Tuesday, June 23, 2009

It’s all them Damn Jews Fault!

By Arlene Peck

I don’t claim to be a maven on anything. Well, maybe in a past life I used to take pride in being a world class shopper. Actually, I’d consider myself to be a pretty basic person. But, I’ve come to the conclusion that if I listened to the pundits and our present and past governments, everything would be solved if that “obstacle to peace” the Israelis ‘settlements” in Judea and Samaria would just go away and then all of us would have the world peace for which we’ve been yearning. Of course, nobody ever mentions that the strip of land that they want to settle G-d knows how many millions of Arabs into is about the size of Disneyland.

Forget the fact that North Korea is making daily threats with their nuclear warheads putting them on a collision course with the rest of the world. Forget they are striving to reach our shores as soon as possible. I think I just read somewhere that they are almost ready to be able to reach Hawaii.

Is Ahmadinejad and the riots going on from his free ‘election’ with millions of dissents taking to the streets, of concern for Obama? Naw. Why should Obama speak out on the need for freedom and democracy in Iran when there are apartments being built in Judea and Samaria that need immediate tearing down? Because, if not, then, according to the leaders of our country, starting with our President and working its way to Miss Hillary, the Middle East will never have a solution to the problems that envelop it.

When I hear friends, and even Israeli friends, tell me that “We are tired of fighting we don’t need the settlements.”, then G-d help me. I want to scream! When I listen to those that aren’t Jewish go on about “the Jews and their state” who are causing all the problems, I know that they are the anti-Semites that somehow electively overlook all that is really going on now with the gathering storm. I used to wonder why everybody hates ‘the Jews’ and wrote it off to plain old jealousy. But, now, I think it goes deeper than that. And, I don’t think that land has a damn thing to do with it. For heaven’s sake… take a look at the map! Sure these savages ‘need’ that land…riiiiight. And, I’ve got some swamp land I’d like to sell you too.

The Jews gave the world a conscience. Before Moses came down from that hill with the Ten Commandments, everyone was decadent, but they were happy, running around sleeping with their sisters and partying with sheep. And, then let’s not forget that Hagar, Ishmael’s mother could never accept the fact that sibling rivalry between Ishmael and Isaac was caused by the fact that her kid, who later became the father of the new nation of Islam, did not have the legitimacy of being his father’s ‘favorite’ son.

These same friends, who went on ad-nausea about the hope and change that was going to transform our lives into something wonderful just as soon as Barak Hussein Obama took charge are strangely quiet now. You would not believe how I was attacked when I even suggested that I truly believed him to be a Muslim and he just might not be all they expected.

Why does Israel have to be a sounding board for public opinion for the Arabs? A recent LA Times opinion article in the biased anti-Semitic Los Angeles Times was headed, “Israel Tussle Tests Obama. Deal may be near on settlements issue.” But any U.S concessions could undercut the president’s credibility.” Credibility with whom? The Arab world? In it the article describes how the public quarrel with Israel over the growth of Jewish settlements in the West Bank is developing into a test of the U.S. leaders international credibility, say foreign diplomats and other observers”. Wow, I wonder who they could be. More importantly, why should BiBi Netanyahu even consider bowing to Obama when it comes to the security of the future of Israel? For Obama’s poll numbers in the Arab world or with our resident Nazi former President Jimmy Carter?

Apparently, the Arab world is being vocal that the ‘concessions not only disappointed the Arabs who the president has been courting, but also will be read by US adversaries around the globe as a signal that the president can be forced to back down.”

Frankly folks, I don’t give a diddly-squat what the Arab world, or even the free world is thinking about Obama’s plans for Israel might be. I know whatever they might be are not going to be anything but the advocate to demise of the Jewish state. Land never has had anything to do with it. The Arab world makes no secret about its intent. They won’t be happy until Israel does not exist whether as the State of Israel or the Jewish State of Israel. They want every last Jew gone! DEAD! Of course, since our new leader has announced that the United States is no longer a Judeo/ Christian country that might include the Sunday people also. Ya think?

