Sunday, December 29, 2013

10 Stories Ignored by Media in 2013


by Gerard Emershaw


In case you did not hear, A&E temporarily suspended reality TV star Phil Robertson. Luckily, the Republic survived the crisis. Miley Cyrus twerked on national television, but somehow fatalities were kept to a minimum. A royal baby was born to William and Kate, but the miraculous birth somehow did not bring about world peace or fix the stagnating global economy. While the morally bankrupt mainstream media was pushing stories like these, you may have missed a few real stories in 2013.


1. GITMO hunger strike
 


Guantanamo Bay is still open for business despite the empty promises that President Obama made regarding closing it. The under-reported hunger strike by many of its inmates was a sign that the federal government is good at creating and nurturing potential blowback. Unless and until the inmates at Gitmo are all charged and given trials, the island prison is more concentration camp than anything else. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? If the individuals being held at Gitmo are terrorists, then it should not be difficult to convict them of those crimes. 
 
2. Unrest in Libya


While the Benghazi controversy was well covered in 2013, the bigger picture in Libya was not. President Obama's unconstitutional "kinetic military action" in the North African country has destabilized it and has created what looks like a failed state. Qaddafi may be gone, but when the dust settles, Jihadists may very well wind up ruling in Libya.
 

3. Painkiller addiction epidemic
 

While the pointless and totalitarian War on Drugs continues to rage and more nonviolent offenders are locked up by the Prison Industrial Complex as a result, it turns out that the real drug problem involves the legal prescription painkillers that big Pharma pushes.

4. Fukushima radiation levels higher than ever
 

By ignoring this story, the mainstream media is not making it go away. Radiation levels in Japan are dangerously high even if the MSM pretends this is not the case. Why is it that a media which loves to fearmonger about things in the average home that might threaten to kill your family ignores something that actually could pose a threat?

5. Global Warming stopped 16 years ago


Without the bogus bogeyman of Global Warming, environmentalists might actually have to focus on actual environmental issues. What fun would that be? Apparently, ensuring that air, water, and soil are not contaminated cannot give the federal government totalitarian control over the nation like Global Warming potentially can. Plus, with his agenda crumbling, the pro-Obama media needs something to scare the disenchanted electorate back into supporting the President.

6. Serious problems in American Indian communities
 

Why does the media ignore American Indians? It seems that neither the left wing nor right wing MSM wish to attack or defend this segment of the American population. Why? 


7. Friend of alleged Boston Marathon bomber shot dead by FBI





Why is the FBI gunning down sources of potential intelligence? How was the interview subject allowed to have access to a knife during an interview? Is the FBI this incompetent or was something even more dubious going on?
 
8. Federal Reserve 100th Anniversary


If the 100th anniversary of this evil and unconstitutional bankster cartel could not encourage wider media coverage of the Federal Reserve, then it seems that this nefarious organization will be enabled to continue to destroy the United States economy and devalue the dollar. If Ben Bernanke twerked on his way into retirement, would that help? What if Phil Robertson attacked the Fed in an interview with Vogue magazine while citing Matthew 21:12 or Revelation 13:16? 

9. Depleted uranium causing birth defects in Iraq
 


President Obama was trying to gin up a war in Syria by talking about chemical weapons? What about the chemical weapons the United States has been using in its unconstitutional wars? When these devastating birth defects lead to blowback in Iraq against the United States, will the federal government and mainstream media feign surprise?

10. Judge upholds NSA’s bulk collection of data on calls
 

While the mainstream media was debating the virtues of the bogus right to be on a television show versus the bogus right not to be offended by free speech, something major actually happened. Yet somehow the Fourth Amendment was not considered as important as whatever imaginary natural rights the right-wing and left-wing mainstream media was trying to concoct.
 






 

Monday, December 23, 2013

Freedom and Bigotry

by Gerard Emershaw


Human beings possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property. The right to liberty includes freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The right to property involves a bundle of rights including the right of possession (the property is owned by the title holder), the right of control (the owner controls the property's use), the right of exclusion (the holder can deny people access to the property), the right of enjoyment (the holder can use the property in any legal manner) and the right of disposition (the holder can buy or sell the property). These natural rights are protected by the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.

It is obvious that human beings have a natural right to say bigoted things provided that this hateful and collectivist speech does not involve threats or defamation. But does a property owner have the natural right to exclude others from his or her property based solely upon the race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or the like of that other? Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states:

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

The Act defines ‘public accommodation’ broadly to include hotels, motels, other places of lodging, restaurants, cafeterias, lunchrooms, lunch counters, soda fountains, other businesses selling food for consumption on premises, movie theaters, concert halls, sports arena, stadium, etc.

The Supreme Court has held that Congress has the power to enforce Title II through the Commerce Clause in cases such as Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) and Katzenbach v. McClung (1964).

Former Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul and Senator Rand Paul have both been criticized for comments casting doubt on Title II. While progressives savor the possibility of pillorying anyone who has a good faith objection to any civil rights legislation, the question which arises is important. If a human being has a natural right to liberty and to property, does not he or she have the right to exclude others from his or her hotel, restaurant, movie theater, sports arena, etc. for any reason? Under the Constitution, government entities have no right to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. But nothing in the Constitution seems to prevent private actors from doing so.

Consider the following array of cases. An African American woman who was gang raped by white supremacists and whose parents were murdered by a Klu Klux Klan bombing decides not to allow whites to eat in her diner. An elderly woman whose family was murdered in a Nazi concentration camp decides not to allow Germans to stay in her hotel. A man whose wife was killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11 decides not to allow Muslims to watch films in his movie theater.

One could ask why these former victims should have to face those who remind them of their victimizers. Of course this attitude is collectivist and irrational, but PTSD, trauma, anxiety, etc. are not rational disorders. This does not stop them from plaguing the psyche of many who have been victimized.

While the grey-bearded patriarch Phil Robertson of A&E’s wildly successful TV program “Duck Dynasty” has been in the news for his suspension over allegedly homophobic statements, his potentially racially insensitive statement received far less attention in the media. Robertson said about growing up in Louisiana prior to the Civil Rights Movement:

I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.

Essentially, he is saying that African Americans were happy before the Civil Rights Movement, and therefore, Jim Crow may not have been that bad. Robertson clearly acknowledges a racial caste system. He was “white trash,” therefore, it was appropriate for him to be with the African Americans. Of course, it is clear what word would signify the African American analog of “white trash” during the Jim Crow Era.

Despite Phil Robertson’s anecdotal evidence concerning the limited experiences of his youth, there is no doubt that African Americans were mistreated during the Jim Crow Era. The federal government, state governments, and local governments all failed in defending the natural rights of African Americans. The question is whether the violation of natural rights caused by Title II is justified by over two centuries of mistreatment of people of African descent in the United States.

Oprah Winfrey recently caused an uproar when she said of older white racists: “Older people who marinated in that prejudice and racism … they just have to die.” If Winfrey was wishing death upon these elderly bigots, then that is wrong. However, it is not clear that that was what she was doing. The way that attitudes regarding race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. become more tolerant is by bigoted generations passing away and being replaced in positions of power by members of a younger and more tolerant generation. Just as with science, society changes through massive paradigm shifts caused by changing attitudes and changing demographics. There are few George Wallaces. Few people see the error of their ways and go from being vicious collectivist racists to tolerant individuals. Racist hate organizations such as the KKK are on the wane because the most die hard racists in the country are elderly or have died. Whether contemporary racists and religionists who hate based upon skin color, religion, or sexual orientation know it or not, they are a dying breed.

In many ways, the point of whether Title II is justified is moot. For the most part, it is no longer needed. The question is whether it was needed. There is no doubt that many virulent racists who ran businesses simply could not stand to follow the new Civil Rights legislation and sold or closed their businesses. Others probably just grinned and bore it. Over time, there were fewer racists of that ilk. Would intentional racism—as opposed to the unintentional institutionalized racism of the progressive welfare state—have dissipated as quickly without legislation such as Title II? Probably not. It would likely have been a much more gradual process. However, the free market would have helped. Some businesses would have continued to refuse to serve African American customers. However, there would nearly always be rivals who wished to take advantage of that untapped market and would happily cater to these customers. Over time, these businesses would have a larger customer base and thrive far more than their racist rivals. In short, discrimination by businesses providing public accommodations would have gone the way of the dodo eventually due to the pressure of the free market combined with the inevitability that younger generations have been becoming more tolerant as a whole.

Consider the case of homosexuals and the transgendered. In general, members of this class have not had the same broad federal legislation passed to protect their Civil Rights. Nevertheless, homophobia and bigotry aimed at the transgendered is slowly but surely disappearing. Regardless of what those like Phil Robertson scream while holding a Bible, such collectivist homophobes are a social evolutionary dead end. Of course, why Christians do not take what Christ—who one would argue is the CEO of Christianity—says to be more important than what some more obscure Old or New Testament text says is unclear. “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.” “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.”

The conclusion here is that Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should have been ruled unconstitutional. It is violative of the natural rights to liberty and property. While this unconstitutional law did quicken the pace at which overt racism within the realm of public accommodations dissipated, it is wrong for the government to violate any natural right. Even if that natural right is the right to do something distasteful and bigoted. It may very well have taken decades longer for this positive turn of events to occur in the absence of Title II. Fortunately, it is all merely a theoretical argument now.

Saturday, December 21, 2013

Iran, War, and the Health of the State

by Gerard Emershaw
Randolph Bourne famously said: “War is the health of the state.” This has proven to be a truism. War is sometimes necessary. The Revolutionary War was necessary to free the American Colonies from the oppressive yoke of British rule. However, most wars can and should be avoided. War against external enemies inevitably leads to a war against the American people. War leads to the erosion of civil liberties. From the Alien and Sedition Acts from Adams’ Quasi War to Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus to Wilson’s Sedition Act of 1918 to Roosevelt’s internment camps to the Patriot Act to the NSA surveillance program, war against an external enemy always involves a parallel war against the Constitution. War leads to bigger government, which leads higher spending and borrowing, which leads to a greater national deficit.

That war leads to greater deficits and less freedom is so well known by now that anyone who is hawkish on war must essentially be in favor of sacrificing economic health and freedom on the altar of militarism. Based on recent events in the Senate, it seems that there are plenty of bellicose neoconservatives and neo-progressives more than willing to make this sacrifice. A cadre of over two dozen Senators—evenly split among Democrats and Republicans—are pushing a bill called the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act. The bill threatens new sanctions against Iran at a time when the Obama administration is attempting to diffuse tensions with that nation through diplomacy. Such sanctions never work. They punish the people while having little or no effect on a nation’s leadership. They are acts of war which court blowback and harden hearts and minds around the globe against the United States.

It is unclear why so many misguided members of the Senate are so intent on a war with Iran, but it is clear that they have been for some time. These neoconservative RINOs and Wilsonian progressives do not care that keeping the nation on a war footing is expensive and will lead to an increased deficit and, perhaps ultimately, to even higher taxes. They do not care that more hostility toward the Islamic world can lead to blowback and yet more terrorism. They do not care that an Orwellian continuous war with nations in the Middle East will only grow the NSA and the rest of the Big Brother Surveillance State. They do not care that further destabilizing the Middle East in general and Iran in particular can have a disastrous impact on the global petroleum market.

A broken clock is right twice a day, and President Obama is right about attempting diplomacy with Iran. These senators are wrong. Dead wrong. President George W. Bush infamously said regarding the fight against terrorism: “You are either with us or against us.” Well, perhaps the same thing applies here. You are either with economic and social freedom or you are against it. If you are in favor of ginning up a war against Iran, then you are most certainly against freedom. The following sponsors of this wrongheaded bill are against freedom: Menendez, Kirk, Schumer, Graham, Cardin, McCain, Casey, Rubio, Coons, Cornyn, Blumenthal, Ayotte, Begich, Corker, Pryor, Collins, Landrieu, Moran, Gillibrand, Roberts, Warner, Johanns, Hagan, Cruz, Donnelly, and Blunt.

Friday, December 20, 2013

2013: The Year of the Woman

by Gerard Emershaw
Time named Pope Francis as its Person of the Year. Many justifiably complained that NSA whistleblower and American expat Edward Snowden was a more deserving candidate. While these two men were undeniably making headlines, what many may have overlooked was just how much 2013 has proven to be the Year of the Woman. What follows is a list of ten women who made a difference in 2013—for better or worse.

  1. Janet Yellen
  2. Mary Barra

In 2013, Janet Yellen was nominated by President Obama to succeed Ben Bernanke as Chair of the Federal Reserve and Mary Barra was named CEO of General Motors. If confirmed, Yellen will become the first woman to lead the country’s central bank. Barra became the first woman to lead General Motors. These women demonstrate just how far women have come by reaching the top in industries where “the old boys’ network” still reigns supreme. They also demonstrate that as women continue to smash through the glass ceiling, they will increasingly play both positive and negative roles in these industries.

Barra—who is described as “a soft-spoken, math-loving nerd with a passion for problem-solving”—faces many challenges with General Motors. General Motors needs to shed the derisive “Government Motors” label that it was given as a result of receiving a government bailout and going into Chapter 11 reorganization. Equally as important, Barra must reverse GM’s dwindling US market share. In the first quarter of 2012, the domestic automotive giant saw its share of the domestic market dip to 17.5%—the lowest it had been in 90 years. Barra has the opportunity to innovate, reform the company’s greying corporate culture, and return the corporate giant—which in many ways is a symbol of what has made America great—to prominence.

Yellen, in contrast, has reached the pinnacle of what can best be described as a criminal enterprise. The Federal Reserve is a dubious and unconstitutional private banking cartel. As a businesswoman, Barra will rise or fall based on her own abilities. However, as a banker in a quasi-political position, Yellen’s defenders may attempt to deflect any criticism directed at her as sexist and part of the “war on women.” Yellen is a die hard Keynesian, and therefore, it is inevitable that under her stewardship, the Federal Reserve will steer the American economy in entirely the wrong direction. The economy cannot and ought not be steered at all, but that is a matter for another blog post. In an important sense, Yellen finds herself in a no win situation. Because of the actions of her predecessor and because of the nefarious nature of the Federal Reserve itself, no good can or will result. However, for better or worse, Yellen finds herself as the head of the most powerful economic institution in the nation.

  1. Malala Yousafzai

While Barbara Walters may not have found her as worthy as Kim and Kanye of being on her 2013 list of Most Fascinating People, there is no doubt that Malala Yousafzai is fascinating. Yousafzai—now 16 years old—rose to prominence as an educational activist who defied the Taliban in Pakistan by refusing to be bullied. She courageously attended school despite the Taliban’s misogynistic ban on girls attending school. She paid the price for her courage, being shot and nearly killed by gunmen. What could this remarkable young woman have done in 2013 as a follow up? She faced the most powerful man in the world and bravely told him an important truth which he has not grasped. In a statement describing her meeting with President Obama at the White House, Yousafzai said: “I thanked President Obama for the United States’ work in supporting education in Pakistan and Afghanistan and for Syrian refugees. I also expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education it will make a big impact.” At a time when too many Americans—both progressive and neoconservative—support the bloody and blowback-inducing drone campaign, this young woman grasped the truth and was not afraid to express it.

  1. The American Woman Warrior

In January, American military leaders lifted the ban on women in combat roles. While American Presidents have increasingly been misusing the military and placing members in grave danger in dubious defense of corporate interests and American Empire, women already make up 15% of the military and serve with courage and honor. There is no reason why women should not be able to play an even greater role in defending the Republic.

  1. Hilary Clinton
  2. Dianne Feinstein
  3. Angela Merkel

2013 was a banner year for female politicians. In a perverse way, it shows how far women have come in politics that the biggest political scandal of the year had former Secretary of State—and perhaps future POTUS—Hilary Clinton front and center. One quote from the former First Lady and Senator will suffice to put it in perspective: “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

While Edward Snowden’s name became almost synonymous with the NSA domestic spying controversy, two women played a central role in this controversy in 2013. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has been a tireless supporter of the NSA and a tireless hater of the Fourth Amendment. No politician has recycled spurious arguments in favor of shredding the Fourth Amendment quite as well as Feinstein has. On the other side of the argument is German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was revealed to have been a target of NSA surveillance. Chancellor Merkel best summed up the NSA when she told President Obama that the NSA “was like the Stasi.” Ouch!

  1. Julie Borowski
  2. Bryce Covert

With the retirement of Congressman Ron Paul, the rising stature of Senator Rand Paul, and the battle for the heart of the GOP being waged, libertarianism has been a major factor in 2013. An enlightening debate about libertarianism and women lit up the internet when Julie Borowski—a Policy Analyst at FreedomWorks and internet sensation—posted a YouTube video entitled “Addressing the Lack of Female Libertarians.” Bryce Covert of Forbes responded with a piece entitled “Women Don't Like Libertarianism Because They Don't Like Libertarianism.” In a year where political discourse often degenerated into lowest common denominator name calling, this was a refreshing political and philosophical debate. The issue will be addressed in detail in a forthcoming blog entry.

  1. Miley Cyrus

Miley Cyrus’ twerking at August’s MTV Video Music Awards set of a firestorm of controversy. In late summer, it seemed as if twerking was being debated even more than the NSA. Many on the right viewed her as sinful while many on the left viewed her as having betrayed the ideals of feminism. The truth is that Miley Cyrus proved herself to be an individualist in a sea of cookie cutter prefab pop stars. What her detractors need to realize is that Ms. Cyrus is nobody’s fool and nobody’s tool. She has avoided the child star curse and has sold millions of albums and singles. Unlike women such as Hilary Clinton and Dianne Feinstein, Miley Cyrus has nothing to apologize for.

Divide and Conquer: Duck Dynasty Edition

by Gerard Emershaw




A&E television has indefinitely suspended Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the clan of TV’s popular reality show “Duck Dynasty” following remarks that the 67-year-old Louisiana native made in a GQ interview. In the interview, the bearded elder statesman made statements that have been perceived by some as homophobic and perceived by others as a sincere statement of true Christian beliefs. When asked what behavior he believes to be sinful, Robertson responded:
 “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
Critics charge that this was not the first time that Phil Robertson expressed homophobic views, citing a video of a 2010 speech that has surfaced on YouTube.
While many defenders of Robertson are crying foul based upon First Amendment considerations, this controversy is not a Constitutional matter. The First Amendment defends the free speech and freedom of religion of individuals against infringement by the federal government and by incorporation, against the state governments. Robertson’s rights were in no way violated by the government. He has the right to say what he did. Likewise his defenders and detractors have the right to say what they are saying about the controversy. A&E is a private entity—a cable channel owned jointly by the Hearst Corporation and Disney. Whether A&E has the right to suspend Phil Robertson from the show depends upon the nature and content of the contract. Whether it is prudent for A&E to suspend Phil Robertson is a complex matter involving considerations of sponsors, viewers, etc.
Many Robertson defenders believe that because the sentiments expressed by Phil Robertson appear in the Bible, any disapproval of his words must be some kind of political correctness gone awry. One wonders if they would feel the same if Robertson had used the Bible to attack Jews: “For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.” Or if Robertson had been a Muslim using the Koran to attack Christians and Jews: “Say: O People of the Scripture! Do ye blame us for aught else than that we believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed aforetime, and because most of you are evil-livers?” Freedom of speech and religion require that believers be able to make such statements but also that disbelievers be able to critique them.
The most crucial issue here is not freedom of speech or freedom of religion. It is also not whether Phil Robertson’s words were inappropriately homophobic. The issue is the angry and divided nature of the country. These divisions lead to bizarre and often disgusting attitudes. Even worse, these divisions enable statists to divide and conquer.
While Robertson may or may not be homophobic, there is no doubt that many who have been celebrating his statements are. While many of his detractors may legitimately be defending what they view as a potentially dangerous homophobic slur, many of Robertson’s detractors are playing the “gotcha” game. Such cynical purveyors of bogus outrage just wait to hear an awkward public statement that sounds a bit sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted and then pounce. Most of the time such statements are not meant to be offensive. This hardly matters when the gender, race, sexual orientation, or religion card may be played from the deck. Such cynical accusations of bigotry are as morally wrong as bigotry itself.
Notice all of the hatred spewed on the internet because of these divisions. While many critics of President Obama rightly criticize his policies, many attack him because of the color of his skin. While many justifiably rage against Islamic terrorism, many attack Islam in general and lump in all Muslims with terrorists. Such disgusting collectivism pits Americans against one another according to gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. The corporatist and unconstitutional Obamacare is devastating the nation’s health care, yet people are spewing hatred about a reality TV show. President Obama continues to shred the Constitution, yet people often attack him for his race or claim that he is a “secret Muslim.” The Federal Reserve and its nefarious backers continue to destroy the economy, yet the nation is consumed by the nonsensical “War on Christmas.”
The most sickening symptom of this division is what now happens when there is a mass shooting or terrorist attack. The rational and normal response would be to hope that death and injury is minimized and that the perpetrator is captured. However, the increasingly common response is to worry about the political ideology of the violent perpetrator. In the wake of the Boston Marathon Bombing, many progressives hoped that the attack was carried out by Tea Party types. When it was revealed that the suspects were Muslims, neoconservatives and Islamophobes seemed positively gleeful. For many, it no longer really matters how victims may suffer. Instead, it matters that Floyd Lee Corkins was a progressive gay activist, that Paul Ciancia opposed the New World Order, that Karl Pierson was a socialist and Keynesian, etc. Collectivism rearing its ugly head. A Muslim terrorist means that all Muslims are terrorists. A gay murderer means that all homosexuals are murderers. An anti-NWO shooter means that all who oppose globalism and fiat currency are violent criminals. A rampaging socialist means that all socialists are potential school shooters. Or consider the perverse joy with which many speak of “knock out” game attacks. Ecstasy over reporting black on white violence. Consider also those who were more concerned with the idea that George Zimmerman might be a racist than they were with the fact that Trayvon Martin died. Instead of sadness and outrage, the new reaction to such horrific events is joy that the perpetrator holds an ideology that one opposes and dread if the ideology of the perpetrator is similar to one’s own.
Ben Franklin once famously said: “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” With the deep and hateful collectivist divisions now present in the country, it appears that statists will have no trouble erecting separate gallows for each and every one of us.

Friday, December 6, 2013

Pearl Harbor: Blowback and War



by Gerard Emershaw


On the morning of December 7, 1941, 353 Japanese fighter jets attacked the United States naval base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. When the smoke cleared, over 2,400 Americans were dead and over 1,200 more were wounded. As a result of the Japanese attack, the United States declared war and became involved in World War II. Over 418,000 Americans would die in World War II.

Pearl Harbor is typically cited as a paradigm case of a sneak attack. But was it such a surprise? There is some evidence that President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew that the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor was going to take place. However, this is not the issue that will be discussed here. The issue in question is whether the bombing of Pearl Harbor and World War II in general were so inevitable as to come as no surprise.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but this should never be used as an excuse to give historical leaders a pass when it comes to missing signs of trouble. Japan was a growing industrial empire with fascistic designs on territorial expansion. Such a nation requires fuel to power its ambition and aggression. The September 1940 embargo on Japan by the United States prevented the export of steel, scrap iron, and aviation fuel to Japan. Following Japan’s occupation of southern Indochina, the United States, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands froze Japanese assets, and the United States blocked all Japanese purchases of American oil. With no source of oil, the Japanese decided to seize oil fields of the Indies. The only thing standing between Japan and that oil was the United States fleet at Pearl Harbor. With crippling sanctions and a desperate and belligerent empire, blowback was inevitable. Knowing about Japanese culture and giving the empire no way to save face, FDR and his advisors should have known that an attack was inevitable.

The blowback which ignited in a global war, the Holocaust, the Cold War, and countless geopolitical tinderboxes such as the Middle East should have been obvious from the very beginning. When Woodrow Wilson engineered the entry of the United States into the Great War, there was no risk that Germany and her allies would conquer the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and their allies. Without American involvement, peace would have been brokered. Perhaps Germany would have won some new colonies and a bit of territory, but a peaceful status quo would have followed soon thereafter. How could Wilson not see that American intervention would throw Europe out of balance? How could Clemenceau and George not see that forcing a broken Germany to pay crippling reparations and humiliating the nation and its people in so many ways would lead to problems? Sanctions and humiliation create the most destructive blowback. It was obvious then. And it is obvious now.

Even if one were to grant that Wilson and FDR could not see how their actions would inevitably create blowback, one cannot grant that the Obama administration and the Congress are unaware of the blowback that their actions and policies could create. Knowing what American intervention in World War I did, it is shocking that President Obama had wished to intervene in Syria. A decisive victory for the Jihadist rebels over Assad’s oppressive Stalinist Ba’athist regime simply had no upside and plenty of downside and plenty of potential blowback. Knowing what sanctions and humiliation caused Germany to do following World War I, why are so many Republicans in Congress unwilling to give diplomacy with Iran a chance? If and when the United States creates more blowback which results in yet more terrorism and war, American leadership will have no excuse for not seeing it coming.  

