"As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it, now or ever." - Reagan, January 20, 1981

"In Vietnam, we tried and failed in a just cause. No More Vietnams can mean we will not try again. It should mean we will not fail again." - from No More Vietnams by Richard Nixon

Monday, June 20, 2011

"Multiculturalism" and Arizona "Ethnic Studies" - Rush was right

On so-called "Multiculturalism":

No one can convince me that the point of all this is not to discredit all that America stands for — and the ultimate goal, I firmly believe, is the destruction of the capitalist way of life, the destruction of free enterprise, and the establishment of socialism, because socialism to these people equals fairness. De Tocqueville observed, ""Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

When you look at what's being taught in the schools today, as Dr. Schlesinger has shown, the primary culture of America is being ripped apart, criticized, denigrated, and people are being told to look to their ancient ethnic roots for salvation and goodness.

If you think about it, multiculturalism flies in the face of what this country is all about. This country was built by people who were fleeing the oppression of the societies in which they were born. You know, there is something to those old cliches about America being a beacon of hope and prosperity. These may be cliches but they really are true. When there's a food shortage anywhere in the world, where do those suffering go for help? The United States. When somebody needs technology, where do they go? The United States. When somebody needs a donation, a handout, a loan, they come to the United States. And when somebody wants to escape oppression, where do they go? The United States. The people fleeing Haiti did not go to St. Thomas or to Cuba. They tried to come to the United States.
The reason all those people from different countries have been coming to America is that America is different from the countries they left. America offers individual freedom and the opportunity to make something of yourself. But multiculturalism is the exact opposite of that. We are now supposed to teach these people the values and the alleged virtues of the oppressive societies which they fled, rather than the values and virtues of the free society they sought. Please cogitate on that for a moment. We're even trying to teach it to the kids who never lived in those oppressive societies — we're supposed to teach them to champion the very things their parents escaped, many of them risking their lives in the process.
Let me say it again: Ethnic communities that are committed to preserving some of their cultural values and their heritage should be free to instill these values in their children — at home, at church, in the neighborhood. Surely it is not the office of public schools to promote separatism and heighten ethnic tensions. The bonds of national cohesion in the republic are fragile enough as it is. Public education's aim should be to strengthen, not weaken, them.

- The way things ought to be, by Rush Limbaugh, 1992

It was set up to be this way, as explained by a review of Dinesh D’Souza's outstanding 1991 book lliberal Education

What we are witnessing on our campuses is a tyrannical combination of extreme license with an almost puritanical censorship. Re flecting on the new demand for intellectual conformity, Donald Kagan, Dean of Yale College, notes that he “was a student during the days of McCarthy, and there is less free dom now than there was then.” It is a strange situation. Ail indications are that American society is far more tolerant of diversity now than at any time in the past. Yet in their zeal to nominate themselves as victims of a repressive society, our academic radicals pretend to find sexism, racism, elitism, “heterosexualism,” and various other “isms” everywhere. Thus we have Donna Shalala, Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin, claiming that “The university is institution ally racist. American society is racist and sexist. Covert racism is just as bad today as overt racism was thirty years ago.” In addi tion to being grossly irresponsible (especially in the mouth of a university president), such unfounded charges of racism, sexism, and so on make it all the more difficult to discern or criticize the real thing when it does occur. As the philosopher Sidney Hook observed in his review of the onslaught of multiculturalism at Stanford,

morally offensive as is the expression of racism wherever it is found, a false charge of racism is equally offensive, perhaps even more so, be cause the consequences of a false charge of racism enable an authentic racist to conceal his racism by exploiting the loose way the term is used to cover up his actions. The same is true of a false charge of sexism or anti-Semitism. This is the lesson we should all have learned from the days of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Because of his false and irresponsible charges of com munism against liberals, socialists, and others among his critics, many communists and agents of communist influence sought to pass them selves off as Jeffersonian democrats or merely idealistic reformers. They would all complain they were victims of red-baiting to prevent criti cism and exposure.

Mr. D’Souza locates the origin of the academy’s problems in the ethos of victimhood. “By converting victimhood into a certificate of virtue,” he writes, “minorities acquire a powerful moral claim that renders their opponents defensive and apologetic, and immunizes themselves from criticism and sanction.” As we see on campuses across the country, the elevation of victimhood into a sign of political and moral election has con verted victim status into a weapon that stu dents, faculty, and administrators use to stifle debate and enforce intellectual conformity. Mr. D’Souza’s courageous and clear-eyed ex amination has provided us with an astute anatomy of this phenomenon and its baneful effects on liberal learning. But it is not clear that the “victim’s revolution” he discerns is itself the cause of the university’s embrace of what he calls “illiberal education.” Behind the cult of victimhood is the insinuation of a Sixties-style radicalism into the center of academic life. It is this radicalism that is primarily responsible for the attack on the curriculum and the rise of politically correct thinking. Mr. D’Souza laments that “the middle ground seems to have disappeared as a consequence of ideological fracas and polarization.” But the point is that “the middle ground” is now occupied by radicals, which is one reason that the traditional ideals of a liberal-arts education can be blithely dis paraged as “conservative.”

The issue is not the politics of this or that individual but the attempt to politicize education tout court, the attempt, as John Searle put it, to convert the curriculum “into an instrument of social transformation.” Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a much-courted black professor of literature who is moving from Duke University to Harvard next se mester, was quite frank about the nature of this political ambition. “Ours was the gen eration that took over buildings in the late 1960s and demanded the creation of Black and Women’s Studies programs,” he wrote recently in The New York Times, “and now ... we have come back to challenge the tradi tional curriculum.” A professor from Middlebury College whom Mr. D’Souza cites was even balder: “Now we have tenure and the work of reshaping the university has be gun in earnest.”

The noble goal of Mr. D’Souza’s book is to reclaim higher education for a pluralistic democracy. This means reclaiming for the academy the ideals of advancement accord ing to merit, color-blind justice, and the rights of the individual. It means resuscitat ing the ideals of rational inquiry and disinter ested judgment as the strongest bulwarks against parti pris indoctrination. Critics warn that we must prepare for the multicultural society of the future by “democratizing” excellence. But the United States has always been a diverse, multicultural society. The best way to preserve equality and liberty in the future will be the same as it has always been: by rewarding merit and doing every thing possible to insure equality of oppor tunity. As Mr. D’Souza observes, “High standards do not discriminate against anyone except those who fail to meet them.”

I encourage people to listen to the audio of the Tucson Unified School District board meetings

May 3, 2011 meeting discussion from the beginning (where not many attendees can be heard Pledging allegiance to America) but especially from 54:00 (the Patriotic AMERICAN from Peru says what Rush says at 1:08:00 !!!), head of Pima County DemocRAT Party supports the ethno-fascist anti-American subversives and calls opponents nazis and segregationists at 1:20:00
May 10, 2011 meeting discussion on "Ethnic Studies" starts 1:13:00
June 14, 2011 meeting discussion starts 5:30

For the true History of US-Mexico relations, including MEXICO'S INVASION OF THE UNITED STATES (the new state of Texas) THAT STARTED THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN WAR, see the Heritage Foundation's 1988 report "A Review of 150 Years of U.S. -Mexican Relations" . Also see the history of commie "Mexico / US Labor Solidarity" (by a member of CPUSA) and a Heritage Foundation report on Soviet subversion of Mexico, and see what Marx REALLY thought of Latinos and the Mexican-American War here .

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Are Qaddafi and Al Qaeda working together now?

There have been many reports recently that Al Qaeda is playing a role in the rebellion against Qaddafi, raising the alarming specter that they may take over if Qaddafi falls.

But a story out og neiboring Niger from the French press service AFP may indicate something different.

Niger army hunts for Al-Qaeda after clash
NIAMEY — Troops scoured Wednesday Niger's northern desert for Al-Qaeda militants who clashed with troops at the weekend after arriving from Libya loaded with explosives, a security official said.
The Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) fighters, travelling in three vehicles, fought with troops on Sunday about 80 kilometres (50 miles) north of the remote uranium mining town of Arlit, officials said.

Al Qaeda "arriving from Libya"? the story continues

"The armed men who clashed with the Niger army on Sunday north of Arlit were Islamist elements of AQIM," the security official told AFP on condition of anonymity.
One vehicle was stopped and the military was tracking down the other two, he said.
"The army, with reinforcements that arrived in Arlit, are still sweeping the area Wednesday to try to find the two other vehicles that were able to escape after a gun battle," the official said.

But the key part that caught my attention was what was found in the captured truck

Trunks containing 640 kilogrammes (around 1,400 pounds) of explosives and 435 detonators were found in the seized vehicle, he said, adding they were "were stamped 'Libya' and were of Czech manufacture".

This is a significant detail, because this means that these terrorists "arriving from Libya" were armed with an especially deadly type of explosive specifically given to Qaddafi in the last century. On March 23, 1990, the New York Times reported

President Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia said today that the ousted Communist Government in Prague had shipped 1,000 tons of lethal Semtex explosives to Libya, which had passed it on to terrorist organizations.
''Two hundred grams is enough to blow up an aircraft,'' he said, ''and this means world terrorism now has supplies of Semtex to last 150 years.''
The Czechoslovak-made plastic substance is pliable, high-yield, odorless and undetectable by sniffer dogs or conventional baggage inspection X-ray machines.
It is believed to have been used to blow up Pan American Flight 103 over Scotland in December 1988, killing 259 people on board and 11 on the ground, and a French DC-10 airliner over the Sahara late last year, killing 170 people. British officials say they believe that Libya shipped several tons of it in the mid-1980's to Irish Republican Army terrorists for operations in Britain and Ireland.
Mr. Havel, who spoke at a news conference during a three-day visit to Britain, said Czechoslovakia no longer exported Semtex.
''The absurd side of the matter is that Czechoslovakia didn't even make money on it,'' he said. ''It was done on political orders from above.''

This means that these explosives were captured by Al Qaeda terrorists from the Libyan military, or that the explosives were given to Al Qaeda by Qaddafi. And given that Iran reportedly maintained Military bases within Libya, I wouldn't be surprised.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

The Peter King Hearings, Cuba and "Common"

Among the witnesses at Representative Peter King's Hearing on "The Threat of Muslim-American Radicalization in U.S. Prisons" before the House Committee on Homeland Security was Mr. Patrick T. Dunleavy Deputy Inspector General (Ret.) Criminal Intelligence Unit New York State Department of Correctional Services. Within the text of his opening statement, he said the following:

In 1999, two years prior to 9/11, several law enforcement agencies received information regarding radical Islamist activity in the prison system. The first of these incidents occurred in February 1999.
At that time, both the FBI and the Inspector General’s Office for the New York State Department of Correctional Services received information specifically detailing recruitment efforts within prison.
The information, from confidential informants, named individuals associated with the 1993 plot to destroy New York City landmarks and the first attack on the World Trade Center, along with several members of a domestic terrorist organization already serving time for the Brinks robbery. The intelligence also implicated a Pakistani national and a Yemeni who were in prison for murder. The informant went on to say that this group had formed an alliance with a singular goal. He called the group the “Talem Circle” and stated that; “The Talem Circle was tasked with training incarcerated members to work with Middle Eastern Muslims to perform acts of Jihad.”

This is noteworthy because of who was involved in the Brinks robbery of 1981:

On November 3, 1984, Susan Lisa Rosenberg was apprehended by police as she and a cohort were hiding 740 pounds of high explosive, 14 guns (including semiautomatic weapons), and hundreds of phony IDs in a storage facility in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Rosenberg, then 29 years old, was a member of the May 19 Communist Organization (M19CO), an ultra-violent support group formed of members of the Black Liberation Army—itself the so-called military arm of the Black Panther Party—the Weather Underground, and other terrorist organizations.

She had been living underground for two years, ever since she skipped out on her indictment as an alleged accomplice and getaway car driver in a botched $1.6 million Brink’s armored car robbery in Rockland County, New York. The October 1981 robbery, which ended in a careening series of car chases and a bloody shootout, left two policemen and an unarmed Brink’s employee dead and others injured.

One of those arrested amid the shooting was Kathy Boudin. She had disappeared from public view in 1970 after she and another member of the Weather Underground escaped from the wreckage of a Greenwich Village townhouse, where three of their own number died while building a bomb. Another Brink’s perpetrator was David Gilbert, father of Boudin’s child, Chesa (the couple dropped him off with a babysitter before joining in the robbery). In a second shootout two days later in Queens, an additional member of the Brink’s assault group was killed, and another arrested.

