“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Friday, November 28, 2014

The criminal stupidity of US foreign policy started under Bush continues


Hagel didn't start the fire

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam war veteran and the lone Republican on Obama’s national security team, has been fired. And John McCain’s assessment is dead on.Hagel, he said, “was never really brought into that real tight circle inside the White House that makes all the decisions which has put us into the incredible debacle that we’re in today throughout the world.”U.S. foreign policy is in a shambles. But what were the “decisions” that produced the “incredible debacle”?
Who made them? Who supported them?
The first would be George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, a war for which Sens. John McCain, Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton all voted. At least Sen. Hagel admitted he made a mistake on that vote.
With our invasion, we dethroned Saddam and destroyed his Sunni Baathist regime. And today the Islamic State, a barbaric offshoot of al-Qaida, controls Mosul, Anbar and the Sunni third of Iraq.
Kurdistan is breaking away. And a Shia government in Baghdad, closely tied to Tehran and backed by murderous anti-American Shia militias, controls the rest. Terrorism is a daily occurrence.
Such is the condition of the nation which we were promised would become a model of democracy for the Middle East after a “cake-walk war.” The war lasted eight years for us, and now we are going back — to prevent a catastrophe.
A second decision came in 2011, when a rebellion arose against Bashar Assad in Syria, and we supported and aided the uprising. Assad must go, said Obama. McCain and the neocons agreed.
Now ISIS and al-Qaida are dominant from Aleppo to the Iraqi border with Assad barely holding the rest, while the rebels we urged to rise and overthrow the regime are routed or in retreat.
Had Assad fallen, had we bombed his army last year, as Obama, Kerry and McCain wanted to do, and brought down his regime, ISIS and al-Qaida might be in Damascus today. And America might be facing a decision either to invade or tolerate a terrorist regime in the heart of the Middle East.
Lest we forget, Vladimir Putin pulled our chestnuts out of the fire a year ago, with a brokered deal to rid Syria of chemical weapons.
The Turks, Saudis and Gulf Arabs who aided ISIS’ rise are having second thoughts, but sending no Saudi or Turkish troops to dislodge it.
So the clamor arises anew for U.S. “boots on the ground” to reunite the nations that the wars and revolutions we supported tore apart.
A third decision was the U.S.-NATO war on Col. Gadhafi’s Libya.
After deceiving the Russians by assuring them we wanted Security Council support for the use of air power simply to prevent a massacre in Benghazi, we bombed for half a year, and brought down Gadhafi.
Now we have on the south shore of the Mediterranean a huge failed state and strategic base camp for Islamists and terrorists who are spreading their poison into sub-Sahara Africa.
The great triumphs of Reagan and Bush 41 were converting Russia into a partner, and presiding over the liberation of Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the old Soviet Union into 15 independent nations.
Unfulfilled by such a victory for peace and freedom, unwilling to go home when our war, the Cold War, was over, Bush 43 decided to bring the entire Warsaw Pact, three Baltic states, and Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. For this project, Bush had the enthusiastic support of McCain, the neocons and the liberal interventionists.
Since 1991, we sought to cut the Russians out of the oil and gas of the Caspian basin with a pipeline through the Caucasus to Turkey, bombed Serbia to tear off its cradle province of Kosovo, and engineered color-coded revolutions in Belgrade, Tbilisi and other capitals to pull these new nations out of Russia’s sphere of influence.
Victoria Nuland of State and McCain popped up in Maidan Square in Kiev, backing demonstrations to bring down the democratically elected (if, admittedly, incompetent) regime in Ukraine.
The U.S.-backed coup succeeded. President Viktor Yanukovych fled, a pro-Western regime was installed, and a pro-Western president elected.
Having taken all this from his partner, Putin retrieved the Crimea and Russia’s Black Sea naval base at Sebastopol. When pro-Russia Ukrainians rose against the beneficiaries of the coup in Kiev, he backed his team, as we backed ours.
Now, we are imposing sanctions, driving Russia further from the West and into a realliance with Beijing, with which Putin has completed two long-term deals for oil and gas running over $700 billion dollars.
As the U.S. and NATO send planes, ships and troops to show our seriousness in the Baltic and Ukraine, Russian planes and ships test Western defenses from Finland to Sweden to Portugal to Alaska and the coast of the continental United States.
Who made these decisions that created the debacle?
Was it those isolationists again?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”


  1. Hey, Pat, all those nations wanted to be in NATO, their natural home.

    Bush 43 didn't just 'decide to bring them in' by a snap of his fingers.

    They had to apply. And it takes a vote of the NATO members.

    They liked the idea of not being invaded by The Bear again.

    Too bad for Georgia, and Ukraine.....

  2. Turns out Obama is not black at all:

    GWB fathered BHO and is 100 percent responsible for everything he does, and DOES NOT DO.

    1. Also for Clinton, including the blowjobs.

    2. 41 and Clinton bear no responsibility whatsoever for ignoring the spawn of Wilson's War.

      Ron and Rand would have trumped them in spades.

    3. GWB and not Reagan was responsible for lighting the fuse.

      No President, past or present, is untouched by the Demon Bush.

    4. ...I'm no big fan of W, but this has gotten ridiculous.

    5. Agreed.

      It's amazing how folks draw a line in the modern sand and say "it started here"


  3. Pat's finally proven he's what most people have long suspected ...... crazy as hell.

  4. .

    Some might forget that Buchanan worked in both the Nixon and Reagan White Houses. He carried the message and to a degree helped develop policy.

    While today's events were all born in the past, Reagan and those ahead of him to their credit have one major win to stack up against their failures, the end of the cold war. That makes up for a lot.

    I would argue that Bush I did what he had to do and that the 1st Gulf War was borne out of necessity. The wars that followed? Not so much.

    We had no national interest in getting involved in Bosnia. Anything that was done should have been done by the EU.

    All that said, the real failures of US foreign policy became evident to the world with the wars of GWB. They continue in a less robust and more tentative form under Obama.

    In 1991, the US was 'considered' the world's sole hyper power and being 'considered' a hyper power is half the work. It skews perceptions and creates influence. Under GWB, that aura of invincibility dissipated.

    We have had our ups and downs over the past half century. We are currently in one of the troughs.



    1. Iraq was more or less function when George left. Then O'bozo took the troops out too soon. Now look at it.

      I can't say that too often.


    2. Everything started to go to hell after O'bozo's wonderful Cairo Speech.

    3. .

      I can't say that too often.

      Don 't sell yourself short.


    4. I LIKE to bash O'bozo, the ninompoop who took the troops out too soon.


    Islamic State spreading into northern Africa, alarming U.S.

    Libya, Egypt at risk of Shariah brutality
    The Islamic State group, which has employed a broad range of strategies to subdue Sunni Muslim tribes in Syria and Iraq, is pushing its war for a caliphate into North Africa. Younger jihadis in particular appear to be mimicking the militants' rhetoric and brutality. (Associated Press)
    The Islamic State group, which has employed a broad range of strategies to subdue Sunni Muslim tribes in Syria and Iraq, is pushing its war for a caliphate into North Africa. Younger jihadis in particular appear to be mimicking the ... more >

    By Guy Taylor - The Washington Times - Thursday, November 27, 2014

    In its war to create a caliphate across Syria and Iraq, the Islamic State is opening a front in North Africa, where affiliated militants are wreaking havoc in eastern Libya and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula — presenting a complex challenge for Washington and its allies in the region.

    Through its savvy use of social media and slick production of recruitment videos, the Islamic State — also known by the acronyms ISIS and ISIL — is attracting a growing number of individual jihadis to its harsh interpretation of Islamic, or Shariah, law.

    “ISIL’s stated goal of expanding its caliphate and its adherence to a strict form of Shariah has definitely resonated with a collection of extremists across North Africa, who appear to be mimicking ISIL’s rhetoric and brutality,” said a U.S. intelligence official who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss security issues freely.

    What remains to be seen is whether the region will face a surge of unbridled Islamic State-style violence, including beheadings. Counterterrorism analysts say there is little doubt of that — especially in Libya, where the government is under threat of being overrun by militants, and in Egypt, where the military has struggled to contain Sinai extremists for years..............

    Read more:
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

    1. .

      Will the IS really be much of a difference in Libya.

      Libya, 3 years after US/NATO intervention is considered a failed state.

      Some here consider that a success.


      This week marks the three-year anniversary of the Western-backed assassination of Libya’s former president, Muammar Gaddafi, and the fall of one of Africa’s greatest nations.

      In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa’s wealthiest nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy on the continent. Less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.

      After NATO’s intervention in 2011, Libya is now a failed state and its economy is in shambles. As the government’s control slips through their fingers and into to the militia fighters’ hands, oil production has all but stopped.

      The militias variously local, tribal, regional, Islamist or criminal, that have plagued Libya since NATO’s intervention, have recently lined up into two warring factions. Libya now has two governments, both with their own Prime Minister, parliament and army.

      On one side, in the West of the country, Islamist-allied militias took over control of the capital Tripoli and other cities and set up their own government, chasing away a parliament that was elected over the summer.

      On the other side, in the East of the Country, the “legitimate” government dominated by anti-Islamist politicians, exiled 1,200 kilometers away in Tobruk, no longer governs anything.

      The fall of Gaddafi’s administration has created all of the country’s worst-case scenarios: Western embassies have all left, the South of the country has become a haven for terrorists, and the Northern coast a center of migrant trafficking. Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia have all closed their borders with Libya. This all occurs amidst a backdrop of widespread rape, assassinations and torture that complete the picture of a state that is failed to the bone.

      America is clearly fed up with the two inept governments in Libya and is now backing a third force: long-time CIA asset, General Khalifa Hifter, who aims to set himself up as Libya’s new dictator...

      Failed States: Brought to you courtesy of the good old USA.


    2. .

      There are other 'interesting' points made in the article [though I haven't fact-checked all of them].

      Hifter is currently receiving logistical and air support from the U.S. because his faction envision a mostly secular Libya open to Western financiers, speculators, and capital.

      Perhaps, Gaddafi’s greatest crime, in the eyes of NATO, was his desire to put the interests of local labour above foreign capital and his quest for a strong and truly United States of Africa. In fact, in August 2011, President Obama confiscated $30 billion from Libya’s Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of the African IMF and African Central Bank.

      In 2011, the West’s objective was clearly not to help the Libyan people, who already had the highest standard of living in Africa, but to oust Gaddafi, install a puppet regime, and gain control of Libya’s natural resources...



    3. .

      For our friends from Idaho,

      For over 40 years, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi’s rule, Libyans enjoyed not only free health-care and free education, but also free electricity and interest-free loans. Now thanks to NATO’s intervention the health-care sector is on the verge of collapse as thousands of Filipino health workers flee the country, institutions of higher education across the East of the country are shut down, and black outs are a common occurrence in once thriving Tripoli.

      One group that has suffered immensely from NATO’s bombing campaign is the nation’s women. Unlike many other Arab nations, women in Gaddafi’s Libya had the right to education, hold jobs, divorce, hold property and have an income. The United Nations Human Rights Council praised Gaddafi for his promotion of women’s rights.

      When the colonel seized power in 1969, few women went to university. Today, more than half of Libya’s university students are women. One of the first laws Gaddafi passed in 1970 was an equal pay for equal work law.

      Nowadays, the new “democratic” Libyan regime is clamping down on women’s rights. The new ruling tribes are tied to traditions that are strongly patriarchal. Also, the chaotic nature of post-intervention Libyan politics has allowed free reign to extremist Islamic forces that see gender equality as a Western perversion...


    4. .

      Three years ago, NATO declared that the mission in Libya had been “one of the most successful in NATO history.”

      Where have we heard that before?


    5. Those 1,400 General Dynamics M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks will just be no match for the ideology of Islam?

      That generations of US defense policies have been wrong about the concept of the "Supremacy of Arms"?

      Or is your current news share in the knowledge and legitimacy that you made of ISIS taking a Syrian seaport?

    6. .

      For the non-interventionists amongst us,

      A decade of failed military expeditions in the Middle East has left the American people in trillions of dollars of debt. However, one group has benefited immensely from the costly and deadly wars: America’s Military-Industrial-Complex.

      Building new military bases means billions of dollars for America’s military elite. As Will Blum has pointed out, following the bombing of Iraq, the United States built new bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia.

      Following the bombing of Afghanistan, the United States is now building military bases in Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

      Following the recent bombing of Libya, the United States has built new military bases in the Seychelles, Kenya, South Sudan, Niger and Burkina Faso.


    7. .

      I see the rat is still on Bob for a slip of the tongue he previously admitted and corrected. That pretty much sums ups the rat's contributions here on a daily basis.


    8. Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson receives no respite, Legionnaire Q.
      Whatever you may think of the value of the input offered, is of no importance to me, myself and I.

      Rally your Legion, Q and then go wrestle that bear.

    9. Thank you, Quirk.

      That about sums it up, to be sure.

      I never did understand how the rat shit started calling you the Legionnaire, but really don't care.

      Just 'popped' into his 'brain' I guess.

  6. Re: Lest we forget, Vladimir Putin pulled our chestnuts out of the fire a year ago, with a brokered deal to rid Syria of chemical weapons.

    Putin saved al-Assad, and left Assad with a fully functional chemical weapons industry. This is sort of like taking the planes off an aircraft carrier and claiming it is has been neutralized.

    Re: The Turks, Saudis and Gulf Arabs who aided ISIS’ rise are having second thoughts, but sending no Saudi or Turkish troops to dislodge it.

    When did the Turks stop supporting IS?

  7. Whatever became of Gaddafi’s "Amazon" bodyguards?

  8. The hell with Wal-Mart.

    We fight our way through the crowds for the $45 dollar advertised space heater only to find it's marked $69 dollars. Lower price was only good for THREE HOURS.

    Wal-Mart must have hired QUIRK over there in Advertising.

    1. Black Friday brawls hit UK...
      Fights, scuffles and wrestling...
      Women fight over cheap panties...
      AUTHORITIES: 'Keep Calm, People!'
      LIVE UPDATES................drudge

      Fighting over cheap's a JUNGLE out there...........



      Shoppers Brawl Over BARBIE Doll At WALMART...

      Cops Pry Women Off Of TVs...

      'Shoppers Literally Stealing Items From Other People's Carts'...

      Man Tries To Wrestle Away Home Theater System...

      BEST BUY website goes down.................drudge

      Thankfully they don't seem to be armed, yet.

  9. Ferguson protests move to retail stores

    Demonstrators sought to catch the attention of shoppers...

    They are definitely succeeding. :-)

  10. November 28, 2014
    Israel has every reason to fear an Iranian nuclear weapon
    By Edward Bernard Glick

    In 2006 Thomas Friedman of the New York Times wrote: “I'd rather live with a nuclear Iran” because it’s “the wisest thing under the circumstances.” Friedman may think it wise but the Israelis and I do not. We are convinced that the Iranian leaders will launch a nuclear attack against the Jewish State whenever they have a red button to push.

    Contrast Iran’s present leaders with the pre-Islamic Persian King Cyrus the Great. He is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible 23 times. In a letter written in 536 BC and quoted by the historian Josephus, Cyrus writes:

    “I have given leave to as many of the Jews that dwell in my country as please to return to their own country, and to rebuild their city, and to build the temple of God at Jerusalem on the same place where it was before.”

    I have often been asked: if Israel has a nuclear arsenal, and it does, why can’t Iran have one? And my answer is always the same: No Israeli leader threatens to wipe Iran off the map.

    During the Cold War, the Russians and Americans operated under a doctrine called MAD (mutually assured destruction). It assumed, correctly, that no matter how bad things got between them -- the 1962 Cuban missile crisis is a case in point -- neither side wanted to see the other side exterminated. The Iranian leaders are neither insane nor irrational, but they do think differently. In a recent internal discussion, the text of which I have somewhere in my files they concluded: “We have 70 million people and Israel has 7 million. If we attack the Israelis with nuclear bombs, they will respond in kind. They will probably kill half of our people, but because of Israel’s location and size we shall kill all of the Israelis within nine minutes. If Allah wills it, after the exchange is over there will be no more Israelis and there will be 35 million Iranians.”

    1. Moreover, many Iranian leaders are Twelvers, apocalyptic Shiites who long for the re-emergence of Mohammad al-Mahdi, the so-called Twelfth Imam. The Mahdi was born in 869 and the Twelvers believe that he never died. They believe as well that after a universal cataclysm, Allah will let him return together with Jesus who will convert to Islam. Then there will be lasting peace and justice in this world.

      Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeated over and over again that an Iran in possession of nuclear arms is an existential threat to Israel. He keeps begging US President Barack Obama to set “red lines” that, if crossed, would trigger an American military response. But the President will not do so, leaving me and most Israelis to wonder whether he’s avoiding a military engagement because he has decided to live with Iran’s becoming the world’s next nuclear-weapons power.

      I am convinced that he has. On September 18, 2013, he said that Tehran could keep its nuclear components if it promises not to weaponize them and assemble a bomb. On September 27, 2013, he said: “Just now I spoke on the phone with President Rouhani of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The two of us discussed our ongoing efforts to reach an agreement over Iran’s nuclear program. I reiterated to him that I believe we can reach a comprehensive solution.” Mr. Obama also said that Iran’s supreme leader “has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and that he has indicated that Iran will never develop nuclear weapons.”

      On March 5, 2013, General James Mattis, then the retiring head of the United States Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that diplomatic and economic efforts against Iran are not working, that Iran “is enriching uranium beyond any plausible peaceful purpose,” and that if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon it would trigger a regional nuclear arms race and be “the most destabilizing event that we could imagine for the Middle East.” When asked whether Israel would strike if Iran “reached a critical point in terms of nuclear capability,” the general replied: “The Israelis have said so; I take them at their word. They could conduct a strike without our help.”

      So far, in the words of Yossi Klein Halevi writing in the Wall Street Journal, the Israeli prime minister has “pulled back from ordering an airstrike, in part because he has feared alienating the American president. But . . . he may well conclude that the danger of not pre-empting outweighs all the other dangers -- including a strained relationship with the White House.” Or in the words of an Israeli general, “the only thing worse than striking Iran is not striking Iran.”

      If a nuclear agreement emerges from the tortured negotiations among Iran and the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China, the Obama Administration is only seeking to slow “the Iranian nuclear program enough so that it would take Iran at least a year to make enough material for a nuclear bomb if it decided to ignore the accord.”

      If the United States expects Iran to ignore the accord, why has it gone to so much effort to reach one?

      On November 20, 2014, Spain’s Dr. Alejo Vidal-Quadras, professor of atomic and nuclear physics, former vice president of the European Parliament, and president of the International Committee In Search of Justice issued what he called “An objective, thoroughly researched report on the core issue of the nature of the Iranian nuclear program and its status.”

      The Committee was formed in 2008 as a group of EU parliamentarians to seek justice for the Iranian democratic opposition. It seeks to promote human rights, freedom, democracy, peace and stability, and its campaigns have enjoyed support on both sides of the Atlantic.

    2. Here are ten of the report’s passages:

      1. Tehran’s attitude has been one of denial, deception, concealment, rejection of facts, politicization, and reluctant and partial acknowledgement only when all other alternatives had been exhausted.

      2. There has never been a decisive and coherent policy response by Europe and the USA, and this fact has allowed Iran to come closer to the capability for developing nuclear weapons.

      3. It will be a huge mistake to have a comprehensive agreement without demanding that Iran resolve all the military aspects of the program and expose them willingly and thoroughly.

      4. As recently as November 9, 2014, President Obama once again reiterated that the US wants to make sure that Iran does not get nuclear weapons, and is interested in “verifiable, lock tight assurances that Iran cannot develop" them. But the question is how could there be any assurances as long as so many open questions remain? The simple answer is that there cannot.

      5. But by constantly offering concessions at the negotiating table, the US has emboldened the Iranians to increase Tehran’s demands.

      6. On November 9, 2014, Mr. Obama offered Tehran a free pass for meddling in the Middle East when he said: “Iran has influence both in Syria and in Iraq . . . It has some troops or militias in and around Baghdad, and we have we let it know that we’re not here to mess with you, but to focus on our common enemy.”

