Other horrible examples could be mentioned. When the mass-
murdering Marxist monster Pol Pot drove the population of Phnom
Penh out of the Cambodian capital in a death march, the pro-
communist apologist and syndicated columnist Anthony Lewis leaped
to his defense, decrying the bourgeois sensibilities of his
critics. After all, how is one to make an omelette without
cracking a few eggs? Later, when it became clear that Pol Pot's
Cambodian communist regime had butchered anywhere from 1-to-3
million of his countrymen, Lewis lapsed into an awkward silence.
Not that his colleagues ever faulted him for defending the
butcher responsible. His motivation had been politically correct,
after all, and that's what really counts. Why pshaw, people die
every day -- what's the big deal?
Revel offers many other examples of the duplicity of Western
journalists in misrepresenting the truth about communism. For
instance, the April 1975 New York Times article by Sydney
Schanberg, titled "Indochina without Americans: For Most, a
Better Life." He notes that Schanberg detected this marked upturn
in the living standard within the Cambodia of Pol Pot, as well as
in Vietnam. Or take the piece that James Brooke wrote for the
Jan. 3, 1985 New York Times, "Angolan Writers Bloom in
Independent Climate." Revel tells us that he "searched in vain
for documentary evidence of this flourishing renaissance of
letters, which took place, according to Brooke, under the aegis
of a new, unexpected form of Platonic academy -- the Politburo of
Luanda." He did happen to notice, however, the presence of
"50,000 Cuban soldiers, 2,000 Soviet "advisers" and 1,000 North
Koreans."
Come to think of it, a correspondent for the New York Times,
Herbert L. Mathews, told us back in 1957 that Fidel Castro was on
the side of liberty, democracy, social justice and all that's
good. He was, in fact, an "anti-communist," Mathews solemnly
avowed, committed to the restoration of the Cuban constitution.
We had to find out for ourselves, the hard way, that Castro is a
communist, a despot, an enemy of the United States and that, at
the time he came to power, Castro could not wait to ally himself
with the Soviet Union.
Why do they do it? Revel speculates:
"Though not a communist, Duranty probably felt it would be
better for the Soviet Union to have a good reputation in the
West. From that moment on he treated information not as an
end governed by a criterion of accuracy, but simply as a
means of obtaining a desired effect."
Could that be it? His guess is as good as mine, though frankly I
have better things to do than speculate about what motivates the
ugly, twisted, third-rate minds of Holocaust and Gulag deniers.
The point to be taken from this is that mainstream journalists
lie brazenly and without regard for the consequences, especially
when writing about communism. And why not? There never appear to
be any consequences for the pro-communist apologists in our
mainstream press. Taking the "liberal" position on communism
means never having to say you are sorry.
ON THE EDGE
What particularly concerns me about the Elian affair is the
seeming inability of so many people to discuss the topics of the
day with even rudimentary understanding. Our continued existence
as free people depends on our ability to form our own opinions in
a rational manner.
One point of contention regarding Elian that keeps cropping up in
e-mail, on Web sites and in various newsgroups is the question of
the legality of Reno's raid on the home of the boy's Miami
relatives. I have taken pains to present the views of several
noted legal scholars on this subject. Yet a number of my critics
fail to even acknowledge the existence of such expert opinion,
asserting their own interpretation of the law and volunteering
their equally inexpert opinions regarding my sanity for not
seeing it their way.
In a court of law, a jury typically decides questions of fact,
leaving the interpretation of the law to professionals who have
spent a great deal of time studying the subject. That is why I
present the opinions of legal scholars regarding the meaning of
the law, while drawing my own conclusions about the facts of the
case.
With regard to Reno's raid, the rationale usually given is that
the INS had first obtained a warrant and that makes everything
perfectly legal. However, as Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University
constitutional scholar and long time supporter of Bill Clinton
wrote in the New York Times, "The Justice Department points out
that agents who stormed the Miami home were armed not only with
guns, but with a search warrant. But it was not a warrant to
seize the child. Elian was not lost, and it is a semantic sleight
of hand to compare his forcible removal to the seizure of
evidence, which is what a search warrant is for."
In other words, the INS had obtained a search warrant, not a
custody warrant. Thus, they were authorized to search the
Gonzalez home, but not to remove Elian from the premises. There
is nothing the least bit ambiguous about this; it is a basic
point of law, attested to by a well-known constitutional scholar.
As to the way in which the warrant was obtained, that involves
questions of fact which anyone of sound mind and reasoned
judgement should be competent to decide. In applying for the
warrant, Reno's representative swore that Elian was a "concealed
person," which can only mean that his whereabouts had been hidden
from the authorities. But we all know that this is simply not
true. Elian's whereabouts were public knowledge -- he had
appeared for weeks on nationwide TV at the very location named in
the warrant. Conclusion: Reno, through her representative, lied
in order to obtain the warrant. Therefore the warrant was invalid
and the seizure of Elian was illegal. Tribe commented: "Ms.
Reno's decision to take the law as well as the child into her own
hands . . . strikes at the heart of constitutional government
and shakes the safeguards of liberty."
Now, for a second opinion. Andrew P. Napolitano, a former New
Jersey Superior Court judge who presently teaches constitutional
law at Seton Hall Law School, said: "....The agents who assaulted
Lazaro Gonzalez's house early Saturday morning did have a search
warrant. But a review of the affidavit on which the warrant was
based shows that the raid was constitutionally flawed, unlawful
and repugnant to the language and spirit of the then three-day-
old decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that ordered
Ms. Reno to keep Elian in the U.S. and denied her request for an
injunction requiring Mr. Gonzalez to turn the boy over."
So it gets worse. According to this legal scholar, Reno not only
failed to obtain proper authorization from the court to remove
the boy from the Gonzalez home, but openly defied the intent of
the court which had denied her request for an injunction ordering
the action which she then decided to take anyway.
Alan Dershowitz, another well-known Harvard legal scholar,
characterized Reno's raid as "lawless . . . a dangerous day for
all Americans" and said that it establishes a "terrible precedent
that the administration can act without court approval and break
into the home of an American citizen."
As for the notion entertained by some misguided citizens that the
INS is all-powerful and doesn't have to show us "no steenking
warrant," Dershowitz stated: "You need a court order to tell a
citizen of this country to respond to the INS. And it
establishes a terrible precedent for Janet Reno or any other
member of the administration to set deadlines, to give orders".
There, that makes three legal scholars who have condemned Reno's
raid in the strongest possible terms. At least two of them are
anything but conservatives, having strongly supported Clinton
during his impeachment. What possible reason could they have to
say these things if they didn't mean them? Nevertheless, I fully
expect to get e-mail from critics who will blandly ignore the
statements of these legal scholars and weigh in with their own
amateurish "interpretation" of the law based upon whatever wild
ideas happen to occur to them on the spur of the moment.
Writing in the Miami Herald, Carl Hiaasen, noting the cowardice
displayed by Republicans after reading the latest opinion polls
(in contrast to Democrats who have been pro-communist and pro-
Castro all along), proceeded to beat up on Sen. Bob Smith, the
one Republican who has had the guts to stick to his principles.
To Hiaasen's way of thinking this makes Smith guilty of engaging
in "a Red-bashing rant." (For some people it will always be 1953
and they, attired in tinfoil armor and wielding a rubber sword,
will be locked in a perpetual, life-and-death struggle with the
simulated McCarthy dragon. Needless to say, nobody ever gets so
much as a scratch indulging in such mock-heroics).
What really seemed to arouse the quixotic ire of this knight
errant is Smith's statement that, "he believes the boy is being
drugged and 're-educated' in preparation for a possible asylum
hearing." Commies, drugging and re-educating someone? How could
even Sen. Smith entertain such far-out, right-wing fantasies?
Next thing you know he'll be telling us that Reno used CS gas on
kids.
Hiaasen hastens to set the record straight:
"The drugging allegation isn't new. When Elian's pediatrician
arrived from Cuba, U.S. Customs agents inspecting her medical
kit found antibiotics, an asthma treatment and a sedative --
common medicines many traveling doctors might carry for
emergencies."
The following account of the above incident is from the online
news site NewsMax.com:
"On April 27th, Dr. Caridad Ponce de Leon, who Cuban
officials claim had been Elian's pediatrician since birth,
was caught by U.S. Customs inspectors with several
tranquilizers in her medical bag. The drugs were seized as
the doctor was en route to visit the boy.
