Category Archives: politics

Democracy is a Racist Politic?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what John Kerry, the motorboat skipper who sits in the Secretary of State’s chair, claimed Wednesday.

But here is a fundamental reality, if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both.

The “choice” of one state is, as even this guy knows full well, a cynically proffered strawman.  Israel is strongly in favor of a two-state solution; the only ones who refuse the option are the terrorists polities Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.  Absent that strawman dolly, the only thing left is the racist center of Kerry’s offensive sentence.

Kerry and his mentor President Barack Obama (D), both elite-school, Ivy League educated gentlemen also know full well this bit of history, recalled by Michael Oren, Israel’s Deputy Minister for Diplomacy, for Hugh Hewitt (h/t to my Lady for reminding me of this):

In 1947, the UN declared that Palestine, as it was then known, would be partitioned into two states—an Arab state and a Jewish state. Notice, not a Palestinian state, but an Arab state. The Palestinians didn’t quite exist, yet, and at least not on the international radar. And the Arabs went to war to destroy the Jewish state when it was created on May 14, 1948. And the city of Jerusalem was divided. The eastern part of the city was occupied by the Jordanians, the West Bank was occupied by the Jordanians. In June, 1967, the Jordanians attacked Israel again. Israel repulsed the attack, reunited Jerusalem under Israeli rule, and captured the West Bank, or as we call it, Judea and Samaria. It is not occupied by international law, because the West Bank and East Jerusalem was never part of a recognized sovereign country. Nobody in the world, except for Britain and Pakistan, recognized the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. So the entire international law claim is spurious.

The next 22 days cannot pass quickly enough; there’s too much damage able to be done by guys as disingenuous as Kerry and his mentor President Barack Obama (D).

Judicial Nominations

Posted on by
Reply

In a more extensive piece about the vacancies into which President-Elect Donald Trump can nominate Federal judges, The Washington Post emphasized the nature of President Barack Obama’s (D) appointments—and by extension, the differences in judicial qualification philosophy between the two Presidents, although that wasn’t necessarily intentional.

Trump is likely to appoint judges with a view toward

[s]tate gun control laws, abortion restrictions, voter laws, anti-discrimination measures, and immigrant issues are all matters that are increasingly heard by federal judges and will be influenced by the new composition of the courts. Trump has vowed to choose ideologues in the mold of the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon….

Even though none of those are matters of ideology, much as the newspaper would like it to be, but rather are matters of adherence to the Constitution and understanding of the legal questions involved in today’s controversies.

On the other hand, Obama selected his nominees on the basis of…diversity.

Obama has used his nominations to systematically diversify the federal courts to look more like the fast-changing country. He appointed far more female and minority judges than any other president in history, and he has paid particular attention to sexual orientation. When Obama took office, there was only one openly gay or lesbian judge, and he appointed 11 more.

“The president, my predecessors and I spent a significant amount of time looking for all different kinds of diversity—racial, sexual orientation, gender, and professional background,” [White House Counsel Neil] Eggleston said.

Not at all an emphasis on Constitutional adherence, or even legal qualification: just whether a nominee was a member of an identity group within Obama’s identity politics.

Desperation of Ego

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama (D) has both.  In a podcast interview with his bud David Axelrod, he said

I am confident in this vision because I’m confident that…if I had run again and articulated it, I think I could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it.

And

Obama also warned [against ending up] “…starting to shut ourselves off from different points of view, shutting down debate, becoming more dogmatic, becoming more brittle. And I don’t see that being a successful strategy for us winning over the country.”

Which is exactly what he’s been doing these last eight years.

Contemplate that for a moment against the backdrop of the bubble in which he lives, thinking in all seriousness as he does that his foreign and domestic policies actually are successes.

Some Folks Get It

Posted on by
Reply

Whether or not the attack on Pearl Harbor was treachery or straight-up war, or whether our dropping nuclear bombs on Japan at the other end of that war was butchery or straight-up war, it’s more than three generations ago; the folks responsible are mostly gone.

No apology needed, said 96-year-old Alfred Rodrigues, a US Navy veteran who survived what President Franklin D Roosevelt called a “date which will live in infamy.”

“War is war,” Rodrigues said as he looked at old photos of his military service. “They were doing what they were supposed to do, and we were doing what we were supposed to do.”

This sailor who was there understands the thing.

It’s past time to move on, especially for the press, whose interns seem to have been having trouble—ever since Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to Pearl was set up—finding things for their scribes to write about.

It’s an Old Technique

Posted on by
Reply

The technique is illustrated in HL Mencken’s Minority Report, excerpted by Don Boudreaux in his Cafe Hayek:

The really unanswerable objection to Prohibition was always the Prohibitionists.  If, in fact, they had believed honestly that forbidding rum to man would improve the world and had offered serious arguments for it, however unconvincing, most other men would have been disposed to listen to them politely.  But it was quickly manifest that improving the world was the last consideration in their minds.  What moved them was simply a violent desire to satisfy their egos by harassing their fellow-men.

It’s been about ego and not about social betterment for the Left for some time.  Even Mencken’s remark merely repeats the Left’s own characterization of its ego.  Here, to repeat a theme of my own, is Herb Croly, one of the founders of the modern Progressive movement, on his intellectual and moral inferiors:

[T]he average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat.