The letters of our thoughts are the ideas present in our mind before they come to realization . . . Thoughts that are, yet not felt . . . The words of the subconscious . . . of the soul . . .


Friday, October 17, 2008

Four Reasons why Liberals scare the Hell out of me

(and I don't mean the city in Poland)

1. Chamberlainism: Speaking with Terrorists - or 'peace' for our time, at any cost.

2. Demagoguery: Empty words and Hollywood smiles

3. The Cult of “Global Warming”: Where the communists went after they killed 108,530,000 people

4. Hate: When you're not with us, you're stupid

Please Note: I know many Liberals, and -those who are kind enough to let a lesser minded Conservative like me socialize with them- I'm actually friendly with them. To them I speak, but do not attack . . . My harsher condemnations are relegated to the small -but oh to quickly growing- far left . . .

Now take a deep breath. I know this a long post -perhaps my longest ever, but I ask that you give it the time that I invested into it . . . If need be, please split up the four "problems" into four easily digested readings. Comments are appreciated.

Problem One:

On September 30, 1938 Arthur Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich after a series of negotiations with the German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler. Standing in front of a cheering crowd, he held the results of his negotiations in his hands,

"...the settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with
the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine."

Later that day he stood outside Number 10 Downing Street and again read from the document and concluded:

'"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time."

Historians debate to what degree Chamberlain is truly responsible for the resulting carnage of over 72
million people, but it can be stated assuredly that it was the European policy of appeasement and American isolationism that let Der Fuhrer run berserk . . . actions that led to the horrors that I would later
confront and be galvanized by in Majdanek; where a mound of human
ashes, bones and earth dwarfs the figure, where black crows cut the
sickeningly heavy air with knife like shrieks, and where a sign etched in stone states
starkly in Polish, Los nasz dla was przestrogą -Let out Fate be a warning to you.

The incinerator smoke-stacks in Majdanek.

History repeats itself, some times all too quickly . . .

speech of Change and Hope will help the situation
in the Middle East. The Western mind is in general unable to
understand the issue with which it now grapples. No better proof can be found then to look at what
happened to England, France, Holland and Denmark since they have opened
the flood gates of Muslim immigration, the must now confront a culture and way of life
that not only resists integration (I speak not of assimilation - I as
an Orthodox Jew I do not either wish to assimilate into the predominant
culture. I do, however, gladly take part in society at large and work with my
fellow citizens), but actively opposes and even at times hates the host country.

In the words of Dutch MP Geert Wilders [The bold type face was added -ed.]:
"Our country, the Netherlands as many other countries is based on Christianity, is based on Judaism, is even based on humanism. But not on Islam . . . . I don't think there is a European Islam. There is no moderate Islam. Islam is, as I see it, a fascist ideology, full of hatred, submission and anything else that we should fight against. However, I make a distinction between the ideology, I believe Islam is more an ideology than a religion and the people. There are of course, people, Muslims.I have nothing against Muslims who are not terrorists, who are.the majority of the Muslims in my country are law abiding people; are not terrorists at all.

" . . . People that are coming to the Netherlands to stir up problems or who are in the Netherlands, they are not here to integrate. But to dominate. They don't give a d---, excuse my words, for all he criticism and all the culture that we have in the Netherlands today.

"The biggest problem we face today is the dominant political culture is one of cultural relativism. Most of the political elite really do believe in cultural relativism - really do believe that all cultures are equal. Whereas I believe they are not equal. . .
We have an Islamic intifada today. I'm not exaggerating. In many, many cities in the Netherlands. This is a problem. And the government looks the other direction and ignores it and puts it under the carpet, all the problems."

is for this reason, then, that I shudder when I hear the mention of
talks with such would be Hitlers as Ahmadinejad. The thought that we
can even consider sitting down and negotiating with the man is
reprehensible . . . Speech leads nowhere, creating a wall of
bureaucracy and red tape, only giving time for the creation of a fully
operational nuclear Iran . If the speech is to have any meaning in any
event, (as opposed to the empty and baseless words of the UN, which,
without a means to back them up (in addition to the corrupt nature of
the very organization itself) are worth less then the paper they were
printed on) then it must be backed up by action - why then waste
precious time?

Iraq is, and may always be, a hotly debated topic. No one can deny that the war was mismanaged (I believe had Americans been aware that we are not dealing with Nazis, Soviets or even Imperial Japanese - people led by a cult of personality, but rather with Jihad - religious fervor and centuries of hate, that can not be easily transformed into a willing partner in peace, then the results would have been far more positive. We are so preconditioned to believe that there are multiple truths, and that all cultures are the same as ours, that we in our arrogance forget that other people can be very different . . . and dangerous.)
Debate aside, to deny the fact that the war accomplished something amazing,
something that should have happened many years ago, is to justify the
murder of hundreds of thousands.

Despite what I
once heard from a liberal in Canada; that Saddam spent the last months of his freedom witting poetry in the Iraqi wilderness, despite the existence, or lack
thereof, of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Saddam Hussein was an
incredibly evil man. He was responsible for the death of over 600,000
people, for an oppressive government, for launching scud
missiles at Israel (which was saved only by a miracle) . . . Anyone who
is to deny the magnitude of the moment must take a trip to a death
camp, to a Gulag or the like and see the oppression of the masses. It astounds the mind that people who should so openly cheer the downfall of a vile dictator will let bitter politics and small mindedness use every excuse in the book to deny one basic and glaring truth -evil is evil and no matter what the reasons its gone, we need to recognize the fact.

When America went in to take down Hitler, approximately 2,500 GI's and 2,600 paratroopers died
on the first day of the beaches of Normandy. In Iraq 4,185 men and women have been lost during combat on evil. I salute them, I honor them . . .
But I do not have the audacity and the gal, the bile and chutzpah, to even think for a moment that they died for naught.

Los nasz dla was przestrogą

Problem Two:

I do not think the Obama is an evil person, I do not dare to stoop down to name calling - I do not consider him the closest friend of Israel, nor the biggest enemy, but calling him a Muslim is childish, factually incorrect, and frankly insulting to the righteous Muslims out there . . . It's so Leftist, that I'm embarrassed to hear it come from conservative mouths.

I am, however, truly worried that people are ready to vote in a man based on vanity of vanities -charisma and charm . . . Fluffy words of Change and Hope, but no solid ground upon which to build them. Barack's voting record shows 230 counts of abstaining from voting in one (as of yet to be completed) term in Senate. Radicalism was in during the -60's. Though I disagree with many of the ideas professed then, people nevertheless stood for something . . . they gave up for it, it was serious. Today I see far too many people that express radical ideas -but won't dip their fingers in cold water for a serious cause. They shout slogans, but mean only themselves. A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

That Barack has had associated with various notorious individuals - Rashid Khalidi, Farrakhan, Ayers et al, that he sat at the feet of Jeremy Wright for twenty years, is questionable . . . that asking such questions is considered beyond apocryphal is frightening. Jumping on minor blunders and other stupid misquotes is in vogue these days; I find it to be the general bane of what good politics ought to be -yet it seems that anything more serious is out of question.

I've heard people compare Obama to Kennedy. I wonder about the logic . . . are all young politicians the same based only on the very nature of their youth? I find Kennedy to be an amazing orator, Obama's unscripted oh's and umms don't inspire me . . . That, however, is only my opinion. Even more though, Kennedy saw a pride in America - he saw the evil of Communism and looked it in the eye, he spoke of people asking not what their country could do for them, but rather what they could for their country - he was also, unfortunately, the first president to not wear a hat, thus taking it out of fashion . . . but I won't hold it against him. Obama looks down on America based on world opinion
and I quote:
"You know, my father came from Kenya. That’s where I get my name. And in the ’60s, he wrote letter after letter to come to college here in the United States because the notion was that there was no other country on Earth where you could make it if you tried. The ideals and the values of the United States inspired the entire world. I don’t think any of us can say that our standing in the world now, the way children around the world look at the United States, is the same."
When Russia hated America, we knew we stood for the truth. Now the Left hides like a dog with a tale under it's legs. When in S. Petersburg I was shocked to see Americans make fun of the picture of President Bush visiting the Grand Choral Synagogue, in front of the locals ("You actually let him in here? I wouldn't have"), in some convoluted attempt to impress them!
What is more, however, is I highly doubt today's Progressives would like any President right of Carter.

Let us take Kennedy as an example. He may have been a Democrat, but he was no fool. He knew the enemy and did much to try to stop him - I highly doubt his increasing the number of U.S. military in Vietnam from 800 to 16,300 would have gone well with the 'Bush Lied, People Died' crowd. - Let us not forget that in 1963, the Kennedy backed a coup in Iraq that helped Saddam's future Baath Party get in power . . . and for what? American and UK oil interests. Sounds, gasp, rather Rovian to me.

Let's go a little further in History -just to prove a point . . . President Lincoln? Another great orator, courageous American leader, and - to his credit - wearer of a great hat - today the Liberal elements would be screaming for his blood.

During the Civil War, Lincoln appropriated powers no previous President had wielded: he used his war powers to proclaim a blockade, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, spent money without congressional authorization, and imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial.
Echoing future sentiments, a portion of the Democratic platform followed the Peace wing of the party and called the Civil War a "failure," . . .

The Left is deeply entrenched in my former home, the Left Coast. I find it frightening that Hollywood types (I don’t mean the good folk that work away behind the scenes, or those that use their place of prestige for true good) feel that due to their self-given (I would say G-d given, but one who believes himself to be the center of the universe, a god, could not have anything given to him by a Higher Power) talents, their opinion’s should set world policy . . . The words of one star's movement, "The Great Schlep" eerily remind one of Nazi propaganda - Jewish nature of the organizers or not.

Let us remember that we’re speaking about people that live morally and socially corrupt lives, and thus wish to improve their otherwise meaningless existences with pats on the back for being “progressive” and “open minded” -the Industry in essence encourage people to live their lives pretending to be someone else. I may be from Los Angeles and live in New York, but I’m well aware that there’s a lot of country between the Upper West-side and West Hollywood . . .

Problem Three:

Scientist David Suzuki claimed last year:

"What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act. It's an intergenerational crime in the face of all the knowledge and science from over 20 years."

Even more frightening, I once heard an almost surreal ad on the Radio in New York.
It went something akin to this:

Woman 1: It's coming . . .
Woman 2: It's Coming . . .
Man1: Global Warming!
Man2: Global Warming!
Woman 3: Global Warming is here.

Cute Child: Global Warming is here, and if we want to stop it, we must act now!
Woman 1: Or face hundred foot tidal waves . . .

Man2: Melting Ice Caps . . .
Cute Child: and dwindling resources.

Everyone: We must do something now . . .
Cute Child: So we can have a future . . .


Extreme statements like that are out of bounds - how much more so when they are so blatantly not based on fact. The list of scientists that feel that Global warming is a natural process -or at least believe it's cause is unknown, is impressive. (H/T Leoraw)

When I was a child I was scared to death by stories of a giant hole in ozone-layer . . . at the same time people would also mention something called Global Warming. Neither seemed to be very likely though, I'm not even sure what happened to that hole. Suddenly, though, while I was experiencing the coldest winter of my life in 'sunny' Montreal, Global Warming became popular again -it was in style and almost trendy . . . I mean stars even suggested that we do things to stop it - like using only one square of toilet paper per sitting.
And low and behold, after years of be related to scaring children and making cameos in movies, Global Warming started again - and gosh wow - as soon as they started speaking about!

The funny thing is, that I have as of yet to figure out what exactly it is. Because two years ago it was the coldest winter in Los Angeles on record - beating out the low of 1932 - and I was told that what I was shivering over was Global Warming, and then when I was told that last year would be another frightening Global Warming winter that would be way too warm - it snowed in NY on the first day of Winter.

To further the problem, whatever data that seems to run counter to the theory is worse then 'Holocaust denial' (My morbid sense of humor tells me that had these Global Warming fanatics lived during the Holocaust, the camps would be protested for their carbon emissions - or praised for the ending of CO2 produced by overpopulation (r"l) -more on that later)

But all of this really beyond the point.

It's not to say that I don't believe that something is going on, nor that 'Global Warming' is some vast Left-Wing conspiracy . . .

Nature goes through ups and downs; we had the Little Ice Age of a few centuries back, and the Medieval Warm Period even further in the past. There will be those who jump to tell me that the subject of climate change is subjective, and conclusive data from those periods can not be brought to disprove Global Warming . . . But by the same token, the very phenomena of Global Warming that we now experience is subject to same inaccuracies of the past. One need look no further then the Global Cooling of the 70's.

We need to do our best to preserve nature, but for so many reasons besides Global Warming, and in ways far more practical then the feel good or anti-progressive ones currently in vogue.

As to those who believe in apocalyptic Global Warming, I don't think that they all come with such sinister political agendas -far be it from that, most people out there honestly are worried for altruistic reasons, or at least in order to still a conscious that is otherwise devoid of a sense of moral objective (Hence the hypocritical support of celebrities and socialites). The problem lies in the people who are pushing the issue.

People ask why something so important as Global Warming can be politicized, when it ought to be a universal concern . . .

The reason being that the agenda of pushing (and distorting!) information about Global Warming is one all too political.
It fits snugly together with the beliefs of anti-capitalism and anti-Globalizationism, giving an emotional and acceptable overtone to an otherwise failed belief system that went down with the fall of Communism and end of the Summer of Love. It's been a politicized because the people who picked it up and ran with it did so in order to brandish it as war cry for their cause.
Where are Global Warming measures being stressed the most? In developing countries - in the places that need the most energy to be able to reach even basic living standards. So while we sit snugly in our well heated homes, enjoying our computers, light bulbs and take out food - all fed by oil sold to us by the Terrorists of Problem One - people sit in mud huts and are told to use unreliable means of energy. While we ride around in our cars - be they the oh so trendy hybrid ("Look, I'm not only cool, I'm saving the world while I drive to the airport for my trip to Hawaii") or not - those in Third world countries carry their burdens on animals. It is hate and snobbery, forcing those that need their resources the most to stay inferior while we speak about feeling bad.

Even more so, an oh so obvious form of clean energy is pushed aside . . . the power of the essence, the power of the atom.
Nuclear energy is an amazing gift. True it has its dangers if used by the wrong hand, but like a fire that can burn down a house, it can also give warmth and save lives. In France 78.8 percent of it's energy is produced from Nuclear energy, where it is viewed as safe, and thanked for its job opportunities.
Instead of using the knowledge that G-d has granted us to harness the power of the very building blocks of the nature, we close our eyes, and the doors of opportunity, to the less fortunate, and instead suggest such horrifying ideas as welcoming the annihilation of the world's population by three quarters (I wonder which three quarters we honestly mean? I doubt they'd honestly suggest Berkley!)
In the words of Daniel Engber at Slate:

Oh, if we all just disappeared. According to The World Without Us, Alan Weisman's strangely comforting vision of human annihilation, the Earth would be a lot better off. In his doomsday scenario, freshwater floods would course through the New York subway system, ailanthus roots would heave up sidewalks, and a parade of coyotes, bears, and deer would eventually trot across the George Washington Bridge and repopulate Manhattan. Nature lovers can take solace in the idea that the planet will thrive once we've finally destroyed ourselves with global warming. But Weisman takes the fantasay one step further: Let's not wait for climate change, he says. Let's start depopulating right now.

