After returning from the protest at the New York Times Offices last evening, I discovered that "Pinch" Sulzberger was due to give a lecture on the Role of Journalism in a Democracy. I nearly rolled on the floor laughing. The lecture is to be held at the CHAUTAUQUA INSTITUTION in New York on Thursday, July 13, at 10:45 a.m.. If you need a further laugh the lecture series is named, wait for it... Applied Ethics: The Obligations of Citizenship.
To undestand why this is so hysterical one should read the other posting link I made this morning.
Some of the highlights:
For Pinch Sulzberger treason is second nature. In the 70s this traitor published articles by Wilfred Burchett even after being told that the Australian journalist was a KGB agent who had participated in the torture of POWs in North Korean camps.
the Times covered for the despicable Duranty, painted Stalin as a misunderstood philanthropist, the murderous Ho Chi Min as an agrarian humanitarian, Castro as a freedom-loving liberal, Chavez as a misunderstood reformer, etc. The only people it doe not praise are American patriots.
"Pinch" has also had a hand in the revealing of the NSA monitoring of foreign communications and the most recent revelations of the monitoring of the foreign SWIFT funds transfer system.
And if you happen to be on the fence on this issue here is the specific legal citation that applies to what the New York Times and "Pinch" Sulzberger have done:
U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37, § 794
§ 794. Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government
(a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate to any foreign government, or to any faction or party whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States any document, writing plan or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power directly concerned early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence . or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.
(b) Whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, collects, records, publishes, or communicates, or attempts to elicit any information with respect to any other information relating to the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
(c) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
(d)
(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law
(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation, and
(B) any of the persons property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
I am calling William F. Clinger Jr., Chairman of the Board of Trustees, and Thomas M. Becker, President, of the Chautauqua Institute today to demand an explanation of their reason for considering "Pinch" Sulzberger qualified to speak in any rational way about this topic.
If anyone else wishes to do so the phone number is 1 800 836-ARTS.
Posted by: DanNY ||
07/11/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
For those wishing to send emails the contacts are:
I just discovered that you are having Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. giving a lecture on:
The Role of Journalism in Democracy
as part of your
Applied Ethics: The Obligations of Citizenship.
To say that I was stunned would be a serious understatement.
Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. is a traitor to the United States of America. He has provided aid and comfort to our enemies in a time of war. To have him speak on this topic would be a grave insult to the memories of the almost three thousand of my fellow New Yorkers who were killed on September 11, 2001, to the three hundred plus men and women killed at the Pentagon on that same day, to the brave passengers on Flight 93, to our fighting men and women overseas, and to every American whose lives he has endangered by his callous, cavalier and traitorous actions.
Actions have consequences and I sincerely hope that Mr. Sulzberger is dealt with to the fullest extent of the law.
If you think I am overstating my case then you might want to consider reading the relevant portion of the law which I have appended.
For the Chautauqua Institute to consider such a person as qualified to give any lecture on a subject he demonstrably knows or cares so little about is an insult to Chautauquans past, present and future.
U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37, § 794
§ 794. Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government
(a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate⦠to any foreign government, or to any faction or party⦠whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States⦠any document, writing⦠plan⦠or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power⦠directly concerned⦠early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligenceâ¦. or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.
(b) Whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, collects, records, publishes, or communicates, or attempts to elicit any information with respect to⦠any other information relating to the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
(c) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
(d)
(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State lawâ
(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation, and
(B) any of the personâs property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
Posted by: DanNY ||
07/11/2006 9:07 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Dan, my Man! NICE letter! Can I crib from it?
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/11/2006 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Go right ahead Bobby
Posted by: DanNY ||
07/11/2006 14:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
As I expected I got the following reply from the President of the Chautauqua Institue:
Dear Mr. ,
Thank you for the email message concerning the appearance at Chautauqua of the publisher
of The New York Times, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr.
Regarding your views that Mr. Sulzberger's actions as publisher of that newspaper
constitute traitorous behavior, I respect your right to hold such views. Regarding
your point that the Institution insults its constituency by having him speak on
the subject of the Obligations of Citizenship and the role of the press in a democracy,
I respectfully disagree.
Thomas M. Becker
President
Chautauqua Institution
Chautauqua, NY 14722
716-357-6222
Posted by: DanNY ||
07/11/2006 15:16 Comments ||
Top||
It's "The End of Cowboy Diplomacy," Time magazine declares on its cover this week. Interesting. President Bush's antagonists and enemies have spent nearly five years perfecting a caricature of his foreign-policy and warmaking views, and now self-satisfiedly declare that their caricature of Bush has been overtaken by events.
The profound difficulties of the war in Iraq have, in the eyes of the caricaturists, exposed the failure of Bush's supposedly swaggering foreign policy. The United States isn't standing so tall, walking so proud or throwing its weight around so baldly after three-plus years in Iraq, say the caricaturists.
Why, even the president himself has said he shouldn't have used the wanted-poster "dead or alive" formulation when talking about the hunt for Osama bin Laden. The Taliban are back making mischief in Afghanistan, and bin Laden is still on the loose.
And where is all the talk of the "Axis of Evil" now that North Korea is test-firing missiles and Iran is declaring its intention to go nuclear?
"Bush's response to the North Korean missile test was revealing," write Time's Mike Allen and Romesh Ratnesar. "Under the old Bush Doctrine, defiance by a dictator like Kim Jong Il would have merited threats of punitive U.S. action. Instead, the administration has mainly been talking up multilateralism and downplaying Pyongyang's provocation."
Cleverly put - but absurd. Bush's stance toward North Korea has been basically unchanged since the summer of 2002, when Pyongyang announced it had created fissile material. The administration did not react with belligerence at the time, choosing instead to place the issue in the hands of a six-nation task force. The North Korea policy has always been the real-world refutation of the ludicrous suggestion that Bush always seeks to go it alone in the world.
Indeed, a more sensible critique of the Bush administration's North Korea policy would be to call into question the use of this multilateral negotiating system with a regime as recalcitrant as Kim Jong Il's. Maybe what was needed was more belligerence, not less.
Or maybe, just maybe, the North Korea problem indicates that presidents are somtimes faced with lousy options all around. Belligerence seemed out of the question with North Korea, since the regime seems capable of starting a war at a moment's notice. Every president since Ronald Reagan has decided that the only prudent course with Pyongyang is some form of bribery, since the prospect of war on the Korean peninsula could lead to the deaths of millions and the potential for a breakout of regional hostilities with no good foreseeable outcome.
Whatever is the case, George W. Bush never swaggered toward North Korea, never used "cowboy diplomacy," whatever that cutesy phrase might mean.
Still, we can all see how world events and the war in Iraq have made Bush's foreign policy seem problematic. But have the problems discredited the Bush foreign-policy doctrine? That's a different question.
Think, for example, about the scoffing references to Bush's "Axis of Evil" conceit - the notion that Iraq, Iran and North Korea posed special and particular threats to America and the world. It was denounced as simplistic and belligerent when it was first presented in the 2002 State of the Union address. Clinton-era Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, speaking for the Democratic mainstream, called the phrase "a big mistake."
But now, four years later, some Democrats are trying to outflank Bush and the Republicans on the right by offering Bushite solutions to the North Korean crisis.
For example, former Defense Secretary William Perry has called for a preemptive strike against Pyongyang. This is especially startling, for Perry's signal achievement during the Clinton years was negotiating the so-called Agreed Framework, under which the United States basically paid the North Koreans billions not to go nuclear - an agreement that North Korea clearly violated with impunity, since it announced it had created fissile material only 16 months into the Bush presidency.
Remember, the hallmark of the Bush doctrine is preemption - the explicit statement by Bush and his administration that the United States will consider preemptive attack as a tool against the spread of weapons of mass destruction that might menace America.
So, even as Time magazine is declaring an end to the Bush doctrine, Bill Clinton's defense secretary has offered what one must assume is a serious proposal to act preemptively against North Korea before it develops a workable long-range missile.
What this suggests is that the Bush doctrine has succeeded in doing what doctrines do - it has made preemption a thinkable strategic and tactical option for the United States. And that won't change no matter who the next president is.
#4
Liberals are a weird bunch. They claim to fight for the downtrodden minority, but then call them racial slurs when the president appoints them to a post never before occupied by a minority. He has done that 3 times now, and the libs squeal like pigs. They claim they are peace lovers, but they sound like they want to go to war in Sudan,NKor,and Iran to me. They want to double taxes and "redistribute the wealth" , but most are fantastically rich and have become so using the current economic model. They are publically defeatist and anti American, anti global economy, anti economy in general, but goddamn you if the stock market slips a few points. They are split right down the middle on Iraq, some care about nothing but the environment, some want to annihilate 1/3 the worlds population so the frogs can screw more freely, some want us to let the U.N. run our domestic and foreign policy for us. They are a walking, talking , anti-american enigma to me. As a party they can't even state what they stand for. I don't understand them. I doubt I will ever understand them. They are too spitefull and divided in their loyalties to be trusted. They hate what America (the icon) stands for, and I cannot abide that.
As for me, I say-
PAX AMERICANA
Sometimes a lede can be buried so deep it barely makes it into the story. On Saturday, the New York Times ran a lengthy article about a sharply critical private letter the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee sent to President Bush May 18.
"An important congressional ally charged the administration might have violated the law by failing to inform Congress of some secret intelligence programs and risked losing Republican support on national security matters," wrote Eric Lichtblau and Scott Shane in their lead paragraph.
The lede implies that Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich) thinks "Republican support on national security matters" is jeopardized by the failure to inform Congress of these secret intelligence programs, but his letter indicates this isn't so.
Rep. Hoekstra won't say what those intelligence programs are, but the speculation is they are the "special access programs" former National Security Agency official Russell Tice claimed violated the law.
Mr. Tice was fired in May of 2005, allegedly because he was psychologically disturbed.
Mr. Tice had asked permission to brief the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on the programs he was worried about, which was denied until after Rep. Hoekstra wrote his letter.
But mentioned only in the penultimate paragraph of a four page letter, this concern was the least of the three raised by Rep. Hoekstra.
A more important concern was what he saw as empire building by the new Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte.
"I am concerned that the current implementation is creating a large, bureaucratic and hierarchial structure that will be less flexible and agile than our adversaries," Rep. Hoekstra wrote. "If we are to be successful we must limit the growth of the office of the DNI -- to force it to be the lean, coordinating function we envisioned."
But most of his ire was directed at the appointment of Stephen Kappes to be Deputy Director of the CIA.
"Regrettably, the appointment of Mr. Kappes sends a clear signal that the days of collaborative reform between the White House and this committee may be over," Rep. Hoekstra wrote.
Rep. Hoekstra is a friend of former CIA Director Porter Goss, his predecessor as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and was upset with his brusque dismissal May 5.
The appointment of Mr. Kappes to team with Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden poured salt in the wound. Mr. Kappes was deputy director for operations when Mr. Goss took over at Langley in the fall of 2004. He resigned rather than reassign an aide who was insubordinate when told that leaks to reporters from the CIA must stop.
Rep. Hoekstra accused Mr. Kappes of being one of the leakers: "I have been long concerned that a strong and well-positioned group within the Agency intentionally undermined the Administration and its policies," he wrote. "This argument is supported by the Ambassador Wilson/Valerie Plame events, as well as by the string of unauthorized disclosures from an organization which prides itself with being able to keep secrets. I have come to this belief that, despite his service to the DO, Mr. Kappes may have been part of this group.
"Further, the details surrounding Mr. Kappes' departure from the CIA give me great pause," Rep. Hoekstra wrote. "The fact is, Mr. Kappes and his Deputy, Mr. Sulick, were developing a communications offensive to bypass the Intelligence Committees and the CIA's own Office of Congressional Affairs. One can only speculate on the motives, but it clearly indicates a willingness to promote a personal agenda. Every day we suffer from individuals promoting their personal agendas. This is clearly a place where we do not want or need to be."
Neither of these paragraphs made it into the lengthy story Mr. Lichtblau and Mr. Shane wrote. Their only mention of Rep. Hoekstra's concerns about Mr. Kappes was this sentence, deep within the article: "He warned that the choice of Mr. Kappes, who he said was part of the group at CIA that 'intentionally undermined the administration,' sends 'a clear signal that the days of collaborative reform between the White House and this committee may be over.'"
