Sieg Heil, Palestine!

From the vigilant folks at the invaluable memri.org, a reminder that the roots of Islamist anti-Semitism are not all from their ancient culture and religion.  There is a significant modern source as well.

“Palestinians in Lebanon Shown Saluting Nazi/Hezbullah Style

Palestinians in Lebanon Shown Saluting Nazi/Hizbullah Style

Palestinians in Lebanon Shown SalutingPalestinian salute..

(You can view the TV footage here.)

Paul Berman, in the days after 9/11, wrote an interesting and perceptive book about the Fascist and Nazi roots of Islamist terrorism.  The book is Terror and Liberalism, and it was a call for the Left to remember which side it belongs on.  Sadly, too few on the Left have done so.

Back by popular request: Fathers of Daughters

[This was originally posted right after the 2008 election.  It has stirred considerable interest, so here it is again.  The "friend of mine" referred to is Mister Ben Finiti.]

A friend of mine used to theorize that all conservatism, and therefore all defense of society, rests on the fathers of daughters – FODs, as he called them.

He explained that it is only when one has children that one begins to recognize how fragile is the future, how dangerous the present, and how great our responsibility to protect the vulnerable, such as children.

The problem is that women, for the most part, tend to believe that the world is dangerous only by accident, rather than as a basic, natural condition.  My friend claimed that he had never met a woman who would not agree with the statement that “People are basically good.”  And increasingly many men agree with them.

Of course, people are not basically good.  Any Christian who even slightly understands the doctrine of Original Sin can be in no doubt about this.  But most Americans, including most church-goers, would readily subscribe to the “basically good” hypothesis.

As Reinhold Niebuhr put it, “No cumulation of contradictory evidence seems to disturb modern man’s good opinion of himself.”  Yet it is modern woman who seems most undisturbed by human nature.

So women, even as mothers, tend to underestimate the degree of the risks their children face in society.

Fathers of sons are susceptible to a belief that “my boy” will be able to take on the world, and nothing can stop him.  “Go get ‘em, tiger,” is a common enough attitude. A son can even serve as an opportunity to extend one’s own adolescence – a tendency men find irresistible.

Except for the Fathers of Daughters.  Becoming a FOD forces the most immature male to grow up fast.  Such men look back on their own adolescence and wince.  FODs know that young men (at least) are not basically good, and their daughters are not safe with them.  Male adolescents exist in only two types: sexual predators and sexual-predator wannabes.  (Almost no women believe this; they think boys are either good boys or confused, troubled boys.)

This knowledge forces a FOD to recognize the necessity for strong societal institutions to enforce strict moral limits on behavior.  Without such institutions and limits, no street in America would be safe.  The worst sci-fi dystopian post-apocalyptic nightmare would be realized.

Anyway, that’s my friend’s FOD theory.  When he first explained it to me, Bill Clinton was president.  I asked him how Clinton, a FOD, seemed to remain such an adolescent at heart, pursuing any and every available woman as if he were a frustrated 17-year old virgin in an American-Pie sequel.

My friend wasn’t sure, but he guessed that there are some men for whom narcissism or ideology can overwhelm what other FODs can understand so easily.

We talked about many folks we both knew who typified and proved his FOD theory, and a few anti-FODs like Clinton who tested it.  I became a partial believer in the FOD factor.

Our new president-elect is of course technically a FOD.  With two daughters he must have thought about all this at least somewhat.  If so, he may have a personal conservative streak buried deep in his heart that may show itself someday, somewhere, somehow.

Or he may be an anti-FOD, blinded by ideology or narcissism.  Conservative pundits have spent a fair amount of ink and electrons debating which of those two pathologies dominate him.

As for me, I will hope (there’s that word again) that his inner FOD will yet speak up.

Is the West Still Judeo-Christian?

[It's not that I'm getting lazy or anything.  It's just that my friend Ben Finiti keeps putting up good stuff that I feel the need to share with you (his audience being much smaller than mine.)  Anyway, here it is.]

Good Show, Cameron!

British Prime Minister David Cameron has made a most important speech.  Unsurprisingly, our media didn’t notice.

On Dec. 16, he spoke at a Christ Church, Oxford celebration of the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible.  He proclaimed the Bible as still relevant, and admitted (confessed?) that Britain is in a very real sense a “Judeo-Christian Nation”  He further articulated the Biblical origins of modern values such as equality, human rights, and morality.

The Judeo-Christian roots of the Bible also provide the foundations for protest and for the evolution of our freedom and democracy.  The Torah placed the first limits on Royal Power.   And the knowledge that God created man in his own image was, if you like, a game changer for the cause of human dignity and equality.

He also offered a sharp critique of modern “diversity” doctrines which have changed moderate tolerance into a disastrous abdication of responsibility.

I am grateful to George J. Marlin at The Catholic Thing (www.thecatholicthing.org) for shining a light on this speech.  Marlin’s analysis is excellent, as is the rest of TCT.

Cameron’s full text is online at http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/king-james-bible/.

The Forgotten Books of Witness

[Note:  My philosophical friend Mr. Finiti just put this up on his website, and as usual it is pretty good.  And since it seems more political than most of his stuff, I post it here in full.  If you want to leave a comment, do it on his page: www.benfiniti.com.]

by Ben Finiti 

Over the recent years, I have developed an interesting new hobby. (Well, I find it interesting.)  I prowl through thrift stores in search of forgotten books by forgotten authors.  And then I liberate them (usually for a dollar) and read them.

I pass quickly over certain types of books.  For instance, I have never bought a 20th or 21st century work of fiction. In my humble opinion as an accomplished literary snob, the last great writer of fiction was Anthony Trollope.  (I do not classify Orwell, Huxley, Waugh, or Koestler’s works as quite fiction.)

I do pick up curious books on subjects in which I have neither interest nor background.  For instance, I just finished a book called Let’s Talk About Port, by J.C. Valente-Perfeito, published in Portugal in 1948.  The author explains the varieties of port, sings (gushes, actually) its praises, and complains of how little his fellow citizens drink of it.   He offers eloquent warnings about the modern scourge of cocktail-drinking, and effectively rebuts those medical cranks who claim that alcoholism is a bad thing.  I had great fun reading it, and I may even try some of the stuff one of these days.

But the real goal of my pursuit is a category of books which was invented and flourished in the dreadful 20th century:  the survivor’s tale of witness to the inhuman atrocities that reached such a peak (so far) in the recent past.

Some books of witness were instant hits and remained so, despite their crushing intensity.  Elie Wiesel’s Night describes Auschwitz and his father’s death there.  The Diary of Anne Frank is rightly famous, though I myself have never been able to read more than a few opening pages before dissolving in tears.  (I think this is because I have a daughter, and the words always come into my head in my daughter’s voice.)

In One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch, Alexander Solzhenitsyn used a thin veil of fiction to recount a part of his experience in the prison camps of history’s most earnest experiment in “building a better world.”   His later massive Gulag Archipelago removed the veil and included more detail that most readers can stand.

In the mid-range stand works which once were read and discussed, and now dot the dustbins.  Whittaker Chambers’ aptly named Witness tells  of a man whose soul was driven by his embrace of communism into the vicious underworld of espionage against his country.  It becomes a story of redemption, as he rejects his past infatuation and attempts, at enormous personal cost, to warn his countrymen of the ugly reality facing them.

Primo Levi’s If This is a Man tells his tale of Auschwitz survival in clinical terms that reflect his scientific background.

Many a bookshelf could be filled with tales from heroic survivors from the dark side of the soul.  And most of them would be unknown, unread, unstudied, and out-of-print, available only through Amazon’s used-book network, or (for the lucky treasure hunter) the bins of a Goodwill store.

Who now reads Victor Kravchenko?  Peter Deriabin?  Jan Valtin?  Earl Weinstock?

Viktor Kravchenko’s is an interesting story. He was a Soviet engineer and factory manager, a coddled member of Stalin’s New Class.  His book is filled with the chilling details that lay bare the soul-destroying communist system.  During WW2 he defected to the US from a trade mission and wrote his story.  When it was finally published (I Chose Freedom, 1946) he was blasted by Communists worldwide as a liar and defamer of the Soviet Union.  Kravchenko responded by suing a prominent French communist leader for libel.  He won, and wrote a second book, I Chose Truth (1950) about the case.

With unimpeachable credibility, Kravchenko exposed the nightmare that it was to live under the Chekists’ never-blinking eye, even for top managers who were never arrested or imprisoned.  This book should be the primary text for any serious study of the reality of Soviet life under Stalin.In his second book he unmasked the puppetry whereby supposedly indigenous communist parties existed primarily to serve the demands of one man in the Kremlin.

Peter Deriabin was a KGB bureaucrat, agent, and finally a spy in Austria.  He, too, enjoyed the material luxuries the Soviets lavished on the New Class.  And he, too, ran for the US at the first opportunity.  His book, The Secret World (1959), unveils the State Security apparatus from the agent’s side, and it dovetails with Solzhenitsyn’s victim-view.   He gives fascinating insights into the power struggle after Stalin’s death, and dashes the naive hope that the system would then change.

An intriguing tale from another perspective is Jan Valtin’s Out of the Night (1940).  He was a German communist organizer and spy; like Chambers, he was a true believer who thought he was empowering the working class and eradicating poverty, only to discover that he was just eradicating the Leader’s enemies and empowering a new class of party functionaries.  His description of the tactics used to eliminate non-communist labor leaders is a unique eye-opener by itself.

Earl Weinstock’s case is perhaps saddest of all.  A young Rumanian Jew, Weinstock only dreamed of escaping Rumania’s poverty and anti-Semitism by getting out, going anywhere.  While he looked to France or Palestine, his mother had one unchanging dream: America.   In 1942 Weinstock, his mother and two brothers were sent to German concentration camps, where he survived after seeing his older brother shot, and being forced to shovel in dirt on the open mass grave where he fell.  After the war, Rumania went through another hell, this time under their Soviet “liberators.”  Weinstock contemplated the difference between the two tyrannies.

“In Transnistria [the German camp] I was a prisoner.  I was clothed in rags.  I slept on the dirt and potato peels in a barrack of filth and stink.  I was given little to eat and I stole food from garbage cans, for which I could have been shot. I saw and heard of murders and atrocities.  But my life and my captors made it plain to me that I was a prisoner. Nobody tried to convince me in the middle of all this that I was really free. That made a difference that I could not know then but that I knew now in Iasi [his hometown in Rumania]. I had made up my mind in Transnistria that I could outlast them if they did not shoot me.  It wasn’t easy, but filth and hunger and confinement were environments I could adapt to.   For those who shared my lot in my barracks would share everything. Our minds were free.  We could confide in each other, trust each other…But in Iasi, in 1947…what could I hope for?  To whom could I talk and feel safe in so doing? …What and who was I to be?  And I was not in a prison and I could not point to anyone who was my captor, but they talked to me of freedom and I was a prisoner.”

He and his aged mother escaped to America in 1949.  She died within a year, and he tried to forget the past, but too many ghosts pushed him to tell his story.  So he wrote a book, The Seven Years (his life from 1942 to 1949). E.P Dutton published it.  It was never re-printed.  Amazon lists a single used copy.

I found mine in a Goodwill bin.

Do these books matter?  True, many of them had considerable success in opening Western eyes and forcing them to recognize the truth.  But many people were able to dismiss all these eye witnesses and their stories as mere propaganda.

After reading Kravchenko no one could seriously doubt the real hell that was life in the Soviet Union, or the truly criminal nature of the worldwide movement that supported it.  Yet millions in the West continued to believe that this hell was heaven.

Deriabin demonstrated the intense hyperparanoid terror that was essential to the system’s survival.  Yet millions continued to believe that the police state was an aberration of the system, caused by one man’s suspicious nature.

Valtin makes it clear that the Nazis and Communists were history’s ugliest fraternal twins; differing mainly in the effectiveness of the former and the puppet-leadership of the latter.  Yet millions continue to believe that while the Nazis were uniquely evil, the communists were well-intentioned reformers who made unfortunate “mistakes”.

And the fashionable deniers of “American exceptionalism” have to figure out a way to debunk the iron determination of Earl Weinstock’s mother, pursuing a lifelong vision of freedom under the Statue of Liberty.

The truth is always worth telling, even if it never finds an audience.  And there is value in seeking out these lost truths.  Otherwise, too many lives, too much heroism ends up down the Memory Hole.

_____________________________________________________________________

If you want to read any of these books, your best bet is a university or big-city library, but keep your handkerchief ready for the layer of dust that will cover it.  Another source is the Inter-Library Loan system.  And, of course, Amazon.  And Goodwill.

Let me know what you think of any of these writers, or any other witnesses you come across.

They Are So Right!

Israeli officials are so frustrated with Obama’s refusal to take strong action against Iran that they are finally speaking out.

Read about it here.

The headline:

Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

The sub-head:

Top government officials laud France, UK, but tell Ynet White House policy with regards to Iranian nuclear program ‘hesitant’

Is there anything more humiliating than a United States president too timid to follow the lead of Britain and France?  I mean, they invented appeasement, for crying out loud!   (See my “The Arc of Appeasement” below or here.)

