Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Morality in a Totalitarian State: A Personal Revisionist History

Opinions, in my opinion, unlike principles, are not sacred possessions to be protected, locked away and defended from all intruders. Rather, they are, or should be, living and evolving attitudes, constantly subjected to rigorous revision and adjustment — or, when necessary, quickly abandoned for some more plausible or cogent truth.-- Wrestling With Mohammed - 12/9/0

'-- or, when necessary, quickly abandoned for some more plausible or cogent truth.'

The Third Reich. Hitler's Germany. World War Two and the good German volk. Mein Kampf. How many books have I read on this immense subject? How many documentaries have I watched? Too many to remember but enough to form an opinion. In thinking back over all these books, over all these years, perhaps one of the most influential books I have ever read on this subject -- after Mein Kampf -- was Daniel Goldhagen's blockbuster bestseller "Hitler's Willing Executioners". His research was so thorough, his arguments so compelling, that they proved irresistible. He had statistically proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the 'good German people' were not only cognizant of the prosecution of the Holocaust, but had either directly or indirectly participated in its ghastly mission.
The Germans voted Hitler into power and sanctioned his every move enthusiastically. They continued in their loyal support for Der Fuhrer from the heady victories of 1940 to the horrid devastation of 1945. The idea that the German people had somehow been held hostage, that Germany had in effect been hijacked by some small fanatical gang of Nazis, was therefore ludicrous and self-serving. In short, the German people got what they had asked for in WWII. Despite our own post-war government wanting to quickly change the subject, more interested in building up a strong ally in Western Germany to offset the Communist takeover of the East than in pointing fingers -- despite all of their efforts, it was, in my opinion, the German people and not just the Nazis, who were deeply complicit in their own fate. This was perfectly obvious.

I have just come away from watching "Hitler's Germany: The People's Community 1933-1939", from the award-winning television classic "The World at War". I was riveted to the screen. I was especially moved by the personal interviews of Germans who lived under the Third Reich, people who had survived, who had made whatever accommodations were necessary. Their stories were compelling. They were straight-forward, apparently completely sincere. Could I have been wrong all these years? Was it possible that an entire nation could be held captive? Was it really possible that they just didn't know what Hitler had planned for them, and that by the time they did know, it was too late?

The German people were propagandized daily, in every conceivable form. But did the average German really live in fear? Could they really not protest? I had come to accept the theory that 'people get what they deserve' in a government. Especially if they voted that government into power, and continually ratified that power. It made sense. They loved Hitler and they loved his bloodless conquests of 1938-1940. They loved him until the bombs started falling on Berlin. Many love him still.

How easy it's been to sit here comfortably in my living room and pass judgement on a whole people, a whole generation. And how arrogant. Never having experienced all the small daily terrors of tyranny, I felt assured in the wisdom of my opinions. Assured of the veracity of the many articles I had written on this subject. The German people were guilty as hell.

But now?

Just a few days ago I wrote about longing for a strong leader. A brave, manly patriot who could save this imperilled nation from the disastrous grip of the Left. Perhaps these thoughts recurred to me while watching that powerful documentary. Perhaps my previous strongly-held opinions were shaken. Perhaps all these years I had got it wrong. Not wrong about the horrors of Nazism or the inconceivable tragedy of the Holocaust. But wrong nonetheless. Wrong in that favorite maxim -- that people get the government they deserve.

What I learned.

I believe that I seriously underestimated the trauma of the post WWI chaos in Germany. The Great Depression. The roaming street gangs and the violent and deadly clashes between political rivals. Chaos and anarchy. Getting worse every day. Perhaps it's just that I'm getting older, but today I seem to have a deeper appreciation of how desperately people would want peace and order restored. It's understandable. It's human.

'...longing for a strong leader. A brave, manly patriot who could save this imperilled nation from the disastrous grip the Left.' Isn't that what I/we are longing for? Someone to follow? Someone to finally confront and defeat these leftists who are bound and determined to ruin this great country of ours? Am I suggesting that America would welcome a Hitler, or a dictator of any stripe? No. We've already flirted with Fascism during our own Great Depression but the Union survived. Besides, we have guns and we're too damn independent.
What I am suggesting is this.

The Third Reich was a near-perfect example of a totalitarian state. Something which I think Americans have great difficulty imagining. Can we imagine a nation under the iron rule of one party? Every facet of the media tightly controlled by Goebbles' nearly impregnable propaganda juggernaut. No Internet. All newspapers tightly controlled, all radio -- to be caught listening to a foreign broadcast could mean a trip to the concentration camp -- all movies, all schools. (Aren't we dealing with some embryonic form of this oppressive propaganda right here in America today? Only this time the controllers are on the left). The infamous Gestapo, though proportionately small in number, enjoyed a vast network of spies and informers -- only to be matched by Stalin's murderous USSR.

This moving documentary told the story of a German woman who had a deep interest in spirituality, who felt that she could at times predict the future. On the day that an unsuccessful attempt was made on Hitler's life, in Munich, she commented to her ten year old daughter, 'I knew that was going to happen.' Proud of her mommy, the little girl couldn't wait to tell her friends at school. One her classmate's father was in the Nazi Party. That day the Gestapo came to the mother's house. Fortunately, this particular victim was spared. But what of those who were not? What kind of fear was this? How much more real could it get?

So how has my watching this classic documentary changed my opinion of WWII Germany and the Germans? I think it's humbled me a bit. I'm a little less sure of myself. How would I have managed my life under the iron grip of the Third Reich? Would I have been a brave member of some courageous but ultimately impotent Resistance? Or would I have played the game like everybody else? Would I find my right arm uncontrollably raised in that familiar 'Sieg Heil'!?

Still, the German people voted Hitler into power. And when Hitler finally pushed the allies into war it wasn't just the Nazis who had to be defeated: it was Germany. But considering the deadly milieu in which they lived during the Third Reich, is it fair that so many Germans had to die for the Cause?

No, of course it's not fair. It is what it is.

Finally, how is all of this history relevant to our current crises, our current threats from this ever-growing Islamic jihad?

We must, I believe, carry two thoughts in our hearts simultaneously. First and foremost the realization that Islam is indeed evil, as evil as Nazism, maybe more so, and it must be either conquered or destroyed. Not just 'radical Islam" or 'fanatical Islam', but the very core of this universal menace. Secondly, we must understand that 'All is fair in love and war'. Is it fair to destroy an enemy who is determined to destroy you? Absolutely. Is it fair that the soldiers or terrorists whom we destroy are often products of a system over which they have no control? If a child is propagandized from birth, whether it be in Germany's Hitler Youth or in a Pakistani madras, is it fair that he should pay the price for those deadly ideologies?

No, it isn't fair. It is what it is.

So how has this film changed me, changed my opinion? I think I'm a little broader now perhaps. A little more empathetic for the people of Germany, the volk who, fairly or not, ultimately paid the price for the system that they had became a part of. I hope I am a little less judgmental after today, a little more careful.

That skinny ten year old boy in the Pakistani madras, incessantly bowing up and down, like some robotic toy, endlessly reciting the Arab Mein Kampf, learning all he needs to know, who his enemies are, enemies he will most likely never meet, except perhaps in violence and in blood. He is the enemy. He is the victim. Simultaneously. And he must be conquered or destroyed. There's no other way. It's either us or them. And the sooner we understand this the better.

But is it fair? Of course not. It is what it is. - rg

Just 100 Days To Take America From Democracy To Socialism!

Just 100 Days To Take America From Democracy To Socialism!
Obama Leads USA Onto Ash Heap Of History In Record Time!
By: J. D. Longstreet


While the Mainstream Media fawned for several days over the wonders the Messiah Obama has wrought in his first 100 days in office as the USA’s First Socialist President, we have been near to nausea! There is nothing like a leftist/ socialist President to bring out the sycophant lapdogs of The Left and have them howling in unison. And that is, I think, a good description of the MSM’s reporting on the miracles of Obama, “The One”, the past few days on all the media they control, which is darn near all the media.

The MSM reminds us so much of a child who thinks he, or she, is so much smarter than his parents… until he grows up. And they find, as a famous writer once said: “The older I get the smarter my Dad gets”! Eventually those in America’s media will grow up, but, upon adulthood they will be replaced with another group of young leftists right out of the cookie-cutter leftist journalism schools at our leftist universities and leftist colleges in America. That’s the way it works, dear reader. There is NEVER a shortage of leftist journalists because the left has factories where they are made!

The Messiah image of Obama continues to be polished and held up into the light so that it sparkles and blinds the beholders so they do not see what is behind that eye-scorching dazzle.

But, there will come a time in the not too distant future when the truth of the empty suit that is “The Obamissiah” will become evident

It is the young, the inexperienced, the ignorant, and the leftist/socialists among the American electorate who support this man. And that is frightening. Why? Because they are present in such vast numbers. To know that your country is ruled by such lightweights is a scary thing. Add to that the evidence of Obama’s efforts to move the US farther to the left, and deeper into socialism and secularism and you have a formula for disaster for this formerly great country.

Redistribution of the nation’s wealth, universal healthcare, embracing the global warming hoax, plans for nuclear disarmament, nationalization of America’s financial system and auto industry, and the list goes on. What else do you need before you will accept that Obama has taken America, in 100 days, from a democratic nation to a socialist nation? There it is.

Of course, we haven’t mentioned Obama’s request to have the “IHS” on the stage at Georgetown University’s Gaston Hall covered before he would speak there on April 14th. That, alone, should tell you all you ever need to know about the man. (For those few of you not versed in the Christian faith… “IHS” is a symbol for the name of “Christ.”) You can read the story on this and what Representative John Fleming, Republican of Louisiana had to say on the floor of the US House of Representatives at HERE.

In the article, at, Representative Fleming is quoted as saying: “I have a concern about the very sharp turn to socialism that’s happening in our government.” Fleming is further quoted as having said: “Where you see socialism, you see a decline in Christianity and religion in general.” The Congressman is on the money with those remarks.

America has problems today, dear reader, that makes our financial problems pale in comparison. America is on the extreme verge of losing her soul! What, you may ask, is the causation of this dilemma? LUST, POWER, and GREED. Put another way: The lust for power, and the greediness of the political left to lay claim to all of it!

One hundred days, and one man, was all it took to bring America down. The socialist/communists have always said they would bring America down from INSIDE. They have succeeded.

Joe Stalin once said: "America, is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within." Soviet dictator Krushchev once said: "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism (socialism), but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses (Incrementalism) of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism".

When you “look up” socilaism in your dictionary you will see that socialism is defined as the last stage before full blown communism. THAT’S how close we are today.

One hundred days was all it took. One hundred days.

J. D. Longstreet


61 & 100

By Findalis


Today is Yom Ha'atzmaut! The 61st Anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel. 61 years ago David ben Gurion said in his address of independence:
ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) - the Land of Israel, Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.

After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.

Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. Pioneers, ma'pilim [(Hebrew) - immigrants coming to Eretz-Israel in defiance of restrictive legislation] and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country's inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood.

In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.

This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.

The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people - the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe - was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the comity of nations.

Survivors of the Nazi holocaust in Europe, as well as Jews from other parts of the world, continued to migrate to Eretz-Israel, undaunted by difficulties, restrictions and dangers, and never ceased to assert their right to a life of dignity, freedom and honest toil in their national homeland.

In the Second World War, the Jewish community of this country contributed its full share to the struggle of the freedom- and peace-loving nations against the forces of Nazi wickedness and, by the blood of its soldiers and its war effort, gained the right to be reckoned among the peoples who founded the United Nations.

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.

This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.


WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "Israel".

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.

WE APPEAL to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the comity of nations.

WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

WE APPEAL to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream - the redemption of Israel.


David Ben-Gurion
11 minutes later, President Harry S. Truman sent the following telegram:
This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof. The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the State of Israel.
Then 5 Arab nations (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq) attacked the fledgling nation. 5 nations whose combined military power had a 10 to 1 advantage over the new nation. 5 nations with the best equipped militaries in the region, compared to the new nation with a spattering of guns, no tanks, few planes, and no real artillery.

The new nation never stood a chance of survival fora more than a week, perhaps 10 days.

But the new nation had a weapon that the others didn't have. The Hand of G-d.

Today Israelis are celebrating the founding of their nation. Born in blood, yet with the promise and hope that peace will one day resound through out the land.

Israel then and now!

View at YouTube


This month the city of Tel Aviv celebrates the 100th Anniversary of its founding.

Some interesting facts about Tel Aviv:
The city of Tel Aviv-Jaffa was established in 1909. Its birth coincided with the birth of modern Zionism. It is the first Hebrew-speaking city in modern times.

Tel Aviv and its outskirts consists of 2 1/2 million people, about one-third of Israel's population. Over one million people visit the city daily. Actual population within city limits is 350,000.

Incorporated into a single municipality with Tel Aviv in 1950, Jaffa is older than the city of Jerusalem, and is the oldest operating port in the world.

Tel Aviv contains the largest collection of Bauhaus Architecture in the world and was named a UNESCO world heritage site.

Tel Aviv-Jaffa is Israel's center of commerce and culture. Most major banks, insurance, and high tech companies, are headquartered in Tel Aviv. Fifty percent of all theater seats filled each day in Israel are in Tel Aviv. It is home to the only Opera House, the Israel Philharmonic, Habima, Cameri and Gesher Theatre companies. Israel's Diaspora Museum, the Museum of Art, Museum Ha'aretz, Nahum Gutman and Rubin Museums are all located in Tel Aviv. It is home to the Bat-Sheva Dance Troupe and the Cinematheque.

Tel Aviv in 1909

Tel Aviv today.

Quite a difference a century makes!

2 Anniversaries. One for the birth of a city, the other for the birth of a nation. 2 reasons to shout out in joy:

Am Yisrael Chai!

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

The Republican Party is NOT too Conservative and Democrats are NOT Moderate

Cross posted from The Lonely Conservative

If I hear one more time that the Republican Party's problems stem from being too conservative and that the Democrat Party is the moderate party I might scream, or throw up, or throw something. Who are these people trying to fool? Do they remember the tea parties that occurred two weeks ago? Imagine the turnout if conservatives didn't have jobs? Good God! They've all lost their minds.

Harry Reid, Shepard Smith, Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham, Meghan McCain - They are all living in some other universe. Or at least another continent. Let's about Europe?! If republicans are going to act like democrats - guess what? - we won't need them. They won't matter and unless a third party gains enough momentum - which I don't see happening in the near term - our republic will be completely destroyed.

Yet here we all are, arguing over whether the Republican Party threw Arlen Specter under the bus. How dare conservatives have the audacity to win primaries against republicans? I'll tell them, we've had enough of the RINO's who have destroyed the Republican Party. It's time to weed them out. They haven't stopped the democrats from ramming their agenda down our throats. Quite the contrary. Specter, Snowe and Collins stabbed their party in the back and voted for Porkulus. John McCain is partly responsible for his own loss in the presidential election thanks to McCain-Feingold. George Bush faced backlash from not only his base, but the majority of Americans, over amnesty.

