Category Archives: Reason

Cathy Young’s Blood Libel* Against Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter, Anti-Semitism, IMMIGRATION, Israel, Judaism & Jews, Reason

I’m Jewish, with all the baggage that entails (truncated family tree, etc.). But according to Cathy Young’s poorly reasoned and badly written hodgepodge, “Ann Coulter’s Anti-Semitism Runs Deeper Than You Know,” I, too, would qualify as anti-Semitic for questioning liberal Jews (that includes practically ALL so-called conservatives): They insist that while Palestinians have no right of return to Israel (agreed); the world has a “global Right of Return to the US.”

As I put it in “American Rabbis For Israel First” (August 8, 2014):

Ask any left-liberal American Jew if he supports a “Right of Return” to Israel proper for every self-styled Palestinian refugee, and he’ll likely recoil: “Are you meshuga? Never! That’s a euphemism for Israel’s demise.” The very thing he rejects for Israel, the liberal Jew is inclined to champion for America: a global right of return to the US for citizens of the world.

In “American Rabbis For Israel First” and, before that, on October 1 2010, in “Mass Immigration ‘End Of Days’ Scenario,” I suggested the apparently anti-Semitic (because logical?) notion that “mass immigration into America be looked at as a global ‘right of return'”:

Friends of Israel in America are unequivocal in standing up for that country’s right to retain its Jewish identity. What would become of that identity if all self-styled Arab refugees were to be granted the so-called right of return? Hatched by Israel’s enemies, this scheme will see millions of such refugees granted the right to immigrate to Israel proper, where they will overwhelm the Jewish majority. Friends of Israel know that Jews must remain numerically preponderant in the Jewish state if the prosperous, progressive nature of the country and its liberal institutions is to endure.

Think of mass immigration into America as a global “right of return.”

Now Young accuses Ms. Coulter of the thought crime for which I’ve long been guilty, too, because Ann wrote the following in Adios (2015):

The Young woman is foolish. She needs to show that for Ann to want for the US what Israel has claimed for itself through law is anti-Semitic. Young has not proven or argued this convincingly. The Young woman’s libel has no foundation in reason and argument.

Can Cathy Young, moreover, truly claim that Albion’s Seed founded this Christian country, America, with the view that it may one day happily become majority Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist; African, Asian or Arabian? Rubbish.

*****
* Cathy Young would probably decree it anti-Semitic to turn the term “blood libel” on its head and use it to denote defamation against a generally philo-Semitic Christian.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Donald Trump’s ‘He Started It’ Argument Is Libertarian

Conservatism, Donald Trump, Feminism, Free Speech, Left-Liberalism, libertarianism, Logic, Reason

Donald Trump’s ‘He started it’ argument, whinged CNN’s Anderson Cooper, is a five-year-old’s argument. Maybe. But it’s also the skeleton of the libertarian, non-aggression axiom: aggression against aggressors only.

First, context via Gawker:

During last night’s CNN-hosted Republican town hall in Milwaukee there was a funny, and perhaps even cathartic, exchange between Anderson Cooper and Donald Trump over Trump’s hounding of Ted Cruz’s wife, which culminated with Cooper telling Trump he was acting like a child while Trump insisted that he wasn’t acting like a child. …

MORE.

It’s not enough to malign something as childish. You have to show that the maligned childish thought or act is wrong. Children can be right, on rare occasions. Besides, the liberal left worships The Children (as do their partners among new, feminized, Michelle-Fields conservatives). Adults are the dolts in every Hollywood film. In liberal lore, those founts of knowledge and wisdom spring from the effing kids, mostly.

In this case, The Donald aka The libertarians aka The Kids are correct. Aggression against aggressors is justifiable.

Of course, verbal aggression is not the aggression libertarians are referring to when we apply libertarian law. Speech is not aggression.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Megyn Kelly’s Leading, Invalid, Elephant-Not-In-The-Room Question

Elections, Journalism, Left-Liberalism, Logic, Media, Propaganda, Reason, Republicans

Megyn Kelly gets away with a lot of antics, so why not this one at the debate in Des Moines, Iowa? There, Kelly referred to Donald Trump as “the elephant not in the room,” and asked Sen. Ted Cruz: “What message do you think Trump’s absence sends to the voters of Iowa?”

Kelly’s question is a leading question, not a probative question, because the question suggests the answer. Hers is a bad-faith question. I wish Donald Trump’s campaign had the analytical wherewithal to point out Kelly’s despicable antics.

And you know that when CNN approvingly describes (on “Outfront,” 1/29) a Fox News anchor as a consummate professional “staying above the fray”—said anchor is likely everything but. What the Left likes about the badly behaved and unprofessional Kelly, as chronicled in the more meaty version of “The Me Myself and I Megyn Kelly Production,” is that she reflects their side.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

The Moronic ‘If We Ban Muslim Immigration, The Terrorists Win’ Meme

IMMIGRATION, Islam, Reason, Terrorism

“If we ban Muslim immigration, the terrorists will have won” assert politicians from Barack Obama to Rand Paul. None is your friend.

“The terrorists win if Americans don’t do as the politicians say” is reverse psychology and cliché rolled into one. The prez keeps saying, “Dare do x, y or z on matters Muslim, and you guarantee that ISIS wins.” Or, “ISIS wants you to do x, y, and z.”

First, how do these asses know what ISIS wants? Or, are Barack Obama and Sen. Paul simply ass-uming they know? It is more likely the two politicians are using reverse psychology to get Americans to comply with their own wishes.

In any event, if ISIS wants you, America, to do what in your estimation is best for you–perhaps ISIS is right and the president is wrong. Perhaps ISIS is right and Rand Paul is wrong.

So, Sen. Paul; President Obama, we’ll take that long moratorium on Muslim immigration. It’s a winner for Americans. If ISIS approves, too, so be it. ISIS is happy; we are happy; everybody is happy; we all win.

READ THE REST. “GOP Debate: America-First Alliance Emerges; Neoconservatives Neutralized” IS ON THE UNZ REVIEW.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint