In the aftermath of the recent elections, I have been reflecting on the coming socialist-tinted Congress we face in January. Not a pleasant prospect, so perhaps we can gain some historical perspective on Pelosi’s Politburo. For instance, we can meditate on the vagaries of the life of one Josef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, former seminary student and mass murderer. A little history to provide a vantage point from which to consider the next two years. Surely no one but Donald Rumsfeld will be sent to the gulag.

Some time ago, in the comments on this blog, I told the story of “Joe the Georgian” as it applied to the future Baron Bodissey. As most of our readers know, our family is devoted to the music and lyrics of Al Stewart, who is not only a talented musician but also an astute historian. He’s an amateur in the original meaning of the word. Frequent commenter Yorkshireminer is another — though he has never said that he sings.

I love this story, since it features the prodigious talents of my youngest child, and especially his powerful memory, as this anecdote will illustrate.

The story begins in February, 2002, a few short months after the Baron and I had been to New York City to stare into the hole at Ground Zero. 9/11 was a constant humming thought in the background, a frozen image with only the sound of death to relieve the silence.

We discovered that Al Stewart would be performing in Pennsylvania and hastily bought tickets for the show. It turned out to be a small venue — a college-town coffee house — where Mr. Stewart was to perform solo with an acoustic guitar. Long before then, the future Baron had memorized whatever lyrics he could find; he sang and played Al Stewart’s songs for fun, almost from the first time he learned to use a guitar (he’d been a piano man up to that point). He also liked to sing some of Stewart’s work a cappella. “Joe the Georgian” was one of those — I can still picture him at the age of ten jumping on the rebounder and singing about Stalin.

With that background in mind, here is the story of our one and only live concert with Al Stewart. Little did we know when we entered the coffeehouse that the fB — by then sixteen — was going to experience his moment of fame.

It wasn’t that he’d never performed before. He used to win local talent contests by donning a fedora, a vest, and chewing on a cigar while he noodled on the piano and sang “Don’t Get Around Much Anymore,” and “As Time Goes By.” Way back then, for someone who didn’t shave and whose voice hadn’t changed, he did a fair imitation of Hoagy Carmichael.

So in we went. The place was crowded and warm, smelling wonderfully of coffee on that cold February night. The first set had sold out, but we had tickets for the second. By the time we got in, we were grateful to be there. We found good seats — the place was small enough that there weren’t really any bad ones.

As Mr. Stewart performed, I remembered the future Baron singing “Joe the Georgian” for an old man who remembered Stalin well and was amazed by the song. It gave me an idea: as soon as the break came, I went over to Mr. Stewart and said my son had learned most of his songs by heart. Mr. S. was a bit skeptical; hadn’t he been hearing that since 1980 or so? But I insisted that the fB was particularly adept at “Joe the Georgian.” Mr. Stewart laughed. “That old thing? I don’t even remember it. I’ll tell you what — he can give it a try, but if he blanks on it, we’ll move on.” I agreed — perfect stage mother that I am — and then told the future Baron what I’d plotted for him.

He gulped and sat down at the bar. Then he proceeded to put his hands over his eyes and dredge up the words to “that old thing.” It might have been five years since he’d sung it. I could see his hands tapping, his lips moving. Would he be able to recall the whole thing before the end of the break?

What do you think? Would I be telling you this story if he had flubbed?

So the second half began and Mr. Stewart invited the fB up to perform. Mr. Stewart admitted he didn’t remember the chords; it had been too long since he’d performed it himself. So the Boy began on his own, his young voice amplified by the microphone and the P.A. system. After the first nervous line, he found his stride and took off. Mr. Stewart stood leaning against the wall, smiling in… what?… bemusement, perhaps? By the second verse, the crowd began clapping and stomping like Russian peasants — in fact, they supplied a surprising authenticity. And then Mr. Stewart recovered the lost chords to his own song and started strumming in the background. By the time the song finished with that magnificent last line — “When Joe the Georgian gets here, we will dance!” — it wasn’t just a performance, it was a rousing participation by everyone in the room.
– – – – – – – – – –
Later, several people came up and gave the fB some money for his effort. He had really revved the audience for the rest of Mr. Stewart’s set. And while I never harbored any desire for my son to become a full-time musician, it was a good moment for all of us.

The only other memory that stands out from that evening, besides the long, satisfying walk back to the car, was the man sitting at the table next to us. During a lull between songs, he leaned over and confided that he lived in New Jersey and was channeling the voices of the people who died in the Towers… since this was less than six months after 9/11, I decided that trauma does strange things to us.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Here’s the song from that evening. I had always liked it (the future Baron was right: it makes good rebounder music), but now it has a special emotional resonance for me… I call it “The Night the fB Sang With Al Stewart as Backup.”

Joe the Georgian

by Al Stewart

Now I’ve got my payment
For the service that I gave
They’ve given me my ticket
To this place beyond the grave
I suppose it’s kind of funny
I suppose it’s kind of sad
Thinking back on all the times we had

But it’s kind of hot and smoky
In this ante-room to Hell
And I won’t make up a story
‘Cause you know the truth so well
It’s much too late to worry
That we never had a chance
And when Joe the Georgian gets here
We will dance, dance, dance
When Joe the Georgian gets here
We will dance

We all set off together
On this sorry ship of state
When the captain took the fever
We were hijacked by the mate
And he steered us through the shadows
Upon an angry tide
And cast us one by one over the side

But it’s kind of hot and smoky
In this ante-room to Hell
And I won’t make up a story
‘Cause you know the truth so well
It’s much too late to worry
That we never had a chance
And when Joe the Georgian gets here
We will dance, dance, dance
When Joe the Georgian gets here
We will dance

There’s Kamenev, Zinoviev,
Bukharin and the rest
We’re sharpening our pitchforks
And we’re heating up the ends
We’ve got a few surprises
For the mate when he appears
I hope he likes the next few million years

And it’s kind of hot and smoky
In this anteroom to Hell
And I won’t make up a story
‘Cause you know the truth so well
It’s much too late to worry
That we never had a chance
And when Joe the Georgian gets here
We will dance, dance, dance
When Joe the Georgian gets here
We will dance

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

“Joe the Georgian” is from the album Between the Wars, which seems to be out of print. The last time I checked, there were five copies available on Amazon, starting at $51.00. It’s hard to understand why one of his finest CDs could go out of print.

The collection includes songs about the Spanish Civil War, William Randolph Hearst’s mistress, Charles Lindbergh, Britain’s inter-war prime ministers, and Woodrow Wilson — all different, each spellbinding in its uncanny ability to summon up a lost era. Ironically, it seems to be an era we are determined to relive: one just as filled with foreboding, just as prescient about the coming bloodshed, with people just as determined to go on with life as usual.

Sometimes you snip and analyze. Sometimes you put up the whole darn post, because another blogger has said what you intuited —except you know you would have taken four more paragraphs to say what he captures so succinctly.