What I don’t understand is why Israel bends and bows every time this group who I lovingly refer to as the ‘coven’ orders BiBi and company to give up something in the name of ‘peace’ and like fools they do it?

When Israel mentions a few basic suggestions of its own, such as the recognition of their country as a Jewish state with the right to exist, they are labeled as obstructionists of peace. Or, maybe when they sometimes say, they might want some of the Arab world to live up to any of their previous promises and agreements, they are totally ignored. Worse, the former inept leaders of Israel had opened the jails and let out hundreds of the terrorist tigers from their cages in one of their ‘good will ‘gestures.

I don’t care about ‘goodwill concessions’ from the Arabs because, it doesn’t mean a thing anyway. And, now that I feel we have an muslim in the White House, the United States isn’t trustable either. Last month, under Obama’s direction, Sec of State Madam Hillary Clinton declared that Obama opposed any settlements’ growth’ saying that he “wants to see a stop to settlements—not some settlements, not outpost, not ‘natural growth ‘exceptions’ Lovely. And, this from the woman that the Jewish community thought was going to be their ‘friend’ in the White House.

Except, who is she, or who is any US political official to hold the future of the Jews of Israel via Obama’s power? Doesn’t anyone who is supposed to be watching the store remember what happened the last time they listened to assurances from the Arabs and the U.S. about how wonderful it would be and peace could finally come to the region if only the interlopers in the ‘settlements’ in Gaza would just move out?

Received by email from Arlene [bestredhead@earthlink.net]

Another horror from hate-filled British social workers

They subject a woman to extreme provocation and then condemn her for becoming angry

A mother had her twin babies taken from her by social workers after she joked that their caesarean birth had ruined her body. She and her husband endured five rounds of IVF costing £38,000 to start a family, only to have social services take their children within weeks. The parents insist social workers acted needlessly, but have been warned their six-month-old boy and girl could be put up for adoption following a secret Family Court hearing last week.

The babies, who were born six weeks prematurely, were taken into care after hospital staff warned that the first-time parents were struggling to care for them. Nurses reported that the mother appeared to feel ' bitter' towards her children after her joke about the caesarean's effect on her body. And when the desperate woman lost her temper at social workers who had taken her babies, officials said she had 'anger problems' and could pose a threat to her twins.

The babies were born in December, at the height of nationwide fury that social workers had failed to step in and halt the abuse and tragic death of Baby Peter in Haringey, North London. The alarm over Peter's death has raised the prospect that some innocent families have been caught up in the backlash.

The couple, from Hornchurch, Essex, can be identified only as Mr and Mrs N to protect the identity of their children. They are allowed only supervised contact for ten hours a week with their son and daughter, and have been warned that the babies could be handed to strangers for adoption if a judge rules they cannot care for them.

Mrs N, a 36-year-old who has been told she cannot try for more children for medical reasons, said: 'Social services should step in where there's violence or abuse but we would never hurt our children.' Her 42-year- old husband added: 'No one is born with parenting skills - you have to learn them.' The couple have been married for five years.

A childhood infection left Mrs N suffering from a rare hormone disorder and unable to conceive naturally, and she suffers from short-term memory loss because of a car accident when she was a teenager, but doctors said there was no reason why she should not undergo IVF treatment. The babies were delivered on December 30 after Mrs N was admitted to Whipps Cross Hospital in East London with high blood pressure. They both weighed little more than 3lb and were kept in incubators at the NHS hospital's neonatal unit, where their parents were eventually able to help feed and care for them.

But staff became concerned that they were not giving the twins enough milk or changing them often enough. On January 29 a senior nurse referred the family to social services.

Mrs N said: 'The hospital could see we were struggling but they made no attempt to help us. They just decided we didn't have the parenting skills to look after the babies. 'They wrote down everything we did and said so they could use it against us. They twist everything. I remember talking to my son while he was in his cot, and saying jokingly, "You want to see what you have done to your Mummy's body". 'It didn't mean I felt bitter towards him or didn't want him - I've never wanted anything as much as I wanted children - I was just joking about the state of my stomach.'

Social workers visited the couple and asked to take the children into foster care. When the parents refused, Havering Borough Council took the case to court and in February was granted an interim care order to give the twins to a foster carer. Mr and Mrs N were allowed to visit but have found it difficult to see their babies in a stranger's care, and Mrs N admits she has shouted at the foster mother and social workers during angry confrontations over the twins' welfare.

The petite, 5ft 2in woman was accused of throwing her mobile phone at a social worker, and officials once called the police during an angry case conference. Mrs N said: 'Who wouldn't be emotional, watching another woman with my children? How am I supposed to stay calm? I'm terrified that they are going to take my babies away. 'Of course I get frustrated and I sometimes lose my temper, but never with the children. We don't drink, smoke or take drugs. Neither of us has a criminal record. All we wanted was to have a family.'

A council spokesman said: 'Only in exceptional circumstances would we seek to separate a child of any age from their parents. This decision was undertaken with a great deal of thought [about how to justify hurting middle class parents] and following thorough assessment.'


Sharia Continues to Strangle Free Speech

I am being patted down by a female Danish security officer in the basement of the parliament building in Copenhagen and I have a thought. I have just triggered the metal detector -- my heels, I'm sure -- en route upstairs to the Landstingssalen, formerly the parliament's upper house. There, I am scheduled to deliver a speech at the invitation of the Danish Free Press Society, or Trykkefrihedsselskabet. (Say that three times fast -- or slow.)

Indeed, I am holding the text of my 20-minute address inside a folder in one of my hands, now rigidly outstretched as I am being searched. The speech is called "The Impact of Islam on Free Speech in the U.S.," but as I am checked for bombs and knives and whatnot, my thought is of the impact of Islam on free society everywhere.

Such a thought surely tops the heights of "political incorrectness," I know. But what should I do -- not express it? Not think it? Not even notice that Western civilization, in skewing to accommodate the jihad threat of Islam within, has already traded away too much precious freedom?

As the security officer continues patting me down, I follow this forbidden train of thought to the realization that it is only due to the incursions of Islam into the West -- Islam with its death penalty for criticism of Islam -- that I am now standing here under guard. Here we are (for there is a long line behind me by now), participants in a conference to consider Islam's censoring impact on free speech, and Danish security is doing its best to prevent Islam from censoring the speech of anyone here permanently. This strikes me as an exceedingly hard way to prove a point.

Not that there are many people likely to try outside the elegant, security-ringed conference room upstairs. In PC lingo, security in the basement is looking for "terrorists" or "extremists" -- those postmodern designations for perpetrators of Islamic jihad that, presto, turn everything Islamic into something generic. Still, with Islam comes jihad, and with jihad comes Islamic law (Sharia), no matter what "experts" tell you. And because Islam is a growing presence in the West, Western countries must now and presumably forever expend vast sums of money and manpower to manage -- not defeat, just manage -- the jihad that can break out in acts large and small at any time. Increasingly, this also means deferring to Sharia.

Finally, my pre-conference frisk is over. Hallelujah, I am no threat to society and allowed to pass. I go on to meet for the first time the great author Wafa Sultan, and meet again the great Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, the two most illustrious speakers on the conference roster.

Both Sultan and Wilders, of course, live under unrelenting, permanent and Islamic threat of death for their critiques of Islam, in a very real way suffering every day for defying Sharia's prohibition against criticizing Islam. But does the outrageousness of their plight resonate with their fellow citizens? I don't think so. I think we've all grown much too used to it, and dully complacent. But imagine if I had written, circa 1970, that for his critique of communism, Ronald Reagan lived under unrelenting, permanent and communist threat of death in his beloved California, that he couldn't travel the streets of Los Angeles without a massive security retinue, that he could no longer even sleep in his own home. Wouldn't Americans have become rightly agitated over the communist enemy within?

I think the answer would have been yes, but the point is, no such mortal homeland danger existed at that time for those who spoke against the leading threat to Western-style liberty. Today, a mortal homeland danger does exist. I won't tell you what it was like to slip in and out of the Wilders security bubble during the course of his stay in Copenhagen, but suffice it to say, it is both a veritable shame and an outrage that his life depends on that bubble, and that for speaking his mind in defense of Western-style liberty he has lost his own freedom.

The same goes for Wafa Sultan, who, for attacking the repressiveness of Islamic law (under which she existed for 30 years in Syria), also lives privately a similarly wary, hunted life that necessitates protective security measures.

Remember, this is happening in the "Free World." Whether in Denmark, Holland or the United States, the heavy hand of Islamic law is pressing in on its leading critics, squeezing the freedom out of their existence. It is time to say enough -- literally enough, for example, and stop Sharia by stopping Islamic immigration -- and throw off the rising chokehold of jihad-advanced Sharia. I guarantee it will take a lot more effort than just patting down the occasional free speechnik, but I also guarantee that for the sake of free speech it is worth it.


Australia: Homosexuals shoot themselves in the foot

They've just got the equality they agitated for but don't like it -- so now they want special privileges

July 1 should be a day of celebration for the nation's same sex couples, when their relationships will become formally recognised under many federal laws. But many gay and lesbian Australians are finding that equality comes at a price - literally. From next Wednesday, when the law starts to recognise de facto gay couples, Centrelink [Federal welfare office] will also begin taking into account gay partner's incomes when considering eligibility for benefits. So for a university student who lives with a full-time worker, they may lose their Youth Allowance cheques.

But more concerning, for the gay community, is the effect the new laws will have on elderly couples, who could be forced to go from receiving two single pensions to one couple's pension. [which is considerably lower]

Stephen Page, a partner with Harrington Family Lawyers, who runs an Australian Gay and Lesbian Law Blog, said the law change contained a clear "sting in the tail" for those now too old to return to work. "The Government's view is that when they first flagged these changes in 2007, it would allow people time to make a financial adjustment. "But the reality is people have planned their long-term futures on this and the government has changed the rules."

Ray Mackereth, publisher of Q News, a Brisbane-based gay and lesbian newspaper, said suddenly foisting equality on people who'd been discriminated against their entire lives didn't seem fair. [Good Lord! Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too!] He said for many years elderly gay people had missed out on family tax benefits, medicare benefits, partner benefits or family assistance. "Despite having paid higher taxes all their lives and not being recognised as a same sex couple, now they're going to receive less money in their retirement when their planning was done many years ago," Mr Mackereth said.

"Gay and lesbian people don't want any more than equality; they don't want special rights; they just want to be treated the same as everybody else. "But when somebody's been treated poorly for their entire life and then suddenly the laws are going to treat them poorly again, that makes it awfully tough on those people, especially older people.

Mr Page called on the government to install a grandfather clause, so that people affected kept their current benefits until their situation changed. He said he realised it could be politically difficult to continue paying a gay couple more than a heterosexual couple when they were now recognised as the same by the law. "I can understand the argument but when (a heterosexual couple) decided to retire they would have done research and assessed their finances and they knew what the rules were," Mr Page said. "Gay and lesbian couples did the same thing but now the government has changed the rules. "It's sad that this is happening."

Mr Mackereth said he hoped the issue wouldn't cloud what should otherwise be a great day for the gay and lesbian community. "Equality is a huge thing to celebrate and for most people this is truly a wonderful time," he said. "However there are a few people that will be extremely adversely affected financially, despite their best planning, and we can't let those people fall through the cracks."



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: