Buchanan weighs in via his weekly in light of the events of the past week.
What happened in Paris, said President Obama, “was an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.”
And just what might those “universal values” be?
At a soccer game between Turkey and Greece in Istanbul, Turks booed during the moment of silence for the Paris dead and chanted “Allahu Akbar.” Among 1.6 billion Muslims, hundreds of millions do not share our values regarding women’s rights, abortion, homosexuality, free speech, or the equality of all religious faiths.
Set aside the fanatics of ISIS. Does Saudi Arabia share Obama’s views and values regarding sexual freedom and the equality of Christianity, Judaism and Islam? Is anything like the First Amendment operative across the Sunni or Shiite world, or in China?Full column at WorldGoldNutDaily er... I mean WorldNetDaily.
30 comments:
"At a soccer game between Turkey and Greece in Istanbul, Turks booed during the moment of silence for the Paris dead and chanted “Allahu Akbar"
This report was incorrect, they were booing FIFA over the Ankara attacks and lack of anything for that.
The chant was also wrong, it was a Turkish chant which they use for these sorts of things, roughly like the Italians have a minutes applause to honour the deceased.
Link Andy? (video?)
Here you go Matt
http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/an-explanation-for-why-turkey-fans-appeared-to-boo-minutes-silence-for-paris-attack-victims/
"Among 1.6 billion Muslims, hundreds of millions do not share our values regarding women’s rights, abortion, homosexuality, free speech, or the equality of all religious faiths."
Like I said before, if these were Christians, liberals would be apoplectic about their entry into their respective countries.
I'm an atheist, but I simply have far more respect for Buddhists, Christians and Jews and their ways of life (they allow me to be atheist ). I don't hate Islam, but as far as America is concerned Islam's as far as east is from west culturally speaking. I'm an unashamed tribalist who want's to exist within a proven civilized tribe. Period.
All religions are political programs, but as far as it goes, Islam goes the furthest (along with Judaism).
In general religions are toxic, but Islam is specially belligerent. Saying that "ISIS are not real Muslim" or pretending there is a more secular version of Islam is a load of garbage, is all in the book. Judaism is almost on par, but at least their political program is contained to a limited place, while Islam is expansionist.
Let's not pretend though that Christianity is even 'liberal' in this respect... Christians had to wage war against their own churches to get rid of their political influence during several centuries, and unfortunately in some places this is still too much present (not much in Europe though). Secularity of the state was deeply damaged after the downfall of the classic Rome and Greece civilizations and it took us almost 2 millenniums to get it back, but the same has yet to happen for Islam globally (Indonesia though is the largest Muslim nation and is democratic), although it was on it's way before the West meddled in the MENA (ironically both Iran and Afghanistan were becoming secularized before the West decided to intervene because they were under USSR sphere of influence).
Same here, Malmo.
Carlos,
I work with several Muslims and they are very good, law abiding people from all that I can glean. As American citizens I would defend strenuously their right to practice their religion as they see fit as long as it comports with the law, even if I disagree with said religion. Same for other religions too.
Immigration is another matter entirely.
Where do people get the idea Buddhists are like super pacifists. Burma and Thailand are pretty violent places. They just smile as they shoot.
Carlos this is the current "low cost" approach to national security, it "saves money we don't have!" the whole "we're out of money!" paradigm has completely taken hold within the US national security apparatus...
With the British thing is was the best approach to obtain mass measures of the 3 metals in column 11 of the PTE...
different objectives in each case....
I correct myself, the British empire left countries in fairly decent condition after they left. Better than before they arrived usually. They had built roads, railways and schools. They left behind a functioning civil service, a good legal system and there was mostly law and order when they left.
Sad to say the US can't even run a frickin' empire properly.
Matt,
That's pretty funny, Empire on a shoestring budget, I think I've heard it all now.
Interestingly the British empire didn't really get going until they created the Bank of England to magic up the money.
No empire if Ceasar thinks "we're out of money!" ... you guys are dreaming...
Just like no more Capitalism now that we're out from under the metals... again sober up guys those days are over....
BOE logically followed the start of that global metals collection operation as you dont need the bank until you start to get some significant mass actually coming in to the system...
I think the gold standard only came in after the California gold rush and the British found they were literally sitting on a gold mine in South Africa. They must have figured out it was a smart way to screw over other countries not sitting on gold mines.
"I just can't reconcile US opinion on immigration."
The simple version is because race and religion actually matter. This isn't only a white thing either, like liberals will have you believe. Ask any person of color and they'll tell you the same thing--race and religion matter.
Most people have to believe in something, is how much we left old books written by schizophrenics dictate our policies what matters.
As said above, a lot of Islamic countries were on the path to secularization before the West decided to mess with them decades ago. Even now the biggest Islamic nation in the world (Indonesia) is mostly peaceful and democratic.
Off course secularity is not the holy grail of civilization, most authoritarian regimes were secular, and the military adventurism nowadays by developed nations has little to do with religion.
I suspect this is correct http://finance.yahoo.com/news/isis-defector-explained-key-reason-180356055 Kalecki's Poltical Aspects of Full Employment anyone?
Carlos,
Liberals are such double standard aholes. For example they will have you believe that people like Kim Davis and southerners in general are far more odious than fundamentalist Muslims. That's simply bullshit.
American Christians are not murderous nut jobs, bent on jihad. They certainly are nowhere's near the threat that are radical Islamist's. To compare the two is preposterous.
Immigration is not a right. Citizenship is not a right. Like I said many times around here, if Christians behaved the way radical Islam has you'd have liberals wetting their pants and loading their weapons to shoot em all at the border. Hypocrites all.
Malmo's Ghost:
"Like I said before, if these were Christians, liberals would be apoplectic about their entry into their respective countries."
The people migrating to the U.S. from the south are almost exclusively Christian. Yet it's still the conservatives who are freaking out about it, not the liberals. Malmo's Ghost is the most relentlessly idiotic commenter on this blog.
Malmo does a good job staying on the talking point.
Six what are you going to do if we get the job guarantee?
Just let all the unwashed masses just walk right the F in from the turd world for a job in the US? We'll have the entire row here... that's not going to work not enough real resources and the left will have a heart attack at all the USD hegemony taking place in that situation...
Six,
First, thanks for the compliment.
Second, I'm talking about the Christians the left loathes with the venom, Protestants--particularly from the Bible Belt.
Mal thats because they torment the homosexuals (btw just like the Muslim jihadists )
Six,
For you:
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/29/camille_paglia_takes_on_jon_stewart_trump_sanders_liberals_think_of_themselves_as_very_open_minded_but_that%E2%80%99s_simply_not_true/
Apropos Carlos,
So the British left their colonies in better shape than they found them?? Wow, Wow!! Ever heard of the Victorian Holoausts in India? 3 million Bengalis were starved out by Churchill--he is no better than Hitler for many Indians. Stop lecturing Americans--at least they left Japan and South Korea in much better shape. And the British have dragged Americans into their own feuds--the worst one being the toppling of Mossadegh in Iran. I would much prefer Americans any day to the Brits. Thank you very much!
Srini
Matt ... if we ever get a job guarantee, I presume if will be for citizens and documented workers only. Although, with more money flowing through bank accounts, there will probably be plenty for undocumented workers to do, too.
Malmo ... protestant immigrants from the bible belt? I'm confused. Aren't they already here? Also, I don't usually name call when I argue. I was mocking your style. You obviously missed it. You're probably too angry to think clearly.
My point wasn't to defend fundamentalist Muslims. A lot of them are assholes. So are a lot of fundamentalist Christians.
Point taken Srini, the British Empire did a stack of evil, I'm not proud of it.
I have no idea what India would be like today, without British colonialism. Could have had better outcomes could have been worse. The maharajas were no saints.
It's not a very good comparison with Korea and Japan, Japan was an technologically advanced country before being bombed into the stone ages. I think you'll find they had a cohesive society and they were allowed to rebuild their society in short order. It was a different class of leader in the US then and credit to them.
A better parallel would be Phillipines and Malaysia. Not a whole lot of difference in ex-colonial outcomes Phillipines being marginally more corrupt.
The point ( however clumsily made) is to admonish the latest batch of empire builders for the absolute disaster in Iraq and Syria. British colonial asshole types were involved too.
If you think you'd like that done to your country you are welcome.
And to admonish myself... after the British left India.....millions died in ethnic cleansing the Punjab, so it's pretty fair to say all Empire builders fuck up whatever they touch. There's probably just less worse ways to go about it than the current clown pants.
Six,
I've never once been "angry" posting at this site. I'm usually smirking when pecking out posts. Ann Coulter like :)
The bible belt reference isn't about bible belters per se, it's merely meant to describe the type of Christians --no matter where they reside--that liberals would join the Minutemen to prevent from emigrating to the US.
Franko,
You allow immigration from any other country also enacting a Job Guarantee at an equivalent wage. No go shake your balls at an Ayatollah from a nice, safe 7,000 miles away and blog about how brave, tough and realistic you are.
Malmo,
That you can't attack liberals (whatever the hell those are) without making up nonsense demonstrates your beliefs aren't worth defending. Nothing is worth one's integrity.
Ben Wolf: You allow immigration from any other country also enacting a Job Guarantee at an equivalent wage.
For what reason? People who usually think more clearly and respect facts and history are unfortunately wildly exaggerating problems of having both a JG and open immigration. The USA could have a JG with its current immigration policies, and it could have one with pre 20th century style open immigration. The main difference is that an open JG for the USA would probably lead to a faster universal adoption of the JG and MMT/FF and weight the enormous and universal benefits a bit more to the USA than otherwise.
I am not favoring one immigration policy or another, for any country, but pleading for clear, careful, reality-respecting thinking. My concern is that this line of thought, the idea that such a tit-for-tat restriction is somehow necessary for a JG, bespeaks a deeper lack of understanding of monetary economics. Either a lack of understanding of the basics or a neglect of applying this understanding.
A job guarantee job is not welfare. It is not a "benefit" that the state gives to a person. It is not "not a regular job". It is the most ordinary sort of job there is. In fact, throughout history, nations have always had a 90% job guarantee. States have always decided one way or another to have fiscal policies that guarantees that 90% or so of jobseekers would get a job. Deciding to have more employment, less disemployment only benefits the state and its population.
When the state hires a worker at a JG, the state is exploiting the worker, getting a surplus. The term "subsidized employment" is sometimes used for JG / WPA style programs, but as usual, it gets things exactly backwards. The JG worker is subsidizing the state, not vice versa. Foreign states whose workers immigrate to the USA are giving the USA foreign aid. The USA doesn't need foreign aid, but why look a gift horse in the mouth? Similarly, the USA is not a basket case and doesn't need to run trade deficits to have a high standard of living, but if the rest of the world decides it wants to send the USA valuable goods or more valuable workers in return for US debt, why should Uncle Sam get his panties in a twist in either case?
Post a Comment