In earlier posts, I commented on how after 9/11, the left and the mainstream media made Muslims the victims. The attacks that killed nearly 3000 Americans were carried out by men - all of whom were Muslims. Yet, in the twisted thinking of the left the Muslims were the victims.
And the left is at it again. After the San Bernardino murders, Attorney General Loretta Lynch spoke at the Muslim Advocates Dinner. Lynch: "Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric or, as we saw after 9/11, violence against individuals...when we see that, we will take action."
Did the Attorney General of the United States say she would prosecute anti-Muslim "rhetoric?" And what does "edges towards violence" mean? Surely, the Attorney General must know that the Supreme Court has given the legal standard for not protecting such types of speech - and that standard is not what she has articulated. What was once a "clear and present danger" standard was subsequently modified to speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action...and is likely to incite or produce such action."
So the speech must not only incite but be likely to lead to imminent lawless action. But we have a bigger issue. Lynch also commented on "an incredibly disturbing rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric...the fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor." Why is that your biggest fear, Ms. Lynch? Your FBI Director says he has 900 open investigations, spread out through all 50 states, looking into ISIS threats. So why isn't the threat of further attacks by ISIS and other radical Muslims your biggest fear, Ms. Lynch?
Everybody probably recalls the story out of Texas about the "clock boy." 14 year old Mohamed brought a clock to school which he claimed he had built himself. Others disputed that and said it was simply a store purchased clock. In any event, he brought it to school - with wires hanging out of it. His science teacher told him not to display the clock in other classes, but, of course, he did. One teacher called the police and Mohamed found himself under arrest.
Currently, Mohamed (after being invited to the White House and moving to Qatar) has a $15 million lawsuit against the Irving Independent School District and the City of Irving. He also wants written apologies from the city's Mayor and Police Chief, and the School District.
What does any of this have to do with the San Bernardino shootings? Plenty. You see, there has been an effort by those Muslims who support the terrorists to prevent any speech that is critical of Islam, and to prevent any actions that they say are discriminatory towards Muslims. In actuality, their goal is to intimidate other Americans from speaking out against radical Islam, or even reporting suspicious activity when they see it.
And the left joins in as the useful idiots of those Muslims supporting terrorist acts, by declaring any anti-Muslim speech as being hateful. And now the Attorney General has taken it one step further by threatening prosecution of those who engage in "anti-Muslim rhetoric." You see, this fear of either being sued or prosecuted or just not being politically correct and appearing racist all have the same intended effect - discourage Americans from speaking up and taking action.
So, maybe we should not just blame the Muslim perpetrators of this horrific crime in San Bernardino; maybe we should also blame political correctness. It has been reported that at least one neighbor was suspicious of some of the killers' activities, but did not report it to anyone for fear of being seen as a "racist." Another site reported a man working in the area was also suspicious - but again said nothing for fear of being accused of racial profiling. And it has happened before when the Army knew of Major Nidal Hasan's radical leanings - but did nothing because of political correctness.
Again, for my concerned liberal readers, I fully acknowledge that not all Muslims support terrorism. I acknowledge that the male shooter's brother served this country honorably in the Navy. But if mere political correctness - being seen as a bigot, or being called an Islamophobe - is enough to prevent people from reporting suspicious activity, how much more so is the deterrent effect of a $15 million lawsuit, or the threat of criminal prosecution? So, if it's your chance to speak up and do something, will you?
Saturday, December 5, 2015
San Bernardino, Part II
The official site of the FBI notes a total of 14,196 murders in the US in 2013, obviously not all by guns. They state that the total represents a 7.8% decrease from 2009 and a 12.1 decrease from 2004. A decrease in the murder rate! Yet, while these mass killings are indeed horrific, and while every sane person feels for the victims and their loved ones, the left is automatically drawn to the issue as an issue of guns. In 2006, 1830 were killed by knives. The number was 1817 in 2007. Shall we ban possession of knives; or at least control their sale and distribution?
In 2013, 32,719 people were killed in auto accidents. Of that total, 11,126 had a blood alcohol equal to or greater than .08%. Where is the call to ban cars? (I know, a few wackos would have us do just that.) Where is the call to ban alcohol? I believe we tried that once. The CDC reports that on a daily basis "more than 9 people are killed and more than 1,153 people are injured in crashes that are reported to involve a distracted driver." On a daily basis! Who has not seen people talking on their hand held phones and even texting while driving?
Why bring up auto fatalities, distracted driving fatalities and deaths by knifing? Because the number of those fatalities in each instance exceeds the number killed by mass shootings. Auto fatalities far exceed fatalities by mass shootings. Yet, the left and Democrats only see one thing - guns. It is certainly true that these mass killings are shocking. It is true that they have the ability to shake us to our core in a way that these other fatalities do not. (I am not even discussing deaths caused by various medical conditions, with each of the more serious causes numbering in the hundreds of thousands per year.)
These mass killings are so random. They can hit anybody at any time. The victims in San Bernardino included men and women, young and old, and were black, white, Asian and Hispanic. There is, perhaps, a feeling of urgency to do something - anything - to stop these killings from happening.
Said one letter writer to the LA Times: "I don't know whether to hate the gun lobbies, hate terrorists or hate myself for hating anyone." Such confused moral thinking. I know who I hate - the evil terrorist perpetrators of the crime. It has been repeatedly noted that the guns used in San Bernardino were purchased legally. So existing gun laws made no difference. What new gun laws short of confiscation would have made a difference here? No one believes confiscation is possible. We have laws on the books in many states against driving while talking on a hand held phone. The same for texting and driving. Yet people do these things all the time for the sake of their own convenience.
If putting convenience ahead of safe driving laws is not a deterrence, then why would any gun laws deter those motivated by an ideology? Radical Islamists often do not expect to survive their terrorist attacks. If that is the case, no law and no threat of punishment will deter them. But, as this blog has noted previously, the left does not see the world as being a conflict between good and evil. The left actually believes that radical Islamists would not kill people without access to guns. Tell that to the Israelis, who have been suffering one knife attack after the next in the current intifada. Tell that to the victims of ISIS beheadings.
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media gets it wrong again. In their 12/3/15 editorial, the LA Times opines: "We need to get rid of most concealed-carry laws and make sure there are no guns on school campuses." Yes, let's tell all the bad guys where no guns are allowed so they know they will meet no resistance when carrying out their evil attacks. Of course, these attacks were not at a school and had nothing to do with concealed-carry issues.
The American people are smarter than the editorial writers of the Times, who reside in their ivory tower. On the day after Thanksgiving (Black Friday) the FBI processed more firearm background checks than they ever have before in a single day - 185,345. People want to protect themselves and their families. And contrary to the Times' opinion, we need more permits to carry concealed weapons for law-abiding citizens. Somebody needs to try to stop the perpetrators while the police are still driving to the scene.
In 2013, 32,719 people were killed in auto accidents. Of that total, 11,126 had a blood alcohol equal to or greater than .08%. Where is the call to ban cars? (I know, a few wackos would have us do just that.) Where is the call to ban alcohol? I believe we tried that once. The CDC reports that on a daily basis "more than 9 people are killed and more than 1,153 people are injured in crashes that are reported to involve a distracted driver." On a daily basis! Who has not seen people talking on their hand held phones and even texting while driving?
Why bring up auto fatalities, distracted driving fatalities and deaths by knifing? Because the number of those fatalities in each instance exceeds the number killed by mass shootings. Auto fatalities far exceed fatalities by mass shootings. Yet, the left and Democrats only see one thing - guns. It is certainly true that these mass killings are shocking. It is true that they have the ability to shake us to our core in a way that these other fatalities do not. (I am not even discussing deaths caused by various medical conditions, with each of the more serious causes numbering in the hundreds of thousands per year.)
