Click on WORD or PDF for full content
Spengler notes the foolishness of an address to the “Muslim world.”
… To speak to the “Muslim world”, is to speak not to a fact, but rather to an aspiration, and that is the aspiration that Islam shall be a global state religion as its founders intended. To address this aspiration is to breathe life into it. For an American president to validate such an aspiration is madness. America is not at war with Islam, unless, that is, Islam were to take a political form that threatens America’s global interests. These interests include friendly relationships with nation-states that have a Muslim majority, such as Egypt, Turkey and Jordan. To address “the Muslim world” is to conjure up a prospective enemy, for global political Islam only can exist as the enemy of the nation-states with which America has allied.
Obama, the White House press office told reporters last week, will address among other issues the Arab-Israeli issue. What does it imply to raise this issue in a speech to the “Muslim world”? Nearly 700 million of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims live in Indonesia, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, countries which share no linguistic or cultural affinities with the Arabs, and have only religion in common.
They have no strategic interest whatever in the outcome of war or peace in the Levant. Their only possible interest is religious. Does the United States really believe that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is religious in origin? …
… Thus far, Obama’s efforts to propitiate the “Muslim world” have made the administration’s future work all the harder. Iran is convinced that the administration needs it to help out in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has all the less incentive to abandon its central goal of developing nuclear weapons. Pakistan is in the midst of a bloody civil war forced upon it by the United States. After Obama leaned on the Israelis to halt settlement construction, the Palestinian Authority’s President Mahmoud Abbas left Washington convinced that Obama will force out the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the next two years.
For his trouble, Obama will get more bloodshed in Pakistan, more megalomania from Iran, more triumphalism from the Palestinians, and less control over Iraq and Afghanistan. Of all the available bad choices, Obama has taken the worst. It is hard to imagine any consequence except a steep diminution of American influence.
Corner posts on the visit to Egypt.
“One of the largest Muslim countries.” Jeesh.
More on the large Muslim country.
Richard Epstein has more on Sotomayor.
Barack Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for a Supreme Court seat has put both her defenders and attackers into high gear. In my previous Forbes column, I indicated some of my deep reservations about the Sotomayor candidacy based on her perfunctory performance in Didden v. Town of Port Chester, where the panel brushed aside the “public use” language in the constitution’s takings clause.
Likewise, the cryptic panel decision of her panel in the New Haven firefighters’ case, Ricci v. DeStefano, also evidenced a tin ear to the explosive statutory and constitutional issues that arose when New Haven chose to disregard its own promotion test on the sole ground that it identified few (indeed, no) African-American candidates as eligible for promotion to captain and lieutenant.
On this occasion, I won’t ask why Judge Sotomayor took an intellectual pass on a hard case, which is now before the Supreme Court. Instead I will examine the other side of the coin, which is the serious intellectual weakness in the conservative case against her confirmation. Note that I consciously use the term “conservative” in opposition to the decidedly different “libertarian” orientation. …
Mark Steyn Corner post on empathy on the Court.
Thomas Sowell on the nomination.
… Laws are made for the benefit of the citizens, not for the self-indulgences of judges. Making excuses for such self-indulgences and calling them “inevitable” is part of the cleverness that has eroded the rule of law and undermined respect for the law.
Something else is said to be “inevitable” by the clever people. That is the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. But it was only a year and a half ago that Hillary Clinton’s winning the Democratic Party’s nomination for president was considered “inevitable.”
The Republicans certainly do not have the votes to stop Judge Sotomayor from being confirmed — if all the Democrats vote for her. But that depends on what the people say. It looked like a done deal a couple of years ago when an amnesty bill for illegal aliens was sailing through the Senate with bipartisan support. But public outrage brought that political steamroller to a screeching halt.
Nothing is inevitable in a democracy unless the public lets the political spinmasters and media talking heads lead them around by the nose. …
Mona Charen says it is cruel to casually call someone racist.
The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has already achieved a boon for our political culture: It has helped leading liberals and Democrats to discover that being tarred as a racist on flimsy grounds is unfair and deeply unpleasant. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., for example, when asked on “Face the Nation” to respond to Rush Limbaugh’s and Newt Gingrich’s comments about Sotomayor, said, “That’s an absolutely terrible thing to throw around. Based on that statement — that one word ‘better than’ (sic) — to call someone a racist is just terrible and I would hope that Republicans would not do this.”
Sen. Feinstein is right as far she went. She avoided one undeniable fact though. If a white male nominee had been discovered to have said something similar — that he was better situated to judge due to his background and life experiences than a Latina woman — he would be cashiered so fast as to induce whiplash. Those are the unwritten rules that Limbaugh and Gingrich are attempting, one suspects, to expose for their one-sidedness. Nevertheless, the instant labeling of the woman, based on one unwise remark, is hardly fair. If Democrats are learning this now, that’s excellent news. One hopes they will remember this discovery when the wheel turns and a Republican nominee is before the Senate. Certainly they didn’t seem to get it as recently as 2002, when President Bush nominated Judge Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. …
Treasury Sec. Geithner was laughed at in China.
… Mr Geithner told politicians and academics in Beijing that he still supports a strong US dollar, and insisted that the trillions of dollars of Chinese investments would not be unduly damaged by the economic crisis. Speaking at Peking University, Mr Geithner said: “Chinese assets are very safe.”
The comment provoked loud laughter from the audience of students. There are growing fears over the size and sustainability of the US budget deficit, which is set to rise to almost 13pc of GDP this year as the world’s biggest economy fights off recession. …
Click on WORD or PDF for full content