Most recent blog entries

"Voices of Montana," Maj. George Racey Jordan & "American Betrayal"

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:41:00 GMT

A "processed" P-63 Kingcobra undergoes final inspection in June 1945 at Great Falls Army Air Base, a hub of the massive Lend-Lease supply program (photo courtesy of the Malmstrom Museum). Such processing, it can be seen, included application of the Soviet red star.

---

If American Betrayal tells our lost history, reading and discussing the book is a means of restoring that lost history to the American people where it beongs.

I recently had the opportunity to go on the radio on "Voices of Montana" with Aaron Flint to discuss Lend Lease, whose WWII supply pipeline to the USSR included a key base in Great Falls, Montana. As American Betrayal explains, Lend Lease-Soviet looks very much like a rogue operation run out of the White House by FDR's top advisor Harry Hopkins for shipping not just hundreds of millions of dollars worth of aircraft and war materiel but also uranium and heavy water to the Soviet Union. This, Congress later ascertained after Maj. George Racey Jordan came forward to testify, took place during World War II, and despite the embargo placed on the export of US uranium stocks during the super-secret duration of the Manhattan Project.

What we as a people have never reckoned with is the fact that FDR's Lend Lease abetted the Soviet development of the atomic bomb, which, as Soviet archives later confirmed, gave Stalin the confidence to trigger the Korean War, which killed millions of people, including tens of thousands of Americans.

How did that happen? Read American Betrayal.

While on the show, it was especially exciting to hear from a couple of callers -- the man whose father worked in air freight out at Major Jordan's base; the "old lady" who told us about her girlfriend who worked at the base. Hadn't thought about it in years, she said.

There is a reason, which the book explores.

Listen to the show here. It starts at Minute 5:56.

From the Vaults: Mom Dad and Illegal Nanny Make Three

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:25:00 GMT

An intriguing aspect of the Mainly Mexican Immigration Debate is the impact endless masses of "amnesty"-lured, unskilled and cheap labor has had on the mechanism and nature of the American family. Cheap child care -- whether via "imported labor," as the Washington Post has actually called it, or government -- "liberates" mothers to work. In some cases, little more is earned than the nanny wages.

The cultural, political, and probably evolutionary repercussions of this fact of very recent American life are many and many-faceted. There is the cultural and familial impact of child-raising by non-mothers; there is an impact on marriage/divorce; there is an impact on the economy where dual-income families drive prices up; there is an impact on certain particularly "feminized" professions where a surfeit of workers, male and female, drive wages down.

I'm sure there are more repercussions but none of them makes it into the debate over amnesty. Neither does the fact that if/when the Senate approves amnesty, it guarantees a continued, heavy flow of illegal aliens seeking future amnesty across borders that will, no matter how much they lie to us again, remain open.

Here's a cursory look at the issue from April 17, 2006:

"Mom, Dad, and Illegal Nanny Make Three"

Listen to what passes for immigration debate and it soon becomes clear: Illegal aliens are bad for our character.

Take New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Deporting illegal aliens, he told WABC-AM radio host John Gambling, would wreak havoc on golf courses across America. "You and I both play golf," Mr. Bloomberg said on the air. "Who takes care of the greens and fairways in your golf course?"

As I recall, French royalty got the guillotine for less, in part because Les Masses didn't share this Let Them Play Golf mentality. But nobody stormed City Hall over what writer Lawrence Auster called "Bloomberg's Marie Antoinette moment" because in our society, Mr. Bloomberg represents the new breed. Once, Americans were renowned for a can-do spirit that never wanted to wait for tomorrow. Now, Americans exemplify a can-be-done-for spirit that wants to be waited on forever.

Something of this attitude filters through when Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., directly addresses pro-amnesty marchers as the people who care for our children, our elderly, our hotels, our restaurants and our lawns. Our lawns? "Your faces are the faces of those who give us a fair day's work -- and often not for a fair day's pay," she said -- which has to make you wonder what she pays her gardener.

If a Virginia landscape company recently examined by The Washington Post is any measure, not enough. The company offers $7.74 per hour (less than my neighbors pay enterprising teens for the same hard work), and Americans, the company says, aren't applying. Rather than raise wages, thus following elementary rules of supply and demand, the company relies, like many businesses, on what the Post almost snobbishly dubs "imported labor." The report continues: "Significantly higher wages might work (to attract US laborers), but that increase would be passed on to unhappy consumers, forcing Americans to give up under-$10 manicures and $15-per-hour paint and lawn jobs." Horrors. What next -- higher green fees? Pricey lettuce? Not for nothing did Patrick Henry say, give me cheap produce or give me death.

In what might be called a paean to peons, the New York Daily News recently celebrated the illegal-alien economy. "They clean your office while you sleep and comfort your kids while you're away at work. They prepare your morning coffee, deliver your lunch and clean your plates when you dine out," the Daily News wrote. Frankly, this conjures an image closer to support staff of the British Raj than other Joe Yankee fans. The paper continues: They -- the illegals -- are "the backbone of an underground economy that relies on low-wage workers performing menial tasks."

No word on whither low wages should this "underground economy" go legit via government amnesty. Maybe that's because just talking about amnesty boosts the numbers of illegal aliens trying to get into the country. The article does go on to offer an inadvertent inkling as to why this black-market for labor exists in the first place, and why it is so vehemently defended, particularly by American elites.

The insight shows up in a vignette about Arlene, an "undocumented nanny."

She not only takes care of the kids, the paper notes, but "she'll make breakfast, change diapers and keep up with afternoon play dates ... wash your laundry, clean the apartment and cook dinner for you when you get home." Says Arlene: "The parents really depend on it. ... We literally make it possible for them to work."

Them? No, Arlene makes it possible for the mother to work. The "underground economy" is actually the backbone of the three-career family: working Dad, working Mom and working Nanny. In other words, defending the illegal economy isn't just an expression of the To-the-McMansion-Born attitude of the nouveau riche. There is also the strong possibility that the more affluent sector of society -- the dual-income family of the upper-middle class -- couldn't exist without it.

The impact of immigration law enforcement, then, goes beyond national security and cultural identity: It goes to the heart of the American family. Without the "undocumented nanny" to fall back on, many middle-class parents would have to stay home. Such a shift would have untold repercussions, not least of which would be on the little one. Without two-career parental largesse, he might actually grow into the kind of teenager who is willing to work hard and cheap -- busing tables, washing cars, working construction and cutting grass. In short, the model young citizen.

From the Vaults: Creeping Amnesty

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:49:00 GMT

I would trade the "Gang of Eight" for Edward Snowden any day

---

I have been reading through five- and six-year-old columns on the Amnesty Wars of 2006-2007 that We, the People won. That means George W. Bush, Big Business, The Wall Street Journal, the illegal alien street protests ("Si, Se Puede," "Yes, We Can"), and La Raza lost.

This time around the set-up seems quite different. George W. Bush is gone and there are no Mexican flags in sight. In this period of high unemployment, I haven't heard the old mantra, "They do the work Americans won't do." Barack "Si, Se Puede" is in the White House. Today, the amnesty show is run by the sober-suited, gruesomely named "Gang of Eight" under intense, but low-profile oversight from the Obama White House.

Have the more incendiary aspects of pro-Amnesty forces gone quiet as a matter of political strategy? It would seem so. After all, they didn't work. Rather than alarm Americans who stopped Shamnesty 2007 by melting down the switchboards on Capitol Hill -- we can stlll do that again -- today's immigration "reformers" operate dfferently. One Democrat innovation has been to con Republicans into believing more (Big Gov-loving) Hispanic voters is good for the GOP! As Rush Limbaugh has asked, why do Republicans believe Democrats have their best political interests at heart?

Thank Heavens we still have Sen. Jeff Sessions.

Here, from the vaults, is an April 10, 2006 column looking at the correlations and even evidence of cooperation between Creeping Amnesty and Creeping Sharia. As for correlations, both movements unchecked will transform the pre-existing cultures out of existence. Shouldn't host populations reckon with this proposed transformation frankly and fully and vote up or down on it before "gangs" of officials impose them forever?

---

So there I was, thinking that the only "imminent" threat was the Islamization of the Western world, a historic shift well underway in Europe. Yes, it remained clear that out-of-control immigration in the United States jeopardized the future of our nationhood. But after Sept. 11, the present danger had become creeping sharia: the gradual — and not so gradual — acceptance of Islamic law by Western and, therefore, non-Islamic societies.

But then came last month's massive, mainly Mexican street protests against border control and in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, mainly Mexican, who have crossed into this country since the last time Uncle Sam granted amnesty in 1986. Back then, it was amnesty for less than 3 million. Today, 20 years later, these protestors, along with George W. Bush, want to see some 12 million illegal aliens "earn" citizenship (amnesty). In another 20 years, will a new, amnesty-seeking illegal population number 48 million?

In light of the post-protest retreat — I mean, "deliberations" — in the U.S. Senate, such a colossal figure looks increasingly plausible. After all, what does an illegal alien or two (or 48 million) have to lose? We are, as we are repeatedly lectured, "a nation of immigrants" who do the work that "Americans" won't do. In fact, maybe just forget about "Americans." If We, the People, get anything like Amnesty 2006 — with provisions to attain an increasingly Hispanic demographic — the United States will change from being a neighbor of Latin America to becoming a part of it.

All of which is to say that creeping sharia, both at home and abroad, is still a present danger. But so is creeping amnesty. And strikingly, the amnesty scenario begins to mirror, if even in a cracked way, some of the demographic changes that historian Bernard Lewis predicted will turn Europe Islamic by the end of this century. That is, as America increasingly loses its European-descended majority on one side of the Atlantic, Europe, too, increasingly loses its European majority on the other. In a National Review Online piece called "American Dhimmitude," the Center for Immigration Studies' Mark Krikorian likened illegal aliens' demands on the U.S. government to "the same kind of challenge that aggressive outsiders are making against other parts of the West, including Muslim immigrants in Europe and, in its most extreme form, Palestinians in Israel." One blogger, Freedom Folks (hat tip Michelle Malkin), took this concept a step further. Reporting on craven decisions by several American public schools to ban American flags and other patriotic symbols that presumably offend or inflame student-advocates of illegal alien "rights," Freedom Folks referenced "dhimmitude," the subservient condition of non-Muslims under Islamic rule, and wrote: "Welcome to the beginning of Mexitude right here in the U.S. of A. ... Think dhimmitude, but substitute Colorado for Kandahar and La Raza for The Religion of Peace (Islam)."

There are other parallels. Both Mexican and Islamic supremacist movements harken back to chimerical Golden Ages — the purely mythical Aztlan kingdom said to comprise the American Southwest, and the mythically tolerant Andalusia of Islamic Spain. Both groups seem to thrive on crazy conspiracy theories. For example, we've all heard from the Arab-Muslim world that Sept. 11 was an Israeli and/or CIA plot; I found similar claptrap online at the separatist (and Palestinian suicide-bomber honoring) "news" site, La Voz de Aztlan, where publisher Hector Carreon, writing from "Los Angeles, Alta California" (Imperial Spain's, then Mexico's, name for the region before it was ceded to the United States in 1848), declared that Nicholas Berg's decapitation by jihadists in Iraq was a stunt engineered at Abu Ghraib. La Voz de Aztlan, by the way, is one of the organizations calling for a nationwide, pro-amnesty boycott on May 1.

Small wonder that some organizational solidarity exists between Islamic and Mexican radical groups — as seen, for example, when the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) joins a "pro-immigrant" rally at the U.S. Capitol. International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) — which, as the Washington Times reported, was the hard-left coalition behind last month's pro-amnesty march in Los Angeles — has a steering committee that includes, along with "civil justice" and "socialism and liberation" groups, the Mexico Solidarity Network, the Nicaragua Network, the Free Palestine Alliance and the Muslim Student Association. It all begins to make sense, in a leftist, anti-American, open-borders coalition sort of way.

My question: Why does George W. Bush seem to have signed onto this coalition?

We Stopped Amnesty in 2006-2007; Why Can't We Stop It in 2013?

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:48:00 GMT

Flags flying over Montebello High School, 2006

---

You think maybe Edward Snowden is a "traitor" for exposing the totalitarian structure and function of the thuggish mega-state? Me, I think any senator who votes for the dissolution of the USA should be in the dock.

From the Vaults: April 3, 2006, "Which Flag Do You Want?"

As one of those American rarities -- a Los Angeles native -- I looked at recent, mainly Mexican protests against proposed restrictions on illegal immigration with more than just outrage over lost U.S. sovereignty. I was also reflexively examining aerial photos to pinpoint where in Los Angeles those hundreds of thousands of Mexican-flag-waving demonstrators were marching.

It was downtown Los Angeles, a section of the sprawling city I rarely visited growing up. Then it hit me: As a kid in the 1960s, my mother had taken me on an outing to Olvera Street, an old section of downtown ("old" for Los Angeles being mid-to-late-19th century) where visitors went to enjoy folkloric Mexican food and crafts as -- it sounds unbelievable now -- a colorful tourist attraction. And visitors still go there. But then it really hit me: There weren't that many Mexicans in Los Angeles back then.

Or, to put it another way, citing the online encyclopedia Encarta: "In 1960, non-Hispanic whites made up 82 percent of the population of Los Angeles County." Forty years later, the 2000 census showed that the white population had dwindled to 31 percent, while Hispanics -- 79 percent of whom hail from Mexico -- accounted for 44.6 percent of population. (Update: by 2011, non-Hispanic white population had fallen to 27.1 percent.) This colossal surge has made the Mexican population of Los Angeles second only to that of Mexico City. Little wonder Los Angeles voters in 2005 elected Antonio Villaraigosa, the city's first Hispanic mayor since 1872 when, as the research site notes, Los Angeles was "a small frontier town of about 6,000 people."

Mexicans by the millions are a relatively new demographic phenomenon in the United States. So how did Los Angeles become a Mexican metropolis? Encarta cites the 1965 Immigration Act, which, it explains, officially ended "bias in favor of Northern European immigrants ... opening the doors to massive immigration from Latin America and Asia."

I found this explanation almost refreshing in that this landmark bill is often overlooked in considering American demographic shifts. As Peter Brimelow brilliantly argued in his book "Alien Nation" (Harper Perennial, 1996), the 1965 Act remains central to the immigration debate that American political elites have so assiduously and irresponsibly avoided for decades.

Still, while mentioning the 1965 Act, Encarta also not-so-subtly implies that European "bias" was bad, while "opening the doors" to the Third World was good. This adheres to the infantilizing orthodoxy of good (nice) and bad (mean) that has stunted debate on immigration, forcing it into a political fetal position moved by the odd emotional spasm. (Courageous Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., is the leading grown-up exception to this rule.)

But now the debate -- at least one side of it -- has spilled onto the streets, where alien activists, having festooned themselves in Mexican flags, demand amnesty and rights. (Everyone should go to Michelle Malkin's Web site -- michellemalkin.com -- to see the photograph of a California high school flagpole flying the Mexican flag over an upside-down Stars and Stripes.) This outpouring may be the tangible fusion of every liberal orthodoxy, from multiculturalism to "inclusiveness" to "self-esteem"; it's also in-your-face symbolism of the abysmal failure to assimilate, to Americanize, even on the most superficial level, an ever-growing influx of foreign-born millions.

All of which needs to be openly discussed before the Senate actually votes on immigration reform. This would be a first. In 1965, when Congress passed the immigration act that "opened the door" to "massive" immigration from the Third World, there wasn't, as Brimelow has noted, much in the way of a national debate. In the two decades that followed, along with millions of legal immigrants, the U.S. attracted a huge, mainly Hispanic, illegal population -- roughly 3 million of whom received amnesty from Ronald Reagan in 1986. Twenty years later, in 2006, we see a fourfold increase in that illegal population, now estimated at 12 million. Rather than break the pattern, George W. Bush wants to grant de facto amnesty again.

