Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The Socialist Workers Party, long allowed to keep its donors secret because of the danger of harassment, should continue to receive the special protection, Federal Election Commission lawyers say. The party asked the commission to extend its exemption from FEC reporting requirements that other political parties face, including identifying its contributors, the candidates it supports and the businesses it buys from....
The Socialist Workers Party advocates a Marxist revolution to overthrow the U.S. government. Taking the Russian and Cuban revolutions of the 20th century as models, it wants to replace the country's capitalist system with a government of workers and farmers. [Associated Press, 3/31/03]
Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
In the village where Ansar had their headquarters... Sheikh Malik Naqshbandi, a religious leader, [was returning] to his home after two years....Sheikh Malik's house was used by Ansar and destroyed by an American missile. He said he didn't mind. "I don't think there will be a happier day in my life." [Daily Telegraph, 4/1/03]
Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Newsday published the following Letter of mine. It earned me 5 minutes on WLIE 540 Talk Radio (Long Island, NY) this morning (April 2), with host John Gomez, who read my Letter on air and was 100% on my side. The same Letterwas published in the NY Sun and Jerusalem Post about 10 days ago:As a Canadian, I strongly condemn the decision of Prime Minister Jean Chretien to not support the United States (and its allies) in the justified war against Iraq. By adhering to the United Nations charade, he effectively and shamefully placed Canada on the side of abject appeasers, anti-American leftists, brutal dictators and Islamic terrorists.
History demonstrates that the root cause of war is dictatorship and its appeasement. Only a dictatorship can force its people to attack other countries. Only a dictatorship can extort money from its citizens to buy weapons of mass destruction and support terrorist organizations.
The UN is an inherently destructive organization - the worst enemy of global peace and prosperity - by the very fact that it legitimizes dictatorships and grants them the power to undermine a free country's sovereignty and right to self-defense. The United Nations should be the next to go after Saddam Hussein.
America is on the side of peace and prosperity because it is on the side of liberty and the right to self-defense, which includes the right to strike against threatening dictatorships, especially if they possess weapons of mass destruction. America is Canada's and the world's greatest benefactor. It deserves our wholehearted support and gratitude.
Glenn Woiceshyn
Calgary, Alberta
P.S. My wife and I attended a pro-American rally in Calgary on Sunday. About 1000 people showed up waving American flags, cheering for America, and booing their Canadian government. It was wonderful!
Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
My letter to the editor made it into the New York Sun today:
Your article on Columbia professor Nicholas De Genova's expressed wish for a "million Mogadishus" in Iraq has various university figures congratulating themselves on Columbia's respect for the First Amendment and freedom of speech ["Professor Is Condemned for Speech, But Likely Will Keep Post at Columbia," Julie Satow, page 2, March 31, 2003]. Yet the freedom of speech includes the freedom to boycott; it does not require anyone to provide support for anyone else's ideas. Firing Mr. De Genova would not be a violation of the freedom of speech but an expression of it.
"Academic freedom," on the other hand, is the pseudo-right of tenured professors to be as irresponsible as they wish without accountability to anyone. Mr. De Genova's case is merely one result of our universities' stated policy of refusing to act against intellectual malpractice within their ranks. This policy explains why our universities have largely become factories of dishonest and destructive ideas. They will remain so until the American public wakes up and stops supporting its destroyers.
Paul Blair
Manhattan
The Sun also runs a follow-up:
Columbia University students arriving yesterday at a Latin history class taught by professor Nicholas De Genova were told the instructor feared for his life and had left the campus. "He has been receiving thousands of death messages," one of the professor's three graduate students told the undergrads....In [his talk at the anti-war "teach-in"], Mr. De Genova said patriotism was "inseparable" from white supremacy and said that "the only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military." [New York Sun, 4/2/03]
Needless to say, death threats are a violation of the freedom of speech. But of those "thousands" of alleged death threats, how many are just people legitimately expressing anger? Have there been any actual death threats? I wouldn't believe it just because some grad student said it, particularly since the claim coincides with the professor's propagandistic interests.Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Regarding the American POW that was rescued yesterday by American special forces, a long-time friend and military expert sent me an email with these observations:1. When you have less than 10 highly valuable propaganda tools, (AKA POW's) the only reason you would leave one of them within a couple of miles of the USMC is if your backfield is getting completely torn up. When the military professional journals come out next year we are going to find out just how effective we have been.
2. Our intelligence sources are getting better and better. Many Iraqis must be talking to us.
3. Don't make the American military mad at you. It is extremely bad for your health. If I were an Iraqi, I wouldn't get within 10 miles of a US POW.
Now considering that the POW was a 19 year-old girl I can only imagine the wrath that was reigned down upon those Iraqis.
Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution defines treason as follows: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." John Podhortetz asks in a NY Post op-ed that "Is Peter Arnett guilty of treason?"The question is whether Arnett's comments on Iraqi state-run television, a propaganda arm of Saddam Hussein's regime, constitute "aid and comfort" to the enemy. If you analyze his remarks strictly as a matter of rhetoric, the answer is unambiguously: YES. Arnett used his time on Iraqi television to praise the Iraqi government and people in a way that might stiffen their resolve and lead them to hunker down against allied forces. Certainly, in a 21st-century context, his words were a "comfort" at the very least. [...] Of course, the U.S. government will never attempt to try Peter Arnett. If he were to be charged with treason, reporters and news organizations everywhere would rise up to declare him a martyr. That's because of the bizarre notion that because people make their living by interviewing other people and delivering information to the masses, they are in some way released from their obligations as citizens of the nations in which they live. Their obligation is not to their countrymen but to "Truth" - as they define it. [NYPost, April 2, 2003]
Senator Jim Bunning (R-Ky) also comments:
"I think he should be brought back and tried as a traitor to the United States of America, for his aiding and abetting the Iraqi government during a war," Bunning said in a conference call with reporters. Later in a speech on the Senate floor, Bunning said: "Mr. Arnett can apologize all he likes for being a `useful idiot' for Saddam and his barbaric regime. But that's not enough for me, and it's certainly not enough for our soldiers and many Americans." [Try Arnett for treason, senator says, Enquirer]
Peter Arnett's actions may or may not be treasonous (I am no constitutional lawyer); but they are desipicable--even for a modern "journalist." Comment's Paul Blair:
John Podhoretz arguing straightforwardly that what Peter Arnett did in Iraq falls under the meaning of giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy, and that he should be prosecuted for treason. I agree. If we have laws against treason, and they are objective laws, then we should identify what they mean, and enforce them.
