OPEN BORDERS AND A LOST REPUBLIC

            It has become almost trite to quote Benjamin Franklin's famous response to the lady who asked him what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had established in 1787, but it has never been more relevant than it is now.  Mr. Franklin tersely responded, "A republic, madam – if you can keep it."

            Judging by the feckless response to Obama's recent seizure of the legislative power by nullifying the nation's immigration laws, much of America has meekly submitted to the effective dissolution of our republican form of government.  As Franklin prophetically feared over two centuries ago, we have failed to "keep" our constitutional republic.  

               Franklin's Warning Resounds Ominously in the era of  government by decree

            This is not defeatist hyperbole.  It is harsh political and cultural reality – at least in the present sorry epoch of our history.

            A poll conducted by Quinnipiac University indicates that 45% of Americans actually support Obama's imperious grant of amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who he knows will support him and his degenerate party at the polls (48% opposed the action according to the poll).  In other words, nearly half of Americans apparently endorse the abandonment of a representative and responsive democratic republic in favor of quasi-dictatorship by an arrogant, racially biased leftist.

            This is the depth to which the unworthy heirs of Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson have descended under Obama's Caligulan misrule.

            The contemporary failure of the republican ideal does not lie in some flaw in the constitutional structure the Framers passed down to us.  There are ample remedies in the Constitution – including Congress's powers to control the purse and to impeach the President, and the courts' extensive powers of judicial review – to override Obama's imposition of government by executive decree.  There are also indirect supplemental remedies, such as the Republican Senate's ability to block any and all of Obama's executive and judicial nominations when the next Congress convenes in January.

            Sadly, however, most of those who exercise the legislative and judicial powers in America today either lack the will and courage to wield those powers against the President, or actually support and endorse Obama's seizure of unconstitutional powers.  The few righteous voices in the congressional wilderness who are willing to invoke the necessary potent remedies, such as the admirable Texas conservative, Senator Ted Cruz, have thus far been unable to rally sufficient support to mount a credible counter-attack.

            With appalling audacity, Obama has effectively decreed that the laws governing and restricting immigration into the United States have no meaning, force, or consequences; that the millions of aliens from the South who have violated our laws, invaded our nation, and brazenly seized our public resources are not only exempted from deportation or any other adverse consequence for their transgressions, but are to be rewarded with government benefits and largesse; and that the law-abiding Americans who have constantly  supported and defended this country must bear the cost and imposition of this lawless invasion across our national borders.

            This must be marked:  Not only are Obama's alien preference decrees blatantly and subversively unconstitutional because they usurp power that belongs to Congress alone under Art. I of the Constitution; but they are infused with scorn for all traditional Americans who rightfully oppose them, and who expressed that opposition  in nationwide elections less than one month ago. 

            The ink is barely dry on the November election returns registering the Nation's comprehensive rejection of Obama's main policies -- emphatically including his well-known intent to issue an executive decree legalizing the status of some five million illegal aliens.  In an unambiguous vote of "no confidence," the voters ousted the Democrats from control of the U.S. Senate and reduced their representation in the House of Representatives to the lowest level in over 80 years.  In a parliamentary system of government, Obama would have been rendered politically impotent and forced to call for new elections. 

            Although ours is not a parliamentary system like Japan's or the UK's, our constitutional and political structures contemplate that any responsible President would recognize the sentiment expressed in the election landslide by adjusting his policies – and his attitude – in response to the voters' expressed preferences.  Not so Obama, who is incurably egotistical and scornfully indifferent to the wishes of all but those of his own race (that is, the black half of it) or those of his leftist ideology.  Far from conceding any ground to the voters or the representatives they had just elected, Obama has brazenly reaffirmed his most unpopular policies and programs.

            The Great Virginian, Thomas Jefferson, once explained "Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."

            The "subservience and venality" lamented by Mr. Jefferson not only permeates a substantial portion of today's American populace (as shown by the nearly 50% who apparently approve Obama's amnesty decree), but sadly is on full display among the leadership of the Republican majority that was just elected to forcefully oppose Obama -- rather than to appease him.  Neither Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell nor House Speaker John Boehner has displayed the forceful anger and determination that is required to counter Obama's unconstitutional edicts.  They both appear unwilling to adopt the hard measures that would provide the minimum response to Obama's arrogant usurpations. 

            But the Nation cannot afford such prevarication and timidity in the face of Obama's dangerous misrule.  McConnell and Boehner should announce that Congress will exercise its power over appropriations to deny funding for any government resources, personnel, or contracts that are needed to implement the lawless amnesty decree.  

            Yet an almost paranoid fear of adverse media reaction to the misnamed "government shutdown" that might follow from such targeted defunding deters the Republican leadership from taking the minimal necessary action.  That leadership seems oblivious to the fact that congressional Republicans have just achieved a massive election victory in defiance of arguments that last year's so-called shutdown crisis would doom them to defeat.

            Absent forceful congressional counter-measures such as a sweeping denial of funding for any aspect of the amnesty program, the collapse of constitutional governance initiated by Obama's lawless decrees will only accelerate.

            Most critics of Obama's amnesty decree have focused on how it violates the constitutional separation of powers, by arrogating to the President the legislative power over immigration.  While this is true enough and disastrous enough, the decree goes beyond that and violates what may be the most fundamental and elemental provision of the Constitution:  the Guarantee Clause, found in Art. IV, sec. 4 of the Constitution, which provides in part:

                "The United States shall guarantee to every State in

                 the Union a Republican Form of Government, and

                 shall protect each of them against Invasion."

            In one fell swoop, Obama's amnesty decree violates both of the quoted  mandates of the Guarantee Clause.  A Republican Form of Government is one in which power is held by the people and their elected representatives, yet Obama's actions on alien amnesty, illegal recess appointments, and unilateral revision of laws like the Welfare Reform Act deprive all the States of the effective legislative representation that is the essence of a Republic.  And far from protecting the States against the alien invasion from Mexico and Central America, Obama has indisputably encouraged and facilitated that invasion by repeatedly rewarding and protecting the invaders.

            Benjamin Franklin warned us over two centuries ago that the Republic bequeathed to us by the genius, blood, and bravery of our Founding Fathers would not be easily maintained.  Unless more Americans and their representatives gather their resolve to resist Obama's ominous encroachments , the Guarantee Clause and the rest of the Constitution will soon be reduced to an empty and ineffectual parchment.

NO KUMBAYA CONFIRMATION FOR HOLDER 2.0

               The current Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, is an unabashed advocate of pro-black racial preference who does not include whites or Asian-Americans when he refers to "my people" – i.e., those particular Americans whose interests he most aggressively asserts and defends in his leadership of the Justice Department. 

                Holder has announced his resignation (effective upon confirmation of a replacement), and President Obama has just nominated another black-leftist attorney, Loretta Lynch of New York City, to succeed and emulate Holder.  Obama plainly expects Ms. Lynch to continue Holder's administration of federal law enforcement with an emphatic bias towards the interests of black Americans under the divisive doctrines of affirmative action, disparate impact, and 21^st century reparations for the racial wrongs of the nineteenth century.

                Although Ms. Lynch's embrace of Holder's race-based agenda is cosmetically muted under the guise of her relatively non-controversial tenure as United States Attorney in New York City, no one should be deceived by this disingenuous political camouflage.  Lynch has the strong backing and endorsement of not only the tendentious Mr. Holder, but also the ultra-radical racial agitator, Al Sharpton, who was directly engaged in the political consultations leading to Lynch's selection.

                In the wake of his overwhelming rejection in the just concluded congressional elections, Obama has rejected any notion of conciliation or compromise, but has instead decided to "double-down" in pushing ahead with the very policies and plans that the electorate so emphatically refuted.  There is little reason to believe that Obama would deviate from his unapologetic recalcitrance in choosing a moderate or conciliatory nominee for Attorney General.  On the contrary, it is evident that he is in comfortable accord with the confrontational attitudes of Holder, Sharpton, and others of their ilk in his choice of a suitable leftist to administer U.S. law enforcement for the final two years of his destructive administration.

                The Obama administration hopes to avoid detailed scrutiny of Ms. Lynch's background and legal philosophy by portraying her as an entirely respectable, "non-controversial" choice who should be quickly confirmed in the forthcoming "lame duck" session of Congress, while Obama's Democrats still cling to control of the Senate and its Judiciary Committee.  Obama and Holder know that if they cannot rush Ms. Lynch through an abbreviated and pro forma confirmation process in the lame duck Senate, a serious and intensive confirmation process awaits her when the Republicans assert control of the Senate in January, 2015.

               Likely transcript of Lame Duck Hearings on Loretta Lynch Confirmation

                Obama's media allies, Democratic senators, and at least one "useful idiot" on the Republican side have already begun painting Ms. Lynch with the false colors of respectability, with a view to forcing a speedy and ill-informed "Kumbaya confirmation."  Various news stories have already described Lynch,  without providing any supporting evidence, as a "popular prosecutor" who has "built a solid reputation" during her tenure as U.S. Attorney for the Easter District of New York.  This is feckless nonsense.

                Federal U.S. Attorneys are appointed by the President, and their largely bureaucratic position rarely involves the kind of visibility or public engagement that makes them either "popular" or unpopular.  There is thus no reason for describing Loretta Lynch as a "popular prosecutor" other than to lend support to the Administration's disingenuous efforts to portray her as moderate and respectable, when in fact she has earned the support of racialist agitators like Sharpton. 

                As to Ms. Lynch's supposedly "solid reputation," there is no reason to ascribe the slightest significance to this throw-away assertion.  Although stories making this claim provide no genuine evidence or data to support it, it is most likely based upon statements of support from New York lawyers and political figures – people who have everything to gain, and nothing to lose, by cultivating the approval or gratitude of a powerful U.S. Attorney and her even more powerful backers in the White House and at Main Justice.  In short, the ritualistic and boilerplate assertions of Ms. Lynch's purportedly solid reputation as a "tough but fair" prosecutor are utterly worthless.

                The critical issue is not whether Lynch has the pro forma, self-interested support of New York lawyers and political figures, but whether she is likely to continue the utterly disastrous and racially divisive policies and practices of the Obama-Holder Justice Department.  Among other things, her disturbing statements endorsing Holder's race-based approach to law enforcement, and the suspect circumstances of her selection – i.e., the apparent imprimatur of Holder and Sharpton – indicates that she will adhere closely to the Holder Line if confirmed as Attorney General.  Indeed, Sharpton himself has stated, "I think Loretta Lynch certainly satisfies all of us that she will continue in the same vein that Eric Holder had began." - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2014/11/10/nbc-hails-obamas-historic-choice-attorney-general-touts-sharpton#sthash.dk3WtrFX.dpuf

                The arguments made by Obama's media allies urging swift and submissive confirmation of Ms. Lynch are beyond hilarious in their extreme absurdity and illogic.  An article in the New Republic by a so-called "fellow" at the leftist Yale Information Society Project named Sam Kleiner, for example, offers the following conclusory incoherence:  "The Obama administration has extended an olive branch to the Senate Republicans by choosing someone whose independence and apolitical judgment are beyond reproach."  See http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120214/attorney-general-loretta-lynch-republicans-question-obamas-pick. 

                "Beyond reproach?"  Who does he think he's talking about, Caesar's wife?

                Kleiner's flippantly partisan article assumes that Lynch will somehow be "independent" because, unlike several other persons mentioned as possible nominees for Attorney General, she did not have "experience in the White House or at Main Justice."  This illogical contention is patently flawed on several levels. 

                First, countless leftist Democrats who "lack experience in the White House or at Main Justice" would be perfectly ready and willing to dance on the puppet strings of Obama and his White House gang if given the position of Attorney General.  The law firms and non-profit legal groups of America are filled with senior liberal-Democrat attorneys who would love nothing more than to slavishly implement the dictates of Obama, Valerie Jarrett, and John Podesta if named Attorney General.  An Attorney General's lack of inner circle experience provides absolutely no assurance, or even any likelihood, of so-called "independence" from the President's political policies and directives.  Indeed, Lynch's elevation from the comparative obscurity of her pedestrian U.S. Attorney position to the Corner Office at Main Justice renders her all the more likely to do the bidding of those who elevated her.

                Secondly, Ms. Lynch in fact enjoyed extensive access to the Justice Department's inner circles when Holder appointed her as the Chairwoman of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys, which advises the Attorney General on legal policy issues.  So not only does Lynch, contrary to Kleiner's misleading assertions, have high-level experience at Main Justice; she is also heavily beholden and linked to Attorney General Holder.  More importantly, it is apparent that she has been advising him on the very divisive and unconstitutional policies which have made Holder a national byword for lawlessness in the Attorney General's office.  To promptly confirm a known disciple of the man whose reckless and discriminatory policies have made him anathema to the American public – Holder's approval rating as Attorney General is a pathetic 24% according to a Rasmussen poll – would be a betrayal of both the Constitution, the rule of law, and the expressed wishes of the voters who emphatically rejected Obama's policies in the recent elections.              

                Notwithstanding all this, Democrat and media partisans, and at least one Republican political Quisling, have been calling for the rubber-stamp confirmation of Ms. Lynch in the forthcoming lame duck session of the Senate.  Inasmuch as the lame duck Senate was just unceremoniously repudiated by the electorate, however, elementary notions of responsive and prudent government would place the responsibility for evaluating the suitability of such an important nomination upon the accountable new Senate, rather than the unaccountable old one.

                Almost on cue, however, the invertebrate Republican senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, blurted out a signal of premature surrender on the Lynch nomination even before the ink was dry on her nomination papers.  With as much sober consideration as a teenage girl squealing "OMG, awesome," on seeing a new star on "The Voice," Graham reportedly volunteered that Lynch "seems to be a solid choice," is qualified to be Attorney General, and that he has no problems with confirming her in the abbreviated lame duck session.

                Graham's irresponsible remarks confirm once again why the routine re-election of unprincipled appeasement-oriented incumbents like him makes meaningful conservative reform in Congress so difficult.  There is absolutely no valid reason for a Republican senator to preemptively concede the confirmation of a suspect Obama nominee for a crucial post like Attorney General before the review of her background has even begun, let alone before the Judiciary Committee has conducted thorough hearings on the nomination.  Graham is evidently so anxious to curry favor with the liberal media and political establishment – now that he is safely re-elected and beyond the reach of insurgent conservatives – that he is willing to preempt the scrutiny that is required for any important cabinet nominees, let alone one who promises to perpetuate the destructive policies of an Eric Holder, with the smiling approval of Al Sharpton.

                Those who advocate a quick, pro forma confirmation of Ms. Lynch insist that she is indisputably well-qualified to be Attorney General solely because she has served as a relatively uncontroversial U.S. Attorney for about six years.  This is pure nonsense.  There are approximately 93 U.S. Attorneys, and it is a safe bet that most of them could be described as respectable, "well-regarded," and "tough but fair" – the same meaningless endorsements bestowed upon Ms. Lynch by the same beholden attorneys, colleagues, and fellow Harvard Law School Network cronies who would bestow them on almost any U.S. Attorney in their incestuous professional and political circle. 

                None of these boilerplate encomiums provide any meaningful evidence that a given U.S. Attorney is qualified to be Attorney General – especially at a time when the tyrannical conduct of the President and the current Attorney General have undermined the integrity of constitutional governance and the rule of law.

                Having served as a senior Senate Judiciary Committee Counsel during the Reagan and Bush 41 years, SR is deeply familiar with the Senate's vetting and confirmation process for Presidential nominees.  The vetting of U.S. Attorneys is generally cursory and pro forma, owing to the fact that these officials are generally confined to straightforward legal enforcement operations, rather than matters of politics, policy, or sensitive constitutional interpretation.  Thus, the fact that Ms. Lynch has twice been confirmed as a U.S.A. without controversy says very little about her ability to satisfy the quite different and far more exacting standards that apply to the confirmation of an Attorney General.

                A close, skeptical, and thorough vetting of the Lynch nomination is even more critical than usual because the Obama Administration, aided and abetted by the Holder Justice Department, has flouted and undermined the U.S. Constitution with a hubris unmatched in modern  history.  In particular, Obama has flagrantly usurped and violated the legislative power expressly assigned to Congress in Art. I of the Constitution; he has both declined to enforce or defend duly enacted laws, even while purporting to impose laws and amendments to laws that Congress never enacted.  A prime example, of course, is Obama's arrogant insistence that he will unilaterally alter U.S. law to "legalize" the status of millions of illegal aliens, in direct contravention of the laws passed by Congress. 

                Given these realities, it is imperative that the next Attorney General have a strong mastery of constitutional law, and a commitment to defending the Constitution's integrity even when the President's policies and politics press in the other direction.

                There is no indication in Ms. Lynch's unremarkable experience as a U.S. Attorney that she has dealt extensively with difficult issues of constitutional law, let alone seminal separation of powers issues like that posed by Obama's proposed usurpation of congressional authority over immigration and deportation.  Perhaps she does possess a level of constitutional mastery that is not evident on the face of her credentials, but that can only be determined by a thorough vetting of her background and probing interrogation in a full hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  

               Such a hearing must also require Ms. Lynch to declare whether she supports the constitutionality of Obama's proposed unilateral amnesty fiat, as Senators Cruz and Lee have properly insisted.

                Finally, the Lynch advocates' ultimate trump card is to gush breathlessly that she would be the first black woman Attorney General, and that only racist Republicans would oppose such an inspirational breakthrough by denying her instantaneous confirmation by the lame duck Senate.  This tiresome exploitation of vestigial white-male guilt provides no rational basis whatsoever for according preferential treatment to black female nominees; it is nothing more than an argument for pro-black and pro-female discrimination in the guise of obsolete racial and gender justice platitudes. 

                We have now had a black Attorney General (Mr.Holder) for nearly six years (early 2009 to the present).  We recently had a woman Attorney General, Janet Reno, for eight years (1993-2001), and an Hispanic AG for three years (2005-2007).  In short, a racial minority or a woman has served as Attorney General during 17 of the past 22 years. 

                Under these circumstances, the appointment of a black female to this post hardly constitutes some kind of novel or historical breakthrough for blacks or for women.  This is especially apparent at a time when a black President is already surrounded by a powerful coterie of influential black women such as primary Presidential Counselor Valerie Jarrett, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and the increasingly political First Lady, Michelle Obama.  Against this revealing reality – which most people in politics or media are too timid to notice, let alone mention – the appointment of yet another black woman to the President's inner circle of power represents a reinforcement of the status quo, rather than a vindication for the underrepresented.

DAMMIT, MR. PRESIDENT, I'M A SOLDIER, NOT A DOCTOR

              The deadly Ebola virus is having devastating and deadly consequences for a group of West African countries, including Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea.  The virus is an aggressive one, involving enormous potential for epidemic dispersal.  Its effects on those unfortunate enough to contract it are often deadly and gruesome.

                The most widespread and devastating effects of Ebola have thus far been confined to the aforesaid West African countries.  Among the hardest hit is Liberia.  The World Health Organization has recently projected that as many as 10,000 cases of Ebola could occur weekly in Africa by December of this year.  The disease appears to be gathering strength and spreading rapidly.

                Menacingly, Ebola has now surfaced in the United States.  A Liberian national who flew into the U.S. through Dulles Airport, Virginia, and then on to Dallas, Texas, had been infected with Ebola and soon died of the disease.  Subsequently, a nurse who treated the Liberian migrant in Dallas was also diagnosed with Ebola.  A concerned American public nervously awaits the prospect of further cases entering or arising here. 

                And, then, even while SR was writing this piece, another nurse who treated the Liberian patient was diagnosed with Ebola.  And this nurse reportedly flew on a commercial flight after having treated the Liberian – grimly demonstrating that human mistakes are apt to undercut all the dubious assurances that have been given by the Administration and others about the improbability of Ebola dispersal.

                Facing this grave threat to the public health, one would expect a firm and uncompromising response from the Federal Government to shield Americans from exposure to Ebola to the fullest extent possible.  As is so often the case with the Obama administration, however, any such expectation was illusory, and was soon disappointed.

                The one thing Obama could and should do as President, and without further delay, is close the U.S. border to the entry of all travelers, immigrants, and migrants from the Ebola-affected countries --  with appropriate exception for returning Americans who have been thoroughly and conclusively screened before re-entry.  Naturally, of course, this is the one thing Obama has not done, and which his administration insists (as of this writing) it will not do. 

                The one thing Obama absolutely should not do, on the other hand, is send thousands of Americans into the epidemic countries, where they will be unnecessarily exposed to the disease, and placed at a geometrically enhanced risk of contracting it.  And, naturally, this is exactly what Obama is doing.

                Dr. "Bones" McCoy of Star Trek Would not Send a Soldier on a Doctor's Mission

                The Pentagon has recently announced that up to 4,000 U.S. Army soldiers, mainly from the 101^st Airborne Division, will be dispatched to Liberia.  That's more than double the number of U.S. troops reportedly sent to Iraq in connection with the effort to quell the murderous ISIS rampage there.  According to Pentagon and Army spokespersons, the Liberian detachment will provide logistical, engineering, air transport, training, and medical support to the effort to contain Ebola in that country.  The Army insists that the soldiers will not be directly exposed to infected people.  But that is hardly sufficient reassurance.  The soldiers will be engaged in operations in a devastated and disrupted country where thousands of people are known to be infected with Ebola, and there are undoubtedly many other infected Liberians that nobody knows about.

                Incredibly, moreover, Democratic members of the House of Representatives (including the radical Muslim, Rep. Keith Ellison (D. Minn.) are now urging Obama to remove restrictions on these troops having direct contact with Ebola patents.  It is not enough for these leftist agitators, safe in their lush Washington offices, to send Army troops into the Ebola Zone; no, they want to geometrically multiply the soldiers' risk of exposure by forcing them into direct contact with Ebola-contagious Africans.

                American soldiers are trained to go into harm's way, and they have been doing so with enormous courage and frequency in the seemingly endless series of combat operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Mid-Eastern countries over the past two decades.  But they are trained to do so as armed war fighters, not as some kind of uniformed medical missionaries.

                No matter how elaborately the Administration's spokesmen may spin the facts, it is indisputable that sending American soldiers into the very epicenter of the Ebola Epidemic will enhance their prospects of exposure to, and possibly contracting, this deadly virus.  After all the risks and tribulations they have gone through in fighting terrorist and Islamist armies -- under outrageous constraints and restrictive rules of engagement imposed by a politicized Pentagon and its armchair generals -- the last thing our soldiers need is to be exposed to the risk of a deadly virus for no military purpose.

               

                And, as recently emphasized by those dealing with the Ebola patients in Dallas, "in the Ebola world there is no room for error."  See  http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/in-ebola-world-no-room-for-error-111867.html#ixzz3GAryh9w0.  What if the Defense Department is wrong when it says the Army detachment will not be exposed to infectious Ebola patients in Africa?  What if some of the non-patient Liberians they do deal directly with, unbeknownst to them, do have Ebola?  What if, as a result of such misjudgments, Army personnel do contract Ebola?  Then the disease will be set loose within the U.S. Army. 

                In that event, imagine the understandable fear and anxiety of the wives or husbands of the soldiers dispatched to Ebola Country.  And their children.  All thanks to a "politically correct" decision by Obama and his leftist cohorts to callously dispatch the 101^st Airborne on a non-military mission that is a gross and dangerous abuse of military resources and capabilities.

               

                Wholly apart from the unwarranted and ill-considered exposure of our soldiers to enhanced risk of Ebola, the deployment of thousands of U.S. soldiers on a non-military mission of disease containment and prevention in a foreign country is, as forcefully stated by retired Lieutenant General William Boykin (the former Commander of Delta Force) an "absolute misuse of the U.S. military."  As General Boykin elaborated:  "This is a terrible misuse of the U.S. military, and it comes at a terrible time when not only is the military really stretched thin, such that the U.S. military can not take on another mission, it comes at a time when we are reducing the military’s funding and the military’s numbers.” 

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/boykin-sending-military-to-fight-ebola-misuse-of-soldiers/#oHWTObVbrhcaG2QK.99

                The ultimate mission of the Armed Forces, and especially the Army, is to fight and win wars against foreign enemies in defense of the United States.  At a time when the U.S. is faced with increasing and genuine national security threats in multiple theaters – in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Ukraine, as well as in the East and South China Seas, see http://splashingrocks.blogspot.com/2014/01/cauldron-of-east-asia-crises-in-east.html – the demands on our military resources are particularly intense and expanding.  At the same time, the force strength has been reduced by the Obama administration, to the point where there is already a critical problem of over-extension.

                Why, in such circumstances, would the Administration decide to squander precious military resources on a non-military mission in distant African countries of no strategic or tactical consequence?  No persuasive rationale is apparent.

                But it gets worse.  Even while Obama is misallocating our limited and shrinking military resources on an ill-conceived medical mission more suited to international charities than the Screaming Eagles of the 101^st Airborne Division, his Secretary of Defense has doubled down on the stupidity.  The bumbling and hapless DoD Secretary, Chuck Hagel, has just announced that fighting the tiresome international fraud now known as Climate Change – because calling it Global Warming has since been exposed as a misnomer –presents an "immediate threat to national security" which the Defense Department must address across all of its operations.

                So the next time you hear Obama's DoD bureaucrats and politicized generals bemoan the lack of resources to conduct effective military operations in the battlefields of Iraq, Syria, or other areas where ISIS or Al Qaeda are terrorizing the innocent, just remember:  The resources that could be used for such critical and genuine military missions are being squandered on the bogus Campaign against Global Warming or on charitable medical missions more suitable to the Red Cross or the Sisters of Mercy.

                In the perpetually popular Star Trek saga, the grumpy but lovable ship's physician, Dr. McCoy (aka "Bones"), would always reply to non-medical assignments imposed on him by Captain James T. Kirk by grousing, "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a [physicist, or an engineer, or a navigator]!," -- depending on the particular inappropriate task that Kirk dumped on him.

                Where, one wonders, is the honest and upstanding member of the Army General Staff who has enough conviction and concern for his troops to advise Obama, "Dammit, Mr. President, this is an Army, not an order of medical missionaries!"?

                Regrettably, however, contemporary generals on active duty whose loyalty to their troops and to the integrity of the military's mission exceeds their concern for job security and promotion are seemingly nowhere to be found, in this day and age of the "Rainbow Generals."  See http://splashingrocks.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-rainbow-generals.html.

                Like the distinguished retired General Boykin, quoted above, they should be protesting this latest Obama administration abuse of the Armed Forces in the strongest possible terms.  Their duty of loyalty to their troops and to the Army's mission demands no less.  But just as occurred when the general staff shamefully suppressed their previously adamant opposition to the Obama Administration's injection of homosexuality into the barracks, the troops can once again expect only abject capitulation to Obama's political agenda from their feckless general officers.

              Addendum:  The ink was barely dry on this posting when it was reported that, in addition to the deployments mentioned above, President Obama is now preparing to send elements of the National Guard to enhance the U.S. military's Ebola mission in Liberia.  In short, the Administration is preparing to "double down" on its grotesque misuse of U.S. military resources and its unjustified exposure of thousands of U.S. soldiers and now Guardsmen to enhanced risk of contracting Ebola.  See http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/obama-may-send-national-guard-liberia-fight-ebola-sources-n227336.

 

OBAMA IS THE AGITATOR-IN-CHIEF

             In an apparent Freudian slip of news reporting, the Fox News website juxtaposed the following two story links, just as shown below, in its page for September 28 2014:

              "Added Tension. Two suspects sought after Ferguson officer shot.

               Related ______________________________________________

                Obama decries 'gulf of mistrust between minorities, police."

            The lead-line about the shooting of a Ferguson, Missouri, police officer referred to the shooting of an officer by a suspect reportedly trying to burglarize a community center, who opened fire on the officer when he tried to question the suspect.   On the same night, another case was reported in which an off-duty policeman was shot in his automobile while driving in Ferguson.  The reports on these incidents predictably suppressed the race of the suspects, which (together with the totality of circumstances) provides a near certain indicator that they were black.  As SR and others have repeatedly demonstrated, the mainstream American media systematically suppresses the race of the suspects in crime reports when the suspects are black – even when doing so will frustrate identification and apprehension of the suspect.

             Both police and media practically fell over themselves trying to explain that the shootings were unrelated to the earlier fatal police shooting of a Ferguson felony suspect and the lawless rioting and pillage that were triggered by that episode.  How the police and media were privy to the motives of those who shot the officers remains a mystery.

            Regardless, rather than stimulating any remorse or soul-searching among the Ferguson street packs, the cop-shooting atrocities were followed instead with reports of further threats to kill officers. 

            More recently, other racial agitators interrupted a performance by the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra to bellow an off-key anthem about Michael Brown, the pot-loving street hooligan who was fatally shot by a police officer after Brown apparently attacked the officer when the latter confronted him after Brown had been reported for robbing a convenience store.  Some members of the audience and the orchestra reportedly applauded this barbaric  and boorish intrusion, in what (if true) can only be described as a display of invertebrate kowtowing reminiscent of the abject  imperial eunuchs in China's Imperial City.

            So not only do we have racially resentful mobs rioting lawlessly in the streets of Ferguson, but their fellow travelers are escalating matters to opening fire on police officers -- while other Ferguson protesters reinforce the reign of ugly anarchy in that benighted region by brazenly disrupting cultural and athletic events with impunity. 

            Meanwhile, other instances of black mob violence in the streets are too numerous to catalogue, but one admirable web site is at least trying to keep track of these repetitive racial atrocities.  See "Black Mob Violence:  So Many Stories, not enough Room," American Thinker (Oct. 2, 2014), http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/10/black_mob_violence_so_many_stories_not_enough_room.html.

            The "Related" story in the above-quoted Fox headline – and the two stories are much more closely "related" than the headline writer might imagine -- reported yet another incendiary, racially-motivated speech by President Obama.  Before a crowd of fellow blacks at the Congressional Black Caucus dinner  – i.e., those who Obama's Afro-racist Attorney General, Eric Holder, would refer to as "my people" – Obama shamelessly placed all the blame for the "gulf of mistrust" to which he referred on the embattled and harried police.   See http://www.Newsmax.com/US/Racism-speech-Congressional-Black-Caucus-dinner/2014/09/29/id/597415/#ixzz3EiODRfxn.   He then proceeded to effectively exonerate the black street rioters, especially those who are "young", for their violent, offensive, and criminal conduct in the streets of urban America. 

            Obama, together with his radical henchman Holder, has descended to shameless falsification and demagoguery in his racially incendiary political manipulation.

            In his Black Caucus speech, Obama repeated and emphasized the malicious canard that there is endemic anti-black discrimination in the enforcement of the criminal laws in America.  As he intoned in his deliberately inflammatory speech:

                        "Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement, 

            guilty of walking while black or driving while black – judged by stereotypes 

            that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness."

            He further fanned the flames with the following additional nonsense:

                        "There are significant racial disparities. That's just the statistics. 

           One recent poll showed that the majority of Americans think the criminal 

           justice system doesn't treat people of all races equally. Think about that. 

          That's not just blacks, not just Latinos or Asians or Native Americans 

          saying things may not be fair. That's most Americans.

                        "And the worst part of it is it scars the hearts of our children, that 

          it leads some youngsters to unnecessarily fear people who do not look like 

          them and others to constantly feel under suspicion no matter what they do."

            In brief, Obama uses a fraudulent assertion that American police discriminate against minorities to generate the equally false impression that the black marauders who terrorize American cities are a bunch of oppressed innocents with "scarred hearts" who "constantly feel under suspicion no matter what they do."

            No, Mr. Obama.  You have it exactly wrong.  A well-known category of delinquent street thugs are justifiably "under suspicion" because they commit lots of violent crimes -- like gathering in feral packs to attack solitary pedestrians or bystanders, usually white.  The "suspicion" to which Obama alludes is not some irrational and arbitrary paranoia borne out of racial bias, but the exercise of simple logic in observing the realities of the street. 

            What Obama falsely and irresponsibly ascribes to mean-spirited racism and unfounded stereotypes is rooted instead in reality-based self-preservation. 

            Splashing Rocks and others have repeatedly demonstrated the insidious fallacy of the "bloody shirt" of discriminatory law enforcement that is routinely employed by Obama, Holder, and their minions on the left.  It is true that blacks are convicted and sentenced for violent criminal offenses in raw numbers that exceed their percentage of the general population.  But it is also true – and this is the decisive point -- that the percentage of violent crimes committed by blacks is far, far higher than the black percentage of the population.  As but one notable example that has been consistently documented by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (a part of  Holder's Justice Department), blacks commit roughly 50% of U.S. homicides, year-in and year-out, even though blacks constitute but 13% of the U.S. population.  Specifically, data compiled by BJS shows that for the period 1980-2008, 52.5% of homicides were committed by blacks.  See BJS, Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008,  Table 7 (Nov. 20111).  

            In short, it is hard proven fact that a vastly disproportionate share of violent crimes in America are committed by black perpetrators.  It is hardly surprising, therefore, that blacks – mainly young black males – represent such a high percentage of those in prison.  That is not a stereotype.  That is hard reality.

            Moreover, my recent blog on this same topic conclusively demonstrated, on the basis of extensive BJS data, that white murderers are about twice as likely to be sentenced to death and executed than black murderers.  http://splashingrocks.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-capital-canard-of-death-penalty.html.  So when Obama asserts that blacks are victimized by discriminatory law enforcement in this respect, he is lying.   In fact, he speaks the very opposite of the truth.   

            And such inflammatory lies by the President of the United States, and by his Attorney General, have serious and dangerous consequences.  In effect, Obama and Holder continue to give a kind of anticipatory dispensation and license to young black males to persist in their lawless behavior.  When the President and the Attorney General proclaim that you are unjustly oppressed and persecuted, and that it is the police who are the bad guys, there is little incentive to "stand down" in the streets.

            It is not surprising, therefore, that police in many cities are increasingly reluctant to apply a firm hand in confronting violent street crime, especially the fast-moving and fast-dispersing urban packs that have recently waged barbaric attacks in Memphis, Rochester, Orlando, Madison, and elsewhere.  It is increasingly apparent that reliance on police and government to provide effective protection in these situations is problematic, since both the police and the government are intimidated by the media and politicians of the left, who are poised to denounce them for racist practices  whenever the crimes they seek to punish or prevent are committed by favored racial minorities.  

           Consequently, and short of attaining highly effective martial arts proficiency, the most effective citizens' defense against such mob criminal attacks is effective and disciplined use of an efficient handgun with the legal backing of a concealed carry permit.  A permit, one might add, that Obama and Holder would deny you if they could.  Don't let them.

            In short, when Obama and Holder stoke their constituencies by condemning the allegedly disproportionate  prosecution of blacks by American law enforcement, they are engaged in spreading dangerous falsehood.  The hackneyed slogans of "walking while black" and "driving while black" are insidious canards with no basis in fact.  On the contrary, the constant reiteration of these fallacies by the President, the Attorney General, and their sycophants in the media have a chilling effect on law enforcement, which causes police to be overly reluctant, rather than overly predisposed, to enforce the criminal laws against blacks and other favored minorities.  The extraordinary passivity of the police in the face of the appalling orgy of criminal behavior by the Ferguson rioters is but one recent case in point.

            Why would the President and the Attorney General resort to such racially incendiary use of their prestige and authority?  Because they believe that an angry and resentful black populace will be more highly motivated to rally behind Obama and the Democratic Party candidates that support him and his twisted agenda.  And because they knew their allies and sycophants in the dominant media will parrot their false claims without question or reservation.

            So the Fox News headline writer got it right, intentionally or not, in printing that the "added tension" in Ferguson is "related" to Obama's racially loaded speech to his fellow Afrocentric politicians and ideologues.  Anti-police and more general anti-white violence in Ferguson, Mo., Memphis, Tennessee, Rochester, NY, and elsewhere are indeed related to racial agitation and condonation of criminality by Obama, Holder, and their leftist minions in government and media.

            This is precisely the kind of hard-edged and genuine issue that should be highlighted by Republican candidates in the crucial battle for control of Congress in the forthcoming elections – and precisely the kind of issue that most of these feckless candidates are too timid and clueless to pursue.  But if there are some candidates who have the guts and perception to pursue an issue that directly impacts the safety and security of their constituents, they are apt to be richly rewarded by the voters.

THE STRANGE DISAPPEARANCE OF JUSTINE WADDELL

                                                "And the storybook comes to a close,

                                                  Gone are the ribbons and bows . . . ."

                                                                -- from Pretty Maids All in a Row, the Eagles

                                                                   Joey Vitale and Joe Walsh

                In the year 2000, she was the undisputed new darling of the British entertainment world, and rightfully so.

                She was Justine Waddell, a strikingly beautiful Scotch-English Cambridge student who had taken time off from her studies to perform brilliantly as the starring ingénue in a succession of superb television dramatizations of nineteenth century literary classics and other distinguished productions.

                In her first appearance on the screen, she literally glowed in the title role as the ethereal, mentally mysterious adolescent, Millie, in Catherine Cookson's The Moth.  In an auspicious opening scene, she emerged from out of the night like an angelic visitation in a glowing white hooded cloak, seeming to float through the air in a hauntingly gorgeous vision like the very embodiment of Claire de Lune.  After a subordinate role as Countess Nordston in a film version of Anna Karenina, she played the innocent and vulnerable victim of a diabolical, switched-identity murder plot in Wilkie Collins' masterpiece, The Woman in White.  Waddell's soft-spoken, low-key character was overshadowed by Tara Fitzgerald's portrayal of the novel's resolute lady avenger, but Waddell played her supporting part in the submissive, yet appealing, tone demanded by the story.

              Justine Waddell, unforgettably beautiful as Tess of the D'Urbervilles

                Ms. Waddell then advanced to a pair of moving and memorable starring roles in two of the most beautifully produced and acted period pieces that have ever graced a television screen.

                There have been numerous television and cinema productions of Hardy's great tragic novel, Tess of the D'urbervilles, but A&E's 1998 presentation stands out as a genuine masterpiece of quality television drama.  From her opening scene with a bevy of white-gowned dairy maidens dancing in a pastoral rite of spring, to her tragic exit in the shadows of Stonehenge, Ms. Waddell's luminous beauty and simmering dramatic conviction produced a perfect portrayal of the iconic Tess against the lush backdrop of the Wessex landscape.  In an unusually demanding and physical role that placed the young actress center-screen for nearly the entire three-hour production, Waddell conveyed the doomed milkmaid's pastoral innocence, suppressed passion, and enormous moral fortitude and strength in a magnificent performance that would have been a delight to Thomas Hardy himself (who was said to have been enamored of his own lovely literary creation).  An excerpt of one of her more riveting scenes from the film is embedded below.

         A compelling excerpt from Ms. Waddell's stellar portrayal of Tess in the A&E production

                Although Waddell's sublime performance in Tess did not receive the widespread public attention it deserved – Tess's relentlessly tragic story might be a bit too grim for contemporary audiences -- her next leading part certainly did.  Her sparkling role as the irresistible Molly Gibson (one critic was so smitten she said you "could eat her with a spoon") in the BBC's mini-series production of Elizabeth Gaskell's classic Wives and Daughters proved a smashing and celebrated success with British viewers, as well as the critics.  The show was deservedly showered with prestigious awards, including a Broadcasters' Guild Best Actress award for Ms. Waddell.

                Surrounded by a stellar and seasoned ensemble cast that included a virtual A-list of the British acting elite – Michael Gambon, Keeley Hawes, Rosamond Pike, Ian Carmichael, Tom Hollander, and many others – Waddell still managed to somehow steal the show with her appealing portrayal of a genuinely attractive and noble heroine.  In a video "short" feature on the making of the mini-series, fellow cast member Bill Paterson (who played Molly Gibson's father) explained the unusual appeal of Ms. Waddell's Molly:  "Molly is one of the best human beings I suppose you can come across in literature. . . .  Something saintly comes out of her, but not cloying."

                                                                         

                    Gracing Harpers cover after her Wives and Daughters triumph
                                             
                After the spectacular success of Wives and Daughters, the sky seemed the limit for Ms. Waddell.  A wave of laudatory publicity and acclaim followed, including cover stories in chic magazines like Harpers and Queen.  Meanwhile, the U.S. broadcast of the popular mini-series brought the classy British starlet to the favorable attention of American audiences.

                Justine Waddell possessed every quality one would expect in a serious, thoughtful, and glamorous actress of the first order.  She seemed destined to become one of the genuinely accomplished and classy superstars of her era – rather a brunette British version of Grace Kelly.

                         Waddell as a spot-on Natalie Wood in the TV bio-pic

                Physical beauty is commonplace in the acting profession, but the chestnut-haired Ms. Waddell's stunning, delicately-featured visage stood out even in that brilliant company.  A slim, wasp-waisted 5-foot-7, she had the easy, athletic grace of a Hepburn – whether Katherine or Aubrey (who were, interestingly, both the same height as Waddell).  But the most conclusive proof of her truly extaordinary beauty is this:  she was selected to portray the illustrious Natalie Wood -- who has been accurately described as the most beautiful actress of her era -- in Ms. Wood's televised bio-pic, and the reviewers were astonished at the spot-on likeness of Ms. Waddell's portrayal.  Her successful roles also included some of the most iconic "beauty parts" in literature, including the man-killer Estella in Dickens' Great Expectations and the lovely embodiment of the "child of nature" she portrayed in Hardy's Tess. 

                Superior intelligence and scholarship, on the other hand, are not commonly found in the acting world, any more than they are commonplace elsewhere.  But Justine Waddell managed to earn her B. Phil. in Political Science and Sociology at Cambridge University's elite Emmanuel College, even while she was meeting a demanding schedule of film and theatrical engagements.  Moreover, Waddell performed her demanding literary roles with an intelligence and sensitivity that clearly reflected the understanding she had gained from actually reading and grasping the novels in question.  And her refreshingly thoughtful responses to interviewers' questions (see below) reflected an incisive and original mind that is rare in the often superficial circles of the entertainment world.

                Superior dramatic talent also seemed to come naturally to Ms. Waddell.  Wholly apart from serious television dramas, she simultaneously developed her acting skills in the demanding arena of the British live theatre, where she excelled.  She earned "sensational reviews," as well as a nomination for an Ian Charleson theatrical award, for her role in the Royal Shakespeare Company's production of Chekhov's The Seagull, and also excelled in the London presentation of Chekhov's Ivanov.  One need only view several of the excerpts from her performances in Tess and Wives and Daughters, published on YouTube, to recognize this lady's exceptional dramatic ability.

                                                                         

                 Waddell as emergent beauty Molly Gibson in "Wives and Daughters"

                Finally – and most importantly to SR – Justine Waddell appeared to possess a refreshing sense of decency and moral integrity not commonly found among stunningly beautiful British celebrity actresses.  It was not merely that all of the roles that led to her stardom as a princess of the costume drama could be described as edifying and admirable – the kind of performances one would be quite comfortable viewing with one's teenage daughters.  Although there is much to be said for that factor alone in this era of general cinematic depravity.  More tellingly, in an interview with the BBC ("Justine Waddell Plays Molly Gibson") regarding her celebrated role as Molly Gibson in Wives and Daughters, Ms. Waddell offered some interesting comments lamenting the sexual precociousness of contemporary teenagers:

                        "The other attraction for the actress was the character's purity.  'Molly
                is very caring about people' Waddell says.  'It's good that she takes people on
                trust.  I like the fact that she is old-fashioned and sexually naive, too -- she
                doesn't give a damn about what she looks like.  Nowadays teenagers are so
                sexually precocious; we've lost that sense of childish innocence."

                  These personal qualities did not arise mysteriously out of whole cloth.  On the contrary, Justine Waddell was blessed with superlative genes and what must have been a highly educational and cosmopolitan upbringing.  Her father was Gordon Waddell, also a Cambridge graduate, who had been the captain and star rugby player for the Scottish national team.  He was also a member of the South African Parliament – Ms. Waddell was born in Johannesburg and lived there until she was eleven -- where he was a staunch opponent of apartheid.   Mr. Waddell was also a prominent and successful international businessman.

                Given all this, one would need to search hard indeed to find an actress with greater promise and prospects than those facing Justine Waddell at the turn of the last century.

                But just when she seemed so surely destined for an illustrious and positive career, something went wrong.  Seriously wrong – at least professionally. 

                Around the turn of the century, she made an abrupt transition from the refined precincts of serious literary period pieces and costume dramas to the crass and crude arena of the big-screen cinema.  Perhaps she felt the need to step out of the Victorian confines of high-waisted gowns and drawing rooms, to explore the brave new world of latex-suited "action girls."  Whatever the motivation, the change of scenery and sensibility just didn't work for Ms. Waddell.

                Her first foray into a big-screen starring role was in what seemed like the hundredth remake of the increasingly tiresome Dracula saga – in this case, what was first dubbed as Wes Craven's presentation of "Dracula 2000."  The new twist of this version was that the ubiquitous vampire (played by Gerard Butler, later to gain superstardom as the sculpted Spartan-king of 300 fame) was presented as the reincarnation of Judas Iscariot, who preened and "vamped" in determined pursuit of the virginal Mary Heller (Waddell's role), the daughter of an hereditary vampire slayer.  Although the movie gave Waddell the "opportunity" to emerge from nineteenth century gowns and drawing rooms as a 21^st century vampire slayer, it was otherwise a popular and critical bust.  Her venture into the vampire world did more to dim her star, rather than brighten it.

                After the Dracula fiasco, this talented and lovely A-list actress inexplicably descended into what can only be described as a netherworld of flawed and failing films.  Starting with a British-made romantic comedy bust (The One and Only), descending through several profoundly awful "action" thrillers that thrilled no one (Chaos and Thr3e), and then meandering into a bizarre art film in which Waddell presented an exotically gorgeous image for the cameras in a stunning Chinese-empress-inspired costume, but had little to say dramatically or otherwise (The Fall) – Ms. Waddell's choice of roles seemed to go from bad to worse.

                More recently, she has found herself in secondary roles in such dubious productions as something called Killing Bono (about a British rock group frustrated by their inability to match the rise of U2) and The Enemy Within (a  German-produced docu-drama about the career of the much maligned anti-communist U.S. Senator Joe McCarthy).

                It might not have been so depressing if the elegant Ms. Waddell had merely been victimized by unfortunate roles in awful films.  But it was worse than that. 

                Perhaps motivated by her evident intellectual curiosity and adventuresome cultural tastes, Waddell accepted a role in a futuristic, semi-sci-fi Russian-made film about a group of jaded Russian elitists who pursue a source of extreme rejuvenation at an abandoned radiation-collection site in the Mongolian outlands. Waddell learned to speak Russian in preparation for this strange film (released in 2011), but apparently not well enough to speak her own lines, which were dubbed by a native Russian woman.  The film purports to be in the art film genre, and bears certain rough parallels in its relentlessly depressing plot to Anna Karenina (Waddell's character falls into doomed adultery with a swaggering horse-lover and commits suicide by high-diving into the path of a train). Wholly apart from the film's dramatic flaws and commercial obscurity, Ms. Waddell inexplicably made an abrupt and regrettable deviation from the admirable personal modesty of her prior film career. To put it as delicately as possible, she appears in scenes which would have made Molly Gibson blush crimson and which we can only hope were filmed with the assistance of a body-double.  It would be bad enough had Ms. Waddell stooped to such embarrassing scenes in a prestigious cinematic masterpiece; to have made them in an obscure Russian misadventure is doubly depressing, especially for those who fell in love with her charming and edifying portrayals of demure heroines like Molly Gibson.
     

                Measuring Ms. Waddell's beauty, brains, and acting credentials against the succession of awful films in which she found herself cast upon moving into big-screen cinema, one can only remark:  What was her manager thinking?  In today's cultural wasteland, genuine theatrical treasures like Waddell are depressingly rare, and the career of one of the very finest of her generation was literally being wasted on a succession of sordid or superficial cinematic disasters.  It would not take a theatrical genius to recognize that these crass or bizarre productions would not provide a flattering showcase for an elegant and edifying talent such as Waddell's.

                On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine that a deeply intelligent, highly educated, independent woman like Ms. Waddell would defer to her manager or agent in setting the direction of her movie career. It is possible that she was completely indifferent to a career of conventional film stardom, and deliberately bypassed more popular, commercially oriented roles in favor of more original or adventuresome productions. But a moment's consideration undermines that proposition; the films in which she appeared on abandoning the refined world of the costume drama were so consistently awful that it is most unlikely that a lady of Ms. Waddell's intelligence would deliberately seek them, given reasonable alternatives.

                One is ultimately left to hazard a depressing explanation for Justine Waddell's disappointing "fade-out" from the heights of early stardom in beautiful and edifying period pieces to lesser roles in the netherworld of vacuous contemporary film flops.  The world of popular culture and cinema in the 21^st century places a premium on the vulgar, the vacuous, and the sexually provocative.  The very qualities that enabled Ms. Waddell to portray virtuous nineteenth century heroines with such conviction, intelligence, and authenticity were likely incompatible with the tasteless and superficial priorities of those who control the boorish star-making machinery of these cultural dark ages.  Waddell may have been relegated to the cinematic obscurity in which she found herself simply by the philistene tastes of the times.

               Sadly, to paraphase the Eagles' song, "Gone are the ribbons and bows" of Justine Waddell's early triumphs in the costume dramas and period pieces of quality television drama.  But fortunately for those who appreciate such cultural treasures, they will be preserved and appreciated in the proper places long after her unfortunate misadventures on the big screen are quietly forgotten.

THE BARBARIANS OF BALTIMORE

                They are the Barbarians of Baltimore, and Attila himself would be proud of them.

                Their cause is to flaunt their mindless support and loyalty for a man who knocked out his wife (then his girlfriend) with a vicious bare-fisted punch to the jaw in a hotel elevator. 

                The woman-beater was Ray Rice, a star running back for the Baltimore Ravens NFL football team.  His violent assault upon the lady was captured on a video stream that has been played and re-played on television thousands of times.  After the knockout punch, he dragged the woman's body from the elevator like a sack of refuse, and then casually placed her limp and unconscious figure on the ground.

                Rice was indicted by a grand jury for third degree aggravated assault, but avoided trial when he was "diverted" into a so-called "intervention program."  Initially, the Ravens gave Rice a lenient two-game suspension.  After the graphic videos of the assault went public, however, Rice was fired by the Ravens and suspended indefinitely by the NFL.

                But to many deranged Baltimore Ravens fans, Rice remained an object of adulation and affection.  And they could hardly wait to display their bizarre sentiments for the cameras.

                                       Some of Baltimore's finest showing their class                   

                The Baltimore Sun website recently published a mortifying slideshow of about 15 of these Baltimore bottom-feeders flouting minimal moral decency by proudly wearing football jerseys bearing the name and No. 27 of Mr. Rice in a depressing response to these disturbing revelations.  http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/bal-ravens-fans-wearing-ray-rice-jerseys-thursday-pictures,0,5495967.photogallery?index=bal-ray-rice-jerseys-091114-6-20140911. 

                 Far from recoiling in disgust at the harrowing proof of Rice's misogynistic violence, these characters were "pumped-up" to make a public display of solidarity and support for the celebrity perpetrator.

                The Barbarians of Baltimore are kindred spirits with the degenerate Roman mobs of Caligulan infamy, who bayed with perverse delight as the lions violently tore apart the hapless Christians.  Spectacular and violent entertainment trumped moral scruples at the Roman Coliseum and, twenty centuries later, the same depressing tendency still prevails before the gates of Baltimore's M&T Bank Stadium.

                There they stand before this lavish, publicly-financed monument to the excesses of American's Big Sports culture, flippantly wearing Rice's No. 27 jerseys as though they were badges of honor, rather than proof of the wearer's moral confusion and mental vacuity.  The Barbarians of Baltimore are posing proudly for pictures in their updated versions of the wife-beater jersey, smiling idiotically for the cameras that reveal their misguided souls for all the world to see.

                One of these sports sycophants underscored the incoherence of his confused cause by brandishing a sign reading, "Every NFL player deserves a second chance to support their family."  Aside from the grammatical blunder ("player" is singular, so it should be "his" family), the sign's maudlin play for economic sympathy is beyond absurd.  Like other NFL stars, Rice has been paid multiple millions to play about 20 games a year, with a five-year contract estimated at $35 million, plus lavish "incentive" provisions, not to mention effortless endorsement money.  The fawning Rice fan should have saved his economic sympathy for, say, an unemployed wounded war veteran, rather than a multi-millionaire celebrity who beats up women in the elevators of lavish Atlantic City hotel-casinos.

                Another photo shows two classic Baltimore louts – one wearing his Ravens cap backward as if to underscore his admiration for the violent gang culture – taking cell-phone "selfies" of themselves in their No. 27 Rice tribute jerseys.  Maybe they texted the charming pix to their wifes or girlfriends.

                Another trenchant Baltimore woman wearing the wife-beater jersey dismissed Rice's brutal assault on his lady with this astonishing observation:  "Families go through that stuff every day."

                Really?  I wouldn't have guessed that – that families experience violent beatings on the woman of the house "every day."  It would take an amazingly resilient type of woman to absorb a vicious hay-maker to the jaw "every day."  After a few daily beatings like that, she might even die.

                Still another revealing photo shows a blond, rosy-cheeked, Opie-like little boy of about 11 years old wearing his Ray Rice-solidarity shirt while sitting next to the utterly clueless (or simply confused) man we may presume to be his father.  So the wholesome father-son bonding once associated with attending sports events in saner days – when spectator sports were kept in reasonable perspective – is now corrupted to the cause of solidarity with barbarism.  In the same sorry vein, the Washington Post reported that another Baltimore woman, not content to wear her own Rice jersey, "outfitted her three daughters in the No. 27, too."  The mind can only boggle at the values these young ladies can be expected to assimilate when their mother parades them wearing jerseys exalting a now notorious woman-beater.  A truly charming fashion statement.

                But the prize for the most wretched excess in the Raven fans' glorification of NFL violence and thuggery goes to the middle-aged woman posing proudly in her Ray Rice jersey before the "heroic" statue of an even more notorious Baltimore Raven perp, the now retired All-Pro linebacker Ray Lewis.  Lewis, it may be recalled, was indicted on multiple murder counts for the slaying of two men in Atlanta in 2000.  He escaped those charges by turning state's evidence against his two companions in the episode and pleading guilty to obstruction of justice.  It is especially telling that the statue of Lewis portrays him lifting his leg as though preparing to stomp a fallen opponent.  But Lewis' sordid criminal past has been seamlessly whitewashed by the sports and general media, where he has found a lucrative home as an honored elder statesman for the NFL culture and an icon of the Baltimore Ravens "family."

                Ah, Baltimore.  The Land of Pleasant Living, as its familiar slogan claims.

                But these people are beyond satire and sarcasm.  They are living proof of the mentally and morally degrading effect that a distorted obsession with Big Time Sports has had on so many susceptible people who apparently have no larger purpose in their media-driven lives.