-
Here is what is “delusional”: the belief that American principles — freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equality before the law — have a natural place as “universal principles” in a culture grounded in Shariah principles.
I almost forgot how the Pundit Right smacked down Glenn Beck over his wholly rational concern that out of Tahrir Square a new caliphate might arise in the Islamic world until I read William Kristol’s op-ed this week.
Earlier this month, Weekly Standard editor and Fox analyst Kristol had led off the anti-Beck attack with a heated column accusing Beck of “hysteria” for his “rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East” and connections to the American Left. Kristol was seconded by National Review editor Rich Lowry. The New York Times’ David Brooks entered the debate lambasting Beck for his “delusional ravings about the caliphate coming back” while “the conservative establishment” saw Mubarak’s fall as “a fulfillment of Ronald Reagan’s democracy dream.” (Count me out.)
For the next week or so, taunting “delusional” Beck became a regular feature on cable TV. The Pundit Left congratulated the responsible Right for “addressing” the Beck “problem.” And maybe a solution was near. “I’ve heard, from more than a couple of conservative sources, that prominent Republicans have approached Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes about the potential embarrassment that the paranoid-messianic rodeo clown may bring upon their brand,” Time’s Joe Klein blogged. “I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a mirror-Olbermann situation soon.”
Somehow it all slipped my mind.
And then I read Kristol’s Wednesday lament in the Washington Post over what he sees as President Obama’s dithering over what he also sees as “Arab spring.” This is a jarringly dainty euphemism for a blur of regional events that now includes: the triumphal return to Egypt of the poisonous Yusef al Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s favorite cleric who just drew 2 million Egyptians back to Tahrir Square where he prayed for the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem; panicky EU promises of billions of dollars in aid (protection money?) to its “Southern neighborhood”; emergency preparations for as many as 300,000 Islamic “migrants” washing up on just Italy’s shores any day. By the way, one disastrous effect of mass Islamic immigration (hijra) to Europe to date may be gleaned from the current political climate in which a new edition of Jean Raspail’s 1973 novel “Camp of the Saints,” the prophetic account of France’s inability to survive massive Third World immigration, is expected to land the 85-year-old author and his publisher in French court on “hate speech” charges.
But I digress, sort of. What is noteworthy about the beef against Beck is the rock-hard certitude with which his critics, Right and Left, dismiss the caliphate concept as though it were a mythological beast, not a historical system of Islamic governance still revered and yearned for by most Muslims. Speaking of Tahrir Square, a 2007 University of Maryland/WorldOpinon poll indicated that 74 percent of Egyptians favor “strict Shariah,” while 67 percent favor a “caliphate” uniting all of Islam.
But woe to anyone who takes notice. Harvard historian Niall Ferguson, for example, was recently accused on a noted blog of “(slinging) caliphate tripe” when Ferguson pointed out that the Muslim Brotherhood “remains by far the best organized opposition force in the country, and wholly committed to the restoration of the caliphate and the strict application of Shariah.” “Hilariously stupid” was the not-so-hilariously stupid comment.
But even if “Arab spring” should fail, Kristol writes, “there would be still be a case, for reasons of honor and duty … to stand with the opponents of tyranny.” Doing so, he continues, would not only “vindicate American principles and mean a gain for American interests but because we claim those American principles to be universal principles.”
Here is what is “delusional”: the belief that American principles — freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equality before the law — have a natural place as “universal principles” in a culture grounded in Shariah principles. This is the pure fantasy that has driven our foreign policy through a decade of “nation-building” wars. Meanwhile, the only way I know how to get to anything you might call “universal principles” into the Islamic world is through the establishment of … a caliphate.
ONE TRACK MIND EAGLE
Here you go, Dweller. You have been trying to defend these dimwits and using effete sophistry to make excuses for them, and Yonatan responds by agreeing that their goal is to weaken the Israeli-American alliance. If that is not bad enough, like well trained moles, they want us to think that this will be “good” for Israel.
This is exactly what the Hamas guys want – and have unfortunately found some ignorant Israelis to help them do their dirty work.
You have no idea how I spend “all” my time. Weakening the Israeli-American alliance is EXACTLY what Hamas would like to see. The Hamas guys LOVE Jews who attack America and thus weaken Israel.
BTW, 89% of American Muslims voted to elect Imam Obama, pretty close to the 78% of American Jews who voted for him.
Most of those who put the evil genie of Nazism, Facism and Imperialism out of business were not Jewish either. Neither were most of those who came up with the notion of creating a homeland for the Jews.
Oy, veh! Here we see how these moles operate – by calling a supporter of Israel like me a “Jew-hater”, while proudly acknowledging that he and his friends would like to weaken the Israeli-American alliance.
Only an anti-Israel mole, a Hamas member or someone with less than half a brain would try to convince anyone that weakening the Israeli-American alliance would strengthen Israel.
Man, you’re an arrogant SOB AE.
Thats the bottom line for you. You don’t give a nanosecond of thought to what might actually be better for Israel.Lets just use your results based logic. You live in the US, but spend all your time on the Israel board, trying to persuade others that abandoning the US/Israel alliance is tantamount to being a Hamas member. You’re not Jewish, so this really shouldn’t be such concern to you. You must be a Jew hater or a paid shill for the US government interests.
The bottom line here is to strengthen Israel – who gives a flying flip about what the US wants. This is not about niceties and a little give and take amongst friends. Your country’s and your position are an endangerment to our existence.
Far more than you apparently. You can make as many excuses as you like, without considering the consequences. The bottom line is the attempt to weaken the Israeli-American alliance.
I don’t assume anything that is irrelevent. It doesn’t matter whether you are pursuaded or not after ignoring the evidence as well as the bottom line mentioned above.
Who gives a crap about your version of “sincerity” given the effect on Israel’s security?
Bingo – this fits what I’m talking about here.
Of course you have a conflict as a Jew which is why you blithely and capriciously want to ignore the effect of the unfortunate and ill-considered decisions to withdraw from Gaza and give up the settlements on hat an unbiased observer may conclude about the West Bank.
BTW, it doesn’t matter if you are not blithe or capricious:-)) Only the effect matters.
The reason for your underestimation is moot. Only the effect matters.
Not enough, apparently.
You assume it’s a pretense. I remain unpersuaded of that.
What’s more, arrogance & hubris (even when present) do not necessarily negate sincerity.
The ego loves to play God (which is what arrogance & hubris are about).
It’s natural for it to be so tempted, since it is made “b’tselem elohim” — in His image. (Imago Dei, if that kinda lingo sits better with you.)
Arrogance and sincerity are not (necessarily) mutually exclusive.
Another assumption — two of them actually:
one, that I have such a conflict,
and two, that that’s the reason for my ‘underestimation.’
You do a lot of assuming.
How well do you do at the tables in Vegas?
Maybe I should join you there on your next foray…..
I’ve seen enough to know about the anti-Americanism and anti-Christianity. If you haven’t picked up on this you are either new to this forum or not very bright.
.
I’ve thought about it. I decided that trauma doesn’t explain pretending to be a supporter of Israel while doing everything possible to weaken it. Arrogance and hubris is a better explanation.
a) You are understating precedent because of your emotional conflict of interest. Precedent is critical in legal disputes, or weren’t you aware of this, and b) Territory that is “negotiable” is not “its own territory”.
This is about as delusional as claiming that the Palestine Mandate still applies.
AE prides himself
Why take pride in being simplistic?
It would have made no difference whatsoever. The Palis don’t say “uncle.” We annexed Jerusalem and the Golan 40 years ago and the Palis didn’t say “uncle” and the world never accepted it. Its like it never happenned.
Israel didn’t have sufficient population to annex it because it would make Jews a minority in their own country. Besides the US decided immeditately that israel shouldn’t be allowed to keep virtually all the land. She simply allowed us secure borders but in name only.
The US is our friend only if you define friends as those who support Israel with armistice line borders. That would make everyone our friends, even the Arabs.
To be a friend of Israel you must support negotiations without undue pressure. While much of the world supports negotiations, including the US, they only pay lip service to same. The world is really dictating a solution in broad terms, the Saudi Plan, and is demanding that negotiations lead to that result. Further evidence of this is that the world accepts the Palestinian non negotiating position.
A friend would argue that Isfrael has the right to reject any solution not to her liking just as it accepts the right of the Arabs to reject any solution not to their liking.
A country can choose either to be an enemy, a friend or a neutral. A neutral does not side with any side. So that makes the US an enemy of Israel. Anyhbody who supports the Arab position is an enemy of Israel
The only response that some of these supporters offer in their defense is that they are acting in Israel’s best interest. i.e. they know better than Israelis, what’s in her best interest. Many leftist Jews in Israel support capitulation as being in Israel’s best interest. But they do not represent a majority of Israelis, not even close.
America postions itself as an honest broker. But they are committed to brokering the Saudi Plan so that disqualifies them. Effective it is the the Arab agent tasked with bringing Israel to heel.
Some argue that America is our friend because they support our security.Talk is cheat. Meanwhile she wants to force us to give up our rights and our security. She makes many promises only to break them. When Obama abandonned the Bush letter, it wasn’t the first time. I recently read that Ford gave a letter to Israel supporting something Israel wanted, Nixon disavowed it. Many Presidents have assured us that a final solution must be negotiated and not be imposed. But in practice they force us to capitulate rather than negotiate. And the US is threatening to impose a solution thereby ending the lip service to negotiations.
AE argues that we should cooperate with America to enable her to be a friend of the Arabs. Cooperate means here to capitulate. Its in America’s best interests to retain the Arabs as friends and Israel by being stiff necked is putting America in a bad light. Or so the argument goes.
I’ve said it before, I say it again: You’re overstating the significance of precedent in this stuff, AE. A sovereign state can do what it ruddy-well chooses with its own territory. One thing today, another tomorrow. Some of it here, some of it there, all of it, most of it, none of it. Precedent (or any other kind of pattern) be damned. There’s nobody to satisfy & nobody to impress. That’s what it means to be sovereign.
Gaza belongs to Israel, de jure.
And at some point (quite possibly, not very far off), it will again belong to her, de facto, as well.
Coincidences are not uncommon in political considerations of this sort. Hence the old adage about how “politics makes strange bedfellows.”
HOW somebody connects the dots can often tell you more about the connector than about the dots.
Then too, what makes you so sure that you’ve seen all the dots?
Bottom line: No man can know the trauma that shaped another man’s life. Think about it.
True Jewish and Zionist goals can be the same but motivations of Jew Haters like you can be the exact opposite. Take the Jew haters wanting the Jews to leave their countries to say Palestine then and Israel now and the Jewish Zionist goal of in-gathering. Diverse and natural contending beliefs and ideologies come together in common cause like against Islamic encroachment of their countries and cultures.
What arms to we get that no else gets? What arms were sold to the Saudis and given to the Egyptians that were denied to Israel?
As I said if there is a precedent it was the Sinai Camp David accords that set them. not so much the return of territory but the return of 100% of territory (the whole of Sinai.) That meant no agreement with any other Arab entity could not come to fruition without Israel giving up 100% of territory. No Arab leader can ever accept agreeing to less than Sadat and Egypt got.
I agree.
Connecting the factual dots cannot be objectively described as paranoid. Here again is the question you studiously avoided:
Every anti-Israeli and anti-Semite wants to isolate Israel, which cannot and need not stand on its own with the US on its side.
I wonder why Dweller has not called Yonatan paranoid after knowing that I never refer to “Jews” as a group, but specifically single out liberal American Jews for helping elect the most anti-Semitic US president in history – AFTER KNOWING HIS INFLUENTIAL ANTI-SEMITIC RELATIONSHIPS.
On balance America has helped Israel financially, morally, with arms no one else gets, with UN vetoes and by pledging to stand together against a nuclear Iran.
Only ungrateful and self-destructive morons bite the hand that helps them when no one else will, except those who stand with its enemies, of course.
Unfortunately, Israel’s precedent-setting decisions regarding Gaza undermine its claims that the settlements in the West Bank are “legal”.
Instead of whining and wringing his hands like Yonatan does, I have also suggested that Israel retake Gaza at the next opportunity to defend itself, then annex it and the West Bank, which will be a better status quo going forward until hell freezes over than pissing and moaning about the rest of the world’s logical opposition to building settlements unilaterally on land that is “negotiable”.
Yeah – I’ve been exposed…I clearly state my thoughts, but I’ve been exposed. The only exposing going on is that anyone who has read here for any length of time knows that as far as AE is concerned:
If you think that Israel should stand on her own, then you’re Hamas-like.
If you’re a Jew, its your fault that Obama is in office.
That America has never done anything that is not in the best interest of Israel.
That because America gives grants for weaponry to Israel and sells weaponry to her enemies also, we owe our last dying breath (G-d forbid) to her.
All arguments will cycle to one of these “facts” whether you like it or not, because these are his talking points.
Oh wait…This just in – he has now added the dreaded “precedent” argument to his repertoire. You tried to unilaterally make peace, so you will have to continue cutting your neck until your head lops off. Sorry, it’s precedent you know.
Can’t help suspecting that Yamit’s paranoia may be rubbing off on you.
Wouldn’t be the FIRST time that tangling with somebody’s pathology left the tangler with a dose of an adversary’s mishegasse; a photo-negative perhaps?
I usually pull out Dweller’s First & Second Laws of Political Troubleshooting at times like this:
[I.] Never begin by attributing to conspiracy (or comparable evil intent) what can be just as easily explained by human stupidity, or human hurt, or other small-bore issues. After you’ve considered the small stuff and ruled it out, THEN you can pass on to the heavy-duty stuff.
[II.] Seventy percent of what passes for politics (good and bad) is in fact pathology seeking a political outlet — i.e., pathology masquerading as politics.
[II A.] In some circles, that seventy percent figure should be closer to eighty percent.
What would you call an apparent Israeli – one can never be sure on the internet – who has the same opinion of America and the Israeli-American alliance and Christians and Christian missionaries as Hamas?
OK. I was wrong. You did not “seem” to have gotten away with weakening Israel – you actually did get away with it until I came along to rxpose you.
See, even I can admit I was wrong.
Thanks for making my point better than I can. This exactly what I would expect a Hamas mole to say.
That is the scary part – that you moles live in Israel with Hamas right across the border. Fortunately, so far, you haven’t had much success. Now, you have even been exposed on this forum.
So you think Yamit is an agent provocateur, eh?
Seems? You don’t catch on too fast, do you? Its been explained to you seven ways from Sunday, yet you still don’t get it? Here, let me put it into bold for you: Our reliance on the American alliance has endangered our very existence. Of course you will counter with your usual drivel – we’ve done this dance many times before and I’m not going to invest anymore time telling it to you. I live here, I and my fellow Israeli’s get to decide whats best for our country, not you. Comparing us to Hamas because we want to break the reliance on the US is BS.
I don’t think Nixon would have been nominated by the Republiocans of today – especially with the Tea Party movement in the ascendancy. I don’t think Palin and Gingrich can afford the pay cut. Governors like Daniels of Indiana and Christie of NJ are looking like likely candidates. Whoever it is I hope they pick Allen West as their VP.
In 2008 the Republicans inexplicably picked the worst wishy-washy candidate they could have picked, who only gained the lead briefly between the time he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate and the financial crisis which was falsely blamed on the Republicans by the MSM.
Exactly. You’ve simply restated what I SAID.
Heir apparent = Coattails. And it was his only term because once on his own, he ran as a moderate. Fatal.
Evidence?
I provided support [#18] to my assertion that he was a moderate. I await yours to your claim that he was a “conservative,” and that he “ran as one.”
Then — if you succeed in demonstrating his ‘conservatism,’ as well as the ‘conservative’ stance you suppose he campaigned on — you’ll have to show me that it was this ‘conservative’ stance that was RESPONSIBLE for winning either or both of his terms for him. I don’t see it.
But I’m listening; show me what you’ve got.
I think I’ve made clear that I agree that a solid, capable conservative who unflinchingly RUNS as a conservative IS likely to win. I just don’t think that Nixon is an example of that. Way too much other stuff in the picture. (And I didn’t even bother to mention the RFK assassination in the middle of the ’68 campaign — which left the Demo’s in even further disarray.)
Dweller,
Welcome to the growing number of Israpundits who are noticing the stench. Keep reading what Yamit writes with a keen eye and you will see that much of it does not pass the smell test. Anyone who goes out of their way to help and support Israel, like the US over the years and Glenn Beck on cable TV these days, automatically become targets for Yamit – and he will use any truth-twisting source he can find that fits his agenda – all the while insisting he is demonizing Israel’s friends and allies to “help” Israel. Oy, veh! With friends like this, Israel doesn’t even need Hamas as an enemy.
That’s not a counsel to pacifism. It is simple, clear-sighted assessment of the civil culture in America, and it would be the prudent course even if the present rogue administration didn’t occupy the Oval Office at this time.
I seriously question the motives of the writer you linked to, Yamit. Something about him doesn’t pass the smell test.
Wouldn’t at all surprise me to find out that he was an agent provocateur.
I’m not trying to be cute in saying that; I’m stone cold serious (and unlike some we could both cite, YoursTruly is NOT known for paranoia).
What can I tell you – exposing charlatans is a gift I have.
I guess weakening the Israeli-American alliance seems unimportant to you and your Uncle. This is something you guys seem to have gotten away with – you even have Ted fooled – until I showed up on this forum and was shocked to find a few Jews ungrateful for all that the US has done for Israel – in fact, twisting facts to fit their agendas as if Israel is an American state and not a sovereign country that makes its own decisions and frequently makes decisions counter to what the US administration at the time wants it to do, and as if the US had not spent billions of the hard earned money of its citizens to support Israel over the years. Such ungratefullness is unconscionable for anyone from a country that has no other allies.
I call ’em as I see ’em, based on the facts and not on emotion. I support Israel because it is the right thing to do, not because of Scripture or anything else. I have no dog in this conflict, except the principles of right and wrong – for example, with those who will not accept the right of others to live as they please, even as they do as they please themselves, and then resort to violence to try and impose their political way.
What you call “other crap” is where I take issue with anyone who demonizes entire groups of people like all Christians or all Muslims or all African-Americans, instead of sticking with those they may have a problem with, those who quote Scripture to support their political beliefs which makes them no different tnan radical Islamists in mixing politics with religion, and those who attack Israel’s only ally, the US, which has committed BILLIONS to support Israel and has pledged to stand with it against a nuclear Iran.
If anyone has a problem with me, so be it.
Whats embarrassing is your uncanny ability to pick out the unimportant parts in a paragraph and make that the central point of your response. You do it all the time. When shown that your are wrong, instead of just not responding (or admitting that your wrong – I can wish, can’t I?), you bring out something marginally related that doesn’t hit on the key point of the discussion. Redirect much?
You say that and then follow it up with a lot of other crap. Its the other crap that most have a problem with.
She and Israel are in the same boat as far as you are concerned.
Your lack of understanding and intelligence is exceeded only by Yamit. However, he has the same agenda as Hamas where the US is concerned, which also means a weakned Israel. What’s your excuse?
I’m the only guy here who has said that Israel should have annexed all the land acquired while defending itself and then sat tight and not given up any of it until the Palis cried Uncle. Obviously you don’t grasp much of what you read here. Pretty ambarrassing.
Actually I pegged him once when he was adamant that America was not pressuring Israel on Jerusalem. It took about 20 posts to beat it out of him, but he finally relented. It was the first and last time I have seen him retreat on anything he has spouted about.
The last time I had a handler was the day before my divorce. Free At Last, Free At Last!!!
“That was another Time” I placed no time constraints in my postulate. Do you always read history through Redneck Glasses?
Tax Cuts- Who Should Pay Taxes?- Glenn Beck- a real American
Nixon was a conservative and ran as one. Bush 41 won the first time due to Reagan’s coat-tails. he lost the second time by running as a moderate. Ike and Goldwater are from a previous era.
This has yet to happen on this forum. Nice try though. Your handlers will be pleased.
Beck is talking in the context of the civilized USA, which has a system for dealing with domestic violence which makes retaliation counter-productive up to a point. Of course, Yamit, who has misrepresented whatever he can get away with that Beck says and does, because Beck is a strong and implacable supporter of Israel, will use Beck’s comments out of context by design. His handlers will be very pleased.
Tax Cuts- Who Should Pay Taxes?- Glenn Beck- a real American
Stunning his radio listeners, and encouraging his enemies, radio talk show host and TV personality Glenn Beck said today that no matter what the other side does, even if they physically attack us, we must not use violence.
Beck’s logic is that if we use violence and respond to the intimidation and the thugs it would be used as an excuse to declare martial law. Beck seems to be genuinely afraid of this and refuses to even countenance what would happen should such an unhappy event occur. In one show, Beck said that if things get out of control in America we would not have the Revolution of our Founders, but the French Revolution. Beck failed to give a logical reason for his assertion.
The tone of Beck’s show is, quite simply, “things are bad, they are going to get worse, but no matter what, we cannot in any way stand up for
our rights, our persons, or our property outside of email campaigns or peaceful protests.”
While Beck has exposed a lot of chicanery, he is also preaching pacifism and he is reacting more to what what he thinks the intentions and the strengths of the other side are than plain old common sense, which is: when rights are questioned, assert them more, when force is used against you, defend yourself, and when the authorities step outside of their legitimate powers to threaten your rights, your person, or your property, the only limitations to your response are the ethics of proportionality and a sincere desire to de-escalate.
