Saturday, July 11, 2015

Israel, Anti-Semitism and the Left

As Obama has taken his party and the country further and further to the left, the support for Israel from his party has continued to decline. Frank Luntz conducted a poll of what he referred to as the "opinion elite." Those were defined as people being highly educated, high earners and publicly active. I suspect a number of my readers would qualify.

The poll asked people various questions about Israel. Here is how the "opinion elite" of the 2 parties answered. Does Israel have too much influence on US foreign policy? Dems - 76% say yes, Repubs - 20% agree. Does Israel want peace with its neighbors? Dems - 48% say yes, Repubs - 88% agree. Are settlements an impediment to peace? Dems - 75% say yes, Repubs - only 25% agree. Notice how the Dems answers tend to track with Obama's stated positions on these issues.

Do you support the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement against Israel. 31% of Dems do, while a mere 3% of Repubs do. Curiously, the poll found that 60% were unaware of what BDS was. Asked if Jews were oversensitive and claimed that legitimate criticisms of Israel were anti-Semitic, 50% of Dems agreed. Only 18% of Repubs agreed.

In an interesting pair of related questions, people were asked if the US should support Israel or the Palestinians. 51% of Dems said Israel, while a whopping 90% of Repubs said Israel. But, when asked who they personally supported, only a minority of Dems - 46% - said Israel. But an overwhelming 88% of Repubs personally supported Israel.

As Obama has sought to distance himself and his Administration away from Israel (which he has done since entering office), he has concurrently aligned himself with pro-Palestinian groups. It is not just that the radical Islamist groups, such as CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations) and the ISNA (the Islamic Society of North America), are frequent visitors to the White House. No, Obama looks to support his anti-Israel agenda by getting left-wing Jewish groups to side with him.

Whereas AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Council) is a true supporter of Israel, and non-partisan with regards to the 2 parties; Obama prefers to invite groups such as "J Street" to the White House. J Street claims to identify as a pro-Israel organization, yet is a far left group that has adopted virtually all the Palestinian talking points - the same as Obama. Now, there is another allegedly pro-Israel, but actually pro-Palestinian group, called "Breaking the Silence," that also gets White House access.

So let's see. Radical Islamic groups get access to the White House. Far left pro-Palestinian Jewish groups get access to the White House. But hey, Al Sharpton is described as a trusted adviser, so...

Meanwhile, the UN Human Rights Council was at it again. This joke of an organization has passed more anti-Israel measures than against any other member nation, and possibly more against Israel than all the other nations combined. Under Bush, the US was not a member of the Council; but Obama has a far greater affinity for all things international. This time, they adopted a report concerning last year's war between Israel and Hamas. The vote was 47-1, with 5 abstentions. Those abstaining were Kenya, Ethiopia, Paraguay, Macedonia and India. Israel has made an effort to create closer ties with India; and the Palestinians were apoplectic that India this time did not vote how they had hoped.

The 8 European countries on the Council all voted against Israel. No surprise there. They are the UK, France, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Latvia and Estonia. Think about that the next time you want to travel to one of these countries. There were reports that Israel asked the UK and Germany to vote for the resolution, fearing that a worse resolution might be enacted if the current one was not. The one no vote - the US. But at the Security Council, where it really counts, Obama has said he would no longer guarantee protection of Israel.

Well, at least those countries voting against Israel all have stellar human rights records themselves. That would be countries like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, to name a few.

I'll leave you with this quote from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, regarding the UNHRC resolution. "On a day when Israel is hit by fire from the Sinai (by ISIS), when Islamic State is carrying out cruel terror attacks inside Egypt, in Syria Assad is slaughtering his people, and in Iran the number of arbitrary executions rises on an annual basis, the Council decides to condemn Israel that has committed no sins." But maybe the Dems would say that I'm just oversensitive to legitimate criticisms of Israel.

More Evidence That "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"

Sometimes, and for some of us, it does not seem possible that certain news stories could possibly have an element of truth to them. Yet, Fox reported that in Seattle girls as young as 11 years old are able to obtain IUDs, without parental consent.

As if that were not bad enough, Fox also reported that 15 year-olds in Oregon may get gender reassignment surgery without parental consent, and paid for by the State's Medicaid program. Fox noted that a 15 year-old in Oregon could not drive, smoke, donate blood, get a tattoo or go to a tanning salon. Snopes took issue with the Fox story. Yet, they did not disprove nor negate the essential elements of the story. Snopes reported that the age of consent for medical treatment in Oregon has been 15 since 1971. (My guess would be that such a measure was enacted to allow for abortions.)

However, Snopes also agreed that in early 2015 Oregon did include "gender dysphoria" as one of the conditions covered by the state's Medicaid program. The real beef that Snopes seemed to have was the way the article was written - the spin. There was no proof that a 15 year-old had yet undergone such a surgery. There was no indication that a doctor would be willing to perform such a surgery without parental consent.

So, accepting the Snopes' version - so what? Who actually believes that a 15 year-old is mature enough, with enough life experience, to make a decision that will affect them for the rest of their lives? Who believes that a 15 year-old should even have the power to make such a decision? This is insanity; or, as Michael Savage says, a "mental disorder."

Reference was made to an article by the "Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry." That article referred to a 2008 study claiming that "most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty." Johns Hopkins Medical Center apparently stopped performing gender reassignment surgeries after at least one study revealed that, long term, the suicide rate for transgendered individuals was about 20 times higher than that for a comparable non-transgendered population.

