The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew Napolitano ArchiveBlogview
'No Fly, No Buy' Means No Freedom
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_129482747
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

The people in the government who want to control our personal choices are the enemies of freedom. And the enemies of freedom can be very clever and seductive.

Last week, these folks, manifesting their lust to keep us dependent upon the government by rejecting the natural right to self-defense, coined a clever phrase: “No fly, no buy.” It sounds rational, yet it rejects core American values.

The phrase was pounded home to average Americans during a one-sided 15-hour televised marathon on the floor of the Senate orchestrated by the gun control crowd. The essence of the argument was that stricter laws regarding gun sales would have prevented the massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. In gun control advocates’ dream world, the self-loathing Islamic State-inspired killer, willing to take 49 innocent lives, would somehow have been unwilling to violate restrictive gun purchase laws; and his obedience to those laws would have saved lives.

Their argument is naive and absurd. A person willing to commit mass murder is surely willing to break the law to acquire the means to commit the murders. So blinded were these senators in their misguided utterances about self-defense that they forgot about the Constitution.

The legislation they offered would have required that people whose names the feds put on a terror watchlist or a no-fly list (these are often done simultaneously) would not be legally able to purchase a gun. The senators summarized this idea dozens of times as “no fly, no buy.”

Though this phrase, which was quickly picked up by many of my colleagues in the media, has an easy and simplistic ring to it, it reveals a troubling ideology that profoundly rejects core American values.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights and when the inalienability of our rights was codified in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the United States was wedded to the Judeo-Christian principle that our rights stem from our humanity. This was expressly recognized recently by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which it held that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental personal right, not a gift of the government to a group.

A fundamental personal right is the natural ability of individuals to make meaningful choices without a government permission slip. May the government ever interfere with fundamental rights? The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that it can only do so if it can demonstrate a compelling governmental interest — served by the least restrictive means, and only after due process.

ORDER IT NOW

Stated differently, if the government wants to silence your speech or deny you the right to self-defense, it must meet a very high burden in a public courtroom. It must demonstrate to a judge and jury that its need to silence or disarm you is compelling, and its goals may not be attained by any lesser means. Americans need not demonstrate a compelling need to speak or bear arms; the government must demonstrate a compelling need to prevent us from doing so.

That is what lawyers call black letter law — meaning it is well-established, followed throughout the land and rarely challenged. Until now.

Earlier this week in the Senate, the gun control crowd sought to give nameless and faceless federal bureaucrats the ability to strip Americans of their right to keep and bear arms by putting their names on a terror watchlist/no-fly list and prohibiting those on the list from buying guns. Yet none of these senators could state the criteria for putting a name on that list, and none could identify the people who prepare or keep the list.

That’s because these are well-guarded government secrets — secrets that have no place in American life.

If a government bureaucrat can put your name on a secret list on the bureaucrat’s own whim or even using secret standards and, as a result, you have lost a fundamental liberty, then the feds have transformed a natural right into a governmental gift. If the feds can create a no-fly list in secret and “no fly” comes to mean “no buy,” then we have no rights but what the government will permit us to do.

As if to underscore his ignorance of American values, one of the senators even stated that due process is killing us. He must have forgotten his oath to uphold the Constitution, which guarantees that the government may not take life, liberty or property without due process.

Due process — the absolute right to know the law and to force the government to prove a violation of it to a jury before it can take life, liberty or property — is the essence of the rights of free people. It is utterly scandalous — and probably disqualifying from office — that a senator could bemoan its existence.

Can you see how low we have sunk? The gun control crowd doesn’t care about personal liberty in a free society; it just cares about control. It wants us all to be pliant and reliant on a government that it controls; never mind that it is utterly incapable of protecting us from crazies who will resort to mass death for their own deranged purposes.

If the government secretly can put an American’s name on a secret list and, as a result, his liberty is lost, then there are no freedoms — just government-granted privileges. And if it can do this to the natural rights to travel and self-defense, can other fundamental rights be far behind?

Copyright 2016 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Civil Liberties, Gun Control, Terrorism 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Eustace Tilley (not) [AKA "Schiller/Nietzsche"] says:

    God bless you, Your Honor! I am grateful that there are still intelligent and upright judges in this increasingly-corrupt and confused Republic who will stand up for the constitutional rights of the people.

    What’s next in the mind of the faceless federal controllers? “No fly, no eat?” What’s to stop them from making up restrictions on our freedoms as they go along? If feminism gets any stronger, they will have blue-haired college girls at desks issuing directives based on their “feelings”. A Trump sign on your lawn will be deemed “hate speech” because they might feel it’s “really hurtful and scary”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /anapolitano/no-fly-no-buy-means-no-freedom/#comment-1464480
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Avalanche says:

    “Thomas Jefferson … the United States was wedded to the Judeo-Christian principle”

    Are you too young to remember that for the vast vast majority of the history of the U.S. — from before it became the U.S. — there was NO SUCH THING as “Judeo-Christian.” When-the-hell did the churches and the mainstream get taken over to create this idiotic — and subversive — meme to somehow include Jews in the creation of this country?! WHY is that now the required descriptor? (How about “Deist-Christian” — that’s closer to reality! How about *just* Christian?)

    (And I am actually ANTI-Christian — I think Christianity was specifically and intentionally designed, developed, and pushed to sap the strength and honor of WHITE MEN through-out our history; but the Hellenic and Roman and Germanic, and Norse, and other WHITE civilizations and tribes had a big part in making it less about worshiping a vicious jewish tribal mountain godlet (and destroying White cohesion), and more into a religion that could build European civilization.)

    Now? It’s just one more way to destroy White civilization. Stop falling for (and repeating!) the LIE that somehow “Judeo” was involved in anything but the DESTRUCTION of the White race and all that race has created!

    Read More
    • Agree: Bill Jones
    • Replies: @D. K.
    http://www.donmburrows.com/2012/01/non-existent-judeo-christian-tradition.html
    , @Leon Berton
    Yours is an extremely distorted, ignorant, ideologically inspired, and puerile understanding of the history of Christianity, which is founded on the claim of divine personhood of one human being, who was a Semite, and the followers of which were initially not at all a match with your epithet of "white" men and civilization.

    The whole business of how the many diverse Christian traditions developed is enormously complex, as any introductory historical analyses will reveal.
    , @bart h.
    the Jews are actually Canaanites, Amorites, and Hittites; but, not Hebrew or semantic. They have lied to us about everything and we bought it lock, stock and barrel. Their god is actually Baal! The Jews did not kill Christ but they would it they could. The churches that advertise proudly that they are Zionist are traitors to Christ.
    , @Anonymous
    I agree, Judeo/Christian are an anathema to one another. People of the judeo religion use the Book the Talmud and in it, it says Jesus/Yashua is in hell burning in his own excrement and that Mother Mary is a Whore. The Christian religion reveres both of Jesus and Mary.

    How can any so called educated person put these two together in any kind of agreement /fellowship or sentence of consensus?

    Just shows how dumb so many people and so many churches are.

    Judeo-Christian should never be linked together, it's like saying God-Satan or Sarah Brady-Charlaton Hesston .....

    But alas we travel in a sea of sheep from what I see in my daily travels both figuratively and literally
  3. D. K. says:
    @Avalanche
    "Thomas Jefferson ... the United States was wedded to the Judeo-Christian principle"

    Are you too young to remember that for the vast vast majority of the history of the U.S. -- from before it became the U.S. -- there was NO SUCH THING as "Judeo-Christian." When-the-hell did the churches and the mainstream get taken over to create this idiotic -- and subversive -- meme to somehow include Jews in the creation of this country?! WHY is that now the required descriptor? (How about "Deist-Christian" -- that's closer to reality! How about *just* Christian?)

    (And I am actually ANTI-Christian -- I think Christianity was specifically and intentionally designed, developed, and pushed to sap the strength and honor of WHITE MEN through-out our history; but the Hellenic and Roman and Germanic, and Norse, and other WHITE civilizations and tribes had a big part in making it less about worshiping a vicious jewish tribal mountain godlet (and destroying White cohesion), and more into a religion that could build European civilization.)

    Now? It's just one more way to destroy White civilization. Stop falling for (and repeating!) the LIE that somehow "Judeo" was involved in anything but the DESTRUCTION of the White race and all that race has created!

    Read More
  4. Outwest says:

    It might help me understand their proposal at least a bit if the POTUS and congress didn’t have a small army of armed protectors. While perhaps a bit less formal and imposing, that’s the function I serve in my family.

    Read More
  5. mtn cur says:

    Those citizens are best which least need governing, that would include being able to keep and bear arms without being a danger to those peaceably engaged. A government incapable of producing citizens who can be trusted with weapons is invariably a government that should not be trusted weapons either, just as has been seen in the various interventions which expand the borders of NATO to include much of the planet.

    Read More
  6. Svigor says:

    This “no fly no buy” thing is a great example of how incestuous and hive-minded our “discourse” in the corporate media has become.

    1. Due process. Ever heard of it, ye budding tyrants? You can’t strip American citizens of their Constitutional Rights just because some bureaucrat put him on a “no fly” list because stupid, because personal grievance, because political vendetta, because typical gov’t SNAFU, or just because because. The Supreme Court would tear it a new one.

    2. The “if you’re too dangerous to fly, you’re too dangerous to buy a gun” thing actually calls the idea of letting the gov’t decide people shouldn’t fly without due process into question, not the other way around.

    Stupid leftists.

    The funny thing is, all the Republicans had to do to kill this tyrannical bill is to insist on due process for the people forbidden their Constitutional Rights; the Dems refused to vote for it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    Stupid leftists.
     
    Stupid rightists. Have you ever thought to oppose all of these secret lists?
  7. Svigor says:

    The people in the government who want to control our personal choices are the enemies of freedom. And the enemies of freedom can be very clever and seductive.

    They couldn’t seduce a two-dollar whore. That’s why they know perfectly well their only way forward is to control the Narrative, to control the apparatus of public discourse with bribes and intimidation.

    Their argument is naive and absurd. A person willing to commit mass murder is surely willing to break the law to acquire the means to commit the murders. So blinded were these senators in their misguided utterances about self-defense that they forgot about the Constitution.

    Perhaps more to the point, support for terrorism and jihad is so high among Muslim populations that these nuts will find it far easier to find co-ethnics willing to sell them firearms off the books than the vast majority of other population groups. In other words, this kind of legislation will have the least effect on the worst offenders.

    P.S., I, too, wipe my arse with “Judeo-Christian tradition.” A weak construction, for weak men. It’s a Christian Tradition. Judeo tradition can take a long walk off a short pier.

    Read More
  8. Thank you, Judge Napolitano, for your lucid, irrefutable exegesis of our Second Amendment right.

    Judeo-Christian embraces the Hebrew source of Christianity; there is nothing wrong or misleading about the term. Christ was Himself a Jew, so were His disciples, so was John the Baptist. The Christian Bible includes both the Old Testament and the New Testament; Christian belief holds that Christ is the Messiah promised to Israel in the Old Testament: hence, Judeo-Christian. In most contexts the term is not philo-Semitic, it’s simply descriptive of the root of Christianity embedded in the Old Testament.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    If you bothered to check, Auntie, you will find that 'judaeo-christian' or 'judeo-christian' is a relatively novel formulation, almost never seen before WWII.

    In the earlier (and theological) usage, it referred to the Judaising strain in early Christianity. A close reading of the Acts of the Apostles , which reveals many doctrinal differences, even at that very early stage, will give you a sense of that usage.

    St. Paul, although a Jew, Hellenised and of course a Roman citizen, does not fall under that description. You can see the difference if you look at the NT as it is, particularly if you look at the Acts of the Apostles and most of the epistles of Paul, among other places.

    This becomes more stark when the Marcionite prologues to the epistles of Paul

    http://www.textexcavation.com/marcioniteprologues.html

    and the reconstructions of much of his canon

    http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/Marcionite_Bible.html

    are considered. I believe these were the original versions, with the 'Judaeo' parts being later interpolations, for reasons both of internal logic and age of the collection (Marcion's was the first NT canon, predating that of Irenaeus by many decades).

    That no ancient mss survive, except judaized versions with the prologues intact (in itself evidence of the authenticity of the Marcionite versions) is easily explained. In the west, they were systematically tracked down and burned in the late fourth century. In the middle east, Islam did the same job a few cemturies later.

    Nietzsche used the German analagous to 'judaeo-christian' as a pejorative.

    It did not appear in its current usage until the late 1940s, at an ecumenical conference of Jews and heretics.

    It did not enter common usage, particularly among US politicians, until the 1990s.

    The term with its current meaning is nothing but a toxic propaganda meme, and is clearly used as such.
  9. @Svigor
    This "no fly no buy" thing is a great example of how incestuous and hive-minded our "discourse" in the corporate media has become.

    1. Due process. Ever heard of it, ye budding tyrants? You can't strip American citizens of their Constitutional Rights just because some bureaucrat put him on a "no fly" list because stupid, because personal grievance, because political vendetta, because typical gov't SNAFU, or just because because. The Supreme Court would tear it a new one.

    2. The "if you're too dangerous to fly, you're too dangerous to buy a gun" thing actually calls the idea of letting the gov't decide people shouldn't fly without due process into question, not the other way around.

    Stupid leftists.

    The funny thing is, all the Republicans had to do to kill this tyrannical bill is to insist on due process for the people forbidden their Constitutional Rights; the Dems refused to vote for it.

    Stupid leftists.

    Stupid rightists. Have you ever thought to oppose all of these secret lists?

    Read More
  10. Of course these kind of tactics compromise freedom (or liberty, if you like that term better). But the freedoms of the Constitution presupposed a homogeneous, white, high-trust population (no author of the Second Amendment seriously supposed that it covered Negroes or Indians). As the U.S. descends into a multi-racial, multi-cultural empire, with many low-trust tribal enclaves, rule will have to be increasingly by an iron fist suited to such cultures. Only in a white ethno-state can liberties such as those recognized by the Second Amendment, and other aspects of the Constitution, be respected.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jtgw
    It is true that blacks and Indians were generally excluded from citizenship. At the same time, Americans of the founding generation were pretty diverse in their own way. That was one reason they insisted on a highly decentralized government, according to Tom Woods. At a time when religious differences still led to a lot of friction, you have to wonder why they thought it a good idea to let most people bear arms.
    , @dc.sunsets
    So let's get back to the homogeneous society.
  11. Dr. X says:

    As if to underscore his ignorance of American values, one of the senators even stated that due process is killing us. He must have forgotten his oath to uphold the Constitution, which guarantees that the government may not take life, liberty or property without due process.

    Why is a sitting U.S. Senator this ignorant? Because the public he supposedly serves is even more ignorant, that’s why.

    I’d be willing to bet $500 that not more than one in ten thousand Americans even knows what the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments say. A pretty significant number of Americans are grossly obese, tattooed freaks waddling about drooling while mesmerized by football scores, porn, and “tweets” on their iPhones.

    The ease with which they can be duped by Jewish lawyers into surrendering their Constitutional rights without even the hint of a fight is frightening.

    Read More
  12. aandrews says:

    “As if to underscore his ignorance of American values, one of the senators even stated that due process is killing us.”

    Which one? (And why not just name him and save me the trouble of asking.)

    Read More
  13. Excellent work, Judge. All of it true. Thank you for defending our great nation.

    Read More
  14. Dr. X says:

    Which one? (And why not just name him and save me the trouble of asking.)

    Joe Manchin, D-WV. Former governor.

    A lying, two-faced Fudd who claimed he would never take anyone’s guns away. He actually campaigned by taking a rifle and shooting a hole in Obama’s cap-and-trade bill. As soon as he got to D.C. after tricking the yokels into giving him a six-year term he did a 180 and got cozy with Schumer and the gun-control crowd.

    Slimy creep. Typical Democrat a-hole.

    Read More
  15. Thus spake Andrew Napolitano:

    “Americans need not demonstrate a compelling need to speak or bear arms; the government must demonstrate a compelling need to prevent us from doing so.”

    His talk on the failings of the Constitution at Mises, 2010: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sNWbiAMf80
    The Judge is mystery guest here – watch the kids’ reaction when he parts the curtains. Halfway through, one student calls out, “Judge, I think you’re an anarchist and you just don’t know it yet.” The Judge replies, “Do you hear me denying anything?”

    Read More
  16. Rehmat says:

    Every time some idiot mentions the so-called AMERICAN VALUES, it reminds me US vice-president Joe Biden’s to some Jewish folks in a synagogue: AMERICAN VALUES ARE JEWISH VALUES.

    “The truth is that Jewish heritage, Jewish culture, Jewish values are such an essential part of who we are that it’s fair to say that Jewish heritage is American heritage. The Jewish people have contributed greatly to America. No group has had such an outsized influence per capita as all of you standing before you and all of those who went before me and all of those who went before you,” said Biden on May 21, 2013.

    Well, Biden with two Zionist Jews in his family, was no lying. Jewish historian Hasia R. Diner in book, ‘A New Promised Land: A History of Jews in America’, has claimed that the US is the land promised to Jews in the Bible.

    If one study gun control history from some objective source, he/she will find that the greatest supporters of gun control are Jewish lawmakers and the Jewish organizations such as ADL, AJC, and B’nai B’rith. So whom those false flag operations serve?

    https://rehmat1.com/2013/12/18/joe-biden-american-heritage-is-jewish-heritage/

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    The Idjuns got the Palestinian treatment for sure while the newcomers had no objective claim on the occupied lands ... so there indeed is some overlap here.

    Starting to tally it all and to attribute it instead of relying on nice stories that better not be examined closely right now always is like opening a closet of skeletons...
  17. This enemy of the Constitution and the law is Joe Manchin, a dimocrat (of course) senator from the once proud state of West Virginia. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/16/joe-manchin-lets-mask-slip-due-process-killing-us/

    But let’s be honest here. Federal violations of the Constitution have been regularly occurring since the 1960s. The second Bush oversaw many serious federal violations of Constitutional law. Then, almost unbelievably, the blatancy, frequency and gravity of these violations began increasing and at an accelerating pace under the current president, who ironically once masqueraded as a teacher of Constitutional law.

    This President has unconstitutionally spent unappropriated funds on policies that Congress specifically forbade; unconstitutionally prevented the enforcement of congressional mandates; and publicly harangued a captive Supreme Court over decisions of which he does not approve. That he has not been impeached is a testament to the corruption of our political system.

    That the population has revolted against power-mad federal politicians and bureaucrats and the elites who support and batten off them is mute testimony that a large majority of persons residing in the USA are unfit to be citizens of a constitutional republic.

    Read More
  18. El Dato says:
    @Rehmat
    Every time some idiot mentions the so-called AMERICAN VALUES, it reminds me US vice-president Joe Biden's to some Jewish folks in a synagogue: AMERICAN VALUES ARE JEWISH VALUES.

    “The truth is that Jewish heritage, Jewish culture, Jewish values are such an essential part of who we are that it’s fair to say that Jewish heritage is American heritage. The Jewish people have contributed greatly to America. No group has had such an outsized influence per capita as all of you standing before you and all of those who went before me and all of those who went before you,” said Biden on May 21, 2013.

    Well, Biden with two Zionist Jews in his family, was no lying. Jewish historian Hasia R. Diner in book, ‘A New Promised Land: A History of Jews in America’, has claimed that the US is the land promised to Jews in the Bible.

    If one study gun control history from some objective source, he/she will find that the greatest supporters of gun control are Jewish lawmakers and the Jewish organizations such as ADL, AJC, and B'nai B'rith. So whom those false flag operations serve?

    https://rehmat1.com/2013/12/18/joe-biden-american-heritage-is-jewish-heritage/

    The Idjuns got the Palestinian treatment for sure while the newcomers had no objective claim on the occupied lands … so there indeed is some overlap here.

    Starting to tally it all and to attribute it instead of relying on nice stories that better not be examined closely right now always is like opening a closet of skeletons…

    Read More
  19. @Avalanche
    "Thomas Jefferson ... the United States was wedded to the Judeo-Christian principle"

    Are you too young to remember that for the vast vast majority of the history of the U.S. -- from before it became the U.S. -- there was NO SUCH THING as "Judeo-Christian." When-the-hell did the churches and the mainstream get taken over to create this idiotic -- and subversive -- meme to somehow include Jews in the creation of this country?! WHY is that now the required descriptor? (How about "Deist-Christian" -- that's closer to reality! How about *just* Christian?)

    (And I am actually ANTI-Christian -- I think Christianity was specifically and intentionally designed, developed, and pushed to sap the strength and honor of WHITE MEN through-out our history; but the Hellenic and Roman and Germanic, and Norse, and other WHITE civilizations and tribes had a big part in making it less about worshiping a vicious jewish tribal mountain godlet (and destroying White cohesion), and more into a religion that could build European civilization.)

    Now? It's just one more way to destroy White civilization. Stop falling for (and repeating!) the LIE that somehow "Judeo" was involved in anything but the DESTRUCTION of the White race and all that race has created!

    Yours is an extremely distorted, ignorant, ideologically inspired, and puerile understanding of the history of Christianity, which is founded on the claim of divine personhood of one human being, who was a Semite, and the followers of which were initially not at all a match with your epithet of “white” men and civilization.

    The whole business of how the many diverse Christian traditions developed is enormously complex, as any introductory historical analyses will reveal.

    Read More
  20. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    As George Callin pointed out, you have no rights. You have privileges. His reference point was the incarceration of thousands of Japanese Americans in 1942. Nobody in this world has rights. God didn’t give us any rights. There are no God given rights. History shows clearly that governments will abuse its exclusive power of coercion when ever it feels threatened. Clearly your privilege to have guns is considered a threat. So “no fly” “no buy”. In secret or not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I commend the old formula that rights flow from duties: that is the duries of others. Thus you have a right if someone else pr evrylne else has a dity to you whoch gives you the vpntent of that right. It is a legal right if it is one a court would enforce for you.

    Why isn't the ability to buy poisons as unrestricted as the right to buy guns. Does the author criticise government for attempting to limit people's freedom in relation to guns but not toxins simply because of the interpretation some judges prefer of of a >230 year old Constitution?
  21. Rehmat says:

    I’m no fan of Barack Hussein Obama. I rarely listen to his speeches which are usually full of religious and political lies except when he delivers them at the NY-based UN Headquarters. On Tuesday, after watching Obama’s crocodile tears during his White House speech announcing executive action on gun control, I had to admit the dude has great potential of having a successful career at Hollywood.

    Obama wiped away tears as he recalled 2012 Sandy Hook massacre hoax.

    “Every time I think about those kids it gets me madder,” Obama said. Watch video below.

    Several Jewish groups have praised new executive actions by Barack Obama to reduce gun violence. During his speech, Obama was cheered by leaders from the National Council of Jewish Women, Jewish Women International, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, ADL, AJC, Central Conference of Rabbis, and of course former Jewish Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who faked a shooting attack in a Tucson suburb in 2011…

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/01/08/jews-for-obama-on-gun-control/

    Read More
  22. […] Source: ‘No Fly, No Buy’ Means No Freedom – The Unz Review […]

    Read More
  23. Che Guava says:
    @Auntie Analogue
    Thank you, Judge Napolitano, for your lucid, irrefutable exegesis of our Second Amendment right.

    Judeo-Christian embraces the Hebrew source of Christianity; there is nothing wrong or misleading about the term. Christ was Himself a Jew, so were His disciples, so was John the Baptist. The Christian Bible includes both the Old Testament and the New Testament; Christian belief holds that Christ is the Messiah promised to Israel in the Old Testament: hence, Judeo-Christian. In most contexts the term is not philo-Semitic, it's simply descriptive of the root of Christianity embedded in the Old Testament.

    If you bothered to check, Auntie, you will find that ‘judaeo-christian’ or ‘judeo-christian’ is a relatively novel formulation, almost never seen before WWII.

    In the earlier (and theological) usage, it referred to the Judaising strain in early Christianity. A close reading of the Acts of the Apostles , which reveals many doctrinal differences, even at that very early stage, will give you a sense of that usage.

    St. Paul, although a Jew, Hellenised and of course a Roman citizen, does not fall under that description. You can see the difference if you look at the NT as it is, particularly if you look at the Acts of the Apostles and most of the epistles of Paul, among other places.

    This becomes more stark when the Marcionite prologues to the epistles of Paul

    http://www.textexcavation.com/marcioniteprologues.html

    and the reconstructions of much of his canon

    http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/Marcionite_Bible.html

    are considered. I believe these were the original versions, with the ‘Judaeo’ parts being later interpolations, for reasons both of internal logic and age of the collection (Marcion’s was the first NT canon, predating that of Irenaeus by many decades).

    That no ancient mss survive, except judaized versions with the prologues intact (in itself evidence of the authenticity of the Marcionite versions) is easily explained. In the west, they were systematically tracked down and burned in the late fourth century. In the middle east, Islam did the same job a few cemturies later.

    Nietzsche used the German analagous to ‘judaeo-christian’ as a pejorative.

    It did not appear in its current usage until the late 1940s, at an ecumenical conference of Jews and heretics.

    It did not enter common usage, particularly among US politicians, until the 1990s.

    The term with its current meaning is nothing but a toxic propaganda meme, and is clearly used as such.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Auntie Analogue

    "The term with its current meaning is nothing but a toxic propaganda meme, and is clearly used as such."

     

    So, my dear Che Guava, sez you.

    The novelty of a term doesn't necessarily make it "toxic," and I've never come across "Judeo-Christian" used pejoratively. Apparently the term makes you and some others bristle. So, for you, tough cookies. For me, a useful term.

    De gustibus non est disputandum.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I've never considered what might be the contrast to Judaeo-Christian and give it definition.

    "Not Muslim" perhaps except that the timing of its use seems wrong.

    What about much greater Protestant than Catholic enthusiasm for the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament?

    Was it a case of enlisting all civilised theists against rising agnosticism and atheism?

  24. @Che Guava
    If you bothered to check, Auntie, you will find that 'judaeo-christian' or 'judeo-christian' is a relatively novel formulation, almost never seen before WWII.

    In the earlier (and theological) usage, it referred to the Judaising strain in early Christianity. A close reading of the Acts of the Apostles , which reveals many doctrinal differences, even at that very early stage, will give you a sense of that usage.

    St. Paul, although a Jew, Hellenised and of course a Roman citizen, does not fall under that description. You can see the difference if you look at the NT as it is, particularly if you look at the Acts of the Apostles and most of the epistles of Paul, among other places.

    This becomes more stark when the Marcionite prologues to the epistles of Paul

    http://www.textexcavation.com/marcioniteprologues.html

    and the reconstructions of much of his canon

    http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/Marcionite_Bible.html

    are considered. I believe these were the original versions, with the 'Judaeo' parts being later interpolations, for reasons both of internal logic and age of the collection (Marcion's was the first NT canon, predating that of Irenaeus by many decades).

    That no ancient mss survive, except judaized versions with the prologues intact (in itself evidence of the authenticity of the Marcionite versions) is easily explained. In the west, they were systematically tracked down and burned in the late fourth century. In the middle east, Islam did the same job a few cemturies later.

    Nietzsche used the German analagous to 'judaeo-christian' as a pejorative.

    It did not appear in its current usage until the late 1940s, at an ecumenical conference of Jews and heretics.

    It did not enter common usage, particularly among US politicians, until the 1990s.

    The term with its current meaning is nothing but a toxic propaganda meme, and is clearly used as such.

    “The term with its current meaning is nothing but a toxic propaganda meme, and is clearly used as such.”

    So, my dear Che Guava, sez you.

    The novelty of a term doesn’t necessarily make it “toxic,” and I’ve never come across “Judeo-Christian” used pejoratively. Apparently the term makes you and some others bristle. So, for you, tough cookies. For me, a useful term.

    De gustibus non est disputandum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    So you ignore reasoned speech that may challenge your own corralled opinions. Fine. Welcome to your closed mind.
  25. @Anonymous
    As George Callin pointed out, you have no rights. You have privileges. His reference point was the incarceration of thousands of Japanese Americans in 1942. Nobody in this world has rights. God didn't give us any rights. There are no God given rights. History shows clearly that governments will abuse its exclusive power of coercion when ever it feels threatened. Clearly your privilege to have guns is considered a threat. So "no fly" "no buy". In secret or not.

    I commend the old formula that rights flow from duties: that is the duries of others. Thus you have a right if someone else pr evrylne else has a dity to you whoch gives you the vpntent of that right. It is a legal right if it is one a court would enforce for you.

    Why isn’t the ability to buy poisons as unrestricted as the right to buy guns. Does the author criticise government for attempting to limit people’s freedom in relation to guns but not toxins simply because of the interpretation some judges prefer of of a >230 year old Constitution?

    Read More
  26. @Che Guava
    If you bothered to check, Auntie, you will find that 'judaeo-christian' or 'judeo-christian' is a relatively novel formulation, almost never seen before WWII.

    In the earlier (and theological) usage, it referred to the Judaising strain in early Christianity. A close reading of the Acts of the Apostles , which reveals many doctrinal differences, even at that very early stage, will give you a sense of that usage.

    St. Paul, although a Jew, Hellenised and of course a Roman citizen, does not fall under that description. You can see the difference if you look at the NT as it is, particularly if you look at the Acts of the Apostles and most of the epistles of Paul, among other places.

    This becomes more stark when the Marcionite prologues to the epistles of Paul

    http://www.textexcavation.com/marcioniteprologues.html

    and the reconstructions of much of his canon

    http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/Marcionite_Bible.html

    are considered. I believe these were the original versions, with the 'Judaeo' parts being later interpolations, for reasons both of internal logic and age of the collection (Marcion's was the first NT canon, predating that of Irenaeus by many decades).

    That no ancient mss survive, except judaized versions with the prologues intact (in itself evidence of the authenticity of the Marcionite versions) is easily explained. In the west, they were systematically tracked down and burned in the late fourth century. In the middle east, Islam did the same job a few cemturies later.

    Nietzsche used the German analagous to 'judaeo-christian' as a pejorative.

    It did not appear in its current usage until the late 1940s, at an ecumenical conference of Jews and heretics.

    It did not enter common usage, particularly among US politicians, until the 1990s.

    The term with its current meaning is nothing but a toxic propaganda meme, and is clearly used as such.

    I’ve never considered what might be the contrast to Judaeo-Christian and give it definition.

    “Not Muslim” perhaps except that the timing of its use seems wrong.

    What about much greater Protestant than Catholic enthusiasm for the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament?

    Was it a case of enlisting all civilised theists against rising agnosticism and atheism?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    I recommend that you read my earlier post. ... but I suppose you did and are just being a troll.
  27. Che Guava says:
    @Auntie Analogue

    "The term with its current meaning is nothing but a toxic propaganda meme, and is clearly used as such."

     

    So, my dear Che Guava, sez you.

    The novelty of a term doesn't necessarily make it "toxic," and I've never come across "Judeo-Christian" used pejoratively. Apparently the term makes you and some others bristle. So, for you, tough cookies. For me, a useful term.

    De gustibus non est disputandum.

    So you ignore reasoned speech that may challenge your own corralled opinions. Fine. Welcome to your closed mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Auntie Analogue
    "So you ignore reasoned speech that may challenge your own corralled opinions. Fine. Welcome to your closed mind."

    My dear Che Guava, 'tis nothing to do with what you misapprehend to be my "closed mind": you're welcome to your opinion, and I'm welcome to mine.

    Further, you seem to have confused or conflated "reasoned speech" with hair-splitting casuistry. Schooled by the Jesuits were you? - or perhaps by Talmudic scholars?

    Heaven forfend that you should bother to examine the context in which an author uses a term. For you the term itself has to be uniformly "toxic." On that account, I decline politely to buy the bridge you're trying to sell.

  28. […] Judge Naps takes down arguments for “No Fly, No Bye.” The Judge lays out his case for preventing the erosion of more of our natural rights. Read Here. […]

    Read More
  29. Che Guava says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I've never considered what might be the contrast to Judaeo-Christian and give it definition.

    "Not Muslim" perhaps except that the timing of its use seems wrong.

    What about much greater Protestant than Catholic enthusiasm for the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament?

    Was it a case of enlisting all civilised theists against rising agnosticism and atheism?

    I recommend that you read my earlier post. … but I suppose you did and are just being a troll.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Do you think you covered the whole field for discussion, including motivation? I think not. Your plunge into condemnation of "current usage" as toxic and stemming from some post WW2 event that very few users of the expression would have heard of surely leaves room for speculation about less "toxic" elements of causation. Speculation isn't trolling - is it?
  30. @Che Guava
    So you ignore reasoned speech that may challenge your own corralled opinions. Fine. Welcome to your closed mind.

    “So you ignore reasoned speech that may challenge your own corralled opinions. Fine. Welcome to your closed mind.”

    My dear Che Guava, ’tis nothing to do with what you misapprehend to be my “closed mind”: you’re welcome to your opinion, and I’m welcome to mine.

    Further, you seem to have confused or conflated “reasoned speech” with hair-splitting casuistry. Schooled by the Jesuits were you? – or perhaps by Talmudic scholars?

    Heaven forfend that you should bother to examine the context in which an author uses a term. For you the term itself has to be uniformly “toxic.” On that account, I decline politely to buy the bridge you’re trying to sell.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Dear Auntie Analogue,

    I gave an accurate account of the history of usage, from paper sources as well as the 'net.

    Your preferred interpretation of the term is a relatively recent innovation, as I demonstrated.
  31. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Yet we have the IRS who seizes property without a warrant or due process.

    We have “Asset forfeiture” which confiscates property without due process or warrant.

    We have the military draft which is “involuntary servitude”.

    There are many. And no one can get this changed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    Dorothy, we're not in Kansas any more.

    Glenn Greenwald's Proud to be an American song is a crock.
  32. bart h. says:
    @Avalanche
    "Thomas Jefferson ... the United States was wedded to the Judeo-Christian principle"

    Are you too young to remember that for the vast vast majority of the history of the U.S. -- from before it became the U.S. -- there was NO SUCH THING as "Judeo-Christian." When-the-hell did the churches and the mainstream get taken over to create this idiotic -- and subversive -- meme to somehow include Jews in the creation of this country?! WHY is that now the required descriptor? (How about "Deist-Christian" -- that's closer to reality! How about *just* Christian?)

    (And I am actually ANTI-Christian -- I think Christianity was specifically and intentionally designed, developed, and pushed to sap the strength and honor of WHITE MEN through-out our history; but the Hellenic and Roman and Germanic, and Norse, and other WHITE civilizations and tribes had a big part in making it less about worshiping a vicious jewish tribal mountain godlet (and destroying White cohesion), and more into a religion that could build European civilization.)

    Now? It's just one more way to destroy White civilization. Stop falling for (and repeating!) the LIE that somehow "Judeo" was involved in anything but the DESTRUCTION of the White race and all that race has created!

    the Jews are actually Canaanites, Amorites, and Hittites; but, not Hebrew or semantic. They have lied to us about everything and we bought it lock, stock and barrel. Their god is actually Baal! The Jews did not kill Christ but they would it they could. The churches that advertise proudly that they are Zionist are traitors to Christ.

    Read More
  33. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The “due process” argument is beside the point. The “no fly” list is a “bill of attainder” with respect to everyone on it. All “bills of attainder” are unconstitutional per se, as soon as they come into existence–whether Congress passes them or purports to delegate statutory authority to someone in the Executive Branch to create them.

    Read More
  34. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    In Canada government administrators have the power arbitrarily to recognize or deny the existence of degrees earned at chartered Canadian universities. If you somehow get on the list of proscribed persons, your life will not be easy. Nor will any higher authority (all of which seem to be utterly indifferent to injustice) come to your aid.

    Read More
  35. Jtgw says: • Website
    @Diversity Heretic
    Of course these kind of tactics compromise freedom (or liberty, if you like that term better). But the freedoms of the Constitution presupposed a homogeneous, white, high-trust population (no author of the Second Amendment seriously supposed that it covered Negroes or Indians). As the U.S. descends into a multi-racial, multi-cultural empire, with many low-trust tribal enclaves, rule will have to be increasingly by an iron fist suited to such cultures. Only in a white ethno-state can liberties such as those recognized by the Second Amendment, and other aspects of the Constitution, be respected.

    It is true that blacks and Indians were generally excluded from citizenship. At the same time, Americans of the founding generation were pretty diverse in their own way. That was one reason they insisted on a highly decentralized government, according to Tom Woods. At a time when religious differences still led to a lot of friction, you have to wonder why they thought it a good idea to let most people bear arms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    You raise a good point. The 17th Century English Bill of Rights's assertion of a right to keep and bear arms was a reaction to monarchical attempts to disarm Englishmen of another religtion (I think Catholic kings wanted to disarm Protestant subjects). Perhaps the Founders were comfortable enough with a recognition of the right because it was linked to service in the "well-regulated militia," where militia leaders and members could keep an eye on dissenters and heretics. The were also very distrustful of a standing army, but knew they needed some kind of military force to repel invasion and keep the Indians (and in the South, the blacks) in line. So risking armed religious conflict may have been the lesser evil. Just speculation on my part.
  36. @Che Guava
    I recommend that you read my earlier post. ... but I suppose you did and are just being a troll.

    Do you think you covered the whole field for discussion, including motivation? I think not. Your plunge into condemnation of “current usage” as toxic and stemming from some post WW2 event that very few users of the expression would have heard of surely leaves room for speculation about less “toxic” elements of causation. Speculation isn’t trolling – is it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Sorry, my comment on the etymology of the term was perfectly accurate and lucid.
  37. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Avalanche
    "Thomas Jefferson ... the United States was wedded to the Judeo-Christian principle"

    Are you too young to remember that for the vast vast majority of the history of the U.S. -- from before it became the U.S. -- there was NO SUCH THING as "Judeo-Christian." When-the-hell did the churches and the mainstream get taken over to create this idiotic -- and subversive -- meme to somehow include Jews in the creation of this country?! WHY is that now the required descriptor? (How about "Deist-Christian" -- that's closer to reality! How about *just* Christian?)

    (And I am actually ANTI-Christian -- I think Christianity was specifically and intentionally designed, developed, and pushed to sap the strength and honor of WHITE MEN through-out our history; but the Hellenic and Roman and Germanic, and Norse, and other WHITE civilizations and tribes had a big part in making it less about worshiping a vicious jewish tribal mountain godlet (and destroying White cohesion), and more into a religion that could build European civilization.)

    Now? It's just one more way to destroy White civilization. Stop falling for (and repeating!) the LIE that somehow "Judeo" was involved in anything but the DESTRUCTION of the White race and all that race has created!

    I agree, Judeo/Christian are an anathema to one another. People of the judeo religion use the Book the Talmud and in it, it says Jesus/Yashua is in hell burning in his own excrement and that Mother Mary is a Whore. The Christian religion reveres both of Jesus and Mary.

    How can any so called educated person put these two together in any kind of agreement /fellowship or sentence of consensus?

    Just shows how dumb so many people and so many churches are.

    Judeo-Christian should never be linked together, it’s like saying God-Satan or Sarah Brady-Charlaton Hesston …..

    But alas we travel in a sea of sheep from what I see in my daily travels both figuratively and literally

    Read More
  38. @Diversity Heretic
    Of course these kind of tactics compromise freedom (or liberty, if you like that term better). But the freedoms of the Constitution presupposed a homogeneous, white, high-trust population (no author of the Second Amendment seriously supposed that it covered Negroes or Indians). As the U.S. descends into a multi-racial, multi-cultural empire, with many low-trust tribal enclaves, rule will have to be increasingly by an iron fist suited to such cultures. Only in a white ethno-state can liberties such as those recognized by the Second Amendment, and other aspects of the Constitution, be respected.

    So let’s get back to the homogeneous society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    From your lips (or keyboard) to God's ears, good sir. I'm with you, but it's going to be a rough ride! I honestly see no peaceful way out of this situation, although I'm not advocating violence.
  39. @Anonymous
    Yet we have the IRS who seizes property without a warrant or due process.

    We have "Asset forfeiture" which confiscates property without due process or warrant.

    We have the military draft which is "involuntary servitude".

    There are many. And no one can get this changed.

    Dorothy, we’re not in Kansas any more.

    Glenn Greenwald’s Proud to be an American song is a crock.

    Read More
  40. joef says:

    a) Gun control is not just about the 2nd Amendment, its also about property rights. A citizen should not be threatened to have his property seized for the bad acts of another.
    b) Its also about the absolute right of self protection.
    c) And its also creeping liberal objectives: when did liberals ever stop making new demands for new legislation, even after a compromise legislation package that they have gotten part of what they have wanted? Answer is Never; liberal politicians will always push for new legislation to get the entirety what they want, while they chastise the opposition for alleged failure to compromise.
    d) liberals use sophistry and obfuscations to misrepresent the truth in order to get their way – – in other words there is no honesty in their debate because their political objectives is all that matters to them.
    e) Guns will always be obtainable through the black market just like drugs, alcoholic beverages during prohibition, and consumer items during WW II.
    f) Guns were always widely available in this nation but mass shootings were not. Thus the real answer is our modern culture has made mass shootings easier to perform.
    g) Even if Terrorist could not get guns they will use knives or explosives as demonstrated in other incidents in the past.
    h) Its not just an attack on gun rights but an attack on Use Of Force and the right of self protection. This is done through the Zimerman case (doubt that Trayvon bashed the head of Z after Trayvon was shot) and controversial police shootings. We are not talking small over zealous police departments booming doors with a swat team to issue a parking ticket (which is commonly referred to as militarized police).
    - – But by attacking police legitimate use of force we also attack our own rights to use force to protect ourselves. If you confronted a 300 lbs strong arm robber, and in the course of struggle for your own gun you were shot in the hand, and the aggressor is till coming after you, and you feared for your life, do you think you may have to shoot the aggressor (Ferguson) ?
    Deny the police, deny yourself as well, because if you think the libs will let you keep your right to use justified force after taking them away from the police, I have a bridge to sell you too (you get it Rockwell readers – – probably not, anarcho capitalist are obtuse utopians just like any Marxist would be).

    Read More
  41. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Excellent article. What is not mentioned, but should be part of the discussion is the fact that nobody gets notified once they end up on this list. They have to find out the hard way.

    We also need to remember that there is no judicial review available for anyone who finds him/herself listed. So the lack of due process is really two-fold: there is none when you get on, and there is none when you try to remove yourself.

    Read More
  42. @dc.sunsets
    So let's get back to the homogeneous society.

    From your lips (or keyboard) to God’s ears, good sir. I’m with you, but it’s going to be a rough ride! I honestly see no peaceful way out of this situation, although I’m not advocating violence.

    Read More
  43. @Jtgw
    It is true that blacks and Indians were generally excluded from citizenship. At the same time, Americans of the founding generation were pretty diverse in their own way. That was one reason they insisted on a highly decentralized government, according to Tom Woods. At a time when religious differences still led to a lot of friction, you have to wonder why they thought it a good idea to let most people bear arms.

    You raise a good point. The 17th Century English Bill of Rights’s assertion of a right to keep and bear arms was a reaction to monarchical attempts to disarm Englishmen of another religtion (I think Catholic kings wanted to disarm Protestant subjects). Perhaps the Founders were comfortable enough with a recognition of the right because it was linked to service in the “well-regulated militia,” where militia leaders and members could keep an eye on dissenters and heretics. The were also very distrustful of a standing army, but knew they needed some kind of military force to repel invasion and keep the Indians (and in the South, the blacks) in line. So risking armed religious conflict may have been the lesser evil. Just speculation on my part.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    Perhaps, but my real point is that widespread possession of weapons seems to have more to do with LACK of trust than with trust.
  44. Che Guava says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Do you think you covered the whole field for discussion, including motivation? I think not. Your plunge into condemnation of "current usage" as toxic and stemming from some post WW2 event that very few users of the expression would have heard of surely leaves room for speculation about less "toxic" elements of causation. Speculation isn't trolling - is it?

    Sorry, my comment on the etymology of the term was perfectly accurate and lucid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    So? You undermine your claims to respect by failing to acknowledge (and, one therefore presumes, to see and understand) that I wasn't disputing either your lucidity or your accuracy. Your answer is, as a judge might point out to an obtuse or fudging witness, non-responsive.
  45. Che Guava says:
    @Auntie Analogue
    "So you ignore reasoned speech that may challenge your own corralled opinions. Fine. Welcome to your closed mind."

    My dear Che Guava, 'tis nothing to do with what you misapprehend to be my "closed mind": you're welcome to your opinion, and I'm welcome to mine.

    Further, you seem to have confused or conflated "reasoned speech" with hair-splitting casuistry. Schooled by the Jesuits were you? - or perhaps by Talmudic scholars?

    Heaven forfend that you should bother to examine the context in which an author uses a term. For you the term itself has to be uniformly "toxic." On that account, I decline politely to buy the bridge you're trying to sell.

    Dear Auntie Analogue,

    I gave an accurate account of the history of usage, from paper sources as well as the ‘net.

    Your preferred interpretation of the term is a relatively recent innovation, as I demonstrated.

    Read More
  46. jtgw says: • Website
    @Diversity Heretic
    You raise a good point. The 17th Century English Bill of Rights's assertion of a right to keep and bear arms was a reaction to monarchical attempts to disarm Englishmen of another religtion (I think Catholic kings wanted to disarm Protestant subjects). Perhaps the Founders were comfortable enough with a recognition of the right because it was linked to service in the "well-regulated militia," where militia leaders and members could keep an eye on dissenters and heretics. The were also very distrustful of a standing army, but knew they needed some kind of military force to repel invasion and keep the Indians (and in the South, the blacks) in line. So risking armed religious conflict may have been the lesser evil. Just speculation on my part.

    Perhaps, but my real point is that widespread possession of weapons seems to have more to do with LACK of trust than with trust.

    Read More
  47. @Che Guava
    Sorry, my comment on the etymology of the term was perfectly accurate and lucid.

    So? You undermine your claims to respect by failing to acknowledge (and, one therefore presumes, to see and understand) that I wasn’t disputing either your lucidity or your accuracy. Your answer is, as a judge might point out to an obtuse or fudging witness, non-responsive.

    Read More
  48. notsaying says:

    If No Fly = No Buy = No Freedom

    Then

    Why isn’t No Fly = No Freedom?

    If we can keep people from flying in certain circumstances, then why can’t we restrict their ability to buy guns in certain circumstances?

    I do not understand the reasoning that accepts government’s power to keep people off planes.

    Read More
  49. woodNfish says:

    If the government secretly can put an American’s name on a secret list and, as a result, his liberty is lost, then there are no freedoms — just government-granted privileges. And if it can do this to the natural rights to travel and self-defense, can other fundamental rights be far behind?

    There is no right to travel freely in this country already. The government requirement that you have a drivers license, and licenses on all your vehicles (including bicycles and boats over 10′ in length in most stated) took that right away.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.