The Liberty Bell

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

ISIS: The US-CIA Connection

In July of 2015, U.S. President Barack Obama stated on camera:

“We’re speeding up training of ISIL forces, including volunteers from Sunni tribes in Anbar Province.”[1]

This was immediately dismissed as a “Freudian slip.” However, one need not emphasize such provocative remarks in order to discover a connection between the United States and ISIS. Concrete evidence of such a sub rosa link is contained in a declassified government document.

“The general situation: Internally, events are taking a clear sectarian direction. The Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e., al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria. The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the [Assad] regime.”[2]

One possibility is that “the U.S. and other NATO nations are arming and funding ISIS to topple Syrian president Bashir al-Assad, who stands in the way of a critical natural gas pipeline that would depose Russia as Europe’s primary source of energy.”[3]

For example, “[a] Syrian Catholic archbishop has accused the United States of joining forces with al-Qaeda in an attempt to topple President Bashar Al-Assad. Archbishop Jacques Behnan Hindo of Hassaké-Nisibi said he believed that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was arming and training rebel groups in Syria which were al-Qaeda under ‘a different name.’”[4]

The archbishop’s words followed the assertion, by U.S. Senator John McCain, that Russian military “strikes were against the individuals and the groups that have been funded and trained by our CIA…”[5]

“…‘US Senator John McCain …[recently said]that the Russians are not bombing the positions of ISIS, but rather the anti-Assad rebels trained by the CIA,’ Archbishop Hindo told Fides, a Vatican-based news agency. ‘I find these words are disturbing. …They represent a blatant admission that behind the war against Assad there is also the CIA. …Western propaganda keeps talking about moderate rebels, who do not exist. There is something very disturbing about all this – there is a superpower that since September 11 protests because the Russians hit the militias of al-Qaeda in Syria. …What does it mean, (that) al-Qaeda is now a US ally, just because in Syria it has a different name? But do they really despise our intelligence and our memory?”[6]

Previously, retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas G. McInerney stated:

“[In] Syria we backed, I believe in some cases, some of the wrong people, and …not in the right part of the Free Syrian Army. And that’s a little confusing to people. So I’ve always maintained, and go back quite some time, that we were backing the wrong types. I think it’s going to turn out maybe this weekend, in a new special that Bret Baier [of Fox News] is going to have Friday, it’s going to show that some of those weapons from Benghazi ended up in the hands of ISIS. So we helped build ISIS. Now there’s a danger there. And I’m with you.”[7]

Gen. McInerney’s statement agrees with a later one from retired four-star U.S. Army General Wesley Kanne Clark, Sr., who said:

“Look: ISIS got started through funding from our friends and allies. Because, as people will tell you in the region, if you want somebody who will fight to the death against Hezbollah, you don’t put out a recruiting poster and say, ‘Sign up for us’ or ‘We’re going to make a better world.’ You go after zealots and you go after these religious fundamentalists. That’s who fights Hezbollah. ...It’s like a Frankenstein.[8]

American journalist Steven C. Clemons made similar remarks on the news network MSNBC:

“[W]e see in cases like ISIS instantly, Saudi money, private nongovernment money has helped build ISIS particularly in the early stages.”[9]

Of course, one must bear in mind that the context for these remarks is the fact – already a matter of public record – that the U.S. intelligence community was responsible for the origination of Al-Qaida. Would you believe that Osama bin Laden was a Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) “creation”?

“Osama bin Laden, the man suspected by Washington to be the mastermind behind Tuesday’s [i.e., Tues., Sept. 11, 2001] devastating attacks on the US World Trade Center and the Pentagon, is arguably the creation of a CIA-led coalition that grew out of Afghanistan’s war with the Russians. …So if bin Laden is a monster, the logic goes, then he is a monster created by the US and its allies. …Asked how the current situation had arisen, [author and Afghan expert John] Cooley replied:

“‘The [former U.S. president Jimmy] Carter administration in 1979 decided …to recruit, arm and train, and pay, and deploy an army of mercenary volunteers. They were Muslims from all parts of the world, including black American Muslims. …And the CIA managed the recruiting process. Recruits were sent to Afghanistan, trained under some CIA officers or Pakistani military intelligence officers who were trained by the CIA in the US. There were many former CIA officers in charge of the programme.’”[10]

Additionally, an Agence France-Presse dispatch disclosed that bin Laden had met with a C.I.A. liaison prior to September 11.

“A report today says that Osama bin Laden underwent treatment in July at the American Hospital in Dubai, where he met with a CIA agent. Citing an unnamed source at the hospital, the report says the suspected terrorist arrived in Dubai on July 4 by air from Quetta, Pakistan, and was taken immediately to the hospital for kidney treatment, staying until July 14. During his stay he allegedly met an unidentified CIA agent, who was recalled to Washington on July 15, the report said. It said Mr. bin Laden was accompanied by a doctor, bodyguards and a nurse.”[11]

By 2006, during the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, it was publicly declared that finding bin Laden was no longer even an objective.

“The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday. The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.”[12]

Curiously, bin Laden’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) “Most Wanted Poster,” updated in November of 2001, never reflected the fact that he was supposedly the mastermind of the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.[13]

Adding to the intrigue is the fact that media reports initially represented bin Laden disclaiming involvement in the attacks of Sept. 11. According to Cable News Network (CNN):

“Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week’s terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.”[14]

Bin Laden reportedly said:

“The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders’ rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations.”[15]

According to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Timothy Weiner, even in the early 1990s, there was “a 36-billion-dollar cache used by the Pentagon to fund its own agenda of top-secret weapons and wars.”[16]

No wonder C.I.A. counterintelligence insider James Jesus Angleton called the world of espionage the “wilderness of mirrors.”[17]

It is in light of this background information that reports about ISIS must be evaluated.[18]

###

For related information, see also ISIS Unveiled in Paris?.

Notes:

[1] Barack Obama, press statement, Jul. 6, 2015; reproduced at “Freudian Slip? Obama Vows to Speed up ‘Training ISIL’, WH Edit Adds Confusion (Video),” Jul. 8, 2015, updated Jul. 9, 2015, <http://www.rt.com/usa/272470-obama-training-isis-slip/>. See the White House’s edited transcript ““Remarks by the President on Progress in the Fight Against ISIL,” White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Jul. 6, 2015, <https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/06/remarks-president-progress-fight-against-isil>.

[2] United States, gov. doc., cached at Judicial Watch, <http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf>.

[3] Kit Daniels, “Hackers Point out U.S. Arming, Funding ISIS: Hackers Deface U.S. Army Website to Underscore How the U.S. is Supporting ISIS to Topple Assad,” Infowars, Jun. 8, 2015, <http://www.infowars.com/hackers-point-out-u-s-arming-funding-isis/>.

[4] Simon Caldwell, “Syrian Archbishop Criticises U.S. for ‘Siding With al-Qaeda’,” Catholic Herald [U.K.], Oct. 6, 2015, <http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/10/06/syrian-archbishop-criticises-us-for-siding-with-al-qaeda/>.

[5] <http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/politics/john-mccain-cia-russia-airstrikes/>.

[6] Caldwell, loc. cit.

[7] Gen. Thomas McInerney, appearing on Fox News; as of this writing, the interview segment was posted online as “Retired Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney Admits ‘We Helped Build ISIS’,” YouTube, Sept. 3, 2014, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_zf7GPQqxU>. Cf. Paul Joseph Watson, “Gen. McInerney: ‘We Helped Build ISIS’: Weapons From Benghazi Ended up in the Hands of Islamic State Radicals,” Infowars, Sept. 3, 2014, <http://www.infowars.com/gen-mcinerney-we-helped-build-isis/>.

