Such a bald statement from Reuters about the Department of Justice’s targeting of Fox News reporter James Rosen: “The Justice Department said on Friday that officials up to Attorney General Eric Holder vetted a decision to search an email account belonging to a Fox News reporter whose report on North Korea prompted a leak investigation” (Bolding mine). But there are three things that we can | Read More
According to the BBC’s Annual Country Ratings World Survey, Israel is the fourth least popular country in the world. It ranks ahead of only Iran, North Korea and Pakistan. Germany ranks as the world’s most popular country with Canada in second. Upon closer scrutiny, many of the countries surveyed are in the Muslim world: Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia. Only 1% of Egyptians have a positive view of Israel. Other countries surveyed outside the Muslim world have had a long history of anti-Semitism: Russia, Germany, Poland, France and the United Kingdom. Indeed, 72% of UK respondents have a negative view of Israel which is the highest total in Europe. Sadly, Canada and Australia did not fare much better with mostly positive responses of 25% and 16%, respectively. Many countries with little contact with Israel viewed the Jewish State in negative terms. Only 3% of Japanese surveyed indicated they had a positive view of Israel. The United States was the only country where more than 50% of those surveyed had a positive view of Israel. Several sub-Saharan African countries had generally positive views of Israel – Ghana (44%), Kenya (42%) and Nigeria (35%). Perhaps Israel’s airlift of Ethiopian Jews during the famine in the mid-1980s could be responsible for this enduring goodwill or possibly its good relations with the newly independent Southern Sudan. Unfortunately, these countries are the exception to the rule. Sadly, the world’s oldest hatred endures with no signs of dying.
See original here:
BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity
The First Amendment marks out three areas in which the federal government is limited: no “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion, no “abridging the freedom of speech or of press,” no impeding the “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The Obama administration has compiled a sorry record in all three categories. But anyone who bothered to notice was dismissed by the elite media as paranoid and alarmist. Until now. Suddenly it is acceptable to complain about Obama’s “appalling” approach to the First Amendment. Obama’s “living” Constitution now looks considerably less enlightened to reporters whose phone calls have been traced. The First Amendment has long been crumbling under slipshod jurisprudence. Obama is just giving it a final kick. A “living” Constitution obviously lends itself to an unlimited and abusive federal government, as it renders all written protections passé. There is no quicker way to kill a constitution than to say it is alive. That just means the federal government is freed up to do whatever it wants. The Constitution has no meaning except what those in power give it at any particular moment. Journalists didn’t mind this fashionable travesty when it meant religious freedom was squashed in the name of “women’s health” or political speech curtailed in the name of “campaign finance reform.” But now that the living-constitutionalists are snooping on phone records and hacking into e-mails in the name of national security, they balk. This is “chilling,” they say. We’re told that press freedom is sacred, often from the same pundits who cast complaints about the HHS mandate as partisan carping. Yet to anyone paying attention, the Obama administration’s slippery treatment of the First Amendment should come as no surprise. The James Rosen incident, much in the news this week, reflects a pattern that was already on display in the rollout of the HHS mandate. Recall that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius denied that she was violating the religious freedom of Christian organizations as those organizations weren’t “religious” (according to a new Orwellian criterion she had concocted, which defined only purely sectarian organizations as religious). Similarly, the Justice Department argued that it wasn’t violating the press freedom of James Rosen as he wasn’t press. He was rather an “aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator” in a spy ring for having receiving classified information about North Korea from an intelligence analyst. That appeared in a May 2010 affidavit. It was well known that the Obama administration didn’t consider Fox News a real “news” organization. But who knew they would make the view official before a judge? Editorialists at the Wall Street Journal point out that evidence for Rosen’s spying consisted of saying in an e-mail to his source that he wanted to break “news ahead of my competitors” and that they could “expose muddle-headed policy when we see it—or force the administration’s hand to go in the right direction, if possible.” The editorialists note that “if working with a source who uses an alias is now a crime, we’ve come a long way from the celebration of Bob Woodward and ‘Deep Throat.’” Redefining journalists as spies and religious organizations as nonreligious instruments of state mandates are the tricks of totalitarian countries. Obama’s America is moving in that direction. The end point of liberalism is a coercive state in which the “law” is indistinguishable from the will of whoever holds power. A “living Constitution” sounds better than totalitarianism, but in principle it is no different.
“Pay attention to us, waaaaaahhhh….” Via The Blaze: SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea fired three short-range guided missiles into its eastern waters on Saturday, a South Korean official said. It routinely tests such missiles, but the latest launches came during a period of tentative diplomacy aimed at easing tensions. The North fired two
Read the original post:
North Korea Fires Three Short Range Guided Missiles Into Its Waters
You would think the Left would love a country that has universal health care, prosperous trade unions, and same sex marriage. All of these things can be found in Israel. Yet where Israel is concerned, none of these count with the Left. In fact, many on the Left believe the establishment of Israel 65 years ago today was a mistake and, to paraphrase Marx, wish it would wither away. During Israel’s dual war with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon in July 2006, Richard Cohen of the Washington Post wrote : The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself. Cohen went on to argue that it was pointless to condemn Hezbollah and Hamas and concluded, “It is best for Israel to hunker down.” A few years later, Howard Zinn would echo Cohen’s sentiments. In his final interview before his death in January 2010, the author of A People’s History of the United States said : I think the Jewish State was a mistake, yes. Obviously, it’s too late to go back. It was a mistake to drive the Indians off the American continent, but it’s too late to give it back. At the time, I thought creating Israel was a good thing, but in retrospect, it was probably the worst thing that the Jews could have done. What they did was join the nationalistic frenzy, they became privy to all of the evils that nationalism creates and became very much like the United States—very aggressive, violent and bigoted. When Jews were without a state they were internationalists and they contributed to whatever culture they were part of and produced great things. Jews were known as kindly, talented people. Now, I think, Israel is contributing to anti-Semitism. So I think it was a big mistake. With attitudes like these amongst the ranks of the Left in the media and academia (and in many instances amongst Jews themselves), it has become possible to delegitimize the legitimacy of Israel in the family of nations. This has manifested itself in the support of the Palestinian led Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Movement (BDS). The BDS movement beseeches “international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era.” The BDS Movement received a big boost last week when renowned scientist Stephen Hawking announced he was withdrawing from participating in a conference in Israel next month that will be hosted by Israeli President Shimon Peres. After the University of Cambridge initially denied that Hawking was boycotting the conference, the author of A Brief History of Time released a letter left little doubt as to where he stood: I accepted the invitation to the Presidential Conference with the intention that this would not only allow me to express my opinion on the prospects for a peace settlement but also because it would allow me to lecture on the West Bank. However, I have received a number of emails from Palestinian academics. They are unanimous that I should respect the boycott. In view of this, I must withdraw from the conference. Had I attended, I would have stated my opinion that the policy of the present Israeli government is likely to lead to disaster. It was later revealed that Noam Chomsky urged Hawking to lend his support to the BDS campaign. An editorial in the Boston Globe naively stated , “The movement that Hawking has signed on to aims to place pressure on Israel through peaceful means. In the context of a Mideast conflict that has caused so much destruction and cost so many lives, nonviolence is something to be encouraged.” The objectives of the BDS Movement are the same as those of Hamas and Hezbollah: to bring the State of Israel to an end. Meanwhile, an editorial in the Guardian praised Hawking’s decision touting its own poll which said its readers supported him by a two-to-one margin, stridently claiming that it “shows just how far public opinion has turned against Israel’s relentless land-grabbing and oppression.” But here’s the thrust of the Guardian editorial: But what winds Israel up is the fact that this rejection is by a famous scientist and that science and technology drive its economy. Hawking’s decision threatens to open a floodgate with more and more scientists coming to regard Israel as a pariah state. Its research ties with European and American scientists must be protected. Well, if not for Israeli science and technology, Stephen Hawking could not communicate with the world. As Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, an Israeli attorney, stated , “His whole computer-based communications system runs on a chip designed by Israel’s Intel team. I suggest if he truly wants to pull out of Israel he should also pull out his Intel Core i7 from his tablet.”