eChurch Blog

By Barry Rubin

At the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh, President Barack Obama and several European leaders threatened Iran that it had just better stop developing nuclear weapons right away or else they would act decisively. Let’s call this the “Or Else” factor.

The Western countries revealed that they knew all about a secret Iranian enrichment facility which showed how thoroughly that regime had hitherto lied and concealed its nuclear weapons’ project. Yet there is something very curious in this: Why didn’t President Barack Obama mention this facility during his UN speech?

A different way to express the same thought is the contradiction between the U.S. delegation walking out on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at the UN, declaring him an extremist and antisemite, at the same time as Obama is stating his eagerness to negotiate with Iran in a “serious, meaningful” dialogue and to make a deal with that very same man’s regime.

Presumably, in both cases, Obama wanted to keep the U.S. response limited and to avoid triggering a real crisis. By behaving this way he also forfeited a remarkable opportunity to build a large support base for doing something about the problem. Sure, he is moving forward, but doing so very slowly and—after eight months in office—without material effect.

Who believes that he is really willing to confront Iran (or anyone else who threatens U.S. interests) in future? The date on the calendar will change but this administration’s underlying philosophy is more likely to remain the same.

Given Obama’s strange (in terms of all previous U.S. history) approach to international relations, the Or Else factor becomes paramount and the usual roles are reversed. Iran is openly defiant, acting as if it is the more powerful side before which the West must cower. The more extreme the regime’s behavior, the more it demonstrates—especially to Iran’s primary audience of Arabs and Muslims—who’s strong, who’s courageous, and who’s winning.

The Or Else factor is a major part of personal, social, and political life. “Clean up your room or else!” Or else a spanking? No allowance? No TV or computer? You’re grounded? The threat must be credible and it is helpful to have seen it put into action once or twice.

“Don’t cheat on your taxes or else!” Or else what? You have a good chance of being investigated, caught, sent to jail? But the people in question have to believe there is a real chance this might happen, a risk that outweighs the benefits they get from the money they save by cheating.

“Sponsor terrorism, attack your neighbor, and ignore our interests and our gunboats will overthrow you or our covert agents will undercut your government. Well, that’s sure out of fashion. In fact, Iranian and Syrian officials help kill American soldiers in Iraq, the U.S. government knows about it, and nowadays does nothing in response.

Or else is based on the idea that we are much stronger than you, that we will take risks, take and give casualties, spend money, and succeed in taking away your power. Or wealth.

But when countries renounce the legitimacy of their power—all states have an equal right to nuclear weapons; we are no better than you are—and lose self-confidence in their power and demonstrably so, they thumb their nose at you or give you the finger.

That is what Khomeini did: they are bluffing (see my Iran book) and Ahmadinejad is in this tradition. America can’t do a damn thing

This is where credibility comes in. but if you destroy your own credibility by apologizing for past actions (and we’ll never be aggressive and arrogant again), pledging not to do more than timid allies permit, expressing sympathy for the other side (in Middle East politics, kindness is considered weakness and empathy a sign of cowardice), and showing a notable reluctance about the use of force.

There is a saying that a real collision occurs when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object. In Obama versus the Islamist regime, it is a case of the reluctant force meeting the immovable object.

And look at the international community’s recent record:

Hamas fires missiles at Israel, Israel retaliates, world condemns Israel.

Hizballah fires missiles at Israel, Israel retaliates, world (through the UN) promises to restrain Hizballah, Hizballah threatens UN forces, world backs down.

Russia seizes parts of Georgia and the West does nothing, with most comments blaming Georgia for not surrendering fast enough.

Yet even if Obama was far more effective (that is, scary for America’s enemies rather than its friends), the Iranian regime would behave this way. After all, it was founded by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who was convinced he had the deity on his side.

Khomeini, who seized power in 1979 and died in 1989, was explicit in exhorting Iranians to defy America and the West. He assured them that if they did so, the Great Satan would back down. On one occasion he expressed this by saying, “American can’t do a damn thing,” to hurt Iran. The hostage crisis, and President Jimmy Carter’s restraint, seemed to prove him right.

True, in 1988, fearful that the United States might attack Iran to protect Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arabs in the Iran-Ira war, Khomeini backed down and ended the conflict. Anything short of such a credible threat probably won’t work.

Iran’s current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad styles himself as Khomeini’s disciple. He believes—and he’s shown it—that if he is very aggressive the West won’t take him on. So far, he’s been proven right. That success was a central element in the decision of Iran’s spiritual guide, Ali Khameinei, to back him for another term in office.

To foreign observers, the stolen election and demonstrations make the regime look weak; to Iran’s rulers, having successfully stolen the election and put down the demonstrations makes them feel strong.

Obama is treating Iran as if it is a generic country: offer talks and benefits or sanctions and punishment. But Iran’s Islamist regime is not just another country but rather an ambitious, ideologically guided regime that thinks it is winning and its enemies won’t confront it. That regime is not going to respond to Obama’s treatment, especially lacking the Or Else factor’s credibility.

On behalf of Obama, Britain, and some other states, French President Sarkozy gives a rather low-level “or else” threat: “If by December there is not an in-depth change by the Iranian leaders, sanctions will have to be taken.”

If and when this happens, Iran will first examine the level of new sanctions—if any—and find them not so frightening. It will look for ways to get around them, probably with Chinese and Russian help. It will then say: Bring it on! Do your worst! Make my day! Punk, do you feel lucky?

