Anti-Semetism: San Francisco’s circumcision ballot question

Now there’s proof positive that the circumcision ban in San Fransisco it anti-Semetic.

If the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18. The practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. There would be no religious exemptions.  (emphasis mine) YahooNews.com

For a city that has bragged on it’s tolerance and progressive ideology, this is nothing short of being anit-Semetic, as well as anti-Muslim and unConstitutional.

This is blatant anti-Semetism and to make it worse (or more obvious) take a look at the cartoon from Zombie at PajamasMedia.com.  (H/t Ace of Spades, who also has a great blog about this, complete with a Beck radio clip.) This is appalling and amazing at the same time.

Who’s in charge of PR for this anti-circ drive?

To add insult to injury (if that’s possible) according to Zombie, the cartoonists name is Hess.  Shades of Nazi Germany.

If that isn’t Jew hatred, I’m a Chinese astronaut.

And everyone seems to have forgotten that Muslims require circumcision at age 12.

Female genital cutting, a controversial practice that usually involves the removal of the clitoris, is illegal in the United States. A circumcision ban would simply extend the same protections to males, [Lloyd] Schofield [spearheading this ballot initiative] said.

Here, we are talking about 2 separate things. A circumcision does not prevent male pleasure during sex. It does not prevent a man from experiencing an orgasm.  A clitorectomy all but eliminates that pleasure for a female.  Therefore there’s no comparison between the 2 proceedures. One is mutilation, (not controversial) to any thinking person. The other is a CHOICE, usually by parents, or it’s a religious requirement.  Which brings us back full circle to anti-Semetism and Constitutional rights.

This is going to be tied up in the courts for a long time and in the end, the whole thing will be a waste of time and lots of money. This is unConstitutional on several levels. Not to mention it’s Jew hatred at it’s most obvious.

Shame on all of the people who are supporting this.

 

 

 

 

Rhetoric that makes me see red — or brown shirts

Most of us are children or grandchildren of WWII vets and grew up during the “duck and cover” days of the cold war.  We grew up fearing the great Soviet war machine that was an out growth of WWII. We are not yet, that far removed from those days.  I think that’s why when we hear the words of Ken Salazar keeping his “boot on the throat of BP” it simply causes a small wave of nausea to wash over us.

Those are dictatorial words that make Americans see red – as in communist red.

Rhetoric like that is a total disregard for the rule of law that we have grown to expect, that we take for granted and that most of us don’t even consider because it’s become so — American.

No one wants to see BP off the hook for this mess. Everyone wants BP to take full responsibility for what has happened, in all ways, including financial.  But phrases like ‘knowing whose ass to kick’ and ‘keeping a boot on the throat’ does not reflect the kind of justice most of us want or the way we want justice to be meted out.

Words matter and how words are used matters, a lot. These kinds of threats only serve to turn off Americans and reinforces the opinion of a great many that this administration is too far left or too far red – you choose. It sounds a little too jack-booted Nazi for my palate.

It also illustrates how Obamas thug mentality has trickled down in his administration and infected his underlings. Remember Ray LaHood (Sec. of the Dept. of Transportation) saying he would “coerce Americans out of their cars”? Coerce me from driving? Coercion isn’t such a nice word either. It has some criminal overtones, actually. I will not be coerced out of my car to have the government’s boot on my throat so that someone in the Obama adminstration can kick my ass… thank you very much!

Who do these people think they are? And how long do they think they will remain in charge of anything?

Timing out the Alinsky bullys

“I think it’s based on racism,” Carter said in response to an audience question at a town hall held at his presidential center in Atlanta. “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.” MyWay

Jimmy Carter is the roundly acknowledged worst president we’ve ever had.  His book now recommended reading by Osama’s book club and his anti-semite, race baiting diatribes have given him a place in history that he othewise would never have had. Most people would not want to have that particular place. But I guess if you’re Jimmy Carter, considering what the alternative is, you’ll take whatever historical position you can.

Callling RACISM on anyone who doesn’t tow the Obama line is starting to wear thin. Like calling someone a Nazi, the overuse of these labels are  losing their impact. And in fact, it’s starting to make these name callers look delusional and desperate. Case in point:

Hank Johnson a democrat and member of the Black Caucus suggested that a “failure to rebuke the South Carolina Republican is tantamount to supporting the most blatant form of organized racism in American history.”  Johnson also went on to say, “people will be putting on“white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside”!  Moonbat Patrol

Alinsky’s rule of targeting, attacking and freezing the opposition only works when the attackee allows it to work. Name calling puts the victim on the defensive. It’s no different than the playground bully we’ve all had experience with.

There are 3 tactics to counter this Alinsky rule: 1. defend against it; 2. return the name-calling; 3. diminish it’s impact –  demeaning it’s use by ignoring it.

Tactics 1 and 2 esculate the “discussion” and are counter-productive. They are forms of rewarding negative behavior and reinforcing it. (Many of us understand this if we raised kids.) Letting the message deteriorate to a one word label (racist or nazi) doesn’t further the message of the victim. On the contrary, it reinforces the position of the bully.

On the other hand, ignoring the people who scream racist at the top of a hat, demeans them and renders them inconsequential to any debate. And seriously, who can be more inconsequential  than Jimmy Carter?

The victim needs to ignore the name and continue the conversation beyond and past this or end the conversation until or unless the bullying stops. It’s kind of like a “time out” for the Jimmy Carters and the Hank Johnsons of the world.

Someone needs to be the adult, the parent if you like, in this and take control of the situation or the bullys will keep running amuck.  These are obviously not mental giants if their argument is to scream racism at every turn. We need to start timing them out, isolating and ignoring them until they can come to the table with intelligent discussion and more than a one-word argument.