Mosab Hassan Yousef, a Palestinian, takes the floor at the UN to tell tyrants that their support for Palestinian “leadership” betrays the people.
I don’t have anything to add. Just watch this amazing video:
Mosab Hassan Yousef, a Palestinian, takes the floor at the UN to tell tyrants that their support for Palestinian “leadership” betrays the people.
I don’t have anything to add. Just watch this amazing video:
Don’t let Paul Joseph Watson’s “conspiracy theory” language put you off. His video accurately diagnoses the Deep State’s dangerous death throes.
Paul Joseph Watson’s latest video, below, is a very good summary of the phony war the Deep State is waging against Trump. At certain points, he definitely sounds like an Alex Jones/Infowar conspiracy nut . . . except that when he talks about the Council on Foreign Relations, I have a good feel for what he’s talking about.
Back in the late 1980s, when I was a young lawyer, a Democrat, and fancied myself as an intellectual sophisticate, I went several times to CFR luncheon talks. Eventually, though, I stopped going because they didn’t make sense.
You see, even though I called myself a Democrat, I was always essentially conservative. I resented the anti-Israel tenor of the talks. Moreover, knowing European history as I did, I found ridiculous the claim that Europe could be smoothed into a vast federal entity akin to the United States of America.
The CFR did have an underlying agenda that sounded like a non-starter to me: It was to have a world governed by people all drawn from the same mindset. CFR speakers weren’t envisioning one world government under the UN, or anything apocalyptic like that (although I already loathed the UN’s antisemitism back then).
No, they just imagined a world in which the German leader and the British leader and the American leader and the Greek leader and all the other leaders would be drawn from the same intellectual pool: All these countries would be sort-of democracies. That is, the people would ostensibly have the vote, but the governing would be done by small cadres of really smart people who weren’t actually responsive to the voters.
Weird year at the Bookworm Room and beyond. My year was bookended by the deaths of my mother and my mentor. Out in the bigger world, people are coping with the deaths of icons and, if they’re Progressives, the collapse of their fantasy political world.
To me, there are really only two big stories for 2016: Trump’s victory and Obama’s despicable, craven attack against Israel. Moreover, I agree that Obama’s not done yet. He’s been waiting eight years to destroy the Jewish nation and exact revenge against Netanyahu who has, consistently, revealed Obama to be a petty little antisemite.
Sudden silence on the Left. Now that Obama has outed himself as a full-bore antisemite, I’ve noticed that the Left has suddenly stopped claiming that Trump, the most openly philosemitic president in American history, is an antisemite. Before Obama’s perfidy revealed itself, Roger Simon wrote a post saying that, when Trump was initially able to block the anti-Israel resolution, suddenly Trump’s failing was being too pro-Israel. Not enough “tough love,” you know. I wonder how all those Progressive Jews are feeling now.
Obama betrayed an ally. You know how you know that what Obama did to Israel was a betrayal? He did not come out and openly support the resolution, which he would have done if he’d been an honest man. Instead, like the sewer rat he is, he hid behind New Zealand and Senegal, trying to hide the fact that it was he who was leading the attack against Israel. Jed Babbin does a nice job of articulating just how bad Obama’s sneak attack against Israel was.
Bibi’s speech to the UN. Bibi Netanyahu gave an amazing speech to the UN in which, after cheerfully castigating the UN for its biased and reprehensible behavior, he equally cheerfully assured the UN that Israel is a thriving, dynamic culture making strong new alliances all over the world. You can watch the speech, which takes about 40 minutes or if you prefer reading here’s a link to the transcript:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The UN, begun as a moral force, has become a moral farce. So when it comes to Israel at the UN, you’d probably think nothing will ever change, right? Well think again. You see, everything will change and a lot sooner than you think. The change will happen in this hall, because back home, your governments are rapidly changing their attitudes towards Israel. And sooner or later, that’s going to change the way you vote on Israel at the UN.
More and more nations in Asia, in Africa, in Latin America, more and more nations see Israel as a potent partner – a partner in fighting the terrorism of today, a partner in developing the technology of tomorrow.
Today Israel has diplomatic relations with over 160 countries. That’s nearly double the number that we had when I served here as Israel’s ambassador some 30 years ago. And those ties are getting broader and deeper every day. World leaders increasingly appreciate that Israel is a powerful country with one of the best intelligence services on earth. Because of our unmatched experience and proven capabilities in fighting terrorism, many of your governments seek our help in keeping your countries safe.
Obama, with his Leftist idea of historical determinism will discover sooner rather than later that his drive to abandon Israel and partner with Iran will be looked upon as one of the greatest mistakes, not just in American history, but in world history.
Abbas, of course, had to content himself with lies big and small when he spoke.
My take on the decision to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 in place of Andrew Jackson? I find all this change and revisionism both silly and expensive but, having said that, here’s my position: They’re replacing the racist, slave-supporting, Indian-killing founder of the Democrat party with a gun-toting, Republican black woman — what’s to dislike? I think it’s great. And now on to the collected news of the day.
Blame Democrats for today’s nasty politics. Politics has always been a rough-and-tumble business. After all, the people playing aren’t just winning cupcakes; they’re winning power. Nevertheless, for most of America’s history, there’s been a tacit agreement to conduct politics in a civil manner — fight hard, but attack your opponent’s politics, not his person. This year, that unwritten rule has vanished. One can point fingers at specifically nasty politicians, but the real story isn’t that nasty people do nasty things; instead, it’s that the American public is willing to accept that behavior. Andrew Klavan blames the Left for this cultural degradation:
As a proud right-winger, I’m appalled and disgusted by Donald Trump. Nonetheless, I feel a certain schadenfreudean glee at watching leftists reel in horror at his unbridled incivility. They truly don’t seem to realize: he is only the loud and manifest avatar of their own silent and invisible nastiness. In a veiled reference to Trump at a recent lunch on Capitol Hill, President Obama declared he was “dismayed” at the “vulgar and divisive rhetoric” being heard on the campaign trail. “In America, there is no law that says we have to be nice to each other, or courteous, or treat each other with respect,” the president said. “But there are norms. There are customs.”
Are there? When I hear this sort of thing from Obama and his fellow leftists, what I wonder is: Have they not listened to themselves for the past 50 years? Do they really have no idea how vicious, how low, how cruel, and how dishonest their attacks on the Right have been?
No, they haven’t; and, no, they don’t. The Democrat-monopolized media, which explodes with rage at any minor unmannerliness on the right, falls so silent at the Left’s almost ceaseless acrimony that leftists are never forced to confront what despicable little Trumps they often are.
American immobility. I’ve commented multiple times about the fact that Americans are less willing to relocate than they once were. The entire essence of America for several hundred years was people’s willingness to leave their homes, whether in the old country or the new, and to head south, east, north, or west in search of better opportunities.
Today, though, the combination of being weighted down by possessions (even the poor today own more than all but the rich owned in the past) and having welfare to turn to (no matter how minimal that welfare is) means that people in economically dead areas can stick around. It’s not a nice life, but it’s the life they know, and they can always make themselves feel better about things with a bit of meth or heroin.
Kevin Williamson got a lot of flak for saying that we as a nation need to stop expending energy and money on dying communities and should, instead, focus on the vital communities. Obviously, I agree. Now, Williamson, in the face of that flak, has doubled down and I still agree:
My answer is that if there’s nothing for you in Garbutt but penury, dysfunction, and addiction, then get the hell out. If that means that communities in upstate New York or eastern Kentucky or west Texas die, so what? If that’s all they have to offer, then they have it coming.
Mixed in with that common sense you’ll find some hard-hitting attacks on those who challenged Williamson. And I still agree with him.
The bottom line is that,while dying towns are sad and forcing people to leave their roots is sad too, at a societal level, that’s not a reason to keep functionally dead towns on taxpayer-funded life support.
(Incidentally, the same goes for Europe, which in its effort to preserve its past has calcified, making it less of a charming place, and more of a bizarre and frequently unpleasant place. I totally understood what Robert Avrech’s friend was talking about when he said that Eastern Europe, even without the Soviets, is “oppressive.”)
