This past Tuesday, November 18, two Arabs entered a synogogue in the Har Nof neighborhood in the west side of Jerusalem and brutally murdered at least three rabbis and one other worshiper during morning prayers. It was reported that at least seven others were hospitalized, and that a Druze police officer was also killed. Israeli police killed the two murderers. This savage attack, using a gun and meat cleavers, did not occur in the area of eastern Jerusalem, an area to which the Arabs are claiming entitlement. During the attack the murderers shouted "Allahu Akbar," ("God is great").
This attack follows other attacks on Jews in Jerusalem, some of which used vehicles to drive directly into crowds of people. Hamas, of course, praised the attack. The same Hamas that calls for Israel's destruction; and that would likely win any election for control of the West Bank should the Arabs get a state there. (Abbas is in the 10th year of a 4 year term. You read that correctly.)
President Obama condemned the attack, noting that three of those killed also held American citizenship. Obama does not get particularly worked up when Americans are murdered by Muslims. Obama took the usual leftist equivalency approach in stating: "too many Israelis have died and too many Palestinians have died." And he again claimed another attack was due to "extremism," rather than any particular ideology. Finally, and typically, he concluded with a platitude - a lie - that Palestinians and Israelis just want to raise their families and live in peace. No. That is what the Jews want. As the Arabs frequently tell us, they value death whereas we value life.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister of Jordan reportedly sent a condolence letter to the families of the two murderers, saying: "I ask God to envelope them with mercy and to grant you with patience, comfort and recovery from your grief." The Jordanian Parliament held a minute of silence in memory of the two murderers.
Let me be clear. The immediate responsibility for these savage murders lies with the attackers. However, and contrary to leftist beliefs, our government's policies have consequences. Obama refuses to acknowledge Jerusalem as being the capital of Israel. Obama repeatedly calls for Jerusalem to be divided, giving the eastern part of the city to the Arabs for the capital of a Palestinian state. As if that makes any sense. And as if Israel will ever divide Jerusalem. But Obama and other Western leaders are also responsible for these deaths. Knowing that nearly the entire Western world is on their side, the Arabs are using these violent tactics to intimidate the Israelis, in the hopes that they will give up. These Arabs know that the only consequence they will suffer are some words of condemnation from Western leaders. While the Arabs were busy murdering Jews, Spain's parliament was busy joining other European countries in recognizing a Palestinian state.
In a similar fashion, Obama wants to force a "peace" deal on the Israelis - regardless of the consequences. It's not enough that Israel has Hezbollah on their north, Hamas on their south, Al Qaeda and ISIS in the bordering Sinai, and an increasingly hostile Jordan to the east. No, Israel needs to put a Palestinian state - which everyone knows will end up being controlled by Hamas - right on the doorstep of their major cities.
As Yuval Steinitz, Israel's Strategic Affairs Minister, said before this latest attack: "Someone has to explain to the Americans that after what happened in Gaza, we are not planning to commit suicide here. We will not allow what happened in Gaza to be repeated in Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank).
Amen.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Major Republican Victory!
As of this writing the Republicans have taken back the US Senate, with 52 seats to 45 for the Democrats, and three still pending. Of those three it is believed that the Republicans have a chance to pick up two more.
In the House, the Republicans have so far picked up 12 more seats, apparently nearing their all time high from about 70 years ago.
And for those who believe certain states are permanently locked in to one party or the other - not so fast. In the very blue states of Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois, Republicans have won the governorships.
The Democrat candidates who campaigned on the "war on women" fell flat. And a black Republican was elected to the US Senate from South Carolina, a very conservative state. According to one web site (Vox) Tim Scott is the first black to win a statewide office in South Carolina since Reconstruction; and the first black elected to the Senate from any Southern state.
While Democrat candidates from around the country ran away from Obama, Obama nevertheless said (to the Dems chagrin) that his policies were on the ballot. If so, the American people just expressed their huge disappointment with him and his policies. For those who will claim racism dictated tonight's result (Obama and Holder will certainly think that even if they do not say so), take a look at the above paragraph.
So what now? Obama has never been one to compromise. In fact, he does not care that much for governing, as his own party has complained about his lack of interest in even meeting with Democrat Senators and Congressmen. He likes to campaign; he likes to hang out with the rich and famous; and he prefers Executive Orders.
Republicans need to pass legislation that will help the economy. They need to pass bills that will eliminate the worst provisions of Obamacare. And they need to act as a bulwark against our dwindling military capabilities, and a disastrous foreign policy. I suspect the Israelis are breathing a little easier tonight, as Republicans have been staunch supporters.
If, however, the Republicans do not act wisely, my readers can count on me to say so. A reader commented on one of my last posts ("You Really Want to Elect These People") and basically said if the Republicans win they will get all the blame for Obama's last two years of failures. But, with only controlling the House, Republicans get all the blame from the mainstream media already - the "obstructionist" Republicans. Now, Republicans will actually be able to pass legislation that Harry Reid had prevented from coming to a vote in the Senate.
The question will be, if Obama vetoes what the Republicans pass, what spin will the mainstream media put on it to still blame the Republicans? We know they will not blame or criticize Obama. Tonight, however, it feels good to have the brakes put on Obama's far left agenda.
In the House, the Republicans have so far picked up 12 more seats, apparently nearing their all time high from about 70 years ago.
And for those who believe certain states are permanently locked in to one party or the other - not so fast. In the very blue states of Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois, Republicans have won the governorships.
The Democrat candidates who campaigned on the "war on women" fell flat. And a black Republican was elected to the US Senate from South Carolina, a very conservative state. According to one web site (Vox) Tim Scott is the first black to win a statewide office in South Carolina since Reconstruction; and the first black elected to the Senate from any Southern state.
While Democrat candidates from around the country ran away from Obama, Obama nevertheless said (to the Dems chagrin) that his policies were on the ballot. If so, the American people just expressed their huge disappointment with him and his policies. For those who will claim racism dictated tonight's result (Obama and Holder will certainly think that even if they do not say so), take a look at the above paragraph.
So what now? Obama has never been one to compromise. In fact, he does not care that much for governing, as his own party has complained about his lack of interest in even meeting with Democrat Senators and Congressmen. He likes to campaign; he likes to hang out with the rich and famous; and he prefers Executive Orders.
Republicans need to pass legislation that will help the economy. They need to pass bills that will eliminate the worst provisions of Obamacare. And they need to act as a bulwark against our dwindling military capabilities, and a disastrous foreign policy. I suspect the Israelis are breathing a little easier tonight, as Republicans have been staunch supporters.
If, however, the Republicans do not act wisely, my readers can count on me to say so. A reader commented on one of my last posts ("You Really Want to Elect These People") and basically said if the Republicans win they will get all the blame for Obama's last two years of failures. But, with only controlling the House, Republicans get all the blame from the mainstream media already - the "obstructionist" Republicans. Now, Republicans will actually be able to pass legislation that Harry Reid had prevented from coming to a vote in the Senate.
The question will be, if Obama vetoes what the Republicans pass, what spin will the mainstream media put on it to still blame the Republicans? We know they will not blame or criticize Obama. Tonight, however, it feels good to have the brakes put on Obama's far left agenda.
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Anti-Semitism at Your Door
If you live in or near New York City you would have had the opportunity to attend a performance at the Metropolitan Opera of "The Death of Klinghoffer." Recall that Leon Klinghoffer was a 69 year old disabled American Jew who had taken a cruise with his wife Marilyn. In 1985 they were on the ship Achille Lauro when it was hijacked by members of the Palestine Liberation Front. These terrorists shot and killed Klinghoffer and then threw his body and his wheelchair overboard.
The October 22, 2014 New York Times had a review of the opera done by Anthony Tommasini. Said Tommasini: "This opera tries to explore what drove these Palestinians to take that ship and murder its most vulnerable passenger." Said Klinghoffer's two daughters, who issued their own statement regarding this opera: "It presents false moral equivalences without context, and offers no real insight into the historical reality and the senseless murder of an American Jew."
But that's the point. For the left there are always moral equivalencies - because they have no sense of good and evil. Those are religious concepts, and the left tends to lack a religious foundation. You want to know why the Palestinians do what they do? Because it is what they believe.
Go back to the 1920s when Arabs massacred Jews in the land of Palestine, then under the British Mandate. Or World War II when the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem supported Hitler. Or to 1947 before the UN voted for partition of the Mandate area, creating a Jewish state and an Arab state - when the Arabs said they would never accept the existence of a Jewish State.
You want to know why such an opera is acceptable in polite society? Because the Palestinians are perceived to be the underdogs, and the underdogs are always right and can do no bad. Isn't that why Obama and Kerry ask nothing in return from the Palestinians when they give hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to people who murder and attempt to murder innocent Jews? Then the Palestinians reward the murderers with money, and name schools and parks after their "martyrs." And then Obama rewards them some more.
In her 10/24/14 column, Caroline Glick notes numerous incidents of anti-Semitism at AEPi frat houses across the country. AEPi is the Jewish fraternity. Swastikas were painted on the AEPi house at Emory University. Glick notes that recently AEPi members from across the country put up a video on You Tube documenting various assaults and batteries against their members. The University of Arizona AEPi president was violently attacked while trying to stop a large group from entering their house. He suffered a skull fracture and bleeding on the brain and a concussion.
The Jewish director of a community center had attended an exhibition game between the Brooklyn Nets and the Maccabi Tel Aviv team in Brooklyn. Afterwards, while walking with his two young sons, they were accosted by a group of people yelling "your people are murderers." The director was punched in the face and sustained a broken nose. There are plenty of other incidents mentioned in the Glick article, but you get the point.
At many colleges and universities across this country you will find groups such as The Muslim Student Association, Students for Justice in Palestine, Direct Action for Palestine and Adalah and others. Are we nearing a point in time when Jewish students need to hide their Jewishness in order to feel safe on campus? Should they not wear their kippah (skull cap) in public? Are we now like Europe where Jews in major cities are told exactly that? They are told not to wear any Jewish-identifying garments in public; and to not linger outside Jewish places of worship.
Glick notes how in September of this year hundreds of protestors interfered with longshoremen who were to offload cargo from an Israeli ship. The ship was forced to unload its cargo in Los Angeles. Glick notes that none of the protesters were arrested.
Glick suggests supporting groups that help students on campus, such as StandWithUs, CAMERA, and the Zionist Organization of America and other similar groups. She believes Jewish lawyers should start filing lawsuits against groups that interfere with the speech and religious rights of Jewish students. (Personally, I might suggest making a complaint to the office of the Attorney General Eric Holder, Civil Rights Division. But let's be honest, if you are not black he's not likely to care.)
I am proud of, and thankful for, my Christian friends (and the millions of Christians whom I do not know) who are extremely supportive of Israel. Because today, anti-Semitism often takes the form of anti-Zionism and anti-Israel advocacy. And I remind my fellow Jews of that famous quote from 2000 years ago by Hillel: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?...And if not now, when?"
The October 22, 2014 New York Times had a review of the opera done by Anthony Tommasini. Said Tommasini: "This opera tries to explore what drove these Palestinians to take that ship and murder its most vulnerable passenger." Said Klinghoffer's two daughters, who issued their own statement regarding this opera: "It presents false moral equivalences without context, and offers no real insight into the historical reality and the senseless murder of an American Jew."
But that's the point. For the left there are always moral equivalencies - because they have no sense of good and evil. Those are religious concepts, and the left tends to lack a religious foundation. You want to know why the Palestinians do what they do? Because it is what they believe.
Go back to the 1920s when Arabs massacred Jews in the land of Palestine, then under the British Mandate. Or World War II when the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem supported Hitler. Or to 1947 before the UN voted for partition of the Mandate area, creating a Jewish state and an Arab state - when the Arabs said they would never accept the existence of a Jewish State.
You want to know why such an opera is acceptable in polite society? Because the Palestinians are perceived to be the underdogs, and the underdogs are always right and can do no bad. Isn't that why Obama and Kerry ask nothing in return from the Palestinians when they give hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to people who murder and attempt to murder innocent Jews? Then the Palestinians reward the murderers with money, and name schools and parks after their "martyrs." And then Obama rewards them some more.
In her 10/24/14 column, Caroline Glick notes numerous incidents of anti-Semitism at AEPi frat houses across the country. AEPi is the Jewish fraternity. Swastikas were painted on the AEPi house at Emory University. Glick notes that recently AEPi members from across the country put up a video on You Tube documenting various assaults and batteries against their members. The University of Arizona AEPi president was violently attacked while trying to stop a large group from entering their house. He suffered a skull fracture and bleeding on the brain and a concussion.
The Jewish director of a community center had attended an exhibition game between the Brooklyn Nets and the Maccabi Tel Aviv team in Brooklyn. Afterwards, while walking with his two young sons, they were accosted by a group of people yelling "your people are murderers." The director was punched in the face and sustained a broken nose. There are plenty of other incidents mentioned in the Glick article, but you get the point.
At many colleges and universities across this country you will find groups such as The Muslim Student Association, Students for Justice in Palestine, Direct Action for Palestine and Adalah and others. Are we nearing a point in time when Jewish students need to hide their Jewishness in order to feel safe on campus? Should they not wear their kippah (skull cap) in public? Are we now like Europe where Jews in major cities are told exactly that? They are told not to wear any Jewish-identifying garments in public; and to not linger outside Jewish places of worship.
Glick notes how in September of this year hundreds of protestors interfered with longshoremen who were to offload cargo from an Israeli ship. The ship was forced to unload its cargo in Los Angeles. Glick notes that none of the protesters were arrested.
Glick suggests supporting groups that help students on campus, such as StandWithUs, CAMERA, and the Zionist Organization of America and other similar groups. She believes Jewish lawyers should start filing lawsuits against groups that interfere with the speech and religious rights of Jewish students. (Personally, I might suggest making a complaint to the office of the Attorney General Eric Holder, Civil Rights Division. But let's be honest, if you are not black he's not likely to care.)
I am proud of, and thankful for, my Christian friends (and the millions of Christians whom I do not know) who are extremely supportive of Israel. Because today, anti-Semitism often takes the form of anti-Zionism and anti-Israel advocacy. And I remind my fellow Jews of that famous quote from 2000 years ago by Hillel: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?...And if not now, when?"
You Really Want to Elect These People?
With the election only two days away, here are just a few democrat viewpoints you should know. For my friends and readers who are democrats, are these the ideas and policies you want to see promulgated by your government?
Recently, Hillary Clinton said this: "Don't let anybody tell you it's corporations and businesses (that) create jobs." After getting some push back she subsequently backpedaled on that; but do not think for one minute it was just a slip of the tongue. It reflects leftist thinking that the government creates jobs. And it tracks Obama's comment from a couple of years ago: "If you've got a business - you didn't build that - somebody else made that happen."
Attorney General Eric Holder said this: "I think it's pretty clear that the need for wholesale change in that department (referring to the Ferguson P.D.) is appropriate." A white police officer shot Michael Brown, a black youth. Has the officer been charged with any crime? No. Is he likely to be charged with any crime? Not in this writer's opinion. But so what? Obama and Holder can only see race - not right and wrong.
You think Al Sharpton should be an adviser or confidante to the President of the United States? The same guy who supported the lies of young Tawana Brawley, who claimed she was raped by white men. It turned out to be a hoax, but Sharpton had already accused a white prosecutor of the crime. The prosecutor sued and won - but Sharpton refused to pay the judgment.
The same guy who did his best to raise tensions after a young man who was Hasidic accidentally drove his car into - and killed - a 7 year old black child. Al was there yelling "No justice, no peace," over a car accident. After 3 days of riots a young rabbinical student was murdered - beaten to death. Did that even the score for Al?
Or how about Al owing millions in back taxes? I think it's fairly clear that the IRS chooses who to go after - that would be Republicans and Tea Partiers under Obama. (Information in this paragraph and above two from an article in the WSJ of 10/25-26/14 by Heather MacDonald.)
None of the above keeps Al from being a host on one of MSNBC's shows, or having his own radio show, or being close to the President. Only 72 hours after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Sharpton was at the White House. "There's a trust factor with the Rev from the Oval Office on down," as told by a White House aide to Politico (and reported in Newsmax on 8/22/14). Which explains why Obama appeared with Sharpton at a rally in April, and also recently called into his radio show.
On the other hand, Obama does not have the same warm feelings for the leader of our closest Mid-East ally, Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Someone in the Obama Administration said this: "The thing about Bibi (Netanyahu's nickname) is, he's a chickenshit." Several years ago Netanyahu was at the White House and had to tell Obama directly that the 1967 borders (proposed by Obama and Kerry as the borders for a Palestinian state) were out of the question, because those borders could not be defended and would threaten the very existence of Israel.
But no fear. In his relentless pursuit of making deals - any deals - just so long as he can be the one who gets the credit, Obama is again sending Kerry to the Mid-East. He's got two years left in office to be the one to create "peace" between Israel and the Arabs. Because Obama believes that a piece of paper is all it takes for there to be peace.