BECK, learn this from DUNE, and LIVE IT:
Of course, we want peace, and to escalate things is, quite simply, immoral. It is our right to defend ourselves, but it is often WISER to react without hate and rage, to seek peaceful solutions, to seek ways to settle things down, but if the opposition presses on and escalates more, seeing our peaceableness as weakness, we have to be clear- WE WILL RESIST and everything is ALWAYS on the table!
How does it go? If it walks, talks and looks like a duck?
With Beck I never stated my opinion as fact and corrected any confusion that I had. I said here and only here that my comment was based on my impression and I will add my intuition. Unlike you I try to supply source to my opinions and seldom shoot from the hip like you do.
It is telling that in the time you have commented on this site and the myriad of comments you have blessed us with that you have never admitted to being wrong or in error even when you have been presented with evidence that you were wrong, not only or just from me but by others. I see that as not only intellectually dishonest but see a pathologically deep seeded problem that probably requires professional help. I suggest you seek it.
No. Not even slightly.
Good grief, participation in committed nonviolent civil disobedience does not automatically presume pacifism as an overall political stance. Lots of people have long histories of nonviolence where demonstrations, public protests, etc, are concerned. Yet they don’t necessarily oppose the existence of armies — or serving in them, even in combat.
Certainly you’ll find the occasional pacifist among nonviolent demonstrators, but they are a tiny minority. Your paranoia’s taking hold once more, fella; don’t skip your medication again.
Make the Pledge – 40 Days and 40 Nights
Friday, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:27 AM EST
For the next 40 days and 40 nights, I pledge…I COVENANT to practice faith, hope and charity by doing these things.
Are you taking the 40-Day/40-Night Challenge?
We want to hear from you. Send us your stories, pictures and tell us how the challenge has been working for you. Email us here…
First…faith. I will pray on my knees every night for the next 40 nights…starting TONIGHT. Pray for guidance, inspiration, peace…pray for the leaders of our country. Pray for their safety, and that they will receive wisdom. I will re-establish my relationship with God.
Hope…hope comes from truth. You can’t have hope based on lies. If you go to the doctor and you’re in the early stages of cancer, but the doctor tells you that you just have the sniffles…that’s false hope, and it won’t help you, in fact, it would kill you. So, we have to have honesty, to have real hope. So, I will stop all lies for the next 40 days. That includes lying to myself. I will establish a pattern of honesty and make it become habitual. I will question with boldness…everything…even the things Glenn Beck tells you every night…I will do my own research…and then pray for my own confirmation on the things I have learned. I will find out what is true in my life.
And third…I will have charity. Charity begins at home. I will do something kind for every member of your family at least once a week. I will write it down, and then do it. Also, I pledge to take notice of how blessed I really am. I live in the greatest country the world has ever known…and even the least prosperous among us, are among the wealthiest people in the world…I will be grateful.
Download for your desktop background: 40 Days 40 Nights Blueprint
Pledge of Nonviolence
Below is the Pledge of Nonviolence that Martin Luther King, Jr. asked those who believed in his message to abide by as well as his core principles of nonviolence.
I am going to ask you to make the same commitment to nonviolence and give you the opportunity to make that pledge public by having you ‘sign’ these documents below.
-glenn
1. As you prepare to march meditate on the life and teachings of Jesus
2. Remember the nonviolent movement seeks justice and reconciliation – not victory.
3. Walk and talk in the manner of love; for God is love.
4. Pray daily to be used by God that all men and women might be free.
5. Sacrifice personal wishes that all might be free.
6. Observe with friend and foes the ordinary rules of courtesy.
7. Perform regular service for others and the world.
8. Refrain from violence of fist, tongue and heart.
9. Strive to be in good spiritual and bodily health.
10. Follow the directions of the movement leaders and of the captains on demonstrations.
The Five Principles of Nonviolence
1. Non-violent resistance is not a method for cowards. It does resist. The nonviolent resister is just as strongly opposed to the evil against which he protests, as is the person who uses violence. His method is passive or nonaggressive in the sense that he is not physically aggressive toward his opponent, but his mind and emotions are always active, constantly seeking to persuade the opponent that he is mistaken. This method is passive physically but strongly active spiritually; it is nonaggressive physically but dynamically aggressive spiritually.
2. Nonviolent resistance does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding. The nonviolent resister must often express his protest through noncooperation but he realizes that noncooperation is not the ends itself; it is merely means to awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent.
3. The attack is directed against forces of evil rather than against persons who are caught in those forces. It is a struggle between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.
4. Nonviolent resistance avoids not only external physical violence, but also internal violence of spirit. At the center of non-violence stands the principle of love.
5. Nonviolence is based on the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice. It is the deep faith in the future that allows a nonviolent resister to accept suffering without retaliation. The nonviolent resister knows that in his struggle for justice, he has a cosmic companionship.
Make Your Pledge
Is this good enough? I got a lot more! He is a phony in so far as he has a Mormon Christian agenda and uses his media presence to advance his ideas and beliefs thru political and social slick slight of hand in his expose’s. Think Billy Sunday. This is not to say that much if not most of what he presents politically is not correct or even a valuable service for some but I think he is too superficial and disagree with some of his conclusions. That said, I would suggest: caveat ?mptor!
Mormon, yes.
Pacifist, no. (I see no evidence of it anyway; whattayou got?)
This is a great admission of how Yamit gathers his “facts”. He knows all about Beck, better than Beck watchers, while seldom watching Beck. This is the same problem with all of Yamit’s so-called “facts”.
Another clueless, half-assed assessment, half true, the other half not true, obviously based on half-assed observations as shown by the comment about Beck above and the previous one about moderate Republicans having a better chance against the clueless Imam Obama, this time with an actual record that stinks to high heaven.
Just as Laura and Dweller have correctly observed, Republicans who run as moderates, like Ford, Bush 41 the second time, and Dole, never win, whereas those who run as conservatives, like Nixon, Reagan and Bush 43 win two terms, with the second margin larger than the first.
Your history is as confused as your present.
Both Bushes I would consider moderates as opposed to liberal or strict conservatives in the Republican party. Nixon was a moderate as was ford and Ike. Rockefeller was a liberal dole was a liberal, for example but no strict conservative republican that I can remember has ever gotten even a nomination except Goldwater and he got creamed.
What was that about me and history?
If I am a master then there should be a wealth of examples you can use to show what you mean. So show!
I also said that I seldom watch Beck but I got the impression that he is a populist showman who is shallow in his presentation purported to be factual. Sometimes the facts can be correct but the conclusions not. Now if I had monitored his shows and took notes i might be able to back up my impressions but alas i don’t watch him much and sometime I find him curiously entertaining.
When he uses that Kappo Rabbi lappin who sold out to the Melon family ( known right wing billionaire anti-Semites) I suspect there might be more than what is visible going on with Beck and company.
RE: Your consensus of opinions re: Those three Republicans. Personally I could care less which one or any of them is nominated and then wins or loses the elections. I have no expectations that their election success will impact positively to our interests but I still hold to my opinion as to their chances. Things could change still a year before primaries run ups.
Dweller and Laura are both correct, and Yamit is wrong as usual. But, if you know Yamit and his agenda of weakening Israel by attacking its only ally, the US, his comments as well as his relentless attacks on Glenn Beck, one of Israel’s most steadfast supporters, would not surprise you. He attacks Beck for using evidence selectively, yet Yamit is the master of using evidence selectively.
I am quite a bit surprised by the so called “coservatives”criticisum
cocerning GlennBeck’s warning of Islamists efforts to rule the whole world.Now they are an even better position,having a Manchurian President
in the WhiteHouse,a true Islamist.The reality of the Caliphate’rule is
A real,present danger.
closer
Hunh?
Republicans almost NEVER win when they do run “moderates.”
You got a problem with history, or do you have a sweetheart deal with the odds-makers?
I was trying to be sarcastic because at the time he was pushing Gold there was a ton of advocates of Gold and it had already doubled it’s value from the previous lows. Silver then was quiet and under valued by at least 50%. If Beck were really knowledgeable he might have suggested silver which always lags behind gold. He didn’t invent the wheel here.
.
Maybe but I haven’t heard him blame Reagan and G W Bush.
America has a structural problem,where moral hazards are not only tolerated they are elevated to a position of normality even envious acceptance. Corruption is so endemic that there is no one to protect the little guys which is almost everyone.
No country in the world today has a wealth disparity as great as America, not Egypt or Zimbabwe. This will destroy America not Islam or Obama.
The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.
Do Americans know their country’s wealth distribution?
A remarkable study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) reveals that Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined for them in terms of “net worth”) is as concentrated as it is. When shown three pie charts representing possible wealth distributions, 90% or more of the 5,522 respondents — whatever their gender, age, income level, or party affiliation — thought that the American wealth distribution most resembled one in which the top 20% has about 60% of the wealth. In fact, of course, the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth.
Even more striking, they did not come close on the amount of wealth held by the bottom 40% of the population. It’s a number I haven’t even mentioned so far, and it’s shocking: the lowest two quintiles hold just 0.3% of the wealth in the United States. Most people in the survey guessed the figure to be between 8% and 10%, and two dozen academic economists got it wrong too, by guessing about 2% — seven times too high. Those surveyed did have it about right for what the 20% in the middle have; it’s at the top and the bottom that they don’t have any idea of what’s going on. Read More
Pls. don’t preach to me and other critics of America. You are at best a useful idiot of the American elite power structure. It will make little difference to the 85% of the American public who control less that 15% of Americas wealth who sits in the WH.
The days of the grand American Ponzi Scheme known as consumerism based on debt is coming to an abrupt end. The fallout is speculative but the rich will not suffer, if anything they will continue to increase their wealth.
Actually I believe only a true conservative can beat Obama, not a bland, unprincipled moderate. You are right that Obama’s defeat is far from a done deal. It’s going to take a lot of hard work. And I agree with you about manipulating consumer confidence just prior to the election. Back in the fall of 2008 I believed and still do, that the downfall of the stockmarket was very suspicious.
yamit82 you don’t make sense. You claim Beck ignores evidence that doesn’t support his opinions. You give as an example the fact that Beck advocates the purchase of gold but ignores silver. The advantages/disadvantages of silver are not evidence to the contrary about gold. Evidence to the contrary would be that gold is a bad investment and will not hold its value. Whether or not silver is also a good investment is irrelevant to the argument about the value of gold as an investment.
Also, you claim he ignores right-wing conservative contributions to the economic troubles. This is not true.
You are assuming Obama will lose! If the Republicans run anyone but a moderate they will lose. Like Liberals most Americans do not identify with the orthodox conservatives. If Ron Paul runs at the head of a third party you lose as well. Obama and the Fed are willing to print zillions of dollars to give the happy temp feeling of well-being and consumer bliss before the elections. I would not count him out so soon. Wishful thinking is not translatable into a done deal.
I didn’t think that Bill Kristol could be so pathetically naive. Neither the hideous gang rape of Lara Logan or the bloodcurdling genocidal qaradawi speech to the cheers of millions in Tahrir square has led him to question the real agenda of the “freedom” movement in Egypt. Thankfully we have someone like Beck to sound the alarm. Unfortunately forces on the left and neocon right might succeed in throwing him off the air lest the public be made aware of the islamic-leftist alliance and that the uprisings in the Middle East are not about freedom as we know it but an attempt to create global islamic caliphate. And yes these things indeed exist and are not a figment of Beck’s imagination.
There won’t be a caliphate any time soon; but what we are seeing is a rise in gasoline prices (and the consequent economic slowdown and continuing unemployment) due to Obama’s failed Middle East policy. He can blame the Jews all he wants; Americans aren’t buying this or anything else he says. The elections in the US can’t come soon enough.
Beck throws a lot of information and hyperbole at his audiences much of it correct and substantiated and a lot that is not correct and falsely substantiated. For any populist demagogue to have any credibility much of what he says and promotes must ring true.
It is Becks conclusions and remedial suggestions that give me the most problems with him. A- he is too superficial b- only presents those facts that support his agenda and ignores any evidence to the contrary. While he has advocated gold in the past he ignored silver which is a better investment and will out perform gold. B- He ignores the right wing conservative Republican ‘s contribution to Americas economic troubles.
Beck is a Mormon pacifist who should be against Americas involvement in Afghanistan but is silent because it would turn off many of his supporters and viewing and listening audiences.
I have always be wary of populists religious or political, that make fortunes based on populist ideas and capitalizing of individual and national troubles.
Glen Beck has pretty much been right about everything…the economic meltdown, the explosive gold prices (glad I bought it years ago when he suggested), Soros being a Kapo, Obama as an enemy combatant, and yes…it’s obvious a caliphate is in the making as he clearly sees. Why are these fake conservative, Kristol, Lowry, et. al. so stupid? They have been so discredited. Unlike Beck, who is consistently accurate, they are consistently wrong. They are complete libtards and a danger to the republic.