"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

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Paulers and Michael Scheuer

(Mr. Scheuer, if you read this, it's nothing personal. As I state in the post, I respect your service and appreciate your insights into the CIA's anti-terrorism operations. This is a criticism of your political opinions. No insult to you intended, sir.)

Ron Paul people are pretty much the pseudo-right bridge to the doctrinaire Communist Left - both New and Old Left - not only in their language about the "imperialism" of the American "Empire" who fight wars for Wall Street/Bankers/the Fed ect. (I once had a Pauler tell me the Fed was responsible for the Holocaust), but also in the lack of distinction in the talking points from one member to another.
But Mark Levin pointed out another of the things I have repeatedly have come across. Predictably, Ron Paul and his neo-confederates (I hope Mark doesn't mind me borrowing his description of the Pauler circus) share the exact same source

Michael Scheuer is the former head of the CIA's anti-bin Laden unit. Both his service and his insights into the CIA's anti-terrorism operations are absolutely invaluable. But his political opinions and analyses are bizarre! As Mark says, he seems to believe that Israel controls American policy in the Middle East, thus provoking terrorism against ourselves. (The Paulers' capacity to make excuses and justifications for Jihadist attacks on America as if we deserve it is in a class all it's own - excluding the left, of course - as is the resiliency of 9/11 trutherism in their little circus)

If Paulers want to keep sighting his analysis of Middle East cause and effect, then they should be made to reckon with this completely and utterly false statement from pages 24-25 of his book "Marching Toward Hell":

As the level of [Military support to Israel support grew, so too did efforst by pro-Israel Americans in both parties and large parts of academia, the media, and Hollywood - complemented by what can only be described as superbly effective covert political action by Israel's intelligence service - to entwine U.S. support for Israel ever more deeply and inextricably into U.S. domestic politics.

I want to say to Paulers - if that is your source and you actually believe our Middle East policy is directed by an Israeli conspiracy that controls our institutions, then all I can say is: I know a few good shrinks I can put you in touch with.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Leftists When Reagan Got Shot and Leftists in Wisconsin Today

"Once a liberal, always a liberal, and liberals believe the same things over and over again, and they never change." - Rush Limbaugh, May 28, 2010

30 years ago today, March 30, 1981, President Reagan survived an assassination attempt. In 2004, Stanley Kurtz of National Review wrote that "just around the time Ronald Reagan took office, I moved to Berkeley, where I began to question the direction of contemporary liberalism." And one shocking thing that has stayed with him all these years is this: "When Reagan was shot, I remember being on campus and hearing people cheer. That disturbed me deeply."

Well, here we are 30 years later, and the left now threatens and wishes ill on conservatives in Wisconsin. They even have signs placing crossheirs on Governor Walker's face.

I'm so glad they lost the Cold War. I love my freedom

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Lockerbie bombing was a joint Libyan-Iranian terrorist attack, and Libya's role cannot be denied

With the ongoing revolution in Libya, much discussion about Lockerbie has inevitably been taking place - including the old doubts about it Libya was involved at all! A typical exchange was posted at the great PJmedia with Michael J. Totten interviewing Rick Francona, veteran of multiple U.S. intelligence services

Rick Francona: As for the claims by a defecting official that Qaddafi personally ordered the attack on Pan Am 103, I don’t buy it for a minute. I have always thought it was an Iranian-sponsored, PFLP-GC [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-Gereral Command] -executed operation; the two Libyans were co-opted by Ahmad Jibril’s people and were not operating with Qaddafi’s sanction. If they had been authorized by Qaddafi, there is no chance that they would have been given up for trial. Countries do not offer up their intelligence officers for carrying out orders. If so, no officer would ever undertake these missions again. As I learned in the intelligence business years ago, defectors often tell you what they think you want to hear in hopes of getting favorable consideration. Qaddafi is guilty of a lot of things, but I doubt the Lockerbie bombing is among them.

MJT: I have no opinion on this myself, but you aren’t the only former intelligence source who says this about Qaddafi and Lockerbie. Reza Kahlili, a former CIA agent who worked inside Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, also said Iran’s government is responsible in his book A Time to Betray.

Reza Kahlili wrote on his own blog

In an article posted by Jeff Stein on the Washington Post today, retired Special Agent Richard Marquise, who headed the FBI’s investigation into the Pan Am bombing, says that there is no credible evidence for my claim that Iran was involved in the Pan Am bombing.

After reading my book, Marquise goes on to say that my information came from a “guy” I met in London. He fails to mention that while I was working in Europe, I met with Iranian agents (not some “guy”— one of them a close associate of the supreme leader’s office) who were shopping for parts, which I accommodated as a double agent. They informed me that the order to carry out the Pan Am bombing was given by Hashemi Rafsanjani in retaliation for the downing of the Iran Air flight 655 by the U.S. Navy over the Persian Gulf. This agent also spoke of the Palestinian’s cooperation in the act, the radio transmitter, and the bomb, along with information on an investigation of a Palestinian individual in a specific European country. The Iranian agent justified the act as an “eye for an eye.”

The importance of that communication was that none of that information was publicly available at the time. The investigators had not even concluded the details of the bombing yet, let alone announcing it!

I fully understand that my communication with the Iranian agents would not have been considered evidence, but it could have been enough for further investigation into Iran’s involvement in the Pan Am bombing.

