Dec 31, 2007
Dec 28, 2007
American Conservatives - Draft John Bolton. Please!
Flummoxed o’er your presidential pickings? Your leader is nigh. For only thus might the free world prevail. John Bolton for President!
Dec 27, 2007
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan
“Every influence, every motive, that provokes the spirit of murder among men, impels these mountaineers to deeds of treachery and violence. The strong aboriginal propensity to kill, inherit in all human beings, has in these valleys been preserved in unexampled strength and vigour. That religion(Islam) which above all others was founded and propagated by the sword -- the tenets and principles of which are instinct with incentives to slaughter and which in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men -- stimulates a wild and merciless fanaticism.”- Sir Winston Churchill from his book The Story of the Malakand Field Force: An Episode of Frontier War ; written in 1898 about the land now known as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
Dec 22, 2007
Al-Robin Hood: Terrorists in Tights
“It was the deep knowledge--and pray God we have not lost it--that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest.”
- President Ronald Reagan, 40th Anniversary of the D-Day Invasion, Pointe du Hoc, France, June 6, 1984
- President Ronald Reagan, 40th Anniversary of the D-Day Invasion, Pointe du Hoc, France, June 6, 1984
Generations of kiddie-winkies have thrilled to the swashbuckling antics of Robin Hood and his merry band of men, gleefully stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Implicit in this oft told tale is the presumption that the rich are thus by means of ill-gotten gains and therefore, any misfortune that can be brought their way is giving them what they deserve – the bastards – the more onerous the better!
This Doctrine of Robin Hood competes with that of Peter Pan (the sacred right of perpetual immaturity) for distinction as the foremost tenet of Lefty dogma: poverty justifies any and all depravity. Its influence can be seen easily in wealthy nation’s often impotent response to violent crime; preposterous government social programs; and in virtually every song, television program, film, stage play, and news story produced since 1965. Poor good. Rich bad.
A most extraordinary exposition of this Doctrine of Robin Hood was provided before a live audience of 2,200 at London’s Grand Westminster Hall this past 11 December at the Spectator/Intelligence Squared sponsored debate on “The Future of Iraq.” The results of the debate prescribed yet another bitter pill for the anti-war left as the majority in attendance could plainly see the catastrophe that would ensue were the recommendations of the “Leave Iraq Now” advocates in the debate heeded. This is hardly surprising given the recent momentum of counter insurgency efforts in Iraq under General David Petreaus, and the fact that the majority in the audience still had their brain stems intact.
In his desperation to save the Lefty cause in the debate, however, British socialist icon, the Right Honorable Mr. Tony Benn declared,
“There is no difference between a suicide bomber and a Stealth bomber.”
This evoked the prodigious ire of “gravely voiced” British General Sir Michael Jackson who derided Benn’s comments as, “extraordinary and obscene. A calumny!”
To this Benn responded, “War is the terrorism of the rich against the poor. Terrorism is the war of the poor against the rich.”
Ah there it is, masterfully served up in all its delicious and aromatic Leftism: “Terrorism is the war of the poor against the rich.” You can just see the bumper-sticker manufacturers and pop-song lyricists rushing to their posts to herald this jewel far and wide, can you not?
But, unfortunately for Mr. Benn and his disciples, the Bennites, study after study has demonstrated that terrorists are not poor. For example the 2002 study, “Education, Poverty, Political Violence and Terrorism, Is there a Causal Connection?” conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts concluded:
“No correlation was found between participation in violence and economic depression: violence seems to have increased when local economic conditions were getting better.”
Were it still in existence, common sense might also suggest here that the notion of small nations drenched in oil producing legions of young men driven to acts of unspeakable violence international in scope and often requiring deliberate self-annihilation, merely because they can’t find a decent job is both hilarious and silly. Today, however, this is esteemed as enlightened progressivism.
Right then. Well what Mr. Benn must have meant then was not that the terrorists themselves are poor, but that they are fighting on behalf of the poor. Yes this then justifies all their kidnapping, sniping, raping, torturing, bombing, beheading, and executing of men, women, and children - the vast majority of whom are innocent Muslims - and renders it morally equivalent, if not morally superior to the violence done by Western militaries, does it not?
Afterall, as Lefties so like to point out, squalid living conditions exist across the Middle East due largely to corrupt regimes repressing their people and doing so with the full backing and funding of the free world. Ergo, terrorism is merely our chickens coming home to roost.
Enter Al-Robin Hood and his merry band of Islamaniacs, donning tights and suicide vests, heroically taking not only the money, but also the lives and limbs of the “rich” and giving them to the long suffering poor. (Well not the money so much. The Islamaniacs need that for themselves to fund future poverty-eradicating mass-murders.)
Even to a socialist as far off the scale as Mr. Benn, upon minimal analysis, this must seem a rather counter-productive means of “People’s Revolution” and redistribution of wealth.
Another inconvenient truth for Mr. Benn’s employment of the Doctrine of Robin Hood in defense of terrorism is the billions and billions of dollars in economic and humanitarian aid the U.S. alone has poured and continues to pour into the Middle East (yes, yes, besides Israel). Not to mention the American lives and materials lost in defense of Muslims over the past thirty years. As Dinesh D’Souza points out in his exquisite essay, “Liberal Myths about Radical Islam”:
“Actually America has actively fought on the side of Muslims in several recent conflicts. During the 1970s the United States supported the Afghan mujahedin and their Arab allies in driving out the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. In 1991 the United States assembled an international coalition of countries, including many Muslim countries, in order to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and restore the sovereignty of that small Muslim country. Later in the decade, President Clinton ordered American bombings and intervention to save Muslim lives in Bosnia and Kosovo.
More recent Muslim wars, such as the Iran-Iraq war, have also produced unbelievable horrors and casualty lists. Over the eight-year period of the Iran-Iraq war, for instance, between 500,000 and 1 million Muslims were killed. Islamic radicals know all this, which is why one cannot find in their literature the kind of indignation over America's killing of Muslim civilians that one routinely finds in liberal magazines, radio shows and websites.”
Furthermore there is the small matter of a rather vigorous shift in policy toward the Middle East inaugurated by the Bush Administration some six years ago when the futility of previous policies was made tragically clear one otherwise beautiful September morning.
This new policy involves a multi-tiered, worldwide, collaborative effort deployed as necessary via a myriad of tactics including diplomacy, financial analysis, criminal justice, intelligence gathering, sanctions, and military intervention. The object of this new policy (also known as the Global War on Terror) is to rid the world of terrorists and those regimes which give them succour. The rationale behind this policy is the notion that by stopping terrorists from annihilating the people and infrastructure necessary for stable economies to exist, we can facilitate the emergence of stable economies where they are not. Rich and poor alike will then have the opportunity to enrich themselves through honest means as they see fit, and thus have a legitimate and personal stake in the upkeep and defense of their economies, communities, and nations. It’s a radical little notion called “free market capitalism” and has met with some mild success where and when applied over the past two or so centuries.
And yet, any and all tactics employed in this endeavor have been relentlessly criticized and condemned by those very Bennites and Lefties who claim so ardently their desire to emancipate the poor. Our diplomatic efforts are “too heavy-handed and saber-rattling.” Financial analysis and criminal justice efforts are “arbitrary and racist.” Intelligence gathering is “an invasion of privacy and an abuse of civil rights.” Sanctions “only add further suffering to the plight of the poor.” And military intervention is, of course, nothing more than “imperialistic mass murder for material gain.” There’s just no pleasing some people. (Note: Add Goldie Locks to our list of Lefty icons: Robin Hood, Peter Pan etc. )
How can this be? Ought not the champions of the poor applaud and support all, some, or even just one of these efforts to relieve the burdens of the oppressed? Of course not, because these champions of the poor couldn’t give a tinker’s damn about the poor. They are well aware of the shrieking fraudulence of their Doctrine of Robin Hood storyline. They spew it regardless, however, for in today’s sentimentalized soft-brained society it serves as a highly effective tool for advancing their true agenda: to discredit, demonize, and destroy free market capitalism and replace it with their beloved socialism.
In the minds of the Bennites then, Islamic terrorists are not savage murderers but agents of change, useful tools in the socialist endeavor to establish their Even-Steven utopia over all the world. That economic theory plays no role whatsoever in the motivation of these terrorists, and that they would just as soon slit socialist throats as capitalists seems to escape them. We are here reminded of Sir Winston’s assessment of the ideology:
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery.”
This Doctrine of Robin Hood competes with that of Peter Pan (the sacred right of perpetual immaturity) for distinction as the foremost tenet of Lefty dogma: poverty justifies any and all depravity. Its influence can be seen easily in wealthy nation’s often impotent response to violent crime; preposterous government social programs; and in virtually every song, television program, film, stage play, and news story produced since 1965. Poor good. Rich bad.
A most extraordinary exposition of this Doctrine of Robin Hood was provided before a live audience of 2,200 at London’s Grand Westminster Hall this past 11 December at the Spectator/Intelligence Squared sponsored debate on “The Future of Iraq.” The results of the debate prescribed yet another bitter pill for the anti-war left as the majority in attendance could plainly see the catastrophe that would ensue were the recommendations of the “Leave Iraq Now” advocates in the debate heeded. This is hardly surprising given the recent momentum of counter insurgency efforts in Iraq under General David Petreaus, and the fact that the majority in the audience still had their brain stems intact.
In his desperation to save the Lefty cause in the debate, however, British socialist icon, the Right Honorable Mr. Tony Benn declared,
“There is no difference between a suicide bomber and a Stealth bomber.”
This evoked the prodigious ire of “gravely voiced” British General Sir Michael Jackson who derided Benn’s comments as, “extraordinary and obscene. A calumny!”
To this Benn responded, “War is the terrorism of the rich against the poor. Terrorism is the war of the poor against the rich.”
Ah there it is, masterfully served up in all its delicious and aromatic Leftism: “Terrorism is the war of the poor against the rich.” You can just see the bumper-sticker manufacturers and pop-song lyricists rushing to their posts to herald this jewel far and wide, can you not?
But, unfortunately for Mr. Benn and his disciples, the Bennites, study after study has demonstrated that terrorists are not poor. For example the 2002 study, “Education, Poverty, Political Violence and Terrorism, Is there a Causal Connection?” conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts concluded:
“No correlation was found between participation in violence and economic depression: violence seems to have increased when local economic conditions were getting better.”
Were it still in existence, common sense might also suggest here that the notion of small nations drenched in oil producing legions of young men driven to acts of unspeakable violence international in scope and often requiring deliberate self-annihilation, merely because they can’t find a decent job is both hilarious and silly. Today, however, this is esteemed as enlightened progressivism.
Right then. Well what Mr. Benn must have meant then was not that the terrorists themselves are poor, but that they are fighting on behalf of the poor. Yes this then justifies all their kidnapping, sniping, raping, torturing, bombing, beheading, and executing of men, women, and children - the vast majority of whom are innocent Muslims - and renders it morally equivalent, if not morally superior to the violence done by Western militaries, does it not?
Afterall, as Lefties so like to point out, squalid living conditions exist across the Middle East due largely to corrupt regimes repressing their people and doing so with the full backing and funding of the free world. Ergo, terrorism is merely our chickens coming home to roost.
Enter Al-Robin Hood and his merry band of Islamaniacs, donning tights and suicide vests, heroically taking not only the money, but also the lives and limbs of the “rich” and giving them to the long suffering poor. (Well not the money so much. The Islamaniacs need that for themselves to fund future poverty-eradicating mass-murders.)
Even to a socialist as far off the scale as Mr. Benn, upon minimal analysis, this must seem a rather counter-productive means of “People’s Revolution” and redistribution of wealth.
Another inconvenient truth for Mr. Benn’s employment of the Doctrine of Robin Hood in defense of terrorism is the billions and billions of dollars in economic and humanitarian aid the U.S. alone has poured and continues to pour into the Middle East (yes, yes, besides Israel). Not to mention the American lives and materials lost in defense of Muslims over the past thirty years. As Dinesh D’Souza points out in his exquisite essay, “Liberal Myths about Radical Islam”:
“Actually America has actively fought on the side of Muslims in several recent conflicts. During the 1970s the United States supported the Afghan mujahedin and their Arab allies in driving out the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. In 1991 the United States assembled an international coalition of countries, including many Muslim countries, in order to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and restore the sovereignty of that small Muslim country. Later in the decade, President Clinton ordered American bombings and intervention to save Muslim lives in Bosnia and Kosovo.
More recent Muslim wars, such as the Iran-Iraq war, have also produced unbelievable horrors and casualty lists. Over the eight-year period of the Iran-Iraq war, for instance, between 500,000 and 1 million Muslims were killed. Islamic radicals know all this, which is why one cannot find in their literature the kind of indignation over America's killing of Muslim civilians that one routinely finds in liberal magazines, radio shows and websites.”
Furthermore there is the small matter of a rather vigorous shift in policy toward the Middle East inaugurated by the Bush Administration some six years ago when the futility of previous policies was made tragically clear one otherwise beautiful September morning.
This new policy involves a multi-tiered, worldwide, collaborative effort deployed as necessary via a myriad of tactics including diplomacy, financial analysis, criminal justice, intelligence gathering, sanctions, and military intervention. The object of this new policy (also known as the Global War on Terror) is to rid the world of terrorists and those regimes which give them succour. The rationale behind this policy is the notion that by stopping terrorists from annihilating the people and infrastructure necessary for stable economies to exist, we can facilitate the emergence of stable economies where they are not. Rich and poor alike will then have the opportunity to enrich themselves through honest means as they see fit, and thus have a legitimate and personal stake in the upkeep and defense of their economies, communities, and nations. It’s a radical little notion called “free market capitalism” and has met with some mild success where and when applied over the past two or so centuries.
And yet, any and all tactics employed in this endeavor have been relentlessly criticized and condemned by those very Bennites and Lefties who claim so ardently their desire to emancipate the poor. Our diplomatic efforts are “too heavy-handed and saber-rattling.” Financial analysis and criminal justice efforts are “arbitrary and racist.” Intelligence gathering is “an invasion of privacy and an abuse of civil rights.” Sanctions “only add further suffering to the plight of the poor.” And military intervention is, of course, nothing more than “imperialistic mass murder for material gain.” There’s just no pleasing some people. (Note: Add Goldie Locks to our list of Lefty icons: Robin Hood, Peter Pan etc. )
How can this be? Ought not the champions of the poor applaud and support all, some, or even just one of these efforts to relieve the burdens of the oppressed? Of course not, because these champions of the poor couldn’t give a tinker’s damn about the poor. They are well aware of the shrieking fraudulence of their Doctrine of Robin Hood storyline. They spew it regardless, however, for in today’s sentimentalized soft-brained society it serves as a highly effective tool for advancing their true agenda: to discredit, demonize, and destroy free market capitalism and replace it with their beloved socialism.
In the minds of the Bennites then, Islamic terrorists are not savage murderers but agents of change, useful tools in the socialist endeavor to establish their Even-Steven utopia over all the world. That economic theory plays no role whatsoever in the motivation of these terrorists, and that they would just as soon slit socialist throats as capitalists seems to escape them. We are here reminded of Sir Winston’s assessment of the ideology:
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery.”
- Sir Winston Churchill
In Iraq today, what is known as The Awakening consists of the Iraqi people’s coming to the realization that terrorism is not “the war of the poor against the rich.” Terrorism is the cause of poverty (not to mention death, destruction, misery, and despair). Consequently their support of, assistance to, and participation in terrorists groups is being voluntarily withdrawn, and they are increasingly getting about the hard work of re-building their own nation the right way. Would that this same awakening could take hold in what’s left of the brains of the Bennites and their Lefty brethren across the Atlantic.
Cheers,
Charlie
In Iraq today, what is known as The Awakening consists of the Iraqi people’s coming to the realization that terrorism is not “the war of the poor against the rich.” Terrorism is the cause of poverty (not to mention death, destruction, misery, and despair). Consequently their support of, assistance to, and participation in terrorists groups is being voluntarily withdrawn, and they are increasingly getting about the hard work of re-building their own nation the right way. Would that this same awakening could take hold in what’s left of the brains of the Bennites and their Lefty brethren across the Atlantic.
Cheers,
Charlie
Dec 21, 2007
Charlie's Holiday Greeting to the Troops on Blackfive TV
Michelle Malkin, Mary Katharine Ham, and me. Say no more! See if you can pick me out from the line up, eh? Thanks to Blackfive.net for the opportunity and to the ever-extraordinary Mr. Gregory Cooper of GJC Productions for his expert videography.
Click here to view.
Cheers,
Charlie
Click here to view.
Cheers,
Charlie
Dec 18, 2007
Lefties, Read This and Grow Up a Little Bit
Victor Davis Hanson - In War: Resolution.
"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. "
- Sir Winston Churchill
Cheers,"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. "
- Sir Winston Churchill
Charlie
Dec 11, 2007
Plagiarizing Hitler - Father of the Post Modern Anti-American Lexicon
We are not aware whether or not there exists any legal firm charged with the protection of the Adolf Hitler estate and its assets. One is apt to conclude not. Nonetheless, were such a firm to exist, they would surely today be awash in revenues resulting from countless suits filed on behalf of their client against individuals and groups appropriating the Fuhrer’s intellectual property and claiming it as their own. His paintings? Goh … no. Couldn’t sell those to a myopic dentist. I am referring to Mr. Hitler’s anti-American rhetoric.
Today, 11 December, 2007, is the 66th anniversary of The Fuhrer’s declaration of war against the United States of America. Not to be outdone by those wily Japanese who virtually liquidated the U.S. Navy on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, Hitler ordered his minions to whip up a formal declaration of war on Germany’s behalf and present it the following Thursday. To augment this momentous occasion, Hitler saw fit to entreat radio listeners the world over to a rambling, spitting, seemingly endless screed wherein he explained the “rationale” behind his decision. More than a mere declaration of war, however, it is in this screed that Herr Hitler seems to have defined the genre of post-modern anti-American rhetoric.
Consider these examples extracted from the gnarled syntax of Hitlerian drivel:
“The American President and his Plutocratic clique have mocked us as the Have-nots-that is true, but the Have-nots will see to it that they are not robbed of the little they have.”
----
“I merely quote this to illustrate the methodical incitement which has come from this man (Roosevelt) who speaks hypocritically of peace, but always urges to war … he invents from time to time crises, by means of which he pretends that America is being threatened with aggression.”
----
“I don't need to mention what this man (Roosevelt) has done for years in the same way against Japan. First he incites war then falsifies the causes, then odiously wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy and slowly but surely leads mankind to war…”
Today, 11 December, 2007, is the 66th anniversary of The Fuhrer’s declaration of war against the United States of America. Not to be outdone by those wily Japanese who virtually liquidated the U.S. Navy on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, Hitler ordered his minions to whip up a formal declaration of war on Germany’s behalf and present it the following Thursday. To augment this momentous occasion, Hitler saw fit to entreat radio listeners the world over to a rambling, spitting, seemingly endless screed wherein he explained the “rationale” behind his decision. More than a mere declaration of war, however, it is in this screed that Herr Hitler seems to have defined the genre of post-modern anti-American rhetoric.
Consider these examples extracted from the gnarled syntax of Hitlerian drivel:
“The American President and his Plutocratic clique have mocked us as the Have-nots-that is true, but the Have-nots will see to it that they are not robbed of the little they have.”
----
“I merely quote this to illustrate the methodical incitement which has come from this man (Roosevelt) who speaks hypocritically of peace, but always urges to war … he invents from time to time crises, by means of which he pretends that America is being threatened with aggression.”
----
“I don't need to mention what this man (Roosevelt) has done for years in the same way against Japan. First he incites war then falsifies the causes, then odiously wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy and slowly but surely leads mankind to war…”
“Thus began the increasing efforts of the American President to create conflicts, to do everything to prevent conflicts from being peacefully solved. For years this man harboured one desire-that a conflict should break out somewhere in the world. The most convenient place would be in Europe, where American economy could be committed to the cause of one of the belligerents in such a way that a political interconnection of interests would arise calculated slowly to bring America nearer such a conflict. This would thereby divert public interest from bankrupt economic policy at home towards foreign problems.”
Sound familiar somehow? The best is yet to come. Let us take a look at the declaration’s climax; the ejaculation to which Hitler had been so vigorously working himself up to in the previous 20 or so pages, wherein he actually declares war upon the United States. For added fun, let’s switch the name “Roosevelt” with “Bush.” Watch what happens!
“As a consequence of the further extension of President BUSH's policy, which is aimed at unrestricted world domination and dictatorship, the U.S.A. together with England have not hesitated from using any means to dispute the rights of the German, Italian and Japanese nations to the basis of their natural existence. The Governments of the U.S.A. and of England have therefore resisted, not only now but also for all time, every just understanding meant to bring about a better New Order in the world.
Since the beginning of the war the American President, BUSH, has been guilty of a series of the worst crimes against international law; illegal seizure of ships and other property of German and Italian nationals were coupled with the threat to, and looting of, those who were deprived of their liberty by being interned. BUSH's ever increasing attacks finally went so far that he ordered the American Navy to attack everywhere ships under the German and Italian flags, and to sink them-this in gross violation of international law. American ministers boasted of having destroyed German submarines in this criminal way. German and Italian merchantships were attacked by American cruisers, captured and their crews imprisoned.
With no attempt at an official denial there has now been revealed in America President BUSH's plan by which, at the latest in 1943, Germany and Italy were to be attacked in Europe by military means. In this way the sincere efforts of Germany and Italy to prevent an extension of the war and to maintain relations with the U.S.A. in spite of the unbearable provocations which have been carried on for years by President BUSH, have been frustrated.
Germany and Italy have been finally compelled, in view of this, and in loyalty to the Tri-Partite act, to carry on the struggle against the U.S.A. and England jointly and side by side with Japan for the defense and thus for the maintenance of the liberty and independence of their nations and empires.”
Spine-tingling is it not? Why, were one merely to swap dates and references to that era’s Axis of Evil for today’s, one could fully expect to hear this rot tomorrow on the evening news as a quote attributed to Osama Bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the very late Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Michael Moore, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, or the news anchor him or herself!
Of course, in 1941, the free world dismissed this prattle for the rubbish it was. Hitler had by then vastly overplayed his “War-mongering Have’s versus the Peace-Loving Have-Not’s” melodrama which served him so well throughout the 1930’s. Today, however, this very same bilge is accepted, amplified, and broadcast by multitudes of glassy-eyed Lefties on college campuses, editorial boards, security councils, and national intelligence committees around the globe and, unfortunately, across the United States.
In his 1948 literary masterpiece, The Second War, Sir Winston Churchill wrote:
“One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once The Unnecessary War.”
Sound familiar somehow? The best is yet to come. Let us take a look at the declaration’s climax; the ejaculation to which Hitler had been so vigorously working himself up to in the previous 20 or so pages, wherein he actually declares war upon the United States. For added fun, let’s switch the name “Roosevelt” with “Bush.” Watch what happens!
“As a consequence of the further extension of President BUSH's policy, which is aimed at unrestricted world domination and dictatorship, the U.S.A. together with England have not hesitated from using any means to dispute the rights of the German, Italian and Japanese nations to the basis of their natural existence. The Governments of the U.S.A. and of England have therefore resisted, not only now but also for all time, every just understanding meant to bring about a better New Order in the world.
Since the beginning of the war the American President, BUSH, has been guilty of a series of the worst crimes against international law; illegal seizure of ships and other property of German and Italian nationals were coupled with the threat to, and looting of, those who were deprived of their liberty by being interned. BUSH's ever increasing attacks finally went so far that he ordered the American Navy to attack everywhere ships under the German and Italian flags, and to sink them-this in gross violation of international law. American ministers boasted of having destroyed German submarines in this criminal way. German and Italian merchantships were attacked by American cruisers, captured and their crews imprisoned.
With no attempt at an official denial there has now been revealed in America President BUSH's plan by which, at the latest in 1943, Germany and Italy were to be attacked in Europe by military means. In this way the sincere efforts of Germany and Italy to prevent an extension of the war and to maintain relations with the U.S.A. in spite of the unbearable provocations which have been carried on for years by President BUSH, have been frustrated.
Germany and Italy have been finally compelled, in view of this, and in loyalty to the Tri-Partite act, to carry on the struggle against the U.S.A. and England jointly and side by side with Japan for the defense and thus for the maintenance of the liberty and independence of their nations and empires.”
Spine-tingling is it not? Why, were one merely to swap dates and references to that era’s Axis of Evil for today’s, one could fully expect to hear this rot tomorrow on the evening news as a quote attributed to Osama Bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the very late Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Michael Moore, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, or the news anchor him or herself!
Of course, in 1941, the free world dismissed this prattle for the rubbish it was. Hitler had by then vastly overplayed his “War-mongering Have’s versus the Peace-Loving Have-Not’s” melodrama which served him so well throughout the 1930’s. Today, however, this very same bilge is accepted, amplified, and broadcast by multitudes of glassy-eyed Lefties on college campuses, editorial boards, security councils, and national intelligence committees around the globe and, unfortunately, across the United States.
In his 1948 literary masterpiece, The Second War, Sir Winston Churchill wrote:
“One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once The Unnecessary War.”
His point, of course, was that had the free world responded appropriately to obvious indications that Adolf Hitler was a rabid loon-bucket bent on world domination at any cost, they could have stopped him with relative ease and scarcely a shot very early on. In the 1930’s, however, despite Sir Winston’s ardent warnings, the war weary world was far more inclined towards pacifism, isolationism, appeasement, and apathy and chose to look the other way until it was nearly too late. The following decade, they learned the hard way the price of such negligence. What then might be in store for the post-1960’s enlightenment generations, a good portion of whom not only fail to appreciate such threats, but reach out to embrace them like toddlers for that big cuddly pit bull chained up in the neighbor’s back yard?
No doubt we will be hearing Hitler’s tired old anti-American lexicon for decades to come. Envy and lack of imagination are but two of the delightful qualities common in would-be-kings now as ever. Our gullibility and deference to this plagiarized tactic, however, is by now inexcusable. If common sense will not embolden us to reject it, then perhaps a good strongly worded cease and desist order from Hitler’s estate attorneys will.
Cheers,
Charlie
Dec 6, 2007
No Gays, No Jews, No Nukes!
Churchill’s Parrot to Produce Stage Adaptation of
National Intelligence Estimate
December 6, 2007. New York – Churchill’s Parrot Productions LLC announced plans yesterday to produce a musical stage adaptation of the recently released National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), entitled No Gays, No Jews, No Nukes.
The NIE reveals that, while it appears Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, it remains quite willing and able to resume that program at the first opportunity. Nonetheless, interpretations of the eight page report vary widely.
“The things got more qualifiers and caveats than a Clinton legal brief,” says Quentin “Daphne” de Blovianne, director of No Gays, No Jews, No Nukes. “The language is just scrumptiously non-committal and leaves a lot to the imagination. It’s just begging to be made a musical. Well now it will be!”
De Blovainne notes that while U.S. President George W. Bush saw the report as cause to stay the course in efforts to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons entirely, the media interpreted it as “embarrassing” and further cause for suspicion of the Bush Administration, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed the report a “victory.”
“It’s like a poem or a song. It means something different to everyone,” observes de Blovianne. “I don’t know anything about National Intelligence, but I do know musical theater, and this baby's got blockbuster written all over it!”
The musical’s “show-stopper” according to de Blovianne is the Gershwin-esque, Remote, Very Unlikely, Unlikely, Even Chance, Probably/Likely, Very Likely, Almost Certainly which plays on the reports “Explanation of Estimative Language” section. “In terms of musical comedy, it practically writes itself,” de Blovianne gushes. “My other favorite’s a breathless little romp called The Bureaucratic Rag. The Bureaucratic Rag traces the NIE’s evolution through request committees, proposal committees, concept committees, draft committees, critique committees, review committees (including the Directors of the National Clandestine Service, the NSA, the NGA, the DIA, and the Assistant Secretary/INR),and finally presentation to the President and senior policymakers. “It’s like My Fair Lady meets Waiting for Godot,” says de Blovianne. “To-die-for funny!”
The musical’s title - No Gays, No Jews, No Nukes - refers to Ahmadinejad’s previous declarations that there are no homosexuals in Iran, the Jewish homeland ought be wiped off the face of the earth, and that he has no interest in developing nuclear weapons, a claim he insists is validated by the 2007 NIE.
The Ahmadinejad Administration responded to news of the production through a prepared statement. “His Excellency applauds this celebration of Bush’s shame, discredit, and utter humiliation,” read the statement. “Being a big fan of musical theater he would love to see it. Unfortunately, as it will likely be produced by Jews and cast almost entirely with homosexuals, this will not be possible.”
No Gays, No Jews, No Nukes is expected to debut Al Qods Day (October) 2008.
###
Via his web log, http://www.churchillsparrot.com/, Charlie, Sir Winston’s 107 year old pet parrot, endeavors to reinvigorate flagging Western Civilization through regular injections of the Churchillian spirit, so desperately lacking in the enfeebled, addle-brained “culture” left us in the wake of the 1960’s.
National Intelligence Estimate
December 6, 2007. New York – Churchill’s Parrot Productions LLC announced plans yesterday to produce a musical stage adaptation of the recently released National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), entitled No Gays, No Jews, No Nukes.
The NIE reveals that, while it appears Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, it remains quite willing and able to resume that program at the first opportunity. Nonetheless, interpretations of the eight page report vary widely.
“The things got more qualifiers and caveats than a Clinton legal brief,” says Quentin “Daphne” de Blovianne, director of No Gays, No Jews, No Nukes. “The language is just scrumptiously non-committal and leaves a lot to the imagination. It’s just begging to be made a musical. Well now it will be!”
De Blovainne notes that while U.S. President George W. Bush saw the report as cause to stay the course in efforts to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons entirely, the media interpreted it as “embarrassing” and further cause for suspicion of the Bush Administration, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed the report a “victory.”
“It’s like a poem or a song. It means something different to everyone,” observes de Blovianne. “I don’t know anything about National Intelligence, but I do know musical theater, and this baby's got blockbuster written all over it!”
The musical’s “show-stopper” according to de Blovianne is the Gershwin-esque, Remote, Very Unlikely, Unlikely, Even Chance, Probably/Likely, Very Likely, Almost Certainly which plays on the reports “Explanation of Estimative Language” section. “In terms of musical comedy, it practically writes itself,” de Blovianne gushes. “My other favorite’s a breathless little romp called The Bureaucratic Rag. The Bureaucratic Rag traces the NIE’s evolution through request committees, proposal committees, concept committees, draft committees, critique committees, review committees (including the Directors of the National Clandestine Service, the NSA, the NGA, the DIA, and the Assistant Secretary/INR),and finally presentation to the President and senior policymakers. “It’s like My Fair Lady meets Waiting for Godot,” says de Blovianne. “To-die-for funny!”
The musical’s title - No Gays, No Jews, No Nukes - refers to Ahmadinejad’s previous declarations that there are no homosexuals in Iran, the Jewish homeland ought be wiped off the face of the earth, and that he has no interest in developing nuclear weapons, a claim he insists is validated by the 2007 NIE.
The Ahmadinejad Administration responded to news of the production through a prepared statement. “His Excellency applauds this celebration of Bush’s shame, discredit, and utter humiliation,” read the statement. “Being a big fan of musical theater he would love to see it. Unfortunately, as it will likely be produced by Jews and cast almost entirely with homosexuals, this will not be possible.”
No Gays, No Jews, No Nukes is expected to debut Al Qods Day (October) 2008.
###
Via his web log, http://www.churchillsparrot.com/, Charlie, Sir Winston’s 107 year old pet parrot, endeavors to reinvigorate flagging Western Civilization through regular injections of the Churchillian spirit, so desperately lacking in the enfeebled, addle-brained “culture” left us in the wake of the 1960’s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)