No, it's not the decision on health care.
As usual, the press has largely missed it. Here in NY, my hometown "paper of record" actually did cover it. In a small article on page 14.
What decision am I referring to?
Well Nasser Awlaki, father of Anwar al Awlaki, the "American Taliban" who has been targeted for assasination by President Obama, sued, with the help of the ACLU and several other constitutional groups for a Restraining Order to prevent the President from assassinating his son.
First, the judge, declared that Mr. Awlaki had no standing. Based on that decision, the case ended there. But frighteningly, the judge went further and declared that this type of decision had no place in the courts, that it deserved to be in what is loosely termed "the public policy carve out".
What does that mean? The courts have certain issues, largely national security, that they say are best decided by the legislature.
But never before has the court said that a citizen can be denied their basic right as guaranteed by the constitution, to LIFE, and not be able to stop the government from taking it.
What this court has said, is that any criminal on death row, has more rights than Awlaki. Simply because the President says so.
I hope you can all see the danger in this.
Does anyone remember Richard Nixon's "enemies list"? What this court has said is that Nixon could have simply claimed that it was in the interest of national security, and assassinated anybody on that list.
Or, that if you did not vote for Obama, you are now a threat to national security and must be assassinated.
Far fetched? Not according to the reasoning of the court which left NO exceptions.
Most of you know that I am as hawkish as it comes when national security is involved. However, as American citizens we are DIFFERENT, in the eyes of US Law, from all other residents of this planet. That is the true blessing of being an American, and why so many want to come here.
But this court has said that we are no different than a Chinese dissident, a Russian "refusnik" or a member of the Christian Sudan being targeted by the Janjaweed militias.
We can be killed for convenience, at the order of one man.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Lies, Linkage and the truths hidden in the Wikileaks case...
Lost in much of the controversy over the 'Wikileaks' story of the leaked state department memo and research is the revelation that the central tenet of the Obama administrations' foreign policy, what has become known as "linkage" is a total, and absolute lie.
What is "linkage"? Simply put, Obama and his acolytes have long contended that all of the problems in the middle east are "linked" to the Israel-so called Palestinian issue.
Obama has made the case since the first day of his Presidency that solving that problem will make all of the other problems in the area simply fall away.
Even more, he has argued that solving this, will enable the US to enlist the aid of the intransigent Saudis and Egyptians in helping to convince the Iranians to stop their nuclear madness.
But what the leaks tell us is just the opposite. In fact, it confirms what I have written here many times over the last few years. That actually Egypt and Saudi Arabia were literally begging Obama to take more serious action against the Iranian regime and that it is the US that has been reticent, refusing to take any serious action against Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs.
What is "linkage"? Simply put, Obama and his acolytes have long contended that all of the problems in the middle east are "linked" to the Israel-so called Palestinian issue.
Obama has made the case since the first day of his Presidency that solving that problem will make all of the other problems in the area simply fall away.
Even more, he has argued that solving this, will enable the US to enlist the aid of the intransigent Saudis and Egyptians in helping to convince the Iranians to stop their nuclear madness.
But what the leaks tell us is just the opposite. In fact, it confirms what I have written here many times over the last few years. That actually Egypt and Saudi Arabia were literally begging Obama to take more serious action against the Iranian regime and that it is the US that has been reticent, refusing to take any serious action against Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
What's the key to Middle East Peace?
I have been writing, and explaining, for years, that the real issue in the middle east is not land, or borders, but simply, religion.
This was emphasized once again this week by the so called "moderate" Palestinian authority, the group the Obama administration so desperately wants the Israelis to make absurd concessions to (no Jewish building? certainly seems biased to me).
On the official Palestinian Information Office website, the PA published a "study" that purported to demonstrate that there is no Jewish connection to the "Kotel" or wailing wall.
In fact, the study went on to say the the tunnels, the paths on the side of the wall, used for centuries by Jewish Pilgrims to the Temple (including Jesus) had always been used by Muslims and never Jews or Christians.
Of course, the study fails to note, as always, that Jerusalem is NEVER mentioned, not one time, in the Koran.
Ironically, even the PA's own website, in it's history of Jerusalem timeline, lists Jewish residency there.
This is part of an ongoing deligitamization campaign that has been going on publicly, and behind closed doors, for decades.
One of the worst examples of this, has been the raping of archeologic items from inside the Temple Mount.
Jewish Law will not allow any digs under the Mount. However, during the Oslo accords, and the Wie River accords, the Israelis allowed Yasser Arafat, at his specific request, to widen doorways to the underground prayer areas of Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock mosques.
What was discovered shortly after, was truckloads of dirt, filled with artifacts from the first and second temple periods simply dumped into the Qidron valley, the valley between the Temple and the Mount of Olives.
This extends throughout the Muslim world.
This week, the front page of many British papers describes the type of horrible anti semitic lies being taught in the weekend Muslim schools. There are all the classics. Jews are developed out of Apes and Pigs, Jews are conspiring to take over the world, etc.
Of equal concern to the British is the fact that the children, as young as 6, are also being taught the basic Sharia requirements for severing of hands and feet for petty crimes.
The British Education Secretary has condemned this in no uncertain terms.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government have also been on the forefront of this battle.
Where is the US? If the Saudis are sponsoring this in England, what do you think is going on in the middle east?
Until we understand who and what the real enemy is, we can't help to see true peace.
This was emphasized once again this week by the so called "moderate" Palestinian authority, the group the Obama administration so desperately wants the Israelis to make absurd concessions to (no Jewish building? certainly seems biased to me).
On the official Palestinian Information Office website, the PA published a "study" that purported to demonstrate that there is no Jewish connection to the "Kotel" or wailing wall.
In fact, the study went on to say the the tunnels, the paths on the side of the wall, used for centuries by Jewish Pilgrims to the Temple (including Jesus) had always been used by Muslims and never Jews or Christians.
Of course, the study fails to note, as always, that Jerusalem is NEVER mentioned, not one time, in the Koran.
Ironically, even the PA's own website, in it's history of Jerusalem timeline, lists Jewish residency there.
This is part of an ongoing deligitamization campaign that has been going on publicly, and behind closed doors, for decades.
One of the worst examples of this, has been the raping of archeologic items from inside the Temple Mount.
Jewish Law will not allow any digs under the Mount. However, during the Oslo accords, and the Wie River accords, the Israelis allowed Yasser Arafat, at his specific request, to widen doorways to the underground prayer areas of Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock mosques.
What was discovered shortly after, was truckloads of dirt, filled with artifacts from the first and second temple periods simply dumped into the Qidron valley, the valley between the Temple and the Mount of Olives.
This extends throughout the Muslim world.
This week, the front page of many British papers describes the type of horrible anti semitic lies being taught in the weekend Muslim schools. There are all the classics. Jews are developed out of Apes and Pigs, Jews are conspiring to take over the world, etc.
Of equal concern to the British is the fact that the children, as young as 6, are also being taught the basic Sharia requirements for severing of hands and feet for petty crimes.
The British Education Secretary has condemned this in no uncertain terms.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government have also been on the forefront of this battle.
Where is the US? If the Saudis are sponsoring this in England, what do you think is going on in the middle east?
Until we understand who and what the real enemy is, we can't help to see true peace.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Obama a Socialist? No, not him!
Obama a Socialist? No, not him! Oh, the irony. On the very day, during the very week, when the NY Times was telling us over and over about who to vote for, and what the real message of the elections was, I found the ultimate irony in their business section. In an article entitled “In G.M.’s Comeback Story, a Pivotal Role Played by Washington” the Times repeatedly discusses the fact that, for all intents and purposes, the President and his team are running General Motors and have been. “Yet interviews with G.M. and federal officials show decisions by the government have played a pivotal role in shaping the automaker’s leadership, its business strategies, and now it’s initial stock offering…” “People familiar with the contact between G.M. and the Treasury Department say Ron Bloom, a senior adviser to the Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, is told about actions that G.M. management and the board are contemplating before they occur.” “To ensure a fresh start for the company, the GOVERNEMENT CHOSE A NEW CHAIRMAN AND SEVERAL NEW DIRECTORS FOR ITS BOARD (my emphasis), which in turn picked two of its members to serve as successive chiefs of the company.” “The government also set parameters for G.M.’s strategic direction – FEWER BRANDS AND MODELS, A LEANER ORGANIZATION, AND A SWEEPING OVERHAUL OF ITS PLODDING CORPORATE CULTURE (my emphasis).” When I referred to the structural changes Obama has wrought, this is exactly what I was referring. Even the current stock offering is being run by the government in such a way as to give the appearance of ceding control, when in fact, there would be no loss of government control. Sigh, more of the same… Obama a Socialist? No, not him! Oh, the irony. On the very day, during the very week, when the NY Times was telling us over and over about who to vote for, and what the real message of the elections was, I found the ultimate irony in their business section. In an article entitled “In G.M.’s Comeback Story, a Pivotal Role Played by Washington” the Times repeatedly discusses the fact that, for all intents and purposes, the President and his team are running General Motors and have been. “Yet interviews with G.M. and federal officials show decisions by the government have played a pivotal role in shaping the automaker’s leadership, its business strategies, and now it’s initial stock offering…” “People familiar with the contact between G.M. and the Treasury Department say Ron Bloom, a senior adviser to the Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, is told about actions that G.M. management and the board are contemplating before they occur.” “To ensure a fresh start for the company, the GOVERNEMENT CHOSE A NEW CHAIRMAN AND SEVERAL NEW DIRECTORS FOR ITS BOARD (my emphasis), which in turn picked two of its members to serve as successive chiefs of the company.” “The government also set parameters for G.M.’s strategic direction – FEWER BRANDS AND MODELS, A LEANER ORGANIZATION, AND A SWEEPING OVERHAUL OF ITS PLODDING CORPORATE CULTURE (my emphasis).” When I referred to the structural changes Obama has wrought, this is exactly what I was referring. Even the current stock offering is being run by the government in such a way as to give the appearance of ceding control, when in fact, there would be no loss of government control. Sigh, more of the same…
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Calif. high school ends 'Beat the Jew' game
(06-04) 13:18 PDT LOS ANGELES (AP) --
Seven seniors at a Southern California high school were facing disciplinary action for participating in a game called "Beat the Jew" in which losers were subjected to "incineration" or "enslavement," a school administrator said Friday.
The game involved some students playing the role of Nazis who blindfolded and dropped off other students playing Jews who must find their way back to the campus, said Sherry Johnstone, assistant superintendent of personnel for Desert Sands Unified School District.
It was not immediately clear what either punishment comprised for losing players, she said.
Seven seniors at La Quinta High School could be suspended or barred from graduation, among other measures, Johnstone said.
"This is appalling to us," she said. "We want our students to understand the horror of a title like this."
The district about 130 miles east of Los Angeles referred the matter to police because of the possibility that the game contained a threat, said La Quinta police Lt. Jason Huskey. No threat had been found so far, but the investigation was ongoing, he said.
The district started investigating a week ago after students reported the game to administrators.
The game was promoted online, attracting about 40 students. Seven showed up to play one evening in the campus parking lot, Johnstone said.
The district is working with Jewish organizations to review its tolerance curriculum. A voluntary tolerance program will be held after school next week.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/06/04/national/a113917D09.DTL&feed=rss.news#ixzz0qIorBEMr
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
If Brian Williams cries in the woods, can anyone hear it?
I don't usually put my economic advice here, but several weeks ago, the market "topped" at approx. 11,800.
For those that know anything about what is called technical analysis, what it means is that the market tends to move in trading ranges. Technical analysts look to see if the market breaks out of those ranges. The previous high for the market was that 11,800 number. The low we are looking at is about 9800. FYI, it the Dow goes below that number, look out. You're probably looking at another quick 1000 point drop or more.
As I watched what was happening in Europe, and in particular, the German reticence to bail out Greece, as well as the election of the Conservatives in Britain (a very good thing and a lesson we should take. Btw, Conservatives in Britain roughly correspond to the OLD Democratic party here) I simply told my friends, and the folks who I still advise on their investments to get into cash. Not money markets, cash.
Why? Well, there are several countries that S & P considers to be in almost as deep trouble as Greece. We, and the Brits are on that short list.
The unfunded liabilities of the US are now approximately $120 TRILLION dollars. How much is that? More money than there is in the world.
That's right.
Worse, our structural deficit – the deficit for permanent programs like medicare, and the new health care plan, is rapidly approaching that magical 8% of GDP that economists consider the point at which default is unavoidable.
Now, as I painted my scenario for many, they poo pooed. However, slowly but surely, you are starting to see articles in mainstream papers that essentially repeat what the original Standard and Poors evaluation of US debt said, that measures that would cause "social unrest" were necessary to avoid default.
So, what about Brian Williams? Well, I'm certainly no fan of his, but working for GE which is in the pocket of the Obama administration b/c of the billions in "green" government energy projects they've been promised, he can't say anything on NBC.
But a week or so ago, he appeared on David Letterman, and after reciting the story of Greece, he said that he was "so scared I don't want to come out of my house".
I wonder why this hasn't been reported?
Monday, May 17, 2010
Pardon the interruption of your hysteria, but how about a few inconvenient facts?
I've waited to write this post (and another one I had planned) until some of the brouhaha over the new Arizona law died down a bit. As so often happens to me, I am left befuddled over the uproar. Call it once again, much ado about nothing.
Why do I say that? Well, it has been brought out that non citizens are already required to carry their identification at ALL times under federal law. And then there's that inconvenient fact that illegal immigrants are, well, illegal. And of course, you and I are generally required to carry identification if we want to engage in things such as driving, cashing checks, etc.
But more to the point, there has long been ensconced in federal law 2 things that make the Arizona law essentially just a restatement of what already is, and what is already required of local law enforcement.
The first is known as a "Terry Stop" which comes from a 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio. It had to do with the stopping of 3 men who were thought to be casing a store with the intent of robbing it. The detective stopped and frisked them. Weapons were discovered.
The Supreme Court ruled that there was a limit on the unlawful search and seizure rule and that an officer, with reasonable suspicion, could stop someone.
In the years after, the "stop and frisk" as it became known was expanded to include traffic stops and allowing police to request and require identification.
Next is a program that is known as 287(g) which EXPLICITLY empowers local law enforcement to enforce the immigration laws.
This program was started 15 years ago under President Clinton, and guess who expanded it? You got it, Obama. So, the squeaks you hear coming from Eric Holder and Obama himself might just be so much, well let's say it, lies.
There are those inconvenient facts getting in the way of the storyline again. Sorry.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Transparency?
I've written often over the last year and half about the fact that Obama administration has taken government secrecy to levels never seen before.
I've also written that it is actually far worse than that, with the white house press office having created an agency who actually PRODUCES news clips, photos, blog posts, tweets, etc. It all started oh so innocently, with the Rutgers women's basketball team's visit last year, but escalated with the "Beer Summit".
Now it has been taken to a new level with the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Not only is no one allowed to get near her, and the White House conducting sham interviews made to look like news clips, but what ISN'T getting coverage are things like this. The New York Times, even in trying to do a puff piece about Kagan, was FORBIDDEN, yes, totalitarianism raises it's head again, forbidden from attending a class at Hunter college here in NY to hear what Kagan's BROTHER has to say!!
As I continue to write, and express to those around me, there are no historical precedents for the depravity, the criminality, and unconstitutional behavior of this administration.
It continues to befuddle me why no one can piece this together.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Does this look like a “settlement”?
Above is a picture of Ramat Schlomo, the “settlement” that caused the rucus with Vice President Biden’s visit to Israel and which allowed many to finally see Obama’s real agenda regarding Israel.
The population of Schlomo is approx. 250,000 – the same as Newark, New Jersey. Settlement? Hardly.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Why weren’t any of our allies at the Nuclear “summit”?
A clue to this may have come in the debate for Prime Minister this week in England (of course why Israel wasn’t there has to do with Bibi not wanting to twiddle his thumbs while Obama ate dinner again). When discussing missile defense, current Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the Labour candidate (England’s Left party) said this “Get real about the dangers we face if North Korea, Iran and other countries with nuclear weapons, and we give up our own.”
In response, the Conservative (David Cameron) candidate replied “I didn’t think I’d ever utter these words, but I agree with Gordon”.
Amazing that quasi socialists France and England, are now out front of the US on this (and other) issues.
In response, the Conservative (David Cameron) candidate replied “I didn’t think I’d ever utter these words, but I agree with Gordon”.
Amazing that quasi socialists France and England, are now out front of the US on this (and other) issues.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Who is Goodwin Liu and why should you care?
Who is Goodwin Liu and why should you care?
The easy answer is he is Obama's controversial nominee for appellate court justice in the 9th circuit. (It's no coincidence that this is the court that has been most aggressive in strikeing down Obama's attempts at usurping ever more power into his hands).
The longer answer is, another graduate of Yale Law School, where, like Sandra Sotomayor, Eric Holder, and many other of the new justice staff and undoubtedly the next nominee to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, he is a disciple of Harold Koh, former Dean of Yale Law School and Obama's appointee as chief legal advisor to the state department.
Amazingly, know one has yet (other than your intrepid blogger) picked up on the importance of all of this and the confluence of events that we are seeing this week and over the coming summer when the new justice is confirmed.
Why is it important?
As I wrote last year, during Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, liberal or conservative, strict constructionist or loose, doesn't matter. The President has the right to nominate who he likes, as long as they follow the law, as they interpret it.
However, what is true, and critical, about all of these people, and all the people Obama is using to fill the legal departments and judicial appointees is this.
They all believe, in direct contradiction of US Law, that the supremacy clause of the Constitution does NOT apply to international law.
What is the Supremacy clause? Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution states "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
What does it mean? Well, it is generally applied to the states and it means that when in conflict, federal law prevails.
However, it also means that US Law supersedes international law. In other words, a President cannot sign an agreement that would otherwise violate the constitution, or abridge the rights of citizens of the United States. Interestingly, although they did not admit it, it was the Supremacy clause that was the reason Obama pulled out of the Durban II conference on Human Rights because the preliminary agreement put severe restriction on speech (no anti Muslim speech) and had he signed it, it would have been thrown out as violating the supremacy clause.
So, how do all the strands of Obama tie together here?
Well, as you have seen, he has signed a new treaty with the Russians, and this week has brought in all the countries that DON'T matter to sign a non binding nuclear agreement.
He has subjugated himself to the UN.
This idea is perfectly in line with the greatest (read worst, biggest disaster) of all the Prgressives, Woodrow Wilson, who believed, like Obama in the concept of a 'one world government'.
With each appointee to the Federal Bench, and the Supreme Court, he moves closer to being able to do what even Roosevelt (the second most horrific progressive) could not.
Change the US Court system so that he can have the whole nation, and not just it's President, bowing before the world.
Of course, in Obama's mind, the sheer force of his personality makes him think that HE will be the leader of this one world government.
Watch carefully, warn your Senators, THIS is the danger ahead, not Roe v. Wade, or gun control, or any of the other single issue cases that can go back and forth like the breeze.
This is part of the "fundamental transformation" that no one but a few of us, foresaw.
The easy answer is he is Obama's controversial nominee for appellate court justice in the 9th circuit. (It's no coincidence that this is the court that has been most aggressive in strikeing down Obama's attempts at usurping ever more power into his hands).
The longer answer is, another graduate of Yale Law School, where, like Sandra Sotomayor, Eric Holder, and many other of the new justice staff and undoubtedly the next nominee to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, he is a disciple of Harold Koh, former Dean of Yale Law School and Obama's appointee as chief legal advisor to the state department.
Amazingly, know one has yet (other than your intrepid blogger) picked up on the importance of all of this and the confluence of events that we are seeing this week and over the coming summer when the new justice is confirmed.
Why is it important?
As I wrote last year, during Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, liberal or conservative, strict constructionist or loose, doesn't matter. The President has the right to nominate who he likes, as long as they follow the law, as they interpret it.
However, what is true, and critical, about all of these people, and all the people Obama is using to fill the legal departments and judicial appointees is this.
They all believe, in direct contradiction of US Law, that the supremacy clause of the Constitution does NOT apply to international law.
What is the Supremacy clause? Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution states "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
What does it mean? Well, it is generally applied to the states and it means that when in conflict, federal law prevails.
However, it also means that US Law supersedes international law. In other words, a President cannot sign an agreement that would otherwise violate the constitution, or abridge the rights of citizens of the United States. Interestingly, although they did not admit it, it was the Supremacy clause that was the reason Obama pulled out of the Durban II conference on Human Rights because the preliminary agreement put severe restriction on speech (no anti Muslim speech) and had he signed it, it would have been thrown out as violating the supremacy clause.
So, how do all the strands of Obama tie together here?
Well, as you have seen, he has signed a new treaty with the Russians, and this week has brought in all the countries that DON'T matter to sign a non binding nuclear agreement.
He has subjugated himself to the UN.
This idea is perfectly in line with the greatest (read worst, biggest disaster) of all the Prgressives, Woodrow Wilson, who believed, like Obama in the concept of a 'one world government'.
With each appointee to the Federal Bench, and the Supreme Court, he moves closer to being able to do what even Roosevelt (the second most horrific progressive) could not.
Change the US Court system so that he can have the whole nation, and not just it's President, bowing before the world.
Of course, in Obama's mind, the sheer force of his personality makes him think that HE will be the leader of this one world government.
Watch carefully, warn your Senators, THIS is the danger ahead, not Roe v. Wade, or gun control, or any of the other single issue cases that can go back and forth like the breeze.
This is part of the "fundamental transformation" that no one but a few of us, foresaw.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
A nuke here, a nuke there…
Lost by the Obamites amid the President’s jubilation at the new start treaty, is that Obama was absolutely taken by the two headed monster, Dmitiri Medvedev and Vladimir Putin.
The START treaty that had expired in December called for a maximum of 2200 Ballistic missiles.
Did Obama fail to notice that the Russians currently have more than 2600? That’s not a near miss, that’s a willful failure.
We now have approximately 1500 or so of these most deadly nukes.
However, of much greater importance is what is known as battlefield tactical nuclear weapons.
Everyone acknowledges that there will be good defenses available against ICBM’s launched from thousands of miles away.
This is for any number of reasons, the distance they must travel, the ease of following their locations in hardened, permanent positions, etc.
Just as important is the fact that only a few of these megaton monsters are needed to ensure Armageddon.
The Russians specifically EXCLUDED battlefield tactical weapons from the list of items to be included in the treaty, and inspection regime..
And these are the weapons that are MOST DANGEROUS in today’s world.
They are mobile, use solid fuel and cannot be traced easily using satellite, or even “feet on the ground” technology.
Currently, Russia has a 4 to 1 advantage over us in the number of these weapons, approximately 2000 to 500.
Of much greater concern however, is that these are exactly the weapons that are being sought by dissident terror groups, and which can be stolen, or easily lost track of in regime changes, etc.
And it’s certainly not like the Russians to ally themselves with regimes that might be prone to use these battlefield nukes (wink, wink).
So, once again, we have been made less safe.
The START treaty that had expired in December called for a maximum of 2200 Ballistic missiles.
Did Obama fail to notice that the Russians currently have more than 2600? That’s not a near miss, that’s a willful failure.
We now have approximately 1500 or so of these most deadly nukes.
However, of much greater importance is what is known as battlefield tactical nuclear weapons.
Everyone acknowledges that there will be good defenses available against ICBM’s launched from thousands of miles away.
This is for any number of reasons, the distance they must travel, the ease of following their locations in hardened, permanent positions, etc.
Just as important is the fact that only a few of these megaton monsters are needed to ensure Armageddon.
The Russians specifically EXCLUDED battlefield tactical weapons from the list of items to be included in the treaty, and inspection regime..
And these are the weapons that are MOST DANGEROUS in today’s world.
They are mobile, use solid fuel and cannot be traced easily using satellite, or even “feet on the ground” technology.
Currently, Russia has a 4 to 1 advantage over us in the number of these weapons, approximately 2000 to 500.
Of much greater concern however, is that these are exactly the weapons that are being sought by dissident terror groups, and which can be stolen, or easily lost track of in regime changes, etc.
And it’s certainly not like the Russians to ally themselves with regimes that might be prone to use these battlefield nukes (wink, wink).
So, once again, we have been made less safe.
Friday, March 26, 2010
11 + 16 + 4 + 14 = Permanent Majority
Lost in the maelstrom of the health care debacle is the ultimate goal of the Obamites.
How to ensure a permanent majority - at least until the dictatorship takes hold - for the progressive party (now in control of the Democrats).
How are they doing this?
Well, in the 2 days since the health care bill, you've seen two immediate actions.
First, the move to immediately grant citizenship to between 11 and 25 million illegal aliens (no one is sure how many there really are - I've used the smaller number).
Ever wonder why union cadillac health plans were excluded from the monstrosity of the fines we all will pay from now on? To ensure the votes of the 16+ million union members in the country.
That's right, unlike you, no matter how good their plan is, they will not be hit with the taxes on that plan the way you will be.
The next move is being called a new voting rights act.
The next piece of legislation is to grant the right to vote BACK to roughly 4 million convicted felons.
Finally, are the approximately 14 million federal employees, who of course receive wonderful health care benefits.
As you know, most of these people will tend to vote Democratic.
If you total up the numbers you get 47 million votes (unless you take the higher end number for illegal aliens who will be granted citizenship, than the total is 61 million votes).
John McCain received approximately 59 million votes in the last election.
Do you think that 61 million number is any coincidence?
How to ensure a permanent majority - at least until the dictatorship takes hold - for the progressive party (now in control of the Democrats).
How are they doing this?
Well, in the 2 days since the health care bill, you've seen two immediate actions.
First, the move to immediately grant citizenship to between 11 and 25 million illegal aliens (no one is sure how many there really are - I've used the smaller number).
Ever wonder why union cadillac health plans were excluded from the monstrosity of the fines we all will pay from now on? To ensure the votes of the 16+ million union members in the country.
That's right, unlike you, no matter how good their plan is, they will not be hit with the taxes on that plan the way you will be.
The next move is being called a new voting rights act.
The next piece of legislation is to grant the right to vote BACK to roughly 4 million convicted felons.
Finally, are the approximately 14 million federal employees, who of course receive wonderful health care benefits.
As you know, most of these people will tend to vote Democratic.
If you total up the numbers you get 47 million votes (unless you take the higher end number for illegal aliens who will be granted citizenship, than the total is 61 million votes).
John McCain received approximately 59 million votes in the last election.
Do you think that 61 million number is any coincidence?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Surprising words...
I almost fell off my chair today in reading the op ed section of the Times.
David Brooks, the Times' house Republican (although how a progressive can call himself that, I don't know), has been perhaps Obama's biggest fan, and cheerleader for the better part of the last year.
It's why he is, or was, the only journalist from the right who is given unfettered access.
But in his article today, in discussing his democratic past, and his current position, he said something that I think, reflects much of the country.
To quote:
"Yet I confess, watching all this, I feel again why I am no longer spiritually attached to the Democratic Party. The essence of America is energy - the vibrancy of the market, the mobility of the peole and the disruptive creativity of entrepreneurs. This vibrancy grew up accidentally, out of a cocktail of religious fervor and material abundance, but it was nurtured by choice. It was nurtured by our founders, who created national capital markets to disrupt the ossifying grip of the agricultural landholders..."
I say, bravo David, and welcome back to America.
David Brooks, the Times' house Republican (although how a progressive can call himself that, I don't know), has been perhaps Obama's biggest fan, and cheerleader for the better part of the last year.
It's why he is, or was, the only journalist from the right who is given unfettered access.
But in his article today, in discussing his democratic past, and his current position, he said something that I think, reflects much of the country.
To quote:
"Yet I confess, watching all this, I feel again why I am no longer spiritually attached to the Democratic Party. The essence of America is energy - the vibrancy of the market, the mobility of the peole and the disruptive creativity of entrepreneurs. This vibrancy grew up accidentally, out of a cocktail of religious fervor and material abundance, but it was nurtured by choice. It was nurtured by our founders, who created national capital markets to disrupt the ossifying grip of the agricultural landholders..."
I say, bravo David, and welcome back to America.
Friday, March 12, 2010
THE United States v. The UNITED States
A Subtle but important distinction. I wonder when the deaf, dumb and blind kids in the administration and Democratic Leadership are going to take note of the fact that at the present time 34, I repeat 34 State’s Attorney’s General have said that they will file a class action suit against the federal government if the current Health Care Bill (the Senate Version) is passed making it mandatory that we all buy insurance.
This has the potential to lead to a major constitutional crisis. However, even if some deal were reached with the states, it’s almost assured that large private groups would sue on the same grounds, that you cannot require to someone to buy something simply to be allowed to exist.
More importantly, it continues to show the hilarity of Obama’s “I’m not an ideologue. Really, I’m not” statement to the Republican caucus.
This has the potential to lead to a major constitutional crisis. However, even if some deal were reached with the states, it’s almost assured that large private groups would sue on the same grounds, that you cannot require to someone to buy something simply to be allowed to exist.
More importantly, it continues to show the hilarity of Obama’s “I’m not an ideologue. Really, I’m not” statement to the Republican caucus.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Be afraid, be very afraid…
I have been writing for more than a year that Obama’s Iranian policy is being set by the Brooking’s Institute’s Kenneth Pollack. More importantly, that policy is that allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons is the goal. You read that right. The absurd idea is that the Iranians can be “controlled” to remain what is known as a regional nuclear power and that they can be used as a Shia block against the Sunni bomb of the Pakistanis and/or Al Qaeda.
Of course, this flies in the face of the Iranians open discussion of their intention of becoming a GLOBAL nuclear power, not to mention their rapid missile advancement (I will discuss this in the next post).
Why am I mentioning this now? Well, as all the pundits have continued to be duped by the Obama “look at my mouth, not my hands” method of fooling everyone about who and what he is, and have discussed his purported attempts at bipartisanship, what they have missed is his retrenchment and the hardening of his views.
This was seen clearly today in the farce that was the supposed meeting with Republican leaders, and in the pronouncements by Obama and his proxies of not just full speed ahead on all the programs that have so clearly been repudiated, but beyond full speed.
As such, they have now openly disclosed their plans vis a vis the Iranians, in the form of an op – ed article in today’s NY Times.
I will simply reprint it below, and when you are able to close your stunned mouths, be sure to get on the phone to your Senators and Congresspeople. They are listening these days. Just imagine the idea of this man, who believes as deeply as possible, that it is his sacred duty to hasten the apocalypse to aid in the return of the 12th Imam, with intercontinental ballistic missiles.
To whit:
Iran’s Two-Edged Bomb
By ADAM B. LOWTHER
Published: February 8, 2010
Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.
With Iran having notified the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency that it is now enriching its stockpile of uranium to a higher level, we should admit that Washington’s approach to countering the Islamic Republic is leading nowhere. What’s needed, however, may be less of a change of plan than a change in how we view the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.
Believe it or not, there are some potential benefits to the United States should Iran build a bomb. (I’m speaking for myself here, and in no way for the Air Force.) Five possibilities come to mind.
First, Iran’s development of nuclear weapons would give the United States an opportunity to finally defeat violent Sunni-Arab terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Here’s why: a nuclear Iran is primarily a threat to its neighbors, not the United States. Thus Washington could offer regional security — primarily, a Middle East nuclear umbrella — in exchange for economic, political and social reforms in the autocratic Arab regimes responsible for breeding the discontent that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Until now, the Middle East autocracies have refused to change their ways because they were protected by the wealth of their petroleum reserves. A nuclear Iran alters the regional dynamic significantly, and provides some leverage for us to demand reforms.
Second, becoming the primary provider of regional security in a nuclear Middle East would give the United States a way to break the OPEC cartel. Forcing an end to the sorts of monopolistic practices that are illegal in the United States would be the price of that nuclear shield, bringing oil prices down significantly and saving billions of dollars a year at the pump. Or, at a minimum, President Obama could trade security for increased production and a lowering of global petroleum prices.
Third, Israel has made clear that it feels threatened by Iran’s nuclear program. The Palestinians also have a reason for concern, because a nuclear strike against Israel would devastate them as well. This shared danger might serve as a catalyst for reconciliation between the two parties, leading to the peace agreement that has eluded the last five presidents. Paradoxically, any final agreement between Israelis and Palestinians would go a long way to undercutting Tehran’s animosity toward Israel, and would ease longstanding tensions in the region.