If the Black Liberation Army sounds familiar, you'll see why in this next paragraph:

Rosenberg was also wanted as a suspect in the 1979 jailbreak in Clinton, N.J., of Joanne Chesimard, aka Assata Shakur, who had been found guilty two years earlier of murdering one police officer at point-blank range and wounding another. Chesimard was sentenced to life in prison plus more than 20 years but was then sprung from the Clinton Correctional Institute for Women by members of the Black Liberation Army who were also members of M19CO. After years underground, Chesimard surfaced in Cuba in 1984, where she still apparently lives. There is a $1 million bounty on her head.

Yep, this is the same Joanne Chesimard aka Assata Shakur who was praised by the rapper "Common", who was invited to the White House by Michelle Obama during Police Week last month, sparking much deserved outrage by all who value and respect officers of the law.

And this is not first time this Weathermen/BLA gaggle would have worked for the enemy's on freedom, they were trained by Communist Cuba

Monday, May 30, 2011

Before the story disappears again - "The Nation" magazine's tribute to their fellow travelers: "Monthly Review at 50"

[What a bunch of commies; I guess it takes one to know one]

Monthly Review at 50

Paul Buhle | May 20, 1999
Monthly Review celebrated its semicentennial on May 7 with a Manhattan bash featuring loyalists Ossie Davis, Adrienne Rich and Cornel West, and a special retrospective May issue put together by MR Press editorial director Christopher Phelps. The Landmark on the Park scene calls to mind a phrase adopted by immigrant German socialists about themselves just a century ago: alte Genossen, old comrades, grayhaired and perhaps a bit bloodied from too-frequent contact with unyielding stone walls, but unbowed and still full of lively ideas on one large subject in particular.

Opposition to empire, as the late William Appleman Williams often observed, remains the touchstone of a certain kind of American radical. Williams--whose The Contours of American History's recent appearance on the Modern Library's 100 Best Nonfiction list particularly perturbed one of the judges, Arthur Schlesinger Jr.--was himself that kind of radical. So are the Monthly Reviewniks, one and all.

The MR story goes back to the Depression, when its future editors worked in the vicinity of the New Deal Administration and engaged the wide-ranging public conversation about the economic crisis. Paul Sweezy was a Marxist-inclined Harvard professor until he joined the Office of Strategic Services, the CIA's progressive-minded forerunner. Leo Huberman, one of the century's forgotten radical economic popularizers, had written Man's Worldly Goods (which sold a half-million copies), chaired a social science department at Columbia and worked at PM as labor editor. Harry Magdoff went from the Works Progress Administration to the National Defense Advisory Commission and served as Henry Wallace's special assistant at the Commerce Department. Marxists all, but also politically unaffiliated, a point of some importance.

The calamitous final months of the 1948 Progressive Party campaign, which saw Wallace submerged by cold war rhetoric and a foretaste of McCarthy-style blacklisting, prompted Sweezy, Huberman and a handful of others to look beyond disappointments to the long haul ahead. Harvard's F.O. Matthiessen, a gay socialist and the original doyen of American studies (but under ferocious attack and only a few years from suicide), personally put up most of the cash needed for several issues. Albert Einstein supplied the magazine's working credo in his essay for issue number one, "Why Socialism?" Published without benefit of an office or paid staff, MR advanced from 450 subscribers to several thousand and established its own voice.

In some ways, that voice could be heard best in chorus with The Nation's editor, Freda Kirchwey, and the professional journalists who launched the National Guardian. All of them saw the cold war and the construction of the US "security state" as the most formidable threat to global survival. And all of them tried to draw the large lessons from the outcome of the thirties and forties political experience.

Briefly put, humanity was not very likely to be saved by battalions of marching proletarians. Democratic promise rested in an interracial and international coalition of peoples breaking free of empire at home and (as it became more and more apparent) in distant parts. The Soviet Union had acted heroically at times in such struggles, directly or indirectly, but its leaders had proved themselves despots and its enlisted faithful around the world too dogmatic. Radicals needed to start over, in the middle of a tangle that showed no signs of straightening itself out.

Never were such lonely voices harder for most Americans to hear than in the early cold war years, and never were they more badly needed. The outbreak of armed conflict saw another MR intimate, journalist I.F. Stone, write The Hidden History of the Korean War (1952), and the Monthly Review Press was created to publish it. Stanford economist Paul Baran likewise delivered The Political Economy of Growth (1957), which explained cogently why poor countries had been programmed to stay poor. Sweezy and Baran irregularly delivered segments of a magnum opus, Monopoly Capital (finally published in 1966) to interpret the bouts of stagnation that inexplicably blighted the golden days of postwar capitalism.

Like historian Williams (another MR irregular), the editors of Monthly Review focused more and more upon empire as the key mode of global development and its hardest-hit victims as the most likely prospects for challenging the system. This slant put the magazine and its press--with the peacenik Liberation, as well as Frantz Fanon and Herbert Marcuse--squarely on the New Left intellectual agenda. In fact, these assorted savants may have created the agenda (as another forties political survivor, Betty Friedan, did for the women's movement), not excluding its dark corners. What about the working class, after all, and how could US radicalism revive as a social movement? Answers were few for these otherwise acute critics of capitalism, of empire and of racism, a strategic deficiency steadily more apparent as time suddenly ran out on New Left impulses.

The long run turned out to be longer and longer. In a particularly vivid interview in the May retrospective, Harry Magdoff recalls the sense of doom felt by capitalism-watchers at mid-century. Nothing, certainly since 1929, had caused them to believe that the system could escape cycles of severe crisis. Naturally, some kind of socialism (or worse forms of collectivism) seemed perennially in the offing, if not in the United States then elsewhere. Then things changed. For a staggeringly large part of the globe, of course, prosperity has never been more than relative, and collective disaster imminent. But don't try to sell Monthly Review's skepticism to Wall Street or the mainstream press, for whom, especially since the fall of Communism and the rise of the global economic order, happy days are truly and permanently here again.

To that almost seamless perspective, MR has tried to counterpose major flaws and impending limits. Ecology has, understandably, become increasingly central in recent years. But so has the close observation of globalization's many uncertainties, including the rampant financial speculation, which (in the editors' view) points back to the underlying stagnation of productive capital. Seasoned readers, then, see the magazine as a firm hand on the economic-interpretive tiller.

Still, it hasn't been easy. Readership has fallen seriously from the sixties/seventies peak of 11,500, and several years ago the press nearly suffered a meltdown. The operation has been shored up recently by Ellen Meiksins Wood, a much-admired political theorist and now the fourth editor in MR's history. Phelps remarks at the close of his mini-history of the magazine that it remains what Monthly Review always has been, the "flagship journal of an American Marxism in solidarity with liberation struggles the world over." Fair enough, and good luck for another fifty.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

An "Air Marshal" program to address airliner hijacking

I didn't get around to it last week, but Michelle Malkin wrote a great piece about "What Happened on AA Flight 1561":

If you listen to the passengers and crew who flew on American Airlines Flight 1561 last weekend, there's no doubt about what happened on their harrowing trip: A Yemeni man shrieking "Allahu akbar!" at the top of his lungs more than 30 times rushed the cockpit door twice intending to take down the plane and kill everyone on board. ... It took at least four men to tackle and restrain Rageh Ahmed Mohammed al-Murisi. "There was no question in everybody's mind that he was going to do something," passenger Angelina Marty told the San Francisco Chronicle.

And no, that "something" did not mean enlisting his fellow flyers in a midair flash mob performance of the "Hallelujah Chorus." ...

So how, despite a massive transportation and homeland security apparatus, did al-Murisi get into this country and get on a plane? He had no keys, no luggage, $47 cash, two curious posted checks totaling $13,000, and a trove of expired and current state IDs from New York and California -- where relatives said he had not notified them that he was coming. He is young, male, brought no family with him, had no job or other discernible income, and hails from the terror-coddling nation of Yemen. Yes, the same Yemen that is Osama bin Laden's ancestral home, harbors al-Qaida operatives who are burning the "torch of jihad," and is deemed a "special interest country" whose citizens warrant increased scrutiny by DHS when they cross the border illegally.

As I reported last month, a federal watchdog revealed that TSA's counterterrorism specialists failed to detect 16 separate jihad operatives who moved through target airports "on at least 23 different occasions." Neutered by Islamophobia-phobia and an "overtime over security" mentality, our State Department consular offices' and airline security bureaucracy's stance toward the al-Murisis slipping through their snaking lines is:

Nothing to see here; move along.

At least the heroes of Flight 1561 who refused to sit silent learned the proper 9/11 lesson. "I swore to myself that I would never be a victim" after the 2001 attacks, passenger Larry Wright, one of the men who brought al-Murisi down, told reporters earlier this week. The only effective homeland security begins and ends with a culture of self-defense. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no "see no jihad, hear no jihad, speak no jihad" delusionists on airplanes with Allahu akbar-chanting flyers beating down doors.

A possible solution to this phenomenon appears in the 1980 book Will: the autobiography of G. Gordon Liddy:

Although airliner hijacking had been a problem for some time, the companies had resisted suggestions to improve security because of the costs involved. But when three huge jets worth tens of millions of dollars were blown up by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), White House telephones sizzled with screams for help from the airlines. I was assigned to the task force that developed the "Air Marshal" program, and when the question arose concerning what armaments they should carry, the matter was referred to me.
I recommended the .357 magnum with high-velocity hollow-point ammunition. There was political resistance to use of dumdum bullets, and I had to explain that they were far less dangerous to the innocent than solid "ball" ammunition because dumdums expanded and stayed in the target individual, expending all their energy in knocking him down, rather than going through him to hit an innocent bystander ... and noted that while a stray solid-point round through the fuselage wouldn' t result in explosive decompression of the aircraft, it might well sever a vital control cable or hydraulic line.

It also would not puncture the walls of the Plane.

What we get for aid to Israel - Response to a Rush Caller

Quick update

From Rush's 5/24/2011 show:

CALLER: I don't agree with you on Israel. I think we need to stop borrowing money from China to give handouts to Israel. They don't do anything for us. It's a pretty one-sided deal. For the last 30 years, we give them $4 billion a year or so. Plus almost the same amount to Egypt to bribe them not to fight each other. Frankly, I don't see why we need to prop up Israel. They're the biggest welfare queen in history

This guy is very wrong. From Bibi's 5/23/2011 AIPAC speech:

"I know these are tough economic times. So I want to thank the president and Congress for providing Israel with vital assistance so that Israel can defend itself by itself. I want to thank you all for supporting the Iron Dome missile defense system. A few weeks ago, Hamas terrorists in Gaza fired eight rockets at our cities, at Ashkelon and Beer Sheva. Now, these rockets never reached their targets. Iron Dome intercepted them in midair. For the first time, a missile defense system worked in combat [MitsNote: Not really, we shot down Iraqi medium range ballistic missiles in 2003]. That's a precedent in military history. And I want to say thank you, America."


This is a game changer not only for Israel, but especially for South Korea - who's capital has been in range and in the cross-heirs of TONS of North Korean artillery for decades.

Bibi continued:

"America and Israel are cooperating in many other ways as well. We're cooperating in science, in technology, in trade, in investment. It's not only American companies that are investing in Israel. It's Israeli companies investing in America. In the last decade, Israeli companies have invested more than $50 billion in the United States. One of those companies is investing just down the road in Richmond. It's a company that is building a food factory. Now, here's what it means - more business, more jobs, and, yes, more hummus. Well, it's not just food we're bringing to America. Take medicine. Israel is advancing cure for multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, cancer. We've developed mechanical means to make paraplegics walk again. We've placed a tiny diagnostic camera inside a pill. I have not swallowed it, but I understand it's quite effective. And you've just heard of this miraculous bandage developed by an Israeli company that has helped save Congresswoman Gabby Giffords' life. And I wish Gabby, a great friend of Israel, “Refuah Shlema”, a happy, quick, speedy recovery."

Also, from Dore Gold, Israel's former ambassador to the UN in the Washington Examiner:

"Netanyahu argued at AIPAC that Israel has actually helped save the lives of Americans. Historically, he is absolutely correct to paint Israel’s strategic partnership this way. In August 1966, the Mossad succeeded in recruiting an Iraqi Air Force pilot who flew his MiG-21 to Israel. The intelligence on the MiG-21 was shared with Washington and would prove to be extremely valuable, considering the fact that the MiG-21 was the work-horse of the North Vietnamese Air Force in the years that followed. Israel supplied the Americans with many other Soviet weapons systems, from 130mm artillery to T-72 tanks. Gen. George Keegan, the former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence, was quoted in the New York Times on March 9, 1986, saying that the intelligence the U.S. received from Israel could not have been obtained if the U.S. had “five CIAs.” Keegan went further: “The ability of the U.S. Air Force in particular, and the Army in general, to defend whatever position it has in NATO owes more to the Israeli intelligence input than it does to any single source of intelligence.” Even after the Cold War, Israel continues to be a vital American strategic partner. In 2007, the U.S. ambassador to Israel revealed that Israeli technology was being used by the U.S. armed forces in Iraq to protect them from Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) that were responsible for most U.S. casualties in the Iraq War. In short, Israel was helping save American lives in Iraq. On March 15, 2007, the commander of EUCOM, Gen. Bantz Craddock, told the House Armed Services Committee that “in the Middle East, Israel is the U.S.’s closest ally that consistently and directly supports our interests.” During his AIPAC speech, Netanyahu disclosed: “Israel shares with America everything” that it knows about their common enemies, especially intelligence."

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Leftists are chauvinists - the full spectrum agrees

The ever brilliant and thought provoking Ann Coulter wrote a scathing indictment of the left's male bigotry in response to the arrest of the socialist head of the IMF:

Phyllis Schlafly points out in her book "Feminist Fantasies" (with a stirring foreword by Ann Coulter), for centuries, famous left-wing men have treated "their wives and mistresses like unpaid servants."

Their credo might well have been, "From each, according to my needs ..."

Schlafly bases her review of liberal woman-haters on the book "Intellectuals" by historian Paul Johnson. Among the left-wing heroes highlighted by Schlafly from Johnson's book are Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Ernest Hemingway, Henrik Ibsen, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre and Karl Marx.

Johnson writes that the pint-sized -- 5 foot 2 1/2 inch -- communist-sympathizing Sartre "was notorious for never taking a bath and being disgustingly dirty." He said admiringly of the Nazis, "We have never been as free as we were under the German occupation."

The flyweight Sartre famously turned Simone de Beauvoir into his "mistress, surrogate wife, cook and manager, female bodyguard and nurse." (Sadly, she never learned how to give someone a sponge bath.) All the while, the smelly midget committed a stream of infidelities, viewing women "as scalps to add to his centaur's belt."

In "the annals of literature," Johnson writes, "there are few worse cases of a man exploiting a woman."

As he got older, Sartre's sexual conquests got younger, including teenaged girls.

Like Spitzer, Luster and Polanski, liberal men seem driven by their massive insecurities (often based on physical defects, such as their diminutive size or soap allergies) to choose unconscious, illiterate, servant-class and teenage females as their sex partners. But let's not drag pocket-sized Woody Allen's name into this, as my column appears in many family newspapers.

Karl Marx kept a female slave from the time she was 8 years old, eventually using her not only as a servant but as his mistress, never acknowledging his child with her or paying her at all. She waited on him hand and foot while he explained to the world that profit is the stolen surplus value of the laborer. Like so many liberal icons, Marx seldom bathed and left his wife and children in poverty.

As Schlafly says, no wonder liberal women think men are pigs: Their men are pigs.

Maybe Strauss-Kahn is innocent, but students of liberal comportment base their suspicions of his guilt not on fairy tales from Lifetime: TV for Women, but on 200 years of disgusting sexual behavior by liberal men.

As if to confirm Ann's analysis, feminist icon Betty Friedan wrote in The Second Stage:

"Tom Hayden and others might like to forget it now, but those early male leaders of the radical student movement and counterculture of the sixties, white and black, were more blatantly male chauvinist pigs than their conservative fathers. From the communes of Haight-Ashbury and Big Sur and Vermont to the seized and trashed academic fortresses of Harvard and Columbia, women were supposed to wash the pots and pan and cook the spaghetti and be good girls at the mimeograph machine — the " woman trip" — while the men made the revolutionary decisions, smoking their pot around the commune fire and taunting "the pigs" under the television lights."

And of course, there is...

... although we still don't know what is is