+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My dear friend and fellow memo reader, Avi Jorisch, talks with his kids about anti-Semitism:
Antisemitism at My Door? How I Talked About Hate Crimes with my Children
By Avi Jorisch
Antisemitism and hate crimes in general are on the rise in the United States. According to the Anti-Defamation League, 2019 witnessed more than 2,100 anti-Jewish acts, including assaults, vandalism and harassment, marking an increase of 12 percent over the previous year. This is the highest level of antisemitic incidents since ADL began tracking them four decades ago. However, few of us ever expect to personally encounter such an episode: until we do.
I come from a family of Holocaust survivors. Each of my four grandparents had a harrowing story of survival, and the vast majority of our family perished. My father was born in a displaced persons camp in Germany a few months after the war ended. My earliest childhood memories are of stories of Auschwitz, Treblinka, Majdanek, Kraków-Płaszów , Skalat and Belzec – places of infamy my family survived, escaped from or died in. When I later visited some of these camps, I felt that I had been there many times before. In a thousand small ways, every day for me is Holocaust Remembrance Day.
For the last 20 years I lived in Capitol Hill, a bucolic neighborhood in Washington DC – surely a place with no open antisemitism, right? Wrong.
Last week I came home to find our favorite mezuzah missing from the front door of our home, apparently forcibly removed and stolen. On the week the world marked International Holocaust Memorial Day, I could not help but wonder if there was a connection. According to Jewish tradition, a mezuzah – a case holding a small scroll with two biblical passages – is placed on the doorposts in a Jewish home to evoke consciousness of God’s ubiquitous presence.
When I saw that my mezuzah was missing, I felt violated, but unfortunately, this was not the only instance of antisemitism we have experienced. Every few months, all of the houses in our DC neighborhood within a few square blocks get a flyer from someone who is clearly deranged, with references to Jewish plots, international conspiracies and Holocaust denial.
A few weeks ago, I sauntered over to the Capitol, a few blocks from my home, to see with my own eyes the mob who breached the Capitol. I wish I could say I was surprised to learn that the crowd included half a dozen neo-Nazi or white supremacist groups, or that some were wearing t-shirts with “Camp Auschwitz.”
As my children and I stared at the spot where my mezuzah had hung, my 10-year-old generously suggested that perhaps the person who took it needed it more than we did. But he also wondered if someone did it because they did not like Jewish people.
I could not help but think of one of Martin Luther King’s more poignant quotes: darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. I set out to turn this hate crime into a teaching opportunity. It broke my heart, but I knew I needed to delve deeper into “the conversation” that most Jewish families I know have with their children.
Sitting down with my kids, I asked if they had ever heard the term antisemitism: they had not. I explained that it primarily meant hostile behavior towards Jews. Were they aware of any antisemitic groups? Yes, the KKK and the Nazis. We talked about hate crimes, both against Jews and other ethnic groups. I saw their eyes go wide as I showed them for the first time the swastika.
I wondered if they had any ideas on what we should do, and we agreed we should put the mezuzah back up and do our part to bring more light to the world by engaging in charity. My children suggested we donate money to an organization fighting antisemitism and to an organization saving soon-to-be extinct rhinos in Africa. We also talked about the importance of standing up to those who engage in hate crimes, whether against Jews or others. And finally, we quietly sang Am Yisrael Chai – the people of Israel live. My children have now become links in the long chain of generations doing their part to bear witness and engage in tikkun olam, Hebrew for repairing the world.
I wonder what the person who took our mezuzah was thinking. Did this person think we would stop being Jewish? It only strengthened my resolve to pass on the most sublime hopes and timeless traditions of the Jewish people. We put the mezuzah back up, and each of my three sons made the appropriate blessing. My children are now firmly embedded in this new memory, this new story remembering our ancient beliefs and our freedom to live in it. Hate will never win.
Avi Jorisch is the author of Thou Shalt Innovate: How Israeli Ingenuity Repairs the World (Gefen Publishing)
And:
https://worldisraelnews.com/
++++++++++++++++++++++
This is sooooo Democrat compassionate. It also happens to be Democrat stupid but then, what the heck, since it only pertains to one's home who cares:
In Texas, State Representative Terry Meza (D-Irving) has introduced HB196. Her bill would repeal the state's "castle doctrine." This doctrine allows a homeowner to use deadly force against an armed intruder who breaks into his home.
Now listen to what she has to say...
"I'm not saying that stealing is okay," Meza explained. "All I'm saying is that it doesn't warrant a death penalty. Thieves only carry weapons for self-protection and to provide the householder an incentive to cooperate. They just want to get their loot and get away. When the resident tries to resist is when people get hurt. If only one side is armed fewer people will be killed."
Meza was quick to reassure that her bill "would not totally prevent homeowners from defending themselves.
Under the new law the homeowner's obligation is to flee the home at the first sign of intrusion. If fleeing is not possible he must cooperate with the intruder. But if violence breaks out it is the homeowner's responsibility to make sure no one gets hurt. The best way to achieve this is to use the minimum non-lethal force possible because intruders will be able to sue for any injuries they receive at the hands of the homeowner."
"In most instances the thief needs the money more than the homeowner does," Meza reasoned. "The homeowner's insurance will reimburse his losses. On balance, the transfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. If my bill can help make this transfer a peaceful one so much the better."
+++++++++++++
This from a dear friend and fellow memo reader and also a conservative:
Lunch with Jesus
A Republican, in a wheelchair, entered a restaurant one afternoon and asked the waitress for a cup of coffee . The Republican looked across the restaurant and asked is that Jesus sitting over there?" The waitress nodded “Yes!” So, the Republican requested that she give Jesus a cup of coffee and whatever else He wanted for lunch, on him.
The next patron to come in was a Libertarian, with a hunched back. He shuffled over to a booth, painfully sat down, and asked the waitress for a cup of hot tea. He also glanced across the restaurant and asked, “Is that Jesus, over there?” The waitress nodded, so the Libertarian asked her to give Jesus a cup of hot tea and whatever else He wanted, “My treat.”
The third patron to come into the restaurant, was a Democrat on crutches. He hobbled over to a booth, sat down and hollered, “Hey there honey! How's about getting me a cold mug of Miller Light!” He, too, looked across the restaurant and asked, "Isn't that God's boy over there? The waitress nodded, so the Democrat directed her to give Jesus a cold beer and whatever else He wanted, “On my bill. ”
As Jesus got up to leave, he passed by the Republican, touched him and said, "For your kindness, you are healed." The Republican felt the strength and vitality flood back into his legs, got up, walked, and began to praise the Lord.
Jesus passed by the Libertarian, touched him and said, "For your kindness, you are healed.” The Libertarian felt his back straightening up, a happy sparkle return to his eyes, he raised up his hands, and he, too, began to praise the Lord.
Then, Jesus walked, with a huge kind smile on his face, towards the Democrat. The Democrat jumped up and yelled, “Please don’t touch me. I'm on disability.”
For Those Who Understand, No Explanation is necessary.
For Those Who Do Not Understand, No Explanation is possible.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sent to me by one of my dearest friends and fellow memo readers:
This story is confirmed in Elmer Bendiner's book, The Fall of Fortresses.
*Sometimes, it's not really just luck.*
Elmer Bendiner was a navigator in a B-17 during WW II. He tells this story of a World War II bombing run over Kassel, Germany , and the unexpected result of a direct hit on their gas tanks. "Our B-17, the Tondelayo, was barraged by flak from Nazi antiaircraft guns. That was not unusual, but on this particular occasion our gas tanks were hit.
Later, as I reflected on the miracle of a 20 millimeter shell piercing the fuel tank without touching off an explosion, our pilot, Bohn Fawkes, told me it was not quite that simple. "On the morning following the raid, Bohn had gone down to ask our crew chief for that shell as a souvenir of unbelievable luck.
The crew chief told Bohn that not just one shell but 11 had been found in the gas tanks. 11 unexploded shells where only one was sufficient to blast us out of the sky. It was as if the sea had been parted for us. A near-miracle, I thought.
Even after 35 years, so awesome an event leaves me shaken, especially after I heard the rest of the story from Bohn.
"He was told that the shells had been sent to the armorers to be defused. The armorers told him that Intelligence had picked them up. They could not say why at the time, but Bohn eventually sought out the answer. "Apparently when the armorers opened each of those shells, they found no explosive charge. They were as clean as a whistle and just as harmless.
Empty? Not all of them! One contained a carefully rolled piece of paper. On it was a scrawl in Czech. The Intelligence people scoured our base for a man who could read Czech. Eventually they found one to decipher the note. It set us marveling. Translated, the note read:
*"This is all we can do for you now...
Using Jewish slave labor is never a good idea."
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Third world but first rate:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are we about to get a slice and dice, nit picking Attorney General who is also slick as an eel?
Merrick Garland: Portland Riots May Not Be ‘Domestic
Terrorism’ Because Courthouse Was Closed
Senate Judiciary Committee
By Joel Pollak
Judge Merrick Garland told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday that Antifa’s attacks on the U.S. courthouse in Portland last year may not have been “domestic terrorism,” because unlike the Capitol riot, they took place at night when the court was not “in operation.”
Garland,
who is President Joe Biden’s nominee for U.S. Attorney General, was questioned
at his confirmation hearing by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO):
Sen. Hawley: Let
me ask you about assaults on federal property in places other than Washington, DC
— Portland, for instance, Seattle. Do you regard assaults on federal
courthouses or other federal property as acts of domestic extremism, domestic
terrorism?
