Monday, September 15, 2008

Leftist Treason to be Prosecuted?

1. I guess the Messiah must be anon. For probably the first time in
Israeli history, the Attorney General has decided to investigate and
perhaps prosecute leftist treason!! Until now, the Attorney General had
no interest in leftist treason and was far more worried about the danger
that non-leftists might be exercising freedom of speech or even engage in
drive-by incitements.

One of the countless tiny leftist seditious groups is called "New
Profile," and it specializes in promoting and assisting people to refuse
to serve in the Israeli military, out of leftist ideology. Funded largely
from outside Israel, like all far-leftist groups, its goals include
fomenting army service refusal and insurrection by soldiers. Here is its
web site: . One of its
leaders is one Dorothy Naor, who is an ultra-moonbette openly promoting
Israel's annihilation and openly endorsing Arab terror against Jews:
(See -
"Pacifist" Naor's Endorsement of Petition Supporting Suicide
Bombers - Exchange with Ami Isseroff
and )

See the story on New Profile here:

Now compare the INN report to that in Haaretz: . Notice any difference?

The Haaretz report does not mention anywhere that the New Profile group
IDEOLOGICAL REASONS. Coincidence? I guess Haaretz was still just too
busy painting the "settlers" who attacked a Palestinian village in
retaliation for the stabbing of a Jewish child as lawless thugs, criminals
and hooligans.

"New Profile" is supported financially by the Palestinian Cultural
Development Centre, an arm of the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of
`Education` - the same arm that funds the cartoons depicting hook-nosed
Jews killing little kids for Passover and the same that funds the
textbooks used in the schoolrooms that charge the Jews with using gas to
massacre little Arab kids.

2. Hebrew University closes the barn doors after the horse went out
on his rape campaign:
You may recall how the PC Left in Israel went after historian David Ohana
at Ben Gurion University when he made some sexual comments to cleaning
women in his building. Contrast that with the Far Left's decade of
solidarity and assistance in hiding the rapes in the case of the Ben-Ari

3. The Jihadis vs the Beatle:

4. Iraq and al Qaeda:

5. Berkeley's Leading Hater of Israel - its "Jewish Studies"

6. Tel Aviv University's HaCohen, best known for his praises and
endorsements of the Hizbollah, is back:

7. Bar Ilan University's OTHER Moonbat:

From WSJ: September 15, 2008

Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin
September 15, 2008; Page A21
Left-wing feminists have a hard time dealing with strong, successful
conservative women in politics such as Margaret Thatcher. Sarah Palin
seems to have truly unhinged more than a few, eliciting a stream of
vicious, often misogynist invective.

Too strong for the cause?

On last week, Cintra Wilson branded her a "Christian Stepford
Wife" and a "Republican blow-up doll." Wendy Doniger, religion professor
at the University of Chicago Divinity School, added on the Washington Post
blog2, "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."
You'd think that, whether or not they agree with her politics, feminists
would at least applaud Mrs. Palin as a living example of one of their core
principles: a woman's right to have a career and a family. Yet some
feminists unabashedly suggest that her decision to seek the vice
presidency makes her a bad and selfish mother. Others argue that she is
bad for working mothers because she's just too good at having it all.
In the Boston Globe on Friday3, columnist Ellen Goodman frets that Mrs.
Palin is a "supermom" whose supporters "think a woman can have it all as
long as she can do it all . . . by herself." In fact, Sarah Palin is doing
it with the help of her husband Todd, who is currently on leave from his
job as an oil worker. But Ms. Goodman's problem is that "she doesn't need
anything from anyone outside the family. She isn't lobbying for, say,
maternity leave, equal pay, or universal pre-K."
This also galls Katherine Marsh, writing in the latest issue of The New
Republic4. Mrs. Palin admits to having "an incredible support system -- a
husband with flexible jobs rather than a competing career . . . and a host
of nearby grandparents, aunts, and uncles." Yet, Ms. Marsh charges, she
does not endorse government policies to help less-advantaged working
mothers -- for instance, by promoting day-care centers.
Mrs. Palin's marriage actually makes her a terrific role model. One of the
best choices a woman can make if she wants a career and a family is to
pick a partner who will be able to take on equal or primary responsibility
for child-rearing. Our culture still harbors a lingering perception that
such men are less than manly -- and who better to smash that stereotype
than "First Dude" Todd Palin?
Nevertheless, when Sarah Palin offered a tribute to her husband in her
Republican National Convention speech, New York Times columnist Judith
Warner read this5 as a message that she is "subordinate to a great man."
Perhaps the message was a brilliant reversal of the old saw that behind
every man is a great woman: Here, the great woman is out in front and the
great man provides the support. Isn't that real feminism?
Not to Ms. Marsh, who insists that feminism must demand support for women
from the government. In this worldview, advocating more federal subsidies
for institutional day care is pro-woman; advocating tax breaks or
regulatory reform that would help home-based care providers -- preferred
by most working parents -- is not. Trying to legislate away the gender gap
in earnings (which no self-respecting economist today blames primarily on
discrimination) is feminist. Expanding opportunities for part-time and
flexible jobs is "the Republican Party line."
I disagree with Sarah Palin on a number of issues, including abortion
rights. But when the feminist establishment treats not only pro-life
feminism but small-government, individualist feminism as heresy, it writes
off multitudes of women.
Of course, being a feminist role model is not part of the vice president's
job description, and there are legitimate questions about Mrs. Palin's
qualifications. And yet, like millions of American women -- and men -- I
find her can-do feminism infinitely more liberated than the
what-can-the-government-do-for-me brand espoused by the sisterhood.
Ms. Young, a contributing editor at Reason magazine, is author of
"Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces To Achieve True Equality"
(Free Press, 1999).
See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on
Opinion Journal6.
And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum7.
URL for this article:

