Gay Patriot Header Image

Anti-American Bias in the European Media — same as it ever was

Given the happenings in Massachusetts and New York this past week, I had expected to blog more today on gay marriage. But, then again, I had expected to blog last week on the eHarmony lawsuit. For each story has much to do with the current situation of gays in America — and in our political system.

But, today after receiving an e-mail from a blog I enjoy, Davids MedienKritik-Online, which offers perhaps the best coverage of the anti-American bias in the European media, it struck me not only how that bias contributed to Europeans’ twisted views of our great nation abroad, but also how similar the attitudes of the European media elite were to attitudes I experienced in Europe approximately twenty years ago when I lived in (then-West) Germany and France. That good blog offers a must-see short two-part video reporton anti-Americanism in European media.”

In my post on the run-up to the French presidential election (won by the unashamedly pro-American Nicolas Sarkozy), I noted that while the “young French intellectuals . . . looked down on America . . ., young French professionals” were fascinated by America, “eager to learn” more about our nation and to associate with Americans. They looked up to the United States and wished their land were more like ours.

It was the élites who scorned us, often based on false images of — and inaccurate information about — our land. The report on Davids MedienKritik confirms that things haven’t much changed in Old Europe. As I learned about the latest European coverage of our homeland, it was as if I was hearing repeated the conversations I had had with European intellectuals and students from universities and secondary schools across the western sections of the continent.

One German high school student, while berating the United States for its involvement in Central America, heralded (à la Michael Moore) Cuba for its excellent health care system and vibrant economy. At least he acknowledged the political repression, but remarked that economic and social progress was more important than freedom. Without even touching his contention that Cuba had a sound economy, I commented that a German living fifty years previously could have used the same argument to justify the Nazi regime. That silenced him. And it stunned me he hadn’t made the connection until I brought it up.

Not long after my encounter with that young (and actually rather fetching) German (at the youth hostel in Perpignan), I met another German (not nearly as fetching) at the youth hostel in Verona. Stunned to learn my nationality after hearing me speak German, he naturally assumed that an American who could communicate in four languages would not have a very high opinion of the then-incumbent American president, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

(more…)

Carter As Terror Enabler

Thanks to my co-blogger in crime Dan for forwarding me this column from the Jerusalem Post.  (Dan, I’m surprised you didn’t take a crack at it first!)

It is a completely devastating and, most importantly, factual assessment of how Jimmy Carter can arguably be considered the “Father of the Iranian Revolution.”  Brilliant!

The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that George W. Bush, the so-called “dim-witted cowboy,” has created the entire mess.

The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini. 

Let’s look at the results of Carter’s misguided liberal policies: the Islamic Revolution in Iran; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (Carter’s response was to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics); the birth of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organization; the Iran-Iraq War, which cost the lives of millions dead and wounded; and yes, the present war on terrorism and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

When Carter entered the political fray in 1976, America was still riding the liberal wave of anti-Vietnam War emotion. Carter asked for an in-depth report on Iran even before he assumed the reins of government and was persuaded that the shah was not fit to rule Iran. 1976 was a banner year for pacifism: Carter was elected president, Bill Clinton became attorney-general of Arkansas, and Albert Gore won a place in the Tennessee House of Representatives.

In his anti-war pacifism, Carter never got it that Khomeini, a cleric exiled to Najaf in Iraq from 1965-1978, was preparing Iran for revolution. Proclaiming “the West killed God and wants us to bury him,” Khomeini’s weapon of choice was not the sword but the media.

The bottom line: Carter believed then and still does now is that evil really does not exist; people are basically good; America should embrace the perpetrators and castigate the victims.

Trust me, if we didn’t try to be “pithy” here I would have cut/pasted the whole article.  It is a damning indictment of Jimmy Carter as the sellout of America that he was (and still is). 

Jimmy Carter yesterday labeled President Bush’s policy of sidelining Hamas (a terrorist group) as “criminal.”  Yet it is Carter’s criminal legacy that has left thousands of Americans dead in its wake since 1979.

Is it too late for Americans to demand a War Criminals trial for President Carter for creating the mess we are in today?

How about simply charging him with treason?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Meanwhile in the Empire State . . .

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:50 am - June 20, 2007.
Filed under: Gay Marriage,Gay Politics

Given my ambivalence to the recent vote in the Bay State blocking a referendum on a state constitutional amendment barring gay marriage, some readers seem to think I favor having the people of the several states vote on this important issue. But, as those who have taken the time to actually read my posts on gay marriage well know, I believe state legislatures, rather than the courts, should decide their requirements for marriage in their respective states.

And now it seems that at least one state is showing respect for its citizens by doing just that. Yesterday, the New York State Assembly, by a vote of 85-61, approved a measure allowing the Empire State to recognize same-sex marriages.

This is the first serious vote on gay marriage in any state legislature. You see, I discount the significance of most actions by the Legislature in my adopted home state, given how beholden California legislators are to special interests. Though had they voted on gay marriage before the citizens of the Golden State passed Proposition 22 banning recognition of same-sex marriages, I would have taken their actions seriously.

New York’s legislators show how it’s done. If California legislators had respect for their citizens, they would put a measure on the state ballot to repeal Proposition 22. Each member of the 150-seat New York Assembly now has put his position on state recognition of same-sex marriage on record. And the various members must now answer to their constituents for their stands.

It’s nice to see that, instead of bypassing the democratic process, advocates of gay marriage have instead sought to turn to the elected legislature. the body responsible for enacting — and amending — laws. So, despite the bellyaching (at the time) of the gay groups, something good did come of the finding of New York’s Court of Appeals (the Empire State’s highest court) last year that that gay marriage is not allowed under state law.”

Commenting on that ruling a year ago, I wrote:

I’m not as upset by this decision as are many gay activists and organizations. I believe they have picked the wrong fora to make their case for gay marriage. They should be going to legislatures instead of courts. . . . the option still remains for advocates of gay marriage to make their case before the legislature — and the people to whom the elected legislators are responsible. 

I’m delighted that advocates of gay marriage exercised the legislative option. Extending the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples is a significant step. And it should not be made by a handful of judges who do not answer to the citizens.

While the quality of the debate in the New York Assembly seems to have been as lame as the general debate on gay marriage, this is how democracy works. While it’s unfortunate that it took a court decision to get gay marriage advocates to turn to this messy process, I’m delighted that they’re finally looking to the legislatures. Let us hope, that in the future, they will seek to turn to these elected bodies rather than courts as they advance their agenda.

– B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)

Michael Bloomberg — Opportunist

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:58 am - June 20, 2007.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,National Politics

Except for the people who are deliberately mean and hateful, seeking to harm others — and those who are inconsiderate, indifferent to the feelings of others, I find opportunists to be the most irritating sort of human being. They don’t seem to believe in anything but their own advancement.

No wonder I was never a great fan of former President Clinton — or his wife. Each Clinton seems to shift his* position, not because of what he* feels in his heart, but what he believes is most likely to further his election. While many gay activists can’t seem to contain themselves at the mere mention of the former president’s name, he showed that he preferred political expediency to helping gay people. Gay people bore the brunt of that Democrat’s opportunism.

When it helped him to have gay support (in the three-way 1992 election), he promised to repeal the ban on gays in the military. When he realized repealing the ban could cost him politically, he signed “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” into law, making it impossible for his successors to do what his predecessors (and he) could have done, repeal that ridiculous regulation with the stroke of a pen.

Yesterday, another political opportunist made headlines. New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg, twice elected as a Republican, “left the Republican Party and become unaffiliated in what many believe could be a step toward entering the 2008 race for president.” The Mayor hadn’t been a Republican very long, having switched in 2001 “his lifelong Democratic registration to avoid a crowded primary.

Just another opportunist, becoming a Republican in order to bypass the Democratic primary. And now leaving the party as he contemplates a presidential bid, knowing he wouldn’t have a prayer in the GOP’s presidential primary, given the presence of his more accomplished predecessor.

Some people, ever eager to blame everything on Bush, seem to think his departure has something to do with the president’s “betrayal of conservatism.”** Except that, as Robbie, who tipped me off to that silly statement, noted Bloomberg hasn’t been much of a conservative. And he doesn’t seem to be leading the charge for fiscal prudence, either as Mayor of New York or in his prospective presidential bid.

Nope, Michael Bloomberg is a political opportunist plain and simple. (As Robbie puts it, “Should” Bloomberg run for president, “his leaving the party will mirror the purpose of his original joining – pure political expediency.” So, there’s not much of a story to his second change of partisan affiliation since George W. Bush became president. Except that he may be trying to succeed that man in that office.

*****

* this pronoun is grammatically correct.

**This blogger agrees that the President hasn’t been all that conservative.