Thaddeus McCotter, Michigan Republican, like Joe Knollenberg

(1) The Armenian Genocide was conceived and carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923, resulting in the deportation of nearly 2,000,000 Armenians, of whom 1,500,000 men, women, and children were killed, 500,000 survivors were expelled from their homes, and which succeeded in the elimination of the over 2,500-year presence of Armenians in their historic homeland.

(1) Vahakn Dadrian (the “foremost authority on the Armenian Genocide”) himself has written that what is referred to as a genocide had “all but run its course” by 1916; defeated in 1918, the Ottoman Empire ceased as an entity not long after. Therefore, a practically nonexistent government could not have “carried out” a genocide until 1923. The consensus of western opinion of the period (e.g., the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica) settled on 1.5 million as the total pre-war Ottoman-Armenian population, and even Dadrian vouches for 1 million survivors. At the end of 1918, Armenian leader Boghos Nubar vouched for a resettlement of 600,000-700,000, not “nearly 2,000,000.” The half-million (not “1,500,000”) mostly died (and were not “killed”) of famine and disease, factors also claiming most of the 2.7 million other Ottomans who died. Not a single Armenian was "expelled"; all resettled were allowed to return by 1918's end, a good number had already returned earlier, and 644,900 Armenians (nearly half the original population) remained in what was left of the Ottoman Empire by 1921, according to the Patriarch. Those who left on their own accord to lands outside Ottoman control (e.g., Iran [50,000], Greece [120,000] and Transcaucasia [500,000, Hovannisian]) were free to return, as stipulated by the Gumru and Lausanne Treaties.

(2) On May 24, 1915, the Allied Powers, England, France, and Russia, jointly issued a statement explicitly charging for the first time ever another government of committing `a crime against humanity'.

(2) The May 24, 1915 statement of the “Allied Powers, England, France, and Russia” rings hollow when they had secret treaties to divide the Ottoman Empire between themselves, and were overlooking Russia’s own ‘crime against humanity' against Jews. The British treated their own non-rebellious German-British men with greater relative severity (given that the British were not bankrupt and resource-challenged, as the Ottoman Sick Man, and not threatened with extinction), truly "deporting" (that is, banishing outside national borders) their Germans and imprisoning the rest in what amounted to "concentration camps." (By contrast, relocated Ottoman-Armenians were mainly distributed among villages and not kept behind barbed wire... but "fairly well satisfied... already settled down to business and... earning their livings," as Morgenthau recorded Representative Zenop Bezjian's message regarding Armenians at Zor.)

(3) This joint statement stated `the Allied Governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for these crimes all members of the Ottoman Government, as well as those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres'.

(3) The Allies made good on their threat to hold Ottomans “personally responsible” by conducting the Malta Tribunal (1919-1921), and holding up to 144 Ottomans prisoner. No evidence could be found to "implicate" anyone, and every accused was set free, aborting the need for trial.

(4) The post-World War I Turkish Government indicted the top leaders involved in the `organization and execution' of the Armenian Genocide and in the `massacre and destruction of the Armenians'.

(4) The “post-World War I Turkish Government” was a puppet of the Allies. (There were one million occupying British troops in the devastated nation, reduced to "only" 320,000 by 1919's end, according to Peter Balakian's "The Burning Tigris.") Even the British held the findings of these kangaroo courts a travesty of justice, and dismissed them for their own Malta Tribunal.

(5) In a series of courts-martial, officials of the Young Turk Regime were tried and convicted, as charged, for organizing and executing massacres against the Armenian people.

(5) Officials found guilty were tried without due process by a corrupt administration eager for retribution. As Dadrian tells us, they were pressured to find guilty verdicts, otherwise terms of the peace conference would be severe.

Frank Pallone, Jr., center, at an ANCA event

Rep. Frank Pallone spoke at a 2005 ANCA-sponsored protest against the tragic events in Darfur. Does anyone believe the Armenians of ANCA care about Darfur? Or was this ANCA's sneaky and exploitative  way to get their "Armenian genocide" message out there? Here's what their man said: "It’s very reminiscent of what happened in the case of the Armenian Genocide... There were people that were speaking out that were not listened to. In the case of the Turks, they were out there in the fields, constantly killing people and moving people into the desert. While there were those who were speaking out [about the Armenian Genocide], the Western powers really weren’t doing anything about it. We don’t want to be in that situation again here in the United States.”

