There are a lot more bodies I could add to the pile...the dead in Libya, Mali, Nigeria, Algeria, Israel, Egypt,and Americans murdered by the illegal migrants he's allowed in, as well as veterans whom have died in the morass of our own dysfunctional VA system. If a president like Barack Hussein Obama can tango through a record like that and not get impeached, it says a great deal about how low the bar for our leaders has become and what the American people are apparently willing to put up with. And that's our legacy, as well as his. Think about it.
Welcome to the Watcher's Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the 'sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.
Donald Trump recently sat down for a long interview on Foreign Policy with a couple of New York Times reporters in which he weighed in on a number of interesting topics. Some of his answers may surprise you. Here's a slice:
Over two telephone conversations on Friday, Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, discussed his views on foreign policy with Maggie Haberman and David E. Sanger of The New York Times. Here is an edited transcript of their interview:
HABERMAN: I wanted to ask you about some things that you said in Washington on Monday, more recently. But you’ve talked about them a bunch. So, you have said on several occasions that you want Japan and South Korea to pay more for their own defense. You’ve been saying versions of that about Japan for 30 years. Would you object if they got their own nuclear arsenal, given the threat that they face from North Korea and China?
TRUMP: Well, you know, at some point, there is going to be a point at which we just can’t do this anymore. And, I know the upsides and the downsides. But right now we’re protecting, we’re basically protecting Japan, and we are, every time North Korea raises its head, you know, we get calls from Japan and we get calls from everybody else, and “Do something.” And there’ll be a point at which we’re just not going to be able to do it anymore. Now, does that mean nuclear? It could mean nuclear. It’s a very scary nuclear world. Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is nuclear, and proliferation. At the same time, you know, we’re a country that doesn’t have money. You know, when we did these deals, we were a rich country. We’re not a rich country. We were a rich country with a very strong military and tremendous capability in so many ways. We’re not anymore. We have a military that’s severely depleted. We have nuclear arsenals which are in very terrible shape. They don’t even know if they work. We’re not the same country, Maggie and David, I mean, I think you would both agree.
SANGER: So, just to follow Maggie’s thought there, though, the Japanese view has always been, if the United States, at any point, felt as if it was uncomfortable defending them, there has always been a segment of Japanese society, and of Korean society that said, “Well, maybe we should have our own nuclear deterrent, because if the U.S. isn’t certain, we need to make sure the North Koreans know that.” Is that a reasonable position. Do you think at some point they should have their own arsenal?
TRUMP: Well, it’s a position that we have to talk about, and it’s a position that at some point is something that we have to talk about, and if the United States keeps on its path, its current path of weakness, they’re going to want to have that anyway with or without me discussing it, because I don’t think they feel very secure in what’s going on with our country, David. You know, if you look at how we backed our enemies, it hasn’t – how we backed our allies – it hasn’t exactly been strong. When you look at various places throughout the world, it hasn’t been very strong. And I just don’t think we’re viewed the same way that we were 20 or 25 years ago, or 30 years ago. And, you know, I think it’s a problem. You know, something like that, unless we get very strong, very powerful and very rich, quickly, I’m sure those things are being discussed over there anyway without our discussion.
HABERMAN: Will you –
SANGER: And would you have an objection to it?
TRUMP: Um, at some point, we cannot be the policeman of the world. And unfortunately, we have a nuclear world now. And you have, Pakistan has them. You have, probably, North Korea has them. I mean, they don’t have delivery yet, but you know, probably, I mean to me, that’s a big problem. And, would I rather have North Korea have them with Japan sitting there having them also? You may very well be better off if that’s the case. In other words, where Japan is defending itself against North Korea, which is a real problem. You very well may have a better case right there. We certainly haven’t been able to do much with him and with North Korea. But you may very well have a better case. You know, one of the things with the, with our Japanese relationship, and I’m a big fan of Japan, by the way. I have many, many friends there. I do business with Japan. But, that, if we are attacked, they don’t have to do anything. If they’re attacked, we have to go out with full force. You understand. That’s a pretty one-sided agreement, right there. In other words, if we’re attacked, they do not have to come to our defense, if they’re attacked, we have to come totally to their defense. And that is a, that’s a real problem.
Nuclear Weapons, Cyberwarfare and Spying on Allies
HABERMAN: Would you, you were just talking about the nuclear world we live in, and you’ve said many times, and I’ve heard you say it throughout the campaign, that you want the U.S. to be more unpredictable. Would you be willing to have the U.S. be the first to use nuclear weapons in a confrontation with adversaries?
TRUMP: An absolute last step. I think it’s the biggest, I personally think it’s the biggest problem the world has, nuclear capability. I think it’s the single biggest problem. When people talk global warming, I say the global warming that we have to be careful of is the nuclear global warming. Single biggest problem that the world has. Power of weaponry today is beyond anything ever thought of, or even, you know, it’s unthinkable, the power. You look at Hiroshima and you can multiply that times many, many times, is what you have today. And to me, it’s the single biggest, it’s the single biggest problem.
SANGER: You know, we have an alternative these days in a growing cyberarsenal. You’ve seen the growing cybercommand and so forth. Could you give us a vision of whether or not you think that the United States should regularly be using cyberweapons, perhaps, as an alternative to nuclear? And if so, how would you either threaten or employ those?
TRUMP: I don’t see it as an alternative to nuclear in terms of, in terms of ultimate power. Look, in the perfect world everybody would agree that nuclear would, you know, be so destructive, and this was always the theory, or was certainly the theory of many. That the power is so enormous that nobody would ever use them. But, as you know, we’re dealing with people in the world today that would use them, O.K.? Possibly numerous people that use them, and use them without hesitation if they had them. And there’s nothing, there’s nothing as, there’s nothing as meaningful or as powerful as that, and you know the problem is, and it used to be, and you would hear this, David, and I would hear it, and everybody would hear it, and — I’m not sure I believed it, ever. I talk sometimes about my uncle from M.I.T., and he would tell me many years ago when he was up at M.I.T. as a, he was a professor, he was a great guy in many respects, but a very brilliant guy, and he would tell me many years ago about the power of weapons someday, that the destructive force of these weapons would be so massive, that it’s going to be a scary world. And, you know, we have been under the impression that, well we’ve been, I think it’s misguided somewhat, I’ve always felt this but that nobody would ever use them because of the power. And the first one to use them, I think that would be a very bad thing. And I will tell you, I would very much not want to be the first one to use them, that I can say.