Bush didn’t, Obama wouldn’t, but the next president should: Call into the Oval Office the leaders of Muslim communities throughout America to say, “Because of the First Amendment, the fact that you and the people in your community practice Islam is irrelevant to us in America. Your faith is your business. What is relevant to me as leader of this nation is whether you support America or not. When all of you leave this office, you need to carry a single message to your communities: ‘You are either supportive of America or working to undermine America. If you’re in the latter category, you are on notice here and now that my administration will use every constitutional means available to track you, capture you, prosecute you, and imprison or deport you.’ End of story. Thank you for coming. Goodbye.”
Having got that off my chest, I’m about to engage in a speed round-up, because I’ve got about 40 articles — really good articles — to share with you.
A Cruz convert explains why. The most interesting point is that Trump started with something no other Republican has had since Reagan — vast name recognition.
Slowly catching on to the fact that Trump is the Republican Obama. I’ve been saying from Day 1 that Trump is a white Obama. He promises hope and change by using government power to shape America to his will. And let me say, that is my sole problem with Trump: That he’s all about big government, precisely as Obama is. I find that unacceptable. Jonathan Tobin is another one who’s finally figured out the whole Obama Doppelgänger thing.
Trump is a special interest candidate. And that special interest is Donald Trump.
Is the media sitting on big Trump stories? Ted Cruz thinks that there are some horrible stories to be told about Trump, which wouldn’t surprise me given his sordid personal life and . . . ah . . . colorful business life. Once Trump is the candidate, says Cruz, the media will “suddenly” discover stories that make Trump unelectable. I think Cruz is right because we all know the media, don’t we?
Trump’s enemy list makes me like him. George Soros has given money to 187 different special interest groups that are attacking Trump. (To be honest, a lot of them are attacking Cruz too. Indeed, on Sunday, I heard a New Yorker news hour on NPR during which the speakers agreed that Cruz is the more dangerous of the two leading Republican candidates because he actually believes in the Constitution.) In other words, here’s a list of 187 Soros-funded organizations that try to destroy anything conservative.
Will Trump win the nomination? Scott Elliott, an extremely astute election watcher and a man with a history of accurate election predictions, is not a Trump fan. He’s therefore created the “Stop-Trump-O-Meter,” which tracks the outcomes of state primaries and projects the outcome at the convention. Even if you’re a Trump fan, you’ll like Scott’s meter, because, if you ignore the name, it tells in a clear way where the candidates stand in the Republican primary.
If you destroy the polite people, you create room for the impolite ones. Glenn Reynolds points out that the GOP, RINOS, and the Leftist media establishment did everything possible to destroy the happy, tidy, law-abiding Tea Party. Now they’re horrified that destroying the Tea Party left rage in its place.
USA Today editors question Hillary’s fitness for office. USA Today, in its quest to be “America’s newspaper,” the one read in more hotel lobbies than any other paper, is careful about taking strong partisan stands. That’s why it’s impressive that the editors see Hillary’s penchant for secrecy, and the security-evading steps she took in pursuit of her paranoia, as a serious impediment to the presidency.
This is going to be a down-and-dirty round-up because I’ve just been tapped to help prep for another trial, although thankfully in a more limited way than for the last trial I’ve been working on. My challenge to myself is to limit each paragraph to three sentences:
Caroline Glick has the single best article about the effect on Israel of Obama’s war against that country. It explains what the current situation is and gives some good suggestions about the ways in which Israel can obtain some benefit from the way in which Obama has severed the relationship between the two countries.
I’ve alluded before to the Bowe Bergdahl case, but I expanded on my thoughts a bit at the Watcher’s Council Bowe Bergdahl forum. My contribution is the least interesting; the others are really good.
Having gotten everything it claimed it wanted from the US, Iran is now demanding more. The question is whether Obama will agree, or will use this demand as a face-saving way to back out. My money’s on him saying “yes,” while thinking to himself “Why didn’t I offer that to them in the first place?”
Ignore the nasty language about Bibi Netanyahu in this much-discussed Noah Rothkopf article about the chaos in the Middle East. Rothkopf, while acknowledging that many of the simmering hatreds in the Middle East existed long before Obama came along, strongly argues that Obama’s incoherence is what’s driven the Middle East to a state of total warfare.
