(Ed.'s note. Generally speaking, I author all the blog posts. There have been times when I have posted exchanges I have had with others - the Public Editor of the New York Times, a UCLA professor, a Holocaust scholar, and a friend. This post was written entirely by my son, as a letter to the Mayor of Reykjavik, Iceland. A motion was passed by the governing council of Reykjavik to boycott all products coming out of Israel. This follows on the heels of the proposal by the European Union to label all products coming out of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), because the Europeans, like Obama, believe that land belongs to the "Palestinians." There was also a push in the U.K. to have Netanyahu arrested for war crimes during his recent visit there. Following condemnation by Jewish Groups and others, the motion was amended to limit the boycott to products coming from the West Bank. The Mayor of Reykjavik expressed shock over the reaction to the proposed total boycott of all things Israeli. I wonder if this city council is also willing to boycott the large number of scientific and life-saving medical inventions developed by Israelis. And what's next for the anti-Semites? Bar all Jews? Or make them wear a yellow badge/Jewish star, as required by the Nazis? Where will it end? Anyway, for a related post, see "Letter to a College Student," posted 3/25/11.)
"My friends and I are traveling to Iceland one week from today. We are all Jews. We have been talking about this trip for over a year and words just can't do justice to describe how excited we are. Unfortunately, our upcoming trip will be marred by the misguided and short-sighted decision by your city to boycott all Israeli goods.
I am truly disappointed in your city's decision to boycott all Israeli products. One wonders why Reykjavik has yet to boycott China for occupying Tibet, India and Pakistan for occupying Kashmir, Turkey for occupying Cyprus, Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Turkey for not allowing the establishment of a Kurdish state, and on and on and on. It is therefore bewildering why the great city of Reykjavik has chosen to single out the one Jewish country in the world.
Surely before coming to this decision the members of the council educated themselves on the conflict. They must have learned that Israel was created by a UN decision that also granted the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine territory for a state of their own. They also undoubtedly were informed that while the Jews happily accepted this proposal, the Arabs rejected it and immediately started a war to fight, in the words of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time, "until the Zionists were annihilated." This war ended with the 1949 Armistice lines, also known as the '67 lines. These lines encompassed an area far smaller than what the Arabs were originally offered by the UN. However, like your city council, they too were driven by pure hatred of the Jews, and like you surely will too, they lost.
I am sure that the esteemed council members also learned that Israel is a vibrant democracy whose very declaration of independence extended equal rights to all of its citizens, regardless of race, religion, or gender. Are they aware that an Arab citizen currently sits on Israel's supreme court, and that the Arab population of Israel is represented by multiple parties in Israel's parliament? This despite the fact that these parties constantly work to undermine the security if Israel. How many Arab and Muslim-majority countries offer such protections to their minorities? Egypt, which incessantly harasses its Coptic Christian minority? Iran, which is infamous in its persecution of Kurds, Yazidis, Baha'i (whose beautiful headquarters is in the Israeli city of Haifa, I might add, due to their persecution in their native Iran), and homosexuals, just to name a few. Saudi Arabia, where women must be escorted in public by a male relative and are forbidden from driving? Or perhaps Jordan, whose citizenry is over 70% Palestinian yet is run by the small Hashemite clan? If the council members’ decision was truly driven by a concern for the oppressed and downtrodden, and not by blatant anti-Semitism, your city would have boycotted all of these countries long ago.
I am certain that as part of their history lesson the city council members also learned that there never has been an independent political entity in what was the Palestinian Mandate except for ancient Israel and the modern State of Israel. For 2,000 years the region was simply a neglected backwater of various empires, except for a short period when your European brothers came over and killed as many native Jews as possible.
One wonders why the creation of an Arab entity in the heart of the Jewish homeland is more important to Reykjavik than, for example, the creation of a state for the 20 million Kurds that are repressed by their host nations. One wonders why the Icelandic people bear such ill-will toward the Jews. When have the Jews ever caused any harm to the people or country of Iceland? In fact, when has the average Icelander ever even encountered a Jew? Surely, despite age-old claims that the Jews control financial institutions, you don't blame them for your country's economic crisis in 2008, do you?
Iceland is a small country of 100,250 square km surrounded by water, with no natural enemies. Israel is an even smaller country of only 20,330 square km surrounded by hundreds of millions of people who openly and proudly proclaim that they will never rest until Israel and all of its Jewish inhabitants are destroyed. It faces incessant rocket attacks from its southern border with the Gaza Strip and from its northern border with Hezbollah-controlled southern Lebanon. With the civil-war raging in Syria (which, mind you, has killed 300,000 people and displaced over 12 million people in 4 years, compared to about 100,000 deaths from 1945 until now in the Arab-Israeli conflict), and potential instability in neighboring Jordan due to the ISIS threat, does it really make sense for Israel to make itself even more vulnerable than it already is by allowing a human-rights abusing, terrorist-supporting entity to spring up right in its own backyard?
