A North Carolina law professor is trying to get the National Park Service to pull Michelle Malkin's book, In Defense of Internment (buy it here), from the bookshop at the site of a relocation center for Japanese-Americans and Japanese during World War II. Malkin, who boasts a much larger blog than the Savoranola of the University of North Carolina School of Law, urges her readers to contact the National Park Service to keep her book on the shelves.

And why not? Malkin's book points out America's internment of more than ten-thousand Europeans during World War II, the enlistment of thousands of American citizens in the Japanese war effort, and the fact that most of those spending the war years in the relocation centers were not interned. Do you suppose this information is highlighted in politically-correct U.S. government museums? The Smithsonian's Museum of American History, when I examined their exibit on internment ("A More Perfect Union: Japanese Americans and the United States Constitution") for Why the Left Hates America (buy it here), got two of those three points wrong (see pages 98-101). It shouldn't matter whether one defends internment, believes it defensible, or believes it indefensible: removing Malkin's book, which defends the position on internment and relocation held by all three branches of the U.S. government during World War II, is unbecoming of a place of learning--particularly one sponsored by that very government.

Do not be deceived! NC is not "moderate" in state and local governments. Au contraire! Exceedingly liberal. The Univ. of NC is over there on the Left with the Ivy League, et al, so its no surprise that a UNC Law Professor (educated at Brown) wants to control what the citizens of NC read.

Frank Laughter, Concord, NC.

More liberal book burnings? Leftist Nazis at work.

In the end its all GW's fault.

Right you are. That's the way some look at it.

How can this possibly be GW's fault? Gw Bush is hardly a conservative. He is a big government liberal. The democratic party is run by big government leftists. The republican party is run by big government liberals, as GW Bush happens to be a big government liberal. In other words, conservatives will get NOTHING from the republican party. Convservative are only useful to republican party in the get out the vote campaign and as long as they vote for the liberals who lead the republican party. The republican party will do its best to give conservatives NOTHING. Mr. Flynn's book "Why the Left hates America" does a good job explaining the difference between leftists and liberals. The decision for conservatives to make is as follows: do we form another party or do we vote republican in an attempt to keep leftists out of power? We need to understand if we leave the republican party to form another party this will leave things wide open to the leftists for the foreseeable future. Do we really want hate-America leftists running the country unopposed? This is what conservatives need to decide. In the mean time conservatives need to understand that the republican party as it is currently constituted will give them NOTHING. This is a difficult decision. Please pardon the sentence structure and the coherence of thought, as I have had a few beers.

Poster, that was very well put and I have to agree to a large extent.

I too have not been entirely happy to see where the party has gone and I do agree that the modern "conservatives" in the Republican party are known as such in name only.

I also believe that real conservatives are being used to keep a party in power that does not necessarily reflect their values.

The problem is, a guy like Pat Buchanan will never get elected (tis' a pity) and the more liberal in the Republican party have learned from moderate democrats like Slick Willy that you have to walk a fine line between representing your party and giving fringe voters what they want.

It's a sad state of affairs.

But still: GW is not the root of all evil as the leftists would have you believe.

He's demonstratively better than having one of them in control.

Here's another attempt at book banning at US National Parks:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1214shenanigans.asp

Am I the only one that gets annoyed at far lefties calling anybody who disagrees with them fascists and Nazi's ?

Yet another example by the far left of textbook Nazi behavior.

Jason

ASDF

Thank you for your comments. I agree with your assessment that having GW as president is demonstrably better than having a leftist democrat as president. This is why I voted for GW in the last election. The biggest problems I have with Pat Buchanan are his fundamental misunderstanding of the Israeli-Arab conflict and I believe his misunderstanding of the situation regarding the war in Iraq. From his interview on The O'rielly Factor, some time ago, he opposes Israel in this conflict. What he fails to understand is Israel, regardless of whether you like them or not, is a major buffer between us and Islamic Extremists. In other words, if Israel disappeared today, it would not lead to peace. All it would mean is that jihadist assets that are now deployed against Israel would now be deployed elsewhere. Perhaps in a neighborhood closer to Mr. Buchanan. The same goes for the Iraq war. The primary benefit to this action has been that it has forced the terrorists to deploy resources to Iraq that would have been used elsewhere, probablly against the American homeland. I believe Mr. Buchanan fundamentally fails to grasp the situation we face regarding Islamic Extremists. I think a conservative for president like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh would be a better bet than Pat Buchanan but as you stated none of these people are electable right now and GW is a better alternative than any leftists democrat.

Poster, your continued support of failed policy with regard to Israel, which policy consists of throwing a lot of money Israel's way, no matter what they do, which policy was initiated during the Reagan years, shows that you are no true conservative.

As for UNC, don't knock dem 'Heels.

As for internment, I grew up across the street from a Japanese family, Oishi by name, and the grandfather, who still lived there, whom we called George, explained to me once how he had been the owner of two restaurants on the West Coast, both in the LA area.

Anyway, he had both his retaurants taken from him, and he was locked up.

Dan, I know you weren't defending the policy itself, at least not openly, but I can't help but think that (a.) that policy was majorly mistaken and (b.) anyone who would put a book on display defending the policy, in a center where children or grandchildren of those in the camps would be visiting, just needs a lesson in good manners.

No one has to go to court over it, of course, but it just reeks of bad taste ... don't you think?

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time someone on the right revelled in tasteless behavior (it's part of that whole conservative frat-boy mentality that seems to be cultivated on the Right beginning with the earliest days of YAF), but still. My goodness.

bouyashaka.

Poster, that was very well put and I have to agree to a large extent.

I too have not been entirely happy to see where the party has gone and I do agree that the modern "conservatives" in the Republican party are known as such in name only.

I also believe that real conservatives are being used to keep a party in power that does not necessarily reflect their values.

The problem is, a guy like Pat Buchanan will never get elected (tis' a pity) and the more liberal in the Republican party have learned from moderate democrats like Slick Willy that you have to walk a fine line between representing your party and giving fringe voters what they want.

It's a sad state of affairs.

But still: GW is not the root of all evil as the leftists would have you believe.

He's demonstratively better than having one of them in control.
Posted by asdf at April 18, 2005 04:33 PM

Why is it do you think, and this isnt meant to be antagonizing its just a question, that just because the GOP is not AS conservative as you are, it isnt conservative?

I mean you guys do have to admit, you are pretty god damn far along the political right.

Ali G

United States support of Israel goes back to the yom Kippur war in 1973 and probably sooner. It did not start with the Reagan administration. The reason for this support has been because the two countries have common enemies and not because of some lobby as some have tried to suppose. Reagan, quite correctly, recognized that Israel served as a valuable buffer against Soviet Communisim. Now Israel is the primary buffer against Islamic Extremists. The current policy has been largely to treat Israel and its Islamic Extremists enemies as equals. This is a fundamentally flawed policy. The only democracy in the middle east simply cannot be treated as equal to tyrannical thugs. This is the fundamental flaw in Bush's policies. They lack moral certainty.

To assert that policies supporting Israel have not succeeded is erroneous. Israel is the most important buffer between the free world and Islamic Extremists. Even if Israel disappeared this would not bring us peace. All it would mean is that jihadists assets that are currently deployed against Israel would simply be deployed elsewhere, probably agianst the American homeland. Even pre dating 911 the policies of the Bush administration have been to treat Israel and its Arab enemies as equals. I believe this may have been a contributing factor in what lead to 911. Encouraging Israel to make concessions to terrorists is interprated by the terrorists as weakness and only encourages attacks. In other words, in order to win the broader war on terrorism, it is in the best interest of the United States and the western world to increase their support for Israel.

Sincerely
B.Poster

Ben

You are correct. Just because the Republican party may not be as conservative as I am does not mean it is not conservative. I define a conservative as follows: 1.) Supports small unobtrusive government. 2.) Supports sane government spending polices. 3.)Supports the expansion of the Christian values that have made this country great. 4.) Sticks to 1 through 3 even when it is not politically expedient to do so. By this definition, I do not think GW or the Republican party are conservative. The Republican party and GW Bush seem to me to be big government liberals. Specifically the Republican party has done nothing other than engage in some neat rhetoric to support the expansion of Christian values. For the record, I really do not consider myself to be that far the politica right.

Ben

You are correct. Just because the Republican party may not be as conservative as I am does not mean it is not conservative. I define a conservative as follows: 1.) Supports small unobtrusive government. 2.) Supports sane government spending polices. 3.)Supports the expansion of the Christian values that have made this country great. 4.) Sticks to 1 through 3 even when it is not politically expedient to do so. By this definition, I do not think GW or the Republican party are conservative. The Republican party and GW Bush seem to me to be big government liberals. Specifically the Republican party has done nothing other than engage in some neat rhetoric to support the expansion of Christian values. For the record, I really do not consider myself to be that far the political right.

I accidently posted my last post twice.

Okay. I would disagree that expanding Christian values, under the actual banner of Christ, is necessary to Conservatism. If you just meant the basic values of Judeo-Christianity I would probablly agree with you.

Obviously there are deep schisms between PaleoCons and NeoCons on what Conservatism should mean, and I will post my views on this later. For now however I have to go. More later!

Ben

While I am a Christian, I would agree that in order to be Conservative it is not necessary that someone actually be a Christian. In any event, I do not think that the current Republican leadership has done anything for either Christians or for the spread of Judeo Christian principles. Perhaps I am wrong and I have missed something.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

Okay, ignoring for now the fact that neither the GOP nor the label of "Conservative" have any necessary Christian obligations, I would still disagree with you.

How about liberating 50 million people from tyranny? After all, Christ himself was fairly anti-tyranny, I think it's fair to say.

Dammit, I hit the post button by accident.

But going beyond the Christian sect of it, why exactly would you say Bush and co are "big government liberals" ?

Just off the top of my head, "No Child Left Behind." I also think it's neither conservative nor prudent to expand the budget during wartime unless it's defense spending.

The tax breaks were a nice start, but there's still work to do.

"As for internment, I grew up across the street from a Japanese family, Oishi by name, and the grandfather, who still lived there, whom we called George, explained to me once how he had been the owner of two restaurants on the West Coast, both in the LA area.

Anyway, he had both his retaurants taken from him, and he was locked up."

Answer: As stated by Col. Karl Bendetsen in a 1972 interview long before this history became politicized...

"First, about their assets, their lands (Nisei could own land), their possessions, their bank accounts and other assets, their household goods, their growing crops--nothing was confiscated. Their accounts were left intact. Their household goods were inventoried and stored. Warehouse receipts were issued to the owners. Much of it was later shipped to them at Government expense, particularly in the case of those families who relocated themselves in the interior, accepted employment and established new homes.

Lands were farmed, crops harvested, accounts kept of sales at market and proceeds deposited to the respective accounts of the owners.

Whenever desired, Shinto and other religious shrines were moved to the centers.

Second, it was never intended by Executive Order 9066 and certainly not by the Army that the Japanese themselves be held in Relocation Centers. The sole objective was to bring relocation anywhere in the interior--east of the Cascades and Sierras Nevada and north of the southern halves of Arizona and New Mexico. Japanese were urged to relocate voluntarily on their own recognizance and extensive steps were taken to this end. The desire was to relocate them so that they could usefully and gainfully continue raising their families and educate their children while heads of families and young adults became gainfully employed. They were to be free to lease or buy land, raise and harvest crops, go into businesses. They were not to be restricted for the "duration" so long as they did not seek to remain or seek to return to the war "frontier" during hostilities.

In furtherance, from the very beginning I initiated diligent measures to urge the Japanese families to leave with the help and funding (whenever needed) of the WCCA (Wartime Civil Control Administration) on their own recognizance and resettle east of the mountains. To this end, I conferred with the Governors of the seven contiguous states east of the mountains. I called a Governors’ Conference at Salt Lake City. I invited them to urge attendance by members of their cabinets, by members of their legislatures and by the mayors of their communities. It was a large and successful conference. I advised them in full, sought their full cooperation, asked them to inform their citizens and to welcome and help the evacuees to feel welcome without restrictions, to become members of their inland communities and schools and to help them find employment and housing. I told them that these people would become a most constructive segment of their respective populations. These who resettled certainly did. Where needed I told them that the WCCA would provide financial support for a limited period.

Further to this end, I conferred with the elders of each major Japanese community along the Pacific Coast, wherever they were and, as well, in Arizona and New Mexico. I carefully explained all this to them. I urged them to persuade their fellow Japanese to leave before the evacuation to assembly centers began and while it was proceeding. I assured them that the WCCA would provide escort, if requested, by those who felt insecure. We organized convoys and shipped to those, who had resettled, their stored possessions."

"Why is it do you think, and this isnt meant to be antagonizing its just a question, that just because the GOP is not AS conservative as you are, it isnt conservative?"

Because it isn't, not if you use the term "conservative" according to its classical definition. Neoconservatism, demonstratably, is also not conservativism as it is merely Trotskyite internationalism covered in the rhetorical velour of dedication to "capitalism."

"I mean you guys do have to admit, you are pretty god damn far along the political right."

This is another problem - the neocon attempt to cast the old paleo guard as being on the "far right." Its almost funny because it is so ahistorical. Senator Robert Taft, a "paleo" by modern standards, was not considered to be on the "far right" fifty or so odd years ago. In 1952, Taft very nearly won the Republican nomination over Eisenhower (the convention went to three ballots). Albert Jay Nock, Chodorov, Richard Murrary - I could go on and on citing names of prominent conservatives from yesteryear who were not considered to be on some sort of "fringe" within the greater conservative movement.

What myself, and many other paleos are sick and tired of is the smug self-righteousness of the statist neocons who purge the old historic guard from the conservative movement (see: Rich Lowry, David Frum, and the boys at the NR) with claims of "heresy" and abandonment of conservative principles when they themselves are the heretics. It is like a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon calling an orthodox Christian faithful to the historical creeds of Christendom a heretic.

James

The neo-conservatives are purging the old guard from the conservative movement. The neo-conservatives do not have the power or the clout to "purge" anyone. Rich Lowry, David Frum, and the folks at NR hardly have this kind of power. The Republican party is run by big government liberals. I think the term is "Rockefeller Republicans." These are the folks who run the Rebpublican party today. The neo-conservatives are only useful to them, in that they see eye to eye on certain foreign policy issues and they participate in the get out the vote campaigns that keep them in power. As a general rule social conservativs will get NOTHING from the current Republican party.

B. Poster,

You are right on with regards to social conservatives and the GOP. You would think after 30+ years of Roe v. Wade the Christian Right would learn its lesson, but alas its leaders march in lockstep to the statist tune played by the Bush Administration.

Thankfully, the Constitution Party provides an appealing and thoroughly Christian alternative.

This is so stupid abook should be read if the reader wants to read it. I think that people are stupid for teing to ban books they are ment to be read not burned thank you very much.

Seriously people need to stop this shit it is stupid I think that all people who do this are stupid!!!!!