So tell me, please, how on earth is the republican party too conservative? Are they too adherent to the Constitution? Nope! Have they been fiscally responsible? Nope! Oh yeah, some of them actually gave a hoot about keeping us safe. Don't worry, though, Barack Obama and his party will be sure to undo any strides they made in that arena. Were they against expanding the federal government? Hell no! They just expanded it less than democrats.

The republicans took a drubbing in the last two elections because they are too liberal. Was President Bush exalted for his bipartisanship when he worked with Teddy Kennedy to pass No Child Left Behind? Nope. Did he receive praise from AARP for providing seniors with prescription coverage? Nope. He was treated like a leper by democrats and republicans alike.

For those who say the Democrat Party is the party of moderates, I say you are uninformed. Nationalizing health care is not moderate. Robbing workers of the right to a secret ballot is not moderate. Publishing national security secrets for all of our enemies to see is not moderate. Taking over banks and auto companies is not moderate. Using taxpayer money to fund overseas abortions is not moderate. Taking away the right to have an attorney present during interrogations is not moderate. Calling those of us who oppose them "radical right wing extremists" is not moderate. Burdening American families and businesses with cap and trade taxes is not moderate.

Yet, Barack Obama ran as a moderate! He still uses "conservative" language when he reads his little speeches off of TOTUS. News flash: Some people believe what they hear. And for some people, that's all they need to hear and it won't be until they begin to actually feel the effects of Obama's disastrous policies until they begin to see the writing on the wall. The republicans need to oppose him and his party whenever possible. They need to speak up for what's right. They need to point out, over and over again, that his actions do not match his rhetoric. It is not fiscally responsible to spend us into oblivion. It is criminal to rob our children of their future prosperity.

Until members of the Republican Party can find a way to communicate a true conservative message to counter the fake conservative messages delivered by Barack Obama it doesn't matter how many Arlen Specters desert the party to save their own political skin.

Ideological vendettas cloud rational thinking about
torture techniques

We have been hearing a lot about torture recently, specifically questioning whether the Bush administration employed torture methods against terrorists to extract valuable national security information.

Merriam-Webster defines torture as “the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.” Another is contained in Article 1 of the Declaration against Torture adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in December 1975, which states: “torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes of obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he committed, or intimidating him or other persons.”

Historically, torture includes such truly horrible things as boiling, flaying, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing, stoning, burning, dismemberment, sawing, beating, breaking limbs and bamboo shoots shoved under the fingernails. Is that what is being charged against the Bush administration?

Honestly, hardly any Americans defend the use of torture under any circumstances, and especially as a matter of routine interrogation practice, or against mere “foot soldiers.” A dilemma arises, however, when a terrorist with critical knowledge of planned terrorist attacks, perhaps an imminent attack, is captured; the “ticking bomb” scenario. How can we get that crucial, life-saving information?

The acts that the Bush administration is being pilloried for are 10 things identified in the memos President Obama foolishly declassified and released for everyone in the world to read: wall standing, stress positions, cramped confinement, walling, facial hold, cramped confinement, facial slap, sleep deprivation, attention grasp and water-boarding. These acts don’t result in “severe pain or suffering” or lasting physical or psychological damage, are usually attended by medical personnel to see that the terrorists aren’t harmed, and quite frankly, most of them are no more severe than fraternity initiation pranks and basic military training activities; as far from real torture as Earth is from Pluto.

Imagine asking a victim of impalement just before he expires, “How glad are you that you weren’t subjected to cramped confinement, sleep deprivation or water-boarding instead of merely being impaled on spears?” His likely response, were he able to utter one, would be unprintable.

This is one of an increasing number of topics, like global warming, where ideological zealots have hijacked the debate, and when discussing torture sleep deprivation is equated with flaying and boiling in oil; there is no middle ground. But, calling those 10 things torture is not just inaccurate, it is dishonest.

The word torture must be used accurately, to describe actual torture, not mere discomfort. In the quirky world we live in today sleep deprivation and putting people in stress positions become be equated with disembowelment and sawing someone slowly in half.

It’s a wonderful thing to hold to high-minded ideals, and to place ourselves above such things as torture. But when the chips are down and American lives are in danger, and we have captured someone who has information that can prevent their injury or death, what are the high-minded going to do?

Under the current rules we are allowed to politely ask terrorists something like: “OK, Mr. Terrorist, you know where a bomb is that will kill Americans. If you cooperate and tell us where it is, we’ll go easy on you.” We might even be able to use some intimidation and threats. But if the terrorist answers with something like, “You’ll find out soon enough,” we’ve done all we can do under the rules, and people’s lives are left to the fates.

Some people in this country would be content with that, to let people die without further effort. But if our child or spouse was in danger, most of us — those with a soul — would do whatever it took to get the information, even if it meant water-boarding the terrorist, or actually torturing him. And we wouldn’t bat an eye in doing so, because we want to save our loved one from injury or death; that is more important. We will do well to remember that these techniques worked and prevented several terrorist attacks after 9-11, one of which was in Los Angeles and another in London.

Interestingly, in the memos that tell the world the techniques we used to extract critical information from terrorists, the attacks those techniques prevented are blacked out.

But these are strange times we live in, and there is a faction of Americans who hate George Bush so much that they are willing and eager to prosecute members of his administration for doing things that saved the lives of untold numbers of Americans and other innocents.

Protecting American lives is one of the few legitimate functions of our government, and Barack Obama seems ready to penalize people for actions that were undertaken with the best of intentions to do just that. And so will begin a process of criminalizing the actions of previous administrations that has never been done before in this nation.

And after his presidency, Mr. Obama may find himself looking over his shoulder, and wondering why.

Cross-posted from Observations


By: J. D. Longstreet

We knew this day would eventually come. And now it is here and we have the wrong person in the Oval Office to deal with it.

The UN is demanding that their rules and regs take precedence over the US Constitution. See, that’s what happens when you sign a democratic nation onto a socialist organization and join the company of a slew of representatives from countries ruled by tin-pot dictators. There is a parable in the Bible that speaks of this sort of thing. It is an old, old, expression, which, if I can paraphrase here, goes something like this: “A little leaven… leavens the whole lot.” In other words… a little evil in a group makes the entire group evil. Or said, yet, another way, “one evil person in an organization makes the entire organization evil.” In today’s vernacular it means, simply: “ guilt by association.”

We have no love for the UN. In fact we’d like to see it disbanded, the building torn down, and the land it was sitting upon plowed under and sown with salt to prevent anything from growing there.

One of the reasons we pushed so hard for the election of a conservative president in 2008 was because we feared a liberal president would submit the US to UN rule. And what do you know? We got a President who bows to the king of a desert full of sand dunes… and, oh, yeah, oil.

Many conservatives warned of the dangers of the election of a liberal President and pointed out this very possibility… that the election of a liberal President in 2008, was to be avoided unless, of course, the people of America were in favor of the US being run by the UN!

Well, that day has arrived and I have absolutely no reservations in predicting that the current President of the US will fold to the UN like a cheap suit.

So what has brought us to this sorry place in history? Well, a few days ago, the U.N.'s top anti-torture envoy said the U.S. is obligated by a United Nations convention to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who allegedly drafted policies that approved the use of harsh interrogation tactics against terrorism suspects. The “convention” he is speaking of is “The U.N. Convention Against Torture.”

In the spirit of full disclosure, allow me to explain my own stance on the US using torture on terrorists. If torture will get us the information we need to stop an attack on Americans, anywhere in the world, and keep American families safe, I have no problem with it. We are dealing with people who would slit the throats of you’re your babies, your children and stand over their bodies and laugh!

Alright, here is the crux of the current matter: The UN wants to prosecute those Bush Administration Justice Department officials who wrote memos that defined torture and who assured CIA officials that their use of certain tactics was legal.

I have to ask… is our President going to allow another entity to try US citizens for expressing an opinion? An opinion asked for by their employer, the President of the United States? Oh, yes! There is the implied threat that if the US does not prosecute those lawyers and other experts for giving an opinion they were asked to give by their President, they will be tried by another entity “abroad”, which is simply another way of saying they intend to try US citizens in a court of law in another country for something they did, which the accusers believe was a crime, in THIS country! Now, this is where a REAL Commander-in-Chief would begin rattling sabres and mentioning that three letter word… WAR. Yes, this is where Obama should be saying: “Look, you try dragging one of our citizens before a court in any country charged with a crime they committed in the US, if, indeed, it was a crime, then we will use the full might of the US military to stop you, your country, and the UN, if necessary.

And NO, we’re not going to hear that because our socialist President believes in “global governance”… or a one-world government, which sublimates the US constitution to the United Nations.

Exactly what the UN Representative is saying is that the 145 other countries who are co-signers of that particular UN Convention have an obligation to arrest any of those accused, if they are found within their jurisdiction, and return then to the US, under arrest, IF the US guarantees it will try them. If the US does not agree to try them then those 145 countries have an obligation to try the accused themselves. Is that clear enough for you? You can read the entire story HERE.

One can say what one will about the Bush Administration, and Lord knows, there was a lot I did not agree with them on, but there is one thing for which I will be forever in their debt, and that is for keeping my family, and my country, safe from any more terrorist attacks after 9-11.

It seems to me that for the current President to allow any sort of condemnation of the men and women who did everything they could to prevent further death and destruction on America’s shores is nothing short of ingratitude to the nth degree. Not to mention the damage it does to “trust” among presidential advisors in the future when asked to give the President a frank and honest opinion on, well, ANY subject. How can advisors EVER trust the President, or the Congress ever again? The honest answer is they cannot. They can NEVER know they will not be prosecuted, years later, for rendering an honest opinion to an inquiry from the President. Of course, that means the President cannot fully trust their advice, either.

This matter is a “Pandora’s Box” best left unopened. But an inexperienced President with, unfortunately, a “Messiah” complex has opened it and now it cannot be closed.

As we have noted before in this column, the UN seems ever ready to undermine the only nation keeping them afloat monetarily, by rushing in to accuse the US of every kind of evil, because, in our opinion, the UN is jealous of the superpower status of the US. How utterly ridiculous! How very like the UN!

The UN, as we have said often in this column, is hopelessly broken. It cannot be repaired. The UN is finished. I, for one, would happily bid the UN “goodbye and good riddance.” I would stand on the docks of New York Harbor and wave, gleefully, as the ship bearing the entire UN entourage, slips eastward over the horizon. What a wonderful thought.

In the meantime, the US, it seems, must continue to do the UN’s job as they are completely incapable of taking care of themselves… let alone policing the world’s trouble spots.

Many Americans are growing extremely tired of financing that nest of “ne’er do wells” and we’d like to see it fold up and go away. It is long past time for the US to pull out of the UN and allow the demise of that sad, arrogant, impotent, and disappointing organization.

J. D. Longstreet


Sunday, April 26, 2009

Christians Must Be The Driving Force In Saving America.

Christians Must Be The Driving Force In Saving America.
By: J. D. Longstreet

If one chooses not to subscribe to a religion (in America) that is perfectly OK. Nowhere is it written that you must belong to one faith, or the other, to be a good citizen, or even just to be a citizen. Nowhere.

At the same time, nowhere is it written that I can’t practice mine.

A not so careful reading of the 1st Amendment will demonstrate, to anyone with an open mind, the framers had nothing to say about the mingling of religion and state. What they did not want to see was the state impose a certain religion, or denomination, on it’s people.

At the time the Constitution was written, some of the northeastern states/colonies had already established state churches. The churches in those states/colonies were a part of that state’s government. If you were a citizen of that state you were a member of that church. One, or two, European countries have the same state/church situation, even today, as the early colonies had in the 1700’s. When you are born, in those countries, you are born into the church. You remain a member until death, or, you go to court and ask a judge to allow you to leave that “state church.”

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in this country. I don’t believe the Constitution even suggests it. Only a myopic, left leaning, court could find that in the Constitution. They think they have. As soon as the conservative court becomes a fact, and not a figment of our imagination, that will be over-turned.

Having said all this, I still favor an amended 1st Amendment to make the practice of those religions that would forsake our constitutional law and replace it with some sort of religious code of laws unacceptable and even illegal in the US. There are obvious reasons for outlawing those religions in this country.

And YES, this country was founded on the tenants of the Judeo-Christian faith. One cannot read any of our state documents, or any of our founding documents, or look at our national buildings, (even the Supreme Court Building) and not be aware of that fact. The individuals and organizations attempting to strip America of her Judeo-Christian Heritage will lose. It will be messy, and tempers are going to flare, but in the end they WILL lose.

On our money the slogan says: “In God We Trust.” Sometimes we have to be reminded of that. On the top of the Washington Monument are engraved, in Latin, the words “Praise Be To God!” My sentiments exactly!

In the past few months we Americans have been reminded just how fragile our form of government really is. By rights it should never have managed to exist as long as it has. But it did. Now, however, with the onslaught of socialism on our government, those of us who subscribe to the Christian faith, and a few others, have come to the realization that there is a war going on just out of sight of the masses of Americans and it is a war for the survival of the United States.

As Christians we can sit back and say to ourselves that due to the separation of church and state, we Christians have no part in this war. That would be, and is, wrong. And this is where the connection between church and stated proves itself. See, if the current representative republic falls, so will our right to practice our faith as we choose. As Americans we must render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. As Christians we must render unto God the things that are God’s. Confusing the two only creates chaos, division, and could easily lead to the loss of the right to practice our faith openly and if could even lead to the loss of our constitutional freedoms and our liberty.

Forgive me if I cannot see how it is possible for Christians to support a socialist government in America. Yet millions of Christians, at least those that claim the mantle of Christianity, voted for it and even now rabidly support the socialist government of Obama and the Democratic Party in America. The Holy Scriptures of the Christians says as plainly as possible that Christians, anyone for that matter, cannot serve two masters.

It is my opinion, that if America is to survive these dark days of tribulation Christians must join together to save her. It is the ONLY way America will survive.

J. D. Longstreet

For an excellent overview on why America should consider amending the Constitution regarding religion, read the following articles:

Why America Must Define Religion

An “Honest” Terrorist Writes: “No Muslim Can Pledge Loyalty to the Constitution”

Keith Ellison, Islam, American Sovereignty : Should we Amend the Constitution?

href="" rel="tag">Conservative+Christianity+Socialism+America+Rescue

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Those Angry Young Men

The laws of primogeniture and the First Crusade

What in the world, you might well ask, could the First Crusade and some rather obscure Medieval "laws of primogeniture" have to do with our current civilizational crises? Perhaps quite a bit. First, what exactly is "primogeniture"?
Primogeniture is the common law right of the firstborn son to inherit the entire estate, to the exclusion of younger siblings. It is the tradition brought by the Normans to England in 1066. According to the Norman tradition, the firstborn son inherited the entirety of a parent's wealth, estate, title or office. In the absence of children, inheritance passed to the collateral relatives, in order of seniority of the collateral line.

The effects of these laws on the noble warrior class -- and on the poor commoners as well -- were enormous. Those sons born second in line were often highly trained and well-equipped combatants instilled with a strong warrior ethos -- but with no appreciable income. A dangerous situation, highly trained warriors with nothing to do. All too often these disenfranchised, less-than-glorious knights resorted to internecine fighting or common brigandage. But what could be done about them?

In March 1095 at the Council of Piacenza, ambassadors sent by Byzantine Emperor Alexius I called for help with defending his empire against the Seljuk Turks. Later that year, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks, promising those who died in the endeavor would receive immediate remission of their sins.

There has long been conjecture among medieval scholars that a major part of Pope Urban II's calling for the Crusades (just thirty years after the introduction of the primogeniture laws) was that it presented a perfect opportunity to gainfully employ these troublesome errant knights and give Europe a well-deserved respite from the wanton violence.

Perhaps it shouldn't come as too great a shock to realize that this poor old wounded world of ours has all too often been ruled by men just out of their adolescence. More than one teenager ascended to the Imperial Roman throne (among them the notorious Caligula). Here's some interesting statistics.

The world
Population: 6,602,224,175 (July 2007 est.)
Age structure: 0-14 years: 27.4% (male 931,551,498/female 875,646,416)
15-64 years: 65.1% (male 2,174,605,518/female 2,124,494,703)
65 years and over: 7.5% (male 217,451,123/female 278,474,917) (2007 est.)
Median age: total: 28 years
male: 27.4 years
female: 28.7 years (2007 est.)

Life expectancy in Imperial Rome:
Tombstones show that the life expectancy of women was 34 years as contrasted with 46 years for men because women often died in childbirth.
Resource: Encarta
Or as low as this:
[Roman] life expectancy at birth [was]in the range of 20–25 or less (Macchiarelli et al., 1998)
CIA World Fact Book
So, somewhere between 20 and 46 years life expectancy.

Angry young men. To see them in action just watch a world cup soccer match in South America or Brussels. Or more to the point, take a closer look at those inflamed Arab streets. What do you see? Angry young men with nothing to do. Angry young men, overflowing with testosterone, just itching for a fight. And of course a notable absence of women. Here's some more interesting statistics.

Gaza Strip
1,551,859 (July 2009 est.)
Age structure:
0-14 years: 44.4% (male 353,489/female 334,770)
15-64 years: 53% (male 420,618/female 402,297)
65 years and over: 2.6% (male 16,483/female 24,202) (2009 est.)
Median age:
total: 17.4 years
male: 17.2 years
female: 17.5 years (2008 est.)
Resource: CIA World Fact Book

And this --

The median age of the Israeli Arab is 14 and just entering his reproductive years... anxious to make BOTH Love and War! Another way of looking at this is that half of all Israeli-Arabs are under the age of 14!
Resource: Masada 2000

So the angry young men are still with us, and they are still angry. Our world is replete with them. And nowhere is this more evident than in the Arab world. That volatile hyper-masculine, often adolescent, world of generational revenge, brutality and violence, that self-destructive warrior culture which the good pope tried, somewhat successfully, to ameliorate. But this time it's the angry young Muslim men who are on a Crusade, a worldwide jihad against the West. Perhaps we can learn from the lessons of history. Perhaps we can better recognize our foes, and realize that they are predominantly angry adolescents. Unfortunately, the cynical, hate-filled mullahs have, it appears, successfully harnessed all that testosterone. It is aflame on the Arab street. Can we somehow find a way to extinguish this terrible flame before it engulfs our world?

"Moral Muslims": A Continuation of the Discussion

Below are three comments from Findalis' recent thought-provoking Radarsite article.

Roger W. Gardner said...
Fine, thoughtful article. The subject of reforming Islam remains problematic for me. To abrogate the existential threat of Islam to the non-Islamic world, one would have to expunge so much material from the Koran that it would become utterly unrecognizable -- conquerable to taking Christ out of Christianity. Islam is aggressive political movement founded on religious doctrine. Islam was founded by a criminal and murderer, and this fact cannot be altered by changing or deleting a few violent phrases. I'm afraid I still find it difficult to recognize "moral Muslims" or "moderate Muslims". Unless they are prepared to completely renounce the teachings of their "prophet" and start afresh, they are, in my view, guilty of perpetuating this ghastly cult. Islam is the enemy. Not just the radicals, but the bloodthirsty cult itself. Islam -- regular, "non-radical" Islam is the sworn enemy of freedom and liberty, There can be no other interpretation of its message. It truly is "them or us".
April 23, 2009 4:14 AM
Findalis said...
Actually Roger there is a small minority of Muslims who do reject the violent passages of the Koran as false prophesies. They accept only the early non-violent ones. Nor do they consider Mo the most perfect man but place him as imperfect as many of the other prophets of the bible.It is too bad that the majority of Muslims don't follow this sect. For if they did, none of us would have a problem with Islam.Islam today is where Christianity was in the 15th Century. The violence over the Reformation lasted centuries. Unfortunately, the world cannot afford 200 years of war. Not in an age of WMDs. So either Islam must reform to a gentler form or it will be destroyed. The world cannot accept any other choice!
April 24, 2009 12:43 AM
Ben said...
I dissected the article here: took issue with seven critical points, which I denoted with superscripts linked to an enumerated list following the article. Roger is right: Islam can not survive the excision of its evil core. Findalis is out of luck, because Islam is irreformable. Perfection can only be defiled, not improved; see 5:3. 6:115. And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His Words. And He is the All­Hearer, the All­Knower. 18:27. And recite what has been revealed to you (O Muhammad ) of the Book (the Qur'├ón) of your Lord (i.e. recite it, understand and follow its teachings and act on its orders and preach it to men). None can change His Words, and none will you find as a refuge other than Him. You can't change the Qur'an!!! Umdat as-Salik, Book O, Chapter 8, paragraph 7 lists 20 acts entailing apostasy, punishable by execution. This is one member of that list:-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;A Muslim who denies 2:216, 8:12, 8:39, 8:60,8:67, 9:29 or 9:123 is an apostate and may be killed with impunity. I believe that Zehudi Jasser and Khalim Massoud are sincere, sufferers of cognitive dissonance. Islam is what it is, not what they wish it were; it will never become what they want it to be.
A note from Radarsite: At the very heart of our prosecution of the GWOT lies the persisting quandry of the "moderate" - or as our friend Findalis offered - "moral" Muslim. Isn't it astonishing that, nine years after being viciously attacked by Islamic jihadis, we are still finding it difficult -- if not impossible - to satisfactorily identify our enemy? Who is our enemy and who is not? The more we learn about Islam the more muddled we become. Despite the overwhelming and undeniable evidence -- which we are all well aware of -- that in the last half century the vast majority of attacks against the West and the US were perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Allah, we still look for ways to minimize the extent of the Islamic threat and make ourselves more comfortable. Not all Muslims are bad people, we tell ourselves. Many Muslims are decent law-abiding citizens. We have Muslim friends and acquaintances who are beyond reproach. And, perhaps the biggest objection of all: if Islam itself is our enemy, then will we find ourselves at war with the entire Muslim world? Are we fated to have to fight all x-billion of them?