Despite your best efforts to malign this oft-persecuted people, my friends and I will still travel to Iceland next week. We debated returning the favor by boycotting Reykjavik, but we decided that we will not let a few hateful members of the city council ruin what will undoubtedly be a great experience for the four of us. We refuse to blame an entire nation for what we feel is a misguided and morally bankrupt decision on the part of several of its leaders. Instead, we will enjoy all that Reykjavik and Iceland have to offer, while remaining strong in our belief that Israel is unworthy of the constant and vicious opprobrium that it receives not only from Iceland, but from all across Europe. Though I will still come to your city and country, I will be very careful not to discuss my personal background while I am there. You have made it very clear that Reykjavik is an unwelcoming city not just towards Israelis, but towards all Jews, regardless of their country of origin. It is a shame, and also a bit ironic, that in claiming to support human rights and dignity, the city of Reykjavik is sparing no effort to take away the dignity of the Jewish people. Fortunately, the Jews are a strong people, and we will not be cowed by false morality from the anti-Semitic bastion that is Europe. Had your council members paid a bit more attention to their history lessons, they would have already known this too."
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Sunday, September 13, 2015
And Yet More Comments on the Iranian Nuclear Deal
The Iranian nuclear deal is arguably the most significant treaty entered into by the USA in decades. Yet Obama and the Democrats did not think it was of enough significance to actually allow a vote on it in the US Senate. 42 Democratic Senators blocked cloture, which resulted in not allowing a measure on the deal to come to a vote.
Of course, Obama had no interest in ever allowing input from the elected leaders of the people of the United States. He immediately took this deal to the UN for a vote of approval there, the UN being the entity he most relates to - not the Congress. When he wanted the most significant piece of domestic legislation passed - the ACA - he did have to go to Congress, and only succeeded in passing that on a single party vote after having to bribe some Senators in his own party to vote for it.
Perhaps the most cogent comment on this deal came from Senator Ted Cruz, who noted that the deal will free up over $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets, with billions likely going to terrorist groups who will use that money to have the wherewithal to murder Americans, Israelis and Europeans. Cruz: "If it (the deal) goes through the Obama Administration will become, quite literally, the world's leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism." Imagine that.
On the 9/9/15 O'Reilly Factor, they put up poll results from Pew for the period 9/3-9/7/15 regarding the deal. Only 21% of Americans approve of the deal, with 49% disapproving, and 30% saying they don't know. Apparently, a number of Democratic Senators who were holdouts were persuaded to support the deal when China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany said they would not reopen negotiations regardless of what the US does. So I would ask who those Senators just who is it that they believe they represent - the American people, or the Chinese, Russians and Europeans. Clearly, Obama has convinced his party that the world is a better place when other countries make decisions that affect the American people.
In his Talking Points memo of 9/9/15, O'Reilly said this: "Europe's refugee crisis is happening because the United States and Western Europe have retreated from the Middle East. Once President Obama removed all U.S. forces from Iraq, ISIS moved in and chaos broke out. The President doesn't acknowledge that his disengagement policy has led to thousands of deaths and Europe's refugee catastrophe."
But what does the refugee crisis have to do with the Iranian nuke deal? Plenty. Remember, Obama will not only side with Muslims - it is where his gut takes him - but with the most radical and extreme Muslims. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood; he withdrew from Iraq which allowed for the growth of ISIS, and then has engaged in a halfhearted effort to eliminate ISIS; and is releasing over $100 billion to the Mullahs while allowing them to keep their nuclear enrichment capability and obtain ICBMs.
This is Obama's foreign policy. Allow other countries to become more powerful, while weakening the US military. Both approaches have the result of making it more difficult for the US to assert itself anywhere in the world under future presidents. If the Ayatollahs have nukes - and to Obama's mind why shouldn't they if we do - then so be it. If ISIS ends up controlling Iraq, then so be it. His view of the world will always take precedence for him over any negative consequences that are likely to result.
So if hundreds of thousands or millions of Christians are displaced from their centuries old homes throughout the Middle East, and some are even slaughtered, so be it. If hundreds of thousands of Muslims are also displaced, and also killed, so be it. And if Israel should get wiped off the map by Iran, so be it.
After the Democrats successfully blocked any vote in the Senate on the deal, the White House proudly issued this statement: "Today, the Senate took an historic step forward and voted to enable the United States to work with our international partners to enable the implementation of the comprehensive, long-term deal that will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." The first lie is the "historic vote." It was only a vote to block cloture. A majority of both the House and Senate oppose the deal. The second lie is that Iran will be blocked from getting a nuke. Obama believes that as much as he believed "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
Obama wanted to be a consequential President. There is no doubt that he has been. Now, the rest of us, and the the rest of the world, will have to live with the consequences of his Presidency for many years to come.
Of course, Obama had no interest in ever allowing input from the elected leaders of the people of the United States. He immediately took this deal to the UN for a vote of approval there, the UN being the entity he most relates to - not the Congress. When he wanted the most significant piece of domestic legislation passed - the ACA - he did have to go to Congress, and only succeeded in passing that on a single party vote after having to bribe some Senators in his own party to vote for it.
Perhaps the most cogent comment on this deal came from Senator Ted Cruz, who noted that the deal will free up over $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets, with billions likely going to terrorist groups who will use that money to have the wherewithal to murder Americans, Israelis and Europeans. Cruz: "If it (the deal) goes through the Obama Administration will become, quite literally, the world's leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism." Imagine that.
On the 9/9/15 O'Reilly Factor, they put up poll results from Pew for the period 9/3-9/7/15 regarding the deal. Only 21% of Americans approve of the deal, with 49% disapproving, and 30% saying they don't know. Apparently, a number of Democratic Senators who were holdouts were persuaded to support the deal when China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany said they would not reopen negotiations regardless of what the US does. So I would ask who those Senators just who is it that they believe they represent - the American people, or the Chinese, Russians and Europeans. Clearly, Obama has convinced his party that the world is a better place when other countries make decisions that affect the American people.
In his Talking Points memo of 9/9/15, O'Reilly said this: "Europe's refugee crisis is happening because the United States and Western Europe have retreated from the Middle East. Once President Obama removed all U.S. forces from Iraq, ISIS moved in and chaos broke out. The President doesn't acknowledge that his disengagement policy has led to thousands of deaths and Europe's refugee catastrophe."
But what does the refugee crisis have to do with the Iranian nuke deal? Plenty. Remember, Obama will not only side with Muslims - it is where his gut takes him - but with the most radical and extreme Muslims. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood; he withdrew from Iraq which allowed for the growth of ISIS, and then has engaged in a halfhearted effort to eliminate ISIS; and is releasing over $100 billion to the Mullahs while allowing them to keep their nuclear enrichment capability and obtain ICBMs.
This is Obama's foreign policy. Allow other countries to become more powerful, while weakening the US military. Both approaches have the result of making it more difficult for the US to assert itself anywhere in the world under future presidents. If the Ayatollahs have nukes - and to Obama's mind why shouldn't they if we do - then so be it. If ISIS ends up controlling Iraq, then so be it. His view of the world will always take precedence for him over any negative consequences that are likely to result.
So if hundreds of thousands or millions of Christians are displaced from their centuries old homes throughout the Middle East, and some are even slaughtered, so be it. If hundreds of thousands of Muslims are also displaced, and also killed, so be it. And if Israel should get wiped off the map by Iran, so be it.
After the Democrats successfully blocked any vote in the Senate on the deal, the White House proudly issued this statement: "Today, the Senate took an historic step forward and voted to enable the United States to work with our international partners to enable the implementation of the comprehensive, long-term deal that will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." The first lie is the "historic vote." It was only a vote to block cloture. A majority of both the House and Senate oppose the deal. The second lie is that Iran will be blocked from getting a nuke. Obama believes that as much as he believed "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
Obama wanted to be a consequential President. There is no doubt that he has been. Now, the rest of us, and the the rest of the world, will have to live with the consequences of his Presidency for many years to come.
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
More Leftist Thinking
The University of Tennessee has an Office of Diversity and Inclusion. I suspect most/all universities do today. You can tell from the title that no good could come from such a bureaucratic entity. While claiming not to be official university policy, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion is quite concerned about the use of pronouns. Specifically, pronouns that identify one's sex.
In order to not "offend" anyone, they are encouraging the use of gender neutral pronouns, rather than pronouns such as "he" or "she" or "him" or "her." Here are some of their suggestions (no, I am not making this up): ze, hir, zir, xe, xem, xyr. Being from the east coast, I think I prefer dat, dem and dose.
This leftist need to make sure that no one is ever offended by anything is eerily similar to another group - Muslims. Recall the effort by the Organization of Islamic States to get a binding resolution at the UN to ban all offensive and derogatory speech against Islam. (Criticize the other religions all you want.) So, rather than protecting the exercise of free speech, we see an ever growing movement to protect overly sensitive people from speech.
But let's be honest, these people are taught to be overly sensitive, because they are "victims." To the left, everyone is a victim of something or other, except, of course, for white males.
Former star pitcher and then commentator for ESPN, Curt Schilling, found himself on the wrong side of the speech police. Tweeted Schilling: "It's said only 5-10 percent of Muslims are extremists. In 1940, only 7 percent of Germans were Nazis. How'd that go?" I have had discussions with liberals who tell me that only 5-10% of Muslims are radical. I point out that even 10% is 160 million people.
However, I have also pointed out that all Germans did not wake up the same morning and decide it would be a great idea to kill all the Jews. Rather, it was what Hitler and a small number of initial followers were able to get an entire country to do. Which was Schilling's point. But the truth does not prevail against the word police. So Schilling was suspended.
The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers Union has 37,000 members, and is apparently the first US union to join the BDS movement (Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel). The anti-Semites who run the union have adopted all the lies and propaganda put forth by the Palestinians. They want the US to cut off all aid to Israel in order to "pressure Israel to end its apartheid over the Palestinians." Not surprisingly, these people have no understanding of what true apartheid is. (See my 5/9/13 post entitled "An Open Letter to Professor Stephen Hawking.")
Said one union delegate: "It's absolutely disgusting what is going on. Free Palestine." I am not sure what is disgusting to that speaker, as Arab residents of Israel have better lives and more freedoms than do Arabs in Arab countries. What is disgusting, however, is the ongoing persecution, displacement and murder of Christians throughout North Africa and the Middle East - in Muslim countries.
Said Ron Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress: "When hundreds of thousands of Christians - men, women and children - are killed, this isn't a war, this is genocide." But Obama and other Western leaders have little to say about it. I wonder what, if anything, this union has to say about it.
In order to not "offend" anyone, they are encouraging the use of gender neutral pronouns, rather than pronouns such as "he" or "she" or "him" or "her." Here are some of their suggestions (no, I am not making this up): ze, hir, zir, xe, xem, xyr. Being from the east coast, I think I prefer dat, dem and dose.
This leftist need to make sure that no one is ever offended by anything is eerily similar to another group - Muslims. Recall the effort by the Organization of Islamic States to get a binding resolution at the UN to ban all offensive and derogatory speech against Islam. (Criticize the other religions all you want.) So, rather than protecting the exercise of free speech, we see an ever growing movement to protect overly sensitive people from speech.
But let's be honest, these people are taught to be overly sensitive, because they are "victims." To the left, everyone is a victim of something or other, except, of course, for white males.
Former star pitcher and then commentator for ESPN, Curt Schilling, found himself on the wrong side of the speech police. Tweeted Schilling: "It's said only 5-10 percent of Muslims are extremists. In 1940, only 7 percent of Germans were Nazis. How'd that go?" I have had discussions with liberals who tell me that only 5-10% of Muslims are radical. I point out that even 10% is 160 million people.
However, I have also pointed out that all Germans did not wake up the same morning and decide it would be a great idea to kill all the Jews. Rather, it was what Hitler and a small number of initial followers were able to get an entire country to do. Which was Schilling's point. But the truth does not prevail against the word police. So Schilling was suspended.
The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers Union has 37,000 members, and is apparently the first US union to join the BDS movement (Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel). The anti-Semites who run the union have adopted all the lies and propaganda put forth by the Palestinians. They want the US to cut off all aid to Israel in order to "pressure Israel to end its apartheid over the Palestinians." Not surprisingly, these people have no understanding of what true apartheid is. (See my 5/9/13 post entitled "An Open Letter to Professor Stephen Hawking.")
Said one union delegate: "It's absolutely disgusting what is going on. Free Palestine." I am not sure what is disgusting to that speaker, as Arab residents of Israel have better lives and more freedoms than do Arabs in Arab countries. What is disgusting, however, is the ongoing persecution, displacement and murder of Christians throughout North Africa and the Middle East - in Muslim countries.
Said Ron Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress: "When hundreds of thousands of Christians - men, women and children - are killed, this isn't a war, this is genocide." But Obama and other Western leaders have little to say about it. I wonder what, if anything, this union has to say about it.
Equal Justice? We'll See
Kim Davis is the County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. After the US Supreme Court declared gay marriage to be the law of the land in all fifty states, Ms. Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Based on her religious beliefs, Ms. Davis sought a stay, which was denied all the way up to the US Supreme Court. Thereafter, she still refused to issue licenses, citing her religious beliefs.
Now Ms. Davis must appear in Federal District Court Thursday morning, and face contempt charges as well as possible fines and imprisonment. Unlike the left, I respect Ms. Davis' religious beliefs. However, she has made a mistake. She refuses to resign her position, while also refusing to carry out the law. As a public official, it is her duty to execute the law; and as County Clerk she does not get to write the laws.
Resigning would allow her to not have to compromise her religious beliefs, albeit at the cost of losing her job. Adhering to one's beliefs does, at times, have negative consequences. I wonder if she will get off as easily as another public figure who broke the law.
In 2004, then San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the clerk for the city and county of San Francisco to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. At the time state law defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. State law controls over local or municipal ordinances and mayoral orders; just as federal law generally preempts state law. Mr. Newsom knew very well that he had no legal authority to supersede state law and issue marriage licenses. He did so nonetheless.
Mr. Newsom believed that to deny marriage licenses to gay couples was a denial of equal protection. But as San Francisco Mayor he had no authority to either write or interpret state law. After issuing several thousand licenses, the California Supreme Court ordered the mayor to stop, and declared the previously issued licenses to be void.
Having clearly violated state law, what punishment did Mr. Newsom face? No fines. No imprisonment. Instead, he went on to become Lieutenant Governor of California. When cities across the country declare that they are "sanctuary" cities, in violation of federal immigration laws, do those mayors and city council members in those sanctuary cities face fines and imprisonment? Of course not.
Admittedly, Mr. Newsom did stop issuing the marriage licenses to gay couples when ordered to do so. So he did not face contempt charges. But he knowingly violated state law with no negative consequences. It seems to this writer that one faces less risk when the violation of the law is on behalf of leftist causes. So tomorrow we will see if Ms. Davis gets a slap on the wrist only or is dealt with more harshly.
In declaring a constitutional right to gay marriage, Justice Kennedy wrote: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned."
In dissent, Justice Roberts wrote: "The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to "advocate" and "teach" their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to "exercise" religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses."
Now Ms. Davis must appear in Federal District Court Thursday morning, and face contempt charges as well as possible fines and imprisonment. Unlike the left, I respect Ms. Davis' religious beliefs. However, she has made a mistake. She refuses to resign her position, while also refusing to carry out the law. As a public official, it is her duty to execute the law; and as County Clerk she does not get to write the laws.
Resigning would allow her to not have to compromise her religious beliefs, albeit at the cost of losing her job. Adhering to one's beliefs does, at times, have negative consequences. I wonder if she will get off as easily as another public figure who broke the law.
In 2004, then San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the clerk for the city and county of San Francisco to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. At the time state law defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. State law controls over local or municipal ordinances and mayoral orders; just as federal law generally preempts state law. Mr. Newsom knew very well that he had no legal authority to supersede state law and issue marriage licenses. He did so nonetheless.
Mr. Newsom believed that to deny marriage licenses to gay couples was a denial of equal protection. But as San Francisco Mayor he had no authority to either write or interpret state law. After issuing several thousand licenses, the California Supreme Court ordered the mayor to stop, and declared the previously issued licenses to be void.
Having clearly violated state law, what punishment did Mr. Newsom face? No fines. No imprisonment. Instead, he went on to become Lieutenant Governor of California. When cities across the country declare that they are "sanctuary" cities, in violation of federal immigration laws, do those mayors and city council members in those sanctuary cities face fines and imprisonment? Of course not.
Admittedly, Mr. Newsom did stop issuing the marriage licenses to gay couples when ordered to do so. So he did not face contempt charges. But he knowingly violated state law with no negative consequences. It seems to this writer that one faces less risk when the violation of the law is on behalf of leftist causes. So tomorrow we will see if Ms. Davis gets a slap on the wrist only or is dealt with more harshly.
In declaring a constitutional right to gay marriage, Justice Kennedy wrote: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned."
In dissent, Justice Roberts wrote: "The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to "advocate" and "teach" their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to "exercise" religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses."
Sunday, August 23, 2015
Who Controls Your Right to Run a Business?
Out of Denver, Colorado, comes one of the more disturbing and dangerous left wing ideas to plague our country. It seems that a committee of the City Council was disturbed over an application by a Chick Fil-A franchise seeking to open a store at the Denver airport. You see, the owner of Chick Fil-A had previously expressed his personal belief that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman.
Some council members issued a statement that read in part: "Gay and lesbian families have been fighting for decades for full recognition of their relationships. Denver has been at the forefront of honoring gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees and their families..." But the owner of Chick Fil-A believes in the traditional definition of marriage, and has even contributed in the past to groups seeking to keep that definition.
So now, the Democratic members of the Denver City Council want to impose a political litmus test before granting anyone or any entity a license to do business in their town. Unfortunately, this is nothing new for democrats. For those of you new to the blog, I encourage you to go back and read my August 2, 2012 post entitled: "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat." In that post I discuss how the democratic mayors of four of the country's big cities (Chicago, San Francisco, Boston and Washington, D.C.) sought to block Chick Fil-A from opening in their communities.
If anyone is even remotely inclined to think that such a political litmus test is a good idea, here is a question for you. What if a town wanted to know from a Jewish business owner what their position is on the creation of a Palestinian state? Should the business owner have to share the left wing view on that issue before being granted a business license? Think that's far fetched? Hardly.
At the recent Rototom Sunsplash music festival in Spain, American Jewish reggae singer Matisyahu was invited, and then disinvited, to perform there. After some controversy, he was again invited. But the story reflects the dangers of demanding a political litmus test. At times, Matisyahu has expressed support for Israel. However, he declines to debate the issue of a Palestinian state, stating that he is a musician. As a musician he seeks to bring people together.
But the BDS (the goups that seek to Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel) movement would have none of it. They claimed that Mastisyahu is a Zionist who defends Israel, a state that "practices apartheid and ethnic cleansing." How is that for a political litmus test? If you support Israel you can not perform (work) in our concert. I am a Zionist. Should I be forbidden from making a living? Should I be denied a city business license based upon my political views?
But the Matisyahu story is out of Spain - that could never happen here. Think again. Earlier this year, a Jewish student at UCLA was almost denied a seat on the student government judicial board, based on her being Jewish! How's that for a litmus test? The applicant was asked this question: "Given that you're a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?"
If you still agree with this evil nonsense, then how about these questions. "Are you now, or have you ever been, a Jew?" "As a Jew, are you loyal to the United States of America or to Israel?" So let me be clear - if you are Jewish and continue to vote Democrat, these issues will be coming to you or your children soon.
Remember when we were all Americans? When you had a right to have your own religious and political beliefs? When conservative ideals were also American ideals - things like freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I believe many of you will come to regret your continued support for a party that seeks to marginalize those who do not adhere to left wing ideology. I just hope that by the time you recognize this danger that it is not too late.
Some council members issued a statement that read in part: "Gay and lesbian families have been fighting for decades for full recognition of their relationships. Denver has been at the forefront of honoring gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees and their families..." But the owner of Chick Fil-A believes in the traditional definition of marriage, and has even contributed in the past to groups seeking to keep that definition.
So now, the Democratic members of the Denver City Council want to impose a political litmus test before granting anyone or any entity a license to do business in their town. Unfortunately, this is nothing new for democrats. For those of you new to the blog, I encourage you to go back and read my August 2, 2012 post entitled: "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat." In that post I discuss how the democratic mayors of four of the country's big cities (Chicago, San Francisco, Boston and Washington, D.C.) sought to block Chick Fil-A from opening in their communities.
If anyone is even remotely inclined to think that such a political litmus test is a good idea, here is a question for you. What if a town wanted to know from a Jewish business owner what their position is on the creation of a Palestinian state? Should the business owner have to share the left wing view on that issue before being granted a business license? Think that's far fetched? Hardly.
At the recent Rototom Sunsplash music festival in Spain, American Jewish reggae singer Matisyahu was invited, and then disinvited, to perform there. After some controversy, he was again invited. But the story reflects the dangers of demanding a political litmus test. At times, Matisyahu has expressed support for Israel. However, he declines to debate the issue of a Palestinian state, stating that he is a musician. As a musician he seeks to bring people together.
But the BDS (the goups that seek to Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel) movement would have none of it. They claimed that Mastisyahu is a Zionist who defends Israel, a state that "practices apartheid and ethnic cleansing." How is that for a political litmus test? If you support Israel you can not perform (work) in our concert. I am a Zionist. Should I be forbidden from making a living? Should I be denied a city business license based upon my political views?
But the Matisyahu story is out of Spain - that could never happen here. Think again. Earlier this year, a Jewish student at UCLA was almost denied a seat on the student government judicial board, based on her being Jewish! How's that for a litmus test? The applicant was asked this question: "Given that you're a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?"
If you still agree with this evil nonsense, then how about these questions. "Are you now, or have you ever been, a Jew?" "As a Jew, are you loyal to the United States of America or to Israel?" So let me be clear - if you are Jewish and continue to vote Democrat, these issues will be coming to you or your children soon.
Remember when we were all Americans? When you had a right to have your own religious and political beliefs? When conservative ideals were also American ideals - things like freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I believe many of you will come to regret your continued support for a party that seeks to marginalize those who do not adhere to left wing ideology. I just hope that by the time you recognize this danger that it is not too late.
Who Controls Your Language?
Generally speaking, we communicate through language - through words. We express our ideas through words. We think with words. Therefore, the ability to control language can affect how people communicate, and how they think. As I have commented previously, the left has done an outstanding job of controlling and changing the language.
We know "abortion" is "a woman's right to choose." "Gay marriage" became "marriage equality." Phrased as such, only bigots and haters could be opposed to women controlling their bodies, or gays getting married, right? The latest development comes from Tennessee.
Apparently, the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts decided to change their court forms, replacing the words "mother" and "father" with "parent 1" and "parent 2." For those of you new to this blog, I would encourage you to go back and read my earlier post of July 20, 2014 entitled "My Ex-Wife." When the words "husband" and "wife" were removed from the California codes, I suggested that "mother" and "father" would be next. Both are based on sex/gender. But we know from the left that those concepts no longer exist.
In that earlier post I had suggested use of the terms "parent unit 1" and "parent unit 2." The State of Tennessee mostly agreed, although they removed the word "unit." After some backlash from actual moms and dads, who resented being called parent 1 or parent 2, the State relented and has gone back to using the old forms - for now. But I assure you that change is coming. After all, the US State Department already removed the words "mother" and "father" from passport applications. So all you moms and dads, enjoy it while you still can.
California tends to lead the nation in left wing crazy ideas. The latest is a bill that removed the word "alien" from the California Labor Code. California already provides driver's licenses to illegal aliens - I mean "California citizens". And, of course, those "citizens" also get the advantage of paying in-state tuition at California colleges and universities. And let's not forget healthcare. You would find it difficult to even locate the use of the expression "illegal alien" in any mainstream news outlet. Control the language - control how people think.
I think the 8/11/15 edition of the Los Angeles Times actually got it right. Said the Times: "The various benefits, rights and protections add up to something experts liken to a kind of California citizenship." Just how long do you think it will be until these "California citizens" are given the right to vote and hold elective office. To deny those rights would be discriminatory, would it not? After all, they are people too. Why should the happenstance of birth determine what rights and privileges we enjoy?
Whether you agree with that last proposition or not is of little import. After all, given Democrat control of California, we will be there soon enough.
We know "abortion" is "a woman's right to choose." "Gay marriage" became "marriage equality." Phrased as such, only bigots and haters could be opposed to women controlling their bodies, or gays getting married, right? The latest development comes from Tennessee.
Apparently, the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts decided to change their court forms, replacing the words "mother" and "father" with "parent 1" and "parent 2." For those of you new to this blog, I would encourage you to go back and read my earlier post of July 20, 2014 entitled "My Ex-Wife." When the words "husband" and "wife" were removed from the California codes, I suggested that "mother" and "father" would be next. Both are based on sex/gender. But we know from the left that those concepts no longer exist.
In that earlier post I had suggested use of the terms "parent unit 1" and "parent unit 2." The State of Tennessee mostly agreed, although they removed the word "unit." After some backlash from actual moms and dads, who resented being called parent 1 or parent 2, the State relented and has gone back to using the old forms - for now. But I assure you that change is coming. After all, the US State Department already removed the words "mother" and "father" from passport applications. So all you moms and dads, enjoy it while you still can.
California tends to lead the nation in left wing crazy ideas. The latest is a bill that removed the word "alien" from the California Labor Code. California already provides driver's licenses to illegal aliens - I mean "California citizens". And, of course, those "citizens" also get the advantage of paying in-state tuition at California colleges and universities. And let's not forget healthcare. You would find it difficult to even locate the use of the expression "illegal alien" in any mainstream news outlet. Control the language - control how people think.
I think the 8/11/15 edition of the Los Angeles Times actually got it right. Said the Times: "The various benefits, rights and protections add up to something experts liken to a kind of California citizenship." Just how long do you think it will be until these "California citizens" are given the right to vote and hold elective office. To deny those rights would be discriminatory, would it not? After all, they are people too. Why should the happenstance of birth determine what rights and privileges we enjoy?
Whether you agree with that last proposition or not is of little import. After all, given Democrat control of California, we will be there soon enough.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
What Obama's Iran Deal Speech Tells Us...About Obama
On August 5, Obama spoke at American University, giving a speech encouraging support for his Iran nuclear deal. It is worthwhile to take a look at some of his comments - not for what he tells us about the deal, but for what it tells us about Obama.
After discussing the threat of war President Kennedy faced with the USSR, Obama said: "But the young President offered a different vision...with Kennedy at the helm, the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved peacefully." After Kennedy was told that the Russians were moving nuclear missiles to Cuba, he ultimately ordered a naval blockade of Cuba. Had Russian ships breached the blockade, we might very well have had war.
But let's be clear - a naval blockade is an act of war. Imagine if Obama was President in 1962. Who believes he would have ordered a blockade? Anyone doubt that he would have come to the American people announcing that he made a deal with Russia in order to avoid war? Anyone doubt that there would have been some agreed number of nuclear armed missiles in Cuba since 1962, with Russia being able to hold that threat over our heads ever since?
Obama: "...as Congress decides whether to support this historic diplomatic breakthrough or instead blocks it over the objection of the vast majority of the world." The last I looked it was Congress that represents the interests of the American people - not the UN, not Russia, not China, not the U.K., not France and not Germany. But Obama has never believed in our system of three co-equal branches of government. He very much believes in the UN, an entity run by dictators, Islamic states, and leftist Western democracies.
Obama: "...many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal." Unless you are a complete pacifist and do not believe in war ever, then you understand that Iraq and Iran are two very different issues. But just to remind Obama, Senators voting in favor of the Iraq war resolution included: John Kerry, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. Oops.
Obama: "...because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support." Obama could have said: "virtually every country in the world supports this deal." Why did he choose to publicly single out Israel? He did so because from day one he has sought to lessen the support the American people have for Israel. And that approach has substantially worked among rank and file democrats. And just to be clear, the Arab Sunni states have also voiced their displeasure with this deal.
Obama: "Now the final criticism, this is sort of catchall that you may hear, is the notion that there is a better deal to be had...I have repeatedly challenged anyone opposed to this deal to put forward a better, plausible alternative. I have yet to hear one." The purpose of this post is not to rehash all the arguments against this deal, and all the ways it could have been better. See the prior posts for that. Rather, notwithstanding all the alternatives put forth by Republicans in Congress and conservative commentators, Obama has heard nothing. And he says it with a straight face.
Obama: "It's those hardliners (in Iran) chanting "Death to America" who have been most opposed to the deal. They're making common cause with the Republican caucus." Once again, the Divider-in-Chief reveals his true nature. NEVER give any legitimacy to your opponents. In fact, demonize them and equate them with terrorists. It's straight out of the Saul Alinsky handbook.
So, this speech is a reflection of Obama's approach over the last 6 1/2 years: divide, lie, misrepresent, demonize your opposition, and, of course, isolate Israel. Perhaps the 8/7/15 Investor's Business Daily said it best: "Has there ever been a president who so depends on the ignorance of those listening to him?" I would only add: why not? It works so often.
After discussing the threat of war President Kennedy faced with the USSR, Obama said: "But the young President offered a different vision...with Kennedy at the helm, the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved peacefully." After Kennedy was told that the Russians were moving nuclear missiles to Cuba, he ultimately ordered a naval blockade of Cuba. Had Russian ships breached the blockade, we might very well have had war.
But let's be clear - a naval blockade is an act of war. Imagine if Obama was President in 1962. Who believes he would have ordered a blockade? Anyone doubt that he would have come to the American people announcing that he made a deal with Russia in order to avoid war? Anyone doubt that there would have been some agreed number of nuclear armed missiles in Cuba since 1962, with Russia being able to hold that threat over our heads ever since?
Obama: "...as Congress decides whether to support this historic diplomatic breakthrough or instead blocks it over the objection of the vast majority of the world." The last I looked it was Congress that represents the interests of the American people - not the UN, not Russia, not China, not the U.K., not France and not Germany. But Obama has never believed in our system of three co-equal branches of government. He very much believes in the UN, an entity run by dictators, Islamic states, and leftist Western democracies.
Obama: "...many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal." Unless you are a complete pacifist and do not believe in war ever, then you understand that Iraq and Iran are two very different issues. But just to remind Obama, Senators voting in favor of the Iraq war resolution included: John Kerry, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. Oops.
Obama: "...because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support." Obama could have said: "virtually every country in the world supports this deal." Why did he choose to publicly single out Israel? He did so because from day one he has sought to lessen the support the American people have for Israel. And that approach has substantially worked among rank and file democrats. And just to be clear, the Arab Sunni states have also voiced their displeasure with this deal.
Obama: "Now the final criticism, this is sort of catchall that you may hear, is the notion that there is a better deal to be had...I have repeatedly challenged anyone opposed to this deal to put forward a better, plausible alternative. I have yet to hear one." The purpose of this post is not to rehash all the arguments against this deal, and all the ways it could have been better. See the prior posts for that. Rather, notwithstanding all the alternatives put forth by Republicans in Congress and conservative commentators, Obama has heard nothing. And he says it with a straight face.
Obama: "It's those hardliners (in Iran) chanting "Death to America" who have been most opposed to the deal. They're making common cause with the Republican caucus." Once again, the Divider-in-Chief reveals his true nature. NEVER give any legitimacy to your opponents. In fact, demonize them and equate them with terrorists. It's straight out of the Saul Alinsky handbook.
So, this speech is a reflection of Obama's approach over the last 6 1/2 years: divide, lie, misrepresent, demonize your opposition, and, of course, isolate Israel. Perhaps the 8/7/15 Investor's Business Daily said it best: "Has there ever been a president who so depends on the ignorance of those listening to him?" I would only add: why not? It works so often.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)