But then what -- another fourfold increase over the next 20 years? That would equal 48 million illegal, mainly Hispanic, aliens by 2026. It's not impossible -- particularly if we continue to shroud the issue in the irrational silence of taboo, never asking the most basic questions. Such as: Should America plan to become a Hispanic nation? The question is neither "racist" nor "xenophobic," but central to any coherent policy. If the answer is yes, we all might as well salute the red, white and green. If not, we better call our senators.

Lucianne.com on American Betrayal: "Our Pick for an Absolute MUST READ"

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 13:19:00 GMT

Lucianne.com has magnanimously given its prime real estate today, June 15, to American Betrayal, calling it: "Our Pick for an Absolute MUST READ."

Presenting "American Betrayal" at Heritage, June 14

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:46:00 GMT

Watch live streaming video from thflehrman at livestream.com

Starts at Minute 39.

No Constitution, No Borders, No USA

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:16:00 GMT

This week's syndicated column

At what point does it become clear that we no longer inhabit America?

When we “Press 2,” not “1,” for English?

When a national Social Security Number syncs an electronic identity that the government hospital provided us at birth to track us till death?

When borders are no more, but the Surveillance State always knows where we are?

Ours is the age of dislocation before realization: The United States of America no longer exists. Why? How? The answer is simple, tragic and outrageous: Government officials, elected and unelected, with precious exceptions, no longer preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. Instead, they do whatever it takes to beat it, flout it and ignore it. Worse, We, the People, let them.

This can’t go on. Otherwise our-country-’tis-of-thee becomes a melody to be forgotten, a mirage of a tradition more storybook than real every day. Nowhere is this more the case, of course, than in Washington, D.C., where absolute unaccountability corrupts absolutely, where echoing down the cool, white marble halls of power, hollow men and women trample sovereignty and citizenship in a pathway to American betrayal. And I haven’t even gotten to Congress, busy “reforming” the illegal-alien crisis they antiseptically refer to as “immigration,” while considering passage of a $940 billion “farm bill,” 80 percent of which will fund food stamps. These two laws alone can institutionalize the lawlessness of the land and make countless more Americans wards of the state.

Meanwhile, there is in Washington a faceless power-mongery that lives and works in the shadows. City by city, rural state by rural state, its mechanisms of “immigration,” “refugee resettlement” and socialist government programs overwhelm a near-impotent citizenry with alien cultures, religions, languages and traditions.

There is no “melting pot” out there, nor is there even residual belief in one – particularly not on the part of the State. Most of our new peoples will never embrace American constitutional virtues en masse to perpetuate them because their own sponsor, their own lifeline, is the mega-state that brought them here and supports them.

This goes for newcomers from the Hispano-sphere, 75 percent of whom, Pew reported in 2012, believe the U.S. government isn’t big enough and want more government services. It also goes for Muslim “refugee resettlement” populations, willfully deployed by this same power-mongery to displace and erase what we may one day look back on as just another indigenous culture Washington overlords destroyed.

Then there is the faceless power-mongery that transforms the country, ironically, in the name of “national security.” How can “national security” be achievable in an America without borders? It is a post-9/11 fact that more than 1 million Americans, government employees and contractors, now have “top-secret” access. They monitor our electronic lives and collect all of our telephone numbers, something we have learned from the completely unauthorized but vital disclosures of Edward Snowden. This mass monitoring, we are told repeatedly, is what it takes to prevent “another 9/11.”

Never mind those pinprick jihad attacks in Boston, Arkansas or Fort Hood. In fact, never mind jihad, period. This same Surveillance State has officially eliminated jihad as a subject to be taught or studied by security agencies and the military. In this way, every one of us becomes a suspect.

“Why do you need every telephone number?” NBC’s Andrea Mitchell asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. “Why is it such a broad vacuum cleaner approach?”

“Well, you have to start someplace,” Clapper replied.

Incredibly, this deaf, dumb and blind vacuum cleaner approach is touted as effective enough to have prevented 9/11 in the first place. So stresses former CIA and NSA chief Michael Hayden, a booster of the warrantless “data mining” of the PRISM program and the mass collection of all Americans’ telephone records.

The mendacity of this rationale is as appalling as the hyper-state it enables. Just ask the airline ticket taker who, constricted by “political correctness” forced herself to wave on the al-Qaida hijackers (“have a nice flight”) rather than investigate their strange pre-boarding behavior.

If our leaders really wanted to prevent “another 9/11,” they would have long ago admitted the obvious: that the world of Islam, from its terrorists to its kings, is engaged in the latest historical cycle of jihad to extend the reach of Islamic law (Shariah). They would have decided that “profiling” isn’t worse than terrorism. They would have halted Islamic immigration not only to stop more jihad cells from forming but also to prevent Constitution-endangering, pro-Shariah demographics from forming, too. They would have sharply curtailed travel, and particularly return travel from jihad nations such as Chechnya and Pakistan. They would have long ago blocked U.S. institutions, including colleges, media organizations and banks, from accepting millions of dollars from Shariah-ruled dictatorships. They would have closed down mosques in America where jihad is preached and supported.

Above all, they would have secured our borders rather than leave them open all these post-9/11 years. Of course, that would mean re-establishing and defending those borders, both literally and figuratively.

That’s one thing Washington, D.C., will never tolerate.

American Betrayal: More Links

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 20:10:00 GMT

If anyone wants to know what American Betrayal is about, here are some recent conversations about the book, along with some new reviews. Earlier interviews also linked below.

On "The Tammy Bruce Show" with Debra Burlingame here.

On "The Monica Crowley Show": Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here.

Q & A with David Stokes at Fair Oaks Church here

Edward Cline review for Family Security Matters here

Andrew Bostom review for PJMedia here.

Robert Stacy McCain for American Spectator here

Robert Stacy McCain report at ViralRead.com here

Robert Stacy McCain blogs it all here

Liza Connor review for Dispatch International here.

Jeffrey Norwitz review here.

Russian propaganda agency Novosti doesn't like it here.

---

June 5 and earlier:

Interview with Tim Sumner at Freedom Radio is here.

Went on TruNews with Rick Wiles. Listen here.

Q & A with Ruth King at Family Security Matters is here.

Interview with Allen West (13 minutes) at Next Generation TV is here.

"Thriller" interview with Jerry Doyle (17 minutes) is here.

Daily Caller interview with Ginni Thomas (43 minutes) is here

One-hour with Frank Gaffney at Secure Freedom Radio is here.

Three hours with Brooks Agnew at X-Squared Radio is here.

That somewhat notorious interview with Ariel Cohen at CSPAN Book TV "Afterwords" is here.

And kick-off interview at Embry-Riddle with Marc Berier here.

Phew.

The Snowden Effect

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:34:00 GMT

NSA leaker Edward Snowden is a national Rorshchach test. Reactions to his mega-leak about mega-data-mining, etc. -- Big Gov intrusions I cannot reject strongly enough -- have revealed divisions among allies, and bonds among adversaries. While the libertarian/Republican split is predictable, some of the results are suprising, and many have yet to come in. Many commentators are withholding judgement. My thoughts are here.

From what I can glean, some conservatives seem sympathetic to a point given their natural reflex against the federal government's flouting of the Fourth Amendment with these mass seizures of US citizens' electronic records. Among these it seems fair to include Rush Limbaugh, who points out the real danger is Obama, not Snowden. This is a theme Mark Levin is hitting, even as he disparages Snowden as "some little jerk."

As you notice additional notables passing judgment, I will update the list if you send them in to: deathofthegrownup@verizon.net.

Here's a partial rundown of who has jumped in first.

Glenn Beck: "I think I have just read about the man for which I have waited. Earmarks of a real hero."

