This is a short post. In fact, I don’t know what the minimum requirement for a “post” is, but this probably doesn’t qualify.

In my little crawlspace of a computer room, I keep family pictures, knickknacks, drawings, and a plethora of other assorted fare. My seven-year-old daughter even designed a dinosaur montage and wall aquarium (can you name the fish?). I’m not sure, but I may be the only person in the world with a dinosaur montage AND wall aquarium in his computer room.        

    

 

 

For those of you rusty in Italian, the article is about the two Tunisian terrorists Obama wants the Italians to take from GTMO. The author contends Obama is lecturing Italy that it must share the responsibility of housing terrorists. But according to Franco Frattini, the Italian Foreign Minister, Italy cannot jail or prosecute any GTMO prisoners based on foreign law. Criminal charges must be filed in Italy for crimes against Italians. None currently exists. However, the Italian state is trying to dig up old charges against the two Tunisians allegedly filed in Milan.

In other words, even if Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi agrees to take the terrorists, it is unlikely the authorities will be able to legally hold them for any length of time. In fact, they may not initially be jailed, i.e. see ya! 

President Bush was well aware of these facts many years ago…as is team Obama now. The difference is, one administration cared that the terrorists would likely be set free, and the other is more concerned with appeasing it’s political base. But of course it won’t be Obama’s fault if the terrorist are released and kill more Americans (maybe a nice soft target in Italy); it was the Italians who set them free. And according to the Obama-bots, let’s not forget who created this entire “mess” in the first place.

Another win-win for team “O”, and lose-lose for the American people.

 

You may already know about H.R. 45. If not, please keep reading.  I drafted and sent an email to my three Florida reps: Mica, Nelson, and Martinez.  And received a prompt reply from Congressman Mica already. The bill, my email, and Mica’s reply are pasted below.

There’s a link following the bill summary and a petition available for signing.  But considering the topic and wording of this act, I think more action is required.

Please feel free to use the verbiage, in part or whole if you decide to act.  

H.R. 45 (Summary)

1/6/2009--Introduced.

Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.

 Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.

 Prohibits: (1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions; (2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act; (3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours; (4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or (5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.

 Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.

 Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse; (2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and (3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.

 Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.

 Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

MY LETTER 

Please oppose Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.

 Draconian restrictive gun laws have no impact on crimes committed with firearms, other than to disarm law-abiding citizens.

 States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.

 Conversely, those districts with the toughest gun controls have the highest crimes rates. Furthermore, many countries, such as Switzerland, New Zealand, Finland, and Israel have high gun-ownership rates and low crime rates, while other countries have low gun ownership rates and either low or high crime rates. The empirical evidence reinforces commonsense. 

 What is incomprehensible and unconscionable is a congress trying to pass nonsensical laws which make all of us less safe; except of course the criminal. Finally, this is repressive and intrusive legislation that puts unnecessary burdens and restrictions on American citizens, while increasing the power and reach of the federal government into private lives.

 Thank you for supporting individual rights!

 V/R

 Tim XXXX

 Information paraphrased from “An interview with John R. Lott, Jr.” author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. John R. Lott, Jr. is a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute. He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School

REPLY 

Dear Tim:

 Thank you for contacting me with your support for our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It was good to hear from you and I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns with me.

 I agree with your views on this issue and have been a strong supporter of our Second Amendment rights. American citizens should be able to protect themselves and their families, and in fact, our Founding Fathers placed the right to bear arms second only to the freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights in our U.S. Constitution. One of my priorities since coming to Congress has been to protect those rights. Americans know that fighting crime is more complicated than just a simple issue of passing more government regulations. Be assured that in the 111th Congress I will continue working to ensure that Americans are guaranteed their right to protect themselves under the Second Amendment.

 Thank you again for sharing your views with me, and I hope you will continue to do so in the future regarding these or any other issues of interest.

 With my regards and best wishes, I remain

 Sincerely,

 John L. Mica

Member of Congress

A former US Marine and 2003 combat veteran of An Nasiriyah (aka potential domestic terrorists) just sent me this pic of his house. He also just happens to be my oldest son. 

As Hannity would say, let not your hearts be troubled…

I just purchased a 3x5 Gadsden flag at Amazon for 2.95 + shipping for anyone who’s interested.  Never know when you’re going need one.

I sometimes post STRATFOR articles when applicable to current events. This is a good one.

A Chilling Effect on U.S. Counterterrorism

April 29, 2009

By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart

Over the past couple of weeks, we have been carefully watching the fallout from the Obama administration’s decision to release four classified memos from former President George W. Bush’s administration that authorized “enhanced interrogation techniques.” In a visit to CIA headquarters last week, President Barack Obama promised not to prosecute agency personnel who carried out such interrogations, since they were following lawful orders. Critics of the techniques, such as Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., have called for the formation of a “truth commission” to investigate the matter, and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., has called on Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to launch a criminal inquiry into the matter.

Realistically, those most likely to face investigation and prosecution are those who wrote the memos, rather than the low-level field personnel who acted in good faith based upon the guidance the memos provided. Despite this fact and Obama’s reassurances, our contacts in the intelligence community report that the release of the memos has had a discernible “chilling effect” on those in the clandestine service who work on counterterrorism issues.

In some ways, the debate over the morality of such interrogation techniques — something we do not take a position on and will not be discussing here — has distracted many observers from examining the impact that the release of these memos is having on the ability of the U.S. government to fulfill its counterterrorism mission. And this impact has little to do with the ability to use torture to interrogate terrorist suspects.

Politics and moral arguments aside, the end effect of the memos’ release is that people who have put their lives on the line in U.S. counterterrorism efforts are now uncertain of whether they should be making that sacrifice. Many of these people are now questioning whether the administration that happens to be in power at any given time will recognize the fact that they were carrying out lawful orders under a previous administration. It is hard to retain officers and attract quality recruits in this kind of environment. It has become safer to work in programs other than counterterrorism.

The memos’ release will not have a catastrophic effect on U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Indeed, most of the information in the memos was leaked to the press years ago and has long been public knowledge. However, when the release of the memos is examined in a wider context, and combined with a few other dynamics, it appears that the U.S. counterterrorism community is quietly slipping back into an atmosphere of risk-aversion and malaise — an atmosphere not dissimilar to that described by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission) as a contributing factor to the intelligence failures that led to the 9/11 attacks.

Cycles Within Cycles

In March we wrote about the cycle of counterterrorism funding and discussed indications that the United States is entering a period of reduced counterterrorism funding. This decrease in funding not only will affect defensive counterterrorism initiatives like embassy security and countersurveillance programs, but also will impact offensive programs such as the number of CIA personnel dedicated to the counterterrorism role.

Beyond funding, however, there is another historical cycle of booms and busts that can be seen in the conduct of American clandestine intelligence activities. There are clearly discernible periods when clandestine activities are deemed very important and are widely employed. These periods are inevitably followed by a time of investigations, reductions in clandestine activities and a tightening of control and oversight over such activities.

After the widespread employment of clandestine activities in the Vietnam War era, the Church Committee was convened in 1975 to review (and ultimately restrict) such operations. Former President Ronald Reagan’s appointment of Bill Casey as director of the CIA ushered in a new era of growth as the United States became heavily engaged in clandestine activities in Afghanistan and Central America. Then, the revelation of the Iran-Contra affair in 1986 led to a period of hearings and controls.

There was a slight uptick in clandestine activities under the presidency of George H.W. Bush, but the fall of the Soviet Union led to another bust cycle for the intelligence community. By the mid-1990s, the number of CIA stations and bases was dramatically reduced (and virtually eliminated in much of Africa) for budgetary considerations. Then there was the case of Jennifer Harbury, a Harvard-educated lawyer who used little-known provisions in Texas common law to marry a dead Guatemalan guerrilla commander and gain legal standing as his widow. After it was uncovered that a CIA source was involved in the guerrilla commander’s execution, CIA stations in Latin America were gutted for political reasons. The Harbury case also led to the Torricelli Amendment, a law that made recruiting unsavory people, such as those with ties to death squads and terrorist groups, illegal without special approval. This bust cycle was well documented by both the Crowe Commission, which investigated the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings, and the 9/11 Commission.

After the 9/11 attacks, the pendulum swung radically to the permissive side and clandestine activity was rapidly and dramatically increased as the U.S. sought to close the intelligence gap and quickly develop intelligence on al Qaeda’s capability and plans. Developments over the past two years clearly indicate that the United States is once again entering an intelligence bust cycle, a period that will be marked by hearings, increased controls and a general decrease in clandestine activity.

Institutional Culture

It is also very important to realize that the counterterrorism community is just one small part of the larger intelligence community that is affected by this ebb and flow of covert activity. In fact, as noted above, the counterterrorism component of intelligence efforts has its own boom-and-bust cycle that is based on major attacks. Soon after a major attack, interest in counterterrorism spikes dramatically, but as time passes without a major attack, interest lags. Other than during the peak times of this cycle, counterterrorism is considered an ancillary program that is sometimes seen as an interesting side tour of duty, but more widely seen as being outside the mainstream career path — risky and not particularly career-enhancing. This assessment is reinforced by such events as the recent release of the memos.

At the CIA, being a counterterrorism specialist in the clandestine service means that you will most likely spend much of your life in places line Sanaa, Islamabad and Kabul instead of Vienna, Paris or London. This means that, in addition to hurting your chances for career advancement, your job also is quite dangerous, provides relatively poor living conditions for your family and offers the possibility of contracting serious diseases.

While being declared persona non grata and getting kicked out of a country as part of an intelligence spat is considered almost a badge of honor at the CIA, the threat of being arrested and indicted for participating in the rendition of a terrorist suspect from an allied country like Italy is not. Equally unappealing is being sued in civil court by a terrorist suspect or facing the possibility of prosecution after a change of government in the United States. Over the past few years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of CIA case officers who are choosing to carry personal liability insurance because they do not trust the agency and the U.S. government to look out for their best interests.

Now, there are officers who are willing to endure hardship and who do not really care much about career advancement, but for those officers there is another hazard — frustration. Aggressive officers dedicated to the counterterrorism mission quickly learn that many of the people in the food chain above them are concerned about their careers, and these superiors often take measures to rein in their less-mainstream subordinates. Additionally, due to the restrictions brought about by laws and regulations like the Torricelli Amendment, case officers working counterterrorism are often tightly bound by myriad legal restrictions.

Unlike in television shows like “24,” it is not uncommon in the real world for a meeting called to plan a counterterrorism operation to feature more CIA lawyers than case officers or analysts. These staff lawyers are intricately involved in the operational decisions made at headquarters, and legal issues often trump operational considerations. The need to obtain legal approval often delays decisions long enough for a critical window of operational opportunity to be slammed shut. This restrictive legal environment goes back many years in the CIA and is not a new fixture brought in by the Obama administration. There was a sense of urgency that served to trump the lawyers to some extent after 9/11, but the lawyers never went away and have reasserted themselves firmly over the past several years.

Of course, the CIA is not the only agency with a culture that is less than supportive of the counterterrorism mission. Although the prevention of terrorist attacks in the United States is currently the FBI’s No. 1 priority on paper, the counterterrorism mission remains the bureau’s redheaded stepchild. The FBI is struggling to find agents willing to serve in the counterterrorism sections of field offices, resident agencies (smaller offices that report to a field office) and joint terrorism task forces.

While the CIA was very much built on the legacy of Wild Bill Donovan’s Office of Strategic Services, the FBI was founded by J. Edgar Hoover, a conservative and risk-averse administrator who served as FBI director from 1935-1972. Even today, Hoover’s influence is clearly evident in the FBI’s bureaucratic nature. FBI special agents are unable to do much at all, such as open an investigation, without a supervisor’s approval, and supervisors are reluctant to approve anything too adventurous because of the impact it might have on their chance for promotion. Unlike many other law enforcement agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the FBI rarely uses its own special agents in an undercover capacity to penetrate criminal organizations. That practice is seen as being too risky; they prefer to use confidential informants rather than undercover operatives.

The FBI is also strongly tied to its roots in law enforcement and criminal investigation, and special agents who work major theft, public corruption or white-collar crime cases tend to receive more recognition — and advance more quickly — than their counterterrorism counterparts.

