I hate to generalize about groups of people, because there are usually so many exceptions to any generalization, that you end up sounding ridiculous. But I'm going to do it anyways. After all, this would not be the first time I've ended up sounding ridiculous.
Here is my generalization: Secular liberal Jews have created an alternate reality in the Middle East. They've done it in order to bolster their obsessive desire for peace without pain, personal security without having to work for it, the rainbow without the rain. They truly believe that if they appease the monster enough, the monster will leave them alone, and they won't have to fight back. The fact that 78% of American Jewish voters voted for Obama demonstrates that either they weren't really listening during the campaign or that they allowed the wish for peace in the Middle East at any price cloud to their judgment by denying reality and creating the hallucination of their non-Republican candidate Obama supporting Israeli and Jewish claims to the land. In this fantasy world, the Middle East is populated with long suffering, peace-loving Palestinians whose claim to Jerusalem and Israel is equal to that of Israeli Jews. They believe the lunatic idea that there are competing Jewish and Muslim narratives that have equal validity. The problem that they have defined in this dream world construct is that extremists on both sides refuse to allow the people to share the land and live in peace. I haven't read of any fairies, elves, or unicorns also sharing the land, but there might as well be.
Facts are not allowed to intrude. I think there are mental road blocks, check points, and even a security barrier to keep them out. The Hamas and P.A. charters are forbidden to be mentioned. History is either changed, whitewashed, or ignored. Nobody is allowed to point out that interest in Jerusalem only rose in the Muslim world when it was proposed as Israel's capital. Before that, it was a neglected backwater of the Ottoman Empire; it meant nothing to any Muslim government or religious leader. Muslims have treated Jerusalem like the two year old little brother or sister who isn't interested in the toy you want them to play with until the older sibling expresses interest in it. Then it becomes the most important object in the room and the two year old will throw a fit until it's theirs.
I was sent the link to this article in Tikkun, a very liberal/progressive Jewish magazine. I would go so far as to state that they are stupidly progressive, as their world, based on "social justice" and other such wishful thinking that is as impossible in this world as Obama supporting Western civilization over the barbarians at and inside our gates. The name "Tikkun" is based on the Jewish concept of "tikkun olam" - repair of the world. As Dennis Prager once explained, the Reform liberal/progressive notion of "tikkun olam" leaves out God, as the complete phrase is, "tikkun olam b'malchut shaddai" - repair of the world under God's sovereignty. Remember God? Not all progressives do. They're much too enlightened.
Some of these progressives are so smart that they can come up with ideas like this one:
The two-state condominial arrangement starts out with the creation of a democratic Palestinian state (composed of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem) much like that suggested in other two-state proposals with the boundaries of the Palestinian state roughly determined by the pre-1967 Green Line. The Palestinian state ("Palestine") would have most of the features of a democratic nation-state, but from the outset it would be an ethnically defined state, a state of the Palestinian people, whereby a close parallel was maintained to the definition of Israel as a state of the Jews. As part of the fundamental agreement, all current Israeli Arabs would be required to transfer their citizenship, national identity, and national voting rights-but not their residence-to the new Palestinian state. Israeli Arabs would retain their permanent right to live in Israel and they would also retain their current benefits under the Jewish welfare state (or be adequately compensated for the loss of them by another arrangement, such as a lump sum payment), but they would become citizens of-and permanent voting members of-the Palestinian state, not Israel.
Both Palestinians and Jews under the condominial proposal would be granted the right to settle anywhere within the territory of either state. Together the two states would thus form a single, binational settlement community. Palestinians would have the right to settle anywhere within Israel, just as Jews would have the right to settle anywhere within the territory of the Palestinian state. Regardless of which of the two states they live in, all Palestinians would be citizens of the Palestinian state, and all Jews would be citizens of Israel.
The states themselves, Israel and Palestine, would have the right-and, indeed, the moral obligation-to set up a dense network of support facilities to care for the economic, cultural, religious, and welfare needs of any citizens living in the territory of the neighboring state. Each state, in other words, would have extensive extra-territorial rights and obligations vis-à-vis its citizens in the neighboring state.
That's only a small portion of the entire thing. I read about half of it, skimmed another quarter, and glanced at the rest. As with all progressive ideas for a "two state solution" or some other sort of shared arrangement, this one ignores two important aspects of the current unpleasant reality of the Middle East.