Besides, by the time I’d have finished writing a similar analysis like this one from Out of the Race, I would have been fulminating, foaming at the mouth, and generally being “a bit over the top” — as one of our readers said of my umm…perfervid remarks about the timing of Rumsfeld’s being shoved under the bus.

So here is the post from November 9th, entitled “Bellwether” — couldn’t be more aptly named, either. My bold, by the way:

When all is said and done in connection with the Pentagon management shakeup, the Baker commission report and the Dems actively taking control of the legislative branch, I for one will be watching the reenlistment rate among the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I suspect many troops will opt to return to civilian life if they feel that they no longer have support from the policymakers, rather than be jerked around by people who think like John Kerry. And if the re-up rate goes down, original enlistments will probably decrease, too. Nobody wants to fight in a war that the movers and shakers don’t want to win. That was true in Korea and Vietnam, and it’s true now.

Any new trends should be apparent by March or so, if they are to happen. I guarantee you that any such change will be spun by the lamestream media as Bush’s fault, probably accompanied by NYT and WaPo opinion pieces bemoaning what a dumb thing it was to get rid of Rumsfeld.

It sure would be interesting if Charlie Rangel’s (D-NY) idea of reinstating the draft had to be implemented by a Democratic congress in order to maintain military force levels. I wonder what the political fallout from that would be in ‘08.

As an aside, I also think that diminished capacity of our conventional forces, especially the Army and Marines, tends to make nuclear war more likely, because weakness encourages the enemy to attack, and when you must fight, you fight with what you have. The alternative is capitulation.

[Let’s wait for March and see what happens with re-enlistments. Meanwhile, I am reminded of the prediction by a deeply blue liberal friend of mine ( I do have friends who dwell beyond my own political parameters) who, in 2004, predicted that Bush would be impeached in May, 2006. This fellow reads “Truth Out” to get his ‘news’ so that gives you his standing on the political spectrum — i.e., real near the edge of the cliff. And presaging John Kerry, this friend also claimed that that when he taught high school, the only kids who went into the service were poor students and losers with no other chance in life. Yes, I still like this fellow; he’s entitled to his delusions. And he was only off on his impeachment prediction by a year.]

Oh, by the way, if you’re concerned about Rumsfeld’s feelings re the whole thing, Newsbusters has a great image of our Secretary of Defense, as he fends off the usual questions:

Was it an innocent scratching of the nose, or a classic Goose moment right out of the movie “Top Gun?” I report, you decide.

In a question and answer session at Kansas State University on Thursday, outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was posed the following: “If you were going to give yourself a letter grade for your performance as Secretary of Defense, what grade would that be?”

– – – – – – – – – –

As he answered, “Oh, I’d let history worry about that,” Rumsfeld used his middle finger to scratch his nose. Coincidence, Freudian slip, or something much, much more? And, did CNN intentionally show this clip on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” to discredit the former Secretary? Regardless, I hate it when it does that.

As for the author’s (Noel Sheppard) lament about CNN: don’t bother, sir. CNN is more predictably poisonous than The New York Times, with half the intelligence and none of the subtlety. Always expect them to spin it in Rumsfeld’s disfavor. Meanwhile, the rest of us can enjoy Rumsfeld’s little barb.

“Freudian slip”? In a pig’s eye. That was quintessential Donald Rumsfeld: wipe the tire tracks off his face and soldier on. He’s more of a soldier than many of the military brass he worked with. Do you know how you can tell? Because he made so many of them, formerly comfortable in their complacency, absolutely furious (anyway, just to be safe re my assumption, I’ll ask Shrinkwrapped his analysis of this hand gesture. I’ll let you know what he says).

No doubt they got together for the celebration of his dismissal before the rest of us had the news. And no doubt he will thoroughly enjoy his remaining weeks in The Building — playing hand jive — before being replaced by the genial cipher who follows in his wake. While the President may be a lame duck, his replacement for Rumsfeld is a crippled go-fer gopher. He’ll pop his head up occasionally, but don’t expect anything new.

Not that I’m telling you anything new, but generals always fight the current war based on the one which preceded it. And they’re eternally prone to celebrating pyrrhic victories.

Hat tips: Minority of One and the ever-dependable, tireless Larwyn

This news story is hard to believe:

THE Dutch government has announced that it would seek a way of banning the wearing of burqas and other Muslim face veils in public places, possibly becoming the first European country to impose such a ruling.

The announcement comes at a time when the debate on such veils and whether they prevent Muslims from integrating has gathered momentum across Europe and drawn comments from leaders such as Britain’s Tony Blair and Italy’s Romano Prodi.

Needless to say, the Usual Suspects have their bloomers torqued:
– – – – – – – – – –

Dutch Muslim groups have complained a burqa ban would only make the country’s one million Muslims feel more victimised and alienated, regardless of whether they approve of burqas or not.

“What the government is doing now is totally disproportionate to the number of women who actually wear the burqa,” said Ayhan Tonca, chairman of an umbrella group of Dutch Muslim organisations.

“The legislation we already have to protect people for security reasons is adequate,” he added.

Hope, a Dutch-born Muslim, said she wore a niqab because she wanted to. “Nobody has the right to forbid it. If someone decides I cannot wear it then I will feel suppressed,” she said.

Yes, of course.

Strangely enough, the Dutch government doesn’t seem to mind if she feels suppressed. I wonder what made them change their minds?

And why does it feel like both the Netherlands and the U.S.A. have suddenly made 180º turns in public policy?

Hat tip: Brendan at the 910 Group.

It’s the Marine Corps birthday, everyone. Time to celebrate a Marine, cheer up, and move on.

This Sunday, the 45th annual Marine Corps worship service will be at the National Presbyterian Church, 4101 Nebraska Avenue, NW.

And just to let you know it’s an official event, here are some “suggestions” from the Commandant on what to wear —

Uniform for active duty Marines is Dress Blue “B” with ribbons and no badges. Other services should wear their equivalent uniform; civilian dress is business suit.

Semper Fi, you guys…especially Chester, who posted the following description, by an anonymous Canadian:

“Marines are about the most peculiar breed of human beings I have ever witnessed. They treat their service as if it were some kind of cult, plastering their emblem on almost everything they own, making themselves up to look like insane fanatics with haircuts to ungentlemanly lengths, worshipping their Commandant almost as if he were a god, and making weird animal noises like a band of savages. They’ll fight like rabid dogs at the drop of a hat just for the sake of a little action, and are the cockiest sons of bitches I have ever known. Most have the foulest mouths and drink well beyond man’s normal limits, but their high spirits and sense of brotherhood set them apart and, generally speaking, the United States Marines I’ve come in contact with are the most professional soldiers and the finest men I have ever had the pleasure to meet.”

That’s quite an accurate summary, though it fails to catch the esprit de corps of those guys. “Sense of brotherhood” merely scratches the surface.

I don’t know what it’s like now, but way back when I was a Marine Corps wife, someone who was on active duty with the 82nd Airborne came to visit us on base. He was amazed that women walked freely about without fear of being attacked. He assured us that was not the case on the Army base where he served. Until he said that, it had never occurred to me exactly how secure a Marine Corps base really was.

I loved the Marine Corps. Still do. There is some similarity between being a Catholic and being a Marine. No matter how long ago those events were, no matter what may have happened in the intervening years, on November 10th, you remember. For a brief day, you still belong. Kind of like showing up for Midnight Mass…and remembering the magic of the bells.

So Happy 231st, jarheads! Long may you reign.

Last night, November 9th, was the sixty-eighth anniversary of Kristallnacht. The Jewish community of Copenhagen held a torchlight ceremony in front of the old synagogue in remembrance of that terrible night.

Steen of the Danish blog Snaphanen sent me a tip about the event, adding this:

I’m not Jewish, but I’ve always sided up with the Danish Jews, especially now I see how “the new Danes” treat them.

He took some photos and videos (see the videos here and here), but his post is entirely in Danish (scroll down for the Kristallnacht part).

The videos are in Danish, too, but one of them shows a woman singing a moving and melancholy song, one that communicates quite effectively outside the medium of language.

Danish-speakers are welcome in the comments to weigh in and gloss anything of interest.

Kristallnacht (really two nights) was the culmination of a series of official German actions directed against the Jews, including a succession of laws that progressively deprived Jews of their civil rights and their property. Here’s an account of the events from the Jewish Virtual Library:
– – – – – – – – – –

In the first half of 1938, numerous laws were passed restricting Jewish economic activity and occupational opportunities. In July, 1938, a law was passed (effective January 1, 1939) requiring all Jews to carry identification cards. On October 28, 17,000 Jews of Polish citizenship, many of whom had been living in Germany for decades, were arrested and relocated across the Polish border. The Polish government refused to admit them so they were interned in “relocation camps” on the Polish frontier.

Among the deportees was Zindel Grynszpan, who had been born in western Poland and had moved to Hanover, where he established a small store, in 1911. On the night of October 27, Zindel Grynszpan and his family were forced out of their home by German police. His store and the family’s possessions were confiscated and they were forced to move over the Polish border.

Zindel Grynszpan’s seventeen-year-old son, Herschel, was living with an uncle in Paris. When he received news of his family’s expulsion, he went to the German embassy in Paris on November 7, intending to assassinate the German Ambassador to France. Upon discovering that the Ambassador was not in the embassy, he settled for a lesser official, Third Secretary Ernst vom Rath. Rath, was critically wounded and died two days later, on November 9.

The assassination provided Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Chief of Propaganda, with the excuse he needed to launch a pogrom against German Jews. Grynszpan’s attack was interpreted by Goebbels as a conspiratorial attack by “International Jewry” against the Reich and, symbolically, against the Fuehrer himself. This pogrom has come to be called Kristallnacht, “the Night of Broken Glass.”

On the nights of November 9 and 10, rampaging mobs throughout Germany and the newly acquired territories of Austria and Sudetenland freely attacked Jews in the street, in their homes and at their places of work and worship. At least 96 Jews were killed and hundreds more injured, more than 1,000 synagogues were burned (and possibly as many as 2,000), almost 7,500 Jewish businesses were destroyed, cemeteries and schools were vandalized, and 30,000 Jews were arrested and sent to concentration camps [added by Mitchell Bard from his book The Complete Idiot’s Guide to World War II. NY: MacMillan, 1998, pp. 59-60].

The official German position on these events, which were clearly orchestrated by Goebbels, was that they were spontaneous outbursts. The Fuehrer, Goebbels reported to Party officials in Munich, “has decided that such demonstrations are not to be prepared or organized by the party, but so far as they originate spontaneously, they are not to be discouraged either.” (Conot, Robert E. Justice At Nuremberg. NY: Harper & Row, 1983:165)

Many historians view November 9th, 1938, as the beginning of the Holocaust. The Nazis used the events of that night as an excuse to pass even more draconian anti-Jewish laws, blaming the Jews themselves for the pogrom directed against them. Any insurance claims owed to Jewish businesses or individuals by German firms were diverted to the German government, with the aim of “removing the Jews from the economy of the Reich.” All the bureaucratic machinery had now been put in place, ready for the Final Solution to begin.

Never forget.

On Wednesday our Swedish correspondent LN reviewed Storm Over Europe, and the post prompted commenter Evan to ask this question:

Does the book try to rigorously calculate the ethnoreligious breakdown of Denmark or anyplace else in Europe? If so, I would like to learn what their estimates are. One hears people carelessly throwing figures around like “Sweden is already 20% Muslim” and so on. I know the CIA estimates that France is about 10% Muslim. And Mark Steyn claims, without any documentation, that among young French the percentage is vastly higher. But the whole issue is shrouded in politically correct obscurity.

I asked Steen of Snaphanen if he had any idea of what the answer might be. Here is his reply:
– – – – – – – – – –

No one knows the real figure. Until now we have not listed people by religious belief. In the book Tabita Wullf discusses the holes in the statistics.

However — it is estimated that Denmark has around 2-300,000 (made after a count of Muslim names).

For Sweden, estimates lie around 3-500,000. Norway, I don’t know.

But anyone can speculate, as no one knows. Therefore it is also a time-consuming matter to look into, as Fjordman seems to know.

The answer from her — too many, anyhow.

all the best — Steen

I’ve used Steen’s numbers and the latest population figures I could find for the two countries to calculate the percentages:

		Total Pop.		Low				High
Denmark		5,432,335		200,000		3.7%		300,000		5.5%
Sweden		9,001,774		300,000		3.3%		500,000		5.6%

I know these are going to cause a lot of argument — it’s clear that many Danes think these estimates are too low. Let’s hope that our commenters can point the way to some new sources of information.

Tech Central Station has a ‘must-read’ post up on Pelosi’s choices for the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee:

With majority status in the “people’s house” comes a share in responsibility for the security of the Republic. This is why we are so concerned about a shadow which darkens presumptive Speaker Pelosi’s triumphant morning, a shadow which will only grow longer if she allows it to begin appearing prominently in the media coverage of the global war on terrorism, metastasizing into her first “intelligence failure” even before she takes the gavel from outgoing Speaker Hastert. That is the shadow of Alcee Lamar Hastings, the reelected Democratic Representative from Florida’s 23rd District.

Mr. Hastings was, in the outgoing 109th Congress, the second-ranked Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. But the Washington Post’s Charles Babington first reported more than a year ago, in a story that has never been denied (indeed, it has been confirmed in the congressman’s hometown newspaper, the Miami Herald) that Ms. Pelosi plans to replace the committee’s current ranking Democrat, California Representative Jane Harman, with Mr. Hastings who would be installed as committee chairman when the 110th Congress begins. The move would be a payback to the Congressional Black Caucus, to whose support Pelosi owes her election as Minority Leader and whose members she angered by picking Ms. Harman to be ranking member over Georgia Rep. Sanford Bishop in 2003. The incoming Speaker must also mollify the Black Caucus for having pushed Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson (he of the frozen cash) off the Ways and Means Committee.

