Nicholas Kristof, "President Carter, Am I a Christian?": Coffee in Hell With Gandhi

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "President Carter, Am I a Christian?," Nicholas Kristof tells us of a recent "email conversation" with Jimmy Carter. (Which of these two Israel bashers do I despise more?) Kristof asked the former president:

"One of my problems with evangelicalism is that it normally argues that one can be saved only through a personal relationship with Jesus, which seems to consign Gandhi to hell. Do you believe that?"

And Carter answered:

"I do not feel qualified to make a judgment. I am inclined to give him (or others) the benefit of any doubt."

Translation, I'm f*cked.

Which brings me to one of my favorite jokes: A man, who recently died, descends to hell and is met there by Satan. Satan says to the man, "We don't pretend that this is summer camp, but we like to provide choices to those who have come to spend eternity with us. As such, you can pick option number one..." Satan points at millions of hapless souls walking over searing hot coals. "Option number two..." Satan points at millions of sinners whose limbs are being torn apart on the rack. "Or option number three..." Satan points to a multitude of wrongdoers standing waste-deep in excrement and drinking coffee.

The new arrival thinks for a moment and declares, "The smell of that cesspit is overwhelming, but I do like to drink coffee."

"So be it," responds Satan. "A cup of coffee, please, for our friend."

An imp comes running over and pours a cup of coffee for the newcomer, who wades into the sea of sewage, whereupon an announcement is made over the intercom system: "Coffee break over, back on your heads."

Coffee? Yes, at least five cups each day. Mahatma, I'm on my way.

American Exceptionalism: Are Donald and Hillary the Exceptions?

Tweet

Sorry for disappearing these many days. For a believer in American exceptionalism, Donald and Hillary have me in a deep funk. The former doesn't know when he is lying. The latter knows she's lying, but can't help herself.

A few odds and ends ...

You will recall that in a March 31, 2015 Washington Post opinion piece  entitled "Deal or no deal, the Iran talks have borne fruit," David Ignatius wrote:

"Whatever the endgame produces, it’s useful to focus on the process of negotiation itself, which is nearly as important as whether there’s a sustainable deal.

First, there is the fact of U.S.-Iranian engagement. For more than 18 months, Iran has been in direct talks with a power it once demonized as the 'Great Satan.' Iranian hard-liners certainly remain, but the nation that chanted in unison 'Death to America' is probably gone forever."

When I sent emails to Ignatius and provided evidence that he was wrong, he wrote back to me and declared:

"You miss my point entirely. What I said was that the NATION will never again chant it in UNISON. There will still be fanatical hardliners but they are beginning to be outliers."

In the wake of Ben Rhodes revelations concerning the Iran nuclear deal that the Obama administration had "played" America's journalists, I sent an email to Ignatius earlier this week:

"I think it is time to revisit our correspondence from one year ago, particularly in light of Ben Rhodes recent comments to The New York Times Magazine, i.e. the distinction between 'hardliners' (Khamenei) and 'moderates' (Rouhani) was concocted by the administration to sell the nuclear deal.

In any event, "Death to America" chanting has continued and will continue.

Do you feel that you were influenced by Rhodes and friends? I think a follow-up opinion piece might be interesting."

Thus far, Ignatius has graciously failed to reply.

You will also recall Nicholas Kristof's April 23, 2016 New York Times op-ed entitled "Is Hillary Clinton Dishonest?," in which he informed us:

"One basic test of a politician’s honesty is whether that person tells the truth when on the campaign trail, and by that standard Clinton does well. PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking site, calculates that of the Clinton statements it has examined, 50 percent are either true or mostly true.

That compares to 49 percent for Bernie Sanders’s, 9 percent for Trump’s, 22 percent for Ted Cruz’s and 52 percent for John Kasich’s. Here we have a rare metric of integrity among candidates, and it suggests that contrary to popular impressions, Clinton is relatively honest — by politician standards."

Ah yes, "politician standards." How reassuring that half of what Hillary tells us is true or mostly true! But more to the point, I wonder what Kristof has to say of the 13-minute YouTube highlighting Hillary's incessant deceit, which, as noted by WaPo's  Kathleen Parker, has gone viral.

Turning now to the international arena, legislators from Belgium are proposing that Palestinian terrorist Marwan Barghouti, currently serving five life sentences for murder, be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Concurrently, Belgium is refusing to provide financial assistance, amounting to some $17,000, to the two daughters of an Israeli couple murdered in a 2014 attack on the Jewish Museum in Brussels.

Sic[k] transit gloria mundi ...

Nicholas Kristof, "Is Hillary Clinton Dishonest?": Do You Need to Vomit?

Tweet

You ate something unsavory and you need to vomit? Well, there is no need to stick a finger down your throat. Instead, you can read Nicholas Kristof's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Is Hillary Clinton Dishonest?" in order to achieve the same emetic effect. In his opinion piece, Kristof informs us (my emphasis in red):

"One basic test of a politician’s honesty is whether that person tells the truth when on the campaign trail, and by that standard Clinton does well. PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking site, calculates that of the Clinton statements it has examined, 50 percent are either true or mostly true.

That compares to 49 percent for Bernie Sanders’s, 9 percent for Trump’s, 22 percent for Ted Cruz’s and 52 percent for John Kasich’s. Here we have a rare metric of integrity among candidates, and it suggests that contrary to popular impressions, Clinton is relatively honest — by politician standards."

How reassuring! Half of what Hillary tells us is true or mostly true! Needless to say, there is no mention by Kristof of Ed Morrissey's Fox Nation article entitled "Hillary Fired for Lies, Unethical Behavior from Congressional Job: Former Boss" from which we learned (my emphasis in red):

"Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the [House Judiciary Committee which was investigating Watergate]. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

'Because she was a liar,' Zeifman said in an interview last week. 'She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.'"

A liar who "conspired to violate the Constitution"? That sounds kind of serious.

Kristof goes on to say:

"As for the fundamental question of whether Clinton risked American national security with her email server, I suspect the problem has been exaggerated. As President Obama put it, 'she has not jeopardized America’s national security.'"

And we all know that Obama never lies. What difference does it make that PolitiFact (cited by Kristof above) named "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" the Lie of the Year for 2013. But more to the point, as observed by Myra Adams in a National Review article entitled "The Clinton E-mail Case Transcends Hillary’s Presidential Campaign":

"'I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America’s national security,' Obama said recently on Fox News Sunday. However, Obama added, 'what I’ve also said is that — and she has acknowledged — that there’s a carelessness, in terms of managing e-mails, that she has owned, and she recognizes.' This leaves one to wonder whether 'carelessness' will become a new defense to be invoked when an elected official, intelligence-community member, government bureaucrat, contractor, or someone in the military is accused of mishandling classified information.

Obama neglected to add that Clinton’s 'carelessness' included 22 e-mails with the highest level of classification found on her private server. Worse, as the New York Post reported, these e-mails 'revealed names of CIA officers serving overseas and foreigners who are on the spy agency’s payroll – potentially endangering their lives.' Moreover, and with lasting consequences, President Obama in defending Clinton has set the bar very high for determining whether classified information 'jeopardizes America’s national security.'"

Yup, Kristof has outdone himself this time, surpassing even his classic, vomit inducing opinion piece entitled "In Iran, They Want Fun, Fun, Fun." Attaboy, Nick!

David Brooks, "The Post-Trump Era": How Obama Tangoed While Brussels Burned

Tweet

"The timing was awkward, coming right before the Brussels bombings, but Obama is roughly right on his facts: 464 people drowned in America in tubs, sometimes after falls, in 2013, while 17 were killed here by terrorists in 2014 (the most recent years for which I could get figures). Of course, that’s not an argument for relaxing vigilance, for at some point terrorists will graduate from explosives to nuclear, chemical or biological weapons that could be far more devastating than even 9/11. But it is an argument for addressing global challenges a little more rationally."

- Nicholas Kristof, "Overreacting to Terrorism?," March 24, 2016

In one of the most insensitive opinion pieces in the history of The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof yesterday explained away Obama's indifference to the horrors of the attacks in Brussels by telling us that "our brains sometimes mislead us." Or stated otherwise, it was perfectly okay for Obama to participate in a "wave" at a Havana baseball game and tango in Buenos Aires, i.e. fiddle while Rome burned, because only "17 were killed here by terrorists in 2014." Although Kristof makes mention of 9/11, he conveniently decides not to tell us of the 2,977 terror-linked deaths on that date, or that bridges and tunnels leading into Manhattan were closed, subways in New York City were shut down, and all flights over the US and Canada were cancelled. The cost to the US economy of 9/11: some $3.3 trillion. Needless to say, flights over the US and Canada are not cancelled when someone drowns in a bathtub, as tragic as such a mishap might be.

I am at a loss for words to condemn Kristof's coldhearted support of Obama's insouciance which derives from a narcissistic personality disorder.

Fast-forward 24 hours: In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Post-Trump Era," David Brooks doesn't even mention Brussels. Rather, regarding "Reagan Orthodoxy," Brooks would have us know:

"Now along comes Donald Trump, an angel of destruction, to blow it all to smithereens."

Something bad? Heck no! Ever cheerful even about the onset of middle-age (you will recall his prior euphoric opinion piece), Brooks concludes:

"We’re going to have two parties in this country. One will be a Democratic Party that is moving left. The other will be a Republican Party. Nobody knows what it will be, but it’s exciting to be present at the re-creation."

Excuse me, David, if I skip the celebration.

Meanwhile, in a Times op-ed entitled "Crazy About Money," Paul Krugman today also avoids any mention of Brussels. Instead, Krugman tells us that Ted Cruz "has staked out positions on crucial issues that are, not to put too fine a point on it, crazy." Krugman's conclusion:

"The moral here is that we shouldn’t be surprised by the Republican establishment’s willingness to rally behind Mr. Cruz. Yes, Mr. Cruz portrays himself as an outsider, and has managed to make remarkably many personal enemies. But while his policy ideas are extreme, they reflect the same extremism that pervades the party’s elite.

There are no moderates, or for that matter, sensible people, anywhere in this story."

Hillary, a secretary of state who set up a porous email server in her home basement that could be hacked at will by all of America's enemies, and Bernie, who would slash the US defense budget in the face of threats from ISIS, Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, are more "sensible" than Ted? Yeah, right. And on the subject of "sensible," let us not forget Krugman's proposal for a trillion dollar platinum coin.

Moreover, who is Krugman, who once declared, "It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details," to school us on "moderation"?

These are noxious times in which we live.

Nicholas Kristof, "Compassionate Conservatives, Hello?": How Dare You!

Tweet

Describing George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Compassionate Conservatives, Hello?," Nicholas Kristof writes:

"That instinct to show a little heart helped elect Bush but then largely disappeared from Republican playbooks and policy. Yet now, amid the Republican Party’s civil war, there are intriguing initiatives by the House speaker, Paul Ryan, and some other conservatives to revive an interest in the needy.

Liberals like myself may be tempted to dismiss these new efforts as mere marketing gestures, meant to whitewash what one of the initiatives acknowledges is 'the longstanding view of a meanspirited conservatism.'"

Yup, this comes from Kristof, a columnist who traveled across Iran with his children in June 2012 and regaled us with anecdotes from his chance meetings with Iranians in his opinion piece "In Iran, They Want Fun, Fun, Fun." Discussions with members of Iran's persecuted Baha'i minority? Kristof didn't mention any. Exchanges of views with Iran's oppressed Kurds? Again, no such thing. Dialogue with Iranian homosexuals? No way, given that homosexuals are hanged in Iran. A visit to Evin Prison to check the well-being of political dissidents languishing in its dungeons? Sorry, not on this road trip. Better still, an off-the-beaten-track side trip to witness the stoning to death of a woman accused of adultery? No, he wouldn't want his children to see such a spectacle.

Fun, fun, fun . . .

Sorry, but you're in no position to lecture us on compassion, Nicholas.

Nicholas Kristof, "Clinton, Trump and Sexism": "Skirting the Issue" of Juanita Broaddrick

Tweet

"I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73….it never goes away."

- Juanita Broaddrick, Tweet, January 6, 2016

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Clinton, Trump and Sexism," Nicholas Kristof writes:

"FOR most of her career, Hillary Clinton suffered for being a feminist.

. . . .

So it’s a measure of how much the country has changed that these days Clinton is running as a feminist, after decades of skirting the issue."

After decades of "skirting the issue"? Oh really? Excuse me, Nicholas, but how does one entertain the issue of Hillary's feminist credentials without reference to Juanita Broaddrick?

Moreover, how do you applaud Hillary's feminism without reference to the millions of dollars that her foundation received from Muslim countries guilty of abominations against women?

Bottom line, Kristof has successfully taken hypocrisy to the stratosphere.

Nicholas Kristof, "How Well Do You Know Religion?": The Bible vs. the Quran

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "How Well Do You Know Religion?," Nicholas Kristof declares, "There’s a widespread perception in America that Islam is rooted in misogyny and violence." He then quizzes us in order to demonstrate that the passages of the Old and New Testaments are just as violent as those of the Quran. Acknowledging that he cherry-picked the texts forming the basis of his quiz (no mention of the Islamic hadith, "Judgment Day will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Jews will hide behind the rocks and the trees, but the rocks and the trees will say: Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him") Kristof goes on to say:

"It’s true that terrorism in the 21st century is disproportionately rooted in the Islamic world. And it’s legitimate to criticize the violence, mistreatment of women or oppression of religious minorities that some Muslims justify by citing passages in the Quran. But let’s not stereotype 1.6 billion Muslims because of their faith. What counts most is not the content of holy books, but the content of our hearts.

. . . .

In international relations, extremists on one side empower extremists on the other side. ISIS empowers Trump, who inadvertently empowers ISIS. He’s not confronting a national security threat; he’s creating one.

. . . .

Yes, the Islamic world today has a strain of dangerous intolerance. And for all of America’s strengths as a society, as Donald Trump shows, so does America."

A "strain" of dangerous intolerance? Kristof is straining our credulity. As much as I am appalled by Trump and his antics, he does not call for the hanging of homosexuals or the stoning to death of women for alleged adultery, as occurs in Iran. Perhaps you recall Kristof's op-ed "In Iran, They Want Fun, Fun, Fun," in which he describes a 1,700-mile, magical mystery tour across Iran in June 2012, accompanied by his son and daughter. In a journey akin to Borat's excursion across the US, he relayed profound anecdotes from his chance meetings with ordinary Iranians. Discussions with members of Iran's persecuted Baha'i minority? Kristof doesn't mention any. Exchanges of views with Iran's oppressed Kurds? Again, no such thing. Dialogue with Iranian homosexuals? No way. A visit to Evin Prison to check the well-being of political dissidents languishing in its dungeons? Sorry, not on this road trip. Better still, an off-the-beaten-track side trip to witness a stoning? No, he wouldn't want his children to witness such a spectacle.

Fun, fun, fun . . .

Also, there is no mention by Kristof of "honor killings" of women throughout the Muslim Middle East. Although I am disgusted by his assignment of numbers to the appearance of women, e.g., Heidi Klum, Trump's indiscretions cannot be compared with Islam's treatment of women. Consider the genital mutilation of more than 90 percent of married women in Egypt. Consider also the lashing and imprisonment of Saudi women who have been gang raped.

I agree with Kristof that "What counts most is not the content of holy books, but the content of our hearts." A pity that Kristof, during his tour of Iran, did not examine the hearts of Khamenei and his henchmen.

It will be interesting to see if Trump sues both Kristof and the Times.

Nicholas Kristof, "Hysteria About Refugees, but Blindness on Guns": Anne Frank, Auschwitz, No-Fly Zone and Obama

Tweet

Writing from Lesbos, Greece, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hysteria About Refugees, but Blindness on Guns," Nicholas Kristof juxtaposes American misgivings vis-à-vis Syrian refugees with American antipathy to Jews fleeing the Nazis during World War II. Kristof writes:

"Historically, we Americans have repeatedly misperceived outsiders as threats. In 1938 and again in 1941, one desperate Jewish family in Europe tried to gain refugee status in the United States but failed, along with countless thousands of others. That was Anne Frank’s family."

Kristof, however, fails to make another comparison. During World War II, the United States decided not to bomb the railroad lines leading into Auschwitz, the concentration camp to which Anne Frank was initially deported in September 1944. Similarly, President Obama refused to create a no-fly zone over Syria after Bashar al-Assad attacked civilians with barrel bombs and chemical weapons. Needless to say, a no-fly zone would have done much to mitigate the current Syrian refugee problem.

Care to comment, Nicholas?

New York Times Editorial, "The Horror in San Bernardino": Ignoring Radical Islam

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "The Horror in San Bernardino," The New York Times concludes:

"Congress has allowed the domestic gun industry to use assorted loopholes to sell arsenals that are used against innocent Americans who cannot hide. Without firm action, violent criminals will keep terrorizing communities and the nation, inflicting mass death and damage across the land."

"Violent criminals"? The "domestic gun industry"? What about "radical Islam," or are we forbidden to make use of these politically incorrect words? After all, Hillary Clinton cannot bring herself to say them, and not surprisingly, there is also no mention of "radical Islam" in yesterday's Times op-ed entitled "On Guns, We’re Not Even Trying" by Nicholas Kristof, who also penned for us that gem "In Iran, They Want Fun, Fun, Fun" in the not so distant past.

As reported by the Pew Research Center in an August 30, 2011 article entitled "Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism," eight percent of US Muslims believe that suicide bombing can "often/sometimes" be justified. Now that's a relief! If you randomly place 100 American adult Muslims in a room, only eight of them think that it's "often/sometimes" justified to blow you to bits.

And in a June 2015 poll of 600 Muslim-Americans, The Polling Company determined:

• 29 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that "violence against those that insult the prophet Mohammad, the Qur'an, or Islamic faith is sometimes acceptable."
• 25 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that "Violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad."
• 19 percent believed that "the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country."

Given these numbers, why should anyone be surprised by the Fort Hood shooting, the Boston Marathon bombing, the Chattanooga shooting, and yesterday's atrocity? I would further observe that Muslims comprise less than one percent of America's population.

Yes, the US has a problem with radical Islam, and there can be no answer to the problem until America's political leadership and "progressive" media acknowledge its existence.

Nicholas Kristof, "Mr. Obama, Try These Arguments for Your Iran Deal": Try These Half-Baked Recipes . . . Not!

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Mr. Obama, Try These Arguments for Your Iran Deal," Nicholas Kristof declares:

• "It would be a catastrophe for American influence in the world if Congress killed the Iranian nuclear deal" (actually, such "influence" withered and died after Obama backed away from his "red flag" warning to Assad concerning the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and after Obama implemented America's "lead from behind" role in Libya);
• "Critics are (ludicrously) accusing President Obama of appealing to anti-Semitic tropes" (yeah, the editors of Tablet Magazine, some of whom back the deal, are "ludicrous"); and
• Obama's rhetoric has been "counterproductive" (yup, calling opponents of the deal "partisan" and "ignorant" is not a way to begin a constructive dialogue); 

Kristof proceeds to "urge President Obama to start over with his sales job and focus on three points":

• "First: Sure, the deal is imperfect, but it’s the best way to achieve a goal we all share passionately — preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons."
• "Second, it’s true that Iran may try to cheat, but it’s easier to catch and stop the cheating with the deal than without."
• "Third, if all goes south, or if Iran is stalling us and after 15 years races to a weapon, we retain the option of a military strike."

Hey, Nick, that's a lot of profound thinking, but let's have a look at your suggestions.

The deal is imperfect, but it's the best way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons? Sorry, Nick, but how can you possibly reach this conclusion when you haven't seen the secret side agreements governing IAEA inspections? (Don't be ashamed: Kerry, Muniz and Congress also haven't seen these side agreements.) Allowing Iran itself to provide soil samples to the IAEA from suspect military sites makes any kind of sense to you? This will prevent Iran from building a nuclear arsenal? I don't think so.

It's easier to catch and stop the cheating with the deal than without? Yeah, right. The US identified Iran's underground Fordo nuclear facility in September 2009, some three years after work had begun on the project. You see, the Iranians are not stupid (they're much smarter than Kerry), and if they cheat - which they will - you can be certain that they will do this in a manner that will not be detected, e.g., work out of North Korea.

The military option is retained if Iran races to a weapon after 15 years? After 15 years? Spare me! Moreover, Iran is laughing at these threats. As reported yesterday by Iran's Fars News Agency:

"Iranian Supreme Leader's Deputy Representative at the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Brigadier General Mohammad Ali Asoudi said the Washington officials' frequent resort to military threat and their boastful remarks about their ability to attack Iran has become a joke among Iranian commanders."

Bottom line:  No one in this world takes Obama seriously when he claims "all options remain on the table." Go back to sleep, Nick. Better still, how about another vacation in Iran with your children?

Nicholas Kristof, "Why the Naysayers Are Wrong About the Iran Deal": Is Kristof a Liar or an Idiot?

Tweet

You will recall Nicholas Krisof's retweet of the message, "OBAMA Told the 2 Most Pig Like Lobbies, AIPAC & NRA, to Drop Dead in Same Month." Kristof never explained why he disseminated this anti-Semitic tweet to his admirers.

And then there was Kristof's "famous" New York Times op-ed, "In Iran, They Want Fun, Fun, Fun," which described a 1,700-mile, magical mystery tour across Iran in 2012, accompanied by his son and daughter. In a journey akin to Borat's excursion across the US, Kristof relayed profound anecdotes from his chance meetings with ordinary Iranians. Discussions with members of Iran's persecuted Baha'i minority? None. Exchanges of views with Iran's oppressed Kurds? No way. Dialogue with Iranian homosexuals (homosexuality is an offense punishable by hanging in Iran)? Nada. A visit to Evin Prison to check the well-being of political dissidents languishing in its dungeons? Nope. Not even an off-the-beaten-track side trip to witness the stoning to death of a woman accused of adultery.

Well, today Kristof is back with a New York Times op-ed entitled "Why the Naysayers Are Wrong About the Iran Deal," seeking to offer support for Obama's nuclear deal with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei. Kristof writes:

"The U.S. didn’t get all it wanted (and neither did Iran) in an imperfect compromise. True, we didn’t achieve anywhere, anytime inspections, yet the required inspections program is still among the most intrusive ever."

Oh really? It never occurred to Nick to mention that John Kerry has no idea what is written in Iran's side agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Instead of inspections, these agreements allow Iran to provide the IAEA with soil samples purportedly from the  Parchin military site, where Iran has been experimenting with triggers for nuclear weapons. Trust Iran to provide real soils? Yeah, right.

On the basis of the abovementioned trip to Iran with his children, Kristof would further have us know:

"I would guess that after the supreme leader dies, Iran will begin a process of change like that in China after Mao died."

Got it. On the basis of Kristof's "guess," the US should risk allowing Iran to build a nuclear weapons arsenal within another 15 years - much less time if the mullahs cheat, which they will. Combine that capability with an end to the prohibition on Iran's purchase or building of ICBMs within eight years and what have you got? A nuclear threat against Washington and New York.

Re unlocking "tens of billions of dollars in frozen assets and new oil revenues" which will pass to extremist groups, Kristof writes:

"True, but that will happen anyway. Remember that this agreement includes Europe, Russia and China as parties. Even if Congress rejects the agreement, sanctions will erode and Iran will get an infusion of cash."

Why will it happen "anyway" if the US maintains the sanctions regime and demands that those seeking access to the American banking system also toe the line? In fact, it wouldn't happen "anyway." On the other hand, the first invertebrate ever to occupy the Oval Office has another year and a half as president, and he has amply demonstrated that he is not capable of saying no to Khamenei.

Concerning Iranian calls for the extermination of Israel, Kristof writes:

"If I lived in Tel Aviv, would I be nervous? Sure. But I’d be even more nervous without this deal, which reduces the chance that Iran will acquire a nuclear weapon in the next decade. That’s why five former U.S. ambassadors to Israel endorsed the accord. (It’s also notable that American Jews are more in favor of the agreement than the American public as a whole.)"

Kristof, however, makes a point of ignoring the fact that 78 percent of Israelis believe the nuclear deal will "endanger Israel;" 71 percent think the deal will "bring Iran closer to a military nuclear capability;" and 47 percent "support an Israeli military strike on Iran if it would be necessary to prevent the Islamic state from getting nuclear weapons." Believe me, Israelis know more than a little about what's good or bad for them, particularly when it involves their continued existence on this planet. Regarding American Jews, a new poll shows that "A plurality of American Jews now say they oppose the Iran nuclear deal, 45% to 40%–and a majority oppose the deal after they learn more about what is in it, according to a new poll."

Enough said. Is Kristof a liar or just an idiot? Decide for yourself.

Nicholas Kristof, "Tales of Horror Should Galvanize Obama": Tales of Horror Galvanized Obama to Give Iran the Bomb

Tweet


In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Tales of Horror Should Galvanize Obama," Nicholas Kristof calls on President Obama to visit South Sudan. Kristof writes:

"IN THE MARSHLAND OF SOUTH SUDAN — BAREFOOT and shellshocked, the survivors trickle into a village here with unimaginable stories of rape, castration and mass murder committed by a government that the United States helped install.

This civil war here in South Sudan will be a top item on President Obama’s agenda during his visit to Africa this month, and I wish he could talk to these survivors."

And if Obama talked with these survivors, what would he do? Currently, he is bending over backwards to provide an unhindered path to nuclear weapons to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which hangs gay men, stones to death women accused of adultery, brutally persecute Baha'is, Christians, Kurds and Sunnis, and executes poets for "waging war on God."

And are you any better, Nicholas? Think back upon your family excursion to Iran, which spawned that 2012 gem of an op-ed, "In Iran, They Want Fun, Fun, Fun."

But just so there are no illusions, Nick, Obama couldn't give a damn about South Sudan. After all, this is a man who ran off to a Martha's Vineyard golf course within 20 minutes of delivering a speech decrying the beheading of James Foley by the Islamic State.

Remind you of something? It should: "If only Comrade Stalin knew . . ."

Nicholas Kristof, "Our Water-Guzzling Food Factory": What I Won't Kill, I Won't Eat

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Our Water-Guzzling Food Factory," Nicholas Kristof informs us:

"Like most Americans, I eat meat, but it’s worth thinking hard about the inefficiency in that hamburger patty — and the small lake that has dried up to make it possible."

Well, apparently unlike Kristof, I don't eat hamburgers, and although I wouldn't want to impose my dining habits on anyone else, they boil down to: What I'm not capable of killing, I won't eat, and I'm not capable of killing cows, particularly having worked at a dairy. (Just to set the record straight, although I've been a soldier for much of my life - regular army and reserves - and have witnessed firsthand the savagery that human beings can perpetrate upon one another, cannibalism is not an option for me.)

But what about agriculture and water? Kristof concludes:

"Maybe our industrial agriculture system is beginning to change, for we’re seeing some signs of a food revolution in America, with greater emphasis on organic food and animal rights. Just a week ago, Walmart called on suppliers to stop keeping calves in veal crates and hogs in gestation crates.

Something good could come from the California drought if it could push this revolution a bit further, by forcing a reallocation of water to the most efficient uses. But remember that the central challenge can’t be solved by a good rain because the larger problem is an irrational industrial food system."

What doesn't Kristof mention? First, the benefits of Israeli desalination know how. As reported in a Times article entitled "Aided by the Sea, Israel Overcomes an Old Foe: Drought" by Isabel Kershner:

"As California and other western areas of the United States grapple with an extreme drought, a revolution has taken place here. A major national effort to desalinate Mediterranean seawater and to recycle wastewater has provided the country with enough water for all its needs, even during severe droughts. More than 50 percent of the water for Israeli households, agriculture and industry is now artificially produced."

But why would Kristof, who is forever on the lookout for purported Israeli human rights violations, want to say anything positive about Israel?

Kristof also doesn't mention that genetically modified crops with deeper roots can require less irrigation and better survive drought conditions. Heaven forbid that Kristof mention this possibility to his progressive readers, who might tar and feather the man for this heresy; however, if the number of humans on this planet doesn't stabilize soon, there may be no other option.

[I continue to wait for answers from Andrew Rosenthal, Margaret Sullivan and Dean Baquet whether Nicholas Kristof was paid by the Clinton Foundation to serve as a panel moderator.]

Open Letter to Dean Baquet, Editor of The New York Times: Nicholas Kristof and the Clinton Foundation

Dear Mr. Baquet,

In his New York Times op-ed entitled "Polluted Political Games," Nicholas Kristof wrote on Thursday:

"I’ve admired the Clintons’ foundation for years for its fine work on AIDS and global poverty, and I’ve moderated many panels at the annual Clinton Global Initiative."

Can you please inform me if Mr. Kristof was paid to moderate these panels, and if so, how much? I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with being paid to moderate panels, but if Mr. Kristof, a Times columnist, was paid by the Clinton Foundation, can we please know how much?

I have previously asked Andrew Rosenthal and Margaret Sullivan to answer this question, but I have not received any responses to my emails to them.

Thank you in advance for your kind assistance.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

Paul Krugman, "The Insecure American": Is Elizabeth Warren Also Experiencing Anxiety?

Observing in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Insecure American" that "A majority of Americans over 65 get more than half their income from Social Security, and more than a quarter are almost completely reliant on those monthly checks," Paul Krugman concludes:

"But while things could be worse, they could also be better. There is no such thing as perfect security, but American families could easily have much more security than they have. All it would take is for politicians and pundits to stop talking blithely about the need to cut 'entitlements' and starting looking at the way their less-fortunate fellow citizens actually live."

Politicians and pundits should stop talking "blithely"? Hey, Paul, you wouldn't happen to be talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Hillary's net worth in 2012 was estimated at between $5 million and $25 million, and Bill's net worth is estimated at some $55 million.

And although Krugman rails against conservatives ("I am not, or not only, talking about right-wing contempt for the poor, although the dominance of compassionless conservatism is a sight to behold") and middle-of-the-roaders ("What’s really striking is the disconnect between centrist conventional wisdom and the reality of life — and death — for much of the nation"), he makes no mention of Elizabeth Warren, who also is not suffering economic distress. According to CNNMoney:

"Warren, the Harvard bankruptcy law professor elected to the Senate in 2012, is worth between $3.7 million and $10 million.

That's not including the three-story Victorian home in Cambridge, Mass., that she owns with her husband and fellow Harvard law professor, Bruce Mann. It's now assessed at $1.9 million, according to city property records."

Less than a year ago, Warren, a would-be descendant of Native Americans, declared, "The game is rigged, and the Republicans rigged it." I agree: both  the stock exchanges and currency markets have been or are currently being manipulated. And in order to protest against this wrong, my recommendation is that Warren donate her Cambridge home to the poor and run against Hillary and the big banks in the Democratic primaries. But you know as well as I do, it's not going to happen.

[I continue to wait for answers from Andrew Rosenthal and Margaret Sullivan whether New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof was paid by the Clinton Foundation to serve as a panel moderator.]

Nicholas Kristof, "Polluted Political Games": Was Kristof Paid by the Clinton Foundation?

Acknowledging his involvement with the Clinton Foundation in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Polluted Political Games," Nicholas Kristof writes:

"I’ve admired the Clintons’ foundation for years for its fine work on AIDS and global poverty, and I’ve moderated many panels at the annual Clinton Global Initiative. Yet with each revelation of failed disclosures or the appearance of a conflict of interest from speaking fees of $500,000 for the former president, I have wondered: What were they thinking?"

Okay, Nick, you've admired the "fine work" of the Clinton Foundation, but now tell us if you were paid to "moderate" these many panels, and if so, how much were you paid? I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with moderating panels, but if you, a Times columnist, were paid by the Clinton Foundation, can we please know how much?

Kristof is quick to inform us that Republican presidential candidates have also benefited from "our entire disgraceful money-based political system." Specifically with regard to Marco Rubio, Kristof writes that "Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has received financial assistance from a billionaire, Norman Braman, and has channeled public money to Braman’s causes." Kristof provides a link to a New York Times article entitled "Billionaire Lifts Marco Rubio, Politically and Personally" by Michael Barbaro and Steve Eder, which informs us:

"A detailed review of their relationship shows that Mr. Braman, 82, has left few corners of Mr. Rubio’s world untouched. He hired Mr. Rubio, then a Senate candidate, as a lawyer; employed his wife to advise the Braman family’s philanthropic foundation; helped cover the cost of Mr. Rubio’s salary as an instructor at a Miami college; and gave Mr. Rubio access to his private plane.

The money has flowed both ways. Mr. Rubio has steered taxpayer funds to Mr. Braman’s favored causes, successfully pushing for an $80 million state grant to finance a genomics center at a private university and securing $5 million for cancer research at a Miami institute for which Mr. Braman is a major donor.

. . . .

The reliance on Mr. Braman is likely to put a spotlight on the finances of Mr. Rubio, who ranks among the least-wealthy candidates in the emerging Republican field. Mr. Rubio left the Florida House of Representatives in 2008 with a net worth of $8,351, multiple mortgages and $115,000 in student debt. In his latest financial disclosure form, for 2013, he reported at least $450,000 in liabilities, including two mortgages and a line of credit."

Oh my goodness, Mr. Braman once dared employ both Rubio and his wife! Worse still, Rubio helped secure funds for the cancer research of a Miami institute favored by Mr. Braman. Of course, we all know that government funding must never be used for cancer research . . . not.

Rubio  is considered one of the poorest Republican presidential candidates? Maybe Mr. Braman has not been helping him enough.

But now consider the millions of dollars received by the Clinton Foundation from Saudi Arabia, which whips gang rape victims and beheads persons accused of engaging in witchcraft. Also consider the millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation from banks which were recently convicted of rigging the value of world currencies.

And although Hillary claimed that she and Bill left the White House "dead broke" and whined that "we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education, you know, it was not easy,” Hillary's net worth in 2012 was estimated at between $5 million and $25 million, and Bill's net worth is estimated at some $55 million. Poor, Hillary! Poor, poor Hillary!

Compare  Rubio with the Hillary? I don't think so. Meanwhile, let's see if Kristof or the Times is willing to answer my question above.

Nicholas Kristof, "A Nuclear Deal With Iran Isn’t Just About Bombs": No, It's All About Ice Cream and Kisses

Back in June 2012, Nicholas Kristof bestowed upon us a risible New York Times op-ed entitled "In Iran, They Want Fun, Fun, Fun," in which he provided anecdotes from his 1,700-mile, magical mystery tour across Iran, accompanied by his son and daughter. Over the course of a journey akin to Borat's excursion across the US (yes, I know, Borat spoke English, while Kristof doesn't speak Farsi), Kristof relayed less than profound anecdotes from what he claimed to be chance meetings with ordinary Iranians. Discussions with members of Iran's persecuted Baha'i minority? Kristof didn't mention any. Exchages of views with Iran's oppressed Kurds? Again, no such thing. Dialogue with Iranian homosexuals? No way, given that homosexuals are hanged in Iran. A visit to Evin Prison to look into the well-being of political dissidents languishing in its dungeons? Sorry, not on this road trip. Better still, an off-the-beaten-track side trip to witness the stoning to death of a woman accused of adultery? No, he wouldn't want his children to see such a spectacle.

Fun, fun, fun . . .

Well, today Kristof is back with a new Times opinion piece entitled "A Nuclear Deal With Iran Isn’t Just About Bombs." Kristof begins by regaling us with fond memories of his 2012 road trip: "three Iranian women in black chadors accosted my daughter — and then invited her to a cafe where they plied her with ice cream, marveling at her and kissing her on the cheek as she ate." Well, I have traveled across the world, occasionally accompanied by my children, and not once was my daughter stopped in the street by strangers, given ice cream, and smothered in kisses. Does something strike you a bit "peculiar" about such a story in a country where the translators are reporting back to the government?

Kristof proceeds to weigh the West's options involving Iranian nuclear development and declares:

"On balance, with either the military option or the sanctions option, Iran probably ends up with a nuclear capability within a decade."

A nuclear "capability"? In fact, Kristof means a nuclear bomb. Of course, Kristof avoids mention of Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei's November 2014 tweet calling for the "annihilation" of Israel:

"This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated."

Similarly, he fails to take note of Basij militia chief Mohammad Reza Naqdi's declaration last week that "erasing Israel off the map" is "nonnegotiable." Why? Because Kristof is hoping that Khamenei is deathly ill and that when he departs this world, Iran will come to its senses:

"I’ve rarely been to a more pro-American country, at the grass-roots, and there’s a pent-up anger at corruption and hypocrisy. That doesn’t mean that there’s going to be a revolution anytime soon. But it means that there’s a chance for movement after the death of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is 75 and underwent prostate surgery last year."

Or in other words, when the monster Khamenei passes on, Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which controls much of the Iranian economy, will also just roll over and die. Yeah, right!

Kristof's conclusion:

"So, sure, a nuclear deal carries risks and will be ugly and imperfect, but, on balance, it probably reduces the risk that Iran gets the bomb in the next 10 years. It may also, after Ayatollah Khamenei is gone, create an opportunity for Iran to end its chapter in extremism, so that the country is defined less by rapacious ayatollahs and more by those doting matrons in Mashhad."

Does Kristof dwell on Iranian development of ICBMs, which will not be regulated by Obama's proposed agreement? Does Kristof consider that Iran continues to keep the secret Parchin military base outside of Tehran off-limits to IAEA inspectors, and insists upon keeping its underground Fordow nuclear facility operative? Does Kristof speculate upon the consequences of a Middle East nuclear arms race involving Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and the UAE? No way, Jose! Instead, he places his faith in those "doting matrons" in Mashhad, who just happened to ply his daughter with ice cream.

Sweet dreams, Nick!

David Brooks, "How to Fight Anti-Semitism": It Begins by Saying "No" to Obama's Deal With Iran

Are there three different kinds of anti-Semitism?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "How to Fight Anti-Semitism," David Brooks differentiates between the anti-Semitism of the Middle East, Europe and the United States. According to Brooks, the anti-Semitism of the Middle East is "is a form of derangement, a flight from reality even in otherwise sophisticated people." On the other hand, Brooks would have us know that in Europe, anti-Semitism "looks like a response to alienation" and is "particularly high where unemployment is rampant." Finally, concerning the United States, Brooks says that anti-Semitism "remains an astonishingly non-anti-Semitic place," and in this regard, Brooks declares:

"In the Obama administration, there are people who know that the Iranians are anti-Semitic, but they don’t know what to do with that fact and put this mental derangement on a distant shelf. They negotiate with the Iranian leaders, as if anti-Semitism was some odd quirk, instead of what it is, a core element of their mental architecture."

Brooks, however, fails to ask how a supposedly intellectual American president can ignore this so-called "mental architecture" and seek to provide Iran's mullahs with an arsenal of nuclear weapons within a decade.

Brooks also fails to consider an op-ed entitled “Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir” by fellow Times columinist Thomas Friedman, in which Tom Terrific declared:

"I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."

Similarly, Brooks ignores the conduct of fellow Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. As was reported in an article entitled "Nick Kristof’s Piggishness," written by Adam Kredo for The Washington Free Beacon:

"New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is facing criticism after retweeting a controversial message that referred to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the National Rifle Association as 'the 2 most pig like lobbies' in America.

Longtime Israel critic M.J. Rosenberg, who was dumped by the liberal Media Matters for America for his use of borderline anti-Semitic language, authored the controversial tweet Wednesday afternoon. It called to mind recently unearthed statements by Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi that referred to Jews as 'pigs.'" 

I would delicately suggest to Brooks that anti-Semitism in the United States, particularly in the media, can be just as sinister as the strains of this disease which exist in the Middle East and Europe. Moreover, American anti-Semitism is far "closer to home" than Brooks believes.

Nicholas Kristof, "Winds of War in Gaza": Selective Reporting as Usual

Nicholas Kristof is back to his old tricks. In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Winds of War in Gaza," Kristof writes (my emphasis in red):

"The suffering [in Gaza] has multiple causes. Israel sustains a siege that amounts to economic warfare on an entire population. Hamas provokes Israel, squanders resources and is brutal and oppressive in its own right. Egypt has closed smuggling tunnels that used to relieve the stranglehold, and it mostly keeps its border with Gaza closed. The 1.8 million Gazans are on their own, and one step forward should be international pressure on Israel and Egypt to ease the blockade."

This is the only mention of "tunnels" in Kristof's opinion piece. Needless to say, Kristof fails to point out that Hamas used much of the cement that was imported from Israel in recent years to build a vast network of tunnels extending into Israel, which was used for terrorist infiltration during the last war.

Ease the blockade? Allow more cement and steel into Gaza to build new tunnels and thousands of more rockets to attack Israeli civilians? Take a hike, Nick!

Nicholas Kristof, "The Two Israels": Good Jews and Bad Jews

Nicholas Kristof is back to his old tricks.

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Two Israels," Kristof writes:

"[Israel is] also a democracy with contradictions. West Bank Jews vote, but not West Bank Palestinians. A Jewish kid in Chicago has a birthright to Israel, but not a Palestinian child next door whose roots are in Haifa.

. . . .

On my visit here to the Negev, I faced two Israels. One is the thriving democracy that many of us admire, the one that gives disgruntled Arab citizens free speech and ballots, that treats the wounded Syrians brought across the border, that nurtures a civil society that stands up for the Bedouin. This is the Israel that anyone can support without risking harm to Arabs. Any of us would plant a tree in this Israel. (Indeed, Rabbis for Human Rights has its own tree-planting program.)

Yet the other Israel has been gaining ground. It’s more nationalistic, more militaristic, more determined to push Palestinians off land in the West Bank, more eager to dispatch the United States to bomb Iranian nuclear sites. This is the Israel that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will represent in his address to Congress scheduled for this week."

Where to even begin?

West Bank Palestinians don't vote? Kristof avoids telling us that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is currently in his tenth year of a four-year term of office as president of the Palestinian Authority. Abbas and his friends in the West Bank refuse to hold elections for fear that they would not fare well for his Fatah party. Israel never once prevented Abbas from holding these elections or postponed such elections.

"A Jewish kid in Chicago has a birthright to Israel, but not a Palestinian child next door whose roots are in Haifa." Implicit in this statement is that Jews do not have their origins in Israel, and Israel is denying Palestinians statehood. A pity that Kristof doesn't take the trouble to examine the multitude of ancient Jewish coins scattered in the soil and sands throughout Israel, attesting to the existence of the Hasmonean Kingdom of the Maccabees, a thousand years before the Arab conquest of this land.

Kristof also makes certain not to mention that in 2008, when Israeli Prime Minister Olmert offered Palestinian Authority President Abbas an independent state along the 1967 lines with agreed upon land swaps and Palestinian control of east Jerusalem, Abbas refused. Krisof also ignores the fact that several years earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Barak similarly offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and tear down 63 Israeli settlements. In exchange for the settlements that would remain part of Israel, Barak said he would increase the size of Gaza by a third. Barak also agreed to Palestinian control of much of East Jerusalem, which would become Palestine's capital, and Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount. Arafat, however, also refused.

And Kristof makes a point of ignoring the fact that some 800,000 Jews from the Muslim Middle East were forced to abandon their homes and property, and make their way to Israel. The same thing happened during the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, but Kristof would never want to allude to this.

The "other Israel" is "more nationalistic, more militaristic, more determined to push Palestinians off land in the West Bank, more eager to dispatch the United States to bomb Iranian nuclear sites," and will be represented by Netanyahu in his speech before Congress on Tuesday? Well, I favor a two-state solution, and I have never voted for the Likud Party; however, Israel is facing a nuclear holocaust owing to Obama's refusal to abide by his 2012 promises to dismantle Iran's nuclear weapons manufacturing capability, and I very much want Congress to know of the threat facing my family.

Nice try, Nicholas.