* I think this Australian idea of paying Cambodia to take boat people a superb idea. Win-win.
If the boaters are that desperate they should be happy, Cambodia makes money. Would be migrants get sent a terrific message.
This is absolutely what Europe should do. Push them back into holding area in North Africa. It would be expensive but less than the total future costs of taking them in. Of course it has to be done with panache.
Bribery is an under appreciated force for good in world affairs; carefully done. If the price is right some country would act as a holding cum education centre south of the US border. What about paying Mexico to send them there before they reach the border? Combine this with a watered down Marshall program for propaganda affect.
(Of course everywhere in the West are Open Borders crowds that jam sensible solutions but who don’t seem to have as much traction in Oz.)
* France has a good idea to keep refugees away, over whelming bureaucracy staffed by indifferent workers so & stingy benefits. Of course with a socialist in charge that might quickly change.
One thing of note in the article is how social media guides the decisions of migrants. When a country gains a rep of being generous word gets out quickly.
* John O’Sullivan says the new guy in Australia wouldn’t have solved the boat problem if he’d been in instead of Abbott; but he probably won’t go out of his way to actively break what his predecessor fixed.
On the other hand, a lot of things require not just maintenance to keep going but high level enthusiasm.
* Here’s a suggestion which could help solve both the immigration problem and the budget deficit. Currently many if not most of our welfare programs are treated as entitlements. That means that if the number of food stamp recipients double, then so does the amount the government spends on food stamps. Welfare programs are treated like a supposedly bottomless pit of money.
Instead, we should budget a specific amount of money for welfare benefits. If the number of people who qualify for a program goes up, then the value of the benefit for each family or individual goes down. That will incentivize poor voters to want to keep large numbers of other poor people from entering the country.
Another option would be to create a separate income tax for welfare (and perhaps for every government department). Have it apply to every last penny of income, including capital gains, with no deductions. When the number of people using welfare goes up, so do everyone’s taxes. When the value of welfare benefits go up, so do everyone’s taxes.
Our current income tax system is far too opaque, and effectively hides the cost of individual government programs from the taxpayers.
* Send ‘me all to Liberia and Sierra Leone. That’s what those places are for.
Posted inAustralia, Immigration|Comments Off on Steve Sailer: What Plans Should America Have Ready to Stymie a Camp of the Saints Here?
Steve Sailer writes: The President of the United States has long claimed to be a believing Christian. For many years, he trumpeted his decades of theological tutelage under his spiritual adviser Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Rev. Wright has made clear that, although he was a Muslim for a while, he espouses “Black Liberation Theology.”
Before finding Rev. Wright, Obama was, according to his Dreams from My Father, a regular reader of the Nation of Islam newspaper The Final Call. But the failure of Rev. Farrakhan’s “POWER” attempt to launch a blacks-only brand of toothpaste and other toiletries convinced Obama there wasn’t enough money in black economic nationalism.
But some people remain skeptical, citing Obama’s formative years in Muslim Indonesia.
Comments to Steve Sailer:
* Obama is not a Muslim. He reminds me of every other liberal I’ve ever met in my life. That means he’s atheist/agnostic, but favors Islam over Christianity because he favors whatever is seen as Eastern/Brown as opposed to Western/White.
It’s absolutely bizarre, but expected, to watch the media demand that Republicans serve as witnesses to his Christian faith.
* When Barry made his bizarre turn to Chicago in 1985, he had decided to become a professional black man. Not a black professional man, but a professional black-man. To do this, he needed to join a black church.
If blacks were all Mormons, he would have joined a Mormon temple.
The man has no religion. Imagine.
* Keep in mind that Barack Hussein Obama not only carries his father’s name (abjuring “Barry,” which he was once called, for “Barack”), but he called his “autobiography” “Dreams from My Father” despite the fact that his father was out of his life after a couple of months and he had very little contact with him, being raised by his white mother and white grandparents. He didn’t become a Christian until he joined Rev. Wright’s church sometime in the late 80′s, by his own admission. Both his father and step-father were Muslims. So, for some reason, his father played a much greater role on Obama’s life than the facts would justify, and he has more reason to favor Islam over Christianity than what you suggest. There was also that incident when he was being interviewed by a prominent newsman and inadvertently referred to his Islamic faith only to be corrected by the newsman that he meant his Christian faith and Obama quickly said he meant to say his Christian faith. I have never made such a slip-up in my life, and I doubt anybody who was raised a Christian ever made such a verbal slip. (BTW I was raised a Christian, but have been a nonbeliever since I was 13 or 14, despite being dragged to church every Sunday until I graduated from high school and went away to college.) I don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theories that Obama is a “secret Muslim,” but the record is less clear than his most ardent supporters insist.
* Obama strikes me as basically secular, but will spout a gilded veneer sort of a mix of leftist black Christianity and non-fundamentalist Islam for political purposes.
Since Trump is begging this whole discussion (ironically, by not saying anything), notice how quasi-religious Trump is getting.
* At this point is there really any reason left to doubt that Obama has zero respect for Christianity? He takes every opportunity to criticize Christianity for ancient sins while forgiving Islam for both current and past sins.
SFAIK, since leaving the Reverend Wright’s “church” and becoming president he has yet to join any other religious congregation. If he hasn’t done so this late in his presidency, then he never will again.
Speaking of which, when’s the last time Bill and Hillary and Chelsea attended church for anything other than political campaigning? After Bill was defeated for re-election for governor back in the late 70s, he and Hillary took up attending a big church in Little Rock which broadcast its meetings. They sat on the front row every Sunday, where everyone watching the church on the teevee could get a good glimpse of them.
Posted inBarack Obama, Islam|Comments Off on Steve Sailer: Q. Is Obama a Muslim? A. He Was Raised to be a Muslimist
JewishWorldReview.com must be enjoying its moment in the sun but whether or not the website runs Ann’s column has no significance. It won’t decrease Ann Coulter’s readership.
But the founder of Jewish World Review, an online magazine that publishes Coulter’s syndicated column, isn’t buying her excuse.
“She could have been drunk, she could have been high, I don’t know, I have to give her the benefit of the doubt…but I don’t have to delude myself,” Binyamin Jolkovsky, who has served as the publication’s editor-in-chief for nearly 18 years, told The Daily Beast. “Pandering to Jewish money is about as anti-Semitic a stereotype as you could put forth. Her ‘eff-ing Jews’ comment is not identifying Israel—it’s identifying Jews, plural, and all Jews. There is no excuse for that. You can’t just wiggle out of something that vile and hateful.”
Coulter’s work has been appearing on Jewish World Review since at least January 2000. The day after Coulter’s now-infamous tweet, Jolkovsky’s website posted a new Coulter “insight” titled, “Donald Trump: The only people who like him are the voters.” Later that day, an editor’s note was added to her op-ed reading, “This column was prepared before the author’s anti-Semitic rant. JWR reached out to her and awaits her reply.”
So far, Jolkovsky says, it’s been radio silence.
“I have not heard back from her yet, no,” Jolkovsky said. “I called the syndicate, and initially they asked me to speak to her copy editor, and they said—I’m not making this up—that her copy editor will explain to me why she did what she did. I was like, I don’t think so.”
Jolkovsky, who is an Orthodox Jew and Republican voter, says that he has long maintained a personal working relationship with Coulter, and that this is the first time she has not emailed him back in a timely manner.
“It’s like when you have a friend and then the friend totally disses you, [even though] you’ve always been there for that friend,” he said. “It hurts.”
When asked if he is considering pulling Coulter’s column from his site, Jolkovsky said he hasn’t made a decision yet, but that “there are a lot of readers who want that to happen.”
“Let’s take Dana Milbank at The Washington Post, and imagine he wrote, ‘eff-ing blacks,’ you don’t think The Washington Post wouldn’t fire him on the spot?” he offered as an analogy. “It boggles the mind…I am hoping that she’s finished her tantrum and that she honestly understands what she’s done.”
Posted inAnn Coulter|Comments Off on Numerous Outlets Are Writing Articles About JWR Possibly Dropping Ann Coulter’s Column
It is no wonder that Coulter feels an affinity for Trump, who never admits he’s wrong and does not apologize for overstepping the bounds of bad taste.
There is a reason they get away with behavior for which the rest of us mere mortals would be penalized, not rewarded; it is related to the advantage of the sex of each.
Trump is a billionaire. Rich men are exempt from the constraints of polite society. Females fawn over them; males revere them. All hope to benefit in some way from their presence.
Coulter is a tall, slim blonde who can wear any outfit as though it were custom-made for her.
The embodiment of a common male fantasy, she causes men to drool and women to hate their own reflections in the mirror.
If Trump were penniless and Coulter frumpy, they would lack the protective shield that provides them the bravado and brazenness they flaunt so fecklessly. This last debate, however, seems to have put some chinks in their armor. And if it cracks, we will all be watching, popcorn in hand.
Posted inAnn Coulter|Comments Off on Ann Coulter & Donald Trump
Ann Coulter must be shaking in her boots that JewishWorldReview.com might drop her column.
If I were her, I would not bother responding to those websites threatening to drop her. She doesn’t need them. Why should she defend herself? Her stock in trade is outrage. This time the target is those who pander to Jews and Israel.
From Haaretz: JTA – A conservative Jewish publication may drop conservative political pundit Ann Coulter’s column in the wake of her tweet slamming GOP candidates for pandering to “f—ing Jews.”
The founder of the online “Jewish World Review,” Binyamin Jolkovsky, told the Daily Beast that he has personally reached out to Coulter but that she had not responded as of Friday.
Her latest column, that appeared on the website on September 17, a day after the CNN GOP candidates’ debate and her infamous tweet and follow-up tweets, included an editor’s note reading: “This column was prepared before the author’s anti-Semitic rant. JWR reached out to her and awaits her reply.”
Her column has been appearing on the website since 2000.
“She could have been drunk, she could have been high, I don’t know, I have to give her the benefit of the doubt…but I don’t have to delude myself,” Jolkovsky told The Daily Beast. “Pandering to Jewish money is about as anti-Semitic a stereotype as you could put forth. Her ‘eff-ing Jews’ comment is not identifying Israel—it’s identifying Jews, plural, and all Jews. There is no excuse for that. You can’t just wiggle out of something that vile and hateful.”
He said that this is the first time that Coulter has not emailed him back in a timely manner. He said that he has not yet decided whether to pull her column, but that many readers would like to see that happen.
Posted inAnn Coulter, Anti-Semitism|Comments Off on Haaretz: ‘After her Twitter tirade criticizing alleged Republican pandering to U.S. Jews, Coulter’s column at the conservative Jewish World Review is under threat’
After awhile, it gets pretty exhausting to still feel offended by what Ann Coulter says, and that is exactly what she seems to be counting on; a war of attrition against those who will be offended. Coulter churns out intentionally provocative remarks that will hurt and shock people in such volume as to make her critics sound like easily offended, compulsive whiners. The only option for those who dislike Coulter is to ignore her, which means to stand back and let her grab the spotlight. After all, truth be told, her remarks about the debate were more memorable than anything said by anyone else during that evening.
Coulter’s remarks haven’t gone unpunished: her columns have been dropped from newspapers and her speaking engagements often attract protesters. However, the more publications and shows drop her, the more she is embraced as a maverick. But will there come a time when she goes too far or, worse, when Coulter fatigue sets in? Radhika Sanghani gives a perspective from the other side of the pond in the UK’s Daily Telegraph: “If you haven’t heard of Ann Coulter, you may want to count your blessings and stop reading now.” Sanghani says Coulter “seems to be on a personal campaign to be the most hated woman in her country, and by the look of things, she’s succeeding.”
Liam O’Brien, an expert in media criticism and pop culture at Quinnipac University, told ABC, “I think [her comments are] highly calculated. I’m not sure she knows what trigger on which verbal gun she is going to pull at any given moment, but I think at any particular time she has three or four of these things that are controversial and inflammatory enough to get national press notice above and beyond whatever the topic is of her book or talk show.”
Following her controversial statement about Jews on Donny Deutsch’s program in 2007, far from losing viewers and fans, requests for Coulter’s appearances increased, and perhaps the same will happen after her outrageous tweets about Jews and Israel following the GOP debates. While Coulter says offensive things about many groups, getting dangerously close to the tipping point with Jews, many of whom support her because she speaks well of Israel usually, seems to be good for her ratings. After the incident on “The Big Idea,” when she said Jews needed to be perfected, Coulter’s publicist Diana Banister told ABC News, “No one has been reluctant to book [Coulter] and we’ve had as many requests as ever, probably more.” There was speculation then that Coulter’s career as a media figurehead might be over, and those predictions were incorrect, as they might be now. Even if talk show hosts and interviewers refuse to book her, Coulter still has social media, her website and her books. In fact, a well-publicized refusal to book her might just generate more interest in her.
FROM THE COMMENTS:
If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.
* Ann Coulter has become increasingly antiusemitic since she backed that turkey, Mitt Romney, and he lost. I think she is frustrated by her bad decision and is taking it out on us…”Christkillers.”
* It seems that Antisemitism and Jew-baiting is rapidly becoming the “In” thing to feel and do.
* Jew’s must flood Fox New’s with requests to have her banned. The same for her appearing on Hugh Hewitt’s program. She is a virulent anti-semite. I say this as a fellow Republican.
* is this thing married? does she go out with men? is she in need of all this bad coverage to cover some mental disorder?
* She’s a self hating gay
* One thing I know for a fact, she will not say it to me face to face.
* F–k her! She’s a stupid sh-t!
* Coulter claims her innocence. She insists she “likes” Jews. Does she consider “f—ing Jews” a compliment? An expression (epithet) of love? How can she defend her choice of words and how could she even imagine marrying those words to begin with? Did she greet her father, “F—ing Father?” How does she speak to her lovers?
* Dennis Kline ·
Interfaith New Thought Chaplain and Spiritual Life Coach Practitioner at Asheville Wedding Officiant
she’s a loon!
* She works for Vdare (as does Michelle Malkin another prize) an openly racist, anti-semtiic group that some of their members have rightly been thrown out of mainsteam conservaitve publication so she fits right in. Only two exceptions are her and MM. She also defended council of concerned citizens in one of her books which everyone else knows it is a racist group but according to Ann they are only guilty of this 30 years ago. Which no one else things they changed except her. She is more of the Ron Paul type then anything else and she doesn’t even have the sense to see that this is wrong as she works for publication that support her comments. SHe has become more and more irrelevent in the last 10 years or so and maybe she thinks that is the Jew fault but it isn’t. She gives lip service to various causes but in the end the only issue she really cares about is that someone only white Christians from Europe are good people and supports the white supremisists who are acutally user her to try to get their ideas into the Republican party. So she is bad for Jews and also bad for the Republican party who harm themselvse with toxic people like this.
If you’re a Jew I want you to say these next five sentences out loud, because they are true, and hard to say if you were brought up on Holocaust-centered Judaism.
Stalin was worse than Hitler, and killed at least twice as many people.
Mao was MUCH worse than Hitler, and killed nearly eight times as many people.
The communist holocaust was worse than Hitler’s Holocaust.
Communism is worse than Nazism.
Hiter’s Holocaust was not unique.
I never go out of shul during Yizkor. I stay in, even though both my parents are alive, thank God. I say Yizkor for my grandparents and give tzedaka in their memory. But when everyone comes back in and says אל מלא רחמים for our six million that were murdered by Nazis, I say another one for the 55 million murdered by Communists…
Hitler’s Holocaust should be remembered and commemorated by Jews. It is a Jewish issue, and that’s it. If non Jews want to also commemorate it, good, fine. But there should be absolutely no government involvement in Holocaust education. And if there is, all holocausts should be covered equally in proportion to the amount of people murdered in each, and it should be explained that government is the cause of all holocausts, every single one of them.
Let me add one final, important thought. People, especially Jews, see Holocaust commemoration as of paramount importance because if you forget history, it will repeat itself. We remember the Holocaust with the mantra “never again”. I will say that the danger of another Communist-type holocaust caused by overzealous government regulators trying to “innocently restructure the economy” because they are so wise and are trying to create a socialist utopia is much more likely than a repeat of a Nazi-type Holocaust where a bunch of racists try to create a master race by killing everyone else.
* A decade ago, Ernst Nolte, then of the Free University of Berlin, ignited the Historikerstreit, or dispute of historians, and became the target of a campaign of defamation led by the philosopher Jürgen Habermas, by asking: “Didn’t the ‘Gulag Archipelago’ come before Auschwitz? Wasn’t the ‘class murder’ of the Bolsheviks the logical and factual presupposition of the ‘race murder’ of the National Socialists?” These are still good questions. In fact, Stalinist—and Maoist—offenses, while acknowledged, are generally downplayed and have achieved nothing remotely approaching the publicity of the Nazi massacre of the Jews. In the United States, it is possible for a person who keeps abreast of the news media to encounter references to the Holocaust virtually every day of his life. Yet who has heard of Kolyma, where more people were done to death than the present official count for Auschwitz? The figures for the victims of Maoist rule that are starting to come out of China suggest a total in the range of tens of millions. Do these facts even make a dent in public consciousness?
Pointing to Communist crimes is not meant to “trivialize” the destruction of European Jewry, nor can it do so. The massacre of the Jews was one of the worst things that ever happened. But even supposing that it was the worst thing that ever happened, couldn’t some arrangement be worked out whereby Communist mass-murders are mentioned once for every ten times (or hundred times?) the Holocaust is brought up? Perhaps also, if we must have publicly- financed museums commemorating the foreign victims of foreign regimes, some memorial to the victims of Communism might be considered, not on the Mall itself, of course, but maybe in a low rent area of Washington?
Despite turning 180o on almost all of my historical perspectives, there are some establishment positions that, even for me, are hard to give up. Some of my reversals are well known to the readers of TJL. For example, The United States government is the cause of evil not good. Abraham Lincoln was a murderer, not a hero. The South was justified in seceding from the US, and the North was the aggressor for invading the South. Iran is not going to nuke anybody. AIPAC is a detrimental organization and should be shut down. Those who claim Israel controls much of US foreign policy are correct, not anti Semitic. The US should have sent Japan a letter of apology for the oil embargo after Pearl Harbor instead of declaring war.
And so on.
But for me, there was one major establishment position that still stuck in me like a dagger and was only loosened last week. That is, declaring and winning World War II was justified if only in order to save what was left of European Jewry.
On the face of it, this makes sense. Hitler is exterminating us wholesale, so naturally you want Britain, Russia, America to invade and stop it. They liberate death camps in 1945 and save what is left of the survivors. Obviously they should have invaded much sooner to stop it that much quicker, no? If only Britain and America had declared war in 1933 immediately when Hitler rose to power.
But then I read Ralph Raico, a libertarian historian and student of Ludwig von Mises. And he said something that totally took me for a loop. Here’s Raico, in his collection of essays, Great Wars and Great Leaders: A Libertarian Rebuttal: (My bold.)
In 1940 Churchill at last became Prime Minister, ironically enough when the Chamberlain government resigned because of the Norwegian fiasco—which Churchill, more than anyone else, had helped to bring about.80 As he had fought against a negotiated peace after the fall of Poland, so he continued to resist any suggestion of negotiations with Hitler. Many of the relevant documents are still sealed—after all these years81 —but it is clear that a strong peace party existed in the country and the government. It included Lloyd George in the House of Commons, and Halifax, the Foreign Secretary, in the Cabinet. Even after the fall of France, Churchill refused even to consider Hitler’s renewed peace overtures, whether sincere or not.
This, more than anything else, is supposed to be the foundation of his greatness. The British historian John Charmley raised a storm of outraged protest when he suggested that a negotiated peace in 1940 might have been to the advantage of Britain and Europe. A Yale historian, writing in the New York Times Book Review, referred to Charmley’s thesis as “morally sickening.” Yet Charmley’s scholarly and detailed work makes the crucial point that Churchill’s obdurate refusal even to listen to peace terms in 1940 doomed what he claimed was dearest to him—the Empire and a Britain that was non-socialist and independent in world affairs. One may add that it may also have doomed European Jewry.84It is amazing that half a century after the fact, there are critical theses concerning World War II that are off-limits to historical debate.
Churchill’s refusal to listen to Hitler’s peace overtures may have doomed European Jewry. When I first read that sentence I did a double take. I didn’t even understand what Raico was saying on a basic level, the thought was so foreign to me. So I read it again. And again. Was I reading this right? How can that be?
Then I saw that little 84 footnote. And I read that. Here’s what the footnote said:
84 On March 27, 1942, Goebbels commented in his diary on the destruction of the European Jews, which was then underway: “Here, too, the Führer is the undismayed champion of a radical solution necessitated by conditions and therefore inexorable. Fortunately, a whole series of possibilities presents itself for us in wartime that would be denied us in peacetime. We shall have to profit by this.” The Goebbels Diaries, 1942–1943, Louis P. Lochner, ed. and trans. (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1948), p. 148.
When I read the footnote I understood. It was very possible that World War II cemented the Final Solution. Straight out of Goebbels’ diary. Without an all-out war, Hitler would not have been able to exterminate us on a systematic global scale. War enabled him to enact radical measures and we were doomed.
Had Churchill made peace with Hitler in 1939, it is much more likely that the worst that would have happened to the Jews is that most would have been slaves rather than be exterminated. Yes, Hitler would have killed Jews. Perhaps even hundreds of thousands. But in order to embark on a project to exterminate millions, you need the full support of an entire country, and Hitler could have only gotten that through war.
And then I just stared into space for a minute and said to myself, “Oh my God.”
It may have been Winston Churchill who set the Final Solution and the Holocaust in motion. Adolf Hitler was only the vehicle and the direct cause. Winston Churchill may have been the ultimate enabler.
FROM THE COMMENTS:
* Says Jeffrey Herf, in answer to a question posed by (the late) Carla Cohen, when Herf spoke at Cohen’s bookstore, Politics & Prose.
Cohen: “So are you saying that if there had been no war there would have been no final solution?”
Herf: “No war, no final solution. Yes.”
* We all know World War II did not save many Jews from dying in the holocaust, and it is very plausible to say it sped up the killing machine. The reason we link the WWII and the Holocaust is just because we have been hammered into thinking that way.
* Yes, Hitler wanted to destroy the Jews. But he may not have been able to had Churchill sued for peace. It is possible. And any possibility – this one actually being plausible – is better than what ended up happening.
Second, Lew Rockwell is in no way an anti Semite. I donate money to the Mises Institute every month and I love Lew Rockwell. I will continue donating money to the Mises Institute every month and cherish the thank you letters that Lew sends me. Lew is anti Israel and anti Zionist.
Posted inAdolf Hitler, Holocaust|Comments Off on Did The War on Hitler Cause the Holocaust?
Don’t think I’m upset because she said “How many #$%ing Jews are there in the US?” I couldn’t help agreeing with her tweets. The republican obsession with Israel, due the Evangelicals, is quite distasteful and dangerous. Her sudden distaste with Republicans was actually quite refreshing.
How many of us have used that language describing a different group of people? Almost all of us. And she wasn’t even insulting Jews in the sentence. But HOLOCAUST HOLOCAUST, it’s immediately goes into “antisemitism” and reductio ad Nazism and Ann Coulter is the next Eva Braun.
She’s a bad person, but not because of this tweet. And she certainly doesn’t hate Jews any more than she hates pretty much everybody. She’s not anti-semitic. She’s misanthropic.
How many #$%ing Jews spend their time bomb sniffing for anything less than sensitive written about them?
Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi David Lau and Sephardic Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef say even though International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem are friends of Israel, the event undermines the state’s Jewish character.
Why shouldn’t Gentile state argue that all sorts of Jewish events and organizations undermine the Gentile/Christian/national/racial character of that particular nation?
Don’t millions of Arab citizens in the Jewish state undermine Israel’s Jewish character? Extending this reasoning, doesn’t the presence of Jews in a Gentile country undermine the Christian or white or Gentile character of that particular nation?
Posted inIsrael, Jews|Comments Off on Israel’s Chief Rabbinate Blasts ‘Spiritually Dangerous’ Christian Event in Jerusalem
: (My bold.)