Recall that Abbas wants to present the UN Security Council with a resolution establishing the state of "Palestine" based upon the 1967 borders. If such a resolution got the necessary 9 of 15 votes it would pass - unless it was vetoed by one of the five permanent members (the US, England, France, Russia and China). The question is - would Obama exercise the veto? According to my son (who is fluent in Hebrew) some of the Israeli press is reporting that Obama has threatened Netanyahu with the withholding of a veto. If that is true, it certainly sounds like an ultimatum - make "peace" with the Palestinians on Obama's terms or suffer defeat at the UN on the Palestinian's terms. Frankly, I am not sure that I can tell the difference.
On a positive note, I have heard from two moderate to liberal Jewish friends, indicating they are pretty much done with Obama, especially with regards to his mistreatment of Netanyahu and Israel. They seem to be willing to give the Republicans a chance. If the Republicans keep the House and take the Senate, Obama will still be in office for two more years. However, a Republican Congress may be able to lessen the harm that Obama might do during that time. Vote carefully my friends.
Recently, Hillary Clinton said this: "Don't let anybody tell you it's corporations and businesses (that) create jobs." After getting some push back she subsequently backpedaled on that; but do not think for one minute it was just a slip of the tongue. It reflects leftist thinking that the government creates jobs. And it tracks Obama's comment from a couple of years ago: "If you've got a business - you didn't build that - somebody else made that happen."
Attorney General Eric Holder said this: "I think it's pretty clear that the need for wholesale change in that department (referring to the Ferguson P.D.) is appropriate." A white police officer shot Michael Brown, a black youth. Has the officer been charged with any crime? No. Is he likely to be charged with any crime? Not in this writer's opinion. But so what? Obama and Holder can only see race - not right and wrong.
You think Al Sharpton should be an adviser or confidante to the President of the United States? The same guy who supported the lies of young Tawana Brawley, who claimed she was raped by white men. It turned out to be a hoax, but Sharpton had already accused a white prosecutor of the crime. The prosecutor sued and won - but Sharpton refused to pay the judgment.
The same guy who did his best to raise tensions after a young man who was Hasidic accidentally drove his car into - and killed - a 7 year old black child. Al was there yelling "No justice, no peace," over a car accident. After 3 days of riots a young rabbinical student was murdered - beaten to death. Did that even the score for Al?
Or how about Al owing millions in back taxes? I think it's fairly clear that the IRS chooses who to go after - that would be Republicans and Tea Partiers under Obama. (Information in this paragraph and above two from an article in the WSJ of 10/25-26/14 by Heather MacDonald.)
None of the above keeps Al from being a host on one of MSNBC's shows, or having his own radio show, or being close to the President. Only 72 hours after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Sharpton was at the White House. "There's a trust factor with the Rev from the Oval Office on down," as told by a White House aide to Politico (and reported in Newsmax on 8/22/14). Which explains why Obama appeared with Sharpton at a rally in April, and also recently called into his radio show.
On the other hand, Obama does not have the same warm feelings for the leader of our closest Mid-East ally, Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Someone in the Obama Administration said this: "The thing about Bibi (Netanyahu's nickname) is, he's a chickenshit." Several years ago Netanyahu was at the White House and had to tell Obama directly that the 1967 borders (proposed by Obama and Kerry as the borders for a Palestinian state) were out of the question, because those borders could not be defended and would threaten the very existence of Israel.
But no fear. In his relentless pursuit of making deals - any deals - just so long as he can be the one who gets the credit, Obama is again sending Kerry to the Mid-East. He's got two years left in office to be the one to create "peace" between Israel and the Arabs. Because Obama believes that a piece of paper is all it takes for there to be peace.
Recall that Abbas wants to present the UN Security Council with a resolution establishing the state of "Palestine" based upon the 1967 borders. If such a resolution got the necessary 9 of 15 votes it would pass - unless it was vetoed by one of the five permanent members (the US, England, France, Russia and China). The question is - would Obama exercise the veto? According to my son (who is fluent in Hebrew) some of the Israeli press is reporting that Obama has threatened Netanyahu with the withholding of a veto. If that is true, it certainly sounds like an ultimatum - make "peace" with the Palestinians on Obama's terms or suffer defeat at the UN on the Palestinian's terms. Frankly, I am not sure that I can tell the difference.
On a positive note, I have heard from two moderate to liberal Jewish friends, indicating they are pretty much done with Obama, especially with regards to his mistreatment of Netanyahu and Israel. They seem to be willing to give the Republicans a chance. If the Republicans keep the House and take the Senate, Obama will still be in office for two more years. However, a Republican Congress may be able to lessen the harm that Obama might do during that time. Vote carefully my friends.
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Democracy and the Constitution
In announcing the 10/5/14 post in my email, I gave a quote from James Madison. It read, in pertinent part: "In framing a government which is to administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." Where do we stand with respect to our belief in the American system of democratic and limited government as based on our Constitution?
On the one hand, the conservative majority of the Jefferson County School Board tried to change the history curriculum to reflect the "benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights," and not having classes that support or condone "civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law." Protests by teachers, students and others ensued immediately.
No doubt legitimate objections can be made to that policy. To give just one example, segregation was the law of the land for quite some time. Are we to discourage or denigrate the advances made by the civil rights movement? Of course not. However, I believe the School Board was on to something nonetheless. Clearly, they understood the assault on America and American values that occurs on a daily basis in our schools and universities.
There was an interesting opinion piece in the 9/27-9/28/14 weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal. In article entitled "Democracy Requires a Patriotic Education," Professor Emeritus Donald Kagan of Yale notes that: "We live in a time when civic devotion has been undermined and national unity is under attack." In this writer's opinion, we suffer at times a failure to teach the basics of American Civics and Government; at other times we see the assault on American values by left wing teachers.
For those of you who watched Jay Leno on the "Tonight" show, you saw him speaking to people on the street. The lack of appreciation for - and basic understanding of - how our government works was astounding. Many could not name the three branches of government, or the names of the Vice President and top cabinet officials. President Obama was in Los Angeles recently at a fundraiser hosted by Gwyneth Paltrow. Reflecting a complete lack of appreciation for, and understanding of how our government works, Ms. Paltrow said: "It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man (Obama) all of the power that he needs to pass the things he needs to pass."
I do understand Ms. Paltrow's viewpoint. What she is really saying, like so many on the left believe, is: 'I believe in a dictatorship, as long as it is a dictatorship of the left.' Ms. Paltrow suffers not only from a lack of education, but also from the leftist ideology which holds all leftist viewpoints supreme - over truth, democracy and the US Constitution.
Lest you think Ms. Paltrow is alone in her dangerous and idiotic viewpoint, we have this story out of Houston. The City Council and Mayor approved the "Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (H.E.R.O.)." It sounds good enough, as it bars discrimination based on various group identities: "sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity or pregnancy." However, this ordinance apparently allows men to use women's restrooms, and vice versa. Some Houston Pastors objected, and raised enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot. Or so they thought. The City declared that there were "irregularities" in the signatures and threw out the petition.
Thereafter, the Pastors filed a lawsuit in order to get the their petition approved and the measure put on the ballot. Then the City did this - they issued subpoenas to various Pastors asking for copies of "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to H.E.R.O., the petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession." It is difficult to imagine a greater attack on, and less appreciation for, the First Amendment to the Constitution, which protects both speech and religion. After initially defending the subpoenas, the City Attorney then seemed to say if the subpoenas were over broad they were issued by outside counsel, acting on behalf of the City Attorney's office.
It should be noted that Mayor Parker is the first openly lesbian mayor of Houston. It should also be noted that subpoenas were served on Pastors who did not even join in the lawsuit. If the subpoenas had simply inquired into the signature collection process, as that is the legal issue, fine. But Mayor Parker tweeted this: "If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermon are fair game." Really? At this point I wonder who has less understanding of our system of government - Parker or Paltrow?
I am curious, Madam Mayor, how the content of sermons is relevant to the legitimacy of the signatures obtained. And I am greatly concerned that because you believe some of the sermons might have "political" content, that that means you are entitled to copies. For what purpose? Do you intend to prosecute those Pastors for "hate speech" because they are advocating their religious views? Let's be clear; certain religious sermons can also be considered to contain political content - such as sermons on abortion or gay marriage. These are both religious and political issues. So what? Or is it your intent to suppress religious speech with which you disagree, giving us yet another example of leftist ideology trumping our American values, including the most basic values of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
So maybe Professor Kagan and the Jefferson County School Board have good points. Maybe it is not just Hollywood morons like Gwyneth Paltrow who need an education, but elected officials like Mayor Parker as well. Maybe, in fact, it is a systemic problem in our society that needs to be addressed - before it is too late.
My Dad graduated from high school in 1929. They had large and beautiful diplomas, listing all the high school subjects as well as the number of units each student took in each subject. Not surprisingly, he had the most units in English, with 20. But he also had 5 in Latin. And, most significantly, he not only had 2 1/2 in American History, but another 2 1/2 in "Community Civics" and yet another 2 1/2 in "Democracy." Sometimes older, not change, is better.
On the one hand, the conservative majority of the Jefferson County School Board tried to change the history curriculum to reflect the "benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights," and not having classes that support or condone "civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law." Protests by teachers, students and others ensued immediately.
No doubt legitimate objections can be made to that policy. To give just one example, segregation was the law of the land for quite some time. Are we to discourage or denigrate the advances made by the civil rights movement? Of course not. However, I believe the School Board was on to something nonetheless. Clearly, they understood the assault on America and American values that occurs on a daily basis in our schools and universities.
There was an interesting opinion piece in the 9/27-9/28/14 weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal. In article entitled "Democracy Requires a Patriotic Education," Professor Emeritus Donald Kagan of Yale notes that: "We live in a time when civic devotion has been undermined and national unity is under attack." In this writer's opinion, we suffer at times a failure to teach the basics of American Civics and Government; at other times we see the assault on American values by left wing teachers.
For those of you who watched Jay Leno on the "Tonight" show, you saw him speaking to people on the street. The lack of appreciation for - and basic understanding of - how our government works was astounding. Many could not name the three branches of government, or the names of the Vice President and top cabinet officials. President Obama was in Los Angeles recently at a fundraiser hosted by Gwyneth Paltrow. Reflecting a complete lack of appreciation for, and understanding of how our government works, Ms. Paltrow said: "It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man (Obama) all of the power that he needs to pass the things he needs to pass."
I do understand Ms. Paltrow's viewpoint. What she is really saying, like so many on the left believe, is: 'I believe in a dictatorship, as long as it is a dictatorship of the left.' Ms. Paltrow suffers not only from a lack of education, but also from the leftist ideology which holds all leftist viewpoints supreme - over truth, democracy and the US Constitution.
Lest you think Ms. Paltrow is alone in her dangerous and idiotic viewpoint, we have this story out of Houston. The City Council and Mayor approved the "Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (H.E.R.O.)." It sounds good enough, as it bars discrimination based on various group identities: "sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity or pregnancy." However, this ordinance apparently allows men to use women's restrooms, and vice versa. Some Houston Pastors objected, and raised enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot. Or so they thought. The City declared that there were "irregularities" in the signatures and threw out the petition.
Thereafter, the Pastors filed a lawsuit in order to get the their petition approved and the measure put on the ballot. Then the City did this - they issued subpoenas to various Pastors asking for copies of "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to H.E.R.O., the petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession." It is difficult to imagine a greater attack on, and less appreciation for, the First Amendment to the Constitution, which protects both speech and religion. After initially defending the subpoenas, the City Attorney then seemed to say if the subpoenas were over broad they were issued by outside counsel, acting on behalf of the City Attorney's office.
It should be noted that Mayor Parker is the first openly lesbian mayor of Houston. It should also be noted that subpoenas were served on Pastors who did not even join in the lawsuit. If the subpoenas had simply inquired into the signature collection process, as that is the legal issue, fine. But Mayor Parker tweeted this: "If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermon are fair game." Really? At this point I wonder who has less understanding of our system of government - Parker or Paltrow?
I am curious, Madam Mayor, how the content of sermons is relevant to the legitimacy of the signatures obtained. And I am greatly concerned that because you believe some of the sermons might have "political" content, that that means you are entitled to copies. For what purpose? Do you intend to prosecute those Pastors for "hate speech" because they are advocating their religious views? Let's be clear; certain religious sermons can also be considered to contain political content - such as sermons on abortion or gay marriage. These are both religious and political issues. So what? Or is it your intent to suppress religious speech with which you disagree, giving us yet another example of leftist ideology trumping our American values, including the most basic values of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
So maybe Professor Kagan and the Jefferson County School Board have good points. Maybe it is not just Hollywood morons like Gwyneth Paltrow who need an education, but elected officials like Mayor Parker as well. Maybe, in fact, it is a systemic problem in our society that needs to be addressed - before it is too late.
My Dad graduated from high school in 1929. They had large and beautiful diplomas, listing all the high school subjects as well as the number of units each student took in each subject. Not surprisingly, he had the most units in English, with 20. But he also had 5 in Latin. And, most significantly, he not only had 2 1/2 in American History, but another 2 1/2 in "Community Civics" and yet another 2 1/2 in "Democracy." Sometimes older, not change, is better.
My Ex-Son and Ex-Daughters
(For those readers new to this blog please note that I previously wrote about "My Ex-Wife" on July 20, 2014. This post covers the latest news on this topic.)
Out of Lincoln, Nebraska comes this story, as reported by Todd Starnes on FoxNews.com. The assault on gender distinctions continues - even in the Heartland. A memo was apparently sent to teachers advising them "Don't use phrases such as 'boys and girls,' 'you guys,' 'ladies and gentlemen' and similarly gendered expressions to get kids' attention."
Let's recap. In California, the terms "husband" and "wife" are eliminated from the law because of their inherent bias. In California public schools, boys who feel like girls can use the girls' restrooms and play on girls' sports teams, and vice versa. Although, I am not quite sure why there still exists separate teams or restrooms for boys and girls, given that boys and girls don't exist. In Houston, a city ordinance passed allowing adults to use any restroom they feel best suits their gender identity. Opponents refer to the ordinance as the "Sexual Predators Protection" act, or something to that effect. (More on other issues related to the Houston ordinance in the next post.)
So, back to Lincoln. Brenda Leggiardo, described as the school district's "coordinator of social workers and counselors," defended the memo: "The agenda we're promoting is to help all kids succeed." I'm confused. Exactly how does the elimination of distinctions help kids succeed? I thought things like a good education and good work ethics and good values helped kids succeed. But, if we are eliminating distinctions, how do we make sure some kids are not taller than others, or heavier, or more athletic, or smarter, and on and on. We can make sure that everyone is blond, however, assuming that is a worthy goal.
What if a teacher wants to divide the class into two groups? The memo suggests asking kids who likes milk and who likes juice; or who like skateboards and who likes bikes? When it reaches this level of absurdity there is nothing more to say. Or is there? While suggesting teachers do not use the words "boys" or "girls" they do have a possible replacement: "purple penguins!" Okay, now we've hit the maximum level of absurdity.
Maybe my readers can help me out. What should I call my adult son and two adult daughters? Yes, I can use their actual names, of course. And I can use "child" or "children," but those terms seem much less personal. I still use "my son" or "my boy" when speaking to or emailing my son. I still use "my girls" or (horrors!) "ladies" when speaking to or emailing my daughters.
What is prompting all this politically correct nonsense? As I have stated before, once we start changing definitions, then we are headed down a path for which the ultimate outcome remains unknown. Yes, it started with redefining "marriage." I would love to know how many in favor of that change support all the other predictable changes to our language. I only hope that it will never reach the point in my lifetime where my boy and girls stop calling me "Dad."
Out of Lincoln, Nebraska comes this story, as reported by Todd Starnes on FoxNews.com. The assault on gender distinctions continues - even in the Heartland. A memo was apparently sent to teachers advising them "Don't use phrases such as 'boys and girls,' 'you guys,' 'ladies and gentlemen' and similarly gendered expressions to get kids' attention."
Let's recap. In California, the terms "husband" and "wife" are eliminated from the law because of their inherent bias. In California public schools, boys who feel like girls can use the girls' restrooms and play on girls' sports teams, and vice versa. Although, I am not quite sure why there still exists separate teams or restrooms for boys and girls, given that boys and girls don't exist. In Houston, a city ordinance passed allowing adults to use any restroom they feel best suits their gender identity. Opponents refer to the ordinance as the "Sexual Predators Protection" act, or something to that effect. (More on other issues related to the Houston ordinance in the next post.)
So, back to Lincoln. Brenda Leggiardo, described as the school district's "coordinator of social workers and counselors," defended the memo: "The agenda we're promoting is to help all kids succeed." I'm confused. Exactly how does the elimination of distinctions help kids succeed? I thought things like a good education and good work ethics and good values helped kids succeed. But, if we are eliminating distinctions, how do we make sure some kids are not taller than others, or heavier, or more athletic, or smarter, and on and on. We can make sure that everyone is blond, however, assuming that is a worthy goal.
What if a teacher wants to divide the class into two groups? The memo suggests asking kids who likes milk and who likes juice; or who like skateboards and who likes bikes? When it reaches this level of absurdity there is nothing more to say. Or is there? While suggesting teachers do not use the words "boys" or "girls" they do have a possible replacement: "purple penguins!" Okay, now we've hit the maximum level of absurdity.
Maybe my readers can help me out. What should I call my adult son and two adult daughters? Yes, I can use their actual names, of course. And I can use "child" or "children," but those terms seem much less personal. I still use "my son" or "my boy" when speaking to or emailing my son. I still use "my girls" or (horrors!) "ladies" when speaking to or emailing my daughters.
What is prompting all this politically correct nonsense? As I have stated before, once we start changing definitions, then we are headed down a path for which the ultimate outcome remains unknown. Yes, it started with redefining "marriage." I would love to know how many in favor of that change support all the other predictable changes to our language. I only hope that it will never reach the point in my lifetime where my boy and girls stop calling me "Dad."
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Israel's Closest Allies?
In September both PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to the U.N. General Assembly at its annual meeting. It is worthwhile to read what these leaders said.
Once again Abbas referred to the establishment of the State of Israel as "Al-Nakba," the "catastrophe." He referred to Israel's defensive war over the summer with Hamas as "genocide," which was "unmatched in modern times." In reply, Netanyahu said: "Genocide? In what moral universe does genocide include warning the enemy's civilian population to get out of harm's way? Or ensuring that they receive tons, tons of humanitarian aid each day, even as thousands of rockets are being fired at us? Or setting up a field hospital to aid for their wounded?" You probably never read/heard in the mainstream media about the ongoing humanitarian aid or the field hospital during the war.
Genocide unmatched in modern times? Abbas is very good at the Big Lie. He never heard of the killing fields of Cambodia, Rwanda, Iraq, Syria or others. No, 2000 Palestinian deaths, substantially caused by Hamas putting their own people in harm's way, is "unmatched." Abbas repeatedly referred to Israel as "racist," forgetting that he has declared that no Jew may live in a future state of Palestine.
Abbas is good at propaganda. He knows the words the West wants to hear, so he engaged in other Big Lies. Abbas said the state of Palestine will be "living in peace and building bridges of mutual cooperation with its neighbors...(and) strengthen(s) the values of citizenship, equality, non-discrimination, the rule of law, (and) human rights and pluralism." Does he not know that his partner (Hamas) in their unity government summarily executed about 19 Palestinians based on allegations of aiding Israel during the recent war. The rule of law? These people were given no trial.
"Building bridges...with its neighbors." So how should we account for this comment: "...I affirm here today: we will not forget and we will not forgive." Does that sound like building bridges? Abbas also referred to "Palestinian enlightened traditions of tolerance, coexistence and non-exclusion." Who buys this nonsense? Tolerance? Not for Jews or Christians. Coexistence? The Palestinians had an opportunity for co-existence for 66 years - the same length of time that Israel has again existed. They passed it up in favor of war after war, intifada after intifada, and relentless suicide bombers and rockets and mortars. More recently, they refused a state offered by Israeli P.M. Barak in 2000, and again by Israeli P.M. Olmert in 2008 during Bush's Administration. Non-exclusion? See above comment about no Jews being allowed in any future Palestinian state.
Netanyahu rightly compared Hamas to ISIS, quoting the leaders of each with their expressed desires to rule the world. He went on to say that all the Islamic terrorist groups are branches of the same poisonous tree. Said Netanyahu: "The Nazis believed in a master race. The militant Islamists believe in a master faith."
President Obama also spoke at the U.N., stating that "the world will be more just with two states living side by side, in peace and security." Last week Obama met with Netanyahu. At the same time, those opposed to any building by Israel in their Capital city of Jerusalem, revealed that Israel had planned on authorizing over 2500 housing units in Jerusalem. The reaction by the Obama Administration and European Union was swift and harsh. Said State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki: "This development will only draw condemnation from the international community, distance Israel from even its closest allies," and poison its relations with the Palestinians and other Arab countries.
Josh Earnest on behalf of Obama was nearly identical in these coordinated comments: "This development will only draw condemnation from the international community." Both Psaki and Earnest claimed such a development would call into question Israel's commitment to peace. The European Union also questioned "Israel's commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement." Want to know what might call into question the Palestinians commitment to peace? NOTHING!
Not thousands of rockets and mortars aimed at Israeli cities this summer. Not tunnels built into Israel from Gaza for the sole purposes of killing/kidnapping Israelis. Not Hamas calling for Israel's destruction. Not Abbas saying no Jew may live in a state of Palestine. The list is endless - and that's the point here. There really is nothing whatsoever that the Palestinians can do or say that will lessen the West's commitment to their statehood.
There remains one leader willing to speak the truth; one who understands what is going on in the Middle East. His name is Benjamin Netanyahu. Said Netanyahu at the U.N.: "The Middle East is in chaos. States are disintegrating. Militant Islamists are filling the void. Israel cannot have territories from which it withdraws taken over by Islamic militants yet again, as happened in Gaza and Lebanon. That would place the likes of ISIS within mortar range - a few miles - of 80% of our population." He observed that the suburbs of Tel Aviv would be as close as Times Square is from the UN!
Next month the Palestinians will be able to get a resolution introduced at the UN Security Council calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders (Gaza, the West Bank and so called East Jerusalem). The measure will also seek some resolution of the "refugee" problem. Will Obama have the U.S. veto such a resolution? The State Department will not say. It will be after the midterm elections. He will not need Jewish votes or money anymore. A similar measure passed the General Assembly in 2012. However, the G.A. has no enforcement power; the Security Council does. The Security Council could send in U.N. troops in an effort to evict Israel from those lands. Would the the U.S. send in troops against Israel?
Let's be clear. Israel will never give up any part of Jerusalem. "East" Jerusalem contains the Old City - with the Western Wall (Kotel) and the Temple Mount, the holiest sites in Judaism. Biblically and historically Jerusalem is the home and focal point of the Jews. When Jordan controlled those Holy sites from 1949 to 1967 no Jews were allowed access. Under Jewish rule, all religions have access. The obvious outcome of such a resolution passing the U.N. Security Council will be war.
Said Netanyahu: "...as Prime Minister of Israel, I am entrusted with the awesome responsibility of ensuring the future of the Jewish people and the future of the Jewish state. And no matter what pressure is brought to bear, I will never waiver in fulfilling that responsibility."
Once again Abbas referred to the establishment of the State of Israel as "Al-Nakba," the "catastrophe." He referred to Israel's defensive war over the summer with Hamas as "genocide," which was "unmatched in modern times." In reply, Netanyahu said: "Genocide? In what moral universe does genocide include warning the enemy's civilian population to get out of harm's way? Or ensuring that they receive tons, tons of humanitarian aid each day, even as thousands of rockets are being fired at us? Or setting up a field hospital to aid for their wounded?" You probably never read/heard in the mainstream media about the ongoing humanitarian aid or the field hospital during the war.
Genocide unmatched in modern times? Abbas is very good at the Big Lie. He never heard of the killing fields of Cambodia, Rwanda, Iraq, Syria or others. No, 2000 Palestinian deaths, substantially caused by Hamas putting their own people in harm's way, is "unmatched." Abbas repeatedly referred to Israel as "racist," forgetting that he has declared that no Jew may live in a future state of Palestine.
Abbas is good at propaganda. He knows the words the West wants to hear, so he engaged in other Big Lies. Abbas said the state of Palestine will be "living in peace and building bridges of mutual cooperation with its neighbors...(and) strengthen(s) the values of citizenship, equality, non-discrimination, the rule of law, (and) human rights and pluralism." Does he not know that his partner (Hamas) in their unity government summarily executed about 19 Palestinians based on allegations of aiding Israel during the recent war. The rule of law? These people were given no trial.
"Building bridges...with its neighbors." So how should we account for this comment: "...I affirm here today: we will not forget and we will not forgive." Does that sound like building bridges? Abbas also referred to "Palestinian enlightened traditions of tolerance, coexistence and non-exclusion." Who buys this nonsense? Tolerance? Not for Jews or Christians. Coexistence? The Palestinians had an opportunity for co-existence for 66 years - the same length of time that Israel has again existed. They passed it up in favor of war after war, intifada after intifada, and relentless suicide bombers and rockets and mortars. More recently, they refused a state offered by Israeli P.M. Barak in 2000, and again by Israeli P.M. Olmert in 2008 during Bush's Administration. Non-exclusion? See above comment about no Jews being allowed in any future Palestinian state.
Netanyahu rightly compared Hamas to ISIS, quoting the leaders of each with their expressed desires to rule the world. He went on to say that all the Islamic terrorist groups are branches of the same poisonous tree. Said Netanyahu: "The Nazis believed in a master race. The militant Islamists believe in a master faith."
President Obama also spoke at the U.N., stating that "the world will be more just with two states living side by side, in peace and security." Last week Obama met with Netanyahu. At the same time, those opposed to any building by Israel in their Capital city of Jerusalem, revealed that Israel had planned on authorizing over 2500 housing units in Jerusalem. The reaction by the Obama Administration and European Union was swift and harsh. Said State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki: "This development will only draw condemnation from the international community, distance Israel from even its closest allies," and poison its relations with the Palestinians and other Arab countries.
Josh Earnest on behalf of Obama was nearly identical in these coordinated comments: "This development will only draw condemnation from the international community." Both Psaki and Earnest claimed such a development would call into question Israel's commitment to peace. The European Union also questioned "Israel's commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement." Want to know what might call into question the Palestinians commitment to peace? NOTHING!
Not thousands of rockets and mortars aimed at Israeli cities this summer. Not tunnels built into Israel from Gaza for the sole purposes of killing/kidnapping Israelis. Not Hamas calling for Israel's destruction. Not Abbas saying no Jew may live in a state of Palestine. The list is endless - and that's the point here. There really is nothing whatsoever that the Palestinians can do or say that will lessen the West's commitment to their statehood.
There remains one leader willing to speak the truth; one who understands what is going on in the Middle East. His name is Benjamin Netanyahu. Said Netanyahu at the U.N.: "The Middle East is in chaos. States are disintegrating. Militant Islamists are filling the void. Israel cannot have territories from which it withdraws taken over by Islamic militants yet again, as happened in Gaza and Lebanon. That would place the likes of ISIS within mortar range - a few miles - of 80% of our population." He observed that the suburbs of Tel Aviv would be as close as Times Square is from the UN!
Next month the Palestinians will be able to get a resolution introduced at the UN Security Council calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders (Gaza, the West Bank and so called East Jerusalem). The measure will also seek some resolution of the "refugee" problem. Will Obama have the U.S. veto such a resolution? The State Department will not say. It will be after the midterm elections. He will not need Jewish votes or money anymore. A similar measure passed the General Assembly in 2012. However, the G.A. has no enforcement power; the Security Council does. The Security Council could send in U.N. troops in an effort to evict Israel from those lands. Would the the U.S. send in troops against Israel?
Let's be clear. Israel will never give up any part of Jerusalem. "East" Jerusalem contains the Old City - with the Western Wall (Kotel) and the Temple Mount, the holiest sites in Judaism. Biblically and historically Jerusalem is the home and focal point of the Jews. When Jordan controlled those Holy sites from 1949 to 1967 no Jews were allowed access. Under Jewish rule, all religions have access. The obvious outcome of such a resolution passing the U.N. Security Council will be war.
Said Netanyahu: "...as Prime Minister of Israel, I am entrusted with the awesome responsibility of ensuring the future of the Jewish people and the future of the Jewish state. And no matter what pressure is brought to bear, I will never waiver in fulfilling that responsibility."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)