"Two American pediatricians interviewed last week by
NewsMax.com said the tranquilizers found in Dr. Ponce de
Leon's bag, reported to be Miltown, Valium and phenobarbital,
were highly unusual for a pediatrician to be carrying."
It seems that our intrepid reporter, Hiaasen, "forgot" to mention
a few of the pertinent details. (Never mind, that is the sort of
thing which keeps online news in business). For example, he
neglected to tell us that the innocuous-sounding "medicines" to
which he alluded are actually powerful tranquilizers. In fact,
Miltown is considered too strong a tranquilizer to be given to
small children. It also slipped his mind that the Customs
inspectors confiscated the drugs. Now why would they seize
"common medicines many traveling doctors might carry for
emergencies"? Had Hiaasen taken the trouble to get a second
opinion, as did NewsMax, he might have realized that these
"medicines" are not so common with pediatricians as he would have
us believe and that the "emergencies" for which they were
intended are political, not medical.
I suppose our newshawk cannot be faulted for failing to mention
that at one point INS officials had decided to boot the drug-
bearing pediatrician out of the country upon reading a secret
report on Elian's condition filed by "two American mental health
professionals." This came to light after Hiaasen had written his
piece. According to NewsMax, the mental health professionals
relented after the boy's father, Juan Gonzalez, asked that the
drug-doctor be allowed to stay.
Greg Craig, the Clinton-impeachment-lawyer who is paid to
represent Elian's father with a slush fund managed by the pro-
Castro National Council of Churches, which is associated by way
of interlocking director Andrew Young with the Archer Daniels
Midland company, still appears to be functioning as point-man for
the Clinton administration in the Elian operation. Craig recently
told a Vermont radio audience that Elian is doing just dandy in
his new habitat, cut off from the rest of the world and
surrounded by Cuban "specialists." He volunteered the information
that the child is much "comforted" by the presence of his Cuban
Dr. Feelgood.
No doubt this is all very comforting as well to Dwayne Andreas,
the retiring chairman of Archer Daniels Midland who negotiated
the cynical trade agreement with Castro that awarded the Cuban
despot young Elian as a "concession," to be used as a propaganda
trophy after he has been suitably re-programmed.
To all appearances, the re-programming is already well underway,
on American soil. The May 17 Miami Herald reported that:
"The latest pictures of Elian Gonzalez showed the boy
studying at the Wye Plantation and playing an instrument
typical in Caribbean bands. But what angered Cuban Americans
on Tuesday was the neckerchief the boy wore -- the uniform
for the Pioneers, the youth communist league.
"Modeled after groups in the former Soviet Union, the
Pioneers instill communist ideals through songs, schedule
weekend trips to help with harvests in the countryside, and
instruct children to repeat the group allegiance ''Pioneers
for communism, we will be like Che [Guevara].''
The Herald article explained that all Cuban children are expected
to join the Pioneers in the first grade and wear their uniform to
school. The article mentioned that parents who decline to enroll
their children in the communist organization "are ostracized,
labeled counterrevolutionaries and denied promotions at work,
said Jaime Suchlicki, director of the University of Miami's
Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies." A young Pioneer
is required to tattle on his parents if they make statements at
home that are against the communist regime. These latest pictures
of Elian, which appeared in the Cuban commiepaper Granma,
confirmed the worst fears of Cuban-Americans who have suspected
that Elian is undergoing communist indoctrination by the Cubans
who surround him at the secluded Wye Plantation.
The Herald article quotes Gladys Chong who asked "Is Elian in
Cuba?" upon seeing the pictures. "No," replied her husband,
Ramon, "It seems communism has penetrated the United States."
The Chongs, who came to this country four years ago, were
shocked. Glady's, who was required to wear the Pioneer uniform
as a child growing up in Cuba, observed, "They didn't even wait
until he got to Cuba to start conditioning him!"
Dr. Marta Molina, a child psychologist who practiced in Cuba for
20 years and claims to have treated more than 500 children for
problems resulting from communist indoctrination, noted that,
"The oppression has already started."
Molina sees the uniform as part of the strategy to convince Elian
that he wants to return to Cuba so that he will tell this to the
court when his case comes up. Kendall Coffey, an attorney for
Elian's Miami family, claims that the INS has "shrugged off" any
responsibility for the boy since turning him over to his father,
i.e. to Castro's thought-control specialists: "We're very
troubled," Coffey said. "He's being paraded as a trophy in the
garb of the Communist Party. It's happening even more rapidly
than our worst expectations."
INS spokeswoman Maria Cardona seemed to confirm Coffey's
impression: "It's not INS's business what Elian wears on a daily
basis," Cardona said. "Those are issues up to his father."
It won't be up to the father if and when Elian returns with him
to Cuba, however. Attorneys for the Miami family wrote in a
document filed with the court last Tuesday:
"Irrespective of [his father's] wishes, Elian will be doing
agricultural work such as cutting sugar cane in the fields,
to further indoctrinate him and separate him . . . for
extended periods to break down the bond between parent and
child and cement the bond between child and state."
Perhaps most remarkable of all is a video clip that appeared on
the Telemundo Television Network a week ago, Friday. The segment
shows a Cuban doctor answering a question from Fidel Castro about
the drugs Elian's Cuban pediatrician attempted to bring into this
country. The setting was one of those interminable "Roundtable
Discussions," featuring the Maximum Leader, which appear live on
Cuban television. Since our own "free" press have seen fit to
suppress this story as effectively as any totalitarian "Ministry
of Truth," it was necessary to depend on word-of-mouth reports
from Spanish-speaking viewers who have watched the video clip,
until late last Thursday when Fox News Channel's "O'Reilly
Factor" repeated Telemundo's Spanish language broadcast.
The video clip showed a panel of seven "high level" Cuban
officials listening to a harangue by the Maximum Leader. In
answer to Castro's question as to how such drugs would affect the
boy, an old doctor responded that the child was given pills to
wake him up, and pills to put him to sleep, noting that such
medication is not intended for children and could even prove
fatal. At which point Castro, in a fit of pique, told the doctor
to sit down and shut up.
O'Reilly commented:
"Now when another doctor tried to tell Castro what kind of
drugs could have been involved with Elian, Castro told him to
"Shut up!" This is no smoking gun. The truth is, we don't
know if Elian is being sedated but our government should be
drug testing him."
Yeah, right. There are a lot of things "we don't know" if only
because nobody wants to tell us what is going on any more in this
"land of the free." But let's be realistic, the use of
tranquilizers would explain that photograph taken by
Clinton/Castro quisling Greg Craig, of Elian displaying his
"happy face" scant hours after the boy had been traumatized by
masked, machine-gun wielding intruders who snatched him from the
home of his Miami family and shoved him, kicking and screaming,
onto an airplane bound for Andrews Air Force Base.
Carl Limbacher of NewsMax.com commented, "If anything could be
more shocking than the prospect that a six-year-old Cuban refugee
is being drugged on U.S. soil while U.S. authorities pretend to
be oblivious, it's the refusal of the American media to cover the
story."
Pulling it all together, what we have right here in our own
country are all of the ingredients necessary for a totalitarian
police state. We have a federal government that nobody in his
right mind would trust, which lies to us incessantly, uses
illegal force against its citizens with impunity, and
collaborates with totalitarian dictators under cover of a massive
propaganda campaign conducted by our supposedly free press. Our
major information media are dominated by closet totalitarians who
pay lip service to democracy while covertly promoting the
interests of communist despots. The political opposition is made
up largely of cowards who are so intimidated by our totalitarian
propaganda media they are unable to offer effective resistance to
even the most egregious violations of civil liberties by the
corrupt Clinton regime. They have become, in the fullest sense of
the term, Weimar Republicans. And finally, we have that which
makes it all possible, a listless, docile, dumbed-down public who
gape mindlessly at all of the above phenomena without the
slightest glimmer of comprehension, and prattle the latest
propaganda cliches dumped into their empty heads by the
mainstream media.
The Elian affair has truly given us a glimpse into the abyss of
tyranny. The message that comes through loud and clear is that
the system isn't working. The question that remains to be
answered is whether we still possess the intelligence and
fortitude necessary to fix it.
Edward Zehr can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Published in the May. 22, 2000 issue of The Washington Weekly
Copyright 2000 The Washington Weekly.
Now Free Access to All Stories at http://www.federal.com
=================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day.
=================================================================
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths,
misdirections
and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and
minor
effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said,
CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
<A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