Judge Garland: Well, Senator, my
own definition, which is about the same as the statutory definition, is the use
of violence or threats of violence in attempt to disrupt the democratic
processes. So an attack on a courthouse, while in operation, trying to prevent
judges from actually deciding cases, that plainly is domestic extremism,
domestic terrorism. An attack simply on a government property at night, or any
other kind of circumstances, is a clear crime and a serious one, and should be
punished. I don’t know enough about the facts of the example you’re talking
about. But that’s where I draw the line. One is — both are criminal, but one is
a core attack on our democratic institutions.
Last August,
then-Attorney General William Barr described the attacks on the courthouse:
Behind the veil of “protests,” highly organized violent
operators have carried out direct attacks on federal personnel and property,
particularly the federal courthouse in Portland. Shielded by the crowds, which
make it difficult for law enforcement to detect or reach them, violent
opportunists in Portland have attacked the courthouse and federal officers with
explosives, lasers, projectiles, and other dangerous devices. In some cases, purported
“journalists” or “legal observers” have provided cover for the violent
offenders; in others, individuals wearing supposed press badges have themselves
attacked law enforcement or trespassed on federal property. More than 200
federal officers have been injured in Portland alone.
The riots resulted in the front of the courthouse being boarded up;
the destruction of security equipment protecting the courthouse; and the breaking of windows in the offices of federal
prosecutors.
Garland cited the
domestic terrorism statute, which defines “domestic terrorism” as follows (18 USC § 2331):
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A)
involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws
of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to
intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a
government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a
government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur
primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States
Notably,
the statute does not confine acts of domestic terrorism to working hours.
Editor’s Note: The
headline and body of this article have been updated to more accurately
communicate the reasoning behind Garland’s answer.
Joel
B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday
evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of
the recent e-book, Neither Free nor
Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic
presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the
2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
CrimeLaw and OrderPoliticsAntifaDomestic TerrorismJosh HawleyMerrick GarlandPortlandRiotsWilliam Barr
And:
++++++++++++++
Thomas seeks to clarify and Supreme Court Inexplicable decision:
News Alert
Justice Clarence Thomas Dissents
From Supreme Court on Election Case: ‘We Need to Make It Clear’
And:
'Inexplicable':
Alito and Thomas Dissent as Supreme Court Strikes Down Pennsylvania Election
Lawsuit
BY TYLER O'NEIL
The U.S. Supreme Court building, Wikimedia Commons, Daderot.
On Monday, the Supreme Court threw out several of the
remaining challenges to the 2020 presidential election as moot, considering
that former President Donald Trump conceded to Joe Biden, who has now become
president. Yet Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing
that the Supreme Court should have taken the opportunity to clarify election
law, especially in the case of Pennsylvania.
“The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority
to determine the ‘Manner’ of federal elections,” Thomas wrote. “Yet both
before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States
took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an
unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those
changes.”
Thomas argued that the cases Republican Party of
Pennsylvania v. Veronica DeGraffenreid (2021) and Jake Corman
v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party (2021) presented “a clear
example” of election law issues that the Supreme Court should put to rest. “The
Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving
mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court extended that deadline by three days.”
“That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected
too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not
be the case in the future,” Thomas argued. “These cases provide us with an
ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have
to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The
refusal to do so is inexplicable.”
Alito also wrote a dissent, which
Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Alito argued that these cases “present an
important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or
Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution… are violated when a state
court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute
governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted. That
question has divided the lower courts,* and our review at this time would be
greatly beneficial.”
“Now, the election is over, and there is no reason for refusing
to decide the important question that these cases pose,” Alito argued. While a
decision in these cases “would not have any implications regarding the 2020
election,” it would “provide invaluable guidance for future elections.”
Alito dismissed the argument that this case only arose given
the COVID-19 pandemic and therefore does not present ongoing issues. He noted
that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court used a constitutional provision
guaranteeing “free and equal elections” to “override even very specific and
unambiguous rules adopted by the legislature for the conduct of federal
elections.” This broad overreach arguably sets a dangerous precedent. Alito
noted that “in order for a question to be capable of repetition, it is not
necessary to predict that history will repeat itself at a very high level of
specificity.”
Alito also dismissed as “highly speculative” the prediction
“that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will not find that conditions at the time
of a future federal election are materially similar to those last fall.” He
also noted that the primary election for Pennsylvania congressional candidates
will take place in a mere 15 months. “We may hope that by next spring the
pandemic will no longer affect daily life, but that is uncertain.”
“For these reasons, the cases now before us are not moot,”
Alito argued.
In addition to these Pennsylvania cases, the Supreme Court
also dismissed Donald Trump v.
Joe Biden (2021), a case involving the Wisconsin Supreme
Court’s rulings on absentee ballots.
Tyler O’Neil is the author of Making Hate
Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Follow
him on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.
++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment