The Holocaust was Caused by the Church, not Just Hitler
The Christians were against the practise of Judaism and tried to convert the Jews. In secular Europe, the Jews themselves were rejected as a race. Hitler's foundations were laid in the 4th century, and still stand.
Ted Belman, Israpundit
The Holocaust didn’t occur because of Hitler but because of the Church. Hitler merely built upon the policies of the Church and drove them to their logical conclusion.
Of course I am familiar with the idea that but for Christianity, the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened, but wasn’t fully aware of the debt owed by Hitler to precedents set by the Church for the details of his policies, including the final solution.
R. Hilberg’s classic The Destruction of European Jews provides the link. Hiberg begins his introduction with these words:
1) The German destruction of the European Jews was a tour de force; the Jewish collapse under the German assault was a manifestation of failure. Both of these phenomena were the final product of an earlier age.
2) Anti-Jewish policies and anti-Jewish actions did not have their beginning in 1933. For many centuries, and in many countries, the Jews have been victims of destructive action. What was the object of these activities? What were the aims of those who persisted in anti-Jewish deeds? Throughout Western history, three consecutive policies have been applied against Jewry in its dispersion.
The policies referred to included 1) conversion, 2) expulsion and 3) extermination. The first and second were often accompanied by the threat of execution; all of which were sanctioned by the Church.
1) The first anti-Jewish policy started in the fourth century after Christ in Rome. In the early 300’s, during the reign of Constantine, the Christian Church gained power in Rome, and Christianity became the state religion. From this period, the state carried out Church policy. For the next twelve centuries, the Catholic Church prescribed the measures that were to be taken with respect to the Jews. Unlike the pre-Christian Romans, who claimed no monopoly on religion and faith, the Christian Church insisted upon acceptance of Christian doctrine.
2) For an understanding of Christian policy toward Jewry, it is essential to realize that the Church pursued conversion not so much for the sake of aggrandizing its power (the Jews have always been few in number), but because of the conviction that it was the duty of true believers to save unbelievers from the doom of eternal hellfire. Zealousness in the pursuit of conversion was an indication of the depth of faith. The Christian religion was not one of many religions, like other religions. It was the true religion, the only religion. Those who were not in its fold were either ignorant or in error.
The Jews could not accept Christianity.
The same might be said of Islam, though it allowed Jews and Christians, “peoples of the book”, to be dhimmis and pay a tax, Jizya”, for the privilege. The Church also imposed a similar tax on Jews.
1) In the very early stages of the Christian faith, many Jews regarded Christians as members of a Jewish sect. The first Christians, after all, still observed the Jewish law. They had merely added a few non-essential practices, such as baptism, to their religious life. But this view was changed abruptly when Christ was elevated to godhood. The Jews have only one G-d. That G-d is indivisible. He is a jealous G-d and admits of no other G-ds. He is not Christ, and Christ is not He. Christianity and Judaism have since been irreconcilable. An acceptance of Christianity has since signified an abandonment of Judaism.
2) With patience and persistence, the Church attempted to convert obstinate Jewry, and for twelve hundred years, the theological argument was fought without interruption. The Jews were not convinced. Gradually the Church began to back its words with force. The Papacy did not permit pressure to be put on individual Jews; Rome never permitted forceful conversions.
3) However, the clergy did use pressure on the whole. Step by step, but with ever widening effect, the Church adopted “defensive” measures against its passive victims. Christians were “protected” from the “harmful” consequences of intercourse with Jews by rigid laws against intermarriage, by prohibitions of discussions about religious issues, by laws against domicile in common abodes. The Church “protected” its Christians from the “harmful” Jewish teachings by burning the Talmud and by barring Jews from public office.
And yet it is the Jews who are always attacked for their separateness.
1) The clergy was not sure of its success – hence the widespread practice, in the Middle Ages, of identifying proselytes as former Jews, hence the inquisition of new Christians suspected of heresy, hence the issuance in Spain of certificates of “purity” (limpieza) signifying purely Christian ancestry, and the specification of half new Christians, quarter new Christians, one-eighth new Christians, etc.
Hitler’s racial purity laws found their antecedent and precedent in these laws. And so did his order that Jews identify themselves by wearing a yellow Star of David.
Efforts to convert the Jews were spectacularly unsucessful, even aided by all the restrictions placed on the Jews.
1) Too much had been invested in twelve hundred years of conversion policy. Too little had been gained. From the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries, the Jews of England, France, Germany, Spain, Bohemia and Italy were presented with ultimatums which gave them no choice but one: conversion or expulsion.
In 1542 Martin Luther rejected the authority of Rome and started the Lutheran Church. He, too, hated the Jews. He and others who broke away from Rome became known as Protestants. There followed hundreds of years of war between Catholics and Protestants.
At the end of the Eighteenth Century, the French Revolution took place, a by-product of which was the liberation of the French Jews, who thereafter enjoyed equal rights. The armies of the revolution, headed by Napoleon, spread the values of “liberte, fraternite and egalite” to the east, including in Germany and Italy. With the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, the Bourbons in France kept the liberating legislation, but the monarchs in Germany and Italy cancelled it. Nevertheless, Jews embraced the belief, after a taste of liberation, that full equality was the inevitable corollary of the emerging secular-political order throughout Europe. In Germany, Reform Judaism was founded and in Russia and Poland, Jews flocked to the Communist banner.
But many segments of society remained deeply anti-Semitic, leaving many Jews to conclude that the promise of “liberte, fraternite and egalite” was a pipe dream even though the society was now secular. And so was born the the movement for the Auto-Emancipation of the Jews, which became known as Zionism. Jews had to reconstitute themselves as a nation in their own land.
In Christian Europe, the Jews had only to convert to be accepted. The Christians were against the practise of Judaism. In secular Europe, the Jews themselves were rejected as a race. Thus, conversion was not open to them. But expulsion or emigration was still available. Thus millions of Jews the Pale of Settlement beginning in 1880 emigrated well into the nineteen thirties. Hitler searched in vain for a country to which to expel Germany’s Jews, but no one wanted them. In 1942 he instituted the final solution, extermination.
R. Hiberg in his masterful study, argues:
1) If we analyze that singular massive upheaval, we discover that most of what happened in those 12 years, 1933 to 1945, had already happened before. The Nazi destruction process did not come out of a void, it was the culmination of a cyclical trend beginning in the Fourth Century in Rome.
During the conversion era, the Church said, “you have no right to live among us as Jews”. Then in the segregation/expulsion process, “you have no right to live among us” and finally in the extermination process, “you have no right to live”.
1) These progressively more drastic goals brought in their wake a slow and steady growth of anti Jewish action and anti-Jewish thinking…. The German Nazis then, did not discard the past, they built upon it. They did not begin a development, they completed it. In the deep recesses of anti-Jewish history we shall find many of the administrative and psychological tools with which the Nazis implemented their destruction process. In the hollows of the past we shall also discover the roots of the characteristic Jewish response to an outside attack.
To better understand this statement, Hilberg presents a table of Canonical Law restricting the Jews beginning in the Fourth Century opposite which he places similar Nazi measures.
1) No summation of Canonical Law can be as revealing as a description of the Rome ghetto, maintained by the Papal State until the occupation of the city by the Royal Italian Army in 1870. A German journalist who visited the city in its closing days, published such an account:
2) “To rent any house or business establishment outside the ghetto boundaries, the Jews needed the permission of Cardinal Vicar. Acquisition of real estate outside the ghetto was prohibited. Trade or industrial products or goods were prohibited. Higher schooling was prohibited.. The professions of lawyer, druggist, notary, painter and architect were prohibited. A Jew could be a doctor provided he confined his practice to Jewish patients. No Jew could hold office. Jews were required to pay taxes like everyone else and, in addition, the following: 1) A yearly stipend for the upkeep of the Catholic officials who supervised the Ghetto Finance Administration and the Jewish Community Organization,
2) A yearly sum of 5250 lira for Casa Pia for missionary work among Jews, 3) A yearly sum of 5250 lira to the Cloister of the Converted for the same purpose. In return the Papal State expended a yearly sum of 1500 lira for welfare work. But no state money was paid for education or the care of the sick.”
Hiberg also provided a table of Pre-Nazi and Nazi Anti-Jewish Measures. As can be seen, the destructive process was at work in Germany long before the Nazis came to power.
But all this in no way is meant to excuse Hitler.
After the Holocaust, the manifestations of anti-Semitism became very subdued. It was not "cool" to express such feelings in any way. Unfortunately, the haters began expressing the anti-Semitism as anti-Zionism. These expression are now commonplace and the hatred of Israel is growing exponentially. As a result, the movement to exterminate Israel has become very strong.
But we Jews will survive that too.
Scientists trace the boozing gene: Taste for drink 'originated 10million years ago in common ancestor of humans and chimps'Labels: alcohol» chimpanzees and gorillas» Drugs» evolution» orangoutangs» Vice
(DailyMail.co.uk)The boozing gene can be traced back 10million years to the common ancestor humans share with chimpanzees and gorillas, new research claims.
It is believed these ancient forebears were the first to pick up fruits fermenting on the ground after they developed a lifestyle away from the trees.
Individuals able to stomach the boozy fruit would have survived better in this new environment than those who could not, programming the ability into their descendants' genetic codes.
The theory could explain why humans, chimps and gorillas are able to digest alcohol, while our tree-dwelling cousins like orangutans cannot.
Here's to those who came before us... Scientists have traced the ability to metabolise alcohol back to a gene first found in the common ancestor humans share with gorillas and chimpanzees
Chemist Steven Benner of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution in Gainesville, Florida, came to the conclusion after he 'resurrected' the alcohol-metabolising enzymes of extinct primates.
By estimating the enzymes’ genetic code, they rebuilt them in the lab and then analysed how they worked to understand how they have changed over time.
Biochemist Romas Kazlauskas of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told Science News: 'It’s like a courtroom re-enactment.
'Benner can re-enact what happened in evolution.'
To break down alcohol in the body, modern humans rely on an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase 4, or ADH4, which is found throughout the aesophagus, stomach and intestines.
However, not all ADH4s are the same, meaning some species of primate can effectively metabolise ethanol while others are unable to.
To understand why, researchers mapped the DNA sequences that make up ADH4 in 27 species of modern primate on a primate family tree to infer how the enzyme looked at points on the tree where branches separated.
Their findings showed most primate ancestors would have been unable to metabolise alcohol, but at the branching point leading to gorillas, chimps and humans the enzyme emerged as a powerful alcohol digester.
This enzyme was nearly 50 times more efficient at digesting alcohol than earlier versions, Dr Benner reported. That made it nearly capable or breaking down the alcohol found in modern alcoholic drinks.
He concluded that it must have been the result of the early primate's descent from the trees where it came across fruits lying on the ground.
Lightweights: The findings could explain why tree-dwelling primates like orang-utans (pictured) are less able to metabolise alcohol, since fruits are less likely to ferment while still hanging on a branch
If these fruits had damaged skins, yeast could have invaded them and fermented their sugars, turning them into ethanol.
Any primates unable to digest the fermented fruits would have died before passing on their genes, but those who could would have passed the boozing gene on to their offspring.
Dr Benner believes his findings could explain why land-loving primates like humans and gorillas can metabolise alcohol, but tree dwellers like orangutans, which rarely encounter fermented fruit, cannot.
He presented his findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Friday.
Lawmakers “Accidentally” Legalize Warrantless Invasion Of Gun Owners’ Homes.
Lawmakers in Washington State have accidentally written a bill permitting police to invade private homes for the purpose of confiscating “illegal” guns and accessories, such as magazines that hold over 10 rounds.
According to Senate Bill 5737, introduced on February 13th by Democrat State Senators Murray, Kohl-Welles, and Kline, no one may possess an “assault weapon” or the combination of a semi-automatic pistol or rifle capable of using a detachable magazine AND any magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammo.
Happily, however, you ARE allowed to possess an UNLOADED assault weapon “…for the purpose of permanently relinquishing it to a law enforcement agency of the state.” (Pg. 6)
Naturally, the statute would NOT apply to police, members of law enforcement in the state, or to federal authorities; in short, the oft-referred to “only ones.” That is, the only ones, the political ruling class tells us, who can be trusted with firearms. However, if one happens to own an “assault weapon” prior to the effective date of the legislation, he may keep it IF he agrees to “safely and securely store the assault weapon.” And by the way, “THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY MAY, NO MORE THAN ONCE PER YEAR, CONDUCT AN INSPECTION TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE…” Not surprisingly, safe and secure storage is not defined in the bill. (Pg. 7) Also not surprisingly, this language was quickly deleted from the bill immediately upon lawmakers learning of the public outrage their little foray into dictatorship had spawned.
Yet, in order to provide cover for the bill’s sponsors and fellow liberals, duplicitous “journalist” Danny Westneat is hoping to sell Washington gun owners on the laughable story that the whole thing was just an unfortunate mistake! According to Westneat, one of the bill’s sponsors, Democrat Adam Kline “…did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.” Naturally, ALL prospective laws should be written without paying much attention to what’s in them! And the PRIME sponsor, Democrat Ed Murray, admitted that the language was “probably unconstitutional.” “I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” allowed the munificent liberal.
PROBABLY unconstitutional? Here is the 4th Amendment to the Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."And by the way, MR. Murray, how were your “only ones” to know which homes to enter and search? Could it be that mandatory, statewide gun registration was to become the next in your series of “common sense” gun laws?
But even with the Orwellian language now removed, SB 5737 is an affront to the God-given rights of the American people. After all, the bill still states that, should one inherit an “assault weapon,” he must either dispose of it by allowing law enforcement to confiscate it or permanently disable it. It is government literally authorizing the theft or destruction of personal property. Anyone who objects will be subject to one year in prison.
As for the claim by the bill’s authors that it was a mistake, a misstep? “It’s a “misstep” because they said what they want to do. They gave away what their plan is.” The truth is, “it’s not a misstep, it’s the next step.”Read the full story here.
extract concessions from Israel (as if he needs any incentive to do that).
Although the Palestinian Authority probably does not want an all-out confrontation between Palestinians and Israelis at this stage, some Palestinian Authority officials in Ramallah believe that a "mini-intifada" would serve the Palestinians' interests, especially on the eve of Obama's visit.The officials hope that scenes of daily clashes between Israeli soldiers and Palestinians in the West Bank will prompt Obama to exert pressure on the Israeli government to make far-reaching concessions to the Palestinian Authority.This is why the Palestinian Authority leadership has been encouraging its constituents lately to wage a "popular intifada" against Israel, each time finding another excuse to initiate confrontations between Palestinians and Israel.Now the Palestinian Authority is using the issue of Palestinian prisoners who are on hunger strike in Israeli prisons as an excuse to call for street protests and clashes with the Israel Defense Forces.In recent days, dozens of Palestinian protesters have been injured in clashes with IDF soldiers in various parts of the West Bank. The protests are being held in solidarity with four hunger-strikers.Before that, the Palestinian Authority used the issue of settlements as an accuse to call for widespread protests in the West Bank.Before that, the Palestinian Authority leadership encouraged Palestinians to protest against Israeli "plans" to destroy the Aqsa Mosque and replace it with the Third Temple.By encouraging a "popular intifada," the Palestinian Authority leadership is hoping to bring the Palestinian issue back to the top of the agenda of the US Administration and Israel.The 'Palestinians' are also considering encouraging demonstrations against Obama while he is here in order to increase the pressure. In the meantime, with Obama arriving just a few days before Passover, Jews are likely to be too preoccupied to demonstrate en masse against Obama (Passover is one of two Jewish holidays nearly every Israeli Jew celebrates, even if they are totally secular the rest of the year).
Read the whole thing.
(EOZ)(h/t O)Of course, he wouldn't characterize it this way, but how else can you explain this bizarre linkage he suggests?
The $270 million the U.S. has provided Israel to help build Iron Dome is in addition to the three billion dollars Israel gets annually from the U.S. in military aid. Palestinians complain that while all this U.S. support is being given to Israel, the Israeli government has repeatedly defied U.S. policy and approved the construction of new settlement blocks in the West Bank.So if Israel builds settlements, Simon is saying, then the US should no longer help fund Iron Dome to save Israeli lives from rocket attacks. Israelis in Ashkelon must die because the Knesset allows Jews to build houses in their historic homeland.
Bob Simon: The Americans have already given $270 million dollars.
Ehud Barak: More than this, I believe, along the, yeah.
Bob Simon: And they're promising just the Iron Dome another $660 million--
Ehud Barak: Yeah. Yeah. $680-- probably $211 might be given in the coming fiscal year.
Bob Simon: While the Americans are helping you so much in your defense. Israel goes on building settlements, which is exactly what the Americans don't want. How does that work, when you're asking America for help and doing exactly what the Americans don't want you to do?