Instead of burning down our numbers with oil and gas, we might follow the advice of the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, who tells Weisman that everyone in the world should stop having kids all at once. Weisman isn't up for quite so drastic a measure, but he makes his own pitch, moderate in comparison: Let's cut the birth rate to one child per couple, for a few generations at least. The population would dwindle by about 5 billion people over the next century, he says, ensuring the habitability of the Earth for the 1.6 billion who remained. At that point, they could all reap the rewards of a more spacious planet, sharing in "the growing joy of watching the world daily become more wonderful."

. . . Our other green lifestyle choices can't even begin to offset the cost of adding a brand-new CO2-emitter to the population. When I ran my own numbers through Al Gore's carbon calculator, I discovered that a switch to 100 percent wind and solar power would reduce my emissions by just 1.3 tons per year. That's not even enough to account for one quarter of today's average American. Meanwhile, I'd have to do quite a bit of driving around in a Hummer H3 to mimic the environmental impact of creating another version of me. Not to mention the fact that my children might eventually decide to have their own children, who would emit even more carbon dioxide down the line.

. . . Whether it's eating vegetarian or wearing organic eye shadow, we're all shopping for absolution. We know that babies add more to global warming than anything else in our home. Isn't it time to cut back?"

Problem Four:

Frankly I’m tired of the Left’s childish political stance -they don’t counter with facts or even opinion, but empty rhetoric and sophomoric attacks on the character, nay the “intelligence” of their opponents.

During the debate between Palin and Biden people I know on the left would go on
and on about mispronounced words and other bloopers, and when Palin made factually correct and powerful statements, they laughed even harder about the Polar Bear finally doing some research -talk about being damned if you do, damned if you don’t . . . and all of this while ignoring factual errors and down right untruths from Biden (For example, his statement about Obama opposing elections in the "West Bank" (he meant Gaza)) Frankly this is the same highfalutin, egocentric and conceited view possessed by Academia -the belief that there are many truths in the world (Communism, Fascism, Radical Islam, Tree hugging et al ad nauseam ) as long as they fall in line with their own beliefs -anything else is for the “ignorant

When I decided to go to Yeshivah, my "pogressive" friends decried my move to ignorance and medievalisms . . . Though I was merely choosing a venue of education - I doubt they would have been bothered had I gone into Pre-Med or Law - and even more so, my course of study was far greater in terms of hours and breadth then theirs - because I choose a more conservative - dare I say Orthodox - path, it was wrong. It was stupid.
Abortion is a tired subject, and I don't want to get into it at the moment. By if someone is truly "Pro-choice" then why are those who choose to not go through with what they honestly find to be a heinous act, considered to be Neanderthals? Think I'm wrong - look at the smear against Palin's decision to have a child with Down's Syndrome. In general, women who choose to have many children are backwards - they are seen as consigning themselves to an inferior lot in life -they ought to be pursuing their jobs! Funny that. I would have figured that a lady who can do something that no man ever could; a lady who had the nerves of steel and dedication to the future of this world, would be a hero. I guess I figured wrong.

It is in fact due to this general stance that I have come to the conclusion that the leftists are the biggest racists in the world! The same individuals who protest the destruction “Big Corporations” and “Globalists” bring to small ethno-cultures (Say, for example, the two brothers who live somewhere in South America and are the last of a line of priests that believe their practices alone keep the world in balance), will belittle the “red necks” who cling devoutly to their (albeit far more popular) religion. How can it be that Evangelicals (lest the defenders of the Jewish faith jump on me, let me state that I
am well aware of the darker side of said group, but I take the good where I can find it, and for better or worse, they are the strongest supporters of Israel, defenders of this country and protect the various
moralities of G-d - in any event, however, if one is to be truly “progressive” and “open minded”, then they should be accepting of this group even if their opinions differ entirely) who believe very deeply
in their religion are criticized - yet those minority groups (and let us add the African American and Latino demographics – they can also be very stringent and fundamental in their religion and interpretation of
the Bible) who may believe in the most unscientific and superstitious things are courted, praised and supported? I purport that it is solely due to the fact that the Left is the biggest group of the most foul and
disgusting racists in the world - let the minorities and ethnic groups cling to old-fashioned and outmoded forms of culture and belief, we can not expect more from them . . . But red blooded, white skinned
Americans? They ought to know better. (Or, perhaps, it may also have to do with the fact that whoever votes Democrat can believe whatever they want, it's only if you're against us can you fall prey to criticism . . . maybe, just maybe.)

I’m tired of people discounting and insulting the good people that make up the vast majority of America -the people that work tirelessly for a better America, that lay down their lives for my Freedom and the
like -all of this while S. Francisco can only come up with naming a Sewage processing plant after the Commander in Chief of the country that protects them!

Post Script:
Chaviva over at Mama Loshen wrote a well written response to my post here. See my comments there as well (though keep them going here)

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,


Leora said...

Interesting post, Mottel! And though you linked to me, because I was the one who found the list, I will have to say I'm skeptical in both directions when it comes to global warming.

In fact, liberals might be the "in" thing now, but there are plenty of right-wingers who might potentially get power, and they would scare me, too. As Jews, I think we need to do a little dance between what's scarier...these days, it does seem to be the more liberal end of the spectrum that's scary...

Anonymous said...


Sorry to say, but I would like to see Obama elected in November? Why?

1) McCain is not a true conservative by any means, nor is he particularly qualified to be President.

2) No matter who gets in, the next 2-4 years will be hard ones. So, let Obama get in and make the total mess that he will make, and he will get the blame for the all of the problems (some of which date back to Clinton's absurd insistence that anyone be able to buy a home). Obama will discredit the left for years to come as Jimmy Carter did in his time.

Then, in the 2010 Congressional elections, Republicans will make huge gains and become the majority party, which will undo or stop further damage. Finally, in 2012, we have a Republican president who is a real conservative - it just might be Sarah Palin.

Leora said...

Yitzchak, I've heard this argument. I'm not sure it will happen, but Obama might just get elected, so we will see. We are still seeing the results of Jimmy Carter's presidency in the MidEast.

On Sarah Palin: there's an example of when the right will get scary. The right wingers, for example, will not allow abortion even when halacha allows abortion (in case where woman's life is in danger). When will they start legislating stuff that will make you scared of them?

Chaviva Gordon-Bennett said...

Well, I did it. I wrote a blog reply to your post here. I'm sort of surprised by you, though. But you'll have to read my post to find out:

pinchos said...

umm wilder"S"

Mottel said...

-Leora: I agree with you. I think that it is not possible to determine what is going on, while we're going though it. I do, however, feel that though our actions do have some bearing on the world around us, they are not the cause of the majority of what we may now be seeing. I actually read a story about Sukkos with the Alter Rebbe in 1787, when there was a horrible blizard . . . it aint snowing in Liadi today, nor has it for some time, I don't think we caused it.

-Yitzhak: I'm not wowed by McCain either -I wanted Guilliani, but he's the best of the two . . . We'll have to see in 2010, though I definitely see your point.

-Pinchos: Never double cross the Dutch on spelling. Sorry.

Nemo said...


Mottel said...

-Nemo: I was referring to upcoming Congressional elections in 2010, not the presidential. I would have figured that as a law student, you would have figured that out.

Anonymous said...

Interesting points even I don't agree with most of them. I also like the fact that Chavi answered your points.

Mottel said...

-Ilana: Glad you enjoyed the exchange of ideas . . . but answered my points? She gave her points back -in matters like this, no one can answer.

Anonymous said...

I was hoping McCain would break the strangle-hold groups like Moral Majority and the Evangelicals have on the Republican party. Therefore, when he selected Palin, I had to go with Obama.

I believe those groups seek to destroy the rights of Americans of all religions. Things like Intelligent Design are being moved into schools and taught as valid scientific theory when it is religious dogma. Where does it stop?

American presidents all say they are committed to Israel. Bush, when he was first elected, refused to meet with Arafat and supported Israel in many ways. However, the last few years, Israel has been asked by Bush to make concession after concession to the PA as "confidence boasting measures".

I opposed the US war in Iraq. I listened to Bush and got the idea he wanted to be in position in Iraq to curtail Iran's influence in the region. After listening I felt it would be a good idea. However, it's not turning out that way. Iran ties with Hezballah are even stronger. Now even Saudi Arabia is seeking nuclear options. In short, far from stabilizing the region, it seems to have made it even worse.

There are no easy solutions in the Middle East. There haven't been in 5769 years.

What I like best about the US is that each of us the right to decide what is best way to live our lives. In short, we are free to pursue which religion we belong to. When Palin speaks of little pockets of 'real' America, she is discounting those who do not believe as she does. And while all speak of Ayers connections to the Weather Underground, too few seem to speak of how our government used illegal means to follow his moves. Don't get me wrong, I feel the acts of domestic terror were wrong and immoral. From what I have read, Ayers never did any of the bombings and stopped being a member of the group before anyone had been murdered.

As far as Obama's speech used in your post, it is from his speech on race after the controversy with Wright came up. He is speaking of the different reality of black life in America. It is different than what whites have experienced. Even our great Constitution didn't go quite all the way and the horror of slavery continued.

Our Declaration of Independence would have been even more radical if all men had meant slaves as well: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

Growing up in Mississippi, it may seem strange to say that I understand a little of Reverend Wright's rage with America. He was a Marine and it took a massive amount of work for black children to be able to go to schools that were not segregated, for blacks to quit being banned from housing, and no longer having to sit in the back of the bus. They no longer had to use the black only water fountains and toilets.

Along the Mississippi Gulf Coast, cities closed public swimming pools so they wouldn't have to comply with laws that stated blacks could not be banned. Before the Civil Rights movement, blacks were also segregated to certain areas of public beaches.

Throughout America's history there have been many instances were Jews could not go into certain places.

This is why I become upset about the Moral Majority and the Evangelical movements. They want to foist their ideas of what is right and wrong upon all. They are religious movements that seek to underpin the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

On the surface, Evangelicals seem to be friendly for Jews and Israel and yet in the back of my mind I can't help but recall Ann Coulter's(an Evangelical) words. She said several months ago that Christians are the "perfected Jews" and that Jews, in order to be "perfected", need to accept Christ.

Mottel said...

-Shira: Thanks for the comment!
As stated, I'm wary of the Xtian Right, but I take what good I can get. Keep in mind that America is about Freedom of Religion, not from religion . . . something that fear of the Evangelicals often leads too.
As well, Orthodox Judaism does believe in the Creation of the World, in the right to life, and other such things -you may choose to disagree, but it exists within our your camp as well.

I doubt if any American President will ever truly be good for Israel, but it's still necessary to pick the best guy out there!
Iraq has problems agreed, but it aint sinister . . . maybe stupid.

On wire taping . . . keep in mind that what Lincoln did to hold this country together was far worse then Gitmo, Patriot act et al combined.

America is a work in process, yes there was racism in the past -but the moves to correct those problems have gone great distances to that point. Other people had trouble in the past -Jews didn't have it easy -Anaheim (where Disney Land is in LA) used to have a sign saying no Jews aloud . . . The Japanese faced Racism during WWII . . . but these groups, and many others have managed to make the system work for them, to put a stress on education and to take great leaps forward in society. Being bitter about the past and building on conspiracies doesn't help, it hurts . . . extraordinarily .

le7 said...

Well said.

Raised hardcore lib: taught that conservatives have horns and eat poor people for breakfast.

Now: Not a lib, not so much of a conservative, more libertarian than anything.

After admitting I went "partially to the other side", have been attacked incessantly as a greedy racist.

I may not agree with all conservative ideals, but I do know I'm not a liberal. I also feel that there are no "true liberals" anymore. Isn't being a liberal supposed to mean you are open-minded and accepting? (Of even *gasp* people who have differing opinions).