Replies

Like not knowing what is the right of return? My dog knows what it is. I agree and it is a fact that Cain did not make his homework before running or since he is on the trail. It is obvious. Like several of you said, America is in too much of a bad shape to test another “no experience” one. No time to learn on the job this time. That’s our last chance to save America. Let’s not get caught again with nice talks and no proof of walk the walk.

I'm glad you brought that up.

I was watching Mr. Cain's response. He was confused by exactly the same thing I was as the question was being asked.

The smarta$$ chris wallace simply asked "right of return", leaving out whether he was referring to Jews returning to Israel or muslims returning to where they used to live under the Ottoman Empire. I was sure that there was some issue of the Jewish diaspora having a right to return to Israel, and of course I knew that the muslims keep crowing about returning to the lands of the now non-existent Ottoman Empire, but I didn't know which one he was asking about.

The smarta$$ made sure to wait just a few seconds to capture a video bite of his adversary, Mr. Cain, hesitating, as Mr. Cain went through the exact same thought process I did - since both of us haven't had a need to keep track of muslim propaganda on the subject of the State of Israel, since it was legitimately created, end of story. Having obtained his precious few seconds of video, chris wallace then coyly helps Mr. Cain by offering up that he's talking about the muslims so-called right of return.

Since Mr. Cain is not privy to negotiations between Israel and the U.S. on these matters, he really could not know what the exact current stance of both states was, since Israel often comes across with various concessions, and the beltway today spews all sorts of hot air on any given day which panders to muslims at the expense of American, and really all nations' sovereignty. So he took the most common sense stance and deferred to the State of Israel to make it's own decisions about it's border security and it's right to negotiate for itself, i.e., Mr. Cain does not feel that the U.S. or any other state has a right to dictate to Israel on this or any other issue.

So the big question - I just looked it up. Yes, the Law of Return is Israeli legislation passed in 1950 which gives those of Jewish ancestry and their spouses anywhere in the world the right to return to Israel. Of course, the history of Israel goes back to the British mandate and before that, the Ottomans, and, to dot the i's and cross the t's on one's knowledge, one would have to study quite a bit of history to be able to thoroughly exposit the reasoning behind well-formed opinions. But to rightly discern this issue for modern times, the logic is fairly straightforward: no one complained when being ruled by the Ottomans for hundreds of years, so any talk of "palestinian" statehood is balderdash.

Had Mr. Cain assumed that smarta$$ was asking about the muslim "right of return" and expressed any negative sentiment surrounding it in an attempt to show support for Israel, prior to the coy clarification, the smarta$$ could have clarified the other way and said he was referring to the Jewish right of return, and then gotten a video clip that the left could circulate and use against Mr. Cain, repeating over and over to American Jews, "he's against the Jewish right of return". Of course, if Mr. Cain assumed that smarta$$ was asking about the Jewish right of return and expressed support for it, the left would circulate the video clip as much as possible saying that he was "supporting" the muslim "right of return". Either way, smarta$$ gets a video clip to use.

And this is why I refer to smarta$$ as smarta$$: because it is very telling that he specifically left out which "right of return" he was asking about. He was not asking questions which would reveal knowledge or opinions, his only goal was to get the interviewee to say something embarassing. And that demonstrates - on video - his bias, since he has never in his entire career tried to embarass a liberal or left-winger. This proves that smarta$$ is not a journalist but a liberal propagandist, which means he is simply a very subtle, useful tool of left-wing propagandists, an "advance party" if you will.

He goes about feigning reporting while couching all his words with the syrupy sweet but dangerously flawed logic of the suburban liberal.

Would Mr. Cain have been hailed a hero by the right if he flat-out but politely called the smarta$$ on his trick immediately during the faux interview ? Absolutely - and he undoubtedly will, since he certainly has had his share of verbal confrontations that he handily won. But I am calling him out on his mistake of not calling out smarta$$ with authority. Just like I'd call out any other good conservative candidate. It was less than a great response, and that's the standard to shoot for.

I'd also like to consider, however, what he did say in that interview. Despite the pressure of the trick question, he expressed clear support of Israel, a historic and important ally of the U.S., and his confusion actually demonstrated that he was aware of the concept of the Jewish right of return - and his hesitation indicates a clear support of that right.

Far too many voters do not remember, or perhaps never knew or understood, the dark spectre of worldwide hatred of Jews during WWII. I consider it Providential, though a sad commentary, that free and Democratic nations - because of the horror they had witnessed - felt the need to allow that one future escape, from perhaps even their own countrymen's mindless hatred, that one possible State of refuge. It is heartening to know that some of us, even when confused and under pressure, instinctively know that such refuge must remain.

This proves that smarta$$ is not a journalist but a liberal propagandist, which means he is simply a very subtle, useful tool of left-wing propagandists, an "advance party" if you will.

I like your post.
But I have a quibble about language. You say, "smarta$$ is not a journalist," but then you say, "[he is] a liberal propagandist, which means he is simply a very subtle, useful tool of left-wing propagandists, an "advance party" if you will. "

My point is simply that the wire services in general and the Associated Press in particular united journalism around the self-interest of journalism itself. Journalism is just talk, and

the self interest of journalism is that its talk is taken to be more important than the action taken by others to provide food, clothing, shelter, security, energy, and so forth.
This explains why journalism is able to maintain the fatuous conceit of its own objectivity, despite the obvious realtity that journalism is at most part of the truth, and "Half the truth is often a great lie." You can print "both sides of the story" without necessarily getting at the truth of the matter, and that happens all the time. Because the perspective of the journalist defines what he thinks the two sides of the story are. Which may be irrelevant to what is actually going on. And the very fact that the journalist claims to be objective (or, what is the same thing, suffers others to claim it for him) proves that the journalist is not even trying to be objective.
Ironically, it is possible to attempt to be objective only by being open about any reasons why you might not be objective. And claiming to be objective is the very opposite of scrupulously examining your own motives and being open about how they (inevitably) influence your perspective. Therefore,

no "objective journalist" is even trying to actually be objective.
It would be wonderful if we could count on objective information for the mere price of a newspaper. Alas, it is impossible. There can be no substitute for exercising your own judgement. "Anyone who tells you anything else is selling something."
The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . .
It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith

Because the wire services unified journalism, journalism speaks with a single voice (I discount the editorial pages as being a peripheral issue, which function primarily to "position" the rest of the newspaper as being objective). Since journalism speaks with a single voice, there are natural propaganda advantages to agreeing with that unified journalistic voice. So if you don't have any principles other than your own self interest, the path of least resistance is to become a politician who promotes whatever the journalistic voice finds convenient. You can then count on that journalistic voice to give you favorable labels and give your opposition consistently unfavorable PR.

So when you say someone is a propagandist rather than a journalist, you give undue credit to journalism as a profession. Journalism is propaganda.
Journalism and Objectivity
The Right to Know