What Good is “Both Sides of the Story” When One Side Lies? By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, June 18, 2013.
Transcript:
RUSH: You know what, it’s not the politics. Jesse,
what you’re illustrating is that it’s all the perception.
CALLER: I think so, right.
RUSH: Everything you think is wrong, everything you
think is the result of erroneous, lying, stinking media stuff, and propaganda
put out by the Democrats.
CALLER: I’m sorry. I would say that, I would agree
with you, but, see, I’m like this. I know you call a lot of people, especially
on the liberal side, low-information voters, but, you know what, I listen to
Fox, you, Sean Hannity. I listen to your show from start to finish every day
for the last four or five years.
RUSH: Alright. Good for you.
CALLER: I watch O’Reilly and Hannity on Fox. So I
listen to both sides and I watch a little MSNBC, and I listen to a little Al
Sharpton and –
RUSH: No wonder you’re confused.
CALLER: I just get both sides of the story before I
make my decision.
RUSH: Sometimes one side of the story is an
out-and-out lie. In fact, most of the time, one side of the story is an
out-and-out lie. In fact, most of the stories you hear the Democrats tell they
don’t even talk about themselves. All they’re doing is ripping Republicans,
telling distorted lies about conservatism or Republicans or they're trying to
impugn the character of individual Republican candidates or what have you.
CALLER: Right, but that goes back and forth. That’s
both sides doing it, and I know that’s true. But I think that people have to make a determination. They can’t just
listen to liberal stations and shows and then make an opinion without listening
to both sides. Me, I do both, and then I make the decision for myself. This is
me personally.
RUSH: Okay, let me ask you a question with this “both
sides” business. I’m interpreting that to mean that you don’t know what you
think on most things so you’ve –
CALLER: I do.
RUSH: – gotta listen to this or you’ve gotta listen
to that before you make up your mind.
CALLER: Well, I think you should hear both sides of
the story or both sides of an opinion before you choose a side or you make a –
RUSH: Okay.
CALLER: – you know, you form an opinion based on both
sides’ information.
RUSH: Nope. I don’t. The liberals lie. I do not
form my opinions on what both sides say. I form my opinions on what I know to
be right. I form my opinion –
CALLER: Okay.
RUSH: – on
what I know to be what I believe in terms of principles.
CALLER: Liberals always lie?
RUSH: I do not have to listen to Democrats to know
what I believe.
CALLER: Well, so are you saying liberals always lying
and conservatives don’t?
RUSH: For the most part, that’s a pretty safe bet.
CALLER: Well, that’s kind of closed-minded, Rush.
RUSH: No, it’s not closed-minded. What it is is
profoundly informed. I know who the Democrats are. I know how they campaign. I
know how they poison people’s minds. I know how they lie about me. I know how
they lie about everything I believe. I know how they keep people in fear. I
know how they want to control people. I
know how they want people to believe things that aren't true. I know everything
about them. I know more about them than they do.
CALLER: Both sides do that, though.
RUSH: That’s a straw man argument. Then both sides
are disqualified and you should find something – if you’re gonna say, “Well,
both sides do that and both sides do this and both sides –” how do you ever
decide what you believe?
CALLER: You have to make a determination for yourself
which side is –
RUSH: That’s what I’m saying. I’ve done that. I’m
62 years old. I’ve made the determinations. I know who the skunks are. I know
who are the people I trust and believe. I know more than that, I know the
things that I believe to be true. I know the principles that I believe and
swear by. I know the Constitution of this country. I love it. I know that this
is a constitutional republic. I know the Democrat Party doesn’t like the
Constitution. The Democrat Party –
CALLER: Oh, we love the Constitution.
RUSH: No, Jesse, I’m telling you the truth. Now, you can go listen to Al Sharpton tell
you what he thinks about what I just said –
CALLER: Yeah, but Al Sharpton is super, super-duper
far left, so you can’t take everything he says at heart.
RUSH: That’s exactly right, Jess. So why are you
wasting time over there on MSNBC?
CALLER: Well, no, like I said, I’m one that listens
to both sides. I listen to both sides of the argument, and I make a
determination for myself who’s lying or who’s stretching the truth a little
bit.
RUSH: All right, let’s play a little game on this “both
sides” business.
CALLER: Okay.
RUSH: IRS targeting Tea Parties. The Democrats say,
no, no, no, it didn’t happen, it was an accident. The people, excessive
exuberance in there in the IRS on a couple employees’ side. The Republicans say
no, it was a purposeful effort to suppress conservative participation in the
election by denying them tax-exempt status so they couldn’t raise money. They
couldn’t create get-out-the-vote efforts, and it was an effort by the Obama
administration to limit and suppress Republican votes. Those are the two sides
of the issue. What do you think?
CALLER: I agree with you on that. I’m on your side on
that. I think people at the IRS did do
this on purpose. Now, the part I don’t disagree with, I don’t think Obama
picked up the phone and called them and told them to do it.
RUSH: Right. You know what? I agree with you
wholeheartedly. Do you know why? He doesn’t have to. He has people in place who
already know what he wants. There isn’t
gonna be a smoking gun memo from Obama saying, “I want you people to target the
Tea Party. I want you to make sure they don’t raise money. I want you to make
sure they don’t vote.” The people he put there don’t want conservatives to
succeed. Everybody that Obama has working in these positions is a miniature
Obama, doing everything that he wants done because they want to please him. So
he doesn't have to tell ’em.
CALLER: But you don’t think Obama actually told
someone to tell the IRS to do this, are you saying that or are you –
RUSH: No,
I’m telling you he doesn’t have to. All he’s gotta do is hire people who agree
with him and turn ’em loose. He doesn’t have to tell anybody.
CALLER:
Okay. So then we’re both in agreeance it was wrong, but I don’t think that he
actually directly picked up a phone or actually directly told someone to have
this done on purpose?
RUSH: Wait
a minute. Does that mean to you that he wishes it didn’t happen?
CALLER:
Well, no, I don’t, because I looked at polls from a year out –
RUSH: See,
this is – (crosstalk)
CALLER:
– Romney, he was always five to seven points down.
RUSH: Jesse,
this is the thing. This is it in a nutshell. You are seeking to exempt Obama
from what the IRS did, his IRS.
CALLER:
Not necessarily. Without proof, yes, I am.
RUSH: Because
you don’t think he called them and told them to do it.
CALLER:
Or directed someone to have them do it. He didn’t have to.
RUSH: That’s
right, he didn’t have to. He puts like-minded people in position who will do it
without having to be told. Eric Holder is at the Justice Department doing
everything Obama wants done. Obama probably never has to speak to him. Whatever’s
going on at the NSA in a spying scandal, they’re doing everything Obama wants
done. IRS, ditto; FDA, ditto, it doesn’t matter. Obama puts people in those
positions purposely, because they are him. He has an agenda. He wants it
accomplished. He doesn’t have time to meet with everybody. He's not gonna
create a smoking gun memo telling them what to do so that nobody can ever prove
it like you're trying to exonerate him here. This is where your own
intelligence guided by experience has to inform you. And looking at both sides
of this isn’t gonna get you anywhere. You have to have the courage to admit
that one side is wrong. And 99 times out of a hundred it’s gonna be the left
that’s wrong.