Remember the Palestinians? Both the Hamas and the (allegedly moderate) Palestinian Authority's charters call for the destruction of Israel. Maybe I'm naive, but to me, that seems like a huge roadblock to peace, even greater than the building of housing for Jews in Jerusalem and "settlements" in the West Bank. Not to mention the fact that Palestinian children are taught in school, on TV, and in mosques to hate Jews.
The second huge problem is the history of Islam. Looking back at the past 1400 years of their bloody, genocidal history, when and where have Muslims ever shared any land with any different religion? They're not allowed to. As it is said many times, in many variations in Islamic scripture,
"So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."
And yes, not all Muslims follow the decrees to murder the unbeliever, but if we look at the demographics of the Islamic world, it's obvious to anyone (even though the more progressive among us will not admit it) Muslims do not share, have never shared, will never share. It is also sickeningly clear that religious minorities do not thrive under Sharia law. In fact they dwindle away until they are gone altogether. How many genocides, world wide, have been perpetrated in the name of Islam? We're not allowed to ask; it's an islamophobic question.
I suppose that is the biggest fault with this idiotic plan, the false assumption that Muslims are willing to live in peace with and as equals with Jews.
The person who sent me the article should know better, but when even Alan Dershowitz, a staunch, unapologetic supporter of Israel is fooled into voting for and supporting Obama (and boy does Melanie Phillips have his number on that descent into madness) I really have to wonder what has happened to a people who, for hundreds of years have been both praised and denounced for alleged mental prowess.
I really thought I'd have lots of free time this summer so I could do a lot of blog posts. But my advertising blitz paid off big time, and I'm spending most of my days tutoring.
That is not a complaint, merely an explanation. After all I get paid for tutoring, not as much as some tutors, but it's still a few extra dollars. It's nice when after my wife pays the bills, I don't hear, "Try not to spend any money. We've only got $----.-- left in checking and it's got to last for the next two weeks."
I'm currently working on two blog posts, because I still need to rant occasionally, so they will be up at some point. And remind me to tell you about our trip to Heidelberg Street.
There were a few articles in today's Free Press that commanded my attention. Usually it's the ridiculous that draws me in and makes the bile rise, but there were some good things too.
First the dumb stuff:
Why is Congress still out to apologize for slavery?
Lawmakers are learning the hard way that trying to apologize for historic injustices isn't as easy as saying sorry. Advertisement
Two weeks ago, the Senate passed a resolution calling on the country to apologize formally for more than three centuries of enslavement and segregation of African Americans. Senators thought they had done the right thing.
The feel-good moment was short-lived, however, after several members of the Congressional Black Caucus vowed to fight the measure when it reached the House of Representatives.
They object because it contains a disclaimer saying that the resolution can't be used to support legal claims against the United States by those seeking reparations or cash compensation for the suffering endured by black people.
No apology will ever be enough for some. They will always demand more. We know that. The smartest course in this case is to give them nothing. Encourage them to shut up already. At one time slavery was universal in human society. It was western civilization that fought to end it. The United States fought a war against slavery.
"It opens up a discussion, an opportunity for Americans to start a healing process,"
No it doesn't, it wastes time and energy. It creates demands for something that nobody living today is entitled to. I teach elementary school. Most of my students are black. Until they get to my class and I fill them in on the facts of the history of world-wide slavery, they think that slavery was a uniquely American institution. If our nation hasn't been healed yet, it's due to dopes who insist on continuing the focus on American slavery and its alleged continuing effect on Black Americans. If you read Thomas Sowell though, you can better understand that the current pathologies in the Black community have little to do with the legacy of slavery and everything to do with the breakdown of the family and the insistence on living a self-destructive culture. And why should I pay reparations? While blacks in the south were being used as slaves, my ancestors were being raped and murdered by Cossacks. Obviously, I never met these people, but still - can I have reparations? Since my ancestors suffered, don't I deserve them?
When it comes to political art, it always seems to me to be more politics than art. And the politics expressed are predictably on the left side of the aisle. If that's where your sympathies lie, you can introduce your article with sentences like,
Knit one, purl two. Fight the power.
Lisa Anne Auerbach knits charged political works stitched with slyly provocative slogans. They can be amusing, angry, quirky. One sweater says "My Jewish Grandma is Voting for Obama. Is Yours?" The back says "Chosen People Choose Obama." Another sweater says "When there's nothing left to burn, you have to set yourself on fire." Her "Body Count Mittens" are adorned with casualty figures from Iraq.
Oy vey, another liberal Jew, who, if she were as politically astute as she thinks she is, would never have voted for or supported Obama. And since Obama is the president, what power is she fighting?