As you can see from the comments posted above, even the most informed and intelligent among us, such as our good friends and compatriots Findalis and Ben, find themselves at odds over this thorny issue. To Findalis, the existence of these moral Muslims gives reason for hope. To Ben, it is Islam itself, in whatever form, that is our sworn enemy -- and this includes all Muslims who follow the Koran. For Ben, hope is to be replaced by clarity and resolve.

Perhaps now would be a good time to clarify Radarsite's position on this seemingly intractable problem. Below are links to a sampling of the many articles I have written for Radarsite on this subject. There are many, many more. In a nutshell, I am a 'maximalist', I believe that Islam itself is the source of the evil which confronts us. I believe that Islam truly is a manifestation of utter evil. I further accept the premise that Islam, by its very nature, is, has been, and always will be the mortal enemy of the West, and that the two ideologies are inherently incompatible. It is the avowed mission of Islam to conquer the world for Allah, to make the world into a universal caliphate. This has been its unalterable goal since it inception. To ignore or misread this fundamental truth is to make a deadly mistake. And in our courts and universities, and in the hallowed halls of Congress, we are making these deadly mistakes daily.

The bottom line.
If I truly believed that what this country needed at this time in our history was more compassion, more tolerance and more understanding, then I would be calling for that. However, given the irrefutable evidence of the facts of our world, given that the common denominator of all of our Middle Eastern enemies, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, et al is Islam, given that this is -- whether we deem to acknowledge it or not -- a global war of Islam against everybody else. Whether it be in Africa or Malaysia or Dearborn, the enemy is openly and unequivocally Islam.

I believe that given the great changes that have occurred in this nation over the last half century, and given the perilous conditions we now find ourselves in, the last thing, the very last thing, we need is to continue trying to find more ways to humanize our Islamic foe. Our good-hearted tolerance of the intolerant has placed us in this untenable position, and if we are to survive we must abandon our present foreign-policy-by-wishful-thinking and confront the enemy head on. Now is the time. Tomorrow will be too late. We must stop trying to find common ground with Islam and, once and for all, recognize it for what it truly is: an aggressive bloodthirsty political movement based on "religious" teachings. If we are to win this virtual Clash of Civilizations we had better cease trying to understand the enemy and concentrate on defeating them. And, yes, I truly do believe that it is Us versus Them. - rg
For further reading:

Sderot: Remembering the Holocaust. and Durban II

by Findalis

From the Sderot Media Center

by Anav Silverman

Today Israel marked Holocaust Remembrance Day. Standing on a street in Sderot, I listened quietly to the siren sound, remembering the tragedy of 6 million Jews killed in Nazi Europe, my great grandparents, uncles and aunts from Poland among them.

I’ve become used to sirens sounding in Sderot during my past two years here-the click of the intercom, followed by a female voice that calmly repeats Tzeva Adom, Tzeva Adom, or Color Red. The scenes that unfold usually entail people dashing into shelters-racing for 15 seconds that may mean the difference between life and death.

But now at this moment, the Holocaust siren gives me a moment to reflect. I watch passerby’s stop, Ethiopians, Russians, Uzbekistanis, Moroccans, Persians and the like; Israeli Jews from countries around the world who make up Sderot’s colorful cultural tapestry. We stand together to remember the tragedy of silence that cost the lives of so many innocent people in our nation.

It is this tragedy of silence which probably strikes hardest here in Sderot.

Eight years of Qassam attacks have wounded over 1,000 Israelis, destroyed hundreds of Jewish homes, and have left thousands of children psychologically traumatized. Today close to one million Israelis in southern Israel live under the threat of Palestinian rocket attack thanks to the financial aid and embedment from Iran.

Who will speak up for these Israelis who continue to be the targets of radical Islam in the form of Hamas rocket terror?

Sderot is targeted not because it is a city outside the 1967 green lines, nor because of an army base located in the city. Sderot is part of the UN Partition Plan of 1948 with a civilian population of 19,000, where over 5,000 residents have been forced to flee since Palestinian rocket fire began on the city in 2001.

Sderot is targeted simply because it is a Jewish city on the frontlines of Israel-an easy target for Palestinian terrorists who seek Israel’s destruction.

THE greatest testimony that the world is once again returning to its apathetic state of silence that defined the era of Nazi Germany was revealed no less ironically today at the Durban II conference when Iranian President Ahmadinejad was invited as a guest speaker. Moreover, Hans-Rudolf Merz, the president of Switzerland, a country that declared its “neutrality” during the Holocaust, agreed to meet with Ahmadinejad, who is a fervent Holocaust denier and has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel.

According to an Associated Press report, the Swiss president defended his meeting with Ahmadinejad and said that the criticism of the meeting was unjustified, stating that “Switzerland is neutral and not part of any alliance.”

Ahmadinejad’s presence at Durban II is symbolic in that there has been no overwhelming international outcry against his views or the fact that he was invited to speak at the UN conference on racism.

Iran is considered the greatest threat to Israel’s survival. Although Iran, an oil-rich country, continues to claim that its nuclear program is meant to produce electricity, it remains clear to Israel that Tehran is intent on building nuclear weapons that could potentially cause massive destruction to the state.

SDEROT residents have been the silent targets of Islamic terror for too long. Last year on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, 13 rockets fell upon Sderot. Although rocket fire has significantly decreased since Operation Cast Lead, close to 200 rockets have still been fired at the western Negev region. If Israel does not effectively stand up for her citizens at home, who will stand up for Israel in the world?

As countries across the world show alarming acceptance of a blatantly anti-Semitic figure like Ahmadinejad, demonstrated in Durban II, the state of Israel and the Jewish people cannot allow silence to become a national policy in the face of anti-Semitic terror, be it rockets or rhetoric, at home or abroad.
In 1938 the world did nothing, said nothing while Hitler and his thugs accelerated Germany's slide into the madness that was the 'Final Solution'. We witnessed on Monday 100 nation rise and applaud Ahmadinejad in Geneva. There is only one nation that speaks for Israel and Jews around the world. It is Israel. It is a shame that the world has decided to turn its back and closed its ears to the cries of pain and anguish from Israelis. It is only Palestinian tears that matter to the world.

But I pray not to you, truth seeker. I once again ask you to remember the people of Sderot, and Israel in your prayers. To sign up for Code Red Alerts. To contact you Congress Representatives, Senators and President Obama. Contact your newspapers, radio, and other media outlits. And if you are able to, donate a few coins to the Sderot Media Center. Just click on the logo at the top or bottom of this post and follow the directions from there. It is time that the people of Sderot and Israel start having a loud voice screaming out their story too.

Friday, April 24, 2009

FDR and the Case of the Captured Enemy Combatants

From World Net Daily
Opinion by Ellis Washington.

FDR and the Nazi saboteur case
"I only wish President Bush and now President Obama would have taken the approach FDR took in the Nazi saboteur case, Ex Parte Quirin (1942), where in the midst of World War II eight Nazi terrorists were captured on the coasts of New York and Florida. After a summary trial in July 1942, six were summarily executed one month later after the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal. FDR, though a liberal socialist, was decisive in quickly and summarily punishing Nazi spies. Hitler did not try that stunt again".
Here, courtesy of The History Channel are the basic facts of the case.
In June 1942, eight German saboteurs were delivered to the east coast of the United States via U-boats, with the intent to attack, destroy and terrorise. But they were apprehended almost immediately, and six of the eight were executed... From their training to the aftermath of their botched mission... [these]trained saboteurs doomed themselves through mistrust, conflicting allegiances, and betrayal.

The first group of four saboteurs left by submarine in May 1942 from the German base at Lorient, France, and on May 28, the next group of four departed the same base. Each was destined to land at points on the Atlantic Coast of the United States familiar to the leader of that group. Four men, led by George John Dasch, age 39, landed on a beach near Long Island, New York on 13 June, 1942. Accompanying Dasch were Ernest Peter Burger, Heinrich Harm Heinck, and Richard Quirin. On 17 June, 1942, the other group landed at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. The leader was Edward John Kerling, with Werner Thiel, Herman Otto Neubauer, and Herbert Hans Haupt. Both groups landed wearing complete or partial German uniforms to ensure treatment as prisoners of war rather than as spies if they were caught.

The Trial
The eight were tried before a Military Commission, appointed by President Roosevelt. They were all found guilty and sentenced to death. Appeals were made to President Roosevelt to commute the sentences of Dasch and Burger. As a result, Dasch received a 30-year sentence, while Burger received a life sentence. The remaining six were executed by electric chair on 8 August, 1942. The eight men had been born in Germany and each had lived in the United States for substantial periods. Burger had become a naturalised American in 1933. Haupt had entered the United States as a child, gaining citizenship when his father was naturalised in 1930. Dasch had joined the Germany army at the age of 14 and served about 11 months as a clerk during the conclusion of World War I. He had enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1927, and received an honourable discharge after a little more than a year of service. Quirin and Heinck had returned to Germany prior to the outbreak of World War II in Europe, and the six others subsequent to September 11, 1939, and before December 7, 1941, apparently feeling their first loyalty was to the country of their birth. In April, 1948, President Truman granted executive clemency to Dasch and Burger on condition of deportation. They were transported to the American Zone of Germany, where they were freed.
A note from Radarsite: If ours is a nation founded on laws, and if these laws are founded on precedents, I offer the above article to acknowledge an important precedent in American jurisprudence. The very first objection raised by our pacifist/liberal Dems will most likely be that this was in a different time, under different circumstances. Obviously, this took place in a different -- and some would say, more exemplary -- time in our nation's history. But were the circumstances really all that different? Or, as I suspect, is it America that is different? In both cases we were viciously attacked, without warning, on our own soil by a ruthless alien power determined to defeat us. If anything, today's enemy poses an even greater existential threat to our nation.
How then do we explain the startling contrast between our ambivalent reactions to the horrors of 9/11 and the almost immediate display of visceral anger in response to the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941; even though it could be argued that, though admittedly dishonorable and treacherous, the Japanese attacks were in fact a military attack against a military target, that actually resulted in less fatalities (2,403 compared to 2,986) than were incurred on 9/11—while virtually all of the 2,749 victims in New York City were innocent civilians. Where, we implore our leftist friends, is that righteous anger? What has happened to that steely resolve which we so courageously sustained throughout those terrible war years? How did we lose our way? And, most importantly, are we capable of regaining that 'steely resolve'? The travesty of the current trial of the captured Somali pirate in a NYC courtroom -- complete with ambitious defense attorneys, the impending release of enemy combatants from Gitmo, the Congressional investigations into allegations of torture of captured jihadis -- and a thousand more miserable examples answers the question, doesn't it?

Like it or not, we are at war, a war that our inexperienced and morally-conflicted new president and his leftist cabinet refuse to name or acknowledge.

But, today's Friday, and it's a beautiful day, and tomorrow's going to be even more beautiful. And I'm alive and breathing in the cool fresh air, and these days that's a major victory.
God bless America - rg

Barack Obama: The vindictive President

Commentary by James H. Shott

The current silliness taking place in the third ring of the circus that is Washington, DC over the Bush administration’s successful efforts to defend the nation against additional terrorist attacks after 9-11-01 would be laughable, were it not so absurd and so un-American.

A very good and on-point analysis of that situation appeared in a recent column by Wesley Pruden, a portion of which follows:

The president's on-again, off-again, maybe-he-will and maybe-he-won't decision to punish someone who loosened tongues of Islamist terrorists at Guantanamo suddenly threatens not only the CIA interrogators and Justice Department lawyers, but even members of Congress. Maybe it won't stop there: if the lawyers who offered legal opinions are at risk of punishment for their legal advice, why not the members of Congress who knew what was going on? Why not the secretaries who typed up the transcripts? Why not the interns who fetched the coffee? All were accessories either before or after the fact.

We're on unfamiliar ground now. No president before has sought to punish his predecessor for policy decisions, no matter how wrong or wrong-headed. Lyndon B. Johnson's management of the Vietnam War was often ham-handed, as anyone who was there could tell you, and his policy makers sometimes verged on criminal incompetence. But Richard Nixon was never tempted to send LBJ or any of those presidential acolytes to prison. Abraham Lincoln, by his lights, would have had ample opportunity to hang Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, but even the rabid Republicans who survived the assassination stopped short of putting Davis in the dock, finally releasing him from imprisonment at Fort Monroe when judgment overcame lust for revenge. Lee was never touched.

Exacting revenge for unpopular policies is the norm in the third world, heretofore more likely in Barack Obama's ancestral Kenya than in America, more in the tradition of gangland Chicago than in Washington, where we count on cooler heads to prevail when raw emotion threatens to overwhelm sobriety and the undisciplined senses. We recall perceived national mistakes with the sadness of regret and even gratitude for lessons learned, not the frenzied catharsis of a St. Valentine's Day Massacre. Mr. Obama, having won the White House fair and square, is entitled to change any presidential policy he chooses, but the vindication of a national election does not entitle any president to exact mindless revenge.

It is getting more and more difficult to endure the Obama presidency without acknowledging the need for numerous impeachments and firings.

Cross-posted from Observations

The Law of the Sea Treaty Is Back With A Friend In The White House!

The Law of the Sea Treaty Is Back With A Friend In The White House!
J. D. Longstreet


The Leftists of the world have been encouraging the United States to sign the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which was rightly vetoed by President Reagan decades ago and rejected by American Presidents, both Democrat and Republican, ever since. Now, with Obama a socialist/liberal/democrat in the Oval Office the treaty, most assuredly, has a friend in the White House.

It ought to scare the living daylights out of you! Why? Stay with us for abit and we will make an effort to enlighten you.

So why is it important? OK, lets look at some reasons why the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is important to you as an American and to all inhabitants of the earth:

The first thing we need to do is look at some of the reasons why the people of America lose if this treaty is passed and the US has signed on to it..

By asserting UN authority over seven-tenths of the Earth’s surface, LOST would be the largest territorial conquest in history.

In principle, the treaty would assert UN jurisdiction over U.S. territorial waters, and eventually over waterways within our country.

It would create a huge bureaucratic entity called the “Enterprise” which would regulate and tax all commercial uses of the high seas.

By taxing all efforts to develop the wealth of the seabed, the UN would be given a huge revenue stream, independent of national governments, to push its agenda for international socialism.
The treaty would require the redistribution of cutting-edge technology from the U.S. to all governments in the “developing world,” including extremely repressive governments.
Get the picture??? It’s that cussed “One World Government, or Global Governance our current President is so fond of. You know… it is the “GLOBALISTS” at work.
So, where do we stand today on LOST? Not good, I’m afraid.

The last time this treaty came before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations they passed it by a vote of 17-4! If the committee approves it again it will go before the entire Senate for ratification. Honestly, it is not looking good for those of us who want a stake driven through the heart of this treaty.

The National Center for Public Policy Research has a website providing educational resources on the Law of the Sea Treaty (also known by the acronyms LOST and UNCLOS). We urge you to click on it and take a look for yourself.

