Conservative political and social commentary

Contact us:

First they came for the communists, but I was not a communist, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the socialists and the trade unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
– Pastor Martin Niemoeller.

You are welcome to post or publish these articles, in whole or in part, provided that you cite the author and website.

View All News Items

The End of TIME - Monday, September 13, 2010 at 00:10


Breaking news: Michael Moore opposes building a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero. He says he wants it built directly on Ground Zero. If you ever doubted the anti-American, destructive aims of the Left, all doubt should now be removed.

The End of TIME

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Sept. 13, 2010

For decades, Time magazine was a valued weekly source of news. But in recent years − with cable news, talk radio and the Internet − it became redundant. Now, however, it is making itself objectionable. That’s why I have resolved not to buy it again.

Two weeks ago, Time’s cover accused America of Islamophobia:

First, does Time mean all 310 million Americans, or even most of them? If so, the cover is deceptive and defamatory. Yes, some Americans, and some citizens of all nations, are guilty of any misdeed you can name. But why does Time indict our entire nation?

Second, what is “Islamophobia”? Is it a recognized mental disorder? No. Is it clearly defined? No. In effect, the term is elastic enough to describe anyone who opposes anything any Muslim wants to do anywhere. You object to building a mosque at Ground Zero? You must be “Islamophobic.” You complain about five-times-daily Muslim calls to prayer blaring over loudspeakers in Hamtramck, Michigan from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.? You are surely “Islamophobic.” What’s wrong with you? Aren’t you “multicultural”?

If the term is defined loosely enough, anyone who doesn’t agree with extremist Muslims is “Islamophobic.” And that is exactly the way extremist Muslims want to define it.

Liberals are obsessed with seeing their point of view, so they risk losing sight of our point of view. Then they can feel self-righteous by adhering to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort. They can feel like a member of the “elite” by looking down on their own people and their own culture.

But what a steep price they will pay to feel superior to us “ordinary” people, who honor our own culture. They will alienate themselves from their own, but they will never be accepted by extremist Muslims. They will fall between two chairs. But until then, they will do a great deal of damage.

Now look at Time’s current cover:

The Star of David is made up of flowers that resemble daisies. But how is this image consistent with the title? How are benign, peaceful flowers consistent with the accusation that “Israel doesn’t care about peace”?

The article emphasizes, in both words and photos, that the great majority of Israelis are occupied with working hard, doing business and then enjoying themselves by going to the beach or out to dinner. The author complains that they are not consumed with worry about the “peace process.” But his own article demonstrates that Israelis occupy themselves with peaceful pursuits. They are living in peace and enjoying it. Apparently the author feels that they are enjoying it too much. Living in peace isn’t peaceful enough for him. Come again?

Shimon Peres was Israeli foreign minister and prime minister. He performed an invaluable service in the cause of peace − inadvertently. His accent led him to pronounce peace process as “piss process.” This described the process precisely. From 1947 to 2010, each time the Israelis agreed to yield more land, the Palestinians responded with rockets, shells, bullets and suicide bombers. The Palestinians’ answer always was, “You offer to piss away more land, and we piss on you.”

The proposed Ground Zero mosque reveals a similar process. If the proponents of the mosque succeed in building it, they will call those who complain “Islamophobic bigots.” But if they are prevented from building it, they will call all of us “Islamophobic bigots.” Heads they win, tails we lose. Their real objective is not to build a mosque, or to achieve a Mideast peace, but to use the process to advance their real aim − domination.

Is it any wonder that many Israelis − and many Americans − have lost faith in the “peace process” and no longer pay it much attention? How long must a process continue without positive results before reasonable people lose interest, and go about their lives as best they can? They no longer care about the “peace process” − they care about peace.

Here we come to the key difference between self-anointed “intellectuals” and us “ordinary” people. “Intellectuals” live in a world of ideas. Their anthem might be John Lennon’s “Imagine,” if they are old enough to remember it. They live in hermetically sealed compartments − in universities, in liberal enclaves, in government offices.

They eat lunch and dinner with other liberals. They read liberal papers, from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times. They listen to National Public Radio and watch ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN. They wouldn’t be caught dead listening to conservative talk shows, visiting conservative websites or reading conservative magazines. They never hear their liberal ideas challenged. So they feel justified in imposing these ideas on the rest of us poor dumb slobs, who are just too stupid and unenlightened to make our own choices. We don’t know what’s good for us, but they do. They read it in a book, or heard it in a seminar.

On the contrary, we “ordinary” people must live in the real world. We pay the price for the impractical ideas of the “intellectual elite.” Do you recall that the Obama administration pressured the Israelis to remove security checkpoints from roads in the West Bank? Do you recall that recently, four Israelis were killed by Palestinian terrorists on a road near Hebron, just before the “peace” talks were to resume? One of the two women killed was pregnant, so in fact five Israelis were killed.

Reportedly, it was the same road from which the checkpoints had been removed. At least the dead can rest in peace. I suppose you could call that a “peace process.”

Whether we know it or not, we are all traveling along similar roads. International terrorism may strike anywhere − New York, Washington, London, Madrid, Mumbai, Bali, anywhere. The “intellectuals” sit safe in their bubbles and insist that the security checkpoints be removed. They can theorize all they want. It is not they but we who will pay the price.

Let the “intellectuals” occupy themselves with the “peace process.” We “ordinary” people will persist in putting in place security measures to assure that we can travel our road and remain alive. That’s peaceful enough for us.

Less process, more peace.

And then we will enjoy the peace by living our lives, regardless of how the “intellectuals” think we should be feeling. But we will do so without benefit of being “enlightened” by reading the meanderings of liberal “intellectuals” in Time magazine.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: