Review of the News, November 10 (Expanded; Revised, 11/11)

Glory, Hallelujah – The Evangelicals Are Turning on the GOP

One reason for the GOP's much-deserved and badly overdue electoral beat-down on Tuesday is this: Evangelical Christians got religion, or at least acted on it when they went into the voting booths. Growing frustration over the mounting costs of the unjust war in Iraq played a significant role in the revolt, but several analysts point to the surfeit of GOP scandals as the critical reason for the exodus of the Evangelical vote.

“The Republicans lost a lot of Evangelical votes with the corruption issue, and rightly so,” observed Richard Cizik, vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, in an interview with Salon. Revulsion was prompted not only by Mark Foley's predatory perversion and the cover-up of the same by House GOP leaders, but also by bribery scandals involving Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham, which underscored the arrogant venality of the entrenched Republican elite.

"The standard you see for voting is not as simple as [gauging] a politician's stance on same-sex marriage or abortion," continued Cizik. "Moses gave some good advice: Pick capable leaders who are God-fearing, trustworthy and hate dishonest gain. Oh, really? You mean to say that God cares about greed? Just look at Colossians 3:5. What is greed? The apostle Paul says greed is idolatry."

"If there were some Evangelicals who became disenchanted with Republicans over corruption, and it seems to be from the election results, it was well justified. Any kind of funny business promoted voter retribution," concluded Cizik. "And that's the way it should be."

Evangelical disaffection from the GOP resulted in a small but significant number of crossover votes, points out Janice Shaw Crouse of the Beverly LaHaye Institute at Concerned Women for America.

"Mothers and Married Men were decisive factors for the Republicans in 2000 and in 2004, but in the mid-term elections of 2006 they were as likely to vote Democratic as Republican," notes Dr. Crouse. "And ... evangelical support of Republican candidates dropped from 74 percent in 2004 to 69 percent in 2006."

The "slight ... but very significant changes from 2002 to 2006 ... spelled disaster for the GOP," she elaborates. "More Republicans voted for Democrats (9 percent), than Democrats voted for Republicans (6 percent). More conservatives voted for Democrats (21 percent), than liberals voted for Republicans (10 percent). Nearly 30 percent ... of White Evangelicals voted for Democrats, and 54 percent of those who attend church weekly voted for Democrats. Among voters who though that the scandals were `extremely important,' 53 percent voted for Democrats.”

The migration away from the GOP appears to have taken place among theologically conservative Evangelicals. Steven Waldman of BeliefNet describes an on-line poll survey conducted by the news service that received 770 responses from people who profess to accept Jesus as their “personal Lord and Savior” and belief that the Bible is the "inerrant word of God.”

“Even though this was a conservative group-only 28.8 percent described themselves as Democrats and only 13.8 percent said they were liberal-they showed signs of great dissatisfaction with the Republicans. 30 percent said they voted for fewer Republicans than they had in earlier elections, and a stunning 60.7 percent said that in recent years their views about Republicans had become less positive. (51.5 percent said their views on Democrats had grown more negative)."

The most encouraging data obtained by the BeliefNet survey suggests that a substantial group of Evangelicals have -- however tardily -- rejected fuhrerprinzip (the Leader Principle), which is being taught as a tenet of Christianity in many congregations: From this perspective, George Bush, as a professed Born-Again Christian, is "God's man," an anointed leader to be supported without qualification.

But as Waldman points out, "half (49.3 percent) of these evangelicals do not believe that President Bush's faith makes him a better President. 37.2 percent said it's had no effect at all and 12 percent reported that it's made him worse.”




The Deval Went Down to Boston

On Tuesday, Deval Patrick, who served as the chief "civil rights" prosecutor under Bill Clinton, was elected Governor of Massachusetts, the first black individual ever to win that position. Predictably, in his victory speech Patrick waxed Clintonian in describing himself as the embodiment of an historic triumph for social justice.

