Bombs and Dollars – American Foreign Policy Blog – China, Afghanistan, Pakistan

“The warning signs have been there … 9/11, London, Madrid, Dubai… We need to stop this spreading trend…

…of xenophobia.”

Hilarious! The New York Times is all in a frenzy today about the Swiss banning minarets, while they completely ignore terrorist threats.

First, the title of their editorial, A Vote for Intolerance, shows shocking intolerance towards the majority of women who supported the ban.

One might say that forcing marriages upon women, allowing marital rape, encouraging domestic abuse, and stoning women to death who are raped, are examples of intolerance. The New York Times thinks that direct democracy is an example of intolerance. (So do the Talibans…)

Now, let’s get to the crux of the Time’s hilariously inept argument: There is a rising tide spreading throughout Europe of extremism and intolerance… And this tide is democracy!

Let’s quote them:

Terrorist attacks by Islamic militants, notably 9/11 and the attacks on London, Madrid and Mumbai, have played a role in the perception of Muslims as a security threat. … there is no evidence of Islamic extremism.

Makes sense, doesn’t it?

Here’s a fill in the blank:

If left unchecked, ______ spreads fast.

“Terrorism”, you’re thinking? Nope, “xenophobia.”

But the vote also carries a strong and urgent message for all Europe…

And what message would that be?

countries with far greater Muslim populations and far more virulent strains of xenophobia best quickly start thinking about how to counter the trend.

Oh, we should stop the trend of democracy. Not the trend of terrorism.

The warning signs have been there:

What kind of warning signs? You mean, 9/11, London, Madrid, Dubai, riots over cartoons, and common occurrences of take-over-the-world rallies?

Yeah, the spread of xenophobia is so bad in Europe, that Britain has established Sharia Law courts, where forced marriages can be upheld, marital rape, domestic abuse, and the rest of the goodies.

The Times’ solution to all of this deadly democracy is for the courts to step in:

We can only hope that the ban is quickly challenged, and that the Swiss courts will find a way to get rid of it.

Right, because that is what courts are for, to overrule the will of the people regardless of what the law states. Importantly, the Times advocates for the courts to “find a way to get rid of it,” regardless of whether such a ruling would be constitutional, similar to the view they hold about American law.

Well, that was fun, wasn’t it?

I predict we see more hissy fits from the Times as the American electorate begins to move away from their support of the Obama/Times agenda.