The US Ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, addressing a conference on antisemitism on November 30, controversially insisted that Muslim “hatred and indeed sometimes… violence directed at Jews generally [is] a result of the continuing tensions between Israel and the Palestinian territories” and should therefore not be seen as the same thing as “real” antisemitism. He went on to insist that a Mideast peace deal would see a “huge reduction of this form of labeled ‘antisemitism’.”
Aside from the immorality of, effectively, rationalising a form of racism as due to the alleged behaviour of its targets, Gutman’s comments were factually indefensible. There are clearly elements of strong, even eliminationist, antisemitism within the Muslim tradition predating Zionism by centuries.
The Western doctrine of non-violence depends on the willingness to compromise. To resolve any conflict by sitting down at a table, finding points of agreement and then working through the rest. The ruthless killing fields of the twentieth century have not shaken that eternal faith in a diplomatic solution, rather they have only strengthened it. But what happens when a compromise is genuinely impossible?
The commitment to non-violence depends on the assumption that while small numbers of fanatics might seek war, the vast majority of people do not. And even if they do want war, they want a humane war, not a genocidal war of extermination. Therefore even when such wars are fought, they do not reflect the will of the people, only that of a small group of fanatics.
Page One: Gray Lady Down, the Documentary Posted By Ed Driscoll
Over at the Libertas film blog, David Ross reviews the recent documentary Page One: Inside the New York Times, which is now available on DVD at Amazon, and in streaming format at both Amazon and Netflix. I haven’t watched the film yet though, for reasons that Ross explains in his bracing and lengthy (at least for a blog post) review. After taking a blowtorch to Thomas Friedman, Gail Collins, Alessandra Stanley, Michiko Kakutani, Paul Krugman, and other high priests of the very secular Times cult, Ross writes:
Whole books have been written about the Times‘ political biases (here), and the Times‘ own public editor has succinctly enough answered the question as to whether the Times is a liberal newspaper: “Of course it is” (here). In recent years, however, the Times’ biases have ever more blatantly trumped its journalistic ethics, a state of affairs unthinkable in the days of Abe Rosenthal.
“We don’t do hit jobs,” one editor assures a source while the cameras of Page One roll. “That’s not the business we’re in.” It is the business you’re in, at least these days. Exhibit A is the assassin’s bullet of a piece the Times published during the 2008 election in which it suggested, without anything you’d call evidence, that John McCain had been romantically involved with a lobbyist (here). The article is a slimy stew of anonymous rumor and innuendo. Even liberal stalwarts like The New Republic and The Washington Post derided its malice and irresponsibility. The article was all the more outrageous given the Times‘ refusal to investigate John Edwards’ very real affair at a time when he was a frontrunner for the Democratic VP slot. The female victim of the Times‘ smear filed a $27 million lawsuit, and the Times eventually issued a groveling apology (here). What was most remarkable about the article was that it appeared in the paper at all.
Contraceptives, Stephanopoulos, and What To Do About the Debates Posted By Roger L Simon
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2012/01/08/what-to-do-about-the-debates/
Although no genius, ABC commentator and former Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos is not stupid. Nevertheless, he seemed like an outright doofus (or yahoo!) as host of the ABC/Yahoo New Hampshire debate on Saturday when he kept pressing Mitt Romney on the constitutionality, of all things, contraceptives.
No, that wasn’t an episode of Saturday Night Live or Fawlty Towers. It was a typical mainstream media operative, unable to control his bias, desperately seeking to expose the Republican frontrunner in some manner or to create some kind of gaffe that would damage him for the general election.
Romney, to his credit, treated the gotcha question with the proper amount of amused disdain, allowing Stephanopoulos to dig a yet bigger hole for himself and turning the audience in the candidate’s favor.
In this essentially meaningless exchange, Stephanopoulos became the poster boy for the whole debate process in which a long line of Republican candidates have paraded themselves for inspection in front of panel after panel of largely liberal media interlocutors.
Obama recently signed a mysterious new law that proclaims all American soil is a “battleground,” thereby allowing the president to indefinitely detain any American citizen without charges. Critics fear Obama will use his fun new unconstitutional powers to make his political enemies disappear, but that may not be necessary.
The way things are going, most patriotic Americans will soon be six feet under, felled by apoplectic strokes brought on by reading the latest outrage committed by our “Commander in Chief.” He may not have a limit to what he’ll inflict; but our collective blood pressure may have a limit to what we can bear.
With each passing hour, the question becomes not if America can survive a second term, but whether we can survive another day. It’s not just the $15 trillion in debt, the Muslim Brotherhood in the catbird seat, and our bleeding open border. It’s the never-ending deliberate assaults against our safety and security laughingly committed by the cold-eyed man with the nuclear code.
Here are the top 5 reasons Obama must be removed as Commander-in-Chief. Please read them while seated.
The challenge for the United States in Iraq was not simply to defeat the Saddam regime and the later coalition of jihadists and terrorists who infested the territory. The challenge should have been whether or not to undo the artificial nature of Iraq’s borders and provide justice for the different ethnicities, which make up the mosaic that is called Iraq.
The Ottoman Turks occupied the territory known also as Mesopotamia for 400 years until the map was re-drawn by Britain after defeating Turkey in World War 1 – again blurring ancient ethnicities.
The Butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein, subdued the different peoples of Iraq through fear and violent repression. But the ethnic yearnings were always simmering under the surface like a slow boiling pot.
The United States Administration under President Bush might have been better served if it had undone Britain’s artificial creation of Iraq and instead brought into existence several new sovereign nation states. Justice would have been served by the creation of such states. Now it is too late, thanks to President Obama’s retreat from Iraq.
A new study found that the number of Britons converting to Islam is growing, a London-based newspaper reported on Tuesday.
The Independent newspaper said that the estimated number of British converts has always been difficult to count because “census data does not differentiate between a religious person that has adopted a new faith or was born into it.”
According to a new study by the inter-faith think tank Faith Matters, the real figure could be as high as 100,000, with as many as 5,000 new conversions nationwide each year. Previous estimates have placed the number of Muslim converts in the UK at between 14,000 and 25,000.
The study used data from the Scottish 2001 census, the only survey to ask respondents what their religion was at birth as well as at the time of the survey; researchers broke down what proportion of Muslim converts there were by ethnicity and then extrapolated the figures for Britain as a whole, the newspaper said. In all they estimated that there were 60,699 converts living in Britain in 2001.
U.S. expels Venezuelan diplomat over cyberthreat
The Obama administration is expellin…
Iran readies uranium enrichment at underground site
The head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Org…
Arizona marks anniversary of Tucson massacre
This time, in the supermarket parkin…
Newt to Mitt: ‘Can we drop the pious baloney’
“Can we drop a little bit of the pio…
Read more at: http://times247.com/
JOHN HUNTSMAN DOESN’T EVEN GET CHINA….HOW DID HE GET SO FAR IN THE GOP?….RSK
America’s shift in defence strategy to focus on the Far East has momentous significance for Europe and Asia.
The Pentagon briefing room rarely hosts all of America’s service chiefs, let alone the president. Its use by Barack Obama to announce the conclusions of his defence review was designed to add a sense of drama – and the occasion certainly lived up to its billing. Future historians will probably conclude that this was the week when America’s entire foreign and defence strategy pivoted decisively away from Europe and towards the Pacific. More ominously, it might also mark the onset of a new, if concealed, arms race between the US and its aspiring rival, China.
First things first: America’s military dominance will remain unchallenged for the foreseeable future. Mr Obama might have announced spending cuts of almost $500 billion over the next decade, but this amounts to a light trim for a defence machine with an annual budget of $650 billion, amounting to 45 per cent of all military expenditure in the world. America is not axing capabilities in the foolish fashion of British governments; rather, its power is being focused on the great strategic challenges of the next century. These can be simply summarised: the struggle for mastery in Asia, home of the world’s most populous countries and fastest-growing economies, and responding to sudden crises. To this end, the US will reduce its presence in Europe, cut 90,000 soldiers and bulk up in the Pacific, with new bases in Australia and elsewhere. As for other flashpoints, few will be surprised that the US policy stresses the goals of containing Iran and guaranteeing free passage through the Strait of Hormuz.
Name a 21rst century movie about a famous, outstanding British woman suffering from Alzheimer’s with a devoted husband played by the noted British actor Jim Broadbent. “Iris” you say correctly, referring to the 2001 film about the author Iris Murdoch – but wait, here’s another that fits exactly the same description. “The Iron Lady,” starring Meryl Streep as a demented Margaret Thatcher and Jim Broadbent as her loyal spouse has so much wrong with it that perhaps its reprisal of another scenario is the least of its sins. Nevertheless, it bears mention since the decision to cast a bio-pic about England’s first woman prime-minister in the context of her doddering senility is not only wrong-headed but derivative to boot.