National Center Vice President David Ridenour has said: "The Law of the Sea Treaty is a terrible deal for the U.S. It would threaten our sovereignty, place a significant portion of the world's resources under the control of a U.N.-style body, and complicate our efforts to apprehend terrorists on the high seas by subjecting our actions to review by an international court unlikely to render decisions favorable to the U.S."

Ridenour went on to say: “"The Law of the Sea Treaty would help radical environmentalists achieve what they haven't been able to achieve through legislation. Greenpeace has said 'the benefits of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea are substantial, including its basic duties for states to protect and preserve the marine environment and to conserve marine living species.' The Natural Resources Defense Council challenged the Navy's use of 'intense active sonar,' arguing that it violates the treaty by posing a danger to marine life. The Navy ultimately agreed to scale back use of this technology. The Law of the Sea Treaty has also been used by Australia and New Zealand in an attempt to shut down an experimental blue fin tuna fishing program and by Ireland in an attempt to shut down a plant on land in England."

The website, the United National Law of the Sea Treaty Information Center, contains a collection of research papers, commentaries and blog entries about LOST from a variety of think-tanks, scholars, opinion writers and bloggers. It can be accessed HERE.

"Although the Law of the Sea Treaty has been around for decades -- the National Center for Public Policy Research first worked on it in 1982 -- relatively few people know much about it," said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. "The United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty Information Center website is designed to help correct this."

It is more important than ever before to contact your senators and urge them to oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty.

If you are still not satisfied with your level of knowledge concerning “LOST” then we recommend you go HERE and read the article entitled: “Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty!” by William Norman Grigg.

Look, this is serious stuff. And we are not hearing about it in the MSM. A good question is… WHY?

We urge you to educate yourself and do so quickly. First, however, get on the phone, or send an e-mail or a fax to the offices of your US Senators and ask them to vote no on the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Every so often, we get a chance to use our constitutional rights for good. This is one of those times.

For more information on this proposed treaty we urge you to go HERE.

J. D. Longstreet


href=" UN+ Jurisdiction" rel="tag">Conservative+Treaty+Sea+ UN+ Jurisdiction

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Do the Palestinians Really Want a State?

By Findalis

I am positive that the average Palestinian man or woman would take any decent agreement giving them their own nation and working in peaceful cooperation with their Israeli neighbors, create a Paradise on Earth. Most Palestinians work or have worked in Israel, many would be friendly with Israelis if they could (the extremists in Gaza and the West Bank kill such people, calling them traitors and collaborators.). There is a deep desire for peace among them.

The Palestinian Authority on the other hand may have no desire for a settlement to the stalemate that has boxed both sides into positions they cannot retreat from.

This is the premise that Robert D. Kaplan puts forward in this month's Atlantic Monthly.
The statelessness of Palestinian Arabs has been a principal feature of world politics for more than half a century. It is the signature issue of our time. The inability of Israelis and Palestinians to reach an accord of mutual recognition and land-for-peace has helped infect the globe with violence and radicalism—and has long been a bane of American foreign policy. While the problems of the Middle East cannot be substantially blamed on the injustice done to Palestinians, that injustice has nonetheless played a role in weakening America’s position in the region.

Obviously, part of the problem has been Israeli intransigence. Despite seeming to submit to territorial concessions, one Israeli government after another has quietly continued to bolster illegal settlements in the occupied territories.

With Fatah and Hamas facing off against each other, the Palestinians are simply too divided to plausibly meet Israel across the table. And because the Palestinians are unable to cut a deal, a majority of Israelis, as shown by the recent election results, have apparently given up any hope for peace.

But there is a deeper structural and philosophical reason why the Palestinians remain stateless—a reason more profound than the political narrative would indicate. It is best explained by associate Johns Hopkins professor Jakub Grygiel, in his brilliant essay, “The Power of Statelessness: the Withering Appeal of Governing” (Policy Review April/May 2009). In it, Grygiel does not discuss the Palestinians in particular, but rather the attitude of stateless people in general.

Statehood is no longer a goal, he writes. Many stateless groups “do not aspire to have a state,” for they are more capable of achieving their objectives without one. Instead of actively seeking statehood to address their weakness, as Zionist Jews did in an earlier phase of history, groups like the Palestinians now embrace their statelessness as a source of power.

New communication technologies allow people to achieve virtual unity without a state, even as new military technologies give stateless groups a lethal capacity that in former decades could be attained only by states. Grygiel explains that it is now “highly desirable” not to have a state—for a state is a target that can be destroyed or damaged, and hence pressured politically. It was the very quasi-statehood achieved by Hamas in the Gaza Strip that made it easier for Israel to bomb it. A state entails responsibilities that limit a people’s freedom of action. A group like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the author notes, could probably take over the Lebanese state today, but why would it want to? Why would it want responsibility for providing safety and services to all Lebanese? Why would it want to provide the Israelis with so many tempting targets of reprisal? Statelessness offers a level of “impunity” from retaliation.

But the most tempting aspect of statelessness is that it permits a people to savor the pleasures of religious zeal, extremist ideologies, and moral absolutes, without having to make the kinds of messy, mundane compromises that accompany the work of looking after a geographical space.

The closest that Israelis and Palestinians ever came to peace was at the end of the Clinton Administration in 2000, when then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak of the center-left Labor Party offered a slew of concessions to the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat—only to have Arafat reject them. Arafat’s epitaph was that he remained loyal to the cause of his people, that he never compromised, and that he was steadfast to the bitter end. He may have seen that as a more morally and emotionally satisfying conclusion to a life of statelessness than that of making the unenchanting concessions associated with achieving statehood.

Read the full article here.
If this report is right, then President Obama's effort to ram an agreement down the Israelis throats is doomed to failure. For it will always be in the best interest of the Palestinian leaders to reject any offer to them that doesn't include all the land from the river to the sea. In other words, unless they get it all and Israel is eliminated, then they will not take any deal.

It is in the best interest of the Palestinian leadership to remain stateless and cry victim every time Israel tries to stop the terror that the Palestinian leadership uses to achieve their ends.
For once a nation has been formed, attacks such as the rockets falling into Israel from Gaza, suicide bombers, or the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers would and is considered an Act of War under International Law. Without the 'protection' of being stateless, the Palestinians would have to face Israel's wrath without International support.

Another consequence of the creation of a Palestinian state would be the removal of their special refugee status. Although the Saudi Peace Plan insists on a Law of Return, there is no Israeli government (on the left or the right) that will ever agree to such a demand. But for the sake of this article, let us say that the Palestinians do agree to drop this demand (Yassir Arafat refused a Palestinian nation in 2000 by doing this). Finally the Palestinians living in refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank would now be living in cities of their new nation, and the remaining refugees living in camps through out the Arab world could be relocated to the new nation, having gained the status of citizen of Palestine and losing the status of refugee.

For the average Palestinian this would be a boon. But for the leadership, this would be a nightmare. No longer would the world support through massive donations of food and monies the Palestinian people. Any agreement reached by both sides would have to include a date for ending refugee status. And thus funds. Such funds which are often diverted into Swiss bank accounts for the private use of the leadership and not the benefit of the people. This international gravy train would dry up, and the leadership would either have to beg more money from within the Muslim community and the US or EU. Eventually these funds would dry up too.

As things stand now, the PA has no reason to agree to anything except the full release to them of the land that is now Israel. Other than that, there will never be a peaceful solution to this problem. And just like Bill Clinton before him, Barack Obama just might come to realize that the PA and Hamas will never agree to anything that will end their free ride.