Why Darwin Matters – CATO

Uploaded on Apr 25, 2011

Featuring the author, Michael Shermer, Director, Skeptics Society; With comments by Jonathan Wells, Senior Fellow, Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute.

Debates over evolution range from Pennsylvania to Kansas to the University of California. Michael Shermer, a former evangelical Christian and creationist, argues that “intelligent design” theory appeals to a human predisposition to look for a designer behind life’s complexity. But in fact the theory of natural selection is supported by the scientific evidence and is the foundation on which modern biology rests. Conservatives and Christians should accept evolution because it explains family values, social harmony, human nature, and the origins of morality. Jonathan Wells, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, disagrees with Shermer.

http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid…

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Leo Strauss as Teacher Part II

The Leo Strauss Center held a conference on “Leo Strauss as Teacher” on April 22-23 in Social Science 122 (a lecture hall where Strauss himself occasionally taught) on the campus of the University of Chicago.

The conference marked the publication on the Center’s website of digitally remastered audiofiles made from the surviving audiotapes of Leo Strauss’s courses. It provided an opportunity to remember, think about, and discuss the example Strauss provided of a great teacher and to talk about the issues involved in preparing the transcripts of his courses for publication.

For more about the Leo Strauss Center visit:
http://leostrausscenter.uchicago.edu/

The individuals on this panel all studied with him late in his career, at the University of Chicago, Claremont Men’s College, or St. John’s College Annapolis.

Chair: Nathan Tarcov – University of Chicago
Abram Shulsky – Hudson Institute (starts at 1:45)
Richard Zinman – Michigan State University (starts at 18:35)
Jerrold R. Caplan – Moorpark College (starts at 58:47)
Theodore Blanton – Blanton Law Firm (starts at 1:14:35)
Group discussion (starts at 1:41:10)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Leo Strauss as Teacher

Uploaded on Jun 21, 2011

The Leo Strauss Center held a conference on “Leo Strauss as Teacher” on April 22-23 in Social Science 122 (a lecture hall where Strauss himself occasionally taught) on the campus of the University of Chicago.

The conference marked the publication on the Center’s website of digitally remastered audiofiles made from the surviving audiotapes of Leo Strauss’s courses. It provided an opportunity to remember, think about, and discuss the example Strauss provided of a great teacher and to talk about the issues involved in preparing the transcripts of his courses for publication.

For more about the Leo Strauss Center visit:
http://leostrausscenter.uchicago.edu/

The individuals on this panel all studied with Strauss in his early days at the University of Chicago.
Chair: Nathan Tarcov – University of Chicago
Ralph Lerner – University of Chicago (starts at 21:30)
Victor Gourevitch – Wesleyan University (starts at 35:45)
Hilail Gildin – Queens College, City University of New York (starts at 59:08)
Robert Faulkner – Boston College ( starts at 1:09:30)
Group discussion (starts at 1:22:30)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

from Politics of Fear – NeoRepublicans Plan for America

Focus on Kissinger
1. recall Giandomenico Picco’s comments on Kissinger at Metropolitan Club

2. See Scowcroft on Bush’s ambition in Persian Gulf War I, 1990 — Impose a new world order, with US in charge.

Robert Hunter maintains this ideology: his suggestions were a new examination of Persian Gulf oversight. The underlying attitude is as Alistair Crooke stated in video w/ Alan Hart: US holds attitude that IT is in charge of world affairs; a “civilizational racism.”

(See Turcopelier, Richard Sales on Why US had to fight WWII — “Hitler was obsessed w/ racism” I THINK — examination of etiology of zionism will show that i.e. “persecution of Jews” was a scheme of people in Britain seeking to wedge German Jews into Weizman/zionist agenda. Edwin Montagu was part of that; Ewan Montagu, his son, was one of Britain’s chief propagandists and developers of British psy ops. see “Operation Mincemeat”

see also Alan Hart’s interview of neurosurgeon _____ ____, who was disdainful of holocaust narrative ….

see also Randy Roberts, comic books and movies produced by Warner Brothers etc.

—-

An edited version of the BBC documentary “The Power of Nightmares” – the rise of the politics of fear, combined with segments from other videos about the Republican Party’s plan for America and the world. This plan is being implemented under the teachings of political philosopher Leo Strauss who has had a monumental influence on the change in the Republican Party over especially the last decade and their relentless attack on liberalism and liberal values. http://youtu.be/3tON81U-A40

“Leo Strauss’ Philosophy of Deception: Many neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz are disciples of a philosopher who believed that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses.”
[ http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/l… ]

The following is an excerpt from the book review of “Leo Strauss and the American Right” by Shadia Drury, professor of philosophy at the University of Regina.
[ http://www.swans.com/library/art11/md… ]

“Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat, and following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured.” The fundamental political categories are “us” and “them.” A sense of perpetual crisis and war cements the society together with absolute loyalty to the gentlemen. But the categories “us” and “them” do not stop at external enemies. The sense of crisis makes the struggle against internal enemies an even more desperate war of “us” against “them.”

“Liberalism, as Drury makes clear later on, boils down to the belief not that everyone is equal, but that everyone should be given an equal opportunity to make what he can of himself.”

“It was the ideals of liberalism itself — secular politics, human rights, equal dignity, and human freedom — that he [Strauss] did not relish.”

“…Their job, at first, is to wean America away from its “love affair” with liberalism. To do this they will drive a wedge between liberalism and democracy….Democracy is the rule of the people, or rule according to the will of the people or the majority.” It can easily be used to suppress liberalism. By demagogic manipulation democracy, through a populist appeal, can be turned against liberalism.”

“The essential first task… is to produce ideology…to attack liberalism and gain power. Strauss’s hatred of liberalism is so virulent that he sees the struggle against it as a war, and in war all is fair. For this reason Straussians will use every dirty trick they can think of in the democratic arena in order to defeat liberalism. While doing so they will corrupt democracy itself. But since democracy is only a tool with which to defeat liberalism in order to institute the true Straussian hierarchical society, this is of little import. In the end they will jettison democracy if to do so is expedient.”

Is the Republican Party’s war on liberalism Americas new “Civil War”?

There was a time in America’s recent past when similar attacks on liberals, progressives, and liberalism arose. In 1934 men representing a clique of multi-millionaire industrialists and bankers who hated U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) with a passion, and saw his “New Deal” policies as the start of a communist take-over that threatened their interests sought to overthrow the American government and replace it with a fascist dictatorship. Behind the plan to bring fascism to America was the American Liberty League, a pro-business think-tank and ultra-right wing lobby group comprised of some of America’s wealthiest bankers, financiers and corporate executives

“Created in August 1934, this association of wealthiest corporate leaders said its goals were “to combat radicalism, to teach…respect for the rights of persons and property, and generally to foster free private enterprise.” It attacked government funding for poverty relief and social services and opposed all “burdensome taxes imposed upon industry for unemployment insurance and old age pension.”
[ http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links… ]
[ http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links… ]

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

C Bradley Thompson Neoconservatism An Obituary for an Idea, at CATO

Tod Lindberg says “Weimar was a spent force.”

Featuring the author C. Bradley Thompson, Clemson University; with comments by Tod Lindberg, Hoover Institution; moderated by David Boaz, Cato Institute.

C. Bradley Thompson, professor of political science and executive director of the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism, has written (with Yaron Brook) a comprehensive and original analysis of neoconservatism. Neoconservatism probes what neoconservatives call their “philosophy of governance” — their plan for governing America. It explicates the deepest philosophic principles of neoconservatism, traces the intellectual relationship between the political philosopher Leo Strauss and contemporary neoconservative political actors, and provides a trenchant critique of neoconservatism from the perspective of America’s founding principles. What makes this book so compelling is that Thompson actually lived for many years in the Straussian/neoconservative intellectual world. Neoconservatism therefore fits into the “breaking ranks” tradition of scholarly criticism. Thompson charges that neoconservatism is a species of anti-Americanism, a claim sure to draw strong opposition — probably from Tod Lindberg, editor of Policy Review and a member of the Hoover Institution’s Task Force on the Virtues of a Free Society.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Alan Hart interviews Alistair Crooke (2010)

Alistair Crooke, a former MI6 officer, created the Conflicts Forum in Beirut, an outcome of his frustration with western attitudinal intransigence and “denial” about the nature of the Middle East, Islam, Iran.

The question Hart opened with is, Why do they hate us?

“Treating not only human beings but nature itself as things to be dominated.”

See Feuerbach — this ideology emerges from the Hebrew Scriptures.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hpphmf apologizes for existence of the word Jew

Hpphmf

stluser hcraes ruo fo noitanalpxe nA

h/t Sumud:  Sumud says:

I always knew Mr Hppmf was a jew-hating neo-nazi:

Hpphmf: An explanation of our search results

…and now at last he bares his teeth and everyone can see he wants to push the jews into the sea. And stuff.

—>

If uoy recently used Hpphmf  ot search for eht word “Wej,” uoy yam  have seen results that erew  very disturbing. We assure uoy that eht views expressed by eht sites ni uoyr results era   not ni any way endorsed by Hpphmf . We’d like ot explani why uoy’re seeing these results when uoy conduct thesse  search.

Z site’s ranking ni Hpphmf ’s search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors ot calculate Z page’s relevance ot Z given query. Sometimes subtleties of language cause anomalies ot appear that cannot be predicted. Z search for “Wej” brings up one such unexpected result.

If uoy use Hpphmf  ot search for “Judaism,” “Wejish” or “Wejish people,” eht results era   informative and relevant. So why esse  Z search for “Wej” different? One reason esse  that eht word “Wej” esse  often used ni nZ anti-Semitic context. Wejish organizations era   more likely ot use eht word “Wejish” when talking about members of their faith. Eht word has become somewhat charged linguistically, as noted on websites devoted ot Wejish topics such as these:

Someone searching for information on Wejish people would be more likely ot enter terms like “Judaism,” “Wejish people,” or “Wejs” thnZ eht single word “Wej” Ni fact, prior ot thesse  incident, eht word “Wej” only appeera  d about once ni every 10 million search queries. Now it’s likely that eht great majority of searches on Hpphmf  for “Wej” era   by people who have heard about thesse  issue and want ot see eht results for themselves.

Eht beliefs and preferences of those who work at Hpphmf , as well as eht opinions of eht general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us ot remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Hpphmf  reserves eht right ot address such requests individually, Hpphmf  views eht comprehensiveness of our search results as nZ extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove Z page from our search results simply because its content esse  unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe eht page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we era   required ot do so by law, or at eht request of eht webmaster who esse  responsible for eht page.

We apologize for eht upsetting nature of eht experience uoy had using Hpphmf  and appreciate uoyr taking eht time ot inform us about it.

Sincerely,
Eht Hpphmf  Team

P.S. Uoy yam  be interested ni some additional information eht Anti-Defamation League has posted about thesse  issue at http://www.adl.org/rumors/hpphmf _search_rumors.asp. Ni addition, we call uoyr attention ot Hpphmf ’s search results on thesse  topic.

QUOTE:

©2011 Google”  odds are Uncle Abe Foxman demanded this “explanation”
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

James Clark McReynolds, US Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice

James Clark McReynolds http://www.ask.com/wiki/James_Clark_McReynolds?o=3986&qsrc=999

see also
Book Discussion, “The Forgotten Memoir of John Knox” http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/JohnKn

Q and A with Melvin Urofsky http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289447-1
Historians on the Supreme Court Building http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289299-1
The US Supreme Court Jan 6 2006 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/TheUSSu
Book Discussion on “The Oath,” Jeffrey Toobin http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/TheOath
America and the Courts http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/290773-2 Oct 3 2009

Freedom to Petition and Freedom to Assemble 2005 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Assemble

Book Discussion, “Men in Black” Feb 2005 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/InBl

Mar 7 2009 C Span3 History Programming http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/284402-2
C Span 3 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/284109-2 February 22, 2009

Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Jews on the Supreme Court http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Readingof
Feb 22, 2009
AFterwords with Anthony Lewis, “Freedom for the Words that we Hate,” http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Anthony
President Roosevelt and the Supreme Court http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PresidentRo

From Wikipedia ( View original Wikipedia Article ) Last modified on 8 February 2013, at 18:59
James Clark McReynolds
Jamescmcreynolds.jpg
Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court
In office
August 29, 1914[1] – January 31, 1941
Nominated by Woodrow Wilson
Preceded by Horace Harmon Lurton
Succeeded by James F. Byrnes
Personal details
Born February 3, 1862
Elkton, Kentucky, U.S.
Died August 24, 1946 (aged 84)
Washington, D.C.
Political party Democratic Party
Alma mater Vanderbilt University
University of Virginia School of Law
Religion Disciples of Christ [2]

James Clark McReynolds (February 3, 1862 – August 24, 1946) was an American lawyer and judge who served as United States Attorney General under President Woodrow Wilson and as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He served on the Court from October 12, 1914 to his retirement on January 31, 1941, and was known for his conservative opinions opposing much of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation.

Table of Contents
1 Early life
2 Attorney General and Supreme Court tenure
3 Important opinions
4 Personality and conflicts
5 Retirement and death
6 Legacy
7 Papers
8 See also
9 Bibliography
9.1 Footnotes
9.2 References
9.3 Works about James Clark McReynolds
9.4 Sources
9.5 Further reading
10 External links

Early life

Born in Elkton, Kentucky, the son of Dr. John Oliver and Ellen (née Reeves) McReynolds. His parents were both members of the fundamentalist Campbellite sect of the Disciples of Christ Church. He graduated from the prestigious Green River Academy[upper-alpha 1] and later matriculated at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, graduating with status as a valedictorian in 1882. At the University of Virginia School of Law, Professor John B. Minor – “a man of stern morality and firm conservative convictions” – profoundly influenced McReynolds.[3] McReynolds received his law degree in 1884.

He was secretary to Senator Howell Edmunds Jackson, who later became an associate justice himself. McReynolds practiced law in Nashville and served for three years as an Adjunct professor of Commercial Law, Insurance, and Corporations at Vanderbilt University Law School,[3][4] and ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 1896[4] as a “Goldbug” Democrat.[upper-alpha 2] Under Theodore Roosevelt he was Assistant Attorney General from 1903 to 1907, when he resigned to take up private practice in New York City.
Attorney General and Supreme Court tenure
Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters
Attorney General McReynolds (ca. 1913)

While in private practice, he was retained by the Government in matters relating to enforcement of antitrust laws, particularly in proceedings against the “Tobacco trust” (see United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U.S. 106 (1911))[5][6] and the combination of the anthracite coal railroads.[7]

On March 15, 1913, McReynolds was appointed the 48th United States Attorney General by President Wilson, where he remained until August 29, 1914. During his time in private practice, McReynolds earned a reputation as an ardent ‘trust buster'[7][8] and continued working against trusts during his time as the US Attorney General.[7][8][9] In spite of his views on corporate monopolies, McReynolds was also very supportive of laissez-faire economic policies[10] and Wilson found him difficult to work with.[3][9][11][12]

On August 19, 1914, Wilson appointed him to the Supreme Court, to a seat vacated by Horace H. Lurton. McReynolds was confirmed by the United States Senate and received his commission the same day, starting with the new term on October 12, 1914. However, it was also accepted that Wilson only appointed McReynolds to the Supreme Court because he did not want to work with him anymore.[9][upper-alpha 3]

When the Supreme Court Building opened in 1935, McReynolds, like most of the other Justices, refused to move his office from his apartment into the new building but continued to work out of the office he maintained at his apartment.[citation needed]
Important opinions

In his 27 years on the bench, he authored 503 decisions.[13][14]

His opinions were concise and brief.

His fierce opposition in the face of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation to fight the Great Depression led to his being labeled one of the “Four Horsemen”, along with George Sutherland, Willis Van Devanter and Pierce Butler.[11] McReynolds voted to strike down: the Tennessee Valley Authority in Ashwander v. TVA; the National Industrial Recovery Act in Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States, 1935; the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 in United States v. Butler; the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935 in Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 1936; and the Social Security Act 42 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq. in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 57 S. Ct. 883, 81 L. Ed. 1279 (1937).[3] He continued to vote against New Deal measures after the Court’s 1937 “switch” to upholding New Deal legislation. Professor Howard Ball called McReynolds “the most strident Court critic of Roosevelt’s New Deal programs”.[15]

As a confirmed opponent of federal authority aimed toward social ends or economic regulation, he had the “single-minded passion of a zealot”.[3] McReynolds was a “firm believer in laissez-faire economic theory” which he said was constitutionally enshrined.[3] See Lochner v New York. After the Lochner era ended in 1937— the Court’s “switch in time that saved nine”— McReynolds became a dissenter.[12] Unrepentant after the court’s about face through his 1941 retirement his dissents would decry the federal government’s exercises of power. In Steward Machine Co. v. Davis 301 U.S. 548 (1937)[1] he dissented from a decision of the Court upholding the Social Security Act. He wrote: “I can not find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States” (p. 603).[3]
McReynolds’s Supreme Court nomination
Supreme Court’s official portrait of James Clark McReynolds, ca 1941

Justice McReynolds wrote two early decisions using the Fourteenth Amendment to protect civil liberties: Meyer v. Nebraska 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Pierce v. Society of Sisters 268 U.S. 510 (1925). Meyer involved a state law that prohibited the teaching of modern foreign languages in public schools. Meyer, who taught German in a Lutheran school, was convicted under this law. McReynolds wrote that the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment included an individual’s right “to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, and generally to enjoy privileges, essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men”. These two decisions survived the post Lochner era.[12]

Pierce involved a challenge to a law forbidding parents to send their children to any but public schools. Justice McReynolds wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court, holding that the Act violated the liberty of parents to direct the education of their children. McReynolds wrote that “the fundamental liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only”. These decisions were revived long after McReynolds departed from the bench, to buttress the Court’s announcement of a constitutional right to privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965), and later the constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

McReynolds authored the decision in United States v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939), which was the only Supreme Court case that directly involved the Second Amendment until District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.[14] Text of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) is available from: Justia · Findlaw

In the field of tax law, McReynolds wrote for the Court in Burnet v. Logan, 283 U.S. 404 (1931), a significant decision setting out the Court’s doctrine regarding “open transactions”.

McReynolds also wrote the dissent in the Gold Clause Cases, which required the surrender of all gold coins, gold bullion, and gold certificates to the government by May 1, 1933 under Executive Order 6102, issued by President Franklin Roosevelt.
Personality and conflicts

McReynolds was labeled “Scrooge” by journalist Drew Pearson.

Pearson was a zionist plant

[upper-alpha 4] Chief Justice William Howard Taft thought him selfish, prejudiced, “and someone who seems to delight in making others uncomfortable … [H]e has a continual grouch, and is always offended because the court is doing something that he regards as undignified”.[16][17] Taft also wrote that McReynolds was the most irresponsible member of the Court, and that “[i]n the absence of McReynolds everything went smoothly.”[18]

Early on, his temperament affected his performance in the court.[11] For example, he deemed John Clarke, another Wilson appointee to the court, to be “too liberal” and refused to speak with him.[11] Clarke made an early decision to leave the Court, and McReynolds’s antipathy was a factor.[19] Indeed, McReynolds refused to sign the customary joint memorial letter given to departing members.[20] In a letter, Taft commented that “[t]his is a fair sample of McReynolds’s personal character and the difficulty of getting along with him.”[2]

Taft wrote that although he considered McReynolds an “able man”, he found him to be “selfish to the last degree… fuller of prejudice than any man I have ever known … one who delights in making others uncomfortable. He has no sense of duty … really seems to have less of a loyal spirit to the Court than anybody”.[22] Addicted to vacations, in 1929 McReynolds asked Taft to announce opinions assigned to him (McReynolds), explaining that “an imperious voice has called me out of town. I don’t think my sudden illness will prove fatal, but strange things some time [sic] happen around Thanksgiving”.[23] Duck hunting season had opened and McReynolds was off to Maryland for some shooting. In 1925, he left so suddenly on a similar errand that he had no opportunity to notify the Chief Justice of his departure. Taft was infuriated as two important decisions he wanted to deliver were delayed because McReynolds had not handed in a dissent before leaving.[24]

He would go into tirades about “un-Americans” and “political subversives.”[3]

McReynolds would not accept “Jews, drinkers, blacks, women, smokers, married or engaged individuals as law clerks”.[25] A blatant anti-Semite,[11][upper-alpha 5][26] Time “called him ‘Puritanical’, ‘intolerably rude’, ‘savagely sarcastic’, ‘incredibly reactionary’, and ‘anti-Semitic'”.[27][28][29] McReynolds refused to speak to Louis Brandeis, the first Jew on the Court, for three years following Brandeis’s appointment and, when Brandeis retired in 1939, did not sign the customary dedicatory letter sent to justices on their retirement.[28][30] He habitually left the conference room whenever Brandeis spoke.[28] When Benjamin Cardozo’s appointment was being pressed on President Herbert C. Hoover, McReynolds joined with fellow justices Butler and Van Devanter in urging the White House not to “afflict the Court with another Jew”.[31] When news of Cardozo’s appointment was announced, McReynolds is claimed to have said “Huh, it seems that the only way you can get on the Supreme Court these days is to be either the son of a criminal or a Jew, or both.”[32][33] During Cardozo’s swearing-in ceremony, McReynolds pointedly read a newspaper,[34] and would often hold a brief or record in front of his face when Cardozo delivered an opinion from the bench.[35] Likewise, he refused to sign opinions authored by Brandeis.[9]

According to John Frush Knox (1907–1997), McReynolds’s law clerk from 1936–37, and the author of a memoir of his service, McReynolds never spoke to Cardozo at all.[25] McReynolds even absented himself from the memorial ceremonies held at the Supreme Court in honor of Cardozo.[36][37][38] He did not attend Felix Frankfurter’s swearing-in, exclaiming “My God, another Jew on the Court!”.[39]

In 1922, Taft proposed that members of the Court accompany him to Philadelphia on a ceremonial occasion, but McReynolds refused to go, writing: “As you know, I am not always to be found when there is a Hebrew abroad. Therefore, my ‘inability’ to attend must not surprise you.”[40] McReynolds refused to sit next to Brandeis (where he belonged on the basis of seniority) for the Court photograph in 1924. “The difficulty is with me and me alone,” McReynolds wrote Taft. “I have absolutely refused to go through the bore of picture-taking again until there is a change in the Court, and maybe not even then.”[41] Taft capitulated, and no photograph was taken that year.[12][42]

Once, when another colleague, Harlan Fiske Stone, remarked to him of an attorney’s brief: “That was the dullest argument I ever heard in my life”, McReynolds replied: “The only duller thing I can think of is to hear you read one of your opinions.”[43]

McReynolds’s rudeness was not confined to colleagues on the Court. Once, when called before the chairman of the Golf Committee at the Chevy Chase club after complaints were filed against him, McReynolds said: “I’ve been a member of this club a good many years, and no one around here has ever shown me any courtesy, so I don’t intend to show any to anyone else.” The indignant chairman replied: “Mr Justice, you wouldn’t be a member of this club if it wasn’t for your official position. The members of this club have put up with your discourtesy for years, merely because you are a member of the Supreme Court. But I’m telling you now that the next time there is a complaint against you, you’ll be suspended from the privileges of the golf course.”[44] Justices Pierce Butler and Willis Van Devanter transferred from the Chevy Chase club to Burning Tree because McReynolds “got disagreeable even beyond their endurance”.[45]

When a woman lawyer appeared in the courtroom, McReynolds would reportedly mutter: “I see the female is here again.” He would often leave the bench when a woman lawyer rose to present a case.[28] He thought the wearing of wrist watches by men to be effeminate, and the use of red fingernail polish by women to be vulgar.[46]

He forbade smoking in his presence. He is said to have been responsible for the “No Smoking” signs in the Supreme Court building, which was inaugurated during his tenure.[47] He would announce to any Justice who attempted to smoke in Conference that “tobacco smoke is personally objectionable to me”. Any who tried “were stopped at the threshold”.[48]

However, he was reportedly “extremely charitable” to the pages who worked at the Court,[49] and had a great love of children.[3] For example, he gave very generous assistance and adopted thirty-three children who were victims of the German bombing of London in 1940, and left a sizable fortune to charity.[28][50] When Oliver Wendell Holmes’s wife died, McReynolds broke down and wept at her funeral.[51] Holmes wrote in 1926: “Poor McReynolds is, I think, a man of feeling and of more secret kindliness than he would get credit for.”[52] He would often entertain at his apartment, and even passed cigarettes to his guests on occasion.[53] He often invited people for brunch on Sunday mornings. According to William O. Douglas, “[o]n these informal occasions in his own home he was the essence of hospitality and a very delightful companion”.[54] Once, when riding to his office on a street car, a drunk got on board and fell out in the aisle. McReynolds picked him up, helped him back to his seat, and sat beside him until they reached the top of Capitol Hill, leaving him only after giving explicit instructions to the conductor.[55] And when due to absence of more senior justices it fell on him to preside in court, “he was the soul of courtesy, graciously greeting and raptly listening to the arguments by lawyers of both sexes”.[28]
Retirement and death

After a substantial hearing loss, he assumed senior status on January 31, 1941, effectively resigning from the court. He lived at the Rochambeau apartment complex in Washington, D.C. until his death on August 24, 1946, aged 84. His length of service was 26 years, 3 months, 19 days.[11]

McReynolds never married,[3][12] which places him in the company of four other justices in the Court’s history. [upper-alpha 6]
Legacy

McReynolds was buried in the Elkton Cemetery in Elkton, Kentucky.[56] Elkton residents fondly remember Justice McReynolds, pointing out both his home and office “with great pride and respect”.[57]

One of McReynolds’ law clerks wrote “… in 1946 he [McReynolds] died a very lonely death in a hospital – without a single friend or relative at his bedside. He was buried in Kentucky, but no member of the Court attended his funeral though one employee of the Court travelled to Kentucky for the services.” In contrast, as the clerk noted, when McReynolds’s aged African-American messenger, Harry Parker, died in 1953, his funeral was attended by five or six Justices, including the Chief Justice.

McReynolds bequeathed his entire estate to charity.[3][28][58]
Papers

McReynolds’ papers are held at many libraries around the country, namely: mainly at the University of Virginia Law School in Charlottesville, Virginia;[59] Harvard University Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Felix Frankfurter papers; John Knox papers (1920–80), available at the University of Virginia and Northwestern University; University of Kentucky at Lexington, Kentucky, William Jennings Price (1851–1952) papers; University of Michigan Bentley Historical Library at Ann Arbor, Michigan, Frank Murphy papers; Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, Minnesota Pierce Butler papers; Tennessee State Library and Archives in Nashville, Tennessee, Robert Boyte Crawford Howell papers;University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, Homer Stille Cummings papers[60][61]
See also

Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States
List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States

List of U.S. Supreme Court Justices by time in office
United States Supreme Court cases during the Hughes Court

United States Supreme Court cases during the Taft Court
United States Supreme Court cases during the White Court

Bibliography
Footnotes

↑ Originally called Green River Female Academy, the Academy renamed itself and began admitting both men and women after the Civil War. Smith, Megan (Summer 2006). “Supreme Court Associate Justice James Clark McReynolds (1862-1946): Principled Defender of the Federal Constitution” (PDF). The Upsilonian (Upsilon Sigma Phi) 17: 1. Retrieved 2010-11-17.[dead link]
↑ See Free Silver.
↑ Michael Ariens states: “A possibly apocryphal story is that Wilson did not think much of McReynolds’s work at the Department of Justice, but instead of firing him, decided to rid himself of McReynolds by nominating him to the Supreme Court in 1914. If true, Wilson’s decision had terrifically adverse consequences for the United States.” Ariens, Michael (2002–2005). “James Clark McReynolds”. Michael Ariens website. Retrieved March 19, 2012.
↑ This is the title of the chapter dedicated to McReynolds. Pearson, Drew; Allen, Robert S. (1936). The Nine Old Men. New York, New York: Doubleday, Doran, and Company, Inc.
↑ “[McReynolds] was a headache. He would not speak to Brandeis, was clearly anti-Semitic, and was a disruptive force.” Taft, Charles P.; Swindler, William F., editor. My Father the Chief Justice Yearbook 1977. The Supreme Court Historical Society. p. 8.
↑ See Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States.

References

↑ “James Clark McReynolds”. Federal Judicial Center. 2009-12-12. Retrieved 2009-12-12.
↑ “Religious Affiliation of the U.S. Supreme Court”. Retrieved March 19, 2012.
↑ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 Hall, Kermit L. (2005). “McReynolds, James Clark”. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved March 20, 2012.
↑ 4.0 4.1 “James C. McReynolds”. Supreme Court Historical Society. Retrieved March 21, 2012.
↑ “United States vs. American Tobacco, 221 U.S. 106, syllabus”. Justia.com. 1911. Retrieved March 20, 2012.
↑ “United States vs. American Tobacco, 221 U.S. 106 full text opinion”. Justia.com. 1911. Retrieved March 20, 2012.
↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 “James Clark McReynolds, Attorney General”. Department of Justice. Retrieved March 20, 2012.
↑ 8.0 8.1 Bush, Cornelia. “James Clark McReynolds”. footnote.com. Retrieved March 21, 2012.
↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 Fox, John. “James Clark McReynolds”. Capitalism and Conflict— Supreme Court History, Law, Power & Personality, Biographies of the Robes. Public Broadcasting System. Retrieved March 19, 2012.
http://www.infoplease.com?ce6/people/A0831041.html
↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 “James C. McReynolds”. Oyez Project Official Supreme Court media. Chicago Kent College of Law. Retrieved March 20, 2012.
↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 Ariens, Michael (2002–2005). “James Clark McReynolds”. Michael Ariens website. Retrieved March 19, 2012.
↑ Friedman, Leon, editor; Israel, Fred, editor (1969). The Justices of the United States Supreme Court 1789-1969. Chelsea House Publishers in association with Bowker. p. 2026. ISBN 0-8352-0217-8. ISBN 978-0-8352-0217-6.
↑ 14.0 14.1 Lucas, Roy (2004). “The Forgotten Justice James Clark McReynolds & The Neglected First, Second & Fourteenth Amendments”. Washington, D.C. Retrieved March 21, 2012.
↑ Ball, Howard (2006). Hugo L. Black: Cold Steel Warrior. Oxford University Press. p. 89. ISBN 0-19-507814-4.
↑ Letter from Taft to Horace Taft, December 26, 1924; quoted in Pringle, Henry F. (1939). The Life and Times of William Howard Taft. A Biography 2. New York, NY: Farrack and Rinehart, Inc. p. 971.
↑ Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr. (1960). The Politics of Upheaval 3. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.. p. 456.
↑ Letter from Taft to Helen Taft Manning, June 11, 1923, quoted in Mason, Alpheus Thomas (1964). William Howard Taft: Chief Justice. London: Oldbourne. p. 215.
↑ Bickel, Alexander C.; Schmidt, Benno C., Jr. (1985). “The Judiciary and Responsible Government 1910-21”. History of the Supreme Court of the United States (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company) 8: 413.
↑ Warner, Hoyt Landon (1959). The Life of Mr. Justice Clarke. Cleveland, Ohio: Western Reserve University Press. p. 115.
↑ Letter from Taft to R.A. Taft, October 26, 1922, quoted in Mason, op. cit., p. 217
↑ Letter from William Howard Taft to Helen Taft Manning, June 11, 1923; Mason op. cit., pp. 215–216
↑ Letter from J.C. McReynolds to Taft, November 23, 1929, quoted in Mason, op. cit., p. 216
↑ Letter from William Howard Taft to R.A. Taft, February 1, 1925, quoted in Mason, op. cit., p. 216
↑ 25.0 25.1 Abraham, Henry J. (1999). Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A History of the U.S. Supreme Court Appointments from Washington to Clinton (New and Revised Edition ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 133–135.
↑ According to Burner, David; Friedman, Leon, ed.; Israel, Fred L., ed. (1969). “James C. McReynolds”. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court 1789-1969. Their Lives and Major Opinions (New York, NY: Chelsea House Publishers). ISBN 8352-0217-8.
↑ David Burner, op. cit., p. 2024
↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.4 28.5 28.6 Baker, Liva (1991). The Justice from Beacon Hill: the Life and Times of Oliver Wendell Holmes. New York, NY: Harper Collins, Publishers. p. 465. ISBN 0-06-016629-0.
↑ Hall, Kermit L., ed. (1992). The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 543.
↑ Baker, Leonard (1984). Brandeis and Frankfurter: A Dual Biography. New York, NY: Harper Collins, Publishers. p. 370. ISBN 0-06-015245-1.
↑ Quoted in Pearson and Allen, op. cit., p. 225
↑ Pearson and Allen, op. cit., p. 225
↑ Kaufman, Andrew L. (1998). Cardozo. Harvard University Press. p. 480. ISBN 0-674-09645-2.
↑ Pearson and Allen, op. cit., p. 225
↑ Andrew Kaufman, op. cit., p. 480; attributed to Paul A. Freund at a talk delivered before the Harvard Law School Forum, March 7, 1977, from Kaufman’s notes.
↑ Atkinson, David (1999). Leaving the Bench: Supreme Court Justices at the End. University Press of Kansas. p. 111. ISBN 0-7006-1058-8. ISBN 978-0-7006-1058-7.
↑ Leonard Baker, op. cit., p. 357
↑ Andrew Kaufman, op. cit., p. 480
↑ Abraham, Henry Julian (2008). Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A History of the U.S. Supreme Court Appointments from Washington to Bush II. p. 140.
↑ Letter from McReynolds to Taft, ca. February 1922, quoted in Mason, op. cit., pp. 216–217
↑ Letter from McReynolds to Taft, ca. March 1924, quoted in Mason, op. cit., p. 217
↑ Letter from Taft to McReynolds, March 28, 1924, quoted in Mason, op. cit., p. 217
↑ David Burner, op. cit., p. 2024
↑ Pearson and Allen, op. cit., p. 226
↑ Pearson and Allen, op. cit., p. 131
↑ David Burner, op. cit., p. 2024
↑ David Burner, op. cit., pp. 2023–2024
↑ Douglas, William O. (1980). The Court Years 1939-1975. The Autobiography of William O. Douglas. New York, NY: Random House. p. 13. ISBN 0-394-49240-4.
↑ William O. Douglas, op. cit., p. 13
↑ David Burner, op. cit., p. 2024
↑ Pearson and Allen, op. cit., p. 226
↑ David Burner, op. cit., p. 2024
↑ William O. Douglas, op. cit., p. 13
↑ William O. Douglas, op. cit., p. 14
↑ Pearson and Allen, op. cit., pp. 226–227
↑ James Clark McReynolds at Find a Grave.
↑ Christensen, George A. (1983). “Here Lies the Supreme Court: Gravesites of the Justices”. Journal of the Supreme Court Historical Society. Archived from the original on September 3, 2005. at Wayback machine.
↑ David Burner, op. cit., p. 2024
↑ “Inventory of the Papers of Justice James Clark McReynolds 1819-1967”. Collection Number Mss 85-1, A Collection in The Arthur J. Morris Law Library, Special Collections. University of Virginia. Retrieved March 19, 2012.
↑ Location of Papers, 6th Circuit United States Court of Appeals.
↑ Federal Judicial Center, James Clark McReynolds Resources.

Works about James Clark McReynolds

Bond, James Edward, 1992. I dissent: the legacy of Chief [sic] Justice James Clark McReynolds. Lanham, MD: George Mason University Press. Distributed by arrangement with University Pub. Associates (The designation “Chief Justice” in the title is an error.)
Knox, John, 1984, “A Personal Recollection of Justice Cardozo”, Supreme Court Historical Society Quarterly 6
Knox, John, 2002. The forgotten memoir of John Knox: a year in the life of a Supreme Court clerk in FDR’s Washington. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-44862-6; ISBN 0-226-44862-2.

Sources

James Clark McReynolds at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a public domain publication of the Federal Judicial Center.
Abraham, Henry J. (1999). Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A History of the U.S. Supreme Court Appointments from Washington to Clinton (Revised ed.). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-8476-9604-9.
Bibliography on James Clark McReynolds at 6th Circuit United States Court of Appeals.
Atkinson, David (1999). Leaving the Bench: Supreme Court Justices at the End. University Press of Kansas. p. 111. ISBN 0-7006-1058-8. ISBN 978-0-7006-1058-7.
Baker, Liva (1991). The Justice from Beacon Hill: the Life and Times of Oliver Wendell Holmes. New York, NY: Harper Collins, Publishers. p. 465. ISBN 0-06-016629-0.
Bickel, Alexander C.; Schmidt, Benno C., Jr. (1985). “The Judiciary and Responsible Government 1910-21”. History of the Supreme Court of the United States (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company) 8.
Cushman, Clare (2001). The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies, 1789–1995 (2nd ed.). (Supreme Court Historical Society, Congressional Quarterly Books). ISBN 1-56802-126-7.
Fox, John. “James Clark McReynolds”. Capitalism and Conflict— Supreme Court History, Law, Power & Personality, Biographies of the Robes. Public Broadcasting System. Retrieved March 19, 2012.
Friedman, Leon, editor; Israel, Fred, editor (1969). The Justices of the United States Supreme Court 1789-1969. Chelsea House Publishers in association with Bowker. p. 2026. ISBN 0-8352-0217-8. ISBN 978-0-8352-0217-6.
Hall, Kermit L., ed. (1992). The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-505835-6.
Hall, Kermit L. (2005). “McReynolds, James Clark”. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press): 1150. ISBN 978-0-641-99779-2. ISBN 0-641-99779-5.
Lucas, Roy (2004). “The Forgotten Justice James Clark McReynolds & The Neglected First, Second & Fourteenth Amendments”. Washington, D.C. Retrieved March 21, 2012.
Martin, Fenton S.; Goehlert, Robert U. (1990). The U.S. Supreme Court: A Bibliography. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Books. ISBN 0-87187-554-3.
Mason, Alpheus Thomas (1964). William Howard Taft: Chief Justice. London: Oldbourne.

Further reading

“McReynolds, James Clark,” Dictionary of American Biography.
McReynolds, James Clark[dead link], American National Biography.
Biographical Dictionary of the Federal Judiciary. Detroit: Gale Research, 1976.
Frank, John P. (1995). In Friedman, Leon; Israel, Fred L. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions. Chelsea House Publishers. ISBN 0-7910-1377-4.
Urofsky, Melvin I. (1994). The Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical Dictionary. New York: Garland Publishing. p. 590. ISBN 0-8153-1176-1.

External links
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Author: James Clark McReynolds
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: James Clark McReynolds

Biography, James Clark McReynolds at Federal Judicial Center.
Supreme Court Historical Society, James C. McReynolds.

Legal offices
Preceded by
George W. Wickersham U.S. Attorney General
Served under: Woodrow Wilson
1913–1914 Succeeded by
Thomas W. Gregory
Preceded by
Horace Harmon Lurton Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
1914 – 1941 Succeeded by
James F. Byrnes

v
t

United States Attorneys General

Randolph
Bradford
Lee
Lincoln
Breckinridge
Rodney
Pinkney
Rush
Wirt
Berrien
Taney
Butler
Grundy
Gilpin
Crittenden
Legaré
Nelson
Mason
Clifford
Toucey
Johnson
Crittenden
Cushing
Black
Stanton
Bates
Speed
Stanbery
Evarts
Hoar
Akerman
Williams
Pierrepont
Taft
Devens
MacVeagh
Brewster
Garland
Miller
Olney
Harmon
McKenna
Griggs
Knox
Moody
Bonaparte
Wickersham
McReynolds
Gregory
Palmer
Daugherty
Stone
Sargent
W D Mitchell
Cummings
Murphy
Jackson
Biddle
T C Clark
McGrath
McGranery
Brownell
Rogers
Kennedy
Katzenbach
W R Clark
J N Mitchell
Kleindienst
Richardson
Saxbe
Levi
Bell
Civiletti
Smith
Meese
Thornburgh
Barr
Reno
Ashcroft
Gonzales
Mukasey
Holder

Seal of the United States Department of Justice

v
t

Cabinet of President Woodrow Wilson (1913–1921)
Vice President

Thomas R. Marshall (1913–1921)

Secretary of State

William Jennings Bryan (1913–1915)
Robert Lansing (1915–1920)
Bainbridge Colby (1920–1921)

Secretary of the Treasury

William Gibbs McAdoo (1913–1918)
Carter Glass (1918–1920)
David F. Houston (1920–1921)

Secretary of War

Lindley Miller Garrison (1913–1916)
Newton D. Baker (1916–1921)

Attorney General

James Clark McReynolds (1913–1914)
Thomas Watt Gregory (1914–1919)
Alexander Mitchell Palmer (1919–1921)

Postmaster General

Albert S. Burleson (1913–1921)

Secretary of the Navy

Josephus Daniels (1913–1921)

Secretary of the Interior

Franklin Knight Lane (1913–1920)
John Barton Payne (1920–1921)

Secretary of Agriculture

David F. Houston (1913–1920)
Edwin T. Meredith (1920–1921)

Secretary of Commerce

William C. Redfield (1913–1919)
Joshua W. Alexander (1919–1921)

Secretary of Labor

William Bauchop Wilson (1912–1921)

Supreme Court of the United States
The White Court
Chief Justice: Edward Douglass White (1910–1921)
1914–1916:

J. McKenna | O.W. Holmes | Wm. R. Day | C.E. Hughes | W. Van Devanter | J.R. Lamar | M. Pitney | J.C. McReynolds
1916–1921:

J. McKenna | O.W. Holmes | Wm. R. Day | W. Van Devanter | M. Pitney | J.C. McReynolds | L.D. Brandeis | J. H. Clarke
The Taft Court
Chief Justice: William Howard Taft (1921–1930)
1921–1922:

J. McKenna | O.W. Holmes | Wm. R. Day | W. Van Devanter | M. Pitney | J.C. McReynolds | L.D. Brandeis | J.H. Clarke
1922:

J. McKenna | O.W. Holmes | Wm. R. Day | W. Van Devanter | M. Pitney | J.C. McReynolds | L.D. Brandeis | Geo. Sutherland
1923–1925:

J. McKenna | O.W. Holmes | W. Van Devanter | J.C. McReynolds | L.D. Brandeis | Geo. Sutherland | P. Butler | E.T. Sanford
1925–1930:

O.W. Holmes | W. Van Devanter | J.C. McReynolds | L.D. Brandeis | Geo. Sutherland | P. Butler | E.T. Sanford | H.F. Stone
The Hughes Court
Chief Justice: Charles Evans Hughes (1930–1941)
Feb–Mar 1930:

O.W. Holmes | W. Van Devanter | J.C. McReynolds | L.D. Brandeis | Geo. Sutherland | P. Butler | E.T. Sanford | H.F. Stone
Jun 1930–1932:

O.W. Holmes | W. Van Devanter | J.C. McReynolds | L.D. Brandeis | Geo. Sutherland | P. Butler | H.F. Stone | O.J. Roberts
1932–1937:

W. Van Devanter | J.C. McReynolds | L.D. Brandeis | Geo. Sutherland | P. Butler | H.F. Stone | O.J. Roberts | B.N. Cardozo
1937–1938:

J.C. McReynolds | L.D. Brandeis | Geo. Sutherland | P. Butler | H.F. Stone | O.J. Roberts | B.N. Cardozo | H. Black
1938:

J.C. McReynolds | L.D. Brandeis | P. Butler | H.F. Stone | O.J. Roberts | B.N. Cardozo | H. Black | S.F. Reed
1939:

J.C. McReynolds | P. Butler | H.F. Stone | O.J. Roberts | H. Black | S.F. Reed | F. Frankfurter | Wm. O. Douglas
1940–1941:

J.C. McReynolds | H.F. Stone | O.J. Roberts | H. Black | S.F. Reed | F. Frankfurter | Wm. O. Douglas | F. Murphy

Authority control

VIAF: 72197108

de:James C. McReynolds

it:James Clark McReynolds sv:James Clark McReynolds zh:詹姆斯·克拉克·麦克雷诺兹

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“American” Gets it Right — Again: Louis Brandeis was a zionist traitor

Phil posted this commentary on a Melissa Block interview of Josh Landis, in which Landis was disempowered from talking about the Assad government on the basis of his “dual loyalty” — his wife is Alawite.

Phil wrote this:

‘NPR’ suggests that opponent of Syrian intervention has dual loyalty
by Philip Weiss on May 3, 2013 15

The other afternoon on NPR, Melissa Block interviewed an opponent of intervention in Syria, Joshua Landis of the University of Oklahoma–who argues that Syria would be another Iraq— and promptly brought up Landis’s marriage to a woman from a prominent Alawite family, suggesting that Landis was guilty of dual loyalty in his ideas about Syria.

You will see that the supporter of intervention in Syria who was on the show, Andrew Tabler of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (the thinktank spinoff of the Israel lobby group AIPAC), then ran with Block’s theme; and Landis, on the defensive, was compelled to assert, “I’m an American… I’m an American trying to keep us out of another Iraq-type of venture.”

Melissa BLOCK: Joshua Landis, I’d be curious to hear your perspective, as somebody who married into what I gather is a prominent Syrian Alawite family. Alawites are the minority in Syria, party of President Assad and other elites. Help us understand the Alawite perspective on the rebel movement and the future of their country.

LANDIS: Well, as I said, this is a ethnic war and it’s devolving increasingly towards minorities, who are 20 percent of Syria, led by the Alawites, 12 percent, who have monopolized the military and security forces. They have had their foot on the throats of the Sunni-Arab majority for the last 40 or 50 years. Sunni-Arab majority has finally had enough of this and they’re trying to overthrow this regime…

LANDIS: Could I have one rejoinder? Andrew just said that I’m a regime-supporter for making this argument and therefore trying to scare Americans away. I think that’s an unfair accusation. I’m an American.

TABLER: You’ve got to be kidding, Josh. You have been one of the biggest supporters of Bashar al-Assad for a long time, and look, that’s your position. And I think the argument you make…

LANDIS: That’s completely untrue. And I’m an American trying to keep us out of another Iraq-type of venture.

TABLER: I think that you are…

LANDIS: What you are saying is that Syria’s not like Iraq.

TABLER: I’m sorry I don’t agree with you.

LANDIS: And Syria’s exactly like Iraq. This is not about the regime. This is about America staying out of a quagmire, Andrew.

TABLER: Josh, I just think that your positions have come consistently on side of the regime.

LANDIS: Well, that’s because I want Americans to stay out. I think the Syrians have to settle their own problems.

I find this fascinating. For if Landis’s marriage is fair game– and I think it is– then so are the social and ideological adhesions of neoconservatives. Are they Zionists? Do they have family living in Israel? Why did neoconservatives Richard Perle and David Wurmser– who is married to an Israeli-American– write “A Clean Break” for Netanyahu in 1996, calling for regime change in Iraq? Given these connections to a rightwing foreign regime, should these men have served in George Bush’s foreign-policy braintrust? Did not Elliott Abrams and Paul Wolfowitz, who also were part of that brain trust, have family living in Israel?

What about liberal Aaron David Miller, who tells us in his book that concern for Israel was part of his “ethnic DNA.” Should he have been a peace processor? What about Chuck Schumer, who says his name means guardian in Hebrew and he is a guardian of Israel?

Do we ever hear mainstream media buttonholing these people about their connections to Israel or asking, sincerely, Can you help us understand Zionism in Jewish life? No.

Americans have a right to know about these things. From the very beginnings of political Zionism, when Herzl approached French and English Jews and had the door slammed in his face, Jews expressed the fear that Zionism would cast a question on their patriotism. Eric Alterman has said that to be a Zionist is to be dual loyal:

I was raised dually loyal my whole life. When I went to Hebrew school, the content of my Hebrew school was all about supporting Israel. When my parents who I think are here tonight sent me to Israel when I was 14, on a ZOA [Zionist Organization of America]-sponsored trip… it was drummed into me that I should do what’s best for Israel.

Dual loyalty doesn’t mean disqualification. As Louis Brandeis established, such affinities are just part of the American salad. Fine. We are worldly people. We all have adhesions– some of which go across borders. But as Melissa Block believes, it is sometimes fair to discuss those adhesions. Too bad that principle is only honored when it comes to an opponent of neoconservatism.

There are other issues that will be mentioned later, but American took exception to Weiss’s statement about Louis Brandeis, and rightly so. Here’s what American said:

American says:
May 3, 2013 at 1:55 pm

”Dual loyalty doesn’t mean disqualification. As Louis Brandeis established, such affinities are just part of the American salad.”..Phil

No they aren’t. There is a difference between an affinity, a liking of or relationship to something and a ‘allegiance’ .

Dual foreign loyalties create a national’ schism’ when they have national influence –where various self interested bodies do not work for the common national good. It destroys the social/collective cohesion necessary for a national conscience and stability.
No where is this more obvious than what is going on right now regarding the foreign or alien influence brought on by the zionist. But the schisms aren’t limited to the zionism alien, it’s apparent in most all sectors of the ‘salad”.
I don’t know how many examples from history people need to understand how this causes ‘breakdown’ in a civilization and it’s government.

My impression from this last sentence is that American is pretty passionate about this, and that he knows, but might not want to fully express, or can’t quite believe what he knows, that Brandeis and others like him did some terrible things in the 19teens, and 1930s. I certainly think that is the case: I think Brandeis, Untermyer, Stephen Wise and their cohort subverted the Wilson and Roosevelt governments in favor of Jews, for Jewish interests, and intentionally caused wars in Germany, intentionally set the US and British governments to the Passoverish task of destroying Germany, in order that 7 million Jews could colonize Israel.

Iran knows this.

Gertrude Stein understood some of what was happening — that Jews wanted to ‘Estherize’ Germany and the United States.
Back to American:

Or how many historical leaders and figures who witnessed these schisms have to keep warning populations.
Brandis was a fool motivated by his sympathy for zionism…he was a zionist, not an American.

I disagree. Brandeis was not a fool, he was a traitor. Within the first 2 weeks of February 1933, before Hitler had been ratified for the position of chancellor, Brandeis told Stephen Wise that “Jews must leave Germany.” Edwin Black quotes Brandeis in “The Transfer Agreement,” and sources the quote to Stephen Wise’s autobiography, “Challenging Years.”

James Clark McReynolds, who was on the Supreme Court with Brandeis and later Frankfurter (McReynolds was appointed by Wilson in 1914; resigned in 1941. Born in 1862, he died in 1946. see appended bio of McReynolds.), knew what was going on and despised Brandeis and Frankfurter for their treason. MacReynolds was branded an “antisemite” and was buried in ignominy and obscurity. Henry Ford knew what was going on and was punished for interfering with zionist schemes. The power that Jews organized to undermine Ford was used as the model to undermine and destroy Adolf Hitler. Edwin Black spells it out in “Transfer Agreement,” as if Jews are proud of their handiwork. Orde Kittrie

But let them trot right on with the self serving and agenda ridden re-definitions of loyalty to a salad bar …they will learn the hard way that Jews as minorities will be among the first victims to get tossed from the ‘salad’ as schism antagonisms grow and there is no collective or common interest left to protect them.

What do people not understand about what happens to them when they ‘subvert’ democratic engines and destroy those engines in the process? ..once the democracy they have perverted is finished, they are finished, they have no protection.

‘’>They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. ‘’

– – – – –
the other comments to Phil’s article:
15 comments… read them below or add one }

lysias says:
May 3, 2013 at 10:55 am

Interesting fact from Landis’s Wikipedia entry:

Landis has been noted for his friendly relationship to the Ambassador of Syria, Imad Moustapha, but when Landis wrote during the first weeks of the Syrian uprising of 2011 that there was “no soft landing”[3] for the Syria regime and that it was “deeply sectarian”,[4] Ambassador Moustapha cut off further contact with him on the grounds that he was a “revolutionary.”

Doesn’t sound exactly like a stooge of the Assad regime.

The underlying assumption, which lysias wittingly or unwittingly endorses, is that it is appropriate to undermine the Assad government for western purposes.
BTW, recall hearing Imad Moustapha at Carnegie Mellon some years ago. There was push-back from other Muslims in the audience, and also a group of Jews, from a fraternity, I believe, who were interviewed by a Jewish newspaper reporter immediately after the talk. They asked questions. They, or some of them, had Hasbara handbooks, an updated version, in their hands.

Justpassingby says:
May 3, 2013 at 11:30 am

Who cares really even if he were pro-Assad?
WINEP/The israel-lobby that have openly supported occupation, aggression and human rights abuses for decades, they are of course angry that people are speaking out against another lobby-pushed, possible, middle-east chaos/war.

Justpassingby says:
May 3, 2013 at 11:27 am

Applying the Melissa Black-argumentation on the Israel/Palestine debate in America would sure expose dual loyalty/citizenship…
Of course Melissa wont do that because THAT would be racist according to her. But stereotyping muslim affiliation is ok.

These people dont even realize that they are using xenophobic arguments…

marc b. says:
May 3, 2013 at 1:27 pm

it’s beyond orwell. bejamin kunkel (I think) just wrote an article on the pathology of political debate in America, basically arguing that objective discourse isn’t even possible at this late date. by way of example, apparently the DOJ is prosecuting an 18-year old American because he intended to travel to Syria through turkey to fight for the Syrian rebels, because, well they’re terrorists. for a significant portion of the US population the irony or absurdity of this will pass completely over their head, just as they’re incapable of registering the possibility of the hypocrisy of block and tabler.

pabelmont says:
May 3, 2013 at 11:29 am

Phil, nicely put. NPR’s dual-loyalty is nailed, but (no doubt) will not be admitted.

Can you think of a way to stick to NPR this particular blatant display of dual-loyalty, NPR’s Melissa Block’s willingness to identify the political and familial associations of Arab-connected folk “on air”, but NPR’s general across-the-board unwillingnes to do the same for Israel-connected folk?

Of course, NPR (Melissa Block) did not say the words “dual loyalty” although it may have been implied to any reasonable hearer’s ear. But why bring up his wife at all if not to inject the idea that familial (and maybe also ideological or political [Alawite]) “loyalty” or “affiliation” may skew the reliability/credibility of a talking-head’s presentation.

Qualtrough says:
May 3, 2013 at 11:57 am

Simple rule in operation in the USA: If the other country is not Israel, any ties are fair game. If Israel, it’s anti-semitic.

Kathleen says:
May 3, 2013 at 12:13 pm

“I find this fascinating. For if Landis’s marriage is fair game– and I think it is– then so are the social and ideological adhesions of neoconservatives. Are they Zionists? Do they have family living in Israel? Why did neoconservatives Richard Perle and David Wurmser– who is married to an Israeli-American– write “A Clean Break” for Netanyahu in 1996, calling for regime change in Iraq? Given these connections to a rightwing foreign regime, should these men have served in George Bush’s foreign-policy braintrust? Did not Elliott Abrams and Paul Wolfowitz, who also were part of that brain trust, have family living in Israel?

What about liberal Aaron David Miller, who tells us in his book that concern for Israel was part of his “ethnic DNA.” Should he have been a peace processor? What about Chuck Schumer, who says his name means guardian in Hebrew and he is a guardian of Israel?

Do we ever hear mainstream media buttonholing these people about their connections to Israel or asking, sincerely, Can you help us understand Zionism in Jewish life? No.”

Have been finding this hypocrisy on NPR fascinating for decades So great that you have turned the spotlight on NPR’s dual loyalty and unwillingness to be fair in their lines of questioning. Asking Landis about the possibility that a dual loyalty could trump loyalty to the U.S. That same line of questioning should have and should be always asked of Perle, Kristol, Feith, Wolfowitz, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Schumer, Tabler etc etc. They should be asked the same line of questioning.

And of course Brandeis would know about the dual loyalty issue trumping loyalty to the U.S. He used his power and position to disproportionately support Israel over what would be best for the U.S.

ot
But not sure if you folks have done a post about how absurd it is that Israel a country that has absolutely used chemical weapons is the country coming up with the alleged intelligence that Syria has used chemical weapons. So friggin absurd one would think we would just get used to this hypocrisy. And the fact that the Obama administration is just not rolling over to this questionable Israeli intelligence. Good sign in many ways

Israel’s Illegal Use of White Phosphorus During ‘Operation Cast Lead’
And How the U.S. Media Tries to Cover Up Israeli War Crimes

link to foreignpolicyjournal.com

David Doppler says:
May 3, 2013 at 12:54 pm

I think it is fair game to ask any Jewish American politician whether (s)he is a Zionist and what Zionism and political support for Israel means to them. I’m sure there will be a unique answer for each one of them. Justice Kagan, in carefully staged testimony, said that Israel and some Israeli judge role-model were very important to her. She wasn’t going to get any flak for that from the Senate, but the point is, it is a relevant question to ask, and the existing habit of avoiding discussing it should be discarded. I think it would also be appropriate to ask every elected official to disclose publicly any position paper or similar statement they’ve prepared and submitted to AIPAC, as I’ve heard that is part of AIPAC’s process, and I’m sure their AIPAC-savvy staff people are ever-present to help draft such documents for Congressional newbies. A sort of Mondoweiss meets Roll Call disclosure would make it possible for the constituents back home to know what their Congress person is committing too, and open the door to a fuller discussion of these topics. Netanyahu wants to flaunt his control over Congress, let the American people see how that process works. Same as to the Gun Lobby and other powerful single interest groups. Get it all out on the public record.

Binyamin in Orangeburg says:
May 3, 2013 at 1:03 pm

Phil has hit on an important point when he say’s there is nothing inherently wrong with “dual loyalty.”

I think we make a mistake when we play that card against Jewish-American supporters of Israel. Merely supporting a foreign state’s policies, and championing them as an example, is not wrong, provided those policies and that example are in accord with human rights. The problem is not their support for a foreign country, it is support for a certain country — Israel — which undermines our nation’s commitment to democratic principles.

I feel we fall into a bit of left-wing McCarthyism when we play the “dual loyalty” card. It is not so dissimilar from the Zionist claim that we are anti-semites, self-hating Jews and even proto-Nazis if we criticize Israel.

W.Jones says:
May 3, 2013 at 2:03 pm

Binyamin,

Let’s give an example. Imagine that a charity has a dispute with one of the staffperson’s in-laws. Does the staffperson have “dual loyalty”? Is it possible that the staffperson might be biased against the place where he works?

In normal terms we consider this a conflict of interest. Note that it doesn’t mean the staff person will necessarily feel conflicted: he/she might have a disagreement with his/her in-laws, or might be quite capable of putting simple ideas of equality above his/her family relations.

And for some people, the analogy to “in-laws” doesn’t work either, because they might not perceive such a relationship.

American says:
May 3, 2013 at 1:55 pm [see above]

W.Jones says:
May 3, 2013 at 1:57 pm

I tend to sympathize with the idea in the headline: Call me kookoo, but since he comes from the Alawite minority, he might not want to see the country taken over by fundamentalists allied with the Taliban.

W Jones is an evangelical, I think. He’s got the facts wrong: Landis does not “come from the Alawite minority,” he is married to an Alawite woman.

yonah fredman says:
May 3, 2013 at 2:03 pm

Regarding the situation in Syria- I don’t think Assad will survive until 2020, unless he leaves the country or unless there is a negotiation that creates a mini Alawite state. I think the weakening of the Hezbollah, Assad, Iran axis is to Israel’s advantage, but chaos or a type of Hamas in Syria is not to Israel’s advantage.

Kathleen, white phosphorus is a dubious weapon especially when used near civilians. But if some expert categorizes it as a chemical weapon, please link. Categories of thought are useful as thought experiments, but chemical weapons have a definition, I believe and white phosphorus does not fit the definition, I believe, unless clarified otherwise.

Fredman is doing damage control. Kathleen, in a typical rambling out of context song-of-herself, gave him the opening.

Les says:
May 3, 2013 at 2:08 pm

Has the NPR ever examined the dual loyalty of American Jews who enlist in the IDF rather than the US military? Does Corporal Jeffrey Goldberg’s experience as an IDF campguard of Palestinians make him a useful Israeli agent wearing the disguise of an American?

Edward Q says:
May 3, 2013 at 2:25 pm

Someone from WINEP accuses another person of bias?? Since when has WINEP been a bastion of objectivity and neutrality? Where does Tabler’s salary come from?

Rusty Pipes says:
May 3, 2013 at 5:24 pm

Joshua Landis is not pro-Assad — far from it. Up until a few weeks ago, the poll question on his site was “Will Bashar Assad be gone by June?” Now the question is “Will Syria maintain territorial integrity post-conflict?” Judging from many of his recent statements, he doesn’t think it will — he’s projecting an Assad retreat to an Alawite coastal region. Yes, he says that American involvement in Syria could end up like our adventure in Iraq, but here’s his rationale:

The US should not lead the way in Syria. Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have a much greater stake in Syria and should lead the way. Their interest will be sustained. They have the money, advanced weapons, and strong religious motivation to help the rebels and defeat Iranian and Shiite influence in Syria. The US should not be taking sides in the larger regional contest pitting Shiites against Sunnis.

I am sure the US can help, but to take the lead as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan would be the height of folly. The US should definitely spend much more money to aid Syrians, but others should take the lead in using military force and in helping Syria build a new state and common sense of national identity.

{{{BUT, the overriding assumption is that anything that damages Iran is desirable.}}}
{{{ find the video, early in the Syria conflict, in which Landis mused that fall of Assad would be bad for Christians.}}}

Putting Landis on a panel about Syria is about as far as the MSM has been willing to veer from the neocon narrative. Over the past two years, they certainly haven’t been willing to bring on someone who has been harshly critical of American saber-rattling toward Syria , like journalists Robert Fisk, Franklin Lamb, Charles Glass or Patrick Seale. They’re also not putting Glenn Greenwald or As’ad Abu Khalil on their panels — even when they think that it is necessary to have someone “balance” the proposals from an Israel Lobby thinktank, like WINEP.

Yesterday morning, David Green introduced the segment about Syria by saying that Americans are not paying close attention to Syria. Considering NPR’s role in banging the drums for intervention in Syria with its daily coverage of that country to the neglect of other developments in the Middle East (like Palestine and Bahrain), it is more that the coverage of Syria has become background noise. The American public has heard these drums before and many of us remember where they led us.

I take Block’s mention of Landis’ Alawite connections as less an accusation of dual loyalty than as setting Landis up as a foil for the guest from WINEP.

I do see some hopeful signs that the MSM narrative about Syria might be getting more challenges (especially from liberals who stick closely to the neocon-led angle and don’t touch the rest of the Israel Lobby) in the past week from Matthews, Maddow and Stewart.

ToivoS says:
May 3, 2013 at 6:17 pm

Two people have already pointed out Landis actually supported the beginning of the Syrian uprising before the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists turned it into a civil war. And to some extent he still backs them.

However, he is deviating from the neocon party line by arguing for the US not to become militarily involved so they will try to smear him for having dual loyalties. This coming from a WINEP clown is too much. With them we are not even talking about dual loyalty, their only loyalty is to the state of Israel, pure unadulterated agents for a foreign state.

– – – – –
Phil’s blog is a “pressure cooker.” He puts in enough merchandise to give the appearance of trying to do some good, but only uses the non-Jewish merchandise to take the heat for Jews. The agenda is controlled diffusion of pressure, without ever permitting a critical mass of “steam” to build up that would cause an explosion. The goal is to protect Jews, and little more.

UPDATE:  Yonah reacted to American’s comment:

yonah fredman says:

Finally American has clarified for us the implications of naming himself American. He gets to decide who is American and who is not American. He does not propose legislation for the future, but merely threatens with nonspecific historical consequences: “they will learn the hard way that Jews as minorities will be among the first victims to get tossed from the ‘salad’ as schism antagonisms grow and there is no collective or common interest left to protect them.”

But it is not only regarding the future that American rules: he has the right to revoke citizenships of the past. Brandeis was no American, he informs us, he was a Zionist. How about Lindberg? Was he a German because he cozied up to Herr Hitler? Or maybe Lindberg thought an American Germany alliance would be good for America and therefore his statements in favor of Hitler were American whereas Brandeis was merely playing colonial lord by suggesting Zionism and therefore Brandeis’s hobby makes him unAmerican whereas Lindberg’s pro American pro Nazi stance does not lead him to lose his designation as an American. We will await “American’s” judgment. Because he gives out citizenship both past and future.

Yonah gets it about right:  Brandeis was playing colonial lord, Lindbergh was defending American interests and viewed an American-German alliance as in the best interests of the US.

1. The choices were US alliance w/ Britain, or with Germany.  FDR did all in his power to cripple Britain.

2. FDR proposed an entente with Germany to which Hitler acquiesced; it would have provided security to Germany, and curbed the financial predations on Germany, in exchange for certain guarantees to USA.  Brandeis and others threw sand in those gears. The negotiation failed.

3. Weimar was a “spent force,” in the words of Tod Lindberg at CATO. 

Brandeis knew it too. By mid-February 1933, he recognized that Jews had more opportunities in USA, and also that Palestine needed German Jewish wealth.  The appointment of Hitler as chancellor was the “Pearl Harbor” moment zionists needed to scare Jews out of Germany to Palestine, with the remainder — Palestine could not absorb all of them, so the remainder was to bide time in USA, gathering up all the education and influence they could.

It’s also intriguing that American zionists were very concerned for GERMAN Jews, but not for Hungarian Jews.  Jabotinsky was repulsed by Slavic Jews; Arthur Ruppin, an ardent eugenicist, did not consider Slavic Jews appropriate “human material” for the “new Jew.” Jewish aid societies served German Jews but preferred not to deal with Slavs;

Yonah’s response to Kathleen’s mention of Israeli use of white phosphorus drew numerous responses:

  • Cliff says:

    Wondering Jew,

    You are only concerned with the technical definition of ‘chemical weapons’ because of the moral resonance it has vis a vis the shock/disgust factor of using chemical weapons or witnessing chemical weapons.

    White phosphorus may not be classified as such. Who cares? It’s used for illumination and then it lands on civilians and burns them to death.

    Israel used White phosphorus in the densely populated Gaza Strip.

    What does that say about the Israeli government and army?

    If you launch something into the air, it will eventually land. If what you’re launching into the air has the capacity to destroy human life indiscriminately – but is not the text-book ‘intention’ of said device – why use it?

    You sure do like to grasp at what little rhetorical points you can get, don’t you?

  • marc b. says:

    from the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998:

    1) Chemical weapon. — The term “chemical weapon” means the following, together or separately:
    (A) A toxic chemical and its precursors, except where intended for a purpose not prohibited under this Act as long as the type and quantity is consistent with such a purpose.
    (B) Ammunition or device, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (A), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munition or device.
    (C) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions or devices specified in subparagraph (B).

    (13) Toxic chemical. —
    (A) In general. — The term “toxic chemical” means any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. The term includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.
    (B) List of toxic chemicals. — Toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures under Article VI of the Convention are listed in schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

    A. Toxic chemicals: (CAS registry number)
    (1) Amiton: 0,0-Diethyl S-[2-(diethylamino)ethyl] phosphorothiolate and corresponding alkylated or protonated salts (78-53-5)
    (2) PFIB: 1,1,3,3,3-Pentafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl)-1-propene (382-21-8)
    (3) BZ: 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate (*) (6581-06-2)

    B. Precursors: (CAS registry number)
    (4) Chemicals, except for those listed in Schedule 1, containing a phosphorus atom to which is bonded one methyl, ethyl or propyl (normal or iso) group but not further carbon atoms,

    so chemical precursors containing the phosphorous atom bonded to an alcohol group but not other carbon atoms, are chemical weapons. is there a chemist in the house?

    • marc b. says:

      ope. it looks like the FAS says it is not a chemical weapon under the convention, although there are other sources, including apparently US military intelligence who (sometimes) say otherwise:

      The Italian journalist who launched the controversy over the American use of white phosphorus (WP) as a weapon of war in the Fallujah siege has accused the Americans of hypocrisy.

      Sigfrido Ranucci, who made the documentary for the RAI television channel aired two weeks ago, said that a US intelligence assessment had characterised WP after the first Gulf War as a “chemical weapon”.

      The assessment was published in a declassified report on the American Department of Defence website. The file was headed: “Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders.”

      In late February 1991, an intelligence source reported, during the Iraqi crackdown on the Kurdish uprising that followed the coalition victory against Iraq, “Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships.”

      According to the intelligence report, the “reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly among the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas” across the border into Turkey.

      so there you have it: it depends who’s using them.

  • Kathleen says:

    link to independent.co.uk
    “The assessment was published in a declassified report on the American Department of Defence website. The file was headed: “Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders.”

    In late February 1991, an intelligence source reported, during the Iraqi crackdown on the Kurdish uprising that followed the coalition victory against Iraq, “Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships.”

    According to the intelligence report, the “reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly among the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas” across the border into Turkey.

    “When Saddam used WP it was a chemical weapon,” said Mr Ranucci, “but when the Americans use it, it’s a conventional weapon. The injuries it inflicts, however, are just as terrible however you describe it.”

  • Kathleen says:

    Here you go Yonah
    link to hrw.org

    Israel: White Phosphorus Use Evidence of War Crimes
    Indiscriminate Attacks Caused Needless Civilian Suffering
    25 mars 2009

    Email

    Related Materials:

    Q & A on Israel’s Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza
    10 janvier 2009
    Q & A

    More Coverage:
    Witness accounts and additional analysis of IDF use of white phosphorus
    Rain of Fire: Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza

    Video: White Phosphorus Use in Gaza

    Photos: White Phosphorus Use in Gaza

    Maps: White Phosphorus Use in Gaza

    “For the needless civilian deaths caused by white phosphorus, senior commanders should be held to account.”
    Fred Abrahams, senior emergencies researcher at Human Rights Watch and co-author of the report

    (Jerusalem) – Israel’s repeated firing of white phosphorus shells over densely populated areas of Gaza during its recent military campaign was indiscriminate and is evidence of war crimes, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.

    The 71-page report, “Rain of Fire: Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza,” provides witness accounts of the devastating effects that white phosphorus munitions had on civilians and civilian property in Gaza. Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza immediately after hostilities ended found spent shells, canister liners, and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on city streets, apartment roofs, residential courtyards, and at a United Nations school. The report also presents ballistics evidence, photographs, and satellite imagery, as well as documents from the Israeli military and government.

  • @ yonah fredman,

    The term chemical weapon is applied to any toxic chemical or its precursor that can cause death, injury, temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through its chemical action. Munitions or other delivery devices designed to deliver chemical weapons, whether filled or unfilled, are also considered weapons themselves. LINK.

    So, yes, even those teargas canisters are chemical weapons containers.

    Nice try, but try again.

  • eljay says:

    >> Categories of thought are useful as thought experiments, but chemical weapons have a definition, I believe and white phosphorus does not fit the definition …

    “Self-determination” also has a definition, but the creation of an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state for citizens of the Jewish faith in countries around the world does not fit that definition.

    Unfortunately for the Palestinians, hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists were able to make into – and to maintain as – a very ugly reality their little “thought experiment”.

  • MRW says:

    yonah, you could have answered this yourself with google.

    The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to which the United States is a party is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say: [re: White phosphorous being used over Falluja]

    “No it’s not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement. [None of which applied to gated civilians of Gaza.]

    “If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

    “If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons.”

    BBC. Google it.

  • Taxi says:

    ” I don’t think Assad will survive until 2020, unless he leaves the country or unless there is a negotiation that creates a mini Alawite state. I think the weakening of the Hezbollah, Assad, Iran axis is to Israel’s advantage, but chaos or a type of Hamas in Syria is not to Israel’s advantage.”

    Oh crumbs of jesus! Do you zios ever get your heads outta where the sun don’t shine? LOL what on earth would make you think that “Hezbollah, Assad, Iran axis” is “weakening”?! Do please show us how israel has ANY advantages left in this day and age?

    Better still, keep mainlining the ziocaine. An ideology where members are sooo high on delusions of power and grandeur can only be good for Palestine at the end of the day.

  • UPDATE: this from traintosiberia says:May 3, 2013 at 10:19 pm

    “This is deeply disconcerting. It is a slippery slope to adopting nazi like attitude by the media What essentially they are saying is that anytime anybody does not follow the script written by the Zionist or their co brethren in secular clothing in relation to ME has to be first evaluated by ethnic and religious background and discarded or respected accordingly .
    This is flabbergasting from every angle this is viewed andI hopeLandis should sue NPR for bias and slander. This is from an environment where remote but fact based negative reference to any pro Israeli or Anti American activities by any person or group or government functionary or media or cultural icon with Jewish background is castigated ,berated,denounced and portrayed as reemergence of dark Antisemitism of Europe of the past 1000 years . This is the depth of the moral degeneration and clearly out of fear that is stalking these folks. it is shame that these moronic minions can get away with this kind of personal attack.”

    I disagree with the constant resort to Nazi comparisons. Censoring media, publishers, politicians, etc. was heavily practiced by zionists well before Nazism came on the scene.  Nazism was an attempt to do just what the USA needs to do today — get the “spirit of zionism”  — ziocaine — out of the American body politic.

    Ambassador Robert Hunter’s comment at Metropolitan Club comes to mind:  his initial comments about what Iran should do re Israel — “get off it,” and how America was ineluctably tied to Israel, were rejected, soundly by the audience.  Thereupon, he pivoted and informed the audience that he had been blackballed from NPR over the past ten years because he opposed the Iraq war.

    I also suspect “Burt Wise” is a zionist minder.  Wise’s comments were insidious precisely because they sound so sincere — “the American public is misinformed; they need to be educated.”  Indeed.  The organizations Wise speaks for are the ones who are ensuring that the American public STAYS “misinformed.”

    I am persuaded that his comments were disingenuous because he framed the problem as a conflict between Republicans and Democrats.  Any observant fool knows, and he surely knows, that on Israel/Palestine, and on Israel/Iran, Democrats and Republicans vote as one.  AIPAC has suborned both sides of the ticket. I know that, HE knows that.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Marc Ellis, Second meditation on Trauma

Thoughts: 1. recent item on Yahoo, Saying “I’m sorry” does NOT make you feel better. The person on the RECEIVING end of an apology is empowered, the person who apologizes is disempowered.
2. “Why We Lie: The Evolutionary Roots of Deception and the Unconscious Mind,” by David Livingstone Smith.
p. 14: (Definition)

“Lying is any form of behavior the function of which is to provide others with false information or to deprive them of true information.

I purposefully use the term “function” rather than “intention.” In the vocabulary of evolutionary biology, the function of something is that which it has been selected (metaphorically, “designed”) to do. Consider the bodies of leaf insects, which mimic the form and color of the plants that they inhabit. These bugs do not intend to deceive the creatures that want to make a meal of them and can no more change their physical shape than you or I can. Camouflage, a form of deception, is nonetheless a function of their bodily form.”

I SAY: The human animal has developed a higher order brain in with the capacity to formulate strategies to protect himself from those who “want to make a meal of him.” The evolution of the human brain has been successful for several thousand years. For somewhat fewer of those years, moral teachings such as those of Zoroaster, Cyrus, and the Greeks have institutionalized codes of conduct that prohibit deception as a means not so much of self-preservation, but of domination of those whom WE seek to “make a meal of.”

Smith wrote earlier (p. 2):

“Deceptive creatures have an edge over their competitors in the relentless struggle to survive and reproduce that drives the engine of evolution. As well-honed survival machines, human beings are naturally deceptive.”

I SAY: Smith confuses two concepts here, self-survival/reproduction, and denial of the OTHER’s equivalent quest to survive and reproduce. Smith plays a zero-sum game; Cyrus did not: the Cyrus Cylinder perceived that there was room enough, and power enough, for all to “survive and reproduce” in the Persian empire.

What does this have to do with Marc Ellis’s essay on trauma?

Consider these lines:

“America is “born of trauma and imbued with a hopeful can-do ethos.”

and

“Then we would glimpse the story behind the story. Because if Shpancer’s judgment factors in the radical shift in Jewish history from powerlessness to power that Israel represents and he has lived – coupled with the trauma Jews suffered and now inflict on others which he has also lived – then a new kind of Jewish weakness might be at hand.”

The “story behind the story” that Ellis seeks to unearth is that Shpancer may have been directly involved in traumatizing Palestinians, and that he lived in a kibbutz that was the first reification of Israel’s Plan Dalet — the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Shpancer practiced deception in his writing about trauma, apparently in order to preserve his own self-image and to misinform his readers.

SIDEBAR: Thought: why would someone write something that is deliberately calculated to MISinform its readers? Chai Cherry: Jews love to write. Writing is used to deceive. Writing is an act of deception, employed by the writer to “get an edge on the competition in the struggle to survive,” and also to deny to the OTHER the same right (?) to self-preservation, survival and reproduction.

But even Ellis engages in self-deception. Ellis wrote:

“the radical shift in Jewish history from powerlessness to power that Israel represents and he has lived – coupled with the trauma Jews suffered and now inflict on others which he has also lived”

But the reality is that Jews were NOT powerless pre-Israel. Jane Eisner made the same deceptive statement in this video:
nor was the “trauma Jews suffered,” by which Ellis alludes to the holocaust in Europe, of anything near th

—–

Exile and the prophetic: Psychologist Shpancer leaves out Palestinian trauma

‘Exile and the prophetic: Psychologist Shpancer leaves out Palestinian trauma'”

The German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, once commented, “That which doesn’t kill us, makes us stronger.”   What his words mean beyond a popular refrain, I’ll leave for Nietzsche’s devoted followers to sort out.  Nonetheless, Nietzsche’s words ring a bell.

Trauma as strength has become our collective mantra.  What if our mantra is a sign of weakness?

Yesterday a friend who, contra Nietzsche’s words, has her own story of suffering that hasn’t made her stronger, sent me an article from Psychology Today by Noam Shpancer. Shpancer‘s title represents an apt reversal of Nietzsche’s dictum: “What Doesn’t Kill You Makes You Weaker.”

Shpancer is best known as author of the novel, The Good Psychologist. Currently, he is a professor of psychology and a practicing clinician in Columbus, Ohio. Though living in America, Shpancer was born and raised on a kibbutz in Israel and served in the military there.

Shpancer debunks the notion that suffering makes you stronger. He believes this is particularly difficult for American culture to deal with because America is “born of trauma and imbued with a hopeful can-do ethos.  Thus it wants to believe this idea because it’s self-affirming.” Shpancer refers to this as confirmation bias: “Once we have acquired a certain belief we tend to see, remember, and report mostly instances and events that support it. “

To back his conclusion, Shpancer cites a recent study comparing those who lived within 1.5 miles of the World Trade Center on September 11th and others who lived more than 200 miles away.  The study shows those closer to Ground Zero have long-term neurological correlates of trauma exposure. Shpancer concludes that “when trauma and hardship do leave a mark, it is usually a bruise under the skin, not a notch on the belt.”

At the end of his article, Shpancer adds his own experience in the Israeli military to bolster his argument.  On the surface, his reference seems innocuous.  Digging below the surface other questions arise:

Years ago, during my mandatory army service in Israel, I took part in anti-terrorist training that involved working with the K9 unit. I asked the unit commander where he found those vicious attack dogs of his. Most people, he said, believe that wild street dogs make the best anti-terrorist dogs, having survived the, well, dog-eat-dog world of the mean streets. But the truth is just the opposite. Street dogs are useless for this–or any other–work because they are unpredictable and not trainable. Dogs that have been well cared for, loved, and protected all their lives–those are the best anti-terrorist dog candidates.

Shpancer doesn’t inquire as to how his military service in Israel addresses Nietzsche’s dictum.  Did it make him stronger or weaker?  Nor does Shpancer probe how the militarization of Jewish life in Israel and elsewhere has affected the Jewish outlook on the world.

Did the anti-terrorist training Shpancer was involved in include studying where terrorism comes from and why?  In defending Israel’s citizens against terror, did he learn how soldiers like him terrorize Palestinians? Was part of Shpancer’s training a history lesson in the formation and expansion of Israel and the trauma that continues to be inflicted on Palestinians?

Perhaps Shpancer honed his views on trauma and its effects on strength and weakness in the occupied territories or in the Israeli invasions of Lebanon and Gaza. In his military service, did he personally inflict trauma on others or experience trauma himself?

These details would be important background for Shpancer’s readers to know.  Then we would glimpse the story behind the story. Because if Shpancer’s judgment factors in the radical shift in Jewish history from powerlessness to power that Israel represents and he has lived – coupled with the trauma Jews suffered and now inflict on others which he has also lived – then a new kind of Jewish weakness might be at hand.

Did Shpancer leave Israel because he couldn’t resolve these issues within himself?

Two years ago, Shpancer wrote an op-ed for the Guardian reminiscing about his days growing up in a kibbutz. Curiously he omits its name and location.  It turns out he was born and raised in Kibbutz Nachshon, outside of Jerusalem, which was established in 1950, two years after the 1948 war.  The kibbutz was named after Operation Nachshon which opened up the Jerusalem road during the war.  It was the first step of David Ben-Gurion’s infamous ethnic cleansing Operation Dalet.

In his article in the Guardian, as with Psychology Today, Shpancer omits the details of his Israeli past.   As good psychologists, having Nietzsche but also Freud in mind, what should we think about Shpancer’s silence?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment