Home

I used to think that it was the exclusive province of the Right to doubt the fact that Vince Foster had committed suicide in 1993, or to have reservations about his motive, internal or external.

But, as Camille Paglia demonstrates, this is not the case:

I for one have renewed questions about the 1993 suicide of Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster, Hillary’s former law partner and longtime friend, whose files were purged by Hillary’s staff before they could be examined for evidence. One must always be skeptical about Web rumors, but my interest was piqued last year by claims that Foster was shattered by the role he had played three months earlier in the outrageous order for federal agents to attack David Koresh’s ranch at Waco, Texas, producing a conflagration that led to 76 deaths, including 21 children. Why has the Waco fiasco been forgotten? It triggered the worst case of domestic terrorism in U.S. history, the 1995 revenge bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Conventional explanations about the suicide of Vince Foster just don’t wash.

The order to attack the Branch Davidians at Waco had a simple rationale: to show any and all dissident groups who was "boss" in the U.S.  In addition to the blowback at Oklahoma City, the panic that ensued in "flyover country" over this in no small measure began the long march to the 1994 Congressional election debacle and the loss of the Congress to the Republicans.  If Barack Obama ever gets to the White House, he would do well to heed the lesson and keep his far-left base at bay about this.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard can see sour relations all he wants to…

The US-Saudi tango has been on thin ice ever since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Sixteen of the hijackers were Saudi nationals. The Bush family has cleaved closely to the Saudi monarchy, but strong factions in Washington see Riyadh’s Wahabi monarchy as part of the Mid-East problem– not the solution.

Saudi Arabia’s one saving grace — in the eyes of US critics — is that it has over the years been willing to cap extreme surges in the price of oil, deploying its power as the world’s swing producer. This time Riyadh is giving no ground.

…and the Democrats can fulminate and pass legislation all they want to…

New York Senator Charles Schumer is pushing for sanctions against Saudi Arabia, targeting $1.4bn in sales of bomb kits, light armoured vehicles, as well as gear for AWACS aircraft and F-15 fighters.

"You need our arms, but we need you to cooperate and not strangle American consumers.

"Saudi Arabia could do a lot more than they have done," he said.

The Democrats are also pushing legislation that would penalize the OPEC producers cartel for "anti-competitiveness practices".

The Bush White House has rolled its eyes in exasperation at such blunt methods, but hot feelings are aroused in American public discourse.

…but the U.S.’ leverage is limited, since a) it has never bothered to properly develop its own oil resources the last forty years and b) we now have to compete with the rest of the world’s rising demand.  Best to hope that the rising price will lead to a drop in demand.

The People’s Republic finally did it:

California’s supreme court ruled that a ban on gay marriage was unlawful Thursday, effectively leaving same-sex couples in America’s most populous state free to tie the knot in a landmark ruling.

In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.

As noted earlier, there’s a constitutional amendment floating around to reverse this.  But there’s always Plan B, too, as I wrote back in 2004:

When courts short-circuit the legislative process in the way they’re doing now, they tell people that it doesn’t matter how their representatives vote because they–the judges and the elites from which they are drawn–are in charge. When that realisation sinks in, the whole dynamic of American society will experience a sea change that will dwarf the legalisation of homosexual marriage.

This could manifest itself in a number of ways. For example:

• Christian churches could revert to their pre-Constantinian position and discourage service in the military, as holiness and Pentecostal churches did during the early part of the last century. The Church of God, for instance, waited until V-J day in 1945 to adopt a friendlier position on military service by its members.
• They could also opt out of opposition to illegal immigration, figuring that those which jump the fence or swim across the river are fit members for their church (which they are in many cases.)
• Anyone who works for or is economically dependent upon a foreign corporation–especially if it’s state owned–is an agent of a foreign government, albeit legally.
• Christian churches could finally expect their members to either home school their children or send them to a Christian school, which would spare them both state indoctrination and mediocre education.
• Christians would have to interpret passages such as Roman 13 in the context they were originally written in–a dictatorial state whose actions they had no input in and the obedience of whose laws is done solely as a Christian witness, not as a civic obligation.
• With a little organisation, Christian churches could even enable their members to opt out of civil marriage altogether, divorcing themselves from an institution that first came from God Himself but has been nationalised to suit the needs of the state, and putting it back in the hands of Him who joined the first man and woman in the Garden.

Since this was written, Calfornia has also take a shot at home schooling as well.  But then again, that’s offset by the fact that the third bullet point gets better all of the time with the decline of dollar hegemony.

CBN’s David Brody always has a nose for a good story, and this, as my grandfather (the Duesenberg dealer in Washington) would say, is a "doozy:"