Israel – Hamas and the Holocaust Revisited

July 29, 2014

“Israel defends its children with rockets.  Hamas defends its rockets with children.”  – Benjamin Netanyahu

After writing about the recent crisis between Israel and Hamas my post has been receiving comments by persons with revisionist views on the Holocaust.  Rather than answer each one I  thought I would write a separate post to make my own views clear.

Like most people, I share the terrible sorrow over the scenes of dying children in Gaza.  And yet I cannot sanction the continuous , indiscriminate firing of rockets into populated areas of Israel either.  The idea that the death rate is  disproportionate is not much of a moral argument to me.  An enemy in battle has no obligation to equalize the death rate for his opponents.  If a Hamas rocket landed in a crowded street of Tel Aviv would they decrease their rate of fire?

Yes, I hate the sight of dying children.  It is heartbreaking.  So I wonder why has the Hamas – influenced government refused to accept an unconditional cease-fire which would stop that killing?   And why are they openly saying that their latest attack is in retaliation for the Egyptian blockade of their border?  Why are they not sending rockets into Egypt?  And if Egypt, an Islamic nation, who has been persecuting Coptic Christians, is threatened by the Palestinian-Hamas government in Gaza and sees them as terrorists, why are we giving that government U.S. foreign aid?

The idea of some persons commenting on my blogs appears to be that the deaths of children in Gaza is evidence that the Jews are basically bad people.  That even the Holocaust has been invented and/ or distorted for propaganda purposes.

My belief is that the deaths of these children in Gaza are very real consequences to a terrible war gone bad.  But that the deaths during the Holocaust were also very real and the memory of those who suffered at the hands of a corrupt and evil government program is sacred.  The Jews, as a people, cannot be seen outside of this context.

I do not come to my views of the Holocaust casually.  As a youth I read the standard World War II books, mostly written by English and American writers, but this led to books by generals and participants on both sides of the conflict.  By the time Albert Speer’s books were published I had read deeply on the subject including transcripts of Hitler’s table talk, the Goebbels’ diaries and all the personal accounts of secretaries, valets, around the principal figures. And of course I read hundreds of the biographies and autobiographies of that era.

The Nuremberg Trial was fascinating.  I read all of the English versions of books by concentration camp survivors.  And, even now, as new ones are translated and appear, I find them and read them as well.   Very early I devoured all of the carefully researched David Irving books and later the Holocaust revisionist spin offs that followed.  I read excerpts from the Irving trial and the tedious studies of Robert Jan van Pelt.

In my travels I visited battlefields including Kursk, St. Petersburg, Volgograd (Stalingrad).  I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau, Sachsenhausen, Dachau, Buchenwald and some smaller concentration camps in Belgium and France.  In some cases I made return visits, stepping off the cement foundations of the gas chambers to calculate if it were mathematically possible for so many to be shuffled in and out.

In Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine I stopped by the road and visited markers depicting the historical sites of various atrocities.   With the collapse of the Soviet Union came the release of a whole new round of information giving insights and corrections to events.

Yes, there are mistakes in print everywhere.  Just as there are in any other history, including presidential history, which I research as a career. But the Holocaust indeed happened and has been carefully chronicled in spite of Nazi efforts to keep it hidden.  Martin Gilbert’s book, Holocaust, may be the most complete accounting and it can be mind numbing.  Gilbert tracks it all, country by country, city by city, block by block and family by family.  The predictable stories repeat over and over with the denial, right up to the end, until the door is shut behind.

I stubbornly read the stories of survivors because I know that the perpetrators wanted these people to die alone, unknown to the world.  And the victims felt abandoned, so I want to be there with them, along with thousands of other readers, whispering between the pages, “I am here too, with you, we all now know what happened, you are not alone, you are not forgotten and I weep with you over the inhumanity of your captors.”

It would be a mistake for us to turn away from the faces of the dying children in Gaza.  But it is also a shame for us to pretend that the Holocaust didn’t happen.

 


Is Obama too big too fail? Why is he acting so strangely?

July 26, 2014

President Barack Obama’s shameless fundraising tours in the midst of a world in chaos have brought immediate comparisons to Ronald Reagan.   Led by his erstwhile advisers, such as Michael Deaver, who understood imagery, Reagan would have been back in the Oval Office, looking presidential and sounding like the statesman he was.  Reagan would likely have brought his government together, State Department, NSA, Pentegon, CIA and taken an assessment of how it could all impact on American economy and lives.  He would likely have given a national address, reassuring the nation and signalling the world how we expect civilized people to act.

On the surface, Obama’s actions are incomprehensible.  There is no explanation.  Obama appears transcendent, not responsible for his own administration and uncaring about the world around him.

It has been the Obama style from the beginning. The economic crisis was the fault of the previous administration.  When his own stimulus program could not produce one of the one million jobs he promised, it was replaced with more of the same and  blame on congress for failing to immediately enact more of what wasn’t working.

The president declared that he had no responsibility for the IRS which was blatantly being used for political purposes, he had nothing to do with the failed Healthcare website and nothing to do with the Veteran’s Administration which was corrupt on his watch. Whatever happened to Harry Truman and his Oval Office motto, “the buck stops here?”

It was not just that the president was not in charge of anything, or seemed to know anything, or should be blamed for anything, it was also when we found out differently he didn’t apologize.  When we learned, for example, that the $678 million , no bid, Healthcare website was awarded to Michelle Obama’s buddy from Princeton, the White House ignored it all.  When a news agency asked about it they were charged with racism.  When the president’s hand picked political lieutenant at the IRS claimed she had lost her emails the president defended her.

Sometimes, these juxtapositions can get downright comical.  Recently, General Motors was fined millions of dollars by the Justice Department for faulty ignition issues when, in fact, at that time, the company was owned and being run by the U.S. government.  Should the Justice Department fine itself?  When Obama ran for re-election he bragged about saving the auto industry?  But he has no responsibility for the company he bought.   The President is too big to fail.

On closer examination, Obama’s recent actions make sense.  He is angling for his post presidential role.  He will either be the Secretary General of the United Nations or else he will be some NGO equivalent.  Thus, he spent the week campaigning for the Democrat Party and ultimately Hillary Clinton whom he will need as an ally if he is to realize his ambition.  Nor would he want to poke the Russians more than necessary.

And the Federal Aviation Administration’s sudden cancellation of all flights to Tel Aviv?  At a cost to Israel of millions of dollars?  At first we were told that the president didn’t get involved in such things.  And given the fact that the president isn’t responsible for the economy, the IRS, his own Healthcare namesake and the Veterans Administration, to name a few departments, then one could almost believe it.    What does he do with all that free time?  But if he is now on track for his post presidency then it makes perfect sense.  The U.N. votes solidly against Israel, with only American on her side.  Obama will need to have some more of these anti-Israel moments to shore up his support from the African and Arab nations who dominate the the U.N. and will dictate the reach of any international role.

There was an awkward scene on CNN last week.  Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg snapped at Wolf Blitzer.  The CNN reporter had asked if the FAA decision represented policy.  Given Obama’s anti Israel record it was a reasonable question.  And it had just been raised by a U.S. Senator.  A testy Bloomberg was outraged at Wolf Blitzer for daring to ask such a thing.  It was another shameful moment.  Bloomberg has taken a lot of heat for his slavish support of Obama, in spite of his record toward Israel.

The irony was that Bloomberg’s very appearance was proof of the politics of the policy. If Tel Aviv was safe, and Bloomberg could fly there, then why was it ordered closed to all American airlines?  And if it wasn’t safe, why was it opened up again after the American people reacted to the FAA’ decision with outrage?

Oh, by the way, as someone who once worked in the White House, I can tell you that no one at the FAA would make such an unprecedented and politically charged decision without the okay of the president of the United States.  Sorry.

It all points to this very likely scenario.  We will have Barrack Obama on the world stage for a very, very long time to come.

 

Below was a controversial “what would Reagan do” moment during the Egyptian crisis and the Arab spring.  On this segment, several years ago, I voiced a lonely position that turned out to be prophetic.


Woman banned from USA because of her name

July 10, 2014

America’s clumsy efforts to make herself safe continue to reach ridiculous proportions,  making enemies instead of friends.  Last April The Daily Sabah ran a story about a woman who was barred from entering the USA because of her name.  The 33 year old French citizen, Alic Aida was told at the airport in Geneva that she could not be allowed to board the flight to New York City.  She and her family were turned away without explanation. After the departure of the flight she persisted for more information and was told that her name in English sounded like al-Qaeda.