[8] Gen. Wesley Clark, Brooke Baldwin, “Interview With Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark; President Obama Requests Authority for War On ISIS,” CNN Newsroom, CNN, Feb. 11, 2015, accessed via LexisNexis. Cf. Pete Papaherakles, “U.S. General: West Created ISIS,” American Free Press, Mar. 19, 2015, <http://americanfreepress.net/?p=23265>. As of this writing, the segment is posted online by Brandon Martinez, “Wesley Clark: ‘Our Friends and Allies Funded ISIS to Destroy Hezbollah’,” YouTube, Feb. 17, 2015, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHLqaSZPe98>.

[9] Steven Clemons, interviewed by Edward A. “Ed” Schultz, “The Ed Show,” Politics Nation, MSNBC, Feb. 5, 2015, accessed via LexisNexis. The Saudi angle was also explored by Lyndon Larouche’s periodical. See Ramtanu Maitra, “Under London’s Wing: ISIS: Saudi-Qatari-Funded Wahhabi Terrorists Worldwide,” Executive Intelligence Review, Aug. 29, 2014, <http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2014/4134wahhabi_terrs.html>.

[10] Thierry Masure, “Bin Laden: Product of the Afghanistan War and a U.S. Alliance in the East,” Agence France-Presse [English], Sept. 15, 2001; cached online at <http://www.prisonplanet.com/bin_laden_said_arguably_the_creation_of_a_cia_led_coalition.htm>.

[11] “Bin Laden Was Treated in Hospital, Reports Say,” Agence France-Presse via Globe and Mail [Canada], Oct. 31, 2001, Wednesday, p. A12.

[12] Mark Mazzetti, “C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden,” New York Times, Jul. 4, 2006, p. A4, <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html>. For an argument that the real Osama bin Laden in fact died sometime in Dec. 2001, see David Ray Griffin, Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? Northampton, Mass.: Olive Branch Press, 2009.

Of course, according to the “official” story, the details of which, like so many other fairy tales, are prone to variation, Marvel Comics’s …er, I mean, the Navy’s Seal Team Six assassinated bin Laden and then the remains were taken aboard the U.S.S. Carl Vinson and “slid off [the vessel] into the sea… because no country would accept bin Laden’s remains…”. According to Jim Garamone, “Bin Laden Buried at Sea,” American Forces Press Service, May 2, 2011, <http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=60124>.]

However, according to the hacker group Anonymous, a leaked intelligence email reveals that “Bin Laden WAS NOT buried at sea, but flown to the U.S. for cremation at secret location…”. According to Thomas Durante, Daily Mail [U.K.], Mar. 7, 2012, <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2111001/Osama-bin-Laden-WAS-NOT- buried-sea-flown-US-cremation-leaked-emails-reveal.html>.

[13] See “Usama bin Laden,” F.B.I., Jun., 1999, updated Nov., 2001, <https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden>.

[14] “Bin Laden Says He Wasn’t Behind Attacks,” CNN, Sept. 17, 2001, <http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/index.html>.

[15] Osama bin Laden, statement, Al Jazeera [Qatar]; quoted in ibid.

[16] Tim Weiner, Blank Check: The Pentagon’s Black Budget, New York: Warner Books, 1991, back matter; archived online at <https://books.google.com/books/about/Blank_Check.html?id=S7CRPwAACAAJ>.

[17] See David C. Martin, Wilderness of Mirrors, reprint ed., Guilford, Conn.: Lyons Press, 2003 [orig. New York: Harper & Row, 1980], p. 10.

[18] At the outer-limits of plausibility, it has even been suggested that ISIS is being led by an Israeli intelligence “mole.” "The leader of the radical Islamic State (IS), Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has been reputed to be a Mossad-trained operative whose real name is Elliot Shimon, the son of Jewish parents. This information is said to have originated from 1.7 million pages of top-secret documents recently released by National Security Agency whistle-blower Edward Snowden and made public by Iranian intelligence. Arabic Internet radio website 'Ajyal.com' and the Arabic news website 'Egy-press' were also early sources before the news went viral. Although it cannot be conclusively verified at this point, evidence points in that direction." Pete Papaherakles, “Is ‘IS’ a CIA-Mossad Creation?” American Free Press, Aug. 28, 2014, <http://americanfreepress.net/?p=19176>.

Admittedly, this might be disinformation (or “noise”). The U.S. people seem to be a primary target of propaganda. See “U.S. Military Stoking Xenophobia in Iraq,” UPI, Apr. 10, 2006 and Carla Anne Robbins, “Spin Control: U.S. Has Early Priority: Managing Its Message,” Wall Street Journal, Oct 4, 2001, p. A.1. For more information, see James Bamford’s books The Puzzle Palace: A Report on America’s Most Secret Agency, Harmondsworth, Middlesex [U.K.], 1982; New York: Penguin, 1983 and The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America, New York: Doubleday, 2008.

Sunday, November 15, 2015

First Woman President

The first woman president (initially Woodrow Wilson's first lady) of the United States, Edith Wilson (née Bolling): 1919-1921.

Sunday, November 1, 2015

Argument Cop-Outs, Part 3: The Masonic Origin of ‘Never Talk Politics or Religion’

In a previous installment, titled “Argument Cop-Outs, Part 1,” I picked a few bones with “Let’s just agree to disagree.” In this post, I will register a few points concerning the practical so-called “advice” that encourages aspiring well-mannered types to forebear from discussing “politics and religion.”[1]

For example, a quick Google search turned up the following.

“I was always raised that as an adult, there are certain things you do not discuss in public. …There are certain things that no one should discuss in public. …[D]iscussing [your political views] in public …is rude. …Everyone should just avoid the possibility of starting an argument by never speaking about [religion].”[2]

How did this claptrap come to pass for sage advice? To get a fix on the contours of phrase’s supposed purview, let us inspect its origins.

At the website The Phrase Finder, one Larry C. Shelton asked: “Who originated the phrase ‘never discuss politics and religion’?”[3]

By way of reply, a responder wrote: “I couldn’t find anything specific. But the rule is to not discuss politics or religion at the dinner table. ‘Emily Post and other self appointed arbiters of etiquette have long ruled that politics and religion should be scrupulously avoided at dinner…’ …’Religion is by no means a proper subject of conversation in mixed company.’ Earl of Chesterfield, letter to his godson, undated.”[4]

In Emily Post’s Etiquette, we read: “Conversation is …[an] essential ingredient to every meal. …For the most part, avoid controversial topics such as money, politics, and religion. That’s not to say you can’t discuss the news of the day, but be careful if you are with people who are staunchly on the opposite end of any spectrum.”[5]

Instead, the manual recommends staying with “Safe Topics.” “You can always count on pop culture - sports, sports personalities, TV music, and films.”[6]

In other words, as Noam Chomsky once put it (albeit in another context altogether), the etiquette guide suggests sticking with topics that have "no importance for our lives."

The daughter of architect Bruce Price, Post (born Emily Price) was a late-19th/early-20th century American aristocrat and socialite. Can her “advice” be traced back further in time?

Philip Dormer Stanhope, the Fourth Earl of Chesterfield, was born in 1694 and died in 1773. His statement on polite conversation, partially quoted above,[7] does appear to express sentiments similar to those of Post.

“The three commonest topics of conversation are religion, politics, and news. All people think that they understand the two first perfectly, though they never studied either, and are therefore very apt to talk of them both dogmatically and ignorantly, consequently with warmth.

“But religion is by no means a proper subject for conversation in a mixed company. It should only be treated among a very few people of learning for mutual instruction. It is too awful [i.e., full of aw - Ed.] and respectable a subject to become a familiar[8] one. Therefore never mingle yourself in it, any further than to express a universal toleration and indulgence to all errors in it, if conscientiously entertained; for every man has as good a right to think as he does as you have to think as you do; nay, in truth he cannot help it.

“As for politics, they are still more universally understood, and as every one thinks his private interest more or less concerned in them, nobody hesitates to pronounce decisively upon them, not even the ladies; the copiousness of whose eloquence is more to be admired upon that subject than the conclusiveness of their logic.

“It will be impossible for you to avoid engaging in these conversations, for there are hardly any others; but take care to do it very coolly and with great good-humor; and whenever you find that the company begins to be heated and noisy for the good of their country, be only a patient hearer; unless you can interpose by some agreeable badinage and restore good-humor to the company.”[9]

Stanhope’s counsel is nearly equal parts a regurgitation of the religious toleration common by the 18th century and a Machiavellian directive aimed at helping his godson successfully “network” (to use today's lingo).

Of course, the idea of “every man [having] as good a right to think as he does as you have to think as you do” – whether in politics or religion – basically summarizes a few strands of the First Amendment.[10]

Therefore, at best, the “never talk politics or religion” guidance is a contemporary rehashing of an Enlightenment-era plea for “toleration.” If it had merit, its origin would be irrelevant. But it appears to me to depend upon, embody or imply two mistakes.

Before I endeavor to take the titular prescription back a few notches prior to Stanhope, let me just say a word about these. Number one, the word “argument” is ambiguous. On the one hand, it designates a dispute, possibly involving commotion and yelling. On the other hand, it refers to sets of statements such that some proper subset, called the “premises,” entail the complementary subset, called the “conclusions.” Writers like poor Mrs. Batista have no familiarity with the latter and therefore resist any philosophically-weighty discussion out of fear of starting a ruckus. For such as she, I recommend associating with a higher caliber of individual.

Number two, as I have written elsewhere, “right” is also ambiguous. We might speak about moral rights, or entitlement based upon the objective Good; legal rights, or entitlement stemming from some positive law code; human rights, or entitlement rooted in essential human properties; rational rights, or doxastic-epistemic entitlement as an outgrowth of sound evidence; and so on. Although several (or even all) of these sorts arguably overlap, they are nonetheless separable and distinguishable. And we need to know which sort is in view. [11]

I do not wish to dispute that, for example, any given American citizen has as good a right to think as he/she does as any other citizen. Let’s say that this is because the Constitution grounds theses rights and guarantees “equal protection” and so on.[12]

What is most relevant for the purposes of a discussion of “argument cop-outs,” is the fact that a rational entitlement and a legal entitlement are not the same thing. While (in theory) any given American citizen enjoys the same legal right to his or her beliefs as any other American citizen, any given American citizen does not necessarily have the same rational right to his or her beliefs as another person chosen at random. The reason is straightforward. Rational rights for x to believe some proposition, p, proceed from the arguments and evidence that x has for p.[13]

If John Doe has little to nothing by way of (good) arguments or evidence for p, and Jane Doe has (good) arguments and evidence for not-p, then Jane will have a measure of rational entitlement for her belief (in the pertinent case) that John does not have. If John manages to secure some evidence, then this justificatory imbalance might even out a bit. Otherwise it is true to say that John lacks a right - a rational right - that Jane possesses.

In terms of argument, it is a “cop-out” to make hand-waiving remarks about “everyone’s having a right to his or her opinion.” This is so because putting a legal right to believe p to work grounding a rational right to believe p, eo ipso, shows that true rational foundation for p is lacking (or at least not forthcoming).

Are we able to conclude, then, that the saying is merely a slogan promoting “toleration,” 18th-century style? Close. But there is a additional detail that is worth disclosing.

My researches suggest to me that the source is possibly masonic - specifically, issuing out of the meeting rules of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) as composed by the Scottish clergyman James Anderson.

It is true that the rise of the UGLE and, indeed, the beginning of institutional Freemasonry, took place inside of the wider socio-cultural framework of the Enlightenment. Nevertheless, it is striking that our phrase apears nearly verbatim in Anderson’s The Constitutions of the Free-Masons (London, 1723), where we read:

“Avoid especially controversies on religion, nationality and politics.”[14]

I advise against limiting one’s conversations to banalities in deference to this masonic dictum. For, in addition to the sentiment’s other demerits, rehearsed above, “[t]he bane of our civil institutions is to be found in Masonry…”.[15]

Notes:

[1] Yes, this is part 3 - to keep my numbering here in line with my previous enumeration, loc. cit. Hey, if George Lucas could make his Star Wars movies out-of-sequence, why can't I write these weblog posts that way?

[2] Ally Batista, “The Things You Should Never Talk About,” Elite Daily, Aug. 27, 2012, <http://elitedaily.com/life/culture/talk/>. Batista’s reasoning is a mess. In the first place, she reduces all talk about “money” down to either braggadocio or lamentation. Forget accounting, economics or fiscal policy. You’re either an “a******” (her word) or a whiner. Secondly, in terms of politics, Batista is a defeatist. To her, all politics is presumably a totally private - indeed secretive enterprise. Her reason? “Politics always begins arguments” and this is futile since, ultimately, “no one can change” your opinion. This is just misology run amok. Such self-destructive pessimism is for the rubes. After all, if taken literally, such advice would destroy political parties and, in fact, all political discourse. It’s lunacy. Her remarks about religion are not even worth my time to relate.

[3] Larry C. Shelton, “Never Discuss Politics and Religion,” phrases [dot] org, Jun. 8, 2010, <http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/61/messages/910.html>.

[4] ESC, “Re: Never Discuss Politics and Religion,” phrases [dot] org, Jun. 8, 2010, <http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/61/messages/911.html>; citing <http://lacoastpost.com/blog/>. A more accurate citation for embedded “Emily Post…” quotation is: Admin, “Climate Change Threatens Conversation – As Well as the Coast,” LACoastPost [weblog], Dec. 15, 2009, <http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=16797>.

[5] Emily Post Institute, Emily Post’s Etiquette, 18th Edition, New York: HarperCollins; William Morrow, 2011, p. 60. But see Anna Post [great-great-granddaughter of Emily Post], “The Etiquette of Talking Politics,” Huffington Post, Feb. 21, 2008, updated Nov. 17, 2011, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-post/the-etiquette-of-talking-_b_87893.html>.

[6] Ibid.

[7] And elsewhere; see, e.g., <http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/quotes/260>, where it is dated “1754,” without attribution.

[8] That is, evidently, “not formal; easy in conversation.” See Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd ed., Dublin: W. G. Jones, 1768, n.p.; archived online at <https://books.google.com/books?id=bXsCAAAAQAAJ>.

[9] Philip Dormer Stanhope Earl of Chesterfield, The Best Letters of Lord Chesterfield: Letters to His Son and Letters to His Godson, Edward Gilpin Johnson, ed., Chicago: A. C. McClurg, 1893, pp. 276-277; archived online at <https://books.google.com/books?id=LrY8AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA276>.

[10] “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” “First Amendment,” Cornell Univ. Law School, <https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment>.

[11] Matthew J. Bell, Blueprint for Opposing “‘Gay’ Marriage”, draft, Sept. 8, 2013, pp. 74-75, n. 91. Secondly, on one straightforward schema, the notion of a “right” implies that some entity (call that entity the “right giver”) grants to some other entity (call that the “right receiver”) a justifiable claim (the “right”) to something (call it the “right object”). RIGHT GIVER -------->| THE RIGHT to the RIGHT OBJECT | ----------> RIGHT RECEIVER. For instance, The Big Box Company (the right giver) grants the right to a yearly week-long vacation (object) to its employees (right receiver). Or, Our Creator grants the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to us (we the people). Or, according to Nietzsche (and others before him, e.g. Plato’s Thrasymachus, Hobbes, etc.), “Nature” grants the right of force to the strong. Or, finally, The Chinese State grants the right to life to whomever the State sees fit. The point here is that claims such as “xs have right r” …are incomplete claims. For a right-claim we want to know, minimally, who or what the right-giver is, who the right receiver is, what the right is, and what the right’s object is. Ibid.

[12] In reality, I would say that the rights themselves come from the “Creator,” while the Constitution merely enumerates the rights and provides for their protection. But let this pass.

[13] At least, this - or something like it - is true with respect to an internalist conception of justification. Externalist construals of justification will cash things out differently. I put this aside, also.

[14] James Anderson, The Constitutions of the Free-Masons: Containing the History, Charges, Regulations, &c. of That Most Ancient and Right-Worshipful Fraternity. For the Use of the Lodges, London: William Hunter, John Senex and John Hooke, 1723, article 6; quoted by Charles H. Lyttle, “Historical Bases of Rome’s Conflict With Freemasonry,” Church History, vol. 9, no. 1, Mar., 1940, p. 5, n. 10.

[15] William Morgan monument; quoted by Michael Anthony Hoffman, Masonic Assassination, 2nd ed., Geneva, N.Y.: Rialto Books, 1978, p. 8.

Friday, October 9, 2015

Planned Parenthood & Big Pharma: When Liberals Ignore 'Corporate Influence'

A recent headline from the liberal website Salon.com declares: "GOP's Case Against Planned Parenthood Collapses: Jason Chaffetz Admits He Uncovered No Wrongdoing,"[1]

According to the (also liberal) Huffington Post, "Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Thursday that the GOP's investigation into Planned Parenthood's use of federal funds hasn't turned up anything. 'Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes. Was there any wrongdoing? I didn't find any,' he said during a Judiciary Committee hearing on the family planning provider."[2]

Conspicuously absent from both presentations was any discussion of the question of what financial backing Rep. Chaffetz enjoys - and whence it issues.

This ought to seem somewhat strange. Those characterized (usefully or not) as politically "left-of-center" often (and not without warrant) lament the disproportionate power exerted in politics by plutocrats. For instance, U.S. President William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton's former Secretary of Labor and American economist, Robert Reich, warns that "[e]conomic and political power can’t be separated because dominant corporations gain political influence over how markets are maintained and enforced...".[3]

The popular "...Occupy Wall Street movement was borne out of outrage against income inequality and corporate influence over government."[4]

Yet, beside receiving money from the usual suspcts (including, without limitation, unspecified "Accountants," "Law Firms" and "Lobbyists"), Chaffetz collected sizeable contributions from donors working in the pharmaceutical industry.[5]

The watchdog website OpenSecrets.org reported that Chaffetz received $28,000 from "Pharmaceuticals" alone. In fact, we read that, except for what he obtained from such other bland sources as those issuing from "Insurance," "Lobbyists" and "Misc Business," Chaffetz accepted more money ($38,500) from the "Health" field than any other listed.[6]

To put these numbers in perspective, roughly stated, Chaffetz - a Republican - received between 6 and 8 times more more from persons working in "pharmaceuticals" and "health" than from donors with declared interests in "Gun Rights" and "Oil & Gas."[7]

It would be interesting to discover more about Chaffetz's connections to Big Pharma. After all, Planned Parenthood certainly advertises itself as involved in the field of "health." One statement reads: "Planned Parenthood health centers around the country offer you the health care you need."[8]

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Planned Parenthood seemingly also gets a "pass" from having to defend itself against the usual liberal, "anti-corporate" scrutiny.[9]

This is the case even though Planned Parenthood is far from a "mom and pop" operation. In its "Annual Report" for 2013-2014, it reported a total revenue stream of $1,303,400,000.[10]

Of course, Planned Parenthood (famously or infamously) claims that abortions comprise only 3% of its "services."[11] This claim has been analyzed and criticized elsewhere.[12]

For present purposes, let us assume that the 3% figure is true. Planned Parenthood further claims that 34% of its services are describable with the term "Contraception."[13]

Given Planned Parenthood's claims to be a "health center" and to have received 34% of its revenue from pharmaceutical "contraceptives," it seems interesting (and possibly highly relevant) that Jason Chaffetz - tasked with "investigating" Planned Parenthood for possible abuses - receives a considerable portion of his contributions from undisclosed persons and agencies operating in the fields of "health" and "pharmaceuticals."

I will give the final word to Rose Holz, professor of "gender studies" at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. In her The Birth Control Clinic in a Marketplace World, in which she discusses "the new collaboration between [abortion and birth control] clinics and [pharmaceutical] manufacturers," she writes: "[I]t is clear that a dramatic new relationship [is] now emerging between Planned Parenthood and the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry... [T]he organization at all its levels saw in pharmaceutical companies an amazing source of power...".[14]

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

A Few Words on the Second Amendment's Historical Meaning

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." [1]

~ Noah Webster, Jr.

On the historic meaning of the Second Amendment: What does "well-regulated" mean?

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. (U.S. Constitution, Amendment II.)

Samuel Johnson, the famous British lexicographer, simply gives "regulate" as "To adjust by rule or method."[2] Of course, one of the meanings for "rule" is "Canon; precept by which the thoughts or actions are directed."[3]

This is the etymological root of "regulate." According to the standard Lewis and Short lexicon: the Latin "regula" meant "a straight piece of wood, ruler or rule ...a rule, pattern, model, example...".[4]

Clearly, we are not merely interested in the etymology of the word "regulate." We are also interested in documented uses of the phrase "well-regulated." Numerous examples are available from the period ranging from the pre-Revolutionary War 18th century through the late 19th century.

"The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following examples of usage for the term 'well regulated': 1709: 'If a liberal Education has formed in us ...well-regulated Appetites, and worthy Inclinations.' ...1812: 'The equation of time ...is the adjustment of the difference of time, as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.' ...1862: 'It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.' 1894: 'The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.' One definition of the word 'well' in the Oxford English Dictionary is 'satisfactorily in respect of conduct or action.' One of The Oxford English Dictionary definitions for the term 'regulated' is 'b. Of troops: Properly disciplined.'"[5]

The Oxford English Dictionary gives a contemporary definition for "regulate" as "Control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations."[6]

Intuitively, things like "appetites" and "clocks" are not "controlled or supervised" by the ipse dixits of executive or legislative bodies. Rather, they are "well-regulated" insofar as they are self-"ruled" in virtue of having their parts properly fitted and maintained.

That this was a common use for the phrase "well-regulated" is further apparent in the construction "her well-regulated mind." For the workings of one's mind, being limited to "private access," are not susceptible to external "regulation" in the contemporary sense.

We are particularly interested in the phrase "well-regulated" as it occurred in discussions of citzens' militias. As was reported, above, the Oxford gives the sense of being "properly disciplined." How this cashes out becomes a bit clearer when we consult the following commentary, from the early 19th century.

"Trainings, whether by companies or by regiments, are but a part of the drill system, and if it is wise, if it is prudent, to have 'a well regulated militia,' it is ...indispensable, that those composing this force should be well trained to the use of arms—that they should, be familiar, not only with the manual exercise, but with the various and approved evolutions in marching—that they should be trained and exercised in companies and regiments, and in this way they would acquire a confidence in each other, which would be influential and highly beneficial when called to active duty."[7]

In the above text being "well-regulated" is transparently linked to being "well-trained."

When one consults the voluminous writings of the Founding Fathers, the conclusion is inescapable: the contemporary "federal government-control"-reading of "regulation" was simply unknown in the 18th century.

"In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the 'collective' right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of 'the people' to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."[8]

This same meaning appears also in one of the oral arguments[9] from the recent Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller.[10]

In questioning a Mr. Walter Dellinger, Justice Antonin Scalia asks of the phrase "well-regulated": "It means 'well-trained,' doesn't it? ...Doesn't 'well-regulated' mean 'well-trained'?" Scalia concludes, saying: "It doesn't mean - it doesn't mean 'massively regulated.' It means 'well trained.'"[11]

In general, the Bill of Rights was a statement written so that the average person could detect, without any intermediary, when his rights had been violated.

"[T]he Bill of Rights was designed to inform the people at large of their rights so they could enforce them, not just to trust in and admonish a potentially unresponsive government not to tread on them."[12]

As Stephen Halbrook noted, the Bill of Rights was a public declaration - able to be understood by the meanest yeoman - of the points at which federal powers ended. The "thrust" of the Bill of Rights is a marking out of the domains onto which the government may not trespass. The First Amendment, for instance, is not circumscribing freedom of speech; it is announcing that individual freedom. The Fourth Amendment is not bracing people for police "checkpoints"; it is notifying them of their individual immunity from such molestation. Likewise, the Second Amendment is not laying a foundation for intrusive "regulation" in the modern sense; it is proclaiming the individual right to keep and bear arms.

So much for the question of interpretative issues.

On the historic meaning of the Second Amendment: Is the entire amendment “irrelevant”?

However, another worry with the historic interpretation might be termed "irrelevance." One might ask, for instance: How can the Second Amendment serve as a defense against the rise tyranny in our government in an age in which the "military-industrial complex" provides that government with a wide assortment of weaponry (for example, without limitation, armored vehicles, fully-automatic firearms, lasers, missiles, nanotechnology of various kinds, "Predator"-style drones, sonic weapons and state-of-the-art surveillance) that far outstrips the capabilities of revolvers, rifles and semi-automatics?

There are, in my estimation, really two issues, here. Let me call the first issue "theoretical" and the second "practical."

Theoretically, I have two responses. Number one, suppose that the militia is passé. For example, in his opinion in D.C. v. Heller,[13] Justice Scalia wrote: "Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem."[14]

Halbrook: "[A]nother interpretation of the Second Amendment, which opposes any right of 'the people' to have arms, reasons thus: The right to have arms is dependent on a militia being [crucial] for the security of a free state, but despite the clear words of the [second] amendment and the aversions of the framers [to having a standing army],today the standing army allegedly protects freedom.

"This interpretation appears to reduce the amendment to a conditional or hypothetical syllogism, with its first premise as follows: If a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state (p), then the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (q); that is, p implies q. Standing alone, p and q constitute, respectively, the second premise and the conclusion of the syllogism, which appears thus: [p ⊃ q; p; ∴ q] and is valid by reason of [the logical rule known as] modus ponens.

"Yet the denial of the antecedent, should it be expressed in the second premise, fails to imply the denial of the consequent in [an alternate] conclusion; that is, even if a militia is not necessary for the existence of a free state, [for all that the above reasoning shows] the people still have a right to keep and bear arms. The fallacy of denying the antecedent is committed in this form: [p ⊃ q; -p; ∴ -q.]"[15]

To reiterate: The existence of a well-regulated militia in the 18th century may have been sufficient to justify the widespread bearing of arms. However, even if that sort of militia is outmoded today, such does not show that the right to bear arms is unnecessary.

I myself am not satisfied to leave matters here, though. Number two, I fear that the initial question itself demonstrates the degree to which we have meandered away from the "Spirit of '76."[16] For in 1775, statesman Patrick Henry famously answered a similar question. He was addressing the concern that the colonists faced well-nigh impossible odds in confronting a British army that was better armed, better equipped, better financed and better trained. Henry answered:

"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed...?"[17]

The "Spirit of '76" was, if anything, arguably the will to oppose tyranny - even in the face of impossible odds. To the extent that the odds faced today are even more lopsided, given the fact that Americans have allowed for the formation of a "standing army" - ignoring the advice of esteemed forefathers such as Thomas Jefferson[18] and Noah Webster[19] – lovers of liberty are "weaker" than were the colonists. This is obvious. But are we on that account obliged to give up the last shreds of liberty? Henry:

"Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?"[20]

I think that the theoretical answer is clear: Insofar as we wish to continue to pass the torch of liberty, delivering it to posterity in at least something of the form in which it was delivered to us, the we are obligated to recognize the importance of an armed citizenry.

As Alexander Hamilton once said: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted [sic] with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."[21]

Perhaps modernists at once declare, in the words of the character Tank, from the Matrix:[22] "[W]hat you're talking about is suicide."[23]

Patrick Henry gives the rejoinder – the position embraced by our forefathers: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"[24]

Therefore, it seems that we are left with the practical question: How does a liberty-loving populace prepare itself for the possibility of having to repel an onslaught from an advanced military under the command of a tyrannical government?

This is indeed a difficulty. I should insist, though, that the difficulty is practical and not theoretical. To put it another way, "x is difficult to do" hardly entails that "x ought not be done."

The matter is not hopeless.[25]

As I have written in another place: "If ...the domestic government ...maintain[s] a standing army; and if ...usurpers are in command of that army; then, surely, successful resistance would require, at the very least, some measure of parity with respect to weaponry and training."[26]

However, it is beyond my competence to tease this out in any detail. Perhaps weaponry is not as important as training. Perhaps a genius strategist could turn the tide.[27]

On the other hand, the pressure could be relieved a bit were the United States to see friends of liberty once again populating our legislatures and courts. The disparity between the (hypothetical) well-regulated militias and the military could be lessened in virtue of the reduction of military spending, the defunding of weapons development and the outlawing of various "exotic" tools and surveillance technologies.[28]

On the historic meaning of the Second Amendment: Final thoughts

Let me conclude by evidencing that I am an "equal-opportunity" critic. Whereas I believe that many on "the left" err in their interpretation of words such as "bear," "militia" and "well-regulated," I also believe that many on "the right" err in virtue of their blind support of the standing army. Jefferson, on receiving from James Madison a draft copy of the work of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, wrote back: "...I do not like ...the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for ...protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land."[29]

In his "Draft Constitution for Virginia 1776," Jefferson put it directly: "There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war."[30]

Suffice it to say that anyone wishing to defend a robust conception of the Second Amendment ought to resist the disarmament of the people as fervently as she resists the strengthening of the military.

- Matthew J. Bell

Notes:

[1] Noah Webster, "An Examination Into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution by a Citizen of America," Paul Leicester, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States Published During Its Discussion by the People, 1787-1788, Brooklyn, N.Y.: n.p., 1888, p. 56.

[2] Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd ed., Dublin: W. G. Jones and Thomas Ewing, 1768, n.p.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, Oxford [U.K.]: Clarendon Press, 1988, p. 1553. In the Christian tradition, the "regula fidei," or "rule of faith," marks out a certain set of beliefs and practices that are held to be essential for Christianity. Historically, these "revealed truths" were not handed from the top-down, as it were, by decree from any ecclesiastical body; they originated from the bottom-up, as inferences from scripture and from the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. The Greek word "kanon" similarly designates a "measuring rod," and is the controlling meaning in phrases such as the "biblical canon." See Frederick William Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon..., Chicago and London: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2000, pp. 507-508.

[5] Daniel J. Schultz, "The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions," Lect Law, <http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm>; citing The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., Oxford [U.K.]: Clarendon Press, 1989.

[6] "Regulate," <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/regulate>.