      7. The Obama Administration must know that any leniency regarding Iran’s increasing interference in the region would encourage it to continue its drive on the nuclear project.

      8. Thus, any possible agreement with Iran should include snap inspections in all the suspicious sites, complete implementation of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, and an absolute halt to all uranium enrichment.

      9. This study can only lead to the conclusion that Iran has vigorously pursued its ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons. No serious indications that Tehran has stopped or abandoned this project or intends to do so were observed.

      10. In a possible allusion to Israel, which Revolutionary Iran has vowed to wipe off the face of the Earth, the International Committee In Search of Justice concluded: “Any concessions on these issues would open the way for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. And this is something that no democratic country in this world, unless it wants to commit suicide, can ever accept.”

      Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s position has been steadfast and consistent: “Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone.”

      If and when that that happens it will be sailors in Israeli submarines operating both conventional and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, and Israeli pilots flying in the world’s best and the world’s third largest air force who will do the job. And they will do it successfully because only the Israel Defense Forces stand between Israel and its destruction.

      Edward Bernard Glick is Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Temple University

      This guy's got it right.


      The retired Temple University professor sees the US military's recruitment problem for wars to destabilize the ME and he has a plan to fix it. (his column "America's youth must serve their country, one way or another," Glick outlines his fool-proof method to plugging holes on the front lines - reinstating the draft.

      Glick's promotion of the draft is to support the Neocon the drive to conscript US IED fodder for endless wars in where else, the ME of course. Did Glick, a front line Israeli-firster ever serve a day in the US military?

      ...Glick. He tells us just how he’d do it too, according to Glick, “Here's how the new draft should work:”

      • All able-bodied and able-minded 18-year-old men and women should have their names placed in a lottery. Depending on how many soldiers are needed - typically just a few thousand each year - a modest percentage would be drafted.

      • Then, the names of all those who didn't get drafted should be placed into a lottery for nonmilitary service in city or suburban slums, rural areas, native Americans reservations, or other poverty-stricken places.

      • If the lottery puts draftees in a nonmilitary program - say, in healthcare - that requires more education and training than they possess, they could opt for getting that additional expertise in the civilian world. But then, the draftees would have to enter that nonmilitary program immediately after completing their studies.

      Glick eventually reveals his true agenda, he gives himself away when he wants us to “consider the Israeli experience.” According to Glick “Except for small minorities, Israelis feel that the responsibility for defending and dying for one's country is a duty that must be shared equally. They feel that military service should not be determined by demographics, by social circumstances, by the unemployment rate, or any other aspect of the nation's economy.”

      Then Glick resorts to American patriotism by reminding us that John F. Kennedy said, “And so, my fellow Americans: Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

      According to the Christian Science Monitor, Edward Glick is “professor emeritus at Temple University in Philadelphia, where he specialized in civil-military relations. He is the author of "Soldiers, Scholars, and Society: The Social Impact of the American Military," and "Israel and Her Army: The Influence of the Soldier on the State.”[1]

    4. Glick has it right for sure but not for the U.S.

    5. Why not turn all those turned out officers into Sergeants?
      Problem solved.

    6. You don't like the message, Deuce, which is really a quite logical message, so you attack the messenger.

      I don't know Glick from Adam and couldn't care less. I think he has it right.

      So, we disagree pleasantly again.

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

  12. Look who made the news. :-)

    UN watchdog slams police shootings of blacks in US

    "The committee is concerned about numerous reports of police brutality and excessive use of force by law enforcement officials, in particular against persons belonging to certain racial and ethnic groups," the 10-member committee said in its report.

    It also lamented "racial profiling by police and immigration offices and growing militarisation of policing activities."

    And it expressed "deep concern at the frequent and recurrent police shootings or fatal pursuits of unarmed black individuals."

  13. Hysterical Knesset legislation is the harbinger of total chaos
    It’s frightening to see a society that removes the masks from itself and exposes its ugliness. Now's the time to start a genuine struggle over our image.

    Finally the proper outfit has been found to suit the real measures of our lady, the State of Israel. The Jewish nation-state law is not the law after which “we won’t recognize ourselves,” as Yossi Sarid maintained by in his column in Haaretz, but it will actually be the law through which we will have the privilege of really knowing ourselves.

    The time has come for us to understand that not every body, whatever its measurements might be, can be clothed in the values of democracy and equality. A state that wants to boast of those values must conduct a life fully committed to preserving them. Therefore, with all the pain involved in the bureaucratic ritual of erasing “equality” from our ID, we should be pleased that at least we’ll stop lying to ourselves and to the world, and we’ll be able to begin a genuine struggle over our image.

    It’s frightening to see a society that removes the masks from itself and exposes its ugliness, but we must not confuse law with order: The methodical behavior of the state, which is manifested in hysterical legislation and in reinforcing its military and police presence, is evidence of the beginning of total chaos, a general system collapse.

    The Jewish fundamentalism that has taken over the state has nothing to do with religious faith – the proof is that the ultra-Orthodox Jews are not part of it; the hawkish nature of the government is not supported by the defense establishment – the proof lies in the voices of its senior officials who are speaking out against it (Yuval Diskin, Yoram Cohen, Shabtai Shavit, Amos Yadlin, Police Commissioner Yohanan Danino); and of course, the coalition – whose only accomplishment is the fact that it was formed, and whose members are addicted to the toxic glue that binds them.

    1. The actual proposed law was posted here days ago..

      Your hysterical post is nonsense.

      Non-main stream and by MOST Israelis, a NON-Israeli newspaper that publishes in Israel.

    2. Haaretz is more Israeli than you claim to be, "O"rdure.

    3. You are the one that claims I am Israeli...

      I just claim you are a criminal.

    4. Jack HawkinsFri Nov 28, 04:32:00 PM EST
      Haaretz is more Israeli than you claim to be, "O"rdure.

      Jack, do us a favor, please post anything that I ever said that states I am an Isareli.

      Now we can post at least 340 times you have claimed I was an Israeli, and as many times I have said I would BE PROUD to be one, however I am an American.

      It's an amazing dance you dance when you can't even keep your lies straight..

      Typical of criminals like you.

    5. Quantify and Qualify those claims, will you "O"rdure.

      Our little candyman for Ohio, who is not an Israeli citizen, claiming that real Israelis not pass his test.

    6. Which is Jack "the liar" Hawkins?

      Where is that claim that you claimed?

      Jack HawkinsFri Nov 28, 04:32:00 PM EST
      Haaretz is more Israeli than you claim to be, "O"rdure.

      Come one, Jack "the LIAR" Hawkins, DONT change the subject...

      Prove your point..

      dont misdirect...

      you said:

      Jack HawkinsFri Nov 28, 04:32:00 PM EST
      Haaretz is more Israeli than you claim to be, "O"rdure.

      Jack HawkinsFri Nov 28, 04:32:00 PM EST
      Haaretz is more Israeli than you claim to be, "O"rdure.

      Jack HawkinsFri Nov 28, 04:32:00 PM EST
      Haaretz is more Israeli than you claim to be, "O"rdure.

      Jack HawkinsFri Nov 28, 04:32:00 PM EST
      Haaretz is more Israeli than you claim to be, "O"rdure.

      Jack HawkinsFri Nov 28, 04:32:00 PM EST
      Haaretz is more Israeli than you claim to be, "O"rdure.

      Jack HawkinsFri Nov 28, 04:32:00 PM EST
      Haaretz is more Israeli than you claim to be, "O"rdure.

      Liar Liar Pants On Fire...

  14. That law suggestion went over like a turd in the punch bowl. Bibi jumped the shark with that beauty.

    1. keep holding on to your dreams...

      Bibi didn't jump any shark, he might have scuffed a shoe...

      but no shark jumping..

      Now he DID do parachuting when he was a special forces guy... Now that's jumping...

    2. .

      No, Bibi is right in line with the rest of his party and the direction the country is moving.


    3. Israel is moving to the right,

      Faced with genocidal "peace partners"? Surrounded by enemies that literally want to wash the streets in Jew blood?

      Israel is realistic.

      It doesn't trust it's enemies.

      Sounds smart to me.

  15. Ferguson: In Defense of Rioting

    "Riots are a necessary part of the evolution of society. Unfortunately, we do not live in a universal utopia where people have the basic human rights they deserve simply for existing, and until we get there..."

    Time Magazine
    VOTE: Should the Ferguson Protestors Be TIME’s Person of the Year?

    A majority of businesses damaged in Ferguson were black owned.

    I Was Mugged, And I Understand Why

    "What has been most startling to me, even more so than the incident itself, have been the reactions I’ve gotten. I kept hearing “thugs,” “criminals” and “bad people.” While I understand why one might jump to that conclusion, I don’t think this is fair.

    Not once did I consider our attackers to be “bad people.” I trust that they weren’t trying to hurt me. In fact, if they knew me, I bet they’d think I was okay. They wanted my stuff, not me. While I don’t know what exactly they needed the money for, I do know that I’ve never once had to think about going out on a Saturday night to mug people. I had never before seen a gun, let alone known where to get one. The fact that these two kids, who appeared younger than I, have even had to entertain these questions suggests their universes are light years away from mine...
    The millennial generation is taking over the reins of the world, and thus we are presented with a wonderful opportunity to right some of the wrongs of the past. As young people, we need to devote real energy to solving what are collective challenges. Until we do so, we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins. I can hardly blame them. The cards are all in our hands, and we’re not playing them."

    Oliver Friedfeld is a senior in the School of Foreign Service.


    The value of the black youth murdered in his car in the riots is considered to be nearly Zero by The Media.

    Doesn't support the narrative.


    Elderly Man carjacked and run over in Ferguson riots:

    1. Time Magazine is worthless.

      Hopefully it will go out of business soon.

    2. Why don't they burn themselves to the ground to prove their thesis?

  16. Hey, Quirck:

    Remind me again why you consider Colonel West to be kind of a jerk (aside from the interrogation incident)

    1. I can tell you why - Quirk has him pegged as being a dick Republican.......

    2. Since Q is spelled "Quirk" why isn't Dick spelled "Dik"?

    3. .

      Colonel West?

      Yea, the interrogation incident was enough for me. It highlighted his character more than words can say. I have to laugh at those here base all their opinions on the words people say (or don't say). We have already seen where some of these guys' public words don't match their private words. I judge people on what they do not on what they say.

      If in fact the guy is a Republican, Bob is right. IMO, West is a dick Republican.

      Of course, that was a while back and I haven't heard of the guy since.

      Is he still alive?


    4. .

      Since Q is spelled "Quirk" why isn't Dick spelled "Dik"?

      I am sure there must be some logical connection there somewhere Dug, but I haven't a clue as to what it is.


    5. I was trying to cute my way out of the original misspell.

      That I failed to amuse or surprise is unsurprising,

  17. Don't buy your kid a drone for the Holidays.

    1. Think what a relaxing experience it would be to have your dinner served by infernal buzzing drones, spiced up from time to time with lacerated carotid arteries, dissected eyeballs, scalding coffee drops, etc.

      Good times!

    2. I was thinking more along the line of drone wars if every kid on the block had a force of drones.

    3. What do you think is going on here in picture 2 - Dantes Inferno?
      How would they have gotten into that predicament?

    4. I like the first one, of the wet monkey or whatever, typing, "Quirk u r a dik", and giving the dirty finger too.

  18. .

    There is more to Obama's immigration waivers than meets the eye.

    I had heard that the waiver plan would have the State Department reserve 500,000 visas for technical work for those included in the waiver program. However, as more details come out...

    ...a White House official confirmed to the Washington Post that many of those who are eligible for a deportation waiver under the new executive order also would likely qualify to get Social Security, Medicare, as well as survivor and disability benefits.

    The newspaper reported that Turner stressed that the executive action beneficiaries would not be able to get federal benefits such as student financial aid, food stamps, housing subsidies, or buy health insurance through the federal health care exchange under the Affordable Care Act.

    My first reaction to the last sentence would be to say, "Yet."

    However, the Waiver Program will effect job opportunities for natural borne citizens in more ways. For instance, the new immigrants won't be covered by Obamacare and...

    Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

    The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market.

    “If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

    A Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the newly legalized immigrants won’t have access to Obamacare, which opens up the loophole for employers looking to avoid the penalty.

    Read more:

    Once again Obama sticks it to the American worker.


  19. The 'religion of peace' -

    The Koran and Eternal War
    November 28, 2014 by Raymond Ibrahim

    Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a CBN News contributor. He is the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007).

    News recently emerged that Russia was banning key Islamic scriptures—including Sahih Bukhari—on the charge that they promote “exclusivity [supremacism] of one of the world’s religions,” namely Islam; or, in the words of a senior assistant to the prosecutor of Tatarstan Ruslan Galliev, “a militant Islam” which “arouses ethnic, religious enmity.”

    If Sahih Bukhari, a nine-volume hadith collection compiled in the 9th century and seen by Sunni Muslims as second in importance only to the Koran itself is being banned for inciting hostility, where does that leave the Koran?

    After all, if Sahih Bukhari contains pro-terrorism statements attributed to the prophet of Islam and calls to kill Muslims who leave Islam, the Koran, Islam’s number one holy book itself is full of intolerance and calls for violence against non-believers. A tiny sampling of proclamations from Allah follows:

    “I will cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, so strike [them] upon the necks [behead them] and strike from them every fingertip’” (Koran 8:12).
    “Fight those among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and who do not embrace the religion of truth [Islam], until they pay the jizya with willing submissiveness and feel themselves utterly subdued” (Koran 9:29).
    “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them—seize them, besiege them, and make ready to ambush them!” (Koran 9:5).
    “Fighting has been enjoined upon you [Muslims] while it is hateful to you” (2:216).

    That Islam’s core texts incite violence and intolerance has many ramifications, for those willing to go down this path of logic.

    For example, as I argued more fully here, although Muslims around the world, especially in the guise of the 57-member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), continue to push for the enforcement of “religious defamation” laws in the international arena, one great irony is lost, especially on Muslims: if such laws would ban movies and cartoons that defame Islam, they would also, by logical extension, need to ban the religion of Islam itself—the only religion whose core texts actively defame other religions.

    1. Consider what the word “defamation” means: “to blacken another’s reputation” and “false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel,” are typical dictionary definitions.

      What, then, do we do with Islam’s core religious texts—not just Sahih Bukhari but the Koran itself, which slanders, denigrates and blackens the reputation of other religions?

      Consider Christianity alone: Koran 5:73 declares that “Infidels are they who say God [or “Allah”] is one of three,” a reference to the Christian Trinity; Koran 5:72 says “Infidels are they who say God is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary”; and Koran 9:30 complains that “the Christians say the Christ is the son of God … may Allah’s curse be upon them!”

      Surely such verses defame the Christian religion and its central tenets—not to mention create hostility towards its practitioners.

      In short, the argument that some Islamic books should be banned on grounds that they incite segregation and violence is applicable to the Koran itself, which unequivocally defames and creates hostility for unbelievers, that is, non-Muslims.

      That said, in the “real world” (as it currently stands), the very idea of banning the Koran—believed by over a billion people to be the unalterable word of God—must seem inconceivable.

      For starters, whenever Muslims are pressed about the violent verses in the Koran, they often take refuge in the argument that other scriptures of other religions are also replete with calls to violence and intolerance—so why single out the Koran?

      To prove this, Muslim apologists almost always point to the Hebrew Scriptures, more widely known as the “Old Testament.” And in fact, the Old Testament is replete with violence and intolerance—all prompted by the Judeo-Christian God.

      The difference between the violent passages in the Koran and those in the Old Testament (as more comprehensively explained here) is this: the Old Testament is clearly describing historic episodes whereas the Koran, while also developed within a historical context, uses generic, open-ended language that transcends time and space, inciting believers to attack and slay nonbelievers today no less than yesterday.

      Thus in the Old Testament God commands the Hebrews to fight and kill “Hittites,” “Amorites,” “Canaanites,” “Perizzites,” “Hivites,” and “Jebusites”—all specific peoples rooted to a specific time and place; all specific peoples that have not existed for millennia. At no time did God give an open-ended command for the Hebrews, and by extension their Jewish descendants, to fight and kill all “unbelievers.”

    2. To be sure, Muslims argue that the verses of the Koran also deal with temporal, historical opponents, including the polytheists of Mecca, and to a lesser extent, the Byzantine and Sassanian empires.

      The problem, however, is that rarely if ever does the Koran specify who its antagonists are the way the Old Testament does. Instead, Muslims were (and are) commanded to fight the “People of the Book,” which Islamic exegesis interprets as people with scriptures, namely, Christians and Jews—“until they pay the jizya with willing submissiveness and feel themselves utterly subdued” (9:29) and to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (9:5).

      The two Arabic conjunctions “until” (hata) and “wherever” (haythu) demonstrate the perpetual and ubiquitous nature of these commandments: There are still “People of the Book” who have yet to “feel themselves utterly subdued” (especially all throughout the Americas, Europe, and Israel) and “idolaters” to be slain “wherever” one looks (especially Asia and sub-Saharan Africa).

      In fact, the salient feature of almost all of the violent commandments in Islamic scriptures is their open-ended and generic nature: “Fight them until there is no more chaos and [all] religion belongs to Allah” (Koran 8:39).

      This fact will ensure that as long as the Koran proliferates and is read as God’s literal word, its readers will continue to exist in a dichotomized world, themselves versus the rest.

  20. Is Russia Banning Islam?
    By Raymond Ibrahim on November 25, 2014 in Islam, Other Matters
    Print Friendly

    FrontPage Magazine

    Russia appears to be taking serious moves to combat the “radicalization” of Muslims within its border.

    Recent pro-Islamic reports are complaining that Russia is banning the Islamic hijab—the headdress Islamic law requires Muslim women to wear—and, perhaps even more decisively, key Islamic scriptures, on the charge that they incite terrorism.

    In the words of Arabic news site Elaph, “Russia is witnessing a relentless war on the hijab. It began in a limited manner but has grown in strength, prompting great concern among Russia’s Muslims.”

    The report continues by saying that women wearing the hijab are being “harassed” especially in the “big cities”; that they are encountering difficulties getting jobs and being “subject to embarrassing situations in public areas and transportation. The situation has gotten to the point that even educational institutions, including universities, have issued decrees banning the wearing of the hijab altogether.”

    Moscow’s Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University appears mentioned as one of the schools to ban the donning of the hijab on its premises, specifically, last September (the New York Times bemoaned an earlier instance of anti-hijab sentiment in 2013).

    While this move against the hijab may appear as discriminatory against religious freedom, the flipside to all this—which perhaps Russia, with its significant Muslim population is aware of—is that, wherever the Islamic hijab proliferates, so too does Islamic supremacism and terrorism. Tawfik Hamid, a former aspiring Islamic jihadi, says that “the proliferation of the hijab is strongly correlated with increased terrorism…. Terrorism became much more frequent in such societies as Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, and the U.K. after the hijab became prevalent among Muslim women living in those communities.”

    The reason for this correlation is clear: strict Islamic Sharia commands jihad (“terrorism”) against unbelievers just as it commands Muslim women to don the hijab. Where one proliferates—evincing adherence to Sharia—so too will the other naturally follow.

    But Russia’s growing list of Islamic books to be banned on the charge that they incite terrorism is perhaps more significant. Elaph continues: “This move [ban on the hijab] coincides with a growing number of religious books to be prohibited, with dozens of them being placed on the terrorist list, including Sahih Bukhari and numerous booklets containing verses from the Koran and sayings of the prophet.”

    According to Apastovsk district RT prosecutors, Sahih Bukhari is being targeted because it promotes “exclusivity of one of the world’s religions,” namely Islam, or, in the words of a senior assistant to the prosecutor of Tatarstan Ruslan Galliev, it promotes “a militant Islam” which “arouses ethnic, religious enmity.”

    1. This is significant. While one may expect modern day books and tracts written by the likes of al-Qaeda or the Islamic State to be banned, Sahih Bukhari, compiled in the 9th century, is fundamental to Sunni Islam (that is, 90 percent of the world’s Muslims). Indeed, the nine-volume book is often seen as second in importance only to the Koran itself and contains the most authentic sayings attributed to the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

      And yet, that this important scripture promotes “exclusivity”—that is, supremacism—and “arouses ethnic, religious enmity”—that is, “terrorism”—should not be missed on anyone. The following few statements contained in Sahih Bukhari and attributed to the prophet of Islam speak for themselves. Muhammad said:

      “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings [tawriya, Islamic deception], and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy).”
      “Whoever changed his Islamic religion [“apostates”], then kill him.”
      In the end times, a “stone will say, ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew behind me; kill him!’”
      “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity” [i.e., until they become observant Muslims].”

      Apparently the Russians are aware that such assertions—whether they come from this or that jihadi or from Prophet Muhammad—are enough to incite chaos on their soil. Indeed, the “terrorist” writings of modern day Islamic jihad groups are all infused with and based on the intolerant texts found in Islamic scriptures such as Sahih Bukhari.

      This begs the following question: what of the Koran? Can it too be banned on the same grounds? After all, Islam’s number one holy book is also replete with calls to violence and terrorism against unbelievers. Koran 8:12 is one of numerous examples: Allah declares “I will cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, so strike [them] upon the necks,” that is, behead them, as the Islamic State has been doing—while citing the Koran.

      At any rate, back in La La Land, far from banning Islamic texts that incite violence and terrorism, Barack Hussein Obama has banned U.S. intelligence communities from connecting anything Islamic to Islamic terrorism. In other words, Muslims are free to be incited by Islam’s scriptures—prompting things like beheadings and hatchet jihad attacks in America. The only ban rests on those who dare connect such acts to the core texts of Islam that so clearly inspire them.

    2. Pooty is quite popular in Russia. And, hmmm, well, he does have his virtues.

  21. All the arsonists weren't black -

    The Brown family’s pastor tries to make sense of the fire that gutted his church

    >>>In September, when it seemed less likely with each passing day that police officer Darren Wilson would be charged, he broke his silence. He signed up to be a regional representative for Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. He declared, publicly, for the first time, that he believed Wilson should be arrested.

    That’s when hateful messages and death threats started — from Wilson supporters, from white supremacist groups and from Internet bigots.

    “Seventy-one death threats. But I’ll never forget what one man said to me: I’m going to come pick you up with all you other hateful n----- preachers and put you all in your church and burn you straight to hell.”

    All that is left of the church now, Lee says, is the charred banner that once hung proudly at the building’s front door........

    ..........Even as he laughed with his family, the church occupied his mind. He describes it like the loss of a child. How he is going to rebuild is his singular focus.

    While online donors have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to several of the businesses that were burned to the ground, a crowdfunding page for Lee’s congregation registered just $2,000 as of Thursday night.

    But even without a building, Flood Christian Church will meet on Sunday. The congregation plans to set up chairs in the parking lot, and a few of Lee’s uncles pledged to work security.

    “No matter what we all have been through, we are still here,” Lee said. This has been a very trying couple of days, but we’re gonna make it. We’re not running. We’re not backing down.”<<<

  22. Jack HawkinsFri Nov 28, 04:32:00 PM EST
    Haaretz is more Israeli than you claim to be, "O"rdure.

    Jack HawkinsFri Nov 28, 04:32:00 PM EST
    Haaretz is more Israeli than you claim to be, "O"rdure.

    Jack HawkinsFri Nov 28, 04:32:00 PM EST
    Haaretz is more Israeli than you claim to be, "O"rdure.

    Jack HawkinsFri Nov 28, 04:32:00 PM EST
    Haaretz is more Israeli than you claim to be, "O"rdure.

    Jack HawkinsFri Nov 28, 04:32:00 PM EST
    Haaretz is more Israeli than you claim to be, "O"rdure.

    Jack HawkinsFri Nov 28, 04:32:00 PM EST
    Haaretz is more Israeli than you claim to be, "O"rdure.

    Liar Liar Pants On Fire...

    1. The Candyman, "O"rdure, has told us he is in an Ohioan.
      His current comments would indicate he is either not from Ohio, is not in Ohio, or he is delusional.

      Haaretz is pure Israeli
      "O"rdure claims to be pure USA, and All-American ...

      Not an Israeli, at all.
      Israel may have offered to allow "O"rdure to become an Israeli, but ...
      He claimed to have not taken them up on the offer. Telling us he had no Israeli passport.
      No proof of Israeli citizenship, no proof of his 'Jewish Nationality'.

      Have things changed?

    2. back up your claim liar...

      Jack HawkinsFri Nov 28, 04:32:00 PM EST
      Haaretz is more Israeli than you claim to be, "O"rdure.

      PROVE it...

      or shut the fuck up..

    3. Once again, when face with your own lies?

      You change the subject, distort or misdirect..;

      Jack HawkinsFri Nov 28, 04:32:00 PM EST
      Haaretz is more Israeli than you claim to be, "O"rdure.

      Where is the claim that I made that ever said I was Israeli?

      we are still waiting..


    4. Jack "the LIAR" Hawkins: Fri Nov 28, 04:32:00 PM EST
      Haaretz is more Israeli than you claim to be, "O"rdure.

      You claimed I was Israeli, as was Allen Israeli..

      Allen and I both are American.

      Not to speak for him, but neither he nor I would be ashamed in any way to be an Israeli, but we are BOTH Americans.

      YOU CLAIMED HUNDREDS of TIMES we are Israeli...

      Now you claim:

      Jack HawkinsFri Nov 28, 04:32:00 PM EST
      Haaretz is more Israeli than you claim to be, "O"rdure.

      Prove it liar....

  23. We should all rise up against -

    The latent sexism of the male marriage proposal

    Why does almost everyone embrace this obviously out-of-date tradition?

    By Meghan DeMaria | 7:00am ET

    Yeah...we're way past this. (ClassicStock/Corbis)

    When I got engaged earlier this year, well-meaning friends excitedly asked "how he proposed" — and then immediately looked at my left hand.

    I've been told I can thank the Archduke Maximilian of Austria, who proposed to Mary of Burgundy with a diamond ring in 1477, for such instincts. But maybe I should thank the originators: the prehistoric men who demonstrated their control over women by tying braided grass around their wrists and ankles.

    You'd think the obvious sexism of the modern proposal would rankle my progressive friends. Yes, plenty of brides have men in their bridal parties, more and more women are ditching the "virginal" white dress, and guys aren't running to ask their fiancees' fathers for "permission" to marry them anymore. But our culture still, overwhelmingly, pushes the traditional male proposal: down on one knee, with a sparkly diamond (and often a flash mob) in tow.

    Tracy Clark-Flory at Salon argues that the male proposal is "a culturally sanctioned time for a man to show his tenderness." But the tradition pushes stereotypical gender roles: The "tender" man is still in control of the situation, while the woman is forced to take a passive role. And if a woman proposes to a man, it's seen as emasculating.......

    Quirk has been proposed to by literally dozens of women, including a dozen times by Maria alone. Always says 'no'.


    The one time he proposed, down on one knee, diamond ring in hand, she said 'no'.

    Soured the poor feller for life.

  24. Now if our little "O"rdure has had a change in his immigration status, well, ain't that something!

    If he is on the verge of telling us he is now a dual national, or is, a committee, a student in Tel Aviv -
    Do not be shocked, stranger things have happened.

  25. Jack HawkinsFri Nov 28, 04:32:00 PM EST
    Haaretz is more Israeli than you claim to be, "O"rdure.

    Once again the serial liar, Jack Hawkins... proves himself to be a cheat.

    1. "O"rdure, all you have roven, is that Jack was correct about you being an Israeli.
      Now by your admission by omission.

      You are more Israeli than Haaretz, an Israeli corporation?
      If you are not an Israeli citizen, how can that be?

      If you are the Candyman, then you are a US citizen, from Ohio. One who once claimed to have an Israeli passport, but then denied that statement,vehemently.

      "O"rdure if you are now an Israeli, more Israeli than Haaretz, then you are not the "O"riginal, not the Candyman.

    2. The proof, is in your comments, you are certainly confused about who you claim to be.
      But there you have it.

      Haaretz is Israeli. Corporations are people , too. - Mitt Romney
      If you are more Israeli than Haaretz, you are claiming to be an Israeli, now.
      A citizen of that nation. A passport holder.

      And, "O"rdure claiming I am correct about you being a part of the Social Media Commando

  26. Been listening to Fox Kelly File on who's teaching our kids........

    Pop back for a minute and I see Jack is all fucked up again.

    Heading back to Fox.................

  27. As for me 'proving' anything, this is not a court of law, "O"rdure, you have proven that.

    You certainly seem to have taken a turn for the worse.
    Your delusions are ever more prevalent.

  28. The Book of Numbers has it thus:
    “The community is to have the same rules for you and for the foreigner residing among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the foreigner shall be the same before the Lord. The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the foreigner residing among you.”

    1. The Moses movement was a world-historical blow for freedom, and it was the job of the ancient prophets to remind Israel of this, especially during periods of forgetfulness when they were more interested in the development of their own centralised empire under David and Solomon. As the declaration of independence puts it, the state of Israel is to “be based on the principles of liberty, justice and freedom expressed by the prophets of Israel” and “affirm complete social and political equality for all its citizens, regardless of religion, race or gender”.

      Through the biblical prophets, the people of Israel are regularly scolded for their forgetfulness, and lambasted for their failure to keep faith with the covenant they made with God. The prophets represented the self-critical vigilance of the Jewish people. They spoke the uncomfortable truth to power. Oh, how we need to listen to their voices once again.

  29. The Trick to Being More Virtuous

    NOV. 27, 2014

    Arthur C. Brooks

    SEVERAL years ago, I visited Provo, Utah — in the heart of what its residents call “Happy Valley” — to deliver a lecture at Brigham Young University. My gracious hosts sent me home with a prodigious amount of branded souvenirs: T-shirts, mugs — you name it. The Mormons are serious about product placement.

    One particularly nice gift was a briefcase, with the university’s name emblazoned across the front. I needed a new briefcase, but the logo gave me pause because it felt a little like false advertising for a non-Mormon to carry it. Reassured by my wife that this was ridiculous, I loaded it up, and took it out on the road. In airports, I quickly noticed that people would look at my briefcase, and then look up at me. I could only assume that they were thinking, “I’ve never seen an aging hipster Mormon before.”

    That gave me minor amusement; but it soon had a major effect on my behavior. I found that I was acting more cheerfully and courteously than I ordinarily would — helping people more with luggage, giving up my place in line, that sort of thing. I was unconsciously trying to live up to the high standards of Mormon kindness, or at least not besmirch that well-earned reputation. I even found myself reluctant to carry my customary venti dark roast, given the well-known Mormon prohibition against coffee.

    Almost like magic, the briefcase made me a happier, more helpful person — at least temporarily.

    But it wasn’t magic. Psychologists study a phenomenon called “moral elevation,” an emotional state that leads us to act virtuously when exposed to the virtue of others. In experiments, participants who are brought face to face with others’ gratitude or giving behavior are more likely to display those virtues themselves.

    In one study published in 2010, psychologists assigned subjects to three groups: A third watched an episode of the comedy program “Fawlty Towers”; another third watched a nature documentary; the final group watched an uplifting clip of the Oprah Winfrey show in which artists expressed gratitude to their mentors. The subjects who watched Oprah reported feeling more optimism about humanity and more desire to help others than the other groups. And, importantly, these morally elevated subjects were more likely to help the researchers by completing optional tasks. Apparently, my briefcase produced a similar sensation by reminding me of my Mormon friends’ admirable qualities.

    We can be the passive beneficiaries of moral elevation. But we can actively pursue it as well by rejecting bad influences and seeking good ones. We can even create the circumstances for moral elevation ourselves. In this era of political recrimination and reproach, this is vital for personal and national improvement.

    1. In 2012, a Marist poll found that a stunning 78 percent of Americans felt frustration over the increasing negativity of our politics. It is safe to assume this percentage has not dropped since then. This frustration comes from the sense that we are victims of the politics and punditry of the times.

      In truth, demand is far more important than supply: We get more of what we signal we want through our dollars, clicks and votes. If our politics are too often poisonous, it is because, as a society, we are demanding too much poison. If we want to grow in virtue, and experience a healthier, more productive political environment, each of us must demand more virtue.

      We should ask ourselves: What will my next click say about my desires? Will the next article about politics I read elevate me? Or will it be a pathogen that provides momentary satisfaction from an eloquent insult to my enemies, but ultimately fuels personal bitterness and increases the climate of acrimony in America? Can I pass it by instead and seek personal moral improvement?

      Most Americans rightly complain that our political culture attacks too much and edifies too little. But what do we really demand of the politicians we support? Humility, optimism and flexibility? Or do we excuse our own side for its ideological rigidity, preening self-regard and blame-shifting?

      This is not a call for boring moderation or unprincipled centrism. Liberals should be liberals, and conservatives should be conservatives. But all should be expected to live up to a higher standard of civility than that displayed by TV loudmouths. The next two years are a challenge to our political leaders, yes — but also to us, to demand a climate of moral elevation as opposed to destruction of the other side.

      Last month, I was back in Utah, speaking to a Mormon audience in Salt Lake City. I related the story of my briefcase to illustrate the phenomenon of moral elevation. Several days later, back in my office, I was lamenting how discouraged many citizens felt at the negative tenor of the coming elections, and how everyone should demand better. It was at that moment that the mail arrived with a package from Utah: a new briefcase from my friends.

      Just like magic.

      Arthur C. Brooks, a contributing opinion writer, is the president of the American Enterprise Institute.