I also state in my book that after the Pan Am bombing, when Rafsanjani became the President of Iran and George H.W. Bush the President of America, there were serious contacts between the two to improve relations. This initiation had started during President Reagan’s administration when Rafsanjani, then the speaker of Iran’s parliament, had promised a normalization of relations once Ayatollah Khomeini was dead. President Bush picked up on that promise with the hope that Rafsanjani was sincere. I was even told by my handler to consider Rafsanjani the new king of Iran. Of course the U.S. administration was once again fooled by the Islamic leaders’ deceit and again, as I state in the book, a few years later my handlers asked me to find an Iranian who would testify that Iran was making a nuclear bomb. It became obvious the Bush administration realized they were led on by Rafsanjani.

However, as to the Pan Am bombing, why was it that the Scottish authorities had Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi drop his appeal in exchange for his release to Libya just when his legal team was to present the court with documents from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) implicating Iran? Also documents that say some of the witnesses had been paid millions to testify and evidence on the timer used to detonate the bomb, which were withheld from the courts by certain intelligence agencies.

This is all backed up by former CIA agent Robert Baer's memoir

FEW THINGS HAVE LEFT ME feeling more frustrated than the Pan Am investigation. All the early 
signs suggested that the bombing was the work of a group based in Lebanon, acting on Iran's behalf. If I 
had still been in Beirut, I would have had my agents all over the case, running down leads, checking 
facts, looking for new sources. But I was in an office overlooking the Place de la Concorde, and while 
Paris had a few Arab agents, they were on the periphery of terrorism at best.
The theory that Iran was behind Pan Am 103 was based on a piece of information that surfaced in early 
July 1988. A few days after the U.S.S. Vincennes accidentally shot down an Iranian Airbus in the Gulf, a Pasdaran intelligence officer flew to Lebanon to meet two officials of the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine/General Command, Muhammad Hafiz Dalqamuni and someone we knew only as
Nabil.The meeting took place at the Damur refugee camp in southern Lebanon. The Iranian's
instructions to Dalqamuni and Nabil were crystal clear: Blow up an American airplane — in the air, in
order to kill as many people as possible. Iran had decided to take revenge for the Airbus.
The Iranian hypothesis fit in with what we knew about the regime in Tehran. The Iranian hardliners,
who controlled the government, never accepted that the Airbus was shot down accidentally. Revenge,
for them, was a simple act of justice: an eye for an eye. And Iran's turning to the General Command for
help made sense, too. Iran had developed a taste for letting surrogates do its dirty work, and the General
Command was one of the best terrorist groups in the world when it came to blowing things up. Its
expertise was in sophisticated mechanisms like barometric switches. The General Command made its air
debut on February 21, 1970, when it blew up an Austrian Swissair flight. Two years later, on
August 16,1972, the Front exploded a bomb in an El Al plane, injuring four. In the years since, it had
only gotten better.
Dalqamuni, too, was the ideal emissary for Iran's interests. As late as the mid-1980s, he had been living
in Europe, where he would sit for long stretches in the local McDonald's, depressed that his fellow
Palestinians were dying in the intifadah. Then one day he turned to Islam, joining a small group of
Islamic fundamentalists in the General Command who looked to Iran for inspiration. Iran vetted
Dalqamuni and determined he was a true believer who could be counted on to keep his mouth shut if
caught. Still, he needed testing. At Iran's direction, Dalqamuni organized two separate attacks on U.S.
military trains in West Germany, one on August 31,1987, and the other on April 26,1988. No one was
killed, but Dalqamuni had shown he was prepared to take risks and follow orders.
Dalqumuni appeared to have an airtight alibi for Pan Am 103. He had been arrested along with most of
his German cell on October 26, 1988, and was still in custody when the plane exploded two months
later, killing all 259 aboard and eleven more on the ground. But that didn't exclude the possibility that
the operation had been handed off to one of the cell members who got away, and as the weeks went on,
an avalanche of information began to point in that direction.
On December 23, two days after the bombing, an $11 million transfer showed up in a General Command
bank account in Lausanne, Switzerland. It moved from there to another General Command account at
the Banque Nationale de Paris, and then to yet another at the Hungarian Trade Development Bank. The
Paris account number was found in Dalqamuni's possession upon arrest. What's more,Muhammad Abu
Talib, one of Dalqamuni's associates suspected of having a role in the bombing, received a payment of
$500,000 on April 25,1989. Did that and the other payments originate in Iran? Were they success fees
for Pan Am 103? Certainly, none of those are illogical conclusions.
Abu Talib appeared to have visited Malta on October 3 through 18 and again from October 19 to 26,
1988—a significant tidbit, since clothes bought in Malta were found amid the wreckage in the suitcase
the explosive device was hidden in. Did Abu Talib buy the clothes, or did one of the two Libyans who
were eventually tried in Zeist, the Netherlands, for the bombing? We also knew that Abu Talib was
traveling in and out of Libya. Was he coordinating with the Libyans for Dalqamuni ? Again, the logic
seemed to fit.
FOR OUR PART, the CIA was able to identify with a fair amount of certainty that the mysterious Nabil who attended the Biqa' meeting in July 1988 was a General Command official named Nabil Makhzumi
(Abu Abid),who at the time was serving as Dalqamuni's assistant. Perhaps because he spoke Farsi,
Makhzumi was the GC's main contact to the Pasdaran. His Iranian case officer, we knew, was a senior
Pasdaran official named Feridoun Mehdi-Nezhad. Had Makhzumi traveled to Germany? Was he the one
who took the handoff from Dalqamuni? The Germans had no idea. We also found out Mehdi-Nezhad
had visited Frankfurt in July 1988. But the Germans again had no idea what he had done there or whom
he might have met. Mehdi-Nezhad had visited Libya in early 1988. If he had met with Dalqamuni a few
months later, it would have provided further evidence that the Pan Am bombing resulted from a broad
conspiracy by Iran, Libya, and the General Command. No one could dismiss the possibility, although the
Germans seemed to come close.

Baer is not too far off, and he had more to say about it, as researcher Ludwig De Braeckeleer noted

On May 24 2000, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCR) issued a press release claiming that Brigadier General Ahmad Beladi Behbahani had defected to Turkey. The NCR called upon the government of Turkey to put him under immediate arrest.

According to the NCR press release, Behbahani had been "President Rafsanjani's liaison with the Intelligence Ministry." The NCR alleged that Behbahani had first hand information about Tehran sponsored terrorism dating as far back as 1986.

Several Western observers grasped at once the importance of the defection. "If this man is Behbahani, then obviously he was a crucial figure in the intelligence set-up in Iran and his information would be extremely important," said Lord Avebury who had co-authored a 1996 report on Behbahani.

A NCR spokesperson stated that Behbahani knew the truth about the Lockerbie bombing. On December 21 1988, a bomb blew up Pan American Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, causing the deaths of all 259 passengers and another 11 Scottish villagers on the ground.

The bombing was blamed on two Libyans; Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer and the head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines (LAA), and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah, the LAA station manager in Luqa Airport, Malta. On January 31 2001, Fhimah was acquitted. Megrahi was sentenced to life in prison.

Back in 2000, the NCR enjoyed little visibility in the U.S. and American media paid virtually no attention to these extraordinary allegations. Two years later, the NCR gained much credibility as the organization exposed two Iran secret nuclear facilities located at Natanz and Istaphan.

Only one America television news program decided to follow the NCR story. "60 Minutes" sent a team to eastern Turkey. CBS reporter Leslie Stahl was accompanied by Robert Baer, a former CIA officer, and Iranian-born associate CBS producer Roya Hakakian.

"If his story can be confirmed, and American intelligence is trying to do that right now, it would not only disrupt the trial of the two Libyans charged with that bombing, it could interfere with the Clinton administration's efforts at relaxing and improving relations with Iran," warned CBS on June 4, 2000.

Baer had prepared "control questions", that is questions that he felt an imposter would not be able to answer correctly.

Turkish officials categorically refused to allow the CBS team to enter the guarded camp for Iranian refugees. Nevertheless, Hakakian, who had traveled with the team to serve as translator, managed to get inside the camp surreptitiously.

Moreover, Hakakian was able to speak to Behbahani. Their long conversation convinced her that he was a genuine defector. "I traced the tone of someone who was extremely bitter, and was willing to go to any lengths in order to get revenge. He had fallen out of favor with the Iranian officials, with the government of Iran, and he just wanted to get back at them, at any cost."

What is more, the asylum seeker answered correctly the controlled questions prepared by the former CIA operative. "I am satisfied with the answers," Baer said.

"He's the only person that has tied Libya and Iran into Pan Am 103, into the Lockerbie bombing. This is the first authoritative source that I've ever heard that connected the two countries together. It was always a mystery," stated Baer, who worked on the initial phase of the CIA's Lockerbie inquiry.

Despite all the evidence against Iran, it is undeniable that Libya was involved. Ronald Kessler gave a concise yet conclusive review of the available proof against Libya in his 1993 book "The FBI"

Of all the FBI's investigations, none has been both so massive and so wide- ranging as the case of Pan Am 103. Radiating from an international response squad in the Washington metropolitan field office, the investigation took three years, required agents to criss-cross the globe, and involved extensive work by the FBI lab, including detonation of test explosive devices. On the night of the crash, Darrell Mills dispatched Tim Dorch, an assistant legat, to fly to the scene on an Air Force jet with the American ambassador, Charles Price II. Smooth and cerebral, Mills was friends with the head of every British and Scottish police and security service. When jurisdictional battles occasionally arose—hiccups, he called them—Mills knew just the right person to call to untangle them. In the beginning, Sessions called him several times a day to keep abreast of developments and make sure he was getting the help he needed. The morning after the crash, Neil Gallagher, head of the counterterrorism section at headquarters came to work in shock. "Slowly we realized it was everybody who had been annihilated plus people on the ground," Gallagher said.
Because the crash occurred four days before Christmas, the FBI held off a few days on interviewing families of victims. "We hesitated because there were these families with Christmas presents under the trees for many people who were not coming home," Gallagher said. "We felt they didn't need an FBI agent coming up and asking a lot of factual questions." Technical agents flew to Scotland and set up communications in Lockerbie so that the FBI could transmit by satellite pictures of survivors and their fingerprints. Laboratory agents led by James T. (Tom) Thurman, a re- nowned FBI bomb expert, worked with local authorities to organize the search for evidence. "This was a crime scene that covered 845 square miles," Gallagher said. "The police recovered well over 90 percent of the plane with Scottish police and military lining up and going on their hands and knees. If debris fell on a farm, hey [the farmers] would call the police. They wouldn' t touch it." Two days after arriving, one of the agents called FBI headquarters and said, "We saw what we came to see."
Gallagher knew that meant the agents had seen the evidence they needed to determine if an explosive device was involved. The experts had found a piece of metal from the plane with pitting and cratering that indicated it had been subjected to high-intensity explosive devices. "You would look at it, and it would look black and charred as if there had been a fire," Gallagher said. "But to them, it meant there had been a bomb." Investigators subsequently found a plate riveted to the inside of the baggage compartment listing the name of Boeing, the manufacturer. The pattern of pitting and cratering on the plate told the bomb experts that the device had been inside the baggage area, not in the commercial cargo area. That was a break. With twenty-one tons of commercial cargo, determining the origin of each shipment would have been even more time consuming than investigating the plane's baggage.
Embedded in the manufacturer's plate was a piece of tan plastic smaller than a fingernail. The experts recognized it as a fragment of a computer chip. They later determined that it was from a particular model Toshiba radio. That led back to the PFLP-GC (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—General Command). Some of their members had just been arrested with explosive devices concealed in Toshiba radios. For a time, the investigation focused on the PFLP-GC. But the bomb experts had recovered enough clues to lead the investigators in other directions as well. They knew, for example, that the terrorists had used a highly effective plastic explosive called Semtex. They knew from pieces found on the ground that the device had been in a packing crate inside a brown Samsonite suitcase. "We knew the bomb was inside its original packing crate with the instructions in Arabic inside the crate," Gallagher said. "We knew it was a particular make and model Samsonite. Some twenty-three hundred of them had been made. So we had a lot of information."
With British forensic experts, the FBI lab conducted tests in Maryland to determine the size of the explosive charge. The lab packed metal containers resembling the baggage area with suitcases, detonated a charge inside, and then examined the damage. The FBI concluded that the saboteurs had used ten to fourteen ounces of plastic explosive concealed inside the radio. The tests also pinpointed in which compartment in the baggage area the suitcase containing the radio was located. This narrowed the source of the luggage to certain baggage from other airlines. Even more important, because of differences in the blast damage, the examiners were able to differentiate between clothing that had been inside the suitcase con- taining the bomb and clothing that had not been in the suitcase.

Focusing on the clothing from the suitcase, the experts found a fingernail-size piece of a green circuit board embedded in a fragment of shirt. Thurman determined that the board had been part of a timing device. He matched the piece to devices seized in Senegal and in Togo. Each device had been used by terrorists connected with Libyan intelligence. To make the circuit boards, a photographic negative was produced. If there was a flaw in the negative, it would appear in all the circuit boards. Every board had the same flaw.

Examining the Togo board further, Thurman found that something had been scratched out on the back. The lab raised the lettering, which said MEBO. It stood for Meister Et Bolier, a Zurich firm. Company executives disclosed that the timing device was one of twenty delivered to a Libyan official in 1985 and 1986.
"The solution came down to a bombing expert finding remnants of the device which conclusively led to the people who commissioned the device to be built," said John W. Hicks, the assistant director over the lab. "The circuit board in the shirt was found by the British. They weren't able to identify its significance. It wasn't until it was made available to the FBI lab a year later that Tom Thurman was able to associate it in a matter of two weeks with some devices that had been recovered." Meanwhile, the FBI and Scottish police had traced the manufacturers of the clothing and the retail outlets where it might have been purchased. They wound up at a boutique in Malta called Mary's Shop. "When we showed them the clothing, the owner told us a phenomenal story," said Gallagher, who is over coun- terterrorism. "He said that in December 1988, a person he described as having a Libyan accent came in and bought clothing indiscriminately, not worrying about size, shape, or color. We wondered if he was telling us what he thought we wanted to hear. But he also said he sold him a black umbrella. We went back to the British and asked if they had a black umbrella. They went back and found the black umbrella they had. They had not noticed the blast damage on it. So we were on the money."
By interviewing the shopkeeper further, the FBI determined that the man with the Libyan accent most likely came in on December 8, 1988. From the shopkeeper's recollection, the lab drew a composite sketch of the man. Having already traced the timing device to Libyans, the FBI focused on Libyan intelligence officers. Eventually, the bureau narrowed the list of suspects and showed the shopkeeper photographs. He identified Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer, as the man who had bought the clothing. The FBI found that he had arrived in Malta with Lamen Khalifa Fhimah, a former station manager of the Libyan Arab Airlines there, on December 20, 1988, at 5:30 PM Witnesses said they saw them arrive with a dark-colored Samsonite suitcase. Because he was the former station manager, Fhimah could place the luggage with the bomb ona flight without going through security checks. Basset left for Tripoli the next day at 10:26 am, half an hour after Air Malta Flight KM-l90 left Malta for Frankfurt. Through computer records, the FBI had already traced the bag that exploded over Lockerbie to the Malta flight, which connected in Frankfurt with Pam Am 103 bound for New York.

In November 1991, both Basset and Fhimah were indicted.

The only logical conclusion is that it was a joint Libyan-Iranian terrorist attack.

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Happy 100th Birthday President Reagan!

Happy 100th Birthday President Reagan!

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Race in Castro's Communist Cuba - Part 1

Celebrating Dr. Marin Luther King Jr.'s birthday by demonstrating for Human Rights is illegal in Communist Cuba

(EFE).- The Ladies in White, a group of women who demand the liberty of Cuba's political prisoners, denounced that this Sunday they were harassed by agents of the government as they were attempting to pay homage to the American religious leader Martin Luther King at a Havana park that bears his name.

This is almost a year after " black human rights activist Orlando Zapata-Tamayo died after an 83-day hunger strike and a series of savage beatings by his Castroite jailer/torturers."

Tamayo, a humble rural plumber and bricklayer, had studied the (smuggled) works of Martin Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi and had attempted some “civil disobedience” to protest the Stalinism imposed on Cuba by the Castro brothers, Che Guevara and their Soviet puppeteers. ... Samizdats smuggled out of Cuba by eye-witnesses’ report that while gleefully kicking and bludgeoning Tamayo, his Communist jailers yelled: “Worthless Ni**er!--Worthless Peasant”

Tamayo’s “disobedience” ... continued in proportion to his beatings and tortures. Tamayo remained –literally– “bloodied but unbowed.” Even Amnesty International recognized his plight and designated him an official “Prisoner of Conscience." ... Shortly after the Congressional Black Caucus visited with Raul Castro last year and returned hailing him as “one of the most amazing human beings we’ve ever met! Castro is a very engaging, down-to-earth and kind man!” the Black human rights activist and Martin Luther King disciple, Tamayo, was beaten comatose by his Castroite jailers and left with a life-threatening fractured skull and Subdural Hematoma.

On December 3, already injured perhaps beyond recovery (certainly with Cuba’s medical facilities) and hoping his death might alert a nauseatingly two-faced “international community” to the plight of Castro’s subjects, Orlando Zapata-Tamayo declared a hunger strike that lasted 82 days.

“They finally murdered my son,” wept Reina Luisa Tamayo this Feb. 24 upon news of her son’s death. “They finally got what they wanted. They ended the life of a fighter for human rights. My son was tortured. But he didn't die on his knees. He died bravely. My son's death gives me much strength, valor; I want the world to demand the release of all the other prisoners of conscience that this not happen again. And no--I don’t accept Raul Castro’s ‘apology.’ He’s an assassin!"

Her son’s body was delivered to Mrs. Tamayo by Castro’s secret police who demanded he be buried quickly and without fanfare. Castro’s police have also blanketed Tamayo’s rural home town to further “emphasize” this last directive.

Mrs. Tamayo, who's house is constantly surrounded by Castro's gestapo who use racial insults, is not allowed to visit her son's grave when she wants, and this is what happens [NOTE: PRESENT TENSE!] when she tries to do so

Cuban security agents beat and detained about 40 dissidents after the mother of the late political prisoner Orlando Zapata Tamayo and her supporters prayed at his tomb, activists reported Monday.

The mother, Reina Luisa Tamayo, said she was repeatedly hit on the head, thrown to the ground and gagged with a smelly rag that left her breathless as she shouted anti-government slogans.

The great Humberto Fontova wrote

Racism is one of the cornerstones of the Castro regime. As Fidel’s close friend and ally, the murderous Ernesto “Che” Guevara, once said, "The Negro is indolent and spends his money on frivolities, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent... We're going to do for blacks exactly what blacks did for the Cuban revolution. By which I mean: nothing!”

Che was much too modest. “Nothing” is not at all an accurate description of Castroite treatment of Cuba's blacks. In fact, these lily-white European soldiers sons (Fidel and Raul) forcibly overthrew a Cuban government where Cuban blacks served as President of the Senate, Minister of Agriculture, Chief of Army, and Head of State (Fulgencio Batista, a grandson of slaves who was born in a palm-roofed shack). Not that you'll learn any of this from the liberals' exclusive educational source on pre-Castro Cuba: the Godfather II movie.

Today the prison population in Stalinist/Apartheid Cuba is 90% black while only 9% of the ruling Stalinist party is black. As these black legislators cavorted in Cuba, a black Cuban anti-communist named Antunez, who suffered 17 years in Castro's dungeons (essentially for quoting Martin Luther King and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights in a public square), was on a hunger strike against Castroism. I will quote his sister from a samizdat smuggled out of Cuba last year while he was still in prison:

"The Cuban government tries to fool the world with siren songs depicting racial equality in our country. But it is all a farce, as I and my family can attest, having suffered from the systematic racism directed at us by Castro's regime. My brother suffers the scourge of racial hatred every day. The beatings are always accompanied by racial epithets. They set dogs on him. They deny him medical attention. They kept him from attending his mother's funeral."

"The racist mentality is so ingrained among Cuba's agents of repression that when mixed race groups are stopped on the street, only the blacks are asked for their identification papers. The only thing I have to thank the Cuban revolution for," she quoted her brother, "is for restoring the yoke of slavery that my ancestors lived under."

Needless to say, Antunez and his family were “overlooked” during the CBC visit to Cuba, as was the black Cuban doctor, who Amnesty International highlights as a Prisoner of Conscience, who President Bush honored (in absentia) with the U.S. Congressional Medal of Freedom last year, and who presently suffers a sentence of 25 years in Castro's torture chambers, Dr Elias Biscet. This man's crimes consist essentially of saying things in Cuban public about Castro similar to what Nancy Pelosi, John Stewart and Bill Maher say on major networks about former President Bush.

Dr. Biscet also denounced the Castro regime's policy of forced abortions. This latter "crime" goes a long way towards explaining why you've never heard of him (and wont) in the MSM.

A before/after comparison should be noted. In 1938, Life magazine wrote “Cuba has probably the nearest thing to perfect equality between whites and blacks in the world today.” In the February 1991 issue of the Marxist/Socialist magazine Monthly Review, Saul Landau (a die-hard supporter and associate of Fidel who once wrote to a communist agent that he dedicates himself to "making propaganda for American socialism"), admitted in a review of a book critical race relations in Castro's Cuba that "From visits I made to Cuban penal institutions in 1968 and 1987, I noted that that a disproportionate number of the inmates were black", which is a noteworthy turnaround from Life magazine's description almost 30 to 50 years earlier.

[Unfortunately, Saul Landau's review, titled "A new twist on race in Cuba", is not easily accessible on the internet]

With the pro-Castro Landau's admission, it is possible to transition back to the great pro-Freedom, anti-Communist scholar Humberto Fontova, who takes these truths a step farther

Castro's regime replaced a government where Cuban blacks served as president of the senate, minister of agriculture, chief of the army, and as head of state. Nowadays Cuba's jail population is 80 percent black, its governmental hierarchy 100 percent white. Only 10 percent of the Communist Party's central committee is black (and Cuba's most prominent political prisoner, Oscar Biscet, is black). In April 2003, three black Cubans "hijacked" a ferry and tried to escape to Florida. They were captured, given a summary trial, and executed by firing squads. Castro responded to the outrage of Cuban exiles with, "What's all this fuss about me shooting three little negritos?"

There will be more to say about this topic

Sunday, January 9, 2011

Out-of-Class venting - Communism and Hollywood

I'm getting the expected bellyaching about the Hollywood reds in the 50s. Let's set the record straight

From a BigPeace interview with Dr. Paul Kengor, professor at Grove City College, author of Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century

Big Peace: You’ve given a plug to Big Journalism. Related to this point, you also have something for our colleagues at Big Hollywood. Tell us how Hollywood liberals and communists alike abused these terms.

Kengor: This, too, goes way back. When the Hollywood screenwriters—accused of being communists loyal to the USSR—were called to testify before Congress in October 1947, they lied to their celebrity friends. The PR campaign of the communists, led by the Daily Worker, was to smack the congressmen on the investigating committee as (you guessed it) “fascists,” “Nazis,” “racists.”

An excellent case in point, where all this came together, was the October 29, 1947 cover of the Daily Worker, which trumpeted the words of the screenwriters who had just testified: John Howard Lawson, Dalton Trumbo, Albert Maltz, and Alvah Bessie. All four, unbeknownst to their liberal friends, were hardened communists. They didn’t dare admit this to their Hollywood pals—Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Danny Kaye, Gene Kelly, and a bunch of other duped liberals—who flew to Washington to publicly defend them.

Lawson was an angry man, known as “Hollywood’s commissar.” He informed Congress that it was behaving like “Hitler’s Germany,” “trying to introduce fascism in this country.”

Dalton Trumbo lectured the committee: “You have produced a capital city on the eve of its Reichstag fire. For those who remember German history in the autumn of 1932 there is the smell of smoke in this very room.”

Albert Maltz accused the congressmen of “carry[ing] out activities in America like those carried out in Germany by Goebbels and Himmler.”

By the way, as Maltz was saying this, the Soviets, led by devils like Lavrenti Beria, who Stalin boastfully called “our Himmler,” were taking over Nazi concentration camps like Buchenwald, which they renamed Soviet Special Camp No. 2.

Big Peace: You say that when Congress presented piles of irrefutable evidence of the communist loyalties of these screenwriters, the screenwriters responded not by trying to refute the evidence but by calling the congressmen fascists and Nazis.

Kengor: “Hitler Germany!” yelped John Howard Lawson, when faced with irrefutable evidence, “Hitler tactics!”

Dalton Trumbo screamed as he was escorted from the hearing room: “This is the beginning of an American concentration camp!”

Big Peace: For any doubters, in Dupes you document the actual Communist Party numbers of these supposed “innocent” screenwriters.

Kengor: Here you go: Albert Maltz, Communist Party no. 47196. Alvah Bessie, Communist Party no. 46836. John Howard Lawson, Communist Party no. 47275. Dalton Trumbo, Communist Party code name “Dalt T.”

You won’t learn those inconvenient facts from your liberal history professor. At our universities, the anti-communists are the demons; the truth must be repressed.

Funny that Trumbo was calling anyone a Nazi, because it was Trumbo who collaborated with the Nazis during the Nazi-soviet pact. From Allan H. Ryskind, who researched communism in Hollywood

I’ve read a lot of Trumbo and combed through his files at the Wisconsin State Historical Society in Madison. Yet I’ve never found a paragraph, or even a phrase, where he ever publicly condemned Stalin’s Soviet Union, certainly not when this most tyrannical of rulers was murdering folks by the millions, egging Hitler on to invade the Western democracies and eagerly devouring countries not his own.

Dalton was a party member, with a party card, and the party, as he well knew, was controlled by Moscow. Its purpose was to crush America’s liberties and make us a Soviet colony.

He was not a brave and good-hearted American, as the “documentary” pretends, but a serious un-American, in that his hero was Lenin and his loyalty was to the Soviet Union. 

Is this just reckless Red-baiting, as my liberal friends might say? The evidence of his Red activities is hardly secret. He came clean, sort of, to his biographer, Bruce Cook. He told Cook he joined the party in 1943 (there is evidence he joined earlier), that some of his “very best friends” were Communists and that “I might as well have been a Communist 10 years earlier. . .” He suggests he didn’t pay dues to the party for several years after his HUAC appearance, but he never turned his back on communism.

In his private papers he admits that he “reaffiliated with the party in 1954”—the year he returned to Los Angeles from Mexico—the experience, one supposes, having been so exhilarating the first time around. He claims to have quit the party for good in 1956.

So, by the historical record and his own account, he was in tune with the Soviet-controlled CP for nearly a quarter of a century, when Joseph Stalin was in his prime killing years.

Like so many of his comrades, he was all opposed to Hitler—until the Soviet-Nazi pact in 1939. Under this devils’ agreement, the two totalitarian countries divided Eastern Europe, with Hitler turning his guns against the West the following year.

After vanquishing Western Europe, the Nazi ruler then attempted to dispose of England, initially leveling its cities with saturation bombing. How did Dalton exhibit his deep devotion to those freedoms the film insists he championed? He sided with the Fuehrer. To ward off potential American assistance, Dalton unleashed his polemical fury against the British—the last major European people still willing to resist the Nazis.

England was no democracy; it had a “king,” he argued. FDR was guilty of “treason” and “black treason” for his pro-English policy. No drop of American blood should be spilled for the British imperialists. Yet when Germany turned on his angelic Stalin in June of 1941, ah, finally, there was now a compelling reason to confront the Nazi warlord! Rescuing Russia was now worth flinging young Americans onto foreign battlefields.

Many of Dalton’s Red activities were chronicled in 1947 by HUAC. The committee disclosed that he had joined, spoke for or contributed to dozens upon dozens of Communist causes, before, during and after World War II. There seemed to be no Red activity he wouldn’t embrace. He was raising money for the Daily Worker, campaigning for Communist candidates, propagandizing for Red labor leaders and (pre-pact) encouraging the shut-down of U.S. defense industries.

Earl Browder was deposed as Communist Party chieftain in 1945 (for saying America and the USSR could cooperate after the war). Dalton, obeying Stalin’s new hard line, gave two thumbs up. When Winston Churchill warned against Soviet imperialism, Trumbo compared him to Hitler.

When editing the Screen Writer in the mid-’40s, Trumbo turned this influential Screen Writers Guild publication into a virtual Red propaganda organ. When North Korea attacked South Korea in 1950, guess which side Trumbo took? In an unpublished play, his heroine proclaims the North is the nation really fighting for freedom. (For those who doubt me, I’ve got the script.) His support for the Soviets and American communism never quit.

When the Hollywood Communists put on their horror show before HUAC in 1947, screaming at committee members and refusing to respond to legitimate questions, the studio executives laid down a rule: Those who refused to say whether they were Communists, that is those who wouldn’t state whether they were conspiring with our enemies in Moscow, could no longer work in Hollywood. Those who turned against our Soviet foe were welcomed back with open arms. Trumbo stood with Stalin. No one deserved to be blacklisted more.

Does that last part sound a little harsh? Well, according to a Frontpagemag review of Ron Radosh and Allis Radosh's book, Red Star Over Hollywood, Trumbo secretly agreed with Ryskind's analysis

...in the end Party-members paid dearly for belonging to a secret organization. The hard fact is that there would have been no “naming of names” if the Party had not been a secret organization in the first place. This was later ruefully admitted even by prominent Party-member Paul Jarrico--and this turns out to have been the private opinion of the famous blacklistee Dalton Trumbo as well. Trumbo’s bitter remarks on Party secrecy have not been known before, and the bringing to light of material that for 50 years has lain unnoticed or ignored in Trumbo’s private files is a major scholarly contribution from the Radoshes.
"The question of a secret Communist Party lies at the heart of the Hollywood blacklist," Trumbo wrote in a 1958 memorandum which the Radoshes have now rescued from obscurity (pp. 219-222). Trumbo argued that there had been no need for the Party in the United States to maintain the rule of secrecy, since Party-members were not living under a despotic regime such as Czarist Russia, under the threat of torture and death, but were working for change in America’s open political market-place. Yet this was a distinction the Party refused to make. Party-members in the U.S., Trumbo said, "should have all been open Communists, or they should not have been members at all." What happened instead was that secret membership ultimately "destroyed them". The reason was that the moment of conscious choice whether to openly join an openly revolutionary party (with admitted risks to one’s career) was never permitted people; and when the illusion of secrecy collapsed and Party-members were then called before HUAC, "the quality of choice was radically changed for the worse. Instead of voluntary choice between party and career, they now faced compulsory choice between informing and the blacklist."

Ryskind even crushes the myth of the other symbolic "victim" of the topic: Lillian Hellman

I hate to break the news, but Hellman admitted she was a Communist in a letter to her own lawyer, Joseph Rauh.  I have a copy of the letter, but anyone can secure his own by going to Joseph Rauh’s papers at the Library of Congress. 

In her undated letter to Rauh (circa April 1952), she says:  “I joined the Communist Party in 1938…”

She lied even to Rauh about the number of years she was a CP member, insisting she left in 1940, but HCUA, whose tactics McCarthy mirrored, as Kessler would have it, managed to worm it out of her in a most interesting and amusing way.

When Hellman was called in May 1952 before HCUA, she was asked whether Martin Berkeley, an ex-Communist screenwriter, was accurate when he testified that she had attended the first meeting of the Hollywood section of the party in Berkeley’s home in June 1937. 

Hellman took the Fifth, meaning she refused to say on the grounds that to do so could incriminate her. 

