Remember when JFK said ”Ich bin ein Berliner", in solidarity with the Communist-besieged West Berlin?
We now see the rise of a new wave of violent anti-Semitism in the world. I fear it will be the most poisonous outbreak since the 1930s.
Is these trying times, I want to say to the people of Israel:
Ich bin ein Israeli
Yeah, I'm certainly no JFK, and it's probably a little melodramatic. But the spirit is genuine. Israel stands at the vanguard. They literally live their lives on the front line of this war of civilizations. Things are heating up for them, and Jews around the world.
America stands with Israel. I stand with Israel. You have friends. Some have forgotten. I have not.
Banagor lets it rip regarding Europe over at SFPAAGB.
It's very politically incorrect. And yet it needs to be said. I've been mulling over similar ideas myself lately, but Banagor puts them into words rather nicely.
Yo, Europeans! You don't understand why we don't get along with you anymore? Go read this piece in its entirety. This is the straight poop. And it pains me to say that.
Ted Kennedy was just on the news, referring to the administration's judicial nominees as "Neanderthals". Isn't that nice? One of the "leading" Democrats in the United States Senate refers to a black female justice of the California Supreme Court as a "Neanderthal".
This is how far, how very far, the Democratic Party has moved away from being a Liberal party.
I used to be a Democrat. Heck, I might still be a Democrat if it wasn't for Dhimmicrat maroons like this. This pisses me off, I'm sorry.
Lileks has some very appropriate comments in today's Bleat.
Referring to Michael Moore, Ted Rall, et. al., he had this money quote:
These people aren’t the loyal opposition anymore; they’re just the opposition. They may say they love America, but they love some idealized nonexistent America that can never exist as long as there’s individuality and free will. They’re like people who say they love women and beat their wife because she doesn’t look like the Playboy centerfold. I’m sick of the lot of them.
You and me both, buddy, you and me both.
I think I need to fire up Iggy Pop's "I'm Sick of You!"
Tip o' the hat to Robert Clayton Dean at Samizdata for the link.
Congressman Hoeffel is on Fox (Linda Vester's show), talking about how we need "more international support" and "more international troops". "They [our troops} have become targets."
Is this total moonbattery, or what?
Taking the last first, well duh! It's a war. One of the many things that happen in wars is troops become targets.
And just who are these "international troops" he's talking about? Assume, for argument, that we turned over tomorrow and kissed the ass of Chirac, Schroeder, and Annan six ways from go so they completely forgave us. Then what? Which of these luminaries HAS any effective troops to send? None of them.
What is this "international support"? Like what? The Red Cross is going to come back? Until the next bomb goes off? The UN turned tail and RAN from Iraq. So getting more of that kind of support is somehow going to help?
Lunacy. I'm ashamed that a US Congressman would utter such twaddle in public.
Perry de Havilland makes a very radical point in a response comment on this post over at Samizdata:
Rights do not come from constitutions, they are derived from morality, and morality springs from reason...
Whoa. While this may not be a new statement for Perry, it would be considered a very radical, even heretical, statement by those who believe that morals can only be legitimately derived from Higher Authority, i.e., God.
And the fundamentalists have a point. They fear that if morals are not derived from Higher Authority, they are, in essence, arbitrary, and could be changed at any time. They regard this as a much more dangerous risk than the risk from excessively-strict interpretations of rules designed for sheepherders 2,000 years ago.
But that leaves us in a box. If only those moral rules supposedly derived from Higher Authority are valid, then the discussion moves from the validity of the rules to discussions about whose Higher Authority is valid. As we see now with our war against Islamofascism. The Islamofascists argue that their Higher Authority is the only "real" one, and hence Islamofascist morality is the only valid one. And how can you, within the context of religious freedom now espoused in the West, argue against that? You can't, and hence the complete paralysis of so much of the West in dealing with Islamofascism.
The cure for this, in my opinion, is to break the connection between morality and Higher Authority. We need to move folks to the view that Perry espouses, that morality is derived from reason. If we can do that, we can derive a morality that that is effective, just, and, most importantly of all, defensible on a basis other than "my God is better than your God".
Until we move sufficient folks to this view, and have a (inter)national discussion on just what mores we can derive from Reason, the wars will continue. It won't be easy, and it won't be fast, but it's our only hope, long-term. The alternative is Dhimmihood.
Cattle get tagged, slaves get branded, which one are you?
David Carr puts it very succinctly over at Samizdata. This was the inspiration for dissident frogman's piece I reference below.
dissident frogman has a great piece over at the dacha on national ID cards. The British are seriously considering this, and it's a sad day. Even sadder is I don't get much sense of outcry. But I can in no way gloat, as I suspect the US is not so far behind.
The money quote:
We should notice that, probably to stay coherent, the French State also kept the monopole of the railroads, having already efficiently used the ID card/Cattle wagon transport combo with a consequent part of its own citizens, unarmed and helpless yet perfectly identified and dully registered at the prefecture.
For myself, I believe that the State of Constant Surveillance is inevitable and our only salvation is to develop a strong system of ethics in our culture. But that's a topic for another post.
The UN got shot at and went home.
The Red Cross got shot at and went home.
The Spanish, Polish, and Italians got shot/bombed and went home or seriously considered doing so.
The British, God Bless 'Em for their help (and I mean that), took more than half their forces home as soon as it was seemly.
Now the Japanese might well stay home
None of this is to flame anyone for their actions (at least not in this post), and certainly not our Allies. That's not my point here, and all who help, in whatever way, have my thanks and appreciation.
My point is that the enemy has, I think, rather convincingly shown that the West is both weak and vulnerable.
Who is it that America can count on? Absolutely count on? No one, it looks like.
Who can the Iraqi people count on? Absolutely count on? No one, it looks like, unless it be the United States, and we are wavering.
Who can anyone in the world count on? What nation, or NGO, or international institution, can anyone really count on?
No one, it looks like, other than, if you're lucky, your own.
So, can someone explain to me why anyone, but particularly the United States, should support these institutions any longer?
Can someone tell me why we still pretend we have "allies"?
Are the Islamofascists the only people in the entire freakin' world who have a clear purpose and stiff resolve?