“This was not a victory just for me," declared Patrick. "This was not a victory just for Democrats. This was a victory for hope. And we won it the old-fashioned way - we earned it.”

Not one to minimize his historic significance, Patrick commented in a post-election press conference that his election would sigificantly embellish the state's image:

"It's a profound thing to be witness to, and a central part of, this historical moment. And I think if people around the country are looking at Massachusetts and thinking about Massachusetts differently than they have in the past, then good for us."

For those familiar with the 1992 federal assault on the Randy Weaver family in northern Idaho, Deval Patrick embodies something other than social justice -- something much closer to lethal government impunity.

Several people died during the needless and illegal attack on Weaver's family; the innocent victims were Weaver's 14-year-old son Samuel, and his 43-year-old wife Vicki, who was gunned down by FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi while she was holding an infant daughter.



Wanted for Murder: The last known photo of FBI assassin Lon Horiuchi


"In 1994," recounted Boston Herald reporter Kimberly Atkins, "Patrick ... who was then assistant attorney general, concluded there was insufficient basis to prosecute FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi for shooting and killing 43-year-old Vicki Weaver.... Patrick made the recommendation despite a report by a task force assembled by Patrick's boss, Attorney General Janet Reno, that found numerous problems with the FBI's handling of the standoff, and called the protocol used by the FBI's Hostage Rescue [Team] unconstitutional under the circumstances."

A 1995 inquiry by a Senate subcommittee headed by liberal Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania found "simply no justification" for the kill-shot taken by Horiuchi, which "missed the 10-month-old baby in her arms by less than two feet."

"Horiuchi should have known that as he fired blind through the cabin door, he was shooting into an area which could well have contained Vicki Weaver and her two younger daughters," observed the Senate subcommittee report.

This is to say that prior to being elected Governor of Massachusetts, Patrick's most notable achievement was his contribution to what has been called the Federal Government's "007 Standard" -- the assumption that federal law enforcement personnel who murder innocent people in the line of "duty" are protected from prosecution or civil liability through "Supremacy Clause immunity."

And, speaking of the subject of discretionary murder by the federal government ....




[UPDATE, November 11]

The following item was written in response to a posting on the JBS News Feed that left me astonished and horrified. Alan Scholl, the author of that item, has revised and clarified his comments, and done so -- to his considerable credit -- without removing the earlier version.

Here is Mr. Scholl's clarification:

Mea culpa. The preceding paragraph, as it was written in haste, amidst many other conflicting priorities, seems to contain a direct call for war with Iran. Though it says this at face value, it was never my intent to suggest this as an outcome to be desired. Obviously, some clarification is needed. What I meant to say is that the United States has a legitimate right to self-defense. If I had a chance to reword my original comments, they would be as follows: "However, in that spirit of minding our own business and declared neutrality, Congress should also remind Iran formally that if its government were to launch one of their weapons at American citizens, and in so doing start a war, then we would retaliate with enough force that we wouldn't expect them to attack us again." Stated another way, my intent was to say that "In the event that a foreign power (Iran, for instance) were to threaten to attack the nation and its citizens using nuclear weapons, it is within the right of the United States to remind the offending power that a defense in kind should be expected." This, for better or for worse, was the official defense posture of the United States vis-à-vis the Warsaw Pact nations during the Cold War. As a corollary to this, it is fervently to be desired that the U.S. Congress will make clear via its actions that our nation forswear foreign entanglements and seek a peaceful coexistence with all peoples and nations of goodwill.

I certainly share Mr. Scholl's hope that we can restore our national independence from foreign entanglements and develop peaceful and mutually beneficial relations with "all peoples and nations of goodwill." The asperity with which the item below was written reflects my considerable alarm over the fact that the current regime in Washington is actively trying to provoke a conflict with Iran, and has conspicuously left the "nuclear option" on the table.

