 |
[Photo from ilanamercer.com]
I rarely reference other bloggers and writers with epithets, but Mercer earned this one after I ended my correspondence with her when she cleverly introduced "idiot" in conjunction with my name in one of her emails. Of course, I was writing to her in a formal, courteous manner (I don't have the time - nor the desire - to dig up those emails) since she was a former Canadian (immigrant) who might have had interesting insights on the U.S., the country she immigrated to from Canada.
So, here is another idiot blog post by Mercer on Ron Paul, where she comments on the presidential candidate on Jay Leno:
Update, Strassel's Non Sequitur:
I thought Paul was strong on Jay Leno, but should probably not have cozied-up to the Left in the way he did. More on that later: [video provided]This is the section that really needs attention:
...About Bachmann, Paul Said, “she doesn’t like Muslims, she hates them, she wants to go get ‘em.’” “In reference to Rick Santorum, Paul said he can’t stop talking about ‘gay people and Muslims.’” (ABC)
Leave aside whether these statements are true or not: Paul has taken a classic Chris-Matthews kind of ad hominem swipe against Michele Bachmann: she hates Muslims. Santorum hates gays and Muslims [Mercer sounds fine so far]. Siding with the Left by adopting its arguments may be situationally advantageous, but it is wrong, and will backfire on a Republican candidate in the long run [Back to normal for Mercer. Ron Paul a Republican candidate? Libertarians always want to latch on to some "respectable" organization, to deflate their positions which ordinary people would not accept] .
This tactic, even if it was a not-so-funny joke, damages Ron Paul’s effectiveness from the vantage point of conservative libertarians [Oxymoron?]who think that liberty cannot be reduced to the non-aggression axiom and has a cultural and civilizational dimension.
Paul is wrong to imply, reductively, that Islamic terrorism in general and September 11 in particular are the sole consequences of American foreign policy. Libertarians cannot persist in such unidirectional formulations. Our adventurous foreign policy is a necessary precondition for Muslim aggression but it is far from a sufficient one.The first paragraph starts off good enough, but as usual with Mercer, she goes full steam ahead to reveal her true libertarian colors.
"Our adventurous foreign policy is a necessary precondition for Muslim aggression but is far from a sufficient one" reads like a mathematical formula gone wrong.
Muslims don't need any "necessary precondition" such as an "adventurous foreign policy" to launch their Jihad - a word which Mercer doesn't use once in her "explanation" of Muslim's war-like behaviors over the centuries. Muslims simply follow the mandates they receive from the Koran, and their prophet Mohammed's various texts explaining and expounding upon the Koran, telling them to eradicate the world of infidels, through conversion, submission and Jihad. Various writers, of various scholarly and non-scholarly backgrounds, have shown again and again that the overriding purpose of Muslims vis-à-vis the rest of the non-Muslim world is to achieve Allah's Ummah (has Mercer read any of them?). Muslims are strategists and tacticians while planning their invasions. They are not irrational aggressors (i.e., they have their own purpose and logic). Whether the infidels sit quietly, or start wars with them is irrelevant to Muslims.
More than ten years after the Jihadi attacks on America, and countless other ones that occur throughout the world since, Mercer is unable to report on the real news.
There's for idiocy for you.
