In the U.N., grievance-mongering Caribbean leaders call for slave reparations




By David Paulin

In another case of anti-Western grievance-mongering at the United Nations, the leaders of two Caribbean nations are calling for slave reparations from Western nations that profited from the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

Recently, the U.N. General Assembly heard from the prime ministers of two twin-island Caribbean nations: Antigua and Barbuda and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. In separate speeches, the Caribbean leaders declared that reparations were needed to remedy the barbaric injustices of slavery that Western nations loosed upon the world -- and whose legacies continue to this day, according to Caribbean news outlets.

"Antigua and Barbuda has long argued that the legacy of slavery, segregation, and racial violence against peoples of African descent have severely impaired our advancement as nations, communities and individuals across the economical, social and political spectra," Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer told the General Assembly.

For his part, Prime Minister Dr. Ralph Gonsalves of St. Vincent and the Grenadines said: "Racial discrimination was justified and became itself the justification for a brutal, exploitative and dehumanizing system of production that was perfected during the trans-Atlantic slave trade and ingrained over the course of colonial domination."

"The structure of our modern world is still firmly rooted in a past of slavers and colonialist exploitation," he added. "While we celebrate the noble heroism of the famous and the faceless who resisted racist colonial hegemony, we must continue to confront the legacy of this barbarism and continuing injustice."

The leaders' comments, during a Saturday session, were made one day after another case of grievance-mongering and grandstanding before the General Assembly: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's call for Palestinian statehood.

The reparations racket has been around for years. It has attracted a motley bunch -- from jive-talking hustlers to erudite professors of academic disciplines like African-American history and post-colonial studies. But only in recent years have whole countries joined the reparations racket. Besides having large black populations, they share common traits: leftist leaders, ailing economies, and a host of anti-Western grievances propagated by leftist elites.

How should descendents of African slaves be compensated according to reparations advocates? Spencer called for formal apologies from former slave-trading Western nations, after which these offenders must "back up their apologies with new commitments to the economic development of the nations that have suffered from this human tragedy." The Caribbean region, to be sure, is already a major recipient of U.S. foreign aid, a fact the speakers failed to mention.

Neither of men, moreover, mentioned an awkward detail: their own African ancestors may have owned slaves and participated in the slave trade (though they never did as well, of course, as Westerners, who were not doing anything illegal at the time).

Ten years ago, the anti-Western reparations movement was energized by the United Nations' racism conference in Durban, South Africa; that was the infamous UNESCO-sponsored event in 2001 that equated Zionism with racism. It also offered tacit support to the idea of slave reparations.

Regarding Durban, Spencer was full of pride, calling it "an innovative and action-oriented agenda to combat all forms of racism and racial discrimination."

It's a view shared by the United Nations. Just five days after Spencer and Gonsalves made their reparations pitches, the U.N. held a high-level meeting to commemorate the 10^th anniversary of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action.

Spencer and Gonsalves are not the first Caribbean leaders to jump on the reparations bandwagon. Four years ago, Jamaica's political leaders were angling to shake down Britain for slave reparations.

The left-leaning People's National Party was then in charge on the island, a hotbed of leftist politics with a population of 2.7 million. Struggling to reverse years of economic decline, leftist political leaders and elites started beating the drum for a regional campaign to convince Britain to provide compensation for its role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

"We owe reparations to ourselves and our ancestors," Rupert Lewis, a lecturer in government at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica, told a gathering of schoolchildren in Kingston, the capital. The occasion was part of activities associated with Jamaica's commemoration of Britain's 200-year-old Abolition of the Slave Trade Act, adopted March 25, 1807. At the time, the case for reparations was being made to ordinary Jamaicans with lectures and the airing of the pro-reparations documentary film The Empire Pays Back. The message: the source of the island's problems is indeed the legacy of slavery and British colonialism -- not the misguided leftist policies that have guided Jamaica since it gained independence from Britain in 1962.

"In the medium term, the goal is to mobilize all those who have been working in the [reparations] field for a long time, and to sensitize those who have dismissed the work of the movement for lack of knowledge," Jamaica's minister of tourism, entertainment, and culture, Aloun Assamba, told the Jamaica Observer.

'Cultural Marxism'

Curiously, the Caribbean's reparations hustlers single out only Western nations in their demands. They ignore the slavery that existed elsewhere in the world -- the Middle East, Africa, and South America -- and while they mourn Africans caught up in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, they shed no tears for the millions of Africans who disappeared into the Muslim slave trade. Nor do they condemn slavery that persists in Africa today, nor the human trafficking that's a problem in many parts of the world, including Jamaica.

Slavery, in other words, doesn't bother these people nearly as much as all their frothing suggests. How come? Some are obviously racists. And all are leftists; for them, reparations are the means by which they can achieve the Marxist redistribution of wealth they dream about.

In recent years, they've adopted a postmodern form of Marxism -- what might be called "cultural Marxism." In this view, the villains are no longer capitalists and bourgeoisie, as espoused in economic Marxism. Now the villain is "white male privilege" -- a privilege supposedly made possible by the head start that black African slaves gave to white Western nations. Indeed, as Cambridge University senior lecturer Richard Drayton wrote in an upbeat review of The Empire Pays Back, "Africa underpins a modern experience of (white) British privilege." The documentary was produced by Jamaica-born producer Robert Beckford, a lecturer in African Diaspora Religions and Cultures at England's University of Birmingham.

How should Britain's monstrous historical theft and injustice be remedied? In a word: reparations -- by redistributing wealth from whites to the descendants of black African slaves. Ultimately, reparations advocates say this is all about healing. "These [reparations] proposals are not intended to be divisive or confrontational, but rather form part of a process to heal the wounds of the past," explained Jamaica's Ambassador to the United Nations, Stafford Neil, during Durban's racism conference.

And no matter that few if any whites are around anymore with any connection whatsoever to the slave trade hundreds of years ago -- yet whites as a group are nevertheless cast as modern-day beneficiaries of slavery.

Ultimately, reparations advocates distort the realities of the ancient slave trade, according to Ohio State University Professor Robert Davis. "We cannot think of slavery as something that only white people did to black people," says Davis, author of Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters (Palgrave Macmillan, 2003). In his book, Davis documents that Muslim slavers off North Africa's Barbary Coast enslaved one million or more white Europeans between 1530 and 1780 -- a number greater than Africans enslaved during the same period.

Why is the enslavement of white Europeans ignored? Because, says Davis, it fails to echo the scholarship favored today -- that history is all about European conquest and colonization.

In this version of history, Britain and America get no credit for leading international efforts to end the profitable trans-Atlantic slave trade -- even using their warships to stop it. Both countries are portrayed in the worst light possible; whatever they did, it was too little, too late.

Not surprisingly, reparations advocates who claim that the West's prosperity is founded upon slave labor overlook the obvious reasons for the West's prosperity: its political and economic life are organized around democracy, free markets, and the rule of law.

Dedicated leftists won't admit this. This includes the Caribbean's leftist rulers, who ambivalently embrace free markets and look for their inspiration to Cuba -- a place where you won't find any of the 2.6 million members of the Jamaican Diaspora living.

Besides slavery, Jamaica's leftist elites obsess endlessly over British colonialism, but there's a glaring irony with this grievance-mongering: Jamaica's dramatic decline over the years -- crime, gangs, political corruption -- occurred when black Jamaicans, not their former masters, were running their country. Jamaica's problems, in other words, have all been related to specific decision made by Jamaica's politicians and elites.

Jamaica vs. the Bahamas

Jamaica's blame-it-on-slavery argument becomes especially problematic when the country's dysfunction is contrasted against the prosperity enjoyed by the Bahamas. A former British colony, the Bahamas also has a legacy of slavery. Yet it has no crippling debt, no history of serious political violence, and no out-of-control crime rate. It has one of the region's highest per capita incomes: $19,000, nearly five times more than Jamaica's. There's no huge Bahamian Diaspora.

Why is the Bahamas a success? Because its political leaders and voters look forward, not backward -- and they unashamedly look to America as an example. They have for the most part embraced business-friendly policies and a low-tax philosophy.

Four years ago, for instance, an interesting political phenomena occurred in the Bahamas. Its ruling left-leaning political party suffered a stunning election defeat, despite having overseen an expanding economy and an unprecedented development boom. Interestingly, the main campaign issues were good management and honesty in government -- not racial issues (such as which candidate had the darker skin color). It's an example of the Bahamas' good governance and civic culture -- traits not as apparent in Jamaica and other Caribbean island-nations with similar histories of racism and colonialism.

Notably, in the Bahamas, the bicentennial of the slave trade's abolition got circumspect media coverage -- and was consigned to the inside pages of the main newspapers. In Jamaica, on the other hand, The Observer -- a popular left-leaning daily owned by Sandal's resort owner Gordon "Butch" Stewart -- ran a chest-thumping front-page article in which Prime Minister Portia Simpson-Miller paid lip service to reparations, telling schoolchildren to honor their slave ancestors by respecting one another. "My request for honoring them is that for every child that is raped and is left to soak in the rapist's semen and her own blood, you are perpetuating, Mr. Rapist, the action of the slave master."

It's hard to imagine political leaders in the Bahamas making such lurid comments to schoolchildren. Nor are Bahamian political leaders grandstanding before the U.N. General Assembly, demanding slave reparations based on a leftist post-modern view of history.

They're too busy looking forward, not backward.

Originally published at The American Thinker

Europe's Communist Past Haunts Euro-Zone

By David Paulin

It’s an overlooked aspect of the euro-zone debt crisis and Greece’s probable default: the hand that former European communists (now top members of the European Parliament) had in creating the euro-zone’s command-and-control economic system, along with the trappings of a common (and dubious) European culture. Now it’s all coming apart — a calamity that’s threatening the viability of the euro-zone and rattling the global economy.

The quest for a united Europe — one with a common currency (the euro) along with a single flag and anthem – was in retrospect a project for dreamers. And as euro-skeptics have said all along, the dreamers were European elites with autocratic tendencies.

So perhaps it’s not surprising to learn that a number of the elites who constructed a utopian political and economic union for Europe have something in common: communism.

This explains, in part, why headstrong Euro elites recklessly expanded the European Union and, in particular, the euro-zone (comprising the 17 states utilizing a common currency in the 27-member European Union). But in their zeal to achieve their dream, the European Union’s idealists failed to recognize a daunting problem: Countries as different as economically disciplined Germany and corruption-riddled and undisciplined Greece shouldn’t share a common currency under the same economic system — a system with one-size-fits-all interest rates and no chance for currency devaluations. (And if Greece still used the drachma – not the euro – a currency devaluation would be a way out of its economic mess. That option would spare ordinary Greeks the suffering caused by harsh and unrealistic austerity measures imposed by unelected eurocrats.)

Britain’s Nigel Farage, a conservative politician, euro-skeptic and delegate to the European Parliament, has on more than one occasion drawn parallels between Europe’s old communist dreamers and European Union dreamers.

Speaking in the European Parliament early last year, Farage drew attention to the number of former communists and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament – and he took them to task for their handling of Greece’s economic troubles, which were then in their early stages. (See the YouTube clip, below.)

Farage, a former metals trader, has made similar comments in the past about Europe’s financially troubled PIGS: Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain. He appears to be one of a handful of members of the European Parliament who has a firm grasp of financial markets and economics.

Declaring that Greece had become less democratic after becoming part of the euro-zone – now “trapped in the economic prison of the euro” — Farage observed: “While 60 years ago an Iron Curtain fell across Europe, today we have the iron fist of the European Commission” imposing its will upon Greece.

Early last year, Farage also delivered a dramatic speech in the European Parliament in which he recounted a tragic-comic story: Europe’s evolution from a continent divided by communism to one divided by the undemocratic political and economic system created by the EU and euro-zone. His comments, lasting just under four minutes, drew howls of protest and jeers. They are worth watching on this YouTube clip.

With respect to Greece’s probable default, Farage told the European Parliament last week that Greece was now a “protectorate,” subject to the EU’s “economic governance.” And just like the Iron Curtain that went down over Europe some 60 years ago, the EU is now divided between North and South, said Farage – all due to the economic calamities brought on by the economic straightjacket created by the euro-zone on countries such as Greece, which EU dreamers – against the advice of pragmatic euro-skeptics – allowed into the euro-zone. “Is it any wonder that Greeks are now burning EU flags and drawing swastikas on them,” he said. (For the YouTube clip, click here.)

In the case of Europe’s old communist past and the euro-zone, history is repeating itself in some respects.

(Originally published at FrontPage Magazine. Also see a related article: "Euroskeptics on Greece: 'We told you so!'")

On Obama's orders, White House chef to prepare pork chops


David Paulin

President Obama is no doubt enjoying lots of delicious sea food in Martha's Vineyard -- lobster, scallops, that sort of thing. But when he's back in Washington, he'll be chowing down a favorite new meal prepared by the White House chef: gourmet-style Iowa pork chops!

Specifically: "cinnamon brined grilled Iowa pork chops."

That's what Obama ordered during his recent visit to Iowa while staying in Davenport at the Hotel Blackhawk. He loved the meaty chops so much that his staff requested the recipe from the hotel's chief, so that the chops could be added to the official West Wing menu.

That's according to an amusing article by veteran newspaper columnist Bill Wundram in the Quad-City Times about how Obama pigged out on the heavenly chops that were 2-inches thick. Wundram tried the chops himself -- all to experience the pleasure of eating like a king.

Interestingly, Obama initially ordered a New York strip steak, but then changed his mind. Or as Wundram relates:

"He had taken a couple of bites of the steak - medium-well - when he spotted an aide licking his chops over pork chops. The president sneaked a bite of the chops and is said to have spoken out:

"I want an order of those."

So how was the $25 plate of two chops?

According to Wundram:

"Just like the order for the president, my chops came on a square white plate. It was more than an order. It was a mountain of food, with those rib bones protruding alongside a 4-inch slab of Iowa cornbread casserole.

"There was enough food on that plate to feed a family of four. The chops were nuzzled in a bacon braised warm cabbage slaw with caramelized onions. This was a breakthrough from the way I usually get my pork chops, from a kitchen stove frying pan.

"I was raving hungry and ready to eat. I couldn't wait to dig into those chops.

"Trust me: They were smackin' good!"

Let's hope that diet scold Michelle doesn't see how that chops are prepared: "marinated 24 hours in a brine of cinnamon, salt and sugar before being grilled and finished off in the oven."

Wundram said he left the table "stuffed to the gills. By mid-afternoon, my lips felt salty, an aftertaste of the best pork chops in town."

Wundram failed to mention what became of that New York strip steak Obama took a bite out of -- but then discarded upon spotting a White House aide devouring pork chops.

Perhaps the New York strip ended up in a doggy bag for "Bo," the Obama family's Portuguese Water Dog.

It's good to be the king.

(Originally published in The American Thinker, August 24, 2011)

Euroskeptics on Greece: 'We told you so!'

By David Paulin

Will Greece default?

The question is roiling financial markets in Europe -- and spreading financial jitters around the world. It's also energizing Britain's Euroskeptics and renewing pointed questions about the wisdom of European unification, and specifically about the "eurozone" -- the 17 states of the 27-member European Union that share a common currency -- the euro.

Keeping Greece on the euro means imposing more harsh austerity measures on that country, which got it's first bail-out package in May last year. But tougher austerity measures for Greece are probably untenable because of the tremendous hardship they'll impose upon ordinary Greeks. Even more problematic: Keeping Greece on the euro means eliminating -- virtually overnight -- Greece's endemic corruption that should have disqualified it from joining the EU's eurozone in the first place. (Greece may be the cradle of democracy and inspiration for Western civilization, but in many ways modern-day Greece has more in common with the Balkans than Western and Northern Europe.)

Unfortunately, the EU apparently has no contingency plan for how Greece would return to its own currency, the drachma; this would give it the flexibility to deal with its financial mess (by setting its interest rates or through currency devaluations) -- all with the least amount of pain and social disorder. But that doesn't mean a return to the drachma can't be done -- and it would be the best thing for Greece, say some analysts.

The problems in creating a United States of Europe -- to counterbalance American power in the minds of some European elites, especially the French -- were criticized early on by British Eurosceptics (British spelling), who feared the anti-Democratic values of an EU Parliament; an avalanche of regulations; and a common currency that would be untenable.

Britain's Euroskeptics have much in common with America's "Tea Party" movement. And their most famous member is undoubtedly one man: British politician Nigel Farage -- leader of the UK Independence Party; Member of the European Parliament for South East England; and co-chair of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group. Known for his wit and colorful oratory, Farage addressed the EU's European Parliament more than a year ago on the economic turmoil and folly of what was happening then, and what would happen in the future. His prophetic remarks about the EU's financial troubles could have been delivered yesterday.

In criticizing a European common currency, Farage has said that countries with structurally different economics -- Germany and Greece, for example -- can't handle a "one-size-fits-all interest rate."

"You can ignore the markets if you want to but in time the markets will not ignore you," he has said. Early on, he predicted the need for bail-outs of troubled eurzone countries.

Referring to financially troubled eurozone countries Greece, Portugal, and Spain, Farage -- more than a year ago -- told the European Parliament: "Just how much do these countries have to suffer in the pursuit of this European dream?" He added: "I wonder how much longer will the Germans go on paying the enormous bill."

Farage's prophetic comments may be see on this YouTube clip, below, during which he also demolished the idea of a "European identity." Or as Henry Kissinger asked in a similar vein: “Who do I call if I want to call Europe?”

And for some more entertainment, enjoy some of Farage's colorful performances in the European Parliament, more than a year ago, as shown on two YouTube clips:

*Click here for Farage attacking the anti-democratic proclivities of EU members and particularly of EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy: Farage derided the unelected Rompuy for getting paid more than President Obama and of having the "appearance of a low-grade bank clerk." Farage was fined 3,000 euros for the insult. He later apologized -- to bank clerks!

*And click here to see Farage suggesting that Van Rompuy, a Belgian politician, ought to be the "pinup boy for the Euroskeptic movement" because of how the EU's best intentions have produced results that undermined Europe's economy.

He added: "It's even more serious than economics because if you rob people of their identity, if you rob them of their democracy, then all they are left with is nationalism and violence. I can only hope and pray that the Euro project is destroyed by the markets before that."

Originally published at The American Thinker.

Clinton, Bush, and Osama bin Laden: The WikiLeaks Cables

By David Paulin

In the months leading up to the September 11 terror attacks, the Bush administration had Osama bin Laden on its radar. He was not a household name in America yet, but top administration officials regarded him as a mortal enemy. Secretary of State Colin Powell was among those deeply concerned about Bin Laden's ability to launch or provoke serious terror attacks – and to influence large swaths of the Muslim world, where many admired him and were drawn to his hate-filled anti-Americanism.

Secret diplomatic cables just released by WikiLeaks show that ten years ago, just months before 9/11, top Bush officials were attempting to bring Bin Laden to justice for outrages that included his role in the truck-bombing attacks of U.S. Embassies in the East African cities of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. However, Washington was getting nowhere with the Taliban.

The Bush administration like the Clinton administration was getting stalled, stonewalled, and lied to by the Taliban in response to repeated queries and demands about Bin Laden's whereabouts and the Taliban's pledges to close terror-training camps, according to diplomatic cables classified as “secret.”

The subject line of one secret cable: “Taliban claim Bin Laden out of their territory.” Dated February 19, 1999, it was written by President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, based on information provided by a top Taliban figure, Abdul Hakeem Mujahid, who was considered a “moderate” Taliban.

Sounding upbeat, Talbott wrote: “Mujahid has long indicated his own opposition to UBL and support for better relations between the U.S. and the Taliban. It was clearly gratifying for him to deliver the news that UBL had left tall ban territory. Mujahid was more emotional during this session than in any previous encounter.”

The diplomatic back and forth between Washington and Taliban officials over Bin Laden's whereabouts, up until the eve of 9/11, is eerily similar to Washington's negotiations over the years with North Korea and Iran about their nuclear weapons programs.

Read in the hindsight of 9/11, the cables provide a fascinating and sometimes comic and even depressing glimpse into the minds of officials in the Clinton and Bush administrations as they tried, during the late 90s and early 2001, to find common ground and shared interests with the Taliban – with the aim of neutralizing Bin Laden or bringing him to justice (though not necessarily kill him) and to shut down Bin Laden's terror-training camps in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

During the Clinton years in particular, some diplomatic cables give the sense that State Department officials viewed Taliban leaders as people who would listen to reason; or who could be shamed or pressured into doing the right thing in respect to their famous guest, Osama bin Laden, and his terror-training camps.

It's the only thing to conclude from a secret cable sent by Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on February 26, 1998. Its subject line: “Usama bin Laden's statement about jihad against the U.S.”

Albright noted her cable was responding to Bin Laden's recent statement “calling for all Muslims to engage in a holy war against Americans.”

Sent to the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, it contained helpful “talking points” for Embassy officials. Per Albright's instructions, they were to convey the following to the Taliban:

*“We find statements of this kind, open invitations to carry out terrorist attacks against innocent people to be outrageous and totally unacceptable.”

*“We have discussed our concerns about Usama bin Laden's inflamatory (sic) remarks and anti-American rhetoric before. We were given assurances that negative actions like this would be curbed.”

*“You should convey to bin Laden and his supporters in Afghanistan that this advocacy of violence is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.”

*“These kinds of statements by Bin Laden also reflect poorly on the Taliban, as he enjoys your hospitality.”

How might the Taliban have reacted to the talking points in Albright's February 26 cable? It should have been obvious to her and anybody who knew what they were doing, and had already done. In Kabul, for instance, they demonstrated their Islamo-facist credentials in February, 1998 -- just like Germany's Nazis had demonstrated their thug credentials in November, 1938, with Kristallnacht (Night of Broken Glass), the nationwide attacks on Jewish homes, business, and synagogues. The Taliban's religious police, for their part, were clearing women from Kabul's streets and beating them up for failing to wear head-to-toe chadors, a violation of Sharia law. Months later, the Taliban turned Kabul soccer stadium into an execution ground, shooting untold numbers of men and women in the heads or stoning them to death for petty crimes and adultery. And despite international protests, they later destroyed colossal Buddhist statues carved into a mountain, considering them idolatrous and offensive to Islam.

This is who the Taliban were. Not surprisingly, Albright's talking points failed to persuade them to clean up their act regarding Bin Laden and the terror camps. Albright was flummoxed. And so she ratcheted up the diplomatic pressure by enlisting the help of a formidable alley: the Europe Union. In a secret cable dated March 27, 1998, Albright contacted U.S. Embassies in the European Union – and in her “action message” directed U.S. envoys to invite E.U. states to join Washington in condemning the Taliban; she hoped the diplomatic pile on would persuade the Taliban to close their terror camps and withdraw their support for Osama bin Laden. The cable's subject line: “Approach to EU on Taleban support for Usama bin Laden.”

Albright wrote: “The U.S. is concerned by the so-called fatwa recently issued by terrorist patron Usama bin Laden that calls on all Muslims to kill Americans. We have raised this issue with the Taleban both in Kabul and in New York. We are confident that EU member states share this concern. We believe that there is merit in the Taleban realizing that this concern is not limited to the U.S.” (“Taleban” is an alternative spelling to the more commonly used “Taliban.”)

Albright warned: “The Taleban must share responsibility for Usama bin Laden's terrorist actions and inflammatory statements as long as he remains a guest in Qandahar.” (Qandahar is the Persian spelling of "Kandahar," the more commonly seen Pashto version.)

How might the Taliban and Bin Laden have reacted to Albright's diplomatic efforts? In all likelihood, her talking points achieved the opposite of what she'd intended – providing evidence to Bin Laden and the Taliban that America was a “weak horse”; or as Bin Laden had famously declared: “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse."

Interestingly, just six months after Albright's first "talking points" cable, she got an answer of sorts – the U.S. Embassy bombings in East Africa in which Bin Laden had a hand. Hundreds died and thousands were wounded; 12 Americans were among the dead. In retaliation for the suicide bombings, President Clinton thereupon established his own credentials as a “weak horse” – ineffectual cruise missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. In the minds of the Taliban and Bin Laden (and their cheerleaders in the Middle East), the cruise missiles strikes offered more evidence that they had nothing to fear from the pitiful American giant.

Months before September 11, 2001, the Bush administration was itself utilizing fruitless diplomatic channels to bring Osama bin Laden to justice – and a U.S. courtroom. By then, the terror master was on the FBI's “Ten Most Wanted” list. And his Taliban hosts were feeling the sting of a force that surely struck fear into their hearts – the United Nations Security Council. At the Clinton administration's urging, it had authorized financial sanctions on the Taliban; demanded they stop allowing territory under their control to be used for terrorist training; and ordered that they turn over Osama bin Laden to “appropriate authorities.”

Appropriate authorities? It was an ambiguous phrase, of course, one apparently exploited by the Taliban to yet again give Washington the run-around, buy time, and protect Bin Laden. This was underscored by a secret cable dated April 7, 2001 – five months before 9/11 – and sent by Secretary of State Colin Powell as an “action request” to U.S. Ambassador Elizabeth McKune in Doha, Qatar. The subject line: “Taliban Proposal for bin Laden Islamic Tribunal.”

As Powell explained: “There have been reports from various sources that during the Taliban delegation visit to Qatar, the Taliban and Qataris may discuss a tribunal of Muslim scholars to try Usama bin Laden in Qatar. Reportedly, under this formula, if the U.S. offered sufficient evidence at the trial, then UBL could conceivably face a sentence by the Islamic tribunal. If the tribunal does not find him guilty, then UBL would presumably be considered by many to be exonerated.”

Powell's cable nevertheless stressed that Washington opposed an “Islamic trial” for Bin Laden -- and so McKune should convey this to the Taliban if the issue came up. “Without studying the details of any such proposal, we seriously question whether a third country trial would meet the requirements the Security Council has laid down,” Powell wrote.

“As you know, Bin Laden is under indictment in the U.S., and our position is that we want him for trial in the U.S. If the Taleban have a serious proposal, they should present it to the U.S..”

Know Your Enemy

If some U.S. officials miscalculated regarding Bin Laden, perhaps it was because they were naïve; or perhaps because they simply didn't know their enemy. Nearly eight months after Albright's first talking points cable, a secret cable dated October 13, 1998, was transmitted from the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: It contained a detailed biography of Osama Bin Laden. Signed by U.S. Ambassador Wyche Fowler Jr., it was distributed to a number of U.S. Embassies and officials as well as to military and intelligence officials: CIA, NSA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and U.S. Central Command at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. Its subject line: “Saudi Arabia: Usama bin Ladin” (sic).

What did Bin Laden want? As the cable explained: "Bin Ladin's (sic) immediate stated objective is the expulsion of U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia, the Arabian peninsula, and all Muslim countries.” It's a goal that, interestingly, explains the timing of the U.S. Embassy suicide bombings in East Africa. They occurred on the eighth anniversary of American troops arriving in Saudi Arabia.

The cable continued: “Beyond that goal, in March 1997, Bin Ladin (sic) told a Pakistani journalist that 'Muslims need a leader who can unite them and establish a government which follows the rule of the caliphs. The rule of the caliphs will begin from Afghanistan. It will adopt interest-free banking. The rule of Allah will be established. We are against communism but we are also against capitalism. The concentration of wealth in just a few hands is unislamic (sic).'" Interestingly, this neatly sums up why radical Islamists get along so well with members of the international left.

As for Bin Laden's objective of expelling American infidels from the Arabian peninsula, there is an irony here. The Americans were military personnel, enforcing the United Nations-mandated no-fly zone in Iraq under the terms of the case-fire with Saddam Hussein; and so in one sense, 9/11 was blow back from the first Gulf War.

Fowler's cable also touched on the issue of Bin Laden's popularity among many Muslims, stating: "According to Jamal Khashoggi, an Islamic movement specialist for "Al Hayat" newspaper, many people consider Ysama bin Ladin (sic) as the 'Che Guevara' of the Arab world. He said that some hope that Usama will die in battle so that people will not have to suffer the 'humiliation' of seeing him transported in handcuffs to the U.S.”

How ironic that President Obama, in authorizing Navy Seals to kill Bin Laden rather than capturing him, ended up giving many Muslims their fondest wish. But ultimately, killing Bin Laden was preferable to taking him to Guantanamo (unacceptable to Obama's far-left political base) and putting him on trial in New York City, a trial that would have been a political circus and mockery of a criminal-justice system that's unsuited for trying terrorists captured on foreign battlefields.

The Obama administration now has another terror master on its radar -- or to be precise, in its cross-hairs. Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born al-Qaeda commander, lecturer, and former Imam, is thought to be hiding out in Yemen, from where his parents immigrated to America. He has inspired a number of terrorists and would-be terrorists, including the Fort Hood shooter, Christmas day bomber, and Times Square bomber. At least three of the 9/11 hijackers attended his sermons at a mosque in the Washington, D.C. area.

The Obama administration, however, has no interest in bringing him to an American courtroom. It has issued an order to kill him, one that withstood a legal challenge brought by an ACLU lawyer in behalf of al-Awlaki's father.

America has come a long way since its pre-9/11 days – acquired an understanding of how decent men and women must, regrettably, sometimes function in brutish parts of the world: the real world.

It's one of the legacies of 9/11.

Why is Britain Burning?

You can thank the postmodern welfare state for that. "Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalized youngsters " -- so says Max Hastings in London's Daily Mail.

Regarding the the youthful thugs in the streets, he observers:

They are illiterate and innumerate, beyond maybe some dexterity with computer games and BlackBerries.

They are essentially wild beasts. I use that phrase advisedly, because it seems appropriate to young people bereft of the discipline that might make them employable; of the conscience that distinguishes between right and wrong...

The depressing truth is that at the bottom of our society is a layer of young people with no skills, education, values or aspirations. They do not have what most of us would call ‘lives’: they simply exist.

Nobody has ever dared suggest to them that they need feel any allegiance to anything, least of all Britain or their community. Not only do they know nothing of Britain’s past, they care nothing for its present.

Read the whole piece, here.

And below is a BBC interview with two young people who elaborate on why they enjoy looting -- it's to show the "rich" and the police what they can do.

In riot-torn Britain, AP Bureau Chief Paisely Dodds injects her lefty views into news coverage

By David Paulin

In an article about how social media is helping to energize Britain’s youthful rioters, the left-leaning views of AP's London Bureau Chief Paisley Dodds were on display -- yet again.

Dodds, the American-born daughter of hippie parents, is known for her sharp-elbows and "attitude" among AP colleagues. And in past articles about Britain, Dodds has been clear about one thing. The country, she firmly believes, is brimming full of "white male privilege" and class-conscious "elites." Writing about the role of social media in fueling the riots, she injected her political views -- from out of the blue -- into her reporting in order to put the rioting into context. She wrote:

"Britain is full of contrasts between the haves and have-nots, where areas of soot-stained apartment buildings are a stone's throw from Buckingham Palace. It is also a place where the class system is imprinted on the country's social fabric, seen clearly in the political and business elite.

"Prime Minister David Cameron, known for his posh accent and privileged education, is thought to have lost votes in last year's election because he was seen as too much of an elitist who couldn't understand the common man."

Those are pretty sweeping statements -- and just how true they are in Britain today is highly debatable, especially in respect to Britain's "class system." But no doubt, those statements say much about Dodds and the agenda she is perusing as a journalist, not to mention her ego.

Before her London gig, Dodds was news editor in the AP's Caribbean bureau in San Juan, Puerto Rico. There, she and long-time gal pal Michelle Faul, who was bureau chief, pushed a common theme in their Guantanamo reporting: The people imprisoned there were innocents being held illegally -- "without charges"! Or as Dodds said on MSNBC in 2005: "The biggest issue is that you have about 550 men who are presumed innocent, who have been held at the prison camp for more than three years."

Presumed innocent? Held without charges? Hey, Paisley, maybe you can explain something: If any Japanese pilots had been shot down and captured during the attack on Pearl Harbor, would you have insisted that they be tried as common criminals in America's court system?

As London and other cities in Britain burn, be on the look out for Dodds to subtly inject into her reporting the notion that the thugs in the street are rebelling against Britain's "elites," "white male privilege," and various social "injustices."

Dodds, incidentally, is more than 40 years old, but the only AP photo that's available of her is one in which she appears to be in her mid 20s.

Also see a related post at this blog: "A Story the AP Plays Down: Released Guantanamo Inmates Return to the Battlefield." And see this post as well: "Kuwait's Gitmo solution: Kill them!"

No comment....Dodd's Twitter photo:

Church Bombers Handed Death Sentences; A Victory for Iraq On Anniversary of Steven Vincent's Murder


By David Paulin

Iraq achieved another milestone this week: the three masterminds of last year's bloody church siege, involving al Qaeda suicide bombers, were sentenced to death by an Iraqi court.

Sixty-eight people died in one of the worst attacks ever against Iraq's Christian minority on Oct. 31. Worshipers were held hostage in a Baghdad cathedral, until al Qaeda suicide bombers detonated their explosive vests.

Coincidentally, the death sentences were issued on Tuesday, August 2, exactly six years after freelance journalist Steven Vincent, 49, was kidnapped and murdered in Basra, Iraq.

Vincent was one of the most gifted American journalists in Iraq -- and unlike most Western reporters, Vincent, an art critic-turned war reporter, was not a cynic. He believed that remaking Iraq into a decent country was possible.

Tuesday's death sentences provide more evidence that Iraq has a functioning rule of rule -- even when it comes to seeking justice for crimes committed against its Christian minority. The death sentences follow two successful parliamentary elections held after the U.S.-led invasion and liberation of Iraq in 2003.

During the U.S-led occupation of Iraq and the subsequent war, most Western reporters focused endlessly on the issue of Iraq's supposedly nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. Vincent, on the other hand, dealt with a more interesting aspect of that controversy: It was a non-issue to most Iraqis.

Vincent, to be sure, had in the last months of his life grown increasingly uneasy about how the war was going

"America rid us of one tyrant, only to give us hundreds more in the form of terrorists," he quoted one man as saying in Umm Qasr, a port city near Kuwait, in an article in National Review.

In his book "In the Red Zone," he elaborated: "Were we wrong in Iraq? Yes, in one major sense, beyond even the shortage of troops, failure to anticipate the Baathist-led insurrection and Abu Ghraib: we did not, and still don't understand the regressive, parasitical, unreasonable presence of tribal Islam -- the black hole in Iraqi and Arab cultures that consumes their best and most positive energies. Because of our blindness, we find ourselves fighting an enemy we do not see, comprehend, or even accurately identify."

He nonetheless argued that much still depended on America's willingness to "stay the course."

Vincent's translator, Nour al-Khal, was kidnapped with him -- then shot and left for dead. Vincent's widow, Lisa Ramaci-Vincent, later brought Nour to America, making a home for her in her Manhattan apartment. She thereby honored her husband's pledge to remove his translator, an aspiring poet, from harm's way in Iraq.

Interestingly, the story about Iraq's conviction of three Al Qaeda terrorists was reported only in a article by the Associated Press. This reflects the fact that major news outlets have cut back their staffs in Baghdad. The reason, of course, is that Iraq is no longer considered a major story. Curiously, The New York Times' online edition ran just a two-sentence version of the AP's 430-word article; The Times apparently didn't regard this as a significant story.

Vincent's murder occurred just three days after he published an Op-Ed piece in The New York Times, "Switched off In Basra," which criticized the increasing infiltration of the Basran police force by Islamic extremists. Amid Basra's repressive religious atmosphere, he wrote, most police officers were putting their faith in the mosque, not the state. In his Op-Ed, he blamed British troops who had secured the city.

"Fearing to appear like colonial occupiers, they avoid any hint of ideological indoctrination: in my time with them, not once did I see an instructor explain such basics of democracy as the politically neutral role of the police in a civil society," wrote Vincent, whose murder remains unsolved.

It was a dreadful example of nation building. Since then, Iraq's success stories have outweighed such failures -- as was underscored by Tuesday's death sentences which were welcomed by Iraq's Christian community.

Increasingly, Iraq appears to be the country where an "Arab Spring" is truly occurring. It's sad that Steven Vincent didn't live to see it.

Originally published at The American Thinker blog. Below is a response from Lisa Ramaci-Vincent to this blog article, as published at The American Thinker:

David - A heartfelt "Thank you" and deep gratitude for your continuing to remember and write about Steven. You have no idea what it means to me and his family (to whom I forwarded this post) that attention is still being called to him, to his fate, by people such as yourself. Today is my birthday, and this is the best present I could have gotten. Again, thank you so very, very much.

Learning the Work Ethic Young

By David Paulin

In America's rural Midwest, an annual ritual is underway in the vast cornfields that stretch to the horizon. Tens of thousands of American teenagers, in a rite of passage, are doing the kinds of farm work more commonly performed by visitors from south of the border.

The teens are detasseling seed corn.

Going from one stalk to another under the blazing sun, they yank off the uppermost tassels in various rows. Some detasselers walk their rows. Others ride in baskets extending from tractors.

It's exhausting work -- dirty and sweaty. But poor and uneducated migrant laborers are nowhere to be found in most fields. Rather, it's fresh-faced rural teens, usually 13 to 15. They do this work to earn extra money over their summer vacations. What's more, in the rural Midwest detasseling is regarded as a character-building experience.

Scrapes, sunburns, and twisted ankles are the worst things that usually befall the young detasselers, boys and girls employed by subcontractors for giant seed companies. It's unheard of to have serious accidents. But last Monday, a freak accident in Illinois claimed the lives of two 14-year-old detasselers, Jade Garza and Hannah Kendall, both of Sterling, Illinois. They were electrocuted near an above-ground irrigation system. Two fellow female detasselers, both sisters, also were injured in the water-soaked field by an electrical current.

Jade Garza and and Hannah Kendall were best friends, and their tragic deaths are getting prominent news coverage in newspapers in the Midwest. A Facebook page set up for the girls quickly received 11,000-plus tributes to the teens.

The accident also has called attention to the epic effort each summer to detassel seed corn that, due to culture and custom in the Midwest, is reserved exclusively for young teens.

In some parts of the country, many middle- and upper-middle-class teens spend their summers doing fancy internships. But not in the rural Midwest. There, large numbers of teens eagerly work as detasselers, a job they proudly list in their resumes, and that many of their parents also did as teens.

Not long after dawn, the young detasselers cheerfully ride in buses that take them from staging areas to outlying cornfields. By 6 or 7 a.m., they're in the thick of dew-covered stalks. To stay dry, they wear ponchos or cut-out plastic garbage bags over their heads, removing them as the sun burns off the dew and the fields heat up.

It's a ritual that's now in high gear. By detasseling some rows of corn, other rows planted with different seeds will cross-pollinate the detasseled stalks, producing hybrid seeds commanding high prices.

The detasseling season lasts a few short weeks -- but the pride and work ethic it instills in rural youngsters benefits them for a lifetime, say current and former detasselers.

To be sure, rural youngsters detasseling corn are nothing like the migrant laborers one might associate with grueling agricultural work. On the contrary, they are middle-class kids. And they are overwhelmingly white, a fact reflecting rural America's demographics.

Detasseling is the first job many rural teens have, and they're proud of that fact. The CEO and executive vice president of Country Financial, Barb Baurer, proudly lists her very first job in high school: corn detasseling.

"Fancy internships don't reflect the work ethic that you learn in a cornfield," wrote Mary Gustafson in an article fondly recalling her days of detasseling as a young teen. When not working in the cornfields, she worked in her family's True Value hardware store. Her father pushed her into corn detasseling for her own good, brushing aside her desire to spend the summer writing a novel.

Detasselers earn up to $1,300 or more for a few weeks of work -- a small fortune for young teens in junior high or high school. Most couldn't earn that much money at other jobs available to teens who are less than 17. Fast-food restaurants, after all, don't generally hire kids who are 13, 14, and 15. Rural teens who work as detasselers are thus getting their first taste of financial independence and pride in hard work. In many cases, the young teens are supervised by college students who themselves started working as detasselers as young teens.

For the thousands of teens now working the fields in America's corn belt, the deaths of two of their own has darkened a detasseling season that is normally filled with camaraderie and good times, as is reflected in the amusing YouTube clips some make to celebrate a special time of their lives. In one, detasselers dance in the corn fields to pop music; another features a busload of detasselers enjoying an impromptu drum solo from a fellow detasseler.

Writing on the Facebook page dedicated to the two teenage detasselers and best friends who died in an Illinois cornfield, Sheri Reimers-Smith wrote: "My thoughts and prayers go out to all family and friends due to this accident. An accident that will never be forgotten and a community that has pulled together to comfort one another. R.I.P. sweet angels. You are both in wonderful hands! Praying for strength to help deal with such a tragedy."

For the teenage detasselers now in the fields, this season will be bittersweet.

Below is a 3 minute YouTube video on detasseling which evokes a certain charm.

Originally published at The American Thinker