Is Obama drinking? The National Enquirer, which has been very careful ever since the Carol Burnett lawsuit, has long hinted that there’s an active alcoholic in the White House. I’ll therefore to be interested to see if it also has headlines about Obama’s libations.
I don’t know why people are upset that a group of British “ethicists” are arguing that, if abortion is okay, it also should be okay to kill babies who have already been born, and to subject these post-birth abortions to the same standards as ordinary abortions (i.e., anything goes). The latest version of the argument comes out of Oxford University, but Princeton’s own Peter Singer has been making this argument forever.
If you are, as I am, an anthropogenic climate change skeptic (as opposed to a mere climate change denier, which would be silly, because the climate is ever-changing), you’ll enjoy this Patrick Moore article explaining in simple terms why he too is an anthropogenic climate change skeptic.
All over America, traditional religious groups are being told that they have abandon what they are if they are to be allowed to exist. On campus, Christian groups are told that it’s discriminatory to insist that people in leadership positions should be Christian. In San Francisco, teachers at private Catholic schools are insisting that they shouldn’t be forced to conform their teaching to Catholic doctrine. It’s high time that conservatives and Christians start serving the Left with its own sauce, and take over LGBT organizations or Islamist groups — and then sit back and watch the fun as those groups start screaming about being taken over.
It’s the nature of centralized government to control everything. In China, disturbed by a line-dancing trend that is sweeping the nation, and that sees millions turn out in the streets to dance, the government has now mandated that the dancing must be taught be government agents and conform to government standards. What the ChiComs didn’t anticipate was a granny backlash against its diktats.
It’s no surprise that Obama wants to hand Israel’s collective head over to the UN on a platter. The UN has just announced that Israel is the world’s worst human rights violator — ahead of Syria and North Korea. The UN and Obama: Made for each other.
Michael Goodwin is on target with another article about the utter, destructive chaos of the Obama administration. Those who said Obama was a devotee of the Cloward-Piven strategy were right.
I sometimes wonder if my family’s entered into a secret compact to keep me away from my computer. I’ve gone from having five hours or so to myself every day from Monday to Friday to having perhaps two hours to myself for the entire week. It’s hard to think sometimes.
Of course, my week’s gone a whole lot better than Sony’s week. It isn’t every day, is it, that a whole studio is forced to cave to blackmail and threats? While I don’t think Sony should have caved (more on that in a minute), I think much of the blame for today’s end game belongs with news outlets that should have assiduously ignored the hacked information. By paying attention to it, they signaled to every hacker in the world, whether individual, NGO, or government, that hacks can be used to blackmail institutions, because the media will gleefully participate in the hack by disseminating stolen information.
I’m sneaking in a few minutes between appointments and telephone calls. It’s been a crazy day with appointments, endless telephone calls, contractors, and a house full of my family members (and, of course, the kids’ friends). Down time happens sporadically and I have problems focusing. I’ve got tons of good stuff here, though, so I’m ignoring my phone, telling the family to wait, and sharing things with you.
** 1 **
From where I sit, today’s big news is the fact that Hamas broke the cease fire practically within minutes of its going into effect. Two more young Israeli men have died. Worse, 23-year-old Hadar Ben Leiah has been kidnapped.
Why is Hadar’s kidnapping worse even than death? Well, first, Israel now proceeds with the knowledge that, whatever steps they take, Hamas will claim that Hadar’s eventually fate will be on Israel’s head. Second, in the midst of a hot war, everyone in Israel understands that Hadar’s fate will be unpleasant. If there’s one thing at which Arabs excel, it’s unpleasant fates. He is in my prayers.
Small wonder then, that Gershon Baskin, Israel’s top negotiator regarding Hamas, tweeted out an uncompromising message to the world:
Al Qassam just signed the death sentenced of many Hamas leaders. There will not be another Schalit deal.
— Gershon Baskin (@gershonbaskin) August 1, 2014
** 2 **
What do you bet, though, that the Obama administration will continue to push for an outcome entirely favorable to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, with no regard for Israel’s security concerns?
Sure, the administration is making big noises about an “unconditional release,” and sounding upset that “individuals” broke the ceasefire. The fundamental fact, though, is that, in this relationship, little details like broken promises, murder, and kidnapping won’t dissuade a Leftist administration that views Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood with the starry-eyed awe of a teeny-bopper getting her first look at a teen idol. The fact that the teen idol is untalented, dissolute, and vicious won’t affect her. This is love — stupid, naive, credulous, doormat-like love.
While most pro-Hamas people are useful idiots (witness the Hollywood types who can’t resist weighing in), there are those in the Left who have a deep, abiding love for Hamas. David French knows what this love is: Evil. I agree. After all, Hamas is not shy about trumpeting its genocidal ambitions.
** 3 **
If you want to see what Obama’s trajectory is, just look at the UN. Even as it condemns Hamas for violating the ceasefire, it’s urging another ceasefire and telling Israel to lay down her arms. Worse, it’s castigating Israel for refusing to share her Iron Dome defense system with the terrorists who are lobbing thousands of rockets at her civilians.
Believe it or not, though, when it comes to the Iron Dome defense, Obama is going one better than the UN. Although I can’t find the link right now (when I do, I’ll update this), the same system that saved Israel is also becoming a stick with which Obama can beat it. It turns out that, while Israel has the Iron Dome, an agreement with the U.S. means that only America has the rockets the Iron Dome uses — and Obama is trying to attack conditions to resupply the Iron Dome arsenal, which is nearly depleted.
Einstein famously defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Frankly, though, I don’t think what we’re seeing here is insanity, because the presumes a certain naive, ineffective good will behind the effort. What we’re seeing here is systemic support for evil. The UN and Obama may pay lip service by disavowing especially visible bad acts, but the fact is that they don’t expect different results because they like these results.
** 4 **
There is no doubt anymore in my mind, though, that Hamas must be utterly destroyed. Yes, something worse may fill the vacuum, and then Israel will have to destroy that something worse. In the meantime, though, Israel can no longer function with this blood-thirsty predator in her airspace and under her land.
Jeffrey Goldberg thinks that Hadar’s kidnapping was the final straw for the Israelis. They are 100% behind destroying Hamas utterly.
** 5 **
And maybe if Hamas goes, then Israel can work on getting rid of UNRWA, a UN agency dedicated to the care and feeding of Palestinians to the Nth generation. Of course, even that isn’t simple. As The Times of Israel explains, if UNWRA pulls out, Israel suddenly becomes entirely responsible for a people made helpless by more than 60 years of ceding their independence and power to terrorists and bureaucracies.
** 6 **
Here’s one possibly good thing, though: I’m hearing from others who have observed what I’ve observed, which is that, this time around, barring the usual media bias towards Israel and the usual idiotic celebratory bloviating, there’s a different feeling in the air.
On my “real me” Facebook page, those who support Israel (Republicans and conservatives, of course), are flooding their feeds with pro-Israel information. Meanwhile, the DemProgs I know are totally silent. There are no posts explaining why Gazans are victims. There’s just . . . crickets. Danny Lemieux has also noticed that, at his place of worship, the usual reflexive anti-Israel feeling is lacking.
Have any of you noticed the same?
** 7 **
England was never philo-Semitic, but it used to be only kind of passively anti-Semitic. The Brits would make remarks about “dirty Jews,” but they wouldn’t do anything about it.
How Political Correctness and the unending influx of Muslims has changed that. England’s largest grocery store chain is boycotting Israeli goods. As if that’s not enough, its movie chains are barring non-Muslims. If there are any sane people left in Britain, I urge you to find a place to shop other than your local Tesco. It was never a very good store anyway. And you might want to think about abandoning the movies too.
** 8 **
From Obama’s point of view, there are probably several good things about the Israel-Hamas war: He can bully Israel; Jews are dying; he has the opportunity to advance the Muslim Brotherhood cause; and no one is paying attention to Obamacare. If they did, they’d notice that it is, as its critics promised it would be, an absolute disaster. At enormous cost, and with tremendous upheaval, it is decimating the middle class by depriving it of insurance as prices rise and insurers pull out of the market. Yes, some previously uninsured are now covered, but there were always less costly and destructive ways to make that happen.
At least you can amuse yourself learning about Obama Golf.
** 9 **
The only good thing coming from the utter chaos Obama has ushered in during this, his second term, is the fact that voters are seeing Republicans as a good, even necessary, alternative.
The bad thing, of course, is that our Congressional morons are a bunch of spineless wimps, as is perfectly demonstrated by the border bill fiasco. Back in the old days, Republicans actually deported massive numbers of illegal aliens — and weren’t ashamed of that fact. They put Americans first and considered borders sacred.
** 10 **
Meanwhile, even as the world goes up in flames around us, our borders collapse, and bad actors flex their muscles, the Obama administration continues working tirelessly to render our military ineffective and, as to those troops serving in this dangerous world, helpless.
** 11 **
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a moron, and a sexist one at that. (If you’re blocked by the WSJ pay wall, I understand that you can do a Google search for this and other WSJ articles, and access the article through the Google link.)
** 12 **
Is Joe Lieberman the last honest Democrat? Reading him take the Obama administration to task for its massive failings abroad, including its betrayal of all of America’s traditional friends, one suspects that he is.
** 13 **
We’re now in the sixth year of the Obama Depression. Although his administration likes to point to some increases in employment numbers. These increases, however, are not good news. Labor market participation is at its lowest ebb in 40 years; the major beneficiaries of the uptick in employment are recent immigrants, not long-time Americans, and most of the jobs are in the minimum wage sector. Keep that last item in mind as you read how the Obama National Labor Relations Board is trying to destroy the franchise system that provides employment so many workers at McDonald’s and other chain franchises.
** 14 **
The thought of Joe Biden — Mr. Grope Every Woman I See — skinny-dipping is just revolting. No wonder the female Secret Service agents aren’t happy. Interestingly enough, just today I received an email with images of animals that have seen their owners naked. I can only imagine how much more extreme the response would be if they saw Joe Biden naked:
** 15 **
And a handful of more serious pictures….
In September 2011, I wrote a post about the way teachers constantly present themselves as the hardest working, most underpaid people in America. I have a great deal of respect for teachers and, to the extent I deliver my kids to their care, I want them to be decent, knowledgeable, skillful, hardworking people — and that’s not something that can be had for free. Nevertheless, I don’t see them as the martyrs that they see looking back from their mirrors.
I touched upon that subject again just this past September, after I’d gotten deluged by Facebook posts from teacher friends, all of them reminding us in a cute way that no one works harder in America than a teacher or for less money compared to their work output. Again, with all due respect for teachers, I think many people, including the troops, would quibble with this. I contrasted the Democrats’ deification of teachers and compared it with their denigration of doctors, something expressed obliquely through Obamacare. Doctors train for years in their profession, work heinous hours, and truly hold people’s lives in their hands — and Obamacare is intended to increase their work load and cut their compensation. My conclusion was that socialism prefers propagandists, something that teachers are perfectly situated to do, over providers.
And speaking of socialists and the way they value different categories of workers, Daniel Hannan has written about the British deification of its National Health Service, a system that is above reproach. It’s not above reproach because it’s so wonderful, mind you. It’s above reproach because no one is allowed to reproach it. Hannan notes that there are two classes that speak well of the system: those who work in it or are ideological supporters of socialized medicine, and those who are loudly grateful to have received decent treatment from it. Hannan makes two points about this second category. First, they’re amiable followers of the more strident ideologues. Second, their gratitude that the system works is itself an indictment of the system’s myriad failings:
What of the wider constituency? What of the undoctrinaire people who say, with conviction, “the NHS saved my grandmother’s life”? Well, to make a rather unpopular point, she was saved by the clinicians involved, not by Britain’s unique prohibition of private finance in healthcare provision. In a country as wealthy as ours, we should expect a certain level of service. We can be grateful to the people involved without treating the whole process as a miracle.
When else, after all, do we become so emotional? Do we get off planes saying “I owe my life to British Airways: they flew me all the way here in one piece”? Of course not: that’s what is meant to happen. Our assumption doesn’t insult the pilots any more than expecting a certain level of competence in healthcare “insults our hardworking doctors and nurses”. On the contrary, it compliments them.
The elision of the “hardworking doctors and nurses” with the state monopoly that employs them is what allows opponents of reform to shout down any criticism. People who complain are treated, not as wronged consumers, but as pests. People who argue that there might be a better way of organising the system are treated, not as proponents of a different view, but as enemies.
Naturally, the above passage made me think of the obeisance we’re expected to pay to America’s teachers. The demand that we recognize what wonderful martyrs they are is a tacit acknowledgment that too many of them are government drones who are, quite rationally, milking a system that gives itself up for milking. This doesn’t mean we should denigrate teachers or take them for granted, but there’s a strong element of a “methinks we all do protest too much” mindset when it comes to the ritual demand that we acknowledge that teachers are society’s new martyrs. After all, as Hannan said, they have a job to do and they should be doing it.
Incidentally, while Hannan doesn’t address the issue of teachers, he does point out that our being bullied into expressing exaggerated surprise and appreciation when there’s competence in a public sector area isn’t limited to Britain’s NHS. His other example is the UN, which you all know I believe is one of the most vile, evil, antisemitic, child exploitative, anti-American, money-wasting institutions on earth, as well as a few other institutions that, coincidentally, are also usually anti-American and antisemitic:
Any organisation that is spared criticism becomes, over time, inefficient, insensitive, intolerant. It has happened to the United Nations. It has happened to the mega-charities. It happened, for a long time, to the European Union (though not over the past five years). The more lofty the ideal, the more reluctant people are to look at the grubby reality.
Cheers to Hannan for stating that, while the Emperor isn’t precisely walking around naked, his clothes are scarcely the golden, bejeweled garments that his sycophants claim he’s wearing.
Hillel Neuer writes in the Times of Israel about an accidental moment of moral clarity at the UN:
Thursday a United Nations interpreter, unaware that her microphone was on, uttered words of truth in reaction to the General Assembly’s adoption of nine politically-motivated resolutions condemning Israel, and zero resolutions on the rest of the world.
Under the mistaken impression that she was speaking only to a colleague, the interpreter uttered the following words into the headphones of every UN delegate, and before a live webcast audience worldwide:
“Isn’t it a little weird? There are nine or ten resolutions against Israel. And I know there’s a problem with the Palestinians. But there’s other bad shit going on and they’re spending so much time on this.”
Laughter erupted among the delegates. “The interpreter apologizes,” said the unfortunate truth-teller, moments later. I sincerely hope she won’t get fired.
Because the one who should really apologize today is the UN. Founded on noble ideals, the world body is turning the dream of liberal internationalists into a nightmare.
For by the end of its annual session next month, the General Assembly will have adopted a total of 22 resolutions condemning Israel—and only four on the rest of the world combined. The hypocrisy, selectivity, and politicization are staggering.
Read the rest here.
I don’t believe there is anyone in the world who knows more about the UN’s ugly obsession with Israel than Anne Bayefsky. In this short video, she nicely sums it up. Almost none of this is new to me, but I appreciate her calm, objective, organized approach to the information. The only thing that I had sort of known, without ever thinking about it, is how radically different the UN’s make-up is now, as compared to its make-up in 1949.
Just as the Democrat party is no longer my Dad’s Democrat party, so too is the UN no longer my parents’ UN. If you’ve washed your hands of this loathsome institution, it’s not because you’re betraying it, it’s because it has changed beyond recognition and is betraying you.
There’s nothing I enjoy more than seeing someone slice and dice Paul Krugman’s latest idiocies. Randall Hoven does a magnificent job. The only sad thing about it is that he’s preaching to the choir. The ones who really should read his article — namely, the ones who think Krugman is actually smart and honest — will resolutely turn their eyes away from anything that doesn’t bear the liberal media’s imprimatur.
I’ve been feeling smug because, next month, I’m going into San Francisco to hear Stephen Moore speak about his new book, Who’s the Fairest of Them All?: The Truth about Opportunity, Taxes, and Wealth in America. I’m feeling even more smug now, because the inestimable Thomas Sowell gives it the highest possible praise:
If everyone in America had read Stephen Moore’s new book, Who’s the Fairest of Them All?: The Truth about Opportunity, Taxes, and Wealth in America, Barack Obama would have lost the election in a landslide.
Now I’ve added excitement to my previously existing smugness.
There’s something wrong with America when it’s Germany that leads the way in announcing that it will not back the formation of a Palestinian state at the UN. Germany’s absolutely right, of course. The Palestinians, despite getting Gaza to themselves, have done nothing to create even a semblance of a state. They have no civil structure, no law, and no economy other than handouts from other nations. All they’ve got is a thriving genocide-centered terrorism industry. I wonder when Susan Rice, who currently does occupy the position of the U.S.’s ambassador to the UN, will get on board with this one.
Speaking of Rice, Republicans on Capitol Hill, and those few RINOs to whom the media grants access, are again allowing themselves to be silenced by the strident Progressive/Democrat bleat that they are “racist” for opposing Susan Rice’s possible nomination to be Secretary of State. As for me, I hadn’t realized Rice was black. I’ve seen her pictures, but I just assumed she was darker of complexion than I am.
Frankly, everyone is darker of complexion than I am. When I was a baby in my stroller, my mom stepped onto an elevator that already held a woman and her young child. The woman took one look at me, and then pulled her child towards herself, saying “Say away from that baby, Amanda. She’s a very sick baby.” I was not sick. That was me in the pink of health. I just assumed that Rice was really healthy. That she self-identifies as black actually surprised me.
But back to the topic at hand, which is the real reasons Rice is unqualified for the post of Secretary of State. (Although I will say that anyone who takes on the job from Hillary Clinton is in the fortunate position of having very little shoes to fill.) For those who lose their brain power every time the word “racist” comes from the Democrat party, Joel Pollak has assembled a list of the top ten substantive reasons to oppose her nomination. Because I wasn’t really paying attention in the 90s, I didn’t realize that her habit of lying to protect the Democrats is an old habit:
9. Refused to call Rwanda genocide a “genocide,” for political reasons. According to Obama advisor Samantha Power, Rice urged the Clinton administration not to call the Rwandan genocide what it was, for fear of the political impact on U.S. congressional elections in 1994. She and others worked to sanitize references to the genocide, scrubbing government memos to remove words such as “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing.”
The other facts in the top ten list are equally damning. It’s not Rice’s dark skin that means she’s not fit to serve. It’s her absence of any sort of moral compass.
And finally, while we’re on the topic of people lacking a moral compass, here’s a short primer on all of the photo and video fraud that Hamas and its media enablers were able to propagate during a conflict that lasted a mere seven days:
Consider this an Open Thread, and feel free to add your own interesting comments and links.
Others have said it, but I like best the way Evelyn Gordon said it. After confirming the historic accuracy of Newt’s claim (namely, that Arabs moved into the land at the end of the 19th century, rather than having lived there since time immemorial), Gordon goes on:
One might ask why this should matter: Regardless of when either Jews or Palestinians arrived, millions of both live east of the Jordan River today, and that’s the reality policymakers must deal with. But in truth, it matters greatly – because Western support for Palestinian negotiating positions stems largely from the widespread view that Palestinians are an indigenous people whose land was stolen by Western (Jewish) interlopers.
Current demographic realities would probably suffice to convince most Westerners that a Palestinian state should exist. But the same can’t be said of Western insistence that its border must be the 1967 lines, with adjustments possible only via one-to-one territorial swaps and only if the Palestinians consent. Indeed, just 44 years ago, UN Resolution 242 was carefully crafted to reflect a Western consensus that the 1967 lines shouldn’t be the permanent border. So what changed?
The answer lies in the phrase routinely used to describe the West Bank and Gaza today, but which almost nobody used back in 1967, when Israel captured these areas from Jordan and Egypt, respectively: “occupied Palestinian territory.” This phrase implies that the land belongs to the Palestinians and always has. And if so, why shouldn’t Israel be required to give back every last inch?
But if the land hasn’t belonged to the Palestinians “from time immemorial” – if instead, both Palestinians and Jews comprise small indigenous populations augmented by massive immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries, with the West Bank and Gaza becoming fully Judenrein only after Jordan and Egypt occupied them in 1948 – then there’s no inherent reason why the border must necessarily be in one place rather than another. To create two states, a border must be drawn somewhere, but that “somewhere” should depend only on the parties’ current needs – just as the drafters of Resolution 242 envisioned.
Read the rest here.