Iran's government is one of the most repellent in the world, but it has actually been the more reasonable and conciliatory party in the escalating conflict with the United States. There's also the fact that it's not currently engaged in an aggressive military occupation of a country half-way around the globe; in fact, there's only one government presently engaged in adventurism of that type, and it isn't headquartered in Tehran, Moscow, or Beijing.



(Courtesy of the incomparable Scott Horton.)


Three years ago, Tehran offered to open diplomatic relations with Washington and hold full and open discussions about all issues of concern between the two governments - including terrorism, regional conflicts, nuclear and over unconventional weapons. the Bush regime batted away that overture by sniffily insisting that it wouldn't deign to recognize the legitimacy of the Iranian regime.

While I have no brief for the oligarchy ruling Iran, it seems clear to me that the real danger to world peace is not Tehran, but Washington -- and that while the potential threat to our liberties posed by Iran is infinitesimal, the threat posed by Washington is monumental, and growing. Foreign enemies-of-the-month come and go, but the address of the real enemy to our freedoms never changes.

A Surprising Endorsement of Nuclear Genocide

“Americans, through their representatives in Congress, can send an unmistakably clear message to the Iranian government that we will mind our own business from now on," opines a right-wing commentator. "However, if the Iranians so much as threaten to launch one of their weapons at American citizens, anywhere in the world, or harm one of them, then we will consider that an act of war. As a result, we will unload several hundred nuclear missiles on their country, leaving nothing but a vast crater behind in that part of the world.”

Note well that under this standard, nuclear incineration of Iran -- which would involve the annihilation of scores of millions of civilians -- would be "justified" as a pre-emptive measure. The missiles would fly if the Iranian government "so much as threaten[s]" to "harm" any American citizen anywhere.

Note as well that while citizens are urged to pressure their Representatives to issue the threat of pre-emptive nuclear war, no mention is made of requiring Congress to declare war before unleashing thermonuclear hell in the Persian Gulf.

And no effort is made to reconcile this recommendation with the Christian Just War doctrine, which dictates that war can be waged only when 1) it is declared by the proper authority; 2) it is a proportionate response to a legitimate injury or a rationally perceived threat, and 3) would result in less damage than a refusal to resort to arms.

The Just War doctrine also contains the principle of "discrimination," under which it is impermissible to kill innocent noncombatants deliberately.

As Dr. Charles Rice, a professor of law at Notre Dame University, explains: “Proportionality relates not only to the war itself (i.e., the whole enterprise must be for a proportionate good), but also to the use of particular tactics or weapons....” Under the principle of “discrimination,” he elaborates, “it can never be justified intentionally to kill innocent noncombatants"; however, "it could be morally justified to attack a military target of sufficient importance and urgency even though the attacker knows, but does not intend, that innocent civilians in the vicinity will be killed.”

Obviously, an attack that would leave "nothing but a vast crater" where a nation of nearly 70 million souls once existed would fall dramatically short of the standard imposed by the Christian principle of proportionality.

Furthermore, the prescription for pre-emptive nuclear genocide quoted above falls short even of traditional Islamic standards for Jihad, which -- until quite recently -- called for discriminating between combatants and non-combatants, and forbade the use of indiscriminate weapons that could kill women, children, and invalids.

That genocidal prescription, however, is entirely in harmony with the post-Christian doctrine of collective responsibility in warfare that was introduced by the Jacobins during the French Revolution, refined by the murderous assaults on Confederate populations by Sherman and Sheridan, expanded during the first World War, codified by Lenin's Communist regime, and reached its perfection under Germany's National Socialists and the Cambodian Khmer Rouge - and that informs the contemporary neo-"conservatives" in their campaign to "liberate" the world through mass bloodshed.

Given this pedigree, it's astonishing to learn that the author of that prescription for genocide was -- a name that's probably become familiar to readers of this blog -- Alan Scholl, director of mission and campaigns for the John Birch Society, the individual who defines that estimable organization's ideological priorities.

This appears to be another of those "ride the wave" proposals -- or maybe it's better described as a "joining the torchlight parade" or a "get to the stadium early to snag a good seat at the Nuremberg Rally" deal.

That description, I hasten to specify, applies only to Alan, not to the worthy and decent people who constitute the Birch Society's rank and file, who are much more sensible and principled than the man setting the organization's agenda.

Whatever this is, it certainly isn't the "Americanism" promoted by JBS founder Robert Welch, who was vehemently opposed to the modern Warfare State.

"Mr. Welch was a magnificent guy, and much sounder on war than the present bunch [at the helm of the organization]," opines a former JBS Headquarters staffer who worked with Robert Welch in the mid-1960s.

Robert Gates: Osama's Patron

I noted previously that Robert Gates, as a high-ranking CIA official during the 1980s, played a hands-on role in Saddam Hussein's arms build-up.

As it turns out, Gates was also instrumental in creating al-Qaeda, funding Osama bin Laden, and cultivating the Pakistani ISI -- the rogue intelligence agency of a nuclear-armed Muslim state that may fall under the control of Taliban-style nihilists.

"Robert Gates made Osama Bin Laden what he is today," comments blogger "London Yank" at Daily Kos. "This is not exaggeration. By funding Osama Bin Laden's operations, training camps, weaponry and political influence from 1979 (even before Russia invaded Afghanistan), Robert Gates personally gave us our principal enemy in the `War on Terror.' More frighteningly, all of Robert Gates' support to Osama Bin Laden ran through Pakistan's ISI. ISI has been linked to training and funding the 9/11 bombers, the London bombers, the Madrid bombers, the Bali bombers and the Delhi bombers but is strangely immune from official Washington scrutiny."

"I really wonder which side Robert Gates thinks he's on," asks London Yank. "With a 30 year history of pomoting and financing state and non-state terrorism, I doubt it is the side of the peace and prosperity of the American people and bringing our troops home safe."








Happy Birthday, Martin Luther (b. 1483).

Short Takes -- November 9, 2006

Today I'm inaugurating what I hope will be a daily morning news update. The longer essays will be published in the afternoon, hopefully on a daily basis, as well. If you've enjoyed what you read here, please let others know. Sometime soon -- hopefully before Thanksgiving -- I'm going to have some pretty exciting news about a new media venture I'm involved in.




The Sound of Someone Who's Sold His Soul, or "Now He Tells Us"

"There hasn't been any ideology in the Republican Party, any conservatism, for at least two to maybe four years," grunted the self-described national "Truth Detector" yesterday from near the bottom of the Slough of Despond. "[In] looking at what happened yesterday, it wasn't conservatism that lost [in Tuesday's mid-term elections]. Conservatism won when it ran as a Democrat. It won in a number of places. Republicanism lost."

There are those of us who have understood that the Republican Party has been barren of conservative principles for decades; we were neither surprised by, nor upset over, the well-earned butt-whipping the GOP took on Tuesday.

But then again, unlike Rush Limbaugh, people of that description haven't made a career out of being well-paid lickspittles for the Republican establishment.





"Now .. people have been asking me how I feel all night long,""continued Limbaugh, performing a familiar aria in the key of "me." I got, `Boy, Rush, I wouldn't want to be you tomorrow! Boy, I wouldn't want to have to do your show! Oh-ho. I'm so glad I'm not you.'.... The way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, `Well, why have you been doing it?' Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat Party and liberalism does."

You're not "liberated," Rush; you're utterly and permanently discredited. Had you made any effort at all to goad or shame the Republican Party into mimicking conservative behavior, you might enjoy a particle of credibility right now. As it stands, however, you're exposed to the public in the full, porcine malignity of your narcissism and opportunism. (I should also underscore the delerious self-preoccupation of someone who could say, with a straight face, that his "beliefs" that those of the country -- all 300 million of us -- are essentially identical.)

You're a whore, Rush; an Oxycontin and Viagra-addicted whore. Just own it.

And then go away.

Behind the Gates Appointment: The Bush Regime in Receivership

With the Republicans losing their political monopoly, there's been a slight but significant shift in the constellation of power in Washington. As Newsweek's Howard Fineman puts it, "a coterie of commercially minded globalists (as opposed to those ideologically minded globalists, the neocons)" are taking the bankrupt Bush regime into receivership. This is signified by the appointment of Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld at the Department of "Defense."

Gates is a veteran utility infielder for the Power Elite, a careerist in the national security state who has played a hands-on role in some of the seamier dealings of the past quarter-century. At the CIA, he was an apprentice to William Casey, a veritable Sith Lord. He was accused, plausibly, of being one of the Company Chefs who "cooked" intelligence on the Soviet threat in the 1980s to justify the immense arms build-up that supposedly bankrupted the USSR and "ended the Cold War" (which in fact could have ended any time the West decided to stop propping up the Soviet Bloc economically).

Gates was implicated in the Iran-Contra operation, and has been accused of participating, on behalf of Casey and the Reagan campaign, in backchannel talks with the Iranians in 1980 intended to prevent an "October Surprise" release of American hostages prior to the presidential election. The former charge is more plausible than the latter. But the most important charge against Gates is that he was involved, during the 1980s, in assisting Iraq's arms build-up.

"Under CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA authorized, approved, and assisted [Chilean arms dealer Carlos] Cardoen in the manufacture and sale of cluster bombs and other munitions to Iraq," testified former Reagan administration National Security Council staffer Howard Teicher in January 1995. Rather than following up on Teicher's disclosures, the Clinton administration -- which was top-heavy with people drawn from the same Power Elite that dominates the Bush regime -- "suppressed [his] affidavit and attacked Teicher's credibility," recalls former AP national security correspondent Robert Parry.

Here's the difference between Rumsfeld and Gates, where the build-up of Iraq's arsenal is concerned:

Rummy shook Saddam's hand; Gates delivered the goods.




Buh-bye, Leslie. Don't get your robe caught in the door on the way out.




Dere Go De Judge -- or, as Hall and Oates would say, She's Gone

Reason was restored to the throne, and some semblance of judicial competence may soon be restored to Utah's Third District Court, as a result of Tuesday's retention election in Utah: "Judge" Leslie Lewis became only the second district judge in the state's history to be removed by majority vote.

In the theater of her undistinguished little mind, "Judge" Leslie was the star of her own series on the "Lifetime: Television For Women Who Hate Men" cable network. She became properly notorious for a February recusal hearing during which she expatiated at length on her aversion to hunting, and then contrived a situation in which she had a spectator handcuffed and jailed for the supposed offense of leaving her courtroom.
Go here for more details; go here for a video of the incident.)

This was the most widely publicized of numerous incidents in which Leslie displayed her consummate lack of professionalism, discipline, or judicial temperament. Leslie was saddled with the sobriquet "Ex Parte Girl" for pulling stunts like this one described by Salt Lake City's Deseret Morning News: "A local defense attorney spoke up about a situation in which Lewis, during a phone conversation, offered to take 10 years off a convicted sex offender's 30-year prison term, but told the defense attorney not to discuss the matter with prosecutors. If true, such an action violates the code of professional conduct that governs judges."

Leslie's well-deserved fate may have been sealed by pre-election publicity of a custody hearing earlier this year in which she made critical comments about the Mormon practice of baptizing children at age eight. "The child is too young," ruled Leslie of a dispute between divorced parents over baptizing their eight-year-old daughter. "The child will make the decision when she is twelve."

"And may I add my own personal story," Leslie continued, using -- as was her wont -- her courtroom to conduct some kind of personal therapy session. "That same thing [baptism at age eight] was done to me and I have resented it lo, these many years." Of the child at issue, Leslie concluded: "I doubt she will be favoring an early dunking. What's the rush? Are they afriad the child will change their mind when they are nine years old?"

As it happens, I don't disagree with Leslie's view of the practice of baptizing children at age eight -- but her Oprahesque tendency to view matters of this sort through the lens of personal psychodrama did illustrate, redundantly, that she had no business on the bench.

Today's anniversaries: Kristallnacht, 1938; Berlin Wall comes down, 1989.

The "Wave" That Wasn't -- And The One That Was (UPDATED)

In a mid-term election that, nation-wide, was double-ply, wall-to-wall ugliness for the Republicans, I find something incredibly significant in the contrasting results from two congressional races.


The first was the easy victory of Representative Ron Paul in Texas, a Republican In Name Only in the best sense of that expression: The sole statesman in Washington, Rep. Paul's loyalty is to the Constitution. In Shane Sklar, Dr. Paul confronted a Democratic opponent who did everything possible to disguise himself as a crypto-Republican of the Bushified variety.

Sklar was actually favored over Paul by the National Rifle Association.




"Cheney's got a gun ...
the whole world's come undone..." (My apologies to Steve and Joe)



This isn't because Dr. Paul favors any restrictions on the individual right to own firearms; he doesn't. It's because he did not favor, on constitutional grounds, federal pre-emption of anti-gun liability lawsuits, which was a measure the NRA actively supported. Gun Owners of America – which, unlike the NRA, is not a concubine in the GOP's seraglio – gave Dr. Paul an “A+” rating.

Early returns projected a landslide victory for Paul, who claimed something north of 60% of the vote on a night many Republican incumbents spent on tenterhooks – or making plans to seek a new job on K Street.

By way of explaining his victory, and defining his priorities, Dr. Paul told the local paper, “I'm always working to shrink the size of government,” and expressed hope that the new Congress would find a way to “wind down the war.”

Meanwhile, over in Arizona, 12-year-incumbent J.D. Hayworth – a Fox News and GOP rant radio favorite who had made immigration the centerpiece of his re-election effort – appears to have lost a close race to Democrat Harry Mitchell, who (in the words of the East Valley Tribune) “appeared to be riding the wave of voter discontent with the status quo....”

Remember that expression, “riding the wave.” We'll return to it anon.

Arizona has been under a state of emergency since last year because of the breakdown of border enforcement. Many state residents along the border with Mexico are literally under siege. About a year ago, Hayworth – with the enthusiastic backing of the GOP-aligned conservative media establishment – published a campaign manifesto entitled Whatever It Takes: Illegal Immigration, Border Security, and the War on Terror.

Among Hayworth's recommendations were the creation of a border security fence and, if necessary, the militarization of our border with Mexico. One of Bush's most dutiful supporters in the “War on Terror,” Hayworth complained that the president didn't display the same “moral clarity” in dealing with border issues, most likely because of the malign influence of Karl Rove.

Hayworth, it seems to me, was one of the most visible congressional “heels” in the Rove-orchestrated immigration “angle” (to use the argot of professional “wrestling” I discussed earlier this year). The congressman obviously had no principled objection to the implementation of police-state measures to deal with immigration; after all, his view was that we had to do “whatever it takes,” which is a pretty open-ended formulation. And he was obviously convinced that this view would be shared by voters in a reliably Republican district in a state where illegal immigration is a crisis.

And he was wrong.





We did see a “wave” last night – a tsunami of voter revulsion over Republican corruption, profligacy, arrogance, and militarism. This was not a mandate for the Democrats; it was an indictment of the Republicans. The long-suppressed gag reflex of the electorate kicked in at last, and voters rediscovered the necessity for divided government, or what the Founders called “checks and balances.”

I'll have more to say later today about the returns, particular regarding some very interesting ballot measures....

Point of personal privilege --

My goodness, who saw the anti-Republican wave coming?

Well – I don't want to feed his already well-fattened ego, but this guy did:

“Unless your Congressman is named Ron Paul, he doesn't deserve to be re-elected. On at least one occasion during the last congressional term, every member of the House of Representatives – Dr. Paul being the sole exception – violated his oath of office by voting in favor of unconstitutional legislation.... If you're content to settle for [the record compiled by the Republican majority] -- if you believe that unchecked profligacy, open-ended foreign war, and canine subservience to a lawless executive should be rewarded -- then by all means, vote Republican this November.”

As I've noted previously, I was fired by The John Birch Society a few weeks ago, in large measure because I persisted in publishing views of the sort reproduced immediately above that set me at odds with the organization's “Ride the Wave” strategy.

By late Spring it was clear to me – if not to Alan Scholl, the JBS's head of Campaigns and Mission – that wedding the JBS to the GOP was not only a betrayal of the organization's constitutionalist principles, but also a disaster from a strategic perspective.

Alan described the “Ride the Wave” strategy in some detail during a phone call last June 23. It amounted to this: Downplay (to the point of invisibility) opposition to the war in Iraq, the creation of a wartime presidential dictatorship, and rampant GOP corruption, while throwing the organization into an immigration crusade that was essentially a cynical White House-approved political gambit intended to preserve a Republican congressional majority.

Well, it turns out that what Alan believed was a Republican “wave” was merely water circling the bowl as the GOP majority was flushed down the commode.

In this fashion the JBS missed a singular opportunity to make itself relevant by taking a stand that would have been both principled and prescient – and, remarkably, popular as well.

I hope that the JBS can regain its institutional independence, and redirect its efforts into an unstinting defense of liberty under law. But this will require new leadership where defining the organization's mission is concerned.

Alan, step aside. Find some other role in the organization. You're the one who made the call to “Ride the Wave,” and it was tragically wrong, for both the JBS and the country. Do the honorable thing.

(And for the record, this the last time I intend to address this subject for public consumption.)

UPDATE-- Neo-Conning the JBS

Honestly, I don't want to keep picking at this scab, but this kind of thing simply can't go without a challenge.

Shortly before I was fired, Alan Scholl complained to be in a phone call that some of what I had written here in Pro Libertate was off-putting to "neo-cons and others we want to bring into the movement."

Heaven fofend that I would give offense to people with an apparently limitless appetite for bloodshed, aggressive war, and other varieties of "creative destruction."

One of the most potent clues that someone is under the influence of the neo-Trotskyite warmongers called "neo-conservatives" is the use of the expression "Islamo-Fascism" or its variants. This deceptive coinage, ignorantly circulated by some and knowingly propagated by others, reeks of the Popular Front sloganeering engaged in by the founding generation of "neo-cons" before and during World War II. This is particularly the case where we find the term "Islamo-Fascism" (or its variants) deployed in the course of accusing some individual or institution of "appeasing" the same.

So it was something of an unpleasant surprise to when, visiting the JBS News Feed in search of information and insight, I read the following comment regarding the display of "Muslim Propaganda" on a plaque displayed at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute:

"What's the motivation behind the plaque? Given the precarious situation the Oriental Institute finds itself in with regard to Iran, it may be trying to appease that nation's Islamofascist regime."

This museum-quality specimen of neo-Trotskyite war rhetoric was written by ... you guessed it, Alan Scholl, director of Campaigns and Mission for the JBS.

The "precarious situation" alluded to involves a lawsuit by victims of an Iranian-backed terrorist in Israel, which resulted in a $423 million award that Iran has no intention of paying. Some attorneys have suggested that Iranian-owned artifacts in the U.S. -- of which the Oriental Institute has a unique collection -- could be seized in lieu of payments. This has prompted concerns on the part of the Institute that the Iranian government might simply reclaim its artifacts. Hence the supposed motivation for "appeasing" Tehran: "Could the posting of the Islamic propaganda plaque by the Oriental Institute be a move by museum staff to appease the Iranians?"

In writing this commentary Alan drew on a piece written by Diana Muir, whom he identifies as an "historian." True enough, Muir is a well-established historian and author, as well as a "professional book reviewer." More to the point of this particular matter, she is also an officer of the Boston-Israel Action Committee (BIAC) and an activist and protest organizer for the Jewish Action Task Force (JAT). She also liaises with the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA).

Working with and through those groups, Muir spends a great deal of time scrutinizing books, news reports, and various academic fora in search of "anti-Israel bias," and pressuring news outlets and academic institutions to suppress the same.

There's nothing at all wrong with taking action to counter what one honestly regards as media bias in any form, about Israel or any other subject. As a member of the JAT, however, Muir is quite literally on call, every day, to defend "Israel" -- meaning the Israeli regime, not the Israeli people. As I've pointed out before, to support the former is emphatically not to be a legitimate friend of the latter.

JAT members "pledge just 10 minutes a day to help counter anti-Israel actions and misinformation and to get the truth told about Israel," explains the organization's recruiting pitch. "You receive email messages that give you tasks that normally can be completed within those 10 minutes. Sometimes there are several tasks to choose from...."

Muir's role with CAMERA is to be a deniable asset organizing protests and pressure campaigns against "anti-Israel" media outlets. This was explained in a confidential message circulated to CAMERA's "e-mail team"

"Please do not forward this to strangers or potential anti-Israel activists," the message began. "Forward only to people you personally know to be friends of Israel."

"Many members have asked if we have heard how the May 14 nationwide day of protest against NPR [National Public Radio] went," the message continued. "The protest organizer, Diana Muir of BIAC (Boston-Israel Action Committee), has shared the following reports from people in 22 cities who participated in the nationwide day of protest against NPR's skewed reporting...."

Once again, there's no shortage of bias in the media and academia to protest, and NPR is certainly a worthy target. But this is a clear instance of an organized effort to pressure the media on behalf of a foreign regime -- and it's just as pernicious as anything the Iranian government has purportedly done to pressure the Oriental Institute into allowing "Islamo-Fascist" propaganda to sully its sacred precincts.

Here's how someone committed to the non-interventionist perspective the JBS used to espouse would deal with this matter:

Let partisans of Israel and Iran pitch their intellectual wares as they see fit; we're not taking a side. Our objective is to defend the national independence of the United States and the individual liberties of American citizens, and to that end we follow Washington's wise admonition to avoid passionate attachments to any foreign interest.

Obviously, Alan Scholl takes a different view. As the individual setting the priorities for the JBS, Alan is quietly trying to find a spot for the Birch Society behind the neo-Trot drum majors thumping away for war with Iran.

It's not just that Alan regurgitated Diana Muir's criticism of the Oriental Institute's "appeasement" of Iran; in yesterday's News Feed (November 7), addressing nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, Alan cited some experts who believe that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other nations are playing catch-up with Tehran. He then opined:

"A more chilling possibility is that nuclear weapons programs in other Islamic nations, instead of intended as a response to Iranian ambitions, actually share a parallel purpose with the program underway in Iran. That disparate Arab nuclear programs should be viewed as driven by a pan-Islamic nuclear ambition is suggested by the anti-Israeli orientation of the nations involved. Iran, for instance, has openly called for the destruction of Israel."

Yes, the prospect of an Islamic nuclear weapons capacity is the stuff of nightmares. But Alan carefully avoids two very relevant questions: Why should Israel assume that it has a right to a regional nuclear monopoly (implicitly enforced by Washington)? And what role did the U.S. invasion of Iraq play in prompting other Muslim nations -- who have been targeted for "liberation" by the same gang that brought us the war in Iraq -- to seek a nuclear deterrent to Washington's aggression?

Neo-cons don't ask those questions. If they had their way, nobody else would be permitted to, either, since skepticism of that sort undermines their plans to conduct humanitarian bloodshed throughout the Middle East. On the available evidence, it would appear that Alan Scholl shares those priorities.