BREAK
TRANSCRIPT
Now, a
couple things here on Jesse, ladies and gentlemen. Jesse, I know you’re still
there and I appreciate the call. I had to get out ’cause I was running way long
in the segment, but Obama hasn’t fired anybody for what they did in any of
these scandals. You might be saying Lois Lerner. No, she’s still working, just from home. Nobody’s
been punished for what they did. If you don’t like the fact that liberals lie
more than conservatives do, put it this way.
They’re
wrong.
They
may believe everything they believe. They’re dead wrong. It’s been demonstrably
proven in so many things. Economically, culturally, they are wrong. But the
fact remains in all of this stuff, you'll get . . . What did Jesse say? He said
he voted for Bush 2004 until he heard that Republicans were suppressing the
black vote. This is why the Democrats lie. They have to lie to keep people on
their reservation. Here’s an African-American who liked Bush, and he gave us
the reasons.
He
liked No Child Left Behind. He liked some of the Bush stimulus. He liked Bush’s
tax cuts. But then he heard somebody say that the Republicans are suppressing
the black vote. Now, the fact of the matter is, blacks run the heavily black
districts in every inner city in this country. There is no way . . . Blacks run
every district in Detroit. They run every district for the most part in New
York. There are exceptions there, but whether they’re black or not, they’re
ultraleftists.
There’s
no way that the Republican Party can suppress the black vote in demonstrably
black districts. It isn’t physically possible. How are they gonna do it? Are
they gonna go in there in these districts that are run by blacks and somehow
sabotage the buses? No, it’s the Democrats that did that in Milwaukee by
slashing the tires. How are these Republicans suppressing the black vote? There’s
no evidence for it. It’s just a lie that the Democrats tell that sticks because
of other lies they’ve told before that.
The big
lie is that Republicans are racists. So African-Americans hear this for 50
years, and then the Democrats come out – Jesse Jackson, Sharpton, whoever – and
starts talking about Republicans suppressing the black vote? “Oh, yeah? Well, I’ll
show you! I voted for Bush but no more.” That’s how they do it. How do Republicans suppress the black vote? How
are the Republicans stopping abortions? There aren’t any abortion clinics being
shut down other than these murder factories that you can count on one hand,
Kermit Gosnell and the like.
People
are believing myths.
They’re
easy to believe because they’ve been told for 50 years.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Elbert Guillory: Why I Chose to Become a Republican.
Elbert Guillory: Why I Chose to Become a Republican. Video. Real Clear Politics, June 18, 2013. YouTube.
La.’s First Black Republican Legislator Since Reconstruction Explains Why He Switched. By Andrew Johnson. National Review Online, June 18, 2013.
Elbert Guillory: Democrats have ignored problems facing the black community. By Caroline May. The Daily Caller, June 19, 2013.
Amazing Message from a Former Democrat. By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, June 18, 2013. Audio at Daily Rushbo.
Elbert Guillory website.
See also The Daily Caller, Human Events.
Guillory:
Hello, my name is Elbert Lee Guillory, and I’m the senator for the twenty-fourth district right here in beautiful Louisiana. Recently I made what many are referring to as a ‘bold decision’ to switch my party affiliation to the Republican Party. I wanted to take a moment to explain why I became a Republican, and also to explain why I don’t think it was a bold decision at all. It is the right decision — not only for me — but for all my brothers and sisters in the black community.
You see, in recent history the Democrat Party has created the illusion that their agenda and their policies are what’s best for black people. Somehow it’s been forgotten that the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an abolitionist movement with one simple creed: that slavery is a violation of the rights of man.
Frederick Douglass called Republicans the “Party of freedom and progress,” and the first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln, the author of the Emancipation Proclamation. It was the Republicans in Congress who authored the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments giving former slaves citizenship, voting rights, and due process of law.
The Democrats on the other hand were the Party of Jim Crow. It was Democrats who defended the rights of slave owners. It was the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who championed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, but it was Democrats in the Senate who filibustered the bill.
You see, at the heart of liberalism is the idea that only a great and powerful big government can be the benefactor of social justice for all Americans. But the left is only concerned with one thing — control. And they disguise this control as charity. Programs such as welfare, food stamps, these programs aren’t designed to lift black Americans out of poverty, they were always intended as a mechanism for politicians to control black the black community.
The idea that blacks, or anyone for that matter, need the government to get ahead in life is despicable. And even more important, this idea is a failure. Our communities are just as poor as they’ve always been. Our schools continue to fail children. Our prisons are filled with young black men who should be at home being fathers. Our self-initiative and our self-reliance have been sacrificed in exchange for allegiance to our overseers who control us by making us dependent on them.
Sometimes I wonder if the word freedom is tossed around so frequently in our society that it has become a cliché.
The idea of freedom is complex and it is all-encompassing. It’s the idea that the economy must remain free of government persuasion. It’s the idea that the press must operate without government intrusion. And it’s the idea that the emails and phone records of Americans should remain free from government search and seizure. It’s the idea that parents must be the decision makers in regards to their children's education — not some government bureaucrat.
But most importantly, it is the idea that the individual must be free to pursue his or her own happiness free from government dependence and free from government control. Because to be truly free is to be reliant on no one other than the author of our destiny. These are the ideas at the core of the Republican Party, and it is why I am a Republican.
So my brothers and sisters of the American community, please join with me today in abandoning the government plantation and the Party of disappointment. So that we may all echo the words of one Republican leader who famously said, “free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last.”
La.’s First Black Republican Legislator Since Reconstruction Explains Why He Switched. By Andrew Johnson. National Review Online, June 18, 2013.
Elbert Guillory: Democrats have ignored problems facing the black community. By Caroline May. The Daily Caller, June 19, 2013.
Amazing Message from a Former Democrat. By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, June 18, 2013. Audio at Daily Rushbo.
Elbert Guillory website.
See also The Daily Caller, Human Events.
Guillory:
Hello, my name is Elbert Lee Guillory, and I’m the senator for the twenty-fourth district right here in beautiful Louisiana. Recently I made what many are referring to as a ‘bold decision’ to switch my party affiliation to the Republican Party. I wanted to take a moment to explain why I became a Republican, and also to explain why I don’t think it was a bold decision at all. It is the right decision — not only for me — but for all my brothers and sisters in the black community.
You see, in recent history the Democrat Party has created the illusion that their agenda and their policies are what’s best for black people. Somehow it’s been forgotten that the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an abolitionist movement with one simple creed: that slavery is a violation of the rights of man.
Frederick Douglass called Republicans the “Party of freedom and progress,” and the first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln, the author of the Emancipation Proclamation. It was the Republicans in Congress who authored the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments giving former slaves citizenship, voting rights, and due process of law.
The Democrats on the other hand were the Party of Jim Crow. It was Democrats who defended the rights of slave owners. It was the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who championed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, but it was Democrats in the Senate who filibustered the bill.
You see, at the heart of liberalism is the idea that only a great and powerful big government can be the benefactor of social justice for all Americans. But the left is only concerned with one thing — control. And they disguise this control as charity. Programs such as welfare, food stamps, these programs aren’t designed to lift black Americans out of poverty, they were always intended as a mechanism for politicians to control black the black community.
The idea that blacks, or anyone for that matter, need the government to get ahead in life is despicable. And even more important, this idea is a failure. Our communities are just as poor as they’ve always been. Our schools continue to fail children. Our prisons are filled with young black men who should be at home being fathers. Our self-initiative and our self-reliance have been sacrificed in exchange for allegiance to our overseers who control us by making us dependent on them.
Sometimes I wonder if the word freedom is tossed around so frequently in our society that it has become a cliché.
The idea of freedom is complex and it is all-encompassing. It’s the idea that the economy must remain free of government persuasion. It’s the idea that the press must operate without government intrusion. And it’s the idea that the emails and phone records of Americans should remain free from government search and seizure. It’s the idea that parents must be the decision makers in regards to their children's education — not some government bureaucrat.
But most importantly, it is the idea that the individual must be free to pursue his or her own happiness free from government dependence and free from government control. Because to be truly free is to be reliant on no one other than the author of our destiny. These are the ideas at the core of the Republican Party, and it is why I am a Republican.
So my brothers and sisters of the American community, please join with me today in abandoning the government plantation and the Party of disappointment. So that we may all echo the words of one Republican leader who famously said, “free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last.”
President Obama Speaks to the People of Northern Ireland.
President Obama Speaks to the People of Northern Ireland. Video. WhiteHouse.gov, June 17, 2013. YouTube. Transcript. Summary with excerpts by Megan Slack at The White House Blog.
Catholics Fire Back at Obama over School Comments: “Anti-Faith, Secular Agenda Shamelessly on Full Display.” By Ben Shapiro. Breitbart, June 20, 2013.
American Catholics for Religious Freedom, quoted by Shapiro:
President Obama’s anti-faith, secular agenda was shamefully on full display yesterday when he told the young people of Northern Ireland that Catholic education and other faith-based schools were divisive and an obstacle to peace. All Americans of faith should be outraged by these comments which clearly telegraph the President’s belief system and are in fact at their core even anti-American.
Secular progressives like President Obama ignore the truth that faith-based education is a component of the Religious Freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. He can’t bear the thought that Catholic and parochial schools not only teach important values but consistently produce better educational results at lower cost than America’s failing public schools. The President’s troubling values are showing here in a way that demonstrate just how dangerous this Administration is and how committed it is to eroding the rights of all people of faith.
It’s time Americans stood up for Religious Freedom, for the U.S. Constitution and against President Obama’s radical views about the place of faith in American life.
President Obama’s Belfast Blarney. By Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison. American Thinker, June 21, 2013.
Barack Obama “Savages” Catholic Education. By Jeannie DeAngelis. American Thinker, June 20, 2013.
Obama:
From the start, no one was naïve enough to believe that peace would be anything but a long journey. Yeats once wrote “Peace comes dropping slow.” But that doesn’t mean our efforts to forge a real and lasting peace should come dropping slow. This work is as urgent now as it has ever been, because there’s more to lose now than there has ever been.
In today’s hyper-connected world, what happens here has an impact on lives far from these green shores. If you continue your courageous path toward a permanent peace, and all the social and economic benefits that have come with it, that won’t just be good for you, it will be good for this entire island. It will be good for the United Kingdom. It will be good for Europe. It will be good for the world.
We need you to get this right. And what’s more, you set an example for those who seek a peace of their own. Because beyond these shores, right now, in scattered corners of the world, there are people living in the grip of conflict -- ethnic conflict, religious conflict, tribal conflicts -- and they know something better is out there. And they’re groping to find a way to discover how to move beyond the heavy hand of history, to put aside the violence. They’re studying what you’re doing. And they’re wondering, perhaps if Northern Ireland can achieve peace, we can, too. You’re their blueprint to follow. You’re their proof of what is possible -- because hope is contagious. They’re watching to see what you do next.
Now, some of that is up to your leaders. As someone who knows firsthand how politics can encourage division and discourage cooperation, I admire the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly all the more for making power-sharing work. That’s not easy to do. It requires compromise, and it requires absorbing some pain from your own side. I applaud them for taking responsibility for law enforcement and for justice, and I commend their effort to “Building a United Community” – important next steps along your transformational journey.
Because issues like segregated schools and housing, lack of jobs and opportunity – symbols of history that are a source of pride for some and pain for others – these are not tangential to peace; they’re essential to it. If towns remain divided – If Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs – if we can’t see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division. It discourages cooperation.
Ultimately, peace is just not about politics. It’s about attitudes; about a sense of empathy; about breaking down the divisions that we create for ourselves in our own minds and our own hearts that don’t exist in any objective reality, but that we carry with us generation after generation.
And I know, because America, we, too, have had to work hard over the decades, slowly, gradually, sometimes painfully, in fits and starts, to keep perfecting our union. A hundred and fifty years ago, we were torn open by a terrible conflict. Our Civil War was far shorter than The Troubles, but it killed hundreds of thousands of our people. And, of course, the legacy of slavery endured for generations.
Even a century after we achieved our own peace, we were not fully united. When I was a boy, many cities still had separate drinking fountains and lunch counters and washrooms for blacks and whites. My own parents’ marriage would have been illegal in certain states. And someone who looked like me often had a hard time casting a ballot, much less being on a ballot.
But over time, laws changed, and hearts and minds changed, sometimes driven by courageous lawmakers, but more often driven by committed citizens. Politicians oftentimes follow rather than lead. And so, especially young people helped to push and to prod and to protest, and to make common cause with those who did not look like them. And that transformed America -- so that Malia and Sasha’s generation, they have different attitudes about differences and race than mine and certainly different from the generation before that. And each successive generation creates a new space for peace and tolerance and justice and fairness.
And while we have work to do in many ways, we have surely become more tolerant and more just, more accepting, more willing to see our diversity in America not as something to fear, but as something to welcome because it's a source of our national strength.
Catholics Fire Back at Obama over School Comments: “Anti-Faith, Secular Agenda Shamelessly on Full Display.” By Ben Shapiro. Breitbart, June 20, 2013.
American Catholics for Religious Freedom, quoted by Shapiro:
President Obama’s anti-faith, secular agenda was shamefully on full display yesterday when he told the young people of Northern Ireland that Catholic education and other faith-based schools were divisive and an obstacle to peace. All Americans of faith should be outraged by these comments which clearly telegraph the President’s belief system and are in fact at their core even anti-American.
Secular progressives like President Obama ignore the truth that faith-based education is a component of the Religious Freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. He can’t bear the thought that Catholic and parochial schools not only teach important values but consistently produce better educational results at lower cost than America’s failing public schools. The President’s troubling values are showing here in a way that demonstrate just how dangerous this Administration is and how committed it is to eroding the rights of all people of faith.
It’s time Americans stood up for Religious Freedom, for the U.S. Constitution and against President Obama’s radical views about the place of faith in American life.
President Obama’s Belfast Blarney. By Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison. American Thinker, June 21, 2013.
Barack Obama “Savages” Catholic Education. By Jeannie DeAngelis. American Thinker, June 20, 2013.
Obama:
From the start, no one was naïve enough to believe that peace would be anything but a long journey. Yeats once wrote “Peace comes dropping slow.” But that doesn’t mean our efforts to forge a real and lasting peace should come dropping slow. This work is as urgent now as it has ever been, because there’s more to lose now than there has ever been.
In today’s hyper-connected world, what happens here has an impact on lives far from these green shores. If you continue your courageous path toward a permanent peace, and all the social and economic benefits that have come with it, that won’t just be good for you, it will be good for this entire island. It will be good for the United Kingdom. It will be good for Europe. It will be good for the world.
We need you to get this right. And what’s more, you set an example for those who seek a peace of their own. Because beyond these shores, right now, in scattered corners of the world, there are people living in the grip of conflict -- ethnic conflict, religious conflict, tribal conflicts -- and they know something better is out there. And they’re groping to find a way to discover how to move beyond the heavy hand of history, to put aside the violence. They’re studying what you’re doing. And they’re wondering, perhaps if Northern Ireland can achieve peace, we can, too. You’re their blueprint to follow. You’re their proof of what is possible -- because hope is contagious. They’re watching to see what you do next.
Now, some of that is up to your leaders. As someone who knows firsthand how politics can encourage division and discourage cooperation, I admire the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly all the more for making power-sharing work. That’s not easy to do. It requires compromise, and it requires absorbing some pain from your own side. I applaud them for taking responsibility for law enforcement and for justice, and I commend their effort to “Building a United Community” – important next steps along your transformational journey.
Because issues like segregated schools and housing, lack of jobs and opportunity – symbols of history that are a source of pride for some and pain for others – these are not tangential to peace; they’re essential to it. If towns remain divided – If Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs – if we can’t see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division. It discourages cooperation.
Ultimately, peace is just not about politics. It’s about attitudes; about a sense of empathy; about breaking down the divisions that we create for ourselves in our own minds and our own hearts that don’t exist in any objective reality, but that we carry with us generation after generation.
And I know, because America, we, too, have had to work hard over the decades, slowly, gradually, sometimes painfully, in fits and starts, to keep perfecting our union. A hundred and fifty years ago, we were torn open by a terrible conflict. Our Civil War was far shorter than The Troubles, but it killed hundreds of thousands of our people. And, of course, the legacy of slavery endured for generations.
Even a century after we achieved our own peace, we were not fully united. When I was a boy, many cities still had separate drinking fountains and lunch counters and washrooms for blacks and whites. My own parents’ marriage would have been illegal in certain states. And someone who looked like me often had a hard time casting a ballot, much less being on a ballot.
But over time, laws changed, and hearts and minds changed, sometimes driven by courageous lawmakers, but more often driven by committed citizens. Politicians oftentimes follow rather than lead. And so, especially young people helped to push and to prod and to protest, and to make common cause with those who did not look like them. And that transformed America -- so that Malia and Sasha’s generation, they have different attitudes about differences and race than mine and certainly different from the generation before that. And each successive generation creates a new space for peace and tolerance and justice and fairness.
And while we have work to do in many ways, we have surely become more tolerant and more just, more accepting, more willing to see our diversity in America not as something to fear, but as something to welcome because it's a source of our national strength.
The Obamas Explore Their Irish Roots. By Sam Cage.
 |
|
US first
lady Michelle Obama, center, with her daughters Sasha, and Malia, second from
the right, look through archives documenting the Obama's Irish Ancestry during
their visit to the Old Library at Trinity College, in Dublin, Ireland, Monday,
June 17, 2013. The first lady and her daughters were given a presentation on
their own family genealogy and connection to Ireland. With them are from left
to right, Patrick Prendergast, far left, President/Provost of Trinity College,
Helen Moss, Senior Researcher, and Fiona Fitzsimons, Genealogist, far right.
(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais). |
Michelle Obama Ireland Trip: G8 Summit Offers First Lady, Daughters Chance To Explore European Roots. By Sam Cage. Reuters. The Huffington Post, June 17, 2013.
First Lady takes girls to Ireland to explore Irish ancestry. By Maria Puente. USA Today, June 17, 2013.
Michelle Obama’s $5 Million Ireland Visit. By Matthew Auerbach. Newsmax, June 17, 2013.
First Lady Michelle Obama claims ritzy digs during Irish visit. By Dave Boyer. Washington Times, June 17, 2013.
Michelle Obama and daughters visit Glendalough and Dalkey. By Alison Healy. The Irish Times, June 18, 2013.
Michelle Obama and daughters visit Trinity College in Ireland. Raw Video. Newsy NewsHD, June 17, 2013. YouTube. Also here.
Sarah Palin Is the Smiley Face of White Backlash. By Joan Walsh.
Why Sarah Palin actually matters again. By Joan Walsh. Salon, June 17, 2013.
Economic Worries and the Global Elite. By Chrystia Freeland.
Economic worries and the global elite. By Chrystia Freeland. Reuters, June 17, 2013.
The age of global plutocracy: Chrystia Freeland at TEDGlobal 2013. By Karen Eng. TED Blog, June 12, 2013.
Freeland:
Disclosure alert: I was a speaker, too. I talked about my chief obsession, soaring global income inequality, particularly at the very top of the pyramid, and the uncomfortable fact that the same forces that are enriching the global super-elite are hollowing out the middle class in the Western developed economies. Making capitalism work for everyone, and not just the plutocrats, I argued, is our most pressing political and economic problem.
Taken together, and given the gilded venue, all of these comments amount to a significant shift in tone. Charlie Robertson, the global chief economist for Renaissance Capital, the Russian-based investment bank, was moved to post on Twitter, in reaction to the TED lineup, that the “intellectual ascendancy of neo-liberalism since 70s may be in retreat.”
That is probably going too far. But we do seem to be at a turning point, or the beginning of one. Judging by this week in Edinburgh, even the winners in the global economy are beginning to realize that there are a lot of losers, too, and that that’s a problem. You might see that as too little too late; you might also see it as, at long last, a start.
The age of global plutocracy: Chrystia Freeland at TEDGlobal 2013. By Karen Eng. TED Blog, June 12, 2013.
Freeland:
Disclosure alert: I was a speaker, too. I talked about my chief obsession, soaring global income inequality, particularly at the very top of the pyramid, and the uncomfortable fact that the same forces that are enriching the global super-elite are hollowing out the middle class in the Western developed economies. Making capitalism work for everyone, and not just the plutocrats, I argued, is our most pressing political and economic problem.
Taken together, and given the gilded venue, all of these comments amount to a significant shift in tone. Charlie Robertson, the global chief economist for Renaissance Capital, the Russian-based investment bank, was moved to post on Twitter, in reaction to the TED lineup, that the “intellectual ascendancy of neo-liberalism since 70s may be in retreat.”
That is probably going too far. But we do seem to be at a turning point, or the beginning of one. Judging by this week in Edinburgh, even the winners in the global economy are beginning to realize that there are a lot of losers, too, and that that’s a problem. You might see that as too little too late; you might also see it as, at long last, a start.
Monday, June 17, 2013
CBS Reporter Elizabeth Palmer Compares Iranian Mullahs to the Tea Party.
Did a CBS reporter compare Iran’s presidential candidates to the Tea Party? Twitchy, June 16, 2013. Video at YouTube.
Ayatollah DeMint? CBS Reporter Equates Iran’s Islamist Hardliners To U.S. Tea Party. By Tim Graham. NewsBusters, June 15, 2013.
CBS News Compares Iranian Candidates to Tea Party. By Ben Shapiro. Breitbart, June 16, 2013.
Palin: Reporter Comparing Iranian Presidential Candidates to Tea Party “Put the BS in CBS.” By Noel Sheppard. NewsBusters, June 17, 2013. Also at YouTube here, here, and here.
Sarah Palin: Elizabeth Palmer “put the BS in CBS” comparing Tea Party to Iranian hardliners. By Joe Newby. Conservative Firing Line, June 17, 2013.
Bam! Palin slams Tea Party-bashing CBS reporter for “putting the BS in CBS.” Twitchy, June 17, 2013.
Palin Returns To FOX News: “People Just Want Honesty From Their Government.” Video. Real Clear Politics, June 17, 2013.
Megyn Kelly and Michelle Malkin Take on CBS News. Video. America Live with Megyn Kelly. Fox News Insider, June 17, 2013. YouTube.
Ayatollah DeMint? CBS Reporter Equates Iran’s Islamist Hardliners To U.S. Tea Party. By Tim Graham. NewsBusters, June 15, 2013.
CBS News Compares Iranian Candidates to Tea Party. By Ben Shapiro. Breitbart, June 16, 2013.
Palin: Reporter Comparing Iranian Presidential Candidates to Tea Party “Put the BS in CBS.” By Noel Sheppard. NewsBusters, June 17, 2013. Also at YouTube here, here, and here.
Sarah Palin: Elizabeth Palmer “put the BS in CBS” comparing Tea Party to Iranian hardliners. By Joe Newby. Conservative Firing Line, June 17, 2013.
Bam! Palin slams Tea Party-bashing CBS reporter for “putting the BS in CBS.” Twitchy, June 17, 2013.
Palin Returns To FOX News: “People Just Want Honesty From Their Government.” Video. Real Clear Politics, June 17, 2013.
Megyn Kelly and Michelle Malkin Take on CBS News. Video. America Live with Megyn Kelly. Fox News Insider, June 17, 2013. YouTube.
Founders Online: A Major Step Forward for History Education and Liberty.
 |
| Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States. By Howard Chandler Christy, 1940. Wikipedia. AOC. |
Founders Online. National Archives.
Correspondence and Other Writings of Six Major Founders of the United States: George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams (and family), Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. Over 119,000 searchable documents, fully annotated, from the authoritative, federally funded Founding Fathers Papers projects.
.bmp)
This is a historian’s dream come true. The complete modern editions of the papers of the six major Founding Fathers are now available online. With this online edition, the product of the advances of modern scholarship and information technology, the words and deeds of the men who led the Revolution and created the nation are open for all to explore. Americans no longer have any excuse to remain ignorant of their history and their heritage of liberty. Students of all ages, from elementary school to Ph.D. can now discover how our nation was born. This is what the Internet was created for. My only criticism is that the papers of Andrew Jackson, who ranks with the original Founders in importance for America’s national development, were not included. I hope this will be rectified in the future.
Here’s an example of the treasures to be found. This quote is from a letter by George Washington to John Banister, a Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, written at Valley Forge. After three years as commander in chief of the Continental Army, Washington had become a sharp and unsentimental realist about human nature, the American people, and their politicians. Speaking from bitter experience he explained why patriotism was not enough to sustain men through a long and bloody war.
You can find the complete letter at Founders Online here. You can find an image of the manuscript letter at the Library of Congress here.Men may speculate as they will—they may talk of patriotism—they may draw a few examples from ancient story of great atchievements performed by it’s influence; but, whoever builds upon it, as a sufficient basis, for conducting a long and bloody War, will find themselves deceived in the end. We must take the passions of Men, as nature has given them, and those principles as a guide, which are generally the rule of action. I do not mean to exclude altogether the idea of patriotism. I know it exists, and I know it has done much in the present contest. But I will venture to assert, that a great and lasting War can never be supported on this principle alone—It must be aided by a prospect of interest or some reward. For a time it may, of itself, push men to action—to bear much—to encounter difficulties; but it will not endure unassisted by interest.
And here John Adams confides to wife Abigail his dawning awareness of the pivotal role he is about to play in history. After listening to a sermon by the Reverend George Duffield, a New Light Presbyterian and chaplain of the Continental Congress, Adams placed the American struggle for liberty (and himself) in a Biblical context.
I have this Morning heard Mr. Duffil upon the Signs of the Times. He run a Parrallell between the Case of Israel and that of America, and between the Conduct of Pharaoh and that of George.
Jealousy that the Israelites would throw off the Government of Egypt made him issue his Edict that the Midwives should cast the Children into the River, and the other Edict that the Men should make a large Revenue of Brick without Straw. He concluded that the Course of Events, indicated strongly the Design of Providence that We should be seperated from G. Britain, &c.
Is it not a Saying of Moses, who am I, that I should go in and out before this great People? When I consider the great Events which are passed, and those greater which are rapidly advancing, and that I may have been instrumental of touching some Springs, and turning some small Wheels, which have had and will have such Effects, I feel an Awe upon my Mind, which is not easily described.
This is but one of many examples of how
Americans of the Revolutionary era saw themselves as the new Israel. For the
complete letter at Founders Online, click here. For an image of the manuscript
letter at the Massachusetts Historical Society, click here.
National Archives Launches Founders Online Research Tool. By Vanessa Varin. AHA Today, June 17, 2013.
The Founding Fathers: Coming to a Web Site Near You. By David S. Ferriero. OAH Outlook, August 2013.
The Founding Fathers Online. By Keith Donohue. Prologue Magazine, Vol. 42, No. 4 (Winter 2010) National Archives.
The Papers of the Founding Fathers Are Now Online. By Keith Donohue. The White House Blog, June 13, 2013. Also here.
Founders Online. AOTUS Blog, June 13, 2013.
Founders Online Launches. By Jason Coleman. University of Virginia Press, June 12, 2013.
Founders Online. Video. usnationalarchives, November 20, 2012. YouTube.
How to Understand Islamism: Read What Its Leaders Actually Say. By Barry Rubin.
How to Understand Islamism: Read What Its Leaders Actually Say. By Barry Rubin. PJ Media, June 13, 2013.
President Rand Paul. By Julia Ioffe.
President Rand Paul. By Julia Ioffe. The New Republic, June 17, 2013. From the July 1, 2013 issue. Also here.
His views are extreme. His political skills are fierce. And that’s what makes him so dangerous.
About that Rand Paul Cover Photo . . . A Conversation with Platon. By Hillary Kelly. The New Republic, June 17, 2013.
His views are extreme. His political skills are fierce. And that’s what makes him so dangerous.
About that Rand Paul Cover Photo . . . A Conversation with Platon. By Hillary Kelly. The New Republic, June 17, 2013.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Egypt’s Perilous Drift. By Thomas L. Friedman.
Egypt’s Perilous Drift. By Thomas L. Friedman. New York Times, June 15, 2013.
Egyptian artists rally against “Islamisation” of culture. By Abdeljalil Chernoubi. France24, June 13, 2013.
Egyptian artists rally against “Islamisation” of culture. By Abdeljalil Chernoubi. France24, June 13, 2013.
Edward Snowden Is/Is Not a Hero. By John Cassidy and Jeffrey Toobin.
Why Edward Snowden Is a Hero. By John Cassidy. The New Yorker, June 10, 2013.
Edward Snowden Is No Hero. By Jeffrey Toobin. The New Yorker, June 10, 2013.
Is Edward Snowden a Hero? A Follow-Up. By John Cassidy. The New Yorker, June 14, 2013.
Edward Snowden Is No Hero. By Jeffrey Toobin. The New Yorker, June 10, 2013.
Is Edward Snowden a Hero? A Follow-Up. By John Cassidy. The New Yorker, June 14, 2013.
The Not-So-Good Old Days. By Stephanie Coontz.
The Not-So-Good Old Days. By Stephanie Coontz. New York Times, June 15, 2013.
For Snowden, a Life of Ambition, Despite the Drifting. By John M. Broder and Scott Shane.
For Snowden, a Life of Ambition, Despite the Drifting. By John M. Broder and Scott Shane. New York Times, June 15, 2013.
Sarah Palin on Syria: “Let Allah Sort It Out.”
Sarah Palin Addresses “Orwellian” Government At 2013 Faith And Freedom Coalition. Video. Real Clear Politics, June 15, 2013. YouTube. C-Span. Also here.
Palin:
Now more than ever it just seems so Orwellian around here. You know, 1984. And, you know before this 1984, terms like “leading from behind” meant following. And like the other day, the White House, testifying before Congress, bragging that they use the “least untruthful statement.” Now, where I come from, that’s called a lie. Yes, officials lied and government spied and in Benghazi, the government lied and Americans died.
. . . .
Militarily, where is our commander in chief? We’re talking now more new interventions. I say until we know what we’re doing, until we have a commander in chief who knows what he’s doing, well, let these radical Islamic countries who aren’t even respecting basic human rights, where both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line, “Allah Akbar,” I say until we have someone who knows what they’re doing, I say let Allah sort it out.
Sarah Palin on U.S. Decision on Syria: “Let Allah Sort It Out.” By Arlette Saenz. ABC News, June 15, 2013.
Sarah Palin lampoons D.C. at Faith and Freedom Coalition conference. By Lyndsey Layton. Washington Post, June 15, 2013.
Also at the Jerusalem Post, Politico, The Huffington Post, The Hill, the Washington Times, The Blaze, Salon.
Sarah Palin: “Let Allah Sort It Out” clip. Video. Charles Johnson, June 16, 2013. YouTube. Also here, here.
Palin:
Now more than ever it just seems so Orwellian around here. You know, 1984. And, you know before this 1984, terms like “leading from behind” meant following. And like the other day, the White House, testifying before Congress, bragging that they use the “least untruthful statement.” Now, where I come from, that’s called a lie. Yes, officials lied and government spied and in Benghazi, the government lied and Americans died.
. . . .
Militarily, where is our commander in chief? We’re talking now more new interventions. I say until we know what we’re doing, until we have a commander in chief who knows what he’s doing, well, let these radical Islamic countries who aren’t even respecting basic human rights, where both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line, “Allah Akbar,” I say until we have someone who knows what they’re doing, I say let Allah sort it out.
Sarah Palin on U.S. Decision on Syria: “Let Allah Sort It Out.” By Arlette Saenz. ABC News, June 15, 2013.
Sarah Palin lampoons D.C. at Faith and Freedom Coalition conference. By Lyndsey Layton. Washington Post, June 15, 2013.
Also at the Jerusalem Post, Politico, The Huffington Post, The Hill, the Washington Times, The Blaze, Salon.
Sarah Palin: “Let Allah Sort It Out” clip. Video. Charles Johnson, June 16, 2013. YouTube. Also here, here.
Sympathy for the Luddites. By Paul Krugman.
Sympathy for the Luddites. By Paul Krugman. New York Times, June 13, 2013.
Devaluing Human Capital. By Paul Krugman. New York Times, June 10, 2013.
White Collars Turn Blue. By Paul Krugman. New York Times, September 29, 1996.
Are Paul Krugman’s 1996 predictions about 2096 already coming true? By Charlie Jane Ander. io9, June 13, 2013.
The Once (but No Longer) Golden Age of Human Capital. By Nancy Folbre. New York Times, June 10, 2013.
Paul Krugman: A Smart Man Paid to Say Stupid Things. By John Spritzler. CounterCurrents.org, June 15, 2013.
Devaluing Human Capital. By Paul Krugman. New York Times, June 10, 2013.
White Collars Turn Blue. By Paul Krugman. New York Times, September 29, 1996.
Are Paul Krugman’s 1996 predictions about 2096 already coming true? By Charlie Jane Ander. io9, June 13, 2013.
The Once (but No Longer) Golden Age of Human Capital. By Nancy Folbre. New York Times, June 10, 2013.
Paul Krugman: A Smart Man Paid to Say Stupid Things. By John Spritzler. CounterCurrents.org, June 15, 2013.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
I Can’t Make You Love Me. By Bonnie Raitt.
I Can’t Make You Love Me. By Bonnie Raitt. Video. BonnieRaittVEVO, December 6, 2010. From the album Luck of the Draw. Capitol Records, 1991.
Defending Lincoln. By Rich Lowry.
Defending Lincoln. By Rich Lowry. National Review, June 17, 2013. Also here.
Lowry:
The conservative case against Lincoln is not only tendentious and wrong, it puts the Right crosswise with a friend. As I argue in my new book, Lincoln Unbound, Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the foremost proponent of opportunity in all of American history. His economics of dynamism and change and his gospel of discipline and self-improvement are particularly important to a country that has been stagnating economically and suffering from a social breakdown that is limiting economic mobility. No 19th-century figure can be an exact match for either of our contemporary competing political ideologies, but Lincoln the paladin of individual initiative, the worshiper of the Founding Fathers, and the advocate of self-control is more naturally a fellow traveler with today’s conservatives than with progressives.
In Lincoln Unbound, I make the positive case for Lincoln, but here I want to act as a counsel for the defense. The debate over Lincoln on the Right is so important because it can be seen, in part, as a proxy for the larger argument over whether conservatism should read itself out of the American mainstream or — in this hour of its discontent — dedicate itself to a Lincolnian program of opportunity and uplift consistent with its limited-government principles. A conservatism that rejects Lincoln is a conservatism that wants to confine itself to an irritable irrelevance to 21st-century America and neglect what should be the great project of reviving it as a country of aspiration.
An excerpt from Rich Lowry’s “Lincoln Unbound.” Morning Joe. MSNBC, June 11, 2013.
Rich Lowry audio interview on Lincoln Unbound with John Miller. National Review Online, June 11, 2013.
Rich Lowry: Lincoln Can Teach Us Today. By Courtney Coren and Kathleen Walter. Newsmax, June 12, 2013.
The Ricochet Podcast: Lessons from Lincoln. Interview with Rich Lowry. National Review Online, June 13, 2013.
The lost lesson of Lincoln. By Rich Lowry. New York Post, June 16, 2013.
Hard work, discipline and self-improvement make the man.
Lincoln, America, and Opportunity. Rich Lowry interviewed by Kathryn Jean Lopez. National Review Online, June 18, 2013.
Lincoln’s Path Still. Review of Lincoln Unbound. By Jay Winik. National Review, July 1, 2013. Also here.
Press Pass: Rich Lowry on Lincoln Unbound. Interview with David Gregory. Meet the Press. NBC News, June 14, 2013.
Address to the 166th Ohio Regiment, August 22, 1864. By Abraham Lincoln. The American Presidency Project. Also in Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler. Vol. 7, p. 512.
Lincoln:
SOLDIERS—I suppose you are going home to see your families and friends. For the services you have done in this great struggle in which we are engaged, I present you sincere thanks for myself and the country.
I almost always feel inclined, when I say anything to soldiers, to impress upon them, in a few brief remarks, the importance of success in this contest. It is not merely for the day, but for all time to come, that we should perpetuate for our children's children that great and free government which we have enjoyed all our lives. I beg you to remember this, not merely for my sake, but for yours. I happen, temporarily, to occupy this big White House. I am a living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father's child has. It is in order that each one of you may have, through this free government which we have enjoyed, an open field, and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise, and intelligence; that you may all have equal privileges in the race of life with all its desirable human aspirations--it is for this that the struggle should be maintained, that we may not lose our birthrights--not only for one, but for two or three years, if necessary. The nation is worth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable jewel.
Lowry:
The conservative case against Lincoln is not only tendentious and wrong, it puts the Right crosswise with a friend. As I argue in my new book, Lincoln Unbound, Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the foremost proponent of opportunity in all of American history. His economics of dynamism and change and his gospel of discipline and self-improvement are particularly important to a country that has been stagnating economically and suffering from a social breakdown that is limiting economic mobility. No 19th-century figure can be an exact match for either of our contemporary competing political ideologies, but Lincoln the paladin of individual initiative, the worshiper of the Founding Fathers, and the advocate of self-control is more naturally a fellow traveler with today’s conservatives than with progressives.
In Lincoln Unbound, I make the positive case for Lincoln, but here I want to act as a counsel for the defense. The debate over Lincoln on the Right is so important because it can be seen, in part, as a proxy for the larger argument over whether conservatism should read itself out of the American mainstream or — in this hour of its discontent — dedicate itself to a Lincolnian program of opportunity and uplift consistent with its limited-government principles. A conservatism that rejects Lincoln is a conservatism that wants to confine itself to an irritable irrelevance to 21st-century America and neglect what should be the great project of reviving it as a country of aspiration.
An excerpt from Rich Lowry’s “Lincoln Unbound.” Morning Joe. MSNBC, June 11, 2013.
Rich Lowry audio interview on Lincoln Unbound with John Miller. National Review Online, June 11, 2013.
Rich Lowry: Lincoln Can Teach Us Today. By Courtney Coren and Kathleen Walter. Newsmax, June 12, 2013.
The Ricochet Podcast: Lessons from Lincoln. Interview with Rich Lowry. National Review Online, June 13, 2013.
The lost lesson of Lincoln. By Rich Lowry. New York Post, June 16, 2013.
Hard work, discipline and self-improvement make the man.
Lincoln, America, and Opportunity. Rich Lowry interviewed by Kathryn Jean Lopez. National Review Online, June 18, 2013.
Lincoln’s Path Still. Review of Lincoln Unbound. By Jay Winik. National Review, July 1, 2013. Also here.
Press Pass: Rich Lowry on Lincoln Unbound. Interview with David Gregory. Meet the Press. NBC News, June 14, 2013.
Address to the 166th Ohio Regiment, August 22, 1864. By Abraham Lincoln. The American Presidency Project. Also in Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler. Vol. 7, p. 512.
Lincoln:
SOLDIERS—I suppose you are going home to see your families and friends. For the services you have done in this great struggle in which we are engaged, I present you sincere thanks for myself and the country.
I almost always feel inclined, when I say anything to soldiers, to impress upon them, in a few brief remarks, the importance of success in this contest. It is not merely for the day, but for all time to come, that we should perpetuate for our children's children that great and free government which we have enjoyed all our lives. I beg you to remember this, not merely for my sake, but for yours. I happen, temporarily, to occupy this big White House. I am a living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father's child has. It is in order that each one of you may have, through this free government which we have enjoyed, an open field, and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise, and intelligence; that you may all have equal privileges in the race of life with all its desirable human aspirations--it is for this that the struggle should be maintained, that we may not lose our birthrights--not only for one, but for two or three years, if necessary. The nation is worth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable jewel.
Why Are Richer Countries Less Religious? By Joshua Keating.
Why are richer countries less religious? By Joshua Keating. Foreign Policy, June 13, 2013.
“Secularization of Consciousness” or Alternative Opportunities? The Impact of Economic Growth on Religious Belief and Practice in 13 European Countries. By Jochen Hirschle. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 52, No. 2 (June 2013).
“Secularization of Consciousness” or Alternative Opportunities? The Impact of Economic Growth on Religious Belief and Practice in 13 European Countries. By Jochen Hirschle. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 52, No. 2 (June 2013).
The Academic Paper That Predicted the NSA Scandal. By Joshua Keating.
The academic paper that predicted the NSA scandal. By Joshua Keating. Foreign Policy, June 11, 2013.
Unique in the crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility. By Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye et al. Nature Scientific Reports, March 25, 2013. PDF.
Unique in the crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility. By Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye et al. Nature Scientific Reports, March 25, 2013. PDF.
Is Edward Snowden a Chinese Agent? By John Reed.
House intel committee wants to know if Edward Snowden works for China. By John Reed. Foreign Policy, June 13, 2013.
Edward Snowden: US government has been hacking Hong Kong and China for years. By Lana Lam. South China Morning Post, June 13, 2013. Also here.
Edward Snowden Tells South China Morning Post: U.S. Has Been Hacking Hong Kong And China Since 2009. By Rebecca Shapiro. The Huffington Post, June 13, 2013.
Edward Snowden: US government has been hacking Hong Kong and China for years. By Lana Lam. South China Morning Post, June 13, 2013. Also here.
Edward Snowden Tells South China Morning Post: U.S. Has Been Hacking Hong Kong And China Since 2009. By Rebecca Shapiro. The Huffington Post, June 13, 2013.
Who Destroyed Canaanite Hazor? By Amnon Ben-Tor.
 |
|
Façade
of the restored six-chambered gate from the time of King Solomon at Hazor, 10th
century BC; in the background in the far left: the roof above the ceremonial
palace. |
Joshua turned back at that time, and took Hazor, and struck its king down with the sword. Before that time Hazor was the head of all those kingdoms. And they put to the sword all who were in it, utterly destroying them; there was no one left who breathed, and he burned Hazor with fire.
—Joshua 11:10-11. New Revised Standard Version
Who Destroyed Canaanite Hazor? By Amnon Ben-Tor. Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 (July/August 2013).
Ben-Tor:
If we can eliminate the Egyptians, the Sea Peoples, rival Canaanite city-states and even the local population of the city as being responsible for the fall of Hazor, who then are we left with?
The differences between the Alt and Albright schools with regard to the process of the early Israelites’ settlement in Canaan (outlined above) were discussed with much passion at the time but are of little consequence for the issue at hand. Both sides eventually agreed that Hazor was indeed destroyed by the early Israelites. Even Martin Noth, the greatest exponent of Alt’s school of thought, admits to a link between the capture of Hazor and Joshua 11:10. Both sides thus agree on the “who”—the early Israelites—but still differ with regard to the “how”—the nature of the process by which the early Israelites took possession of, and eventually settled in, the Land of Canaan.
An array of publications by various scholars over the years, trying to determine who was responsible for the downfall of Hazor, indicates a tendency to attribute the site’s destruction to anyone except the ones specifically mentioned in the Bible as having done so.
As clearly shown by the famous Merneptah Stele, dated to the last decade of the 13th century B.C.E., the Israelites were present in Canaan at this time. They must have arrived some time before their encounter with Merneptah, the Egyptian pharaoh. Some prefer to call this group “proto-Israelites,” but there is no reason for this. If the term “Israel” was good enough for Pharaoh Merneptah to designate this particular group of people, it should be good enough for us. Indeed, those Israelites were still largely a seminomadic society, and their national identity was not exactly the same as that of Israel in the ninth century B.C.E. A lot of changes occurred during the three centuries separating their presence in the region in the 13th century B.C.E. from the foundation of the Kingdom of Israel. Certain groups from among the local population must have been absorbed into Israel, while others left. The same is true for other national groups: The Americans of today are certainly different from those two centuries ago, and even more so the Israelis of today are very different from those who were in the country just 65 years ago when the State of Israel was founded. Such changes do not justify considering the Israelites of Merneptah and the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Israel as two different peoples.
Biblical historiography, in particular the books of Joshua–Kings, cannot be considered a completely accurate account of the events described in them, because they are motivated by a theological and—to some extent—a political agenda. They do contain a considerable number of true historical nuclei, however, and the account of the downfall of the last Canaanite city of Hazor is very probably one of them. Left with the early Israelites as the only viable agent responsible for the destruction of Hazor, one may wonder how it was possible for such a ragtag group of people to bring down a mighty city like Hazor. We need only look at analogous instances of ancient states, and even empires, being overwhelmed by “uncivilized” tribes—for example, the destruction of the Roman Empire by Germanic tribes and the Arab conquest of Byzantine Palestine.
As for Canaan, after some 300 years under oppressive Egyptian rule, it was drained of most of its resources. Egyptian documents tell us about constant military raids, during which the pharaoh’s army lived off the land; what was not consumed or taken as tax was burned. Huge numbers of sheep, cattle and slaves were taken to Egypt as well. The various Canaanite cities were divided and poor. Most of them were not fortified, and even Canaanite Hazor’s fortifications probably went partially out of use. The constant disputes among the Canaanite city-states are clearly reflected in the 14th-century Amarna letters, which also inform us of the meager number of warriors kept by the Canaanite rulers: Requests for military assistance from neighbors often mention no more than 10 to 50 men. The decline in the 13th–12th centuries B.C.E. of all the major powers that had previously ruled the region has been documented and discussed thoroughly.
Seizing the opportunity—while the cat was away, the mice filled the power vacuum and settled all over the region at the end of the Late Bronze Age (c. 1200 B.C.E.): the Greeks in western Asia Minor, the Sea Peoples in the eastern Mediterranean, the Arameans in Syria, the Arabs in the Arabian peninsula—and the Israelites in Canaan.
Scorched Wheat May Provide Answers on the Destruction of Canaanite Tel Hazor. By Noah Wiener. Bible History Daily, July 24, 2012.
3,000-year-old wheat traces said to support biblical account of Israelite conquest. By Asher Zeiger. The Times of Israel, July 23, 2012.
 |
| A bronze statue of a Canaanite king from Hazor. |
Hazor: “The Head of All Those Kingdoms.” By Abraham Malamat. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 79, No. 1 (March 1960).
Hazor and the Archaeology of the Tenth Century BCE. By Amnon Ben-Tor and Doron Ben-Ami. Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 48, Nos. 1-2 (1998).
Hazor—A City State Between the Major Powers. By Christa Schäfer-Lichtenberger. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, Vol. 15, No. 1 (2001).
Anatomy of a Destruction: Crisis Architecture, Termination Rituals and the Fall of Canaanite Hazor. By Sharon Zuckerman. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, Vol. 20 (2007).
“. . Slaying Oxen and Killing Sheep, Eating Flesh and Drinking Wine . .”: Feasting in Late Bronze Age Hazor. By Sharon Zuckerman. Palestine Exploration Quarterly, Vol. 139, No. 3 (November 2007).
The Renewed Hazor Excavations. By Amnon Ben-Tor. Near Eastern Archaeology, Vol. 76, No. 2 (June 2013).
 |
| The Merneptah Stele. Cairo Museum |
Israel in the Merneptah Stela. By Michael G. Hasel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 296 (November 1994). Revised version here.
Israel in Merenptah’s Inscriptions and Reliefs. By Anson F. Rainey. Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 51, No. 1 (2001).
Archaeologist Amnon Ben-Tor Explains Hazor on Site. Video. Galyn Wiemers, July 10, 2012. YouTube.
Israelite Conquest of Canaan Debated. National Geographic. Video. digkabri, September 29, 2007. YouTube.
[Download the articles on Hazor from Near Eastern Archaeology, June 2013, when it becomes available on Academic Search Complete/EBSCO]
The Palestinian Authority’s Reign of Terror. By Khaled Abu Toameh.
The Palestinian Authority’s Reign of Terror. By Khaled Abu Toameh. Real Clear World, June 13, 2013. Also at Gatestone Institute.
Palestinians Need Tough Talk From Europe. By David Makovsky. New York Times, June 14, 2013.
Palestinians Need Tough Talk From Europe. By David Makovsky. New York Times, June 14, 2013.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)