Category: Armando Simon

Politically Incorrect Hollywood: Some Films to see


Red Family

Although Kim Ki-duk did not direct this film, he wrote and produced it and it still came out great. The film centers around North Korea sleeper agents passing themselves off as a South Korean family, all the while carrying out espionage and assassinations and maintaining a harsh discipline and ideological purity. Throughout, Damocles’ sword is hanging over their heads because they are being monitored by other agents. Although initially being vicious, cold-blooded killers, with time they become corrupted by their environment and start acting more human, and even humane, with foreseeable results.

Katyn

You have to feel for the Poles. The Russians Germans, and Austrians have repeatedly raped Poland over the centuries. The Katyn massacre is one of those items that make up That Which Must Not Be Mentioned about WWII (another one is that the Soviet Union and the Third Reich were allied during the first few years of the war as they had agreed to partition Europe between them, starting with Poland. Later, when one of the allies attacked the other one, the original pact of alliance was never mentioned, as being in bad taste if you did).

The Katyn massacre, in particular, made a deep scar in the Polish psyche. Perhaps it was due because Russia invaded the country when it was trying to fight off the German invasion, perhaps because the subsequent occupation by the Communists tried to convince the Poles that the Russians were their friends, perhaps because the Russians refused to acknowledge what everyone knew. Who knows.

Another thing that makes one sick is that the Poles behaved with honor towards the conquerors, not realizing at the time what vicious monsters they were dealing with. Example: (a) the professors naively show up at the university, summoned by the SS officer, only to be brutally rounded up and sent to Sachsenhausen (b) the Polish officers are initially loosely guarded, which means that many could have easily escaped, but did not do so and therefore were subsequently butchered by the Communists. The ending of the film is brutal to watch, but it needs to be watched

Unfortunately, to people who are unacquainted with the history, as was the case with my wife, events seem to jump and are a bit disorienting. Had the director simply inserted at the right time in the film what is going on historically, e.g., the pact of alliance between Russia and Germany, the subsequent invasion of Russia by Germany, the occupation of Poland by Russia, etc., the movie would have flowed smoothly.

Hail, Caesar!

The first time I saw it, this film left me a bit befuddled. It took me a second time of seeing the film to truly appreciate it. Part of my initial confusion is that there were so many subplots going through the movie. 

Anyway. The title of the movie is the title of the movie being filmed in the movie, sometime in the 1950s. Got that? The main star gets kidnapped held for ransom from the studio. However, the main character is Eddie Mannix, one of the head honchos of the studio and he is primarily a “fixer.” He is presented with one problem after the other and he fixes the problems. Then, he is presented with the kidnapping. The kidnapping, by the way, was carried out by Hollywood communists, who are presented as a pack of intellectual buffoons spouting Marxist jargon. Mannix at the same time is being sought after to quit his job and go work for Lockheed, but he cannot make up his mind. At one point, one of the Hollywood communists gets picked up by a Soviet sub and is presumably taken to the Iron Curtain (in actual life, one of the Hollywood 10 communists did disappear and surfaced in East Germany). There are a lot of in-jokes regarding Hollywood of the ’50s, some of which, frankly, went over my head.

Pawn Sacrifice

When I was in my early 20s, I was touring Europe and the talk everywhere by Europeans was the intense chess confrontation between Fisher and the Russians in Iceland, exemplified by Spassky. Everyone was chuckling over Fisher’s antics and Spassky’s apparent befuddlement at Bobby’s behavior, thinking that the latter was messing with the Russian’s head. They jokingly referred to Fisher as being a crazy guy and were rooting for him. What nobody knew at the time, except for a handful of individuals was that Fisher was really crazy, that his antics and demands were not psychological warfare. This secret came to light many years thereafter.

The Soviets’ philosophy was that if they excelled at chess and at the Olympics, even through cheating, then it proved that Marxist totalitarianism was superior to a Western decadent democracy, so the state-funded chess players (and athletes) and gave them special treatment, unlike the Western countries. This fact is emphasized in the film.

Unfortunately, although Liev Schreiber does a convincing and likeable Spassky, the film does not show that he was a pretty decent guy, far from the usual mindless apparatchik. At a chess tournament against the Czechoslovakian players shortly after the Soviet invasion of their country, he shook their hands even though they wore black armbands as a sign of mourning, something that the Soviet authorities got angry about. Also not shown was that after Spassky lost the tournament in Iceland and returned home, he was hassled at the Moscow airport.

An American Carol

This was a hilarious satire of knee-jerk liberals and their sacred cows. It starts with Leslie Nielsen, during a 4th of July gathering, telling a group of children a patriotic version of Dickens’ A Christmas Story with a Michael Moore being Scrooge. It was funny on several levels: from slapstick to satire. The satire was the best. This movie has been long overdue to challenge the pervasive, unrelenting leftist propaganda coming out of Hollywood. Predictably, the liberals had a fit over the movie and their attack was truly ingenious: their reviews of the movie claimed that it was not funny at all (I guess it wasn’t, for them). And what did the stupid conservatives do? They stayed home and failed to support the movie. The producer swore that he would never make another movie geared towards conservatives because he lost a lot of money in the production.

Gone Girl

How to write a review without throwing on the spoilers? Well, this is a great mystery film about a man whose marriage is on the rocks, comes home and finds that his wife has been kidnapped — at least it seems on the surface. As the film develops we realize that he is a dislikeable person and of course there is suspicion that he may have done away with his wife. Now I’ll stop as far as how the plot develops. Let me just say that the feminists hate this movie.

Just as you’re 100 percent sure how it is going to turn out, the film yanks you in a totally different direction (in this manner it reminded me of the Dead Man Walking film). A subplot of the film is the lynch journalism: when the media goes hysterically after someone’s blood and the journalists become masters at implying things and motivations of their target (remember George Zimmerman?).

You might also want to check a couple of old, though excellent, movies along the same line: Play Misty for Me, Black Widow, Poison Ivy. Unlike many of the other films I mention here, Gone Girl did receive a lot of publicity.

Archangel

Daniel Craig plays a history professor, specializing in the Stalin era, who is approached by a Russian former NKVD officer claiming to possess knowledge of Josef Stalin’s secret diary. This is too tempting for him and he overstays his welcome in Russia. There is no James Bond acrobatics or superman actions, but the action is nonetheless very suspenseful as he attempts to unravel the trail to the truth, which takes him to the city of Archangel at the Arctic Circle. And the truth is much more bizarre than what he could have imagined it would be.

Red Dawn (1984)

Red Dawn joins the ranks of good cult movies. However, what is particularly interesting was its reception when it first came out. When Red Dawn came out, American leftists went ballistic because the movie portrayed their precious Soviet Union and communist Cuba in a bad light in invading America, and a small group of civilians forming a resistance. Those of us who lived during the Seventies and Sixties remember the absolute censorship that liberals had over the media, back when the three networks had a monopoly on information) and one of their iron clad rules was that no criticism of communism, Cuba, or the Soviet Union was to be allowed to be aired. It was the perfect censorship. However, Red Dawn was not the first one; a couple of years prior to this a made for TV movie came out (Amerika), which was very, very badly made, but which worked on the same story line. But . . . since it was the first one to violate the Politically Correct restriction, well, the reaction against Red Dawn was nothing compared to the reaction to Amerika — the liberals went into hysterics. Ted Turner, one of Hollywood’s limousine communists (along with Hanoi Jane, Robert Redford and Warren Beatty) actively tried to kill the movie by having specials run at the same time slot for the purpose of indoctrination (read “peace programs” in PC jargon); in fact, You Tube has a couple of clippings showing the liberals’ reaction. A book, or film, needs to be made about that event.

Monty Python’s Life Of Brian

I saw it when it first came out in the theaters and thought it was superbly witty. I am surprised, however, that so much has been focused on the supposed “sacrilege” of the movie, of which there really isn’t any if one takes a good look at it. The main thrust, however, is at fanaticism in general and the fanaticism that is ruthlessly skewered in the movie is political fanaticism. Judean Liberation Front: why does that sound familiar? Leftists originally watching the movie must have squirmed in their seats when they first saw it because they are realistically portrayed as being pedantic, hair splitting, dogmatic, vicious, endlessly feuding with other groups of fanatics who have the same goals as theirs, constantly engaging the verbal diarrhea, posturing at being holier than thou.

There was one aspect of the movie that I did not like, but others will, and it is one of the trademarks of the Monty Python crew and that was that the same actors were in multiple roles throughout the movie. Some fans of the team may like that, but I personally would have preferred that they had employed additional actors for the roles.

Top Secret!

This was a hilarious satire on East Germany, about an American singer who goes to that country just as the country is going to go to war. The movie came out when that totalitarian regime was still around, but the jokes are still relevant and funny today. The rewording of the East German national anthem was a gem.

Night Crossing

And speaking of East Germany… there are countless excellent dramatic stories about people who tried and either succeeded or failed to cross the Iron Curtain to the West. You would think that they would be a plentiful as films about the Nazis. Night Crossing is just such a story, not only because of its intrisic worth, but because it was one of the very first to bring the topic to the screen at a time when it was nearly impossible to do so in the West, such was the communist infiltration at the time of all branches of the mass media (East Germany began in 1945 and it wasn’t until 1982 that a film on the topic was made). I was particularly surprised that Disney produced the movie, considering its penchant for fluff; maybe they decided to get back at the Communists in Chile who at that time declared (I am not making this up!) that Mickey Mouse was a Fascist.

What I found particularly well handled in the film was the tediousness involved in the escape process; it took numerous purchases of cloth to make the balloon, numerous sessions of sewing the material together, numerous trials, numerous equipment modifications, yet the tediousness involved in such endeavors does not weigh in on the viewer, though the efforts are mentioned within the film. Two anomalies that I found in the movie: one, the American/British/Canadian measurement of feet and yards and miles in a continent that uses the metric system. The other was the haircuts by the men. If I remember right, such Western haircuts were anathema and Soviet style haircuts were almost mandatory — popular since 1917!

Absence of Malice

Many films have been made glorifying journalists, and there is no question whatsoever that many journalists have done good work, have been ethical and conscientious. Past tense. This particular film — a superb performance by every single participant—punctures their overinflated, overglorified profession and shows that some journalists are callous, arrogant and indifferent to the innocent lives that they destroy.

It begins with a government investigation in Miami over the murder of a labor leader; it is going nowhere, although it is known that organized crime was behind it. The little weasel handling the investigation decides to put pressure on an innocent businessman (Paul Newman) because he is distantly related to a crime figure and he might have information, so he manipulates a journalist to print that Newman is under investigation. When that happens, his business tanks as the unions force the workers off. It then gets worse.

Cooking With Stella

Synopsis: a female Canadian diplomat and her stay at home chef husband are stationed in India. They live inside the compound and are assigned an Indian maid who systematically robs them blind while they are oblivious to her thievery. The husband practically grovels to the maid in an effort to establish Equality between them. He also asks her to teach him how to cook Indian foods. There is also friction between the couple because of his lack of work since he had to sacrifice his career for her sake.

Although Canadians bristle when they are compared to Americans, I nonetheless find that they do have much in common. One of these traits is their infantile craving to be liked by foreigners. Another is their urge to impose Equality in their dealings with people abroad where their societies have a rigid caste structure. And the third trait is their refusal to believe that smiling, groveling, foreigners are actually robbing them at every opportunity. This film brings these faults to the forefront.

Mao’s Last Dancer

A young boy in a faraway, primitive, village is selected for State education in ballet and slowly becomes proficient at his craft. As a teenager, he is selected to study in Houston, Texas. Language difficulties and cultural difficulties are surmounted, and when the main dancer becomes injured, Li is asked to step forward to take his place and does a wonderful job. He continues to be included in further productions, gets involved with a girl, but when he asks permission from his government to stay a bit longer, permission is denied and is ordered back to the People’s Republic of China.

The story is essentially a rags to riches story with cultural and political elements enriching the highly emotional story. The production was excellent as was the dancing, the acting and the story development. It was filmed in location in China and Houston. The film made $5 million domestically and $17 million internationally.

Seven Years in Tibet

At the eve of WWII, two mountaineering Austrians set out to India to scale one of the peaks there. Upon the war breaking out, they are interned and they escape and wind up in Tibet. Heinrich is then asked to be a tutor to the infant Dali Lama, who is starved for information about the outside world. He educates the boy but he, in turn, also changes for the better. Both Austrians settle in and it is an idyllic existence. Until the Chinese communists invade.

The Interview

Two hack journalists are invited to interview a dictator and the CIA requests that they use this opportunity to assassinate him. This film could have become a film classic, on the same level as Chaplin’s The Great Dictator, but Seth Rogen’s nonstop obscenities bring it down. Otherwise it is a superb satire on North Korea’s Kim Jong-un and, really, of any dictatorship.

It is ironic that when the film’s release was announced, North Korea threatened retaliation and it was withdrawn, except that it was released in a few theaters. But, instead of losing money on the film, it gained a profit through DVD sales and cable.

Topaz

Of all of the films that have been made by Hollywood about the dictatorship in Cuba, this one was the only one that was critical; the rest have been pure communist propaganda.  Incidentally, the plot of this movie was based on a true story of espionage: a Russian high official defected with his family and fingered a spy ring in the highest level of France. He also informed the West that Russia was going to put nuclear missiles in Cuba.

Atlas Shrugged (Part 1)

It took a lot of guts to try to make a movie out of this book — for several reasons. The first, of course, is the sheer length of the book, akin to War and Peace. The other, equally obvious, is that the philosophical and political message in the book/film is anathema to the leftist Politically Correct hyenas that infest Hollywood and the media. For decades, they have raged against the book, so it was to be expected that they would attack it — which they did, by totally ignoring it. And, sure enough, conservatives did not go out and support it.

Now as to the first film: many of the characters are excellent. Taylor Schilling is superb in coming across as a no-nonsense executive surrounded by mediocrities who are constantly sabotaging her. Grant Bowler is also good at being stiff upper lip as he, too, is surrounded by whining, evil mediocrities. There are a lot of good secondary character actors. There are some problems with the script, primarily in that it doesn’t really drive home the message just how bad things are, a lot of crucial details are left out, and, that the problems are a worldwide phenomenon, as was the case in the book.

The second went downhill and it was evident in the third that there was deliberate sabotage of the movie.

Mission To Moscow

For many years, I’ve been interested in the various communist propaganda films that Hollywood has put out. To this very day, it still cranks out such propaganda—as if the Soviet Union had not been flushed down the toilet (in 2011 it was The Majestic and in 2015 Trumbo). I had always heard about Mission to Moscow, that it topped all efforts, so I ordered it because I had also heard that it was so blatant in its propaganda and in its distortion of facts that it outdid all others, before and since. And because even some communists were embarrassed by it (Stalin and the Politburo reportedly watched it and even laughed at it). So I ordered it and waited for it, salivating.

Wow. Oh, wow.

Now, let me say that if you don’t know Soviet history and you decide to see this, a lot is going to go over your head. But wow. My wife thought I was nuts, seeing how much I was enjoying it and laughing, but after a certain point I had to take a break, because every single utterance by the characters was a glorification of the achievements of communism. It was just too much. Every Soviet in the film is dressed in luxury, the shops are overflowing with food and items, every Soviet is dancing and welcoming with smiles from ear to ear in their faces and are full of idealism, everyone is eating caviar (btw, during the Stalin era, if a non-government Russian even said “Good morning” to any foreigner he was immediately arrested by the NKVD for having passed on state secrets, and either shot or sent to the Gulag).

The most cringe worthy moments in the film came during the show trials of the 1930s, (when Stalin liquidated his rivals in the government after torturing them and putting them in kangaroo trials) which are thoroughly whitewashed.

Incidentally, Davies, the author of the book on which the film was based, insisted on thrusting himself into the movie, giving a lengthy introduction at the beginning. He was the American ambassador to Russia during the 1930s and he was so pro-communist, so pro-Stalin that the entire embassy staff at one point threatened to resign en masse. When he left, the Soviet government gave him as a reward Fabergé eggs (check out the book Hollywood Traitors).

Oh, yeah! And even all the top Soviet gangsters are there in the film smiling and helpful and wise: Molotov and Litvinov and Kalinin and Timoshenko and Vishinsky and even Yagoda (head of the secret police before he, too, was liquidated). And yes, even the “titanic genius” himself, Stalin, makes an appearance, oozing wisdom and benevolence .

Incidentally, the communist writer for the movie was one Howard Koch who, along with Trumbo, was one of the American liberals’ Hollywood 10 traitors that had a setback in their careers, courtesy of Sen. Josef McCarthy, Richard Nixon, and HUAC.

If you love Marxist totalitarianism, you’ll love this film. If you hate Marxist totalitarianism, you’ll REALLY love this film.

The Journey

This was a film about the Hungarian revolt, starring Yul Brynner, highly critical of communism and the Russian invasion. It has disappeared from sight (for some strange reason).

 

DOCUMENTARIES

Fantastic Lies

This documentary is absolutely vital that it be viewed by as many individuals as possible. It is a thoroughly investigated documentary over the infamous Duke La Crosse case where the players were accused by a stripper of gang rape. It would ultimately turn out that the drug addled skank was a liar and was mentally ill on top of that, but before this happened, the media engaged in intense lynch journalism, prompted by the New York Times. Parallel with this were the rabid feminists in Duke University, the blacks in Durham and in the university who decided that Da Sistah had to be avenged in a court of law. Add to that the politically correct faculty signing the usual petition, the physical harassment of the players, the forced resignation of the coach, the canceling of the season, the weak-ass college president and the truly evil prosecutor. That prosecutors routinely destroy exculpatory evidence, make up evidence, and knowingly prosecute innocent individuals is a topic that has not been dealt with and is long overdue.

There was plenty of evil to go around, from the Duke Faculty to the police department to the New York Slime.

Chuck Norris vs Communism

The title is tongue in cheek, but the content is dead serious. In the cultural desert that always results from Marxists ruling a country and constantly inserting their invariably asinine propaganda everywhere, people live there as if they were suffocating, absolutely desperate for some entertainment from the terror and drabness of their living conditions; they also want a glimpse of other cultures that the government demonizes but that the people know it’s not true. Having lived in a communist totalitarian regime, I can testify to this feeling. And so, in Romania, portable VHS tapes of Hollywood movies were like a breath of fresh air to people who were suffocating. The movies also showed heroism, which people began to slowly adopt. One man became a capitalist in this black market and hired an excellent translator to dub the movies from English to Romanian.

You may have heard of defectors smuggling DVDs into North Korea, or tying DVDs to balloons near the border. Now you know why.

The irony, of course, that even the repressive elements of communist society, even the upper echelons of the bureaucracy craved these movies and slowly began to realize that Marxism was bullshit, death-dealing bullshit. And these movies helped to bring down the regime.

Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry

This is a documentary about the Chinese artist-turned-dissident, living and working inside the PRC, known for his work during the Olympics. Weiwei used social media as an instrument of defiance when he started to investigate the deaths of schoolchildren in an earthquake, because the school was built ineptly, but the government did not want any kind of criticism. The documentary shifts back and forth between him making art and him being a gadfly to the communist state. If you are not interested in art and artists, or, if you are not interested in political repression, then this film is not for you. Otherwise, it is very good.

The Red Chapel

Mads Brugger, a Danish director/manager takes two Danes of Korean descent to modern-day 1984 for a comedy show. It is a Trojan Horse for the purpose of filming a documentary about the totalitarian state and its Dear Leader. Brugger has no illusions about the regime and is uncompromisingly hostile towards it. Behind a smiling mask and low-key statements, he ridicules the dictatorship and its minions, fully aware that behind the government facade lies a panorama of starvation and concentration camps.

One of the two Danish-Koreans, Jason, has a severe handicap and the country has a policy of exterminating “inferior defectives,” i.e., handicapped people, just like the Third Reich used to do. Ms. Pak, their “escort” instantly becomes genuinely attached to him and we get the distinct feeling that her son was done away with for being born handicapped. Jason becomes attached to her as well as to the students who welcome them; it is obvious that he has been starved for affection for a long time. Yet, at the same time that he acknowledges the reality of N. Korea he also has affection for its people.

Michael Moore Hates America

God, I wish he had chosen another title. It will alienate precisely those people that need to see this movie.

This documentary is ironic in so far as Wilson copies Moore’s earlier attempt to interview a big shot in his attempt to interview Michael Moore, traveling throughout the country trying to track him down. In the process, he interviews other, regular, people that have been skewered and manipulated in making Moore’s fictional documentaries. Everyone agrees that Michael Moore is talented at filmmaking, as was Leni Reifenstahl, except that he is blatantly dishonest in his propaganda. That there is something psychological wrong with Moore is evident just by watching him speak and spew out his hatred. I particularly enjoyed the interviews with Teller and Horowitz.

Russian Revolution in Color

This is an excellent documentary of the Bolshevik Revolution, with emphasis on the Kronstadt garrison and sailors, a key component of the revolution. Initially, they supported the Bolshevik revolution, having been taken in by Lenin’s propaganda, then turned against them when the Bolsheviks showed their true colors. The historical facts are presented, including important little details usually overlooked.

Whereas previous depictions of the revolution focus on the Bolshevik leadership and ignore Kronstadt altogether, this particular documentary does the opposite and omits some of the parallel (to Kronstadt) events going on with the leadership, such that Stalin, Kamenev, Zinoviev and others are ignored—but this is not to the detriment of the documentary. I just feel that those events with the leadership should have been mentioned, even if cursory. However, this is nitpicking. It’s a great documentary, particularly since the Bolsheviks pointed to Kronstadt as being their pivotal heroes.

Although it may appear from the list above that the number of films challenging the Politically Correct dogma is large, keep in mind that these films came out over a period of decades and were mostly ignored by the leftist media, in order to sabotage them (to underscore my point: how many of these films have you heard of before?) In contrast to this scarcity, we are inundated with anti-Nazi films, as if the Third Reich was still a contemporary threat.

As a review of the above films will reveal, most of them involve the subject of Marxism. If you, the reader, ask what is the possible relevance to today’s events, let me point to the antifas mobs wearing read stars and hammer and sickle emblems. And, also, to some of the college professors who created the antifas.

Armando Simón is a retired college professor and is the author of A Cuban from Kansas, The U and The Only Red Star I Liked Was a Starfish.

Although at times it feels—quite correctly—like one is swamped with Politically Correct propaganda in the movies and television and magazines, a number of films have been made over the years that buck the trend. Unfortunately, many of them have not been well-publicized and/or not as patronized by conservatives as they should have been. By comparison, every time Hanoi Jane, Michael Moore, or Oliver Stone make a movie, liberals trample themselves over in a mad stampede to support their propaganda movies; conservatives, on the other hand, when they hear of a movie that might be putting up a fight against the totalitarians, often stay at home scratching their rear ends, complaining that Hollywood doesn’t make enough movies that support their viewpoints—and then wait until the movie comes out at Redbox or Netflix.

So here is a list of movies that you might want to watch:

Red Family

Although Kim Ki-duk did not direct this film, he wrote and produced it and it still came out great. The film centers around North Korea sleeper agents passing themselves off as a South Korean family, all the while carrying out espionage and assassinations and maintaining a harsh discipline and ideological purity. Throughout, Damocles’ sword is hanging over their heads because they are being monitored by other agents. Although initially being vicious, cold-blooded killers, with time they become corrupted by their environment and start acting more human, and even humane, with foreseeable results.

Katyn

You have to feel for the Poles. The Russians Germans, and Austrians have repeatedly raped Poland over the centuries. The Katyn massacre is one of those items that make up That Which Must Not Be Mentioned about WWII (another one is that the Soviet Union and the Third Reich were allied during the first few years of the war as they had agreed to partition Europe between them, starting with Poland. Later, when one of the allies attacked the other one, the original pact of alliance was never mentioned, as being in bad taste if you did).

The Katyn massacre, in particular, made a deep scar in the Polish psyche. Perhaps it was due because Russia invaded the country when it was trying to fight off the German invasion, perhaps because the subsequent occupation by the Communists tried to convince the Poles that the Russians were their friends, perhaps because the Russians refused to acknowledge what everyone knew. Who knows.

Another thing that makes one sick is that the Poles behaved with honor towards the conquerors, not realizing at the time what vicious monsters they were dealing with. Example: (a) the professors naively show up at the university, summoned by the SS officer, only to be brutally rounded up and sent to Sachsenhausen (b) the Polish officers are initially loosely guarded, which means that many could have easily escaped, but did not do so and therefore were subsequently butchered by the Communists. The ending of the film is brutal to watch, but it needs to be watched

Unfortunately, to people who are unacquainted with the history, as was the case with my wife, events seem to jump and are a bit disorienting. Had the director simply inserted at the right time in the film what is going on historically, e.g., the pact of alliance between Russia and Germany, the subsequent invasion of Russia by Germany, the occupation of Poland by Russia, etc., the movie would have flowed smoothly.

Hail, Caesar!

The first time I saw it, this film left me a bit befuddled. It took me a second time of seeing the film to truly appreciate it. Part of my initial confusion is that there were so many subplots going through the movie. 

Anyway. The title of the movie is the title of the movie being filmed in the movie, sometime in the 1950s. Got that? The main star gets kidnapped held for ransom from the studio. However, the main character is Eddie Mannix, one of the head honchos of the studio and he is primarily a “fixer.” He is presented with one problem after the other and he fixes the problems. Then, he is presented with the kidnapping. The kidnapping, by the way, was carried out by Hollywood communists, who are presented as a pack of intellectual buffoons spouting Marxist jargon. Mannix at the same time is being sought after to quit his job and go work for Lockheed, but he cannot make up his mind. At one point, one of the Hollywood communists gets picked up by a Soviet sub and is presumably taken to the Iron Curtain (in actual life, one of the Hollywood 10 communists did disappear and surfaced in East Germany). There are a lot of in-jokes regarding Hollywood of the ’50s, some of which, frankly, went over my head.

Pawn Sacrifice

When I was in my early 20s, I was touring Europe and the talk everywhere by Europeans was the intense chess confrontation between Fisher and the Russians in Iceland, exemplified by Spassky. Everyone was chuckling over Fisher’s antics and Spassky’s apparent befuddlement at Bobby’s behavior, thinking that the latter was messing with the Russian’s head. They jokingly referred to Fisher as being a crazy guy and were rooting for him. What nobody knew at the time, except for a handful of individuals was that Fisher was really crazy, that his antics and demands were not psychological warfare. This secret came to light many years thereafter.

The Soviets’ philosophy was that if they excelled at chess and at the Olympics, even through cheating, then it proved that Marxist totalitarianism was superior to a Western decadent democracy, so the state-funded chess players (and athletes) and gave them special treatment, unlike the Western countries. This fact is emphasized in the film.

Unfortunately, although Liev Schreiber does a convincing and likeable Spassky, the film does not show that he was a pretty decent guy, far from the usual mindless apparatchik. At a chess tournament against the Czechoslovakian players shortly after the Soviet invasion of their country, he shook their hands even though they wore black armbands as a sign of mourning, something that the Soviet authorities got angry about. Also not shown was that after Spassky lost the tournament in Iceland and returned home, he was hassled at the Moscow airport.

An American Carol

This was a hilarious satire of knee-jerk liberals and their sacred cows. It starts with Leslie Nielsen, during a 4th of July gathering, telling a group of children a patriotic version of Dickens’ A Christmas Story with a Michael Moore being Scrooge. It was funny on several levels: from slapstick to satire. The satire was the best. This movie has been long overdue to challenge the pervasive, unrelenting leftist propaganda coming out of Hollywood. Predictably, the liberals had a fit over the movie and their attack was truly ingenious: their reviews of the movie claimed that it was not funny at all (I guess it wasn’t, for them). And what did the stupid conservatives do? They stayed home and failed to support the movie. The producer swore that he would never make another movie geared towards conservatives because he lost a lot of money in the production.

Gone Girl

How to write a review without throwing on the spoilers? Well, this is a great mystery film about a man whose marriage is on the rocks, comes home and finds that his wife has been kidnapped — at least it seems on the surface. As the film develops we realize that he is a dislikeable person and of course there is suspicion that he may have done away with his wife. Now I’ll stop as far as how the plot develops. Let me just say that the feminists hate this movie.

Just as you’re 100 percent sure how it is going to turn out, the film yanks you in a totally different direction (in this manner it reminded me of the Dead Man Walking film). A subplot of the film is the lynch journalism: when the media goes hysterically after someone’s blood and the journalists become masters at implying things and motivations of their target (remember George Zimmerman?).

You might also want to check a couple of old, though excellent, movies along the same line: Play Misty for Me, Black Widow, Poison Ivy. Unlike many of the other films I mention here, Gone Girl did receive a lot of publicity.

Archangel

Daniel Craig plays a history professor, specializing in the Stalin era, who is approached by a Russian former NKVD officer claiming to possess knowledge of Josef Stalin’s secret diary. This is too tempting for him and he overstays his welcome in Russia. There is no James Bond acrobatics or superman actions, but the action is nonetheless very suspenseful as he attempts to unravel the trail to the truth, which takes him to the city of Archangel at the Arctic Circle. And the truth is much more bizarre than what he could have imagined it would be.

Red Dawn (1984)

Red Dawn joins the ranks of good cult movies. However, what is particularly interesting was its reception when it first came out. When Red Dawn came out, American leftists went ballistic because the movie portrayed their precious Soviet Union and communist Cuba in a bad light in invading America, and a small group of civilians forming a resistance. Those of us who lived during the Seventies and Sixties remember the absolute censorship that liberals had over the media, back when the three networks had a monopoly on information) and one of their iron clad rules was that no criticism of communism, Cuba, or the Soviet Union was to be allowed to be aired. It was the perfect censorship. However, Red Dawn was not the first one; a couple of years prior to this a made for TV movie came out (Amerika), which was very, very badly made, but which worked on the same story line. But . . . since it was the first one to violate the Politically Correct restriction, well, the reaction against Red Dawn was nothing compared to the reaction to Amerika — the liberals went into hysterics. Ted Turner, one of Hollywood’s limousine communists (along with Hanoi Jane, Robert Redford and Warren Beatty) actively tried to kill the movie by having specials run at the same time slot for the purpose of indoctrination (read “peace programs” in PC jargon); in fact, You Tube has a couple of clippings showing the liberals’ reaction. A book, or film, needs to be made about that event.

Monty Python’s Life Of Brian

I saw it when it first came out in the theaters and thought it was superbly witty. I am surprised, however, that so much has been focused on the supposed “sacrilege” of the movie, of which there really isn’t any if one takes a good look at it. The main thrust, however, is at fanaticism in general and the fanaticism that is ruthlessly skewered in the movie is political fanaticism. Judean Liberation Front: why does that sound familiar? Leftists originally watching the movie must have squirmed in their seats when they first saw it because they are realistically portrayed as being pedantic, hair splitting, dogmatic, vicious, endlessly feuding with other groups of fanatics who have the same goals as theirs, constantly engaging the verbal diarrhea, posturing at being holier than thou.

There was one aspect of the movie that I did not like, but others will, and it is one of the trademarks of the Monty Python crew and that was that the same actors were in multiple roles throughout the movie. Some fans of the team may like that, but I personally would have preferred that they had employed additional actors for the roles.

Top Secret!

This was a hilarious satire on East Germany, about an American singer who goes to that country just as the country is going to go to war. The movie came out when that totalitarian regime was still around, but the jokes are still relevant and funny today. The rewording of the East German national anthem was a gem.

Night Crossing

And speaking of East Germany… there are countless excellent dramatic stories about people who tried and either succeeded or failed to cross the Iron Curtain to the West. You would think that they would be a plentiful as films about the Nazis. Night Crossing is just such a story, not only because of its intrisic worth, but because it was one of the very first to bring the topic to the screen at a time when it was nearly impossible to do so in the West, such was the communist infiltration at the time of all branches of the mass media (East Germany began in 1945 and it wasn’t until 1982 that a film on the topic was made). I was particularly surprised that Disney produced the movie, considering its penchant for fluff; maybe they decided to get back at the Communists in Chile who at that time declared (I am not making this up!) that Mickey Mouse was a Fascist.

What I found particularly well handled in the film was the tediousness involved in the escape process; it took numerous purchases of cloth to make the balloon, numerous sessions of sewing the material together, numerous trials, numerous equipment modifications, yet the tediousness involved in such endeavors does not weigh in on the viewer, though the efforts are mentioned within the film. Two anomalies that I found in the movie: one, the American/British/Canadian measurement of feet and yards and miles in a continent that uses the metric system. The other was the haircuts by the men. If I remember right, such Western haircuts were anathema and Soviet style haircuts were almost mandatory — popular since 1917!

Absence of Malice

Many films have been made glorifying journalists, and there is no question whatsoever that many journalists have done good work, have been ethical and conscientious. Past tense. This particular film — a superb performance by every single participant—punctures their overinflated, overglorified profession and shows that some journalists are callous, arrogant and indifferent to the innocent lives that they destroy.

It begins with a government investigation in Miami over the murder of a labor leader; it is going nowhere, although it is known that organized crime was behind it. The little weasel handling the investigation decides to put pressure on an innocent businessman (Paul Newman) because he is distantly related to a crime figure and he might have information, so he manipulates a journalist to print that Newman is under investigation. When that happens, his business tanks as the unions force the workers off. It then gets worse.

Cooking With Stella

Synopsis: a female Canadian diplomat and her stay at home chef husband are stationed in India. They live inside the compound and are assigned an Indian maid who systematically robs them blind while they are oblivious to her thievery. The husband practically grovels to the maid in an effort to establish Equality between them. He also asks her to teach him how to cook Indian foods. There is also friction between the couple because of his lack of work since he had to sacrifice his career for her sake.

Although Canadians bristle when they are compared to Americans, I nonetheless find that they do have much in common. One of these traits is their infantile craving to be liked by foreigners. Another is their urge to impose Equality in their dealings with people abroad where their societies have a rigid caste structure. And the third trait is their refusal to believe that smiling, groveling, foreigners are actually robbing them at every opportunity. This film brings these faults to the forefront.

Mao’s Last Dancer

A young boy in a faraway, primitive, village is selected for State education in ballet and slowly becomes proficient at his craft. As a teenager, he is selected to study in Houston, Texas. Language difficulties and cultural difficulties are surmounted, and when the main dancer becomes injured, Li is asked to step forward to take his place and does a wonderful job. He continues to be included in further productions, gets involved with a girl, but when he asks permission from his government to stay a bit longer, permission is denied and is ordered back to the People’s Republic of China.

The story is essentially a rags to riches story with cultural and political elements enriching the highly emotional story. The production was excellent as was the dancing, the acting and the story development. It was filmed in location in China and Houston. The film made $5 million domestically and $17 million internationally.

Seven Years in Tibet

At the eve of WWII, two mountaineering Austrians set out to India to scale one of the peaks there. Upon the war breaking out, they are interned and they escape and wind up in Tibet. Heinrich is then asked to be a tutor to the infant Dali Lama, who is starved for information about the outside world. He educates the boy but he, in turn, also changes for the better. Both Austrians settle in and it is an idyllic existence. Until the Chinese communists invade.

The Interview

Two hack journalists are invited to interview a dictator and the CIA requests that they use this opportunity to assassinate him. This film could have become a film classic, on the same level as Chaplin’s The Great Dictator, but Seth Rogen’s nonstop obscenities bring it down. Otherwise it is a superb satire on North Korea’s Kim Jong-un and, really, of any dictatorship.

It is ironic that when the film’s release was announced, North Korea threatened retaliation and it was withdrawn, except that it was released in a few theaters. But, instead of losing money on the film, it gained a profit through DVD sales and cable.

Topaz

Of all of the films that have been made by Hollywood about the dictatorship in Cuba, this one was the only one that was critical; the rest have been pure communist propaganda.  Incidentally, the plot of this movie was based on a true story of espionage: a Russian high official defected with his family and fingered a spy ring in the highest level of France. He also informed the West that Russia was going to put nuclear missiles in Cuba.

Atlas Shrugged (Part 1)

It took a lot of guts to try to make a movie out of this book — for several reasons. The first, of course, is the sheer length of the book, akin to War and Peace. The other, equally obvious, is that the philosophical and political message in the book/film is anathema to the leftist Politically Correct hyenas that infest Hollywood and the media. For decades, they have raged against the book, so it was to be expected that they would attack it — which they did, by totally ignoring it. And, sure enough, conservatives did not go out and support it.

Now as to the first film: many of the characters are excellent. Taylor Schilling is superb in coming across as a no-nonsense executive surrounded by mediocrities who are constantly sabotaging her. Grant Bowler is also good at being stiff upper lip as he, too, is surrounded by whining, evil mediocrities. There are a lot of good secondary character actors. There are some problems with the script, primarily in that it doesn’t really drive home the message just how bad things are, a lot of crucial details are left out, and, that the problems are a worldwide phenomenon, as was the case in the book.

The second went downhill and it was evident in the third that there was deliberate sabotage of the movie.

Mission To Moscow

For many years, I’ve been interested in the various communist propaganda films that Hollywood has put out. To this very day, it still cranks out such propaganda—as if the Soviet Union had not been flushed down the toilet (in 2011 it was The Majestic and in 2015 Trumbo). I had always heard about Mission to Moscow, that it topped all efforts, so I ordered it because I had also heard that it was so blatant in its propaganda and in its distortion of facts that it outdid all others, before and since. And because even some communists were embarrassed by it (Stalin and the Politburo reportedly watched it and even laughed at it). So I ordered it and waited for it, salivating.

Wow. Oh, wow.

Now, let me say that if you don’t know Soviet history and you decide to see this, a lot is going to go over your head. But wow. My wife thought I was nuts, seeing how much I was enjoying it and laughing, but after a certain point I had to take a break, because every single utterance by the characters was a glorification of the achievements of communism. It was just too much. Every Soviet in the film is dressed in luxury, the shops are overflowing with food and items, every Soviet is dancing and welcoming with smiles from ear to ear in their faces and are full of idealism, everyone is eating caviar (btw, during the Stalin era, if a non-government Russian even said “Good morning” to any foreigner he was immediately arrested by the NKVD for having passed on state secrets, and either shot or sent to the Gulag).

The most cringe worthy moments in the film came during the show trials of the 1930s, (when Stalin liquidated his rivals in the government after torturing them and putting them in kangaroo trials) which are thoroughly whitewashed.

Incidentally, Davies, the author of the book on which the film was based, insisted on thrusting himself into the movie, giving a lengthy introduction at the beginning. He was the American ambassador to Russia during the 1930s and he was so pro-communist, so pro-Stalin that the entire embassy staff at one point threatened to resign en masse. When he left, the Soviet government gave him as a reward Fabergé eggs (check out the book Hollywood Traitors).

Oh, yeah! And even all the top Soviet gangsters are there in the film smiling and helpful and wise: Molotov and Litvinov and Kalinin and Timoshenko and Vishinsky and even Yagoda (head of the secret police before he, too, was liquidated). And yes, even the “titanic genius” himself, Stalin, makes an appearance, oozing wisdom and benevolence .

Incidentally, the communist writer for the movie was one Howard Koch who, along with Trumbo, was one of the American liberals’ Hollywood 10 traitors that had a setback in their careers, courtesy of Sen. Josef McCarthy, Richard Nixon, and HUAC.

If you love Marxist totalitarianism, you’ll love this film. If you hate Marxist totalitarianism, you’ll REALLY love this film.

The Journey

This was a film about the Hungarian revolt, starring Yul Brynner, highly critical of communism and the Russian invasion. It has disappeared from sight (for some strange reason).

 

DOCUMENTARIES

Fantastic Lies

This documentary is absolutely vital that it be viewed by as many individuals as possible. It is a thoroughly investigated documentary over the infamous Duke La Crosse case where the players were accused by a stripper of gang rape. It would ultimately turn out that the drug addled skank was a liar and was mentally ill on top of that, but before this happened, the media engaged in intense lynch journalism, prompted by the New York Times. Parallel with this were the rabid feminists in Duke University, the blacks in Durham and in the university who decided that Da Sistah had to be avenged in a court of law. Add to that the politically correct faculty signing the usual petition, the physical harassment of the players, the forced resignation of the coach, the canceling of the season, the weak-ass college president and the truly evil prosecutor. That prosecutors routinely destroy exculpatory evidence, make up evidence, and knowingly prosecute innocent individuals is a topic that has not been dealt with and is long overdue.

There was plenty of evil to go around, from the Duke Faculty to the police department to the New York Slime.

Chuck Norris vs Communism

The title is tongue in cheek, but the content is dead serious. In the cultural desert that always results from Marxists ruling a country and constantly inserting their invariably asinine propaganda everywhere, people live there as if they were suffocating, absolutely desperate for some entertainment from the terror and drabness of their living conditions; they also want a glimpse of other cultures that the government demonizes but that the people know it’s not true. Having lived in a communist totalitarian regime, I can testify to this feeling. And so, in Romania, portable VHS tapes of Hollywood movies were like a breath of fresh air to people who were suffocating. The movies also showed heroism, which people began to slowly adopt. One man became a capitalist in this black market and hired an excellent translator to dub the movies from English to Romanian.

You may have heard of defectors smuggling DVDs into North Korea, or tying DVDs to balloons near the border. Now you know why.

The irony, of course, that even the repressive elements of communist society, even the upper echelons of the bureaucracy craved these movies and slowly began to realize that Marxism was bullshit, death-dealing bullshit. And these movies helped to bring down the regime.

Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry

This is a documentary about the Chinese artist-turned-dissident, living and working inside the PRC, known for his work during the Olympics. Weiwei used social media as an instrument of defiance when he started to investigate the deaths of schoolchildren in an earthquake, because the school was built ineptly, but the government did not want any kind of criticism. The documentary shifts back and forth between him making art and him being a gadfly to the communist state. If you are not interested in art and artists, or, if you are not interested in political repression, then this film is not for you. Otherwise, it is very good.

The Red Chapel

Mads Brugger, a Danish director/manager takes two Danes of Korean descent to modern-day 1984 for a comedy show. It is a Trojan Horse for the purpose of filming a documentary about the totalitarian state and its Dear Leader. Brugger has no illusions about the regime and is uncompromisingly hostile towards it. Behind a smiling mask and low-key statements, he ridicules the dictatorship and its minions, fully aware that behind the government facade lies a panorama of starvation and concentration camps.

One of the two Danish-Koreans, Jason, has a severe handicap and the country has a policy of exterminating “inferior defectives,” i.e., handicapped people, just like the Third Reich used to do. Ms. Pak, their “escort” instantly becomes genuinely attached to him and we get the distinct feeling that her son was done away with for being born handicapped. Jason becomes attached to her as well as to the students who welcome them; it is obvious that he has been starved for affection for a long time. Yet, at the same time that he acknowledges the reality of N. Korea he also has affection for its people.

Michael Moore Hates America

God, I wish he had chosen another title. It will alienate precisely those people that need to see this movie.

This documentary is ironic in so far as Wilson copies Moore’s earlier attempt to interview a big shot in his attempt to interview Michael Moore, traveling throughout the country trying to track him down. In the process, he interviews other, regular, people that have been skewered and manipulated in making Moore’s fictional documentaries. Everyone agrees that Michael Moore is talented at filmmaking, as was Leni Reifenstahl, except that he is blatantly dishonest in his propaganda. That there is something psychological wrong with Moore is evident just by watching him speak and spew out his hatred. I particularly enjoyed the interviews with Teller and Horowitz.

Russian Revolution in Color

This is an excellent documentary of the Bolshevik Revolution, with emphasis on the Kronstadt garrison and sailors, a key component of the revolution. Initially, they supported the Bolshevik revolution, having been taken in by Lenin’s propaganda, then turned against them when the Bolsheviks showed their true colors. The historical facts are presented, including important little details usually overlooked.

Whereas previous depictions of the revolution focus on the Bolshevik leadership and ignore Kronstadt altogether, this particular documentary does the opposite and omits some of the parallel (to Kronstadt) events going on with the leadership, such that Stalin, Kamenev, Zinoviev and others are ignored—but this is not to the detriment of the documentary. I just feel that those events with the leadership should have been mentioned, even if cursory. However, this is nitpicking. It’s a great documentary, particularly since the Bolsheviks pointed to Kronstadt as being their pivotal heroes.

Although it may appear from the list above that the number of films challenging the Politically Correct dogma is large, keep in mind that these films came out over a period of decades and were mostly ignored by the leftist media, in order to sabotage them (to underscore my point: how many of these films have you heard of before?) In contrast to this scarcity, we are inundated with anti-Nazi films, as if the Third Reich was still a contemporary threat.

As a review of the above films will reveal, most of them involve the subject of Marxism. If you, the reader, ask what is the possible relevance to today’s events, let me point to the antifas mobs wearing read stars and hammer and sickle emblems. And, also, to some of the college professors who created the antifas.

Armando Simón is a retired college professor and is the author of A Cuban from Kansas, The U and The Only Red Star I Liked Was a Starfish.



Source link

Speaking of Fake History…


But one did not, or rather I should say, does not, have to travel to those dictatorships in order to witness the leftists’ attack on historical facts, not when they can do it right here at the local university, or on one’s television set, or in the nearby movie theater. You will almost certainly have come across such instances, though in all probability you did not pay particular attention to them, since I have noticed they are often uttered in passing (somewhat like intellectual drive-by shootings) during a conversation (and also because few Americans have a good knowledge of history, since it’s “useless”). Here, then, briefly, are a handful of historical distortions:

Columbus Carried Out Genocide

Christopher Columbus was the European explorer who discovered America. Although there is archaeological evidence that the Vikings were actually the first, their discovery was a dead end in many ways. Regardless, Columbus made four voyages of exploration in the New World and established a few primitive settlements. At no time did he engage in genocide or initiate harsh treatment of the natives. True, when he was once bedridden, his men attacked the natives, but it is often forgotten that Columbus had no control over his men; they often did whatever they wanted; although he was the admiral, the other ships’ captains would go their separate way (discipline was nonexistent in those days). He has even been accused of taking back 1,500 Indian slaves to Spain; anyone who believes that a tiny caravel could accommodate 1,500 slaves, on top of the crew, has never stepped foot on a caravel. I have.

Blankets Infected by Smallpox Were Given to Indians by the U.S. Cavalry

You have all heard of this and it is a lie. The only such incident on record occured in the 1760s during the French and Indian war, when British General Jeffrey Amherst presented a vicious gift of such blankets to the Miami tribe of Ohio. Fortunately for them, the Miamis had been previously exposed to smallpox and were immune.

Incidentally, a corollary of this is the additional myth that Native Americans were harmless, essentially an early version of the hippies, “being at one with Nature,” prancing through the woods. In truth, they practiced slavery, engaged in warfare, and in a few instances were successful at genocide of weaker, tribes. In short, they were ordinary people.

America Lost the Vietnam War, the First War it Ever Lost

This is usually told by a liberal with a gleam in the eye, relishing the “fact” that America was defeated, since their hate for their country is bottomless. The fact of the matter was that Nixon had a plan for “Vietnamizing” the Vietnam War, by steadily removing American forces, instead of having Americans bleed for the sake of South Vietnam. But in 1975, North Vietnam attacked the South in a minor battle on the border and some South Vietnamese units collapsed like a house of cards. The Republic of Vietnam might still have been saved by quick use of U.S. airpower, but congressional leftists elected in the wake of Watergate acted to forbid use of any American forces whatsoever.

Incidentally, the North Vietnamese Army’s back had been broken earlier in their all-out Tet offensive in 1968; thereafter, the NVA’s attacks were minor by comparison. The communists in the American media then declared the Tet victory an American defeat. Which may be why when Col. Harry G.Summers remarked to Le Duc Tho that: “You know, we never lost a battle in the field,” the icy North Vietnamese commissar replied, “That is true, and it is irrelevant.” Both campaigns were aimed at demoralizing the home front—and were successful.

The Nazis Were Right Wing

Yes, they were monsters, but they were hardly conservative. The National Socialist Workers Party took its Socialism very, very seriously. Socialism was implemented throughout the Third Reich (make sure to read David Schoenbaum’s eye opening Hitler’s Social Revolution: Class and Status in Nazi Germany 1933-1939). The Horst Wessel song, the anthem of the National Socialists, blasts both the communists and the reactionaries. James Pool’s Who Financed Hitler shows that, far from receiving financial aid by industrialists in order to combat the German communists, as the myth has been propagated for decades (you saw Cabaret, right?), the Party was perpetually on the brink of bankruptcy. It is also a well-known fact that the aristocracy had barely concealed contempt for the Nazis and the army was itching to be let loose on the Brown Shirts and clean their clocks.

Nelson Mandela Ended Apartheid and Everybody Lived Happily Ever After

No, he did not. Frederik Willem de Klerk, the president of South Africa, ended Apartheid. Forget what a drooling Michelle Obama may have said. Mandela was simply a jailbird at the time.

As for living happily ever after, South Africa became overwhelmed by a tsunami of crime and the subsequent black politicians have engaged in corruption. As in the rest of Africa.

The Spanish Civil War

The historical lies begin like this: Spain was emerging from the Dark Ages and embracing democracy, at which point the Catholic Church and the Spanish fascists decided to overthrow the republic. Fortunately, the valiant Spanish people foiled the coup d’état and a civil war ensued. At this point, the evil Nazis in Germany and the evil Fascists of Italy intervened in favor of Franco, but the weak-kneed democracies failed to support the Republic and only the Soviet Union was magnanimous in its support.

(Where to begin?) First, Spain (along with Italy and Russia) for decades had a very strong anarchist presence. The reason that the army revolted was because the deputies to the Spanish parliament (and lesser persons) who would criticize the socialists, communists, and anarchists were being dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night and shot (by the way, this is what some leftist professors have advocated should be done here in America) and the government refused to solve the situation or even investigate and arrest the culprits. Add to this the fact that churches were daily being invaded and looted by the anarchists and the communists and the priests hung inside the churches — again with no recourse from the leftist government. Germany, Italy and Russia intervened for their own purposes, except that Russia began to gain more and more control of the government and began persecuting exterminating rival political parties (like the Trotskyites).

Richard Nixon

Everything bad that you have been told about Richard Nixon is bullshit. Everything. It would take too long here to dissect, point by point. Everything.

But in a nutshell, the reason for the relentless persecution of Nixon by leftists began in the late 1940s when he was closely involved in the investigation and prosecution of Alger Hiss, who had for years operated a widespread and effective Soviet spy network in the State Department. Nixon’s intervention in favor of Whittaker Chambers, a former Soviet courier who had for nearly a decade attempted to expose Hiss, resulted in Hiss being imprisoned for perjury after he denied being a Soviet agent. It also infuriated the American left on all levels, who then bided their time until the opportunity arose to punish Nixon for his effrontery in opposing the progressive cause.

There are some parallels between the leftist media hatred of Richard Nixon and their hatred of Donald Trump.

The Haymarket Riots

It has been forgotten by many that in the late 1800s, many terrorists who were causing havoc in Europe emigrated to America and continued their destructive acts here. One of these resulted in the Haymarket bombing. The perpetrators were caught, tried, and convicted. However, leftist professors have declared ever since that the accused were found guilty on absolutely no evidence and were innocent victims and martyrs, just like Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti.

A student asked his non-leftist professor, T. Messer-Kruse, if there was, indeed, no evidence, then why did the trial take so long. The latter decided to take a close look at the trial and it turned out that there was an overabundance of evidence. So he went to Wikipedia and made a correction. And the correction was deleted. And he did so again and it was deleted again and he was informed that he would be excluded from contributing to Wikipedia. He fought it and the correction remained. He detailed both the trial and the Wikipedia censorship in The Trial of the Haymarket Anarchists: Terrorism and Justice in the Gilded Age.

Cuba

This is a subject near and dear to my heart, and I could write fifty pages on the topic, beginning with the fact that the leftists in Hollywood have cranked out numerous propaganda films praising the totalitarian dictatorship like, Cuban Rebel Girls, Cuba, Havana, Creature from the Haunted Sea, The Godfather 2, The Motorcycle Diaries, Che, Che and still more Che.

In Havana, starring Robert Redford, Cuban leader Fulgencio Batista is portrayed as a blonde white man. In reality he was of mixed race, and in the U.S. would be recognized as Black.

Instead of the fifty pages, let me instead summarize communist Cuba thusly: starvation, persecution, executions, censorship, militarization, cult of personality, crumbling infrastructure, propaganda, exodus, mediocrity, psychotic leader, brainwashing schools, economic collapse.

Berkeley University was the Birth of the Free Speech Movement

Yeah, right. Apparently, the Bill of Rights did not go into effect until the 1960s. Even conservatives like Milo Yiannopolous have swallowed this tripe (along with some of the above as well).

In reality “the free speech movement” of the 1960s in Berkeley consisted exclusively in yelling obscene words and in welcoming communist speakers while simultaneously refusing anti-communist speakers to attend the college to lecture.

Slavery

This particular fake history is not stated outright, but it is implied. The concept is that slavery was practiced principally, or exclusively by whites. In reality, slavery has always been part of human history throughout the world, including by black Africans and Native Americans. But the emphasis of slavery is always on whites.

However, it is white Europeans, particularly the Anglo-Saxons, who led the crusade in the late 1800s to abolish slavery throughout the world. It has been as successful as wiping out polio. That is, polio still holds out in Afghanistan and Pakistan, thanks to the Taliban, and slavery is still very much practiced openly in many Muslim countries.

But if you want to rail against slavery, then rail against Islam. Islam condones it. It is practiced in many Muslim countries. And Mohammed was a slave owning pedophile. That is historical fact.

The Heroic Blacklisted Hollywood 10

Here I will simply write that you should do yourself a big favor and buy and read Allan H. Ryskind’s Hollywood Traitors. Don’t be afraid. You can do it. Buy and read the book.

In short, just a we see fake news being spread, there is such a thing as fake history. I could continue to give (better detailed) examples of historical mutilation carried out by leftists in colleges and Hollywood (which explains to a large degree why so many students end up worshiping totalitarianism and see nothing wrong with communism): Sacco and Vanzetti, the Spanish-American War, blacks ruling Egypt, the 1960s, and on and on and on. The all-important question, then, now becomes: why are you letting this happen?

Armando Simón is a retired college professor and is the author of A Cuban from Kansas, Very Peculiar Stories and The U.

George Orwell wrote in 1984 that one of the totalitarian regime’s principles was stated in the slogan, “Whoever controls the present controls the past. Whoever controls the past controls the future.” A moment’s consideration will validate this axiom.

Leftists have a long, well-documented record of mutilating history and eradicating historical facts that do not conform, or that contradict, their ideology. The Soviet Union was particularly famous for this practice, carried to an even greater extreme under the rule of The Friend of All Humanity . . . Josef Stalin (be sure to see David King’s excellent The Commissar Vanishes; another, similar, one is Art Under Stalin by Matthew Cullerne Bown). This practice was, of course, also present in all the various communist countries, from North Korea to East Germany. National Socialism, another leftist ideology, also had this outlook. To all of them, the existence and purpose of history, science, sports, art, theater, films was/is to glorify and justify the regime, particularly the current dictator. The only difference was that, for ideological reasons, (since History was deified and personified as being judgmental), the communists paid particular attention to history. You may remember that in 1984, the protagonist works in the Ministry of Truth, where past newspaper stories and historical facts are systematically eradicated and altered.

But one did not, or rather I should say, does not, have to travel to those dictatorships in order to witness the leftists’ attack on historical facts, not when they can do it right here at the local university, or on one’s television set, or in the nearby movie theater. You will almost certainly have come across such instances, though in all probability you did not pay particular attention to them, since I have noticed they are often uttered in passing (somewhat like intellectual drive-by shootings) during a conversation (and also because few Americans have a good knowledge of history, since it’s “useless”). Here, then, briefly, are a handful of historical distortions:

Columbus Carried Out Genocide

Christopher Columbus was the European explorer who discovered America. Although there is archaeological evidence that the Vikings were actually the first, their discovery was a dead end in many ways. Regardless, Columbus made four voyages of exploration in the New World and established a few primitive settlements. At no time did he engage in genocide or initiate harsh treatment of the natives. True, when he was once bedridden, his men attacked the natives, but it is often forgotten that Columbus had no control over his men; they often did whatever they wanted; although he was the admiral, the other ships’ captains would go their separate way (discipline was nonexistent in those days). He has even been accused of taking back 1,500 Indian slaves to Spain; anyone who believes that a tiny caravel could accommodate 1,500 slaves, on top of the crew, has never stepped foot on a caravel. I have.

Blankets Infected by Smallpox Were Given to Indians by the U.S. Cavalry

You have all heard of this and it is a lie. The only such incident on record occured in the 1760s during the French and Indian war, when British General Jeffrey Amherst presented a vicious gift of such blankets to the Miami tribe of Ohio. Fortunately for them, the Miamis had been previously exposed to smallpox and were immune.

Incidentally, a corollary of this is the additional myth that Native Americans were harmless, essentially an early version of the hippies, “being at one with Nature,” prancing through the woods. In truth, they practiced slavery, engaged in warfare, and in a few instances were successful at genocide of weaker, tribes. In short, they were ordinary people.

America Lost the Vietnam War, the First War it Ever Lost

This is usually told by a liberal with a gleam in the eye, relishing the “fact” that America was defeated, since their hate for their country is bottomless. The fact of the matter was that Nixon had a plan for “Vietnamizing” the Vietnam War, by steadily removing American forces, instead of having Americans bleed for the sake of South Vietnam. But in 1975, North Vietnam attacked the South in a minor battle on the border and some South Vietnamese units collapsed like a house of cards. The Republic of Vietnam might still have been saved by quick use of U.S. airpower, but congressional leftists elected in the wake of Watergate acted to forbid use of any American forces whatsoever.

Incidentally, the North Vietnamese Army’s back had been broken earlier in their all-out Tet offensive in 1968; thereafter, the NVA’s attacks were minor by comparison. The communists in the American media then declared the Tet victory an American defeat. Which may be why when Col. Harry G.Summers remarked to Le Duc Tho that: “You know, we never lost a battle in the field,” the icy North Vietnamese commissar replied, “That is true, and it is irrelevant.” Both campaigns were aimed at demoralizing the home front—and were successful.

The Nazis Were Right Wing

Yes, they were monsters, but they were hardly conservative. The National Socialist Workers Party took its Socialism very, very seriously. Socialism was implemented throughout the Third Reich (make sure to read David Schoenbaum’s eye opening Hitler’s Social Revolution: Class and Status in Nazi Germany 1933-1939). The Horst Wessel song, the anthem of the National Socialists, blasts both the communists and the reactionaries. James Pool’s Who Financed Hitler shows that, far from receiving financial aid by industrialists in order to combat the German communists, as the myth has been propagated for decades (you saw Cabaret, right?), the Party was perpetually on the brink of bankruptcy. It is also a well-known fact that the aristocracy had barely concealed contempt for the Nazis and the army was itching to be let loose on the Brown Shirts and clean their clocks.

Nelson Mandela Ended Apartheid and Everybody Lived Happily Ever After

No, he did not. Frederik Willem de Klerk, the president of South Africa, ended Apartheid. Forget what a drooling Michelle Obama may have said. Mandela was simply a jailbird at the time.

As for living happily ever after, South Africa became overwhelmed by a tsunami of crime and the subsequent black politicians have engaged in corruption. As in the rest of Africa.

The Spanish Civil War

The historical lies begin like this: Spain was emerging from the Dark Ages and embracing democracy, at which point the Catholic Church and the Spanish fascists decided to overthrow the republic. Fortunately, the valiant Spanish people foiled the coup d’état and a civil war ensued. At this point, the evil Nazis in Germany and the evil Fascists of Italy intervened in favor of Franco, but the weak-kneed democracies failed to support the Republic and only the Soviet Union was magnanimous in its support.

(Where to begin?) First, Spain (along with Italy and Russia) for decades had a very strong anarchist presence. The reason that the army revolted was because the deputies to the Spanish parliament (and lesser persons) who would criticize the socialists, communists, and anarchists were being dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night and shot (by the way, this is what some leftist professors have advocated should be done here in America) and the government refused to solve the situation or even investigate and arrest the culprits. Add to this the fact that churches were daily being invaded and looted by the anarchists and the communists and the priests hung inside the churches — again with no recourse from the leftist government. Germany, Italy and Russia intervened for their own purposes, except that Russia began to gain more and more control of the government and began persecuting exterminating rival political parties (like the Trotskyites).

Richard Nixon

Everything bad that you have been told about Richard Nixon is bullshit. Everything. It would take too long here to dissect, point by point. Everything.

But in a nutshell, the reason for the relentless persecution of Nixon by leftists began in the late 1940s when he was closely involved in the investigation and prosecution of Alger Hiss, who had for years operated a widespread and effective Soviet spy network in the State Department. Nixon’s intervention in favor of Whittaker Chambers, a former Soviet courier who had for nearly a decade attempted to expose Hiss, resulted in Hiss being imprisoned for perjury after he denied being a Soviet agent. It also infuriated the American left on all levels, who then bided their time until the opportunity arose to punish Nixon for his effrontery in opposing the progressive cause.

There are some parallels between the leftist media hatred of Richard Nixon and their hatred of Donald Trump.

The Haymarket Riots

It has been forgotten by many that in the late 1800s, many terrorists who were causing havoc in Europe emigrated to America and continued their destructive acts here. One of these resulted in the Haymarket bombing. The perpetrators were caught, tried, and convicted. However, leftist professors have declared ever since that the accused were found guilty on absolutely no evidence and were innocent victims and martyrs, just like Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti.

A student asked his non-leftist professor, T. Messer-Kruse, if there was, indeed, no evidence, then why did the trial take so long. The latter decided to take a close look at the trial and it turned out that there was an overabundance of evidence. So he went to Wikipedia and made a correction. And the correction was deleted. And he did so again and it was deleted again and he was informed that he would be excluded from contributing to Wikipedia. He fought it and the correction remained. He detailed both the trial and the Wikipedia censorship in The Trial of the Haymarket Anarchists: Terrorism and Justice in the Gilded Age.

Cuba

This is a subject near and dear to my heart, and I could write fifty pages on the topic, beginning with the fact that the leftists in Hollywood have cranked out numerous propaganda films praising the totalitarian dictatorship like, Cuban Rebel Girls, Cuba, Havana, Creature from the Haunted Sea, The Godfather 2, The Motorcycle Diaries, Che, Che and still more Che.

In Havana, starring Robert Redford, Cuban leader Fulgencio Batista is portrayed as a blonde white man. In reality he was of mixed race, and in the U.S. would be recognized as Black.

Instead of the fifty pages, let me instead summarize communist Cuba thusly: starvation, persecution, executions, censorship, militarization, cult of personality, crumbling infrastructure, propaganda, exodus, mediocrity, psychotic leader, brainwashing schools, economic collapse.

Berkeley University was the Birth of the Free Speech Movement

Yeah, right. Apparently, the Bill of Rights did not go into effect until the 1960s. Even conservatives like Milo Yiannopolous have swallowed this tripe (along with some of the above as well).

In reality “the free speech movement” of the 1960s in Berkeley consisted exclusively in yelling obscene words and in welcoming communist speakers while simultaneously refusing anti-communist speakers to attend the college to lecture.

Slavery

This particular fake history is not stated outright, but it is implied. The concept is that slavery was practiced principally, or exclusively by whites. In reality, slavery has always been part of human history throughout the world, including by black Africans and Native Americans. But the emphasis of slavery is always on whites.

However, it is white Europeans, particularly the Anglo-Saxons, who led the crusade in the late 1800s to abolish slavery throughout the world. It has been as successful as wiping out polio. That is, polio still holds out in Afghanistan and Pakistan, thanks to the Taliban, and slavery is still very much practiced openly in many Muslim countries.

But if you want to rail against slavery, then rail against Islam. Islam condones it. It is practiced in many Muslim countries. And Mohammed was a slave owning pedophile. That is historical fact.

The Heroic Blacklisted Hollywood 10

Here I will simply write that you should do yourself a big favor and buy and read Allan H. Ryskind’s Hollywood Traitors. Don’t be afraid. You can do it. Buy and read the book.

In short, just a we see fake news being spread, there is such a thing as fake history. I could continue to give (better detailed) examples of historical mutilation carried out by leftists in colleges and Hollywood (which explains to a large degree why so many students end up worshiping totalitarianism and see nothing wrong with communism): Sacco and Vanzetti, the Spanish-American War, blacks ruling Egypt, the 1960s, and on and on and on. The all-important question, then, now becomes: why are you letting this happen?

Armando Simón is a retired college professor and is the author of A Cuban from Kansas, Very Peculiar Stories and The U.



Source link

Is NATO Still Relevant?


           The NATO alliance, first created in 1949, is the longest alliance in history. The creation of this alliance came about with the gradual realization that Stalin’s Soviet Union had superseded Hitler’s Das Dritte Reich. With the creation of NATO, should Stalin or one of his successors have decided to drive west all the way to the Atlantic, creating Orwell’s Eurasia, he would have encountered stiff resistance and possibly defeat. As such, NATO was ipso facto anti-communist and anti-Soviet. Predictably, it was condemned in the West by fellow travelers, although the anti-communist George Kennan admittedly made a good case against its formation.

            But NATO also had several unforeseen benefits. For one thing, it kept the peace in Europe between its otherwise belligerent members for 68 years. In a continent that used to go into civil war almost every decade, that was a major achievement. This came about by unintentionally creating an undeniable feeling of cohesion (which the creation of the über-bureaucratic European Union has undermined). After all, it is kind of embarrassing to go to war with a country that is your ally, no matter how obnoxious that ally may be (yes, I am talking about  France). To be sure, Greece’s perpetually infantile, regressive, hostility towards Turkey came close to doing that in 1974, but the allies ordered them to stand down.

            Another benefit was that it rehabilitated West Germany. After the Second World War, the Germans were unfairly blamed as being Europe’s eternal warmonger, conveniently forgetting the bloodsoaked histories of France, Austria, Britain, Russia, Sweden and Spain. It came very close to being permanently dismembered.Germany, like it or not, was now their ally and although it took time for bitter memories to fade, later generations have felt no knee-jerk hatred towards Germans.

            Throughout, the backbone of NATO was always acknowledged to be America and by the late 1970s the unofficial attitude of Europeans was “To defend Europe to the last American.” To a large extent this attitude persists and is the reason for those countries not contributing their fair share to collective defense and was the basis for President Trump’s and President Obama’s criticism of member states. Trump’s position is simply that America’s benevolence will no longer be taken advantage of. His position has resulted in the usual hysterical attacks by the American media—on anything and everything that he says (which, ironically, is exactly what conservatives used to do with anything and everything that Obama proposed).

            With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a golden opportunity for perpetual European peace and Russian democracy was lost. First, following all bureaucracies’ innate characteristic to endlessly expand like a cancer, NATO membership started expanding eastward. This was an understandable reaction by the Soviet Union’s former slave states, as they craved protection from future Russian imperialistic ambitions, particularly by Poland, but it should have come to a screeching halt in central Europe with Czechoslovakia and Poland. When it continued to expand into the Balkans and the Baltic states—Estonia is a stone’s throw from St. Petersburg—Russia’s chronic paranoia understandably hit the roof. Including Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia into NATO contributed next to nothing to European defense—it could be characterized as only a truck with a flat tire—and exacerbated friction with Russia (at the time of this writing tiny Montenegro is set to join NATO, in spite of Putin’s foiled assassination attempt of the country’s prime minister; one can only speculate that in case of a European war, Montenegro’s contribution to stop invading tanks will be to throw a rock at them. Now, it remains to be seen whether Andorra or Vatican City will also be included in NATO).

But the real opportunity was lost when Boris Yeltsin made the logical suggestion that with the defeat of communism, with its expansionistic philosophy, Russia should be admitted into NATO. This was a truly golden opportunity that was rebuffed by the fossilized minds of Europe and America. Had NATO welcomed Russia with open arms—with the proviso that it dissolved that branch of political repression and mass murder, the KGB—there would be no tensions today with Russia, there would be no Putin with his dreams of Sudetenlands, and Russia would have remained democratic. There would also not have been the increase in paranoia by including the Baltic States. Instead, we have Putin’s aggression with Georgia, Ukraine (and more to come). It was stupidity, sheer criminal stupidity, unforgivable, on the part of Western leaders.

            There is a postscript: many Swedes and Finns (and Georgians and Ukrainians) have justifiably become alarmed at Putin’s militarization and aggression and have debated to join NATO. Time will tell. But the inclusion of further countries encircling Russia into NATO can have no beneficial effects whatsoever to the alliance and only justifiably increase Russian paranoia to go through the roof. Americans, who have an infuriating, bottomless, ignorance of other countries, their histories and their cultures, would do well to learn that Russia has been repeatedly invaded again and again over the centuries. From the east. From the west. From the north. From the south. They may be unquestionably paranoid, but their paranoia has a historical basis.

            Donald Trump appears to have realized that since Russia is no longer globalist-expansionistic as was the case with a Soviet Russia, it holds no direct threat to the United States. True, Putin has attempted to have closer ties with authoritarian regimes that are hostile to the United States, like Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and China, but realistically most of these countries can have no direct serious threat to the United States and some of them are moribund, anyway. Furthermore an American president who has expressed respect—not admiration—for Putin (which he desperately craves) can only result in a lessening of hostility. This is not to deny, of course, that Putin is authoritarian with an inferiority complex who has committed crimes.

Besides, the world is full of murderous dictators and authoritarian leaders.

            As such, simply because Russia has an increased presence in Syria does not mean that America has to automatically counter that Russian presence. So what if it does? Who cares? This is not a race, nor a competition, nor is American security, nor NATO security, at stake. Besides, Russia has had long close ties with the country, for over half a century. To have the sense of urgency that we have seen this past year, or panic in the media, because Russia is propping up the Assad regime in Syria, should mean nothing to America or NATO and such psychology is the product of minds petrified in time back to the Cold War era. Anyone who heard Hillary Clinton’s serious proposal of a no-fly zone over Syria, which would have meant shooting down Russian planes—that was the time to truly have a sense of panic.

            Having said that, it would nevertheless be a catastrophic mistake for the United States to leave NATO, not only because NATO might unravel and cohesion among its members lost, but because the future is unforeseen and no one knows what lunacy may crawl up as a result of America leaving the alliance. We might even revert back to another European civil war. And, as usual, we would be dragged back in. Besides, in any situation, it is always wise to have allies rather than stand alone. We just simply have to insist that they carry their own weight.

 

Armando Simón is a retired college professor and is the author of A Cuban from Kansas, Very Peculiar Stories and The U.

           The NATO alliance, first created in 1949, is the longest alliance in history. The creation of this alliance came about with the gradual realization that Stalin’s Soviet Union had superseded Hitler’s Das Dritte Reich. With the creation of NATO, should Stalin or one of his successors have decided to drive west all the way to the Atlantic, creating Orwell’s Eurasia, he would have encountered stiff resistance and possibly defeat. As such, NATO was ipso facto anti-communist and anti-Soviet. Predictably, it was condemned in the West by fellow travelers, although the anti-communist George Kennan admittedly made a good case against its formation.

            But NATO also had several unforeseen benefits. For one thing, it kept the peace in Europe between its otherwise belligerent members for 68 years. In a continent that used to go into civil war almost every decade, that was a major achievement. This came about by unintentionally creating an undeniable feeling of cohesion (which the creation of the über-bureaucratic European Union has undermined). After all, it is kind of embarrassing to go to war with a country that is your ally, no matter how obnoxious that ally may be (yes, I am talking about  France). To be sure, Greece’s perpetually infantile, regressive, hostility towards Turkey came close to doing that in 1974, but the allies ordered them to stand down.

            Another benefit was that it rehabilitated West Germany. After the Second World War, the Germans were unfairly blamed as being Europe’s eternal warmonger, conveniently forgetting the bloodsoaked histories of France, Austria, Britain, Russia, Sweden and Spain. It came very close to being permanently dismembered.Germany, like it or not, was now their ally and although it took time for bitter memories to fade, later generations have felt no knee-jerk hatred towards Germans.

            Throughout, the backbone of NATO was always acknowledged to be America and by the late 1970s the unofficial attitude of Europeans was “To defend Europe to the last American.” To a large extent this attitude persists and is the reason for those countries not contributing their fair share to collective defense and was the basis for President Trump’s and President Obama’s criticism of member states. Trump’s position is simply that America’s benevolence will no longer be taken advantage of. His position has resulted in the usual hysterical attacks by the American media—on anything and everything that he says (which, ironically, is exactly what conservatives used to do with anything and everything that Obama proposed).

            With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a golden opportunity for perpetual European peace and Russian democracy was lost. First, following all bureaucracies’ innate characteristic to endlessly expand like a cancer, NATO membership started expanding eastward. This was an understandable reaction by the Soviet Union’s former slave states, as they craved protection from future Russian imperialistic ambitions, particularly by Poland, but it should have come to a screeching halt in central Europe with Czechoslovakia and Poland. When it continued to expand into the Balkans and the Baltic states—Estonia is a stone’s throw from St. Petersburg—Russia’s chronic paranoia understandably hit the roof. Including Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia into NATO contributed next to nothing to European defense—it could be characterized as only a truck with a flat tire—and exacerbated friction with Russia (at the time of this writing tiny Montenegro is set to join NATO, in spite of Putin’s foiled assassination attempt of the country’s prime minister; one can only speculate that in case of a European war, Montenegro’s contribution to stop invading tanks will be to throw a rock at them. Now, it remains to be seen whether Andorra or Vatican City will also be included in NATO).

But the real opportunity was lost when Boris Yeltsin made the logical suggestion that with the defeat of communism, with its expansionistic philosophy, Russia should be admitted into NATO. This was a truly golden opportunity that was rebuffed by the fossilized minds of Europe and America. Had NATO welcomed Russia with open arms—with the proviso that it dissolved that branch of political repression and mass murder, the KGB—there would be no tensions today with Russia, there would be no Putin with his dreams of Sudetenlands, and Russia would have remained democratic. There would also not have been the increase in paranoia by including the Baltic States. Instead, we have Putin’s aggression with Georgia, Ukraine (and more to come). It was stupidity, sheer criminal stupidity, unforgivable, on the part of Western leaders.

            There is a postscript: many Swedes and Finns (and Georgians and Ukrainians) have justifiably become alarmed at Putin’s militarization and aggression and have debated to join NATO. Time will tell. But the inclusion of further countries encircling Russia into NATO can have no beneficial effects whatsoever to the alliance and only justifiably increase Russian paranoia to go through the roof. Americans, who have an infuriating, bottomless, ignorance of other countries, their histories and their cultures, would do well to learn that Russia has been repeatedly invaded again and again over the centuries. From the east. From the west. From the north. From the south. They may be unquestionably paranoid, but their paranoia has a historical basis.

            Donald Trump appears to have realized that since Russia is no longer globalist-expansionistic as was the case with a Soviet Russia, it holds no direct threat to the United States. True, Putin has attempted to have closer ties with authoritarian regimes that are hostile to the United States, like Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and China, but realistically most of these countries can have no direct serious threat to the United States and some of them are moribund, anyway. Furthermore an American president who has expressed respect—not admiration—for Putin (which he desperately craves) can only result in a lessening of hostility. This is not to deny, of course, that Putin is authoritarian with an inferiority complex who has committed crimes.

Besides, the world is full of murderous dictators and authoritarian leaders.

            As such, simply because Russia has an increased presence in Syria does not mean that America has to automatically counter that Russian presence. So what if it does? Who cares? This is not a race, nor a competition, nor is American security, nor NATO security, at stake. Besides, Russia has had long close ties with the country, for over half a century. To have the sense of urgency that we have seen this past year, or panic in the media, because Russia is propping up the Assad regime in Syria, should mean nothing to America or NATO and such psychology is the product of minds petrified in time back to the Cold War era. Anyone who heard Hillary Clinton’s serious proposal of a no-fly zone over Syria, which would have meant shooting down Russian planes—that was the time to truly have a sense of panic.

            Having said that, it would nevertheless be a catastrophic mistake for the United States to leave NATO, not only because NATO might unravel and cohesion among its members lost, but because the future is unforeseen and no one knows what lunacy may crawl up as a result of America leaving the alliance. We might even revert back to another European civil war. And, as usual, we would be dragged back in. Besides, in any situation, it is always wise to have allies rather than stand alone. We just simply have to insist that they carry their own weight.

 

Armando Simón is a retired college professor and is the author of A Cuban from Kansas, Very Peculiar Stories and The U.



Source link

at-painter-og-image.png

Advocating Warfare: The Media's Record as an Enemy


American journalists have an exalted view of themselves, fancying themselves an immaculate priesthood that must be admired, obeyed and worshipped. They are constantly telling themselves that they are impartial and unbiased, and that they are pure of heart. They also become visibly upset when they are laughed at by the public. Even though their philosophy is to criticize and destroy lives, they become sarcastic, or furious, or vicious if anyone in authority criticizes them.

For the fact of the matter is that most journalists in the United States and Western Europe are essentially clones: they think alike, they talk alike, they have the same politics, they cover the same stories, they spike the same stories, they vote the same way, they have the same viewpoints, they suppress dissenting viewpoints and facts, they adopt a mob mentality when they go into one of their periodic fits of lynch journalism and character assassination, and they viciously persecute and purge any journalist who does not conform to this mold, relegating the heretics either to oblivion or, just as bad, to the very fringes of the journalistic profession.

The number of such instances can run into the hundreds and citing just a few would derail the flow of the narrative because journalists would immediately rise to the occasion to defend and quibble over the details, so I shall just cite the American journalists’ propensity to promote international military crusades.

The first occurrence was in 1898 when the American media precipitated the Spanish-American War. The Spaniards in Cuba were unquestionably extremely and stupidly autocratic, rigid, and punitive. The American journalists focused and at times exaggerated the Spaniards’ cruelty in newspaper stories on an almost daily basis (i.e., fake news) until Americans felt that they had to intervene to end the cruelty and the vestigial existence of colonialism (many decades later, American Communists in universities would rewrite histories to make it seem that the United States embarked on building an empire). An unprepared American military fortunately found that the Spaniards were even worse off.

Two decades later, America entered a world war which it really had no direct stake in, partly due to the sinking of the Lusitania, as American journalists were fed on British propaganda over German soldiers boiling babies to make oil, raping nuns in churches, and the Zimmerman telegram.

This tactic was repeated in the Second World War. Churchill, as is well known, tried every trick to get the Americans to fight the war for the British and nowadays it may read like heresy, but America again really had no personal reason to enter that war. Even though the American public was dead-set against entering that destructive war, FDR engaged in an undeclared naval war with Germany through an antisubmarine campaign and by instituting Lend Lease to Britain. Radio and print journalists were openly hostile to Germany and were pro-British (admittedly with good reason). As a result of the horrifying atrocities by the Japanese forces in Nanking, at a time when many Americans were besotted by China because of missionaries and Pearl S. Buck’s maudlin novels, FDR provoked the Japanese government into attacking Pearl Harbor (the provocation, incidentally, was made much worse by certain bureaucrats acting on their own; see Bradley’s The China Mirage).

Beginning in the late 1960s, with the Vietnam War and on to the subsequent two decades, American journalists reversed their usual habit and agitated against any military involvement to topple communist governments or to stop communist insurgents. The reason for this reversal was frankly because many of them had embraced Marxism—and still do.

This was temporary, of course. The atrocities in Lebanon’s civil war during the 1980s had journalists crying that “something needs to be done.” Later, the anarchy in Somalia elicited a similar response (“while the world watches and does nothing”), followed by the two wars in Iraq. All involvement by Americans were fiascos. It should also be remembered that, prior to those fiascos, George Bush, Sr. invaded Panamá to capture the dictator Noriega after being goaded for months by the press for being a wimp.

This past year, in Syria (“a humanitarian crisis,” “while the world does nothing”) journalists’ efforts to get America bogged down in yet another Middle Eastern quagmire resulted only in a half-hearted effort at military action, inhibited no doubt by acknowledging that the American government had no idea what was really going on in the area. President Obama was roundly criticized for “abandoning American global leadership” by not putting troops on the ground to wander around and shed their blood in overthrowing the Assad regime—so that the fanatics of ISIS and al-Qaeda could fill in the vacuum created by Assad’s fall. Senator John “The Walking Dead” McCain, as usual, urged that America stick its nose in a conflict in which it was completely in the dark. Hand in hand with the Syrian debacle is the present increasing hysterical anti-Russian rhetoric by the journalistic clones who insist on a new Cold War (which is ironic since for decades the leftist media denounced anyone who criticized the Soviet Union, or communism, as paranoid McCarthyism). The hysteria can often be heard in their radio and television discussions and reportage. Throughout, they hypocritically decry “the loss of American leadership,” i.e., sticking our noses where it doesn’t belong.

And if you think that what I have written is an exaggeration, do note that the journalists who were demonizing President Trump as being the incarnation of Hitler because he wanted to enforce our immigration laws to the point that they would foam at the mouth and go crosseyed when his name was mentioned had nothing but praise the day after he ordered a missile strike into Syria as retaliation for Syria’s government supposedly using chemical weapons against civilians. And since then they have been subtly urging the administration into escalating action.

But, regardless, it could be argued that one way for American presidents to deal with the clones agitating to militarily intervene in other countries is to simply ignore them and… turn the television off. Although that solution has its merits, it unfortunately ignores the fact that, given the chance, journalists will constantly be asking the sitting president, or the besieged White House press secretary, about “the terrible humanitarian crisis in X.” It also ignores the fact that congressmen will likewise also be brainwashed by the media, or be hounded by journalists, and they, in turn, will approach the president, or pass symbolic legislation. So a different, permanent, solution is needed.

But whatever the solution is, keep in mind that it is the mainstream media that is real enemy.

Armando Simón is a retired college professor who lives in San Antonio and is the author of A Cuban from Kansas, Very Peculiar Stories and The U.

American journalists have an exalted view of themselves, fancying themselves an immaculate priesthood that must be admired, obeyed and worshipped. They are constantly telling themselves that they are impartial and unbiased, and that they are pure of heart. They also become visibly upset when they are laughed at by the public. Even though their philosophy is to criticize and destroy lives, they become sarcastic, or furious, or vicious if anyone in authority criticizes them.

For the fact of the matter is that most journalists in the United States and Western Europe are essentially clones: they think alike, they talk alike, they have the same politics, they cover the same stories, they spike the same stories, they vote the same way, they have the same viewpoints, they suppress dissenting viewpoints and facts, they adopt a mob mentality when they go into one of their periodic fits of lynch journalism and character assassination, and they viciously persecute and purge any journalist who does not conform to this mold, relegating the heretics either to oblivion or, just as bad, to the very fringes of the journalistic profession.

The number of such instances can run into the hundreds and citing just a few would derail the flow of the narrative because journalists would immediately rise to the occasion to defend and quibble over the details, so I shall just cite the American journalists’ propensity to promote international military crusades.

The first occurrence was in 1898 when the American media precipitated the Spanish-American War. The Spaniards in Cuba were unquestionably extremely and stupidly autocratic, rigid, and punitive. The American journalists focused and at times exaggerated the Spaniards’ cruelty in newspaper stories on an almost daily basis (i.e., fake news) until Americans felt that they had to intervene to end the cruelty and the vestigial existence of colonialism (many decades later, American Communists in universities would rewrite histories to make it seem that the United States embarked on building an empire). An unprepared American military fortunately found that the Spaniards were even worse off.

Two decades later, America entered a world war which it really had no direct stake in, partly due to the sinking of the Lusitania, as American journalists were fed on British propaganda over German soldiers boiling babies to make oil, raping nuns in churches, and the Zimmerman telegram.

This tactic was repeated in the Second World War. Churchill, as is well known, tried every trick to get the Americans to fight the war for the British and nowadays it may read like heresy, but America again really had no personal reason to enter that war. Even though the American public was dead-set against entering that destructive war, FDR engaged in an undeclared naval war with Germany through an antisubmarine campaign and by instituting Lend Lease to Britain. Radio and print journalists were openly hostile to Germany and were pro-British (admittedly with good reason). As a result of the horrifying atrocities by the Japanese forces in Nanking, at a time when many Americans were besotted by China because of missionaries and Pearl S. Buck’s maudlin novels, FDR provoked the Japanese government into attacking Pearl Harbor (the provocation, incidentally, was made much worse by certain bureaucrats acting on their own; see Bradley’s The China Mirage).

Beginning in the late 1960s, with the Vietnam War and on to the subsequent two decades, American journalists reversed their usual habit and agitated against any military involvement to topple communist governments or to stop communist insurgents. The reason for this reversal was frankly because many of them had embraced Marxism—and still do.

This was temporary, of course. The atrocities in Lebanon’s civil war during the 1980s had journalists crying that “something needs to be done.” Later, the anarchy in Somalia elicited a similar response (“while the world watches and does nothing”), followed by the two wars in Iraq. All involvement by Americans were fiascos. It should also be remembered that, prior to those fiascos, George Bush, Sr. invaded Panamá to capture the dictator Noriega after being goaded for months by the press for being a wimp.

This past year, in Syria (“a humanitarian crisis,” “while the world does nothing”) journalists’ efforts to get America bogged down in yet another Middle Eastern quagmire resulted only in a half-hearted effort at military action, inhibited no doubt by acknowledging that the American government had no idea what was really going on in the area. President Obama was roundly criticized for “abandoning American global leadership” by not putting troops on the ground to wander around and shed their blood in overthrowing the Assad regime—so that the fanatics of ISIS and al-Qaeda could fill in the vacuum created by Assad’s fall. Senator John “The Walking Dead” McCain, as usual, urged that America stick its nose in a conflict in which it was completely in the dark. Hand in hand with the Syrian debacle is the present increasing hysterical anti-Russian rhetoric by the journalistic clones who insist on a new Cold War (which is ironic since for decades the leftist media denounced anyone who criticized the Soviet Union, or communism, as paranoid McCarthyism). The hysteria can often be heard in their radio and television discussions and reportage. Throughout, they hypocritically decry “the loss of American leadership,” i.e., sticking our noses where it doesn’t belong.

And if you think that what I have written is an exaggeration, do note that the journalists who were demonizing President Trump as being the incarnation of Hitler because he wanted to enforce our immigration laws to the point that they would foam at the mouth and go crosseyed when his name was mentioned had nothing but praise the day after he ordered a missile strike into Syria as retaliation for Syria’s government supposedly using chemical weapons against civilians. And since then they have been subtly urging the administration into escalating action.

But, regardless, it could be argued that one way for American presidents to deal with the clones agitating to militarily intervene in other countries is to simply ignore them and… turn the television off. Although that solution has its merits, it unfortunately ignores the fact that, given the chance, journalists will constantly be asking the sitting president, or the besieged White House press secretary, about “the terrible humanitarian crisis in X.” It also ignores the fact that congressmen will likewise also be brainwashed by the media, or be hounded by journalists, and they, in turn, will approach the president, or pass symbolic legislation. So a different, permanent, solution is needed.

But whatever the solution is, keep in mind that it is the mainstream media that is real enemy.

Armando Simón is a retired college professor who lives in San Antonio and is the author of A Cuban from Kansas, Very Peculiar Stories and The U.



Source link

at-painter-og-image.png

A Professor Looks at the College Racket


            It did not always use to be like this. One of the most intelligent things that the United States Congress ever did (and, yes, sometimes it does something intelligent; not lately, though) was to provide returning veterans of World War II with the opportunity to go to college in order to go to a university in order to get a career instead of giving veterans the traditional “war bonus.” Thus began the rise of universities and community colleges. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, over a third of the population has a bachelor’s degree or higher, whereas in 1940 it was 4%.

