Pride and Prejudice

There are many statements that have been treated with varying degrees of outrage in recent times. Some of this outrage is rather overblown. I’ve collected a few of them:

Duck Call

One example is that of Phil Robertson, who said to a reporter (on page 2 of this article) that drunks and adulterers and bestiality practicers and terrorists were all at the same level in terns of sinfulness. The reporter had asked, specifically: “What, in your mind, is sinful?” Phil explained:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Note carefully the equivalence of all these different forms of sin. As to the equating of homosexuality with  bestiality, this is the one comparison where Robertson drew a distinction. You had to “morph out from there” to go from one to the other; they were not the same.

But all of these, including sins from his own past on this list, were the same to him in an important way: The sinners would not get to Heaven without repenting. Because he also included homosexuals on this list, that is what set off the media. But note that, if homosexuals were no better than terrorists in this formulation, they were also no worse than drunks and adulterers, sins that are extremely common and readily accepted and acceptable in America.

The reporter took an interesting approach to this. Over and over, he expressed how much he was impressed with the Robertson family and their lifestyle, including their avoidance of profanity,. But at the same time, he filled his article about them with profanity, as if reminding himself that, no matter how desirable their lifestyle might seem, it really wasn’t for him and he needed to assert himself in whatever way he could — when not among the Robertsons. The reporter, a very left-wing city dweller, took Robertson’s comments about gays and drunks and adulterers in stride. But what a firestorm the media made of this later!

Cliven Bundy

This is an interesting case. Bundy clearly showed, in his speech, a strong respect for the culture and work ethic of Hispanics coming into the country illegally, and advocated by implication for an amnesty program. That hardly rises to the level of bigotry.

But what about his statements about blacks? Here, he (clumsily, using the language of an old man with no experience as a polished orator) worried aloud about the fact that many blacks had been turned into dependents of the state, and wondered rhetorically if they were really more free now than when they were slaves. This assertion, an exaggeration to draw attention to a point he was trying to make, did not work well in practice. But there was no sense of racial superiority in Bundy, and he felt that many blacks were victims of the government, not a genetically inferior race. Here, I would certainly agree, though I’d use rather different language to express it.

The upshot: Bundy is evidently not a racist, and was concerned about both blacks and Hispanics, and wanted to see them succeed.

Donald Sterling.

Not much to say here. This old, foolish man made statements that are indefensible. While this is not criminal, it is certainly reflective of poor thinking patterns, and there is no putting a nice face on that.

His mistress is a younger, foolish woman, evidently willing to pull this stunt in order to make a fortune from the fellow as the relationship was apparently coming to an end. Her actions arguably were criminal. But Bundy’s attitude, including his disdain toward other races, has apparently been known for years, but his various beneficiaries (including Barack Obama and other Democrats like Sterling) have been perfectly happy to accept his generous donations.

Up to now. The release of the recorded conversation is rubbing the public’s nose in Sterling’s attitude — his statements were nearly as racist as those of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama — so suddenly they must Do Something. The resulting spectacle has been rather pathetic. One of the things no one in the establishment media is suggesting is investigating the gal’s recording of the conversation, which is a crime on its face.

John Kerry

Kerry, like Obama (and Jimmy Carter before him), despises the nation of Israel. He borrowed a bit from Carter and referred to Israel being at risk of being an “apartheid state” like South Africa.

When this audiotape was leaked, it was talked about enough on the Internet to make a brief appearance in the establishment media, but only to showcase Kerry’s walk-back non-apology for the statement. Kerry’s long history of friendliness to communism is well known. He was once nominal leader of a Soviet front group in the US, and involved in a plot (while under FBI surveillance) to kill 50 sitting Republican senators by machine gun. Later, as a senator himself, he was censured for sneaking out of the county on a private flight to try to cut a deal with a Central American communist, the only such censure in US history.,

Kerry had been famous, previously, for cutting a deal with North Viet Nam and arguing to the US to accept the communist leaders’ terms. He was caught in various frauds in this process, not to mention the treason of running off to negotiate with a communist enemy — but he was a Democrat, so all was forgiven or overlooked.

His antipathy to Israel goes way back, too. But now he is officially representing the foreign policy of the United States, and could hardly be more wrong in what he is doing. Israel is the best country in the Middle East for fair treatment of Arabs and Jews, Muslims and Christians and those of no faith at all. But it is this little country that Kerry chooses to attack.

Obama’s Anti-Israel Administration

The Obama administration backs him up in this, in blatant ways as well as more subtle ones, even extending to editing old official photo captions to remove references to Jerusalem being in Israel, as I’ve noted before.

Here’s an example of an odd but vicious bit of anti-Israel action with real consequences: There has been a “tax amnesty” program running in this administration for a few years. If you simply confess to the IRS that you have foreign bank accounts, you will not be prosecuted and you and the IRS can work out long-term deals to set things right.

But, it turns out, this was something of a trap: There was one hidden exception, “hidden” because it appears nowhere on paper but is evident in their practices: If your foreign bank account is in Israel, then the deal is terminated and, despite your reliance upon it, you are now subject to prosecution again. This became noticed last year, but has not been talked about much:

The IRS has always been clear that if you want leniency you must come to them before they find you. If you are under audit or investigation, you can’t get the deal.

For that reason, most lawyers do a pre-clearance disclosing minimal detail and asking if their client can join the IRS program. The IRS Criminal Investigation Division checks the name to make sure and usually says no problem. But as reported here, IRS Yanks Criminal Amnesty Deal From Taxpayers With Secret Bank Leumi Accounts, the IRS has spit out previously cleared people with accounts at Bank Leumi le-Israel Ltd., Israel’s largest bank. That’s scary.

Indeed it is, as is much the Obama administration and its IRS enforcement arm has been up to.

Jews and Israel

Being Jewish in the US does not at all mean being pro-Israel. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League is watchful for any slights to Jews, but largely ignores attacks on Israel. And more recently, they’re actually contributing to those attacks.

The Soros-founded “J Street” is a fiercely anti-Israel, pro-jihadist group of leftist Jews who would be pleased to see Israel destroyed. Soros, despite his own Jewish ancestry, was famously involved as a teenager in handing other German Jews over to the Nazis, as he looked Aryan enough to get away with it. Later, he was unrepentant, simply noting that he was on the then-winning side. He has subsequently launched or funder many anti-Israel organizations. Anti-American, too, but that’s an “of course” for Soros.

I am not able to guess what percentage of American Jewish folks are unsupportive of Israel, except to note that it is probably rather more than half.  This poll, noting that Obama’s anti-Israel policies don’t have much effect on his comparatively high popularity among Jews, suggests that the number may be in the 60-65% range. Somewhere around 70% of this bloc reliably votes Democratic, which is counterintuitive until you realize that support for Israel is not at all automatically part of their mindset.

It was this group, the pro-Palestinian Jews of J Street, that the ADL decided to actively support. So did approximately half of the Jewish Conference of Presidents. Of course, they’ve long been darlings of the Obama administration, as they are Jews willing to oppose Jewish causes in general, and that suits Obama’s plans perfectly.

Apparently, in Obama’s mind, an Israel-supporting Jew is no better than a conservative. So, unleash the dogs of the IRS upon them both! (I suspect that this is made worse by the fact that many US limited-government conservatives are also supporters of Israel. A double whammy, and thus a double condemnation.)

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle