make the best terms they could with Nazi Germany.

He also attacked Chamberlain's cherished dream of influencing Hitler because "there can never be a friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi Power."

"We have sustained a defeat without a war." he said, "...and do not suppose that this is the end. This is only of beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup..." On the division, Churchill remained seated and abstained.

The Munich debate severely strained Churchill's relations with Chamberlain's supporters within the Conservative Party and even with his own constituency [...]

Adolph Hitler took special note of Churchill. In a speech in Munich on 8 November he said: "Mr. Churchill may have an electorate of 15,000 or 20,000. I have one of 40 million. Once and for all we request to be spared from being spanked like a pupil by a governess.""................................

Oct. 3, 1938:

Prime Minister Chamberlain:

"Before I come to describe the Agreement which was signed at Munich in the small hours of Friday morning last, I would like to remind the House of two things which I think it very essential not to forget when those terms are being considered.

The first is this: We did not go there to decide whether the predominantly German areas in the Sudetenland should be passed over to the German Reich. That had been decided already. Czechoslovakia had accepted the Anglo-French proposals. What we had to consider was the method, the conditions and the time of the transfer of the territory.

The second point to remember is that time was one of the essential factors. All the elements were present on the spot for the outbreak of a conflict which might have precipitated the catastrophe. We had populations inflamed to a high degree; we had extremists on both sides ready to work up and provoke incidents; we had considerable quantities of arms which were by no means confined to regularly organised forces.

Therefore, it was essential that we should quickly reach a conclusion, so that this painful and difficult operation of transfer might be carried out at the earliest possible moment and concluded as soon as was consistent, with orderly procedure, in order that we might avoid the possibility of something that might have rendered all our attempts at peaceful solution useless. [...]

...To those who dislike an ultimatum, but who were anxious for a reasonable and orderly procedure, every one of [the] modifications [of the Godesberg Memorandum by the Munich Agreement] is a step in the right direction. It is no longer an ultimatum, but is a method which is carried out largely under the supervision of an international body.

Before giving a verdict upon this arrangement, we should do well to avoid describing it as a personal or a national triumph for anyone. The real triumph is that it has shown that representatives of four great Powers can find it possible to agree on a way of carrying out a difficult and delicate operation by discussion instead of by force of arms, and thereby they have averted a catastrophe which would have ended civilisation as we have known it. The relief that our escape from this great peril of war has, I think, everywhere been mingled in this country with a profound feeling of sympathy."

Hon. Members: "Shame!"

The Prime Minister: "I have nothing to be ashamed of. Let those who have, hang their heads. We must feel profound sympathy for a small and gallant nation in the hour of their national grief and loss."

Mr. Bellenger: "It is an insult to say it."

The Prime Minister: "I say in the name of this House and of the people of this country that Czechoslovakia has earned our admiration and respect for her restraint, for her dignity, for her magnificent discipline in face of such a trial as few nations have ever been called upon to meet.

The army, whose courage no man has ever questioned, has obeyed the order of their president, as they would equally have obeyed him if he had told them to march into the trenches. It is my hope and my belief, that under the new system of guarantees, the new Czechoslovakia will find a greater security than she has ever enjoyed in the past. [...]

I pass from that subject, and I would like to say a few words in respect of the various other participants, besides ourselves, in the Munich Agreement.

After everything that has been said about the German Chancellor today and in the past, I do feel that the House ought to recognise the difficulty for a man in that position to take back such emphatic declarations as he had already made amidst the enthusiastic cheers of his supporters, and to recognise that in consenting, even though it were only at the last moment, to discuss with the representatives of other Powers those things which he had declared he had already decided once for all, was a real and a substantial contribution on his part.

With regard to Signor Mussolini, ...I think that Europe and the world have reason to be grateful to the head of the Italian government for his work in contributing to a peaceful solution.

In my view the strongest force of all, one which grew and took fresh shapes and forms every day war, the force not of any one individual, but was that unmistakable sense of unanimity among the peoples of the world that war must somehow be averted. The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace, pervaded the whole atmosphere of the conference, and I believe that that, and not threats, made possible the concessions that were made.

I know the House will want to hear what I am sure it does not doubt, that throughout these discussions the Dominions, the Governments of the Dominions, have been kept in the closest touch with the march of events by telegraph and by personal contact, and I would like to say how greatly I was encouraged on each of the journeys I made to Germany by the knowledge that I went with the good wishes of the Governments of the Dominions. They shared all our anxieties and all our hopes. They rejoiced with us that peace was preserved, and with us they look forward to further efforts to consolidate what has been done.

Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous.

Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity." ............................

Sept.3, 1939:

Churchill, upon War:

"In this solemn hour it is a consolation to recall and to dwell upon our repeated efforts for peace. All have been ill-starred, but all have been faithful and sincere. This is of the highest moral value--and not only moral value, but practical value--at the present time, because the wholehearted concurrence of scores of millions of men and women, whose co-operation is indispensable and whose comradeship and brotherhood are indispensable, is the only foundation upon which the trial and tribulation of modern war can be endured and surmounted. This moral conviction alone affords that ever-fresh resilience which renews the strength and energy of people in long, doubtful and dark days. Outside, the storms of war may blow and the lands may be lashed with the fury of its gales, but in our own hearts this Sunday morning there is peace. Our hands may be active, but our consciences are at rest.

[...] The Prime Minister said it was a sad day, and that is indeed true, but at the present time there is another note which may be present, and that is a feeling of thankfulness that, if these great trials were to come upon our Island, there is a generation of Britons here now ready to prove itself not unworthy of the days of yore and not unworthy of those great men, the fathers of our land, who laid the foundations of our laws and shaped the greatness of our country.

This is not a question of fighting for Danzig or fighting for Poland. We are fighting to save the whole world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defense of all that is most sacred to man. This is no war of domination or imperial aggrandizement or material gain; no war to shut any country out of its sunlight and means of progress. It is a war, viewed in its inherent quality, to establish, on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual, and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man."

September, 1939:

Sen. William Borah, upon War:

"Lord, if only I could have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided.''

May13, 1940:

Churchill's first address as Prime Minister:

"We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realised; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal. But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, "come then, let us go forward together with our united strength." ...........................

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

The Anti-Victory Left 


I think not.

First of all, their darling Rep. Cynthia McKinney was unceremoniously dumped by the saner Democrats of Georgia.

Classy as ever, she's threatening violence--for Peace, naturally!--unless she gets her country, her party and her job back. Oh, yeah--and she waz robbed! Or is it "ROBBED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" ?

And nobody cares--no one but Kurtz, that is.

All eyes are on the millionaire populist, the guy who hates Wal-Mart so much, he personally bought Wal-Mart stock for his wife and kid, thus teaching Wal-Mart a lesson they'll never forget! "Democrats--Always the Low Price...Always!"

Lamont even demagogued Joe into returning a thousand-dollar contribution to Wal-Mart. Lieberman should have kept the money and said "Thanks for the contribution, Ned."

The Washington Times:

"...the candidate was flanked by prominent liberals such as the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton... Lamont sent his supporters into their greatest frenzy when he mentioned his lead issue -- ending U.S. involvement in Iraq. "We have 132,000 heroes stuck" in a civil war in Iraq, he said. "I say it's high time to bring them home." With that the crowd began chanting repeatedly: "Bring them home. Bring them home."" ...

What if they don't want to come home--with their tails between their legs, anyway?

Five years after 9/11 and with an all-volunteer force, it is reasonable to conclude the vast majority of those soldiers believe in their mission. They want to come home, alright--in Victory, not in Victimhood. Lamont is trying to pose as their rescuer, the heroes' hero. A Chicken-Hero, if you will.

This whole effort has a certain whiff about it that I can't quite put my finger on. Let's see...Cynthia "J.E.W.S.!" McKinney, Jesse "Hymie-town" Jackson, Al "Get the Diamond Merchants!" Sharpton and the Net-Roots "Imagine A World Without Israel"-crowd...

Wait...I've got it; they're all for the Living Wage!

Lieberman is a fairly conventional Democrat. But to his credit, after 9/11 he stood up for his country. Not for George Bush, but for America. But his real crime is this: he has remained standing, while so many of his fellows lost heart and headed for the tall grass and the opium pipe of pure partisanship.

Prediction: when putsch comes to shove, not only will Lamont lose in the general election, he'll drag Democrats down with him.

And both ways, America wins.

Monday, August 07, 2006

Don't You See? 


for kicking up the dust that got on Adnan Hajj's camera lens, thus forcing him to Photoshop smoke into his pictures.

920 times.

over a decade.

It's not just the photos, folks--Reuters' print journalism is 'doctored', too.

Tom Gross:

"For example, Reuters will note that “a doctor at the hospital said the injured Palestinian was unarmed” — when in fact the doctor couldn’t possibly have known this, since he wasn’t present at the gunfight. But because he is a doctor, Reuters is suggesting to readers that his word is necessarily authoritative."
Rikki Hollander:

"Take, for example, the terminology Reuters uses to describe Palestinian terrorism. The news service routinely characterizes Palestinian suicide bombings and terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians as an "uprising for independence," an "uprising for statehood," an "uprising for an independent state," or an "uprising against occupation." Such wording is not only partisan, mimicking Palestinian rhetoric, but is completely deceptive. It distorts the facts in two ways.First, it falsely implies that Israel has denied Palestinians statehood. In fact, in 2000 Israel offered a Palestinian state on the entire Gaza Strip and over 95 percent of the West Bank, with east Jerusalem as its capital. [...]

Second, it utterly discounts the avowed goal of Palestinian terrorists: to annihilate the Jewish state. The wording of Reuters reports whitewashes the terrorists' illegitimate mission, casting it in universally acceptable tones of "statehood" and "independence.""


"Example 1: "Israeli Troops Shoot Dead Palestinian in W.Bank" (July 3)

Israel named as perpetrator; Palestinian named as victim; described in active voice.

vs. "New West Bank Shooting Mars Truce" (July 1)

Palestinian not named as perpetrator; Israeli not named as victim; shooting described in passive voice.

Example 2:"Israel Kills Three Militants; Gaza Deal Seen Close" (June 27)

Israel named as perpetrator; Palestinians ("Militants") named as victims; described in active voice.

vs. "Bus Blows Up in Central Jerusalem" (June 11) Palestinian not named as perpetrator; Israelis not named as victims; described in passive voice. "

Hmm...I hope they get a handle on that mechanical problem which is causing their buses to blow up.

It was also Reuters who famously banned the use of the word "terrorists".

Not just for "insurgents" in Iraq (many of whom, as foreigners, do not even meet the definition), but for the 9/11 hi-jackers as well. If they're not terrorists, who is? Besides Bush, I mean?

Think about it. Reuters is saying there is no context in which a reasonable reporter of facts may use the word "terrorist" in an accurate manner. They are in effect stripping the word from the dictionary.

Essentially, they are saying: "There are no such thing as a terrorist".

Now that is a powerful editorial opinion, wishful thinking as a world-view--it's a statement of faith, really.

A dark and ugly and hollow faith, but a kind of faith nonetheless. But it is an opinion, not a fact.

And who is always tells us of their "Sgt. Joe Friday"-esque devotion to "Just the facts, Imam"?

Reuters. ... "Reuters--Where ‘Blowing Smoke’ is More Than an Esoteric Tantric Technique Practiced by Our Nearly-Divorced Photo-Editor During Weekend Romps in Beirut’s Finest Opium Dens--It’s Our Commitment to You!”

And isn't it a little more than passing strange for writers to be subtracting words from the lexicon?

Don't just stop with the Photoshops, boys--the rot goes all the way to the core.

(Hat-tip: No Left Turns)

In Which 


Engages Newt Gingrich in Socratic Dialogue.

...if by "Socratic", we mean "if Socrates were an escapee from the Albert A. Gore, Jr. wing of the Tennessee State Mental Institution for the Criminally Insane". ............................

The Left: "Hey, everybody look...we're insurgents!"

Newt: "Yes, you're insurgents."