HABERMAN: O.K.
SANGER: The question was about cyber, how would you envision using cyberweapons? Cyberweapons in an attack to take out a power grid in a city, so forth.
TRUMP: First off, we’re so obsolete in cyber. We’re the ones that sort of were very much involved with the creation, but we’re so obsolete, we just seem to be toyed with by so many different countries, already. And we don’t know who’s doing what. We don’t know who’s got the power, who’s got that capability, some people say it’s China, some people say it’s Russia. But certainly cyber has to be a, you know, certainly cyber has to be in our thought process, very strongly in our thought process. Inconceivable that, inconceivable the power of cyber. But as you say, you can take out, you can take out, you can make countries non-functioning with a strong use of cyber. I don’t think we’re there. I don’t think we’re as advanced as other countries are, and I think you probably would agree with that. I don’t think we’re advanced, I think we’re going backwards in so many different ways. I think we’re going backwards with our military. I certainly don’t think we are, we move forward with cyber, but other countries are moving forward at a much more rapid pace. We are frankly not being led very well in terms of the protection of this country.
Today was Easter Sunday, and many people took their families for an outing. In Lahore, Pakistan, many Christians took their children to Gulshan-e-Iqbal park for a special outing in an area set aside for them.
A Taliban faction called Jamaat-ul-Ahrar set off a huge bomb in the parking area, right near the swings, the picnic area and the children's rides, with the exploding vehicles in the parking area adding to the carnage. One source, ARY News estimated that as much as five to six kg of explosives may have been used. The blast was heard all over the city. Javed Ali, a 35-year-old who lives opposite the park near the center of the city, said the force of the blast shattered the windows of his home. “After 10 minutes I went outside. There was human flesh on the walls of our house."
According to Senior police official Haider Ashraf, ball bearings were found all over the crowded park. That's a common tactic, one frequently used by the Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians against Israelis. The blast force turns the ball bearings into high velocity anti-personnel weapons, rather like shrapnel.
As Jamaat-ul-Ahrar spokesman Ahsanullah Ahsan told the Associated Press in a phone call, "The target was Christians."
It was indeed. It was their way of saying 'Happy Easter, infidels.'
At least 72 people have been pronounced dead so far, many of them children. The injured are still being treated and number is over 300 so far, many of them in critical condition. The death toll will undoubtedly go higher.
The Pakistani authorities, of course, have officially condemned the attack and the chief minister of Punjab province, Shahbaz Sharif, has announced three days mourning and pledged to ensure that those involved in the attack are brought to trial.
But this is Pakistan, where Christian churches are routinely bombed and burned, where Christian girls are abducted, raped and forcibly converted to Islam and where Pakistan's ISI, the equivalent of MI5 or the CIA collaborated in the horrific attacks on Mumbai in 2008. Any action taken will likely be marginal and based on eliminating a few convenient jihadis rather than actually eliminating the cause...the hatred many of Pakistan's Muslims have for anyone who isn't one.
As I reread what I wrote after Mumbai, I sadly see I was exactly right when predicted that the open attacks on soft targets in large cities was a successful tactic and that we would see it in the near future in places like Paris, Boston and Brussels.
And I also wrote that the West was wasting its time expecting Islam to moderate itself. Individuals can and do, but the faith as a whole never will. And it is more than just a few 'fanatics perverting a great religion' as President Obama is fond of saying in between golf games and tango sessions. It is a mainstream and accurate reading of the Qu'ran, Sunna and Hadiths, the Muslims scriptures. And a significant number of the Muslim world follows and agrees with that reading whether they actually participate in the killing, finance it, or simply cheer it on.
And for those Muslims whom don't, whom disobey Qu'ran 5:51 too openly*, they have a lesson to teach them and any others with the same idea. So even many of those Muslims disgusted by jihad and worried about the effects on their peaceful life in the West generally keep their mouths shut. It's not like the western governments, America included are listening to them anyway. Many others, who see the great strides triumphalist Islam is making in the appeasement minded West are listening to what's being preached in their mosques and on social media and moving in that direction, something called 'radicalization' by the usual suspects.
Is there a solution?
President Obama thinks he has one. As he mentioned today in an Easter message that barely mention Easter, his idea of a solution is to bring even more of these people to America expose them to our freedom and they will change like magic. And to make it even harder to vet them, he's had his people openly tip off these 'refugees' to scrub their Facebook and other social media accounts.
Our president's solution is also to protect and empower Islamists, especially the Muslim Brotherhood and their jihad friendly mosques. Or to quote him,America and the world will never solve this 'problem' without the assistance of friendly, helpful Muslims And we had better be careful to avoid offending them in any way. Federal Agents are actually prohibited now from considering religion, immigration status or national origin in their investigations.
In Europe, it's even worse, where people actually get arrested for defending themselves against 'refugees' or merely speaking up about what's going on.
The thing is, we've been trying it Obama's way since the Clinton Administration. How has this approach worked? Have jihadist attacks in America and around the world increased or decreased?
I think the answer is obvious.
Our president's attitude, echoed by EU leaders like Angela Merkel is why Paris and Brussels happened, why the Tsarnaev brothers were able to enter America so easily and pull off a jihad attack in the heart of the Boston Marathon, why Nidal Hassan was able to kill American military at Fort Hood and why a jihadist Muslim couple were able to massacre people in San Bernardino. And why there's a lot more of the same coming, if our present path continues.
And of course, as President Obama and his minions always say, none of this has anything to do with Islam. Except it obviously does unless we want to continue lying to ourselves, or continue believing the comforting lies of others.
"The frog in the pot felt like the water was a little warmer than he would have liked, but always figured it would cool down a bit as he got used to it. Oddly enough, it only got warmer."
That's exactly where we are right now. and as the water keeps getting hotter and hotter, people like Barack Obama, Angela Merkel and numerous others keep saying, 'turn up the heat....there's no problem here.'
We have normalized being attacked in this manner. We are committing suicide by inches, and it sickens me. Especially when it comes to our now routine responses.