Just a thought. Notice has Obama has no problem linking the deaths of blacks to racism. It does not matter that so many blacks are killed by other blacks. It's racism. So how come Obama is unable to see the connection between the deaths of thousands around the world with radical Islam. I guess racism is rampant, but radical Islam is non-existent. Or, does Obama, as a leftist, let his beliefs dictate his reality? Such a refusal/inability to view the world accurately might just be considered a mental disorder.

Whoever thought that the idea of "sanctuary cities" made any sense? As noted in my 3 part series entitled "The Continuing Slide Into Tyranny," we are no longer a country of laws applied equally. If we were, certain people (Lois Lerner? Hillary Clinton?) might face prosecution. The idea of sanctuary cities merely reinforces the notion that anybody can do what they want. It is outrageous for local governments to claim that they do not need to comply with federal immigration laws. Well, mostly outrageous.

Part of the problem is that the federal government often will not enforce their own immigration laws. Now, an illegal immigrant who was a convicted felon and deported 5 times, was free to roam the streets of San Francisco and murder a 32 year-old woman named Kathryn Steinle. The Feds, specifically ICE, asked SF to keep the perpetrator in custody if they were going to release him. ICE had turned him over to the local authorities for prosecution on a drug charge. But the locals decided not to prosecute and released the soon to be murderer.

The locals decided they had no obligation to hold the man absent a warrant or court order. In fact, based on one federal district judge's decision, the locals felt it was illegal to detain the man. This is all insanity. If someone who is a convicted felon and who has been deported 5 times cannot be held by local authorities until ICE can pick him up, there is something very wrong and laws need to be changed.

The first change should be eliminating all federal aid to cities or states that pass sanctuary laws. The next obvious problem is the porous border. This perpetrator was deported 5 times and made it back in a sixth time, allowing him to commit murder. Deporting him again would have been meaningless. We need to strengthen our border security; and if the only way to do so is to build a wall then let's do it. If our border is that porous, then perhaps we need to institute prison time for violation of our immigration laws.

I would exclude minors from any prison time. And I would not agree with a 5 year sentence for an initial violation, as some have proposed. Rather, if we pursue such a policy, I would give increasing amounts of time for each new violation. Perhaps 6 months initially, then 1 1/2 years, then 3 years, then 5 years. It appears that some deterrent is needed.

But, now you sound like Donald Trump. No. No one has been able to explain to me why those citizens of nearby countries should be allowed to come here illegally, just because they can walk across the border, while citizens of far away countries mostly wait in line for the proper paperwork and opportunity to come. Do you allow your neighbors where you live to sneak into your house anytime they want to do so? I doubt anyone does - not even liberals.

We're Back in the USSR...

...or maybe we're in Oceania, that "1984" country where the Party controls history and language and bars all individuality. Maybe, if we're real quiet, we can take a peek into what's happening in Oceania, formerly known as the United States of America.

Let's take a look at what's happening in the Ministry of Truth, which alters historical truths in order to accommodate the Party's current needs. Once the Party changed the definition of marriage as now being between any two people, those slow to adopt to the new rule were, of course, rightly called bigots and haters and enemies of the Party. Those who tried to "cling to their religion," religion having been banned, were the most difficult to persuade.

But Party loyalists were busy admonishing those recalcitrant few. Said one Rekhu Basu: "Of course some institutions, especially religious ones, will need time to adapt and change, and figure out how to reconcile their teachings with the law." (Mandatory reading in one of the Party's news organs, the Ventura County Star, 7/2/15 edition.) You see, the Party will not accept deviation from the Party's political dogma. Any group believing in the traditional definition of marriage must "adapt and change" their beliefs, even if those beliefs had been part of their religious tenets for thousands of years.

Some, such as a few who used to belong to the now outlawed Republican Party, were outraged that the Party could tell them to change such fundamental beliefs. Most, however, agreed that it was the government's duty to tell people how to think - that group having long forgotten how to engage in independent thought.

Let's see what else is going on in the Ministry Truth. It seems that any evidence of the existence of the Confederate States (which fought against the former United States) will be eliminated from all books; and any and all paraphernalia or references to the Confederacy or individual slave owners will also be banned.

One news organ reported that many steps were already being taken. The former Confederate flag was banned from all local governments and retail outlets. In Connecticut, there was an effort to change the name of Calhoun College (part of Yale University, one of the Party's many propaganda schools existing throughout Oceania), because former Vice President John C. Calhoun was a supporter of slavery. In an area that used to be known as Southern California, the local residents were following the Party's lead in removing the name "Robert E. Lee" from all schools.

Meanwhile, throughout Oceania, efforts were underway to take down all statues depicting any Confederate officers. At Party headquarters (formerly known as the Capitol building in what was once Washington, D.C.), it was decided that the flags of the former states would have to come down, as many depicted the Confederate symbol. It was also decided that the Father of our country would now be, and always was, John Adams. George Washington, having been considered the Father of the country for many years, used to be a slave owner. Therefore, his name and likeness was ordered off all buildings, currency and coinage. All books mentioning the name George Washington were ordered destroyed.

Let's see if we can find anything else that the Ministry of Truth is working on. One sports team by the name of the Washington Redskins, lost their trademark registration, on order of one of the Party's judges. It was determined that the name "Redskins" was disparaging to some of the citizens. While the First Amendment to the Constitution of the former United States used to protect a wide range of speech, especially speech that was "disparaging," the Party decided that such speech might create unnecessary conflict. Besides, the Party had long abandoned the Constitution as having any force of law; as the only law now is what the Party orders.

We need to leave the Ministry of Truth now; if we stay too long we might get caught. The punishment could be to remove all references to our ever having existed from all official records. Maybe we can sneak in another time, but the punishments are becoming increasingly severe for not following the Party line.