The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 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
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Campaign for Liberty"
 All Comments / On "Campaign for Liberty"
    They’ve done it again. The Campaign for Liberty, which gave away an assault rifle in April, followed up with a “tactical shotgun” Remington model M870 to one lucky supporter in May! The accompanying letter for the assault rifle states that “There can be no freedom without the ability to defend it. C4L is standing up...
  • @Trumped
    http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/

    As far as the old cliche Giraldi repeated above about "the people would have no chance against thr government" line, they also tend to be the types to think that the govt could go door to door and simply take all firearms away. Check out the link above, where former Delta Force and Black Hawk Down vet Paul Howe completely disagrees - and this is from someone who knows all too well about the state fighting the populace and is an expert on tactics and weapons.

    If you read between the lines, it is also pretty clear he is referencing a 4GW plan that the people would do on their own spontaneously. The people like Giraldi who argue about war with the people vs the state tend to think like the British did in the colonies or the soviets in Afghanistan or the Americans in Vietnam: that war is tactical instead of political, and that the two sides will line up in front of each other and have a "fair" fight. Instead, the reality of the guerrilla fighter is they choose the time, place, and target.

    I think two recent examples prove Howe correct. Take a look at how one mediocre cop in LA shut down and terrified an entire police department - to the point that the "well trained" lapd shot out a truck of a young Hispanic woman while looking for a 300 lb black man - luckily, as usual they missed with all their shots so no one was hurt. The entire department was scared and it basically tied everyone up until dorner was found.

    In Boston, two kids managed to literally have an entire city shut down with armored vehicles and who knows how many cops on the scene pointing weapons at civilians. Despite this, the cops playing commandos still missed the one terrorist alive - a homeowner discovered him in his boat. When the cops arrived, they fired off hundreds of rounds - and as usual, hit everything but the unresisting and unarmed target, including putting a number of holes in nearby houses.

    My point with these two stories? That one obese mediocre cop and two kids managed to tie up entire giant urban police departments who acted alone with no support. I can't imagine how badly it would have gone for the cops had some additional people been working with them and set up ambushes to the sitting duck Barney fifes playing commando. Now extend this principle to hundreds of thousands or even millions who do more than just attack govt agents, but also cut off supplies for stations, attack the homes of govt agents, etc as Paul Howe references.

    And all of this is done with the assumption that 100 percent of the govt would stay on the side of the govt in such a gun confiscation attempt. And knowing many people in the military and cops, that is a laughable and absurd proposition. Not to mention all of the vets who are far better trained on tactics and calm under fire than the Barney fife types out there who are radically pro gun.

    Lastly, I will close with this quote by Col Jeff Cooper, who came up with many of the tactics used by police and military still to this day for gun fighting: "The politicians don't care about people killing each other with rifles. What scares them about seeing civilians with AR15s and AK47s is imagining them being used against them one day!"

    The small Provisional Irish Republican Army managed to continue a war in a heavily policed, militarized, surveilled, area the size of CT for 30 years while their enemy, the UK government, enjoyed every advantage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Mr Giraldi, I’ve gotten an impression that in spite of your military service and former CIA employment, that your knowledge about firearms is limited. I’m not sure if anyone’s addressed it yet ( the comments don’t seem to load for me using the show comments button) but what was given away was what is legally, in some jurisdictions, referred to as an assault weapon, not an assault rifle, a real assault rifle being defined under US law as a machine gun. It’s not an uncommon mistake, the term being misused by both proponents and opponents of firearms ownership, however for accuracy I thought you may want to know. I’ll also point out assault weapons are no more, and many even arguably less, dangerous than common semi automatic hunting weapons and that detachable box magazine fed semi automatic firearms go back to the 1800′s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • map says:

    Girardi wrote,

    “Sebastian – Homicide rates have dropped for a number of reasons but there is no statistical correlation with the availability of assault rifles and there is no actual evidence that I know of that having weapons in the hands of numerous civilians has actually reduced the crime rate.”

    But there is no statistical correlation that availability of assault rifles or having weapons in numerous hands causes any increases in murders either. Why ban weapons when the evidence proving causation simply does not exist?

    All that can be said for certain is that there are no instances where massive availability of weapons has led to increase in the murder rate. So, why then, ban guns.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • map says:

    If the government really did not find private gun ownership a threat to its rule, then why is it so hell bent on banning private ownership of guns? If the strategic and tactical advantages swung in the government’s favor, then why is private gun ownership such a concern?

    No, the government wants to ban gun ownership because it wants to do bad things to you that could otherwise not be done if one is heavily armed.

    Remember, the purpose of government oppression is to convert the populace and its property to a resource to be used by The Powers That Be. The basic requirement for that kind of oppression is boots-on-the-ground. You need armed soldiers to do oppression properly because soldiers are surgical. Crew-based weapons like tanks and drones are not. They are binary. There is the threat of being destroyed and then…there is being destroyed. A crew-based weapon is not going to go door-to-door extracting families from their homes, separating them, confiscating their property, etc.

    The whole point of private ownership of even military-grade small arms is to raise the cost of such boots-on-the-ground operations to the point where no one will do it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The authors of the Second Amendment meant well. They could have no sense of how mentally disturbed 21st century Americans could be. How devoid of morality or ethics. How ignorant of their own history and the history of the world. How decadent. How drugged and boozed up. How unreliable and undisciplined.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Just because there hasn’t been a confrontation yet doesn’t mean there won’t be. Didn’t things get a bit close recently in Nevada? The overwhelming superiority of the state armamentarium doesn’t dictate an outcome, it dictates tactics. When economic collapse descends, and it will, the utilitarian calculations that prevent open rebellion now will cease to add up. In all events, lots and lots of guns and ammo in private hands is crucial due to the critically low, and rapidly declining, ratio of the population disposed by temperament or intelligence to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the preservation of ordered liberty. That ratio is dark, ugly, useless, and growing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Phil, you and I were both raised in New Jersey. Perhaps we might be more accepting of the culture beyond the Delaware. It worker for a long time.

    I now live in Pennsylvania, right across the river from Trenton, capitol of the Peoples Republic of New Jersey. Everyone on my side of the river is armed to the teeth, yet very little shooting. Trenton NJ has some of the most restrictive anti-second amendment laws in the country. They just celebrated their 26th gun homicide.

    We both know that guns aren’t the driving force behind so called gun crime.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • ” Actual instances of an armed civilian preventing a shooting are so few as to be statistically insignificant ”

    Mass shootings of children at schools are “statistically insignificant ” compared to “children” killing each other in vibrant urban gang war zones.

    If you really want to bend the Constitution to make a significant dent in such shootings, why not start with the 4th amm. and sweep the neighborhoods clean of those thugs and their guns? Chicago would be a good start.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Did you read the Paul Howe article? And do you think the American govt could confiscate arms going door to door? A delta force guy who has fought against guerrillas is about as good an opinion as possible on the subject.

    As far as your points about rebellions that have been put down – what they all had in common was an attempt to fight in a traditional sense. If two armies meet and fight in a traditional manner and one is vastly superior, the superior army will obviously win.

    But when guerrilla style tactics were used – like the colonies in the South after they seceded from British rule – then things change dramatically. The only exception to this was the Indians, but they actually help make the point for me – they were largely disarmed and did not have the ability to shoot back, and they were wildly outnumbered. The colonies, the afghans, the Vietnamese all suffered crushing defeat after defeat in battle – and yet all of them forced the other side to lose their will to keep fighting bc war is political, not tactical.

    Tet was a major military defeat for the Vietnamese, but a political humiliation for the US. Ditto with the Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia. The military objective was achieved, but it resulted in America pulling out bc of political reasons. What do you think reaction will be when video makes it online of innocent Americans being droned to death?

    As far as today’s society, you are right that most people are lazy and worthless. But even in colonial days, around a 1/3 supported fighting the British and a fraction of that did the actual fighting – probably in the single digits of the population. There are millions of military vets who are either combat vets or trained. Even assuming everyone in the military and police went along – which is not even close to being accurate – with attacking the people, the govt would still be outnumbered. Also, Compared to the Vietnamese and afghans, Americans are much, much better trained on military tactics and have light years better skill with firearms – it is not even close. Remember, there are who knows how many millions of vets who know govt tactics on fighting guerrillas already.

    Lastly, the point about govts using drones is very relevant to the Paul Howe blog entry. Where will the drone fly out of? How will the base get supplies? How are they sure things like power and water will remain online? What neighborhood does the drone operator live in? Where does his family live? How will the govt agents protect their houses and families who live off base?

    The gigantic disadvantage of a military living in the same area it is conquering is that the same tactics they use can easily be used against them at times and places the people pick. How can that be defended? A fatass mediocre cop terrified and tied up the entire lapd after he went after them, and two skinny kids literally had an entire city shut down with martial law and hundreds of cops and tanks looking for them – imagine what a few million vets and good civilian marksmen would do?

    In CT, a police officer shared your views and joked about how he would take guns and kick down doors for fun if he was ever given the order. When it was publicized on the Internet, the result was the cop getting around the clock protection from other cops and his chief admitted that the guy and the whole dept was terrified of being a target – hammers don’t usually like being turned into nails – and they begged the gun rights people to forgive the guy after they apologized.

    They were scared bc they had no idea how many, what time, or what location a possible attack could come from. Magnify that by a few million, throw in Internet video of innocent people being slaughtered via drone to piss off millions more people, and then you have a nasty and bloody war the government could never win.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Afghanistan, Vietnam, and the American colonies are totally different from modern American proles who cannot take care of themselves. Those people survived on their own while modern Americans are about as helpless as the people in the “Brave New World.” If things became serious I think the US would lay siege, cut everything they can to isolate and starve the population, and use whatever was at their disposal including drone strikes and robots. Most Americans would probably surrender if their local Walmart ran out of food. If they manage to go to a grocery store they would still need to have access to an unfrozen bank account. They are dependent on the system and they cry when there is talk about a nearby military base closing. It would be interesting if otherwise poor areas bit the hand that fed them. The interstate system provides easy access to most parts of the country. The freer the people, the more their road system looks like spaghetti because it is much harder for the rulers to get to them. Authoritarian regimes like easy access to get troops into areas.

    They don’t need to take the guns when they can slowly boil the frog like they are doing. Also American rebellions have been repeatedly defeated by the US government including the Whiskey Rebellion, the Confederacy, and the Coal miners of Blair Mountain (they surrendered). Native Americans didn’t stand a chance either.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I already specifically responded to the standard argument above. But to paraphrase, you are thinking in terms of direct “fair” conflict instead of 4GW. The british in the colonies, the soviets in afghan, and the americans in vietnam and currently in afghanistan – where “pee shooters” seem to be doing pretty well against advanced american technology – all thought the same way as you. You are also making the same mistake as the american military who bragged about winning all of the battles in vietnam – wars are not tactical, they are political in nature.

    Also, the problem that those who side with the government have is they think that guerilla war is about winning. It isn’t about winning, but just making things so ugly for the other side that they lose the will to fight – just as Vietnam did to america, afghan is currently doing to america, afghan did to the soviets, and the southern colonies in particular did to the British.

    Do you feel the american govt could just go in and crush dissent by going door to door and confiscating firearms, as pretty much everyone with your view does? Here is an actual expert on such things, Delta Force member made famous from his experience in Black Hawk Down on how the government would be crushed if it tried such a thing:

    http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/

    Check it out if you – if you read between the lines, what he says is very much a terrifying prospect for would be tyrants in government as long as citizens are armed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Federalist 46,

    The military’s capability has grown exponentially since Madison wrote that. Civilians aren’t going to have F-35s and tanks parked in their backyard. There is such a disparity in military technology between civilians and the government now that any fight would be one sided. Why should civilians with pee shooters scare powerful tyrants who have access to modern military equipment? Guns can be used for defending ones home from intruders or hunting, but they aren’t going to defend against tyranny.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Jeff button,

    I completely agree. The mindset of allowing the government to have a monopoly on violence is something that subjects think, not citizens. Gee, it is almost as if the Founders thought about how other nations did not trust the people with arms, and were able to spread tyranny as a result. The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, agreed with you in Federalist 46:

    “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

    Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.

    But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Missing in Mr. Giraldi’s article and in this comments discussion is any exploration of a central factor in many if not most gun massacre murders: violent media product, which, perhaps more than any other influence, shapes Americans’ attitudes about violence, gun violence in particular.

    Based on news reports, since 2011 just five gun massacre shooters who have been identified in news reports as obsessed with violent media product, have killed some 129 innocent victims. Four of these, Mohammed Merah (2012, France, 7 dead), Anders Breivik (2011, Norway, 77 dead), Adam Lanza (2012, Connecticut, USA, 26 dead) and Aaron Alexis (Washington, DC, USA, 13 dead) are reported to have been obsessed with and trained for their shootings with one particular first-person-shooter video game, Call of Duty. Elliot Rodger (2014, California, USA, 6 dead), who by his on report was obsesses with violent video games from adolesence was obsessed with a violent video game called World of Warcraft, which was also a favorite of the Washington Navy Yard shooter, Aaron Alexis. Rodger may or may not have also used Call of Duty games. News reports about Breivik’s and Merah’s violent rampages strongly suggest that, as a factor in gun massacres, violent media product is not only an American problem but, rather, one that knows no national boundaries. Indeed, some countries ban some violent video games on the basis of violent content. Two countries (Switzerland and Venezuela, a study in contrasts) ban all violent video games. The USA bans no violent video games on the basis of violent content.

    The best readily available overview of the relevant social science research, a policy paper by created by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2009 provides persuasive evidence that violent media product is, in fact, a causative factor in increased aggression and desensitization to violence in society, and that violent media product is especially harmful to children. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/124/5/1495.full

    The entertainment industry shelters behind the First Amendment in order to pump enormously lucrative, violent, socially-destabilizing media product into American popular culture with criminal abandon. Likewise, the NRA more an gun manufacturers lobby than a gun owners lobby, shelters behind the Second Amendment in order to market, almost without meaningful restrictions, the semi-automatic weapons preferred by video game addict mass murderers. The leaders of these two industries have a symbiotic relationship and exercise wildly inordinate influence over our elected representatives in Washington, DC and in state capitals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • What you are completely missing the mentality of gun ownership and a society of gun ownership. I suspect you have never been around guns or spent a long time in a community in which is it’s normal (even expected) that people own guns. It subtlety changes your attitude toward your responsibility for your own security and your obligations to your neighbors.