9. Gevalt! She Prays!
The War Against the Normal
Latest attack on Palin: She prays!
September 12, 2008
The first cut of Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin reveals
someone embarrassingly unprepared. His name is Charlie Gibson. Here's the
Gibson: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are
sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy
Palin: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.
Gibson: Exact words.
Palin: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when
he said--first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and
I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was
let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but
let us pray that we are on God's side.
Palin was right, as we noted Tuesday. Although she had spoken the words
Gibson attributed to her, his rendition of the quote was a dowdification.
He took the words out of context to make a prayer that "the task is from
God" appear to be an assertion that it is.
This misleading quotation might have been an error rather than a
deliberate deception, and it did not originate with Gibson. Our Tuesday
item noted that CNN had misrepresented Palin's words on Monday, and on
Sept. 4 "AllahPundit" pointed to an Associated Press dispatch from the
previous day that might have been the origin of the falsehood.
Yesterday the Associated Press, in reporting on the interview, relied on
its own inaccurate reporting of a week earlier in claiming that Palin had
"contradicted an assertion she made at her former church that 'our
national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.' "
This claim disappeared from later versions of the AP dispatch, although we
haven't found any evidence that the wire service issued a correction.
ABC seems to have realized its mistake as well. The version of the
interview that aired on ABC's "World News" last night (video here) edited
out the lines in which Palin disputes the accuracy of Gibson's quote and
Gibson replies, "Exact words." In their place is a YouTube clip of Palin
speaking at the church. Again, as far as we know, ABC has not expressly
acknowledged the error.
The journalists at AP, CNN and ABC who took liberties with Palin's quote
might or might not have intended to deceive. But there can be little doubt
that they intended to further a stereotype of Palin as some sort of
religious nut. What's interesting is that in the course of doing so, they
ended up disparaging her for praying.
As we noted yesterday, some of the less well-grounded members of the
political media have been harshly attacking Palin for having a baby.
Egads! Can we really have a heartbeat away a Christian who prays, or a
woman who has borne children?
It really does seem as though the media and the Angry Left loathe Sarah
Palin precisely because she is normal. Through the words of his
supporters, Barack Obama has become the candidate of those who oppose
religion and motherhood. With friends like these, who needs Karl Rove?
Roger Ebert doesn't like Palin either:
I want a vice president . . . who doesn't appoint Alaskan politicians to
"study" global warming, because, hello! It has been studied. . . . I would
also want someone who didn't make a teeny little sneer when referring to
"people who go to the Ivy League." And how can a politician her age have
never have gone to Europe?
This from someone who described "Fahrenheit 9/11" as "a compelling,
persuasive film" and gave it 3 thumbs up. At least then he was reviewing a
movie, so he had an excuse.

