Commentary Magazine


Posts For: December 24, 2010

If Rauf Wants Dialogue, He Should Start Talking

Park 51 imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf is taking his Moderate Islam for Dummies tour on the road. The New York Times reports that Rauf is about to go on a nationwide speaking tour “to promote the planned center and to foster dialogue about Muslim life in America.”

Since dialogue is the goal, might I suggest some discussion points. Perhaps Rauf can explain what he finds “moderate” about “respect[ting] the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution” in Iran and the “just government” that followed from it. That is, after all, his stated position on the matter.  Additionally, he might entertain a little Q&A on the brand of moderation that led him to write in a letter to the New York Times, “In a true peace, Israel will, in our lifetimes, become one more Arab country, with a Jewish minority.” When later asked about that and the Iran question, Rauf’s characteristic penchant for candid dialogue mysteriously escaped him. And if time allows, how nice it would be for Rauf to take another stab at the Hamas terrorism question. The last time around, he refused to call Hamas a terrorist organization.

Somehow, I don’t see those things coming up on the grand talking tour. “Dialogue” in these touchy-feely, interfaith mush-ins tends to focus on incisive issues like this: “The idea that the Jewish mayor of New York would be our most outspoken defender, well, I think that really touched people. It was very positive ‘optics’ for the international Muslim audience, as they say in the State Department,” Rauf told the Times.

Here’s Raymond Ibrahim writing about these positive optics:

A number of Al Azhar ulema expressed their opposition to building a mosque near [where] the events of September 11 [occurred], convinced that it is “a conspiracy to confirm a clear connection between the strikes of September [11] and Islam.” Dr. ‘Abd al-Mu’ti Bayumi, a member of the Islamic Research Academy [of Al Azhar] told Al Masry Al Youm that he rejects the building of any mosque in this area [Ground Zero], because the “devious mentality” desires to connect these events [of 9/11] with Islam, though he maintains that Islam is innocent of this accusation. Instead, it is a “Zionist conspiracy,” which many are making use of to harm the religion.

Nothing like a little interfaith dialogue to shed light on serious matters.

Park 51 imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf is taking his Moderate Islam for Dummies tour on the road. The New York Times reports that Rauf is about to go on a nationwide speaking tour “to promote the planned center and to foster dialogue about Muslim life in America.”

Since dialogue is the goal, might I suggest some discussion points. Perhaps Rauf can explain what he finds “moderate” about “respect[ting] the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution” in Iran and the “just government” that followed from it. That is, after all, his stated position on the matter.  Additionally, he might entertain a little Q&A on the brand of moderation that led him to write in a letter to the New York Times, “In a true peace, Israel will, in our lifetimes, become one more Arab country, with a Jewish minority.” When later asked about that and the Iran question, Rauf’s characteristic penchant for candid dialogue mysteriously escaped him. And if time allows, how nice it would be for Rauf to take another stab at the Hamas terrorism question. The last time around, he refused to call Hamas a terrorist organization.

Somehow, I don’t see those things coming up on the grand talking tour. “Dialogue” in these touchy-feely, interfaith mush-ins tends to focus on incisive issues like this: “The idea that the Jewish mayor of New York would be our most outspoken defender, well, I think that really touched people. It was very positive ‘optics’ for the international Muslim audience, as they say in the State Department,” Rauf told the Times.

Here’s Raymond Ibrahim writing about these positive optics:

A number of Al Azhar ulema expressed their opposition to building a mosque near [where] the events of September 11 [occurred], convinced that it is “a conspiracy to confirm a clear connection between the strikes of September [11] and Islam.” Dr. ‘Abd al-Mu’ti Bayumi, a member of the Islamic Research Academy [of Al Azhar] told Al Masry Al Youm that he rejects the building of any mosque in this area [Ground Zero], because the “devious mentality” desires to connect these events [of 9/11] with Islam, though he maintains that Islam is innocent of this accusation. Instead, it is a “Zionist conspiracy,” which many are making use of to harm the religion.

Nothing like a little interfaith dialogue to shed light on serious matters.

Read Less

Afternoon Commentary

With the Democratic party’s major losses in the midterm elections, there were predictions that President Obama wouldn’t win re-election in 2012. But during the lame-duck session, the president has managed to attain practically all of his legislative goals and undergo a remarkable political recuperation. Charles Krauthammer discusses the administration’s “new start” today in the Washington Post.

Tea Partiers have developed a reputation as self-interested individuals who oppose taxes because they don’t want to spread their wealth around. But according to AEI president Arthur Brooks, Americans who oppose wealth redistribution actually tend to be more generous when it comes to giving to charity than citizens who are in favor of government income leveling: “When it comes to voluntarily spreading their own wealth around, a distinct ‘charity gap’ opens up between Americans who are for and against government income leveling. Your intuition might tell you that people who favor government redistribution care most about the less fortunate and would give more to charity. Initially, this was my own assumption. But the data tell a different story.”

Amir Taheri writes that a battle is brewing in Iran, as thousands of workers continue to strike in protest of the government’s cuts in food and gas subsidies. “[F]or the first time, the message of independent trade unionists appears to be finding some resonance among Iran’s working people at large,” writes Taheri, noting growing public anger over rising energy prices and food shortages, increased political activism among young labor-rights leaders and the impact of international sanctions on private businesses.

During the height of the Park 51 controversy last summer, many New Yorkers were angered by Mayor Bloomberg’s vocal support for the mosque leaders. Newly released emails now reveal that Bloomberg aides actually provided political assistance to Park 51 coordinators Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan.

The rape allegations against Julian Assange have prompted some feminists in the U.S. to call for a broader definition of what constitutes rape. In Reason magazine, Cathy Young argues these revisions would be problematic: “Earlier generations of feminists argued that rape should be treated the same as any other violent crime: The victim should not be subjected to special standards of resistance or chastity. These days, the demand for special treatment is so blatant that some activists openly support abolishing the presumption of innocence for rape cases and requiring the accused to prove consent[.]”

With the Democratic party’s major losses in the midterm elections, there were predictions that President Obama wouldn’t win re-election in 2012. But during the lame-duck session, the president has managed to attain practically all of his legislative goals and undergo a remarkable political recuperation. Charles Krauthammer discusses the administration’s “new start” today in the Washington Post.

Tea Partiers have developed a reputation as self-interested individuals who oppose taxes because they don’t want to spread their wealth around. But according to AEI president Arthur Brooks, Americans who oppose wealth redistribution actually tend to be more generous when it comes to giving to charity than citizens who are in favor of government income leveling: “When it comes to voluntarily spreading their own wealth around, a distinct ‘charity gap’ opens up between Americans who are for and against government income leveling. Your intuition might tell you that people who favor government redistribution care most about the less fortunate and would give more to charity. Initially, this was my own assumption. But the data tell a different story.”

Amir Taheri writes that a battle is brewing in Iran, as thousands of workers continue to strike in protest of the government’s cuts in food and gas subsidies. “[F]or the first time, the message of independent trade unionists appears to be finding some resonance among Iran’s working people at large,” writes Taheri, noting growing public anger over rising energy prices and food shortages, increased political activism among young labor-rights leaders and the impact of international sanctions on private businesses.

During the height of the Park 51 controversy last summer, many New Yorkers were angered by Mayor Bloomberg’s vocal support for the mosque leaders. Newly released emails now reveal that Bloomberg aides actually provided political assistance to Park 51 coordinators Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan.

The rape allegations against Julian Assange have prompted some feminists in the U.S. to call for a broader definition of what constitutes rape. In Reason magazine, Cathy Young argues these revisions would be problematic: “Earlier generations of feminists argued that rape should be treated the same as any other violent crime: The victim should not be subjected to special standards of resistance or chastity. These days, the demand for special treatment is so blatant that some activists openly support abolishing the presumption of innocence for rape cases and requiring the accused to prove consent[.]”

Read Less

No Harm in Congratulations

Yesterday I wrote that ABC’s Jake Tapper, in leading up to his questions to President Obama regarding the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (“I have a couple of questions about ‘don’t ask/don’t tell.’ First of all, congratulations.”), was “revealing of a particular, widespread journalistic persuasion and worldview” regarding DADT.

A person for whom I have respect thought my judgment was overly harsh, that what Tapper said was an example of politeness (akin to saying “congratulations” to a politician who just won a primary or caucus) rather than solidarity on the issue.

On reflection, I think that’s a fair assessment. Tapper’s questions were (as I said in my post) quite good — and Tapper himself is an excellent, tough-minded reporter. And since I’ve argued for the importance of civility in politics and public discourse, it was silly of me to jump on him for offering one sentence of congratulations — especially when it’s followed by two fairly tough, if fair, questions on the subject.

All of which is to say I was wrong and unfair to Mr. Tapper. There are certainly enough egregious examples of journalistic missteps without jumping on him for saying “congratulations.”

Yesterday I wrote that ABC’s Jake Tapper, in leading up to his questions to President Obama regarding the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (“I have a couple of questions about ‘don’t ask/don’t tell.’ First of all, congratulations.”), was “revealing of a particular, widespread journalistic persuasion and worldview” regarding DADT.

A person for whom I have respect thought my judgment was overly harsh, that what Tapper said was an example of politeness (akin to saying “congratulations” to a politician who just won a primary or caucus) rather than solidarity on the issue.

On reflection, I think that’s a fair assessment. Tapper’s questions were (as I said in my post) quite good — and Tapper himself is an excellent, tough-minded reporter. And since I’ve argued for the importance of civility in politics and public discourse, it was silly of me to jump on him for offering one sentence of congratulations — especially when it’s followed by two fairly tough, if fair, questions on the subject.

All of which is to say I was wrong and unfair to Mr. Tapper. There are certainly enough egregious examples of journalistic missteps without jumping on him for saying “congratulations.”

Read Less

Exemptions Granted by U.S. Prove Iran Sanctions Won’t Work

Those aware of the profound nature of the threat that an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose to the West and to Israel have long been assured by the Washington foreign policy establishment that if diplomacy fails to persuade Tehran to behave, international sanctions provide the leverage that can solve the problem. Well, after two years of an administration dedicated to “engagement,” even President Obama seems to know diplomacy won’t work. So that leaves us with sanctions.

Amassing an international coalition to back the sort of economic sanctions that could bring Iran to heel has proven beyond the capacity of the United States. Even if our European allies are now prepared to think about tough sanctions, the Chinese and the Russians are not. So the best President Obama could do was to get the United Nations to pass a set of mild sanctions this past year that didn’t impress the Iranians. We knew that the confidence of the Khamenei/Ahmadinejad regime as they faced down the West was due to its knowledge that Russia and China would never allow serious sanctions to be passed. We also knew that Tehran felt it could count on its Western European business partners to ensure that the West was sufficiently divided on the need to enforce sanctions, let alone resort to force to prevent Tehran from achieving their nuclear ambitions.

But today we learned another reason why the Iranians were so confident about their chances for victory: the United States government has been allowing a vast number of companies to evade the existing sanctions and to do literally billions of dollars in business with Iran. Read More

Those aware of the profound nature of the threat that an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose to the West and to Israel have long been assured by the Washington foreign policy establishment that if diplomacy fails to persuade Tehran to behave, international sanctions provide the leverage that can solve the problem. Well, after two years of an administration dedicated to “engagement,” even President Obama seems to know diplomacy won’t work. So that leaves us with sanctions.

Amassing an international coalition to back the sort of economic sanctions that could bring Iran to heel has proven beyond the capacity of the United States. Even if our European allies are now prepared to think about tough sanctions, the Chinese and the Russians are not. So the best President Obama could do was to get the United Nations to pass a set of mild sanctions this past year that didn’t impress the Iranians. We knew that the confidence of the Khamenei/Ahmadinejad regime as they faced down the West was due to its knowledge that Russia and China would never allow serious sanctions to be passed. We also knew that Tehran felt it could count on its Western European business partners to ensure that the West was sufficiently divided on the need to enforce sanctions, let alone resort to force to prevent Tehran from achieving their nuclear ambitions.

But today we learned another reason why the Iranians were so confident about their chances for victory: the United States government has been allowing a vast number of companies to evade the existing sanctions and to do literally billions of dollars in business with Iran.