    The idea of living some place where no one owns guns is repugnant to me. It would living like a sheep.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon,

    So you advocate banning firearms from the people who aren’t committing the crimes in hopes that the people who do will stop fighting over drugs that are already illegal? What exactly is your proposal and how do you intend to accomplish this? Following Lincoln’s plan and shipping all the blacks to Africa and Haiti?

    Leaving aside that the constitution says you are wrong and could never do this, it would be a miserable failure just like the gun bans in DC and Chicago for decades. All that would result would be a giant increase in crime on a now disarmed white population.

    Let’s send over all of our illegal immigrants and blacks from the inner city and see how proud you Aussies still are of your gun bans then! You would be begging for a second amendment within a month or two.

    By the way, I can tell you don’t have much actual experience with America if you think the police are here to handle violence. I know someone who defended a home invasion attempt with a firearm and it took the police over twenty minutes to arrive – she would be dead if we had followed your policies. this is actually fairly common throughout the vast majority of the nation aka flyover country, where cops often take a great deal of time to respond bc they are too busy doing drug busts to do anything about real crimes.

    Police also have zero legal responsibility to help citizens, as the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times. By the way, on the question of banning all handguns like you advocate, around 75 percent of the public opposes such a measure according to gallup, and probably even more would oppose a ban on everything – so good luck with that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Federalist 46, i mentioned blacks. You have to read between the lines.

    “For the most part, city dwellers and suburbanites are not that violent. For the little violence that does occur, the police are there to handle it. But America does have a problem. It has a significant fraction of its population that is not adapted to city or suburban living. Unz’s knows what i’m talking about because he wrote a pretty good article about it. Any talk of gun politics in the US is foolish if it ignores this element.”

    http://www.unz.com/article/race-and-crime-in-america/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “Homicide rates have dropped for a number of reasons but there is no statistical correlation with the availability of assault rifles”

    There is a statistical correlation. Homicide rates have dropped as gun ownership has soared. That’s a statistical correlation. Now, you could argue, correctly, that correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

    “and there is no actual evidence that I know of that having weapons in the hands of numerous civilians has actually reduced the crime rate”

    There is significantly less evidence that I know of that having weapons in the hands of numerous civilians has actually increased the crime rate. In fact the opposite is the case. If you want to make a persuasive argument for tougher gun control then you need to come up with something better than “guns lead to murder”, because that notion is unproven at best.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anyone who thinks that threatened or real violence is going to lead to liberty domestically is under just the same delusion as a government that thinks armed violence overseas is going to spread democracy, freedom, peace and safety. It doesn’t work, either abroad or at home, whether government-sponsored or individual vigilantism. Phil Giraldi is right – these folks obsessed with maximum personal firepower are doing nothing to reform the government’s abuses of power, which can’t be redressed by violent confrontation in any case.
    It is gross hypocrisy, however, and self-serving, for elites to covet their own weapons of mass destruction, while tsk-tsking at the same gun fetish by the proles they rule.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “To my mind there is something very unhealthy about the current demands for unlimited “open carry”

    This phenomenon is not very hard to understand. The people have had all of their other freedoms stolen one by one. So, they distract themselves by going overboard with this. It makes them feel good to think that they are still free in some respect when they are in reality not. It’s a nice diversion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Giraldi

    You wouldn’t be complaining about guns and law abiding citizens owning them if you weren’t offended by us proles owning them and clearly you are upset when you see law abiding citizens doing a open carry.

    It doesn’t offend me in the last to see open carry. Heck I’m old enough to remember a time in California when we have gun racks in pick ups and guns in them. People weren’t afraid of them either not to mention we didn’t have a tenth of the problems we do today thanks to liberalism.

    As for the 2nd Amendment. What don’t you understand Mr. Giraldi. We as human beings have a god given or natural right to self-defense and preservation and if we use a semi-auto rifle or hi cap Glock to do it, what business is of yours? None.

    Guns are like tourniquets, you may never need one, but if you do, you better have one.

    We don’t need your sanction or that of the state to do so nor do we need to beg for one of your overpaid and pampered nasty little men with machine guns to come to our aid when by the time they arrive all they can do is provide a rape kit or body bag.

    Yeah that’s how about how much worth the police are when seconds counts and they are minutes away.

    As for a armed rebellion against the government that is dead serious business. Lots of people will die and the country can be wrecked for good by it. This is why sane people don’t call for it, it’s the last option on the table that no one except the insane and Progressives/Communists look forward to.

    But here’s a great article that deals with how hurt your buddies on the government teat should that day come.

    http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2013/01/dear-mr-security-agent-cautionary-essay.html

    As to the child deaths via guns. Well that a Leftist soap box made out of the corpses of children to yank at the heartstrings of the misinformed. More kids die in swimming pools every year than school shootings. You don’t see gun grabbers filling in pools do you? No.

    It’s all about contro and ideologyl with them.

    The fact is school shootings is a new phenomenon, it didn’t happen in earlier eras where guns were much easier and cheaper to get. In the 40′s and 60′s in rural areas it wasn’t uncommon for schools to have shooting clubs or kids take their guns to school to go hunting afterwards.

    Imagine that, young boys with impulse control and being able to know right from wrong carrying guns. And today just wearing a NRA tee shirt to school will get you suspended, the same with drawing a gun or thinking about one.

    Now the mass shootings of today aren’t driven by guns, they’re just a symptom of the state and liberal beliefs that drugging little white boys to the gills with powerful psychotropics because they can’t adjust to factory style schooling is the proper thing to do. Then the state and it’s agents instill in them a totally self-indulgent anything goes value system that puts self-gratification and ego worship at the forefront.

    Really what did you think was going to happen when you pump little boys full of dangerous drugs that even the manufacturer of them has stated they aren’t for children and filled their mind with the shit pushed in school and TV?

    Well some of them will turn into Frankenstein and go on a rampage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    One other point: doesn’t anyone else find it funny that the gun control advocates use almost the exact same argument and tactics as those who assault civil liberties, push for a continued drug war, and cncourage war abroad?

    1. The bills must be passed after a tragedy and high period of emotion – we can’t have people think logically about this

    2. The bills are rushed through with as lite debate as possible

    3. The DC media is in favor of all of them

    4. Lines about how “times have changed” or the “constitution is out of date” are used quite a bit – along with dismissing anyone who actually quotes the constitution or the founders on the subject

    5. Many references to “the children”

    6. Ignoring of actual statistics and relying instead on playing to the emotion of highly charged and biased media reports

    7. “Public safety” trumps everything else – and “no right is absolute ” and “we respect the constitution, but….”

    All of the above reminds me of the political justification for the war on drugs, the patriot act, the ndaa, drone strikes on civilians, and gun prohibition. Luckily, a lot of the same people make the exact same arguments on those issues – Obama, Feinstein, difk durbin, biden, pelosi, Romney, Peter king, David forum, etc

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • It always amuses me when someone from an almost all white commonwealth nation like the Aussie above brags about their gun bans and then blames gun related crimes on minorities and immigrants.

    Just who exactly do you think is doing the gun crime in America? Here is one of many, many examples. A recent study in Chicago found that the non fatal gun violence rates were around 1 per 100k people among whites, 28 per 100k among Hispanics, and 112 per 100k among blacks!

    Without getting into possible reasons for that, it just always amazes me that the Aussie and British fascist gun banners think that their situation is in any way comparable to ours. And then when violence is referenced or brought up there, it is always some minority or immigrant that is blamed.

    Come take a look at america, where virtually all of the shootings and murder with firearms – now at 20 year lows – take place among Mexican illegal immigrants and inner city blacks who are typically fighting over illegal drug turf. Yeah, if we banned all the white people from having guns in America I am sure that the same minorities who are fighting over the already illlegal drug trade will stop killing each other and it will be just as effective as the war on guns.

    In fact, I still remember in the late 90s when states were thinking about adopting conceal carry laws and all the same gun prohibitionists like the Aussie above shouted and screamed that if people were allowed to carry pistols the murder rate would skyrocket. Instead, we have seen the exact opposite – and the gun control movement in America permanently discredited and laughed at for being so wrong. Sarah Brady even had to rename her group, and the media pretend they never said such things. Even Benito Bloomberg has to at least pretend he respects the second amendment and lie about his real goals these days.

    It is also why states that have huge levels of firearms in them and are almost all white states have extremely low levels of murder like New Hampshire and Vermont, while areas like DC and Chicago that banned private firearm ownership for decades have astronomical crime. Bloomberg only brought NYC murder rates down because he racially profiled and targeted all non white and Asians for random frisking – something that is a blatant assault on civil liberties, but was able to get away with because he is a liberal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/

    As far as the old cliche Giraldi repeated above about “the people would have no chance against thr government” line, they also tend to be the types to think that the govt could go door to door and simply take all firearms away. Check out the link above, where former Delta Force and Black Hawk Down vet Paul Howe completely disagrees – and this is from someone who knows all too well about the state fighting the populace and is an expert on tactics and weapons.

    If you read between the lines, it is also pretty clear he is referencing a 4GW plan that the people would do on their own spontaneously. The people like Giraldi who argue about war with the people vs the state tend to think like the British did in the colonies or the soviets in Afghanistan or the Americans in Vietnam: that war is tactical instead of political, and that the two sides will line up in front of each other and have a “fair” fight. Instead, the reality of the guerrilla fighter is they choose the time, place, and target.

    I think two recent examples prove Howe correct. Take a look at how one mediocre cop in LA shut down and terrified an entire police department – to the point that the “well trained” lapd shot out a truck of a young Hispanic woman while looking for a 300 lb black man – luckily, as usual they missed with all their shots so no one was hurt. The entire department was scared and it basically tied everyone up until dorner was found.

    In Boston, two kids managed to literally have an entire city shut down with armored vehicles and who knows how many cops on the scene pointing weapons at civilians. Despite this, the cops playing commandos still missed the one terrorist alive – a homeowner discovered him in his boat. When the cops arrived, they fired off hundreds of rounds – and as usual, hit everything but the unresisting and unarmed target, including putting a number of holes in nearby houses.

    My point with these two stories? That one obese mediocre cop and two kids managed to tie up entire giant urban police departments who acted alone with no support. I can’t imagine how badly it would have gone for the cops had some additional people been working with them and set up ambushes to the sitting duck Barney fifes playing commando. Now extend this principle to hundreds of thousands or even millions who do more than just attack govt agents, but also cut off supplies for stations, attack the homes of govt agents, etc as Paul Howe references.

    And all of this is done with the assumption that 100 percent of the govt would stay on the side of the govt in such a gun confiscation attempt. And knowing many people in the military and cops, that is a laughable and absurd proposition. Not to mention all of the vets who are far better trained on tactics and calm under fire than the Barney fife types out there who are radically pro gun.

    Lastly, I will close with this quote by Col Jeff Cooper, who came up with many of the tactics used by police and military still to this day for gun fighting: “The politicians don’t care about people killing each other with rifles. What scares them about seeing civilians with AR15s and AK47s is imagining them being used against them one day!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ino
    The small Provisional Irish Republican Army managed to continue a war in a heavily policed, militarized, surveilled, area the size of CT for 30 years while their enemy, the UK government, enjoyed every advantage.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • You said we need common sense measures but didn’t suggest any. I have one. Let’s round up all guns and make all guns illegal. That should work right? I mean it seems to have helped in the inner city of Detroit where gun laws are very strict.

    I have my assault rifle and shotgun for a very specific reason which i hope and pray never occurs. When the government money dries up and the welfare and section 8 housing is gone, i want to know i can go down fighting instead of showing my behind as i run for the hills. Yes i will be put down, but i intend to make it as difficult as possible.

    I wonder what would have happened if our forefathers would have been so easily dissuaded from their grand mission when they saw the might of the British Army and Navy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • People who like guns, support gun rights, collect them, and shoot them are not the ones killing people. In the inner cities, its gangs that mostly kill people. And the mass shooters come almost exclusively from liberal suburbs. They are the spawn of lefties.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “I think it was shown that firearms ownership was not particularly restricted under the government of the late Saddam Hussein as long as one was not on the government’s ‘bad’ list.”

    Do you realize how uncompelling this argument is? The amount of qualifications that final cause provides to the preceding thought? The government bad list included seventy percent of the country’s population i.e Shias.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • ” Homicide rates have dropped for a number of reasons but there is no statistical correlation with the availability of assault rifles and there is no actual evidence that I know of that having weapons in the hands of numerous civilians has actually reduced the crime rate.”

    This is a really good argument. Let’s extend this logic a little. I see no evidence (indeed his own never ending stream of articles agree) that anything Philip Giraldi has ever written has in any way changed the dynamic of Israeli-US relations. I would be grateful if he would stop writing. The Giraldis of the world want to elevate a throw away John Quincy Adams quote about foreign policy dragons into dogma, but are so interested in the actual founding doctrines of this nation that they are eager to affix inane consequentialist conditions on the Bill of Rights.

    You can always tell the shills because they want to talk about walls of separation and dragons abroad rather than you know the actual founding documents of this country. The “there are a lot of bad guys out there we need to do something” logic is the same logic Giraldi wails like Banshee about when it is used to defend domestic spying or a strong military.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Ron Paul has a problem with whoring out his name. He is going to regret it if one of those weapons is used to harm people. If the economic conditions in the US deteriorate enough I can imagine people rebelling and stealing as they try to survive. I think the US government is prepared for any shenanigans with the surveillance state, and the removed restrictions on the military to act inside the US. The C4L is delusional if they think they have a chance against the US military on its own turf. I wonder how fast the US government could shut them down and leave them helpless. They would just provide the excuse for the US government to be even more repressive and be the poster child of the dangerous right wing militias the government harps about. If they wanted to defend freedom they would boycott the people and groups that support taking it away from them in order to gain concessions. Their immature behavior is no different than the Neocon keyboard warriors who find personal glory and enjoyment at the thought of violence. If they were personally confronted with the Hollywood blockbuster fantasies going on in their imaginations I bet they wouldn’t be so cheeky about it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] UNZ – They’ve done it again. The Campaign for Liberty, which gave away an assault rifle in April,followed up with a “tactical shotgun” Remington model M870 to one lucky supporter in May! The accompanying letter for the assault rifle states that “There can be no freedom without the ability to defend it. C4L is standing up for freedom every day by fighting to Audit the Fed, repeal ObamaCare, stop NSA spying, and reclaim our Republic. But each and every one of us has a God-given right – and duty – to defend freedom. That’s why C4L is giving away a brand new Daniel Defense DDM4 AR-15. The AR-15 will come with Magpul MBUS front and rear sights and two Magpul mags. All you have to do is sign up for free below for your chance to win!” […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Greenstalk
    ".. the whole notion that a heavily armed society is somehow safer is difficult to take seriously"

    I don't know why you think that, as the homicide rates have dropped sharply even as the sales of so-called "assault weapons" have soared.

    Sebastian – Homicide rates have dropped for a number of reasons but there is no statistical correlation with the availability of assault rifles and there is no actual evidence that I know of that having weapons in the hands of numerous civilians has actually reduced the crime rate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “.. the whole notion that a heavily armed society is somehow safer is difficult to take seriously”

    I don’t know why you think that, as the homicide rates have dropped sharply even as the sales of so-called “assault weapons” have soared.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
    Sebastian - Homicide rates have dropped for a number of reasons but there is no statistical correlation with the availability of assault rifles and there is no actual evidence that I know of that having weapons in the hands of numerous civilians has actually reduced the crime rate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “.. as mass murders of children become more common aided and abetted by the easy access to guns ”

    Guns used to be much, MUCH easier to come by than they are now, and there were fewer nutjobs running around killing people. Guns themselves have not changed, and the laws limiting access to guns are far more restrictive than they used to be. What’s changed are people – and that’s due to the triumph of liberalism.

    Read More
    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    There is no place for guns in a modern, western democracy. None. Sure, if you’re a free ranger out in the wild west (or the sticks as we call it in Australia), or a farm, then owning a gun is understandable, but if you live in the suburbs or the city, then there should be no need for it. Why? For the most part, city dwellers and suburbanites are not that violent. For the little violence that does occur, the police are there to handle it. But America does have a problem. It has a significant fraction of its population that is not adapted to city or suburban living. Unz’s knows what i’m talking about because he wrote a pretty good article about it. Any talk of gun politics in the US is foolish if it ignores this element.

    Now, i do empathise with Obama. America has a lot of fanatical libertarian types who would attack the state if Obama got serious about gun control. What to do with these people? I don’t know. They are pure ideologues who will never change their mind. They justify their arms race as a means to keep government in check. What rubbish.

    If the US wanted to, it could destroy anybody it pleased with a well placed drone strike. Gunmen pose no threat to the state. If they want to barricade themselves in a building, out of sight of a drone, then a well placed missile will make short work of them. Talk of fighting the US is absolute madness.

    Now the Taliban can pull it off, so maybe the “american patriots” are right after all? Well this is something that I can’t really answer, so perhaps my above paragraph isn’t true? But then again, the taliban do engage in unscrupulous tactics, much like HAMAS, and these tactics would be very difficult to set upon fellow Americans.

    Australia got rid of it guns after a massacre much worse than Rodger or the Nevada Wall mart ones. Since then, we’ve had no massacres, and unsurprisingly most of our gun crime , at least in Sydney, is committed by our our “middle eastern” immigrants,” and it’s mostly gang/klan warfare between rival families.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Mr. G:

    I think people cling to the 2nd amendment because it is virtually the last natural right that remains to them.

    They somehow rationalize that as long as they have that one left they are not living in a police state. Of course they have lost all the others including some that are not even enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I think it was shown that firearms ownership was not particularly restricted under the government of the late Saddam Hussein as long as one was not on the government’s ‘bad’ list.

    I don’t see the government being confronted by an armed populace. But I also don’t see the government confronting the armed populace. Not because they would shrink from genocide (review the Morgenthau plan). Not because of the violence – personally I believe that most of those who profess belief in firearms freedoms would cave before a government determined to confiscate firearms. I think it would just be due to plain bad p.r. If there are only 60 million firearms owning households and only 1 in 1000 chose to resist that would mean 60 thousand armed swat raids. That’s a lot of tv newsbytes.

    I would also argue that there are no public safety issues involved. Why? No legislative nostrum ever proposed has had any demonstrable effect on those issues in this or any other country.

    One possible exception: Widespread adoption of Concealed Carry MAY (note emphasis) have had some tendency to reduce crime.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @conatus
    Giraldi says, "the absurd implication that if you have a gun it will help you secure “freedom” in case you have to turn it against the government some day is utter nonsense and should be exposed for the persistent fraud that it really is."

    I would disagree. Why? The intimidation factor. Sure the government could win a gun conflict with its citizens but with many guns in the hands of the people it would be expensive to the government and that is a factor they consider.

    From the law review titled 'Of Holocausts and Gun Control by Polsby
    "Governments have exterminated or cooperated in the extermination of something like one hundred and seventy million of their own people in the twentieth century.[107] This stark fact makes it reasonable to distrust the state and to fear the terrible crimes it may occasionally commit. However, this is only half an argument for an armed populace. The other half of the argument must meet the question whether, arrayed against the order of battle of a modern military, armed civilians could possibly do any good. What can a man with a gun do against a formation of tanks? How could irregulars, even if armed with modern repeating rifles, confront the rockets and Gatling guns of helicopter gunships? Does anyone seriously believe that had the German Jews only been armed, they might have successfully resisted the troops who crushed the largest armies in Europe between 1939 and 1941?

    The claim of futility is of course well-taken if what one has in mind is a showdown on Front Street between a man with a revolver and a crew with a tank. But depicting the problem in this way trivializes an important point and is seriously misleading. An armed citizenry is not an insuperable bar to genocide any more than an armed policeman is an insuperable bar to crime or a strong army an insuperable bar to aggression. The real question is whether a generally armed citizenry is capable of raising the expected cost of genocide (or for that matter ordinary crime) to a potential predator enough to make such disasters less likely to occur than would otherwise be the case, or if the disaster should befall, to make possible the escape of some victims and the resistance of others."



    Call me a fool but I believe that the gun deaths we experience are a small price to pay for not allowing our government to be able to intimidate us by holding a monopoly on the use of lethal violence.Gun control is really a way to intimidate the citizenry and take away all power from them. Once there is 'effective gun control' then the control of lethal violence will be a monopoly controlled solely by the state and all the citizenry will be appropriately terrified to take a stand on just about any subject.
    Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, an org. in Wisc., has a great chart, with cited laws, and the results of government monopolies on violence.

    http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart

    You will notice the numbers of dead, caused by gun control, are generally are in the millions.

    I hear you Joe but I somehow cannot envision a scenario in which the armed populace confronts our government in any serious way so as to force it to become less oppressive. The past thirteen years demonstrate that there is no trigger that will bring that about and I cannot see the US government, with all its faults, engaging in genocide. And also I am not arguing for gun control just some common sense steps to make people aware that there are public safety issues that have to be part of the discussion. No right is absolute. To me handing out military weapons to supporters in defense of a “right” is idiocy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Giraldi says, “the absurd implication that if you have a gun it will help you secure “freedom” in case you have to turn it against the government some day is utter nonsense and should be exposed for the persistent fraud that it really is.”

    I would disagree. Why? The intimidation factor. Sure the government could win a gun conflict with its citizens but with many guns in the hands of the people it would be expensive to the government and that is a factor they consider.

    From the law review titled ‘Of Holocausts and Gun Control by Polsby
    “Governments have exterminated or cooperated in the extermination of something like one hundred and seventy million of their own people in the twentieth century.[107] This stark fact makes it reasonable to distrust the state and to fear the terrible crimes it may occasionally commit. However, this is only half an argument for an armed populace. The other half of the argument must meet the question whether, arrayed against the order of battle of a modern military, armed civilians could possibly do any good. What can a man with a gun do against a formation of tanks? How could irregulars, even if armed with modern repeating rifles, confront the rockets and Gatling guns of helicopter gunships? Does anyone seriously believe that had the German Jews only been armed, they might have successfully resisted the troops who crushed the largest armies in Europe between 1939 and 1941?

    The claim of futility is of course well-taken if what one has in mind is a showdown on Front Street between a man with a revolver and a crew with a tank. But depicting the problem in this way trivializes an important point and is seriously misleading. An armed citizenry is not an insuperable bar to genocide any more than an armed policeman is an insuperable bar to crime or a strong army an insuperable bar to aggression. The real question is whether a generally armed citizenry is capable of raising the expected cost of genocide (or for that matter ordinary crime) to a potential predator enough to make such disasters less likely to occur than would otherwise be the case, or if the disaster should befall, to make possible the escape of some victims and the resistance of others.”

    Call me a fool but I believe that the gun deaths we experience are a small price to pay for not allowing our government to be able to intimidate us by holding a monopoly on the use of lethal violence.Gun control is really a way to intimidate the citizenry and take away all power from them. Once there is ‘effective gun control’ then the control of lethal violence will be a monopoly controlled solely by the state and all the citizenry will be appropriately terrified to take a stand on just about any subject.
    Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, an org. in Wisc., has a great chart, with cited laws, and the results of government monopolies on violence.

    http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart

    You will notice the numbers of dead, caused by gun control, are generally are in the millions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
    I hear you Joe but I somehow cannot envision a scenario in which the armed populace confronts our government in any serious way so as to force it to become less oppressive. The past thirteen years demonstrate that there is no trigger that will bring that about and I cannot see the US government, with all its faults, engaging in genocide. And also I am not arguing for gun control just some common sense steps to make people aware that there are public safety issues that have to be part of the discussion. No right is absolute. To me handing out military weapons to supporters in defense of a "right" is idiocy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Former Congressman Ron Paul of Texas is a genuine American hero. He stood for a new way of thinking about America’s place in the world and recognized that the war party and its policies were both destructive to the US Constitution and imperiling liberties at home. He is a national treasure. But I sometimes have...
  • Ron Paul was the only candidate who stood up against the Jewish lobby. For this he has been called a vicious Anti Semite, All the MSM including Fox lied and played down his campaign. Both parties are controlled which is why he was such a threat.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Wow, this article generated a lot of vitriol. Thanks, Phil, for the warning about Campaign for Liberty… NB, you have too much time on your hands. Or are you getting paid to write these long pieces? Just wondering…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Hey, Thomas. I have to say it is very encouraging to see that more and more Americans are realizing their ME foreign policy has been hijacked by the Lobby. If she was truly interested in combatting anti-Semitism, as she claims, she should be on the side of yourself and others who are doing their darndest to ensure US interests are promoted rather than those of a foreign country. If the latest resolution to scuttle the Iran deal passes in the Senate and Israel is given the green light to attack Iran, what do you think will be the reaction of the American people who have already indicated they are not interested in another ME war (as they did in the case of Syria)?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Hey geokat62! You don’t have to live in the Middle East to post late. In my case you just have to be a Pennsylvania night owl and retiree. As to my description of NB, Just click on her name and do a bit of Googling.

    I no longer engage her posts as it is useless to debate with zionists. What’s good for them is the truth. Anything running to counter to their project must be attacked. You can’t argue with blood. She has already resorted to playing the holocaust and hate cards. It’s all a matter of interests being propelled or attacked. He interest is obviously not mine as an American.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I realize I’ve arrived a little late to the party, but I couldn’t help but notice the strange times that NB was posting his/her comments:

    December 27, 2013 at 5:00 am

    December 28, 2013 at 2:03 am

    December 29, 2013 at 2:27 am

    December 31, 2013 at 4:36 am

    December 31, 2013 at 4:45 am

    January 1, 2014 at 5:01 am

    Although it was Thomas O Meehan, I believe, who somehow identified NB as “a young woman with a Masters Degree in Physics,” I wasn’t sure whether to write “his or her” because based on these odd times, either this individual with an MA in physics is suffering mightily from sleep deprivation or NB is in fact an hasbara troll most likely working from Haifa, Tel Aviv or Jerusalem… even if they were “born and raised in Boston” as NB claims!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Phil,

    Your comments on C4L are spot on. They completely strip away the antiwar message of Ron Paul, which is his greatest strength. And as you point out, it’s intentional.

    Did anyone know Ron well enough to ask him why he puts up with this?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Lou, it wouldn’t be the first time. Remember the newsletters.

    I remember Seymour Hersh talking about the sensors that were placed near Syrian chemical stock piles and that they would go off if the chemicals were mixed to create Sarin. Also he said the chemical had a very short shelf life so it would have to been used immediately. I suspect the cannibals did it. Also he said there are sensors that are monitoring the Iranian nuclear program. I hope with Obamacare people who think the Iranians are out to get them can get some anti-psychotics in order to calm down. Also we have this tribute thing backwards. Who has the Empire?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • My comment immediately above is addressed to Nurit Baytch.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “You call me “conniving” and “disingenuous” b/c I deny being an expert on the Federal Reserve and Stanley Fischer’s life story?”

    I call you conniving, disingenuous and slimy because it is quite obvious that your posts amount to nothing more than an endless exercise in special pleading on behalf of Israel and the noxious and pervasive lobby that undermine US strategy in its name. You yourself have conceded that Fischer’s dual loyalty “might” create a conflict of interest (though you are unwilling to take the logical next step based on all the evidence and admit his status as an Israel Firster). Yet you refuse to take a position on his nomination as Fed Vice Chair. Even if all you concede is a potential conflict of interest on his part, that should be more than enough to disqualify him from the position. So why do you refuse to do so? Don’t give us this transparently bogus “I don’t know much about anything, I’m just correcting misinformation” nonsense. No one is buying it.