Fourth, a growth in exports of weapons systems, training and advice to our Middle Eastern allies would not only strengthen our current partnership efforts but give the American defense industry a needed shot in the arm.
With the likelihood of austere Pentagon budgets in the coming years, Boeing has been making noise about shifting out of the defense industry, which would mean lost American jobs and would also put us in a difficult position should we be threatened by a rising military power like China. A nuclear Iran could forestall such a catastrophe.
Last, the United States would be able to stem the flow of dollars to autocratic regimes in the region. It would accomplish this not only by driving down the price of oil and increasing arms exports, but by requiring the beneficiaries of American security to bear a real share of its cost. And in the long run, a victory in the war on terrorism would save taxpayers the tens of billions of dollars a year now spent on overseas counterinsurgency operations.
What about the downside — that an unstable, anti-American regime would be able to start a nuclear war? Actually, that’s less of a risk than most people think. Unless the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, and his Guardian Council chart a course that no other nuclear power has ever taken, Iran should become more responsible once it acquires nuclear weapons rather than less. The 50-year standoff between the Soviet Union and the United States was called the cold war thanks to the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons.
There is reason to believe that the initial shock of a nuclear Iran would soon be followed a new regional dynamic strikingly like that of cold-war Europe. Saudi Arabia and Iraq would be united along with their smaller neighbors by their fear of Iran; the United States would take the lead in creating a stable regional security environment. In addition, our reluctant European allies, and possibly even China and Russia, would have a much harder time justifying sales of goods and technology to Tehran, further isolating the Islamic Republic.
Iran may think its enrichment plans will put fear into the hearts of Americans. In fact, it should give us hopes of a renaissance of American influence in the Middle East.
Adam B. Lowther is a defense analyst at the Air Force Research Institute.
Of course, this flies in the face of the Iranians open discussion of their intention of becoming a GLOBAL nuclear power, not to mention their rapid missile advancement (I will discuss this in the next post).
Why am I mentioning this now? Well, as all the pundits have continued to be duped by the Obama “look at my mouth, not my hands” method of fooling everyone about who and what he is, and have discussed his purported attempts at bipartisanship, what they have missed is his retrenchment and the hardening of his views.
This was seen clearly today in the farce that was the supposed meeting with Republican leaders, and in the pronouncements by Obama and his proxies of not just full speed ahead on all the programs that have so clearly been repudiated, but beyond full speed.
As such, they have now openly disclosed their plans vis a vis the Iranians, in the form of an op – ed article in today’s NY Times.
I will simply reprint it below, and when you are able to close your stunned mouths, be sure to get on the phone to your Senators and Congresspeople. They are listening these days. Just imagine the idea of this man, who believes as deeply as possible, that it is his sacred duty to hasten the apocalypse to aid in the return of the 12th Imam, with intercontinental ballistic missiles.
To whit:
Iran’s Two-Edged Bomb
By ADAM B. LOWTHER
Published: February 8, 2010
Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.
With Iran having notified the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency that it is now enriching its stockpile of uranium to a higher level, we should admit that Washington’s approach to countering the Islamic Republic is leading nowhere. What’s needed, however, may be less of a change of plan than a change in how we view the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.
Believe it or not, there are some potential benefits to the United States should Iran build a bomb. (I’m speaking for myself here, and in no way for the Air Force.) Five possibilities come to mind.
First, Iran’s development of nuclear weapons would give the United States an opportunity to finally defeat violent Sunni-Arab terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Here’s why: a nuclear Iran is primarily a threat to its neighbors, not the United States. Thus Washington could offer regional security — primarily, a Middle East nuclear umbrella — in exchange for economic, political and social reforms in the autocratic Arab regimes responsible for breeding the discontent that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Until now, the Middle East autocracies have refused to change their ways because they were protected by the wealth of their petroleum reserves. A nuclear Iran alters the regional dynamic significantly, and provides some leverage for us to demand reforms.
Second, becoming the primary provider of regional security in a nuclear Middle East would give the United States a way to break the OPEC cartel. Forcing an end to the sorts of monopolistic practices that are illegal in the United States would be the price of that nuclear shield, bringing oil prices down significantly and saving billions of dollars a year at the pump. Or, at a minimum, President Obama could trade security for increased production and a lowering of global petroleum prices.
Third, Israel has made clear that it feels threatened by Iran’s nuclear program. The Palestinians also have a reason for concern, because a nuclear strike against Israel would devastate them as well. This shared danger might serve as a catalyst for reconciliation between the two parties, leading to the peace agreement that has eluded the last five presidents. Paradoxically, any final agreement between Israelis and Palestinians would go a long way to undercutting Tehran’s animosity toward Israel, and would ease longstanding tensions in the region.
Fourth, a growth in exports of weapons systems, training and advice to our Middle Eastern allies would not only strengthen our current partnership efforts but give the American defense industry a needed shot in the arm.
With the likelihood of austere Pentagon budgets in the coming years, Boeing has been making noise about shifting out of the defense industry, which would mean lost American jobs and would also put us in a difficult position should we be threatened by a rising military power like China. A nuclear Iran could forestall such a catastrophe.
Last, the United States would be able to stem the flow of dollars to autocratic regimes in the region. It would accomplish this not only by driving down the price of oil and increasing arms exports, but by requiring the beneficiaries of American security to bear a real share of its cost. And in the long run, a victory in the war on terrorism would save taxpayers the tens of billions of dollars a year now spent on overseas counterinsurgency operations.
What about the downside — that an unstable, anti-American regime would be able to start a nuclear war? Actually, that’s less of a risk than most people think. Unless the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, and his Guardian Council chart a course that no other nuclear power has ever taken, Iran should become more responsible once it acquires nuclear weapons rather than less. The 50-year standoff between the Soviet Union and the United States was called the cold war thanks to the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons.
There is reason to believe that the initial shock of a nuclear Iran would soon be followed a new regional dynamic strikingly like that of cold-war Europe. Saudi Arabia and Iraq would be united along with their smaller neighbors by their fear of Iran; the United States would take the lead in creating a stable regional security environment. In addition, our reluctant European allies, and possibly even China and Russia, would have a much harder time justifying sales of goods and technology to Tehran, further isolating the Islamic Republic.
Iran may think its enrichment plans will put fear into the hearts of Americans. In fact, it should give us hopes of a renaissance of American influence in the Middle East.
Adam B. Lowther is a defense analyst at the Air Force Research Institute.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
R.I.P. Miep Gies – Last of Anne Frank’s Protectors
R.I.P. Miep Gies – Last of Anne Frank’s Protectors
The following is the NY Times obituary for Miep Gies who died Monday. I have recommended it before, but you can see Ms. Gies in the movie “Paper Clips” about a Tennessee school’s student project about the Holocaust. It remains one of the most moving movies about the Shoah that does NOT include the horrible videos of the atrocities.
Ms. Gies defined the words “quiet dignity” and was truly a hero.
By RICHARD GOLDSTEIN
Miep Gies, the last survivor among Anne Frank’s protectors and the woman who preserved the diary that endures as a testament to the human spirit in the face of unfathomable evil, died Monday night, the Anne Frank Museum in Amsterdam said. She was 100.
The BBC said Mrs. Gies suffered a fall late last month and died at a nursing home.
“I am not a hero,” Mrs. Gies wrote in her memoir, “Anne Frank Remembered,” published in 1987. “I stand at the end of the long, long line of good Dutch people who did what I did and more — much more — during those dark and terrible times years ago, but always like yesterday in the heart of those of us who bear witness.”
Mrs. Gies sought no accolades for joining with her husband and three others in hiding Anne Frank, her father, mother and older sister and four other Dutch Jews for 25 months in Nazi-occupied Amsterdam. But she came to be viewed as a courageous figure when her role in sheltering Anne Frank was revealed with the publication of her memoir. She then traveled the world while in her 80s, speaking against intolerance. The West German government presented her with its highest civilian medal in 1989, and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands knighted her in 1996.
When the Gestapo raided the hiding place in the annex to Otto Frank’s business office on Aug. 4, 1944, and arrested its eight occupants, it left behind his daughter Anne’s diary and her writings on loose sheets of papers. The journals recounted life in those rooms behind a movable bookcase and the hopes of a girl on the brink of womanhood. Mrs. Gies gathered up those writings and hid them, unread, hoping that Anne would someday return to claim them.
But when Anne’s father, Otto Frank, returned to Amsterdam at the end of World War II, having been liberated from Auschwitz, he was the lone survivor of the family. Anne Frank had died at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp three months before her 16th birthday. Her sister, Margot, died there at age 19 and their mother, Edith Frank, died at Auschwitz.
Mrs. Gies gave Anne’s writings to Mr. Frank, and they were first published in the Netherlands in 1947 in an abridged version. “Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl” has since been translated into dozens of languages in several editions, read by millions and adapted for the stage and screen, a voice representing the six million Jews killed by the Nazis.
But Mrs. Gies remained largely anonymous until an American writer, Alison Leslie Gold, persuaded her to tell her story and worked with her on “Anne Frank Remembered.”
Miep Gies was born Feb. 15, 1909, as Hermine Santrouschitz, a member of a Roman Catholic family in Vienna. When she was 11, she was sent to Leiden to be cared for by a Dutch family, being among the many Austrian children suffering from food shortages in the wake of World War I. She was given the Dutch nickname Miep and later adopted by the family.
When she was 13, the family moved to Amsterdam, and in 1933 she became a secretary to Otto Frank, who was overseeing the Dutch branch of a German company selling an ingredient for manufacturing jam. Mr. Frank had fled Hitler’s Germany, and he was soon joined by his wife and daughters.
Miep became a trusted employee and friend of the Frank family and joined in its alarm over the persecution of German Jews. In May 1940, the Netherlands fell in Germany’s invasion of the Low Countries. In July 1942, when thousands of Dutch Jews were being deported to concentration camps, the Frank family went into hiding in unused rooms above Mr. Frank’s office. He asked Mrs. Gies if she would help shelter them, and she unhesitatingly agreed.
The annex became a hiding place not only for the Franks but for three members of a family named van Pels — the father a business colleague of Mr. Frank’s — and Mrs. Gies’s dentist, Fritz Pfeffer.
Having married a Dutch social worker, Jan Gies, in 1941, Miep Gies joined with him and three other employees of Mr. Frank’s business in sheltering the eight Jews and caring for their daily needs. The protectors risked death if caught by the Nazis.
Mrs. Gies, while continuing to work for Mr. Frank’s business, which remained open under figurehead Christian management, played a central role in caring for the hidden. She found food for them, brought books and news of the outside world and provided emotional support, bringing Anne her first pair of high-heeled shoes and baking a holiday cake. On one occasion, Miep and Jan Gies (he is referred to in the diary as Henk, one of many pseudonyms Anne used) spent a night in the annex to experience the terror there for themselves.
At their apartment a short bicycle ride away, Mrs. Gies and her husband, a member of the Dutch resistance, hid an anti-Nazi university student.
When the Gestapo raided the hiding place — tipped off by someone unknown to this day — Mrs. Gies was working in the building. But one of the Nazi agents spared her from arrest, probably in light of their common Austrian heritage. Mrs. Gies later went to Gestapo headquarters in Amsterdam in a futile attempt to offer a bribe for the lives of the eight arrested Jews.
Mrs. Gies endured the “Hunger Winter” in the Netherlands during the war’s final months, then lived quietly in Amsterdam, a homemaker. But upon publication of her memoir, she began to travel widely as a living link to Anne Frank and spoke on the lessons of the Holocaust, often talking to schoolchildren who were reading Anne’s diary. A small woman — just a shade over 5 feet tall — whose hair had turned white, she bore a single remembrance of those days in the hiding place, a black onyx ring with a diamond in the center, worn on her left hand. It was a gift from Auguste von Pels, one of the doomed Jews she had sheltered.
Every Aug. 4, the anniversary of the raid on the annex, Miep and Jan Gies remained at their Amsterdam home. They withdrew from the world and reflected on the lost.
Mrs. Gies is survived by her son, Paul, and three grandchildren. Her husband died in 1993. The other three people who helped shelter the Frank family — Johannes Kleiman, Victor Kugler and Elisabeth Voskuijl — died earlier.
Otto Frank, who lived with Miep and Jan Gies for a time after the war, died in Basel, Switzerland, in 1980. The building housing the secret annex, at Prinsengracht 263, has become a museum.
In her diary entry on May 8, 1944, Anne Frank wrote how “we are never far from Miep’s thoughts.”
In her memoir, Mrs. Gies told of her emotions when she finally read the diary.
She wrote: “The emptiness in my heart was eased. So much had been lost, but now Anne’s voice would never be lost. My young friend had left a remarkable legacy to the world.
“But always, every day of my life, I’ve wished that things had been different. That even had Anne’s diary been lost to the world, Anne and the others might somehow have been saved.
“Not a day goes by that I do not grieve for them.”
The following is the NY Times obituary for Miep Gies who died Monday. I have recommended it before, but you can see Ms. Gies in the movie “Paper Clips” about a Tennessee school’s student project about the Holocaust. It remains one of the most moving movies about the Shoah that does NOT include the horrible videos of the atrocities.
Ms. Gies defined the words “quiet dignity” and was truly a hero.
By RICHARD GOLDSTEIN
Miep Gies, the last survivor among Anne Frank’s protectors and the woman who preserved the diary that endures as a testament to the human spirit in the face of unfathomable evil, died Monday night, the Anne Frank Museum in Amsterdam said. She was 100.
The BBC said Mrs. Gies suffered a fall late last month and died at a nursing home.
“I am not a hero,” Mrs. Gies wrote in her memoir, “Anne Frank Remembered,” published in 1987. “I stand at the end of the long, long line of good Dutch people who did what I did and more — much more — during those dark and terrible times years ago, but always like yesterday in the heart of those of us who bear witness.”
Mrs. Gies sought no accolades for joining with her husband and three others in hiding Anne Frank, her father, mother and older sister and four other Dutch Jews for 25 months in Nazi-occupied Amsterdam. But she came to be viewed as a courageous figure when her role in sheltering Anne Frank was revealed with the publication of her memoir. She then traveled the world while in her 80s, speaking against intolerance. The West German government presented her with its highest civilian medal in 1989, and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands knighted her in 1996.
When the Gestapo raided the hiding place in the annex to Otto Frank’s business office on Aug. 4, 1944, and arrested its eight occupants, it left behind his daughter Anne’s diary and her writings on loose sheets of papers. The journals recounted life in those rooms behind a movable bookcase and the hopes of a girl on the brink of womanhood. Mrs. Gies gathered up those writings and hid them, unread, hoping that Anne would someday return to claim them.
But when Anne’s father, Otto Frank, returned to Amsterdam at the end of World War II, having been liberated from Auschwitz, he was the lone survivor of the family. Anne Frank had died at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp three months before her 16th birthday. Her sister, Margot, died there at age 19 and their mother, Edith Frank, died at Auschwitz.
Mrs. Gies gave Anne’s writings to Mr. Frank, and they were first published in the Netherlands in 1947 in an abridged version. “Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl” has since been translated into dozens of languages in several editions, read by millions and adapted for the stage and screen, a voice representing the six million Jews killed by the Nazis.
But Mrs. Gies remained largely anonymous until an American writer, Alison Leslie Gold, persuaded her to tell her story and worked with her on “Anne Frank Remembered.”
Miep Gies was born Feb. 15, 1909, as Hermine Santrouschitz, a member of a Roman Catholic family in Vienna. When she was 11, she was sent to Leiden to be cared for by a Dutch family, being among the many Austrian children suffering from food shortages in the wake of World War I. She was given the Dutch nickname Miep and later adopted by the family.
When she was 13, the family moved to Amsterdam, and in 1933 she became a secretary to Otto Frank, who was overseeing the Dutch branch of a German company selling an ingredient for manufacturing jam. Mr. Frank had fled Hitler’s Germany, and he was soon joined by his wife and daughters.
Miep became a trusted employee and friend of the Frank family and joined in its alarm over the persecution of German Jews. In May 1940, the Netherlands fell in Germany’s invasion of the Low Countries. In July 1942, when thousands of Dutch Jews were being deported to concentration camps, the Frank family went into hiding in unused rooms above Mr. Frank’s office. He asked Mrs. Gies if she would help shelter them, and she unhesitatingly agreed.
The annex became a hiding place not only for the Franks but for three members of a family named van Pels — the father a business colleague of Mr. Frank’s — and Mrs. Gies’s dentist, Fritz Pfeffer.
Having married a Dutch social worker, Jan Gies, in 1941, Miep Gies joined with him and three other employees of Mr. Frank’s business in sheltering the eight Jews and caring for their daily needs. The protectors risked death if caught by the Nazis.
Mrs. Gies, while continuing to work for Mr. Frank’s business, which remained open under figurehead Christian management, played a central role in caring for the hidden. She found food for them, brought books and news of the outside world and provided emotional support, bringing Anne her first pair of high-heeled shoes and baking a holiday cake. On one occasion, Miep and Jan Gies (he is referred to in the diary as Henk, one of many pseudonyms Anne used) spent a night in the annex to experience the terror there for themselves.
At their apartment a short bicycle ride away, Mrs. Gies and her husband, a member of the Dutch resistance, hid an anti-Nazi university student.
When the Gestapo raided the hiding place — tipped off by someone unknown to this day — Mrs. Gies was working in the building. But one of the Nazi agents spared her from arrest, probably in light of their common Austrian heritage. Mrs. Gies later went to Gestapo headquarters in Amsterdam in a futile attempt to offer a bribe for the lives of the eight arrested Jews.
Mrs. Gies endured the “Hunger Winter” in the Netherlands during the war’s final months, then lived quietly in Amsterdam, a homemaker. But upon publication of her memoir, she began to travel widely as a living link to Anne Frank and spoke on the lessons of the Holocaust, often talking to schoolchildren who were reading Anne’s diary. A small woman — just a shade over 5 feet tall — whose hair had turned white, she bore a single remembrance of those days in the hiding place, a black onyx ring with a diamond in the center, worn on her left hand. It was a gift from Auguste von Pels, one of the doomed Jews she had sheltered.
Every Aug. 4, the anniversary of the raid on the annex, Miep and Jan Gies remained at their Amsterdam home. They withdrew from the world and reflected on the lost.
Mrs. Gies is survived by her son, Paul, and three grandchildren. Her husband died in 1993. The other three people who helped shelter the Frank family — Johannes Kleiman, Victor Kugler and Elisabeth Voskuijl — died earlier.
Otto Frank, who lived with Miep and Jan Gies for a time after the war, died in Basel, Switzerland, in 1980. The building housing the secret annex, at Prinsengracht 263, has become a museum.
In her diary entry on May 8, 1944, Anne Frank wrote how “we are never far from Miep’s thoughts.”
In her memoir, Mrs. Gies told of her emotions when she finally read the diary.
She wrote: “The emptiness in my heart was eased. So much had been lost, but now Anne’s voice would never be lost. My young friend had left a remarkable legacy to the world.
“But always, every day of my life, I’ve wished that things had been different. That even had Anne’s diary been lost to the world, Anne and the others might somehow have been saved.
“Not a day goes by that I do not grieve for them.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