So what’s the deal, you say? Pelosi pays off a political debt. Pols do it all the time. Right. But do they pay their debts by appointing an impeached judge, a felon, a known criminal with questionable appointments to his own staff? To the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee??

Hastings was impeached, disbarred, and tarred and feathered by the Congress:

Mr. Hastings became only the sixth judge in the history of our Republic (and only the third in the 20th Century) to be removed by Congress. He was, and is, an utter disgrace to the nation and to the legal profession. Among those voting to impeach him were Ms. Pelosi herself, Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, the Democratic whip who is likely to become the new House majority leader, and Mr. Hastings’ fellow African-American Congressman, Michigan’s John Conyers, who took pains to deny that race had anything to do with the removal of the bribe-taking jurist.

Believe it or not, even though felons can’t vote, they can run for office. And so he did. And there he sits, a metastasizing cancer — a creep with neither principles nor integrity — now being seriously considered for the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee in order to pay off a political debt.
– – – – – – – – – –
Just to give you a flavor of his “intelligence” votes, here you go:

The disgraced judge-cum-legislator’s record on national security—the most basic criterion for leading the intelligence committee at any time, much less in the midst of a war on terror—has not been reassuring. In the 109th Congress alone, Mr. Hastings voted consistently against key counterterrorism tools, including the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act, the Intelligence and Law Enforcement Resolution, and the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act. He has been an opponent of the trial by military commissions of unlawful terrorist combatants as well as border control, NSA communications intercepts, and terrorist financing tracking measures.

I haven’t even begun to cover the slime which oozes from this personage. Please click the link to TCS and read the rest.

That sound you hear is our intel community being flushed down the toilet. Welcome to the Dem-Dim world. Ugly and unremittingly dangerous.

I wish I could say this is the worst of it, but the creatures floating up from the bottom-feeding Democrats in Congress have not even begun to feed. This is merely the prologue to what promises to be an ongoing nightmare.

Think of it: we have a Speaker of the House who voted to impeach a convicted, disbarred felon. Now she is considering him for the Chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee as a payoff. Hard to get your mind around the quality of corruption we’re going to be subjected to, isn’t it?

These people make the Republican corruption look amateurish.

Hat Tip In From the Cold.

The Republican Study Committee, headed by Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, has published an abridged listing of some of the Democrat-proposed legislation that has been presented in the House during 2005 — 2006.

This is definitely a party with a plan. And the plan is to pick your wallet clean, drive you to insanity with trifling legislation, and generally insure the advent of the socialist welfare state. This isn’t Big Brother; this is that whiny Little Brother, grabbing all the marbles and making up crabby new rules as he goes along.

As Representative Pence notes, the Democrat Plan involves the Three R’s:

• Raise taxes,
• Retreat from Iraq, and
• Redefine marriage.

The only one he left out is “Relinquish the Southern Border.” But perhaps you can think of others we may have missed. If so, go to Republican Study Committee Blog; they have a contact link.

Take a deep breath and gaze upon the workings of great minds, dedicated to your welfare — provided with your money, confiscated for your own good since you are not a legislator and cannot think of the greater good, or even your own well-being. Thus someone else, at great sacrifice to himself or herself, must think for you.

I give you the Democrat plan for the future:

In light of ongoing Democrat criticisms of the Republican legislative agenda, the following is an abridged list of actual bills that have been introduced by House Democrats this or last year.

Justice for the Unprotected against Sexually Transmitted Infections among the Confined and Exposed Act (JUSTICE) Act (Lee, D-CA)—H.R. 6083. Requires community organizations to be allowed to distribute sexual barrier protection devices (e.g. condoms) in federal prisons. Also prohibits a federal prison from taking adverse action against a prisoner who possesses or uses a sexual barrier protection device.

Crack-Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act (Rangel, D-NY)—H.R. 2456. Eliminates the mandatory minimum sentence for crack-cocaine convictions.

Tupac Shakur Records Release Act of 2006 (McKinney, D-GA)—H.R. 4968. Enshrines copies of government records concerning rapper Tupac Shakur in a specially created collection at the National Archives.

– – – – – – – – – –

Antibullying Campaign Act (Nadler, D-NY)—H.R. 3787. Creates a new federal grant program aimed at reducing bullying in public schools “based on any distinguishing characteristic of an individual.”

To provide for coverage under the Medicare and Medicaid Programs of incontinence undergarments (Frank, D-MA)—H.R. 1052. Makes adult diapers a covered item under Medicare and Medicaid.

Gas Stamp Act (McDermott, D-WA)—H.R. 3712. Creates billions of dollars in gas stamps each year for people to get free gas, to be distributed to those already eligible for food stamps.

States’ Rights to Medical Marijuana Act (Frank, D-MA)—H.R. 2087. Allows physicians in states with medical marijuana laws to prescribe marijuana without violating federal law.

Ex-Offenders Voting Rights Act (Rangel, D-NY)—H.R. 663. Allows those convicts who are just out of prison to vote.

Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act (Kucinich, D-OH)—H.R. 3760. Establishes a U.S. Department of Peace and Nonviolence, as well as a Peace Day. The department would promote “human rights,” international conflict prevention, nonviolent intervention, structured mediation, and peaceful conflict resolution.

National Health Insurance Act (Dingell, D-MI)—H.R. 15. Institutes a new 5% value-added tax on property and services and creates a board to oversee payment to any individual for medical services not covered by Medicare.

Freedom of Choice Act (Nadler, D-NY)—H.R. 5151. Creates a right to unrestricted pre-viability abortions, and late terms abortions for the life and health of the mother.

End the War in Iraq Act (McGovern, D-MA)—H.R. 4232. Defunds the War in Iraq, forcing immediate troop withdrawal.

Public Interest Lawyer Assistance Relief Act (Andrews, D-NJ)—H.R. 1753. Forgives the law school debt for attorneys working for a tax-exempt organization or the government.

A Living Wage, Jobs for All Act (Lee, D-CA)—H.R. 1050. Builds on and strengthens FDR’s “Economic Bill of Rights,” creating rights to “decent” jobs, income for individuals unable to work, a “decent” living for farmers, freedom from monopolies, “decent” housing, “adequate” health care, Social Security, education, work training, collective bargaining, a safe working environment, information on trends in pollution sources and products and processes that affect the well-being of workers throughout the world, voting, and personal security. The bill also requires the Attorney General to create a registry of all corporations convicted of violating state or federal law.

Social Security Forever Act (Wexler, D-FL)—H.R. 2472. Imposes a new income tax on workers, employers, and self-employed businessmen to fund Social Security.

Health Security for All Americans Act (Baldwin, D-WI)—H.R. 2133. Requires states to create programs to ensure universal health coverage, and allows states to force employers to pay for health insurance for their employees.

Universal National Service Act (Rangel, D-NY)—H.R. 4752. Makes it an obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the U.S., between the ages of 18 and 42, to perform a two-year period of national service, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense.

Living American Wage Act (Green, D-TX)—H.R. 5731. Mandates that the federal minimum wage be equal to or greater than 112% of the federal poverty threshold beginning in 2007, and states that the minimum wage should be revised every four years.

Media Ownership Reform Act (Hinchey, D-NY)—H.R. 3302. Restricts ownership of radio and television stations, forcing some owners to divest their holdings, and regulates broadcast content.

Universal Education Act (Kind, D-WI)—H.R. 3930. Creates a Universal Education Corporation that provides taxpayer dollars to foreign countries that enter into education reform agreements with the U.S.

Medicare for All Act (Dingell, D-MI)—H.R. 4683. Increases taxes on workers and employers to offer to all citizens, and other individuals legally present in the U.S., Medicare benefits equivalent to the health care plans federal employees receive.

Menu Education and Labeling Act (DeLauro, D-CT)—H.R. 5563. Regulates what certain restaurants must print on their menus.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of all citizens of the United States to a public education of equal high quality (Jackson, D-IL)—H.J.Res. 29. Creates a constitutional right to equal public education.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of citizens of the United States to health care of equal high quality (Jackson, D-IL)—H.J.Res. 30. Creates a constitutional right to equal health care.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing (Jackson, D-IL)—H.J.Res. 32 and Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to a home (Rangel, D-NY)—H.J.Res 40. Creates a constitutional right to housing.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to full employment and balanced growth (Jackson, D-IL)—H.J.Res. 35.Creates a constitutional right to full employment.

I think the proposed Department of Peace and Non-Violence is meant to begin the process of replacing the Department of Defense and to replace any spoken or written or photographic reference to Donald Rumsfeld in the public domain. Since The Peace Department would be charged with promoting “human rights,” international conflict prevention, nonviolent intervention, structured mediation, and peaceful conflict resolution, the perfect Secretary for Peace and Structured Mediation would be, of course, the man himself, Ethelred the Unready the Honorable Dennis Kucinich.

And notice their plan to “build on FDR’s ideas.” Now there’s real Democrat innovation and forward thinking. By all means, let’s bring back “a chicken in every pot” idea….oh, wait. The poor and homeless already eat at Kentucky Fried Chicken. The Dems don’t really expect anyone to start cooking… do they?

The idea of a national right to housing could be useful in the following ways:

• Both house of Congress could begin by shelling out some modest percentage of their campaign funds towards the cost of a house for a needy person in their district. This, of course, would be means-tested. No fair giving one to your brother.
• Local lotteries could be set up to see who gets the chance to live at the Congressman’s legal address in the district in which he serves while the member is on duty in Washington or back in the disrict campaigning, or on some crucial, educational junket. Again, the lottery would be limited to those without housing.
• Any legislator with more than one residence would be legally required to sell all but one of them and use the proceeds to buy modest homes for the needy in his district.
• When Congress is not in session, anyone who voted for this bill would be required to work for Habitat for Humanity with Jimmah, building homes for the poor or rehabilitating substandard housing. That way, the current resident in his own district residence would be able to continue living there.

No doubt you could come up with some equally useful ideas for ways that Congress could profitably spend its own money and time before it started on yours.

Just sayin’…

My father worked for Signals Intelligence as a cryptographer during World War Two and the Cold War. He always took his security clearance seriously: he never discussed the content of his work at home. Neither his wife nor his children knew what he did for a living until after he retired and the NSA gave him a cryptography award. Finally, I knew what my dad did for a living!

But, whatever it was, we all knew it was serious Cold War stuff, because he had Army signals manuals and a Russian-English dictionary in the house. No need to ask why that would be…

Strangely enough, he also had a Swedish-English dictionary. During an email exchange with Kepiblanc, our Danish reader and translator, I mentioned this fact to him. Since I was aware of the attitude the Danes have towards Sweden, I knew it wouldn’t offend him if I implied that Swedish neutrality during the Cold War had not been considered entirely trustworthy by NATO.

And, indeed, he wasn’t offended. In fact, he had a little story to tell.

Just a couple of weeks ago was the 25th anniversary of the “Whiskey on the Rocks” affair, in which a Soviet submarine ran aground on a Swedish island. The sub was the U-137, a W-class vessel — known in military parlance as “Whiskey” class; hence the sardonic name for the whole lurid episode.

Kepiblanc told me a version of the incident that I had never heard before, one which he said is an open secret within certain circles in Denmark.

It seems that during the Cold War there was a tacit agreement between the Swedes and the Soviets. The Soviets would be allowed to practice submarine maneuvers among the Swedish islands, where sonar is severely impaired, and in return the Swedes would pretend not to know they were there.

Occasionally the Swedes would be allowed to “discover” a Soviet sub to prove that their coastal defenses were always on the alert. Just so long as they never dropped depth charges anywhere near where the submarines really were…

I asked Kepiblanc to provide Gates of Vienna with more information, and he generously sent us the following article.

On Swedish “Neutrality”

by Kepiblanc

Will Sweden survive the next six years as a civilized nation?

If so, it will mark 200 years of peace. In 1801 Sweden betrayed its allies in the “Union of Armed Neutrality” — encompassing Russia, Sweden and Denmark/Norway — with a disastrous outcome for Denmark. Now standing alone against an overwhelming naval force led by Sir Hyde Parker and Lord Horatio Nelson, the Danish Navy fought it out at “The Battle of Copenhagen”, lost 6,000 men, and in 1814 had to hand over Norway to Sweden.

Since then Sweden has been involved in no armed conflicts. Swedish “neutrality” has kept the country outside two Danish wars with Prussia/Austria (1848-50 and 1864), the Crimean War (1854-56), World War I (1914-18) and World War II (1939-45). And the “Cold War”? — More on that later…

– – – – – – – – – –

But what if the answer to the question is “No”? If Swedish “neutrality” managed to keep Sweden a nation at peace for almost 200 years, why not any longer?

Well, maybe due to that very same policy — or should I say “mentality”? Could it be that many generations of Swedes living in peace can deprive an entire nation of the ability to see the signs of clear and present danger?

Now, seeing Sweden poised to surrender itself to Islam and its aspirations of a world-encompassing Caliphate, I’m tempted to answer that question affirmatively. But wait… I know the Swedes quite well and I can’t — even in my worst nightmares — imagine that the average Calle Svensson would disgrace himself by tumbling around in long shirts, kissing the dirt five times a day, nor would give up his renat and his kräftkalas (Google is your friend) and encapsulate his beautiful wife and daughters in black tents. Then how to explain the current miserable state of affairs? Is it thinkable that Calle is a victim of deception?

If so, it wouldn’t be the first time.

Exactly 25 years ago — on the morning of October 27th, 1981 — the world woke up to stunning photos on all the front pages: a Soviet submarine rammed into a rock in the Swedish Skärgård archipelago, its bow high on dry land. The affair made headlines for a few weeks and eventually calmed down to an “unlucky incident” involving a drunk driver of the U-137 sub, incorrect naval maps, and bad weather (!). the Soviet Navy hauled the sub off the rock and nobody was harmed. Apart from the reputation of the navies involved, that is.

But questions remained: Was it a coincidence that the affair took place right in the inlet of a major Swedish naval base (Karlskrona)? Was it a stray submarine way off its course? Was the Swedish anti-submarine defense incompetent?

Many theories were aired, but no single one was confirmed. Nevertheless, during the following years countless “episodes” took place. Almost weekly a new Soviet submarine in Swedish waters was suspected, indicated by sonar and visual — but unreliable — reports. And the Swedish Navy made a spectacular performance on TV with detonating depth-charges, helicopters and whatnot. Somehow all those Soviet submarines seemed to evade real detection and never left a trail. Strange, to say the least…

One theory involved the US Secretary of Defense, Mr. Casper Weinberger, who admitted that US subs occasionally entered Swedish waters, but in full understanding with the Swedes, in order to test its coastal defense against the Soviets. That way the Swedish right-wing electorate was pacified. Another theory held that the whole rigmarole was nothing but a hoax by the Swedish Navy in order to raise funding. This would satisfy the left-wing electorate. A third that all those subs were in fact seals or minks with a submarine-like acoustic signature (!).

But the truth? Well, here 25 years, later let’s take a sober look. Some may call it yet another conspiracy theory — and they’re welcome to do so. But please don your fatigues and sea-boots, pull out your Manual on Submarine Warfare and consider this:

Let us assume there really were Soviet submarines in Swedish waters but no one was “caught”. Who would benefit? The logical answer is: everyone!

The Soviets had a major, tactical concern: The US Navy and the Royal Navy could easily hide their subs in the Swedish Skärgård — one vast, rocky maze of small islands. Anti-submarine measures are next to useless: active sonar in such waters is utterly futile, what with echoes bouncing all over. Passive sonar is an option, but signatures are badly distorted. From there, they could launch short- and medium- range cruise missiles at all the major Soviet installations in the Baltics. Accordingly, an effective and alert Swedish Navy would be very welcome.

The Swedes — especially the military and defense industry — would benefit in terms of merchandise and money. At the same time the Swedish government could assure NATO of its firm stance on neutrality: “Look, we’re alert and actually delivering live munitions!” — And the Swedish government and its MSM could give the electorate — left and right — the illusion of taking neutrality seriously.

NATO then? — Well, at that time it had no longer any need of delivering short-range missiles, and probably never had the idea of using these waters anyway. The Danish Navy with its ships, submarines, mining capacity and sea-fortresses were — in Josef Stalin’s words — “A stopcock in the Baltic Sea” and capable enough to contain the Soviet Baltic Fleet in its home waters, away from the high seas. So NATO could just spare itself the effort, money and concern. Let ‘em play…

A win-win-win situation if there ever was one.

Of course the main culprit of all this was: How to avoid casualties — it wouldn’t improve the relative quiet state of affairs if someone actually got hurt, would it? The obvious solution: Let’s arrange everything in a friendly and understanding way, shall we? The Swedes: “If the Soviets want to improve our Navy — well, they’re welcome.” The Soviets: “We don’t want surfaced subs or casualties, so please drop your depth-charges elsewhere. We’ll tell you where, OK?”

Take your pick…

And Calle Svensson ? At that time he swallowed the story hook, line, and sinker. Does he still?

Here are some resources on the topic that Kepiblanc included with his article:

“Some Remarks on the US/UK Submarine Deception In Swedish Waters in the 1980s”

by Ola Tunander (pdf document). Claims all the “intrusions” were manipulations or inventions by the USA and the UK.

“Whiskey on the Rocks”. A detailed and entertaining account of the incident, with a lot of photos.

“Mysterious Submarines in Swedish Waters” (pdf document); introduction by Vojtech Mastny. Concerns the official Swedish report.

“Submarine Incursions in Swedish Waters, 1980-1992: Comment on the Research Controversy” by Ola Tunander (pdf format). A brief account that once again emphasizes the likely presence of NATO vessels.

“25-year anniversary of Soviet U-137 submarine crisis”, by Lennart Simonsson, Oct 27, 2006. A retrospective overview of the incident in Monsters and Critics.

“#Tl20C: Unlearning Ineffective or Obsolete Technologies”, by William H. Starbuck, New York University. Published in the International Journal of Technology Management, 1996, 11: 725-737. Posted in Free World Order. The “Whiskey” incident applied to the title topic.

In From the Cold has the best assessment of the leave-taking of Donald Rumsfeld from the Department of Defense: President Bush and his advisers threw Rummy under the bus.

A succinct explanation for a dishonorable act. And the most dishonorable aspect is its timing. Want to shift the blame for the mistakes, mis-steps, and blunders for the second term of this administration? Why, then, choose the third most reviled member of the group. The easiest target, the scapegoated focus of pacifist hate: Donald Rumsfeld.

Perhaps it was past time for Mr. Rumsfeld to take his leave. Certainly the turncoat, disloyal General staff were loud in their disapproval. No mention of their own mistakes, of course, or how angry they were that Rumsfeld had to rebuild from the mess Clinton left in his anti-military wake. Where were they when Clinton was derelict? Where were the talking military heads then? Hunkered down and waiting for safer times, that’s where.

If the Secretary of Defense needed to leave, it should never have happened the day after an election in which the Republicans were defeated. How lick-spittle can you get, Mr. Bush? If you ever had a sense of timing – and some have complained of this deficit – it surely wasn’t on display in this jettisoning of one of your most loyal players. Would you mind describing again to us your valuation of loyalty, sir?

Spook 86 put it this way:

Despite yesterday’s Democratic victory, and demands for a “new course” in Iraq, I am disappointed by today’s announcement, or perhaps more correctly, the timing of the move. Don Rumsfeld has been a loyal administration soldier for almost six years, trying to manage both the War on Terror and the transformation of the U.S. military, Herculean tasks that would be difficult under any circumstances. Attempting to do them simultaneously is unprecedented in our military history.

And I cannot over-emphasize the difficulty of those tasks. Clearly, there are problems in Iraq, and those difficulties ultimately led to Mr. Rumsfeld’s departure. But there have also been successes in the War on Terror, namely the liberation of more than 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and untold victories that we may never know of. Such victories are accomplished by a special forces team that takes out a high-value target in the back alleys of Baghdad, or an NSA analyst who identifies—and prevents—a money transfer to an Al Qaida cell preparing an attack in the Middle East, or here in our homeland. Prevailing in these small and seemingly unrelated events is how the War on Terror will eventually be won, and Mr. Rumsfeld deserves some of the credit for those successes.

Mr. Rumsfeld deserves some of the credit for those successes. Marshaling our forces to fight this war was an exceptionally difficult job, and Rumsfeld should be commended for re-orienting our military to fight a long war against Islamofacism.

…Defense Secretaries fight wars with military forces that are largely shaped, trained and equipped by the predecessors. Today, we have an Army with only 37 active duty combat brigades, a result of cutbacks endorsed by Bill Cohen, William Perry, Les Aspin and even Dick Cheney. Ditto for the military brass that warned we would need 350,000 troops to secure Iraq. They offered those warnings with the full knowledge that troop cuts they had previously supported—or failed to prevent—would make such force levels an impossibility. Yet, critics who assailed Rumsfeld for “insufficient” force levels in Iraq conveniently ignore the fact that our current combat structure was heavily influenced by decisions made a decade ago—or longer.

– – – – – – – – – –
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld will not get the assessment he deserves until all the players currently on the field are long gone. And it may prove to be one of the larger, and more dishonorable blunders in a period full of them. I sadly concur with Spook 86:

As for the timing of today’s announcement, it smacks of a White House in full panic mode, anxious to court favor with the new Democratic majority. It’s a fool’s errand, as Mr. Bush and his advisors will soon discover. Throwing Rumsfeld under the bus won’t produce a sudden “new course in Iraq” (unless, of course, you’re talking about a cut-and-run strategy).

So that’s what we will prepare for, folks: once more the Dems, the dishonorable, will cut and run. They will leave other people to die because of their own lack of courage and foresight. It’s what they know how to do. After all, what is worth dying for? What is worth risking our creature comforts for? Not much, if you take them at their word.

I wonder what the Vietnamese boat people who made it to this country are thinking tonight? I wonder if they feel a special anguish for the coming fate of the Iraqis once Nancy Pelosi is in charge and President Bush is letting her take the lead in the headlong rush out of the Vietnam-Iraq (same thing) quagmire created by the elite MSM and the hatred of the left for anything valiant.

God help Iraq. God help us all.

Now prepare yourselves for the coming impeachment proceedings and the coronation of President Pelosi.

Our only hope is that Hillary, with all her connections and cunning will never, ever let this come to pass. Read her lips: “over my dead body.” And may the better woman prevail.

If you want your intuitions about what is to come to be validated, click the link and scroll down for Spook’s assessment of Mr. Gates, the replacement for Secretary Rumsfeld. The perfect, colorless and transparently invisible replacement. Because at this point, what does it matter? All the administration wants is a cipher, someone who can kowtow to the Democrats. Well, they hunted high and low, and sure enough, they found one.

For an excellent assessment of the campaign and election, read Spook’s previous post, “Lessons Learned.” Reviewing the issues as though they were part of a military after-action report on what went wrong, Spook leads us through each point in the mess that ended on Election Night, 2008.

And he leaves us with Churchill’s admonition: In Victory, Be magnanimous, in Defeat, Defiant!

So…in keeping with Prime Minister Churchill’s advice, I say, “up your nose with a rubber hose, Pelosi. May you have every bit of the success you deserve.”

I’m trying to avoid contemplating the election debacle, and it helps if I think about countries that have more pressing problems than ours. Take Sweden and Denmark, for example. When your population is 10% or 15% or 20% Muslim (nobody knows for certain), and you have an unsustainably generous welfare state, what’s in store for you?

Our Swedish correspondent LN has this account about a new book about Islam in Danish:

Storm over Europe
Islam — Peace or Threat?

An Anthology edited by Lone Nørgaard and Tabita Wulff

The authors:

• Poul E. Andersen, cand. theol. og forfatter
• Mogens Wenzen Andreasen, cand. pæd. og forfatter
• Kåre Bluitgen, forfatter og journalist
• Helle Merete Brix, journalist og forfatter
• Kirsten Damgaard, cand. pæd. psych og forfatter
• Jørgen Junker Grimstrup, cand. mag. i historie og geografi
• Torben Hansen, historiker og forfatter
• Henrik Gade Jensen, mag. art. i filosofi
• Thue D. Kærhus, cand. phil. og højskoleforstander
• Britta Mogensen, mag. scient. i antropologi, forfatter
• Lone Nørgaard, lektor, cand. mag. og forfatter
• Tim Pallis, forfatter
• Carsten Ringsmose, cand. mag. og forfatter
• Kai Sørlander, filosof og forfatter
• Tabita Wulff, journalist og forfatter

The Danish paper Fyens Stiftstidende gives the book two stars out of five, and writes: “A debate-book about Islam that does not want to debate but only to scold.” (To read the rest of this probably PC write-up you have to pay 15 kroner — which does not seem to be warranted).

The excellent blogger La Kimpolina with the Danish blog Polemiken has a review here of the book Storm over Europe.

– – – – – – – – – –

I take the liberty to quote and translate the following:

Tabita Wulff, one of the co-authors of the book Storm over Europe writes about: ‘Bounds for immigration? Figures and statistics.’ She calls it “The Trojan Horse”, and asks how big an immigration from the third world a country like Denmark can endure, before the cohesion of society is damaged. Difficult to answer, because in Denmark as in Sweden no demographic registration of religious allegiance is permitted. In the old days it was possible to look up the number of citizens distributed among different religions. Today such a thing is taboo. It is obvious that the number of Muslims is camouflaged, not for the sake of the Muslims, but in the light of the Danish people’s need to feel secure. And for the purpose that politicians and those in power shall not get questions and protests from the ranks of the people, where a true skepticism is prevalent, writes Tabita Wulff. […] The Welfare Reform is dealt with and — according to the Welfare Commission — an average non-western immigrant during a lifetime receives from the state 2.6 million Danish kroner [approx $0.50 million] more than they pay back to society in form of taxes etc. A comparison between Muslims and Asian immigrants (China, Vietnam etc) is made and it is clear the Muslims belong to the problem-heavy end of the spectrum. […] The state’s total expenditures have never (neither in Denmark nor in Sweden) been revealed by the state, but unofficial sources of information estimate 30 to 50 billions Danish Kronor per annum. A Swedish economist has tried to work out the costs Sweden incurs from immigration (almost twice as many non-western immigrants as to Denmark) and he arrived at the neat sum of more than 200 billions per annum. [Compare with Gates of Vienna 11-01-2006] […] According to an extrapolation made by the demographers of the Copenhagen University, there will be a majority of Muslim citizens in Denmark before the end of this century. What will the consequences be for Danish society and democracy? *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   * In the well-known Danish paper Jyllands-Posten journalist Paul E. Andersen writes about a related subject, as published in the New Yorker 2006-09-11: “The Moderate Martyr, a radically peaceful vision of Islam” by George Packer. Andersen opens with the following assertion: “It strikes one that everybody, even those who only peripherally take an interest in Islam, is inclined to boil over with enthusiasm as soon as they hear the notion of the MODERATE MUSLIM.” This concept has gradually become the straw that consensus-seeking Western Civilization desperately is trying to clutch at, in the hope of escaping or postponing the confrontation that sooner or later will surface between Islam and the ideals of Western freedom.

I’m not going to write anything about the election. I woke up this morning and everything was just too depressing to contemplate.

Other people are covering it in depth; start at Gateway Pundit and move on from there.

The administration and the Republicans did a terrible job, but they’ve got an uphill battle, anyway, with the entire mainstream media in lockstep against them, and foursquare behind the Islamists. I can’t see any opportunities for change unless the 910 Group can somehow acquire a major media outlet. You working on that, guys?

The Iranians will now get their nukes, and then other Middle Eastern countries will race to get their own. All the corrupt and tyrannical regimes will want to have the bomb, and then it’s only a matter of time until the terrorists have one of their very own.

I think I’ll go back to bed. Wake me up for Armageddon.

An argument has been raging in the comments to my post from last night about British and American roles in World War II.

David S. took the lead, with Cato seconding him. According to David S.,

…the fact is, in the strictest sense, it wasn’t our war. We could have, in reality, just let Europe and the UK fall to the dogs. We almost did, in fact, until Pearl Harbor. And if we had handled Pearl Harbor like we’ve handled 9/11 (that is, poorly), engagement would not have been inevitable.

Of course Britain took a hit from the war. It took a huge hit, a massive hit, far greater than the US — who actually benefited in the end in every possible sense. But that only makes sense, since they were the country being attacked, not us. Terrible comparison ahead: It would be like saying that Kuwait did more for the Gulf War than the US, because they took a greater hit economically and militarily. Of course they did; they were our ally, and we helped them out. What do you expect?

Now, I’m a well-known Anglophile, so anything I say is suspect. But I am an American, and I agree with David S. It wasn’t our war, at least not until December 1941 when Hitler declared war on the United States.

But this argument avoids the main point of my post: in an important sense, it wasn’t really Britain’s war, either. Especially after Dunkirk, when Britain lay exposed and vulnerable, it was not in the British national interest to continue the conflict. Only the Royal Air Force and the English Channel stood between Britain and the full might of the Wehrmacht.

All the back-and-forth about whether the Dominion troops or the British troops won the major battles — or whether the bleedin’ Poms were a treacherous bunch of no-goods — avoids the question of why the British, the Dominions, and all their colonial subjects were in the war in the first place.
– – – – – – – – – –
The British national interest did not require it. Treaty obligations with Poland didn’t have to be honored in 1939 any more than the pact with the Czechs had been observed in 1938. Some rationale could have been cooked up by the cynical wallahs in Whitehall that would have justified selling out the Poles, the French, and anyone else. The Frogs got themselves into this mess; let them get themselves out.

It was well known that Hitler respected the British, and had no desire to go to war with them. Despite the fact that the Anglo-Saxons had allowed the race to become tainted with the base blood of the Celts, Hitler still considered the British to be honorary Germans, worthy of taking their place alongside the Herrenvolk.

After Dunkirk, and after the Battle of Britain, the Germans still hoped for a negotiated deal with the British, one that would leave the Empire and the Royal Navy intact, as long as the Nazis were allowed a free hand on the Continent and in the East.

So why didn’t the British take the deal? It was a pretty good one, and the cynical calculations of statecraft should have compelled them to grab it.

But they didn’t. Opinion among the British wasn’t unanimous, and there were strong factions that pushed for reaching an accommodation with the Germans. Yet Churchill decided to continue the war, even without the help of the United States.

Long after the war, when the archives were opened and all the Cabinet minutes were revealed, it became clear that Churchill knew what the future of Britain was likely to be: bankruptcy, loss of the Empire, and reduced circumstances for the foreseeable future. He turned out to be right on all counts.

So why did they do it?

When you read about the private conversations that took place at the time — not the public pronouncements, and not the justifications cooked up after the fact — it’s clear that the senior statesman and decision-makers of Britain decided to continue the fight because it was the right thing to do. Not that it was in the interests of Britain, not because it would serve them well electorally or that they or their friends would make a profit out of it, but simply because it was the right thing to do. Any other course was unthinkable.

And that’s why the British deserve to be cut some slack, no matter how many times the treacherous bastards sold someone down the river or failed to keep a promise. They could have ducked the war with the Nazis, but they didn’t.

Nations don’t have permanent friends; they only have permanent interests. But that’s not an absolute rule, and the leaders of nations don’t always follow it.

The United States behaved the same way before we entered the war. Roosevelt helped the British out behind the scenes, bucking a strong segment of public opinion (not to mention the Congress), not because it was in America’s interest, but because it seemed like the right thing to do. The commercial advantages of the deal with Britain don’t explain everything that Roosevelt did.

When a nation enters a war for reasons other than its national interest, the results can be catastrophic. It’s still arguable that the United States should have avoided fighting in either of the World Wars. And it’s also arguable that Britain would have been well-advised to cut a deal with Hitler.

Was it really a good idea for the leaders of Britain to do as they did? In another two or three centuries, historians may be able to give a cold-eyed answer to the question.

But it will probably be written in Arabic or Chinese.

I’m still hurrying to catch up…

The Watcher’s Council winner on October 27th was Rick Moran of Right Wing Nut House, with A Liberal Manifesto and Other Halloween Frights. Rick takes on the hubris and self-delusion of the Democrats in the run-up to this election:

This kind of earnestness on the part of the left is something we’ve grown used to over the years. In fact, it is a defining characteristic of modern liberalism, this cloying self righteousness. It fits in with their constant need to avoid introspection by formulating intellectual conceits based on a heroic self-image, standing up against the villainy of the opposition with only the lantern of truth and a pen to battle evil. Creating a “moral” universe that has about as much foundation as a pool of quicksand, liberals who are constantly defining and redefining themselves fail to see the monumental irony in their efforts to simplify their riot of conceits into any kind of logical or coherent set of principles.

Tell ‘em, Rick!

Second among Council members was Japan, North Korea and Nuclear Weapons by American Future, in which Marc Schulman examines the ramifications of North Korean nuclear weapons, especially as they affect the alliance between Japan and the United States.
– – – – – – – – – –
First among the Non-Council posts was Elder of Ziyon, with Archaeological Temple Artifacts Drive PalArabs Crazy, about the sifting of rubble removed from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem by the Islamic Religious Trust (Waqf). Israeli archeologists and volunteers have found artifacts dating from prehistoric times through the early Jewish period all the way up to the Middle Ages. The interesting thing is the steadfast refusal of the Muslim authorities to recognize any evidence of a Jewish presence on the Temple Mount prior to the 1600s.

The Mudville Gazette came in second with Fighting Back. Greyhawk reports on a request to the Pentagon from the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, asking that CNN embeds be removed from the American military’s combat troops. I particularly like this quote from Greyhawk:

But like it or not, Mr and Mrs Average American are involved in a propaganda war, the only battle of the war on terror currently being fought on U.S. soil — and those who choose not to be victims of that battle may wonder what the appropriate response should be. Perhaps just this — bear in mind the stated goal: “to throw fear into the American people’s hearts”, divide and conquer, weaken resolve, and defeat America. Be aware of the plan to reach that goal, and recognize it for what it is when next you see it in action, as you undoubtedly will.

We at Gates of Vienna couldn’t agree more.

These and all the rest of the links are over at The Watcher’s Place.