            But, whereas back then the purpose of a university degree was to prepare a person for a career in a specific, specialized, field, nowadays colleges fervently discourage such concerns, instead emphasizing vague, fuzzy, mediocre concepts like “broadening the mind,” and, “diversity” and such-like crap, so that college students about to graduate often voice the praiseworthy—actually, inane—ambition of “just wanting to work with people.”

            Hand in hand with this is the idea propagated by intellectuals that money is sordid and being preoccupied with money is a sign of an atavistic mind. The result of such an indoctrination is the fact that many college subjects may be intrinsically interesting, but from a practical standpoint they are about as useful as ice cubes in Greenland. Degrees in literature, history, art, gender studies, minority studies, anthropology, public service, philosophy and many others are absolutely useless, whereas persons with degrees in economics, computer science, chemistry, mathematics, physics, biology, geology and other degrees that lead to the engineering and medical fields can expect to earn a decent living by working in their fields. This is important to understand: half of the majors offered in universities are geared for obtaining jobs only in universities.

To be sure, many businesses now require an applicant for a job to have a generic college degree, even though it may be in Science-Fiction Studies (and, yes, in some colleges you can get a degree in that, just like you can get a degree in the equally stupid Minority Studies and Gender Studies) and even though it has absolutely no relevance to the position that is available. This is partly due to the fact that since there is a glut in the market, the employer might as well hire someone with a college degree instead of just what used to be important, a high school degree. Nor is this phenomenon limited to the United States. In many countries, from Egypt to Indonesia, a college graduate with a degree in business may genuinely consider himself lucky to land a job at a local McDonald’s. But don’t ever expect to be hired just so that you can discuss Kant’s categorical imperative, or the influence of Proust on surrealistic art (incidentally, this is not just opinion; research on students’ views show that the majority of students view a college education as being absolutely useless in getting a job afterwards).

Not having learned their lesson, many graduates holding a degree in one of the useless majors decide to go on to get a Master’s degree or a Ph.D. in those very same fields (which goes to show that they really have not learned anything). They then hover around universities, being exploited as part-time “adjunct professors,” hoping that one of the tenured old goats will finally retire, or keel over, so that they can fill in his shoes. And then, as professors, they can regurgitate what their previous professors regurgitated to them from what their previous professors regurgitated to them, and so on. But, again, because of the glut, there is intense competition for the scarce slots that become available each year and, on top of that, colleges no longer hire persons with just a Master’s degree when there are so many candidates with a Ph.D. in philosophy, history, or literature in their hands shuffling around like those zombies in apocalyptic films. And when a position finally comes available, “adjunct professors” and newly graduated Ph.D.s desperately scramble for those few positions like a pack of zombies after the last surviving human being.

            So why do so many go to college after high school? For one thing, everyone expects them to. It is that simple! Even though they do not have a clue as to what to expect, or what is going to be their major, or what they are going to do. In other words, because of conformity. Others, however, do go in with a definite goal in mind. Still others because they feel that the only alternative is to work at a convenience store, or a restaurant, or to join the military.

            But, frankly, most do it to prolong their childhood and avoid responsibilities. In this, they have the best of both worlds; as adults, they get to drink, drive, have sex and have social dealings with adults as adults; as college “kids,” they avoid responsibility, working for a living, and continue to go to school—the one thing (the only thing) that they truly know how to do. This concept of “college kids” is in turn simply an extension of an absurdity within our society: a desire to extend childhood (go to any college and you will find many of the students acting in a decidedly infantile manner). For millennia, once a person reached the age of thirteen or fourteen, he/she was considered an adult; young men went to work, went to the seas, went to war and young women got married (an unmarried 25 year-old woman was considered an old maid). The legal age to get married in Imperial Rome, by the way, was 12. The average age of recruits in the American Civil War was 16. Nowadays, we have stretched the concept of “childhood” so that persons cannot enlist in the military nor have a job until much later in life (the latter mostly due to the agitation by labor unions). Along this line, one of the more ridiculous ideas has been that of “statutory rape;” this entails pretending and proclaiming that a teenage girl is not interested in men, nor in sex—by the very same persons who urge the availability of contraceptives to those same young women (in New Jersey or California, having sex with a 15 year-old is considered to be unremarkable; in Texas or Kentucky, that person is considered to be a pervert, even if the age difference between the participants is a mere two years). Anyone who seriously believes that teenagers are not interested in sex is seriously out of touch with reality.

            Earlier, I wrote that college professors and administrators promote the attitude that money is sordid and that they themselves disdain money. You would not think so just from observing them behind closed doors rather than just listening to them. They are breathtakingly avaricious. Colleges squeeze every last possible penny from students; indeed, colleges feed on students as if they were cattle. Just as wildebeest in Africa and deer and mice in North America exist solely for the purpose of being eaten by predators, so do undergraduate students exist solely for the purpose of feeding the voracious universities and community colleges. First, you have the parents sacrificing their lives’ earnings to give their (ungrateful, unappreciative) children a college education. Then, you convince those students to take on a “student loan” to pay for those ridiculously expensive classes and obscenely expensive textbooks, which said loan will cripple their future livelihood. On top of that, the government has been conned into giving Pell Grants to everyone and anyone who applies for them, since “everyone deserves a college education” (even morons, and boy, have I met some real morons in my classes!).

            One of the many, many rackets that colleges have for squeezing money out of students, for example, is that of CLEP exams. These are exams whereby a person can test out of taking a class that he feels confident in knowing the material for a cheaper fee than the tuition for the class, and, of course, eliminates the time that it takes to finish the entire class since it can be gotten out of the way in one sitting. On the surface, CLEP seems to be for the benefit of the students. But it is a scam. The exams have exceedingly hard questions, harder than one would find in the actual classes, and they are impossible to answer the required number in order to pass the CLEP because the exams consist of, for example, 85 very hard questions to be answered in less than 60 minutes.

            Perhaps one of the most shameful examples of the predatory outlook towards students is that of college sports, the ones that generate millions of dollars for the universities. None of the players get a penny from the income generated—in order to keep the sport “pure” (snicker). It is truly amazing that those college administrators can say that with a straight face.

            The reason that colleges are notoriously expensive is because they are bureaucracies with top-heavy deadwood, and bureaucracies, of all types, grow like cancer. Absurdly overpaid positions like Dean of Men, Dean of Women, Director of Inclusivity, Dean of Student Affairs do absolutely nothing of any consequence. If they were fired, believe me, nobody would realize they were gone, they are that useless, and certainly no one would miss them. Actually, let me take that back, students and faculty would notice them, because administrators are little totalitarian dictators that enforce conformity to their totalitarian ideology. As Camille Paglia has said, “The administrators are the enemy!”

Departments like Minority Studies and Gender Studies do actual harm where intense hatred is fostered on students and encouraged exist only to placate the entrenched, vicious, Politically Correct cadres, even though those courses are unpopular with students; in fact, the purpose of the existence of those departments is to provide jobs for people whose only marketable skill is screaming and to make students into their own image.  These professors’ goal is not education, but indoctrination. And some of those professors are certifiably psychotic. The unstated goal of Gender Studies Department is to make women hate men and also to turn women into vagina-licking lesbians.  That these departments continue to be funded in conservative states speaks volumes of the stupidity of conservatives.

Aside from the expensive classes, the students have to pay through the nose for exorbitant textbooks, many of which are unnecessary since the professor’s lectures are verbatim from the text. And then there are the hidden fees. Just as purchasing a home or a car, obtaining a loan from a bank, or having a credit card requires being on the lookout for hidden fees, tuition costs include a plethora of fees. Take a gander at the hidden fees that my nearby University of Texas in San Antonio, to use one example, attaches to students’ tuitions each semester to thousands of students: Int’l Globalization Experience ($30), Professional Development ($25), COB Technical Serv. & Ins. Supp. ($30), Automated Services Charge ($150), COB Undergraduate Advising Fee ($95), General Property Deposit ($10), Int’l Education Fee  ($2), Library Resource Charge ($84), Learning Resources ($36), Medical Services Fee ($32), Recreation Center Fee ($120), Record Processing Fee ($10), Student Services Fee ($93), Athletics Fee ($90), Publication charge ($5), Teaching & Learning Center Fee ($5), Transportation Fee ($20), University Center Fee ($60), Energy Fee ($29), ID Card Fee ($3), Individual Class Fee ($56), Parking Sticker Fee ($40-$100).

But perhaps the biggest con job of all involving the college racket is the one called online universities. Now, this one is really good! I mean, really, really good. Are you ready for this? In these, there is no campus and no overhead, but plenty of cash coming in. Classes and exams and term papers are done via the Internet without the instructor or student ever meeting fact to face! And do I really need to point out the obvious, that it is commonplace for people other than those enrolled take those tests or do the assigned work?

            So what is the solution to the college racket? Simple! A slash and burn policy, wherein (1) state universities are forced to eliminate the deadwood without replacing them, (2) de-fund, i.e., do away with useless majors (all the while ignoring the screeching of “censorship!” “free speech!” and other dribble), (3) provide financial aid only for those fields where there is a demand for them and a person will earn a living, and (4) mandate that only a certain percentage of classes require textbooks (of a lower price) since the professors usually repeat in their lectures what is in the students’ textbooks.

            This solution is really very simple, but is this ever going to happen? Not in my lifetime.

 

Armando Simón is a retired college professor who lives in San Antonio and is the author of A Cuban from Kansas, Very Peculiar Stories and, The U.

           As the deadline for college applications and scholarships for this coming fall near, let us pause and take a deep breath.

Well, being a veteran of universities, having been an undergraduate, a graduate student, and a (now retired) professor, let me make the assertion that college is a racket.

            It did not always use to be like this. One of the most intelligent things that the United States Congress ever did (and, yes, sometimes it does something intelligent; not lately, though) was to provide returning veterans of World War II with the opportunity to go to college in order to go to a university in order to get a career instead of giving veterans the traditional “war bonus.” Thus began the rise of universities and community colleges. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, over a third of the population has a bachelor’s degree or higher, whereas in 1940 it was 4%.

            But, whereas back then the purpose of a university degree was to prepare a person for a career in a specific, specialized, field, nowadays colleges fervently discourage such concerns, instead emphasizing vague, fuzzy, mediocre concepts like “broadening the mind,” and, “diversity” and such-like crap, so that college students about to graduate often voice the praiseworthy—actually, inane—ambition of “just wanting to work with people.”

            Hand in hand with this is the idea propagated by intellectuals that money is sordid and being preoccupied with money is a sign of an atavistic mind. The result of such an indoctrination is the fact that many college subjects may be intrinsically interesting, but from a practical standpoint they are about as useful as ice cubes in Greenland. Degrees in literature, history, art, gender studies, minority studies, anthropology, public service, philosophy and many others are absolutely useless, whereas persons with degrees in economics, computer science, chemistry, mathematics, physics, biology, geology and other degrees that lead to the engineering and medical fields can expect to earn a decent living by working in their fields. This is important to understand: half of the majors offered in universities are geared for obtaining jobs only in universities.

To be sure, many businesses now require an applicant for a job to have a generic college degree, even though it may be in Science-Fiction Studies (and, yes, in some colleges you can get a degree in that, just like you can get a degree in the equally stupid Minority Studies and Gender Studies) and even though it has absolutely no relevance to the position that is available. This is partly due to the fact that since there is a glut in the market, the employer might as well hire someone with a college degree instead of just what used to be important, a high school degree. Nor is this phenomenon limited to the United States. In many countries, from Egypt to Indonesia, a college graduate with a degree in business may genuinely consider himself lucky to land a job at a local McDonald’s. But don’t ever expect to be hired just so that you can discuss Kant’s categorical imperative, or the influence of Proust on surrealistic art (incidentally, this is not just opinion; research on students’ views show that the majority of students view a college education as being absolutely useless in getting a job afterwards).

Not having learned their lesson, many graduates holding a degree in one of the useless majors decide to go on to get a Master’s degree or a Ph.D. in those very same fields (which goes to show that they really have not learned anything). They then hover around universities, being exploited as part-time “adjunct professors,” hoping that one of the tenured old goats will finally retire, or keel over, so that they can fill in his shoes. And then, as professors, they can regurgitate what their previous professors regurgitated to them from what their previous professors regurgitated to them, and so on. But, again, because of the glut, there is intense competition for the scarce slots that become available each year and, on top of that, colleges no longer hire persons with just a Master’s degree when there are so many candidates with a Ph.D. in philosophy, history, or literature in their hands shuffling around like those zombies in apocalyptic films. And when a position finally comes available, “adjunct professors” and newly graduated Ph.D.s desperately scramble for those few positions like a pack of zombies after the last surviving human being.

            So why do so many go to college after high school? For one thing, everyone expects them to. It is that simple! Even though they do not have a clue as to what to expect, or what is going to be their major, or what they are going to do. In other words, because of conformity. Others, however, do go in with a definite goal in mind. Still others because they feel that the only alternative is to work at a convenience store, or a restaurant, or to join the military.

            But, frankly, most do it to prolong their childhood and avoid responsibilities. In this, they have the best of both worlds; as adults, they get to drink, drive, have sex and have social dealings with adults as adults; as college “kids,” they avoid responsibility, working for a living, and continue to go to school—the one thing (the only thing) that they truly know how to do. This concept of “college kids” is in turn simply an extension of an absurdity within our society: a desire to extend childhood (go to any college and you will find many of the students acting in a decidedly infantile manner). For millennia, once a person reached the age of thirteen or fourteen, he/she was considered an adult; young men went to work, went to the seas, went to war and young women got married (an unmarried 25 year-old woman was considered an old maid). The legal age to get married in Imperial Rome, by the way, was 12. The average age of recruits in the American Civil War was 16. Nowadays, we have stretched the concept of “childhood” so that persons cannot enlist in the military nor have a job until much later in life (the latter mostly due to the agitation by labor unions). Along this line, one of the more ridiculous ideas has been that of “statutory rape;” this entails pretending and proclaiming that a teenage girl is not interested in men, nor in sex—by the very same persons who urge the availability of contraceptives to those same young women (in New Jersey or California, having sex with a 15 year-old is considered to be unremarkable; in Texas or Kentucky, that person is considered to be a pervert, even if the age difference between the participants is a mere two years). Anyone who seriously believes that teenagers are not interested in sex is seriously out of touch with reality.

            Earlier, I wrote that college professors and administrators promote the attitude that money is sordid and that they themselves disdain money. You would not think so just from observing them behind closed doors rather than just listening to them. They are breathtakingly avaricious. Colleges squeeze every last possible penny from students; indeed, colleges feed on students as if they were cattle. Just as wildebeest in Africa and deer and mice in North America exist solely for the purpose of being eaten by predators, so do undergraduate students exist solely for the purpose of feeding the voracious universities and community colleges. First, you have the parents sacrificing their lives’ earnings to give their (ungrateful, unappreciative) children a college education. Then, you convince those students to take on a “student loan” to pay for those ridiculously expensive classes and obscenely expensive textbooks, which said loan will cripple their future livelihood. On top of that, the government has been conned into giving Pell Grants to everyone and anyone who applies for them, since “everyone deserves a college education” (even morons, and boy, have I met some real morons in my classes!).

            One of the many, many rackets that colleges have for squeezing money out of students, for example, is that of CLEP exams. These are exams whereby a person can test out of taking a class that he feels confident in knowing the material for a cheaper fee than the tuition for the class, and, of course, eliminates the time that it takes to finish the entire class since it can be gotten out of the way in one sitting. On the surface, CLEP seems to be for the benefit of the students. But it is a scam. The exams have exceedingly hard questions, harder than one would find in the actual classes, and they are impossible to answer the required number in order to pass the CLEP because the exams consist of, for example, 85 very hard questions to be answered in less than 60 minutes.

            Perhaps one of the most shameful examples of the predatory outlook towards students is that of college sports, the ones that generate millions of dollars for the universities. None of the players get a penny from the income generated—in order to keep the sport “pure” (snicker). It is truly amazing that those college administrators can say that with a straight face.

            The reason that colleges are notoriously expensive is because they are bureaucracies with top-heavy deadwood, and bureaucracies, of all types, grow like cancer. Absurdly overpaid positions like Dean of Men, Dean of Women, Director of Inclusivity, Dean of Student Affairs do absolutely nothing of any consequence. If they were fired, believe me, nobody would realize they were gone, they are that useless, and certainly no one would miss them. Actually, let me take that back, students and faculty would notice them, because administrators are little totalitarian dictators that enforce conformity to their totalitarian ideology. As Camille Paglia has said, “The administrators are the enemy!”

Departments like Minority Studies and Gender Studies do actual harm where intense hatred is fostered on students and encouraged exist only to placate the entrenched, vicious, Politically Correct cadres, even though those courses are unpopular with students; in fact, the purpose of the existence of those departments is to provide jobs for people whose only marketable skill is screaming and to make students into their own image.  These professors’ goal is not education, but indoctrination. And some of those professors are certifiably psychotic. The unstated goal of Gender Studies Department is to make women hate men and also to turn women into vagina-licking lesbians.  That these departments continue to be funded in conservative states speaks volumes of the stupidity of conservatives.

Aside from the expensive classes, the students have to pay through the nose for exorbitant textbooks, many of which are unnecessary since the professor’s lectures are verbatim from the text. And then there are the hidden fees. Just as purchasing a home or a car, obtaining a loan from a bank, or having a credit card requires being on the lookout for hidden fees, tuition costs include a plethora of fees. Take a gander at the hidden fees that my nearby University of Texas in San Antonio, to use one example, attaches to students’ tuitions each semester to thousands of students: Int’l Globalization Experience ($30), Professional Development ($25), COB Technical Serv. & Ins. Supp. ($30), Automated Services Charge ($150), COB Undergraduate Advising Fee ($95), General Property Deposit ($10), Int’l Education Fee  ($2), Library Resource Charge ($84), Learning Resources ($36), Medical Services Fee ($32), Recreation Center Fee ($120), Record Processing Fee ($10), Student Services Fee ($93), Athletics Fee ($90), Publication charge ($5), Teaching & Learning Center Fee ($5), Transportation Fee ($20), University Center Fee ($60), Energy Fee ($29), ID Card Fee ($3), Individual Class Fee ($56), Parking Sticker Fee ($40-$100).

But perhaps the biggest con job of all involving the college racket is the one called online universities. Now, this one is really good! I mean, really, really good. Are you ready for this? In these, there is no campus and no overhead, but plenty of cash coming in. Classes and exams and term papers are done via the Internet without the instructor or student ever meeting fact to face! And do I really need to point out the obvious, that it is commonplace for people other than those enrolled take those tests or do the assigned work?

            So what is the solution to the college racket? Simple! A slash and burn policy, wherein (1) state universities are forced to eliminate the deadwood without replacing them, (2) de-fund, i.e., do away with useless majors (all the while ignoring the screeching of “censorship!” “free speech!” and other dribble), (3) provide financial aid only for those fields where there is a demand for them and a person will earn a living, and (4) mandate that only a certain percentage of classes require textbooks (of a lower price) since the professors usually repeat in their lectures what is in the students’ textbooks.

            This solution is really very simple, but is this ever going to happen? Not in my lifetime.

 

Armando Simón is a retired college professor who lives in San Antonio and is the author of A Cuban from Kansas, Very Peculiar Stories and, The U.



Source link

The Left's Vicious Intolerance in Science


Many scientists and science teachers took part worldwide in the March for Science, not only for the sake of promoting science but also to protest the incursion of politics into science to the point that it is either being warped or suppressed. The organizers made it a point not to make the march partisan and to some degree they succeeded — politicians were thankfully not invited — but some of the participants had anti-Trump signs and the liberals media focused on these individuals. No surprise there.

There have been some elected politicians who have made pronouncements on science as to make any rational, intelligent, person cringe: “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell,” said an imbecile by the name of Paul Broun, who was, yes, a member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. You read that right.

But the media has deliberately downplayed, or altogether ignored, the vicious attacks on science by liberals. And these attacks have been going on for decades. And while the attacks on science by certain conservatives has been limited to braying, the attacks on science by liberals have been more vicious and systematic, consisting in vituperation, suppression of facts, fraudulent research, transforming previous scientists into “unpersons” as well as physical assaults on scientists.

For example, it is a fact that certain behaviors are inherited by both animals and humans. But liberals don’t like this. So any scientist that carries out research on this topic and comes to these conclusions is (as usual) called “racist,” “fascist,” “Nazi,” etc. E. O. Wilson, the father of biodiversity, is also known for his theory of sociobiology, the theory that states that social behavior is a result of biology, and draws upon ethology, anthropology, archaeology and, of course, biology to support the theory. Liberals went ballistic on hearing of this theory and insisted that it be suppressed. While delivering a lecture on the subject, the International Committee Against Racism, a front group of the Marxist Progressive Labor Party, invaded the stage and attacked him. They were very brave in doing so, since the man is blind in one eye, is elderly, and at the time one of his arms was incapacitated. Stephen Gould, who was there, stood up to start spouting Lenin (Wilson, who is also the world’s leading authority on ants, would later state, “Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species.”)

It is also a well-established fact that intelligence is inherited to a very large degree. But liberals do not like this fact, either. Nonetheless, the studies that have been carried out on this subject span over a century and are very diverse and very ingenious (for instance, twins reared in different environments have nearly the same IQ) and run into the hundreds. But, as I said, liberals do not like this so they engage in what they think is their equivalent of scientific debate: vituperation, character assassination, chanting slogans, suppression of facts and, recently, physical assaults. One of the attacks on IQ tests is that it was designed for the purpose of imposing racism because blacks (as a group!) score lower than whites (as a group!), but if this was indeed the case why is it that Asians (as a group!) score higher than whites (as a group!)? Another line of attack was that IQ tests are culturally biased; it is hard to see how memorizing strings of numbers, copying squiggles and solving jigsaw puzzles are culturally biased. Unless one is a liberal, that is.

The otherwise obscure Middlebury College in Vermont very recently had the distinction of having its cadre of liberals physically attack (in, as usual, a mob) Charles Murray, who was going to deliver a lecture there, and another professor (who had to be hospitalized). Murray is the author of The Bell Curve (a massive, data filled, tome which liberals years before agitated to suppress and but ironically shot up in sales as a result of their attempt at censorship).

The attack on Murray was simply the latest in a series of attacks on the subject and on scientific researchers. Back in the 1970s, there was the attack on Arthur Jensen, who also pointed out that there was a racial component to IQ and concluded that programs such as Head Start were useless. The attack then was even more vicious and overwhelming than was the case with Murray although it never got the opportunity for a physical assault. Addressing the claims of Jensen, Stephen J. Gould wrote a masterpiece of deliberate intellectual fraud in his The Mismeasurement of Man, which needless to say rewarded him with awards from the National Book Critics Circle and the Outstanding Book Award. Of Gould, Wilson would say that “I believe Gould was a charlatan. I believe that he was … seeking reputation and credibility as a scientist and writer, and he did it consistently by distorting what other scientists were saying and devising arguments based upon that distortion.”

Then, there is the case of Paul Cameron who has been a constant critic of homosexuality and of adoption by gays. He has gone against the grain by writing that homosexuals are not normal, as we have been told by those in authority, and, that adoption by homosexual couples is detrimental to the adopted child. He has additionally pointed out that the American Psychological Association has deliberately engaged in fraud in order to promote a Politically Correct agenda. Needless to say that he, too, has been the subject of persecution. For one thing, he published his research in the journal Psychological Reports; the journal editor was contacted and it was demanded from her that she retract and denounce his research. She refused and suggested that the complainant submit an opposing research paper, subject to peer review, whereupon a short-lived campaign against the journal ensued (referring to it as a “vanity press).

Now, we come to the psychotic world of radical feminists whose “research” is a source of comedy to people in the scientific field. However, I would like to, very briefly, address the issue of “repressed memories.” First, let me mention that in the late 1980s and 1990s, the departments of psychology in various universities began to be invaded by feminists and they engaged in the usual intimidation and accusation that they are so well known for. One must also remember that feminists at that time had declared that all men were rapists and child molesters. We then had a situation when women in therapy began to “recover” memories which had supposedly been repressed of having been raped as children by their fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins, neighbors, mailmen, teachers, fellow students, the football team and, for good measure, space aliens (no, really, I am serious!). When the accused finally decided to fight back, they did not do so in academic or journalistic settings, but by successfully suing the therapists; it soon became very evident during those trials that these memories had been planted by feminist therapists and that many of the rapes had been physically impossible (for example, the times of the rapes occurred when the supposed perpetrator had moved away, or, were vacationing in another city). At that point, there was an uprising against the psychotic feminists within the psychology departments; in many departments psychologists were successful to some degree in purging the department of the psychotics, while others neutralized them. Tim Hunt, Nobel Prize notwithstanding, became the target of shrieking hysterical feminists and lost his job.

Then, there is the recently fashionable transgender issue, which the liberals are frantically promoting (ever since the former Brue Jenner decided to have his penis chopped off) in another effort to destroy masculinity, which they abhor. Kenneth Zucker and Paul McHugh, both psychologists who were scheduled to give lectures at conferences were invited because they are critical of the movement to promote transgender surgery. And while we are on the subject of disinviting scientists from giving their lectures in scientific conferences (although not pertaining to the transgender cult) Richard Dawkins was disinvited from a conference because feminists felt offended.

The bottomless hatred of liberals is not confined to people. It extends to plants. Genetically modified foods are plants which have been tweaked genetically so that these plants can survive drought conditions, or render a bigger yield of crops. You know, just what farmers have been doing for centuries. Except now they are evil. They are “Frankenfoods.” It’s better for people in Africa to die from starvation than to give them Frankenfoods — according to the all-knowing, wise, liberals.  So why the objection? Simple. GMOs have superior genes. The Nazis claimed to be genetically superior persons. Ergo, genetically modified foods are vegetable Nazis. “Today the cornfield, tomorrow the world,” so think the liberals.

Lastly, I must mention the tactic of rendering a scientist as an “unperson.” In Orwell’s 1984, a person who fell out of favor with the regime became an “unperson;” nobody would mention again his name and all records of his having ever existed were destroyed. Alexis Carrell and William Shockley, among others, have been declared “unpersons.” Who will be the next unperson?

So, in conclusion at this point, let me categorically state that the overwhelming attack against science in the past half century has come principally from the left. Unfortunately, because liberals have a monopolistic stranglehold on the means of mass communication in this country (and in Europe), and they impose their censorship on fact and news stories, what we will continue to hear is how conservatives (who, according to them, are all ignorant troglodytes—hey, they voted for Trump, right?) are against science. Even with the pitiful means at our disposal we should, instead, spread the truth.

 

Armando Simón is a retired college professor who lives in San Antonio and is the author of A Prison Mosaic, The U, and This That and the Other.

Many scientists and science teachers took part worldwide in the March for Science, not only for the sake of promoting science but also to protest the incursion of politics into science to the point that it is either being warped or suppressed. The organizers made it a point not to make the march partisan and to some degree they succeeded — politicians were thankfully not invited — but some of the participants had anti-Trump signs and the liberals media focused on these individuals. No surprise there.

There have been some elected politicians who have made pronouncements on science as to make any rational, intelligent, person cringe: “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell,” said an imbecile by the name of Paul Broun, who was, yes, a member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. You read that right.

But the media has deliberately downplayed, or altogether ignored, the vicious attacks on science by liberals. And these attacks have been going on for decades. And while the attacks on science by certain conservatives has been limited to braying, the attacks on science by liberals have been more vicious and systematic, consisting in vituperation, suppression of facts, fraudulent research, transforming previous scientists into “unpersons” as well as physical assaults on scientists.

For example, it is a fact that certain behaviors are inherited by both animals and humans. But liberals don’t like this. So any scientist that carries out research on this topic and comes to these conclusions is (as usual) called “racist,” “fascist,” “Nazi,” etc. E. O. Wilson, the father of biodiversity, is also known for his theory of sociobiology, the theory that states that social behavior is a result of biology, and draws upon ethology, anthropology, archaeology and, of course, biology to support the theory. Liberals went ballistic on hearing of this theory and insisted that it be suppressed. While delivering a lecture on the subject, the International Committee Against Racism, a front group of the Marxist Progressive Labor Party, invaded the stage and attacked him. They were very brave in doing so, since the man is blind in one eye, is elderly, and at the time one of his arms was incapacitated. Stephen Gould, who was there, stood up to start spouting Lenin (Wilson, who is also the world’s leading authority on ants, would later state, “Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species.”)

It is also a well-established fact that intelligence is inherited to a very large degree. But liberals do not like this fact, either. Nonetheless, the studies that have been carried out on this subject span over a century and are very diverse and very ingenious (for instance, twins reared in different environments have nearly the same IQ) and run into the hundreds. But, as I said, liberals do not like this so they engage in what they think is their equivalent of scientific debate: vituperation, character assassination, chanting slogans, suppression of facts and, recently, physical assaults. One of the attacks on IQ tests is that it was designed for the purpose of imposing racism because blacks (as a group!) score lower than whites (as a group!), but if this was indeed the case why is it that Asians (as a group!) score higher than whites (as a group!)? Another line of attack was that IQ tests are culturally biased; it is hard to see how memorizing strings of numbers, copying squiggles and solving jigsaw puzzles are culturally biased. Unless one is a liberal, that is.

The otherwise obscure Middlebury College in Vermont very recently had the distinction of having its cadre of liberals physically attack (in, as usual, a mob) Charles Murray, who was going to deliver a lecture there, and another professor (who had to be hospitalized). Murray is the author of The Bell Curve (a massive, data filled, tome which liberals years before agitated to suppress and but ironically shot up in sales as a result of their attempt at censorship).

The attack on Murray was simply the latest in a series of attacks on the subject and on scientific researchers. Back in the 1970s, there was the attack on Arthur Jensen, who also pointed out that there was a racial component to IQ and concluded that programs such as Head Start were useless. The attack then was even more vicious and overwhelming than was the case with Murray although it never got the opportunity for a physical assault. Addressing the claims of Jensen, Stephen J. Gould wrote a masterpiece of deliberate intellectual fraud in his The Mismeasurement of Man, which needless to say rewarded him with awards from the National Book Critics Circle and the Outstanding Book Award. Of Gould, Wilson would say that “I believe Gould was a charlatan. I believe that he was … seeking reputation and credibility as a scientist and writer, and he did it consistently by distorting what other scientists were saying and devising arguments based upon that distortion.”

Then, there is the case of Paul Cameron who has been a constant critic of homosexuality and of adoption by gays. He has gone against the grain by writing that homosexuals are not normal, as we have been told by those in authority, and, that adoption by homosexual couples is detrimental to the adopted child. He has additionally pointed out that the American Psychological Association has deliberately engaged in fraud in order to promote a Politically Correct agenda. Needless to say that he, too, has been the subject of persecution. For one thing, he published his research in the journal Psychological Reports; the journal editor was contacted and it was demanded from her that she retract and denounce his research. She refused and suggested that the complainant submit an opposing research paper, subject to peer review, whereupon a short-lived campaign against the journal ensued (referring to it as a “vanity press).

Now, we come to the psychotic world of radical feminists whose “research” is a source of comedy to people in the scientific field. However, I would like to, very briefly, address the issue of “repressed memories.” First, let me mention that in the late 1980s and 1990s, the departments of psychology in various universities began to be invaded by feminists and they engaged in the usual intimidation and accusation that they are so well known for. One must also remember that feminists at that time had declared that all men were rapists and child molesters. We then had a situation when women in therapy began to “recover” memories which had supposedly been repressed of having been raped as children by their fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins, neighbors, mailmen, teachers, fellow students, the football team and, for good measure, space aliens (no, really, I am serious!). When the accused finally decided to fight back, they did not do so in academic or journalistic settings, but by successfully suing the therapists; it soon became very evident during those trials that these memories had been planted by feminist therapists and that many of the rapes had been physically impossible (for example, the times of the rapes occurred when the supposed perpetrator had moved away, or, were vacationing in another city). At that point, there was an uprising against the psychotic feminists within the psychology departments; in many departments psychologists were successful to some degree in purging the department of the psychotics, while others neutralized them. Tim Hunt, Nobel Prize notwithstanding, became the target of shrieking hysterical feminists and lost his job.

Then, there is the recently fashionable transgender issue, which the liberals are frantically promoting (ever since the former Brue Jenner decided to have his penis chopped off) in another effort to destroy masculinity, which they abhor. Kenneth Zucker and Paul McHugh, both psychologists who were scheduled to give lectures at conferences were invited because they are critical of the movement to promote transgender surgery. And while we are on the subject of disinviting scientists from giving their lectures in scientific conferences (although not pertaining to the transgender cult) Richard Dawkins was disinvited from a conference because feminists felt offended.

The bottomless hatred of liberals is not confined to people. It extends to plants. Genetically modified foods are plants which have been tweaked genetically so that these plants can survive drought conditions, or render a bigger yield of crops. You know, just what farmers have been doing for centuries. Except now they are evil. They are “Frankenfoods.” It’s better for people in Africa to die from starvation than to give them Frankenfoods — according to the all-knowing, wise, liberals.  So why the objection? Simple. GMOs have superior genes. The Nazis claimed to be genetically superior persons. Ergo, genetically modified foods are vegetable Nazis. “Today the cornfield, tomorrow the world,” so think the liberals.

Lastly, I must mention the tactic of rendering a scientist as an “unperson.” In Orwell’s 1984, a person who fell out of favor with the regime became an “unperson;” nobody would mention again his name and all records of his having ever existed were destroyed. Alexis Carrell and William Shockley, among others, have been declared “unpersons.” Who will be the next unperson?

So, in conclusion at this point, let me categorically state that the overwhelming attack against science in the past half century has come principally from the left. Unfortunately, because liberals have a monopolistic stranglehold on the means of mass communication in this country (and in Europe), and they impose their censorship on fact and news stories, what we will continue to hear is how conservatives (who, according to them, are all ignorant troglodytes—hey, they voted for Trump, right?) are against science. Even with the pitiful means at our disposal we should, instead, spread the truth.

 

Armando Simón is a retired college professor who lives in San Antonio and is the author of A Prison Mosaic, The U, and This That and the Other.



Source link

When Will Useless Foreign Aid Spending Just End?


            The idea of foreign aid took deep root in the psyche of American rulers. It was wrongly thought of as a panacea to communist subversion in the Third World. The mistaken assumption was — and still remains to this day and has even expanded to explain Islamofascism — that it was the poor, “the downtrodden,” that were most receptive to Marxist propaganda. In this, American intellectual and political leaders inadvertently adopted the Marxist ideology that communist movements come from the lower class. In reality, totalitarian movements of all persuasions are populated by middle class intellectuals. Anyone who has read Eric Hoffer’s works would recognize this. This is especially so looking at the leadership of such movements, not only the ones that succeeded in grabbing power in Europe and Asia but those that failed to do so (including in the U.S.).

            At any rate, America started pouring vast amounts of money into other countries for development and improvement of those countries: roads, dams, hospitals, schools, and relief in times of natural catastrophes such as earthquakes, epidemics, hurricanes. This was done with such regularity that to this day it has come to be expected that if a country has a misfortune or a need to fulfill, America will give away hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money to those countries to combat anything from resurgent Marxists to Ebola virus to AIDS to clean water to ingrown toenails. Some of it has gone to fight the war on drugs — and we all know how well that has turned out.

            The Soviets decided that they, too, would use foreign aid as a political weapon and could match, if not exceed, American foreign aid. The rulers of the Third World became adept at playing one side against the other and milking both, without committing themselves politically to either side (I encourage the reader to read both The Ugly American and The Ugly Russian).

            When the Soviet empire collapsed, American foreign aid should have logically ended, just as once Osama bin Laden was finally found and killed, America should have left Afghanistan. But the bureaucracies would not permit it. Although the original raison d’etre for foreign aid vanished with the end of Soviet expansionism, foreign aid has continued unabated to this day. In this, Americans are further handicapped by three obsessive traits in their national character which are an infantile craving to be liked by foreigners, a desire to always help a neighbor in need, and an obsession to correct a problem, or if you will, “right a wrong.”

            This neverending outpouring of wealth continues to occur while certain unpleasant realities go ignored: (1) an enormous degree of theft and corruption takes place at the receiving end, to which Americans are oblivious (2) there is a lot of exaggeration — lying — about the reasons for the aid, especially the gravity of the “problem” (3) there is no gratitude on the part of the recipients for the aid, as it has become to be viewed by them as their due* (4) the aid never seems to end because the “problem” is recurrent—or never solved—and it is naturally in the recipients’ best interest to keep the wealth coming in; besides, the relevant bureaucracies will not allow themselves to become extinct (5) American citizens are being taxed in order to maintain the increasing levels of foreign aid (6) since almost every country in the world is receiving foreign aid from the United States, in one form or another, America is on the verge of going bankrupt — not that the recipients care.

            By the end of the 20th century, giving foreign aid had become an addiction of both the government and the media (and all addictions are exceedingly difficult to break). It is also important to point out that many in the American government offering foreign aid to other countries were, and are, frankly, idiots. Worse, a veritable army of lobbyists in Washington D.C. exists, financed by foreign governments, whose sole purpose is to dine and wine and flatter and convince congressmen and other bureaucrats into keeping the money flowing into other countries to the detriment of America (I would argue that these lobbyists are essentially traitors. As are the legislators).

            Equally guilty is the political left in America whose fanaticism with the Socialist concept of “redistribute the wealth” that does not belong to them is extended from an internal policy to an external policy.** We often hear this with individuals mouthing off slogans that rich countries have to help poor countries, that it is their “duty,” that it is their “moral responsibility,” etc. They have turned compassion into a weapon with which to silence dissent. The corrupt, dictatorial leaders of recipient countries have learned to parrot such slogans in order to elicit a knee-jerk response in that political section of America. And it has worked.

            In order to appreciate — truly appreciate — the magnitude of this cancer, the reader should go through the list below, one by one, of all the countries that are receiving aid, and the gargantuan amount that is being doled out (all figures come from the United States Agency for International Development), while remembering that we don’t have enough money with which to help American citizens, that our country’s infrastructure is crumbling around our ears, our country is about to become bankrupt, Social Security is about to go defunct, and American citizens are being crushed by taxation to finance this obscenity. The United Nations has not been included in the list (the United States is the largest contributor to the United Nations, paying 22 percent of the $5.4 billion core U.N. budget and 28 percent of the $7.9 billion U.N. peacekeeping budget). Some of the countries have been underlined as meriting special attention, either because the amount is simply gargantuan (even when the country is miniscule), or, because they are rich, or, because they are our declared enemies. Please note that every single country in the continents of Africa and South America, and almost every country in Asia, is receiving money from us (and, as with other countries, we get nothing in return). Uncle Sam is covered from head to foot with leeches.

            It is also important to realize that as colossal as the amounts are for one year, these amounts have been repeated, and are being repeated, every year.

            Also note that over the years many of these African and Asian countries have received ten times more aid than some devastated European countries received from the Marshall Plan in just one year, so those countries should by now be a paradise (see Table). Whereas those European countries rebuilt and modernized their country with the proceeds of one infusion of the Marshall Plan, most of these African and Asian countries are still pigsties.

 

TABLE

 

Zambia                                                                                   Egypt

2011                $237,363,215                                                  $1,539,308,744

2012                $360,580,246                                                  $1,392,494,300

2013                $314,591,280                                                  $1,570,212,963

2014                $672,901,439                                                  $179,479,760

2015                $245,813,394                                                  $1,525,466,191

2016                $258,925,027                                                  $98,826,384

 

Afghanistan                                                                           Nigeria

2011                $13,400,380,402                                             $379,121,199

2012                $13,111,490,049                                             $540,393,416

2013                $9,736,127,455                                               $519,474,952

2014                $7,259,300,766                                               $595,551,195

2015                $3,072,502,383                                               $592,349,645

2016                $1,024,314,522                                               $438,551,346

 

Kenya                                                                                     South Sudan

2011                $899,791,412                                                  $144,144,175

2012                $999,967,033                                                  $636,566,059

2013                $907,868,125                                                  $625,412,388

2014                $891,665,076                                                  $867,773,855

2015                $941,251,462                                                  $838,589,050

2016                $508,196,564                                                  $502,659,864

 

While many American citizens are living in cardboard boxes and under bridges, billions of taxpayer dollars are sent overseas by our glorious politicians, who see nothing wrong with what they are doing. And it never ends. Billions of taxpayer dollars are constantly being sent into a black hole — without taxpayers’ consent.

Note also that, with three or four exceptions here and there, all the countries receiving aid in Africa and Asia are despotic dictatorships, some of which have erected a façade of being democratic.

The solution to this problem is really very, very simple, but one that will be forcefully resisted by the cancerous bureaucracies, lobbyists, and compassion-manipulators: eliminate all foreign aid. Not reduce it! Eliminate it! Beginning with eliminating the United States Agency for International Development bureaucracy. One does not reduce a cancerous tumor because it will regrow. One excises it!*** The same with foreign aid. To this end, a Constitutional amendment should be adopted that reads: “The United States will not send money to other countries or organizations in other countries unless those countries are allied to us by treaty and are at war with our common enemy. Nor will other countries receive material aid without immediately paying in full value for said aid unless those countries are allied to us by treaty and are at war with our common enemy.”

Perhaps the new administration will do so.

ADDENDUM: I was going to leave it at this point, but I feel that I need to point out — in case you have missed it — that recently, we are witnessing the beginning of a (actually, the periodic) concerted effort to send additional money to Africa because of drought causing a famine—the same phenomenon that has been going on for the past sixty some years (in fact, I think that they are using the same picture of the same malnourished child that I saw when I was in my teens). You have been warned

*And they often receive the aid after they insult us. Recently, the psychotic president of the Philippines, Duterte, quipped that Secretary Kelly gave his country $33 million of money (that did not belong to Kerry) after Duterte told us to go to hell. He said perhaps he should insult us some more. A European leader (I forget his name) years ago stated that America was like a woman whom you slap in the face—she gives you more of her money. Both were talking about the jackanapes in the American government.

**To make matters worse, some Senators have complained that the Politically Correct fanatics inside the USAID have given money to far left political groups, with violent philosophies, in other countries, under the guidance of George Soros.

***To cite just one example. When the March of Dimes was created, its original purpose was to find a cure for poliomyelitis. When that occurred in the 1950s, the bureaucracy did not dissolve itself, now that the goal had been accomplished. Instead, it continued to exist . . . by targeting other diseases.

 

Armando Simón is a retired college professor and the author of A Cuban from Kansas, The U, and, The Only Red Star I Liked Was a Starfish.

 

 

 

          The end of the Second World War saw a Europe truly devastated, prostrate; in some cities the number of buildings with an undamaged roof could be counted in the fingers of one’s hand, with winter aggravating survival of civilians. George Marshall’s idea of a massive infusion of American capital to Europe energized the continent in 1948. It is no exaggeration that it saved millions of lives and reconstructed entire countries. Such was the pace of rebuilding Germany and such was the shortage of manpower after the war that “temporary guest workers” from Turkey began arriving (the “temporary” guests became permanent and today are a cancer in German society). The Germans call it “the German miracle,” as if the rebirth came about in isolation, like Venus rising from the sea. Gratitude from those countries towards the United States proved ephemeral.

            Even though the purpose was to reconstruct European countries that had been devastated by the war, it was expanded to include European countries that had not been touched by the war at all (Sweden, Portugal, Turkey, Switzerland, Iceland and Ireland). They, too, never showed lasting gratitude.

            The idea of foreign aid took deep root in the psyche of American rulers. It was wrongly thought of as a panacea to communist subversion in the Third World. The mistaken assumption was — and still remains to this day and has even expanded to explain Islamofascism — that it was the poor, “the downtrodden,” that were most receptive to Marxist propaganda. In this, American intellectual and political leaders inadvertently adopted the Marxist ideology that communist movements come from the lower class. In reality, totalitarian movements of all persuasions are populated by middle class intellectuals. Anyone who has read Eric Hoffer’s works would recognize this. This is especially so looking at the leadership of such movements, not only the ones that succeeded in grabbing power in Europe and Asia but those that failed to do so (including in the U.S.).

            At any rate, America started pouring vast amounts of money into other countries for development and improvement of those countries: roads, dams, hospitals, schools, and relief in times of natural catastrophes such as earthquakes, epidemics, hurricanes. This was done with such regularity that to this day it has come to be expected that if a country has a misfortune or a need to fulfill, America will give away hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money to those countries to combat anything from resurgent Marxists to Ebola virus to AIDS to clean water to ingrown toenails. Some of it has gone to fight the war on drugs — and we all know how well that has turned out.

            The Soviets decided that they, too, would use foreign aid as a political weapon and could match, if not exceed, American foreign aid. The rulers of the Third World became adept at playing one side against the other and milking both, without committing themselves politically to either side (I encourage the reader to read both The Ugly American and The Ugly Russian).

            When the Soviet empire collapsed, American foreign aid should have logically ended, just as once Osama bin Laden was finally found and killed, America should have left Afghanistan. But the bureaucracies would not permit it. Although the original raison d’etre for foreign aid vanished with the end of Soviet expansionism, foreign aid has continued unabated to this day. In this, Americans are further handicapped by three obsessive traits in their national character which are an infantile craving to be liked by foreigners, a desire to always help a neighbor in need, and an obsession to correct a problem, or if you will, “right a wrong.”

            This neverending outpouring of wealth continues to occur while certain unpleasant realities go ignored: (1) an enormous degree of theft and corruption takes place at the receiving end, to which Americans are oblivious (2) there is a lot of exaggeration — lying — about the reasons for the aid, especially the gravity of the “problem” (3) there is no gratitude on the part of the recipients for the aid, as it has become to be viewed by them as their due* (4) the aid never seems to end because the “problem” is recurrent—or never solved—and it is naturally in the recipients’ best interest to keep the wealth coming in; besides, the relevant bureaucracies will not allow themselves to become extinct (5) American citizens are being taxed in order to maintain the increasing levels of foreign aid (6) since almost every country in the world is receiving foreign aid from the United States, in one form or another, America is on the verge of going bankrupt — not that the recipients care.

            By the end of the 20th century, giving foreign aid had become an addiction of both the government and the media (and all addictions are exceedingly difficult to break). It is also important to point out that many in the American government offering foreign aid to other countries were, and are, frankly, idiots. Worse, a veritable army of lobbyists in Washington D.C. exists, financed by foreign governments, whose sole purpose is to dine and wine and flatter and convince congressmen and other bureaucrats into keeping the money flowing into other countries to the detriment of America (I would argue that these lobbyists are essentially traitors. As are the legislators).

            Equally guilty is the political left in America whose fanaticism with the Socialist concept of “redistribute the wealth” that does not belong to them is extended from an internal policy to an external policy.** We often hear this with individuals mouthing off slogans that rich countries have to help poor countries, that it is their “duty,” that it is their “moral responsibility,” etc. They have turned compassion into a weapon with which to silence dissent. The corrupt, dictatorial leaders of recipient countries have learned to parrot such slogans in order to elicit a knee-jerk response in that political section of America. And it has worked.

            In order to appreciate — truly appreciate — the magnitude of this cancer, the reader should go through the list below, one by one, of all the countries that are receiving aid, and the gargantuan amount that is being doled out (all figures come from the United States Agency for International Development), while remembering that we don’t have enough money with which to help American citizens, that our country’s infrastructure is crumbling around our ears, our country is about to become bankrupt, Social Security is about to go defunct, and American citizens are being crushed by taxation to finance this obscenity. The United Nations has not been included in the list (the United States is the largest contributor to the United Nations, paying 22 percent of the $5.4 billion core U.N. budget and 28 percent of the $7.9 billion U.N. peacekeeping budget). Some of the countries have been underlined as meriting special attention, either because the amount is simply gargantuan (even when the country is miniscule), or, because they are rich, or, because they are our declared enemies. Please note that every single country in the continents of Africa and South America, and almost every country in Asia, is receiving money from us (and, as with other countries, we get nothing in return). Uncle Sam is covered from head to foot with leeches.

            It is also important to realize that as colossal as the amounts are for one year, these amounts have been repeated, and are being repeated, every year.

            Also note that over the years many of these African and Asian countries have received ten times more aid than some devastated European countries received from the Marshall Plan in just one year, so those countries should by now be a paradise (see Table). Whereas those European countries rebuilt and modernized their country with the proceeds of one infusion of the Marshall Plan, most of these African and Asian countries are still pigsties.

 

TABLE

 

Zambia                                                                                   Egypt

2011                $237,363,215                                                  $1,539,308,744

2012                $360,580,246                                                  $1,392,494,300

2013                $314,591,280                                                  $1,570,212,963

2014                $672,901,439                                                  $179,479,760

2015                $245,813,394                                                  $1,525,466,191

2016                $258,925,027                                                  $98,826,384

 

Afghanistan                                                                           Nigeria

2011                $13,400,380,402                                             $379,121,199

2012                $13,111,490,049                                             $540,393,416

2013                $9,736,127,455                                               $519,474,952

2014                $7,259,300,766                                               $595,551,195

2015                $3,072,502,383                                               $592,349,645

2016                $1,024,314,522                                               $438,551,346

 

Kenya                                                                                     South Sudan

2011                $899,791,412                                                  $144,144,175

2012                $999,967,033                                                  $636,566,059

2013                $907,868,125                                                  $625,412,388

2014                $891,665,076                                                  $867,773,855

2015                $941,251,462                                                  $838,589,050

2016                $508,196,564                                                  $502,659,864

 

While many American citizens are living in cardboard boxes and under bridges, billions of taxpayer dollars are sent overseas by our glorious politicians, who see nothing wrong with what they are doing. And it never ends. Billions of taxpayer dollars are constantly being sent into a black hole — without taxpayers’ consent.

Note also that, with three or four exceptions here and there, all the countries receiving aid in Africa and Asia are despotic dictatorships, some of which have erected a façade of being democratic.

The solution to this problem is really very, very simple, but one that will be forcefully resisted by the cancerous bureaucracies, lobbyists, and compassion-manipulators: eliminate all foreign aid. Not reduce it! Eliminate it! Beginning with eliminating the United States Agency for International Development bureaucracy. One does not reduce a cancerous tumor because it will regrow. One excises it!*** The same with foreign aid. To this end, a Constitutional amendment should be adopted that reads: “The United States will not send money to other countries or organizations in other countries unless those countries are allied to us by treaty and are at war with our common enemy. Nor will other countries receive material aid without immediately paying in full value for said aid unless those countries are allied to us by treaty and are at war with our common enemy.”

Perhaps the new administration will do so.

ADDENDUM: I was going to leave it at this point, but I feel that I need to point out — in case you have missed it — that recently, we are witnessing the beginning of a (actually, the periodic) concerted effort to send additional money to Africa because of drought causing a famine—the same phenomenon that has been going on for the past sixty some years (in fact, I think that they are using the same picture of the same malnourished child that I saw when I was in my teens). You have been warned

*And they often receive the aid after they insult us. Recently, the psychotic president of the Philippines, Duterte, quipped that Secretary Kelly gave his country $33 million of money (that did not belong to Kerry) after Duterte told us to go to hell. He said perhaps he should insult us some more. A European leader (I forget his name) years ago stated that America was like a woman whom you slap in the face—she gives you more of her money. Both were talking about the jackanapes in the American government.

**To make matters worse, some Senators have complained that the Politically Correct fanatics inside the USAID have given money to far left political groups, with violent philosophies, in other countries, under the guidance of George Soros.

***To cite just one example. When the March of Dimes was created, its original purpose was to find a cure for poliomyelitis. When that occurred in the 1950s, the bureaucracy did not dissolve itself, now that the goal had been accomplished. Instead, it continued to exist . . . by targeting other diseases.

 

Armando Simón is a retired college professor and the author of A Cuban from Kansas, The U, and, The Only Red Star I Liked Was a Starfish.

 

 

 



Source link

The Very Real Differences Between Legal and Illegal Immigration


Just as important is what she has not done. She has not insisted that signs should be in Bahasa Indonesia, the main Indonesian language, nor that there be bilingual education for her kids. She did not arrogantly demand residency, or citizenship. She did not steal other people’s identities, deal in drugs, nor trash her neighborhood.

Now consider illegal immigrants. They break the law by entering this country through the so-called border (that’s the first thing they do in entering the country: they break the law). They routinely steal other people’s identities and Social Security numbers. They smuggle drugs. They break countless other laws while they swamp our schools, prisons, hospitals and welfare agencies. They foster a gang culture and they trash their neighborhoods (in a Hispanic neighborhood, one can always tell which houses belong to American citizens and which to illegal aliens (i.e., criminals). They don’t pay much, if any, income taxes by claiming 27 dependents on their W-2 forms.

Now, I’m not making this comparison in order to put my wife up on a pedestal for general admiration (though there is a lot to admire her for). After all, many others became citizens when she did (from Cuba, Germany, Bosnia, India and, yes, Mexico). The point is that there is a correct, legal, procedure to entering and working in this country. But the criminals just don’t care. And neither do their cloned apologists in the media.

The other point is that those who break the law should not be pitied, or justified, or amnestied, simply because there is a very vocal, highly organized cadre of militant apologists and traitors. If a man murders his wife, do we really care that he did it because she wouldn’t stop nagging him? If a woman sells crack cocaine, is it really relevant that she desperately needed money? If a man burglarizes a home and is caught, should we take into consideration and cry buckets of tears that the family will be split up if he’s incarcerated? Yet, identical arguments are daily being made in regards to those other criminals. The sob stories are unending and usually involve a whining, blubbering woman with her four or five kids. And the media always puts pictures of the kids. Always the kids. Never the über-tattooed career criminals. Always the children.

By the way, I’m Hispanic, an immigrant, and I oppose illegal immigration. And I’m not the only one.  Millions of Hispanics voted for Trump even though the media predicted that a “Hispanic tsunami” would wipe out Trump’s chances for the White House.

But the politically correct fanatics in the American media are determined to turn this debate into some sort of racial confrontation (and, true, a lot of Hispanics have swallowed this scam hook, line and sinker). You all know the type: they are the whites forever looking into ways to balkanize America and those Hispanics who hold a grudge over some slight, either real or imagined. The former are the psychotic thought police who are always perusing the popular entertainment venues in order to shout, “That’s racism!” Regardless, the media are adamant in ignoring American citizens of Hispanic descent who oppose illegal immigration because the stance would shatter their stereotype.

Now hear me out.

The position of those opposing illegal immigration is a simple, clear-cut one: illegal immigration is illegal. So stop pretending it’s not a crime. The position of those advocating illegal immigration is, on the other hand, convoluted. One argument of the latter is that the American economy would collapse overnight without the illegal immigrants (unfortunately for them, they held ‘A Day Without an Immigrant’ – and nobody noticed). Another is that Americans should have no say-so whatsoever as to who comes into their own country. Another is that illegal immigrants are here just to improve their lives. Still another is that illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans don’t want.

 What has made this debate confusing is that many liberals and conservatives have taken positions that, if you think about it, are contradictory to their traditional stands. Some of the Establishment East Coast Republicans abandon their customary law and order principles and integrity in favor of illegal immigration because it provides businesses with a source of ultra-cheap labor. These are the businessmen who throw thousands of Americans into unemployment by outsourcing jobs to India and China so they can get an even shinier “golden parachute” at the end. They are the types that would sell their own country for a buck. Or even a quarter.

As is usually the case, the liberals are more vociferous, whereas they should be quiet on this issue. Think about it. The majority of Hispanics are religious, family-oriented, despise homosexuals and do not view blacks as a sacred cow. And liberals want millions of Hispanics as future voters? Apparently, they believe that Hispanics will be like blacks and vote Democratic, forever and ever, regardless of the candidates’ qualifications.

Then, there are the labor unions — where are they on this issue? They should be as belligerent as a hornet’s nest on the issue of illegal immigrants depressing wages; we have seen this effect in the fields of construction and landscaping. Yet, unions are continuing their decades-long decline, nay, their irrelevancy in American society with their comatose attitude. The only thing that American labor union leaders seem to do in America nowadays is serve as fundraisers for the Democratic Party (I’m surprised that the rank and file union members don’t string up their union leaders from the nearest lamp post).

Now, let’s address the many arguments dished out in favor of illegal immigration:

1) “Illegal immigrants perform jobs that Americans do not want.” First of all, there are a lot of Americans out there looking for a job and they are being passed over in favor of illegal immigrants. I know this because I have seen it happen. Second, no one says, exactly, what and where these mythical jobs are. Lastly, if Americans do not want a job it is because the wages are too low, thanks to illegal immigrants (again, where are the labor unions?)

2) “When we deport illegal immigrants, we break up families.” This argument is usually and elaborately presented in a tear-jerk fashion, usually by finding and filming a sniveling woman who is here illegally. Yet, consider: first, we do not prevent the remaining family members to accompany the criminal back to his/her country. They are free to do so. Second, when another type of criminal, say a drug dealer or a thief, goes to jail, do we hear wails that the criminal should be spared because his family will suffer from the separation? No.

3) “Illegal immigrants are here just to make money and improve their lives.” Yes, so what? A mafioso or a drug dealer are both just making money and trying to improve their lives. Since when is the motivation for committing a crime an excuse? Do we really care that a man assaulted his neighbor because the neighbor played music too loud?

4) “Illegal immigrants are here paying taxes, they should have the same rights as citizens.” This is a lie, a flat-out lie. First, many illegal immigrants are paid in cash. Second, if they do file income tax, many will list 47 dependents, some 40 of which will be their children – and they are 24 years old. My wife routinely encountered these fraudulent claims as a tax preparer in the local Jackson Hewitt. On the flip side, illegal immigrants have swamped the prisons, the hospitals and the welfare agencies to such an extent that they are near the breaking point. One goes to these agencies and sees a sea of illegal faces – and not one speaks English.

5) “We should not enforce the law with illegal immigrants since they are a racial minority; as such, they should not be held legally accountable. About anything.” Sorry, but this country functions by the rule of law.

6) “Opposition to illegal immigration is racism.” This is a straw man. The accusation is usually made by those white individuals who practically ejaculate every time the word “minorities” is uttered and spend most of their waking hours either dreaming about the future balkanization of America or perusing the news and entertainment media for someone whom they can accuse of racism. But to get back to the argument, when legal immigrants become citizens at naturalization ceremonies, does anyone object? No. No one protests. Even if the new citizens are from Africa, Mexico, or China. Why? Because they are here legally. If the argument about “racism” had any valid basis whatsoever, then no immigrants from Mexico, or Asia, or Africa would even be allowed to enter this country legally (but one cannot argue with monomaniacs: “it’s racism and that’s all there is to it”).

Now, let us examine the arguments against illegal immigration. Note that these are facts, not opinions.

1) Illegal immigrants have broken the law by entering the country illegally. This is a fact. Again: what part of “illegal” don’t you understand?

2) Many have forged/tampered legal documents such as Social Security cards (which are absurdly simple to duplicate). This is illegal. Again, this is fact.

3) Many have stolen identities from American citizens and run up debts and criminal records have been wrongly attached to them. This is illegal. Again, this is fact.

4) Many illegal immigrants have created a gang culture in Hispanic neighborhoods. This is fact.

5) Many illegal immigrants have trashed the neighborhoods that they reside in. This is a fact. They are particularly notorious for cramming twenty people into a small apartment to live in.

6) Many illegal immigrants utilize the welfare system, the hospitals, the prisons and the schools to the point that they are on the verge of collapse. This is fact.

7) Many illegal immigrants have committed numerous crimes, from felonies to refusing to get car insurance, and have swamped our prisons. This is fact.

8) And the arrogance! Their arrogance is truly breathtaking. The arrogance of these illegals demanding to be above the law, demanding bilingual education, demanding that Mexican holidays be officially recognized – and the nerve of the people changing the American national anthem into Spanish! These are all facts.

9) And do I really need to bring up Aztlan?

The counter-arguments to these facts and these objections by the advocates of illegal immigration is – vituperation, insults and shrieks. The liberal media, on the other hand, focuses almost always on sniveling women, whining that enforcing the law would be to her detriment, so she should not be deported. Either that, or it focuses on the children (never on the criminals who are illegal immigrants). Compassion and sympathy as weapons.

Oh, yes, and stating that our country is a country of immigrants.

And in the unlikely case that you have actually read this far and you favor the illegal immigrants, ask yourself this question. Ask yourself honestly and sincerely. And think hard before you answer: do you really want this country to become like Latin America? Do you? Do you really? I do not. That’s why I am here.

Let me remind you that Philadelphia was known as the City of Brotherly Love because it was almost exclusively populated by Quakers, but because the Quakers could not control immigration into the city, the Quaker culture became diluted and Philadelphia has become just another filthy, crime-infested city.

Now, it may come as a surprise that I also advocate a guest worker program. It should not really come as a surprise, insofar as it would be a legal process. However, this program should have several conditions attached to it: (1) The work permit would not make one eligible for permanent residence status or citizenship. (2) It would be for a specific number of years. (3) The applicant would agree henceforth not to utilize all the various welfare-style programs. (4) Harshly increase the penalties for business that hire illegal aliens (What, you don’t know whether an employee is illegal or not? Well, businesses that sell beer to minors who look like adults are penalized). (5) Change the appearance of the Social Security card to make it harder to falsify, like credit cards. (6) Anyone caught in this country illegally, or any illegal immigrant who commits a crime will be sent to prison and subjected to a ten thousand dollar fine, including confiscation of all property. (7) English will be the official language of federal and state government, at all levels; no other languages will be used, except to teach a foreign language. (8) Any city that officially touts itself as a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants would lose all federal funding regardless of where the money was targeted. (9) Most important of all, work permits will be given out in Mexico if the Mexican government agrees that should a Mexican national be convicted in the United States, Mexico will put the said convict in one of their prisons for the same amount of sentencing. And since a lot of Dominicans come in through Puerto Rico, a similar agreement could be formulated with the Dominican Republic.

I believe that this proposal for a guest worker program, welded to the above conditions, accepts the reality of the situation, does not reward illegal activity and is in America’s interest; it would allow us to a very large degree to control it and regulate the traffic. It would certainly put a dent in illegal immigration.

 

Armando Simón is a retired college professor and the author of A Cuban from Kansas, The U, and, The Only Red Star I Liked Was a Starfish. CountNomis@aol.com

 

My wife, a native of Indonesia, became an American citizen not too long ago, along with dozens of other immigrants. An important event in one’s private life, to be sure, but not momentous from a societal perspective, you say. And yet, it is.           

Consider this: she entered this country legally, filled out piles of paperwork, provided lots of documentation, paid the required fees and grit her teeth while putting up with the rudeness of INS bureaucrats (apparently, being obnoxious is a requirement for working at the INS). Additionally, she has paid both income taxes and property taxes and has obeyed all laws and is hard-working. Curiously, she also became very patriotic years ago (I mean, very patriotic).

Just as important is what she has not done. She has not insisted that signs should be in Bahasa Indonesia, the main Indonesian language, nor that there be bilingual education for her kids. She did not arrogantly demand residency, or citizenship. She did not steal other people’s identities, deal in drugs, nor trash her neighborhood.

Now consider illegal immigrants. They break the law by entering this country through the so-called border (that’s the first thing they do in entering the country: they break the law). They routinely steal other people’s identities and Social Security numbers. They smuggle drugs. They break countless other laws while they swamp our schools, prisons, hospitals and welfare agencies. They foster a gang culture and they trash their neighborhoods (in a Hispanic neighborhood, one can always tell which houses belong to American citizens and which to illegal aliens (i.e., criminals). They don’t pay much, if any, income taxes by claiming 27 dependents on their W-2 forms.

Now, I’m not making this comparison in order to put my wife up on a pedestal for general admiration (though there is a lot to admire her for). After all, many others became citizens when she did (from Cuba, Germany, Bosnia, India and, yes, Mexico). The point is that there is a correct, legal, procedure to entering and working in this country. But the criminals just don’t care. And neither do their cloned apologists in the media.

The other point is that those who break the law should not be pitied, or justified, or amnestied, simply because there is a very vocal, highly organized cadre of militant apologists and traitors. If a man murders his wife, do we really care that he did it because she wouldn’t stop nagging him? If a woman sells crack cocaine, is it really relevant that she desperately needed money? If a man burglarizes a home and is caught, should we take into consideration and cry buckets of tears that the family will be split up if he’s incarcerated? Yet, identical arguments are daily being made in regards to those other criminals. The sob stories are unending and usually involve a whining, blubbering woman with her four or five kids. And the media always puts pictures of the kids. Always the kids. Never the über-tattooed career criminals. Always the children.

By the way, I’m Hispanic, an immigrant, and I oppose illegal immigration. And I’m not the only one.  Millions of Hispanics voted for Trump even though the media predicted that a “Hispanic tsunami” would wipe out Trump’s chances for the White House.

But the politically correct fanatics in the American media are determined to turn this debate into some sort of racial confrontation (and, true, a lot of Hispanics have swallowed this scam hook, line and sinker). You all know the type: they are the whites forever looking into ways to balkanize America and those Hispanics who hold a grudge over some slight, either real or imagined. The former are the psychotic thought police who are always perusing the popular entertainment venues in order to shout, “That’s racism!” Regardless, the media are adamant in ignoring American citizens of Hispanic descent who oppose illegal immigration because the stance would shatter their stereotype.

Now hear me out.

The position of those opposing illegal immigration is a simple, clear-cut one: illegal immigration is illegal. So stop pretending it’s not a crime. The position of those advocating illegal immigration is, on the other hand, convoluted. One argument of the latter is that the American economy would collapse overnight without the illegal immigrants (unfortunately for them, they held ‘A Day Without an Immigrant’ – and nobody noticed). Another is that Americans should have no say-so whatsoever as to who comes into their own country. Another is that illegal immigrants are here just to improve their lives. Still another is that illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans don’t want.

 What has made this debate confusing is that many liberals and conservatives have taken positions that, if you think about it, are contradictory to their traditional stands. Some of the Establishment East Coast Republicans abandon their customary law and order principles and integrity in favor of illegal immigration because it provides businesses with a source of ultra-cheap labor. These are the businessmen who throw thousands of Americans into unemployment by outsourcing jobs to India and China so they can get an even shinier “golden parachute” at the end. They are the types that would sell their own country for a buck. Or even a quarter.

As is usually the case, the liberals are more vociferous, whereas they should be quiet on this issue. Think about it. The majority of Hispanics are religious, family-oriented, despise homosexuals and do not view blacks as a sacred cow. And liberals want millions of Hispanics as future voters? Apparently, they believe that Hispanics will be like blacks and vote Democratic, forever and ever, regardless of the candidates’ qualifications.

Then, there are the labor unions — where are they on this issue? They should be as belligerent as a hornet’s nest on the issue of illegal immigrants depressing wages; we have seen this effect in the fields of construction and landscaping. Yet, unions are continuing their decades-long decline, nay, their irrelevancy in American society with their comatose attitude. The only thing that American labor union leaders seem to do in America nowadays is serve as fundraisers for the Democratic Party (I’m surprised that the rank and file union members don’t string up their union leaders from the nearest lamp post).

Now, let’s address the many arguments dished out in favor of illegal immigration:

1) “Illegal immigrants perform jobs that Americans do not want.” First of all, there are a lot of Americans out there looking for a job and they are being passed over in favor of illegal immigrants. I know this because I have seen it happen. Second, no one says, exactly, what and where these mythical jobs are. Lastly, if Americans do not want a job it is because the wages are too low, thanks to illegal immigrants (again, where are the labor unions?)

2) “When we deport illegal immigrants, we break up families.” This argument is usually and elaborately presented in a tear-jerk fashion, usually by finding and filming a sniveling woman who is here illegally. Yet, consider: first, we do not prevent the remaining family members to accompany the criminal back to his/her country. They are free to do so. Second, when another type of criminal, say a drug dealer or a thief, goes to jail, do we hear wails that the criminal should be spared because his family will suffer from the separation? No.

3) “Illegal immigrants are here just to make money and improve their lives.” Yes, so what? A mafioso or a drug dealer are both just making money and trying to improve their lives. Since when is the motivation for committing a crime an excuse? Do we really care that a man assaulted his neighbor because the neighbor played music too loud?

4) “Illegal immigrants are here paying taxes, they should have the same rights as citizens.” This is a lie, a flat-out lie. First, many illegal immigrants are paid in cash. Second, if they do file income tax, many will list 47 dependents, some 40 of which will be their children – and they are 24 years old. My wife routinely encountered these fraudulent claims as a tax preparer in the local Jackson Hewitt. On the flip side, illegal immigrants have swamped the prisons, the hospitals and the welfare agencies to such an extent that they are near the breaking point. One goes to these agencies and sees a sea of illegal faces – and not one speaks English.

5) “We should not enforce the law with illegal immigrants since they are a racial minority; as such, they should not be held legally accountable. About anything.” Sorry, but this country functions by the rule of law.

6) “Opposition to illegal immigration is racism.” This is a straw man. The accusation is usually made by those white individuals who practically ejaculate every time the word “minorities” is uttered and spend most of their waking hours either dreaming about the future balkanization of America or perusing the news and entertainment media for someone whom they can accuse of racism. But to get back to the argument, when legal immigrants become citizens at naturalization ceremonies, does anyone object? No. No one protests. Even if the new citizens are from Africa, Mexico, or China. Why? Because they are here legally. If the argument about “racism” had any valid basis whatsoever, then no immigrants from Mexico, or Asia, or Africa would even be allowed to enter this country legally (but one cannot argue with monomaniacs: “it’s racism and that’s all there is to it”).

Now, let us examine the arguments against illegal immigration. Note that these are facts, not opinions.

1) Illegal immigrants have broken the law by entering the country illegally. This is a fact. Again: what part of “illegal” don’t you understand?

2) Many have forged/tampered legal documents such as Social Security cards (which are absurdly simple to duplicate). This is illegal. Again, this is fact.

3) Many have stolen identities from American citizens and run up debts and criminal records have been wrongly attached to them. This is illegal. Again, this is fact.

4) Many illegal immigrants have created a gang culture in Hispanic neighborhoods. This is fact.

5) Many illegal immigrants have trashed the neighborhoods that they reside in. This is a fact. They are particularly notorious for cramming twenty people into a small apartment to live in.

6) Many illegal immigrants utilize the welfare system, the hospitals, the prisons and the schools to the point that they are on the verge of collapse. This is fact.

7) Many illegal immigrants have committed numerous crimes, from felonies to refusing to get car insurance, and have swamped our prisons. This is fact.

8) And the arrogance! Their arrogance is truly breathtaking. The arrogance of these illegals demanding to be above the law, demanding bilingual education, demanding that Mexican holidays be officially recognized – and the nerve of the people changing the American national anthem into Spanish! These are all facts.

9) And do I really need to bring up Aztlan?

The counter-arguments to these facts and these objections by the advocates of illegal immigration is – vituperation, insults and shrieks. The liberal media, on the other hand, focuses almost always on sniveling women, whining that enforcing the law would be to her detriment, so she should not be deported. Either that, or it focuses on the children (never on the criminals who are illegal immigrants). Compassion and sympathy as weapons.

Oh, yes, and stating that our country is a country of immigrants.

And in the unlikely case that you have actually read this far and you favor the illegal immigrants, ask yourself this question. Ask yourself honestly and sincerely. And think hard before you answer: do you really want this country to become like Latin America? Do you? Do you really? I do not. That’s why I am here.

Let me remind you that Philadelphia was known as the City of Brotherly Love because it was almost exclusively populated by Quakers, but because the Quakers could not control immigration into the city, the Quaker culture became diluted and Philadelphia has become just another filthy, crime-infested city.

Now, it may come as a surprise that I also advocate a guest worker program. It should not really come as a surprise, insofar as it would be a legal process. However, this program should have several conditions attached to it: (1) The work permit would not make one eligible for permanent residence status or citizenship. (2) It would be for a specific number of years. (3) The applicant would agree henceforth not to utilize all the various welfare-style programs. (4) Harshly increase the penalties for business that hire illegal aliens (What, you don’t know whether an employee is illegal or not? Well, businesses that sell beer to minors who look like adults are penalized). (5) Change the appearance of the Social Security card to make it harder to falsify, like credit cards. (6) Anyone caught in this country illegally, or any illegal immigrant who commits a crime will be sent to prison and subjected to a ten thousand dollar fine, including confiscation of all property. (7) English will be the official language of federal and state government, at all levels; no other languages will be used, except to teach a foreign language. (8) Any city that officially touts itself as a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants would lose all federal funding regardless of where the money was targeted. (9) Most important of all, work permits will be given out in Mexico if the Mexican government agrees that should a Mexican national be convicted in the United States, Mexico will put the said convict in one of their prisons for the same amount of sentencing. And since a lot of Dominicans come in through Puerto Rico, a similar agreement could be formulated with the Dominican Republic.

I believe that this proposal for a guest worker program, welded to the above conditions, accepts the reality of the situation, does not reward illegal activity and is in America’s interest; it would allow us to a very large degree to control it and regulate the traffic. It would certainly put a dent in illegal immigration.

 

Armando Simón is a retired college professor and the author of A Cuban from Kansas, The U, and, The Only Red Star I Liked Was a Starfish. CountNomis@aol.com

 



Source link

How to Amend the Constitution


I believe that many people would agree that it is time to at least consider amendments to the U.S. Constitution, something that is usually contemplated with trepidation, and with good reason. But, chronic, very serious, problems in the body politic — universally acknowledged, by the way — some of which have been legislatively addressed only to be shot down as being Constitutionally incompatible, have created the zeitgeist for serious consideration. Here, then, are nine vital amendments which would go a long way towards healing some of the serious troubles within the commonwealth, along with the reasons that favor them.

Balanced budget. This is a bipartisan goal, at least on the surface. Most politicians balk at having their “pork” eliminated while others retain theirs. Remember when the pundits and the politicians warned hysterically that the country would collapse when sequestering would go into effect? Nothing happened. Therefore, during peacetime each year, Congress shall adopt a yearly budget for the running of the government which said budget does not run at a deficit and may, instead, try to have a surplus for the purpose of eliminating the national debt. Should the Congress not adopt such a budget, neither the members of Congress nor the President will receive a salary or any other benefits that accrue from being in office.

 

Line item veto. Approval for a line-item veto has also had bipartisan support for years, but a bipartisan law establishing it was struck down by the Supreme Court as going against the present tenets of the Constitution. By giving the President the power to veto individual items that are always appended to a major bill — colloquially called “pork” — would eliminate a gargantuan waste of taxpayer money. The reason for the bipartisan support is that individual legislators view with contempt the inclusion of spending items, but since that is being done, might as well do it for their own states in order to send federal money their way. But if nobody gets to take advantage of the system then they are all in favor of eliminating “pork.” Therefore, the President has authority to veto individual projects that are included in a bill passed by Congress.

Electoral College. I used to believe that the Electoral College was an absurdity, that it made no sense in a democracy and was in fact, counter to the concept of democracy. Serious study of American history, culture, and the legal system has dissuaded me from such a conclusion. In fact, the Electoral College is similar to the redistricting that takes place every few years after a census takes place. Federal courts, for example, take Federalism very, very seriously, that the United States is a federation, each state with its own customs and laws and not a unitary monolith, as is the case in, say, France. Having an electoral college during the presidential elections guarantees that the politicians, against their inclination, will pay attention to small states and the concerns of the citizens of those small states—or, actually, pretend to do so. This is why small states like New Hampshire and Iowa go first in their primaries. If that was not the case, presidential candidates would focus their entire campaign efforts at those states with a huge population — like California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio — and essentially would tell the people of less populated states like Wyoming, Maine, Kentucky, Kansas to go to hell.

Having said that, however, there is an undeniable shortcoming to the concept of the Electoral College, which has twice become evident in the past decade. That is, that on rare occasions, the popular vote is higher than the electoral count, and so, the loser is actually the winner. This creates justifiable resentment. On top of that, recently there have been individuals who have advocated scrapping the Constitution in regards to the electoral process itself because they did not like who was voted President, and some of these have been electors. Therefore, a constitutional amendment should read that, in those cases where the popular vote is higher than the electoral count, the winner of the presidential election is the person with the highest votes. Additonally, electors must vote for the individual that won the election in the state; any elector that votes for someone else will be subjected to legal penalties and the miscast vote instantly corrected.

Foreign intervention. Although Congress has legally the right to declare war, in the past half century, the President has sent military forces overseas to other countries and the Supreme Court has paradoxically given its sanction as being legal. During the Cold War, the United States did so in order to stop Communist imperialism but now that urgency has passed. It has become evident by now that America has militarily intervened too many times in foreign affairs, whether as an act of war, or, on humanitarian grounds. It has become an addiction. It has become addictive to try to correct the world’s problems by sticking our noses into situations, most of which times, our government officials had no idea what was truly going on, but were urged to do so by a hysterical media, and by doing so, actually worsened a situation.

On the other hand, a future situation can be imagined wherein the President must act rapidly to an immediate threat. Therefore, the President may not militarily attack other countries, nor send any armed forces into another country, without the approval of Congress. The exceptions are: 1) if the United States has military bases in a country, the President may send additional forces into those bases during times of peace 2) if a country with which the United States of America is allied with by treaty is invaded by the forces of another country, and not by insurgents, the President may honor its treaty obligations by sending military forces for military purposes, at which point Congress shall determine whether a state of war exists.

Burning the flag. This is a no-brainer, although those Americans who have been brainwashed to hate their country will oppose it, claiming that it is a violation of free speech. Such individuals, as a rule, hypocritically violate others’ free speech as “offensive” and so need not be listened to. Therefore, anyone who burns the American flag, or deliberately desecrates it, will be punished by law.

No foreign aid. This is the amendment that will be fought tooth and nail. Foreign countries will pour millions into traitorous American lobbyists and politicians to scuttle this amendment, both at the federal and the state levels. During the Second World War (with Lend Lease), and during the Cold War, trillions of dollars were sent overseas, either in cash or in material aid, to other countries in the belief that such aid would stop Nazi expansionism and would undermine support for Communist movements in those countries, since it was the belief — the mistaken belief — that communism sprang from the dissatisfied and frustrated lower class; in actuality, the communist movements came from middle-class power-hungry intellectuals; there were few actual peasants and workers in those movements (but that’s another story: read Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer or any of his other books). Foreign countries learned through the years the technique of sucking off money from the American taxpayer to the tune of trillions of dollars, aided by mediocre, corrupt, politicians and bureaucrats, whether it was to buy a chalet at the south of France or fighting ebola or AIDS or poverty or ingrown toenails. Rulers in other countries were amazed that they could insult America or its leaders and they would still get foreign aid (Duterte is a recent example) and mediocrities like Kerry were eager to comply, to give away money that wasn’t theirs. The end result is that at present, America is close to bankruptcy, yet the politicians keep sending money to other countries for a variety of “vital” issues; these countries, of course, don’t give a damn about what will happen to our country or to our citizens if this continues, they just want more of our money. Therefore, the United States will not send money to other countries or organizations in other countries unless those countries are allied to us by treaty and are at war with our common enemy. Nor will other countries receive material aid without immediately paying in full value for said aid unless those countries are allied to us by treaty and are at war with our common enemy.

Term limits. The professional politician is a blight. Members of Congress will be restricted to serve for three terms in a particular elected office, although they may run and serve for a different elected, or appointed, office.

Puerto Rico. In a manner of speaking, the island has been in a state of limbo for over a century. Because the population has its own language and culture, and is so distant from the mainland, it will never become fully assimilated into American culture, nor should it. Its present commonwealth status has severe financial detriments both for Puerto Ricans and Americans too numerous to detail here. On top of that, as a Commonwealth, Puerto Rico cannot vote in national elections, so that it has taxation without representation. Lastly, a small but sizeable section of the population see themselves as a colony which must achieve independence, by violence if necessary, so that continuing with the status quo, or statehood, would prolong this open sore. Therefore, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is hereby declared an independent country.

Adopting all, or any, of these amendments would go a long way in eliminating political and financial problems in the country. What is particularly attractive is that almost all have bipartisan support, if past history is any indication. During the past decade the Congress received justifiable contempt and loathing from citizens for basically being obstructionist and not doing any actual work. These amendments would be a way to vindicate itself.

I believe that many people would agree that it is time to at least consider amendments to the U.S. Constitution, something that is usually contemplated with trepidation, and with good reason. But, chronic, very serious, problems in the body politic — universally acknowledged, by the way — some of which have been legislatively addressed only to be shot down as being Constitutionally incompatible, have created the zeitgeist for serious consideration. Here, then, are nine vital amendments which would go a long way towards healing some of the serious troubles within the commonwealth, along with the reasons that favor them.

Balanced budget. This is a bipartisan goal, at least on the surface. Most politicians balk at having their “pork” eliminated while others retain theirs. Remember when the pundits and the politicians warned hysterically that the country would collapse when sequestering would go into effect? Nothing happened. Therefore, during peacetime each year, Congress shall adopt a yearly budget for the running of the government which said budget does not run at a deficit and may, instead, try to have a surplus for the purpose of eliminating the national debt. Should the Congress not adopt such a budget, neither the members of Congress nor the President will receive a salary or any other benefits that accrue from being in office.

 

Line item veto. Approval for a line-item veto has also had bipartisan support for years, but a bipartisan law establishing it was struck down by the Supreme Court as going against the present tenets of the Constitution. By giving the President the power to veto individual items that are always appended to a major bill — colloquially called “pork” — would eliminate a gargantuan waste of taxpayer money. The reason for the bipartisan support is that individual legislators view with contempt the inclusion of spending items, but since that is being done, might as well do it for their own states in order to send federal money their way. But if nobody gets to take advantage of the system then they are all in favor of eliminating “pork.” Therefore, the President has authority to veto individual projects that are included in a bill passed by Congress.

Electoral College. I used to believe that the Electoral College was an absurdity, that it made no sense in a democracy and was in fact, counter to the concept of democracy. Serious study of American history, culture, and the legal system has dissuaded me from such a conclusion. In fact, the Electoral College is similar to the redistricting that takes place every few years after a census takes place. Federal courts, for example, take Federalism very, very seriously, that the United States is a federation, each state with its own customs and laws and not a unitary monolith, as is the case in, say, France. Having an electoral college during the presidential elections guarantees that the politicians, against their inclination, will pay attention to small states and the concerns of the citizens of those small states—or, actually, pretend to do so. This is why small states like New Hampshire and Iowa go first in their primaries. If that was not the case, presidential candidates would focus their entire campaign efforts at those states with a huge population — like California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio — and essentially would tell the people of less populated states like Wyoming, Maine, Kentucky, Kansas to go to hell.

Having said that, however, there is an undeniable shortcoming to the concept of the Electoral College, which has twice become evident in the past decade. That is, that on rare occasions, the popular vote is higher than the electoral count, and so, the loser is actually the winner. This creates justifiable resentment. On top of that, recently there have been individuals who have advocated scrapping the Constitution in regards to the electoral process itself because they did not like who was voted President, and some of these have been electors. Therefore, a constitutional amendment should read that, in those cases where the popular vote is higher than the electoral count, the winner of the presidential election is the person with the highest votes. Additonally, electors must vote for the individual that won the election in the state; any elector that votes for someone else will be subjected to legal penalties and the miscast vote instantly corrected.

Foreign intervention. Although Congress has legally the right to declare war, in the past half century, the President has sent military forces overseas to other countries and the Supreme Court has paradoxically given its sanction as being legal. During the Cold War, the United States did so in order to stop Communist imperialism but now that urgency has passed. It has become evident by now that America has militarily intervened too many times in foreign affairs, whether as an act of war, or, on humanitarian grounds. It has become an addiction. It has become addictive to try to correct the world’s problems by sticking our noses into situations, most of which times, our government officials had no idea what was truly going on, but were urged to do so by a hysterical media, and by doing so, actually worsened a situation.

On the other hand, a future situation can be imagined wherein the President must act rapidly to an immediate threat. Therefore, the President may not militarily attack other countries, nor send any armed forces into another country, without the approval of Congress. The exceptions are: 1) if the United States has military bases in a country, the President may send additional forces into those bases during times of peace 2) if a country with which the United States of America is allied with by treaty is invaded by the forces of another country, and not by insurgents, the President may honor its treaty obligations by sending military forces for military purposes, at which point Congress shall determine whether a state of war exists.

Burning the flag. This is a no-brainer, although those Americans who have been brainwashed to hate their country will oppose it, claiming that it is a violation of free speech. Such individuals, as a rule, hypocritically violate others’ free speech as “offensive” and so need not be listened to. Therefore, anyone who burns the American flag, or deliberately desecrates it, will be punished by law.

No foreign aid. This is the amendment that will be fought tooth and nail. Foreign countries will pour millions into traitorous American lobbyists and politicians to scuttle this amendment, both at the federal and the state levels. During the Second World War (with Lend Lease), and during the Cold War, trillions of dollars were sent overseas, either in cash or in material aid, to other countries in the belief that such aid would stop Nazi expansionism and would undermine support for Communist movements in those countries, since it was the belief — the mistaken belief — that communism sprang from the dissatisfied and frustrated lower class; in actuality, the communist movements came from middle-class power-hungry intellectuals; there were few actual peasants and workers in those movements (but that’s another story: read Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer or any of his other books). Foreign countries learned through the years the technique of sucking off money from the American taxpayer to the tune of trillions of dollars, aided by mediocre, corrupt, politicians and bureaucrats, whether it was to buy a chalet at the south of France or fighting ebola or AIDS or poverty or ingrown toenails. Rulers in other countries were amazed that they could insult America or its leaders and they would still get foreign aid (Duterte is a recent example) and mediocrities like Kerry were eager to comply, to give away money that wasn’t theirs. The end result is that at present, America is close to bankruptcy, yet the politicians keep sending money to other countries for a variety of “vital” issues; these countries, of course, don’t give a damn about what will happen to our country or to our citizens if this continues, they just want more of our money. Therefore, the United States will not send money to other countries or organizations in other countries unless those countries are allied to us by treaty and are at war with our common enemy. Nor will other countries receive material aid without immediately paying in full value for said aid unless those countries are allied to us by treaty and are at war with our common enemy.

Term limits. The professional politician is a blight. Members of Congress will be restricted to serve for three terms in a particular elected office, although they may run and serve for a different elected, or appointed, office.

Puerto Rico. In a manner of speaking, the island has been in a state of limbo for over a century. Because the population has its own language and culture, and is so distant from the mainland, it will never become fully assimilated into American culture, nor should it. Its present commonwealth status has severe financial detriments both for Puerto Ricans and Americans too numerous to detail here. On top of that, as a Commonwealth, Puerto Rico cannot vote in national elections, so that it has taxation without representation. Lastly, a small but sizeable section of the population see themselves as a colony which must achieve independence, by violence if necessary, so that continuing with the status quo, or statehood, would prolong this open sore. Therefore, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is hereby declared an independent country.

Adopting all, or any, of these amendments would go a long way in eliminating political and financial problems in the country. What is particularly attractive is that almost all have bipartisan support, if past history is any indication. During the past decade the Congress received justifiable contempt and loathing from citizens for basically being obstructionist and not doing any actual work. These amendments would be a way to vindicate itself.

 

Armando Simón is a retired college professor who lives in San Antonio and is the author of The Only Red Star I Liked Was a Starfish, A Prison Mosaic and A Cuban from Kansas.

 

           



Source link