Wednesday, April 1, 2015

...and Dumber

Not a group for reasoned analysis, the New York Times editorial writers are on a roll. Their 4/1/15 editorial criticizes the Saudis for interfering militarily in Yemen: "The Saudis Ominous Move Into Yemen."

It is not that the Times is unable to acknowledge that Sunni-run Saudi Arabia "...has watched with growing alarm as Shiite-majority Iran has gradually extended its influence throughout the region, from Lebanon to Syria and Iraq, and fears Iran is poised to do the same in Yemen, a Sunni-majority nation." So, Saudi concerns are legitimate then?

The Times also acknowledges that the possibility of a deal between Iran and the P5+1 "...has alarmed Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states even more..." So, more legitimate concerns by the Saudis then?

But for the NY Times, legitimate concern does not give the Saudis a right to actually do anything. No. The Times says how "irresponsible" the Saudis are for openly discussing the possibility of getting nukes of their own. So Shiite Iran is making a deal that may allow them to get nukes; Shiite Iran is on the march throughout the Middle East; and now Shiite Iran-backed forces may be taking over a country on the southern end of the Arabian peninsula. But don't do anything!

Now, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have agreed to form a pan-Arab force of 40,000 troops to fight who? Islamic extremists. How awful! I am sure that there would be no complaints from the Times if the force was being formed to fight those evil Israelis. But Islamic extremists?

If you thought that the Times could not get any dumber than their comment about religion not being under assault in this country (see prior post "Dumb...) then how about this: "It would be a catastrophic mistake for Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to allow the Yemeni civil war to become the catalyst for a larger sectarian Shiite-Sunni war with Iran." A catalyst? Are they kidding? Just how dumb are they?

Here are a few quotes from Lt. General Michael Flynn, Retired, and former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. "We have almost a complete breakdown of order in the Middle East. A new Middle East is essentially struggling to be born." To put it another way - we are way past the "catalyst" stage.

After noting how Shiite Iran is indeed on the march, Lt. Gen. Flynn said this: "We also have what I would call a real sort of push back by the Sunni governments and their lack of trust and their lack of respect for the United States. And I think that at the end of the day we have just this incredible policy confusion - never mind what our strategy is to execute that policy."

But the Times says that any action by Saudi Arabia is "likely to further increase tensions." The Middle East is aflame, but Saudi actions will "increase tensions?" Stunning! The answer for the Times: "Saudi Arabia should be using its power and influence to begin diplomatic negotiations." Well, so long as the Saudis are patient. I mean really, really patient. After all, the Iranians are now in their 12th year of negotiations with the West regarding their nuclear capabilities, all the while biding their time while inching towards having nuclear weapons - and the missiles with which to launch them. And didn't Iran just get yet another extension?

Said Lt. Gen. Flynn of the Obama Administration's policy: "It's almost a policy of willful ignorance." Willful ignorance - something with which the New York Times can agree.


The New York Times prides itself as being the premier newspaper in the USA. Its editorials are of the far left, and ridicule those who dare to disagree as being ignorant or biased or even idiots. In their 3/31/15 editorial, the paper blasts Indiana's version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They assert that the law was driven by "bigotry against gays and lesbians," and they quote backers of the law who stated it is intended to protect "Christian businesses and churches from those supporting homosexual marriages." Notice how the Times equates opposition to gay marriage as "bigotry" against gays and lesbians. I have a gay cousin who is married and who knows my opposition to gay marriage. Do I love him and his husband any less? No. Do I treat them any differently? No. But its all the same to the Times and those on the left.

The federal version of the law passed the Senate with a 97 to 3 vote and was signed by President Bill Clinton. President Barack Obama voted for the Illinois version. 40% of the states have such laws. But the Times claims that the law will allow businesses "to refuse service to gay couples."

A well publicized case out of Oregon had a Christian couple refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The bakery that the couple owned had provided bakery items to these people before without any problem. They simply did not want to participate in a gay wedding, which would be contrary to their Christian beliefs. What if a couple walked into a photographer's shop and said they needed a portfolio of pictures because they were trying to break into the movie business. And, oh yes, the pictures would have to be of them nude and engaging in various sexual acts, because they were trying to get into the porn movie business. What if the photographer has a religious belief opposing pornography? Nothing whatsoever to do with gays.

That bakery had no problem serving gays. However, they did not want to be affiliated with a marriage ceremony that contravened their faith. How disappointing that the government got involved - forcing the couple to face potential fines of up to $200,000. How disappointing that the left wing mob threatened not only the couple but their children as well. Did the gay couple complain to the state? I do not know. How disappointing if they did. How disappointing if they wanted to hurt a small, family-owned bakery who had served them in the past. Yet, it would be very typical of the left's desire to harm those who dare to openly disagree with their agenda.

Recall the request to publicize the names of all those who supported Proposition 8 in California. Their sole purpose was to hurt, at least financially if not worse, those who dared to disagree. Some of my friends on the left love to say that the Republican party is the party of Big Business. Nothing could be further from the truth. Apple CEO Tim Cook blasted Indiana, saying that Apple "will never tolerate discrimination." Ironic that the IBD (in their 3/31/15 editorial) reports that last year Apple obtained rights to set up retail and marketing operations in Saudi Arabia. You know, where just being gay is illegal.

It is not clear why the Times and others on the left say that this is all about anti-gay discrimination. Then again, they claimed that was the case against Chick-Fil-A when that company's owner said he was personally opposed to gay marriage, with no proof that the company discriminated against gays in hiring or in service. After all, the Hobby Lobby case, decided by SCOTUS last June, protected a closely held company from having to participate in providing insurance that would cover contraceptives, which would have been contrary to their religious beliefs. Again, nothing to do with being gay.

The Times' editorial makes this incredible assertion: "The freedom to exercise one's religion is not under assault in Indiana, or anywhere else in the country." Except that in the Times' view religious people must do whatever the government dictates - or face fines, bankruptcy and maybe even imprisonment. But, people are still free to state their religious beliefs, aren't they? Not if those beliefs run counter to the left wing agenda - unless, again, you wish to risk your livelihood, financial well-being and possible freedom. (See my 8/2/12 post entitled "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat" for what the left thinks of your religious beliefs if you dare to disagree with them.)

It is bad enough that the left in this country will not tolerate dissent from their viewpoint; and that one faces a mob mentality if one dares to deviate from the left wing ideology. The idea of respecting differing views does not exist for the left. The idea of respecting Christian beliefs? Let's be honest - the left mocks Christian beliefs. But how sad when the "paper of record" acts as part of the mob, instead of acting as a voice of reason.

Dumb? You bet. And dangerous for the well-being of society.