....How does it work? I mean, right now, Israel has just announced the building of a gigantic settlement project. This is at the same time that the Americans are providing the money for Israel's most important defense system.
Summary: (sabril) Do commentators like Bob Simon ask similar questions about US aid to or support for Egypt? To the Palestinian Authority? To the United Nations? To Turkey? (jzaik) ...Who controls whom here. Simon is saying that the Americans are paying israelis. Bill maher is saying we're controlled by the israelis. (singingt) how valuable is Israeli technology to the US?
(NYSUN) It’s too soon to say whether Senator Hagel will ultimately be confirmed when the Senate gets back from its vacation. It’s not too soon to suggest that the big loser in this affair looks increasingly likely to be Senator Schumer. He has long cast himself as a guardian on the Jewish front in our vast array of national interests. This was pointed out in a column by John Podhoretz that was issued Friday in the New York Post. It casts in sharp relief the fact that the senator crumpled in the case of Mr. Hagel.
Crumpling is a pattern with Mr. Schumer. We remember watching him in the mid-1990s, when he was in the House and the issue of Jerusalem came to a head. There came a moment when the Congress was going to mark the point by insisting that the American embassy in Israel, situated at Tel Aviv, be moved to Israel’s capital city. It was a favorite issue of Senator Moynihan, who once visited the offices of the Jewish Forward newspaper voicing indignation over a State Department telephone directory that had a listing for Jerusalem as not being in Israel.
The Democrats were being put on the spot by the Republicans, who had swept to power in both houses of Congress and were, at the prodding of Senator Dole, agitating to make an issue of Jerusalem. Mr. Schumer was among those boasting that the Democrats and the Clinton administration were finally going to fix the situation. At the 11th hour, however, the Democrats watered down the Jerusalem Embassy Act, proposing an escape hatch in the form of a waiver by which the president could evade the requirement to move the embassy.
It was, as we recall it, Dianne Feinstein who first advanced this dodge, which was promptly used by President Clinton. Senator Schumer stood silent. It wasn’t a party problem. President George W. Bush and President Obama also used the waiver, and Mr. Schumer stood silent then, too. The result is that although the act of 1995 set a goal of moving the embassy by 1999, we are coming up on a generation since the law was passed and the embassy hasn’t been moved. What reason is there to think that Mr. Schumer might have gone to the mat this time?
Mr. Schumer started cheering on the Republican opposition when Mr. Hagel was first advanced as a potential defense nominee. The minute we heard of Mr. Schumer’s bravado, we made a bet that he would reverse himself. It’s not a bet on which we got rich, and we’d have rather lost it. The fact, in any event, is that Mr. Schumer has been put to shame on his own boast by such stronger senators as Lindsey Graham and James Inhofe. New York’s senior senator could regain his reputation in a fell swoop were he to stand up on what he knows in his heart to be a tragic error by Mr. Obama. It’s unlikely, though we’d be happy to be proven wrong.
Doc's Talk: Libya militia linked to US attack returns to Benghazi
Libya militia linked to US attack returns to Benghazi
LAST UPDATED: 02/17/2013
BENGHAZI - An Islamist militia linked to the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi and kicked out of the city by locals is back openly manning checkpoints and building up support promising much-needed security.
Heavily bearded youths from Ansar al-Sharia control the western entrance into Libya's second biggest metropolis, patrol a hospital and check cars and trucks passing through another checkpoint in the south.
Witnesses say the group's members were at the scene of the Sept. 11 attack that killed the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans - though Ansar al-Sharia denied any involvement.
Days after the assault, outraged residents drove the group out of its bases in the city in a "Rescue Benghazi" protest.
The group's highly visible return, five months on, underlines the complex security situation on the ground two years after the start of the revolt that ousted Muammar Gaddafi.
The article linked below from Bloomberg is about Alwaleed’s decision to sell off his jumbo jet, but the bigger story embedded here is his decision to refocus his fortune back home in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, which almost certainly means Shariah-compliance…
Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Al Saud, the world’s 15th-richest person, sold his Airbus A380 jet plane in the past four months…The 57-year-old, who bought the plane in 2007, used the proceeds from the sale to expand his investments in Saudi Arabia and the greater Middle East…http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-14/alwaleed-sells-airbus-a380-to-invest-in-middle-east-firms.html
The chairman of Riyadh-based Kingdom Holding has a net worth of $29 billion…Alwaleed’s fortune has surged $8.5 billion since April 2012 as Kingdom shares have almost doubled in value.
Alwaleed has built much of his fortune investing in companies such as Apple Inc. and News Corp. In the past several years, the billionaire said he has been reallocating his portfolio in favor of the Middle East. He has more than $1.3 billion invested in public and private equities in the region…
of course we will be told that gun control is something that will be enforceable... the bad guys wouldn't download anything from the internet... would they?
Bill #Maher Takes On #GOP Opposition To #Hagel Over Israel: ‘The #Israelis Are Controlling Our Government’Labels: Bill Maher» Chuck Hagel» Hagel
RELATED: SNL’s Cut Cold Open Savages Republicans For Their Excessive Praise Of Israel At Chuck Hagel Hearings
Maher was, firstly, stunned that the Republicans are working this hard to fight the nomination of a member of thir own party. The Daily Caller’s Jamie Weinstein explained that they are still trying to vet Hagel before the final vote. Maher couldn’t understand what they find “suspicious about him,” asking “he’s a right-wing Republican and that’s not good enough?”
Weinstein told Maher that there are more comments by Hagel being unearthed, one of which features a remark by Hagel that the State Department is run by the Israeli government. Maher stated that this is a matter of fact.
“Based on every statement I’ve heard from every Republican in the last two years, the Israelis are controlling our government.”Watch the video below, courtesy of HBO:
Follow Josh Feldman on Twitter: @feldmaniac
Wolf, a “radical feminist”, Al Goracle, a hysterical global warming shyster, and Qatar’s jihad propaganda TV in bed with al Qaeda? You ain’t seen nothing yet!
Wolf has written columns for Al Jazeera and the extreme left Guardian in the past.
“As an American who cares about civil liberties, it’s good for all of us that the Guardian and Al Jazeera are doing the work they’re doing,” she said. “It is good for civil society in America.”Here a sample of Naomi’s brainfarts:
- “Behind the veil lies a thriving Muslim sexuality”
- A tip to put her out of business: offer her vagina-shaped pasta known as “cuntini”, which gives her writer’s block for at least six months…..
Naomi Wolf, the author and activist, is in early-stage talks with the global news network Al Jazeera, POLITICO has learned.
Wolf, who currently writes a column for The Guardian, confirmed the news late Thursday night but stressed that the talks were in the earliest stages and that no job offer was on the table.
“It’s extremely informal and very, very preliminary,” she told POLITICO.
Wolf is in a non-exclusive employment with the Guardian and has written columns for Al Jazeera and other news outlets in the past. She and The Guardian recently agreed that she would scale back her column duties — from weekly to monthly — due to her thesis obligations at Oxford, where she is a graduate student. (The Huffington Post reported earlier today that she would be ending her weekly column duties, but did not specify the terms of the new arrangement.)
“Naomi will be a contributor to the Guardian, and write as her other commitments allow,” a Guardian spokesperson told POLITICO.
A spokesman with Al Jazeera did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the talks, which is understandable given the late hour.
Al Jazeera, a Qatari-owned news network, bought Current TV from Al Gore earlier this yearin an effort to expand its reach in the American market. Al Jazeera plans to announce the launch of an American-based network, called Al Jazeera America, later this year and has set about on a hiring spree to bulk up American-based staff. Wolf would be its first high-profile hire.
In addition to her columns, Wolf is an author of books including “The Beautiful Myth,” a best-seller that established her as a spokeswoman for third-wave feminism, and “Vagina: A New Biography,” published in 2012.
Wolf described her relationship with The Guardian in glowing terms: “It’s wonderful,” she said. “I love The Guardian and Al Jazeera English. I think they’re both doing some of the best journalism out there. It’s notable and kind of sad that non-U.S. based news sites are able to run pieces of mine that don’t as easily find a home in American publications.”
“As an American who cares about civil liberties, it’s good for all of us that the Guardian and Al Jazeera are doing the work they’re doing,” she said. “It is good for civil society in America.”
This post has been updated.
Her words are already long gone from the daily flow; in fact, they never really resonated at all, were all but ignored by the mainstream media, and were characterized more as a feisty in-your-face comeback than what they truly were.
And what they truly were was horrifying — but at the same time a deep insight into the Democratic mindset, as well as a peek at what may be coming in 2016.
Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton finally appeared to answer questions before two congressional panels on exactly what happened at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.
That day, the consulate was overrun by heavily armed terrorists, some with rocket-propelled grenade launchers, others with high-powered assault weapons. They swept past the almost nonexistent security, killed the U.S. ambassador and set the building on fire. They followed when dozens of Americans fled to a more-heavily fortified annex nearby, but U.S. forces did nothing during the next 10 hours and three more were killed, including two Navy SEALs.
For weeks, the White House and top administration officials said the assault was merely a protest turned violent: The angry mass had gathered to protest a short video posted on YouTube that Muslims reportedly found offensive. It was, they said, spontaneous, and it was, they said, all about that video.
The hearing last week was a fact-finding mission: Lawmakers charged with oversight of the State Department gathered to ask the secretary of state — for the first time — what went wrong, and to find out, if possible, the cause of the deadly blunder. More, they wanted to hear from the secretary herself just why the administration had said for so long that a video caused an impromptu protest that led to the death of the U.S. ambassador.
Asked during a Senate hearing why they had given out faulty information for so long, Mrs. Clinton grew angry and, with her voice rising, her hands flailing, said: “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?!”
And that, in a nutshell, sums up the frightening Democratic mindset. The administration had buried the matter for months in an internal investigation: No one from the White House to the State Department would comment on what happened, turning away queries with the simple: “It’s under investigation.” And they weren’t about to start explaining now.
Remember, the story had changed completely just hours before another congressional hearing months earlier. State Department officials, speaking with anonymity, had scrambled to hold a hastily-arranged conference call with reporters to say, in essence, “Oh, turns out it was terrorists, not just protesters, who attacked in Benghazi. And oh, nothing to do with any video.” That call came just before officials planned to tell a completely new story, but this time to lawmakers, where — as Mrs. Clinton learned after her husband’s affair with a White House intern — lying under oath is a felony.
So, lawmakers still wanted to know why the administration dispatched aides to the Sunday talk shows right after the deadly attack to say it was the culmination of a spontaneous attack over a video. Later, Mrs. Clinton and President Obama would say that they were merely offering up the best information at the time, but as information dribbed and drabbed out over the following months, it turned out that no one in the intelligence community ever said the attack was spontaneous or caused by a video posted on YouTube nearly six months earlier.
But Mrs. Clinton made clear at the hearing that she didn’t have to answer to anyone — certainly not elected lawmakers, let alone the American people. “What difference does it make?!” she bellowed. Now, this hearing was in fact a hearing intended to find out why the administration said the attack came after an impromptu protest over a video. Senators made clear in the days preceded the hearing that they planned to ask just that, get the answer to that most pressing unanswered question.
“You know, to be clear,” the secretary explained, as if to children, “it is, from my perspective, less important today, looking backwards, as to why these militants decided they did it [sic], than to find them and bring them to justice.”
So, from her perspective, there doesn’t need to be any investigation into why the administration said what it said. It’s like a child breaking a lamp, lying about it to his parents, and then saying, “Look, we could go on and on about who said what about breaking the lamp, but fixing the lamp now is really all that’s important — let’s move on.”
And that is terrifying. The secretary of state said simply, “The ends justify the means.” The Obama administration had lied about what happened in Benghazi to help secure a second term for the president, buried the murder of Americans in a private investigation, then, when finally questioned, said, “What difference does it make!?” what we said way back then.
The tactic is, of course, how Democrats operate. They feel that what they are doing is morally superior; thus, however they can achieve their goals is above question or reproach. In fact, in this case, they can lie about it — bald-faced — and then dismiss lawmakers’ questions with an indignant huff.
It is, as we know, exactly how the Clintons operate. Bill Clinton lied for weeks and months over his sexual dalliance with an intern only a few years older than his daughter — even under oath — and Democrats decried the probe as a witch hunt. Remember when Mrs. Clinton made $100,000 through spurious cattle futures contracts? Of course not: By the time it all came around, the Clintons said, “Oh, that old stuff?” Or the time the Clintons announced they had suddenly found papers demanded by investigators for years? And don’t even ask about Vincent W. Foster Jr.
This is what’s coming in 2016. A politician running for president who need not answer questions from anyone. And that truly is horrifying.
• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.