    Your claim that Fischer, with his demonstrated record of pro-Israel actions, is anything but an Israel Firster IS the misleading statement that you claim you have never made. You are trapped in a labyrinth of your own mendacity. And yes, by trying to minimize and obfuscate Fischer’s Israel Firster status, your loyalty IS absolutely in question. If that offends you, too bad!

    As for “winge” (or “whinge”), you’ve hit the nail on the head when you point out that it is a synonym for “whine”. I rarely use the word, but in addressing your plaintive, self-pitying posts, one is forced to employ the word “whine” so often to describe your tone that synonyms simply must be used. Just set your little mind at ease–I am an American with only one passport—US.) As far as your friend goes, he sounds a lot like that other Israel Firster, Martin Indyk. Once an Australian, then hurriedly given US citizenship so he could “serve” Bill Clinton, Israel has never been far from his mind. He worked at AIPAC (of course), founded the Washington Institute for Near East Peace (WINEP), which is essentially a vehicle for pro-Israel propaganda. And of course, brought a naked pro-Israel bias to the various positions he held for the US government. With people like Indyk, Fischer and you, it’s no wonder our national strategy is in such sad shape. Disloyalty eats away at the foundation of the state and the nation.

    But I’m willing to give you another chance to redeem yourself—at least partially. Tell us frankly and honestly: Do you support Fischer for Fed Vice Chair or do you not. And don’t equivocate!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • KA says: • Website

    NB

    Support for a Palestine state bybIsraeli Firster is a contradiction in terms of ingrained behavior

    Otherwise why -”-But as Wasserman Schultz says in her statement below, she is for a Palestinian state. Naftali Bennett opposes any Palestinian state. “I will do everything in my power, forever, to fight against a Palestinian state being founded in the Land of Israel,” he said.”
    http://www.mondoweiss.net
    Shamir told that he would drag the peace process for 10 yrs and build meanwhile settlements
    Nathayahoo along with PNAC ( US) were explicit that Oslo peace process should be abandoned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • KA says: • Website

    Ted Koppel in Nightline Townhall interview later broadcast in ABC
    was threatening subtly Mandela with the power projection of AIPAC

    ” “If you were more political you might have been more concerned about alienating some people in this country who have it within their hands, within their power, either to continue sanctions against South Africa or to raise those sanctions” .He raised the issue of the support to Palestine by Mandela as the stumbling block. Same time Adelman of later Iraq fame was making character assassination of Mandela for supporting Arafat
    . http://www.mondoweiss.net

    Fisher will carry that big stick of sanctions ( Palestine, Iran ) now .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • KA says: • Website

    In 2002, Haaretz reported on a Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies poll taken by face-to-face interviews with 1,264 Jewish residents of Israel. Here are some of the results (all percentages are of Jewish citizens of Israel):

    46% are in favor of forcibly removing Palestinians from the occupied territories

    31% are in favor of forcibly removing Palestinian citizens of Israel from the country

    When asked in a broader fashion, 60% said they supported “encouraging Israeli Arabs to leave the country”

    61% believe Palestinians citizens of Israel pose a security threat to Israel

    Nearly 80% are opposed to Palestinian citizens of Israel “being involved in important decisions, such as delineating the country’s borders”

    72% are opposed to parties run by Palestinian citizens of Israel having a seat in a ruling coalition government

    40% support ceding control of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians as part of a peace agreement

    http://www.mondoweiss.net

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • KA says: • Website

    The repeated vacuous and hackneyed Hasabara claims of broader support for Palestine state have played Americans for a fool.


    The settlement of Ariel (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

    It’s peace process time again–and with it comes the trope that Israelis are ready for a two-state solution. That sentiment is accompanied by polls showing the same: that Israelis support the principle of two states for two peoples. But an examination of Israeli polls shows that nothing like a viable Palestinian state that would be acceptable to the Palestinian population is on the table.

    With the peace process in overdrive, media consumers have been treated to a lot of hopeful thinking. In the past month, journalists and analysts have lined up to say that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has the support of the Israeli people to make a peace deal–if he would just go ahead and buck his right-wing coalition.

    Writing in Foreign Policy, Brent Sasley says that there is “majority support, including among Jewish-Israelis, for talks and for a final settlement. One recent poll found that 62 percent of Israelis support a two-state solution.”

    In a piece on why there’s hope for a two-state deal, The New Republic’s Ben Birnbaum writes that “two-thirds of Israelis—including a majority of Likud and Jewish Home (!) voters—would support a peace deal that gave the Palestinians a state on 100 percent of the West Bank (with land swaps) with its capital in East Jerusalem.”

    The Guardian’s Michael Cohen similarly writes that “Israelis strongly support a two-state solution.”

    All three of those analysts link to articles in Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post that provide details on the same poll: a December 2012 study conducted by the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace showing that right-wing Israelis would support a Palestinian state. The polls–there were two in total commissioned by the center–surveyed Habayit Hayehudi and Likud voters, and found that the majority of them would support a Palestinian state. Conflict solved!

    Not so fast. The devil is in the details when it comes to a Palestinian state.

    As Haaretz’s Barak Ravid reports, the Palestinian state accepted by these right-wingers would be demilitarized–and the kicker is that Israel keeps all of the settlement blocs in this imagined deal. That means the settlements of Ma’ale Adumim and Ariel–two settlement “blocs” that are considered “consensus” settlements, or settlements that Israelis believe they will keep in a permanent peace agreement. Both Ma’ale Adumim and Ariel slice and dice the West Bank into pieces that take a viable Palestinian state off the table. And that’s just talking territory. Never mind the discussion about a demilitarized state.

    “Ma’aleh Adumim was established to break Palestinian contiguity,” Benny Kashriel, the mayor of the settlement, said in 2004.

    And even the leaders of the Palestinian Authority, who have shown themselves willing to give Israel a lot, were resistant to a deal that would keep Ariel in the hands of the Israelis, as the Palestine Papers showed. The same goes for the Palestinian population at large–especially since Ariel sits on top of major water resources that were once in Palestinian hands.

    A more recent poll conducted in June 2013 and cited by Sasley found that 62% of Israelis would support a two-state solution. But the same poll states that about 54% oppose dismantling most of the West Bank settlements, though the specifics of which settlements Israelis oppose dismantling are missing from the polling data.

    It may be, as Sasley wrote, that “public opinion in Israel has historically followed leaders’ efforts when they’ve pushed major decisions on war and peace.” But when you have a leader like Benjamin Netanyahu, who has vowed that Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim will remain in Israeli hands forever, there isn’t much cause for optimism.

    And a brand new poll concludes that 63% of Israeli Jews are opposed to withdrawing to the 1967 borders. The poll also shows 58% of Israelis opposing a peace agreement in which Israel has to dismantle some of its settlements but gets to retain Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim.

    Taken together, the polling data shows that Israelis are decidedly not interested in a peace deal that would give Palestinians a viable state of their own. It’s a depressing fact that steadfast believers in the peace process refuse to acknowledge.” http://www.mondoweiss.net

    Palestine Papers released by Guardian ( UK) showed how deep and ingrained is the plan in Israeli consciousnesses to deny any Palestinian presence in West Bank ,let alone the thought of a Palestinian state.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “AIPAC’s Fed Candidate Stanley Fischer on a Warpath Against Iran
    Dual-citizen nominee’s lifetime benefit to Israel comes at a heavy cost to America

    by Grant Smith, December 28, 2013
    http://www.antiwar.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • KA says: • Website

    “AIPAC’s Fed Candidate Stanley Fischer on a Warpath against Iran
    Dual-citizen nominee’s lifetime benefit to Israel comes at a heavy cost to America

    By Grant F. Smith, Director of Research, IRmep

    The rushed campaign to insert Stanley Fischer straight from his position leading Israel’s central bank into the number two spot at the Federal Reserve has allowed little time for research into the appointee’s career or for informed public debate about his record. Like the failed recent Obama administration-Israel lobby pincer move to ram approval for U.S. military strikes on Syria through Congress, avoiding such due diligence through velocity may actually be the only means for successful Senate confirmation.

    Some of Fischer’s accomplishments—from co-authoring a seminal textbook on macroeconomics to handling economic crisis at the IMF have—not surprisingly—been recalled by his many supporters. Other doings that shed light on Fischer’s controversial attributes—such as overhauling how U.S. aid and trade packages are delivered to Israel—have been mostly ignored. Appointing an openly dual Israeli-American citizen into the most important central bank in the world could be a watershed moment. While the doors of federal government have long swung open for Israel-lobby appointees focusing most—if not all—their energies on advancing the interests of a foreign state, any who were actually Israeli dual citizens have traditionally kept that a closely-guarded secret. Fischer’s long-term boosters, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), likely want to accustom Americans to openly dual citizens circulating between top roles in the U.S. and Israeli governments. A closer examination of Fischer reveals that average Americans have good reason to oppose his appointment, because his lifelong achievements for Israel have imposed high costs and few benefits to the United States while making peace more difficult to achieve.

    Economics

    Stanley Fischer was born in Northern Rhodesia in 1943. He studied at London School of Economics and received a PhD in economics from MIT. He taught and chaired the MIT economics department and co-authored a leading macroeconomics textbook with Rudiger Dornbusch. Fischer joined the World Bank in 1988 and became the first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1994. He oversaw emergency bailout lending and austerity programs over Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia, Russia, Brazil and Argentina. High flying Citigroup—under the helm of Sanford “Sandy” Weill—recruited Fischer in 2002. There he rose to become vice president with a seven-figure pay package.

    Israel

    Fischer has not only been an ardent supporter of Israel, his professional efforts began when he took sabbatical leave to Israel in 1972 and 1976-1977. He was a visiting scholar at the Bank of Israel in 1980. More importantly for Israel, Stanley Fischer won an appointment to the Reagan administration’s U.S.-Israel Joint Economic Discussion Group that dealt with Israel’s 1984-1985 economic crisis. In October of 1984, Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres arrived in Washington asking an initially reluctant Reagan Administration for an additional $1.5 billion in U.S. emergency funding—over and above the already-promised aid $5.6 billion aid package.[i] The help amounted to U.S. taxpayers funding each Israeli citizen $1,650. Another key component of the plan called for a largely unilateral lowering of U.S. tariffs and trade barriers to Israel, a program initially called “Duty Free Treatment for U.S. Imports from Israel” but later repackaged and sold as America’s first “free trade” agreement. Over time the FTA reversed a previously balanced U.S.-Israel trading relationship for one that has produced a cumulative deficit to the U.S. that passed $100 billion in 2013. Seventy American industry groups opposed to the give-away in 1984 were disenfranchised when Israeli Economics Minister Dan Halpern and AIPAC illegally obtained a classified compendium of their industry, market and trade secrets to use against them in lobbying and public relations. An FBI espionage and theft of government property investigation was quashed before it could narrow in on those inside the U.S. government who delivered the secrets to Halpern.

    The U.S.-Israel Joint Economic Discussion Group fundamentally transformed U.S. aid to Israel forever. Before the Reagan administration, most U.S. aid to Israel took the form of loans that had to be repaid with interest. After the input of Fischer’s team, subsequent U.S. aid was delivered in the form of outright grants paid directly from the U.S. Treasury—never to be repaid or conditioned when Israel took actions the U.S. opposed.

    Like many of Fischer’s later IMF austerity programs, the Joint Discussion Group initially announced that strings attached to the aid would make it temporary. Secretary of State George Shultz insisted during a 1985 address to AIPAC that “Israel must pull itself out of its present economic trauma . . . . No one can do it for them . . .our help will be of little avail if Israel does not take the necessary steps to cut government spending, improve productivity, open up its economy and strengthen the mechanisms of economic policy. Israel and its government must make the hard decisions.” [ii] Shultz wanted to make the huge American cash transfer conditional on major Israeli economic reforms, but intense AIPAC lobbying in Congress threatened to make the State Department influence irrelevant. In the end, Congress delivered aid without Israeli sacrifices, such as selling off bloated state-owned industries and spending belt-tightening. The proposed privatization of $5 billion in state enterprises threatened too much bureaucratic “turf” and too many jobs, so Israel put them on hold. Fischer apologetically characterized the Likud years as a “wasted opportunity by a government that should have known better.”[iii] Not until 1996 were Fischer’s proscribed economic remedies adopted by American neoconservative consultants to Benjamin Netanyahu as minor points in the “Clean Break” manifesto for Israeli regional hegemony. They remain among the few unimplemented tasks in a plan that called for military action against Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

    Despite the absence of any real economic reforms that would take Israel off the American taxpayer dole, Fischer co-wrote a blustering 1986 article for the Wall Street Journal called “Israel Has Made Aid Work” that AIPAC circulated widely as an official memorandum of its achievements. “Israel is the largest single recipient of economic aid from the U.S. This is partly because the economic stability of Israel is uncertain and is important to U.S. national interests. Therefore a report on the progress of the Israeli economy is relevant to policy decisions to be made here.” Fischer never bothered to substantiate his premise, that U.S. national interests were somehow served by the bailout or that any aid given to Israel produced tangible benefits. Instead Fischer delivered a fusillade of dry and all but unreadable statistics about Israel’s temporary economic performance. Issues of long-term importance to most Americans, such as returning U.S. aid to the traditional format of loans to be repaid and the likely impact of the FTA on U.S. jobs went unaddressed by Fischer. Fischer’s core achievement—that the transformation of aid from loans to outright taxpayer give-aways—has been unchanged since 1986. The premises behind this ever-increasing entitlement and one-sided FTA performance are likewise never reexamined by Congress—despite the fact that a majority of polled Americans have come to oppose aid increases to Israel. Fischer’s rare admonitions that Israel be held to account, unlike the economies he transformed through biting IMF austerity programs, have remained nothing more than lip service.

    At the end of 2004 Israel’s U.N. ambassador recruited Fischer to become the head of Israel’s central bank, asking, “Why not be our governor?”[iv] Fischer accepted and initially provided endless amusement to reporters by insisting on speaking Hebrew during press conferences and refusing to speak English. Initial concerns that Fischer’s global stature and experience would overshadow and chafe the relevant players in Israel proved unfounded as Fischer moved energetically into his new role. AIPAC continued to trumpet Fischer’s accomplishments steering Israel through the global financial crisis, though beneath the surface he was performing far more serious tasks for Israel and its global lobby.

    Iran Sanctions

    As Bank of Israel governor, Stanley Fischer played a central role in coordinating the implementation of AIPAC-generated sanctions against Iran—ostensibly over its nuclear program. Stuart Levey, the head of the U.S. Treasury Department’s division for “Terrorism and Financial Intelligence,” an office created after heavy AIPAC lobbying, met often with Fischer in Israel alongside the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and chiefs of both the Mossad and Shin Bet to explore how to “supplement” UN sanctions and end-run Russian and Chinese opposition.[v] The Levey-Fischer strategy was “to work outside the context of the Security Council to engage the private sector and let it know about the risks of doing business with Tehran” particularly against European banks that had only partially drawn back their business dealings with Iran. In 2010, Israel dispatched Fischer to meet with Chinese and Russian “counterparts” in order to financially isolate Iran.[vi]

    Fischer’s final official duties for the Israeli government included drilling for “big crisis” scenarios—specifically, Fischer told an Israeli television station—the unavoidable financial fallout of a military attack on Iran.[vii] “We do plans, we do scenarios, we do exercises about how the central [bank] will work in various situations.”[viii] After years targeting Iran, Fischer became convinced in his final months in Israel that sanctions alone were not enough to collapse its economy. Fischer reluctantly concluded that even as Iranian economic prospects “continue to go down” the country would likely “find a way to continue to keep economic life going.” [ix]

    Fischer suddenly resigned and left the Bank of Israel on June 30, before completing his second five-year term.

    Israelis into the Fed and then where?

    The last time Fischer’s name was floated to lead a major organization was during a rushed Bush administration attempt at damage control. In 2007, the controversial architect of the Iraq invasion and later World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz was engulfed in an ethics scandal over his pay and promotion package for Shaha Ali Riza. In two short years leading the institution, Wolfowitz catalyzed the alienation of most divisions within the bank and the distrust of economics ministries around the world. Fischer, along with Robert Zoellick and Robert Kimmitt and a handful of others, was considered as an emergency replacement while the administration and stakeholders strategized on how to ease Wolfowitz out with a minimum of scandal.[x] In the end, Fischer stayed put in Israel.

    It came as a surprise to many when The Wall Street Journal and Israel’s Channel 2 news simultaneously reported in early December 2013 that the White House was “close to nominating” Fischer to be appointee Janet Yellen’s second-in-command at the U.S. central bank.[xi] Media reports initially indicated that Fischer’s candidacy-to-Senate-confirmation would proceed on greased skids—with no Senate debate—taking only a week so that the pair could quickly take over the Fed in January. However, the Senate concluded its 2013 business without taking up the matter. The earliest date the measure could be put up for a vote is January 6, 2014. Even that date might slip since Senator Rand Paul and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell plan to delay the vote unless a long-languishing measure to “Audit the Fed” is also put up for a vote.

    This rushed approach has meant relatively little reporting on the deeper implications of having an openly dual Israeli-American citizen a heartbeat away from Fed chairmanship. That is unfortunate, since Israel and its U.S. supporters have many hidden reasons for wanting stronger influence at the Fed that they would likely prefer not to discuss.

    That the Fed is a key player in Iran sanctions implementation is certainly no secret. The Fed has been an equal partner in levying hundreds of millions in fines against foreign banks such as R.B.S, Barclays, Standard and Chartered and H.S.B.C. which were charged with violating the Iran sanctions regime. Although AIPAC never mentions it, American exporters have been seriously hurt by sanctions on Iran and the punitive secondary boycott. A coalition representing the US Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, Coalition for American Trade, the National Foreign Trade Council and others urged Congress not to enact sanctions provisions they estimated would cost $25 billion and 210,000 American jobs. (PDF) Keeping such a costly regime in place despite thawing relations and any hard evidence of an Iranian nuclear weaponization program has therefore required immense ongoing efforts by Israel lobbying groups.

    An equally important target for Fischer and Israel may be—somewhat ironically given their pro-boycott programs—anti-boycott activities. In the 1970-80s the Federal Reserve played an active “moral suasion” role chastising and corralling U.S. banks away from any activity that Israel construed as compliant with the Arab League economic boycott. An expert with deep experience enforcing the international boycott of Iran, Fischer is likely aware of the many active American grass-roots campaigns aimed at ending the Israeli occupation of Palestinians through targeted boycotts. These boycotts range from efforts to get retailers to stop carrying manufactured goods produced in the occupied West Bank (Ahava and Soda Stream), to overturning contracts with firms providing services in occupied territories (Veolia), to academic boycotts and even efforts to get labor union pensions to divest from Israel bonds. Working more closely with Israel and AIPAC, the Fed could become a vital node for reinterpreting and enforcing old or new laws aimed at outlawing and punishing groups organizing such grass-roots activities by targeting U.S. bank accounts and freezing their financial flows.

    Fischer may also want to launch “exercises” to prepare the U.S. financial system for the fallout of Israeli military attacks on Iran. New bills in Congress drafted by AIPAC call not only for additional sanctions aimed at thwarting a fledgling deal on Iran’s nuclear program (favored 2-to-1 by Americans). AIPAC’s bill forces the U.S. to “have Israel’s back” in the event of a unilateral Israeli strike. If Israel has already decided to attack Iran, it would benefit immensely from having Fischer inside the Fed, protecting the financial flows Israel now regards as all but a birthright from its primary global underwriter. Less well-known is the Fed’s authority to authorize foreign bank acquisitions. Any future Israeli campaign to further entwine its banks into the U.S. financial system through acquisitions would likely find a much more welcoming regulator in Fischer.

    Whatever the real motivation for Fischer’s sudden, inexplicably rushed insertion into the Federal Reserve, it is also worthwhile to note longstanding Fed policies have correctly considered U.S. citizenship to be preferable for at least one key position, “because of the special nature of the supervisory function, the need to ensure confidentiality of information, and the delegated nature of the function.” Unfortunately, that policy preference covers only Fed bank examiners rather than top leadership—the Federal Reserve Act is silent on the wisdom of installing a revolving door for returning U.S. citizens who took on dual citizenship as a condition of serving a foreign government.

    AIPAC, Fischer’s co-author of harmful U.S. economic policies on behalf of Israel, likely sees the Fischer appointment as an important test case to assess American tolerance for openly dual Israeli-American citizens running key U.S. federal agencies. In 2009 former AIPAC research director Martin Indyk, who was at the center of AIPAC’s research division during the FTA push, said that “the US-Israel Free Trade Agreement served as a wedge that opened up the Congress to free trade agreements across the world, including the NAFTA agreement.” Likewise, if Fischer can be “wedged” into the Fed, it begs the question of why former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. and historian Michael Oren could not someday lead the Near East division of the State Department. From AIPAC’s perspective, having qualified Israelis directly run key divisions of the U.S. Treasury such as Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, rather than indirectly through AIPAC-vetted appointees such as Stuart Levey and his hand-picked successor David Cohen, could probably boost the volume of taxpayer give-aways while improving coordination with Israel. Given AIPAC and Israel’s overly large influence on U.S. military initiatives in the region, the lobby may now feel the moment is right for appointing Israeli generals into the Joint Chiefs at the Department of Defense. This, AIPAC may well reason, would be much more convenient than constantly arranging visiting Israeli military and intelligence delegations that increasingly serve as sole briefers (rather than DoD or the American intelligence community) of members of the US Congress.

    Soon after word of his Fed nomination spread, Fischer again made uncharacteristically harsh statements about Israel at an NYU Law School forum. As reported in The Jewish Week, Fischer told the audience that Israel is not seeking peace “to the extent that it should” and that it is “divided between those who want to settle the West Bank and those who seek peace.” Fischer—who had every chance to pull U.S. and Israeli financial levers that could have forced Israel out of occupied territories or forced compliance with International law—never did. Adding to suspicion that the statement was simply more empty “lip service” aimed at building popular support among Americans tired of war, was the reporter of the quote—former AIPAC lobbyist Douglas Bloomfield. In 1986 Bloomfield was grilled as a key suspect (PDF) in the 1985 FBI investigation of AIPAC for espionage during the FTA negations

    If Americans were ever polled on it—and they never are—the majority who now object to increasing aid to Israel would also likely object to quasi-governmental and governmental positions being staffed by people who—by citizenship or sheer strength of identity politics—are primarily occupied with advancing Israeli interests rather than those of the United States. It is obvious that the real reason AIPAC and its economic luminaries such as Fischer never substantiate any of the advertised benefits the U.S.-Israel “special relationship” delivers to America in return for all of the costs is simple—there simply aren’t any. As greater numbers of Americans become aware that the entire “special relationship” framework is sustained by nothing more than Israel lobby campaign-finance and propaganda networks, the harder the lobby will have to work to forcibly wedge operatives like Fischer into positions where they can thwart growing public opposition—whether it takes the form of boycotts or grassroots opposition to the U.S. fighting more wars for Israel. In the very short term, Americans can only fight such undue Israel lobby influence by again—like during the drive to attack Syria—staging a mass action to demand their senators reject Stanley Fischer’s nomination.

    [i] Oberdorfer, Don “Will U.S. Dollars Fix Israel’s Economy?” The Washington Post, June 9 1985
    [ii] Oberdorfer, Don “Will U.S. Dollars Fix Israel’s Economy?” The Washington Post, June 9 1985
    [iii] Passell, Peter “Need Zionism Equal Socialism?” The New York Times, July 2, 1992
    [iv] Maital, Shlomo “Stanley Fischer: the man and the plan,” The Jerusalem Report, February 7, 2005
    [v] BBC Monitoring Middle East, March 5, 2007
    [vi] Keinon, Herb “Russia won’t back crippling sanctions.” Comment comes day before high-level US-Israel meeting on Iran” The Jerusalem Post, February 25, 2010
    [vii] Williams, Dan “Iran Stepping Up Its Atomic Efforts” – The Gazette, August 13, 2012
    [viii] “Bank of Israel governor: Sanctions won’t collapse Iran economy. Islamic Republic will likely find way to ‘keep economic life going,’ says Fischer in interview with CNBC” The Jerusalem Post, October 24, 2012.
    [ix] “Bank of Israel governor: Sanctions won’t collapse Iran economy. Islamic Republic will likely find way to ‘keep economic life going,’ says Fischer in interview with CNBC” The Jerusalem Post, October 24, 2012.
    [x] Weisman, Steven R. “Wolfowitz Said to Push for Deal to Let Him Quit” The New York Times, May 17, 2007
    [xi] “Fischer set to be tapped as vice chair of US Federal Reserve” the Times of Israel, December 11, 2013″

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • NB says: • Website

    Thomas O Meehan stated: “I’m asserting that you and a large number of your co-religionists behave as though your real home is elsewhere.”
    And what is your evidence for this? I consider the Iraq War the worst foreign policy disaster for the US in a long time, and American Jews were less likely to support the invasion than Americans in general:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/03/13/powell-scoffs-at-conspiracy-theories-on-iraq-war/

    (This is an AP feed reprinted by Fox, not an “original” Fox News story)
    “Americans Jews appear to express significantly less support for military action against Iraq to end the rule of Saddam Hussein, according to research by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Overall support is just above six in 10, 62 percent, in an analysis of Pew polls over the past six months, while Jewish support is at 52 percent. Evangelical Protestants are most likely to support military action, with 73 percent backing a war with Iraq.”

    What could be more patriotic than opposing a disastrous war for the US?

    If you are not one hundred percent investing in this country to the exclusion of all others, you are not dual loyal; you are disloyal.
    Well, you’re entitled to that opinion, but lots of Americans would disagree with that. I was born and raised in Boston, so I’m quite familiar with Irish-American culture, and many Irish-Americans take pride in their ethno-cultural heritage and identify strongly with their ancestral homeland, as do many Italian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, etc. I don’t think caring about two countries necessarily makes one disloyal. In fact, by your logic, one who cares about 2+ countries is automatically disloyal to both/all of them!

    Your position is ridiculous in that you attack others versions of events while fatally undermining your own standing as an objective participant.
    No one has been able to exhibit any false or misleading statements I’ve made. The responses to my comments pointing out misleading and false statements in articles published on unz.com or sources cited on unz.com have been almost entirely personal attacks that do not actually refute my points. Actually, I’m not even sure it’s accurate to describe them as personal attacks; they’re attacks based on false assumptions stemming from stereotypes about Jews (like the accusation that I only accept US-Israel dual citizens for the Federal Reserve, not any other dual-citizens).

    If you refuse to read the UN report on the Syrian chemical weapons attack (to which I linked above) and accept Giraldi’s claims simply because you automatically discount anything I say related to Israel due to my ethnicity, that says a lot more about you than it does about me.

    I sure hope this back and forth has been good for readership but I have no more time to waste on an ethnic troll. When your identity is your motive, debate is pointless.
    I don’t deny that my ethnic identity (not to mention my affiliation with Harvard and prior knowledge that some of the high academic achievers Unz classified as non-Jewish white are actually Jewish) motivated me to take the time to debunk Unz’s article claiming that Harvard discriminates against white Gentiles in favor of Jews. That doesn’t make my rebuttal incorrect. In fact, no one has identified any errors in my rebuttal (to my knowledge). Feel free to try to find any.

    More to the point, my motivation to fight anti-Semitism (which stems from the fact that most of my father’s family was killed in the Holocaust) is surely more just than motivation based on hate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Nurit Baytch wrote; “I have never advocated policy that would benefit Israel and harm the US.”

    But since your loyalties are dual in nature, your judgement as to whats good for my country as is at the very least questionable. I would trust the judgement of a patriot who thinks ONLY of one country.

    “Are you implying that American Jews aren’t home?”

    I’m more than implying. I’m asserting that you and a large number of your co-religionists behave as though your real home is elsewhere. If you are not one hundred percent investing in this country to the exclusion of all others, you are not dual loyal; you are disloyal. No amount of sophistry on your part can hide that.

    Your position is ridiculous in that you attack others versions of events while fatally undermining your own standing as an objective participant. I sure hope this back and forth has been good for readership but I have no more time to waste on an ethnic troll. When your identity is your motive, debate is pointless.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • NB says: • Website

    Philip, can you please clarify what your intentions were for your “Quitting over Syria” piece? Why did you say that that “whether the victims of the attack [in Ghouta, Syria] suffered symptoms of Sarin was also disputed” when, in fact, the UN “confirmed, unequivocally and objectively, that chemical weapons have been used in Syria“?

    Why did you mention that “no autopsies were performed to confirm the presence of the chemical [sarin]” when “85 per cent of blood samples from the sites in Ghouta tested positive for Sarin” according to the UN? To the uninformed reader, your assertion sounds suspicious. In actual fact, there is no need to perform autopsies when multiple survivors have had blood tests to confirm sarin exposure.

    Why did you say that “traces of Sarin were not found in most of the areas being investigated, nor on one of the two rockets identified” when sarin was “recovered from a majority of the rockets or rocket fragments,” and sarin and its byproducts “were observed in the majority of the [environmental] samples” according to the UN?

    You were clearly trying to sow doubts that a sarin attack even occurred (when the UN unequivocally confirmed it had); if a chemical weapons attack had indeed occurred, you then suggested that the notion that Assad’s regime perpetrated it was based on intelligence “widely believed [to] have been fabricated by Tel Aviv.” Besides the fact that I haven’t seen any credible source corroborate your claim about “Tel Aviv” (i.e. the Mossad) fabricating intelligence wrt the Syrian chemical weapons attack, US, British, and French intelligence agencies, as well as Human Rights Watch, have all pointed the finger at the Syrian government:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-13/assad-sarin-gas-attack-claim-implausible/4951502

    I glanced at the Human Rights Watch report, and they do not rely on “interceptions of telephone conversations” [which you claim were "widely believed" to have been fabricated by the Mossad] to implicate Assad’s regime.

    Based on the above, I have concluded that your apparent goal was to lead readers to believe that the notion that Assad’s regime ordered a chemical weapons attack on his people is all a fabrication of the Mossad. Do you have an alternative explanation?

    Finally, Israelis do not “want to enslave the Palestinians;” most polls have shown that the majority of Israelis support a two-state solution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @NB
    Oscar, I'm not responding to most of your comments b/c my interest is in correcting misinformation. I'm not interested in engaging in a debate on the value of the US-Israel alliance. You call me "conniving" and "disingenuous" b/c I deny being an expert on the Federal Reserve and Stanley Fischer's life story? The fact remains that you are unable to point to any false or misleading statements I've made (or any policy I've advocated that would benefit Israel and harm the US), while I've clearly exhibited factual errors and misleading statements in the antiwar.com/IRmep article cited by you and Giraldi. I've also exposed Giraldi for claiming that "whether the victims of the attack [in Ghouta, Syria] suffered symptoms of Sarin was also disputed" when, in fact, the UN "confirmed, unequivocally and objectively, that chemical weapons have been used in Syria" (with 85% of blood samples testing + for sarin); Giraldi's apparent goal was to lead readers to believe that the notion that Assad ordered a chemical weapons attack on his people is all a fabrication of the Mossad. But I'm the "conniving, "disingenuous," and "slimy character," according to you.

    Furthermore, you have made FALSE statements about me, claiming, "By your logic, Fischer could become the head of the Bank of China and there would never be a conflict with US interests because “the economy is not zero sum.” Of course, you’d never make that argument if the other country were not Israel, which brings into question YOUR loyalty."

    You had no basis on which to make such a false accusation. Having an interest in exposing false and misleading statements published about Jews and/or Israel in no way suggests I'm more loyal to Jews and/or Israel than I am to my country.

    I also find it fascinating that someone who uses non-American slang is questioning my loyalty to the US. The only US citizen I've ever personally heard use the term "winge" (as a synonym for whine) is a US-Australia dual citizen. Those treacherous US-Australia dual citizens, ay?

    I use “winge” regularly but of course I went to university in the UK. NB, I doubt if slang is a good measure of either nationality or political orientation as there are many regional dialects in the US, but I do find your syntax a bit odd at times. How do you know what my intentions were vis-a-vis Assad? If you were a little bit better informed you would realize that the Israelis have been feeding us false intelligence for many years to support their own objectives.You seem to miss the point that Israel abuses its privileged position with Washington regularly, which is what I and the other contributors to this site are pointing out though you don’t seem to understand what that means. If Israel wants to enslave the Palestinians they should go ahead and do it and see what happens but they should not be involving my country in the process as it has only harmed our own interests.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Thomas O Meehan wrote, “The more Christian they get, the more in line with American tradition they become. But of course you know that.
    Oh, of course I know that you think that.

    “As Christianity is a religion rather than a blood-line, it lacks its own little rogue ethno-state. Some countries are more rather than less Christian. But since Christianity enfolds all mankind in pursuit of goals beyond this world, we have no folk state such as you have. We are already home.”
    Are you implying that American Jews aren’t home?

    I guess you forgot about the concern that JFK would take his orders from the Pope in Rome.

    How are you different from a member of the old German American Bund?
    You fundamentally don’t understand that combatting anti-Semitism does not make me anti-Gentile. I have never advocated policy that would benefit Israel and harm the US. The German American Bund promoted anti-Semitism and a favorable view of Nazi Germany (which was an enemy of the US, while Israel is an ally of the US) by disseminating misinformation. Interestingly, the Bund published a document entitled “What Price Federal Reserve? Hordes of Jews Have Swarmed Into Government Posts in Positions of Control”:

    https://ia600404.us.archive.org/29/items/WhatPriceTheFederalReserve/GAB.pdf

    how delightfully topical.

    Buy flaunting your dual loyalty here, are you sure you aren’t propelling rather than combatting anti-Semitism?
    I certainly agree that my debunking anti-Semitic/anti-Israel conspiracy theories is sure to enrage anti-Semites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Oscar, I’m not responding to most of your comments b/c my interest is in correcting misinformation. I’m not interested in engaging in a debate on the value of the US-Israel alliance. You call me “conniving” and “disingenuous” b/c I deny being an expert on the Federal Reserve and Stanley Fischer’s life story? The fact remains that you are unable to point to any false or misleading statements I’ve made (or any policy I’ve advocated that would benefit Israel and harm the US), while I’ve clearly exhibited factual errors and misleading statements in the antiwar.com/IRmep article cited by you and Giraldi. I’ve also exposed Giraldi for claiming that “whether the victims of the attack [in Ghouta, Syria] suffered symptoms of Sarin was also disputed” when, in fact, the UN “confirmed, unequivocally and objectively, that chemical weapons have been used in Syria” (with 85% of blood samples testing + for sarin); Giraldi’s apparent goal was to lead readers to believe that the notion that Assad ordered a chemical weapons attack on his people is all a fabrication of the Mossad. But I’m the “conniving, “disingenuous,” and “slimy character,” according to you.

    Furthermore, you have made FALSE statements about me, claiming, “By your logic, Fischer could become the head of the Bank of China and there would never be a conflict with US interests because “the economy is not zero sum.” Of course, you’d never make that argument if the other country were not Israel, which brings into question YOUR loyalty.”

    You had no basis on which to make such a false accusation. Having an interest in exposing false and misleading statements published about Jews and/or Israel in no way suggests I’m more loyal to Jews and/or Israel than I am to my country.

    I also find it fascinating that someone who uses non-American slang is questioning my loyalty to the US. The only US citizen I’ve ever personally heard use the term “winge” (as a synonym for whine) is a US-Australia dual citizen. Those treacherous US-Australia dual citizens, ay?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
    I use "winge" regularly but of course I went to university in the UK. NB, I doubt if slang is a good measure of either nationality or political orientation as there are many regional dialects in the US, but I do find your syntax a bit odd at times. How do you know what my intentions were vis-a-vis Assad? If you were a little bit better informed you would realize that the Israelis have been feeding us false intelligence for many years to support their own objectives.You seem to miss the point that Israel abuses its privileged position with Washington regularly, which is what I and the other contributors to this site are pointing out though you don't seem to understand what that means. If Israel wants to enslave the Palestinians they should go ahead and do it and see what happens but they should not be involving my country in the process as it has only harmed our own interests.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Nurit Baytch wrote, “Do you condemn the 46% of American Christians who identify as Christians first, not Americans? In fact, 70% of white American evangelicals, who are overwhelmingly Zionist, see themselves first as Christians rather than as Americans.”

    American Christians have much less potential for dual loyalty conflicts due to the fact that the US is between 73 and 80 percent Christian. A majority of the remainder are ex-Christians who reject categorization. In short, Christians tend to be pretty loyal to our country in as much as our country was founded by Christians, with a Christian culture and with Christian traditions. The more Christian they get, the more in line with American tradition they become. But of course you know that.

    As Christianity is a religion rather than a blood-line, it lacks its own little rogue ethno-state. Some countries are more rather than less Christian. But since Christianity enfolds all mankind in pursuit of goals beyond this world, we have no folk state such as you have. We are already home.

    Sadly, unsophisticated Christians have been duped into supporting Israel. Sooner or later they will get the joke and walk away. This is a phase.

    You also wrote, “That I am interested in combatting anti-Semitism does not make me any less American than you.”

    It makes you neither American or un-American. It just makes you a partisan in your own interest. But since your ethnic interest overlaps with the interests of a foreign power, it becomes indistinguishable from the aims and tactics of that power. How are you different from a member of the old German American Bund? They had an ethnic interest to defend. They had an ethno-state with border problems to explain. And they too clothed themselves in the costume of American rights.

    Buy flaunting your dual loyalty here, are you sure you aren’t propelling rather than combatting anti-Semitism?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Nurit Baytch,

    Don’t whine. You have difficulty responding to my points–and in fact you omitted responding to most of what I said–so you are forced to winge about their hostility.

    “Borderline libelous” Don’t make me laugh.

    “China is not an ally of the US and is in fact a competitor, so your analogy is invalid.”

    Our relationship with Israel is much unhealthier than our relationship with China. We openly acknowledge that China is a rival. But the relationship with Israel is much more pernicious. Its agents of influence have got their fangs into our political system and are constantly attempting to generate more hand-outs for Israel and decisions that go against our basic interests. The idea that a country built on a supremacist ideology that necessarily arouses the opposition of the rest of the region could be a valuable strategic ally is just ridiculous, as George Marshall recognized in 1947.

    And while I am somewhat suspicious of the trend that includes the Canadian Carney becoming Governor of the BOE, neither the UK nor Canada pose the kind of deleterious effect on each other’s interests that Israel does on ours. So, it is YOUR analogy that is invalid.

    “That you wrongly assume that the only dual citizens–[OR "foreign candidates" per your correction]–I accept as candidates for Federal Reserve positions are US-Israel dual citizens speaks volumes about YOU and YOUR motivations.”

    Not even sure what you are trying to say here. We need to get rid of the dual citizenship option in general. But US-Israel dual nationals are particularly prevalent and particularly pernicious. Our problems in the Middle East tied to Israel attest to that.

    “I admit nothing.”

    Well, it’s time you came clean. The bottom line is that a US citizen, Fischer, chose to foreswear in practice his allegiance to the US to take a senior official position in Israel, a country our relationship with which has undermined our once favorable strategic position in the Middle East. Now, he’s back with the obvious blessing of hidden interests to be inserted into our central bank. And all you can do is try to derail the discussion while telling us “Oh, I don’t know much about Fischer. Oh, I don’t know much about how the Fed works. Oh, I have no position on Fischer’s candidacy for Fed Vice Chair.”

    Spare us the conniving disingenuousness. Stop trying to defend the indefensible i.e., dual-loyalism and the sense of entitlement that allows many–like Fischer–to imagine that he can just oil his way back and forth between Israel and the US as he pleases. What a disgrace your arguments are!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • minor correction: that should say: “That you wrongly assume that the only ‘foreign’ candidates I accept for Federal Reserve positions are those who have served in the Bank of Israel speaks volumes about YOU and YOUR motivations.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Oscar, I’m not going to respond to most of your hostile and borderline libelous reply except to point out false statements you’ve made about me.

    By your logic, Fischer could become the head of the Bank of China and there would never be a conflict with US interests because “the economy is not zero sum.” Of course, you’d never make that argument if the other country were not Israel, which brings into question YOUR loyalty.
    China is not an ally of the US and is in fact a competitor, so your analogy is invalid. I couldn’t care less if a former governor of the Bank of Canada served on the Federal Reserve, and in fact, a former governor of the Bank of Canada is currently governor of the Bank of England:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Carney

    Somehow I doubt people ascribed insidious motivations to Carney’s decision to take the helm at the Bank of England, accusing him of treachery, as you have accused Fischer.

    That you wrongly assume that the only dual citizens I accept as candidates for Federal Reserve positions are US-Israel dual citizens speaks volumes about YOU and YOUR motivations.

    So, first of all, you admit that when he left the BOI almost a year ago, it was because he was being prepared for the Vice Governor position at the Fed which was not announced until earlier this month.
    I admit nothing. You asked why anyone would leave a chairman’s position to become a deputy, so I explained why. I haven’t followed Fischer’s timeline. He could’ve left BOI for any number of reasons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Nurit Baytch,

    1. Contrary to your claim above, nowhere in this string at any point or in any way did you address the issue about Fischer’s role in the US-Israel Joint Economic Group that changed the way in which US aid was provided to Israel–greatly to Israel’s advantage (see my last post). You obviously have no ability to engage with the point, so you claim somehow to have already refuted it. Don’t even think you can try that pro-Israel mendacity with me.

    2. With regard to Fischer at the Bank of Israel (see my last post), don’t try to take the discussion off topic. The issue is not whether the economy is zero sum. The issue is whether two states–in this case the US and Israel–can have the same interests in a competitive international state system. Even with countries who are generally useful to our interests–Japan, UK, Germany–we have significant divergences in interests. The fact is that Fischer made the conscious decision to take a position with a foreign government–Israel–that required that he put Israeli interests before US if and when they came into conflict. In short, he chose Israel over the US. By your logic, Fischer could become the head of the Bank of China and there would never be a conflict with US interests because “the economy is not zero sum.” Of course, you’d never make that argument if the other country were not Israel, which brings into question YOUR loyalty.

    3. You say: “Why would Fischer leave a chairman’s position in the middle of a term to become a deputy? Because being #2 at the helm of the world’s largest economy is a bigger deal than being #1 manager of world’s 42nd largest economy.”

    So, first of all, you admit that when he left the BOI almost a year ago, it was because he was being prepared for the Vice Governor position at the Fed which was not announced until earlier this month. What should we conclude except that insidious interests were calculating the need to create a “decent interval” between his traitorous service in Israel and the point at which he could be inserted into our monetary system for the benefit of Israeli and transnational interests.

    There are plenty of qualified central bankers to take the Vice Chairman position. Any of the Fed regional bank presidents would have been suitable. From where is the impetus to place this ex-Israeli official inside our monetary system coming?

    And you fail to address my point 3 (in my last post). Why, as a US citizen, did he go to the Bank of Israel in the first place? Why would you even think for a moment that that could be an acceptable decision on his part?

    4. You say: “Another question I asked was: Why would a second-term President nominate someone who places another country’s interests above US interests, given that Obama is no longer beholden to any lobby and has actually “antagonized” the Israel Lobby (Hagel, Iran deal, etc)?”

    The obvious answer here is that politics is a give-and-take activity. There are multiple factions within the US government and the powerful interests that influence the working of government. Currently, the neo-conservative/pro-Israel faction and the realist faction are in constant conflict. Poor hapless Obama is in the middle. Sometimes the right decisions are made–negotiations with Iran, decision not to attack Syria, confirmation of Hagel. Sometime bad, pro-Israel decisions are forced on Obama by the political power of the lobby such as the imposition of sanctions on Iran, tacit support for the military coup plotters in Egypt, and acceptance of Israel settlement building.

    In any case, Obama wants to live the good life post-2016 and wealthy pro-Israel democratic donors are part of his calculus just as they have been for Bill Clinton (who was paid to give a speech recently at Shimon Peres’s birthday. What a sad little shabbosgoy Clinton is.)

    5. As far as the utility of Israel to the US–or lack thereof–goes, it is absolutely NOT off topic. I doubt you even read either of the two sites you link to. In the first is described the prescient but vain warning from then Secretary of State George Marshall to Harry Truman: “Secretary of State George Marshall feared U.S. backing of a Jewish state would harm relations with the Muslim world, limit access to Middle Eastern oil, and destabilize the region.” Marshall foresaw the disaster that the US-Israel relationship has become. By helping the Jews of eastern Europe rob the Palestinian Arabs of their land, we have poisoned the entire region against us over the long term. In the days of our maximum power during the Cold War and in the immediate post-Cold War period, we could delude ourselves that this policy was cost-free. Now the truth is slowly beginning to dawn on us.

    Don’t give me useless links. If you want to make the case that Israel is a strategic asset for the US rather than a liability, then make it.

    6. Now, how about a few questions for you:

    –What passports do you hold?
    –To what country to you owe your first allegiance?
    –How does Israel constitute a strategic asset for the US?
    –Why should the US tax payer subsidize the state of Israel and its gradual ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians?
    –Do you support the sanctions on Iran which are depriving Iranians of food and medicine?
    –Do you support the building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank since 1967?
    –Do you support the recent vote by the Israeli Ministers committee to annex the Jordan Valley to Israel?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Thomas, I was responding to your attack on me based on my age, not to mention your false statement that I “barely exist save for your vigorous peddling of your attack on Ron Unz in numerous Jewish internet sites of self-absorption.” Last I checked, my debunking of Unz’s piece, which erroneously claimed that Harvard discriminates against white Gentiles in favor of Jews, was discussed on more academic [math/stats] blogs than “Jewish internet sites of self-absorption.”

    btw, do you describe sites like ChristianPost.com as “Christian internet sites of self-absorption”?

    Do you condemn the 46% of American Christians who identify as Christians first, not Americans? In fact, 70% of white American evangelicals, who are overwhelmingly Zionist, see themselves first as Christians rather than as Americans.

    That I am interested in combatting anti-Semitism does not make me any less American than you.

    And no one has demonstrated any false or misleading statements I’ve made or any policy I’ve advocated that would advance Israel’s interests to the detriment of American interests.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Oscar, the antiwar.com link you are citing is a reprint of the source that Giraldi cited. I already demonstrated false and misleading statements in that piece in my original comment. When I’m able to easily identify factual errors in a piece, I no longer trust other claims made in that piece (without further verification).

    Regarding Fischer’s position as governor of the Bank of Israel, you seem to imply that the economy is a zero-sum game; that is, since Fischer managed Israel’s economy (and apparently did a good job according to his wiki page), he must have worked against US interests. The economy is not a zero-sum game, and I’ve seen no evidence Fischer damaged US interests while at the helm of the Bank of Israel.

    Why would Fischer leave a chairman’s position in the middle of a term to become a deputy?
    Because being #2 at the helm of the world’s largest economy is a bigger deal than being #1 manager of world’s 42nd largest economy.

    Another question I asked was: Why would a second-term President nominate someone who places another country’s interests above US interests, given that Obama is no longer beholden to any lobby and has actually “antagonized” the Israel Lobby (Hagel, Iran deal, etc)?

    Of course, Israel is NOT objectively important to the US. In fact, it constitutes one of our greatest strategic liabilities.
    Actually, that’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it, of course. The [neutral] wiki page on US-Israel relations mentions ways the US has benefited from the US-Israel alliance:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–United_States_relations

    And here’s a random opinion piece touting the benefits of the alliance for the US:

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/31/opinion/la-oe-blackwill-israel-20111031

    I’m not interested in arguing this point, as it is way off-topic. I made one point, which is that Giraldi cited a source that is not credible to support his claims regarding Stanley Fischer, and this has blown up into a larger disagreement I’m not interested in furthering.

    again, I’m not “defending” Stanley Fischer and have no opinion on his nomination; I’m just pointing out that I have not seen evidence of anything sinister at play here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Nurit Baytch, You clearly don’t understand the difference between opinion writing by persons considered expert enough to write on subjects, and academic writing. It is not a logical fallacy to point out that Mr. Giraldi, by virtue of his career and continued contact among the intelligence community is more knowledgeable than you. It’s just a fact. This is not to say that Mr. Giraldi cannot be wrong and you cannot be right. It is noteworthy though, that your writing is entirely a defense of Jewish positions while he writes on a wide variety of intelligence related issues.

    The whole issue of ethnic and religious dual loyalties is troubling. It is troubling when the Irish, Armenians, Greeks and others do it. Given the depth of Jewish influence and the brazenness with which Jewish individuals and organizations act on behalf of Israel, it is inevitable that such behavior will be called into question. There is no room for dual loyalty in our, or any republic. To be an American citizen and a partisan for any other country is tantamount to treason. In some circumstances it is treason. It is quite legitimate to ask why people who feel so passionately about their own group tarry here when they could live with their fellows in their very own little country? Why play the game from both sides? It sounds a bit like hedging one’s bets.

    This said, I must apologize to the rats of New York as they are innocent creatures who follow their instincts. The Israel Lobby scoundrels who use our system to front for a parasitic state that is far way but close to their hearts, have no such excuse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “But I sometimes have to wonder why he [Ron Paul] has surrounded himself with so many grifters? ”

    SAME HERE – FOR YEARS!

    I haven’t forgotten those “Ron Paul Limo” hustlers with all their gold jewelry…and his non-campaigns…and what was done with all those millions of dollars of “Ron Paul Money Bombs” collected from millions of little guys…and his phony campaigns…and his attacking 911 truth people, and more too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Nurit Baytch,

    OK, let’s talk about Fischer.

    1. From the Antiwar.com article I linked above: “Stanley Fischer won an appointment to the Reagan administration’s U.S.-Israel Joint Economic Discussion Group that dealt with Israel’s 1984-1985 economic crisis. The U.S.-Israel Joint Economic Discussion Group fundamentally transformed U.S. aid to Israel forever. Before the Reagan administration, most U.S. aid to Israel took the form of loans that had to be repaid with interest. After the input of Fischer’s team, subsequent U.S. aid was delivered in the form of outright grants paid directly from the U.S. Treasury—never to be repaid or conditioned when Israel took actions the U.S. opposed.”

    So, here we have Fischer involved in the formulation of policies beneficial to Israel and not to the US. Isn’t it amazing that we subsidize a country that creates problems for us? We have Fischer and too many others to thank for the fix we find ourselves in.

    2. From Fischer’s 1986 WSJ opinion piece, “Israel Has Made Aid Work”: “Israel is the largest single economic aid recipient from the US. This is partly because the economic stability of Israel is uncertain and is important to US interests.” Aside from the shaky syntax of Fischer’s second sentence, this assertion amounts to an unsupported case for the importance of Israel to the US. Of course, Israel is NOT objectively important to the US. In fact, it constitutes one of our greatest strategic liabilities. The fact that Fischer supports this lie is another demonstration of his Israel Firster credentials.

    3. Fischer became a US citizen in 1976. Now, we know that no two states can possibly have exactly congruent interests. Inevitable, their interests will clash–occasionally or often depending on many factors. Yet, in 2005, Fischer made the choice to take a senior position in the government of Israel as governor of its central bank and the Israeli citizenship that came with the position. This was of course consistent with his past advocacy on behalf of Israel. Why would an American–if he placed loyalty to this country first–ever take a position that would compel him to pursue the interests of a foreign country before those of the US? Fischer’s choice confirms his Israel Firster identity.

    4. Finally, Fischer abruptly left his position as BOI governor half-way through his second term early in 2013. By the middle of 2013, buzz was being generated about what a great choice for Fed Deputy Chairman he would make. Why would Fischer leave a chairman’s position in the middle of a term to become a deputy? There are plenty of others who could fill the Fed position. Obviously, there are interests who are pushing to get this specific dual-national Israeli official inside the US monetary system and perhaps to accustom Americans to the notion of shady dual-nationals slipping in and out of powerful positions.

    Clearly, Fischer’s history shows his first loyalty is to Israel. It’s time to stop allowing dual citizenship. There is absolutely no reason for it.

    Like the slimy “American” authors–Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, et al–of the “Clean Break” policy document prepared for Netanyahu which gave advice on how to maneuver the US government into doing what was best for Israel (as they imagined it), Fischer is indeed an Israel Firster. That Feith was permitted to become the number 3 official in the US DoD was a travesty. Let’s not let it happen again. Keep Fischer out of the Fed!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Oscar Peterson, I asked for evidence that Stanley Fischer is an Israel Firster. I never said I disagreed with the notion wrt Fischer, as I know so little about him; hence, I am not in a position to evaluate to which country he is more loyal. That Fischer served as the Governor of the Bank of Israel certainly suggests he has dual loyalties – I’m not contesting that; however, I’m still unconvinced that Fischer places Israel’s interest before US interests. That said, I know that I do not value Israel’s interests above US interests, so I strenuously object to being called an Israel Firster.

    Thanks for posting the info on the Fed bailing out foreign banks – I did not know about that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Nurit Baytch,

    1. I see that you don’t advance any argument against the evidence that Stanley Fischer is an Israel-Firster, though you clearly disagreed with the notion above.

    2. You don’t see how your unwillingness to acknowledge the evidence of Fischer’s Israel Firster status implicates you as one as well? Have no idea why you are mystified by it.

    3. With regard to the Fed, what do you think it has been doing since 2008?

    WaPo 2 Dec 2010:

    “The financial crisis stretched even farther across the economy than many had realized, as new disclosures show the Federal Reserve rushed trillions of dollars in emergency aid not just to Wall Street but also to motorcycle makers, telecom firms and foreign-owned banks in 2008 and 2009.

    “The American people are finally learning the incredible and jaw-dropping details of the Fed’s multitrillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and corporate America,” said Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime Fed critic whose provision in the Wall Street regulatory overhaul required the new disclosures. “Perhaps most surprising is the huge sum that went to bail out foreign private banks and corporations.”

    *****

    It’s bad enough when the Fed is subsidizing the reckless greed of US banks; worse when it subsidizes the reckless greed of foreign banks and worst of all when, under the influence of Israel Firster Fischer, it ends up subsidizing Israeli aggression with “emergency funds” for an Israeli financial system under stress from the effects of a war instigated by Israel!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Oscar Peterson claims: “If Israel gets its way and attacks Iran, embroiling the US, it will no doubt put serious strain on the Israeli financial system. I wonder who will be called upon to bail it out? And little Stan Fischer will be perfectly placed as an Israeli mole in the US Fed to achieve that and other pro-Israel, anti-American policies.”
    I’m not overly familiar with the Fed’s activities, but I’m skeptical that the Fed can unilaterally decide to bail out a foreign country. Wouldn’t Congress have to approve aid to a foreign country? (I may well be mistaken, so feel free to cite reputable sources proving me wrong.)

    “That you defend Israeli Firster Fischer is ample evidence of your own Israel Firster status.”
    I don’t see how my statements regarding Fischer are evidence of my Israel Firster status. I said that Giraldi’s source attacking Fischer is not credible. I mostly addressed other misinformation in Giraldi’s source b/c I know nothing about Fischer beyond his wiki bio. I never even expressed my support for Fischer’s nomination since I know so little about him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Philip Giraldi states: “Nurit, if you do not understand why having a foreign citizen with demonstrated loyalty to a foreign government as the number two in the Fed you are delusional.”
    If I don’t understand what? I already said that “Given that [Fischer] is a dual citizen, I see no problem with pointing out that he may have dual loyalties.”

    “Your fundamental problem is that you place your tribal interests above the broader national interests that most of the rest of us hold dear. The people you are attacking on this site are loyal to the United States while you define yourself in terms of your ethnicity and are passionately attached to a foreign interest.”
    Where is the evidence that I place my “tribal interests” above American interests? Where is the evidence that I define myself in terms of my ethnicity and not my [American] nationality? Where have I advocated policy that would benefit Israel and harm the US?

    “Your dismissal of a US pledge to fight in a war initiated by Israel as non-binding after tying yourself in knots over the meaning of non-binding is ridiculous.”
    How am I tying myself in knots over the meaning of non-binding? I cited an article in Foreign Policy, which states “The bill includes a non-binding provision that states that if Israel takes ‘military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran’s nuclear weapons program,’ the U.S. ‘should stand with Israel’…” (i.e. “have Israel’s back” in the parlance of the source your cited: “AIPAC’s bill forces the U.S. to ‘have Israel’s back’ in the event of a unilateral Israeli strike.”) I’m not tying myself in knots. I’m merely citing ForeignPolicy.com. A non-binding provision does not force the US to do anything.

    Philip, I find it fascinating that you chose to make a number of personal attacks against me without citing any examples of my engaging in any of the behaviors of which I’m accused. Why not respond to my criticism of your “Quitting over Syria” piece? Why did you say that whether sarin was used at Ghouta was disputed when the UN unequivocally confirmed it? Why did you say sarin was found on only one of two rockets when in fact, the UN found sarin on the majority of the rocket fragments?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Thank you for the essay. You put into words my own gut feeling about the CforL. I was at the Ralley in Tampa. Going down there, I still had hope that we would be able to have our voices heard by TPTB.

    When I saw the new RepubliCAN logo, it seemed things were finished. The new emphasis, if I remember correctly, was going to be budget issues and right to work issues. No more talk about central banks, no more talk on foreign policy and anemic emphasis of the Fed. C for L in the beginning would send emails on specific issues like End the Fed legislation and lists of congresscritters to call – no more. Now it is Send-money -grams and bogus opinion surveys.

    On the plus side, is this has been educational. I never realized how many people live off the political system. It would be great if you could do more articles on how political machinery works= the CforL and Americans for Prosperity and all these groups. What do the staff do all day- sit on the beach. plot on how to get more market share?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @NB
    Thomas O. Meehan, Stanley Fischer has spent far more time in the US than in Israel. He's been a US citizen since 1976. Given that he's a dual citizen, I see no problem with pointing out that he may have dual loyalties; the charge being made is that he's more loyal to Israel than to the US. And somehow people don't seem to get as exercised about dual citizens with countries other than Israel; has anyone seriously suggested that Ted Cruz is more loyal to Canada than to the US?

    You misunderstood my remark about the bill introduced by Kirk, Menendez, and Schumer. Passage of the bill could certainly lead to Iran walking away from the agreement; however, I was specifically responding to the following claim made by the source Giraldi cited: "AIPAC's bill forces the U.S. to 'have Israel's back' in the event of a unilateral Israeli strike." This is not true, as that particular provision of the bill is non-binding. I never stated that the bill is non-binding, but rather that the provision regarding US support for Israel in the event of a unilateral Israeli strike is non-binding. Hence, the bill does NOT "force the US to 'have Israel's back' in the event of a unilateral Israeli strike."

    A few more points:
    1. I've never claimed that the Israel Lobby doesn't exist.
    2. My age is irrelevant - you are indulging in the "appeal to authority" fallacy. I am indeed a nobody, but that doesn't make me wrong. A UMass grad student found a crucial mistake in the work of two Harvard professors; that the Harvard professors are older and more established was irrelevant. I've asked y'all to cite false or misleading statements I've made, so I'm still waiting.
    3. You compared the Israel Lobby to rats?

    Nurit, if you do not understand why having a foreign citizen with demonstrated loyalty to a foreign government as the number two in the Fed you are delusional. Your fundamental problem is that you place your tribal interests above the broader national interests that most of the rest of us hold dear. The people you are attacking on this site are loyal to the United States while you define yourself in terms of your ethnicity and are passionately attached to a foreign interest. That prevails even though you apparently were educated here and make your living here. Your dismissal of a US pledge to fight in a war initiated by Israel as non-binding after tying yourself in knots over the meaning of non-binding is ridiculous. You sound like Bill Clinton.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Nurit Baytch,

    “Are you saying that I’m an Israel Firster and/or that Stanley Fischer is? Where is the evidence that either of us places the interests of Israel above those of the US?”

    Fischer is a dual citizen. He therefore has mixed loyalties at best. Any American that works for AIPAC is by definition an “Israel Firster.” Anyone holding US citizenship who takes a senior position in the Israeli government is an Israel Firster.

    If Israel gets its way and attacks Iran, embroiling the US, it will no doubt put serious strain on the Israeli financial system. I wonder who will be called upon to bail it out? And little Stan Fischer will be perfectly placed as an Israeli mole in the US Fed to achieve that and other pro-Israel, anti-American policies.

    That you defend Israeli Firster Fischer is ample evidence of your own Israel Firster status. So, the answer to your question is: Both you and Fischer are Israel Firsters. What passports do you hold?

    http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2013/12/27/aipacs-fed-candidate-stanley-fischer-on-a-warpath-against-iran/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Thomas O. Meehan, Stanley Fischer has spent far more time in the US than in Israel. He’s been a US citizen since 1976. Given that he’s a dual citizen, I see no problem with pointing out that he may have dual loyalties; the charge being made is that he’s more loyal to Israel than to the US. And somehow people don’t seem to get as exercised about dual citizens with countries other than Israel; has anyone seriously suggested that Ted Cruz is more loyal to Canada than to the US?

    You misunderstood my remark about the bill introduced by Kirk, Menendez, and Schumer. Passage of the bill could certainly lead to Iran walking away from the agreement; however, I was specifically responding to the following claim made by the source Giraldi cited: “AIPAC’s bill forces the U.S. to ‘have Israel’s back’ in the event of a unilateral Israeli strike.” This is not true, as that particular provision of the bill is non-binding. I never stated that the bill is non-binding, but rather that the provision regarding US support for Israel in the event of a unilateral Israeli strike is non-binding. Hence, the bill does NOT “force the US to ‘have Israel’s back’ in the event of a unilateral Israeli strike.”

    A few more points:
    1. I’ve never claimed that the Israel Lobby doesn’t exist.
    2. My age is irrelevant – you are indulging in the “appeal to authority” fallacy. I am indeed a nobody, but that doesn’t make me wrong. A UMass grad student found a crucial mistake in the work of two Harvard professors; that the Harvard professors are older and more established was irrelevant. I’ve asked y’all to cite false or misleading statements I’ve made, so I’m still waiting.
    3. You compared the Israel Lobby to rats?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
    Nurit, if you do not understand why having a foreign citizen with demonstrated loyalty to a foreign government as the number two in the Fed you are delusional. Your fundamental problem is that you place your tribal interests above the broader national interests that most of the rest of us hold dear. The people you are attacking on this site are loyal to the United States while you define yourself in terms of your ethnicity and are passionately attached to a foreign interest. That prevails even though you apparently were educated here and make your living here. Your dismissal of a US pledge to fight in a war initiated by Israel as non-binding after tying yourself in knots over the meaning of non-binding is ridiculous. You sound like Bill Clinton.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Nurit Baytch,

    The article you cite is from the the Sydney Morning Herald. In it, Fischer’s bio says, “Born in 1943 in Zambia, then Northern Rhodesia, Fischer was a member of Habonim, a Zionist youth group, along with Rhoda Keet, his future wife. In the early 1960′s he spent six months on a kibbutz on Israel’s Mediterranean coastal plain, where he combined learning Hebrew with manual labor planting bananas. – in 2005, Fischer accepted Israel’s offer to head its central bank, and became an Israeli citizen, one of the job requirements.”

    So he’s just an all American boy really. Why would anyone get the idea of dual loyalty?

    And then there is this. “The bill in question does NOT force the US to “have Israel’s back,” as the relevant provision is non-binding.” You know, occasionally people read the citations you throw out. Those who read this one were clearly informed that upon passage of such a bill the Iranians would walk away. You cannot simultaneously threaten people and negotiate with them. Schumer and company know this and that is precisely why the bill was introduced. So this bill is not so much “Non-binding,” as crippling.

    You are a young woman with a Masters Degree in Physics. Phil Giraldi was working the Middle East on your behalf when you were in diapers, and you are raising the issue of “Credibility?” Many people who gravitate to this cite having already encountered The Lobby. If you are active in Washington the lobby is as unavoidable as rats are in New York. Asserting that the lobby doesn’t exist Isn’t likely to be a very effective strategy here. If Google search is any indication, you barely exist save for your vigorous peddling of your attack on Ron Unz in numerous Jewish internet sites of self-absorption.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Can any of you point out any false or misleading statements I’ve made? If I’m such a “slimy character,” surely you should have no problem doing so.

    Giraldi previously claimed that “whether the victims of the attack [in Ghouta, Syria] suffered symptoms of Sarin was also disputed” when, in fact, the UN “confirmed, unequivocally and objectively, that chemical weapons have been used in Syria” (with 85% of blood samples testing + for sarin); Giraldi’s apparent goal was to lead readers to believe that the notion that Assad ordered a chemical weapons attack on his people is all a fabrication of the Mossad. a shining example of integrity, indeed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Don Nash

    You’re right on the money, Don.

    NB looks like a crypto-shill for Israel to me.

    This sentence tells us all we need to know: “I wish I were paid for being an Israel troll, i.e. pointing out false and misleading statements published on unz.com about Jews, Israel, etc.”

    Looks like the Hasbara Brigade has arrived. But that’s OK, because the truth will out. I’ll take Phil Giraldi any day over this slimy character. Rock steady, Don.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Don Nash, I’m pointing out that Philip Giraldi makes claims that are not credible and also cites sources that are not credible.

    Are you saying that I’m an Israel Firster and/or that Stanley Fischer is? Where is the evidence that either of us places the interests of Israel above those of the US?

    I wish I were paid for being an Israel troll, i.e. pointing out false and misleading statements published on unz.com about Jews, Israel, etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The President of the United States has criticized Israel’s settlement policies; do people seriously argue that Obama’s criticisms of the settlements are empty “lip service”?

    EVERY POTUS starting with Gerald Ford has criticized Israeli occupation policies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Ron Paul is listed as the Chairman of Campaign for Liberty, so you are saying he doesn’t know what’s going on in his own organzation? He also has a separate organization that focuses on foreign policy – the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. Why does he have to talk about foreign policy in every orgaization he has in order to just make you happy?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Jeepers there NB, you’ve sort of missed Mr. Giraldi’s point. Which by the by, is a critique of C4L. C4L doesn’t pass the scratch ‘n’ sniff test. Mr. Giraldi makes the spot-on point about Fischer. Those ever so annoying Israel firsters are NOT to be trusted. The entire ‘dual citizenship’ motif is a crock. One can’t serve two masters.
    So NB, you’re a huge fan of Fischer and that’s obvious. Seems to me you’re being an Israeli troll and are you getting paid for that trolling?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Giraldi claims: “Stanley Fischer is being promoted under the radar by the Israel lobby to take over the number two spot at the Fed.” No source is cited to support this claim, and this article says that Fischer was chosen by Obama. As a second-term President, why would Obama need to kowtow to the Israel Lobby? If Obama’s decisions were dictated by the Israel Lobby, why would he pick Hagel, who loudly complained about the “Jewish lobby” intimidating congresspeople, as the Defense Secretary?

    Giraldi then states that Fischer “has aggressively advanced Israel’s interests vis-à-vis the US Treasury,” citing an article posted on an anti-Israel website. I barely know who Stanley Fischer is, so I’m not going to research his life history, but it’s clear that the article cited is not credible, as it makes a number of false, misleading, and illogical claims:
    1. “New bills in Congress drafted by AIPAC call not only for additional sanctions aimed at thwarting a fledgling deal on Iran’s nuclear program (favored 2-to-1 by Americans). AIPAC’s bill forces the U.S. to “have Israel’s back” in the event of a unilateral Israeli strike.”

    a. There have been a number of polls on American public opinion on the Iran deal, and predictably, the piece cited the poll most favorable to supporting his “the Israel Lobby is subverting the American will” narrative. e.g. this poll found that only 32% of Americans approve of the Iran deal, while 43% disapprove:

    http://www.people-press.org/2013/12/09/limited-support-for-iran-nuclear-agreement/

    b. The bill in question does NOT force the US to “have Israel’s back,” as the relevant provision is non-binding.

    2. The article claims that Americans have never been polled on US aid to Israel. This is also false; in fact, 66% of Americans think US support of Israel is “about right” or insufficient:

    http://www.people-press.org/2012/03/15/little-support-for-u-s-intervention-in-syrian-conflict/

    Of course, citing such a poll result would undermine the article’s entire thesis about how Jews/the Israel Lobby are subverting the American will.

    3. “Soon after word of his Fed nomination spread, Fischer again made uncharacteristically harsh statements about Israel…Fischer told the audience that Israel is not seeking peace “to the extent that it should” and that it is “divided between those who want to settle the West Bank and those who seek peace.” Fischer—who had every chance to pull U.S. and Israeli financial levers that could have forced Israel out of occupied territories or forced compliance with International law—never did. Adding to suspicion that the statement was simply more empty “lip service””

    i.e. the article is claiming Fischer’s criticisms of Israel are insincere presumably b/c he could’ve singlehandedly “forced Israel out of occupied territories” when he was Governor of the Bank of Israel or when he was purportedly unduly influencing American policy on Israel in various other capacities. that’s an absurd and illogical statement. The President of the United States has criticized Israel’s settlement policies; do people seriously argue that Obama’s criticisms of the settlements are empty “lip service”? Surely Obama could “pull US financial levers that could have forced Israel out of occupied territories” by making all US aid contingent on Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories. That doesn’t make Obama’s criticism of the settlements insincere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.