Showing posts with label Jews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jews. Show all posts
12 December 2009
A solution to the problem in the Holy Land!
I have this neat idea: let's revive the Knights Templar. Except this go round,let's make them more ecumenical: i.e. Jews, Christians, and Moslems. All three religions find this area sacred and need to learn how to share. The New Templars will ensure that everyone can enjoy the freedom of the Holy Land and work to cut religious strife.
11 December 2009
Jesus wants you to celebrate..
Hanukkah! Tonight is the first night!
Tom Cruise isn't, but JESUS CHRIST IS!
Tom Cruise isn't, but JESUS CHRIST IS!
09 December 2009
233 Years of Mistakes--It's time to return to England!
I've always thought if we could transport the founding fathers forward in time their reaction would be "fuck it, we're better off as a part of Britain" and just go back home.
If they had any doubts, I could take them to this quaint village that Mudflap Bubbas Found! I'm sure that would persuade them of the error of their ways far more effectively than a nuclear strike on Lexington and Concord ever would.
Why, because most of them would be appalled at how the US has turned out. The fact that the Constitution has been perverted so that something like the Second Amendment which was to ensure a Swiss style military has become a farce with the out of control military and people yammering about gun rights. Add in the fools who say this country was founded as a Christian nation.
Somebody should tell these people about Congregation Mikveh Israel in Philadelphia. Does Haym Solomon sound very Christian to you??? He was a prime financier of the American side during the American Revolutionary War. Jews have been in the US since the mid-17th Century with Jews playing a key role in the Revolution.
How would they feel to learn that Britain had a Jewish Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli (nevermind he converted to Christianity, there's always hope), whereas it was a tough road to get a Catholic as US President! Would the Jewish "patriots" change their support to England if they saw people who say this country is a Christian nation?
We could get into the reaction to Shays' Rebellion and how "Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power". The problem is that by making a break from Britain in the way they did, they created a very bad precedent. Even though the Constitution was written to clarify the situation, there are still some who believe in the insurrection theory despite its not having a constitutional basis.
Break from England, it's a very bad idea!
.svg.png)
We can get into the misunderstanding of history presented by the "tea party" crowd. Whatever the fuck it is that they believe. I know it doesn't have anything to do with clotted cream and scones.
An even more interesting point is that the American rebels saw themselves as British and were demanding that they be properly treated as British Citizens. They wanted a voice in the taxation policies. The cry wasn't "No taxation", but "No Taxation without Representation". The phrase captures a sentiment central to the cause of the English Civil War, as articulated by John Hampden who said “what an English King has no right to demand, an English subject has a right to refuse” in the Ship money case. The English Bill of Rights 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. The Colonials felt that they were deprived of this right since they had no direct representation in the British Parliament.
When people who frame themselves as patriots knock Britain, they should remember that the founders considered themselves to be British Subjects. The question would be would the founders if they were alive today feel more at home in the United States or in the United Kingdom?
I think they would be much more inclined toward England than Washington: and definitely frightened by some places in the hinterlands of the US. I've heard it said that the "patriots/rebels" had the better slogans, but the tories had much stronger arguments for remaining with Britain. Time has proven that the Tories were correct and that rebellion was a foolish choice.
If they had any doubts, I could take them to this quaint village that Mudflap Bubbas Found! I'm sure that would persuade them of the error of their ways far more effectively than a nuclear strike on Lexington and Concord ever would.
Why, because most of them would be appalled at how the US has turned out. The fact that the Constitution has been perverted so that something like the Second Amendment which was to ensure a Swiss style military has become a farce with the out of control military and people yammering about gun rights. Add in the fools who say this country was founded as a Christian nation.
Somebody should tell these people about Congregation Mikveh Israel in Philadelphia. Does Haym Solomon sound very Christian to you??? He was a prime financier of the American side during the American Revolutionary War. Jews have been in the US since the mid-17th Century with Jews playing a key role in the Revolution.
How would they feel to learn that Britain had a Jewish Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli (nevermind he converted to Christianity, there's always hope), whereas it was a tough road to get a Catholic as US President! Would the Jewish "patriots" change their support to England if they saw people who say this country is a Christian nation?
We could get into the reaction to Shays' Rebellion and how "Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power". The problem is that by making a break from Britain in the way they did, they created a very bad precedent. Even though the Constitution was written to clarify the situation, there are still some who believe in the insurrection theory despite its not having a constitutional basis.
Break from England, it's a very bad idea!
.svg.png)
We can get into the misunderstanding of history presented by the "tea party" crowd. Whatever the fuck it is that they believe. I know it doesn't have anything to do with clotted cream and scones.
An even more interesting point is that the American rebels saw themselves as British and were demanding that they be properly treated as British Citizens. They wanted a voice in the taxation policies. The cry wasn't "No taxation", but "No Taxation without Representation". The phrase captures a sentiment central to the cause of the English Civil War, as articulated by John Hampden who said “what an English King has no right to demand, an English subject has a right to refuse” in the Ship money case. The English Bill of Rights 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. The Colonials felt that they were deprived of this right since they had no direct representation in the British Parliament.
When people who frame themselves as patriots knock Britain, they should remember that the founders considered themselves to be British Subjects. The question would be would the founders if they were alive today feel more at home in the United States or in the United Kingdom?
I think they would be much more inclined toward England than Washington: and definitely frightened by some places in the hinterlands of the US. I've heard it said that the "patriots/rebels" had the better slogans, but the tories had much stronger arguments for remaining with Britain. Time has proven that the Tories were correct and that rebellion was a foolish choice.
07 December 2009
More Jesus celebrated Hanukkah!
As I like to say, Shouldn't you be Jewish if you're going to be a good Christian?
03 December 2009
astroturfed Genocide
The ridiculous "Gun Control results in genocide" "argument" is a lovely case of an specious argument astroturfing the playing field with rubbish. You know the list I'm talking about since googling "Gun Control Genocide" will turn up about 60 million results with that list reprinted verbatim. No need to give it any more power in the rankings.
On the other hand, Matthew White compiled the list Which has killed more people: Gun Control or Christianity? that begins to tear apart this argument. I reposted it at Gun control and Genocides with some additions made to the Holocaust section. I am going to add even more to show that the Guns could have saved the Jews proposition is straight off horseshit.
I am surprised that Matthew's list doesn't get the attention it deserves. The "gun cotnrol leads to genocide argument" is pretty silly when you think about it.
As Matthew points out "whoever compiled this tally has a different definition of defenseless than I do. I myself wouldn't declare the largest military machine on the planet "unable to defend itself", but by adding 20 million from the Soviet Union, this list does. After all, Stalin's most infamous terror fell heavily on the Soviet Army, culling tens of thousand of officers, and executing three out of five marshals, 15 out of 16 army commanders, 60 out of 67 corps commanders and 136 out of 199 division commanders. In one bloody year, the majority of the officer corps was led away quietly and shot. It may be one of life's great mysteries as to why the Red Army allowed itself to be gutted that way, but obviously, lack of firepower can't be the reason."
Matthew points out that "this list of alleged genocides is a pitifully weak argument against gun control, simply because most of the victims listed here did fight back. In fact, if there's a real lesson to be learned from this roster of oppressions, it's that sometimes a heavily armed and determined opposition is just swept up and crushed -- guns or no guns."
Yeah, yeah, there is the example of the Bielski partisans who were made famous by the film Defiance. You can debate as to how effective they were at armed resistance or whether they were the heros depicted by the film. The real lesson that should be learned was that it wasn't their arms that protected them, but the fact that they hid in the forests:
The Jewish Daily Newspaper Forward points out in its article, Bielskis vs. Hollywood that The Bielski brothers engaged in violence out of necessity, but the nobility of their enterprise is that they preserved lives:
In contrast, actual armed resistance by Jews led to mass anihilation. Despite being vastly outgunned and outnumbered, some Jews in ghettos and camps did resist the Germans with force. The failure to halt the genocidal policies of the Nazis has pretty much left Jewish resistance as a footnote to the holocause. For example, The the largest single revolt by the Jews during the Holocaust, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, was crushed by the Militarily superior German forces: Casualties and losses during this uprising were 17 Germans killed and 93 wounded Versus 13,000 Jews killed and 56,885 captured. The captured Jews were sent to Treblinka. So much for armed resistance.
Some people forget that inhabitants in the ghettos of Vilna, Mir, Lachva (Lachwa), Kremenets, Czestochowa, Nesvizh, Sosnowiec, and Tarnow, among others, resisted with force when the Germans began to deport ghetto populations. In Bialystok, the underground staged an uprising just before the final destruction of the ghetto in September 1943. Research into Jewish Resistance during the holocaust pretty much repeats the message that The Jews knew that uprisings would not stop the Germans and that only a handful of fighters would succeed in escaping to join the partisans. Still, some Jews made the decision to resist. Most of the ghetto fighters, primarily young men and women, died during the fighting. Unfortunately, this resistance did little to stop the German genocide.
We can add in that Iraqis and Afghans are armed to the teeth, yet this didn't stop the rise of Saddam Hussein or the Taliban.
Matthew has "what I call the Cold-Dead-Hands Test. If the only way to get someone's gun is to pry it from their cold, dead hands (literally or figuratively), that's not gun control. When Grant disarmed the Confederates at Appomattox, that wasn't gun control; that was taking prisoners. When the Soviets disarmed the remnants of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad, that wasn't gun control either. Mao didn't come to power in China by tricking the populace into surrendering their arms. He pummeled his well-armed opponents in a stand-up fight. There's a big difference between unable to fight back, and fighting back but losing."
It's nice being able to dream of stopping the mistakes of the past with force. It's a romantic idea to die fighting "tyranny" (whatever that means). But you have to remember that heavily armed and determined opposition sometimes is just swept up and crushed: guns or no guns. Everyone who wanted a gun already had a gun in the list of "gun control victims". The enemies of the state who were killed in that list weren't defenseless; they were just plain beaten.
On the other hand, Matthew White compiled the list Which has killed more people: Gun Control or Christianity? that begins to tear apart this argument. I reposted it at Gun control and Genocides with some additions made to the Holocaust section. I am going to add even more to show that the Guns could have saved the Jews proposition is straight off horseshit.
I am surprised that Matthew's list doesn't get the attention it deserves. The "gun cotnrol leads to genocide argument" is pretty silly when you think about it.
As Matthew points out "whoever compiled this tally has a different definition of defenseless than I do. I myself wouldn't declare the largest military machine on the planet "unable to defend itself", but by adding 20 million from the Soviet Union, this list does. After all, Stalin's most infamous terror fell heavily on the Soviet Army, culling tens of thousand of officers, and executing three out of five marshals, 15 out of 16 army commanders, 60 out of 67 corps commanders and 136 out of 199 division commanders. In one bloody year, the majority of the officer corps was led away quietly and shot. It may be one of life's great mysteries as to why the Red Army allowed itself to be gutted that way, but obviously, lack of firepower can't be the reason."
Matthew points out that "this list of alleged genocides is a pitifully weak argument against gun control, simply because most of the victims listed here did fight back. In fact, if there's a real lesson to be learned from this roster of oppressions, it's that sometimes a heavily armed and determined opposition is just swept up and crushed -- guns or no guns."
Yeah, yeah, there is the example of the Bielski partisans who were made famous by the film Defiance. You can debate as to how effective they were at armed resistance or whether they were the heros depicted by the film. The real lesson that should be learned was that it wasn't their arms that protected them, but the fact that they hid in the forests:
By the early spring of 1942, the brothers managed to form what was called an Otriad (a partisan detachment), which initially consisted of their immediate surviving relatives and close friends. Over the next three years, approximately 1200 Jews came into their Otriad. In contrast to Russian partisan units and many of the other Jewish units that restricted participation to young men capable of fighting, the Bielski’s took in any Jew who sought their help and actively helped liberate Jews from nearby ghettos to join the unit...
At its height, the Otriad camp consisted of long, camouflaged dugouts for sleeping, a large kitchen, a mill, a bakery, a bathhouse, two medical facilities, a tannery, a school, a jail, and a theater. Tailors, seamstresses, shoemakers, watchmakers, carpenters, mechanics, and experts in demolition provided the 1200-member community with necessary skills, and about sixty cows and thirty horses provided food and transportation.
Many of the men served as part of the armed contingent which secured food and engaged in sabotage and even the murder of Germans officials, while many others, including the women, the elderly, and the handicapped received the benefits of the community which protected them, despite the difficulties they presented when it was necessary to travel to new locations.
The Jewish Daily Newspaper Forward points out in its article, Bielskis vs. Hollywood that The Bielski brothers engaged in violence out of necessity, but the nobility of their enterprise is that they preserved lives:
Tuvia was fortunate in choosing the more difficult path — in fact, not a path at all, but a deep marsh — rather than a more inviting route lined with fallen logs, which proved unsafe. The greater human drama was in persevering for a week in an epic trek through the swamp, not in fighting and winning a battle at the end, as the filmmaker chose to depict in his re-creation of the story.
The awesome achievement of the Bielskis to save so many innocents otherwise doomed is cheapened by the image of Hollywood heroes mowing down the enemy, as we’ve seen before in scores of World War II movies. These real heroes had to kill at times, but their story deserves more than a war movie.
In contrast, actual armed resistance by Jews led to mass anihilation. Despite being vastly outgunned and outnumbered, some Jews in ghettos and camps did resist the Germans with force. The failure to halt the genocidal policies of the Nazis has pretty much left Jewish resistance as a footnote to the holocause. For example, The the largest single revolt by the Jews during the Holocaust, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, was crushed by the Militarily superior German forces: Casualties and losses during this uprising were 17 Germans killed and 93 wounded Versus 13,000 Jews killed and 56,885 captured. The captured Jews were sent to Treblinka. So much for armed resistance.
Some people forget that inhabitants in the ghettos of Vilna, Mir, Lachva (Lachwa), Kremenets, Czestochowa, Nesvizh, Sosnowiec, and Tarnow, among others, resisted with force when the Germans began to deport ghetto populations. In Bialystok, the underground staged an uprising just before the final destruction of the ghetto in September 1943. Research into Jewish Resistance during the holocaust pretty much repeats the message that The Jews knew that uprisings would not stop the Germans and that only a handful of fighters would succeed in escaping to join the partisans. Still, some Jews made the decision to resist. Most of the ghetto fighters, primarily young men and women, died during the fighting. Unfortunately, this resistance did little to stop the German genocide.
We can add in that Iraqis and Afghans are armed to the teeth, yet this didn't stop the rise of Saddam Hussein or the Taliban.
Matthew has "what I call the Cold-Dead-Hands Test. If the only way to get someone's gun is to pry it from their cold, dead hands (literally or figuratively), that's not gun control. When Grant disarmed the Confederates at Appomattox, that wasn't gun control; that was taking prisoners. When the Soviets disarmed the remnants of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad, that wasn't gun control either. Mao didn't come to power in China by tricking the populace into surrendering their arms. He pummeled his well-armed opponents in a stand-up fight. There's a big difference between unable to fight back, and fighting back but losing."
It's nice being able to dream of stopping the mistakes of the past with force. It's a romantic idea to die fighting "tyranny" (whatever that means). But you have to remember that heavily armed and determined opposition sometimes is just swept up and crushed: guns or no guns. Everyone who wanted a gun already had a gun in the list of "gun control victims". The enemies of the state who were killed in that list weren't defenseless; they were just plain beaten.
09 March 2008
RKBA and Anti-semitism
Bob Levy is old enough to remember anti-Semitism. Hell, you don't need to be that old since a Temple University kid was beaten up for being Jewish within the last week. That's in Philadelphia which has a pretty large Jewish population.
On the other hand, he is not savvy enough to realise who he is getting into bed with. The RKBA crowd tends to like to talk inclusivity, but I keep seeing a video of a klan member saying "don't let them take away your guns". The logic was that the minorities, Jews and Blacks, will ruin the United States as they knew it.
Gun control is a tool of the culture war. And the right likes using fear of crime and minorities and government's lack of ability to "protect you" as a tool of control. And even though JFPO comes up pretty high if you google "jews gun control" it doesn't take long until you find something like this:
http://wsi.matriots.com/gun_legislation.html
Better yet, check out these posts:
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/5307
or
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/jews-gun-control-58147.html
Now, Bob, are you ready for the backlash if your little gamble fails? Is Alan Gura also a Jew? Judge Laurence H. Silberman was the author of this piece which is getting US Supreme Court attention. Now, doesn't this play into the hands of those who want to put fear of Jews into people's minds? The last blog entry shows my fears are justified.
Of course, it might be a Catholic, or more, who will stand up for the "collective right"/militia enabling interpretation. Don't forget that Catholics have been victims of prejudice as well. I mean, the US should be proud that Kennedy was president after all.
Bob, for all your bravado, are you certain that you will really prevail when the arguments you present were previously rejected by Justice Alito in US v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996)? In fact, with the exception of two opinions, the courts in this country have held that the Second Amendment only applies to the militia, that is the body organised under Article I, Section 8, and its direct activities.
Now, Bob I know you don't own a gun. I can probably guess that you've never been to a gun show either. I am not sure how you would react to all the Nazi regalia you would see them and books like the "Turner Diaries". Ever read that one, Bob? You should if you haven't. That book was the inspiration for the Oklahoma City bombing, Lots of the guns for criminals crowd say that type of thing will happen if the Court finds against them.
And they claim to be law abiding!
The world is a scary place, Bob, and you are helping make it scarier. Head you lose, tails they win. What will the body count rise to if the Personal right is affirmed? Where will that lead? There are 2255 petitions from federal prisoners and other challenges to severe federal gun sentences that will flood lower courts if the Supreme Court issues a broad Second Amendment ruling.
On the other hand, what will the RKBA crowd say if the Collective right is affirmed? Remember you are in cahoots with some serious right wing crazies.
On the other hand, he is not savvy enough to realise who he is getting into bed with. The RKBA crowd tends to like to talk inclusivity, but I keep seeing a video of a klan member saying "don't let them take away your guns". The logic was that the minorities, Jews and Blacks, will ruin the United States as they knew it.
Gun control is a tool of the culture war. And the right likes using fear of crime and minorities and government's lack of ability to "protect you" as a tool of control. And even though JFPO comes up pretty high if you google "jews gun control" it doesn't take long until you find something like this:
http://wsi.matriots.com/gun_legislation.html
Better yet, check out these posts:
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/5307
or
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/jews-gun-control-58147.html
Now, Bob, are you ready for the backlash if your little gamble fails? Is Alan Gura also a Jew? Judge Laurence H. Silberman was the author of this piece which is getting US Supreme Court attention. Now, doesn't this play into the hands of those who want to put fear of Jews into people's minds? The last blog entry shows my fears are justified.
Of course, it might be a Catholic, or more, who will stand up for the "collective right"/militia enabling interpretation. Don't forget that Catholics have been victims of prejudice as well. I mean, the US should be proud that Kennedy was president after all.
Bob, for all your bravado, are you certain that you will really prevail when the arguments you present were previously rejected by Justice Alito in US v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996)? In fact, with the exception of two opinions, the courts in this country have held that the Second Amendment only applies to the militia, that is the body organised under Article I, Section 8, and its direct activities.
Now, Bob I know you don't own a gun. I can probably guess that you've never been to a gun show either. I am not sure how you would react to all the Nazi regalia you would see them and books like the "Turner Diaries". Ever read that one, Bob? You should if you haven't. That book was the inspiration for the Oklahoma City bombing, Lots of the guns for criminals crowd say that type of thing will happen if the Court finds against them.
And they claim to be law abiding!
The world is a scary place, Bob, and you are helping make it scarier. Head you lose, tails they win. What will the body count rise to if the Personal right is affirmed? Where will that lead? There are 2255 petitions from federal prisoners and other challenges to severe federal gun sentences that will flood lower courts if the Supreme Court issues a broad Second Amendment ruling.
On the other hand, what will the RKBA crowd say if the Collective right is affirmed? Remember you are in cahoots with some serious right wing crazies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