Has there ever been a more anti-Israel, pro-appeasement president than Obama?  Not even Eisenhower, no friend of Israel, would have stood for Iran’s outrageous actions.  Unfortunately, Obama cannot distinguish between speeches and actions.  He believes that when he speaks, the world listens.  But why would they?

In O’s first year, French President Sarkozy lectured Obama for his big talk unaccompanied by action.  He told the Security Council (I spotlighted it below, in “A French Lesson”):

“We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.    President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.  Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993…”

Since that scolding, Obama has continued to block any type of strong action, including serious sanctions.  As he has done before, he supports the weakest possible sanctions and hopes everything will somehow work out.

 

Flashback: Bullwinkle: “Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!”

Rocky: “That trick never works.”

Bullwinkle: “This time for sure.”

Bullwinkle (after trick fails): “I gotta get a new hat.”

 

Obama doesn’t need a new hat.  He needs a backbone.

Mr. Finiti is Grateful…

My friend Ben Finiti has a new post on his site.  As usual, it is short (shorter than mine, anyway) and thoughtful.

This one is about “The Problem of Gratitude”, and what gratitude implies.  Check it out.

Needed: A New Unionism

In Mother Jones (of all places), Kevin Drum has posted an interesting argument about the need for private sector unions to concentrate on wages and benefits rather than work rules.  This alone is an example of pretty creative thinking for laborites, but it still misses the mark.

Unionism in the private sector is not just down; it’s almost out. Membership has been falling steadily for half a century and is now circling the drain, with membership at 6.9% of the workforce. In 1953 it was 36%.

This disastrous decline has been partly masked by the simultaneous growth of unions in the public sector. While private unions sank, public ones climbed from near-zero in the 1950’s to around 36%, where it has held steady since 1980. Decline has also been disguised by the growing political power of the union movement, as its electoral organizing skills have improved even as membership organizing has languished.

Why the decline? Why have private sector workers stopped joining unions?

The unions have a ready answer: it’s too hard to organize because employers cheat. They scare and intimidate and fire workers who try to organize.

Undoubtedly true, in too many cases. Union-busting consultants have a bag of anti-union tricks that can certainly make certification elections hard to win.

But that just begs the question. Why only now? Didn’t employers know these tricks during all the years unions were growing? Didn’t Henry Ford know how to intimidate workers? Didn’t the steel companies? Didn’t construction firms? Coal-mine operators? The Mohawk Valley Formula for union-busting dates back to 1936.

So why are so many unions now stymied by employer opposition?

Other possible explanations for union decline abound. Many heavily unionized manufacturing and textile industries have moved jobs overseas in search of lower costs.

But other industries that are largely homebound have not been organized in their place.

And in fact many newer industries (high-tech, for instance) are often fairly good employers, offering decent benefits and workplace flexibility in a conscious effort to attract a happy, productive, and non-union workforce.

Private sector unions may be short of members, but not of excuses.

Continue reading ‘Needed: A New Unionism’

Iran Should Not Be A Partisan Issue!

An old union buddy of mine wrote the following letter to his US Senator, Jon Tester.  It is worth reading.

Dear Senator Tester:

On Oct. 6, you issued a public statement raising the issue of US companies doing business with the dangerous regime in Iran.  I appreciate your doing so; it was long overdue.

Iran is clearly the number one threat to world peace: an apocalyptic regime committed to the destruction of a democratic neighbor state, implacably
hostile to the US, a fountainhead of terrorism, murderer and oppressor to its own people.  And for years this dangerous regime has bent all its efforts at developing nuclear weapons.  The response of the US and the West has been all too feeble.

But I was deeply disappointed to see you raise this all-important issue for the apparent purpose of taking a partisan cheap shot at a political enemy!  By spotlighting Koch Industries as the only mentionable company doing business with Iran, you used an international crisis to score points on a major Republican supporter, rather than unmasking just how serious this problem is across the board.

True, Koch Industries is on the list of companies doing business with Iran.  But so are the following:

High-tech firms like Advanced Micro Devices, Cisco Systems, Dell Computers, Honeywell, IBM, Intel, MCI, and United Technologies.

Continue reading ‘Iran Should Not Be A Partisan Issue!’

Media Loses Another “Moderate Cleric”, Worries About the Rest

The Associated Press bias machine is at it again.  In an article “NYPD Spied on Muslim Partners”, the AP expressed its shock and disapproval (in a “news story“!) of the New York Police covertly collecting information on a Muslim cleric who appears to be a model of moderation.

In 2007, the New York Times wrote glowingly of Sheikh Reda Shata in 2007, describing “his efforts to reconcile Muslim traditions with American life.”

So why would the NYPD collect information about his activities?

Consider the earlier story of another moderate cleric.  In 2001, right after the 9/11 attacks, the New York Times reported that:

“Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, spiritual leader at the Dar al-Hijra mosque in Virginia, one of the nation’s largest…at 30 is held up as a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West.”  

By 2010, a different face of Imam Al-Awlaki had become obvious. The AP then reported that:

“Al-Awlaki has urged Muslims to kill Americans and has been linked to last year’s shooting at a U.S. Army base in Texas, and the attempted bombing of a U.S.-bound flight last Christmas Day, Dec. 25. Continue reading ‘Media Loses Another “Moderate Cleric”, Worries About the Rest’

Netanyahu speaks truth to closed minds

I just heard Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to the UN General Assembly.  The full transcript is here.

It was a powerful, no-nonsense statement of the unvarnished truth.  Israel is committed to negotiating peace.  The Palestinian leadership and a sizeable portion (possibly the majority) of the Palestinian people are committed to the elimination of Israel.

“Moderate” leader Abbas said so this week. Not at the UN, where he blamed Israel for, well, everything.  But earlier that day, here.

“They talk to us about the Jewish state, but I respond to them with a final answer: We shall not recognize a Jewish state,” Abbas said in a meeting with some 200 senior representatives of the Palestinian community in the US, shortly before taking the podium and delivering a speech at the United Nations General  Assembly.”

There you have it.  His “final answer”.  One wonders what his final solution might be?

Here is Netanyahu:

President Abbas just said on this podium that the Palestinians are armed only with their hopes and dreams. Yeah, hopes, dreams and 10,000 missiles and Grad rockets supplied by Iran, not to mention the river of lethal weapons now flowing into Gaza from the Sinai, from Libya, and from elsewhere.     Continue reading ‘Netanyahu speaks truth to closed minds’

The AP conceals Mideast truth…again

Once again, an Associated Press story smearing Israel conceals more facts than it reveals.

In this week’s “Israel Prevents Palestinians From Free Movement”, an AP “reporter” describes the sufferings of the Palestinians while concealing the true authors of their plight.

A West Bank Palestinian loses his job in Israel, and (says the AP) the result is a drive for UN recognition of the Palestinian/Hamas regime. For years, he earned a good living working as a laborer in Israel. But then…

“After peace proposals were rejected in 2000, a violent Palestinian uprising against Israel’s occupation flared, and his job quickly
ended.”

The reporter’s careful use of the passive voice conceals the actual agents of the change.

Who rejected the peace proposals mediated by Bill Clinton in 2000? The Palestinian leadership.

Who accepted them? Israel. Continue reading ‘The AP conceals Mideast truth…again’

Can You Love Freedom and Hate Israel?

I was discussing philosophy recently with my friend Ben Finiti.  The queston arose of whether it is repressive “political correctness” to consider a person’s extreme prejudices (in this case, anti-semitism) when evaluating their position on a philosophical question.

Our initial reaction was that, if at all possible, the philosophical question should be considered separately.

This got me thinking about a question I often ask myself:  how can someone who does A also do B?  Specifically on the question of Israel and Zionism.

How can one preach democracy and hate the most democratic state ever to exist in the region?

How can one value freedom and yet hate the freest, arguably the only free state in the region?

How can one espouse peace and yet hate the only state in the region willing to establish peace with all its neighbors?

And finally, the most perplexing of all: How can one love God and hate Israel?

I know, I know.  Anti-Zionism and opposition to Israel is not the same as anti-semitism.  Supposedly, not every anti-Zionist advocate of return to the indefensible pre-1967 borders hates Jews.  Not every pious critic who screams “Apartheid” and “Imperialism” at Israel’s every measure of self-defense is an anti-Semite.  Not every college professor demanding disinvestment from all Israeli companies would be happy to see Hamas achieve its bloodthirsty dreams.  Not every anti-Zionist wants to see Israel swept off the map, or even the more moderate proposal of allowing Hamas missiles to be positioned 11 miles from Tel Aviv.

But still…

When I hear someone say “I am not anti-Semitic; I am just anti-Israel” I wonder.  Continue reading ‘Can You Love Freedom and Hate Israel?’

Gulliver on Fiscal Stimulus

I don’t write much about the economy and various remedies for its present ills.  That is for two reasons:  First, I believe economics, especially on the macro side, is so far from being science that it is closer to being a conventicle of witches, with multiple schools promoting various spells and potions.  And second, because I don’t really understand it all (despite having taken my Masters degree in economics.)

Anyway, I stumbled across the following passage in Gulliver’s Travels, which I think sums it up.

When Gulliver visited Laputa, the land of the philosophers, he complained of “cholick”.  He was introduced to “a great physician who was famous for curing that disease by contrary operations of the same instrument, a pair of bellows with a slender muzzle of ivory; this he conveyed 8 inches up the anus, and drawing in the wind, he affirmed he could make the guts as lank as a dried bladder.  But when the disease was more stubborn and violent, he let in the muzzle while the bellows was full of wind, which he discharged into the body of the patient…

“I saw him try both experiments upon a dog; but could not discern any effect from the former.  After the latter, the animal was ready to burst, and made so violent a discharge as was very offensive to me and my companions.  The dog died on the spot, and we left the doctor trying to recover him by the same operation.”

Thus Dean Swift’s eighteenth century view of stimulus and other remedies for financial cholick.

“The Great Sophist?”

My friend Mr. Ben Finiti has a new post up on his site.  “The Great Sophist”, it appears to be something philosophical.  So if you like that kind of thing, take a look here.

It’s a Big War, and Iran is the Urgent Front

Michael Ledeen, over at Pajamas Media, has an excellent post entitled “It’s a Real War, Stupid. A Big War. A Worthy Challenge for America”.  You should read it.

His point is that we need to recognize the uncomfortable reality that radical Islam has declared war on us, and that we must confront this as a worldwide war rather than a series of unrelated regional and local conflicts.

His analysis is correct and perceptive.  Unfortunately, it is hard to muster much hope for our success, given the general collapse of Western resolve.  It is hard to see the West facing up to ANY of its problems, denialism having become our operative mode. 

 But the need is clear: We must mobilize all of the West’s resources in the struggle against Radical Islam, as Truman did in 1948 against communism.  Support for friends, non-support of enemies, active propaganda, and direct force when and where needed.

Syria is indeed a critical battlefield.  But we must not forget the most dangerous threat we face:Iran’s drive to become a nuclear power. 

We have dropped the ball on Iran long enough.  The recent reports of their uranium centrifuges being moved to “bombproof” subterranean sites suggest that the door is fast closing on our options.  A Syrian revolution, no matter how successful, will not stop Iran’s centrifuges.  Even an Iranian uprising might not do it.

A worldwide war must be waged simultaneously on many fronts.  But right now, no front is more pressing than Iran.

The Arc of Appeasement: Germany and Iran

Once again, a rising military aggressor is bent on domination of its neighbors and holocaust of the Jews.  And once again, the nations (in this case, one nation) which could stop them fails to act.

The arc of the Iran story is so redolent of the 1930′s British appeasers (not just Baldwin and Chamberlain, but a genuine broad-based political consensus, except for Churchill) that both stories can be told in the same words.

Stage One:  “(Germany/Iran) may be arming for war, but it is not strong enough to threaten peace anywhere. The real danger is posed by our ally (France/Israel).”

Stage Two: “(Germany/Iran) may be arming for war and getting stronger every day, but they are not irrational.  They may threaten the peace, but their fear of our ally (France/Israel), backed by their fear of us, will be sufficient to deter them.”

Stage Three: “(Germany/Iran) is a threat to peace.  They are already too strong for us to stop them militarily.  We must rely on diplomacy to make the best deal with them we can.” Continue reading ‘The Arc of Appeasement: Germany and Iran’

Iran’s Underground Weapons Program Moves Underground

Lost in the (certainly justifiable, if premature) celebration of the imminent fall of the monster Gaddafi, the world seems to be underreacting to this disturbing AP news story from the Middle East:

Iran moves centrifuges to underground site

“Islamic Republic transfers some of its uranium enrichment machines to subterranean facility
offering better protection from possible airstrikes:  Associated Press”

Iran has moved some of its centrifuge machines to an underground enrichment site that offers better protection from possible airstrikes, the country’s vice president said Monday.”

“Engineers are “hard at work” preparing the facility in Fordo, which is carved into a mountain to protect it against possible attacks, to house the centrifuges, Fereidoun Abbasi was quoted as saying by state TV.”

