A Transylvanian In Texas - Two Immigrants Testify On Behalf of the Importance of Teaching Our American Heritage
For Liberal Jews, Obama Is the Messiah
Jew Hatred in New York
The difference between radical Muslims and liberal is that the former seek to become martyrs, while the latter aspire to become victims. In an ironic twist of fate, radical Muslims and liberal American Jews were made for each other.
This ideological symbiosis is sufficient to give pause to the presence of intelligent design. But like all things that seem to emanate from a higher power, there is a paradoxical twist. It is not themselves that liberal American Jews want to sacrifice on the altar of victimhood; it is their Israeli brethren.
Barack Hussein Obama received nearly eighty percent of the Jewish vote and still garners strong approval among America’s Jews. In contrast, only six percent of the Jewish Israelis support Obama.
Even before the election, Israeli Jews, unlike their sycophantic American brethren, saw through Obama.
Israelis were the least supportive population anywhere in the Western world of the inexperienced politician turned presidential candidate.
Jews in Boston Support the Killing of Jews in Israel
To support Obama, liberal Jews had to engage in a set of incredible mental gymnastics. They had to ignore his twenty-year relationship with the anti-Semitic minister Reverend Jeremiah Wright. They had to ignore his strong personal relationship with the virulent anti-Zionist . They had to ignore his statement to the Iowa caucuses that no one has suffered more than the Palestinian people. They had to ignore his support of his Kenyan cousin and genocidal strongman Raila Odinga, an advocate of Sharia. They had to ignore Obama’s own Muslim heritage. They had to ignore that anti-Israel policy experts such as Samantha Power (who now has her own special seat on the National Security Council), , and General James Jones had the real inside tract on advising Obama on the Middle East.
Since the election, Obama’s policies toward Israel have been treacherous, and the reaction of the liberal Jewish community can only be described as inconceivable. When Obama demanded a freeze on the settlements, including organic growth and building in East Jerusalem, the reformed rabbis could barely wait to support him. Even the Jewish Daily Forwardeditorialized on behalf of freezing settlements, as if the settlements were the obstacle to peace and prior exchanges of land for peace had actually resulted in the reign of peace rather than the rain of rockets.
Obama’s unwillingness to do what first world nation states traditionally do — honor the commitments and obligations of a prior administration — should have generated outrage from the Jewish community. After all, Obama summarily and capriciously dismissed the commitments the Bush administration made with regard to the settlements — commitments that were made, according to Elliot Abrams, to secure Israel’s painful withdrawal from and Northern Samaria. If for no other reason than the inconceivable precedent that will impair all of our future international relations, liberal Jews, ever concerned about the fine points of law, should have been up in arms.
But their support for Obama was unflinching, their outrage, absent.
Obama’s Cairo speech linked Israel with the moral equivalence by comparing the self-imposed suffering of the Palestinians to the Holocaust., ignoring both 3,500 years of and European history of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The speech then went on an embarrassing rant of
Even so, liberal Jews did not wince.
The Obama administration’s embrace of the myth of the Israeli Defense Forces being responsible for civilian casualties in Gaza — a justification for the administration’s refusal to sell advanced helicopters to democratic Israel though they have been totally willing to sell them to the military dictatorship of Egypt — did not produce outrage. The administration’s refusal to sell advanced fighter aircraft to Israel has caused no concern among liberal Jews.
The establishment of George Mitchell in an unprecedented resident envoy post in Israel, staffed by a band of anti-Zionists, has produced not even so much as a whimper. After all, one thousand useful-idiot rabbis signed a petition authored by the infamous Brit Tzedek calling for such an envoy, although it is doubtful that even the idiot rabbis expected George Mitchell and his anti-Zionist henchmen would be staffing the operation.
Still, the Brit Tzedek signatories have not asked for their names to be withdrawn from the petition nor have they articulated any public regret.
The foreign policy theme of the Obama administration has been that George W. Bush and his neocon advisers have caused the world’s international political crises. Bush, who possesses a strong personal vision of foreign policy and an IQ higher than the ever vaunted John Kerry, is caricatured as a simpleton manipulated by a Jewish cabal. Let us hasten to remember that George W. Bush would not have waited to condemn the Iranian regime as it shot demonstrators in the street nor would he have stood on the side of Hugo Chavezin the Honduran coup.
George W. Bush has a vision of America. Barack Obama only possesses a vision of himself. No one manipulated George Bush, and it is an anti-Semitic ploy to characterize Bush as a simpleton manipulated by Jews.
But liberal Jewish hatred of George W. Bush is so pronounced that, even at the expense of the libel of Jewish exploitation of Bush’s alleged incompetence, such images are totally compatible with liberal Jewish thinking. They are also its mainstay.
Obama’s anti-Israel stand will not find opposition in the Jewish community; it will find endorsement. Liberal American Jews embrace victimhood. The idea of a tough Israel willing to defend itself is counter to the psychological needs of the liberal American Jewish community, needs that might best be described as battered-wife syndrome. If Palestinians in Gaza launch missiles at Sderot, it is because Israel has done something wrong. “Oh, Palestinians only launch missiles and suicide bombers because they have no other way to protest. If only Israel gave them more land. If only Israel took up the road blocks. If only Israel apologized to them for causing them to blow up pizza parlors, discos, and shopping malls. If only Israel understood their culture.”
Most Jews can no more abandon their liberalism than can non-Jews. Take the liberals I have encountered in Berkeley who looked at the tragedy of 9/11 and said, “It’s our foreign policy.” They said it with all the delusional smugness that they were saying something profound and not something illustrative of a psychological deficiency or mental disease. They too needed to justify victimhood, and again with someone else actually being the victim.
Obama represents the wedge between Israelis and liberal American Jews. For the latter, Obama still garners high numbers in the polls; among the former, it is hard to find an Israeli Jew who does not understand the threat Obama presents to his very survival.
Liberal Jews are generally a secular people, but they are not a godless people, and in Barack Obama, they have certainly found their messiah.
Two detained Christian women are "in danger of being forgotten" amid concerns they may face execution, Iranian Christians said Tuesday, July 7.
Marzieh Amirizadeh, 30, and Maryam Rustampoor, 27, have been held for over four months in Tehran's notorious Evin prison apparently for converting to Christianity from Islam.
Iranian Christians and rights investigators said the two young women, who were arrested March 5, suffered sleep deprivation as part of police interrogations and were held in solitary confinement for three weeks in May and early June.
Later, they were put together in one small cell for about two weeks before being moved to a larger area to make place for other inmates, including many protesters who were detained following last month's disputed presidential elections, said Christians with close knowledge about the situation.
About 600 women were reportedly brought to Evin prison during the protests.
There was still no clarity regarding the case of the two Christian women, Tuesday, July 7, with one judge reportedly telling them they were both to be executed as ‘apostates’. "Maryam and Marzieh have responded with courage, however, telling the judge to 'expedite his sentence'," said Pray for Iran, an Internet initiative of Iranian churches.
Obama declares to Africa: End tyranny, corruption
America's first black president spoke with a bluntness that perhaps could only come from a member of Africa's extended family.
"No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or if police can be bought off by drug traffickers," he said
"No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top, or the head of the Port Authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery.
"That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there," he said, "and now is the time for that style of governance to end."
Yeah, no shit.
So, why tell Africa? Why not tell yourself?
Apparently, what is good for Africa is not good for the American people? I don't get it.
I feel a strange tingle going up my leg. It must be Obama "meddling".
Labels: the Obama administration
TAKE IT EASY ON MUSLIM EXTREMISTS, POLICE TOLDDifferent rules of law and different methods of law enforcement for different groups? How can a nation remain a nation with that kind of division?
POLICE will be ordered not to charge Muslim extremists in many hate crime cases – to stop them becoming more militant.
Guidelines will tell forces to press for conviction only in cases of clear-cut criminal acts.
Officers will be advised not to proceed when evidence of lawbreaking is “borderline”.
Examples of crimes to which a blind eye may be turned include incitement to religious hatred or viewing extremist material on the internet.
Last night critics warned that the move could mean Islamic radicals being give the freedom to encourage violence.
Some saw the move as a politically correct attempt to appease extremists who hate Britain.
It could even mean officers tolerating many activities of Muslim preachers of hate like the hook-handed cleric Abu Hamza.
Tory MP David Davies said: “This sounds like abject surrender. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law.
“It doesn’t matter whether someone is suspected of incitement to hatred or shoplifting – they should all face the same risk of prosecution.
“There should be no special favours or treatment for any section of the community.”
Officials insist there is no suggestion that people who have clearly committed offences will avoid prosecution.
Instead, they want to avoid alienating Muslims on the fringes of extremism by dragging them to court over petty allegations unlikely to result in conviction.
One fear is that some young Muslims are falling under the influence of extremist preachers while serving prison sentences or on remand awaiting trial.
A senior Whitehall official said the guidance was being drawn up as part of a drive to use persuasion rather than the criminal justice system to fight extremism.
He added: “The aim is to stop people being dragged into extremism.
“We are not talking about letting someone off who has committed a clear offence, but where it is unclear if an offence has been committed.
“For instance, where there has been incitement or someone has been on the internet there can be a grey area where there is some discretion and it would be more sensible to avoid going down the criminal route.”
The Government’s counter- terrorism board is drawing up the advice, which will be sent to all police forces, including the Metropolitan, later this year.
The move follows an updated Home Office counter-terrorism strategy announced earlier this year. The new strategy urges preventative measures to win round potential extremists instead of arrest and prosecution.
“We need to be able to provide support for individuals who are drawn into criminal activity,” the document says.
Councils, community groups and the Government’s youth justice board will be among organisations expected to identify those drawn into extremism or at risk.
Social workers, teachers and other professionals will be asked to try to work with some Muslim youths to reduce the likelihood of them turning into extremists.
But the new strategy is likely to reduce the likelihood of prosecutions against Islamist extremists protesting against troops.
In Luton earlier this year, protesters displayed placards bearing the words “butchers” and “animals” at a homecoming parade for 2nd Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment. There were no arrests for incitement.
A Home Office spokesman said: “Preventing people becoming radicalised is a key priority for the Government. The police response needs to be proportionate to deal with crimes people commit while reducing the risk to public safety.”
The latest move represents a reversal of the policy introduced under Tony Blair in the wake of the terrorist attacks in London in 2005, when as Prime Minister he called for an overhaul of the criminal justice system to root out and prosecute extremists.
Past attempts to win over potential Muslim radicals have frequently run into controversy. Millions of pounds have been pledged to fund Muslim groups, drawing claims that they are receiving special treatment.
There are a couple of signs pointing to the idea that Abu Ali might sue. He already has a lawyer, who spoke to the AP briefly about this episode. Abu Ali also filed a handwritten prison complaint form, saying the Obama book rejections “violate my 1st Amend. rights.”The above article begins with this:
Back in 2007, the Bureau of Prisons directed its chaplains to purge the prisons of all religious texts. That policy shift, which stemmed from a governmental fear that prisoners might read religious texts and become Islamic extremists after 9/11, sparked huge response.As I said in my post today at my site:
Many thought the move was unconstitutional, and a pair of inmates, citing the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to free religion, sued over the matter.
No wonder that Ahmed Abu Ali, terrorist graduate from Terror High (aka the Islamic Saudi Academy) wants to check out BHO's books, even though Abu Ali is of Arab descent and not black. By reading BHO's books, Abu Ali can continue to feed his perpetual attitude of victimhood because the words "The West" could be easily substituted for "white folks," "white people," "white" anything. Or perhaps Abu Ali wants to reinforce his anti-American views by reading BHO's books.Ahmed Abu Ali, valedictorian graduate from Terror High (aka the Islamic Saudi Academy in Fairfax County, Virginia) and convicted terrorist, is an Arab. Arab racism toward blacks is well documented. In addition, Abu Ali requested those books before BHO was elected and gave his dhimmi Cairo Speech. I find it hard to believe that Abu Ali wants to read books by The Great Satan's first African-American President because Abu Ali wants to be a good citizen.
In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."
The 16-year veteran of the high court was asked if she were a lawyer again, what would she "want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda."
Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often.
Question: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
Ginsburg: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.
Rep. Alcee Hastings - the impeached Florida judge Nancy Pelosi tried to install as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee until her own party members rebelled - introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill that gives Attorney General Eric Holder sole discretion to label groups that oppose government policy on guns, abortion, immigration, states' rights, or a host of other issues. In a June 25 speech on the House floor, Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ, blasted the idea: "This sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as 'extremists.'"I wonder if Hastings plans on transporting his victims in boxcars, with a shower at the end of the trip. This could be why the Democrats can hardly wait to empty Gitmo. Progressives are master of projection. They spent eight years attacking Republicans for the Patriot Act. They spent eight years attacking George W. Bush for allegedly planning to gut the Bill of Rights. And when the Democrats get into power they set out to do everything they accused the Republicans of. H.R. 645 is the fruit of Hate Crime legislation that has wide support on the left. Everyone they hate will now be declared a "domestic terrorist."
Another Hastings bill (HR 645) authorizes $360 million in 2009 and 2010 to set up "not fewer than six national emergency centers on military installations" capable of housing "a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster." But Section 2 (b) 4 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to use the camps "to meet other appropriate needs" - none of which are specified. This is the kind of blank check that Congress should never, ever sign.
If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.Just another reminder that the eugenics movement of the twentieth century was a respectable Progressive cause; just as today, it's a respectable environmentalist cause. The above quote should be read with the so-called Cap and Trade bill in mind. The book in question is titled: Ecoscience. Its call number is: HB871 .E35 1977. The K-State university library has a copy, but it is checked out. I'll be checking it out next.
The federal government's most secure prison has determined that two books written by President Barack Obama contain material "potentially detrimental to national security" and rejected an inmate's request to read them.The fact that the books promote racism probably didn't help.
Ahmed Omar Abu Ali is serving a 30-year sentence at the federal supermax prison in Florence, Colorado, for joining al-Qaida and plotting to assassinate then-President George W. Bush. Last year, Abu Ali requested two books written by Obama: "Dreams from My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope."
But prison officials, citing guidance from the FBI, determined that passages in both books contain information that could damage national security.
A prison spokeswoman referred questions to the FBI, where a spokeswoman was looking into the matter Thursday evening.
The documents detailing the prison's rejection of Obama's books are included in court papers for a resentencing hearing scheduled later this month for Abu Ali, a U.S. citizen.
The rejection is just one indication of the harsh conditions imposed on inmates at the supermax prison, according to Abu Ali's lawyer, Joshua Dratel...
Prison officials cite specific pages - but not specific passages - in the books that they deem objectionable. They include one page in Obama's 1995 book, "Dreams from My Father," and 22 separate pages in his policy-oriented 2006 book, "The Audacity of Hope." It was not immediately obvious what passages might have been deemed problematic, though nearly half of the pages cited are in a chapter devoted to foreign affairs.
"It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere... That's the world! On which hope sits!"The prison officials were probably concerned about stoking racial tensions(?)