For a much better understanding of Obama, Jews, and Israel, read this important piece by Melanie Phillips. (I found it at American Digest.) She gets it. I thought Dershowitz did. It's sad how politics can blind one to reality.
Here is an interesting letter to the Free Press clearly and simply demonstrating the unbreakable (especially when it comes to political solutions) Law of Unintended Consequences:
News of the cash-for-clunkers program is greatly distressing. I am a low-income, single mother with two teenage daughters. One is 17 and is saving up for her first vehicle. She will not be permitted to get her license until she can afford the car. The other is 15 and chomping at the bit already, eager for the independence she will achieve with her own ride.
More than once I have purchased what is being called a "clunker" because it is in the price range I can afford -- both the purchase price and the insurance costs without collision coverage. Several times I have purchased cars whose owners have told me they were asking the price because it was what they could get on a trade-in. What am I to do now that the incentive will be $4,500 for a trade-in on a car that may have been traded in for $1,000 in the past? I can't afford $4,500 for a vehicle.
What you might consider a clunker, I consider affordable transportation.
How many millions of other working poor will be financially slammed by our current one party ruling bodies?
Finally, here is a test. How much do you know about the founding principles of our nation? Just for the record, I scored 8 out of 10.
I accidentally caught a local news report yesterday morning that sent a chill up my spine. The report was about Obama. Chris Mathews may feel tingles going up his leg when he sees Obama, but that tingle, for me, comes from my wife.
No, this was a distinct chill of fear. I looked over at the TV, and there was the handsome, photogenic newsman talking about the handsome, photogenic Obama's upcoming news conference. There was a photo of our handsome, photogenic, dear leader in the background while the newsman was talking. Under the photo were the topics of the upcoming speech. The one that made me squeamish was the announcement of a cabinet level post to help rebuild U.S. cities hurt by the tanking of the U.S. auto industry.
The handsome newsman read it with a straight face, as if it were no big deal that another portion of our domestic market and our lives was going to be taken over by the government. Yes, more government control over a formerly free market scares me. What scares me more though, is the fact that it has become so matter-of-fact. Government control over our lives, which has been slowly increasing since I was a child, is now barreling full steam ahead. Our rights, which were slowly being eroded (for our own good and the good of the children) are now being erased altogether - and it's no big deal.
We, the people, are no longer concerned that we are no longer a people with a government. We've now been degraded to a government with a people.
Wait, let me correct myself. It's worse than people not being concerned. People are welcoming that government control, begging for it, demanding it. The citizenry wants the government to save us from the collapsing auto industry, from greedy capitalists, from (gasp!) climate change.
Legions of Chicken Littles have turned Americans from a people of innovation, bravery, and fortitude into helpless subjects. As a society, we have decided that freedom is too much work. There is too much uncertainty for our tastes. We are afraid. We are so fearful that we will even allow the government to tell us what kind of light bulbs to use in our homes. We want to be safe and secure in the comforting arms of our Uncle Barack. (I know, I didn't say Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam has demands. He expects us to stand on our own two feet, to be strong and secure in our strength, to defend our country and those weaker than us. That's become too much to ask, too much responsibility and belief in our own self-worth. Uncle Barack wants nothing but our obedience and our wealth so that he can redistribute it.)
Instead of reaching for the stars and welcoming that next challenge, we long to be "free from freedom."
Unless a man has the talents to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden.... We join a mass movement to escape from individual responsibility, or, in the words of an ardent young Nazi, "to be free from freedom." It was not sheer hypocrisy when the rank-and-file Nazis declared themselves not guilty of all the enormities they had committed. They considered themselves cheated and maligned when made to shoulder responsibility for obeying orders. Had they not joined the Nazi movement in order to be free from responsibility?
Is this how it is to end, with the formerly free people of the greatest country on Earth whimpering our way into the dustbin of history?
If not, we've got a lot of work ahead of us and a lot of bad thinking to undo.
That's the current mode of thought, isn't it? The government is throwing money around like they have it. Now, it's $4,500.00 to buy a new fuel efficient car if you trade in your old gas guzzler. There's even a catchy title, "Cash for Clunkers." My little gas sipper will be two in November. I dumped my minivan for it. It was either that, or dump around $5,000.00 into repairs on the old rust heap - uh - I mean, clunker. Being the frugal (cheap) guy that I am, I had to figure out what would pay better in the long run. Had I known this was coming, I might have made a different decision.
That government check would have covered over one third of the cost of my bare bones GM. I bought the cheapest one I could find. It's all manual. You even have to roll the windows up and down by hand. I thought the salesman was kidding when he told me that. My kids had never even been in a car that didn't have automatic windows. It was a novelty for days and a story to tell their friends for months.
My father, though, is tickled pink. He's retired, his savings took a big hit like everyone else's but he wants a new car to replace his '98 Buick with over 100,000 miles on it. He's not the only one salivating over this example of government largesse. Isn't that nice of our government, handing out money like that so that people can buy the new cars the government wants them to buy? And who am I to complain? It's not my money their going to be handing out. That's long gone. They're giving my children's and grandchildren's cash.
Is anyone complaining about government turned into Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy, and Easter Bunny all rolled into one? Only those humorless conservatives. They have this weird idea that people should earn their living. Talk about reactionary. Don't they get it? A new day is dawning. All we, the people have to do now, is hold out our hands and say, "gimme." The nice government worker person will oblige our every whim . . . until that person decides that work is strictly for suckers and quits to stand in the handout line with the rest of us progressive thinkers.
So who is going to do the work, when it becomes so much easier to just not work. I'm hearing stories of able-bodied people who have lost their jobs, and as hard as it may be for you to believe, due to extended unemployment benefits, they're not looking for another job. They're tired of working. They know that Obama will provide. The states feel that way. The severely debt-ridden state of Michigan is looking to grab a few billion in stimulus funds. And that will make everything all better and insure that Governor Granholm gets reelected. (I heard that Obama blessed the funds going to blue states so that Democrats will keep their positions.)
Schools are also looking to the feds for more money, and according to Instructor magazine, they're looking for (surprise) "Stimulus" cash. It's not that school districts are being selfish, they just want to save teachers' jobs so that our students can continue to get the world-class education that American public schools have been providing for generations. Of course, from my own experience as a public school teacher, I've seen horrendous amounts of taxpayer money wasted in various ways. But that's another post.
The aim here is to get money from the government now, before that money goes to someone else, and everyone points and laughs at you for being the last doofus on the block actually holding a job.
Well, maybe I'm not completely lazy. I did manage to cut the grass, and before that I went to the gym. I returned some CDs that I borrowed. And I went to my sister's house for a delicious Father's Day barbecue, where I was battered and abused playing with my two year old nephew. But for actual Father's Day content, I recommend Jungle Mom.
All you need to know about Obamacare is at Bookworm Room.
And finally, here is today's comment on President Obama. It's brought to you by that fine fellow at Dry Bones.
Senator Robert Menendez Offers Obama a History Lesson
The link to this video was emailed to me. I passed it on. Now I'm posting it. Senator Menendez, (a Democrat!) from New Jersey helps our beleaguered (fly murdering) president, by offering him a history lesson. In his Cairo speech, Obama claimed to be a student of history. After listening to his speech, it's obvious that he's not a very good student. Fortunately, the senator from New Jersey was paying attention.
If you don't have the patience to sit through a thirteen minute-plus speech, you can read the full text of the speech here. This is highly recommended.
Victor Davis Hanson has also graciously written Obama a short history lesson, correcting many of his stated misconceptions from his Cairo speech. It's short and well worth reading - especially to your friends who still believe Obama when he speaks.
I still don't believe it, or maybe I don't want to believe it, but here is the reaction from PETA on the murder of an anonymous fly by The Obama.
The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants the flyswatter in chief to try taking a more humane attitude the next time he's bedeviled by a fly in the White House.
PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.
"We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals," PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said Wednesday. "We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."
and
Friedrich said that PETA was pleased with Obama's voting record in the Senate on behalf of animal rights and noted that he has been outspoken against animal abuses.
Still, "swatting a fly on TV indicates he's not perfect," Friedrich said, "and we're happy to say that we wish he hadn't."
Don't these people have more important things to be concerned about?
I found some really stupid things written in the Detroit Free Press this morning. At least I thought they were stupid. The writers of these pieces would obviously disagree with me. And it has come to the point for many people, that any idea they disagree with is an exercise in stupidity. That is a foolish way to think. You've got to have the facts or at least a decent argument to back up your thoughts. I may or may not have either.
The first selection is this article, reprinted in its entirety.
The American Civil Liberties Union released a report Tuesday that said the U.S. government's crackdown on terrorism financing has hampered the religious freedom of American Muslims by making it difficult for them to donate to Islamic charities.
Called "Blocking Faith, Freezing Charity," the 166-page report is based on 120 interviews with Muslim donors and leaders.
The report said that nine American Muslim charities, including the Dearborn-based Goodwill Charitable Organization, have been shut down since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as a result of government action during the Bush administration.
Muslims can still give to charities. There are many worthwhile charities who cater to people of all religions. If we infidels are constantly expected to reach out to the Muslims in our midst, shouldn't they at least make a minor gesture back? You know, send a few dollars to Goodwill, or the Salvation Army, or any of the hundreds of other charities in this country. If they wish to contribute to Islamic charities, shouldn't there be some sort of monitoring of these charities to make sure none of their zakat goes to jihad? Or have I committed an islamophobic thought crime by wondering if Islamic charities support jihadist murderers merely because there is a documented history of this support?
Former Gov. William Milliken was being characteristcally modest in his Sunday column ("Make Michigan nation's clean energy powerhouse"), because history shows he was a leader before his time when it comes to renewable energy. Had the federal government supported his efforts back in 1976 to promote solar and wind energy in Michigan, we would now be at the head of the curve instead of catching up to it.
Having been a renewable energy advocate back in the 1970s, I saw a great burst of promise regarding our state's energy independence when Gov. Milliken signed Michigan's renewable energy tax credit into law. As a result, some 300 startup companies in solar and wind energy-related businesses were born in our state. That was 1976!
One or two years after the 1976 bill signing, the startup companies died on the vine because of a lack of will by the feds to support ongoing energy conservation tax credits. I pray that we are not going down that same road again.
No, these energy companies didn't die to to government inaction, they died due to consumer inaction. We, the American consumers, weren't interested. If these renewable energy concepts were as great as claimed, there would be no need for the government to shove them down our throats they way they are doing now. There would be no need for the never-ending "green" propaganda campaigns in our schools and media. People would buy them on their own because they would see an advantage to them beyond moral posturing. Unless, of course, we are too dumb to know what is good for us and we need the government to act as a benign guide and caretaker.
And speaking of government as caretaker, nursemaid, mommy, and daddy, here's another delightful letter.
Big banks that still have billions of dollars of uncollectable debt on their books want to repay the government the TARP funds. I wonder if the only reason they wish to repay is to get away from government control in regard to the excessive compensation in the form of stock options, pay and bonuses for top executives and boards of directors?
Well, wouldn't you? Or should executive pay be decided by the government? Some people would say yes to that, under the delusion that their pay will never be government approved. It's only the rich who have to be controlled by kindly Uncle Sam, not we, the people, right?
Oh, and by the way, Obama killed a fly today. It was quite an event. It was too late to be reported in today's Free Press. It still made me wonder if this was serious reporting. Vanderleun, at American Digest has written the post I was thinking of writing about this major event. Of course, he's written it much better than I would have, so we can all be thankful that I read his before attempting my own.
A group that aims to convert Muslims to Christianity has sued the city of Dearborn and its Police Department, claiming the city is violating its free speech and religious rights by limiting its access to patrons at this weekend's 14th annual Dearborn Arab International Festival.
The group, Arabic Christian Perspective, filed a lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Detroit, alleging its rights were violated when Dearborn police told the group its members would not be able to walk freely through the festival's four- to five-block area passing out literature promoting Christianity over Islam. Organizers want to confine the group to a designated area, the lawsuit said.
In Islamic countries under Sharia law the penalty for proselytizing any religion except the Religion of Peace, is death. Fortunately they haven't gone that far in Dearborn yet.
In fairness (a concept unknown in the Islamic world) to the city of Dearborn, the article also reports that,
Festival organizers say the issue is not about religion.
"We have Christian and Muslim groups that have information booths (at the festival)," said Fay Beydoun, the executive director for the American Arab Chamber of Commerce in Dearborn, one of the groups organizing the event. Arabic Christian Perspective is welcome to rent a booth as well, she said, but the group has not contacted her organization.
But,
Beydoun said it would be a safety issue to have large numbers of people passing out fliers during the festival.
The safety issue thing sounds shady. How would these flyers be dangerous? Oh yeah, they promote Christianity to Muslims. That could cause dangerous thinking patterns to arise. And will there be a large number of people passing out flyers? I think not.
I've actually wanted to go to one of these things for years, but I never have. If I get my act together, I might go down there. And then I will report back.
War's legitimate object is more perfect peace. Flavius Vegitius Renatus
This is an optional footer. If you want text here, place it inside these tags, and remove this comment.
CHALLAH AKBAR