10. Thinking Outside the Lox
September 15, 2008; Page A23
Today, class, we shall take up the oxymoron, the figure of speech in which
two contradictory words appear in conjunction. Here are some prime
examples: amicable divorce, congressional ethics, definite maybe, military
justice and Jewish Republican. Jewish Republicans may be rarer than Jewish
coal miners. Let's face it, no one gazing at the crowd of the Republican
convention in St. Paul last week would have mistaken it for Sam and Becky
Lebowitz's grandson's bar mitzvah party.
The reason it is so difficult for Jews to vote for Republicans is largely
historical. The GOP for many years seemed the party of the large
corporations, the excluding country clubs, the restricted neighborhoods --
all institutions dedicated to keeping Jews out -- so that even now the
Republican Party is associated, in the minds of Jews of a certain age,
with anti-Semitism.
I have Jewish friends who believe in free markets, are deeply suspicious
of big government, view the general bag of leftist ideas as callow if not
dangerous, yet would sooner tuck into a large plate of pigs' feet than
vote for a Republican for president. They just can't bring themselves to
do it.
Like most Jews, I grew up in a house that was Democratic and devoted to
Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The reason for this devotion is that, in
opposition to the isolationists then known as American Firsters, FDR, an
internationalist, saw the need to go to war to stop the Nazis, who were
systematically murdering the Jews of Europe. Only much later was it
learned that Roosevelt could have saved many more European Jews by
enlarging immigration quotas, but his policy was instead the mistaken one
of trying to save the Jews by winning the war as quickly as possible. As
we now know, the war wasn't won quickly enough.
Owing to the overwhelming Jewish support for Roosevelt, few were the Jews
who openly declared themselves Republican. As a boy, in the early 1950s, I
knew only one: a man named Hyman Skolnick, the father of a friend, who was
an executive for a Jewish-owned scrap-metal company in Chicago. An
immigrant, Mr. Skolnick had an inborn gravity that derived from what I
took to be his high competence and mastery of facts. I sensed that he was
a man who, if you woke him at four in the morning, could tell you, within
$20, the exact amount of the gross national product as of the hour.
I did not meet another Jewish Republican until the early 1960s, when I met
Irving Kristol -- who, after a career as a Trotskyist lasting for roughly
27 minutes while he was a student at the City College of New York, did not
impede his philosophical and temperamental conservatism from steering him
toward the GOP. For this Irving Kristol was considered, stupidly, by
Irving Howe and other Irvings and not a few Seymours, a great heresiarch,
nothing less than a traitor to his people.
The Democrats' record on things Jewish is finally not all that strong. Joe
Kennedy, the so-called founding father of the Kennedy clan, was pro-Hitler
and famously anti-Semitic. Jimmy Carter, in his sentimental idealism, has
called Israel an apartheid state, comparable with South Africa. I always
thought that Bill Clinton, in his vanity, would have done his best to
convince the Israelis to give up the West Bank and the East Bank, and toss
in Katz's Delicatessen on Houston Street at no extra charge, in his
eagerness to win a Nobel Peace Prize.
Despite all this, Jews cling to the Democratic Party. The Democrats, they
claim, remain the party most interested in social justice, and it is
incumbent upon Jews, who have known so much injustice in their own
history, to be on the side of social justice.
The only Democratic administration in the past 50 years that may be said
to have made good on a program of social justice was that of Lyndon
Johnson, himself today much less admired, by Jews and others, for his
efforts in this line -- the civil rights voting acts, the war against
poverty -- than despised for his policy in Vietnam. As for social justice,
who is responsible for more of it, on a world-wide scale, than Ronald
Reagan, in his helping to bring an end to tyrannous communism?
I only voted for my first Republican candidate for president in 1980, when
I voted for Reagan. Even then I did not so much vote for Reagan as against
Jimmy Carter. What made me vote against Mr. Carter was his vapidity and
weakness. I remember a photograph, on the front page of the New York Times
of Mr. Carter, in jogging gear, after having fainted during a run on the
White House lawn, being held up by two Secret Service men. My God, I
thought, this pathetic man, with his hot-combed hair, cannot be the leader
of my country. I have voted for Republicans for president ever since, with
the exception of 1996, when I found I could not vote for either Bob Dole
or Bill Clinton, and took the high (if somewhat lumpy) ground of not
voting at all.
I shall probably vote for John McCain in this year's presidential
election. But I am not locked in on my vote, and if the McCain-Palin
campaign gets dramatically stupid, I could go the other way. I make no
claim to be an original political thinker, but, unlike so many of my
co-religionists, I feel a nice sense of freedom, knowing that I am able to
think, so to say, outside the lox.
Mr. Epstein is the author, most recently, of "Fred Astaire" to be
published next month by Yale University Press.
See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on
Opinion Journal1.
And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum2.
URL for this article:

Hyperlinks in this Article:
(2) t=3994

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?