These mass killings are so random. They can hit anybody at any time. The victims in San Bernardino included men and women, young and old, and were black, white, Asian and Hispanic. There is, perhaps, a feeling of urgency to do something - anything - to stop these killings from happening.
Said one letter writer to the LA Times: "I don't know whether to hate the gun lobbies, hate terrorists or hate myself for hating anyone." Such confused moral thinking. I know who I hate - the evil terrorist perpetrators of the crime. It has been repeatedly noted that the guns used in San Bernardino were purchased legally. So existing gun laws made no difference. What new gun laws short of confiscation would have made a difference here? No one believes confiscation is possible. We have laws on the books in many states against driving while talking on a hand held phone. The same for texting and driving. Yet people do these things all the time for the sake of their own convenience.
If putting convenience ahead of safe driving laws is not a deterrence, then why would any gun laws deter those motivated by an ideology? Radical Islamists often do not expect to survive their terrorist attacks. If that is the case, no law and no threat of punishment will deter them. But, as this blog has noted previously, the left does not see the world as being a conflict between good and evil. The left actually believes that radical Islamists would not kill people without access to guns. Tell that to the Israelis, who have been suffering one knife attack after the next in the current intifada. Tell that to the victims of ISIS beheadings.
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media gets it wrong again. In their 12/3/15 editorial, the LA Times opines: "We need to get rid of most concealed-carry laws and make sure there are no guns on school campuses." Yes, let's tell all the bad guys where no guns are allowed so they know they will meet no resistance when carrying out their evil attacks. Of course, these attacks were not at a school and had nothing to do with concealed-carry issues.
The American people are smarter than the editorial writers of the Times, who reside in their ivory tower. On the day after Thanksgiving (Black Friday) the FBI processed more firearm background checks than they ever have before in a single day - 185,345. People want to protect themselves and their families. And contrary to the Times' opinion, we need more permits to carry concealed weapons for law-abiding citizens. Somebody needs to try to stop the perpetrators while the police are still driving to the scene.
San Bernardino, Part I
A young couple, with the husband having a good job, and with having a six month old daughter, and by all accounts living the American Dream, decided to give it all up in order to commit mass murder at the San Bernardino Inland Regional Center. As is the policy of this blog, I refuse to name the perpetrators. However, they were both Muslim. 14 people were killed and at least 21 were wounded.
When the police tracked them down, they were found to have "1400 assault rifle rounds and 200 handgun rounds" in their vehicle. A search of their home revealed "a dozen pipe bombs, 2000 9-millimeter handgun rounds, 2500 .223-caliber assault rifle rounds, and hundreds of tools that could have been used to make more explosive devices..." (Data from LA Times, 12/4/15.)
It was reported that the husband had been to Pakistan, and twice to Saudi Arabia, the second trip apparently being for the purpose of bringing back his future wife. Some in the media have reported that the wife had sworn her allegiance to the head of ISIS. Meanwhile, much of the mainstream media, along with Democrat leaders, felt that the story was all about guns. President Obama said that these mass killings have "no parallel anywhere else in the world."
John Lott had a piece in the 12/3/15 Investor's Business Daily. (Lott holds a Ph.D. in economics and has worked at various universities as well as the conservative American Enterprise Institute. He is an advocate for gun ownership, but has been accused of having his studies funded by the NRA and a gun manufacturer, which he denies. So, there is your background.) He points out in his article that the number of deaths from mass killings in the US during Obama's nearly 7 years in office totals 394. However, he says that in just this year alone, France has had 508 fatalities from mass killings.
In looking at the rate (as opposed to actual number) of mass killings from 2009 to mid-June, 2015, Norway came in with the highest rate at two per million people. It was followed by Macedonia, Serbia, Slovakia, Finland, Belgium, the Czech Republic and then the USA. Closing out the top ten were Austria and Switzerland.
In support of Obama's plan to bring at least 10,000 Syrian refugees to the US (Hillary says it should be 65,000) he mocked Republicans, claiming they feared widows and children. Mockery has always been Obama's preferred debating technique. In any event, he ignored the fact that many young men would also be among those refugees. And now we see just how well the supposed strict vetting program of those refugees would likely work. The murdering wife came to the US on a "fiance visa." Both the FBI and Department of Homeland Security ran background checks on her - and cleared her for a conditional green card.
This woman had a six month old daughter. Yet, she would clearly be one of those women Obama would say we have no reason to fear. What kind of mother abandons her newborn child in order to commit mass murder? Was she driven to do it by the easy accessibility to guns? Or, was she driven to such behavior by the evil ideology of radical Islam? Reading the 12/3/15 editorials in the LA Times ("Horror in San Bernardino") and NY Times ("The Horror in California") one would reasonably conclude that it was all about access to guns. Neither editorial mentioned that the couple was of the Muslim religion, nor that they were drawn to radical Islamic ideology.
The LA Times editorial said that "the common element in the vast majority of these mass killings - and in the daily parade of violence across the country - is the easy access to firearms." They go on to state that "from 1998 to 2013, an average of 11,500 homicides each year were committed with guns in the US."
When the police tracked them down, they were found to have "1400 assault rifle rounds and 200 handgun rounds" in their vehicle. A search of their home revealed "a dozen pipe bombs, 2000 9-millimeter handgun rounds, 2500 .223-caliber assault rifle rounds, and hundreds of tools that could have been used to make more explosive devices..." (Data from LA Times, 12/4/15.)
It was reported that the husband had been to Pakistan, and twice to Saudi Arabia, the second trip apparently being for the purpose of bringing back his future wife. Some in the media have reported that the wife had sworn her allegiance to the head of ISIS. Meanwhile, much of the mainstream media, along with Democrat leaders, felt that the story was all about guns. President Obama said that these mass killings have "no parallel anywhere else in the world."
John Lott had a piece in the 12/3/15 Investor's Business Daily. (Lott holds a Ph.D. in economics and has worked at various universities as well as the conservative American Enterprise Institute. He is an advocate for gun ownership, but has been accused of having his studies funded by the NRA and a gun manufacturer, which he denies. So, there is your background.) He points out in his article that the number of deaths from mass killings in the US during Obama's nearly 7 years in office totals 394. However, he says that in just this year alone, France has had 508 fatalities from mass killings.
In looking at the rate (as opposed to actual number) of mass killings from 2009 to mid-June, 2015, Norway came in with the highest rate at two per million people. It was followed by Macedonia, Serbia, Slovakia, Finland, Belgium, the Czech Republic and then the USA. Closing out the top ten were Austria and Switzerland.
In support of Obama's plan to bring at least 10,000 Syrian refugees to the US (Hillary says it should be 65,000) he mocked Republicans, claiming they feared widows and children. Mockery has always been Obama's preferred debating technique. In any event, he ignored the fact that many young men would also be among those refugees. And now we see just how well the supposed strict vetting program of those refugees would likely work. The murdering wife came to the US on a "fiance visa." Both the FBI and Department of Homeland Security ran background checks on her - and cleared her for a conditional green card.
This woman had a six month old daughter. Yet, she would clearly be one of those women Obama would say we have no reason to fear. What kind of mother abandons her newborn child in order to commit mass murder? Was she driven to do it by the easy accessibility to guns? Or, was she driven to such behavior by the evil ideology of radical Islam? Reading the 12/3/15 editorials in the LA Times ("Horror in San Bernardino") and NY Times ("The Horror in California") one would reasonably conclude that it was all about access to guns. Neither editorial mentioned that the couple was of the Muslim religion, nor that they were drawn to radical Islamic ideology.
The LA Times editorial said that "the common element in the vast majority of these mass killings - and in the daily parade of violence across the country - is the easy access to firearms." They go on to state that "from 1998 to 2013, an average of 11,500 homicides each year were committed with guns in the US."
Thursday, November 26, 2015
Views From the Left
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!
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!
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)