Incidents like Brussels or Lahore are of no more import nowadays than a car accident, a train accidentally derailing or a celebrity suicide. They're all just 'tragedies.' What a shame. Anything good on TV tonight? 'Tragedy' just happens like that some times. Few of us, especially many of our self benighted elites want to call this what it is. Instead, they concentrate on idiocy like hashtags, cartoons, candlelight vigils and asinine, turgid platitudes. And too many people play follow the leader instead of screaming bloody murder and demanding forceful action. So of course, the carnage increases.
And why not? Warring against dar harb, the part of the world not controlled by Islam is exactly what Mohammed told his followers to do, to fight the infidels until they either killed them, converted them to Islam or until the infidels 'feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya (tribute in money or slaves) willingly.**
For jihadis you see, it a win-win. Murder the kuffars, the non-believers and you receive the virgins and other sensual delights and are a heroic martyr even if you die in the attempt. If you survive, you're a hero and are rewarded with money, booty or sex slaves, depending on the locale and the circumstances.
Salam Al-Marayati is the head of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a Muslim Brotherhood front group' He has a long history as both an apologist for Islamism and as President Obama's choice for an envoy to international forums and organizations.
Right after 9/11, he was a guest on a radio talk show in Los Angeles and as usual was attempting to blame the jihad attack on Muslim grievance in Israel and elsewhere ad nauseum. In response to a question from an outraged caller who complained that there was no legitimate excuse for the 9/11 attack, Al-Marayati simply replied, " What do you want? A holy war with a billion Muslims"?
Whether we like it or not, we are in that Holy War, perhaps not with all Muslims but with a substantial segment of Islam. And they realize it, even if we're in denial.
Are there Muslims whom are horrified at this? Yes. But no one in power is listening to them.And still many other Muslims simply go along with the flow because it's safer and easier. Or because it's their tacit way of helping jihad along. Saleh Abdeslam, the chief suspect in the Paris attacks lived openly in his old neighborhood in Molenbeek for months, protected and sheltered by the local Muslim community while he planned the Brussels bombings not far from where he was hiding out. He was only caught by chance.
Interesting place, Molenbeek. It shows what Europe once was and what much of it is becoming. Like Sweden, now the rape capitol of the world:
President Obama and those whom think like him would have us continue along that same path.
What's needed if we want to avoid that is not just a strategy but an entire change in attitude. The free peoples of the world, especially America must utterly reject any leadership that preaches appeasement of Islamic fascism.
Not only must we protect our borders, but we have to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood front groups here in America and utterly break them, intern them securely or deport them. We should actually follow the lead of Saudi Arabia of all countries and declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group. At the very least, a new version of the Smith Act is called for, requiring these groups to reveal their memberships, assets and sources of funding. Mosques must be monitored and shut down if their imams preach sermons designed to promote Islamic fascism, jihad or Islamism in any way.
And instead of cuddling up to Islamists, we need to approach American Muslims and invite them to make a choice to either be part of our American family or leave. As former Australian Prime Minister John Howard once famously told Muslims in his country, "Live here, be Australian."
Many Muslims in America would be ecstatic to be listened to for a change and given the opportunity to make that choice openly. The ones that can't or won't we can do without, frankly.
We need to take a clear look at many of the almost one million Muslims President Obama has allowed into America during his term. Many of the ones let in as refugees have had little or no vetting, and a number of them have committed crimes, have been on public assistance for years or have certain undesirable associations. They need to be vetted properly. In Sweden after a huge public outcry, over 80,000 Muslim refugees have had their visas cancelled and are finally being deported, a fraction of what is needed demographically but at least a start. There's no reason America can't do the same. And no reason we can't have a temporary ban on migration from countries like Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, the Palestinian Authority and other countries with similar problematic ideologies.
If what I'm suggesting sounds vaguely familiar, it's pretty close to what President Franklin Roosevelt did after Pearl Harbor to secure the American homeland. He arrested and deported anyone whom looked, talked or smelled like a security risk, he completely broke up groups like the Nazi funded German-American Bund and some of their copycats, he strengthened controls on the border, and he gave the FBI carte blanche to monitor phone calls, mail, and cable traffic to root out spies and saboteurs. He didn't even shrink from interning Japanese citizens until the perceived danger to our Pacific Coast was no longer a problem.
Even more importantly, he got Americans involved in the war effort on the home front as well as Hollywood and the media. They understood that temporary measures were necessary to save the country.And it worked fairly well, even if FDR was fairly blind to the Soviet spies and sympathizers in his own administration.
In terms of our military strategy, once our base is secure we need to be fairly hard line with countries that finance and import jihad or Islamism. It can no longer be business as usual with Qatar, the Saudis, The Emirates or Turkey. Erdoğanis no ally of ours. Since our need for their oil is a thing of the past, we have a fair amount of leverage and persuasion we can use.
We need to get rid of the PC brainwashing of our military, lose the ridiculous Rules of Engagement that actually endanger both our military and their mission and bring back superb combat generals like McCrystal, Mattis and Carter Ham who were forced out of the service during the Obama Regime, and address the severe morale problem in our military as well replenishing its equipment and numbers.
We need to re-engage with Russia's Putin in areas of mutual interest, and revive our relations with the Israelis, the Kurds and our other friends in the Middle East like Egypt's President al-Sissi who recently begged for our help in taking out jihadis in Sinai and has not yet gotten an answer.
And if we're going to concentrate on defeating ISIS, we need to avoid George W. Bush's mistake of taking out the Sunni counterbalance to Shi'ite Iran as we did with Saddam Hussein. If we are really to win this war, we need a realistic plan not just to deal with ISIS but with Iran's threat as well. In terms of our national security, recognizing that both are equally dangerous is vital.
Do we have the stomach for this? Perhaps not. The rot indeed goes deep. But delay in confronting an existential threat is like taking out a high interest loan on your future. You always play heavy interest, and if you delay too long, sometimes the price is even higher than you can pay and still survive.
If our freedom means anything to us as a people, as a nation we have no choice. Or rather we do, but that choice involves numerous atrocities committed on our soil, a horrendous body count and the loss of everything our Founders bequeathed to us.
The reality is that stark.
* "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number..." Quran 5: 51
** "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."- Qu'ran, 9:29
(Pickthal translation. There are numerous similar statements recorded in the Qu'ran and Hadiths, the life, times and pronouncements of Mohammed as recorded by his closest followers.)
Every week on Monday, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: Why Antisemitism?
Bookworm Room :The obvious answer, of course, is that in the West, the Jew is the perpetual outsider and in the Muslim world, the holy book instructs Muslims to be genocidal antisemites. Another obvious answer is that the medieval laws forcing Jews into being financiers (because they were barred from so many other professions but, unlike Christians, they were allowed to charge interest on money) meant that they became inextricably intertwined with the idea of capitalism., Leftists therefore hate them reflexively -- never mind the actual facts on the ground, which is that for the majority of Jews throughout history have had little or nothing to do with capital and capitalism.
Honestly, though, I think the real answer is a more abstract one and it relates to the second and third core issues in the Bible. The first core issue in the Bible, of course, is God and each Jew's relationship with God. While I suspect many are jealous of the Jews' special relationship with God, I doubt that it drives too much antisemitism.
On the rare occasion I've had people speak sneeringly to me about the Jews' status as "God's chosen people," I've reminded them that this covenant hasn't always been a blessing to the Jews, reminding the snarkers that, while it's true that Jews have outlasted all other societies on earth, this longevity has too often been paired with genocidal antisemitism. As Teyve said in Fiddler on the Roof, "We are Your chosen people. But, once in a while, can't You choose someone else?"
As I said, the real issue for antisemites lies in the second and third issues the Bible raises. The second core issue is the moral demands Judaism places on people. These are hard demands that require us to be our best selves in relationship to God, our spouses, our family, and our society. And finally, the third core issue is the Biblical obsession with justice -- not fairness, not equality, not feeling good, but justice.
Morality and justice are concepts that are antithetical to totalitarianism of any stripe, whether it's economic, theocratic, aristocratic, oligarchic, fascist, nationalist, or something I haven't named or that hasn't even come into being. These concepts are inimical to immorality and cruelty. By their very existence, they mean that evil people and evil societies know, deep down inside, that they are evil, and that they put the actors outside of God's love, protection, and his covenant. Even atheists, deep down, know that, if there's an afterlife, they will not fare well there if they deviate from Biblical rules for good conduct.
In other words, Judaism is a mirror in which people are forced to acknowledge whether they are good or bad, moral or immoral, just or unjust. And for the bad, the immoral, and the unjust, every living Jew they see is an painful reminder of their existential failures.
The Razor : For over 5,000 years Jews have maintained their identity. They have been an ever present thread that has wound itself through the very fabric of civilization.
During that time empires have risen and fallen. Ethnic groups were absorbed and disappeared. But not the Jews.
That identity has come at a cost, the making of the Jew as the “other” or “outsider.”
It’s easy to blame the “other” and the “outsider” for our crimes and errors, and when times get tough we aren’t strong enough to resist the urge to blame the “outsider” for whatever torments us.
We aren’t strong enough yet to resist that temptation, as the rising tide of anti-Semitism in post-war Europe proves.
JoshuaPundit : Why antisemitism? It survives and will continue to survive because like any other psychosis or fantasy, it provides what appear to be certain necessary benefits, at least in the short run.
For starters, it's a convenient excuse and rationalization of one's own miserable circumstances. And a convenient excuse for theft.
After the Roman Diaspora in 70 CE, Jews became an educated, prosperous and powerless minority in both the Muslim and Christian worlds, which made them a convenient target both as a scapegoat and for plunder.
The pattern was repeated over and over; Jews are invited to settle, and improve the local economy with their skills as merchants, artisans and skilled professionals like doctors and architects. In the latter stages, some of them become intermediaries used by the local aristocracy to lend out their capital and as sources of loans for themselves. And when the time is right, you simply rile up the peasants or the fellahin to stage a pogrom..after which the Jews are either murdered or expelled, their wealth and property are confiscated and all loans outstanding get canceled to the rejoicing of all.
Aside from the obvious financial benefits, it also works well for the local clergy as a lesson to the faithful as to what can happen to 'non believers.'
And a few years later, when the economy tanks again, you simply invite the Jews back, since they always need somewhere to live. And then you can simply repeatthe cycle.
Nowadays, the pattern remains similar, although it's been expanded somewhat by the advent of Israel. The Muslims did their very best to destroy Israel in1948 and even with modern weaponry and British officers lending a helping hand to jihad and genocide against the sparsely armed and outnumbered Jews, they failed.
But not entirely, since they were able to ethnically cleanse almost a million Jews from their countries and plunder everything they possessed. Their take from that heist in property and assets is estimated conservatively at close to a trillion US dollars in today's money. But having gotten away with that crime (nothing much was ever done about it by the 'international community' or the UN) a funny thing happened. With no oil, surrounded by enemies and little in resources but the brains and sweat of their populace, the Jews created a free country with a booming economy, self sufficiency in water and food alone among the countries in the region and the strongest military in the area. Meanwhile, most of surrounding Arab nations wallow in squalor, poverty and despotism. Is it any wonder many of them think the Jews are getting assistance from Satan? How else could this happen,that they not only survive against Allah's will but thrive?
In much of Europe as well, the old reasons of scapegoating, envy, and theft largely remain, to which we can add a new rationale when it comes to Europe - guilt.
Europe, with some honorable exceptions at best ignored and at worst avidly participated and profited from the Holocaust, one of the most successful pogroms in terms of plunder and body count in history. That behavior ripped the mask from the myth of European culture, and Europeans have never forgiven the Jews for it.
Couple that with the millions of Muslims Europe has imported and the need to appease them and you have the reasons for today's attitude towards Israel& in much of Europe in a nutshell. And, as America increasingly imports Muslims and they ally with the Left as they have in Europe, we see this psychosis increasing in the US as well. Israel wasn't supposed to survive, you see. It's a problem, and if not for those stubborn, stinkin' Jews the Muslims wouldn't be all riled up. It's their fault for not being victims like they were supposed to! You see, at this point, there are quite a few people who regret Israel's existence and envy her success. They miss having the Jews as a powerless, easily targeted minority.
Mark Twain presciently summed this attitude up in his famous essay on Jews in Harpers back in 1897, writing about his contemporary Theodore Herzl's early attempts at creating a Jewish nation:
"Speaking of concentration, Dr. Herzl has a clear insight into the value of that. Have you heard of his plan? He wishes to gather the Jews of the world together in Palestine, with a government of their own - under the suzerainty of the Sultan, I suppose. At the Convention of Berne, last year, there were delegates from everywhere, and the proposal was received with decided favor.
I am not the Sultan, and I am not objecting; but if that concentration of the cunningest brains in the world were going to be made in a free country (bar Scotland), I think it would be politic to stop it. It will not be well to let the race find out its strength. If the horses knew theirs, we should not ride any more."
Exactly.
GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD : Oh, that's easy. For Xians - we believe nothing is ever truly random. After the Fall, mankind was promised a redeemer. The LORD was quite specific multiple times where He would come from. Generally speaking, from a lineage of Jews. More direct - from the House of David.
Thus Satan, made many attempts to enslave and destroy an entire race to prevent the arrival of the redeemer - whom we call Jesus Christ. A truly Satanic conspiracy of hideous intentions, Jewish history until the coming of Christ has several attempts chronicled. Notably the adventures of Esther and Haman among others - even King Herod got in the act with the infamous massacre of innocents to prevent the Savior.
After Christ's death and resurrection, Satan became busy with an ersatz religion of sorts - upgrading an Arabian peninsula moon god with ancient ungodly assets - in order to deceive and damn souls into eternal Hell.
Anti you know whatism may have been passed on to infernal minions to become a daemonic conspiracy cultivated (probably as revenge for fulfilling the LORD's prophecy) among people to harass, murder and enslave people for something they truly have no control over: Being born Jewish.
Truly, hatred and persecution are a normal part of the human experience. Taking a dislike, mild or intense, to people who are different in one way or another, by ethnicity, race, color, creed, eating habits—no matter what—is part of the normal human condition. It's throughout recorded history, and found all over the world. Sometimes extraordinarily vicious and sometimes even amusing. -
Anti-Semitism is something quite different. It is marked by two special features. One of them is that Jews are judged by a standard different from that applied to others.
The other special feature of anti-Semitism, which is much more important than differing standards of judgment, is the accusation against Jews of cosmic evil. Complaints against people of other groups rarely include it. This accusation of cosmic, satanic evil attributed to Jews, in various parts of the world and in various forms, is what has come to be known in modern times as anti-Semitism and is Satanic and/or daemonic in origin.
Hatred and persecution are a normal part of the human experience. Taking a dislike, mild or intense, to people who are different in one way or another, by ethnicity, race, color, creed, eating habits—no matter what—is part of the normal human condition. We find it throughout recorded history, and we find it all over the world. It can sometimes be extraordinarily vicious and sometimes even amusing.
Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason :When I hear the word anti-Semitism I think of Evil. Biblicly and historically I understand the division between the Jewish people and the Arabic people who share the same patriarchy arising from Abraham. But to understand anti-Semitism we have to acknowledge the existence of God and His counterpart which is Evil. Evil grows when people as a society deny the existence of God and publicly mock true believers. When that void is created; when we turn away from God; Evil works its way into our lives by promising power to those who will embrace the most vile, perverse, and horrific acts imaginable.
Jews are a target in many instances I believe because of their relatively small populations in proportion to their ability to succeed and accumulate wealth. It is very easy when an economy fails to point to a group and demonize them as being the cause of everyone’s economic struggles. This cycle has been repeated over and over in history. Those who seek power will play on the emotions of the masses and vilify the “haves” as enriching themselves at the expense of the “have nots.” We see it happening today around the world. Here in America the socialists and communists, using the names Democrat or Progressive, are exploiting class warfare such as we have not seen in decades.
With an anemic economy and so many out of work or underemployed, along with our youth and young adults having been indoctrinated with social and economic justice propaganda, it’s likely to produce a growing anti-Semitic sentiment.
Neo-Nazi and White Aryan groups are growing in Europe today. An old German professor who grew up in Nazi Germany once told me there were a lot of professors at the university who would have made good Nazis. I asked him what makes a good Nazi, and he explained it was someone who would sell their soul for a little bit of power. When a people are led to believe they share a common enemy they end up doing unspeakable things to other human beings if they are convinced it is for the common good, especially if given the promise of power. Evil is quick to fill the void created by turning our backs on God. The promise of Power is the most successful tool Evil uses to achieve its goal. The ultimate goal of Evil is complete and total destruction.
Well, there you have it.
Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning. It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.
And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?
Christ is risen from the tomb, conquering death by death- Old Russian Easter hymn
Today is Easter Sunday, when Christians all over the world rejoice in Jesus's Resurrection, the heart of their faith.
Easter is closely linked to Pesach, the Jewish holiday of Passover. Jesus had come to Jerusalem for the Passover ceremonies and the famous Last Supper was a Passover seder. The bread Jesus spoke of as recorded in the Gospels was none other than the humble matzoh, the unleavened bread the Hebrews made because they were 'in haste to depart' from Egypt and had no time for it to rise.
Easter in Pakistan
At this time, when religious freedom is under attack in ways and in places where we never supposed it ever would be, it is important to reflect on the message of Passover and Easter, and how that message can free us from bondage...especially the chains we forge ourselves.
Orthodox Christians celebrate in Jerusalem, Israel.
I wish all of my Christian friends and readers a joyous and blessed Easter.
The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week's Watcher's Council match up.
"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." " - Sheila Cronin, leader of the feminist organization NOW
"The haste and vehemence with which scores of Duke University professors publicly took sides against the students in this case is just one sign of how deep the moral dry rot goes, in even our most prestigious institutions.
We have become a society easily stampeded, even by the unsubstantiated, inconsistent and mutually contradictory statements of a woman with a criminal record.
All it takes is something that invokes the new holy trinity of the intelligentsia -- "race, class and gender." The story of a black woman gang-raped by white men fit the theme so compellingly that much of the media had no time to waste trying to find out if it was true before going ballistic." - Thomas Sowell on the Duke Lacrosse rape case.
“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” - Susan Brownmiller, noted feminist authoress and academic.
Rape is among the most turbulent issues on college campuses these days. If social justice warriors–Progressives–are to be believed, the incidence of rape on campus has reached epidemic levels. They proclaim that 20-25% of college women will be raped during their time on campus, and some claim the numbers of victims are even higher.
This is, of course, nonsense, and no extensive, multi-year studies are required to prove it. If valid, reproducible research revealed that whenever a car was started, there was a 25% chance it would explode, who would dare drive? If anyone truly believed that 25% of all women attending college would be raped, what father would send his daughter to college? Which young woman would voluntarily set foot on a campus, particularly knowing that most are victim disarmament zones?
Even so, the battle rages, yet it is an old battle. It is not a battle for the prosecution of actual criminals, nor is it a battle for public safety. As always, it’s a battle of the culture wars; the ultimate prize: ultimate political power.
In this particular battle, conservatives fight for the rule of law–equal justice for all. This requires that people that actually commit rapes be prosecuted and convicted. It also requires that anyone accused of rape–or any crime–be afforded all of the protections of the Constitution, including the rights to counsel, and due process. For conservatives, it goes without saying that actual rape victims must be protected and given all reasonable aid and support. That’s just part of the rule of law, of common decency.
Progressives, however, have different objectives, particularly where alleged rape on campus is concerned. They fight for progressive outcomes, victim empowerment, and documenting large numbers of rapes, which gives them political power to agitate for other progressive goals. Their ideology, their narrative, requires every “victim” be absolutely believed in every particular, regardless of evidence. Evidence is very much beside the point; they have no intention of prosecuting rapists. They only need men to be proclaimed rapists and expelled from schools. This allows them to validate the narrative of 25% of college women being raped, which gives them more political power to persecute “rapists,” which continues the cycle, resulting in political power and control of others. The law and the Constitution are meaningless to them, actual impediments to their desired outcomes.
It is important to also keep in mind that a substantial, perhaps defining current in feminist theory as taught and practiced at universities is that all men are rapists. Some feminist professor/theorists and pundits go so far as to preach that even consensual intercourse is rape, and women that enjoy it simply aren’t sufficiently evolved to understand their oppression and degradation.
And speaking of degradation, the media are always delighted to support the social justice narrative, because it’s their narrative. Consider this from Mary Katherine Ham regarding the Duke Lacrosse case, where ridiculously false accusations of rape were ultimately exposed:
New York Times Public Editor Dan Okrent diagnosed the media coverage of the case in the documentary as journalists excited to find all their pet social-justice issues in one story.
‘It was white over black, it was male over female, it was rich over poor, educated over uneducated. All the things that we know happen in the world coming together in one place and journalists, they start to quiver with a thrill when something like this happens,’ Okrent said.
And it was all a lie, all of it; from the first moment, and to this day, the media have learned nothing. Few, if any, have actually apologized for or retracted their false Duke coverage, and after viewing a contemporary documentary that exposed the Duke hysteria for what it was:
Ten years later, despite a recent lesson in humility with the Rolling Stone UVA rape story, some of that grudging tone remains, as in Slate’s write-up on the documentary: “[I]t’s a bizarre experience to watch a documentary that expects the viewer to root for a bunch of accused rapists.
What’s bizarre is a refusal to admit that the accused Lacrosse players were so blameless, the state’s Attorney General took the unprecedented step of publicly declaring them to be innocent. Not only was there insufficient evidence to link them to any rape, not only was there no such evidence, there was voluminous evidence to prove their innocence. For example, at the time of the supposed rape, one of the defendants was a mile away using an ATM, as time-stamped video footage proved. As for the rest, there was not a molecule of DNA evidence, a fact the prosecutor and DNA lab tried to hide.
In that case, the rule of law was vindicated, and innocent men were able, at horrific cost, to prove themselves innocent. Ultimately the right outcome, but not quite the way our system of justice is supposed to work. For social justice warriors, the outcome, and the fact that the Lacrosse players retained lawyers, was abhorrent. In one case, we see the stunning differences between the rule of law and social justice.
The invaluable Ashe Schow has done important work exposing the sordid motives of the social justice movement in persecuting young men. She reports on a new document that epitomizes the social justice perspective, The Blueprint For Campus Police: Responding to Sexual Assault, out of the School of Social Work at the University of Texas at Austin:
A new ‘victim-centered, trauma-informed’ approach to handling campus sexual assault appears at first glance to be an improvement on the current model of allowing campus administrators to play police, judge, jury and executioner. But look deeper into the new guidelines and one will see that this is far from an improvement and more an attempt to railroad accused students while looking impartial.
In our non-Council category, we had a tie, which I had to break as per our bylaws. It was between Bearing Arms -Second Amendment as Second-Class Right? A Dismal Warningsubmitted by The Daley Gator, a fine essay by Bob Owens about dangers to our Second Amendment rights and Michael Totten's – Putin Declares Victory in Syria submitted by Joshuapundit, a piece well up to Totten's high standards as he discusses recent developments in Syria.
I liked both articles but decided to defer to the Bearing Arms piece on this one.
Here are this week’s full results. Nice Deb, The Daley Gator and GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD were unable to vote this week but none were affected by the usual 2/3 vote penalty for not voting:
Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote -The Compass – Brussels: Then and Now submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD
See you next week!
Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks' nominees for Weasel of the Week!
And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning. It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.
And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?
Simply disgusting in every sense. There's no other term for this president's conduct and demeanor.
Welcome to the Watcher's Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the 'sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.
And Joshua defeated Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword....And the Lord said unto Moses, "Write this for a memorial in the book and tell it unto the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven..the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation."- Exodus 17:14
That's the way the Big Boys talked in the old days...when conversations with the Lord were commonplace and Amalek and his pals were freely labeled as the rabid, evil animals they were for picking off stragglers and attacking and killing Jews out of hand just for the pure sport and profit of it as the Jews moved through the desert after leaving Pharaoh's Egypt. No illusions there...you have to defeat evil, not negotiate with it. G-d said so,and He most likely knew what He was talking about. In any event, He'd been right enough times so that Moses, Aaron and Joshua weren't about to argue the point.They girded themselves, defeated Amalek and then proceeded on their way in peace.
Nowadays, the so called 'international community' makes a practice of shrugging off the murder of Jewish women and children as 'resistance' and screaming like wounded peahens about any efforts to defend them. For that matter, it seems they shrug off the rape and murder of their own after a few candlelight vigils, hashtags and platitudes about the latest 'tragedy.'
Some things never change, just the names of the players. Appeasing evil never ends well.
Note another thing about the above passage...it says there will be war with Amalek from generation to generation, and gives the Jews the responsibility of fighting in that war to defeat evil wherever it rears its ugly head at them.
The Jews commemorate one of those victories over a latter day manifestation of Amalek Wednesday night when they celebrate Purim, the victory of Queen Esther and Mordecai over the evil Haman, who successfully manipulated the King of Persia into signing on to the murder, enslavement and plunder of every Jew in Persia.
Yes, crazed, genocidal Persian maniacs are not a new situation for the Jews. Like I said, only the names of the players change.
The Megillah known as The Book of Esther which is read in every synagogue in the world at Purim relates how Queen Esther,wife of the Persian king initially reacted like a great many people do even today, by simply pretending that what was going on didn't concern her,and rationalizing it. However, she came to her senses and realized that a threat to her people was a threat to her, even in her place as high up and removed as the King's palace. Esther realized it wasn't enough to save herself. She knew she needed to save her people as well, or perish with them. She took the commandment to battle Amalek to heart and risked her life and position to defeat Haman and his evil allies and, along with her brother Mordecai, lead her people to victory.
Purim is preceded by a fast in honor of Esther, and then, it's party time. Many Jews observe the custom of sending a special basket of goodies to friends and family, the Megillah reading is a noisy and joyous affair especially loved by children, celebrations, noisemakers and costumes abound, and even a bit of liquid libation is quite common..along with some traditional special pastries known as humantashen, shaped like the three cornered hat Haman traditionally wore.
Think of it a sort of like the Jewish equivalent of carnival.Without the steel pan music and bare midriffs, but still lots of fun.
As far as I'm concerned, Purim may have special meaning for the Jews, but it ought to belong to the whole world. It's a joyous occasion celebrating the triumph of good over evil, as well as a lesson we badly need to take to heart, given what all of us face today from Amalek's modern descendants.
One more thing... I'll let my pal Ya'akov at Dry Bones let you in on a little something, the hidden joke of the whole holiday, something he catches perfectly with his usual wit:
Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question:What Do You see As America's Greatest National Security Challenge? GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD: During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was the center of U.S. foreign policy and comprehensive strategy. Today’s Russia is not important enough to merit that role.But Russia is important, hostile, and active enough to take seriously.
A long time enabler of uncool regimes, Russia has the ability to totally queer the mix on a global scale. Just lucky perhaps, the Commonwealth's ginormous size guarantees global consequences whenever She acts out.
"If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I would have to point to Russia. And if you look at their behavior, it's nothing short of alarming."
First, Putin’s Russia is a regime that combines a lack of respect for political, civil, and economic rights with a dysfunctional economy.
Second and most dangerous for the United States, Russia poses a series of worldwide strategic and diplomatic challenges, including buildup of its nuclear arsenal and military.
Third, Russia poses threats to discrete U.S. friends, allies, and interests around the world.
Fourth, Russia’s cooperation with bad actors and its increasing tendency to play a spoiler role pose another set of threats.
The U.S. approach should instead be to seek to impose costs on Russia—reputational, rhetorical, economic, financial, and military costs. The U.S. is vastly better equipped to bear costs than Russia because it has a larger and more flexible economy and political system. In any long-run competition, Russia will be at a profound disadvantage to the U.S. unless the U.S. imposes costs on itself, imposes them inefficiently on Russia, or simply fails to respond to Russia at all. Russia cannot afford to pay at anything like the U.S. rate.
Russia will always be able to gain a short-term advantage by doing something, such as invading Ukraine, that the U.S. cannot immediately counter. But the long-term cost of such victories for Russia will be high, and the U.S. can and should make them higher.
The U.S. approach should be to defend its allies and interests and to respond to destructive Russian actions with policies that raise Russian costs going forward and thus incentivize Russia to choose other, more desirable actions. A key requirement for this strategy is predictability. The U.S. must be willing to draw a clear line around its most vital allies and to make it clear that it has interests in other areas that can be defended in ways that are compatible with reasonable Russian concerns. Finally, it must reply to undesirable Russian actions calmly, firmly, and without evasions, so that the Russian regime will understand in advance that it cannot act without consequences.
The U.S. would ideally like Russia to become a normal nation that defends its interests, but that views the existence of independent nations on its border as not fundamentally threatening or a challenge to its sense of self. But this is not a realistic goal for U.S. policy. The experience of the past two decades implies that this ideal is, at best, a very long way off. Stating it as an aim would encourage the U.S. to delude itself about the limits of the possible.
Instead, the long-term goal of U.S. comprehensive strategy toward Russia should be to embed firmly in the minds of Russia’s leaders, whoever they may be, that their actions will have consequences and that Russia’s problems will become steadily worse if it continues on its current path. Genuine improvements in Russia’s behavior should meet a genuine U.S. response, but the essence of this strategy is that the U.S. should reciprocate fairly for cooperative actions, while imposing disproportionate costs for undesirable actions.
A comprehensive U.S. strategy toward Russia cannot be viewed in isolation. Russia is not the only or even the most important international actor in the world, and U.S. foreign policy cannot be viewed in isolation from U.S. comprehensive strategy at the highest level, which includes U.S. domestic policy. Stating a comprehensive strategy is easy, but carrying it out is much more difficult.
The essence of U.S. comprehensive strategy writ large is to defend the values embodied in the Constitution, which emphasize liberty, flexibility, and adaptability and which discourage autocracy, top-down control, and centralized direction. Of course, liberty has a fundamental and inherent value of its own, but the growth and power that have resulted from it has made the U.S. a superpower.
A U.S. comprehensive strategy toward Russia that relies fundamentally on the long-run superiority of the American system is simply a facet of an even wider strategy that values liberty under law at home and abroad and that views the international realm as a domain where power matters, but that can be structured by responsible nations for their mutual advantage. Today, regrettably, Russia is not a responsible nation.
Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : America’s greatest national security challenge is our government’s wanton disregard for the rule of law. If the laws that have been established were enforced we would not be facing the problems we see in our country today. Our national security would not be so precarious if we were actively securing our borders, enforcing immigration laws, and deporting illegal immigrants and those who have overstayed their legally obtained visas.
In addition, if we were not decimating and demoralizing our military and were committed to maintaining peace through strength our national security would not be threatened by Iran and radical Islamic terrorists, along with Russia, China, and North Korea.
It appears to me our trusted servants are more concerned with retaining the power of their respective political parties than with our very real national security threats. The party of the president seems intent on transforming America into a full blown socialist country.
We have the laws, we have The Constitution, we must insist all of our elected officials be held to their oath of office or have them removed. Our greatest national security threat is the enemies residing at the highest levels within our government.
The Glittering Eye : The simplest answer is that we don't have a serious national security challenge. I little more nuanced answer is that our greatest security threat is the outcome of years of trying to be the only adult in the room. We've infantilized the Brits, the Europeans, the Japanese, and the South Koreans. Now we're astonished at the threat posed by their behaving like infants.
I guess if I had to pick a real external threat I'd pick disorder or even collapse in China.
JoshuaPundit : To quote that ancient Pogo cartoon:
That's our biggest national security threat in a nutshell.
We have a porous southern border with little or no control over who comes into the country. We are importing thousands of Muslims with little or no oversight, many of whom come here with attitudes totally inimical to our culture, our Constitution and our country. And there's also a high tolerance from the White House for Islamists, who control foreign funded mosques staffed by jihadist Imams. And there's little or no oversight over them either until the bodies start piling up.
So back to Clausewitz's first principle: we need to secure our base.
We need to totally revamp our military, both in sheer numbers and in terms of our military culture. Both have been severely damaged by the Obama regime, although the rot started with George W.Bush. We need to regain our capability to fight a two front war if necessary. We need to end politically correct indoctrination and the use of our military as a medium of 'social justice' and return it to what it should be...a strict meritocracy whose primary function is to break things, kill people and win clear cut victories with strictly defined objectives. And our military needs to get the message from its commander-in-chief that they no longer have to worry about fighting a war handcuffed by ridiculous Rules of Engagement that endanger both their lives and their mission, that they aren't going to be subjected to politically motivated prosecutions and that if wounded, they will receive the best in care from an admiring nation. A pay raise wouldn't hurt either. There's no reason for military families to have to go on food stamps because they can't make ends meet.
In terms of foreign affairs, we badly need to re-establish our credibility with our allies. Part of this involves major decisions on whom are allies actually are as opposed to whom they aren't. And the realization that we can engage and cooperate with some countries in specific areas where we have common goals. Both Russia and China have severe internal problems, and instead of demonizing them, negotiating with them effectively while clearly establishing our own strategic needs and boundaries represents a major foreign policy opportunity.
The biggest threat to our security and to world peace is Islamism and jihad, especially because it involves horrific weapons (and those whom would sell and distribute them) in the hands of people like Iran and to a much lesser extent Pakistan who are simply not rational actors. That is something that must be dealt with now, in order to keep the cancer from metastasizing.
Well, there you have it.
Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning. It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.
And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?
The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week's Watcher's Council match up.
"You know, when Republicans were in charge, we doubled the debt. But, now, our concern is the Democrats are in charge and they're tripling the debt. So, really, our concern is that we want smaller government. - Rand Paul
"We believe, as our founders did, that 'the pursuit of happiness' depends upon individual liberty; and individual liberty requires limited government." - Paul Ryan, GOP Speaker of the House
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. ” - Goethe
I was struggling to explain to a Bernie supporter why his “compassionate” politics will not stop the risks to Americans from further socializing and therefore growing American government. In military terminology, a force multiplier is a single capability that, when added to an enterprise, dramatically increases the effect.
The problem with government is that, as it grows, no matter the original good intentions behind it, it invariably becomes a force multiplier for evil. Thus, once government power passes a certain point, government becomes the equivalent of a bull in a china shop, with its every motion causing massive damage. Incidentally, the china in that shop is always you — the individual.
I defy any one of you reading this to identify a huge government that has not eventually done great damage to its citizens. This is true whether the government was an imperial monarchy (Rome or China), a theocracy (Iran), a military dictatorship (every tin pot tyrant in Latin America), a socialist government (Greece), a communist government (USSR or China), or a demagogic cult of personality (a la, say, Mugabe in Zimbabwe).
Individuals can be stupid and even unbelievably cruel. Every day the media is filled with stories from around the world of people killing or harming each other, whether through carelessness or deliberate action. Reading these stories, we may long for a strong hand from above to create order. If you’re an environmentalist, you want government to beat down the polluters and the deniers. If you’re devoutly religious, you want leadership that stops blasphemy, premarital sex, abortion, and pornography. If you’re a feminist, you want to bring to heel men who demean women. People with strong ideals believe that they are being good when they seek an equally strong government that will enforce those beliefs.
There’s actually nothing wrong with voters within a small community enacting regulations that allow government to enforce their beliefs. Small governments are close to and responsive to the voters, making them ideal laboratories of democracy. For example, Colorado is a perfect test case for marijuana legalization. Local voters asked for it, it’s being implemented, and an interested America can see whether legalizing pot is a good thing or a bad thing. Because the experiment’s scale is finite, the ensuing damage is limited, those who hate the law’s effects can move elsewhere without leaving their country, and a local law is more easily reversed than something enacted and enforced at a national level.
Likewise, if California voters elect legislators who think that green cars will save the world, and therefore give enormous subsidies to rich people for buying electric cars at a discount . . . well, go for it. Smart, wealthy Californians will buy the subsidized car and then head for a low-tax state. Those who can’t afford the cars and resent the subsidies can also move. Meanwhile, the rest of America can marvel at a state with the highest poverty rate in America that subsidizes rich people’s toys.
When things happen at a national level, where governments are increasingly removed from their representatives (not to mention entirely removed from ideologically-driven Supreme Court justices) they rapidly become anti-democratic. This is most obvious when it comes to money because anything that involves the federal government involves money — incredibly vast sums of money. Where there’s money, there’s corruption. That’s how it came about that, during a painful recession, taxpayers across America find themselves funding Solyndra and related entities — not because doing so was good business, but because the government put its thumb on the scale. When those companies failed, there was nowhere for ripped-off Americans to go, short of emigrating.
In our non-Council category, the winner was Garry Kasparov in the Daily Beast with submitted by Bookworm Room. Chess champion Kasparov has a few things to say here to Bernie Sanders about socialism, having experienced it first hand....
Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks' nominees for Weasel of the Week!
And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning. It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.
And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?