A story on the front page of today’s New York Times informs us that a “little known office of the Treasury Department has granted more than 10,000 licenses” allowing Americans to trade with Iran and other blacklisted countries. The companies that have gained these exemptions include some of the biggest, such as Kraft Food and Pepsi as well as major banks. While the purpose of the statute that allows for exemptions was to provide humanitarian aid, the Obama administration has let things like chewing gum, sports equipment and even hot sauce be sold to Iran. Even worse, it has allowed an American company to “bid on a pipeline job that would have helped Iran sell natural gas to Europe, even though the United States opposes such projects. Several other American businesses were permitted to deal with foreign companies believed to be involved in terrorism or weapons proliferation.”

An administration spokesman claimed that focusing on the vast number of exemptions “misses the forest for the trees,” since “no one can doubt that we are serious about this.” But as even former Clinton administration official Stuart Eizenstat told the Times, “When you create loopholes like this that you can drive a Mack truck through, you are giving countries something for nothing, and they just laugh in their teeth. I think there have been abuses.”

The loopholes in the law are bad enough. But, as the Times reports, they are widened by the influence of politicians who seek to grant favors to local businesses and contributors. In one instance, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) intervened to force the Treasury office to allow a company owned by one of his contributors to do business with a Chinese firm that had been banned for its role in selling missile technology to Iran and Pakistan.

The point here is not so much the corruption of our political system. Rather it is that as much as we doubted the determination of our allies to enforce sanctions, the United States government has shown itself to be equally incapable of getting tough with Iran. While concerned citizens can pray that clandestine operations, such as the Stuxnet virus, will undermine Iran’s nuclear program, the fact remains that the countdown toward an Iranian nuke proceeds. Though it was common knowledge that this administration, like its predecessor led by George W. Bush, seemed to lack the will to fully confront Iran, we didn’t know just how much our own government was allowing the existing sanctions to be flouted. In light of these revelations, it’s clear that sanctions will never work to halt the march of this terror sponsor toward nuclear capability. After reading this shocking story, there’s little doubt that Ahmadinejad and his tyrannical Islamist confederates are laughing at us.

Read Less

Re: Pat Robertson’s Fairy Tale

According to Christian Broadcasting Network spokesman Chris Roslan,

Dr. Robertson did not call for the decriminalization of marijuana. He was advocating that our government revisit the severity of the existing laws because mandatory drug sentences do harm to many young people who go to prison and come out as hardened criminals. He was also pointing out that these mandatory sentences needlessly cost our government millions of dollars when there are better approaches available. Dr. Robertson’s comments followed a CBN News story about a group of conservatives who have proven that faith-based rehabilitation for criminals has resulted in lower repeat offenders and saved the government millions of dollars. Dr. Robertson unequivocally stated that he is against the use of illegal drugs.

Come again?

As you can see from my earlier link, this is what Robertson said:

[T]here’s something else we’ve got to recognize. We’re locking people up that take a couple of puffs of marijuana and the next thing you know they got 10 years. They’ve got mandatory sentences and these judges – they throw up their hands and say, “There’s nothing we can do. It’s mandatory sentences.” We’ve got to take a look at what we’re considering crimes, and that’s one of them. I’m not exactly for the use of drugs, don’t get me wrong, but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot, that kinda thing it’s just, it’s costing us a fortune and it’s ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That’s not a good thing.

This, boys and girls, is an endorsement of marijuana decriminalization, which is why it was reported this way everywhere.

What appears to be so is that Robertson has concerns about mandatory minimum sentences. There’s certainly a case to be for that position. But in arguing for it, Robertson used an illustration that was unfortunate because it was uninformed. His scenario – a young kid who takes a couple of puffs of marijuana and end us in prison for a decade, coming out as a hardened criminal and a greater threat to society – was detached from the real world.

Robertson should simply say so. He should say something like this: “I made a mistake the other day in calling for the decriminalization of marijuana. The example I issued was ill-advised; it doesn’t really bear on the concern I was trying to express. And while I believe we should carefully examine mandatory drug sentencing laws, I think, on reflection, that decriminalizing marijuana would be a very bad idea.”

Instead, CBN’s spokesman is trying to undo the damage by insisting Robertson was not advocating what he was clearly advocating.

I’ve never understood why public figures choose to employ silly efforts at spin rather than being forthcoming about a mistake – especially when the spin will only succeed in provoking belly laughs. (h/t: hotair.com)

According to Christian Broadcasting Network spokesman Chris Roslan,

Dr. Robertson did not call for the decriminalization of marijuana. He was advocating that our government revisit the severity of the existing laws because mandatory drug sentences do harm to many young people who go to prison and come out as hardened criminals. He was also pointing out that these mandatory sentences needlessly cost our government millions of dollars when there are better approaches available. Dr. Robertson’s comments followed a CBN News story about a group of conservatives who have proven that faith-based rehabilitation for criminals has resulted in lower repeat offenders and saved the government millions of dollars. Dr. Robertson unequivocally stated that he is against the use of illegal drugs.

Come again?

As you can see from my earlier link, this is what Robertson said:

[T]here’s something else we’ve got to recognize. We’re locking people up that take a couple of puffs of marijuana and the next thing you know they got 10 years. They’ve got mandatory sentences and these judges – they throw up their hands and say, “There’s nothing we can do. It’s mandatory sentences.” We’ve got to take a look at what we’re considering crimes, and that’s one of them. I’m not exactly for the use of drugs, don’t get me wrong, but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot, that kinda thing it’s just, it’s costing us a fortune and it’s ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That’s not a good thing.

This, boys and girls, is an endorsement of marijuana decriminalization, which is why it was reported this way everywhere.

What appears to be so is that Robertson has concerns about mandatory minimum sentences. There’s certainly a case to be for that position. But in arguing for it, Robertson used an illustration that was unfortunate because it was uninformed. His scenario – a young kid who takes a couple of puffs of marijuana and end us in prison for a decade, coming out as a hardened criminal and a greater threat to society – was detached from the real world.

Robertson should simply say so. He should say something like this: “I made a mistake the other day in calling for the decriminalization of marijuana. The example I issued was ill-advised; it doesn’t really bear on the concern I was trying to express. And while I believe we should carefully examine mandatory drug sentencing laws, I think, on reflection, that decriminalizing marijuana would be a very bad idea.”

Instead, CBN’s spokesman is trying to undo the damage by insisting Robertson was not advocating what he was clearly advocating.

I’ve never understood why public figures choose to employ silly efforts at spin rather than being forthcoming about a mistake – especially when the spin will only succeed in provoking belly laughs. (h/t: hotair.com)

Read Less

Pat Robertson’s Fairy Tale

On The 700 Club, Pat Robertson argued for the decriminalization of marijuana. According to Reverend Robertson:

[T]here’s something else we’ve got to recognize. We’re locking people up that take a couple of puffs of marijuana and the next thing you know they got 10 years. They’ve got mandatory sentences and these judges – they throw up their hands and say, “There’s nothing we can do. It’s mandatory sentences.” We’ve got to take a look at what we’re considering crimes, and that’s one of them. I’m not exactly for the use of drugs, don’t get me wrong, but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot, that kinda thing it’s just, it’s costing us a fortune and it’s ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That’s not a good thing.

Set aside the fact that decriminalizing marijuana would lead to large increase in its use. Set aside the fact that using marijuana, whose potency today is much greater than in the past, is both physically and mentally harmful. Set aside the fact that, “Marijuana affects levels of dopamine (the substance that gives pleasure) in the brain in a manner similar to heroin. Indeed, marijuana may prime the brain to seek substances such as heroin and cocaine that act in a similar way.” Set aside the fact that it would make the job of parents much harder in teaching their children why they shouldn’t use illegal drugs (if you decriminalize it, you would be removing a powerful disincentive against drug use). And set aside the fact that when government pursues strong anti-drug policies, as we did when William J. Bennett and John Walters were the “drug czars,” we saw a substantial decrease in drug use.

Let’s simply focus on the premise upon which Robertson bases his decriminalization case.

Contrary to the picture painted by Robertson, the story of the young person who takes two puffs on marijuana, maybe for the first time, ends up in prison for 10 years and comes out a hardened criminal is a fairy tale. For all practical purposes, marijuana possession alone never leads to prison. John Walters used to say it’s easier to find a live unicorn than someone in prison solely for a baggie of marijuana in their possession.

Almost all possession convictions that lead to incarceration involve either very large quantities (i.e., major trafficking on the order of 100 lbs.); or a violent/repeat offender; or, if a significant trafficker is arrested on a serious charge and for some reason (witnesses are frightened, the courts are overloaded, et cetera), the original charge is difficult to press. Even local and state police do not lock up kids for a baggie of dope.

At the time of arrest, many bad actors do have drugs on them and the charge is reduced to the possession. They then plead guilty, speeding adjudication and removing them from the street because their prior criminal history makes this something that should not be handled with probation.

Even in California, where a ballot initiative favoring legalization was based on flawed assumptions, a first-time, second-time, or more offender with just possession cannot, by state law, be sentenced to anything other than court supervised treatment. Indeed, the number of drug courts has been exploding over the last decade-and-a-half. What the criminal justice system actually does with drug users is help them get the treatment they need. The criminal justice system is now the single biggest cause for treatment entry.

Perhaps next time, before he emphatically weighs in on an issue, the Revered Robertson might take the time to acquaint himself with the real world rather than a George Soros make-believe one. Otherwise Robertson risks not only being wrong but looking mighty uninformed.

On The 700 Club, Pat Robertson argued for the decriminalization of marijuana. According to Reverend Robertson:

[T]here’s something else we’ve got to recognize. We’re locking people up that take a couple of puffs of marijuana and the next thing you know they got 10 years. They’ve got mandatory sentences and these judges – they throw up their hands and say, “There’s nothing we can do. It’s mandatory sentences.” We’ve got to take a look at what we’re considering crimes, and that’s one of them. I’m not exactly for the use of drugs, don’t get me wrong, but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot, that kinda thing it’s just, it’s costing us a fortune and it’s ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That’s not a good thing.

Set aside the fact that decriminalizing marijuana would lead to large increase in its use. Set aside the fact that using marijuana, whose potency today is much greater than in the past, is both physically and mentally harmful. Set aside the fact that, “Marijuana affects levels of dopamine (the substance that gives pleasure) in the brain in a manner similar to heroin. Indeed, marijuana may prime the brain to seek substances such as heroin and cocaine that act in a similar way.” Set aside the fact that it would make the job of parents much harder in teaching their children why they shouldn’t use illegal drugs (if you decriminalize it, you would be removing a powerful disincentive against drug use). And set aside the fact that when government pursues strong anti-drug policies, as we did when William J. Bennett and John Walters were the “drug czars,” we saw a substantial decrease in drug use.

Let’s simply focus on the premise upon which Robertson bases his decriminalization case.

Contrary to the picture painted by Robertson, the story of the young person who takes two puffs on marijuana, maybe for the first time, ends up in prison for 10 years and comes out a hardened criminal is a fairy tale. For all practical purposes, marijuana possession alone never leads to prison. John Walters used to say it’s easier to find a live unicorn than someone in prison solely for a baggie of marijuana in their possession.

Almost all possession convictions that lead to incarceration involve either very large quantities (i.e., major trafficking on the order of 100 lbs.); or a violent/repeat offender; or, if a significant trafficker is arrested on a serious charge and for some reason (witnesses are frightened, the courts are overloaded, et cetera), the original charge is difficult to press. Even local and state police do not lock up kids for a baggie of dope.

At the time of arrest, many bad actors do have drugs on them and the charge is reduced to the possession. They then plead guilty, speeding adjudication and removing them from the street because their prior criminal history makes this something that should not be handled with probation.

Even in California, where a ballot initiative favoring legalization was based on flawed assumptions, a first-time, second-time, or more offender with just possession cannot, by state law, be sentenced to anything other than court supervised treatment. Indeed, the number of drug courts has been exploding over the last decade-and-a-half. What the criminal justice system actually does with drug users is help them get the treatment they need. The criminal justice system is now the single biggest cause for treatment entry.

Perhaps next time, before he emphatically weighs in on an issue, the Revered Robertson might take the time to acquaint himself with the real world rather than a George Soros make-believe one. Otherwise Robertson risks not only being wrong but looking mighty uninformed.

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.