And then, what’s the United States going to do? Go to the UN, where action will be delayed—both by Obama’s caution and the constraints of a divided Security Council–and any tough response whittled down further?

Thus, unless Israel attacks, a year or two or three will go by with Iran surviving the sanctions. And the day will come when the regime has nuclear weapons. This is Ahmadinejad’s game plan and it seems a reasonable one from his standpoint.

Obama is trying above all to prove that he isn’t the Big Bad Wolf of international relations—he doesn’t just apologize for but greatly exaggerates the errors of past American diplomacy—and daily expresses his determination not to threaten to, “Huff and puff and blow your house down.” Whether their regime is made of straw, mud, or bricks, the Iranian dictators can thumb their nose at him, give him the finger, and not tremble the least bit.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing,” said the British political philosopher Edmund Burke. He might just as well have said: …do far too little, far too late.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

By Lauri B. Regan American Thinker

“The memory of evil will serve as a shield against evil;
…the memory of death will serve as a shield against death.”

- Elie Wiesel,  Nobel Laureate 1986

I was watching FoxNews after Obama’s UN speech and Dick Morris was the interviewee. While we all know that Obama has made numerous mistakes to historical references in his various speeches over these agonizing months, Morris made a comment that struck me as one of the most insightful lessons of history that has been completely overlooked by Obama and his advisors. Morris said,

“Ever since Mein Kampf, you have to take these guys seriously.”

It is customary for Jews to repeat the phrases “Never forget” and “Never again,” and in so doing, we take great comfort that the world is in agreement. The horrors of the Holocaust are so utterly brutal and inhuman that civilized people in the year 2009 cannot imagine such atrocities ever occurring again. And yet they have and they do. Human rights violations and mass murder have occurred on horrific scales since the end of World War II in places like Cambodia, Sudan and Iraq to name a few. It would be easy to stick our heads in the sand and ignore the fact that evil dictators such as Hitler, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein exist in the world, but that simply would not be realistic.

And so the question becomes, what do we, as humane and compassionate people do? What do we, as Americans who have been educated and taught about the world’s carnage and immorality do not only to protect our citizens, but also our fellow human beings?

One thing for certain is that we do not forget that evil exists. We do not stand up in front of the United Nations General Assembly, before some of the globe’s most vile and depraved tyrants, and sing “Imagine,” “Kumbaya” and “Why Can’t We Be Friends.” America holds a special place in the world and with that comes responsibility. We are not the world’s policemen. But we certainly should take our rightful place as leader of the free world and let the planet’s despots who declare that the Holocaust is a fabrication and announce their intent to wipe Israel off of the map know that we take them seriously and they and their hateful speech will not be tolerated.

Much has been written about what motivates Barack Obama. Some suggest he is simply naïve; others suggest he is pure evil. Some look to his socialist upbringing and his narcissistic personality. Still others believe him to be a “Manchurian Candidate,” placed here by a foreign enemy determined to bring our country down.

The one obvious and consistent feature self-evident in speech after speech comprising his world apology tour is Obama’s disdain for America. Obama stands with the world’s evil-doers in rejecting American exceptionalism. If there was a question about Obama’s love of his country, the disparaging remarks on Wednesday about the country he was elected to lead confirm his scorn. There was no mention of the good that American men and women have done for the people of the world in the 20th and 21st centuries. There was no mention of the soldiers that have fought, been maimed, and died on battlefields across the globe so that people could be free of dictators the likes of which sat in the General Assembly and applauded for Obama. There was no mention of the financial support, the humanitarian aid, or the work of various American not-for-profits that exist solely to help individuals less fortunate the world over. And of course, there was no mention of the international AIDS-fighting campaign launched under George W. Bush, Obama’s predecessor who received the biggest bashing in his speech.

But notwithstanding Obama’s motives for reaching out to the dictators of the world, Americans must take note of the fact that the lessons of history and basic understanding of human nature teach that irrational megalomaniacs cannot be reasoned with. No matter how articulate America’s president, his Messiah-like aura will not turn evil into good, the devil into an angel.

I remember the days of being a free-spirited hippie, hanging out at concerts and singing Bob Dylan, CSNY, and John Lennon songs. Those were the days, for I had not a care in the world. I am happy to say that I have since grown up. I have read books, watched films, and looked at horrific pictures, travelled to third world countries, and studied history. I no longer have an idealistic view of the world as I raise three Jewish children in a country now run by an apparent Arab-loving, tyrant-loving President. These are scary times and when a psychopath dictator the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announces to the world that he intends to blow up Israel, I believe him.

I cannot figure out why our President does not believe him (or is not concerned), but I do not care why he ignores these threats and makes nice to this man. I care that I have family and friends in Israel (although I consider every Jewish person living in the State of Israel my family). I care that when Iran is done wiping Israel off the face of the map, it will turn to Europe and the United States. I care that America’s President has no idea what he is doing and his ignorance will result in the loss of lives on a scale not seen since World War II.

I used to enjoy watching Star Trek. While conceived in the idealistic days of the late 1960′s, the series became popular again in the late 1980′s and has remained popular. The message has never changed. Good versus evil with good always winning no matter who the enemy – the Klingons, Romulans, or Borg. I imagine liberals watching the show take notice of the diversity of the crew on the starship; diversity the result of a planetary war ending in one global, socialistic society at peace. However, when I watch the show, I notice the fact that there is always a tyrannical leader of an evil society from a far away planet. And ultimately, the evil society is defeated with the use of force.