The Left: "How dare you call us insurgents!"

Newt: "Uh, okay--you're not insurgents."

The Left: "Oh, yes we are. You're just trying to conflate us with the insurgents in Iraq!"

Newt: "No I'm not. But come to think of it, "insurgents" was the word you guys settled on so you wouldn't have to call them "terrorists"."

The Left: "So now you're calling us 'terrorists'?"

Newt: "No. I'm not calling you 'terrorists'."

The Left: "Newt called us 'terrorists'!"

Newt: "No I didn't. I think you're just as patriotic as the Minute Men."

The Left: "Which ones? The ones in Iraq or the ones on the border?"

Newt: "The ones at Lexington and Concord."

The Left: "Never heard of it. Were they insurgents...like us?"

Newt: "Yes, they were."

The Left: "How dare you call us insurgents!"

Newt: "Listen, guys, I was an insurgent myself back in '94, when the Republicans were elected the majority..."

The Left: "You weren't elected--you 'seized power' and 'took control'--it was in all the papers!"

Newt: "No, I asked the American people to loan us their power and they did."

The Left: "Did you report that loan to the House Ethics Committee? I'll bet you didn't! --'Newt Admits Taking Illegal Loan From Taxpayers'!!!"

Newt: "That's it. We're done. You people are a bunch of third-rate clowns in a two-party system. Who do you think you are, anyway?"

The Left: "We're Insurgents!"

(Hat-tip: Ace)

A Smilin' Island 


We pray.


(AP) "Elian Gonzalez sent a note Sunday wishing a speedy recovery to "my dear grandpa Fidel," and Cuba's vice president said the world's longest-serving leader is recuperating well after surgery."

Allow me.

Cuba doesn't have a "vice president" nor a "president". Have they ever stood for election? What they do have is a dying dictator and his toady.

"...the world's longest-serving leader..."

'Leader' implies 'followers'. Castro is a tyrant with a few henchmen and a lot of victims.


He doesn't serve--the people must serve him. Or else. For example, captive school-children are forced write him letters for our pliant Media to dutifully reproduce.

Did you ever notice how Castro is never called a "dictator" in our press? Never described, let alone scorned, as a "self-appointed President-for-Life"? The press would never use such a phrase...precisely because it is so accurate.

If you want to know how Cuban school-children are really treated, read this at Babalu Blog.

And while you're there, read this by Col. Paul W. Tibbets:

..."Today, on the eve of the 50th Anniversary of the end of World War II, many are second-guessing the decision to use the atomic weapons. To them, I would say, "STOP!" It happened. In the wisdom of the President of the United States and his advisors at the time, there was no acceptable alternative but to proceed with what history now knows as Special Bombing Mission No. 13. To those who consider its proper presentation to the public, I say; "FULL SPEED AHEAD!" We have waited too long for all the wrong reasons to exhibit this aircraft. Too many have labeled the atomic missions as war crimes in an effort to force their politics and their opinions on the American public and to damn military history. Ironically, it is this same segment of society who sent us off to war that now wish to recant the flight of the Enola Gay."...

Update: Steve conducts a thoughtful and in-depth anal-ysis of Cuba's much vaunted medical system here and here. Ouch.

(Via The Corner here, here & here.)

War in the Mid-East, 


Nervous markets and a heat-wave (formerly called "summer") so intense that even Al Gore is forced to turn up the air conditioning to keep his circuit-boards cool.

All this can mean only one thing...

... Song Parody Time!

As has been noted, it was the great French philosopher, au Rick Goldfinger, who said it best:

"Once is random chance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action. And four bazillion times over the course of years and years is...a Reuters Mission Statement!"

(with apologies to Jerome Kern and Otto Harback, and the Platters featuring the incomparable Clyde McPhatter, Blessed Be His Chops):

"Smoke Gets in Your Pics"

asked if I could prove
My photographs were true,
And not a pack of lies
which I of course denied
I think I'd better hide.

said some day the Jews
will shoot back at you
then you must resort to tricks
as you point and click
Smoke Gets in Your Pics.

So I 'shopped them, as I gaily chopped
To think they would doubt my work
And yet today, my cover's blown away
I am now out of work.

laughing blogs deride
frauds I cannot hide
So I'm now throwing bricks
fighting F-16s with sticks
Cos' Smoke Got in My Pics.

(big ending!)
When Smoke Gets In Your Piii--ics!

Saturday, August 05, 2006

I Come not to Praise Dingell 


Why is it...

...that the same people who tell us we must "think globally" and be internationalist in our outlook, that we can't so much as attach a paper clip without the approval of France or issue an opinion without consulting the courts of Zimbabwe...also tell us we must withdraw from the world, abandon our commitments, forego our interests and foresake our allies, ignomiously retreating from the world, coming home only to post a guard at every overpass while curling up in a geopolitical fetal position and begging our enemies not to kick us?

Why is it...

...that Republicans are smeared as a fascist, war-mongering, theocratic "Party of God"...but when a real, live group of fascist war-mongering theocrats who actually call themselves "The Party of God" start killing people....we're told that we must befriend them, negotiate and try to see their point of view?

And why is it...

...that a group which rejects the very premise of Geneva Conventions and violates every single tenet of the Laws of War...is permitted to define Israel as a "war criminal"-state, when Israel is, in fact, a nation which abides by the Rules of War?

Here's why:

(via Powerline)


"First of all, our problem is that we must be a fair and honest broker and a friend to all parties. The resolution [#H.R. 521, condemning Hezb'Allah and supporting Israel] didn’t make us that. We have to have the trust of both of the people of Israel and the people of the Arab countries around it, in order to help resolve the problem. If we don’t, the possibilities of regional war, calamitous situation with regard to Israel which has 5 million people amidst a billion and a half Arabs are a real potential for calamity. Having said at that, what we have to do is to see to it that finally we begin to address the problems that exist to abate the difficulties that are preventing a–a honest solution to the problem and a negotiated end. It takes–it takes a lot of work to get the trust that it takes to do this. The resolution did not instill that kind of trust and the end result would be quite frankly, the real solution to the problems that exist in the middle east would probably have been and probably will be put off.

ANCHOR: [An] overall majority of your colleagues didn’t see it that way and some would suggest that if–even though there are obviously a lot of issues with Lebanon and with Palestinian cause wrapped up in this, that this largely boils down to Israel against Hezbollah and Hezbollah is a group that the United States has deemed a terrorist organization, that there’s only one side for the Americans to come down on in this fight.

DINGELL: Well, we don’t, first of all, I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel.

ANCHOR: You’re not against Hezbollah?

DINGELL: No, I happen to be—I happen to be against violence, I think the United States has to bring resolution to this matter. Now, I condemn Hezbollah as does everybody else, for the violence, but I think if we’ve got to talk to them and if we don’t — if we don’t get ourselves in a position where we can talk to both sides and bring both sides together, the killing and the blood let is going to continue."...........................................

THIS is the same John Dingell who, in his best sotto voce Lester Maddox, told fellow American Ward Connerly that Mr. Connerly was unwelcome in Michigan.

Mr. Connerly of course wants to end race preferences, or, as Dingell puts it, have our government "be a fair and honest broker and a friend to all parties." For his trouble, he was labeled an 'outside agitator', an epithet Dingell is curiously unwilling to use against Iran's agents in Lebanon.

One also waits in vain for Howard Dean's denunciation of Dingell (and six other Democrats) as "anti-Semitic".

Even if Howard's purpose was to bash Bush and denigrate our efforts in Iraq for partisan advantage, one does indeed wish Prime Minister Maliki's views were more balanced. But Maliki also has "The Dingell Problem": ten thousand of Dingell's constituents just took to the streets in Dearborn in a pro-Lebanon demonstration that quickly devolved into a pro-Hezb'Allah love-fest.

Dingell proves that one can easily spend a lifetime in Congress with few and flexible principles--indeed, that may be a prerequisite--but not without the ability to count votes and voters.

Now to the alleged "substance" of his remarks.

1.) "...we must be a fair and honest broker and a friend to all parties."

Where to begin? "All parties" would include Hezb'Allah. It means also the Ba'athist goons of Syria. And it includes the war-mongering, plutonium-addicted, apocalyptic Iranian theocrats. Terrorists are to be our new "friends", Congressman? Friendship implies a mutual acceptance among equals. Are you equal to N'Ass'rallah, John?

There are those in the Arab Middle East who are our friends. There are others who, while not our friends, still deserve fair and honest treatment, just as we would expect fairness from a magistrate without expecting him to be our pal. But you are insisting that the victim, the criminal, his accomplices, the witnesses, the D.A., the defense attorneys and the jury should all get together for a weekend-long pool party at the judge's house.

It is simply not possible to be friends with everyone, including every evil bastard in the world, without defining the very concept out of existence. As Churchill said, "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."

By the way, Ronald Reagan thought he was being an honest broker in 1983. The result? 241 dead Marines. To name but one of the grisly crimes done at the hands of your "friends", Congressman. And now we're supposed to do it again? I don't think so.

2.) "...If we don’t [negotiate], the possibilities of regional war...are a real potential for calamity."

I'm all for negotiations. Even the police sometimes negotiate with criminals. But all negotiations must at some point come to a conclusion. Unless of course the name of the police chief is "Jimmy Carter", in which case the townsfolk will eventually tire of waiting and elect a new sheriff.

But negotiations along the lines suggested by William Lloyd Garrison: "With reasonable men, I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost."

History also teaches us another lesson: that weakness is provocative. That appeasement of the truly evil never truly appeases, but only guarantees future "calamity". Churchill again: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war."

3.) "...that finally we begin to address the problems that exist...""

Finally"? We've done little else but address these problems since these thugs put a bullet in Bobby Kennedy. We gave Arafat a pass on all his murders. We gave him money. Set him up a country. Hell, he got his initials on the towels at the Clinton White House. And what did we get in return? War. Followed by war. With more war ensuing.. Succeded by yet more war. With a war chaser. The only bright spot was the act of the great Arab stateman, Anwar Sadat, asassinated by the same people we are told we must now befriend.

4.) "...I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel."

This statement does not even ascend to the lofty heights of moral equivalence. It is bare-assed naked moral cowardice. No further comment is necessary.

5.) "...I happen to be against violence, I think the United States has to bring resolution to this matter. Now, I condemn Hezbollah as does everybody else, for the violence, but...."

...if by "condemn", we mean "ignore". Or even "reward".

And why does the United States have to fix everything everywhere? We finally get an ally who is willing to stand up for themselves...and we want to quash that?

Nor does Dingell "happen to be against violence", as he so nobly claims. From his own Congressional bio:

"In 1944, at the age of 18, the younger Dingell joined the US Army and prepared to fight the Axis powers in World War II. He rose to the rank of Second Lieutenant and received orders to take part in the first wave of a planned invasion of Japan in November of 1945. The Congressman has said President Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb to end the war ‘saved’ his life."

So we see that Dingell is not always "against violence" if it saves his life, the lives of his countrymen, and ensures his nation's survival and victory. Yet this he would deny to the Israelis.

Scoff if you will at the Bible's claim of Jews as "the Chosen People". But in this one regard, they are absolutely, undeniably distinct and alone: the "world " wants to hold Israel to a standard to which they hold no other nation, and a standard which they would never DREAM of submitting to themselves. Only the Israeli. Only the Jew.

According to the 'world', Israel shall not launch a retaliatory invasion, let alone a pre-emptive one, such as Osirik. Israel shall not use air-strikes, even in accordance with the Laws of War. Israel shall not return fire, even from within its own borders. Come to think of it, Israel shall not even have borders nor defend them. Remember the Fence? There is nothing more defensive than a fence...yet that, too, was a "war-crime". In short, Israel shall not be, sayeth the 'world'.

Speaking of borders, there was a story recently as related at Captain's Quarters about Hidalgo County, Texas. Deputies were investigating a murder/kidnapping and were pinned down by a barrage of automatic weapons fire from across the border. The sheriff: "This type of incident is a very good example of why I will not allow my deputies to patrol the river banks or the levees anywhere close to the river. We do have drug trafficking gangs, human trafficking gangs, that will not hesitate to fire at us."

