Replies

There are the sins of the Clinton administration, important but essentially historic in the sense the criminal acts, if not the consequences are largely complete (for now).

There is, in distinction, the sinful ideology of those who supported and support the Clintons, which substantially overlaps the nearly 50% of America's voting population, that would restore those ideologies to power.

As one leftist commentator suggested in a radio interview this AM, the notions underlying Spielberg's motion picture, "Munich", as apparently expressly revealed in interviews accompanying the DVD edition of such film, are in essence that problems such as terrorism and mid-east violence can better be addressed by "encouraging EMPATHY".

This idea, that EMPATHY rather than military force, is the more effective path to protect the values of American, or other democratic, freedom and security from those who not only hold different values but who would also kill and destroy innocents who they deem in opposition to their ideas, is both a core issue idealogicially and policitally as well as an ongoing operative force in the lefts rampant sedition.

Why focus on a mere "idea"?

Well, by way of historic analogy, for example, most of the worst destructions of the twentieth century are closely associated with then leftists infatuation and obsessive commitment to the untested, unproven, and clearly wrong, ideas of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels. Out of these merely wrong ideas emerged the psychopathic mass murdering leadership of Stalin and Mao as well as the National Socialist death camps of Nazi Germany and even Pol Pot. Only after 100 years and easily as least 100 million directly dead through violence, starvation, and forced labor, has the left begun to acknowledge that perhaps the problem was inherent in Marx's work itself.

The modern left, the largely pampered, excessively self centered, self important US baby boom elite, who are still rationalizing their refusal to accept vietnam military service, adhere, without evidence, to their absolute conviction, that all terrorism needs is EMPATHY.

The only possible psychological motivation for such a belief, if it is actually held, is cowardice. Distilled to its essentials is is the belief that if one makes friends with the bully, the schoolyard will become safe again.

The truly scary part of this is that people who "think" this way are on the verge or running our foreign policy, have in the past run our foreign policy, currently control the MSN, and are currently influencing our foreign policy.

Knowing how, being present to how, and even being in synch with the feelings of those in Germany who initiated and carried out genocidal policies against jews, roma, homosexuals, the deformed, and others, or the feelings or views of the militarist leaders and their forces who carried out the Bataan Death March or the rape of Nan-king, as with terrorists today, only served if anything as cementing the conviction of these enemies that America was weak and would prove an easy target.

The left is currently apoplectic that the Bush administration is not rushing in to stop the Israeli action in Lebanon. They are convinced that Bush's actions in Iraq, have "created" terrorism there.

The world's real, biggest enemy at the moment is not the islamist fundamentalists who beheaded Daniel Pearl for the sin of being jewish and american, nor there 100 million estimated muslim sympathizers, the real threat is the ignorant, cowardly, faith of the Modern Left's, in America and Europe, that their infantile fantasies, e.g. EMPATHY with those they are or should be afraid of, will protect them from the inevitable struggle for survival.

When it comes to civilisation, it is either us or the bullies who will survive. There is no middle ground, especially in an era in which WMD are becoming universally available. The Left needs to grow up quickly or be pushed aside. Their pretentious respectibility is a dead weight on those who are clear headed and who would act rationally to save us. Not unlike those who march for "peace" in Israel or who live their but refuse military service, even noncombatant service.The Left is the Real and more dangerous enemy. Under the American system of freedom, we have more resources, better resources, and an abundance of advantages not available to our enemies. With these, onviction and commitment will ultimately destroy any enemy we face. The time has come to unmask the perfidy and shallowness of the leftist liliputians and their agents and agencies, (eg. the UN, the EU, the MSN, the democrat political party) unleash America's power, in unity with similarly clear minded actors (e.g. IsreaL) .

As one leftist commentator suggested in a radio interview this AM, the notions underlying Spielberg's motion picture, "Munich", as apparently expressly revealed in interviews accompanying the DVD edition of such film, are in essence that problems such as terrorism and mideast violence can better be addressed by "encouraging EMPATHY".

This idea, that EMPATHY rather than military force, is the more effective path to protect the values of American, or other democratic, freedom and security from those who not only hold different values but who would also kill and destroy innocents who they deem in opposition to their ideas, is both a core issue ideologically and politically as well as an ongoing operative force in the left's rampant sedition.--Gail Wynand

'UNITED 93' vs. 'MUNICH'
Paul Greengrass--thank the stars--is no Steven Spielberg

by Mia T, 5.09.06

hereas both 'United 93' and 'Munich' derive their initial tension not from uncertainty but from what we already know, one movie remains scrupulously true to the facts--art in the service of history--while the other quickly devolves into a verisimilitudinous contrivance in the service of a director's political agenda.

Paradoxically--poetic justice in its purest form, some would say--the honest movie is the one that ultimately delivers the powerful political message.

Spoken by its heroes--our heroes--as they prepare to rush the cockpit shortly before the plane meant for the White House plunges into a Pennsylvania field instead, the simple but powerful words are these:

"No one is going to help us. We've got to do it ourselves."
"We have to do it now. We know what happens if we just sit here and do nothing...."

CLOSE ENCOUNTER OF THE WORST KIND
... to borrow a phrase, perversely, from a Spielberg flick about benign intelligence.

January 9, 2006
Reviewer: miat22 (Mia T)

Munich, with its false premises, phony pieties and outright lies -- Spielberg fantasy wrapped in sober documentary -- is a verisimilitudinous contrivance that is pernicious, especially now, especially here, especially if we understand Spielberg's real motivation.

Truth matters not at all to Spielberg, and courage matters even less. To advance his fallacious argument, he has Golda Meir speak words she never said, never would have said and, obviously, cannot now disavow. Posthumous misappropriation is a preferred tactic of the abject coward.

Munich is less about Meir avenging the Munich massacre than it is about Bush waging the War on Terror. The historical Munich allusion of appeasement, self-loathing and psychologizing that is practiced so fastidiously by the American Left today is key to understanding Spielberg.

The core of his anti-war argument: By fighting back, we become our enemy. Ironically, with Munich, the same can now be said of Spielberg.

Is Spielberg humanizing the terrorist really any different from Riefenstahl humanizing Hitler? If anything, Spielberg is more contemptible. Whereas Riefenstahl symbolizes the naïve actress and director who is induced to deal with devils, Spielberg is self-actuated and aware.

Hollywood is DreamWorks, fantastical and unthinking and solipsistic by definition.

To mitigate its danger, people capable of critical thinking must take on Hollywood... and must do so in Hollywood venues.

The printed word, sad to say, no longer carries the day.

My New York Times Review of Munich
Was this review helpful to you?
VOTE HERE

UNITED 93:THE CLINTON-9/11 NEXUS
"We have to do it now. We know what happens if we just sit here and do nothing...."

CLINTON: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
(+ Albright-Fulbright-Nobel TERRORISM revelations)

by Mia T, 4.24.06

READ MORE
FOOTNOTES

The modern left, the largely pampered, excessively self centered, self important US baby boom elite, who are still rationalizing their refusal to accept vietnam military service, adhere, without evidence, to their absolute conviction, that all terrorism needs is EMPATHY.

The only possible psychological motivation for such a belief, if it is actually held, is cowardice. Distilled to its essentials is is the belief that if one makes friends with the bully, the schoolyard will become safe again.

The truly scary part of this is that people who "think" this way are on the verge or running our foreign policy, have in the past run our foreign policy, currently control the MSN, and are currently influencing our foreign policy.

Knowing how, being present to how, and even being in synch with the feelings of those in Germany who initiated and carried out genocidal policies against jews, roma, homosexuals, the deformed, and others, or the feelings or views of the militarist leaders and their forces who carried out the Bataan Death March or the rape of Nan-king, as with terrorists today, only served if anything as cementing the conviction of these enemies that America was weak and would prove an easy target.

The left is currently apoplectic that the Bush administration is not rushing in to stop the Israeli action in Lebanon. They are convinced that Bush's actions in Iraq, have "created" terrorism there.

The world's real, biggest enemy at the moment is not the islamist fundamentalists who beheaded Daniel Pearl for the sin of being jewish and american, nor there 100 million estimated muslim sympathizers, the real threat is the ignorant, cowardly, faith of the Modern Left's, in America and Europe, that their infantile fantasies, e.g. EMPATHY with those they are or should be afraid of, will protect them from the inevitable struggle for survival.

When it comes to civilisation, it is either us or the bullies who will survive. There is no middle ground, especially in an era in which WMD are becoming universally available. The Left needs to grow up quickly or be pushed aside. Their pretentious respectibility is a dead weight on those who are clear headed and who would act rationally to save us. Not unlike those who march for "peace" in Israel or who live their but refuse military service, even noncombatant service.The Left is the Real and more dangerous enemy. Under the American system of freedom, we have more resources, better resources, and an abundance of advantages not available to our enemies. With these, onviction and commitment will ultimately destroy any enemy we face. The time has come to unmask the perfidy and shallowness of the leftist liliputians and their agents and agencies, (eg. the UN, the EU, the MSN, the democrat political party) unleash America's power, in unity with similarly clear minded actors

--Gail Wynand
(Power is only proportionate when it is sufficient to overcome the aggressor.)

The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent₂

by Mia T, 4.6.03

If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.
Mia T, THE ALIENS, June 9, 1999
Alien Abductions, Flying Saucers + Other Weird Phenomena, c.1992-2000

l From is sounding the alarm.

"Unless we convince Americans that Democrats are strong on national security," he warns his party, "Democrats will continue to lose elections."

Helloooo? That the Democrats have to be spoon-fed what should be axiomatic post-9/11 is, in and of itself, incontrovertible proof that From's advice is insufficient to solve their problem.

From's failure to fully lay out the nature of the Democrats' problem is not surprising: he is the guy who helped seal his party's fate. It was his Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that institutionalized the proximate cause of the problem, clintonism, and legitimized its two eponymic provincial operators on the national stage. The "Third Way" and "triangulation" don't come from the same Latin root for no reason.

That "convince" is From's operative word underscores the Democrats' dilemma. Nine-eleven was transformative. It is no longer sufficient merely to convince. One must demonstrate, demonstrate convincingly, if you will… which means both in real time and historically.

When it comes to national security, Americans will no longer take any chances. Turning the turn of phrase back on itself, the era of the Placebo President is over. (Incidentally, the oft-quote out-of-context sentence fragment alluded to here transformed meaningless clinton triangulation into a meaningful if deceptive soundbite.)

Although From is loath to admit it -- the terror in his eyes belies his facile solution -- the Democratic party's problem transcends its anti-war contingent.

With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively… and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity.

With policy ruled by pathologic self-interest -- witness the "Lieberman Paradigm," Kerry's "regime change" bon mot (gone bad), Edwards' and the clintons' brazen echoes thereof (or, alternatively, Pelosi's less strident wartime non-putdown putdown)… and, of course, the clincher -- eight years of the clintons' infantilism, grotesquerie and utter failure -- the Democratic party is, historically and in real time, the party of national insecurity.

ASIDE: Wartime Bush-bashing sedition of the pre-Howard Dean, pre-Cindy Sheehan variety, with its sotto-voce old-school indirection, refinement and politesse, sounds almost quaint these days.

The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11.

America's Real Two-Front War

by Mia T, 4.17.04

merica's real two-front war: fundamentalist Islam on the right and a fundamentally seditious clintonoid neo-neoliberalism on the left, both anarchic, both messianically, lethally intolerant, both amorally perverse, both killing Americans, both placing America at grave risk, both undeterred by MAD, both quite insane.

If we are to prevail, the rules of engagement--on both fronts--must change.
Marquis of Queensberry niceties, multicultural hypersensitivity, unipolar-power guilt, hegemony aversion (which is self-sabotage in the extreme--we must capture what we conquer--oil is the terrorist's lifeblood)... and, most important, the mutual-protection racket in Washington--pre-9/11 anachronisms all--are luxuries we can no longer afford.
Notwithstanding, the underlying premise of our hyperfastidious polity, (that we must remain in the system to save the system) is fallacious at best and tantamount to Lady Liberty lifting herself up by her own bootstraps.
To borrow from the Bard (or whomever), let's start metaphorically, or better yet, economically and politically, by killing all the seditious solicitors, which include the clintons and their left-wing agitprop-and-money-laundering machine: the Viacom-Simon & Schuster-60-Minutes vertical operation, the horizontal (as in "soporific") Cronkite-ite news readers, the (hardly upright) Ben-Veniste goons and Gorelick sleepers, and, of course, the clueless, cacophonic, disproportionately loud, left-coast Barbra-Streisand contingent.
America must not pull her punches. (Or Pinches!)
To prevail, America must defeat--thoroughly destroy--her enemies. On both fronts.

ne•o-ne•o•lib•er•al•ism n.

neocommunist political movement, a tipsy-topsy, infantile perversion of the Marxist-Leninist model, global in scope, beginning in the post-cold-war, unipolar 1990s, led by the '60s neoliberal baby-boomer "intelligentsia," that seeks power without responsibility, i.e., that seeks to dilute American power by concentrating power in said '60s neoliberals while yielding America's sovereignty to the United Nations, i.e., while surrendering to the terrorists, as it continues the traditional '60s neoliberal feint, namely: (1) concern for social justice, (2) disdain for bureaucracy, and (3) the championing of entrepreneurship for the great unwashed.

Mia T, 2.24.04

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

IN A 'PINCH': RETHINKING THE FIRST AMENDMENT
(Which came first, the 'journalist' or the traitor?)

by Mia T, 6.27.06

"What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

James Madison

hen the founders granted 'The Press' special dispensation, they never considered the possibility that traitors in our midst would game the system. But that is precisely what is happening today. (Hate America? Support jihad? Become a 'journalist!')

This was bound to happen.

The premise behind the First Amendment as it applies to the press--that a vigilant watchdog is necessary, sufficient--indeed, possible--to protect against man's basest instincts--is tautologically flawed: The fox guarding the White House, if you will.

Walter Lippmann, the 20th-century American columnist, wrote, "A free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society." True in theory. True even in Lippmann's quaint mid-20th-century America, perhaps. But patently false in this postmodern era of the bubbas and the Pinches.

When a free and great society is hijacked by a seditious bunch of dysfunctional, power-hungry malcontents and elitists, it will remain neither free nor great for long. When hijacked by them in the midst of asymmetric warfare, it will soon not remain at all.

If President George W. Bush is serious about winning the War on Terror, he will aggressively pursue the enemy in our midst.

Targeting and defeating the enemy in our midst is, by far, the more difficult task and will measure Bush's resolve and courage (and his independence from the MPRDC (mutual protection racket in DC)) more than any pretty speech, more even than 'staying the course.'

No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free no one ever will.

Thomas Jefferson
Letter, September 9, 1792, to George Washington

It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.

H. L. Mencken

READ MORE
'MISBEGOTTEN' TIMES
(NARROWNESS, MR. SULZBERGER, NOT WIDTH)
PINCH'S NON-APOLOGY APOLOGY
by Mia T, July 18, 2006: COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

WHY BIN LADEN WANTS HOME DELIVERY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES by Mia T, 7.11.06

WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES
(Please see post 65)

'MISBEGOTTEN' TIMES
(NARROWNESS, MR. SULZBERGER, NOT WIDTH)
PINCH'S NON-APOLOGY APOLOGY

The Devil & the Gray Lady

IN A 'PINCH': RETHINKING THE FIRST AMENDMENT
(Which came first, the 'journalist' or the traitor?)

PINCH SULZBERGER, PEARL HARBOR + TREASON
WHY WE MUST PROSECUTE THE NEW YORK TIMES

WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?

WHY THE CLINTONS FAILED "TO CAPTURE OR KILL THE TALLEST MAN IN AFGHANISTAN"
(DID THEY REALLY WANT TO TAKE HIM OUT ANYWAY?)

'MAKE IT A RULE' -- PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR OSAMA WITH CLINTON and CO.
(HEAR HILLARY + BILL MAKE THEIR PITCH)

ON THE FICTIONALIZED MEMOIR (HEAR HILLARY IN SF)^{~PART TWO~}
THE (oops!) INADVERTENT ADMISSIONS OF HILLARY AND JANE IN SAN FRANCISCO

THE (oops!) INADVERTENT (TERRORISM) ADMISSIONS OF BILL + HILLARY CLINTON (HEAR HILLARY IN SF)^{~PART ONE~}IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY

BIN LADEN FINGERS CLINTON FOR TERROR SUCCESS (SEE FOOTAGE)
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE

CHENEY: CALL THEM REPREHENSIBLE
THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₅

sandy berger haberdashery feint
(the specs, not the pants or the socks)

THE LEFT'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans

HILLARY GOES NUCLEAR
PROLIFERATION IN THE AGE OF CLINTON

QUID PRO COAL2:
CLINTON CORRUPTION + THE SEQUESTRATION OF GASEOUS FOSSILS
(HILLARY DOES COAL AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB)

SUSAN ESTRICH ON "DREDGING UP" THE RAPE OF JUANITA BROADDRICK + "ALL THAT OLD CLINTON STUFF"

UNITED 93:THE CLINTON-9/11 NEXUS
"We have to do it now. We know what happens if we just sit here and do nothing...."

ALBRIGHT INDICTS CLINTON FOR TERRORISM FAILURE
(and doesn't even know it)

MISSING CLINTON AUDIO! 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
(+Albright-Fulbright-Nobel TERRORISM revelations)

THE FAILED, DYSFUNCTIONAL CLINTON PRESIDENCY
(DECONSTRUCTING CLINTON'S HOFSTRA SPEECH) -- part1: clinton's "Brinkley" Lie

AFTERWORD: ON CLINTON SMALLNESS
(BRINKLEY MISSES THE POINT)

WHY HILLARY IN THE OVAL OFFICE IS A NATIONAL-SECURITY NO-NO^{PART ONE}