Nelson Mandela: Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?



by Gerard Emershaw


Former South African President and 1993 Nobel Peace Prize co-winner Nelson Mandela has died at the age of 95. The media and the international political establishment inevitably sings the praises of fallen statesmen even if they were anything but saints. Perhaps this is a matter of it being viewed as improper to speak ill of the dead—particularly right after their deaths. Or perhaps it is something else.  

Huffington Post called Mandela a “civil rights activist.” Chicago Tribune called him “an international icon of peace and reconciliation.” The New York Times called him “an international emblem of dignity and forbearance.”

President Obama referred to Mandela as “one of the most influential, courageous and profoundly good human beings that any of us will share time with on this earth.” In a sense, his words are revisionist history as far as Western governments go. Until 2008, Nelson Mandela was on a U.S. terror watch list. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan attempted to veto a Congressional non-binding resolution to recognize the African National Congress (ANC) and call on South Africa to release Mandela from prison. In 1987, UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher referred to Mandela’s ANC as “a typical terrorist organisation.”

In 1964, Nelson Mandela was convicted of acts of sabotage against the South African government and sentenced to life imprisonment. He served 27 years in prison and 18 of those years in horrific conditions at hard labor on Robben Island. Perhaps many naively assume that Mandela was wrongly convicted and unjustly imprisoned. However, the truth is that he was guilty of crimes which are best described as acts of terrorism. Mandela co-founded the Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK)—the militarist wing of the ANC. Under Mandela, the MK launched bombing attacks against government targets and made plans for a wider guerilla campaign against the apartheid government of South Africa. During the 1980s, the MK engaged in a terrorist bombing campaign which killed many South African civilians. The MK engaged in a violent landmine campaign which killed as many as 25 South Africans. The MK also routinely carried out torture and executions at its camps. A particularly inhuman method was “necklacing”—a method of killing by placing a burning tire around a person’s neck. In short, the MK was a terrorist organization. This means that Nelson Mandela may have been more akin to Arafat or bin Laden than to Gandhi or King.

The stark contrast between Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King is best exemplified by things which they said as young men during the late 1950s. Mandela said: “At the end of the day… violence was the only weapon that would destroy apartheid” King said: “As you press on for justice, be sure to move with dignity and discipline, using only the weapon of love. Let no man pull you so low as to hate him. Always avoid violence. If you succumb to the temptation of using violence in your struggle, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and desolate night of bitterness, and your chief legacy to the future will be an endless reign of meaningless chaos.” 

Nevertheless, it is possible that Mandela was more freedom fighter than terrorist. South Africa’s apartheid government was like the worst of Jim Crow institutionalized over an entire nation. The people of South Africa had a natural right to overthrow such an oppressive fascistic and racist collectivist regime. The early attacks of the MK could be viewed as part of a program of overthrowing an oppressive government which had long systematically violated the natural rights of its citizens—particularly the natural rights of its majority black population. Perhaps the MK only later transformed from a legitimate Lockean destroyer of an illegitimate government to a bloody terrorist organization. However, in 1985, Mandela refused a pardon because he did not wish to renounce violence. By this point, the MK was well into its murderous campaign of killing civilians and engaging in torture. This means that even if Mandela was not an active terrorist, he at least approved of terrorism.

While history will most likely credit Mandela with the destruction of apartheid, the truth is that figures such as Steve Biko, Desmond Tutu, and F.W. de Klerk deserve far more credit for ending apartheid. While history will also likely paint a portrait of Mandela as a successful president and democratic reformer, the truth is that his only great accomplishment as South African President was leaving office. Like George Washington, Mandela avoided the temptation of keeping power at the expense of the democratic rule of law. However, South Africa has declined since Mandela’s ANC has assumed power. Life expectancy has declined from 62 to 50. Black households still earn only about one-sixth that of white households. Much of this is the result of the ANC’s left-wing collectivist economic policies. Years earlier, Mandela had claimed: “Under a Communist Party Government South Africa will become a land of milk and honey.” According to Heritage, South Africa has only the 74th freest economy in the world—placing it barely in the category of  “moderately free.” In a sense, one can argue that this form of collectivist and borderline Marxist economics is a form of terrorism initiated by Nelson Mandela which is just as destructive as the militaristic terrorism conducted by the MK during the period from the 1960s to the 1980s.

Perhaps in the end, Nelson Mandela deserves modest praise for not becoming a dictator. However, Mandela also represents a lost opportunity. He had the influence necessary to institute the kind of free market reforms which could have lifted Black South Africans out of poverty. Alas, Mandela stayed committed to his pro-communist leanings. The great admirer of Castro and Qaddafi may not have brutalized his people the way that those dictators did, but his Marxist-influenced economic policies could be viewed as the moral equivalent of oppression.     

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Too Pretty for Combat?


By Gerard Emershaw


Colonel Lynne Arnhart complained in an internal U.S. Army e-mail that female soldiers pictured in military press releases are too pretty, and set off a maelstrom of controversy in the mainstream media and the blogosphere. Arnhart claimed:



In general, ugly women are perceived as competent while pretty women are perceived as having used their looks to get ahead…. There is a general tendency to select nice looking women when we select a photo to go with an article (where the article does not reference a specific person). It might behoove us to select more average looking women for our comms strategy. For example, the attached article shows a pretty woman, wearing make-up while on deployed duty. Such photos undermine the rest of the message (and may even make people ask if breaking a nail is considered hazardous duty).

Giving Colonel Arnhart the benefit of the doubt, one may have imagined that the Army had illustrated an article with a photo of a supermodel. However, the article, featuring a photo of CPL Kristine Tejada, was a photo of an actual soldier providing security while on duty in Iraq. Taken at face value, Colonel Arnhart’s statement is wrongheaded. It is an empirical question whether “ugly women” are perceived as more competent than “pretty women.” Studies have shown that when women wear makeup, they are perceived as being more competent. Studies have also shown that attractive people tend to be more intelligent. It is also strange that Colonel Arnhart is employing a double standard. Are ugly men perceived as more competent? Should the Army use photos of “average looking men” to illustrate official publications?


Official Army publications can be characterized as public relations materials. Perhaps they can even be characterized as propaganda. Television commercials and other advertising tend to employ attractive men and women. This is unsurprising. Why should the Army not do the same? The Army must be doing something right. Enlisted military routinely ranks among the worst jobs in the country, and 6,750 U.S. service members have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite this, all branches of the United States armed forces have been meeting or exceeding their recruitment goals.

Colonel Arnhart’s statement also highlights what the military actually thinks about Americans in general and potential recruits in general. Who is stupid enough to believe that a “pretty woman” in the military has gotten ahead merely because of her looks? Who is stupid enough to believe that serving in the armed forces is a glamorous job? Colonel Arnhart essentially believes that Americans are either misogynists or naïve fools, and it is not a stretch to believe that this attitude is common among the military brass.

The issue of women in the United States military goes far beyond academic feminism or political correctness. There is a danger that this particular story will lead people to view it all as a superficial matter. The truth is that this issue is anything but superficial.

Sexual harassment and sexual assault are alarmingly widespread in the armed forces. Between 2011 and 2012, there were 26,000 sexual assaults committed in the armed forces. This was up from 19,000 in 2010. The victims are predominantly women. Attitudes such as that exhibited by Colonel Arnhart reinforce the notion that female service members are nothing but objects characterized completely by physical appearance. Such attitudes only serve to further endanger women in the military.

In January, the U.S. military officially lifted its ban on women serving in combat roles. While the issue of whether women should serve in combat roles will continue to be hotly debated, the nature of modern warfare likely makes it inevitable. Modern warfare is becoming more technological. However, the real question is not whether women should serve in combat roles. In fact, they already do. Over 150 female service members have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the economy still in tatters and no true recovery in sight, it is likely that more women will enlist in the armed forces. With the way that neoconservatives in the Republican Party and neo-progressives in the Democratic Party warmonger and allow the armed forces to be used unconstitutionally by imperial presidents as cannon fodder to protect corporatist and foreign interests, far more women will be needlessly endangered. Far more service members will be cruelly sacrificed regardless of gender.

The fact that the Army is concerned at all with how attractive its female members are displays how warped its priorities are. The Army should be concerned with protecting the proud and brave women who serve this nation from sexual harassment and sexual assault. The Army should also be concerned with ensuring that women and men in the armed forces are only placed in danger in defense of the nation and not in the defense of corporate or foreign interests.