I don’t believe I’ve ever been so stressed out over something I never thought I would be stressed out about. My wife and I are getting ready to drive over to Portsmouth to listen to a potential Presidential candidate. We are fortunate to live near New Hampshire because all the candidates have to survive this state in order to keep their hopes of election alive. It took me minutes to get ready because my getting ready consists of a pair of jeans and a sweater. My wife, on the other hand, takes a bit more time.
The fact that a “Mobile World Congress” will soon convene in Barcelona, Spain, probably doesn’t interest very many Americans. And yet what will be going on there could affect something that nearly everyone has a great deal of interest in: our smartphones.
The Anti-Semitic Jew!
by Reuven Efraim (a FaceBook post)
We are seeing, almost daily, a strange phenomena, these days, the appearance of people who make a point of being Jewish, who are making statements, taking positions on issues, and essentially getting publicity for themselves as what might be called anti-Semitic Jews.
Historically, we always saw some Jews who converted to Christianity or Islam who then turned against the Jewish people, whether out of their new beliefs or to prove to themselves what they did was right, some of them becoming more virulently anti-Jewish than the Gentiles around them.
And we always had those Jews who believed that the way to escape the possibility of persecution was to change themselves, discount their Judaism in their own lives, or hide their being Jewish, often adopting various political and social ideologies as their new “religion”, to be part of something that is not part of their Jewish origins.
But today, we have something relatively new, historically. Actually, two new things:
(1) Jews who have excluded most of Judaism from their lives, adopted various ideologies, but who claim to be Jewish still, though they ingratiate themselves (or thinking they do) to their Gentile associates by making a joke of anything that might be Jewish – using some Yiddish word, laughing about Matzo or Gefilte Fish on Passover, or like one US Senator, making a point of showing how he has shrugged over Jewishness by making his favourite meal – meatloaf that is 50% Pork.
(2) And then there is another type – they are either in a mixed marriage or the product of a mixed marriage, who claims some Jewish identity, but knows virtually nothing of Judaism, nor has any real interest in it. Virtually all the Jews who have adopted hostility toward Jewish concerns including Israel.
Look around for yourselves. Look at the so-called Jews in the “Jewish Voice for Peace”, or those who have allied themselves with various left-wing movements, or those who are busy excusing anti-Semitism in American or European politics. Look at their personal lives!
Those of us who care about being Jewish, those of us who are proud of being Jewish, those of us who are concerned about the Jewish future and the welfare of the State of Israel, should seriously consider a not so new idea – HEREM!. The process of choosing to exclude those who turn against us – from the Jewish Nation! Denying them the right to call themselves Jews!
Food for Thought.by Steven Shamrak
If Christians suffered persecution in Roman empire, like Saint Valentine and others, and it is clear that Jesus was crucified by Romans, using their favourable method of punishment, why would the Church have been blaming Jews for ‘the blood of Christ’ for almost two millennia, if it is not for creating a scapegoat – Jews – and using anti-Semitism to detract people’s attention from the Church’s and Christian rulers’ problems and cruelty? Recently, the Christian anti-Semitic elite, allowed Jihadist migration to Europe, and used them to reignite the anti-Semitic hatred, which is becoming the ugly norm in Europe again and spreading beyond its borders!
Sometimes if you fight hard enough and refuse to back down, no matter the odds, your truth is vindicated and prevails!
For twenty years I have been labeled a conspiracy theorist, scaremonger, extremist, dangerous, nut case. I’ve been denied access to stages, major news programs, and awarded tin foil hats. All because I have worked to expose Agenda 21 and its policy of sustainable development as a danger to our property rights, economic system, and culture of freedom.
The substantial amplification of the
mutually-beneficial US-Israel cooperation
To hear some critics describe it, the U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty is a disaster in the making.
“Dangerous, destabilizing and potentially counterproductive,” in the words of John McLaughlin, deputy CIA director from 2000 to 2004. Pulling out will “cause new tensions with European allies,” The New York Times opines. Adds the Stimson Center’s Michael Krepon in Forbes: “A new arms competition now beckons.”
Really? Let’s consider a few pertinent facts.
President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty in December 1987. It prohibited the U.S. and the Soviet Union from possessing, testing and deploying ground-launched cruise and ballistic missiles with a range between 300 and 3,400 miles.
Signing the INF Treaty was in both nation’s national interests at the time. It permitted an entire class of weapons to be eliminated. But more than 30 years have elapsed. The world has changed. Russia, who inherited the treaty obligations from the Soviet Union, has been in violation of the treaty terms for at least five years. What was once a mutually beneficial arms control agreement is now serving no one.
The main objection to withdrawal is that it would encourage Russia and the U.S. to build more nukes and spark a new arms race. But that’s been occurring on the Russian side for a while now.
As The New York Times reported on July 28, 2014: “The United States has concluded that Russia violated a landmark arms control treaty by testing a prohibited ground-launched cruise missile, according to senior American officials, a finding that was conveyed by President Obama to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in a letter on Monday.”
The Obama administration may have been good at voicing displeasure, but terrible at concrete actions or any sort of meaningful follow-through. Its fabled “reset” with Russia and the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) signed with Moscow in 2010 drew plaudits from the media, but in the end, nothing changed.
So we’re supposed to keep ourselves shackled to a treaty that we comply with, but Russia doesn’t. Yet if we decide to end this untenable situation, we’re the bad guys? We’re the ones touching off a “destabilizing” arms race?
The ship has already sailed on that charge. And the ones to chastise are in Moscow, not Washington.
“Continued efforts by the U.S. government over the last five years to engage Russia to persuade them to return to compliance with the INF treaty have failed,” notes defense expert Thomas Spoehr. “All U.S. inquiries and efforts have been met with lies, deceit and denial.”
Adding to the problem of Russia’s cheating is a feature of the new world environment: China.
China wasn’t a party to the INF agreement. Of course, it wasn’t a rising military superpower in 1987. Now it is, and guess what? It’s already spurned an offer to join the INF Treaty. Beijing is more than happy to keep building its arsenals unfettered.
Today, China has the world’s second largest military budget. And it’s been augmenting its forces for some time now, including in areas that threaten American interests.
Under those circumstances, and with Russia refusing to stop violating the treaty, it makes no sense to continue being a party to it.
As Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently said, the onus is on Moscow. But the government there only wants to complain, not change its behavior.
No wonder they preferred the Obama approach, which also relied primarily on words, not action. Fortunately, the Trump administration is trying a different tack.
If the president’s critics are worried about a “destabilizing” situation, they should be firing at Moscow, not the U.S. Things are already “dangerous.”
The first and sanest step we can take to change that is to stop pretending the INF Treaty has a role to play in preserving the peace in 2019.
What three men immediately come to mind as the most influential builders of racial justice, harmony and peace in the twentieth century or more likely in the history of mankind? What an easy question! In order of their appearance they must have been Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr.
Each of these men preached love and reconciliation. Each was principled, strong, unyielding and fearless. Each was careful in their thoughts and language, contrasting freedom versus oppression and not personalizing hatred. Each focused their energy on highlighting the specifics of oppression, not damning oppressors. Each knew that steadfast courage brings both allies and oppressors to the table while whining, accusations and intemperate bullying does not. Each of them changed the world.
Perhaps most astounding about the accomplishments of these three heroes is the nature of the oppression they defeated. They confronted oppression embedded in law and enforced by governments. They had to first change the minds of the citizenry and persuade many of the righteousness of their demands. Then they marshaled the strength and persistence to confront institutionalized wrongs previously enforced as though they were just.
Too little credit is given to antecedents who gave these men the model for their passive resistance. Beginning perhaps with Abigail Adams who wrote her husband while he was in Philadelphia preparing for the Second Continental Congress, “I long to hear that you have declared an independency – and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.” She went on, “Do not put such unlimited power in the hands of Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could.” She doubtless meant all men in the Constitutional sense, that is “all men and women would be tyrants if they could” as she predicted, “If particular care is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.”
Countless American women spoke to each other and to their husbands and sons for another seventy-three years until at Seneca Falls, New York Elizabeth Cady Stanton opened the first Women’s Rights convention in the United States with a stirring statement of purpose:
“We are assembled to protest against a form of government, existing without the consent of the governed—to declare our right to be free as man is free, to be represented in the government which we are taxed to support, to have such disgraceful laws as give man the power to chastise and imprison his wife, to take the wages which she earns, the property which she inherits, and, in case of separation, the children of her love.”
Without radio, without television, without email or social media, it took another seventy-two years of protest and persuasion for the nineteenth amendment to guarantee women the right to vote. This campaign was accomplished largely with hard work, self-sacrifice and moral argument and without violence or hatred. The movement was always focused on building a more perfect union, never on destroying the imperfect one it inherited. It never denied love of fathers, husbands or sons or sought reparations for historic sins no matter how egregious. It was always uncompromising in its moral imperative for very specific demands to make the future more perfect.
Our three twentieth century heroes followed in the tradition of these women. They, leading other adherents of that tradition, defeated state enforced injustice across three continents. They did not make the world perfect, but they as the ladies before them, altered an arc of history forged across millennia.
The problem for those seeking “social justice” today is different. With the notable exception of abuse of Native American property rights, there is little government-sanctioned discrimination in the United States today. Nearly all discrimination is individual and circumstantial. There are manifold legal protections against systematic discrimination based on bias and prejudice. This does not mean that bias or prejudice or discrimination no longer exists. It does mean that new political remedies are of limited value. The real remedy is changing hearts and minds one person at a time. This is clearly not an easy or a quick fix, but it is the only possible fix. This underlines the vital importance of moral imperatives and focus on the facts of oppression rather than on alleged oppressors.
It is strange if not frightening how a misuse of words and ideas over time warps our thinking. Poet Alfred Edward Housman (1859-1936) wrote, “Good literature continually read for pleasure must, let us hope, do some good to the reader: must quicken his perception though dull, and sharpen his discrimination though blunt, and mellow the rawness of his personal opinions.” Throughout Houseman’s lifetime, discrimination meant, “Sharpness of perception and wit that mellows the rawness of personal opinion.”
Today we often define discrimination as the opposite, “Dullness of wit and perception causing cruel exaggeration of raw personal prejudice.”
When we meet a person for the first time, don’t we all (and shouldn’t we) discriminate in the old fashioned sense of the word? Don’t we ask, “Who is this person?” “Might this person become my friend?” “Does this person share my values?” “Can this person be helpful to me?” “Can I be helpful to this person?” “What can I learn from this person?” and many other questions. In our mind’s eye we look for signals that help to sharpen our perceptions. We look at posture, speech, attire, and physical condition. We look for eye contact, grace, intensity, intelligence, and empathy. We listen for experiences, values, goals, mutual interests and connections. We discriminate across many dimensions and against many standards. All of these variables together form our mental snapshots, our irreplaceable first impressions and foundations for future relationships. Unless we are psychic we have little knowledge or insight into the dimensions or standards of any discriminating individual. Age, sex and race are only three of many.
In 1960 Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Black supremacy is as dangerous as white supremacy.” He expanded, “God’s interest… is in the creation of a society where all men can live as brothers.” King would clearly advocate that when we meet a new person we ask ourselves, “How can I be a brother or sister to this person?” and “What common values or experiences do we share that will lead this person to reach out to me as a brother or sister?”
Think of the impossibility of changing the hearts and minds of men through hatred. The NAACP is a very successful association for the advancement of colored people. What power for change would they have had they called themselves the NODAWGs an acronym for National Organization for the Destruction of Aging White Guys? Or what if they used Jeremiah Wright’s axiom, “White folks greed runs a world in need”? It was, after all, governments run by powerful aging white guys that enacted constitutional amendments to cement inclusiveness for all men and women. Generations later aging white guys enacted civil rights laws that have opened wide new doors for so many. Before that, there was the blood of 360,000 mostly white Union Soldiers who gave their lives to free slaves in America while fewer than seven percent of white households ever owned them.
If President Obama had been a real disciple of King when reflecting on the question of American Exceptionalism, he might have responded; “America is exceptional because we have a great tradition of pledging our fortunes, our lives and our Sacred Honor to the cause of freedom. This tradition began with our Declaration of Independence. The Union Soldiers in our Civil War wrote it again in blood. This tradition is not just for our freedom. It reaches out across the world. Over 500,000 American husbands and sons gave their lives to defend Europe and Asia from tyranny in two world wars. Every citizen of South Korea owes a debt to over 35,000 Americans who died to prevent their country from looking like North Korea today.”
America does not always get things right, and frequently we do not find right on our first try. But America is exceptional in our shared dedication to the freedom of the individual human spirit and our belief in the wisdom of individual citizens. We understand that ending individual injustices can only be achieved by changing individual attitudes and behavior. This leads us to realize the great wisdom of Martin Luther King’s goal for all to become brothers (and sisters). On this road hatred and derision are divisive and counterproductive. If we truly want others to be our brothers we do not call them evil or greedy or deplorable or whatever-a-phobic. We do not accuse them of bigotry or misogyny. We do not believe or imply that any lives matter more than any others.
Everyone who wants America to continue in its pursuit toward becoming a more perfect union, as nearly all of us do, should inquire about all others, “How can I become this person’s brother!” That would make Martin Luther King Jr. very happy and proud.
Michael Moffitt Column
Granddad’s Dictionary: Reflections on Life in America
by Michael Moffitt
ISBN: 978-1-4908-2916-6 (sc)
Published April 7, 2014
I’ve been doing some study recently on Narcissistic Personality Disorder and it seems to me that many on the far left exhibit lots of the behavioral characteristics of this disorder.
If people on the far left are suffering from this disorder, then part of their behavior can be explained by the disorder’s root causes, which is to say that they have NO real SELF ESTEEM because of their upbringing and/or life circumstances.
They are desperate to have a decent public and self-image and all the benefits that brings and to that end they punish anyone who does not reinforce their chosen self-image. They virtue signal, lie, steal, kill, manipulate, coerce, punish and otherwise attack anyone who either dents their ego or whose stand, position or behavior indicates that they are actually a better person than the NPD sufferer.
They will always claim to be right and will do everything to appear to be righteous and make claims to victimhood when it is they who are abusing.
To put it in terms of something I read once, ‘at least 50% of Americans at any given time are in therapy.’ Given the Democrat-Republican divide, I can well imagine the need for therapy in the USA. It would be interesting if one could get statistics on those in therapy to see if their political alignment is predominantly on the left. Since the far left seem not to believe in God it would not be surprising that those on the far left are in psycho-emotional turmoil.
The issues of God, Faith and Morality provide a fundamental basis for good self-esteem (except when you reject those value systems) and of course offers genuine forgiveness to those who repent of wrongdoing.
For the far left there can be no forgiveness because there is no deity or intermediary to dispense it. They therefore must carry their guilt and shame forever.
It is strange to think that the Catholic Confessional is probably the most healthy of psychological remedies ever to be provided by Christianity and it does I believe rank higher than the protestant idea of simple self-confession because it involves discussion with a third party and oral confirmation of absolution.
With no way to obtain absolution, those on the far left stand either self-condemned or relieved of guilt through sociopathy.
Anyway – that is where my thoughts take me at the moment. Your comments are welcome!
Most Recent Articles by R.P. BenDedek
Is Christian Faith in President Trump Misplaced?
TRUMP: The Name Second Only to JESUS
What if Tomorrow I die?
Facial Recognition Software, Coffins and Other Strange Things!
Our Puerile, Self-Righteous and Judgmental New World
Photographs: Historic Dangkou Town in Jiangsu Province China
I recently received in an email an evangelical call to pray for President Trump; to pray against the satanic forces coming against him. The message was pretty straight forward. If enough people pray against the devil’s attacks on Trump, then Satan will fail and Christ will be triumphant! But I could not help but wonder if the people who were making the call actually know what God’s will is.
I personally believe that Donald Trump was raised up by God to be the President of the USA. I believe that through the events of the last two years, the world has begun to see the evil which resides within the political establishment. I believe that had Trump not become president that the USA would right now be well and truly under the direct power of evil forces at work within the worldwide political world. BUT………
Throughout the last century many Christians fell victim to an over emphasis on selected scriptures which resulted in things like the ‘Wealth’ and ‘Health’ doctrines; if only you do this, that and something else you will be wealthy and/or healthy and/or whatever was being promised. In effect many people fell victim to self-centered, self-righteous and selective beliefs that did not reflect the full picture of what God is doing in both the individual and the world.
The most certain promise made to those who serve Christ is that they will be rejected and persecuted. They are not promised wealth, health, earthly victory or worldly happiness. And so too I believe that many who point to President Trump as God’s Instrument of Judgement fail to understand what an instrument of God’s judgement is and are therefore unprepared for what MUST take place before Christ returns.
Generally speaking, God’s blessing and judgement falls on both the righteous and unrighteous. Matthew 5:45
(:44)But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; (:45) That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
The following essay was first published in Granddad’s Dictionary: Reflections on Life in America in April 2014. Since then the immigration rhetoric has become more extreme and the debate more empty. As the essay predicted, progress has been at the margin, not enough in the core issues.
We seem unable to learn and apply three lessons. First, from the Europeans we should learn that immigration without the requirement that immigrants live by our laws and adopt our value for personal responsibility is dangerous and can be fatal. Immigration without such conditions will cause those laws and values to be abandoned and imperil us all. Second, in spite of all his bluster and disruption, we don’t credit President Trump enough as the first president in modern history to seriously attack the problem. President Reagan put a Band-Aid on the human effects. Every president since has declared illegal immigration to be an intolerable problem. Yet all have blithely tolerated it. Too many presumed to be leaders are in still in denial that border security is a necessary but not sufficient component of any healthy immigration policy.
Let us not blame President Trump for this impasse. Lets rather hold accountable all those who deny or evade the imperatives and the possibilities. These have changed little since the following reflection was penned nearly five years ago.
Granddad’s Dictionary: Reflections on Life in America
The ancestral home of nearly everyone in America is somewhere else. We all came here looking for a better opportunity and we found it. More than that we each brought our ingenuity and our labor and made America an even better place.
Most of us were not pretty when we arrived. America and Liberty said, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” And we came. How many of us took a new name or a new spelling of our name because the clerk at Ellis Island could not speak our language and we could not speak his?
According to the International Organization for Migration, there are currently 241 million international migrants in the world of which 25 to 30 million are unauthorized. Of these, nearly half are illegal or undocumented aliens in the United States. In each of the past several years we have deported fewer than 300,000. This information tells us a great deal, both about the desirability of migrating to the United States and about our incompetence in enforcement of immigration law.
It feels very safe to write about immigration even in the midst of immigration reform debate. We are not seriously examining how to use twenty-first century technology to enforce existing laws. We are not discussing the core issue of welcoming immigrants and holding them accountable to our traditional expectations. The result of the current debate will be changes at the margins, not fundamental reform.
Lets begin with a startling but time proven premise. New human beings, be they babies or immigrants, are new long-term assets. They are worthy of investment and will enrich us all. This has been our history and should be our future. We need to welcome immigrants, and help them to become productive. We need to recognize that many immigrant contributors to our economy are already here illegally. They are here because we need their labor and they need our opportunity. They are illegal because we make it too difficult to be legal and too easy to be illegal. We need to re-enforce the traditions that immigrants come here supported by sponsors and by their communities with a clear imperative to dive into our diverse and productive culture. We need to invite them to use the opportunities and liberties that we offer and become productive citizens. Ironically, this will take less government micromanagement and cost less than our current feckless approach.
Such a welcoming attitude cannot exist without a disciplined process, but it need not be complicated. A visitor comes into this country either with a planned departure date, or as an immigrant with the intent to stay. Some estimate that over half of illegal immigrants come into this country legally as visitors and over-stay their permission. If a visitor enters as a visitor, and we follow through to verify departure as expected, we immediately stem half of our illegal immigration problem. That gets little attention and has less to do with border security.
For the other half, mostly our neighbors who come here primarily to work, have we thought about opening our borders? In the European Union, cross border labor is not seen as different from other cross border (free) trade. Labor is permitted to flow with the market, to the benefit of all. We could learn from Europe, both the value of a more free labor market and the necessity for a legal labor market structure.
The birth rate in America is falling rapidly, causing concerns about our long-term debt and prosperity. Limiting births has doomed Japan and China to a path toward economic stagnation. Limiting immigration can do the same to America. If we increased the number of immigrants we welcome by 300,000 per year, or about thirty percent, we would still be increasing our population at a lower rate than in any year prior to 1994. We would immediately gain more workers and more consumers and reduce the aging of our population. If we also cease favoring uncles, aunts, cousins and people from “underrepresented” geographies; we can instead favor those who come here from our neighbors and come for education or with skills. We would substantially reduce shortages of skills and surplus of dependency in our immigrant population.
We could also welcome those already here who accept their responsibility without changing any requirements for citizenship. We could drop the specious linkage between tenure as a guest worker and entitlement to citizenship. We could then abandon the notion that a “Berlin Wall” along our southern border is a sufficient or even an American solution.
If a visitor, already here or not, desires to be an immigrant worker or a resident, why would he or she not need to pass a security examination and provide an affidavit from two or more citizens providing a positive reference and pledging their sponsorship? In turn, why would the immigrant not pledge to keep an immigrant picture ID in possession at all times, to renew it annually, to keep a current address on file with the Immigration Service and his sponsors, to file an annual tax return regardless of income and to diligently seek to become productive. Is it cruel or discriminatory to ask these pledges of our guests when they are requirements for every citizen who has any income and drives an automobile? It would be an incredibly simple first step to make the USICS number on the green card become the taxpayer ID.
If we opened our shores to immigrants faithful to this contract, could any immigrant who does not comply or who falsifies papers complain about immediate deportation forthwith, no excuses, no exceptions, no reentry, no citizenship for children born while illegal? Why wouldn’t any employer that does not have a current copy of all employee identifications on file face stiff fines? Why would States not be required to identify immigration status on any drivers’ licenses issued? With these few simple and enforceable rules, drivers’ licenses, Social Security numbers, U.S. bank and credit accounts would not be available to aliens without immigration credentials. Safety net benefits such as welfare, unemployment, food stamps, free medical care etc. could have strict pre-defined limitations commensurate with the immigrant’s commitment to become a productive citizen. The ultimate safety net for those who want it could be a ticket back to their home country.
This approach might have been difficult in the twentieth century, but we are now in the age of Big Data. It may seem harsh, but it is undeniably fair. If we make it easy for those who relish opportunity, we then make it far easier to identify and penalize those who do not play by the rules, or those who come to harm us. Immigration status and citizenship are not entitlements. The quid pro quo for citizenship is citizenship.
Michael Moffitt Column
Granddad’s Dictionary: Reflections on Life in America
by Michael Moffitt
ISBN: 978-1-4908-2916-6 (sc)
Published April 7, 2014