Michael Moore: "Hero of the year."

Ron Paul: “We should be thankful for individuals like Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald who see injustice being carried out by their own government and speak out, despite the risk. They have done a great service to the American people by exposing the truth about what our government is doing in secret.”

Julian Assange: "Hero" for revealing "creeping formulaton of a mass surveillance state."

Daniel Ellsburg: "Hero." "Snowden reveals that the so-called intelligence community has become the United Stasi of America."

Andrew Napolitano: "An American hero."

68 percent of Fox News online poll: "Hero."

Interestingly enough, in the state-by-state breakout, Fox poll voters in Virginia offered Snowden what seems to be the weakest support in the nation with only 52 percent labeling him a hero. Virginia once led the nascent united states to push for what became the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. Today, it is probably the locus of NSA workers and installations.

Juan Williams: "I don't want to get blown up. I'm amazed that the conservatives aren't on the side of the Obama administration here."

John Boehner: "He's a traitor."

Dianne Feinstein "I think it's an act of treason."

Lindsay Graham: "I hope we follow Mr. Snowden to the ends of the earth to bring him to justice.

Max Boot: "A homegrown traitor," "NSA turncoat."

Peter King: Snowden has "violated the espionage act. In my mind that would make him a traitor."

King also wants to prosecute journalists who publish classified information. (Think information is over-classified by the federal government now...?)

John Bolton: "The worse form of treason"

David Brooks: "He betrayed the privacy of us all. If federal security agencies can’t do vast data sweeps, they will inevitably revert to the older, more intrusive eavesdropping methods. He betrayed the Constitution. The founders did not create the United States so that some solitary 29-year-old could make unilateral decisions about what should be exposed."

Jeffrey Toobin: Snowden is a "grandiose narcissist who deserves to be in prison."

Donald Trump: "He's a bad guy," "a grandstander."

David Axelrod: “My question is of Mr. Snowden is he could have gone to the Congress. He could have gone to the Inspector General. This is a peculiar route he took. I mean, he's a whistleblower who then blew the country."

Congress? The Inspector General? Can we claim with a straight face that these mechanisms are in working order?

Influence Operations Present and Past?

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:11:00 GMT

My new book, American Betrayal, presents evidence of stunning but little known parrallels between Communist infiltration/Soviet influence during World War II and today's Islamic infiltration/influence in the post-9/11 era.

Here is a one that struck me anew this week after going back to statements by former NSA and CIA chief Michael Hayden on jihad (discussed here).

In October 2010, Hayden said to me:

"People I trust say to be careful not to use the term `jihadist' because it does have a broader use across the Islamic world."

"People I trust"? What sort of "people" would want to stop a US intel chief from mentioning "jihadist" issues or aims? Not "people" who are eager to stop jihad. Maybe the influence of such "trusted" people explains the fact that US intelligence, US military, US security agencies have now purged all analysts and analysis of jihad.

This set-up made me recall something William Bullitt reported FDR said to him in January 1943. Bullitt had just laid out in writing and a follow-up conversation a lengthy, logical argument to the effect that continued appeasement of Stalin would encourage Stalin to seize at least half of Europe -- exactly what happened in the aftermath of WWII. FDR flatly rejected Bulitt's characterization of Stalin and his intentions on the advice of someone he trusted, too.

From American Betrayal, p. 199:

“Bill, I don’t dispute your facts, they are accurate,” Bullitt quoted FDR as saying. “I don’t dispute the logic of your reasoning. I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. Harry says he’s not and that he doesn’t want anything in the world but security for his country ...

"Harry" was Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's top wartime advisor bar none -- someone FDR trusted. The Roosevelt quotation continues:

... and I think that if I give him [Stalin] everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace.”

What a good idea -- I guess "Harry" said so!

Harry was either wrong, duped or guilty. FDR appears at least to have been duped by Harry in any case.

I present a dossier on Hopkins in the book that I believe confirms Hopkins' conscious treason on behalf of the USSR, which you can read for yourself.