[7] Entry, Tues., July 1, 1823, Journal of the House of Representatives of the State of New Hampshire, at Their Session, Holden [sic] at the Capitol in Concord, Commencing on the First Wednesday of June, and Ending the Third Day of July, Anno Domini One Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty-Three, Concord, N.H.: Jacob B. Moore, 1823, p. 271. Note that in this context, the word "evolution" is a tactical term meaning: "The motion made by a body of men in changing their posture, or form of drawing up," according to the fourth entry under "evolution," in Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language, London: J. F. C. Rivengton, et al., 1792, n.p. Again, Noah Webster, in his Americanized version of Johnson's esteemed dictionary, defined the verb "bear" in the following terms: "To wear; as, to bear a sword ...; to bear arms in a coat." He furthermore gave the example of having a handgun on one's person as an instance of "bearing arms." An American Dictionary of the English Language, New York: S. Converse, 1828, n.p..

[8] Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, rev. ed., Albuquerque, N.M.: Univ. of N.M. Press, 2013, p. xi. Halbrook notes that "the Tenth Amendment ...clearly distinguishes between the states and the people." Ibid., p. 93. Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." "Tenth Amendment," U.S. Constitution, Cornell Univ. Law School, <https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment>. "It is unlikely that the framers would have intended to commit blatantly the fallacy of equivocation by shifting the meaning of 'the people' from amendment to amendment, or that they would have risked the fallacy of ambiguity by defining the phrase 'the people' in the Second Amendment in such an unusual manner, that is, as 'those people in a select state militia.'" Halbrook, op. cit., p. 93.

[9] No. 07-290, March 18, 2008.

[10] D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

[11] Argument transcript, op. cit., Alderson Reporting Co., p. 26.

[12] Halbrook, op. cit., p. x.

[13] Loc. cit.

[14] Op. cit., p. 67. On whether the standing army is a boon or a bane, recollect the words of our founders: "That as the colonies possess a right of appropriating their gifts, so are they entitled at all times to enquire into their application, to see that they be not wasted among the venal and corrupt for the purpose of undermining the civil rights of the givers, nor yet be diverted to the support of standing armies, inconsistent with their freedom and subversive of their quiet." John Hancock, "Resolutions of Congress on Lord North's Conciliatory Proposal," Philadelphia, Jul. 31, 1775; archived online at Avalon Project, Yale Law School, <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffnort.asp>.

[15] Halbrook, op. cit., pp. 93-94.

[16] Another facet of this move away from our founding "Spirit" can be located on the political "right." For example, Thomas Jefferson opined: "The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." Thomas Jefferson, letter to Chandler Price, Feb. 28, 1807; reproduced by Henry Augustine Washington, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Being His Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, and Other Writings, Official and Private: Published by the Order of the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library, From the Original Manuscripts, Deposited in the Department of State, vol. 4, Washington, D.C.: Taylor and Maury, 1858, p. 47.

[17] Patrick Henry, speech, Mar. 23, 1775; posted as "Patrick Henry - Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death," Avalon Project, Yale Univ. Law School, <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/patrick.asp>.

[18] "There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." Thomas Jefferson, letter to David Humphreys, Mar. 18, 1789; quoted in Joyce Appleby and Terence Ball, eds., Jefferson: Political Writings, Cambridge [U.K.]: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999, p. 113.

[19] See the introductory quotation.

[20] Loc. cit.

[21] Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28; archived online at Avalon Project, Yale Univ. Law School, <http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed28.htm>.

[22] Warner Bros., 1999.

[23] “The Matrix,” 1999, quotes, Internet Movie Database, <http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/quotes?qt=qt1229257>.

[24] Loc. cit.

[25] I discuss this a bit in my earlier weblog post Matthew J. Bell, "Towards a Jeffersonian Appraisal of the SCOTUS 'D.C. Gun Ban' Decision," Liberty Bell [weblog], Jun. 30, 2008, <http://bellofliberty.blogspot.com/2008/06/towards-jeffersonian-appraisal-of.html>.

[26] Ibid.

[27] For inspiration, if not advice, one might consider Cormac O'Brien's Outnumbered: Incredible Stories of History's Most Surprising Battlefield Upsets (Beverly, Mass.: Fair Winds Press, 2010). For a more theatrical reminder that numbers and weapons do not mean everything, see Zack Snyder's fictionalized retelling of the Battle of Thermopylae, in the film 300 (Warner Bros., 2007).

[28] I add, however, that the fact that the U.S. in theory records a massive portion of communications does not imply that these records are meaningfully or usefully archived or accessible - let alone "monitored" in anything like real-time.

[29] Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787; archived online at Library of Congress, <http://www.loc.gov/item/mtjbib003193/>. I hasten to add that those on "the right" also frequently err in terms of reducing the right to bear arms to mere hunting or personal self-defensive exercises.

[30] Thomas Jefferson, Jun. 1776; archived online at Avalon Project, Yale Univ. Law School, <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffcons.asp>.

Monday, September 7, 2015

'Rightwing, Conservative Christian Interests' Versus 'Jewish Interests'

Neoconservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh routinely mentions Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a congressperson and the current Chair of the Democratic National Committee. Wasserman Schultz has the distinction of being the first Jewish congresswoman elected from the state of Florida. It is interesting for self-professed “conservative right-wingers” and Republicans to ask themselves: “To what degree is Debbie Wasserman Schultz an aberration?"
Or, to put it slightly differently, "To what degree are Jewish interests antithetical to conservatism?"

It is obvious that American Jews have long been aligned with the Democratic Party. In many ways, the “Jewish community” broadly construed opposes many things that right-wing Christian conservatives champion.

“[T]raditonally[,] ...Jewish voters ...have favored Democrats by 2-to-1 margins.”[1]

This leftward leaning goes back at least to the era of Franklin Roosevelt. “[F]unctioning under the …aegis of the Democratic party, American Jews fortied their reputation as the most dependably progressive ethnic community in the United States. In 1940, no fewer than 90 percent of their votes went to Roosevelt.”[2]

Despite the rightward orientation of a handful of Jewish king-makers (chiefly Sheldon Adelson, but also smaller fry such as Norman Braman, Henry Kravis, Richard Roberts and Mel Sembler, two of whom – by the way, Adelson and Roberts – are said to favor Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker for the [as of this writing] upcoming the 2016 election), “as a group, Jews still endorse the Democratic Party at a rate of around 20 percentage points above most other Americans.”[3]

“Indeed, the Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates ‘depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money raised from private sources. Other estimates are lower, but contributions from Jewish Americans form a substantial share - between 20 and 50 percent - of the contributions made to the Democratic party and its presidential candidates.”[4]

“Jews provided at least half the money donated to the DNC [Democratic National Committee] in the 1998 and 2000 election cycles.”[5]

Additionally, “as a matter of comparison they [Jews] are generally found to be the most liberal white ethnoreligious group in the United States.”[6]

To illustrate: At least one benchmark indicates that religious Jews are more likely to be atheists than people of other faiths. This is so prevalent that one journalist writes: “Atheism is entrenched in American Judaism. In researching their book American Grace, authors Robert Putnam and David Campbell found that half of all American Jews doubt God’s existence. In other groups, that number is between 10 and 15 percent.”[7]

Within “rightwing Christian” circles, atheism is lamented. But there is a deafening silence from these supposedly concerned “Conservatives” when it comes to atheism infused American Judaism. As one synagogue-attendee, Maxim Schrogin, put it: “Atheism and Judaism are not contradictory, so to have an atheist in a Jewish congregation isn’t an issue or a challenge or a problem.”[8]

There is a conspicuous case-study. Many Christians bemoan the removal of prayer from public schools. What many people do not know, however, is how this removal came about. It was the result of the landmark Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court legislated from the bench, decreeing it “unconstitutional” for public schools to adopt or encourage the recitation of “official” prayers in public schools.

The genesis of the case was this: “In the fall of 1958, Steven Engel visited his son’s elementary school classroom in Hyde Park, New York. Engel, a Jew, was upset to see his son’s hands clasped and his head bent in prayer. He told his son that this was ‘not the way we say prayers.’”[9]

As George Lincoln Rockwell observed in the late 1960s: “If Israel is a Jewish country and has the right to be Jewish, if Ghana is a black country and has the right to be black, why don’t we have the right to keep a white country white and Christian? Why, how long do you think you people would last if you went over there to Israel and started campaigning in the Jewish schools in Israel against singing Jewish songs? And yet they’re over here campaigning against us singing Christmas carols in ours. …You can’t sing Christmas carols in schools any more. They won’t tolerate it, but we must.”[10]

The Episcopal humorist Gary Edward “Garrison” Keillor has pointed out that Jews have been instrumental in the replacement of Christ-centered Christmas carols, with generic “holiday” ditties. Keillor wrote: “If you don’t believe Jesus was God, OK, go write your own damn ‘Silent Night’ and leave ours alone. This is spiritual piracy and cultural elitism, and we Christians have stood for it long enough. And all those lousy holiday songs by Jewish guys that trash up the malls every year, Rudolph and the chestnuts and the rest of that dreck. Did one of our guys write ‘Grab your loafers, come along if you wanna, and we’ll blow that shofar for Rosh Hashanah’? No, we didn’t. Christmas is a Christian holiday – if you’re not in the club, then buzz off. Celebrate Yule instead or dance around in druid robes for the solstice. Go light a big log, go wassailing and falalaing until you fall down, eat figgy pudding until you puke, but don’t mess with the Messiah.”[11],[12]

In another recent news item, we read about the activist goings on of one Michael “Mikey” Weinstein. “...A Pentagon ban on proselytizing has left some conservative activists fearful that Christian soldiers -- and even military chaplains -- could face court martial for sharing their faith.

“The Defense Department said this week that proselytizing -- trying to get someone to change faiths -- is banned. Its statement does not define proselytizing or address the role of military chaplains. It also does not rule out court martial for those whose share their faith too aggressively.

“News of the ban came after an activist met with Air Force officials to demand that soldiers who spend too much time talking about Jesus be booted from the military.

“If superior officers try to convert those under their command, they should face a court martial, said Mikey Weinstein, president of the Albuquerque, N.M.-based Military Religious Freedom Foundation. …”[13]

Are “conservative, rightwing Christians” on board with the outlawing of Evangelism in the American armed forces? If not, then they should understand that their interests run contrary to those of Jews like Mikey Weinstein.[14]

Additional evidence of Jewish left-leaning can be detected from the fact that the overwhelming majority of Jews – “religious” or “secular” – support abortion[15] and “same sex marriage”,[16] both of which are opposed by many “religious Conservatives.”

It is simply a fact that, historically, Jews have been at the forefront of liberalizing and activist politics.

Recently, much was made about Wasserman Schultz’s comments – or rather lack thereof – about the difference between “Democrats and Socialists.” Another important facet of the larger discussion contrasting “Conservative” and “Jewish interests” must therefore be to note the historical point that Jews have long advanced socialism, communism and other radical, leftist ideologies.[17],[18]

From Moses Hess, Karl Marx and Ferdinand Lassalle to Leon Trotsky (born Bronstein) and Vladimir Lenin (scion of the Jewish Blank family), Communist-Bolshevism was a decidedly Jewish – and anti-Christian/anti-Russian peasant – movement.[19]

Combined with the fact, established centuries ago by intrepid researchers like Gustaf Dalman, Johann Eisenmenger, Alexander McCaul, Bernhard Pick and Johann Wagenseil and admitted by honest scholars such as Theodor Keim and Princeton University’s Peter Schaefer, that the Jewish Talmud asserts such filthy scurrilities as that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a whore[20] and that Jesus was a blasphemer who was justly executed for practicing magic and leading Israel astray[21] and is now being punished in hell by being suspended in boiling human excrement;[22] it’s fairly compelling, as Michael Hoffman has argued at length, that the label “Judeo-Christian” is an oxymoron.

This is not a novel idea. Saint Paul indicated: “the Jews ...killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone...”.[23]

Nevertheless, Christians continue to labor under the mistaken belief that Jews have some sort of robust kinship with Christians. The counterpoint can scarcely be better made than it was by Saint John the Evangelist, who wrote in 1 John 2:22-23: “Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist – denying the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.”

According to John, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, any person who denies Jesus also has neither the Son nor the Father. Therefore, on Biblical authority, it seems that whatever God the Jews proclaim, it simply cannot be the Father of Jesus – or else the New Testament is gravely mistaken.

As to the idea that (supposed) Jewish pedigree is salvific in and of itself, Jesus himself dismissed this when He said: “And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.” (Matthew 3:9).

In fact, more strongly, Jesus told the Pharisees - the forerunners of the rabbis: “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”[24]

As Saint Augustine of Hippo once reportedly said: “Judaism, since Christ, is a corruption; indeed Judas is the image of the Jewish people; their understanding of the Scriptures is carnal; they bear the guilt for the death of the Saviour, for through their fathers they killed the Christ.”[25]

The main point to Christians was and is: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to the degree that she is really spearheading a leftist, anti-Christian crusade in virtue of her political affiliations and sympathies, is really cut out of the same cloth as many of her co-religionists. Whence comes the imaginary camaraderie between Christianity and Judaism? And why are Christians so ignorant – or timid?

Notes:

[1] Ron Kampeas, “Who Are the Republican Candidates’ Jewish Donors?” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Apr. 20, 2015, <http://www.jta.org/2015/04/20/news-opinion/politics/who-are-the-republican-candidates-jewish-donors>.

[2] Howard Morley Sachar, A History of the Jews in America, New York: Random House; Vintage Books, 1993, p. 463; archived online at <https://books.google.com/books?id=DeFsAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA463>.

[3] Geoffrey Brahm Levey, “Jewish Liberalism,” Paul A. Djupe and Laura R. Olson, Encyclopedia of American Religion and Politics, New York: Facts on File; Infobase, 2003, p. 231; archived online at <https://books.google.com/books?id=frt7RDOT1PUC&pg=PA231>.

[4] John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, New York: Ferrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007, p. 163; archived online at <https://books.google.com/books?id=zIrFUBs7G6kC&pg=PA163>.

[5] Laura Blumenfeld, “Terrorism Jars Jewish, Arab Party Loyalties,” Washington Post, Dec. 7, 2003, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/12/07/terrorism-jars-jewish-arab-party-loyalties/b2d1a3c2-fd22-4aff-8532-a3eccc4d28c1/>.

[6] Ibid. Note: “Liberalism is typically measured in this context by political identification with the Democratic Party; electoral support for Democratic candidates, self-identification as ‘liberal’ rather than a ‘conservative’; and support for liberal positions on civil liberties, civil rights, state welfare, and, sometimes, foreign policy issues”, ibid.

[7] Kimberly Winston, “Judaism without God? Yes, Say American Atheists,” Religion News Service via USA Today, Sept. 26, 2011, <http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-26/jew-atheist-god/50553958/1>.

[8] Quoted in ibid.

[9] “Religion in Public Schools: Engel v. Vitale: Date: 1962,” doc. no. 1197, Digital History Archive, 2014, <http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1197>.

[10] Rockwell, speech, Brown Univ., 1966; archived as “George Lincoln Rockwell 1966 Speech at Brown University,” YouTube, May 3, 2014, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovyhWgn1B3M>.

[11] Garrison Keillor, “Nonbelievers, Please Leave Christmas Alone,” Baltimore Sun, Dec. 16, 2009, <http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-12-16/news/bal-op.keillor16dec16_1_silent-night-unitarian-christmas>.

[12] One Jewish periodical opens with the following paragraph: “‘No wonder I didn’t recognize it. It must be the only Christmas song not written by a Jewish songwriter.’ So said Howard Wolowitz, a lead Jewish character on TV’s ‘Big Bang Theory,’ after hearing his buddy sing ‘Good King Wenceslas,’ a traditional carol. Popular culture outlets are finally catching up with the fact that about half of the most popular modern Christmas or ‘holiday’ songs were written by Jewish songwriters.” Nate Bloom, “All those Holiday/Christmas Songs: So Many Jewish Songwriters!” Jewish world Review, Dec. 22, 2014, <http://jewishworldreview.com/1214/jewz_xmas.php3>.

“White Christmas” and “Happy Holidays”? Irving Berlin. “Let it Snow! Let it Snow! Let it Snow!”? Sammy Cahn and Jule Styne. “Santa Baby”? Joan Javits and Philip Springer. “Winter Wonderland”? Felix Bernard. “Sleigh Ride”? Mitchell Parish (born Michael Hyman Pashelinsky). “Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer,” “Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree,” “A Holly Jolly Christmas” and “Silver and Gold”? Johnny Marks. “I’ll Be Home for Christmas”? Walter Kent. “Silver Bells”? Jay Livingston (born Jacob Harold Levison) and Raymond Bernard “Ray” Evans. “It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year”? Edward “Eddie” Pola (born Sidney Edward Pollacsek) and George Wyle (born Bernard Weissman, best-known for composing having Gilligan’s Island’s theme song). “Do You Hear What I Hear?”? Gloria Shayne Baker (born Gloria Adele Shain). “(There’s No Place Like) Home for the Holidays”? Al Stillman (born Albert Silverman). “The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire”? Mel Tormé (a.k.a. Melvin Howard Torma).

[13] Bob Smietana, “Soldiers Inclined to Proselytize May Face Court Martial,” Gannett News Service via The Tennessean, May 2, 2013, p. ARC; accessed via LexisNexis; archived online at <http://archive.tennessean.com/article/20130502/NEWS06/305020063/Soldiers-inclined-proselytize-may-face-court-martial>.

[14] Here and elsewhere throughout this article, the issue of whether many of today’s self-professed “Jews” really are what they claim. For an introduction to the “Khazar hypothesis,” the idea that today’s Ashkenazim are really descendants of an Asiatic clan that converted to Judaism before the 10^th century, see for example Shlomo Sand’s The Invention of the Jewish People.

[15] “That different Jews have disparate views is not news. What is news is when most Jews agree on a particular idea or approach. And so it is with the curious consensus of Jews on abortion. ...Essentially regardless of denominational affiliation or demographics, American Jews think abortion should be legal in all (49%) or almost all (44%) cases. That is, fully 93% of all American Jews support legalized abortion in some fashion. Even political leanings, while influential, are not determinative. Among Jewish Democrats support is 95%, but 77% of Jewish Republicans also favor legalized abortion in all or most cases, far exceeding the rate of other groups studied.” Roger Price, “The Curious Consensus of Jews on Abortion,” Jewish Journal, Feb. 1, 2013, <http://www.jewishjournal.com/judaismandscience/item/the_curious_consensus_of_jews_on_abortion>.)

[16] According to a Jewish Telegraphic Agency dispatch printed in the New York-based Jewish newspaper Forward: “American Jews are among the most supportive religious groups of same-sex marriage. Some 77 percent of American Jews expressed support for same-sex marriage, according to data gathered in 2014 by the Public Religion Research Institute.” “U.S. Jews Among Biggest Backers of Same-Sex Marriage, Data Show,” JTA via Forward, Jun. 28, 2015, <http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/311026/us-jews-among-biggest-backers-of-same-sex-marriage-data-show/>.)

Relatedly, Nation Public Radio reported: “The government of Israel is styling the country as a haven for the gay community. But it’s more than just beaches, parades and clubs. Israel has laws protecting the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, or LGBT, community.” Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, “Israel Presents Itself as Haven for Gay Community,” National Public Radio, Jun. 4, 2012, <http://www.npr.org/2012/06/04/154279534/israel-presents-itself-as-haven-for-gay-community>.

On a darker note, the state of Israel is presently a major hub for sex slavery and human trafficking. See Rabbi Daniel Brenner, “Will Men Stand Up Against the Sex Slave Trade in Israel?” Huffington Post, February, 1, 2012, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-daniel-brenner/teaching-young-men-end-sex-trafficking_b_1242842.html> and Roni Aloni-Sadovnik, “Israel’s sex slaves,” Yedioth Ahronot, April 3, 2007, <http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3384268,00.html>. Cf. Anya Stone and Martina Vandenberg, “How the Sex Trade Becomes a Slave Trade: The Trafficking of Women to Israel,” Middle East Report, no. 211, Summer, 1999, pp. 36-38.

[17] Of these, Communism is by far the most deadly -ism that the world has ever seen. The Harvard University-published Black Book of Communism observes that “the intransigent facts demonstrate that Communist regimes have victimized approximately 100 million people”. (Stéphane Courtois, “Introduction: The Crimes of Communism,” Stéphane Courtois, Nicholas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrej Paczkowski, Karel Bartošek and Jean-Louis Margolin, Le livre noir du Communisme: Crimes, terreur, repression, Paris: Robert Laffront, 1997, Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer, transl., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1999, p. 15.)

[18] Incidentally, Democrats of the same era were accused of pandering to the black vote. This combined outreach to blacks and Jews earned the opprobrium of some of the old guard from within the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant establishment. “[P]erhaps the most revealing of the caste resentment which characterized so much of the antipathy toward the New Deal was the following bit of doggerel about Franklin and Eleanor: You kiss the negroes | I’ll kiss the Jews, | We’ll stay in the White House | As long as we choose.” Edward Digby Baltzell, The Protestant Establishment: Aristocracy & Caste in America, New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1987, pp. 247-248; archived online at <https://books.google.com/books?id=jOCnJpjcjy8C&pg=PA247>.

[19] Other prominent Jewish-Communist thinkers included Eduard Bernstein, Haim Kantorovitch, Rosa Luxemburg, Julius Martov [born Yuliy Osipovich Tsederbaum], Alexander Lvovich Parvus (born Israel Lazarevich Gelfand) and Grigory Yevseevich Zinoviev (born Ovsei-Gershon Aronovich Radomyslsky, a.k.a. Hirsch Apfelbaum). Erstwhile British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once wrote: "From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing," Winston Churchill, “Zionism Versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Illustrated Sunday Herald, London, Feb. 8, 1920.

[20] According to the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 106a, <http://www.comeandhear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_106.html>.

[21] See for instance the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 43a, <http://www.comeandhear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html>.

[22] See the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Gittin, folio 57a, <http://www.comeandhear.com/gittin/gittin_57.html>. Note: in some Talmud editions, the name “Jesus the Nazarene” is replaced by code words such as “Balaam.”

[23] The Holy Bible, 1 Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse14-15.

[24] John 8:44.

[25] Quoted by Benjamin Weintroub, The Chicago Jewish Forum, vol. 25, 1966, p. 52; archived online at <https://books.google.com/books?id=CssMAQAAMAAJ>. However, attributions from Zionist sources ought to be taken with a grain of salt. However, similar sentiments were indisputably expressed by Christians from Saint John Chrysostom to Martin Luther and beyond.