As college students are treated like children by their leftist professors and college administrators, and are provided "safe zones" from speech they may find offensive, the belief in the First Amendment is rapidly being extinguished. A Pew Research Poll from April and May, 2015 shows declining support for speech from generation to generation. Support for the government to prevent free - but offensive - speech now reaches 40% of millennials, compared to 27% for Gen-Xers (ages 35-40), 24% for Boomers (ages 51-69) and only 12% of the Silent generation (ages 70-89). I wonder what the generation that fought and defeated the Nazis - the Greatest Generation - would think of today's enfeebled generation.
In Utah's Salem Junior High School, freshmen students were given a rather unusual assignment. They were told to create a propaganda poster for a terrorist organization, such as ISIS. This is how the left believes we get insight into why terrorists do what they do. The left always feels a need to "understand" evil. Here's a clue - there is good and evil in this world, period. Currently, nearly all terrorists are driven by the same ideology - Islam. Yes, I know that all Muslims do not share the same interpretation of Islam; but contrary to the beliefs of leftists/Democrats, Islam is the motivating factor for terrorists.
The name for the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University has to go. Wilson had been president of Princeton, then Governor of New Jersey and then US President. But, Wilson was a racist. The NY Times supported changing the name of that school because of Wilson's "toxic legacy." Said one letter writer to the Times: "Why stop with Woodrow Wilson? Take Washington, Jefferson and Jackson off the $1, $2 and $20 bills...and their names off all public places. They were slave owners." Said another writer: "If the message is that leadership can't be accompanied by blemishes, what member of this self-aware generation will be willing to stand up to lead?"
The Truth-Uncensored has previously expressed our displeasure with the changing of historic definitions, such as for marriage. Now, the left wants to rewrite history altogether. Will we rewrite history and get rid of all references to Wilson, Washington, Jefferson, Jackson and others? Or, are we willing to accept the "blemishes" of past leaders, understanding that like most of us they were molded by the times in which they lived.
The Swedish Foreign Minister was asked why people get radicalized and fight for ISIS. With her leftist view of the world she replied: "Here, once again, we are brought back to situations like the one in the Middle East, where not least, the Palestinians see that there isn't a future. We must either accept a situation or resort to violence." Aside from the historical inaccuracy, it is another example of the left explaining and even justifying terrorism.
Our Secretary of State, John Kerry, was not to be outdone and gave his own justification for Islamic terror. "There's something different about what happened (referring to the recent Paris attacks) from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. (No, we would not, you moron!) There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of...not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they're really angry because of this and that. This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate, it wasn't to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong..."
How embarrassing that this man is Secretary of State. A "legitimacy" or "rationale" to the Charlie Hebdo attacks. What would that be Mr. Kerry? The terrorists killed people at Charlie Hebdo for exercising what would be their First Amendment rights in the USA. And that gives a certain legitimacy or rationale? "Moron" is not nearly a strong enough term to describe Kerry, but as readers of the Truth-Uncensored know, this blog is an intellectual discussion of real issues, and "moron" is the worst I will say in the blog. However, regardless of how moronic his comments are, they do reflect leftist thinking.
Obama wants to keep bringing in more and more Syrian refugees to the US, while many states are saying they do not want them. The Feds are now threatening the states, advising them they have no legal authority to refuse the refugees. House Judiciary Chairman, Bob Goodlatte, R-Va, noted the irony in the Administration's threat. Said Goodlatte: "It's hypocritical for Obama Administration officials to threaten enforcement action against these states when they refuse to enforce the vast majority of our immigration laws, such as cracking down on sanctuary cities that openly defy federal law and endanger the American people."
The Truth-Uncensored has written extensively on the harm ("fundamental change" per Obama) done by the left. From negating the importance of the First Amendment's freedoms of speech and religion, to the right to keep and bear arms, to controlling who gets to run a business based on their political beliefs, the left seeks to undermine basic American values. Who knew that today's leftists would turn out to be supporters of Joe McCarthy, although, they probably do not know who McCarthy was, or how they ideologically align with him. If you agree with all of this you should vote for Hillary Clinton. If you disagree but will vote for Hillary anyway - shame on you!
Thursday, November 26, 2015
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Another Paris Massacre, Part II
After the Paris attacks Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this: "The time has come for countries to condemn terrorism against us to the same degree that they condemn terrorism everywhere else in the world." And in light of all the recent stabbings and other attacks against Israelis, Netanyahu said this: "We are not to blame for the terrorism directed against us, just as the French are not to blame for the terrorism directed against them."