This is not very different from our world today. And it does not take a student of history (or Star Trek) to understand this. One would imagine that an undergraduate degree from Columbia and a law degree from Harvard would be enough to educate an individual about the evils in the world which will not disappear in our lifetime; but apparently not.

Over the summer, Obama’s advisors prepared a nice, politically correct reading list for the President. Despite its staggering popularity the world over, including the Mideast, Mein Kampf was not on Obama’s list. I wonder if he has read that autobiography or if he has read history books detailing the lead up to wars of the last century. We know he has read literature detailing the take over of power, the implementation of socialist policy, and the elimination of individual success. If we wait until next summer for Obama’s reading list to include the lessons necessary to address today’s evil, it may be too late. One can only hope and pray that he and the citizens of Israel and America do not pay a heavy price for his belated education.

And to think this is where the UK is heading. Previous Posts:-

DPP could cause ‘constitutional crisis’ on assisted suicide

Assisted suicide (Euthanasia) guidelines laid out by Keir Starmer Director of Public Prosecutions

Assisted suicide: The worm has turned – The response to the Director of Public Prosecutions’ “guidelines” for when assisted suicides in England and Wales won’t be prosecuted has been almost universally hostile.

New legal guidance on assisted suicide has succeeded only in taking our country down a literal dead-end of ever-increasing darkness, though obviously the idea was to make things clearer for those contemplating this awful step.

By Rita L. Marker – American Thinker

Live in Washington State?  In a crisis?  Suicidal? Call 911.

Then what?

A dispatcher sends crisis negotiators who, if they follow the suggestions provided at a recent negotiators’ training session, could help you consider “all options.”  If you’re eligible, you may be referred to friendly volunteers who will help you find a doctor willing to prescribe a deadly drug overdose.

Just take the prescription to a pharmacy. Have it filled by a pharmacist who hands it to you with instructions to “take this with a light snack and alcohol to cause death.”

But what if the pharmacy has opted out of participation in assisted suicide?

Not to worry.

Washington pharmacies are required to fill your prescription.

And what if you’re not “qualified” for assisted suicide under Washington’s Death with Dignity Act?

No sweat.  There’s help for you, too.  Exit International, an equal opportunity death facilitator, has just established its North American headquarters in Bellingham, WA.

Enter the twilight zone that is Washington State.

Last November, Washingtonians went to the polls and approved Initiative 1000, the Washington “Death with Dignity Act,” a law that is almost identical to Oregon’s assisted-suicide law.  During the campaign, assisted-suicide advocates assured voters that the measure, if passed, would be solely a matter of choice for patients who wanted “aid in dying” and that health care providers would not have to participate in it.

That was Then, This is Now

Soon after the law passed, residents of Mount Vernon, a city north of Seattle, heard that Skagit Valley Hospital was one of many health care institutions that had opted out of assisted suicide.  They assumed this meant their local hospital would be an assisted-suicide-free zone.  However, while a hospital’s opting out means there won’t be any patients taking the deadly overdose on the premises, it doesn’t prevent hospital staff from making referrals for help in committing suicide.

Take, for example, a recent program held in the community.   Like most jurisdictions, Mount Vernon has a team of experienced commissioned law enforcement officers who are highly trained crisis/hostage negotiators. To continually enhance their life-saving skills, they have periodic training sessions.  One routine training that took place in early August indicates how assisted-suicide promotion can permeate activities in unexpected ways.

As part of that recent training session, Amber Ford, a social worker from the hospital’s oncology department, presented a comprehensive two-hour discussion about the suicide risk among cancer patients.  According to one of the attendees, her presentation was sensitive and informative.  But, at the end, a jarring note was introduced.  Prefacing her comments by explaining that she was aware of I-1000′s controversial nature, Ford explained that assisted suicide, like hospice care, was among the alternatives available to cancer patients.  And, in keeping with providing all options now available in the state, she distributed a brochure from Compassion & Choices (C & C), the assisted-suicide advocacy group (formerly called the Hemlock Society).

The brochure explains:  “C & C created the coalition that passed I-1000 into law and now stewards, protects and upholds Washington’s Death with Dignity Act.  There is never a fee for any service provided by C & C, and confidentiality is strictly protected.”  A toll-free number is provided to make access to assisted suicide only a phone call away.  The brochure notes that a C & C volunteer can help patients “locate physicians who support a patient’s choice to use the law” – in other words, to find a doctor willing to prescribe a deadly overdose of drugs.

The irony was not lost on one experienced negotiator in attendance:

“I find it interesting that, as crisis negotiators, we are trying to talk people out of killing themselves.  But by the end of the afternoon, we had a social worker from the oncology department of the hospital talking about being able to assist people in killing themselves.”

If, indeed, part of crisis management eventually includes offering suicide assistance, it could lead to a rather bizarre screening process.  When a 911 call comes in, will there be an extra step in the screening process?   If a person calls, asking for help for a suicidal family member, will the screener ask if the person is terminally ill?  If not, crisis negotiators could be dispatched to the scene.  But, if the suicidal person is terminally ill, will she be given C & C’s toll free number – so C & C could dispatch assisted-suicide facilitators?

Death from your Friendly Pharmacist

Crisis negotiators aren’t the only professionals faced with changing expectations of their role in the assisted-suicide-friendly state.  Washington pharmacists are getting a rude awakening as well.  When the campaign for I-1000 was ongoing, C & C assured voters that it would be completely a matter of choice for health care providers.  Because of those assurances many in the health professions believed passage of the law would not affect them.  They bought the hype but (like members of Congress) didn’t read the bill.

It’s true that the assisted-suicide law defines a health care provider as a person who is licensed to administer health care or dispense medication.  And it also provides immunity for those who do not participate.   This led those who own pharmacies to assume that they would not have to dispense assisted suicide drugs.

They were wrong.

In the law, “participation” is very narrowly defined.  It only refers to those activities that constitute the duties of the attending physician, the consulting physician or the counselor under the law.  It does not include dispensing drugs.

Pharmacy owners who assumed they could opt out were very much mistaken.  Not only does the assisted-suicide law not give them the right to refuse to dispense a prescription for assisted suicide, but the Washington Administrative Code positively requires all pharmacies to deliver and distribute all lawfully prescribed drugs or devices to patients. That requirement was affirmed in July when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Stormans v. Selecky vacated a preliminary injunction preventing its enforcement.

The word games continue even after the patient dies from physician-assisted suicide.  If she had taken pills that she stockpiled on her own, her death certificate would reflect that the cause of death was a barbiturate overdose and the manner of death was “suicide.”  However, if she is a C & C facilitated death, the state forbids any hint of that on her death certificate.    Instructions from the Washington Department of Health make it crystal clear that doctors, coroners and others must refer to her underlying illness, not the drug overdose, as the cause of death and the manner of death must be listed as “natural.”  According to the Washington State Department of Health, “The cause of death section may not contain any language that indicates that the Death with Dignity Act was used.”

Assisted-suicide advocates are well aware that, in Washington, they’ve found a friendly home from which they can expand their operations.  The welcoming atmosphere has attracted Exit International’s Dr. Philip Nitschke (sometimes called the Australian Kevorkian).  During the few months in which euthanasia and assisted suicide were legal in Australia, Nitschke was the specialty’s sole practitioner, using his “death by laptop” method.  In the past, he received funding for development of a “peaceful pill” – the label used for a quick, sure do-it-yourself death – from the Hemlock Society.   Long a believer in equal suicide opportunity for anyone of any age for any reason, he has said assisted suicide should be available to children and teens.

Recently, Nitschke announced establishment of a North American base in the college town of Bellingham, WA  where he plans to hold an “Exit workshop” in the Fall, covering such topics as how to obtain end-of-life barbiturates, how to store and test veterinary Nembutal, and how to use helium and a plastic bag to end your life.

Move over, Holland.  Move over, Oregon.  Washington State is rapidly taking over first place when it comes to embracing the grim reaper.

Rita L. Marker is an attorney and executive director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide

By DAVID KIRSHENBAUM- Jerusalem Post

Intolerance on the Temple Mount

Last week, our synagogue in Beit Shemesh made its annual High Holy Day week visit to the Temple Mount. We began the tradition six years ago when the site was reopened to non-Muslims. During the first three years following the start of the September 2000 war launched against Israel by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Hizbullah, the government decided to reward Arab terror by barring all non-Muslims from even setting foot on the Temple Mount.

Visiting the Temple Mount is a schizophrenic experience. When standing there, it is impossible not to be awestruck by the magnitude of where you are and the enormity of the colossal events that took place there. It is on the Temple Mount that both the First and Second Temple stood for nearly 1,000 years, where millions of Jews from all over the Land of Israel and the Diaspora made the three festival pilgrimages and where, according to Jewish belief, the Third Temple, ushering in the days of the messiah, is destined to be built. Throughout history, whenever and wherever Jews were engaged in prayer, they faced Jerusalem. And when in Jerusalem, they pray in the direction of the Temple Mount.

It boggles the mind to imagine your family tree and to consider when the last time anybody in the family line had been on the Temple Mount. Might that ancestor have been one of the survivors of the fighting that took place there prior to the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 CE? Might it have been on Shavuot of that year, the final pilgrimage festival celebrated by the Jewish people prior to the destruction?

But now that I was standing in that holiest of places, which generations of Jews for 2,000 years could only dream of visiting, I was forbidden to pray. Simply moving my lips in whispered prayer could be grounds for removal. Why? Because I am a Jew. And only a Muslim can pray on the holiest site in Judaism. A Jew may not.

DURING THE War of Independence in 1948, the Old City of Jerusalem fell to the Jordanians. Nearly 1,500 Jews, including many women and children, were killed. While it was under Jordanian control, dozens of Jewish synagogues, many centuries old, were destroyed and the cemetery on the Mount of Olives, where Jews have been buried for 2,500 years, was desecrated. For 19 years, no Jew was allowed to set foot in the Old City or pray at the Western Wall, the retaining wall of the Temple Mount closest to where the Temples stood.

In June 1967, when Egypt, Syria and Jordan embarked on a war to annihilate the Jewish state, Israel recaptured Jerusalem’s Old City. One of the most stirring announcements in Jewish history was the message transmitted from the front during the Six Day War: “The Temple Mount is in our hands.”

But then, in a mind-boggling display of attempted appeasement of an enemy that just days before had sought Israel’s destruction, defense minister Moshe Dayan decided to allow the Muslim religious council, the Wakf, to retain administrative authority over the Temple Mount. Thus, a truly bizarre and unacceptable situation developed.

Israel has scrupulously upheld Muslim worship at the Aksa Mosque, which was built just off the supposed site of the Temples, even when the site has been used to stone Jewish worshipers at the Western Wall and sermons are delivered calling for the demise of Israel and the US. Nor have Muslim prayer services been banned even in the worst periods of Arab terror attacks. During the just-completed Ramadan, hundreds of thousands of Arabs prayed at al-Aksa and held nighttime picnics on the Temple Mount breaking their fast. The garbage and leftover food items we saw strewn over the Temple Mount during our visit was appalling.

But in glaring contrast, Israel has, for the past 43 years, failed to challenge the Muslim ban on Jewish worship on the Temple Mount. On our visit, the number of Jews allowed up at one time was severely limited, we were checked for any religious items, which cannot be brought onto the Temple Mount by a Jew, and we were warned by the police not to even whisper a prayer.

THE STATUS quo is woefully offensive and intolerable. Never mind that at no time during the lengthy Muslim control over much of the Middle East did the Muslims ever designate Jerusalem as an imperial capital or even as a provincial or subprovincial capital. Even if we choose to overlook this very relevant history, the pattern of Islamic religious imperialism, exemplified by the Wakf’s contemptible conduct on the Temple Mount, must not be ignored.

The problem is not simply that the Arabs have attempted to take as their own every site in Israel holy to Judaism, whether it be the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem or Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus. But in doing so, they have consistently attempted to obliterate the historic Jewish connection and claim to each of those sites.

In the same manner, in the years following the Oslo Accords and Israel’s withdrawal from Bethlehem, a concerted policy by the Palestinian Authority to Islamicize the city and terrorize the Christian population resulted in a reduction in the percentage of Christians living there from 60 percent to less than 15% today.

We pay a terrible price when we close our eyes to the trampling of human rights and religious freedom out of fear of enraging the Muslim world. The Temple Mount is a huge area. It is the length of nearly five football fields north to south, and nearly three football fields east to west. It is certainly large enough to accommodate the ancient call of the prophet Isaiah recited in fervent prayer by Jews on Yom Kippur: “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations.”

The sooner we take action to help bring this about, the better.

By Bill Muehlenberg

When I first settled in Australia some twenty years ago, I wrote a major article on the Left in Australia. I spent a month or more trawling through all the leftist publications I could find (the Internet was not an option back then). After this lengthy period of research, I wrote a large piece summarising my findings (a shorter version of which appeared in the August 1990 IPA Review).

This week in the Australian a six-part series on the Left appeared. It is interesting to read these articles in light of what the Left was saying twenty years ago. The bottom line is, little has changed. These recent pieces are all united by the usual collection of clichés, platitudes, and ethereal thinking.

There is very little which is concrete here, just the usual moral rhetoric and the usual buzz words: equality, social justice, fairness, diversity, and so on. And what also binds these articles together is the usual leftist alliance on the state. For the most part, the state, not the individual or the family or the community, is generally viewed as the ultimate saviour. Thus in the end, expanding government is what we are left with (no pun intended).

While others will examine in greater detail these articles, here I wish to simply utilise broad-brush strokes. One way to proceed is simply to outline the ways in which Left and Right differ. Thomas Sowell has very nicely summarised the major differences between the two in his many works, especially in these three important volumes: A Conflict of Visions (1987); The Vision of the Anointed (1995); and The Quest for Cosmic Justice (1999).

Sowell argues that the Left and Right operate from fundamentally different premises. These premises really amount to differing worldviews, with differing ways of looking at the world, man, his predicament and possible solutions. Thus the foundation, or vision, on which political ideas are built is hugely important.

The two main visions Sowell discusses are what he calls the constrained and the unconstrained visions. The constrained vision (the conservative worldview) acknowledges that there are limits. There are limits to human nature, limits to what governments can do, limits to what can be achieved in a society.

The unconstrained vision (the radical or leftist worldview) tends to downplay limits. Mankind is seen as more or less perfectible; social and political utopia is to a large extent achievable; and evil is not endemic or inherent in the human condition, and therefore is able to be mostly eliminated.

The conservative vision tends to reflect the Judeo-Christian understanding that mankind is fallen, is limited, is prone to sin and self, and cannot produce heaven on earth, at least without the help of God. The left-liberal vision, by contrast, tends to see the human condition as innocent, malleable and perfectible, and tends to think that utopia on earth is achievable under the right social conditions.

Edmund Burke may best exemplify the former vision, with the American Revolution one of its main fruit. Rousseau may best exemplify the latter vision, with the French Revolution a key expression of it. Sowell argues that on the whole, the conservative vision, being much more closely grounded in reality, will usually produce better outcomes for those intended to benefit by them, than those of the leftist vision.

These basic differences are nicely illustrated in the Australian series. There is plenty of utopian vision here, but little of realistic substance. And when they do start to offer some tangible proposals, it is interesting to see how centrist they become. In other words, the more down to earth and practical they want to be, the more rightward they tend to go.

What also should be pointed out is that in some respects the Left and Right do not differ so much on what they consider to be ultimately important. Both want to see such goods as justice, tranquillity, national well-being, and so on. Where they differ, as Sowell and others have pointed out, is how to best achieve these ends, and what can realistically be attempted.

Both for example favour equality, but the Left tends to favour equality of outcome, while the Right favours equality of opportunity. And are bureaucrats, ruling elites, social engineers and expanding state powers the answer, or are individuals, mediating structures (church, family, community, etc) and free markets best placed to achieve social goods? That is where the differences emerge.

Indeed, the Left does not have a monopoly on moral concerns. It is not just Julia Gillard who is “Driven by indignation at injustice”. Conservatives are also incensed at injustice. It’s just that the Left so often seems to be highly selective in where its outrage is directed.

America, capitalism, globalism and the West in general tend to be its targets. At the same time, they seem deathly silent on the mega-injustices of such things as Soviet Communism or Islamo-fascism. Some of us might be more persuaded by their rhetoric if they were a bit more consistent in where their moral outrage was sprayed around.

The truth is, the enemies of the Left usually in fact turn out to be the best guarantors of genuine social goods, such as freedom, opportunity and prosperity. The things the Left tends to press for are often at odds and conflict with such goods.

Light on a Hill?

Also of interest is the decidedly secular tone of this entire series. Given that fact, it is interesting to recall the title used in the very first article: “A new light on the hill”. Whether the author or subeditor realised it, this is of course taking us back into history, especially religious history. The phrase was first used by the ancient Hebrew prophets when describing what life would one day be like when Yahweh puts an end to evil and suffering, and establishes his universal kingdom.

The early Puritans and American founding fathers also utilised such terminology as they expressed their hopes of what sort of place that new land was to be. In both visions there was an overwhelming spiritual reality which lay behind the terminology.

What is remarkable about this series is the fact that there is not one religious or spiritual reference to be found anywhere. God is entirely left out of the picture, and the heaven on earth which the leftists want to create will be one entirely constructed by human efforts and mortal hands.

Of course we have been there and done that. Modern history is replete with such secular visions of a new earth. We have seen one bloody example after another of such coercive utopians in action. And lest anyone doubt the bloody results of such experiments, they simply need to consult the now classic work, The Black Book of Communism.   http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087

But it is not just the fact that the desire to build heaven on earth sans deity is bound to fail, and lead to bloodshed, but the very vision of what the left is seeking to achieve (justice, peace, harmony) in fact can ultimately only be achieved by divine help anyway. These qualities happen to be his attributes.

To seek to bring heaven to earth without the author and source of such values and goods is an exercise in futility. It is as C.S. Lewis warned about: “You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that our civilization needs more ‘drive’, or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or ‘creativity’. In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.” (The Abolition of Man)

So while some of the aims and goals of the Left may be morally laudable, the question remains as to whether the worldview of the Left, and its proposed remedies and polices will in fact usher in these sorts of goods. Fortunately we have history on our side here, and the verdict is not very favourable.

In sum, the Australian Left does not seem to have changed much from when I last analysed it in depth some two decades ago. The same rhetoric prevails, the same vague and intangible social visions are offered, and the same inability remains to see that individuals, rather than states, are best placed to make of life what we all want it to be.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26089126-28737,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26100893-5013479,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26105683-7583,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26111672-7583,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26120528-7583,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26124842-7583,00.html

(CNA).- Speaking late in afternoon on Saturday to priests, deacons, seminarians, men and women religious and representatives of ecclesial movements gathered at the Cathedral of St. Vito in Prague, Pope Benedict XVI encouraged the Church in the Czech Republic to respond to the wave of relativism and agnosticism that have grown in the European nation despite the fall of Communism 20 years ago.

After recalling the long list of Czech saints and martyrs in the thousand-year-old cathedral, the Pope said that “the heroism of these witnesses to the faith reminds us that only through personal intimacy and a profound bond with Christ is it possible to draw the spiritual vitality needed to live the Christian vocation to the full.”

“Only the love of Christ –he added- can make the apostolate effective, especially in moments of difficulty and trial. Love for Christ and for one’s fellow men and women must be the hallmark of every Christian and every community.”

The Holy Father recalled that twenty years ago, “after the long winter of Communist dictatorship, your Christian communities began once more to express themselves freely, when, through the events triggered by the student demonstration of 17 November 1989, your people regained their freedom.”

“Yet you are well aware that even today it is not easy to live and bear witness to the Gospel. Society continues to suffer from the wounds caused by atheist ideology, and it is often seduced by the modern mentality of hedonistic consumerism amid a dangerous crisis of human and religious values and a growing drift towards ethical and cultural relativism,” he said.

Pope Benedict recalled then “the urgent need for renewed effort throughout the Church so as to strengthen spiritual and moral values in present-day society.”

“Your pastoral activity in the field of educating new generations should be undertaken with particular zeal. Catholic schools should foster respect for the human person; attention should also be given to the pastoral care of young people outside the school environment, without neglecting other groups of the faithful. Christ is for everyone!,” he said.

Addressing bishops and priests, the Pontiff highlighted that “it is your task to work tirelessly for the good of those entrusted to your care. Always draw inspiration from the Gospel image of the Good Shepherd, who knows his sheep, calls them by name, leads them to safe pastures, and is prepared to give his life for them.”

To the consecrated persons, the Pope explained that “by your fidelity to this vocation, you will help the men and women of today to let themselves be captivated by God and by the Gospel of his Son.”

“And you, dear young people in seminaries or houses of formation, be sure to acquire a solid cultural, spiritual and pastoral preparation. In this Year of Priests, with which I chose to mark the 150th anniversary of the death of the Curé d’Ars, may you learn from the example of this pastor who was completely dedicated to God and to the care of souls; he was well aware that it was his ministry, nourished by prayer, that constituted his path to sanctification,” the Pope finally said.

By Steve Kingstone – BBC News, Madrid

Spain’s socialist government has formally unveiled plans to liberalise the country’s abortion law.

Under the proposal approved by the cabinet, abortion would be made available on demand for the first time.

Girls as young as 16 would be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without parental consent.

Ministers say it is about “rights and respect” for women. The conservative opposition says young people may see abortion as a form of contraception.

Spain’s current law allows a pregnancy to be terminated in three circumstances – in the aftermath of a rape, when a foetus shows genetic defects, and when the health of the pregnant woman is at risk.

The government’s proposal is that abortion should be made available on demand during the first 14 weeks of a pregnancy.

Ideological clash

The opposition has vowed to challenge the bill, arguing that it does not have broad support in Spanish society.

The Catholic Church also opposes any change in the law, and has called on its followers to join an anti-abortion rally in Madrid next month.

This is the latest ideological clash between Spain’s Catholic right and a left-wing government, which has already legalised gay marriage and made it easier to get divorced.

The existing abortion law was passed in 1985 – a decade after the death of General Franco.

On paper, it appears strict. But in practice, many Spanish women have been able to secure abortions by arguing that pregnancy was endangering their mental health.

(CNA).- This afternoon in Prague, continuing with his Apostolic visit to the Czech Republic, Pope Benedict XVI strongly defended the role of the Christianity in Europe’s history and the need to guarantee full freedom for the Gospel to contribute in building the future of Europe.

In a discourse delivered to local political authorities, diplomats from all Europe, rectors of local universities and representatives of the civil society, the Pope recalled that his visit  “coincides with the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the totalitarian regimes in Central and Eastern Europe, and the ‘Velvet Revolution’ which restored democracy to this nation.”

Nevertheless, “today, especially among the young, the question again emerges as to the nature of the freedom gained. To what end is freedom exercised? What are its true hallmarks?”

“Freedom,” the Pope explained, “seeks purpose: it requires conviction. True freedom presupposes the search for truth – for the true good – and hence finds its fulfillment precisely in knowing and doing what is right and just. Truth, in other words, is the guiding norm for freedom, and goodness is freedom’s perfection.”

“For Christians,” the Holy Father highlighted “truth has a name: God. And goodness has a face: Jesus Christ.”

Pope Benedict then highlighted that the Christian roots of the country “have nourished a remarkable spirit of forgiveness, reconciliation and cooperation which has enabled the people of these lands to find freedom and to usher in a new beginning, a new synthesis, a renewal of hope.”

“Is it not precisely this spirit that contemporary Europe requires?,” he then asked. “Europe is more than a continent. It is a home! And freedom finds its deepest meaning in a spiritual homeland.”

Pope Benedict then explained that “with full respect for the distinction between the political realm and that of religion, which indeed preserves the freedom of citizens to express religious belief and live accordingly, I wish to underline the irreplaceable role of Christianity for the formation of the conscience of each generation and the promotion of a basic ethical consensus that serves every person who calls this continent, “home”!”

The Pope also highlighted that “far from threatening the tolerance of differences or cultural plurality, the pursuit of truth makes consensus possible, keeps public debate logical, honest and accountable, and ensures the unity which vague notions of integration simply cannot achieve.”

“At the present crossroads of civilization –he continued,- so often marked by a disturbing sundering of the unity of goodness, truth and beauty and the consequent difficulty in finding an acceptance of common values, every effort for human progress must draw inspiration from that living heritage.”

“Europe,” the Pope said, “in fidelity to her Christian roots, has a particular vocation to uphold this transcendent vision in her initiatives to serve the common good of individuals, communities, and nations.”

“Do not the challenges facing the human family call us to look beyond those dangers?,” Pope Benedict asked; and responded towards the end: “we must reappropriate a confidence in the nobility and breadth of the human spirit in its capacity to grasp the truth, and let that confidence guide us in the patient work of politics and diplomacy.”

by Adam Graham Pajamas Media

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
— Animal Farm

An elderly, disabled, pro-life activist dependent on an oxygen tank and who wore leg braces was gunned down in Michigan. Had the man been an abortionist or a leftist activist like a Bush-era anti-war protester, the death of Jim Pouillon would have been news all week. Instead, it got buried in the weekend news cycle.

Compared to the media coverage of the murder of George Tiller, which pro-life activists repudiated, the murder of Jim Pouillon has garnered no national coverage. This despite the fact the murderer has admitted he killed Pouillon because of his pro-life activities.

A number of leftist justifications argue this isn’t the same as the George Tiller case, contending Pouillon’s murderer was 1) mentally unstable, 2) not a pro-choice activist, and 3) had two other targets and therefore this was not a crime against pro-lifers.

The arguments themselves are fairly reasonable. However, when compared to the media coverage of anti-abortion shootings, wide double standards exist.

In the first place, Eric Rudolph, whose 1998 bomb killed an off-duty Atlanta police officer who worked at an abortion clinic, also had multiple targets, many not related to abortion. John Salvi, who killed two women at an abortion clinic in Massachusetts in the 1990s, was a mentally unstable young man who committed suicide in jail and showed signs of schizophrenia. Further, the anti-abortion killers have existed on the fringes of the pro-life movement and have been condemned roundly. Yet all of these killings count against the pro-life movement in this country, while the killing of Pouillon is treated as irrelevant.

Consider also that the Pouillon killing hasn’t been the only violence committed against pro-life activists. This past summer, in Phoenix, a man pulled a gun on a pro-lifer who handed a pamphlet to his girlfriend just one week after another man in Chico, California, tried to run down a sixty-year-old pro-life protester.

And, that’s not all. David Brody of CBN News reports the FBI is looking into increased death threats against pro-lifers, many coming after the Tiller killing, when irresponsible media figures branded pro-life activists as nutty terrorists in reaction to the first anti-abortion murder in nearly a decade. Given recent events, will Keith Olbermann be the one with blood on his hands, as he famously slandered Bill O’Reilly?

Most conservatives wouldn’t even consider the argument. The idea that a bombastic blowhard is responsible for a crime and not the man who pulled the trigger goes contrary to the principle of personal responsibility and undermines the very foundation of freedom. If we can never be blamed for the crimes we commit, we cannot be free. Rather, we must be protected from influences that could lead us to do things that might harm others. You cannot have freedom of speech because certain speech is too dangerous to be spoken, even if it doesn’t directly call for violence or revolt.

The left is usually ready to pronounce who the “real perpetrator” is in a crime. Rarely is it the trigger man, who is usually a sympathetic or not-so-sympathetic victim. Republican administrations, organized religious groups, corporations, and disliked political interest groups are usually held responsible. Violence against an abortion provider occurs as the result of pro-life rhetoric according to leftist logic.

The closest the media has come to laying blame is the focus on the fact that Pouillon carried graphic signs. The unstated argument is that the one really responsible for Pouillon’s death is Pouillon. Unable to find a proxy perpetrator, the media has decided to lay the blame on the victim.

The left refuses to apply its logic to itself. It can’t blame eco-terrorism on Al Gore’s doomsday scenarios, it can’t blame the liberals who labeled all opponents of ObamaCare as extremists for the beating of Kenny Gladney at a town hall meeting, and it can’t come to terms with the killing of Jim Pouillon. To search for a “real perpetrator” to blame would require they point the finger at themselves and their institutions.

Instead of incriminating themselves, the left chooses the far more comfortable tactic of minimizing or completely ignoring crimes against their political opponents. This puts the value of human life on a sliding scale. If your death fits into a popular political narrative, it is of great value. If not, your death is only of importance if it can spark the prurient interest of enough people to make a successful prime-time special.

This value system extends beyond the press’ coverage of abortion. The abuse of prisoners of war at Abu Ghraib was far more outrageous to the liberal press than the beheadings of innocent civilians by terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan or the shooting of two of our soldiers outside of an Arkansas Army recruiting center.

In the 1970 episode of Adam 12 “Elegy for a Pig,” the show took aim at elites’ hypocritical selective outrage over death, particularly of police officers. Pete Malloy, as portrayed by Martin Milner, ended the show by saying, “Strangely enough, in view of current custom, no one will raise a placard to denounce his senseless murder, no one will raise indignant cries of protest at the shedding of his blood, no one will march in anger because of his death.”

Little has changed in forty years. The U.S. House voted 423-0 to condemn the death of George Tiller. There will be no such resolution passed on James Pouillon.

From Biased BBC

Will the BBC put the brakes on the incremental nudging, step by step, of the acceptable limit of on-air condemnation of Israel before the momentum takes us over the top and tumbling down the other side to hell in a handcart?

The boundaries are being pushed further and further towards outright antisemitic hostility, in casual and formal BBC output.
This consensus-creep defies logic and reason. It deliberately airbrushes out most of the terrifying characteristics of our mutual ideological enemy and constantly allows biased narrative to remain unchallenged.

John Simpson thinks ‘Obama hasn’t put enough pressure on Israel, and “on the other hand” hasn’t offered the Palestinians enough.’
BBC world service features a group of bereaved parents from both sides working together for peace. A good news story? No, an anti Israel one. An Israeli daughter, murdered by a suicide bomber, a Palestinian daughter shot by an Israeli soldier. Leading questions by the interviewer have the Israeli allege they are ‘brainwashed into hating Palestinians,’ and that, for his peacemaking efforts, other Israelis regard him as a traitor. The Palestinian father says that Israeli soldiers shoot Palestinians with impunity, and that Jews never punish their own. Both interviewees express resentment against Israel. Economical with the actuality? Inversion of the actuality.

“Israel’s refusal to stop building in the Jewish settlements – all of which are illegal under international law – despite repeated American requests, means that the Palestinians will not renew negotiations.” opines Jeremy Bowen.

Israelis are required to live side by side with a Palestinian state, while the Palestinians still refuse to even recognise the Jewish state, let alone renounce violence. Such obligations have simply been airbrushed out of the equation and now the settlements are deemed the only obstacle to peace.

So the BBC disapproves of brainwashing, yet embraces Islam. It disapproves of harming civilians, yet calls terrorists and suicide bombers freedom fighters or militants, and describes their atrocities as audacious. The BBC admires peacemaking, yet ignores Koranic-based antisemitism and hatred.

Netanyahu’s admirable speech to the UN General Assembly was ignored by the BBC and the British walkout during Ahmadinejad’s was disguised as something else. So. Criticism of Israel ratchets up till all-out condemnation of Israel becomes overt antisemitism which bit by bit loses its stigma.

There’s a lively discussion going on at Harry’s Place right now about the BBC. It’s taken as read that the BBC is institutionally biased against Israel, but there is disagreement over whether it is due to ignorance, laziness, a conspiracy or a multi faceted combi of all three and more.

They do know about the subject, and don’t just ‘think they do’ from listening to the BBC.