The mother of two children is of Yugoslav origin.  Her family name is hundreds of years old.

According to 2012 data, there are 21,000 people on American’s “no fly list.”  This is the same list that in 2004 had Senator Ted Kennedy flagged at airports.  (You can’t be too careful.)

Anyway, we can all feel safer knowing that Alic Aida, her husband and two children, will not be on board a flight for their summer holiday in New York City.  And hopefully others with suspicious names will be culled from the masses.

Meanwhile, if you were unlucky enough to be born with a suspicious name you might consider making a change.  Ooop, this is coming from the desk of yours truly, Doug Wead.


It’s the end of America as we know it

July 2, 2014

Happy Fourth of July. It’s the end of America as we know it.  And by the way, its the end of baseball, motherhood and apple pie as well.  Baseball has morphed from a game of statistics into a reality show with players always in search of a better and less detectable steroid.  And don’t get me going on apple pie.  Which usually isn’t.  We are edging closer to Soylent Green every day.

The changes for motherhood and women and race are major advances in civilization but the rest is a mixed bag.

What is becoming of America  should give us pause.  We are in what I call a “post Constitutional drift” and it worries me that we so easily, without debate, are confidently moving away from our foundations.

There have been two provocations for this. The first was the attack on 9-11.  President George W. Bush seized unprecedented power for the executive branch of government.

The second has been our Great Recession.  The last time we had the Great Depression it sparked the rise of Hitler and Stalin and World War Two.  You cannot have that much wealth taken from that many people without sociopolitical repercussions.  But it also gave the world FDR and Churchill.  As a student of history I wondered what cataclysmic changes our Great Recession would birth.   And lo and behold, the biggest change was us.  President Barack Obama seized on economic events to assert government involvement on a breathtaking scale. Even former socialist countries in Europe were aghast.  Welfare was increased to the masses while corporate welfare was even more lavish.  The result?  The rich got richer and the poor got poorer at an astounding rate.

In Bush we had our moment of nationalism, in Obama, socialism.  Unless we can recapture the ideals of our American Constitution quickly we are destined to experience our own American version of National Socialism.

We wage preemptive wars, torture our captives and monitor our own citizens on a massive scale.  Our government agencies are accountable to no one and openly defy, even lie to Congress.  Consider this, only a few years ago a president could not get a wire tap without a judge.  Now he can kill you.

In 1946 we joined an international tribunal which indicted Nazi war criminals.  One of the four counts was defined as “war of aggression.”  Our prosecutor, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, made an eloquent case against what is now American policy, the immorality of a so-called “preemptive war.”

Jackson’s opening statement at Nuremberg should be required reading for television pundits.  He pointed to the June 30, 1934 Blood Purge as the turning point in German justice.  Without formal charges or a trial Hitler ordered the execution of Nazi Brown shirts, (terrorists) who were suspected of planning a counter revolution.  “In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German people,” Hitler later reported to the Reichstag and the nation, “And thereby I became the Supreme judge.”  The decision was applauded in Germany as a move back toward moderation but Jackson asserts that it was this abandonment of Germany’s own constitution that began its descent into lawlessness.

Barack Obama’s decision to kill American citizen, Anwar al-Awaki, is instructive.  Al-Awaki was a one man Islamic propaganda machine.  His online sermons of hatred inspired terrorism.  In Nuremberg, only one top Nazi propagandist was in the docket.  He was Hans Fritzsche, a popular Nazi radio voice.  But as repugnant as his words had been, the American, Soviet, British and French judges acquitted him.  How can you hang a  man for free speech no matter how repugnant?

Months after the al-Awaki death, his sixteen year old son, an American citizen born in Denver, Colorado, with no ties to radical Islam, went to Yemen in search of his father’s body.  He was likewise killed by an American drone.  We call it a mistake.

Throughout our history we have condemned torture.  The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.”  Our motion pictures and culture have shown the barbarism of our enemies.  The Japanese and the Germans tortured, so did the North Koreans and later the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese.  Who can forget Michael Cimino’s gut wrenching scenes from Deer Hunter?

Now, in the new post constitutional America, we too, torture.  For legal purposes we do “a little sidestep” in the tradition of Charles Durning in The Last Little Whore House in Texas.  We torture outside the United States and thus our Justice Department contends we are not violating the Constitution.

It isn’t too late. There are about fifty men and women in this country who run the television industry.  They are far more powerful than members of the Federal Reserve, or elected officials, such as members of congress.  They and their television companies have the power to open up a debate on all of this.  If not, we are in the process of losing the great American experiment without even a chance to say goodbye.  It’s the end of America as we know it.

 


TIME magazine rebounds

June 9, 2014

is it just me or has anyone else noticed how interesting TIME magazine has become lately?  For the first time in years I find myself buying it off the newsstand at airports even though I subscribe.  The stories are too compelling for me to wait to get home to my own copy.

I confess that I moved to television cable news long ago.  My subscriptions to newspapers and magazines expired.  They were too late with the news, too predictable in their interpretation and just beyond vanilla to the point of bland.  The new TIME has something rare for our age, old fashioned journalism.  It’s coverage of the crisis in Ukraine was actually ahead of television news.  (How can you trust a television reporter who cannot pronounce Sevastopol?)  

And there is something new for TIME, raw, beyond-the-stale-boardroom predictable perspectives. I may be wrong about this but as a reader, it appears to me, that after years of trying to cram their version of he world down our throats the Gods at TIME have turned their talent lose.


Hands on Diplomacy: the foreign policy failure of America

May 14, 2014

American presidents can’t keep their hands off of other heads of state.  It has become embarrassing.  They touch their shoulders, their backs and hold their arms as they guide them to places to stand or sit.  It is as if their guests were little children or blind men who need the assistance of the almighty American president-father.  Kings, Queens or common dictators?  It doesn’t matter.   Our presidents manhandle them all, especially  the women.

Not since George H.W. Bush have we had a president who has enough foreign policy experience to know what most American tourists have learned from their own world travels, namely, that you should not touch other people without permission.  In some countries of Asia and Africa it is considered unsanitary and dirty, the ultimate offense.  You respect the body of the other person.  Shaking hands, a western habit, has only been recently accepted and even it is an offense to many of the masses. One can see the awkwardness in the faces of our visiting heads of state.   Except in rare political instances, such as Queen Elizabeth’s encounter with Michelle Obama, they don’t touch back.  They don’t say, “Thank you for helping me find my spot for the photo op, I was lost and couldn’t read my name on the floor of the stage.”  Or, “Say, thanks Mr. President, for the assist in getting into my chair.  Although I am younger than you I was afraid I was going to take a tumble.”

One can see when they are the host in their own country and our president is the guest, they are not hugging or manhandling him.  He isn’t required to kiss on both cheeks in France.  He is allowed to stand tall, with dignity, not inches but feet away from the French president.  The ushers, doormen and military aides in many foreign capitals (including  France) actually still wear white gloves.

My guess is that there are diplomats and analysts in the U.S. State Department who are horrified by this presidential behavior and have written eloquent, respectful memorandum, tediously explaining the toilet habits of masses of people from different cultures, offering excellent explanations for why and how these traditions have evolved.  And why no matter how close they feel to their leader counterpart, it is often an offense to the people to see their nation’s leader pawed over.   If so, such memorandum never made it past the White House sycophants who cannot stop telling the president-emperor how wonderful he looks in those clothes of his.

The fact is, the emperor is naked.  America’s ignorant presidents from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush to Barack Obama make us look patronizing, rude and condescending.  Their obsessive manhandling of foreign leaders and their small gestures of touch and feel, meant to endear, have had their part to play in the collapse of America’s foreign policy.  It is not what the actions themselves have done as much as the contempt they express toward other nations and their cultures.  If an American president is so isolated that he can’t get this obvious memo from Foggy Bottom, then what else is he missing?  What other, more outrageous and idiotic mistakes are being made?  No wonder America has moved from a country that is hated to a country that is now ridiculed in jokes around the world.

In years past I have despised the soft on communism apparatchiks at the State Department.  Now, I admit that we need them to assert themselves.  Someone needs to blow the whistle.  American is losing its public relations battle worldwide out of ignorance and arrogance.  We can see it on television.  Yes, this touchy-feely tendency is only a symptom but it shows that the corruption is complete.  Even our recent secretaries of state have been too cowed by the all powerful American celebrity president.  Somebody needs to speak up.

George H.W. Bush, experienced as a diplomat and ambassador, a former head of the CIA, was America’s last respectable foreign policy president.  He accomplished something that history had never seen.  He united the world behind the effort to enforce the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.  Yes, he didn’t finish off Saddam Hussein but that was part of the price for world unity and Saddam was clearly kept in check.  Today, having finished off Saddam Hussein and seeing the death of tens of thousands, Iraq has turned into an Islamic nation.  Christians who trace their  heritage back to the apostle Thomas have been tortured, murdered and burned out.   Being Gay or even looking gay has become a death sentence in Baghdad.  Al Qaeda now operates freely in Iraq. And the American economy, suffering from a $2 trillion war that was off the books, has fallen into its second worst depression in history.

Critics are now berating President Barack Obama for backing down from world leadership.  Maybe we should leave him alone.


Presidents and their mothers

May 11, 2014

“All I am or ever hope to be I owe to my angel mother, God bless her.”

- Abraham Lincoln

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to confirm that most of America’s presidents are “mama’s boys.”

It must make Sigmund Freud smile for one of his most enduring discoveries was how the perceived favorite child of a mother is empowered for life.  Consider the overwhelming evidence that mothers play a key role.  Many recent presidents were literally named after their mothers but none of their many siblings.

Ronald Wilson Reagan named after his mother Nelle Wilson.

Richard Milhous Nixon named after his mother Hannah Nixon.

Lyndon Baines Johnson named after his mother Rebecca Baines.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy named after his mother Rose Fitzgerald.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt named after his mother Sarah Delano.

Woodrow Wilson named after his mother Janet Woodrow.

And on and on it goes back into history. Rutherford Birchard Hayes named after his mother Sophia Birchard.  Of course it is not a perfect formula or Marvin Pierce Bush would have been elected president, not his older brother, George W. Bush, but it is common enough to defy any odds.

“You are a Delano,” FDR’s mother, Sarah Delano used to tell him, “not a Roosevelt.”

“I was a mama’s boy,” said Woodrow Wilson, “no question about it, but the best of womanhood came to me through those apron strings.”

“God bless my mother,” Abraham Lincoln supposedly said to his law partner William Herndon,” all I am or ever hope to be I owe to my angel mother.”

Keep in mind, the above famous quote, attributed to Lincoln’s law partner, may never have really been uttered.  Yes, it is featured prominently in almost every biography of Lincoln and appears in the first pages of Pulitzer Prize Award winning books but recent research shows that  the time and place named by Herndon  just couldn’t have happened and so, now even the quote is suspect.  But there is no denying that Lincoln loved his mother and perhaps, even more, his stepmother, who gave him the gift of books.

When I wrote The Raising of President I blind copied some of the above information to five psychologists, asking them to each give me their opinion.  I was especially intrigued why so many of the children who were namesakes of their mother went on to become presidents.

All five answered back with the same conclusion. When the mother took that infant to her breast she felt a special bond with the child who would bare her name for life and the infant could feel it.

I am only a layman who doesn’t pretend to understand such things but if it is true, if a baby can “feel” favoritism then just imagine the power and the impact for good or bad a mother, or a father’s words have on their children?   I was reminded of the experiments conducted by the Royal Horticultural Society.  If the human voice can empower a plant, then it must surely cause powerful reactions for good or bad on a human being.

There is a very predictable family formula for strong leaders, good and bad.  They have an attachment to the mother and an absent father.  Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedung all fit the pattern as neatly as Washington and Jefferson.

Andrew Jackson’s father died before the future president was even born.  His mother died when he was 14 years old.   Even when alive, she was often gone .  As a nurse she tended the wounded during the Revolutionary War.

When Andrew Jackson died as an old man, many years later, his body was full of bullets, including one lodged near his heart and too dangerous to remove.  They were the result of a life of action, including duels and wars.  It was as if he wanted to be worthy, the equal of those Revolutionary War soldiers who took his mother away from him as a boy.

In a sense, Andrew Jackson’s life was one long  journey back into the arms of his mother.

Start reading The Raising of a President right now on Kindle.  Order it for your mother.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 476 other followers