These attacks in Paris were horrific and savage. Every human being should have sympathy for the victims and their families and friends. The perpetrators are/were evil. But I have bad news for Netanyahu - the French do not and will not connect the dots. The French government often leads the EU in their criticism of Israel, and yes - blaming Israel for the terrorist attacks inflicted on them by radical Muslims. But, because the radical Muslims attacking Israel are "Palestinians" they get a pass from France and the EU.
The West Bank and Golan Heights are far from being the only disputed land areas in the world. But with Jews on one side, it is the only one to which France and the EU pays attention. Why is that? Because anti-Semitism remains rampant throughout Europe. What about Kashmir, disputed territory between India and Pakistan? What about the dispute between China and Japan over islands in the South China Sea? And what about Russian aggression in taking the Crimea from the Ukraine? These are just a few of many land disputes in the world. But France and the EU saves its condemnation for the one Jewish state.
What have the French and EU learned as they take in increasing numbers of Muslims, and as Jews are leaving, often for Israel, in increasing numbers? Jews are leaving because life in Europe has become increasingly dangerous for them, especially in France. France no longer labels Hamas a terrorist organization, but they do label goods from Judea and Samaria. So while I feel for all the individuals affected by the Paris attacks, I do not have the same feeling for the French government. They remain steadfast in their inability/refusal to connect the dots; to see that Islamic terrorism against Israelis is no different than Islamic terrorism against the French.
Said one writer in the Jewish Press (Ari Fuld): "We (Israelis) told them (Europeans) this (Palestinian terror) was not about land or occupation, but they didn't listen! They pressured us to make deals with those who shoot us, blow us up and stab us, and when we refuse to do so, they condemn us." In fact, France continues to push for a resolution at the UN Security Council establishing a terrorist Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders. That would establish a Palestinian state within miles of Israel's main population centers in and around Tel Aviv. And, of course, the resolution would require Israel to relinquish the holy sites in so-called "East Jerusalem," because we know the Muslims have such a great history of protecting Jewish holy sites.
I am in favor of the French government having to surrender "East Paris" to Muslim control. If ISIS and Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups enter, then oh well. That is what they are asking of the Israelis.
The French news agency, AFP (Agence France-Presse), posted a list of some of the large scale terror attacks by radical Islamists since the 9/11 attacks here. Somehow, the list made no mention of any of the numerous terrorist attacks in Israel since 9/11. Not the 1/5/03 attack at a Tel Aviv bus station killing 22 and wounding 120. Nor the 8/19/03 bus attack killing 23 and wounding 130, to name just 2 omissions from the list.
Ordinarily, this is a blog about politics and culture, not religion. But one reference to the Torah is apropos here. G-d told Abraham to leave the home of his ancestors and travel to the land of Canaan (later known as Israel). And G-d told Abraham, recognized as the first Jew, "I will bless those who bless you, and those who curse you I will curse." Maybe the secular French and Europeans should take note.
These attacks in Paris were horrific and savage. Every human being should have sympathy for the victims and their families and friends. The perpetrators are/were evil. But I have bad news for Netanyahu - the French do not and will not connect the dots. The French government often leads the EU in their criticism of Israel, and yes - blaming Israel for the terrorist attacks inflicted on them by radical Muslims. But, because the radical Muslims attacking Israel are "Palestinians" they get a pass from France and the EU.
The West Bank and Golan Heights are far from being the only disputed land areas in the world. But with Jews on one side, it is the only one to which France and the EU pays attention. Why is that? Because anti-Semitism remains rampant throughout Europe. What about Kashmir, disputed territory between India and Pakistan? What about the dispute between China and Japan over islands in the South China Sea? And what about Russian aggression in taking the Crimea from the Ukraine? These are just a few of many land disputes in the world. But France and the EU saves its condemnation for the one Jewish state.
What have the French and EU learned as they take in increasing numbers of Muslims, and as Jews are leaving, often for Israel, in increasing numbers? Jews are leaving because life in Europe has become increasingly dangerous for them, especially in France. France no longer labels Hamas a terrorist organization, but they do label goods from Judea and Samaria. So while I feel for all the individuals affected by the Paris attacks, I do not have the same feeling for the French government. They remain steadfast in their inability/refusal to connect the dots; to see that Islamic terrorism against Israelis is no different than Islamic terrorism against the French.
Said one writer in the Jewish Press (Ari Fuld): "We (Israelis) told them (Europeans) this (Palestinian terror) was not about land or occupation, but they didn't listen! They pressured us to make deals with those who shoot us, blow us up and stab us, and when we refuse to do so, they condemn us." In fact, France continues to push for a resolution at the UN Security Council establishing a terrorist Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders. That would establish a Palestinian state within miles of Israel's main population centers in and around Tel Aviv. And, of course, the resolution would require Israel to relinquish the holy sites in so-called "East Jerusalem," because we know the Muslims have such a great history of protecting Jewish holy sites.
I am in favor of the French government having to surrender "East Paris" to Muslim control. If ISIS and Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups enter, then oh well. That is what they are asking of the Israelis.
The French news agency, AFP (Agence France-Presse), posted a list of some of the large scale terror attacks by radical Islamists since the 9/11 attacks here. Somehow, the list made no mention of any of the numerous terrorist attacks in Israel since 9/11. Not the 1/5/03 attack at a Tel Aviv bus station killing 22 and wounding 120. Nor the 8/19/03 bus attack killing 23 and wounding 130, to name just 2 omissions from the list.
Ordinarily, this is a blog about politics and culture, not religion. But one reference to the Torah is apropos here. G-d told Abraham to leave the home of his ancestors and travel to the land of Canaan (later known as Israel). And G-d told Abraham, recognized as the first Jew, "I will bless those who bless you, and those who curse you I will curse." Maybe the secular French and Europeans should take note.
Another Paris Massacre, Part I
This past Friday ISIS terrorists attacked innocent civilians at various venues in Paris. The attacks occurred outside the Stade de France during a soccer match, with the French President in attendance; at the Bataclan during a rock concert by a Southern California band; and at popular restaurants. The terrorists had assault weapons, grenades and wore suicide/homicide vests. It was clearly a well planned and coordinated attack, leaving at least 132 dead, and over 350 wounded.
Today, French jets were bombing ISIS targets in Raqqa, Syria, an ISIS stronghold. This, of course, was the second Islamic terrorist attack in Paris this year, the first being in January at Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish kosher market.
At the Democratic debate last night, the candidates were asked if they agreed with Marco Rubio's assessment that "we are at war with radical Islam." As is typical for Democrats, including Obama, Clinton did not agree. Clinton said she did not find that phrase to be "particularly helpful." Why is it not helpful to identify the enemy? Said Clinton: "I don't think we're at war with Islam," and "I don't think we're at war with all Muslims." Who said that we are? No one. Clearly, however, we are at war with radical Islam/Islamism.
Why is it so hard for these Democrats to tell the truth? Are peaceful Muslims unable to understand the difference between themselves and the radical ones who want to destroy Western Civilization? What is the problem? Clinton did go on to say that "I think we're at war with jihadists." Jihad is an Islamic concept, not a Christian or Jewish or Hindu one. Why can't they acknowledge the connection?
The other two candidates, Sanders and O'Malley were no better. In fact, it gets worse. Both Clinton and O'Malley said that the US should accept 65,000 refugees from the Middle East, with the qualification that they be carefully screened. Just how is that possible? Will we send FBI agents to run background checks on 65,000 people from Syria and Iraq? Just how reliable would any of that information be? And how many FBI agents would we need? They may as well use the approach jokingly suggested by my daughter - give them all a 3X5 index card asking "Are you an ISIS member or supporter, please check "yes" or "no." That ought to work.
Sanders also agreed that we need to take in Middle Eastern refugees. And, never one to disappoint, Sanders said this: "climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism." If this were said on Saturday Night Live it would be funny. Coming from a serious Presidential candidate, it is moronic. You know what's directly related to the growth of terrorism? Radical Islam. And what's directly related to the growth of radical Islam? The break-up of various Middle Eastern and North African countries, where central governments (former dictators) are no longer in power. (No, I am not going to use this post to discuss the relative responsibility of Bush vs. Obama.)
Speaking of moronic comments, our President was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America and was asked: "ISIS is gaining strength, aren't they?" To which Obama replied: "I don't think they're gaining strength...we have them contained." Contained? Admittedly, he could not know about the attacks in Paris occurring only hours later. But what about the Beirut attacks killing 40? What about the downing of the Russian jet killing 244? What about FBI Director James Comey saying the FBI has 900 active investigations into ISIS operatives in the US? Does any of that suggest "containment?" And again, why can't a Democrat tell the truth about ISIS?
Earlier this past week, the European Union voted to label products coming from the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and the Golan Heights. The EU believes that land belongs to the "Palestinians," even though no Palestinian state ever existed there. Nevertheless, the EU declared that goods from those areas may not have the label "Made in Israel." Unfortunately, Obama has no issue with the EU, with his State Department saying "we do not believe that labeling the origin of products is equivalent to a boycott." And: "...as you know, we do not consider settlements to be part of Israel."
So why do I bring up this issue of labeling in a post about the Paris massacre? For my somewhat controversial take, see Part II.
Today, French jets were bombing ISIS targets in Raqqa, Syria, an ISIS stronghold. This, of course, was the second Islamic terrorist attack in Paris this year, the first being in January at Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish kosher market.
At the Democratic debate last night, the candidates were asked if they agreed with Marco Rubio's assessment that "we are at war with radical Islam." As is typical for Democrats, including Obama, Clinton did not agree. Clinton said she did not find that phrase to be "particularly helpful." Why is it not helpful to identify the enemy? Said Clinton: "I don't think we're at war with Islam," and "I don't think we're at war with all Muslims." Who said that we are? No one. Clearly, however, we are at war with radical Islam/Islamism.
Why is it so hard for these Democrats to tell the truth? Are peaceful Muslims unable to understand the difference between themselves and the radical ones who want to destroy Western Civilization? What is the problem? Clinton did go on to say that "I think we're at war with jihadists." Jihad is an Islamic concept, not a Christian or Jewish or Hindu one. Why can't they acknowledge the connection?
The other two candidates, Sanders and O'Malley were no better. In fact, it gets worse. Both Clinton and O'Malley said that the US should accept 65,000 refugees from the Middle East, with the qualification that they be carefully screened. Just how is that possible? Will we send FBI agents to run background checks on 65,000 people from Syria and Iraq? Just how reliable would any of that information be? And how many FBI agents would we need? They may as well use the approach jokingly suggested by my daughter - give them all a 3X5 index card asking "Are you an ISIS member or supporter, please check "yes" or "no." That ought to work.
Sanders also agreed that we need to take in Middle Eastern refugees. And, never one to disappoint, Sanders said this: "climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism." If this were said on Saturday Night Live it would be funny. Coming from a serious Presidential candidate, it is moronic. You know what's directly related to the growth of terrorism? Radical Islam. And what's directly related to the growth of radical Islam? The break-up of various Middle Eastern and North African countries, where central governments (former dictators) are no longer in power. (No, I am not going to use this post to discuss the relative responsibility of Bush vs. Obama.)
Speaking of moronic comments, our President was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America and was asked: "ISIS is gaining strength, aren't they?" To which Obama replied: "I don't think they're gaining strength...we have them contained." Contained? Admittedly, he could not know about the attacks in Paris occurring only hours later. But what about the Beirut attacks killing 40? What about the downing of the Russian jet killing 244? What about FBI Director James Comey saying the FBI has 900 active investigations into ISIS operatives in the US? Does any of that suggest "containment?" And again, why can't a Democrat tell the truth about ISIS?
Earlier this past week, the European Union voted to label products coming from the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and the Golan Heights. The EU believes that land belongs to the "Palestinians," even though no Palestinian state ever existed there. Nevertheless, the EU declared that goods from those areas may not have the label "Made in Israel." Unfortunately, Obama has no issue with the EU, with his State Department saying "we do not believe that labeling the origin of products is equivalent to a boycott." And: "...as you know, we do not consider settlements to be part of Israel."
So why do I bring up this issue of labeling in a post about the Paris massacre? For my somewhat controversial take, see Part II.
Friday, November 6, 2015
The Culture Wars, Part III
Senator Ted Cruz had introduced a measure in the US Senate commonly referred to as "Kate's Law." Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco, an immigrant who had been deported from the US at least five times. This criminal already had a lengthy criminal history of seven felony convictions.
The purpose behind the law was quite simple - to discourage criminals who had been deported from attempting to sneak back in to the US. If such an individual were caught after reentering the country they would face a mandatory five year prison sentence.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid was able to block the measure from coming to a vote. Under Senate rules, 60 votes are needed to bring a measure to the floor for a vote of the full Senate. The Republicans have only 54 seats, allowing Reid to still have control over the Senate's business, even though he is no longer Majority Leader.
Said Reid: "All we've seen from Republican leaders and their caucus is bills that attack immigrants and tear families apart. So I object." In reply, Cruz said this: "When the Democratic leader suggests that incarcerating aggravated felons, murderers and rapists who illegally reenter this country is somehow a sleight to immigrants - well, Mr. President, I am a son of an immigrant who came from Cuba. There is no one in this chamber who will fight harder for legal immigrants than I will."
Bill O'Reilly was a huge supporter of Kate's Law. After Reid blocked a Senate vote, O'Reilly was furious and said: "Mr. Reid is a liar and a villain. This has nothing to do with the so-called immigrant community. This is about fixing a corrupt criminal situation."
The murderer of Kate Steinle was actually in the custody of San Francisco's Sheriff on unrelated charges when the Feds requested they he be held until the Feds could pick him up for immigration violations. However, when the local prosecutor decided not to pursue charges against the soon to be murderer, the Sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi, declined to keep the man in custody. Shortly after his release he killed Ms. Steinle.
Another positive result of this past Tuesday's election is that Sheriff Mirkarimi was soundly defeated by the challenger, garnering only 33% of the vote, with the victor getting 61%.
As I mentioned in Part II, the Democrats equate illegal immigrants, even criminal illegal immigrants, with legal immigrants. The complete blurring - no, elimination of any distinction between them. The fact that Senate Democrats - only 6 were needed to vote with the 54 Republicans to bring the bill to a vote - were unwillingly to take a firm stand against criminal aliens, tells you everything you need to know about how divided this country is. Shared fundamental values? Not by a long shot. Whose side are you on?
The purpose behind the law was quite simple - to discourage criminals who had been deported from attempting to sneak back in to the US. If such an individual were caught after reentering the country they would face a mandatory five year prison sentence.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid was able to block the measure from coming to a vote. Under Senate rules, 60 votes are needed to bring a measure to the floor for a vote of the full Senate. The Republicans have only 54 seats, allowing Reid to still have control over the Senate's business, even though he is no longer Majority Leader.
Said Reid: "All we've seen from Republican leaders and their caucus is bills that attack immigrants and tear families apart. So I object." In reply, Cruz said this: "When the Democratic leader suggests that incarcerating aggravated felons, murderers and rapists who illegally reenter this country is somehow a sleight to immigrants - well, Mr. President, I am a son of an immigrant who came from Cuba. There is no one in this chamber who will fight harder for legal immigrants than I will."
Bill O'Reilly was a huge supporter of Kate's Law. After Reid blocked a Senate vote, O'Reilly was furious and said: "Mr. Reid is a liar and a villain. This has nothing to do with the so-called immigrant community. This is about fixing a corrupt criminal situation."
The murderer of Kate Steinle was actually in the custody of San Francisco's Sheriff on unrelated charges when the Feds requested they he be held until the Feds could pick him up for immigration violations. However, when the local prosecutor decided not to pursue charges against the soon to be murderer, the Sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi, declined to keep the man in custody. Shortly after his release he killed Ms. Steinle.
Another positive result of this past Tuesday's election is that Sheriff Mirkarimi was soundly defeated by the challenger, garnering only 33% of the vote, with the victor getting 61%.
As I mentioned in Part II, the Democrats equate illegal immigrants, even criminal illegal immigrants, with legal immigrants. The complete blurring - no, elimination of any distinction between them. The fact that Senate Democrats - only 6 were needed to vote with the 54 Republicans to bring the bill to a vote - were unwillingly to take a firm stand against criminal aliens, tells you everything you need to know about how divided this country is. Shared fundamental values? Not by a long shot. Whose side are you on?
The Culture Wars, Part II
About one and a half years ago the City of Houston passed what became known as HERO - the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance. The stated purpose was to protect 15 different classes of people (based on sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity and pregnancy) from discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, etc.
Those opposed to the ordinance were able to get a vote on repeal of the ordinance on this past Tuesday's ballot. The ordinance was repealed by a landslide vote of 61% to 39%. Opposition to the ordinance was apparently fierce by those concerned that men would be allowed to use women's restrooms.
The Mayor of Houston, Annise Parker, who is openly gay, was quite upset over the ordinance's repeal. The Mayor blamed the repeal on a "small, very determined group of right-wing ideologues and the religious right." I don't know how small a group if the measure passed with 61% in favor of repeal. That does not sound like a "small group." I also dislike the attack on the religious.
Not living in Houston, I did not read the various editorials and letters to the editor in the Houston papers concerning the ordinance and the repeal measure. Having looked at the text of the Ordinance, I cannot help but wonder why the drafters did not specifically state that the ordinance does not permit men to enter women's restrooms, if that was the concern.
The Houston Mayor also added that the opponents "only know how to destroy and not build up." Aside from the typical demagoguery from the left, I would suggest that it is they who seek to destroy, with the target being Western Civilization and Judeo-Christian values.
Speaking of demagoguery, the New York Times lead editorial of 11/5/15 ran with this headline: "In Houston, Hate Trumped Fairness." I must say, it is quite tiring to hear the whining from the New York Times anytime something does not go their way. The "paper of record" does not prefer intellectual discourse; they do not see their job as elevating the discussion of issues in our country. Rather, like Junior High School kids, their arguments consist of name-calling and demagoguery.
The Mayor certainly did nothing to help her cause when she sought to subpoena the sermons of five (presumably outspoken) pastors in Houston. That was a clear violation of both the free speech and freedom of religion clauses of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Was there some backlash from that overreaching? I do not know.
Here's a question: if a man sought employment and said he insisted on wearing a dress on the job, why should an employer not be allowed to say no - if you want to wear a dress do it outside of work. Would it matter to you if the man was looking to be hired as an elementary school teacher?
Society has always had to deal with issues of where lines should be drawn. But we are in a new era, an era in which the left seeks to obliterate all distinctions.
Those opposed to the ordinance were able to get a vote on repeal of the ordinance on this past Tuesday's ballot. The ordinance was repealed by a landslide vote of 61% to 39%. Opposition to the ordinance was apparently fierce by those concerned that men would be allowed to use women's restrooms.
The Mayor of Houston, Annise Parker, who is openly gay, was quite upset over the ordinance's repeal. The Mayor blamed the repeal on a "small, very determined group of right-wing ideologues and the religious right." I don't know how small a group if the measure passed with 61% in favor of repeal. That does not sound like a "small group." I also dislike the attack on the religious.
Not living in Houston, I did not read the various editorials and letters to the editor in the Houston papers concerning the ordinance and the repeal measure. Having looked at the text of the Ordinance, I cannot help but wonder why the drafters did not specifically state that the ordinance does not permit men to enter women's restrooms, if that was the concern.
The Houston Mayor also added that the opponents "only know how to destroy and not build up." Aside from the typical demagoguery from the left, I would suggest that it is they who seek to destroy, with the target being Western Civilization and Judeo-Christian values.
Speaking of demagoguery, the New York Times lead editorial of 11/5/15 ran with this headline: "In Houston, Hate Trumped Fairness." I must say, it is quite tiring to hear the whining from the New York Times anytime something does not go their way. The "paper of record" does not prefer intellectual discourse; they do not see their job as elevating the discussion of issues in our country. Rather, like Junior High School kids, their arguments consist of name-calling and demagoguery.
The Mayor certainly did nothing to help her cause when she sought to subpoena the sermons of five (presumably outspoken) pastors in Houston. That was a clear violation of both the free speech and freedom of religion clauses of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Was there some backlash from that overreaching? I do not know.
Here's a question: if a man sought employment and said he insisted on wearing a dress on the job, why should an employer not be allowed to say no - if you want to wear a dress do it outside of work. Would it matter to you if the man was looking to be hired as an elementary school teacher?
Society has always had to deal with issues of where lines should be drawn. But we are in a new era, an era in which the left seeks to obliterate all distinctions.
The Culture Wars, Part I
In a story out of Palatine, Illinois, a student in the Township High School District is undergoing hormone therapy. The student was born as a male, but identifies as female. It is unclear if the student ultimately wishes to undergo gender reassignment surgery. In any event, this student was denied access to the girls' locker room.
Apparently, a separate changing area was offered to the student, but that was unacceptable. Then the Feds stepped in and told the District to allow the student access to the girls' locker room, or end up on the wrong side of a federal lawsuit, and lose $6 million in federal aid.
The Washington Post quoted the student as follows: "This decision (by the Feds) makes me extremely happy - because of what it means for me, personally, and for countless others...The District's policy stigmatized me, often making me feel like I was not a 'normal person.'"
Locker rooms at a school are used for changing clothes. People are often naked. What if 15 and 16 and 17 year old girls do not want a male student changing in their locker room with them? What about the feelings of those students?
Now, before everybody yells at me, the student in question has all the male genitalia. Just as I believe we should not have changed the definition of marriage, I do not believe we should change the definition of male or female based upon how one feels. This does not mean that I do not have sympathy for people who feel so uncomfortable in their own bodies. I do. They are human beings and should be treated as such. But when do the feelings of other students come into play? And, if we were still a more religious oriented society we might have retained the concept of "modesty," with no explanation needed as to why the two sexes have separate locker rooms. Instead, we see another example of "it's all about me."
Not surprisingly, the New York Times was thrilled with the Federal government involving itself into a local matter. Said the Times in their 11/5/15 editorial: "...the Department of Education backed a transgender student in Illinois who is fighting for the right to use restrooms and and locker rooms on campus like any other female student." Like any other female student? Do the other female students have penises and testicles?
To the leftists at the Times it's all the same - no difference between males and females. I have expressed before my discomfort at the changing of definitions. Now we have "male equals female." If the Times had said that notwithstanding the male genitalia on this student the student should be allowed to use the girls' locker room, I would still disagree, but it would have been more honest. Instead, they want us to believe that a male student is "just like any other female student."
Fundamental concepts are being altered by the left, supported by the heavy hand of the Obama Administration. Meanwhile, common sense has left the building, all in the name of political correctness. None of us knows where this will end, and certainly not whether we will be happy with the consequences.
Apparently, a separate changing area was offered to the student, but that was unacceptable. Then the Feds stepped in and told the District to allow the student access to the girls' locker room, or end up on the wrong side of a federal lawsuit, and lose $6 million in federal aid.
The Washington Post quoted the student as follows: "This decision (by the Feds) makes me extremely happy - because of what it means for me, personally, and for countless others...The District's policy stigmatized me, often making me feel like I was not a 'normal person.'"
Locker rooms at a school are used for changing clothes. People are often naked. What if 15 and 16 and 17 year old girls do not want a male student changing in their locker room with them? What about the feelings of those students?
Now, before everybody yells at me, the student in question has all the male genitalia. Just as I believe we should not have changed the definition of marriage, I do not believe we should change the definition of male or female based upon how one feels. This does not mean that I do not have sympathy for people who feel so uncomfortable in their own bodies. I do. They are human beings and should be treated as such. But when do the feelings of other students come into play? And, if we were still a more religious oriented society we might have retained the concept of "modesty," with no explanation needed as to why the two sexes have separate locker rooms. Instead, we see another example of "it's all about me."
Not surprisingly, the New York Times was thrilled with the Federal government involving itself into a local matter. Said the Times in their 11/5/15 editorial: "...the Department of Education backed a transgender student in Illinois who is fighting for the right to use restrooms and and locker rooms on campus like any other female student." Like any other female student? Do the other female students have penises and testicles?
To the leftists at the Times it's all the same - no difference between males and females. I have expressed before my discomfort at the changing of definitions. Now we have "male equals female." If the Times had said that notwithstanding the male genitalia on this student the student should be allowed to use the girls' locker room, I would still disagree, but it would have been more honest. Instead, they want us to believe that a male student is "just like any other female student."
Fundamental concepts are being altered by the left, supported by the heavy hand of the Obama Administration. Meanwhile, common sense has left the building, all in the name of political correctness. None of us knows where this will end, and certainly not whether we will be happy with the consequences.
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Whose Side Are You On - Obama's or Cruz's?
Recently, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was told by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest that "the inflammatory rhetoric needs to stop." You see, Netanyahu somewhat overstated the case when he said that during the World War II era, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem persuaded Hitler to exterminate all the Jews instead of deporting them. Hitler apparently came up with the idea of the Jewish genocide on his own.
However, there is no doubt that the Grand Mufti supported the Holocaust. In Carolyn Glick's book, The Israeli Solution, she discusses how the Mufti was eager to assist Hitler but wanted two things in exchange: support for the Mufti ruling much of the Middle East (including modern day Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel), and support for the genocide of Middle East Jewry. Support for genocide of the Jews!
So, Netanyahu overstated the argument - but not by that much. For that, he got White House condemnation. Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, recently said this: "We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem. This is pure blood, clean blood, blood on its way to Allah." Have you heard the outcry yet? Have you heard the White House complain that the Palestinian Muslims have a culture of death? Many non-Jews have even heard that most famous Jewish toast: L'Chaim! To life! Does Obama ever acknowledge the contrast?
Abbas also recently said these words: "Al Aksa (mosque) is ours and so is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. They (Jews) have no right to desecrate them with their filthy feet." Still waiting for that outcry from the White House?
On numerous occasions Abbas has said that not one single Jew may live in any new Palestinian state. There are over one million Arabs living in Israel. But not a single Jew may live in "Palestine." Are you straining to hear the protestations from the White House?
The dean of Koran studies at Gaza University had this to say: "All Jews in Palestine today are fair game - even the women...Every single Jew in Palestine is a combatant, even the children." He then called for attacks throughout Israel: "...in the very heart of the enemy - in Haifa, Jaffa, Tel Aviv, and Hadera as was the case in the past because that is what hurts the Jews." Maybe if we all cup our hands around our ears we can hear the denunciations from the White House.
By contrast, here are recent comments from Presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz: "I believe that nobody wants to see peace more than the Israeli people. The barrier to peace is not the government of Israel. The barrier to peace is Palestinians who refuse to renounce terrorism and refuse to even acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state."
Cruz continued: "The Palestinians have turned down every reasonable offer of peace. And I believe America should stand unshakably alongside the nation of Israel." A little over a year ago, Cruz spoke at a Middle Eastern Christian event. Said Cruz: "Tonight, we are united in defense of Christians. Tonight, we are united in defense of Jews...Christians have no greater ally than Israel." The booing was deafening. But Cruz did not back down. He did not play to the room for political benefit.
Instead, Cruz said this: "If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you. Good night and G-d bless." Then Cruz walked out. That type of moral clarity simply does not fit with Obama's agenda. It is not part of Obama's makeup - so don't expect to hear it. You can uncup your hands from your ears now. The next sound you hear will be the voice of...Josh Earnest, condemning Israel for something else.
However, there is no doubt that the Grand Mufti supported the Holocaust. In Carolyn Glick's book, The Israeli Solution, she discusses how the Mufti was eager to assist Hitler but wanted two things in exchange: support for the Mufti ruling much of the Middle East (including modern day Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel), and support for the genocide of Middle East Jewry. Support for genocide of the Jews!
So, Netanyahu overstated the argument - but not by that much. For that, he got White House condemnation. Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, recently said this: "We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem. This is pure blood, clean blood, blood on its way to Allah." Have you heard the outcry yet? Have you heard the White House complain that the Palestinian Muslims have a culture of death? Many non-Jews have even heard that most famous Jewish toast: L'Chaim! To life! Does Obama ever acknowledge the contrast?
Abbas also recently said these words: "Al Aksa (mosque) is ours and so is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. They (Jews) have no right to desecrate them with their filthy feet." Still waiting for that outcry from the White House?
On numerous occasions Abbas has said that not one single Jew may live in any new Palestinian state. There are over one million Arabs living in Israel. But not a single Jew may live in "Palestine." Are you straining to hear the protestations from the White House?
The dean of Koran studies at Gaza University had this to say: "All Jews in Palestine today are fair game - even the women...Every single Jew in Palestine is a combatant, even the children." He then called for attacks throughout Israel: "...in the very heart of the enemy - in Haifa, Jaffa, Tel Aviv, and Hadera as was the case in the past because that is what hurts the Jews." Maybe if we all cup our hands around our ears we can hear the denunciations from the White House.
By contrast, here are recent comments from Presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz: "I believe that nobody wants to see peace more than the Israeli people. The barrier to peace is not the government of Israel. The barrier to peace is Palestinians who refuse to renounce terrorism and refuse to even acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state."
Cruz continued: "The Palestinians have turned down every reasonable offer of peace. And I believe America should stand unshakably alongside the nation of Israel." A little over a year ago, Cruz spoke at a Middle Eastern Christian event. Said Cruz: "Tonight, we are united in defense of Christians. Tonight, we are united in defense of Jews...Christians have no greater ally than Israel." The booing was deafening. But Cruz did not back down. He did not play to the room for political benefit.
Instead, Cruz said this: "If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you. Good night and G-d bless." Then Cruz walked out. That type of moral clarity simply does not fit with Obama's agenda. It is not part of Obama's makeup - so don't expect to hear it. You can uncup your hands from your ears now. The next sound you hear will be the voice of...Josh Earnest, condemning Israel for something else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)