Mid afternoon Friday round-up and Open Thread

Victorian posy of pansiesThe lovely thing about summer is that I get to sleep in a little. I like that.

The less than lovely thing about summer is that I am never alone. More than that, if my family is near me, they want me. Sometimes they want me for irritating reasons, such as asking me to do things they’re perfectly capable of doing themselves (e.g., making themselves lunch); sometimes they want me for necessary things that only I can do (e.g., filling out the parent permission form for an activity or dealing with contractors); and sometimes they want me for flattering reasons (“I just want you to sit with me, Mommy.”). No matter the reason, I can’t write when they want me.

Other times, as is the case now, I have little bits and pieces of time within which to write. I’m therefore going to slam stuff out and you’ll just have to excuse the inevitable typos. If I proceed methodically here, I won’t be able to publish this until Monday.

** 1 **

Mitchell Langbert wrote an open letter to his state Senator asking that New York take away tax breaks and financial subsidies for colleges and universities that support the Boycott, Divest, Sanction movement:

I urge New York State to eliminate tax breaks and financial subsidies for colleges and universities that support involvement with the Boycott, Divestiture, and Sanctions movement. Such support is already illegal under Section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code, which prohibits the use of tax-exempt money for political and ideological purposes.

If Langbert is correct in the way he interprets the law, all of us should make a very big deal out of this one, not just in New York, but across America. (Hat tip: JKB.)

** 2 **

So far, Israel is doing very well. Ironically, one can say that she’s doing well because Obama hates her. With past administrations, when the president asked Israel to stop fighting Hamas, even when she was winning, Israel agreed to the request. She did so because all past administrations tacitly or explicitly promised that, if things get really bad, America will have Israel’s back.

Barack Obama, of course, doesn’t have Israel’s back. He’s mostly in Israel’s face, with a shiv aimed at her jugular. The fact that he manifestly dislikes Israel explains why Israel now refuses to listen to his pleas for her to back down. He’s got no carrot to entice her into listening to him, so Israel sneers at John Kerry when he, a Lurch without charm, insists Israel lay down her guns.

Israel is also doing well because Hamas is doing badly. The IDF put out a poster explaining just how badly Hamas is doing:

Hamas hurting

That poster doesn’t even acknowledge the 150 Hamas fighters who surrendered yesterday.

For more on just how well Israel is doing, you can read an American Thinker article that purports to report a conversation with a very highly placed Israeli specialist and Bibi advisor, or read Tom Rogan’s analysis about Israel’s success is splitting Hamas and Fatah.

** 3 **

That same Israeli specialist and advisor has no doubt about the basis for Obama’s hostility to Israel:

As for what is behind Obama’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood, he attributes it to the fact that Obama is a Muslim and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Perhaps Obama also sees himself as the Caliph of any future Caliphate.

The other thing the post about the specialist mentions is Qatar’s involvement in funding radical Islam. Qatar also funds lots of soccer. My son loves soccer, and he can’t understand why I won’t let him buy gear from Qatar-funded teams.

** 4 **

Contrary to what the Left says or implies, the war between Israel and Hamas is not a case of powerful white people attacking helpless brown people. In fact, Israel is a multicultural, multiracial, multi-religious society — and all people of good will within that society, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion, support stamping out the terrorism emanating from Gaza.

** 5 **

CNN’s Erin Burnett isn’t just another pretty face. She’s a really stupid pretty face, something that comes through loud and clear when Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador U.S., takes her to task for her inanely stupid “but what about the children” plea when it comes to the Gazan children that Hamas deliberate dots around weapons’ sites in Gaza.

Regarding Hamas’s tactics, I’m sure its supporters have made the point that the nature of Gaza (a small, urban area) means that Hamas can’t have nice military bases or remote areas where they can stockpile weapons. That’s true.

What’s also true, though, is that there are choices other than schools and hospitals for storing arms and mounting attacks. Moreover, when your enemy goes out of the way to give you advance warning that it plans to demolish the schools and hospitals in which they’ve determined you keep your weapons and fighters, there are choices other than ordering women and children and sick people to stay in those buildings.

There are always choices — and Hamas, when it chooses, always makes the least moral choice.

** 6 **

Meanwhile, as the world’s Muslims and Leftists castigate Israel for daring to defend herself in a more humane way than any other nation in history, most of the world is turning away from Muslim atrocities in Iraq and Syria. There, Muslims slaughter each other and Christians with fury and brutality, and in great numbers. Looking at this inconsistent behavior, one has to ask, If it’s not the oldest hatred that drives the obsessive focus on Israel, what is driving it?

** 7 **

Sultan Knish explains that terrorism is a tactic like any other. Traditional militaries think in terms of conquering land or towns. Terrorists think in terms of conquering minds through abject fear:

This emotional calculus is misleading because it is an immediate response to a set of deaths. However terrorists are not trading an end to violence for a village or a town. They are calculating how many deaths it will take to force Israel to abandon that village or town. And once they have it, they will use it to inflict more terror on another town or village, this time using rockets.

Israelis were convinced that a price in lives had been put on Gaza and that if they withdrew, the killing would end. But Gaza was just the beginning. Not the end. There is never an end.

The goal of a terrorist movement is to change the relative perceptions of strength and the freedom of movement of both sides. Terror tactics create the perception that the winning side is losing. This perception can be so compelling that both sides come to accept it as reality. Terrorists manufacture victories by trapping their enemies in no-win scenarios that wear down their morale.

Described that way, it’s hard to imagine how to defeat this profoundly cruel psychological warfare. Fortunately, though, Sultan Knish says it can be done but it will take political courage. Unfortunately, how often does one find courage in politics?

** 8 **

My back garden is dotted with solar lights. They’re cheap to buy and don’t require any electrical boxes, outlets, or cords in the garden. Buy enough of them, and they’ll illuminate deck stairs just enough so that no one falls or will keep people from wandering off a paved pathway into the dirt. It would take a whole let of them, though, plus a full moon, to allow you to read a book by their light. Solar energy just doesn’t deliver that much power, and that’s the problem with trying to turn it into a viable fossil fuel alternative.

** 9 **

You’ve heard it everywhere else, so you may as well hear it from me too: Jonathan Gruber, an important Obama-care architect, has castigated the Halbig decision for daring to read Obamacare’s language literally and, on that basis, deciding that subsidies only support state-run exchanges. Of course the government meant to include federal exchanges when it talked about subsidies, says Gruber.

A few years ago, though, Gruber was singing a different tune, when he gloated about tying subsidies to state exchanges. His theory then was that it would incentivize states to set up their own exchanges. In a sane world, Gruber would lay to rest the DemProg’s discontent with the Halbig decision, but I don’t see that happening any time soon.

** 10 **

Kimberly Strassel says that the Halbig case proves that the IRS, which has become an arm of the Democrat party, cannot be entrusted with Obamacare. It will do anything, including disobeying the law as written, to support the Democrat agenda.  With that in mind, I wouldn’t just remove Obamacare from the IRS’s purview.  I would argue for eliminating it entirely, and starting anew.  (Like that’s going to happen.)

** 11 **

I don’t think Noemi Emery really explains the roots of Hillary’s sense of political and monetary entitlement, but in trying to explain it, she sure paints a picture of a women who believes that the White House and millions of dollars should be hers for the asking.

My take is that Hillary didn’t get to this point because of her Arkansas exile or victimized-wife roles. I believe she’s just your ordinary sociopath, who managed to lever herself into a power path, and now wants more just because she’s the sociopath she is.  In other words, her history didn’t make her a sociopath; the fact that she is a sociopath shaped her history.

** 12 **

Charles Krauthammer has offered a very interesting theory about Obama’s bizarre passivity as the world burns around him: he believes that the arc of history will go his way so that he can just sit back and watch it happen.

If that idea — that bad guys will wither away in any event — sounds familiar, it’s because you heard it from Jimmy Carter about our own American Revolution:

[I]n some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war.

Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the colonial‘s really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely, and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way.

I think in many ways the British were very misled in going to war against America and in trying to enforce their will on people who were quite different from them at the time.

See, if you’re just a little nicer to people on the other side of a quarrel, they’ll fall in line with you. It’s that easy. So if Obama just doesn’t throw America’s weight around, everyone will make nice in the end.  Obama is helped in this theory by the fact that he seems happy to have that arc of history bend to Islam, not the western, Judeo-Christian tradition.

** 13 **

In the 1930s, many decent-ish people in Europe and England supported Hitler’s rise. That’s because initially they saw his fascism as the European antidote to Communism. It somehow never seemed to occur to Europeans, accustomed as they were to autocratic government, that the choice wasn’t binary, between a tyrannical government that destroyed the rich and a tyrannical government that co-opted them. Individual freedom never occurred to them.  That was stupidity, or at least limited thinking, on their part.

These same Europeans stopped being decent-ish but stupid, and became evil, though, when they still supported the Nazis despite the latter’s increasingly insane antisemitism.  That’s another legacy of the European past — it wasn’t just autocratic; it was also antisemitic. European’s embrace of antisemitism into addition to totalitarianism is less forgivable than accepting totalitarianism alone, while the latter is a structural ideology, the former is pure evil.

Fascism and communism may be gone from Europe, and socialism may be dying on the vine there, but the antisemitism lingers on. That oldest hatred seems to be bred into the European DNA. Nor can one just blame the huge Muslim populations in Europe for antisemitism’s resurgence. Just as the Ukrainians and Poles and French, while resenting Nazi invasions, supported Nazi ethnic cleansing, too many of today’s Europeans, while frightened of the Muslims, cheerfully (and almost reflexively) chime in when the cry to “Kill the Jews” rings out.

** 14 **

Mr. Bookworm is convinced that I abandoned him politically when I moved from Democrat to conservative. I keep explaining to him that he abandoned me too, because he’s been moving steadily to the Left. He denies that, since he still rejoices under the name “Democrat.” Hard data, though, seems to support my perception.

** 15 **

A palette-cleanser:

** 16 **

Hamas priorities

This clever twist on a London Underground map makes a powerful point about Hamas’s tunneling under Israel’s borders and into her towns. If Hamas, instead of being impatient and firing rockets, had waited quietly, it’s possible it could have carried out a terrorist attack in Israel that would easily have rivaled 9/11. Thank goodness, I guess, for impatient terrorists.

Gaza underground

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Mike Devx says

    What has surprised me over the last week, is the number of nations offering surprising support – or at least, silence – for Israel, during this war with Hamas.

    Egypt and Saudi Arabia come first to mind. Others in the Middle East as well. European nations are being surprisingly hostile, or at least ambivalent, towards Hamas. I understand that even Abbas’ Fatah in the West Bank is suffering divisions with Hamas.

    Hamas has chosen to ally itself into the Hezbollah-Iran-Syria axis, and that has the exact cause of all of this distancing. I’m still unsure how the Muslim Brotherhood fits into the larger picture, but Egypt is damned sick of them, too,

    The bad actors in the current drama and war, aside from the obvious pure evil of Hamas, are Qatar and Turkey. Probably a few others. Turkey puzzles me; I don’t understand their “long game”. They’re not allied with Iran, are they? Is Turkey’s govt simply caught up in a moment of rabid, anti-Jewish frenzied hysteria, with no regard for any other issue in the region?

    And Obama? He offers unqualified support to Hamas and Qatar, with aid and even weaponry flowing to them with no questions asked, when it truth all such money and weaponry should be shut down completely. Not one penny and not one bullet. Meanwhile, Obama sticks it to Israel every chance he gets. Has a US leader ever been more on the wrong side of history? More on the wrong side of morality itself?

    It all seems to pivot around who is with Iran, and who is against Iran, as all the tensions slowly escalate. That’s my current hypothesis, anyway.

    Finally, I am grateful to have Obama as my guiding moral compass. Whatever he does, I know that the correct moral and geopolitical action is the exact opposite.. I know this is not 100% foolproof, but I think I can peg its reliability at somewhere around 98.5%. I don’t think there has ever been a clearer guide in all of history.

    • Wolf Howling says

      As to Turkey, I think it well established that Erdogan dreams of restoring the Ottoman sultanate that came to dominate the Muslim world in the centuries after the Mongol hordes swept through the Middle East, destroying the old Arab regimes. He has no desire to see Attaturk’s secular experiment carry on. He is making a bid for leadership of Muslims of all stripes.

      • Matt_SE says

        I agree with Wolf Howling’s assessment. To add my own opinion:
        This is a replay of the outbreak of Arab Pan-nationalism in the ’50’s and ’60’s, but instead of secular political ideology, the motivational force is once again Islam (as it was in the distant past).
        And like the Pan-nationalism movement, there is disagreement over who should lead. What you have are bickering warlords, each of whom wants to lead whether they have a “legitimate” claim or not.
        It is simple ambition and will to power, which is a constant in the Arab world.

  2. says

    Solar Green Energy is designed, subsidized, and controlled by the Left and the US Regime to take high quality energy out of the hands of the peasants, forcing the peasants to live on low quality energy. The high quality energy is being reserved, via Sumptuary Laws, for the Ruling Class, Book. You can’t “reserve” something if the lower slaves get to use it too.

  3. SADIE says

    Mike Devx
    Comment:

    Turkey began to ‘tip Crescent’ in Feb. of 1998 when they closed all the casinos.
    Qatar and their partners in the allah brigade of bastards (ABB) is of course, no surprise. In fact they’re the happy recipients of the latest batch of bad players from Gitmo.

    If I were to draw a family tree of who’s who in the sand – Hamas is a stick to stir the Islamic masses into hysteria. Iran controls the hysteria internally and Turkey wants a part of the action. Hezbollah is yet another stick from the branch – their main job is to keep Lebanon unstable and Israel on alert on her northern border. Iran’s penchant for wanting all things nuclear will not go down well with Israel nor Saudi and I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if another couple of emirs in the neighborhood are also in agreement.

    Unfortunately and sadly, America, and the EU keep feeding the animals either directly or indirectly via the UN or its affiliates. I don’t expect the EU to behave any differently than their history has told me. I, do however, expect more (meaning less mullah money) from our own 535. I expect nothing from Obama. America is his 18-hole golf course – he’s just playing through until he gets to the 19th hole and watering spot.

  4. Wolf Howling says

    As to Jimmy Carter (now only the second worst President in our nation’s history), he makes a leap in logic with no factual basis. Canada and Australia in particular are free because Britain learned its lesson with the thirteen colonies. There is nothing in the historical record that supports the claim that they (or we) would be anything more than colonies today, still being dictated to from the Thames, if the thirteen colonies American colonies had not joined together and rebelled. This (long outdated) theory of historical determinism espoused by the left is just sheer sophistry.

    • JKB says

      Well, even when Britain embraced the very English tenets of the modern world that were incorporated in the founding of America, they didn’t go so far as we Americans. And even beyond that, the government of the People, by the People and for the People was very much unique right up until the early 20th century. Most everyone else lingered on under monarchy and then socialist authoritarians.

      But would the sense have evolved in the Parliament if the break of the Americans hadn’t provoked the sentiment? Radical interpretations of the text seldom leap off the page unless someone is throwing the book at you.

      • Wolf Howling says

        The American Revolution was fought by the colonists for a single purpose – to be treated to the same rights as a British citizen that a person living on the British mainland experienced. All of the words we used in the revolution came almost verbatim from the writings of the English philosopher’s and politicians in the 17th century, as they justified their own rebellions — the English Civil War and then the Glorious Revolution. When American’s said that “the power to govern comes from the people,” they were not breaking new ground, they were quoting a member of England’s Parliament not long after they executed King Charles I.

        That American’s adopted the centuries old rights of a British Citizen, with only a very few, and relatively minor, modifications, was anything but breaking new ground. What our Founders did that was revolutionary was then to craft limits on the power of all of government so as to correspond with those rights, something that the British never did.

        Standing here today, our rights are virtually the same as a person living in London in 1776. Unfortunately, the same is not true in the UK, where Parliament was, in the 1770’s, just then taking the unstated position that all those centuries old rights existed only to limit the power of Crown, not Parliament, so that any law Parliament passes was and is de facto Constitutional.

        Those two differing views of British rights in respect of Parliament were quite literally at the heart of the revolution in 1776. It is why we said that we had a right not to be taxed without the consent of our representatives – a right first articulated in the Magna Carta and repeated in the 1688 English Bill of Rights – while Parliament said it could tax us despite the fact that we elected no representatives to Parliament, since it was supreme.

        For example, Englishmen won the right to keep and bear arms in the 17th century. It is codified in the English Bill of Rights of 1688 signed by the Crown. In 1776, Londoner and colonist alike had a right to own and bear arms. We copied down that right in our Constitution, and its why we still enjoy it today. Parliament, in 1776 and now, views itself as supreme, and its why, beginning in the 20th century, Parliament has been able to all but wholly ban guns from private ownership in the UK.

        As to doing away with an aristocracy, the colonies had from day one been a meritocracy. Many a person came to the colonies without a penny and made good, while many an aristocrat came here expecting wealth to be handed to them and died a pauper. American society did away with hereditary rights only in as much as they weren’t of any value in a frontier land where virtually all new wealth was being created not by graft and suckling off the public teat, but by hard, personal work and engagement in commerce that cared not a wit for one’s heredity. It was not a conscious decision, it was the effect of being placed in a Hobbsian state of nature.

        On a last note, by 1775, England was even then very much a Constitutional monarchy, with the Crown having a say, but with Parliament being dominant. The revolutionary aspect of the American experiment was not the introduction of democracy or republicanism, or even with the end of the monarchy. It was writing it all down on paper – the rights of people and the limits of power of government – and leaving the sole power to make changes with the people.

  5. says

    Britain already had debts from the Napoleon wars, that’s why they were taxing the colonies so heavily. But once their military expedition was broken, they were even more in the red, so couldn’t force Australia or Canada if they wanted to. Thus those nations got more autonomy, and it’s where most of the loyalists went anyway.

    • Wolf Howling says

      My pedantic nature is kicking in. The Napoleonic Wars didn’t start until well after the American Revolution was concluded. I think you mean the French Indian / Seven Years War. Canada and Australia didn’t become independent members of the commonwealth for another 150 years after the conclusion of the American Revolution.

      And the taxes were never heavy on the colonies. Taxes from Parliament on internal colonial commerce were non-existent through 1764. Britain made all its money on the colonies through trade, and it was a very lucrative trade indeed. In 1700, Britain did 5 million pounds sterling in trade with the world. By 1770, Britain was doing 5 million pounds sterling in trade with the thirteen American colonies alone, and maintained an annual balance of trade with the colonies in its favor of over a million pounds.

      Britain’s biggest problem was that Adam Smith didn’t write his magnum opus on trade until 1776, a year after war with the colonies had already begun. Parliament was in many ways the author of its own downfall. The members of Parliament didn’t calculate the immense wealth and indirect taxes being generated by the colonial trade as being of any value.

      And Parliament, like the modern left, took a very static, linear view of taxes. They placed ridiculously heavy taxes on many goods to raise revenue and succeeded only in making smuggling a dominant form of commerce in not only the colonies but also along the entire coast of the British mainland. They could well have cut the taxes by 90% and doubled or tripled the revenue into the public purse, as well as increasing trade itself exponentially.

      There is no better example of Parlaiment’s problems than what they did with the East India Company. It was Britain’s greatest cash cow ever. And Parliament, greedy bastards one and all, taxed the cow until the milk gave out. By 1773, they had taxed it to the point that the company could no longer pass on the costs of the taxes to the consumers, who had turned, both in the colonies and England itself, to buying the much cheaper – and smuggled – Dutch tea. And like our modern banks, the East India Company was “too big to fail,” so Parliament nationalized it. They found tons of tea going to waste in British warehouses, so what they did was lop off all the taxes but for a very tiny one left on just to establish Parliament’s right to tax the internal commerce of the colonies. Even with this tiny tax, it was still cheaper than even smuggled Dutch tea. Then Parliament sent all the tea to the colonies. The rest is, as they say, history.

  6. Mike Devx says

    Sadie says: I expect nothing from Obama. America is his 18-hole golf course – he’s just playing through until he gets to the 19th hole and watering spot.

    Great turn of phrase, Sadie! And so true.

    Sometimes I feel like my America has turned into Obama’s FunHouse. You know, the amusement park kind of FunHouse, with the Twisting Halls Of Distorted Mirrors, and the room where all the furniture is up on the ceiling, and there’s grandma up there too, rocking away in the shadowy corner, and all the floors are deliberately skewed and warped. A fun place to visit for a few minutes, to shake up your sense of perception, but you’d never want to actually live there.

  7. Matt_SE says

    On the subject of recurring anti-Semitism:

    Two sites I regularly read are Zerohedge (ZH) and Vox Popoli (VP). ZH for financial news, often anti-establishment in flavor, and VP for social commentary.
    Both sites have much to offer, but have overt anti-Jewish overtones. On ZH, it’s mostly from the commenters. On VP, it is both from the site’s author and the commenters…though it should be noted that pro-Jewish views and comments are not prohibited or shouted down on either site (but expect to be vigorously opposed, if you push pro-Jewish views).

    I think the common theme that prompts both sites’ anti-Semitism is the idea that Jews have an inordinate amount of influence and control over society’s institutions (in fact, every society’s institutions…it’s a world-wide phenomenon), and this has done great harm. Meaning, harm not from “overrepresentation,” but from the outcomes pursued by these institutions.
    This is, of course, the “Jewish world conspiracy” thing, though it isn’t expressed in such terms on the sites.

    However, this attitude may be an expression of correlation: that the vast majority of Jews in the U.S. (and worldwide, historically, if I’m not mistaken) are political liberals/leftists.
    So what these sites and commenters are angry about isn’t Jewishness, per se, but leftism.

    So when leftist ideas fail, as they inevitably do, the blame falls on the Jewishness of the “perpetrators” instead of where the actual fault lies: leftism.

    This explains the attitude more in the U.S., as Europe has always been more socialist. In Europe, many Jews were prominent Communists. Some people blame them for that.
    In the past though, Jews were blamed for being money-grubbers; in other words, too capitalistic.
    It seems anti-Semitism in Europe may just be plain hatred and scapegoating of the “other,” since Jews get blamed no matter what political position they take.

    Also, although this starts many times with finances, the machinations involved by TPTB result in cynicism. The cynicism infects all other topics, coloring discussion of them.
    I’ve seen people on both sites adopt ridiculous positions, conspiracy-theories, really, based on reflexive anti-establishment cynicism.
    For example, ZH has taken the view that the U.S. government is so untrustworthy that any of Putin’s pronouncements should be considered as if they come from a reasonable person. They are given legitimacy that they don’t deserve.

    Anyway, this is just a preliminary thought on the subject and isn’t really worked out. Responses are welcome.

    • Matt_SE says

      One addendum:

      VP did post one idea that might have some merit to it:
      nepotism.

      In the Jewish case, it is the idea that Jews in institutions hire more Jews until the institution is taken over (in this case, “nepotism” refers more to like-mindedness than actual blood relation).
      I have neither data nor experience with this, so I can’t really say if it’s true.
      But it strikes me that this is the exact same argument made about the Gramscian march.
      Once again, there is the correlation between Jews and leftism.

      I wonder if anyone has ever studied various institutions for their representation. Are there certain industries/occupations that really are overrepresented with Jews, or is this an utter myth?
      Objective data would be useful, one way or the other.

      One thing we know is true is that higher education is completely overrun with leftists. Largely, the entertainment industry, too.

  8. Danny Lemieux says

    Matt, speaking as one from a family that contains both Jews and Gentiles in its lineage, I can only offer the following observations. Yes, many Jews excel in finance, communications and the garment industry. In great part, this is because these were the only fields in which they were allowed to engage throughout European history. And, yes, many Jews gravitated to Communism because, living in Eastern Europe and Russia, Communism offered a political structure whereby they shared equal rights with all other citizens. Sadly, they brought that contemptible philosophy to America’s shores. Although, yes, many of our leading communists and Leftist DemProg activisits are Jewish, we should also remember that many of our most articulate, insightful, forceful and effective defenders against them are Jewish as well (Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, David Horowitz, Evan Sayet, Milton Friedman, etc.)

    On the issue of European antisemitism, I see it as proof positive of the madness of crowds.

    How Europeans (and I include especially those who share my French heritage) can turn their backs on a people that have contributed so much to the culture, science, philosophy, art and wealth of Europe in favor of Muslim immigrants that have yet to contribute anything of significant worth and, in the case of many, openly advocate and plot the demise of Europe’s people and culture is totally beyond me.

    In 1492, the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II’s response to Spain’s inquisition against the Jews was, “please, send them to us”. He castigated the Spanish monarch thus, “”Ye call Ferdinand a wise king he who makes his land poor and ours rich!”.

    That, too, should be our response to Europe’s antisemitism.

    • Matt_SE says

      Good points.
      I’m not worried about the talking heads so much as the ideology of the “average” Jew in America.
      I think they vote something like 80% Democrat, which I find (almost) astonishing in light of the overt hostility expressed by an increasing portion of that party towards Israel.
      Of course, Dems also coddle Islamists, who make no distinction about whether a Jew is Israeli or otherwise.

  9. Charles Martel says

    Danny, I saw the photo of the pro-Hamas crowds that marched in Chicago and saw the sickness of Islamic and leftist anti-Semitism strut openly and proudly, knowing that they have the support of Obama, the Democratic Party, and the press. While the idea of America welcoming Jews who are experiencing Europe’s resurgent anti-Semitism is attractive, I’m not sure how much longer this country will be a safe refuge for Jews. My only hope is that there remain enough decent and sane people among us to slap down the Muslim and leftist punks who thrive on Jew hatred.

Leave a Reply