Obama's Blames Netanyahu's Speech to Congress For, Well, Almost Everything Bad

Oh, maybe not for global warning--not yet, at least. But Obama claims that "that speech" (and not, apparently, his own fecklessness, cluelessness and incompetence) is responsible for setting back the cause of "peace" in the Middle East for the foreseeable future.

'Twas ever thus. When all else fails (and by every measure, Obama's "lead from behind/let's apologize policies have failed miserably), blame the Jew.

Stanley Kurtz: A Few "Faked" Pro-Israel Speeches to AIPAC Notwithstanding, Obama Has Always Had It In For Israel

Kurtz writes:

Obama’s break with Israel was both predictable and predicted. Of course it’s easy enough to point back to the years of anti-Israel fulmination Obama sat through in Rev. Wright’s church, or his friendship with prominent Palestinians like Rashid Khalidi, and then say that Obama was tight with critics of Israel. The comeback is always that Obama was simply doing what any politician in leftist Hyde Park had to do. Besides, there are years of strong statements from Obama of support for Israel as well.  

In 2011, I took a detailed look at the history of Barack Obama’s ties with Palestinian critics of Israel and carefully tried to assess how sincere his support might have been. Much of the material I discussed had gone unnoticed until then, including a promise to work toward changes in U.S. policy toward Israel that can’t help but bring to mind Obama’s pledge to Putin that he’d have more “flexibility” after re-election. I concluded that Obama’s core image of himself on matters of foreign policy, as well as decades of deep personal ties to critics of Israel, would have been far harder to fake than a few years of pro-Israel speeches before AIPAC conferences. I also predicted that when it comes to Israel, we’d see the real Obama emerge after re-election. As on so many other issues, the Obama of today is far closer to the Obama of the mid-1990s than the “post-partisan” Obama who sought the presidency in 2008.

Opiner in Copenhagen Rag Blames Newspapers Exercising "Free Speech" (and Offending Muslims) for Inciting Jihadi Violence

Our "hate" is the cause of their hate, he claims:

Biggest catalyst
The media must exercise its freedom. Freedom of expression gives them the right to choose what to publish and what not to publish. By intentionally insulting Islam time and again, the media is insinuating that they do not regard Muslims as part of their clientele. In any business, the customer is king; if newspapers believed that Muslims are part of their readership, they would not insist on offending them time and again, would they?  

To paraphrase Washington Post editor Paul Farhi, just as journalists choose not to publish pictures of soldiers killed in war, nudity and pornography, we can as well choose not to offend sections of our readership by not publishing humiliating caricatures of their prophet. It is a question of respect. To curb extremism, the drivers of radicalisation must be addressed: Islamaphobia and hostile foreign policy. Otherwise we are falling head-first into the evil circle of hate that produces hate.

The real "drivers of radicalization": Islam's core teachings of jihad and supremacism. A key part of those teachings: free speech is considered "blasphemy" and is therefore verboten. The chap who wrote the above bollocks is either entirely ignorant of Islamic dogma, or he's a useful idiot, or he's an entirely ignorant useful idiot.

"Climate Change" Gasbag David Suzuki to Call for "Revolution" During Toronto Public Library-Sponsored Lecture

I love my local TPL branch, but stuff like this makes me nuts:

Drawing on his own experiences, Dr. David Suzuki challenges us to live with courage, conviction and passion as we learn from the past and look confidently to a sustainable future.

In a lecture inspired by letters to his own grandchildren, the revered geneticist, environmentalist and activist explains why feminism is important, why it is dangerous to deny our biological nature and why First Nations must lead a revolution.

A "revolution," eh, Dave? I guess we can count on you to be first in line to give up your many lavish, energy-guzzling homes and go "Native," right?

No doubt about it: Old hippies never die. They just call for more "revolution."

Update: I'm not sure if Dave is really a "feminist," but he does seem to be awfully fond of young women.

John Kerry's Assertion That "Stakes are High" In Iran Nuke Talks Lacks Clarity, Specificity

Please allow me to provide some.

 How "high" are "the stakes"?

They are sky-high (see below):



Update: As always, Dr. K. "gets it" (unlike old stone face and his suck-up of a boss).

Update: From a Beeb report:

Sticking points in the talks are thought to include the pace at which sanctions would be lifted, how long the deal will last and how much of Iran's nuclear facilities will be open to inspection.

How much? Shouldn't they all be open to inspectors? And if Iran refuses to open them all, shouldn't that be--now, what do experienced, savvy diplomats call it again?; oh, yeah--a deal-breaker?

Whassup With The Canadian Council of Muslim Women?

I'm confused. The Canadian Council of Muslim Women has, in the past, fought the effort to bring sharia law into Ontario, and recently took part in a joint International Women's Day event with Jewish women (a gathering hyped in/by the CJN). Its motto is: "Equality. Equity. Empowerment." And yet, the same organization is intent on protecting the niqab, the sharia-decreed face covering that is the antithesis of "moderate" Islam. Here, for example, is how the CCMW unpacked the niqab issue in a press release issued late last month:

(Toronto, ON, Feb 24, 2015): The Canadian Association of Muslim Women in Law (CAMWL) is dismayed that the Conservative government will be appealing the Federal Court’s decision to strike down (effective immediately) the federal ban that prohibited citizenship candidates from wearing face coverings while taking their citizenship oaths. The Conservatives have stated that this ban is specifically meant to target Muslim women who wear niqabs. The ban and this appeal demonstrate a crass Conservative politic of capitalizing on anti-Muslim xenophobia to score populist support. ...

What an odd way to put it. Is there some other group out there that insists on covering up in public even while taking the oath of citizenship? What--are there people who demand, say, the right to wear an "Anonymous" mask when taking the oath?

I don't think so.

And what's the deal with that xenophobia stuff? It sounds like the sort of paranoia, accompanied by a Harper Derangement Syndrome chaser, that usually emanates (or spews) from the mouths of irate, not-so-moderate imams.

But, hey, I can't wait for that next CCMW 'n' Jewish chick interfaithy chat-fest. (And neither, I wager, can the CJN.)

"Nazi Germany Is a Bigger Threat Than the Soviet Union. So What?"

Or, to rewrite the above to fit the times, "Iran is a bigger threat than (the) Islamic State. So what?"

A Folie à Deux Re That "Two-State Solution"

France's Foreign Minister shares the same delusion as Barack H. Obama. To wit: a "solution" to that interminable Israel-Palestinian problem is the only way to pave the road to regional stability. Or, to put it in FM Laurent Fabius's words,

"Only the creation of viable sovereign Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside Israel will ensure peace and prosperity in the Middle East..."

What has that to do with Iran, ISIS and the price of rice, M. Laurent?

Israel is Only Country Criticized by UN for Women’s Rights Violations

The staggering lunacy of the UN encapsulated in a single headline.

"I'm Sure We Can Trust These Fine Folks With Nukes. They Seem Really Peaceful"

That's Daniel Greenfield's mordant comeback to a Khamenei rep's insistence that "We will not rest until we have raised the banner of Islam over the White House."

A Little Nigerian Beer Boite Patronized by Muslims

Or what Boko Haram would consider a "target rich environment."