Friday, September 26, 2014

A POX ON CLINTON AND ALL CORRUPT CRONIES:  Have always felt the Bushes made a huge mistake by making nice with Clinton since he departed the WH.  Yes Christians forgive, however they should also remember.  By helping to resurrect this cretins reputation the enabled him to continue polluting the political dialogue in the country and to continue sponsoring people like Holder for important positions in Democrat regimes.  Add that to Clinton's corrupt money machine CGI and corruption becomes entrenched.  On some levels the Bushes failed our Republic badly and associating with Clinton is at the top of that list.

Dosvedanya, Holder: America’s First Soviet Attorney General Steps Down

September 25th, 2014 - 9:28 pm

inShare

 

Of all the malfeasances of William Jefferson Clinton the one that would have most justified a removal from office was not the Monica hijinks, even with the attendant lying under oath and absurd parsings of the word “is,” but the pardoning of Marc Rich — the billionaire international commodities trader and mammoth contributor to, er, Clinton.  Luckily for Bill, this action occurred on the last day of his presidency, making anything like impeachment moot,  even though it was an example of political corruption that would have made Boss Tweed envious. For those who don’t recall the details, here’sWikipedia:

In 1983 Rich and partner Pincus Green were indicted on 65 criminal counts, including income tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, and trading with Iran during the oil embargo (at a time when Iranian revolutionaries were still holding American citizens hostage).^[3][9] The charges would have led to a sentence of more than 300 years in prison had Rich been convicted on all counts.^[3] The indictment was filed by then-U.S. Federal Prosecutor (and future mayor of New York City) Rudolph Giuliani. At the time it was the biggest tax evasion case in U.S. history.^[19]

Hearing of the plans for the indictment, Rich fled^[11] to Switzerland and, always insisting that he was not guilty, never returned to the U.S. to answer the charges. Rich’s companies eventually pled guilty to 35 counts of tax evasion and paid $90 million in fines,^[9] although Rich himself remained on the Federal Bureau of Investigation‘s Ten Most-Wanted Fugitives List for many years,^[21]narrowly evading capture in Britain, Germany, Finland, and Jamaica.^[22] Fearing arrest, he did not even return to the United States to attend his daughter’s funeral in 1996.

Until, on January 20, 2001, literally in the final minutes of his presidency, Rich was granted a pardon by Clinton, a pardon pushed through a reluctant judge on the determined “recommendation” of then-Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder.

Yes, that’s  the same Eric Holder who lectures us about race and calls Americans “cowards.”  In reality, he was a political bagman, a low rent consigliere whose  unquestioning obedience to power was evidently appreciated by Barack Obama and rewarded with the full position of attorney general. Obama knew what he was getting for our number one law enforcement official.  With that background, no wonder Holder investigates nothing, leaving “Fast & Furious,” the IRS, Benghazi, all the scandals, untouched, stonewalled or deliberately obfuscated.  He was chosen to be a “Good German” and he was one.  He spent most of his time inveighing against what he perceived to be racial injustice.

Now I have a theory about the etiology of Holder’s fixation on race. When you know deep down you’re a dishonest person, when you have had to eat the bitter pill of your own corruption who knows how many times (even Clinton finally admitted that he had gone too far pardoning Rich and damaged his own reputation), you have to invent a narrative for yourself to justify your activities.  So over may years Holder developed what I have called elsewhere a “nostalgia for racism.”  No matter that racism was diminishing in our culture, he had to keep racism alive, believe it was alive.  If racism were going away, he would no longer have a raison d’être, an excuse for his biased behavior, an excuse, as it turned out, to go beyond the law, act unilaterally and punish political enemies.

Toward this end, in a sense, Holder encouraged racism, as did Obama.  They are both slightly more polished versions of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.  Like Jackson and Sharpton, they act as if they care about the black man or woman in the street, but in actuality they just care about themselves.  The racial posturing is a form of moral narcissism that works to preserve racism, not to defeat it.

It’s not by accident black America is suffering under Obama/Holder.  At least subconsciously, it’s by design.

By the way, apropos Marc Rich, isn’t it ironic one of Holder’s last causes as AG was his attempt to get Dinesh D’Souza put away in prison for years for an illegal political donation of a measly thirty grand?  Fortunately, Dinesh got off with six months at a community center.  Maybe there is justice in America after all.

Of course Booker T Washington was the American Negro who taught self reliance and individual responsibility at the turn of the 20th century.  Too bad the loser element of that community prevailed giving us Affirmative Action and all the rest that has made the blacks largely a dependent crowd.

DEVASTATING INDICTMENT OF CLINTONS:How long do we have to endure these people.? What did we do to deserve them?

GOOD QUESTION: WHAT GREAT WEALTH DOES TO HEIRS:  I'd guess no good considering none of the heirs I'm familiar with do anything to create more wealth.

COULD NOT AGREE MORE:  Got my doubts about psychiatry to begin with but I get what Ted is saying here.  Typical liberal  thought and action control which is what they are all about.
THEODORE DALRYMPLE

The Reeducation of Dinesh D’Souza

Crime is not disease.

24 September 2014

PHOTO BY GAGE SKIDMORE

Reading the New York Times account this morning of the sentence passed on Dinesh D’Souza—the filmmaker, writer, and outspoken critic of President Obama—for violating the laws relating to campaign finance, I was horrified to read the following: “As part of his probation, Mr. D’Souza . . . will also be required to undergo therapeutic counseling.” Assuming this to be an accurate report, one can only conclude that America is undergoing a gentle but nonetheless sinister cultural revolution.

From what illness is D’Souza supposed to be suffering? Is it of such a contagious nature that he needs state-mandated therapy, like Typhoid Mary? To judge by the comments left by New York Times readers, not everyone likes D’Souza, and indeed some of the hatred expressed toward him seems—well, almost pathological, at least in the metaphorical sense. Even the preposterous Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, which makes patients of us all, could hardly find anything morbid in D’Souza’s conduct. The only justification for forcing him to undergo therapeutic counseling would be if crime were illness. (I leave aside the absurdity of the concept of such counseling itself, in the efficacy of which the judge must presumably have believed as others believe that walking under a ladder is unlucky). This idea has a long pedigree and is far from liberal in its consequences. In the year of my birth, C. S. Lewis published a brilliant essay titled “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment.” In it, he wrote, inter alia: “Those who hold it think it is mild and merciful. In this I think they are seriously mistaken. I believe that the ‘Humanity’ which it claims is a dangerous illusion and disguises the possibility of cruelty and injustice without end.”

If crime is illness, no limit exists to the treatment that may be employed to cure it and nothing inhibits the use of ferocious remedies to root it out. As Lewis intuited, cruelty may then be disguised as benevolence, and there is no cruelty like that which believes it is doing good.

True, therapeutic counseling is not hideously cruel, though it is likely to be agonizingly idiotic for any intelligent person. Moreover, it is also likely to invite dishonesty on the part of the “treated,” who will be expected to accept the counselor’s point of view without demur, however ludicrous or demeaning it may be. Contestation will be taken as a sign that the patient-criminal is not cured and therefore in need of yet more therapeutic counseling. To enforce therapeutic counseling as “treatment” for a criminal act is a violation of the integrity of the human personality. There are worse violations no doubt, but it is the beginning of a descent down a slippery slope.

Punishment is not therapy; crime is not disease. The Soviets thought that dissent was crime and crime was disease: therefore, with them, dissent was disease. We have not yet reached that point, but “therapy” for illegal campaign contributions is coming uncomfortably close to it.