It was not just a handful "speaking out" against the Terrible Turk during WWI, but everyone; in the case of the New York Times, for example, to the tune of 145 articles in 1915 alone. And what did Pallone expect the Western powers to do? Nobody could just walk in there and "fix" things, as they had their hands full; there was a world war going on. (Pallone was actually a history major as an undergraduate.)

Don't Quit till you make 'em say ANCA!

Pallone also serves as Co-Chair of the Congressional Sri Lankan- American Caucus and is the founder of the Congressional Caucus for India. Who knows which other caucuses this polished politician elected to serve on. What does serving on a caucus mean? It means the politician has an obligation to favorably look upon the interests of the foreign nation he represents, regardless of the issues. In short: "Politician for sale."

Pallone — which rhymes with "Baloney" — has been successfully elected with a majority of the vote since 1988, because his state of New Jersey traditionally goes with Democrats... and he supports some nice things, such as conservation. (And some not-so-nice things, as the death penalty.) Yet isn't a politician's eager willingness to marry himself with foreign interests a troublesome aspect of integrity?

According to opensecrets.org, Pallone's "Ideological/Single Issue PAC [Campaign] Contributions" more than doubled from 2002 ($13,825) to 2004 ($40,985), inching up to $46,685 in 2006. More tellingly, his "Individual contributions" (where identities need not be disclosed) doubled from 2002 ($474,755) to 2004 ($985,717), and then nearly doubled again in 2006, at $1,689,201. We'll never know how much these, and those from other categories (such as "Business PACs") constituted Armenian money, but this slick has made sure to cover his bases quite expertly... the truth be damned.

(11) Senate Concurrent Resolution 12 of February 9, 1916, resolved that `the President of the United States be respectfully asked to designate a day on which the citizens of this country may give expression to their sympathy by contributing funds now being raised for the relief of the Armenians', who at the time were enduring `starvation, disease, and untold suffering'.

(11) Then, as now, our Congress did not care for the ‘starvation, disease, and untold suffering' of all Ottomans, just the politically powerful Armenians. Note, by the way, the prominent reasons given for the Armenians' ills in early 1916, when the "genocide" had "all but run its course": no mention of massacres. "Starvation, disease and untold suffering" aren't pretty, but have nothing to do with systematic extermination, particularly when all other Ottomans were enduring the same tragedies. ("...All over Turkey thousands of the populace were daily dying of starvation." Morgenthau.)

(12) President Woodrow Wilson concurred and also encouraged the formation of the organization known as Near East Relief, chartered by an Act of Congress, which contributed some $116,000,000 from 1915 to 1930 to aid Armenian Genocide survivors, including 132,000 orphans who became foster children of the American people.

(12) The most successful charity drive in American history resulted from massive Armenian propaganda, assisted by influential folks from all walks of society (such as the Chairman of the National Motion Picture Committee). Colonel William Haskell of the American Red Cross thought with greater humanity: “America should feed the half million Turks whose hinterland was willfully demolished by the retreating Greeks, instead of aiding the Greeks and Armenians who are sitting around waiting for America to give them their next meal. The stories of Turk atrocities circulated among American churches are a mess of lies. I believe that the Greeks and not the Turks are barbarians.” (Few Americans knew or cared about the worse crimes of the Armenians in the east.)

(13) Senate Resolution 359, dated May 11, 1920, stated in part, `the testimony adduced at the hearings conducted by the sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations have clearly established the truth of the reported massacres and other atrocities from which the Armenian people have suffered'.

(13) Our politicians, then and now, relied strictly on deceptive Armenian propaganda without bothering to scratch the surface. An exception was Senator James A. Reed, who declared, “The Armenian is not guiltless of blood himself,” pointing out the wholesale massacres committed by the Armenians, and criticizing General Harbord’s report as “a picture of the Armenians by the friend of the Armenians.” (Congressional Record, 1920.)

(14) The resolution followed the April 13, 1920, report to the Senate of the American Military Mission to Armenia led by General James Harbord, that stated `[m]utilation, violation, torture, and death have left their haunting memories in a hundred beautiful Armenian valleys, and the traveler in that region is seldom free from the evidence of this most colossal crime of all the ages'.

(14) Yet even this great friend of the Armenians, General Harbord, included in his report: “In the territory untouched by war from which Armenians were deported the ruined villages are undoubtedly due to Turkish deviltry, but where Armenians advanced and retired with the Russians their retaliatory cruelties unquestionably rivaled the Turks in their inhumanity.”

(15) As displayed in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Adolf Hitler, on ordering his military commanders to attack Poland without provocation in 1939, dismissed objections by saying `[w]ho, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?' and thus set the stage for the Holocaust.

(15) Even an Armenian scholar, Dr. Robert John, summed up this Hitler quote as a "forgery." There were four versions of this Hitler speech, and the unsigned and undated one containing this statement was rejected by the Nuremberg authorities, “embellished” as it might have been (according to noted WWII historian William Shirer), and containing other dubious references such as the obese Goring’s jumping on a table and dancing wildly. The Holocaust Memorial Museum shamefully compromised its credibility by exhibiting this falsehood, a bone thrown to the Armenians, perhaps in appreciation for the big money donated by Armenians (such as the one million dollars promised by Seth Moomjian).

Armenian Assembly of America's Executive Director, Bryan Ardouny, poses with Armenian Caucus Co-Chairs Joseph Knollenberg (R-MI) and Frank Pallone, Jr., (D-NJ). Below, Armenian Assembly of America Chairman Richard Mushegain presents Congressman Knollenberg with a book about Armenia.

(16) Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term 'genocide' in 1944, and who was the earliest proponent of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide , invoked the Armenian case as a definitive example of genocide in the 20th century.

(16) Raphael Lemkin knew of the Armenians what he had read in the biased western press, the hearsay of missionaries and Armenians. Lemkin’s prejudiced “personal opinion” is no substitute for historical fact.

(17) The first resolution on genocide adopted by the United Nations at Lemkin's urging, the December 11, 1946, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96(1) and the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide itself recognized the Armenian Genocide as the type of crime the United Nations intended to prevent and punish by codifying existing standards.

(17) The United Nations has never “recognized the Armenian Genocide as the type of crime” defined in its genocide convention. A 1985 subcommittee vigorously debated the issue, after having been made aware of the actual facts, and refused to recognize it. (See "23" below.).

(18) In 1948, the United Nations War Crimes Commission invoked the Armenian Genocide `precisely . . . one of the types of acts which the modern term `crimes against humanity' is intended to cover' as a precedent for the Nuremberg tribunals.

(19) The Commission stated that `[t]he provisions of Article 230 of the Peace Treaty of Sevres were obviously intended to cover, in conformity with the Allied note of 1915 . . ., offenses which had been committed on Turkish territory against persons of Turkish citizenship, though of Armenian or Greek race. This article constitutes therefore a precedent for Article 6c and 5c of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Charters, and offers an example of one of the categories of `crimes against humanity' as understood by these enactments'.

(18 & 19) If this commission came up with such conclusions, its participants irresponsibly considered racist Armenian propaganda in exclusivity. If their intention was to provide an example of “crimes against humanity,” they totally ignored the systematic extermination campaign perpetrated by Armenians against fellow Ottomans unlike the Armenians. These points have been raised within this dishonest resolution as a deceptive subterfuge. The stillborn Sèvres Treaty’s purpose was to declare a death sentence against the Turkish nation, and to bring up an article from a criminal treaty marks the true “offense.”

(20) House Joint Resolution 148, adopted on April 8, 1975, resolved: `[t]hat April 24, 1975, is hereby designated as `National Day of Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man', and the President of the United States is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day as a day of remembrance for all the victims of genocide , especially those of Armenian ancestry . . .'.

(20) In order to label people as victims of genocide, one must first prove a genocide had taken place. The simple fact is that there is no evidence demonstrating a systematic, government-sponsored extermination plan against Armenians; the actual evidence demonstrates the Ottoman government attempted to safeguard Armenian lives and property, and its power and resources were insufficient to curtail random violent acts committed by renegade forces. Prejudiced and ignorant politicians in 1975 once again considered harmful propaganda in exclusivity, and forgot to consider the universality of “Man's Inhumanity to Man”; if the victims were, say, Muslim, they did not count.

Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) with participants of the Armenian Assembly's 24th Summer Internship Program, and at right, with arm around Ms. Totah, an AAA Board of Trustees Executive. In 2002, as the AAA reported, Sherman considered that U.S. support of a Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan pipeline was "almost an act of hostility toward Armenia." (But all would be well as long as the pipeline went through Armenia, you see.) Here's wondering why Sherman never shows outrage over Armenia's actions in Nagorno Karabakh, which was unquestionably an act of hostility.

(26) Reviewing an aberrant 1982 expression (later retracted) by the United States Department of State asserting that the facts of the Armenian Genocide may be ambiguous, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1993, after a review of documents pertaining to the policy record of the United States, noted that the assertion on ambiguity in the United States record about the Armenian Genocide `contradicted longstanding United States policy and was eventually retracted'.

(26) Once again a demonstration of the immense political power of Armenian-Americans. If this “aberrant 1982 expression” served as a contradiction, the Armenian genocide would have long ago been recognized through the countless resolutions introduced along the years, as this one. While Armenians have no monopoly on historical suffering, it is most telling that it is the Armenian genocide bill that has kept recurring with jarring frequency. This is the kind of power and intimidation the Armenian community utilizes on a regular basis, as in 2002 when pressured Feds commanded the U.S. Justice Department to drop Armenia from the watch-list of potential terrorist nations, freeing male Armenian nationals from the INS fingerprinting and registration process.

(27) On June 5, 1996, the House of Representatives adopted an amendment to House Bill 3540 (the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997) to reduce aid to Turkey by $3,000,000 (an estimate of its payment of lobbying fees in the United States) until the Turkish Government acknowledged the Armenian Genocide and took steps to honor the memory of its victims.

(27) This dishonest resolution is making barely any effort to focus on historical facts (with good reason; to do so would cast doubt on the Armenians’ genocide invention), and attempts to make its case by citing the “personal opinions” of those swayed by propaganda, prejudice and ignorance... and money. Today, the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues makes up more than one-third of the entire House, a significant number when it comes to Armenians getting their way. Congressmen Pallone and Knollenberg serve as Co-Chairmen of this Armenian Caucus, and Schiff, Sherman and Radanovich likely feel beholden to the large numbers of Armenians residing in their state of California.

Not incidentally, the "aid" to Turkey generally comes in the form of monies that need to be paid back, and not free and clear cash, as given to Armenia, the second greatest recipient of U.S. aid after Israel, per capita. The undemocratic nation offers practically nothing of value to the USA, but they do spend millions in pushing their propaganda and in influencing U.S. Congressmen... befitting their reputation as "professional beggars," in the estimation of Col. Haskell (see "pg. 212"; the Armenians sought revenge by engaging in their familiar smear tactics, charging Haskell with stealing from the relief efforts... without offering proof, of course).

(28) President William Jefferson Clinton, on April 24, 1998, stated: `This year, as in the past, we join with Armenian -Americans throughout the nation in commemorating one of the saddest chapters in the history of this century, the deportations and massacres of a million and a half Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the years 1915-1923.'.

(29) President George W. Bush, on April 24, 2004, stated: `On this day, we pause in remembrance of one of the most horrible tragedies of the 20th century, the annihilation of as many as 1,500,000 Armenians through forced exile and murder at the end of the Ottoman Empire.'.

(28 & 29) Further examples of Armenian political clout. Both presidents appear to have slowly become aware “that the facts of the Armenian Genocide may be ambiguous,” but it would take courage to desist from throwing a “genocide bone” to the obsessed and powerful Armenian community. Politicians would leave themselves open to the underhanded smear tactics of the extremists in this community. Some go farther; a Californian truck driver, Norayr Avetisyan, was accused of threatening the life of President George W. Bush for what was perceived as anti-Armenianism.

(30) Despite the international recognition and affirmation of the Armenian Genocide , the failure of the domestic and international authorities to punish those responsible for the Armenian Genocide is a reason why similar genocides have recurred and may recur in the future, and that a just resolution will help prevent future genocides.

(30) Despite the meaninglessness of international recognition shamefully based entirely upon propaganda, prejudice, money and intimidation tactics, what is forgotten is that nations cannot be held responsible for genocides; particularly successor democratic nations that overthrew what, in this case, was once an empire. Only individuals may be accused of genocide, and all of the accused Ottoman individuals were freed from their Maltese internment in late 1921, after the British failed to find any judicial evidence to convict them of massacres. Furthermore, the “human rights” argument presented here is another smokescreen tactic; none of those who have perpetrated genocides after the creation of the 1948 U.N. Convention (as, say, the Hutus of Rwanda, or the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia) looked back upon the Armenian episode to inspire them along their way. (As this awful statement is actually claiming as "a reason"..!) If criminals are set upon committing a crime, no law on the books will deter them from committing the crime.

Dishonest and racist resolutions as this one, in effect, work entirely contrary to the principle of human rights, as they foster hatred against those unjustly accused of perpetrating the worst crime against humanity.

SEC. 3. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

The House of Representatives--

(1) calls upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the failure to realize a just resolution; and

(2) calls upon the President in the President's annual message commemorating the Armenian Genocide issued on or about April 24, to accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide and to recall the proud history of United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide .

How One Congressman Defended His Support

The following appeared in the Turkish Forum:


Dear Dincer:

Your comments regarding H.Res. 106 have been forwarded to my attention. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

The views expressed by you have been respectfully considered, and others have raised such concerns in the past as well. I wish to state clearly that nothing in H.Res. 106 impugns individuals of Turkish descent living today, nor is it constructed to adversely affect the relationship between the United States of America and Turkey.

The resolution sets forth a clear account of sources and facts leading up to its declaration of policy asking the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States appropriately reflects the documented circumstances of relevant events. References are included for the purposes of allowing interested parties to examine the historical documents underpinning America's longstanding determination of the characterization of events in the early Twentieth Century.

I believe that Turkey's acknowledgement of such established history would be a positive factor in world events - for it and others - and that it would serve to strengthen already sturdy U.S.-Turkish relations. Passage of H.Res. 106, which I co-sponsor, would hopefully expedite such a course of events. Having the utmost respect for individuals of Turkish heritage and for Turkey, I have supported H.Res. 106 with the positive motive of conforming U.S. policy based on historical facts and providing an opportunity for the international community to move beyond any consequences from the failure of bringing the matter to a just resolution.

While I regret that we are in disagreement on this serious matter, it is hoped that the foregoing provides to you the basis for my sponsorship, just as your letter expressed your views to me.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please feel free to do so regarding any matter of concern to you.

Sincerely,

John F. Tierney
Member of Congress


Have we got Congressman Tierney's brilliant line of reasoning? First, of course, an honorable investigation of the historic evidence must be deemed as completely irrelevant, and what he embarrassingly terms as the resolution's "clear account of sources and facts" must be accepted at face value. He then simple-mindedly sets forth Turks today as being off the hook (try telling that to Samantha Power, who enjoys equating modern Turks with Nazis; anyone with half a brain is aware a primary purpose of racist Armenian propaganda is to reinforce the "Terrible Turk" stereotype), and that this vicious propaganda won't "adversely affect the relationship between the" USA and Turkey. (Cue in "Twilight Zone" theme music, here.)

And can you believe the following utter hypocrisy and stupidity? "References are included for the purposes of allowing interested parties to examine the historical documents." No one should be more of an interested party than congressional representatives considering this hokum, yet quite obviously, Tierney has unprofessionally not shown the slightest interest in seriously analyzing the claims.

And when he finally tells us Turkey's acceptance of this genocide invention "would be a positive factor in world events." one must shiver with disbelief. Elected politicians ought to be vigilant against exposing their inability and/or unwillingness to examine complex issues; otherwise, people just might lose faith in their government, with such examples of mediocrity at the helm.

Isn't it irritating for someone as this fellow who is motivated by reasons that have nothing to do with the truth to pretend that he is holding the moral high ground?

Armenian sway over US lawmakers
By Laura Smith-Spark
BBC News, Washington

(What is below has been excerpted; here is the original. Emphasis below is Holdwater's.)


Given that Armenians represent only about 1.5m of America's 300m population, what has won them such influence over the US Congress - and perhaps the nation's foreign policy?

Part of the answer lies in the organisation and determination of the Armenian-American lobby groups, says Dr Svante Cornell, of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns Hopkins University.

The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) and the Armenian Assembly of America (AAA) are among the most powerful.

Another factor is that the Armenian-American community is largely concentrated in important states such as California, Michigan and Massachusetts, Dr Cornell said.

"You have basically a number of places where the Armenian issue is very important in local politics — especially for anybody wanting to get elected in California," he said.

"The Turkish lobby is much less organised and much less rooted in an electorate than the Armenian lobby."