FBI special agents also see a considerable downside to working counterterrorism cases because of the potential for such cases to blow up in their faces if they make a mistake — such as in the New York field office’s highly publicized mishandling of the informant whom they had inserted into the group that later conducted the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. It is much safer, and far more rewarding from a career perspective, to work bank robberies or serve in the FBI’s Inspection Division.

After the 9/11 attacks — and the corresponding spike in the importance of counterterrorism operations — many of the resources of the CIA and FBI were focused on al Qaeda and terrorism, to the detriment of programs such as foreign counterintelligence. However, the more time that has passed since 9/11 without another major attack, the more the organizational culture of the U.S government has returned to normal. Once again, counterterrorism efforts are seen as being ancillary duties rather than the organizations’ driving mission. (The clash between organizational culture and the counterterrorism mission is by no means confined to the CIA and FBI. Fred’s book “Ghost: Confessions of a Counterterrorism Agent” provides a detailed examination of some of the bureaucratic and cultural challenges we faced while serving in the Counterterrorism Investigations Division of the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service.)

Liaison Services

One of the least well known, and perhaps most important, sources of intelligence in the counterterrorism field is the information that is obtained as a result of close relationships with allied intelligence agencies — often referred to as information obtained through “liaison channels.”

Like FBI agents, most CIA officers are well-educated, middle-aged white guys. This means they are better suited to use the cover of an American businessmen or diplomat than to pretend to be a young Muslim trying to join al Qaeda or Hezbollah. Like their counterparts in the FBI, CIA officers have far more success using informants than they do working undercover inside terrorist groups.

Services like the Jordanian General Intelligence Department, the Saudi Mabahith or the Yemeni National Security Agency not only can recruit sources, but also are far more successful in using young Muslim officers to penetrate terrorist groups. In addition to their source networks and penetration operations, many of these liaison services are not at all squeamish about using extremely enhanced interrogation techniques — this is the reason many of the terrorism suspects who were the subject of rendition operations ended up in such locations. Obviously, whenever the CIA is dealing with a liaison service, the political interests and objectives of the service must be considered — as should the possibility that the liaison service is fabricating the intelligence in question for whatever reason. Still, in the end, the CIA historically has received a significant amount of important intelligence (perhaps even most of its intelligence) via liaison channels.

Another concern that arises from the call for a truth commission is the impact a commission investigation could have on the liaison services that have helped the United States in its counterterrorism efforts since 9/11. Countries that hosted CIA detention facilities or were involved in the rendition or interrogation of terrorist suspects may find themselves exposed publicly or even held up for some sort of sanction by the U.S. Congress. Such activities could have a real impact on the amount of cooperation and information the CIA receives from these intelligence services.

Conclusion

As we’ve previously noted, it was a lack of intelligence that helped fuel the fear that led the Bush administration to authorize enhanced interrogation techniques. Ironically, the current investigation into those techniques and other practices (such as renditions) may very well lead to significant gaps in terrorism-related intelligence from both internal and liaison sources — again, not primarily because of the prohibition of torture, but because of larger implications.

When these implications are combined with the long-standing institutional aversion of U.S. government agencies toward counterterrorism, and with the difficulty of finding and retaining good people willing to serve in counterterrorism roles, the U.S. counterterrorism community may soon be facing challenges even more daunting than those posed by its already difficult mission.

This is our President. In the span of 78 seconds, he mocks the average American, lectures about “tightening our belts” while growing government exponentially, ignores the repeated and positive economic lessons of tax cuts, and ends the harangue with class warfare.

Ladies and gentlemen, our President…

[Original post]

Posted by feminthecity3586

Obama promised that senior citizens making under $50,000. would not have to pay any taxes. This was not included in his gargantual shopping spree.

Barak had accomplished precisely nothing of significance throughout his short career — and yet still promised the world, and more, to his followers. Obama’s election was supposed to end the “politics as usual,” but has been filled with tired old partisan fighting and divisiveness and name calling. His followers like Keith Olberman and Janine Garafalo call you a racist if you so much as disagree with anything their idol Barack, is doing. Barack could put an end to all of that divisiveness with one statement but he will not.

He has publically attacked Rush Limbaugh ... a talk show host, for crying out loud.  This kind of childish behavior is supposed to be beneath the office which Obama now holds.

Iran has launched its own satellite into orbit and is mocking Obama as a weak leader for wanting to have a dialogue with them. North Korea has withdrawn from its non-aggression treaty and is preparing another missile test. Somalia is in tatters. Yemen has released 170 al-Qaeda terrorists. Pakistan has released mad nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan from house arrest. Russia is blocking supply lines into Afghanistan.

Barack's approval rating has already dropped to 66% according to recent polls. Some say it's lower.

[My Response…I’m logged on as “Aircanart”]:

Posted by Aircanart in reply to feminthecity3586

“Hang on to your hats (and wallets); it might be a long four years.”

Too late!  Unfortunately your, your children’s, and grandchildren’s wallets have already been plundered.

“Mr. Obama's characterizations of his budget unfortunately fall into this pattern. He claims to reduce the deficit by half, to shave $2 trillion off the debt (the cumulative deficit over his 10-year budget horizon), and not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. While in a Clintonian sense correct (depends on what the definition of "is" is), it is far more accurate to describe Mr. Obama's budget as almost tripling the deficit. It adds $6.5 trillion to the national debt, and leaves future U.S. taxpayers (many of whom will make far less than $250,000) with the tab. And all this before dealing with the looming Medicare and Social Security cost explosion.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123871911466984927.html

Smoke and mirrors and redefined terms…up is down, weak is strong, and terrorist are arbiters of man-made disasters; victims no doubt, of a cruel past administration. 

Posted by NiceguyEddie in reply to Aircanart

Well, the article started out good, but quickly desolved into nonsense.  Basically, they DO admit that he cuts the deficit in half, but says that since "doing nothing" would cut it by 84%, he's actually INCREASING IT.  How's that for conserva-logic?  A 50% cut is an INCREASE.  LOL.  That BS completely falls apart even BEFORE factoring in the damage done to the economy by NOT making necessary investment in infrastructure and NOT stimulating growth in the economy.  Really a pathetic argument all-in-all that can only appeal to those that have already concluded that Obama will go down as the worst president ever.  (Despite the fact that the man he replaced, and who these idiots all supported ALREADY HAS.)

Posted by Aircanart in reply to NiceguyEddie

It’s not about Bush verses Obama, or a party issue.  It’s about the individual against big government.  Bush started this madness with TARP and now Obama is setting new spending records; no matter how twisted the numbers or redefined the terms.  The only thing stimulated is the government and Obama’s power base.  And it will continue to grow and amass power.

But perhaps that’s okay with you.

Obama-nomics, like the new deal, appeals only to Keynesian socialists (oxymoron) and/or those who ignore or rewrite history.  And the current spender-in-chief will have out “stimulated” all presidents combined by 2010.  Keep telling yourself, your children, and their children that’s it’ not spending or debt…its just stimulus.

Advocates for bigger government are either dependent, want more power, or just plain daft of consequences.  But if you want an all encompassing nanny state to do your thinking (investing) for you…well then…your response makes perfect since.

Posted by NiceguyEddie in reply to Aircanart

 It’s about the individual against big government.

*sigh* I'm getting tired of hearing this from the party that rode roughshod over the constitution for the past eight years.  You never do get around to explaining why "big" government is in fact "bad" or why you are more concerned with the SIZE of government than it's actual, legal REACH.  Why you are more concerned with limiting it's COST than it's POWER, ignoring completely the COST that would be bourne anyway were the government NOT to provide the services it does.

Bush started this madness with TARP and now Obama is setting new spending records

Agreed, on Bush.  As for Obama?  This is hardly new.  So did Reagan, Clinton and Bush '43, just to name a few.  In pure dollar figures, I'm sure that this can be said of all but a few presidents in this country's history, and in particular since 1930.

The only thing stimulated is the government and Obama’s power base.

The idea that the "gvoernment" is being "stimulated" doesn't even make any sense.  As for "Obama's power base?"  Yeah... you see that's being stimulated by pursuing polices that improve the lives of a broad cross sections of americans.  If that doesn't happen (as you have suggested) then he's out in 4-to-8 and we're back to Reaganomics with the next (Republican) administartion.  OTH, if it works... then what's your problem?  (Aside from the fact that the DEMOCRATIC and LIBERAL "power base" will grow?)

Obama-nomics, like the new deal, appeals only to Keynesian socialists (oxymoron) and/or those who ignore or rewrite history. 

I suspect that you don't really understand Keynes, or Adam Smith for that matter.  As for history... well, it's not Liberal's that attempt to re-write it my friends.  Case in point: The new deal appeals to almost ALL Americans who didn't own large corporations.  The polls don't lie: Roosevelt was elected in FOUR LANDSLIDES.  The first over an incumbant Predisednt that was HIMSELF elected in a landslide (the only time that's ever happened, BTW), another in the largest electoral landslide in HISTORY (more lopsided by % than Reagan's in '84 or Nixon's in '72).  Roosevelt had FOUR elections that looks like Lyndon Johnson in '64.  So your "only appeals to" point is utter nonsense.

Keep telling yourself, your children, and their children that’s it’ not spending or debt…its just stimulus.

Where were you in the Reagan years?  I guess you SUPOPRTED Clinton's tax increases to reduce that debt, huh?  (Considering his reduction in entitlements, you must think he was the greatest president ever!)  And why do I suspect that you went silent once again as W. turned a record surplus into a record deficit in less than a year, and then started an uneccessary war.  My "grandchildren" will be paying for that to, you know! 

Advocates for bigger government are either dependent, want more power, or just plain daft of consequences. 

Hmmmm... This is just right-wing bunk.  Saying the third point undermines the first two.  But I'll see you raise: Supply-Siders are short-sited, self-centered individuals just rtying to feed their own greed, regarldess of the consequences to the larger economy.  Now that's just liberal nonsense, but it's a helluva lot closer to the truth than what you're saying.  "Daft of consequences?"  So, maybe, like... Invading a country that didn't attack us?  Thus alienating our allies?  Thus emboldening our enemies?  Thus running up HUGE DEFICITS in the process?  Or supporting interrogation tactics that are guarenteed not to privde good intel?  Don't talk to me, or any liberal, about consequences, sir.  Your lot have no credability in THAT dept.  As for being "dependant?"  ALL businesses (and thus all of our incomes) benefit from gov't sepnding.  The money the gov't spends doesn;t get burned you know!  It gets SPENT.  At our business, buying our goods and services.  And even if the gov't doesn't buy them directly, the people who's salaries ARE paid by the gov't orby gov't spending DO.  The money hits each and every one of us.  (But more on this below...)

But if you want an all encompassing nanny state to do your thinking (investing) for you…well then…your response makes perfect since.

More nonsense.  No one is telling me how to spend my money.  You people play the victim so well with this stuff.  What you people [who bash Keynes] never seem to understand is that the moeny you "lose" to "high" taxes, is money that you never would have had in the first place, were it not for government spending.  Your mockery of "stimulus" reveals your true ignorance of Keynes and MacroEconimics.  (MBA, Univeristy of MI, with Honors, if you're wondering.)  The economy has a DEMAND side to it as well.  We've adress the SUPPLY side to the point where things have gone WAAAAY out of balance.  It's time to strengthen to demand side.  That means WAGES, and SPENDING.  And it will benefit EVERYONE.

But thank you for at least admitting that my response makes perfect sense.  I agree with that [part of your] point as well.

[When I tried to post a reply, the thread had been conveniently closed after Mr. NiceguyEddie’s post… coincidence? So I found Mr. Ed commenting on another thread and posted the response directly to one of his recent post. My comments stayed up only long enough for someone hit the danger button. I suppose Mr. Ed didn’t like the verbiage, and instead of responding, selected the “Abuse” (aka conservative intrusion alert) switch action. Here’s my rule breaking comment]:

NiceguyEddie / Monday April 27, 2009 4:12:32 PM EDT

Please forgive me for posting my comments for this column:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200904240038?f=h_top here. Unfortunately the former comments section was closed before I could adequately provide the deserved response.

First and foremost, thanks for your detailed response…and psychoanalysis. I’m flattered! The way you picked apart my comments line-by-line, was akin to ESPN’s play-by-play football coverage. Monday morning quarterbacking at it’s best.

Since you took the liberty to diagnose and label me after reading just one post, I’ll do my best to return the favor. However, I lack your obvious intuitive osmosis skills. Having never met, I cannot possibly know your motivations. And since I don’t know you, none of my ramblings are personal.

Your rebuttals ignore the history of FDR’s fiscal failures (regardless of his approval rating) and the unintended and intended consequences of Obama’s irresponsible fiscal policies and out and out deception. Instead you offer incidental references to past presidencies (mostly Republican); which is nothing more than the transparent typical diversion to deflect the current issue and responsibility.

The fact is Obama is spending money we don’t have, and increasing government and his powerbase faster than any president in history. Are you listening? That fact alone should alarm every rational voter. Because it is also a fact that as the government grows individual liberty is eroded. And something else to consider; once Obama and a one-party congress has implemented regulatory policy and legislation to alter the playing field in their favor; it is done. But that seems to be okay with you, providing it’s a democrat taking your liberty.

Here’s a news flash for you; as the two parties continue to trade power, the pendulum swinging one way and then the other, the Republicans will eventually regain control. But this time, thanks to Obama, they’ll inherit more power than they imagined. And the big loser is the individual tax-paying voter who ultimately has less and less representation; not only in government policy, but also his property. And if socialized medicine becomes a reality…his own body.     

You seem to be an ideologue through and through. Am I correct? That’s what team Obama and his minions require; he needs all the blind support he can muster. Had I’d taken the time to read some more of your posts; I would’ve realized that you’re a true believer. And if my guess is correct, Barak could enter your abode and you’d be bowing lower than he did to King Fahd. I’m sure in your eyes, he can do no wrong. Well, at least he’ll do better than that scourge from the past eight years, regardless of how big the government gets. Bush lied people died…right Eddie?

Ideologies will never get it. They swallow the rhetoric from websites like Media Matters and become stuck in the mire of Republican verses Democrat…liberal against conservative. And sadly for all of us, they continue to beat the party drum while the house burns down around us.

In the end, we need less idealogues and more people who believe in their own individual power. Those who take responsibility and recognize the constitution for what it is and the design of government’s limited role in our lives.

[I continued to repost the comments each time they were deleted. Here’s the list…17 total prior to banning.]

* Posted 1350…1605 deleted/reposted, 1609 deleted/…1614, 1624, 1633, 1637, 1652, 1706, 1847, 1904, 1922, 1953, 2007, 2009, 2033, 2051

[1620 My email to Media Matters]:

“My respectful replies are being deleted from the comment section of this post: http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200904270028

Is free and open debate not encouraged here? What is going on?

V/R Aircanart”

* All times local (GMT+2)

[2030 Media Matters warning]:

-----Original Message-----
From: Media Matters Help [mailto:help@mediamatters.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:04 PM
To:

Subject: Media Matters Discussion Boards

Hello,

This is notification to remind you of the terms of use of our discussion forums. It has been brought to our attention that you violated the terms with your recent comments.

Please be aware that content of this nature (off-topic) will not be tolerated on the Media Matters site and further violations will lead to a ban from the site. We DO NOT ban users because of their opinions. Our goal is to foster lively discussion with opinions from all sides that is pertinent to the item.

Sincerely,

Technology & Online Community

Department Media Matters for America

[2040 My reply]:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your prompt response.

My comments are on topic as referenced in my post. That fact I had to post them indirectly, by no means changes the fact that my remarks directly and respectfully address previous comments made to me by another commenter.

Please let my comments stand, or open the previous topic of discussion so I may reply appropriately. If not, I can only assume that Media Matters censors it readers based on political content, and does not encourage dissenting points of view or open debate.

V/R, Aircanart

[2053: I am banned from Media Matters]:

You have been banned from the Media Matters forums for consistently violating the terms of use of our message boards. This may include trolling, excessive insulting and name-calling, and repeatedly taking a discussion far from its original topic.

So at the end of the day, my little visit just confirmed what I already knew. The libs cannot, nor do they wish to engage in any meaningful debate. Moreover, the older liberals who pull the strings at Media Matters and similar outlets, do not want their younger bloggers exposed to anything that differs from their perception of reality. They are cultivating a young liberal crop…and nothing threatens that crop more than reasonable substantial debate.

Did Obama, sitting in the oval office across the street hear our cries for liberty…our pleas for representation? Did he pay attention? Probably not…but we will continue to speak until he does.

Hopefully this is only the start.

For everyone reading this, I traveled over 5000 miles to attend this event. I’m not tooting my horn, but want everyone to understand how important I think these events are. America IS at a crossroad and it is the responsibility of everyone to become a voice in this effort to reclaim our country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMO our little TH blogging club deserves a name.  Since this is Bobbie’s brainchild and labor, her name should be included. Listed below, in no certain order are some suggestions. Comments, new entries, and votes welcome.

1.      Bobbie’s Battalion (Perhaps)

2.      Bobbie’s Brigade (Has a certain ring)

3.      Bobbie’s Bandits (Too close to “Butt Bandits”)

4.      Bobbie’s Bloggers (Too benign)

5.      Bobbie’s Bombers (This has potential)

6.      Bobbie’s Boys (Too exclusive)

7.      Bobbie’s Beasts (Okay for the guys…ladies may object)

8.      Bobbie’s Basta*ds (Won’t get past TH censors)

9.      Bobbie’s Buzzards (Carrion eaters?)

10. Bobbie’s Butterflies (Maybe at the Huffington)

11. Bobbie’s Bulldogs (Has a bite to it)

12. Bobbies Bruisers (Another maybe)

13. Bobbie’s Brouhaha (Too many syllables)

14. Bobbie’s Brothel (My favorite!)

15. Bobbie’s Broadsides (Too many interpretations…Bobbie might object)

16. Bobbies Beagles (rrrrrrrrrRUFF)

17. Bobbies Bears (The Chicago who?)

18. Bobbie’s Beatniks (Cool dude!)

19. Bobbie’s Bartenders (Probably the most accurate)

20. Bobbie’s Barflies (See above)

21. Bobbie’s Barbarians (No doubt the left’s view)

 

or

 

 

Dear Sen. Murtha,

Congratulations on your recent award. I wanted to send this salutation to you directly, but your website only accepts emails from your home state. So instead I’ll post here, and perhaps someone from Pennsylvania will do me the favor.  