What makes this puzzling is that authoratative-sounding media pundits and prestigious national security experts have been assuring us for years that Iran’s nuclear program could not be stopped by airstrikes, since it was buried in deep subterranean facilities.  This was all patiently explained to neocon hotheads who called for air action similar to the successful attacks that ended both Iraqi and Syrian nuclear programs in past decades.  As the “wise men” made clear, the only alternative to diplomacy and sanctions was a horrendous nightmare of “boots on the ground”; and nobody wants that now, do they?

So now it turns out that the uranium centrifuges, the biggest and most vulnerable part of the program, were sitting around in the open air?   Oops.

This whole debate had settled down somewhat in recent years, as both the Administration and the news media (but I repeat myself?) took their eye off the Iranian ball.  If you want a refresher course in this denialism, take a look back at my dialogue with Frankie Sturm,  then Communications Director of the Truman Democrats (a misnamed organization trying to resurrect national security credibility for the Democratic Party).  The title was “A Perfect Storm of Appeasement”, and it was written in February of 2009 – two and a half years ago.

Here is Mr. Sturm, expressing the left’s conventional wisdom at the time (and since):

There’s a lot out there on the futility of air strikes. Here is one article from the Atlantic and another link to a study by the Oxford Research Group. It was easy to take out Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1983 because the entire program was contained in that single, above ground installation. The suspected nuclear site in Syria that Israel took out recently is a similar story – it was just one above ground building. Iran learned from the Israeli airstrike against Iraq in 1983. That’s why they’re so thoroughly buried underground.

Oops. Continue reading ‘Iran’s Underground Weapons Program Moves Underground’

Lead, Mr. President !

[An old union buddy of mine wrote the following letter to his local newspaper.  I couldn't have said it better myself.  It would be a good thing if every concerned citizen did the same with his or her local paper.  The author assures me he won't object to any degree of plagiarism.]

During the 2008 campaign, Candidate Obama was clear about the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear weapons program.  In a “60 Minutes” interview (9/22/2008), he said:

“I think that a nuclear armed Iran is …a game changer in the region. It’s unacceptable. And that’s why I’ve said that I won’t take any options off the table, including military, to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

Earlier (July 23, 2008), he told an Israeli audience: “That is our single most important threat to Israel but also to the United States of America. So this is something that we’re going to spend a lot of time working on.”

Since then, Iran’s nuclear weapons program has progressed unimpeded.  The centrifuges continue to hum, fuel continues to be stockpiled, and the only remaining question is when the first Iranian nukes will be ready to mount on their missiles.  When, not if.

And where is President Obama’s commitment “to spend a lot of time working on” the problem?  Whatever happened to all the “options” he so boldly kept on the table?  It appears that the options, along with the “single most important threat to the USA”, have somehow fallen off the president’s table. Continue reading ‘Lead, Mr. President !’

The “Mere Flabbiness” of the Elites

[My philosophical friend Finiti has permitted me to reprint here this post from his own site (www.benfiniti.com).]

by Ben Finiti

I came across a passage which seems to describe in remarkably succinct terms the process of the “avant garde” elite’s degradation of our culture.  It is in a 1940 book on Aeschylus by the classical scholar Gilbert Murray.  He is contrasting his subject with the turmoil raised by the Sophists of Athens

“The development is one which has often been repeated in ages of great intellectual activity.  Vigorous minds begin to question the convention in which they have been brought up and which they have now outgrown.  They reject first the elements in them which are morally repulsive, then the parts that are obviously incredible; they try to reject the husk and preserve the kernel, and for a time reach a far higher moral and intellectual standard than the generations before them or the duller people of their own time.

“Then, it seems, something is apt to go wrong.  Perhaps a cynic would say – and it would be hard to confute him – the element
of reason in man is so feeble a thing that he cannot stand successfully except when propped in the stiff harness of convention. At any rate there is always apt to come a later generation which has carried doubt and skepticism much farther and finds the kernel to consist only of inner layers of husk and then more husk, as the place of George IV’s heart, according to Thackeray, was supplied by waistcoats and then more waistcoats.

“First come inspiration and the exaltation of breaking false barriers: at the end comes the mere flabbiness of having no barriers left to break and no talent except for breaking them. ” Continue reading ‘The “Mere Flabbiness” of the Elites’

You Gotta See This

Are you familiar with the Pajamas Media website? If not, you should take a look.  Their coverage of a wide range of issues is  often provocative but (and?) always interesting and fact-based.

An outstanding post specific to the Israel-Palestinian issue is currently running there.  “Darkness In Palestine”, is a poignant and troubling on-the-ground look at the West Bank town of Hebron.  The author, Michael J. Totten, describes the reality of the Jewish settlers’ life in some of the most hostile areas outside the “pre-1967 borders” that our president is so insistent on.  He reveals the history of Arab anti-Semitism and “ethnic cleansing” (i.e., genocide) which have produced the nearly “Jew-free” areas in the West Bank.  He exposes the real meaning of opposition to the settlements; the Jewish settlements are hated because Jews are hated. Continue reading ‘You Gotta See This’

The Latest Palestinian Peace News

Palestinians Endorse “Country-Of-Origin Labeling”

Here are two news reports from the invaluable Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

First, Hamas clarifies its position on future Israeli borders.

Osama Hamdan, Head of the Hamas Foreign Liaisons: Armed Confrontation Will Continue to Be “the Backbone of the Resistance”, the Israelis Must Return to Their Countries of Origin - interview aired on Al-Jadid/New TV on May 4, 2011: (that is 2 weeks before recent the Netanyahu/Obama exchanges):

“There is no doubt, however, that the armed confrontation will continue to be the main effort and the backbone of the resistance, until the liberation of Palestine.”

“I think that politically, the two-state solution is over. The people who suggested this notion are the ones who say so. Therefore, trying to talk about a two-state solution again is like talking about something that is over and done with.” 

“I think that we are entering the phase of the liberation of Palestine. When we talk about the liberation of Palestine, we are talking about the notion of Return: the return of the refugees to their homeland, and the return of the Israelis to the countries from which they came.”

So there you have it: the Palestinian view of future Israeli border is not pre 1967, but rather pre-1948.  Actually, it is even worse.  Though Jews have lived in the area for thousands of years, they are now to…get out.

At least the Palestinians support “Country-Of-Origin Labeling”

And here is news of the welfare state, Palestinian Authority style: Continue reading ‘The Latest Palestinian Peace News’

Moderate Terrorists Make Peace!

So, let’s see what else has been happening while US forces finally caught up Osama Bin Laden.  

Well, here on a back page of the newspaper I read that the Palestinians have finally negotiated a peace agreement…with themselves.  The Hamas terrorists in Gaza have formed a “unity” alliance with the Palestinian Authority/Fatah government in the West Bank, so that they can work together for their common aims.  The story did not mention what those aims are.

There are, at least in theory, some big differences between Hamas and the PA/Fatah.  Hamas is an openly terrorist organization, committed to the total destruction of Israel, and deeply hostile to the US.  Fatah? Well, not so much. 

The Fatah-controlled PA is generally regarded as “moderate”, meaning that they changed their constitution in recent years to erase their commitment to Israel’s destruction.  Fatah recently gave up promoting suicide bombings of civilians when Israel built a wall to keep them out.  This is why Fatah/PA is considered “moderate”: so much so that, in the interests of peace, the US now gives $400 million a year to Fatah/PA, and provides it with military training.  

So now moderate Fatah/PA and terrorist Hamas are united.  What does that make them? Moderate terrorists, I guess.  And how different are they?  Take the Bin Laden killing, for instance. Ismail Haniya, the leader of the Hamas government, called it a “continuation of the United States policy of destruction” and “state terrorism that America carries out against Muslims.”  The PA officially applauded the US action, but Fatah’s official military arm, The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade,  echoed Hamas: Continue reading ‘Moderate Terrorists Make Peace!’

Pretty Shoddy, CNN

CNN has posted the current story about Standard & Poors downgrading its estimate of the US economic outlook: US Credit Rating Outlook Lowered by S&P”.  This is big stuff: the Dow dropped plummeted on the news.

In the process, and for whatever reason, CNN has drastically distorted the degree of the problem, and put a baseless pro-administration spin on this story. Continue reading ‘Pretty Shoddy, CNN’

2012 Election News Flash: Obama Wins Again! (and it’s NOT because of Osama)

[Note: The following was written before the capture and death of Osama Bin Laden.  I  believe that event does not significantly change the electoral analysis.]

The early results are in, and I am ready to make my prediction for the 2012 presidential election. 

Obama re-elected to second term!

A little early, you say?  We don’t even know who the GOP candidate will be?  Or what shape the economy will be in?

Quibbles.  All true, but all unimportant.

Presidential elections are decided by a very few factors.

Two things matter:

  1. What people have on their minds, and
  2. How attractive or repulsive the candidates are.

Unless Tim Pawlenty or  Mitch Daniels have a lot more “stage presence” than I suspect, the Democrats win on point #2.  It has been some time since an attractive, tall, deep-voiced man has failed to beat a shorter, homelier, higher-pitched opponent.  The attractiveness of candidates matters.  This is one area in which democracy routinely fails.  The best campaign candidates do not regularly make the best presidents. We just like them more.

Still, the question of “what’s on your mind” is the other big element.  Here, a disturbing pattern has emerged, and played out consistently through every election since 1972 (with one close exception).

If national security is the top concern, Republican candidates lead.  If not, Democrats lead.  Especially if, as today, the economy is the main concern, Democrats win (whether incumbents or challengers.)

Continue reading ’2012 Election News Flash: Obama Wins Again! (and it’s NOT because of Osama)’

The Inevitable Wisconsin

by Hans Moleman

In the words of Young Frankenstein’s Inspector Kemp, “A riot iss an ogly think.”  So is the Wisconsin shootout; ugly – but inevitable.

The unions had to be expecting a tough time with their new Governor Walker. No doubt they anticipated a difficult negotiation – “hard bargaining”, as the governor cut labor costs to balance the budget.  Instead, they found themselves facing political forces who actually intend to put an end to them.

Unions have always decried every effort to rollback labor costs or union power as “union-busting.” Now their past rhetorical excesses have caught up with them, as they confront the real thing.  (Cf “Wolf, the Boy who Cried…”)

At first it looked as if Walker was indeed bargaining hard.  Rolling back pensions, increasing employee contributions, and making labor accept it as a compromise by agreeing not to end collective bargaining outright.  And there would be the peace, as Don Barzini would say.

Well, gentlemen may cry “peace, peace,” but there is no peace.  Before it could be seen if Walker was a “let’s make a deal” type, Democrats abandoned the state and the unions seized the Capitol to bully the governor and Republicans. They in turn found a parliamentary bypass and passed the bill to strip bargaining rights. The budget, with its real benefit reductions and budget cuts is still pending.  But the unions appear to have used up most of their ammo, so their hopes cannot be high.

The fight was foreordained, if not in Wisconsin then somewhere nearby.  Since the 1930’s, unions have struggled over their relation to politics, politicians, and especially political parties.  Early on it came down to a simple question: whether to seek friends in both parties, or to throw in wholeheartedly with the Democrats. Continue reading ‘The Inevitable Wisconsin’

Again With the Pirates?

by Hans Moleman

The CBS headline reads: “4 Americans on hijacked yacht dead off Somalia“.  It ought to read: “U.S. Impotence Displayed on High Seas”.

Pirates.  Incredibly, in the 21st century, the greatest military and naval power in history finds it impossible to protect its citizens from…pirates.

Somali pirates have been terrorizing the sea lanes off the Horn of Africa for a decade now.  The business is booming, because it pays off royally, and with surprisingly little risk.  The ship owners and insurers pay ransoms in the millions, and with every ransom payoff, more ships are hijacked.

And the navies of the world try feebly to deal with it.

Nests of pirates were eradicated in the Mediterranean, when the Romans (Pompey) decided to deal with them.  In the eighteenth century, piracy in the Western Hemisphere was eradicated when the British Empire (Royal Navy) decided to deal with it.

Against concerted effort by ships (and hearts) of oak, the pirates were powerless.  But against today’s astonishingly powerful fleets, Somalis in small boats, armed with small arms, fear little.

The CBS story reports that “the hijacked yacht was being piloted towards the Somali coast – and was being shadowed by a U.S. Navy warship“  when the pirates decided to shoot the Americans onboard. Continue reading ‘Again With the Pirates?’

Ben Finiti Among the PABGoos

by Ben Finiti

I have traveled a long road from my Methodist childhood, into my atheist, Marxist radical youth, and into the world.  There I battled through a lifetime of real-world practicality decreasingly comforted and cushioned by the shreds of an ideology that no longer worked or made real sense of anything.  And I end up here.

I now find myself on the doorstep of a return to the truths of my childhood belief, still unable to cross the threshold.  (Of course, I wonder just how fully I ever really believed back then.  Tolstoy wrote somewhere about his religious beliefs evaporating in an instant when his older brother, seeing him kneeling by his bed, asked “You don’t still pray, do you?”)

Anyway, here I am.  Like Chesterton, I wanted always to be in the vanguard of new thought, always ahead of my time, only to discover that I was 20 centuries behind the truth.

I now find that there are only two consistent philosophical standpoints that are not in serious conflict with the facts of human nature.  Two tenable views.

Either God made us with souls, with a purpose.  Or we exist as accidental results of random materialistic evolution.

If we have souls and a purpose, then morality is a possibility, a choice that our souls can make to be in conformity with our purpose.  If we are evolutionary accidents, then we have no souls, no real purpose, and morality is whatever works.  So real morality, with legitimate authority, becomes impossible.  Moral anarchy is the only possible outcome.

There is of course another, much cheerier world view, one which believes that People Are Basically Good (hence “PABGoo”).  Continue reading ‘Ben Finiti Among the PABGoos’

Hope and History

by Ben Finiti

First Things has an interesting blogpost by R.R. Reno, analyzing a post by David Rieff on his World Affairs blog.

Rieff stumbles around his point (in some really stilted prose), but finally gets there:  history offers no hope.  True:  Hegel and Marx are only two of the many, many examples.  And Rieff ends with a rather hollow piece of advice:  get your hope some other place.

OK. But where?  Presumably he means something off-the-shelf from some meaning shop, or something more do-it-yourself from Home Depot.  Home Truth Depot?

Philosophers have long searched for sources of hope, finding them in all corners: in history, in technology, in therapy, in education, in political reform, in “getting in touch with nature.”

Man continues to seek hope everywhere in himself, always coming up empty-handed (and often bloody-handed); all because he thinks so well of himself, that “he just knows there must be a hope in there somewhere.”

It is both natural and appropriate that hope is always sought in triumph over evil.  Therefore, the search for hope is conditioned by our understanding of evil.

And it is here that all modernist schools fall short, while biblical religion sees clearly.  As Reinhold Niebuhr put it, “The Christian estimate of human evil is so serious precisely because it places evil at the very center of human personality: in the will.” Continue reading ‘Hope and History’

Obamacare, Medicare, and Rationing

I am looking at a Heritage Foundation chart entitled “Entitlements Will Consume All Tax Revenues by 2052”.  It is, as one might expect from the Heritage Foundation, persuasive and thought-provoking.  It shows the extent to which entitlement growth (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) will engulf and devour all current revenues in 40 years. Persuasive.

But the chart shows something else that the Heritagers did not note.  Medicare, not Social Security or Medicaid, is the really exploding entitlement.

By my eyeballing of the chart, Social Security now consumes about 5% of GDP, and by 2052 it will rise to a bit over 6%.  Medicaid, currently under 2%, may rise to about 4%.

Compare those numbers to Medicare: currently at 3% of GDP, it will mushroom to 14% of GDP

In other words, Social Security cost will grow 20% faster than GDP;  Medicaid cost will grow 100% faster than GDP;  But Medicare will grow 366% FASTER THAN GDP!

Currently, Social Security costs as much as Medicaid plus Medicare.  In 40 years, Medicare will cost 40% MORE than Social Security PLUS Medicaid! 

The INCREASE in Medicare is more than the TOTAL current cost of the other two!

Since I’m running out of exclamation points, I’ll cut to the chase.  If Medicare costs are not controlled, the other two entitlements barely matter. 

All of which brings us to Obamacare.  The push for health care reform was driven by two things. The scandal of having a sizeable number of Americans uninsured was the primary rhetorical point. But the main driver was in fact the explosive cost of health care, translated for most people into the cost of health insurance.  For workers, the cost of health insurance has been the primary drag on wage growth for several decades.  For employers, it has hurt profits.  Unless costs are controlled, “fringe benefits” will overtake wages for most employees and employers. Continue reading ‘Obamacare, Medicare, and Rationing’

Juan Williams, NPR’s Standards, and “the M-Word”

Juan Williams’ comments on O’Reilly were only the pretext NPR had been seeking ever since Williams committed the real crime; he went on FOX NEWS. He left the reservation and worked with the other tribe!

The money quote is NPR’s admission that “Williams’ presence on the largely conservative and often contentious prime-time talk shows of Fox News has long been a sore point with NPR News executives.” Continue reading ‘Juan Williams, NPR’s Standards, and “the M-Word”’

Reasons to Hate Israel #123 and #124.

I have just read an intriguing and beautifully written post on National Review’s Corner blog by Mike Potemra, entitled “Why Do They Hate Israel?”.  The question seems presumptuous, since the haters have never experienced a shortage of anti-Semitic justifications. But still.

Potemra, about whom I know nothing, raises a thought I have often had.

As he puts it, “Part of the problem, in the United States at least, has to do with elitist contempt for Evangelical Christians”.  I am beginning to believe that much of the global elite’s anti-Americanism stems from just this contempt, which is actually embarrassment with the subject of Christianity.  Evangelicals are the ones consistently bringing up God and morality in public discourse, making us all feel awkward since we have nothing much to say on the subject.  So we treat vocal Christians as embarrassing redneck relatives, changing the subject when they’re listening, and mocking them when they’re not.

And Israel, since the rise of Likud, with sytrong voices of Russian refuseniks, has seemed to resemble Evangelical Christianity at least as much as it does liberal cosmopolitan European Jewry.

I must write more on this soon.  In the meantime, here is the post.

_____________________________

Why Do They Hate Israel?   [Mike Potemra]

 Mark Steyn recently reminded us of some European polling from a few years ago, showing that the public consensus was growing on the Continent that Israel is the greatest threat to world peace. Continue reading ‘Reasons to Hate Israel #123 and #124.’

Iran: Same Old Debate, But the Clock is Ticking

One might ask what progress has been made on stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program since the Obama administration took over a year and a half ago. In that respect, I recently reviewed a dialogue I had with Mr. Frankie Sturm, Communications Director of the “Truman National Security Project” back in March of 2009.  It turns out that every word written then is still relevant today; the only progress has been in Iran’s weapons program and in the erosion of US diplomatic prestige.  The Doomsday Clock is still inexorably approaching High Noon. (Whatever happened to the Doomsday Clock, BTW?)

Anyway, take a look and see if you don’t agree. 

See “A Dialogue with Mr. Frankie Sturm on Iran” here.

Agnostic about Genocide?

My friend Ben Finiti talks of having become a political agnostic, uncomfortable taking sides on many of the most contentious issues of our time. I feel the same – up to a point. I agree that many questions (stimulus, bailouts, immigration, health care, etc.) offer at least two sides with plausible concerns, relevant facts, and about the same level of good- and bad-faith arguments.  To invest in one position, I must do one of two things. I must decide that I know what this is all about and am sufficiently informed, disinterested, and dispassionate to be able to say which position should prevail. Or I must use my affiliations as guides to my positions (“My friends/family/party are for it, so that must be the right position.”) Like Ben, I find it increasingly difficult to do either on most issues.

But not on all issues. In the Middle East and around the world today, a struggle of titanic proportions is taking shape. The battles are still small by 20th-century standards. In Afghanistan and Iraq, US troops fight in the field.  Around the globe, security forces try to thwart murderous terrorists before they can strike at civilian targets.  Under multiculturalist banners, unassimilable immigrants demand recognition of Sharia law, accommodation of “honor killings”, and punishment for anti-Islamic speech. Continue reading ‘Agnostic about Genocide?’

Paging Dr. Walt and Dr. Mearsheimer

I Have a Question, Doctors

A few years ago, two professors wrote a book.  Stephen Walt (Harvard) and John Mearsheimer (Chicago) published The Israel Lobby in 2007, and it made quite a splash.  Its central thesis was that US foreign policy was directed by Israel and its friends, to the detriment of America’s real interests.  In other words, the Jews are running this country.

 Accusations of anti-Semitism arose, but were deftly parried by the authors and their defenders.  It’s about Israel, they responded; it has nothing to do with Jews!

(This is why I wish that Ben Gurion had given the Zionist entity a different name, like maybe Semitia.  But then the world’s W’s and M’s would have patiently explained that they are not anti-Semites, but anti-Semitians.  If he’d named it Jewland, W and M could explain that their problem is with Jewlandians, not Jews. Oh, well.)

 Here I note that I venture no judgment on the inner prejudices of W and M.  But I do note that if you check their book on Amazon, you will learn that “Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought: The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine; Beyond Chutzpah; On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism; Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid (by Jimmy Carter); The Holocaust Industry; and The Power of Israel in the United States.”  I know that guilt is not proven by association.  You may draw your own conclusions.

 So, in the dark days of the dreaded neocon likudnik administration of George W. Bush, professors M and W surveyed US mideast policy and made an interesting discovery.  Every action occurred in Israel.  The Muslim states were mere passive observers, reacting to Israeli and US provocations.  The best example was in their look at Iran. 

 “Israel’s perception of the Iranian threat underwent a fundamental change in the early 1990’s, as evidence of Teheran’s nuclear ambitions began to accumulate.  Israeli leaders began warning Washington in 1993 that Iran was a grave threat not only to Israel but to the US as well.  There has been no letup in that alarmist and aggressive rhetoric since then, largely because Iran has continued to move ahead on the nuclear front.” Continue reading ‘Paging Dr. Walt and Dr. Mearsheimer’

God, the Horizon, and Ben Finiti

My philosophical friend Mr. Ben Finiti has reached the stage of life where he takes up the task of making sense of himself and the world, and asking whether it can be done without including God in the ruminations.

 He tells me that he has reached three very tentative conclusions.

 First, he has concluded that morality is not derivable or sustainable without religion, and religion (however useful) is false without God.  I may ask him to explain that to me at some point. Continue reading ‘God, the Horizon, and Ben Finiti’

Iran Threat Must Be Faced

(An old union buddy of mine wrote the following column in his local paper.  He has graciously agreed to let me re-post it here.)

The Iranian regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today poses a grave and imminent threat to world peace. A wealthy nation, led by apocalyptic anti-Semitic fanatics committed to the eradication of a neighboring nation, is rapidly developing the weapons that will put that goal within its reach.

The whole world knows it; indeed, Iran barely bothers to deny it.

The Iranian regime is and has always been an avowed and implacable enemy of both Israel and of our own country. Their hatred of us and their desire to destroy Israel are not new. What is new is their development of the weapons needed to accomplish their goal of a Jew-free Middle East.

There can be no mistake; the Iranian regime is preparing for its “Final Solution” to the problem of Israel – nothing less than a Second Holocaust. Their denial of Nazi genocide is a smokescreen to distract attention from their plans to out-murder Hitler. With a weapon that Hitler could only dream of, Iran will have instant genocide – the extermination of 6 million Israeli Jews in a single day – at their fingertips.

Diplomacy and sanctions have been tried and have not worked. China (politely) and Russia (rudely) have made it clear (repeatedly) that they will oppose or sabotage serious sanctions. Sanctions will not work under such circumstances. Continue reading ‘Iran Threat Must Be Faced’

OK, This Is Just Funny

OK, this is just plain funny.  “Obama To Enter Diplomatic Talks With Raging Wildfire“, on YouTube from Onion News Network.

Sad that it is so funny.  But still funny.  I don’t care who you are.

 

Russia, China Doom US Appeasement

Today’s news:  Russian leaders Vladimir Putin rejects sanctions against Iran, even as China indicates willingness to consider more sanctions.

Tomorrow’s headline:  China rejects Iran sanctions, even as Russia softens its position.

The Day after Tomorrow’s headine: China tags out, Russia tags into Iran-defense match.

Several things become clearer every day.

First, Iran is playing its diplomatic stalling game with masterful finesse.  They have been at the table for years with the Europeans, and now with us. Feeble sanctions are enacted, and then flouted by various nations.  And in the background, the steady hum of thousands of gas centrifuges, both in Qom and Natanz, creating the stuff of Iran’s dream: the Jew-liquidating Final Solution: the Mullah Of All Bombs.

Second, Russia and China are not displeased with Iran’s challenge to the West, and will not impede it in any way.  But, to avoid burning all bridges to the West, Russia and China will continue to play tag-team in threatening to veto any UN Security Council action, swapping the good-cop/bad-cop roles from time to time.  They know that the present US administration will not consider military pressure on Iran without a UN mandate.  Russia and China are Iran’s insurance policy against any possible UN action.  With their backing, Iran fears no sanctions, and has zero incentive to negotiate in good faith. Continue reading ‘Russia, China Doom US Appeasement’

Obama Deserves the Prize

President Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize, and people are amazed.  They should not be; in fact, Obama has earned the prize.

In the blink of an eye he has moved the world’s only superpower firmly into the appeasement camp. This has been the Western left’s greatest foreign policy goal for the past eight years, and Obama has delivered on it.

Without creating much of a stir, he has notified our enemies that they need not fear us, and our allies that they cannot count on us.

Meanwhile, Iran arms itself for the coming annihilation of 6 million Jews, and the world prepares itself by stigmatizing Israel and legitimizing anti-Semitism.

A French Lesson

File this under “Never Thought I’d See the Day…”

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has publicly rebuked Obama’s airy internationalism in the face of the Iranian threat.  The US media seems to have missed the story.  It happened on September 25, and Breitbart has it.

Sarkozy Mocks Obama At UN Security Council

Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.” 

“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite… Continue reading ‘A French Lesson’

Next Page »



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.