Jewish Bigotry Exposed in Attack on Tim Tebow

 Connecticut Rabbi Joshua Hammerman can rest easier this Sunday afternoon.   The Denver Broncos led by its quarterback, Tim Tebow lost decisively today in its NFL football game against the New England Patriots.

The following article was sent to me this past week during the arrival of Tim Tebow upon the television and radio stage for his unexpected string of victories during which this quarterback has displayed unusual ‘luck’, ‘good fortune’ or personal fortitude in lifting his team from less than mediochre to a leader for  the AFC West championship and a place in the NFL Playoffs.

In my long life here in Twin City Minnesota communities, the most bigotted people I have come in contact with as a teacher, neighbor, worker, student, and other areas  of my life are 1)  the post 1960s American born inner city BLACK and  at any time in my life, the American  left wing JEW.    One group  expresses its  hates against whites and the other against  Christians, conservatives,  blacks, Americans in general,  and even against  conservative Jews, a more recent phenomenon in my adult life, I believe.

I was born and raised  in the Highland Park community of St. Paul in which Jews have been its largest minority since its early development  in the 1930s and 1940s.   I left the area in the late 1950s.

The rules of political correctness censorship of letters and speech which dictated that not only whites, but no one was permitted to present anything negative about our Jewish and black minorities, predated this Obama administration by many decades.    To do so was  evidence of the hideous crime of racism or antiSemitism.

It is my understanding that most synagogues in the Twin Cities area, at least those until the Russian Jewish immigration into the Twin Cities of the last generation or so, are led by rather evangelistic leftwing  rabbis.   I submit from my experience,   that rabbi Joshua Hammerman is a dime a dozen in this synagogue community today.   

It is also my experience that it is impossible to express such a view to these folks, no matter how widespread their truths may be.  Their tribes name call and then shun……

I used to be somewhat active in DFL Party circles when I lived in Minneapolis.   I have been a conservative voter since Ronald Reagan’s second term in 1984.   

The following article was sent to me by fellow Prager fan, Mark Waldeland:

 

 

 

 

Tebow Critics Put Their Own Bigotry on Display

By Linda Chavez · Friday, December 16, 2011

Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow has been a controversial sports figure ever since he agreed to do an ad for the conservative organization Focus on the Family; the spot aired during the 2010 Super Bowl. Feminists and other groups, who feared the ad would be overtly pro-life and anti-abortion, tried to keep it from running. In the end, the message turned out to be pretty innocuous, and those who tried to censor it looked downright silly.

Now Tebow is once again a target for illiberals who find his evangelical Christianity somehow threatening and offensive. The latest episode involves a recent column for The Jewish Week that bashed Tebow for symbolizing intolerance. But it was the writer, Connecticut Rabbi Joshua Hammerman, who put his own astonishing bigotry on display. Hammerman titled his piece “My Tebow Problem,” and indeed it is Hammerman’s problem — not Tebow’s.

While claiming to want to root for Tebow, who has pulled off an unprecedented string of amazing consecutive fourth-quarter comebacks for his underdog team this season, Hammerman made the following prediction: “If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants. While America has become more inclusive since Jerry Falwell’s first political forays, a Tebow triumph could set those efforts back considerably.”

Really?

And Hammerman’s bigotry doesn’t stop there. On his own blog, he responds to criticism from those who took offense to his original article, noting that Tebow’s “entire life’s work is also predicated on saving my soul for Jesus. He’s not alone in this. Tebow has been affiliated with the Southern Baptists, who spend millions to convert Jews, often deceptively. I personally don’t consider that exemplary behavior. Is it better than raping little boys? Absolutely. But is it admirable? I have issues with anyone determined to save my soul, be that person Christian or Jewish.”

So, Southern Baptists want to trick Jews into becoming Christians? And Catholics (or is it priests only?) all want to sexually abuse children?

Apparently even Hammerman finally realized how outrageous these comments were, as he has now removed them from his own website, and The Jewish Week has taken his piece down as well. But erasing the words don’t constitute an apology. And I’m not sure Hammerman is capable of understanding what he did wrong, which is the precondition for actual contrition.

Tim Tebow harms no one when he bends a knee to thank Jesus for giving him the athletic gifts that have served him so well. And he’s never said anything publicly about saving anyone’s soul. So how is it offensive that his piety inspires others — even his opponents on the field — to join him in prayer? In an era when other famous athletes are better known for sexting, criminal assault or even murder, it’s a mystery why humility and faith would be viewed negatively.

True tolerance means allowing others to believe what they choose and to express those beliefs, so long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Tebow does not insist that his teammates join him in prayer, nor does he interfere with those who choose a different religious — or non-religious — expression of joy and gratitude.

But illiberals want religion out of the public square altogether. They want to reinterpret the First Amendment to deny religious freedom, not to protect it. They want to force religious people of all faiths to keep their religion in the closet, while at the same time enforcing the open acceptance — indeed, encouragement — of behaviors that conflict with traditional religious tenets. The illiberal religious bigots believe putting a creche on public property is unconstitutional; but displaying a crucifix in a in a tax-supported museum is just fine, just so long as it’s stuck in a jar of urine.

Tim Tebow is not the problem. The real problem is our willingness to be bullied into thinking that prejudice masked as tolerance is acceptable.”

Further comment:   I was born and raised Christian in this country.  I haven’t been ‘churched” since.   I have taught public school.   Among my teachings was American History, before the disappearance of that study since the country’s cultural revolution and riots of the 1960s and 1970s.  

I did attend the Minnesota Viking game, one of the six or seven  events where Quarterback Tebow rallied his team late in the game from defeat to victory.    I have followed the comments from NFL hasbeens now hosting various NFL shows on television.    Many ridiculed Tebow, making fun of his ‘habits’ in a meanful manner.    Others reminded their audiences that he is still young….perhaps hoping he’d soon wear out from including anything religious in his discussions of football life.  

Thus far he appears to be a fine young American……which is more than can be said about so many sports-made millionaires these days.  

 

 

 

Vaclav Havel, Hero of Traditional Western Culture, Dies

 

Vaclav Havel was both a political and

an intellectual hero.

You couldn’t say that of our politicians

by Ed West    at the Telegraph:

“It says much about Vaclav Havel that, perhaps alone among European politicians, his face can often be seen gracing the walls of restaurants in his homeland. People might wish to pay such a tribute to their monarch, or in some parts of Europe their religious leaders; rarely to politicians. How many of Britain or France’s former heads of government might inspire such genuine affection?

Havel, who died today in the Czech Republic, was something rare in history. He was one of the heroes of the anti-Communist movement, but uniquely he was both one of the great intellectual heroes of the Eastern Bloc and one its political heroes. Indeed in politics, where more often than not vapidity and managerialism is rewarded, he was an unusual thinker-statesman. How many other politicians of his era had a Samuel Beckett play dedicated to them, or were genuine friends of leading musicians and poets? While the Communist leadership was ugly, old, predictable and pedestrian, its number one critic was cooler than a rock star.

It was Havel who helped, as much as anyone, to put across the idea that Communism was built on an illusion and that, once people began to doubt the illusion, it would collapse. His essay “The Power of the Powerless” described a system based on the Emperor’s New Clothes, a fairytale that would perfectly suit the bizarre shadow world of Marxist-Leninism. In Czechoslovakia the “brotherly help” given by the Soviet Union in 1968 was followed by “normalisation” whereby 145 historians were expelled from universities and any praise for the inter-war Czechoslovakian democracy banned. Havel, in trouble with the authorities from 1968 when he worked for a radio critical of the Soviets, and spending many years in jail, expertly described the world of “Post-Totalitarianism”, where people “live within a lie”. (Or as the Russian joke went: we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.) No political system based on a lie could ever be just. So his slogan, “Truth and love must prevail over lies and hatred”, was not an empty one.

It must be remembered that, though a generation later Communism’s downfall seems inevitable, it was by no means so and was not achieved without sacrifice. After Poland’s Communists took 10 years to fall, Hungary’s 10 months, and East Germany’s 10 weeks, the 10-day collapse of the Czechoslovakian regime was shocking and wonderful. Havel toasting the crowd in Wenceslas Square became, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, symbolic of the end of the short 20th century and the battle between liberal democracy and authoritarianism.

He was a great man, and I should imagine visitors to Prague will see plenty more of this great European’s gentle image around that beautiful city.”

Tags: 1989 revolutions, communism, Lech Walesa, Prague Spring, Vaclav Havel, Velvet Revolution

Comment:   Mr. West is probably writing primarily for the UK reading audience, whomever that might include.   You can make your own judgments regarding what you might say  about today’s American politicians.

( Mitt Romney’s difficulty becoming a typical modern day American politician might become an asset with you.  It is with me, now that I think about it.  I still think he should fire his campaign advisors who seem to think memorizing political claptrap is the new wave of successful  political salesmanship because president Obama is so expert  at  selling claptrap.)

Why Would a Sensible American Guy Marry an American Female anyway?

THE MARRIAGE GAP PRESENTS A REAL COST.

by Ruth Marcus   at the Washington Post:

“If current trends hold, within a few years, less than half the U.S. adult population will be married. This precipitous decline isn’t just a social problem. It’s also an economic problem.

Specifically, it’s an income-inequality and economic-mobility problem.

The latest numbers, from the Pew Research Center, are startling and disturbing. In 1960, nearly three-fourths of those 18 and older were married. By 2010, that number had plummeted to a bare majority, 51 percent. Four in 10 births were to unmarried women.

In 1960, the most- and least-educated adults were equally likely to be married. Now, nearly two-thirds of college graduates are married, compared with less than half of those with a high school diploma or less. Those with less education are less likely to ever marry and more likely to divorce if they do.

“Family structure is a new dividing line in American society,” Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution told me.

As marriage increasingly becomes a phenomenon of the better-off and better-educated, the incomes of two-earner married couples diverge more and more from those of struggling single adults. There is a chicken-and-egg conundrum at work here: Did lack of financial stability contribute to the decision not to marry, or did the decision not to marry contribute to financial instability? Either way, the phenomenon is self-reinforcing.

Of even more concern is the generational impact of this increased inequality. Being raised in a stable, two-parent household is a strong determinant of educational achievement. In turn, educational achievement is a strong — and growing stronger — determinant of lifetime income. As a result, the marriage gap becomes a grimly self-perpetuating process.

Rhapsodizing about the benefits of marriage may have a conservative air — promoting marriage among welfare recipients was a big deal during the George W. Bush administration — but you don’t have to be a conservative to bemoan these statistics.

It’s not only that those at higher education levels are far more likely to marry — they’re far more likely to marry each other. “Men used to marry their secretaries,” Sawhill observed. “Now they marry the woman they met in med school.”

As a result, Sawhill said, “These two-earner couples at the top are just making out like bandits and these single parents at the bottom have miserable lives. If the single parents were married, their life wouldn’t be so miserable. And at the top, if these high-earning professionals weren’t getting together and forming little collaboratives, they’d be worse off.”

About those collaboratives: More people are cohabiting these days, but as an economic matter, this doesn’t solve the problem.

An earlier Pew study found that the typical college-educated cohabiter enjoyed a slightly higher household income than a college-educated married person, which only makes sense. For the college-educated cohabiter, living together tends to be a step toward marriage and children, at which point household income may drop as one spouse works less.

But for those who aren’t college-educated, cohabitation is more an alternative to the marriage track than a precursor of it. They are more far more likely than college-educated cohabiters to have children — and they enjoy significantly lower median household incomes than comparably educated married couples.

Not only that, cohabitation is not the equivalent of marriage in terms of family stability. Demographers Sheela Kennedy and Larry Bumpass found that, by age 12, about two-thirds of children born to cohabiting parents will see them split up, compared with a quarter of children born to parents who are married.

Nor does the marriage gap seem destined to lessen. Pew found that 27 percent of those with college degrees say they consider marriage “obsolete.” But 45 percent of those with a high school diploma or less took that view.

A different arm of Pew, its Economic Mobility Project, found that among children who started in the bottom third of income, only one-fourth of those with divorced parents moved up to the middle or top third as adults. By comparison, half of children with continuously married parents — and, somewhat surprisingly, 42 percent of those born to unmarried mothers — moved up the income ladder as adults.

Is marriage a magic-bullet solution to the broader problem of income inequality and lack of economic mobility? No, but fewer marriages will mean more inequality. Neither development is healthy.”

Comment:   Ruth Marcus writes a lot from the usual standards of leftwing bigotry.   Marriage is an economic issue, she writes…..costly to certain Americans……Its the usual  Marxist economic thing.

 She espouses gay marriages.   That should help relieve her anxiety regarding America’s marital statistics..  

 Perhaps it would be  wiser to limit marriage to gays, now that the traditional institution has been so sullied.    Lefties, especially the Ruth Marcus kind,  have been polticiking to womanize the American male for nearly 40 years now.   At the same time this same group of lowlife lefty ‘educators’  has  butchified the American female  through myth and law, as the standard profile for the New American Woman!

These lefties proudly  provide condoms to second graders to teach ways of the primitive carnal slut as soon as possible. 

Every civilized young man in America should wonder if American women are worthy of marriage.   The standard gal is used merchandise, wears pants, and might even be a guy.  Americans will soon be marrying their pets.   The Left loves progress progressing to Marxism where everyone is made the same.

  Why should anyone bother with marriage  since the goal  of the American  left is and has been, to create clones of the equal?    Ruth Marcus’ favorite politicians have been destroying the purpose for and the economics of  marriage for generations.   I wonder what has caused her as a lefty,  upset regarding the collapse of the numbers of Americans married.  As a Lefty, she should commend the destruction of the marriage institution.

Her Obamapeople are working diligently  to Marxify American children in the public schools  to eliminate the need for parents.    They provide tax-payer paid breakfasts, lunches, and Obamagods and goddesses.   What more is needed in Leftyland?    The  comrade Obama crowd sent songs out  to the little ones in select schools to sing worship songs to their newly elected “savior” .

Successful marriages produce conservative Americans, both Republican and Democrat, the enemies of ChairmanObama.

What weed is Ruth smoking?

 

 

The Islamic Enemy Within: Saboteurs In Tulsa

The news from Tulsa

by Scott Johnson    at PowerLine

I’ve been in Tulsa all week. The local news is full of a story I would otherwise have missed: “Terror suit spurs search at car dealershership.” Check this out:

A Tulsa used car dealership was searched Friday by federal and local law enforcement agents in connection with an international scheme that has allegedly funneled $483 million through terrorist-controlled channels to Lebanon since January 2007.

Ace Auto Leasing, 5717 E. 11th St., is one of about 30 U.S. car buyers along with several other entities accused of facilitating the arrangement, according to a civil lawsuit filed Thursday in the U.S. Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit alleges that Ace Auto received about $20.2 million from Hezbollah members or Hezbollah-controlled entities to purchase and ship used cars.

Hezbollah is a Lebanon-based terrorist organization responsible for some of the most deadly anti-U.S. attacks dating to 1983. The group was formed in 1982 after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It has been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, a Specially Designated Terrorist and a Specially Designated Global Terrorist.

Agents from the FBI, Tulsa Police and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration searched the Ace Auto Leasing lot, writing down automobile vehicle identification numbers.

Officers involved were from the joint terrorism task force, which combines the efforts of several law enforcement agencies, and the auto-theft unit of the Tulsa Police, said Officer Jason Willingham.

Jerika Richardson, spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of the southern New York district, said no arrests were made or expected in the searches held across the country. “This is a civil action,” she said. “It is not criminal … All we have at this time is a civil action.”

Records maintained by the state Tax Commission indicate Mohamad K. Soukieh is the only officer associated with the corporation Ace Auto Leasing Inc. of Tulsa.

Tulsa County assessor records indicate property utilized as a used car lot in the 5700 block of East 11th Street was purchased by Mohamad K and Daad Soukieh in 2002. Adjacent property and land was purchased in 2005 and 2007.

Like Bill Ayers in the Chicago Tribune story featured in a nearby post, Soukieh could not be reached for comment. There is more to the story with the Tulsa angle, and you may want to check out the whole thing.