If American laws cannot be enforced on American soil, and the citizens cannot rely upon the protection of those laws, Hidalgo County has ceased to be American territory. It is now de facto territory of international criminal gangs and/or the Mexican Army, inasmuch as there is a difference. Due to decisions taken in every branch of the federal government, the border regions of Hidalgo and other border counties are now effectively South Lebanon.

Furthermore, while Lebanon nominally has its own elected officials, the true president of Lebanon is President Ahmadinajad of Iran. The vice-president of Lebanon is the goose-necked goose-stepper, Junior Assad of Syria. And the Minister of War is N'Ass'ralla, he who hides behind the skirts of women and the cribs of babies. After all, they alone exercise de facto control over whether or not Lebanon goes to war.

And every single death of the last three weeks on both sides may be laid directly at their doorstep, and their's alone.

So negotiate if you can, Congressman--war is a horrible, awful, wretched thing.

And while you're over there chatting with your new "friends", I'll be over here with my old ones.

Meaning those pesky Jews, who invented and are now defending civilization against a gang of pathologically-psychotic, seventh-century, Jew-hating, infdel-beheading, nuke-mongering, death-worshipping , cold-blooded Satanic murderers, who, incidentally, are Hell-bent on world domination in a way that would put to shame the most committed Marxist/Leninist who ever lived or the most demented Bond villian who didn't.

Give your friends my regards.

Me--I'll stand with Israel.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006


Letter to Hebrew Congregations of Savannah, Georgia


I thank you with great sincerity for your congratulations on my appointment to the office which I have the honor to hold by the unanimous choice of my fellow-citizens, and especially the expressions you are pleased to use in testifying the confidence that is reposed in me by your congregations.

As the delay which has naturally intervened between my election and your address has afforded me an opportunity for appreciating the merits of the Federal Government and for communicating your sentiments of its administration, I have rather to express my satisfaction rather than regret at a circumstance which demonstrates (upon experiment) your attachment to the former as well as approbation of the latter.

I rejoice that a spirit of liberality and philanthropy is much more prevalent than it formerly was among the enlightened nations of the earth, and that your brethren will benefit thereby in proportion as it shall become still more extensive; happily the people of the United States have in many instances exhibited examples worthy of imitation, the salutary influence of which will doubtless extend much farther if gratefully enjoying those blessings of peace which (under the favor of heaven) have been attained by fortitude in war, they shall conduct themselves with reverence to the Deity and charity toward their fellow-creatures.

May the same wonder-working Deity, who long since delivered the Hebrews from their Egyptian oppressors, planted them in a promised land, whose providential agency has lately been conspicuous in establishing these United States as an independent nation, still continue to water them with the dews of heaven and make the inhabitants of every denomination participate in the temporal and spiritual blessings of that people whose God is Jehovah.

--G. Washington

Joshua London:

"Take, for example, the 1786 meeting in London of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain. As American ambassadors to France and Britain respectively, Jefferson and Adams met with Ambassador Adja to negotiate a peace treaty and protect the United States from the threat of Barbary piracy.

These future United States presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Sound familiar?

The candor of that Tripolitan ambassador is admirable in its way, but it certainly foreshadows the equally forthright declarations of, say, the Shiite Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the 1980s and the Sunni Osama bin Laden in the 1990s, not to mention the many pronouncements of their various minions, admirers, and followers. Note that America’s Barbary experience took place well before colonialism entered the lands of Islam, before there were any oil interests dragging the U.S. into the fray, and long before the founding of the state of Israel." [...]

"It is very easy to chalk it all up to regional squabbles, economic depression, racism, or post-colonial nationalistic self-determinism. Such explanations undoubtedly enter into part of the equation — they are already part of the propaganda that clouds contemporary analysis. But as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams came to learn back in 1786, the situation becomes a lot clearer when you listen to the stated intentions and motivations of the terrorists and take them at face value."

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com Site Meter