Mayday.us: A Citizen-Funded Super PAC to End All SuperPACs

Amb. Prosor addresses UNGA debate on the Question of Palestine

Published on Nov 25, 2014

"Today’s debate is not about speaking for peace or speaking for the Palestinian people – it is about speaking against Israel."

Ambassador Prosor's remarks at the UN General Assembly as part of the international day of solidarity with the Palestinian People debate.


This debate commemorates the UN's Partition Plan for Palestine, and results in numerous anti-Israel resolutions.

7830

HABEMUS PAPAM Daily: The Pope to Ecumenical Patriarch: “We're brothers ...

HABEMUS PAPAM Daily: The Pope to Ecumenical Patriarch: “We're brothers ...

Sommet du G20 aux accents de guerre froide

Mise à jour le vendredi 14 novembre 2014 à 12 h 01 HNE

Radio-Canada avec Associated Press

    7707

Le premier ministre australien, Tony Abbott, lors d'une réunion à la veille du sommet du G20.  Photo :  Jason Reed / Reuters

L'Australie et la Grande-Bretagne dénoncent le déploiement de quatre navires de guerre russes au large de l'Australie, où le président Vladimir Poutine est arrivé pour participer au sommet du G20 de Brisbane.

   

La Marine australienne a déployé au moins trois frégates au large de l'Australie à la rencontre du plus puissant navire de la flotte russe dans le Pacifique, le Varyag, qui croise en mer de Corail avec trois navires d'escorte.
   
Le premier ministre australien, Tony Abbott, et son homologue britannique, David Cameron, ont accusé le président russe de se servir de cette démonstration de force pour ressusciter la « gloire perdue » de l'Union soviétique au moment où son économie pique du nez.
   

« La Russie serait beaucoup plus attrayante si elle aspirait à être une superpuissance pour la paix, la liberté et la prospérité, au lieu d'essayer de recréer la gloire perdue du tsarisme ou de l'Union soviétique. » — Tony Abbott, premier ministre de l'Australie

Le croiseur lance-missiles russe Varyag ancré à Vladivostok.  Photo :  US Navy

       
Un simple exercice naval, selon Moscou 

L'ambassade russe en Australie a expliqué vendredi que ce déploiement d'éléments de la flotte russe dans le Pacifique fait partie d'exercices prévus, dont le but est de mesurer la portée opérationnelle de ses bâtiments. L'ambassade a ajouté que ces forces pourraient aussi être appelées à protéger le président Poutine, en cas de besoin.
   
Quant au président Poutine, il a fait son arrivée à Brisbane en soirée, affichant un air détendu à sa descente d'avion.
En mer de Corail, les bâtiments russes et australiens auraient établi un contact radio et se seraient entendus pour procéder à divers exercices, selon le gouvernement australien.
   
David Cameron a pour sa part renchéri en déclarant que l'Occident pourrait imposer de nouvelles sanctions à la Russie si elle continuait à attiser la rébellion dans l'est de l'Ukraine.
   
La chancelière allemande Angela Merkel a tenté de calmer le jeu en minimisant l'importance de la présence des navires russes. Elle a dit s'inquiéter bien davantage des multiples atteintes à l'intégrité territoriale de l'Ukraine.
   
L'écrasement du vol MH17 au coeur des tensions
   
Les relations diplomatiques sont très tendues entre Canberra et Moscou depuis qu'un avion de la Malaysia Airlines a été abattu dans un secteur de l'est de l'Ukraine contrôlée par des insurgés prorusses en juillet. Sur les 298 passagers tués dans l'écrasement, 38 étaient australiens. L'appareil a été abattu par un tir de missile russe, selon Kiev et plusieurs pays occidentaux.
   
M. Abbott a dénoncé l'accroissement des activités militaires tous azimuts de la Russie. « Qu'il s'agisse d'agresser l'Ukraine, qu'il s'agisse de l'intensification des vols d'avions militaires dans l'espace aérien du Japon, des pays européens, qu'il s'agisse de la force navale qui est maintenant dans le Pacifique Sud, la Russie est beaucoup plus sûre d'elle maintenant qu'elle ne l'a été depuis longtemps », a déclaré Tony Abbott.

 

Ultimatum russe à la France
   
Les relations ne sont pas non plus au beau fixe entre la Russie et la France, à qui Moscou a lancé un ultimatum mettant Paris en garde si les navires de guerre Mistral qu'elle lui a achetés ne lui sont pas livrés à la date prévue.
   
Citant une source « haut placée », l'agence Ria Novosti a affirmé que Paris avait jusqu'à la fin novembre pour livrer un premier navire, à défaut de quoi la France s'exposera à de « sérieuses demandes de compensation ».

Un des porte-hélicoptères de classe Mistral que doit livrer la France à la Russie sur le chantier de Saint-Nazaire.  Photo :  Stephane Mahe / Reuters

       
Une rencontre est d'ailleurs prévue entre les présidents français, François Hollande, et russe, Vladimir Poutine, au cours de ce sommet.
   
Moscou, qui a acheté deux navires de guerre Mistral, s'impatiente depuis la décision de Paris, en septembre, de ne livrer ces bateaux qu'une fois que la crise ukrainienne sera réglée.
   

Le sommet du G20 réunit les représentants des 20 pays les plus industrialisés qui représentent environ 85 % de la richesse mondiale.

   

Stephen Harper à Brisbane

Le premier ministre du Canada, Stephen Harper, en compagnie de son homologue néo-zélandais, John Key.  Photo :  PC/Adrian Wyld

       
Le premier ministre du Canada, Stephen Harper, est arrivé à Birsbane tard en soirée en provenance de la Nouvelle-Zélande pour prendre part au sommet qui portera, entre autres, sur la crise en Syrie et en Irak.
   
À ce chapitre, Stephen Harper a déclaré aux journalistes, lors d'une conférence de presse en Nouvelle-Zélande, que le Canada n'offrirait pas son appui à une guerre contre le gouvernement syrien ou toute autre nation du Moyen-Orient, mais bien seulement contre le groupe armé État islamique (EI).
   
Questionné sur les succès ou échecs des six chasseurs CF-18 qu'il a dépêchés au Moyen-Orient pour effectuer des frappes contre l'EI, le premier ministre Harper a expliqué que le succès ne pouvait se mesurer par le nombre de bombes larguées, mais surtout par le fait que ces frappes maintiennent les djihadistes en mode défensif plutôt qu'offensif.
   
Également questionné sur les efforts déployés par le Canada pour lutter contre les changements climatiques, Stephen Harper s'est contenté de saluer l'entente prise par la Chine et les États-Unis de réduire de 26 % à 28 %, sous le niveau de 2005, leurs émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Une entente qui ne devrait pas avoir d'impact, selon lui,  sur le projet d'oléoduc Keystone XL entre le Canada et les États-Unis.
   

À lire aussi :Le G20 divisé sur les mesures de relance à court terme 

• Harper accueilli en ami à AucklandÉcrasement du vol MH17 en Ukraine
• Ukraine : un pays déchiré entre l'Est et l'Ouest
• 4 questions pour comprendre la crise en Ukraine
• Poutine minimise l'impact de nouvelles sanctions occidentales
• Visite à bord du BPC Mistral, un géant des mers

7616 7974 dec15

Why the real battle for America is over culture, not elections

By Mark Steyn

October 19, 2014 | 12:00am

Though his new collection of essays, “The Undocumented Mark Steyn: Don’t Say You Weren’t Warned” (Regnery), recounts many of the biggest political events of recent history, bestselling author Steyn says that’s not the real battleground. While everyone is focused on the 2014 midterms, the question about where our country is headed is being decided in our entertainment and our schools. Here, in an excerpt from the book, he explains how culture is king.

Over the past few decades, I’ve seen enough next-presidents-of-the-United-States for several lifetimes: Phil Gramm, Pete Wilson, Bob Dornan, Bob Dole, Elizabeth Dole, Orrin Hatch, Gary Bauer, Lamar Alexander, Tom Tancredo, Tommy Thompson, Alan Keyes. . . .

“The Undocumented Mark Steyn: Don’t Say You Weren’t Warned” by Mark Steyn (Regnery)

Would it have made any difference to the country had any of these fine upstanding fellows prevailed? Or would we be pretty much where we are anyway? Aside from a trade agreement here, a federal regulation there, I’d plump for the latter.

You can’t have conservative government in a liberal culture, and that’s the position the Republican Party is in.

After the last election, I said that the billion dollars spent by the Romney campaign on robocalls and TV ads and all the rest had been entirely wasted, and the Electoral College breakdown would have been pretty much what it was if they’d just tossed the dough into the Potomac and let it float out to sea. 

But imagine the use all that money and time could have been put to out there in the wider world.
Liberals expend tremendous effort changing the culture. Conservatives expend tremendous effort changing elected officials every other November — and then are surprised that it doesn’t make much difference.

Culture trumps politics — which is why, once the question’s been settled culturally, conservatives are reduced to playing catch-up, twisting themselves into pretzels to explain why gay marriage is really conservative after all, or why 30 million unskilled immigrants with a majority of births out of wedlock are “natural allies” of the Republican Party.

Steyn argues that, like politics, the Supreme Court is also playing catch-up to culture.Photo: Getty Images

We’re told that the presidency is important because the head guy gets to appoint, if he’s lucky, a couple of Supreme Court judges. But they’re playing catch-up to the culture, too.

In 1986, in a concurrence to a majority opinion, the chief justice of the United States declared that “there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.” A blink of an eye, and his successors are discovering fundamental rights to commit homosexual marriage.

What happened in between? Jurisprudentially, nothing: Everything Chief Justice Warren Burger said back in the ’80s — about Common Law, Blackstone’s “crime against nature,” “the legislative authority of the State” — still applies. Except it doesn’t. Because the culture — from school guidance counselors to sitcom characters to Oscar hosts — moved on, and so even America’s Regency of Jurists was obliged to get with the beat.

Because to say today what the chief justice of the United States said 28 years ago would be to render oneself unfit for public office — not merely as Chief Justice but as CEO of a private company, or host of a cable home-remodeling show, or dog-catcher in Dead Moose Junction.

What politician of left or right championed gay marriage? Bill Clinton? No, he signed the now notoriously “homophobic” Defense of Marriage Act. Barack Obama? Gay-wise, he took longer to come out than Ricky Martin. The only major politician to elbow his way to the front of the gay bandwagon was Britain’s David Cameron, who used same-sex marriage as a Sister-Souljah-on-steroids moment to signal to London’s chattering classes that, notwithstanding his membership of the unfortunately named “Conservative Party,” on everything that mattered he was one of them.

If the culture’s liberal, if the schools are liberal, if the churches are liberal…electing a guy with an ‘R’ after his name isn’t going to make a lot of difference.

But, in Britain as in America, the political class was simply playing catch-up to the culture. Even in the squishiest Continental “social democracy,” once every four or five years you can persuade the electorate to go out and vote for a conservative party. 

But if you want them to vote for conservative government you have to do the hard work of shifting the culture every day, seven days a week, in the four-and-a-half years between elections.

If the culture’s liberal, if the schools are liberal, if the churches are liberal, if the hip, groovy business elite is liberal, if the guys who make the movies and the pop songs are liberal, then electing a guy with an “R” after his name isn’t going to make a lot of difference.

Nor should it. In free societies, politics is the art of the possible. In the 729 days between elections, the left is very good at making its causes so possible that in American politics almost anything of consequence is now impossible, from enforcing immigration law to controlling spending.

What will we be playing catch-up to in another 28 years? Not so long ago, I might have suggested transsexual rights. But, barely pausing to celebrate their victory on gay marriage, the identity-group enforcers have gone full steam ahead on transgender issues. Once upon a time there were but two sexes. 

Now Facebook offers its 1.2 billion patrons the opportunity to select their preference from dozens of “genders”: “male” and “female” are still on the drop-down menu, just about, but lost amid fifty shades of gay — “androgynous,” “bi-gender,” “intersex,” “cisfemale,” “trans*man,” “gender fluid” . . .
Oh, you can laugh. But none of the people who matter in American culture are laughing. They take it all perfectly seriously.

Supreme Intergalactic Arbiter Anthony Kennedy wields more power over Americans than George III did, but in a year or three he’ll be playing catch-up and striking down laws because of their “improper animus” and wish to “demean” and “humiliate” persons of gender fluidity.
Having done an impressive job of demolishing the basic societal building block of the family, the ambitious liberal is now moving on to demolishing the basic biological building block of the sexes.

Indeed, taken in tandem with the ever greater dominance of women at America’s least worst colleges and, at the other end of the social scale, the bleak, dispiriting permanence of the “he-cession,” in 28 years’ time we may be fairly well advanced toward the de facto abolition of man, at least in the manly sense.

That seems to me at least as interesting a question as whether the Republicans can take the Senate with a pick-up in this or that swing state.

Steyn believes that “the nationalization of the family” can turn a free western society into a “futuristic dystopia where technology has advanced but liberty has retreated.”Photo: Getty stock Images

Culture is the long view; politics is the here and now.
Yet in America vast cultural changes occur in nothing flat, while, under our sclerotic political institutions, men elected to two-year terms of office announce ambitious plans to balance the budget a decade after their terms end. Here, again, liberals show a greater understanding of where the action is.

So, if the most hawkish of GOP deficit hawks has no plans to trim spending until well in the 2020s, why not look at what kind of country you’ll be budgeting for by then? What will American obesity and heart-disease and childhood-diabetes rates be by then? What about rural heroin and meth addiction? 

How much of the country will, with or without “comprehensive immigration reform,” be socioeconomically Latin-American? And what is the likelihood of such a nation voting for small-government conservatism?

There’s a useful umbrella for most of the above: The most consequential act of state ownership in the 20th century western world was not the nationalization of airlines or the nationalization of railways or the nationalization of health care, but the nationalization of the family.

I owe that phrase to Professor R Vaidyanathan at the Indian Institute of Management in Bangalore. He’s a bit of a chippy post-imperialist, and he’s nobody’s idea of a right-winger, but he’s absolutely right about this.

‘The West has nationalized families over the last 60 years….Old age, ill health, single motherhood — everything is the responsibility of the state.’
 - Professor R Vaidyanathan

It’s the defining fact about the decline of the West: Once upon a time, in Canada, Britain, Europe and beyond, ambitious leftists nationalized industries — steel, coal, planes, cars, banks — but it was such a self-evident disaster that it’s been more or less abandoned, at least by those who wish to remain electorally viable.

On the other hand, the nationalization of the family proceeds apace, and America is as well advanced on that path as anywhere else. “The West has nationalized families over the last 60 years,” writes Vaidyanathan. “Old age, ill health, single motherhood — everything is the responsibility of the state.”

When I was a kid and watched sci-fi movies set in a futuristic dystopia where individuals are mere chattels of an unseen all-powerful government and enduring human relationships are banned and the progeny of transient sexual encounters are the property of the state, I always found the caper less interesting than the unseen backstory: How did they get there from here? From free western societies to a bunch of glassy-eyed drones wandering around in identikit variety-show catsuits in a land where technology has advanced but liberty has retreated: How’d that happen?

I’d say “the nationalization of the family” is how it happens. That’s how you get there from here.

Mark Steyn on . . . .

More insights from his new collection, “The Undocumented Mark Steyn.”

. . . ISIS
 
The roots of ISIS do not lie in the actions America took in 2003. Bush made mistakes in Iraq and left a ramshackle state that functioned less badly than any of its neighbors. Obama walked away, pulled out a cigarette, tossed a match over his shoulder and ignited a fuse that, from Damascus to Baghdad to Amman and beyond, will blow up the entire Middle East.

. . . [Obama’s] contempt for American power — a basic class signifier in the circle in which he’s moved all his life — is so deeply ingrained that he doesn’t care what replaces it.
. . . Multiculturalism 
 
Just in case you’re having difficulty keeping up with all these Composite-Americans, George Zimmerman, the son of a Peruvian mestiza, is the embodiment of epidemic white racism and the reincarnation of Bull Connor, but Elizabeth Warren, the great-great-great-granddaughter of someone who might possibly have been listed as a Cherokee on an application for a marriage license, is a heartwarming testimony to how minorities are shattering the glass ceiling in Harvard Yard. Under the Third Reich’s Nuremberg Laws, Mrs. Warren would have been classified as Aryan and Mr. Zimmerman as non-Aryan. Now it’s the other way round. Progress!

. . . Big government 
 
Whenever I write about the corrosive effects of Big Government upon the citizenry in Britain, Canada, Europe and elsewhere, and note that this republic is fairly well advanced upon the same grim trajectory, I get a fair few letters on the lines of: “You still don’t get it, Steyn. Americans aren’t Euro-pansies. Or Canadians. We’re not gonna take it.”

I would like to believe it. It’s certainly the case that Americans have more attitude than anybody else — or, at any rate, attitudinal slogans. I saw a fellow in a “Don’t Tread on Me” T-shirt the other day.

 He was at La Guardia, being trod all over by the overgropinfuhrers of the TSA, who had decided to subject him to one of their enhanced pat-downs. There are few sights more dismal than that of a law-abiding citizen having his genitalia pawed by state commissars, but having them pawed while wearing a “Don’t Tread on Me” T-shirt is certainly one of them.

. . . Islam 
 
I made the mistake of going to Europe to visit the famous banlieues of Paris and other continental Muslim neighborhoods. And at that point I started to get the queasy feeling the bewildered investigator does when he’s standing in the strange indentation at the edge of town and, just as he works out it’s a giant left-foot print, he glances up to see Godzilla’s right foot totalling his Honda Civic.

 I began to see that it’s not really about angry young men in caves in the Hindu Kush; it’s not even about angry young men in the fast growing Muslim populations of the West — although that’s certainly part of the seven-eighths of the iceberg bobbing just below the surface of 9/11.

 But the bulk of that iceberg is the profound and perhaps fatal weakness of the civilization that built the modern world. We’re witnessing the early stages of what the United Nations Population Division calls a “global upheaval” that’s “without parallel in human history.” 

Demographically and psychologically, Europeans have chosen to commit societal suicide, and their principal heir and beneficiary will be Islam.

. . . The tech economy 
 
So what does every initiative of the Obama era have in common? ObamaCare, Obamaphones, Social Security disability expansion, 50 million people on food stamps. . . . The assumption is that mass, multi-generational dependency is now a permanent feature of life.

 A coastal elite will devise ever smarter and sleaker trinkets, and pretty much everyone else will be a member of either the dependency class or the vast bureaucracy that ministers to them.

 And, if you’re wondering why every Big Government program assumes you’re a feeble child, that’s because a citizenry without “work and purpose” is ultimately incompatible with liberty. 

The elites think a smart society will be wealthy enough to relieve the masses from the need to work. In reality, it would be neo-feudal, but with fatter, sicker peasants. It wouldn’t just be “economic inequality,” but a far more profound kind, and seething with resentments.

French-Built Mistral Ships For Russia Could End Up In Canadian Hands
7565

French-Built Mistral Ships For Russia Could End Up In Canadian Hands

By Christopher Harress @Charressc.harress@ibtimes.com on November 05 2014 1:12 PM

The Mistral-class helicopter carrier Vladivostok is seen at the STX Les Chantiers de l'Atlantique shipyard site in Saint-Nazaire, France, Sept. 4, 2014. Reuters/Stephane Mahe 

 

The Canadian military has emerged as a potential destination for the controversial French-built Mistral helicopter carrier ships, built for Russia and now at the center of an international row after France indicated it would not hand them over, in response to international indignation over Russian actions in Ukraine.

The possibility of a Canadian solution appeared in French media after French President François Hollande began a state visit to Canada this week. 

While Hollande has yet to make a decision on whether Russia has met the criteria to receive the ships, the presence in the French delegation to Canada of the diplomatic advisor to the chairman of DCNS, the company that manufactures the ships, offers the first indication that France could actively be seeking an alternative buyer.

While the $1.6 billion deal was signed in 2010, European relations with Russia deteriorated significantly in 2014 after the former Soviet country annexed Crimea and assisted pro-Russian separatist in the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.  

Sanctions imposed against Russia did not prohibit the final delivery of the two Mistral ships, but the French president decided that the deal should go ahead only if Russia meets two criteria: one, genuinely observing the ceasefire between the Ukrainian government and Russian-backed rebels that was signed in September; and, two, agreeing to formally resolve the conflict in Ukraine.

The idea of Canada buying the ships is not a new one. In May 2014, Canadian Senator Hugh Segal publicly suggested that France should sell to Canada instead of Russia. “Canada or NATO should buy these ships from France, leaving the Russians to await a further slot on the list, which good behavior would assure,” Segal said. “Being silent as French technology is afforded to an adventurist Russian military stance makes no sense at all.”
It’s unclear whether Hollande has decided if Russia has met the criteria. However, French Finance Minister Michel Sapin said at the end of October that Russia has not managed to meet the criteria and the ships should not be delivered. In the wake of those comments, the CEO of DCNS fired Yves Destefanis, the project manager responsible for the delivery of the ships to Russia, saying that he had “caused damaging consequences” to the company.

The Canadian link, first reported by French newspaper Le Monde on Monday, comes at a time when the Canadian military is aggressively modernizing its navy and coast guard. According to French and Canadian sources cited in Le Monde, the Canadian Armed Forces “are now determined to diversify their partners in defense matters,” moving away from their traditional U.S. suppliers.
Canada may seek to take the two ships for less than Russia paid for them, meaning a deal could be delayed for negotiations. But a deal is further complicated by two issues: The decision not to deliver the ships is a political one that DCNS has no say in. According to the company, the deal will go ahead with Russia; the state-owned Russian defense company Rosoboronexport has already been invited to the handover ceremony of the first ship, the Sevastapol, set for Nov 14. Second, should the ships be handed over to a different military, DCNS may be sued for breach of contract, which could force them to return the cash Russia paid upfront and face a possible fine.