Without this sentence, Mr. Lichtblau and Mr. Shane could not have implied, misleadingly, in their lede that the White House risked losing Republican support over its failure to inform Congress of some intelligence programs.
The New York Times frequently accuses the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq. I'd say the Times did a fine job of cherry-picking -- not to say distorting -- Rep. Hoekstra's letter.
#1
My father was a "Rotarian" -- now it all becomes clear why I am in league with Bush and Rove. Fear me, Osama, for I am Rotarian progeny! Bwa ha ha ha ha!
By Christopher Swift
President George W Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin are certain to celebrate their recent successes in the global "war on terrorism" when the Group of Eight (G8) summit begins on Saturday in St Petersburg, Russia.
When they use quotes describing the "war on terrorism" you know they don't really believe it it...
On June 7, US aircraft killed al-Qaeda's Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a safe house outside Baquba. On July 10, pro-Kremlin militia liquidated Chechen separatist Shamil Basayev in Ingushetia.
Either that, or Makhmud tossed his see-gar and it landed in the dynamite. We may never know which...
Both operations featured prominently on national television, with US and Russian pundits predicting the eventual collapse of their adversaries' insurgent networks.
The way to kill off the movements is to kill all the head cheeses. Incarceration doesn't work.
At first blush, the similarities between Zarqawi and Basayev appear significant. Both used Islam to inspire followers and legitimize violent force. Both led dynamic insurgencies embracing comparable military tactics. Both appear to have been betrayed by inside sources.
Yeah. We'd never have gotten them otherwise, would we?
Yet despite apparent symmetry between US and Russian operations, critical distinctions between Chechnya's indigenous rebels and Iraq's foreign jihadis still remain. Rather than collaborating in a common struggle, Bush and Putin face dissimilar adversaries animated by distinct values and dramatically different agendas.
They just talk the same jihad talk and cut people's heads off similarly, and they're financed by Arabians. Other than that, there's nothing in common...
Despite their superficial similarities, Zarqawi and Basayev manifested two ideologically and politically distinct faces of contemporary Islamic militancy. That distinction turns on the relationship between politics and religion. For Basayev's rebels, Islam is inherently communitarian. It defines ethnic and cultural identity.
Whereas for Zark's Arab League, Islam is inherently communitarian. It defines cultural and ethnic identity. That's very significant, y'know...
It reinforces notions of Chechen nationhood.
Which is still a part of the ummah...
It animates violent opposition to Moscow's historic dominance and a drive toward political self-determination. Rather than threatening a global conflagration, Basayev's Islam mobilized a discrete population for limited, localized ends.
That the discrete population shows up in other countries, shooting things up and cutting off heads is quite beside the point...
For Zarqawi's jihadis, Islam is radically cosmopolitan.
That's different from "communitarian," y'see...
It subsumes ethnic and cultural identity.
Chechens wear hats, y'see. Everybody else wears turbans or kefiyehs...
It eschews Iraqi nationhood in favor of establishing a regional caliphate. It champions violence against Kurds, Shi'ites and moderate Sunnis in a drive toward social and theological purity. Rather than promoting self-determination, Zarqawi's Islam catalyzed burgeoning Arab resentment for unlimited, globalized ends.
But not in Chechnya. No, no. Certainly not. That's different.
Those ideological differences underscore important distinctions in each group's character and composition. Zarqawi's jihadis are predominantly foreign.
Some of them Chechens, in fact...
Leaders mobilize manpower through transnational networks, recruiting disaffected Muslims in the Middle East, Europe and beyond. Most are loners, leaving their families and homelands to fight in mixed international units. Their struggle is globalized yet atomized. Despite cooperating with Ba'athists and other Iraqi Sunnis, al-Qaeda's forces fight for a millenarian ideology rather than a discrete community. By comparison, Basayev's rebels are overwhelmingly indigenous.
Except for the Arabs and Turks and Ingush and Dagestanis and the occasional Azeri, Ossetian, Circassians, Avars, Huns, Veps, Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Turanians, and Cro-Magnons.
Leaders mobilize manpower through subnational jamaats and Sufi spiritual orders known as tariqat.
Except that Chechnya isn't a Sufi phenomenon. It just used to be a Sufi area. It's now a Wahhabi operation, which is where the money comes from.
Recruiting is largely spontaneous, with volunteers from Chechnya and adjoining Russian republics fighting on a seasonal or semi-seasonal basis. Their struggle is localized and highly personalized. Despite limited assistance from a tiny and rapidly diminishing cohort of Arab volunteers, the Chechens continue fighting for readily identifiable ethno-nationalist ends.
Those ends do not legitimize Chechen terrorism, especially in cases where civilians are the intended targets. Nor do they eliminate prospects for closer military cooperation between local rebels and global terrorist syndicates. Nonetheless, these distinctions illuminate critical differences between militant Islam's subnational and transnational variants. Absent a common spiritual idiom, Chechen rebels share more with the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka than they do with al-Qaeda. Basayev was Chechnya's Che Guevara, not Russia's Osama bin Laden.
Recognizing the two faces of militant Islam carries critically important implications for how the United States frames and fights the "global war on terrorism". It also carries important implications for US-Russia relations. In Iraq, an assertive US military posture is necessary to curb the transnational terrorist threat and provide conditions necessary for domestic institutional development. Defeating Zarqawi's global insurgency requires a local solution. Only authentic Iraqi leadership will mobilize the nation against foreign jihadis. To ignore that reality risks consigning Iraq to protracted civil conflict.
In Chechnya, that analysis is reversed. Russia's aggressive military campaign fuels a cycle of violent repression and armed reprisal. Rather than negotiating with moderate separatists, the Kremlin controls a criminalized and increasingly coercive indigenous elite. Ending Basayev's local insurgency requires a global solution. Only authentic US leadership will convince Russians and Chechens to pursue a meaningful political dialogue. To ignore that responsibility risks the imminent emergence of a failed state within the sovereign boundaries of a nuclear superpower.
Christopher Swift is a doctoral candidate at the University of Cambridge.
#5
Basayev's Islam mobilized a discrete population for limited, localized ends.
Then why did they (after acheiving defacto independence) proceed to launch attacks in Dagestan, seeking a trans-causcus islamic emirate?
It was the attempt to take Dagestan, and raids into Russia itself, that prompted the clumsy Russian invasion.
Posted by: john ||
07/11/2006 18:47 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Except for the Arabs and Turks and Ingush and Dagestanis and the occasional Azeri, Ossetian, Circassians, Avars, Huns, Veps, Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Turanians, and Cro-Magnons.
I recognize most of them, but who the heck are the Avars, the Veps and the Turanians (surely not from Turin, Italy?)?
I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that "an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide." Here is my plan:
1. We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way: "The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon � all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons and Corsicans."
2. I would then invent "multiculturalism" and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.
3. We can make the United States a "Hispanic Quebec" without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently, "The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved, not by tolerance, but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically, and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together." I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to insure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences, rather than Americans emphasizing their similarities.
4. Having done all this, I would make our fastest-growing demographic group the least educated � I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50 percent dropout rate from school.
5. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of victimology. I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was all the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.
6. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would "celebrate diversity." "Diversity" is a wonderfully seductive word. It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other � that is, when they are not killing each other. A "diverse," peaceful or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together, and we can take advantage of this myopia.
Look at the ancient Greeks. Dorf's "World History" tells us: "The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games in honor of Zeus, and all Greeks venerated the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet, all of these bonds together were not strong enough to overcome two factors ... (local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions ...)" If we can put the emphasis on the "pluribus," instead of the "unum," we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.
7. Then I would place all these subjects off-limits � make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to "heretic" in the 16th century � that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like "racist", "xenophobe" halt argument and conversation. Having made America a bilingual-bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of "victimology," I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra � "because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good." I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact.
8. Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson's book "Mexifornia" � this book is dangerous; it exposes my plan to destroy America. So please, please � if you feel that America deserves to be destroyed � please, please � don't buy this book! This guy is on to my plan.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." � Noam Chomsky, American linguist and U.S. media and foreign policy critic.
#3
1. We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures
Switzerland? Four languages. Four cultures. However, the federal government as decreed that everyone will learn as their second language - English.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
