Posts Tagged ‘Wall Street Journal’

Daniel Henninger’s Indefensible Propaganda

Friday, June 21st, 2013

Murdered Breaking OUT

One might believe that an editor at the Wall Street Journal should have the first clue regarding the subject on which he’s writing, but I suppose it’s too much to ask that publication to take the time to restrain such claptrap. Outlets rabidly favoring open borders don’t seem to bother with such considerations while there’s propaganda to be spread.  In an article that should make its author a laughing stock, Daniel Henninger makes an easily-refuted claim that’s not even an original proposition: He thinks a fence on our border would resemble the wall that had separated East and West, from its ground-breaking in 1961 until its demolition begun in 1989 by East Germans who refused to be caged any longer.  It’s fair to say that I must have an advantage over Henninger, because I actually saw the wall from both sides as a young man. Apart from the fact that both are physical barriers, they are entirely different in character and purpose.  He thinks a border fence would constitute a national embarrassment, but I choose to reserve that description for his obvious lack of contextual reckoning.

Serving in the Army as I did in the 1980s, particularly in Germany for the final half-decade of the wall’s existence, I had more than a few occasions to see the wall and fences, and in one instance, pass beyond it on an official tour to see it from the East.  That tour, and the other instances told me all I needed to know about evil in the world: It is real, it is unyielding, and it throttles the lives of people who must live under its oppressive bonds.  We soldiers who embarked on that tour in 1986 crossed through Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin, in our Class A uniforms and under official orders in a bus.  We had an official tour-guide, a propagandist of the Soviet Bloc’s military, who directed our attention to the state-sanctioned “highlights” along our tour’s course.  We hadn’t been in East German territory long when somebody whispered “look back.”  A number of us swiveled our heads around, gawking at what laid behind us.  From the West, things had appeared relatively neat and orderly, but as we moved Eastward into that sector of Berlin, looking West, we could see the shell damage that was still quite evident on the East faces of buildings and bridges that had not been repaired since WWII.  In fact, most of what could be seen from the West side of the wall was a facade patched together to conceal the truly deplorable conditions in the East.  Where West Berlin’s buildings had been restored, apart from a few war-damaged landmarks intentionally left as memorials with their battle scars, East Berlin was like a row of dilapidated headstones decorated in front with artificial flowers.

They stopped us at an open-air market to let us get off the bus to “shop.”  If you have seen the shelves at a grocery store in the hours just before a hurricane is expected to sweep through, you will be stunned to know that such are bountiful compared to what we saw.  We were shown only the very best they had to offer.  It would have been laughable had it not been for the grim realization that this “market” was better than what 95% of East Berlin residents would ever see under Soviet rule,  devoid of almost anything of value apart from some shoddily-made trinkets, interesting only to souvenir buyers.  Of course, this was the official “show tour,” but even on other tours along the border frontier,  the horrors of the meaning of the wall had never been clearer in my twenty-something mind.  Machine-gun nests laid out and manned for the purposes of preventing their own citizens from escaping were the most cruelly dehumanizing thing I had seen to date.

Daniel Henninger pretends that a security fence along our Southern border would be impractical or even impossible, but also that it would serve as a similar blight on the landscape of humanity.  Does he feel the same way about the fence around his back yard, or about the fence around the White House?  You see, the proper analogy to the Berlin wall wouldn’t be if we construct a fence along the border, but instead if the Mexican government were to erect one to hold their own people in at gunpoint.  A border fence constructed by the US along its Southern border serves its own citizens by keeping others out.  The wall that separated the East from the West was intended solely to keep the Soviet Bloc’s people in bondage. Hundreds were murdered or maimed while trying to escape.  As a Texas resident of more than two decades, I have yet to read a single report of Americans being shot in the back by the US border patrol while attempting to break out of the US into that bastion of harmonious prosperity named “Mexico.”

Anybody who cannot see the moral distinction between the two, and thus the philosophically opposite motives between their construction ought not to write for a major publication.  Never mind what we can learn from the fact that such a publication actually printed it, the real national embarrassment is that the Wall Street Journal employs a writer so thoroughly removed from reality.  I feel pity for Mr. Henninger, so hopelessly bound by his open-borders dogma that he feels compelled to write propaganda on behalf of a bankrupt idea.  It’s only possible for such an argument to carry weight among an ignorant populace, but thanks to the passage of time, and indeed to people like Mr. Henninger, there is greater opportunity for such farcical notions to take hold.  There is no real comparison between the two structures, either in intent or moral underpinnings, and it is a despicable day indeed when the Wall Street Journal is reduced to a slack-jawed propagandist so intent on political victory that it is now willing to lie both about the past and the future.  The alleged guardians of the Republic that comprise the fourth estate aren’t so much protecting the truth as shoveling dirt – or something – in its face.

I saw the Berlin Wall.  I saw the whole miserable stretch of it complete with towers and machine-gun nests.  I saw what they did to East Germans and Czechs who tried to flee.  Daniel Henninger, had he any scruples, would be mortally ashamed of himself.

Editor’s Note: The image used for this article is of 18-yo Peter Fechter, a bricklayer murdered by East German border guards on August 17th, 1962. He was the first among hundreds to be shot in the back while trying to flee to the West.

 

Advertisements

Will We Be Drug into the Bushes[Again]?

Monday, December 19th, 2011

One of these Hasn't Been President...Yet

Here we go again.  It looks to me as though the Bush clan may be preparing to shove another one down our throats.  Of course, there’s nothing certain yet, but the buzz for some time has been that there’s still time for somebody with high name recognition.  That’s been the talking point for several weeks, and people have spent some time speculating about who that would be.  This morning, the Wall Street Journal offered us a clue, as it published an op-ed piece by none other than Jeb Bush, entitled Capitalism and the Right to Rise.  As the party establishment is voicing worries about the rise of Ron Paul, and the uninspiring candidacy of Mitt Romney, here comes Jeb Bush?  If you wonder if this is the Bush clan’s attempt to retain control of the GOP, you might ask if they’ve ever been in danger of losing it.  There’s nothing novel in it, but what was interesting is that Rush Limbaugh read it in the first hour of his show on Monday, fairly gushing over it.

Remember when we were told George W. Bush was more conservative than his father, and then as he was being revealed to be nothing more than another squishy moderate, people began to say “Well, at least Jeb Bush in Florida is a real conservative?”  Remember?  While I may well be jumping the gun, and there’s a fair chance neither Jeb Bush nor anybody with deeper Bush-clan ties will  have anything to do with this election, remember that Karl Rove is still out there, and he’s been assumed by many to be pushing Mitt Romney.  I’ve never been certain about it, and in fact, I told you some time ago that he might well be acting on behalf of somebody else.  It could well be we’ll see somebody else entirely, but whether it’s Jeb, or another Bush crony, it may begin just after the Iowa caucus, and the victor may offer the excuse.

“Save us from Ron Paul’s foreign policy!”  “Save us from Mitt Romney’s uninspiring schtick!”  “Save us from Newt Gingrich!”  Ultimately, however, the offer will be to “Save us from Barack Obama!”  That’s the plea some are hoping will prompt some as-yet undetermined white knight into the race, but I can promise you, sure as I’m sitting here: IF, and only IF Jeb Bush enters this race, or another Bush crony tries to enter using the same justification, I will consider the fix to have been in these last eleven months, and I will immediately endorse Ron Paul, because I would vote for anybody before I vote for another Bush or frankly, even another Bush crony.  No more Karl Rove flunkies.  No more Bush family presidencies, directly or indirectly, period.  I have no interest in continuing the Bush dynasty, either by virtue of another Bush, or by one of their cronies.  It’s simply not acceptable, and I don’t believe in political dynasties, and I don’t think America should have any sort of so-called ‘royalty,’ and there is nothing about the Bush clan that makes them better suited to lead the American people, or steer our government.

Enough is enough. I don’t want to hear all the excuses they will throw around.  I don’t care if he writes a thousand op-eds suggesting he is an economic libertarian and a fiscal conservative.  I don’t believe them.  I now consider that entire family indecently unreliable, and for the rest of you who may not have figured it out, I will tell you that when George H.W. Bush told you “Read my lips,” and you didn’t recognize the dishonesty when in 1990, he went along with Democrats and broke his pledge, worsening and deepening what should have been a minor recession, you deserve to lose every election from here to eternity. In 2000, when George W. Bush was telling you he was a “compassionate conservative,”  I knew he was lying because what he really meant was “kinder, gentler,” just like his old man. Welfare reform? Never, but if you like Amnesty and “Immigration Reform,” then this is the perfect family for you.  “Don’t worry,” they’ll assure you, “he’s even been to Tea Party Candidate fundraisers.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will admit to you now that I have been fearing this moment for some time, because I believe the Bush clan still maintains a strangle-hold on much of the GOP,  and when they come with a white knight to “rescue” the Republican Party from Ron Paul, or Newt Gingrich, or any of the other candidates,  there are some conservatives and Tea Party patriots who may well fall for it.   If they do, I will mark the date on the calendar, and from now until eternity, every time conservatives and Tea Party folk complain that they’re being undercut by their own president[again], like so many did from 2002-2008, I am going to laugh, but I will not feel any joy.  .  You’ve seen two rounds of what the Bush clan has to offer.  You’ve had more than twenty years of their domination of the Republican party.  If you want more of that, so be it, but don’t blame me, and don’t blame conservatism when yet another Bush claims that mantle before taking it down in flames along with our nation.  They are the quintessential big-government Republicans, and if you send another one to Washington DC, you may lose more than control of Congress this time.  You may lose your country.