The former brain dead liberal speaks but to only a conservative audience

It’s interesting that if you look up David Mamet at Wikipedia, there is no mention of his new book The Secret Knowledge on the Dismantling of American Culture. There’s no mention of his 2008 op-ed piece in the Village Voice where he ‘comes out’ as a former “brain dead liberal” and says:

I’d observed that lust, greed, envy, sloth, and their pals are giving the world a good run for its money, but that nonetheless, people in general seem to get from day to day; and that we in the United States get from day to day under rather wonderful and privileged circumstances—that we are not and never have been the villains that some of the world and some of our citizens make us out to be, but that we are a confection of normal (greedy, lustful, duplicitous, corrupt, inspired—in short, human) individuals living under a spectacularly effective compact called the Constitution, and lucky to get it.

It’s interesting and telling that the liberal Wikipedia, as well as other liberal outlets, is trying to ignore Mamet’s conservative epiphany. I hope that conservative media jump on this opportunity to showcase another David Horowitz or Andrew Breitbart conservative convert.

Mamet’s a practicing Jew who sees the world through different eyes now than he did 10 or even 5 years ago. He’s the Pulitzer Prize winning author of GlenGarry Glen Ross and his screenplays for movies such as The Untouchables, The Verdict and Wag the Dog have been nominated for Academy Awards.

He’s one of the few (now former) liberals who chose to look at other sides and read other ideas. His new heros are now conservative giants like Milton Freidman, Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele. In the process, his eyes have been opened.

I examined my Liberalism and found it like an addiction to roulette. Here, though the odds are plain, and the certainty of loss apparent to anyone with a knowledge of arithmetic, the addict, failing time and again, is convinced he yet is graced with the power to contravene natural laws. The roulette addict, when he inevitably comes to grief, does not examine either the nature of roulette or of his delusion, but retires to develop a new system, and to scheme for more funds.
The great wickedness of Liberalism, I saw, was that those who devise the ever new State Utopias, whether crooks or fools, set out to bankrupt not themselves but others.*

*President Obama said, “The individual at some point must be able to say, ‘I have enough money.'” But will Mr. Obama out of office, say this to himself, and the vast riches he will enjoy? One must doubt it.

I started reading his new book yesterday. It’s only 223 pages long (minus his acknowledgments, bibliography and index) but every page, every paragraph is quotable. It’s an amazingly interesting, entertaining and educational book written in a playwright’s lyrical style.

I highly recommend it.

The DOJ couldn’t find 12 jurors even on Craigslist

With all this talk about security and the costs that come with it, the dangers of trying terrorists in civilian courts and having to expose state secrets to the defendants, no one has discussed who would sit on this jury.

Who would want to? What citizens would be willing to risk their lives and the lives of their families to sit on this jury? And what about the risk to the judge and the prosecutors? They live and breathe, too and have families, as well.

Eric Holder and his DOJ seem to have no concern about public safety. Even if – and it looks more and more like it will happen – the trial is moved to a military court, the fact remains: This administrataion, this DOJ, this Attorney General, NEVER cared about the safety of our citizens.  They were willing to put the most international city, the biggest target on earth and all her citizens at risk in order to “prove to the world that our system works.”

Yes, to prove to everyone that our court system is just and fair while at the same time declaring that these terrorists will be found guilty and will be put to death! Last time I checked, that’s not how our system works. In our system, people are presumed innocent and shouting by the AG of the United States, the president’s press secretary and the president himself, before a trial, that they are guilty and will be put to death, taints a jury.

This nearly caused a mistrial in the Charles Manson case when Manson held this paper up, in the courtroom, for his jurors to see.

Taints a jury, if you can find one.

Jack Klugman might have understood the right way to use a switchblade in “12 Angry Men” but how many New Yorkers understand the evil mentality of using planes as human loaded missles? What jury of New Yorkers can ever be considered peers of these Islamist facists?  What “jury of their peers” exists in all of America? And how does this “prove that our system works?”

It’s been said a zillion times that these guys are not Americans and do not deserve the rights afforded a citizen under the Constitution in a civilian court. That’s a no-brainer.

Just show me 12 sane people in NYC, who can never be considered peers but, who will be able to swear that in this case, they believe in the presumption of innocence  and are willing to put their lives and families lives at risk to sit on this jury.

~~~~ooOoo~~~~

JFK Predicts the coming of a corrupt press, and the shadow like government of an Obama administration

Celebration Time, New Yorkers: Sanity Has Finally Prevailed… NYC Is No Longer Location for 9/11 Jihadist Terrorists’ Trial

Iran’s Feb 11 surprise? perhaps a test of a NOKO supplied nuke

Michael Barone – Obama impresses “educated class” not terrorists

Trying the terrorists with what jury?

The lengthy sequestering is one thing and certainly not a minor thing but that aside, how many people will want to sit on this trial after considering the true terrorism they very well might have to endure?

Just consider the risks. How many people want to take the chance of retribution from these terrorist’s sympathizers? The threat to the welfare and lives of jurors and their families? What about the judge and the prosecution? Their lives are at risk, too.

Has this other dipshit of my week, Eric Holder thought about this? I have only seen this discussed in one column and it was on a Catholic website, last week. I’ve not been around reading a lot lately, so there might be others who have thought about this and I’ve missed it.

I’ll tell ya what, if I were called to this jury duty, I’d have to think long and long and hard about taking this risk and putting my family’s welfare on the line.

What a terrorist coup: threatening or harming jurors, judges and prosecutors and their families.

And this proves to the world how great our criminal justice system is – how?