Asked if she was currently a party member, she said, “No, sir.”  But was she ever a member? Her reply:  “I refuse to answer.”  Chairman John Wood then had a splendid time trying to pin down when she would claim she was no longer a member  Five years ago? 
Three years?  She took the Fifth each time.  How about “two years ago at this time?” 
Hellman: “No, sir.” 

So even Ron Kessler might conclude that Hellman was a Communist from approximately 1937 to 1950 and that HCUA had not treated her unfairly.  Hellman, of course, was not just a party member, but a loud and longtime shill for Stalin, defending every twist and turn in the Stalinist line.

Even after she said she was no longer a party member, she turned on Nikita Khrushchev for “exposing” Stalin at the historic Twentieth Party Congress. “When Khrushchev gave his famous speech in 1956 denouncing Stalin’s crimes, Hellman condemned Khrushchev for turning on the very leader who had been responsible for Khrushchev’s career,” writes Carl Rollyson in his authoritative, friendly biography of Hellman. 

The final word on this rant will come from the Frontpagemag article sighted above

Readers who are well-acquainted with the story of the Hollywood Ten and the subsequent blacklist of Hollywood Communists and leftists will find much that is familiar here--but also much that is new and important. The Communist Party as it operated in Hollywood was NOT just another political party. This was true for three profound reasons: (1) although it was a legal party operating in a democracy, its membership was secret; (2) its central function was to further the interests and policies of a foreign country and great power--namely the Soviet Union; and (3) it operated, as did all Communist Parties around the world, on the Soviet Union’s own totalitarian model, where all independent thought was forbidden in the name of revolutionary discipline. What is so striking and disturbing about this last point is that the Hollywood Party was made up solely of creative artists.
Let us turn first to the issue of secrecy. At its height there were about 300 Party-members in the film industry. Party-membership in Hollywood was secret, and the Party was essentially a revolutionary conspiracy. It was precisely this aspect of Party functioning that allowed secret Communist militants to take control of non-Party organizations, organizations which possessed innocent-sounding public names and involved hundreds of people who were not themselves Party-members but only liberals (or radicals) who thought they were working for good causes: peace, economic justice, anti-racism, civil rights. These are the famous “front groups;” and later, in the blacklist period, many Hollywood individuals who had innocently joined such front groups got into trouble with HUAC or the blacklist (the actor Edward G. Robinson is perhaps the best example).[1] But those victims of HUAC and the blacklist within broader Hollywood society (they were victims of the Party, too, of course) are not the Radoshes’ topic; the Radoshes focus sharply on the actual Party, and especially the hard-core Communist militants who made up the Hollywood Ten.
The secret Party-members gained control of these front organizations because (under Party orders) they worked the hardest for them, and so they got elected to the chairmanships and executive boards by people who did not know that they were voting Communist Party-members to positions of leadership and control. Through these “front groups” of mostly non-Party members the Party greatly multiplied its power, and came to exercize far more political power and influence in Hollywood than would have been the case if the Party had been a simple, open but small institution of 300 members.
The two most famous front groups were the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League of the 1930s (to which even John Ford belonged), and the Hollywood Independent Citizens Committee of the Arts, Sciences and Professions of the 1940s (to which even Ronald Reagan belonged). Such organizations funnelled great sums of money (mostly from innocent dupes) into causes the Party particularly favored (for instance, the Leftist side in the Spanish Civil War), while preventing any criticism of, say, the policies of the Soviet Union. Thus when Ronald Reagan, who thought he was merely associating with like-minded idealistic friends, sought in July 1946 to get some criticism of Soviet foreign policy as well as American foreign policy onto the agenda for HICCASP, he suddenly found himself in a ferocious shouting match with both John Howard Lawson (the secret head of the Party in Hollywood) and another secret Party-member, Dalton Trumbo. Reagan soon left the organization in disgust (pp. 115-116). Trumbo was the most talented and later the most famous of the Hollywood Ten.[2]
The other purpose of secrecy was, of course, to have secret influence over Hollywood films themselves. Both Lenin and Stalin had asserted the centrality of popular film as a weapon for “educating” the masses in proper thinking, This is precisely why the Hollywood section of the Party was so important ideologically and functionally that it was run directly from the New York headquarters of the CPUSA, and was never a subsidiary unit of the Los Angeles CP or even the California CP. To be sure, secret Party-members were rarely successful in getting their propaganda into the films being made by the studios for which they worked (though many Party screenwriters boasted of attempts). The problem was that studio moguls edited out any material they thought might offend any possible audience of viewers: after all, they were in the movie business to make money.
The Hollywood Party did have a single spectacular success in this regard, however: the film Mission to Moscow, made by Warner Bros. in 1943, at the height of the Second World War. The Radoshes devote a full chapter to this story. The film was in good part the product of the same creative crew that had just finished the masterpiece Casablanca: screenwriter Howard Koch and director Michael Curtiz. Its theme—astoundingly--was that the Moscow Purge Trials of the mid-1930s were justified, that all the accused (despite being elder statesmen of the Revolution of 1917 ) were guilty of treason with Nazi Germany and/or Japan, and that Stalin was a democrat. The Radoshes demonstrate conclusively what has long been denied, especially by apologists for the Party such as Victor Navasky: that Mission to Moscow was a Communist Party secret project. The film’s screenwriter Howard Koch was not “apolitical” (Navasky’s characterization) but a pro-Stalin intellectual, and his very influential “technical advisor” for the film, Jay Leyda, was a Communist operative. The Party never had another success like this; the film, however, did not do very well financially.[3)

Just venting