As a 52 year-old vet of two branches of service, I’d thought I’d pretty much seen it all. However, the past 60 days, and most recently, your award have reminded me that I still have much to learn from an ever changing world.

Were you really a Marine senator? Did you suffer the trials and tribulations of Parris Island? Of combat? Did you forge the bonds of brotherhood with your fellow warriors? If so, what happened?

How did you end up going from one of the few…the proud, to the embodiment of everything that is wrong with this country? How in God’s name did you arrive to this place?

I’m not angry with you sir…I tamed my ego long ago. I am however bewildered, disheartened, and terribly sad that a fellow Marine and brother in arms could stray so far.

You betrayed the one group of people on this earth that would have risked their life to pull your dead body from the battlefield. There is no stronger bond…and you shattered it, and then urinated on it. I hope God forgives you, because I doubt the Marines will.

Please pardon me if I don’t trust you enough to divulge my name, but that last place I want to be is in the crosshairs of a traitor.

Congratulations again.

Anonymous

What follows is a recent email exchange between an acquaintance and myself, following a message I forwarded to friends and family.

The purpose for posting this is to provide what I believe is an example of MSM influence on rational educated people.

Concerning the acquaintance; I’m unaware of her political leanings, but know for a fact she’s a hard working loving mother, a well educated decent person, and wife to a longtime friend still on active duty.

I could be wrong in my assessment, and her opinions are shaped by her close proximity to the problem. Again, my point isn’t to besmirch anyone, but only to illustrate what I think is the power of a bias press.

For expediency and ease of reading, I’ve pasted the emails so that the original message reads first, and so on.

My original email:

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 4:02 AM
To: Undisclosed Recipients
Subject: What do Hoover, Truman & Eisenhower Have in Common?

Forwarded…

Here is something that should be of great interest for you to pass around. I didn't know of this until it was pointed out to me.

Back during The Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover ordered the deportation of ALL illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American citizens that desperately needed work.

Harry Truman deported over two million illegals after WWII to create jobs for returning veterans.  And then again in 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower deported 13 million Mexican nationals! The program was called 'Operation W*tback' so that American WWII and Korean veterans had a better chance at jobs. It took 2 Years, but they deported them!

Now, if they could deport the illegals back then, they sure can do it today, but doubt that they will……they vote Democrat! lf you have doubts about the veracity of this information, enter Operation W*tback into your favorite search engine and confirm it for yourself.

Reminder…………………Don't forget to pay your taxes...20 million Illegal Aliens are depending on you.

Response:

From: XXXXX
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 1:15 AM
To: Tim
Subject: RE: What do Hoover, Truman & Eisenhower Have in Common?

Actually it was between 1.3 - 3 million that Eisenhower deported.

 During the Great Depression, Mexican Repatriation voluntarily and involuntarily relocated Mexicans back to Mexico (mainly due to low employment) – however, one of the reasons Mexicans were targeted was because of the proximity of their homeland, Mexico, and the ability to easily identify them.  It is estimated that 500K left the US voluntarily and that 35K were deported (194K total deportations occurred between 1929-1935- all nationalities).  It is also estimated that between 1890 & 1930 one half of all European immigrants (legal & illegal) repatriated.  In fact I had 2 uncles who returned to Prussia/Germany during this period.  In 1924, the Quota Act of 1924 reduced the number of European immigrants from 1M to 100K…of course there were always an exception to the rule.

 As for Truman deporting anyone, I can not find any reputable data (mainly blogs supporting the same info) and/or historical facts to support the claim.

 Living here in El Paso gives one a different perspective on legal & illegal aliens.  The overwhelming majority of Mexicans (regardless of paperwork) are honest and hard working people!  They do jobs that others refuse to do and they do it for little pay.  Perhaps we should hit the free loaders who collect welfare, deal drugs (of course our sister city is Juarez – which is the most dangerous city in Mexico due to drug cartels warring over smuggling rights) and/or sit around and complain…or even better the jerks that cause us to be in such debt – bankers, wall street trader, CEOs, mortgage lenders and realtors.  How about the credit card and marketing companies who “push” their “stuff” on us (just like a drug pushers) making them think they “need” all of this stuff.

 Yeah, the Mexicans are taking jobs – but they are jobs that Americans are too proud to do OR won’t lower themselves to do because they think it is beneath them (it is not that Americans “can’t” do it but it is Americans “won’t” do it).  Think about it, how many Mexicans can go into a business and get a job if they can’t speak English very well.  English is still required.  I don’t see too many non-Mexicans doing landscaping, building stone walls for $25 (for a section of wall that is 16 feet long x 5-6 ft high x 1 foot thick) in 100+ degree weather.  Or roofing houses…not in Georgia and not here in Texas.

 Immigrants, regardless of the legal status, have always done the sh*t jobs.  We need immigrants because the majority of us “won’t” do what is necessary to pay the bills (bankruptcy) and “won’t” give up the perceived “right” to conspicuous consumption.

 Just my 2 cents…

XXXXX

My reply:

XXXXX,

Thanks for fact checking my mail.  I normally do a little research prior to forwarding these things, but it came from a trusted source so I failed to do so.  No excuse!  I’ll pass on your results.

Here’s my take on the immigration thing.

We do need immigrants…but not the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal ones already here.  This issue is about rule of law; not nationality or filling job requirements.  Immigration laws are in place, I assume to protect US citizens and legal immigrants trying to make a living.  Should legal resident aliens and US citizens playing by the rules, have to compete with those who subvert regulation and are in-turn rewarded by lawmakers and sanctuary cities?  Should American taxpayers be burdened with the costs associated with illegal immigration?  California is fiscally sinking as I write this, mainly due to overspending on social programs accessible and used by illegal aliens...estimates at nine to ten billion dollars in California alone.  

I have nothing against Mexicans or any nationality for that matter.  That’s not what this is about.  And with all due respect, you cannot be here illegally and simultaneously be an honest person.  Doesn’t check.  That’s like saying I broke into the store to sweep the floor.  The former negates the latter.  A trustworthy person follows the rules…like so many real honest immigrants are now doing.  Filling out the paperwork, waiting in lines, paying the fees, and taking the tests to earn citizenship…just as Cinzia [my wife] did.  And as long as illegals get top cover from unscrupulous liberal politicians protecting their voting base, the illegals themselves will continue to be exploited by equally unscrupulous employers.  It’s not that no one will do the dirty work; it’s that no one except illegals are willing to be abused for pennies.  If the employer is forced to pay American employees more, then so be it.  If he can’t compete…then he goes under.  It’s called capitalism.  Or at least it was.

And I agree; there are too many moochers sitting on their butts collecting welfare checks for doing squat.  We’ve created a welfare state that’s only getting bigger thanks to hope and change.  Perhaps if we didn’t have all these liberal social programs, some of those lesser appealing jobs you mention would begin to look a little more favorable.  Let’s see…pick strawberries at minimum wage or starve?

Thanks for your two cents and for enduring my rant.  Your comments are sincerely appreciated.

Ciao, Tim

The Orange County California Newspaper

This is a very good letter to the editor. This woman made some good points. For some reason, people have difficulty structuring their arguments when arguing against supporting the currently proposed immigration revisions. This lady made the argument pretty simple. Not printed in the Orange County Paper. Newspapers simply won't publish letters to the editor which they either deem politically incorrect (read below) or which does not agree with the philosophy they're pushing on the public. This woman wrote a great letter to the editor that should have been published; but, with your help it will get published via cyberspace. 

From: 'David LaBonte' 

My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to 'print' it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register: 

Dear Editor: 
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry. 

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home. 

They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity. 

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought alongside men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France, and Japan.  None of these first generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini, and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America’s one people. 

When we liberated France, no one in those villages was looking for the French-American or the German- American or the Irish-American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl. 

And here we are in 2008 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags. 

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of  Liberty , it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill.  I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet. 

(signed) Rosemary LaBonte 

KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING. FOR THE WRONG THINGS TO PREVAIL THE RIGHTFUL MAJORITY NEEDS TO REMAIN COMPLACENT AND QUIET.  LET THIS NEVER HAPPEN.

As with all things published and forwarded in cyberspace, I wanted to verify the validity of the story. In other words, were the contents of this email an actual OCR rejected opinion? So I went to “Snopes” to find out. FALSE says Snopes in bright red letters. You have to read this to believe it.

I was amazed to learn that the story wasn’t false at all; it was very true. This letter was submitted and subsequently rejected by the OCR. As I continued to read, it became apparent that the Snopes “investigator” didn’t dispute the facts surrounding the story, rather they disagreed with Ms. LaBonte’s premise and began spinning their own rebuttal to the unpublished essay.

I went back to the beginning of the Snopes article and there it was under the “claim”. Something to the affect that Ms. LaBonte’s letter to the editor failed to accurately contrast and compare immigrants from different eras…which the Snopes author was kind enough to rectify by giving us the “true” version.

When Snopes should have been verifying the authenticity of the facts surrounding the letter, they instead created their own myth, and then injected personal subjective bias and announced “False!” Case closed.

I learned a valuable lesson today. Snopes does not fact check, it evaluates the “truth” in light of its own subjective bias. If you’re looking for the liberal translation of truth, by all means use Snopes. If you need to verify facts, go somewhere else.

I’ve been a fan for years. “Culture Warrior” was spot-on and still applicable today. But lately I think you’re off the mark concerning Obama’s critics.

You dismiss anyone advocating Obama’s failure as an idealogue. 

Do you want him to succeed in expanding government into the private sector and implementing a far left agenda that, no matter how you spin it, is progression toward socialism? Obama’s success equals the end of traditional America…as written by Bill O’Reilly.

I don’t give a squat what brand of politics Obama or anyone else wears.  I’ll stand against Rep, Dem, or Ind alike if they, by their actions and rhetoric take this country towards socialism.

You don’t owe Helen Thomas an apology, but one should be forthcoming to all “idealogues” standing between Obama and the social abyss.

Regards

This is my winded response to another well written and researched essay by Dan@Minuteman1: THE UN MAY SOON BE IN CHARGE OF OUR KIDS  http://minuteman1blog.blogtownhall.com/

Limiting parental rights in favor of governmental control brings to mind past regimes that used the young to advance their agendas.  

There’s a similar youth group very active in American politics; the Young Democratic Socialist (YDS). Their stated mission:

“YDS is the only US affiliate of the International Union of Socialist Youth (IUSY). IUSY is the largest political youth organization in the world. Internationalism is an important part of the socialist tradition, and YDS takes global solidarity very seriously.”

“IUSY is a diverse coalition, with members ranging from the ANC Youth League in South Africa, to the Sandinista Youth of Nicaragua, to the Swedish Social Democratic Youth. While we are one of the smallest organizations in our international, we are very active at the intentional level, working on common days of action, campaigns and hosting IUSY events and conferences here in the United States.

As the right wing of the world tries to replicate the worst of the US political and economic system, now more than ever, YDS has an important role to play in our international, offering a critical perspective on neoliberalism and "The US model".”

“On the other hand, we have a lot to learn from our friends abroad --where socialism is a vital part of national political life, where trade unions and socialist parties are strong and influential. It is a good reminder that we are not "out to lunch" -- our movement is strong worldwide, even if our ideas are misrepresented here in the US.” http://www.ydsusa.org/ourmovement.html

I don’t think it’s any accident that liberal democrat legislative and judicial actions and decisions are similar to YDS goals.

The socialization of America is slowly occurring using an insidious patient strategy; chipping away little by little, like the artist slowly molding his sculpture.

For those conservatives who think we can turn this around in 2010 or 12, ask yourself how many countries have gone from Democratic Socialism back in the other direction? 

The argument can be made that Reagan did it. But that was before California was blue, before the Dems owned all three branches of government, before the welfare state and government employed and/or union workers (Dem voters) outnumbered traditional thinkers. 

The Dems are legislating the demographic change and psyche in this country, guaranteeing there is no turning back to the “worst of the US political and economic system”.   They are working extremely hard to make this a one-way street to socialism, and seem to believe in it with all their collective hearts.

They missed the bus in the 30’s and 70’s, but learned their lessons.

This is a somewhat lengthy post on anti-Semitism by Douglas Davis, former senior editor of the Jerusalem Post.

What struck me were the parallels drawn between 1930s and modern Europe. Keeping in mind our current domestic political trends, it’s all a bit unnerving.

By Douglas Davis

At my dinner table on Friday night, a holocaust survivor admits that she is trying to persuade her son to take his family out of Europe to America, Canada, Australia, Canada, Australia, Israel...’They say they can’t leave me, but I tell them: “Go, get out. My parents left my grandparents behind in Berlin and brought me to safety in England. Now I want you to leave so that my grandchildren will be safe.”’ There is an unbearable desperation in her plea. But she has a point.

As tens of thousands of demonstrators march through the streets of Europe, the chants are modified but the message remains substantially intact: ‘Hamas, Hamas, Hamas — Jews to the Gas’. Or, more simply: ‘Death to the Jews’. Many European Jews, even well-established, affluent Jews, have been checking the suitcase they keep packed under the bed. They have been here before and many are (albeit reluctantly) reading the writing on the wall.

To some extent I thought I was inured. I grew up in postwar apartheid South Africa where a subtle undercurrent of anti-Semitism was a fact of everyday life. So while I was disturbed by manifestations of mob anti-Semitism, I was also less vulnerable to shock. That’s just how people are. Living in genteel, leafy Hampstead Garden Suburb provides an additional layer of protection from such crass outbursts.

But my sanguine state ends abruptly when I am out walking on Saturday. A hundred yards from my front door, I encounter the slogan, freshly painted in yellow, across the pavement: ‘Kill the Filthy Jews’. I am shocked. And shocked that I am shocked. The message is too close for comfort. The leafy gentility is, after all, an illusion.

Those who study these matters tell me that the current convulsion of anti-Semitism is the worst in a generation. They also say that there is a direct, causal link with the Israeli military operation against Hamas in Gaza. Once upon a time, anti-Israel protesters insisted they were motivated by political animus against Zionism rather than racial prejudice against Jews. The Hamas Charter, which sets out of the guiding principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement — xenophobic, racist and anti-Semitic — removes the distinction.

Last week Basim Naim, the Hamas Minister of Health in Gaza, sought to capitalise on the wave of European support for his movement and to confer some respectability on Hamas among those who lean to the left. Writing in the Guardian, he decried the ‘continuing attempt to discredit and demonise Hamas’. Boldly, he asserted: ‘Our struggle is not against the Jewish people, but against oppression and occupation. This is not a religious war. We have no quarrel with the Jewish people’.

Mr Naim’s disingenuous depiction of Hamas as a friend of the Jews took my sense of credulity to a place that is accessible only to my psychiatrist. The ideology contained in the Hamas Charter (which was adopted in 1987, not 1887), leaves no room for interpretation. ‘Our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave,’ it declares. Every Muslim is enjoined to confront the enemy in the land of the Muslims: ‘a woman must fight the enemy even without her husband’s authorisation, and a slave without his master’s permission... In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad. We must...join the ranks of the Jihad fighters’.

Article Seven of the Charter provides the religious justification: ‘The Prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: “The [end of days] will not come until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: ‘Oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!’”’

Then the Hamas Charter morphs into the oldest hatred: primitive, European anti-Semitism. Jews, says the Charter, have accumulated ‘huge and influential wealth’ which they use to implement their ‘dream’. It has allowed them to take over the world media and to foment revolutions (the French and Communist revolutions receive special mention) in order to ‘fulfil their interests and pick the fruit’. The Jews, it says, used their influence to start both world wars and they used their money to ‘establish clandestine organisations which are spreading around the world to destroy societies and promote Zionist interests’. Among these ‘destructive spying organisations’, the Hamas Charter makes special mention of the Freemasons, Rotary clubs, Lions clubs and B’nai B’rith.

This psychopathic babble is unpleasant stuff, but, like it or not, that is the formally enshrined ideological platform and considered worldview of Hamas. It should be dismissed with contempt, but its message resonates in important Middle East capitals, from Tehran to Damascus and Doha. Sadly, it has found an echo on the streets of Europe, too.

All this raises some important questions. What part of the Hamas message inspires tens of thousands from the left, right and centre of the political spectrum to take to the streets of Europe with their chants of support for Hamas and hatred of Jews? What part of that noxious Hamas ideology is so compelling that it has led some into violent confrontation with the police? And where are those protestors when Muslims are killed in other conflicts, from Afghanistan and Chechnya to Darfur and the Philippines?

Hamas has provided the touchpaper for a Thirties-style outburst in Europe. Anti-Semitism is rampant. Synagogues are burned and Jewish cemeteries are desecrated, while individual Jews are met with gratuitous verbal and, at times, physical abuse in the street.

In Britain, a cross-party group of MPs is moved to speak of their ‘horror’ as ‘a wave of anti-Semitic incidents has affected the Jewish community’. There is, they note, a ‘discernible sense of anxiety and vulnerability’ among British Jews.

In Germany, anti-Semitic violence directed at Jewish institutions is reported to be spreading nationwide after a police officer guarding a synagogue in Berlin’s Mitte district, the pre-war centre of Jewish life, was attacked with an iron bar.

In Italy, the Flaica-Uniti-Cub trade union, which represents workers in shops and malls, calls for a boycott of businesses with Jewish associations, directing shoppers to focus particularly on clothing stores, many of which, the union pointed out, are traditionally owned by Italian Jews. And in Denmark — Denmark! — schools with large numbers of Muslim pupils are refusing to enrol Jews because, they say, their security cannot be assured.

There can be no doubt that, for many, Israel-hatred is a cover for Jew-hatred. There can also be no doubt that this figleaf is becoming redundant. The contagion has passed through the membrane and the post-Holocaust taboo against open expressions of anti-Semitism is slipping away.

The Hamas Health Minister might have been stretching the truth when he said ‘we have no quarrel with the Jewish people’. Sadly, though, he was not telling fibs when he said he and his comrades ‘welcome and appreciate the stand taken by leading Jewish figures in Britain and around the world against Israel’s aggression against Gaza and for the rights of our people’.

I am hoping that my psychiatrist will be able to explain why so many Jews have been propelled into the arms of those who seek their destruction. Precisely what part of the Hamas Charter are they defending?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3276096/the-terrible-warning-of-a-holocaust-survivor.thtml