Liberal Dissembling on Romney and Taxes

By Sen. Vincent Hughes - Romney tax plan isn't about fairness - from Pennlive.com

Highlights:

The Buffett Rule is one step among many we need to take to keep investing in prosperity for all Americans without increasing the deficit so that everyone gets a fair shot and does their fair share.

Asking the wealthiest Americans to do their part is not class warfare — it’s just fair. Of course, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney opposes the Buffett Rule. Romney’s tax plan asks the middle class to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires that we can’t afford.

Even deep cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not enough to pay for Romney’s tax cuts and a defense buildup without a strategy behind it. That means there would be additional cuts to Head Start, local schools, Pell Grants that help students pay for college, and investments in our transportation and infrastructure. All these cuts would hurt the middle class.

At the very core of this debate — and this election — is a straightforward choice. We either can continue to level the playing field and make the investments that made the American middle class the envy of the world or we can keep giving tax breaks to the wealthiest, widen loopholes for big corporations, and stick seniors and the middle class with the bill. But we can’t do both.

While President Obama is fighting to restore economic security and fairness for the middle class, Romney is fighting to maintain the status quo so his fellow millionaires can keep taking advantage of loopholes in the system and doing less than their fair share. America will not thrive without a healthy and robust middle class. The idea of America is a country where anyone can achieve their dreams through hard work and responsibility.

If we are going to succeed as a nation, we must level the playing field so everyone has the same shot at success.

Liberal dissembling. The idea that "fairness" means picking winners and losers is dishonest and the type of politics we have so come to expect from the left that no one questions it anymore. A government that can pick tax winners and losers, financial winners and losers - is the same government that could more likely than not pick who lives and who doesn't. A "fair" government treats everyone equally. Fairness translates into an equal playing field, protected by a government that assures that liberty is preserved without a preference as to outcome. A truly "fair" tax is a flat tax. The more you earn, the more you pay. To proffer an argument that someone has benefited more than someone else and thereby should be held to a different standard of "fairness" is sheer nonsensical hypocrisy. If as a standard, private sector banks were to choose to whom they would lend money based upon a subjective standard and not a financial/business model this would rightly by viewed as a discriminatory business practice. Yet, the left continues to bombard America with a self-righteous false morality of "the rich should pay more because they benefited more". Save it for the stupid. I, for one, am not buying it.

Jewish Federations Tell Israel to Bug Off

Can thin skinned be excused for ahavas Yisroel? Can the national interests of the State of Israel be confused with causing hatred amongst Jews? Is the accusation itself a form of anti-Jewism? INN ran THIS STORY: American Jews Take Issue with 'Come Home' Campaign describing the angst of the The Jewish Federations of North America; unhappy that the State of Israel is trying to bring home ex-patriots - those who have descended from Israel (yireda) back to Israel. I thought that we, as Jews - lovers of Israel, supporters of Jewish ownership of the land and concerned for its well-being - were supposed to be upset when Israel's national interests were struck from the outside?

That is only true, of course when the issue is secular. Jewish Federations (sounds like an organized labor movement, no?) are held hostage to Identity Jews, those lacking in yiras Shomayim, married to the culture of Edom - and well off. The money flowing in to and its counter threat to be withheld (even a perceived and not real threat) determine the positions taken by The Jewish Federations of North America not what is in the interests of Torah or Israel.

Even worse is the contradictory nature of the culture of The Jewish Federations of North America. Millions of dollars are contributed every year to the Jewish Federations for the purpose of advocating for and educating about the importance of Israel. Teens and others are sent on free exploration style trips or junkets to learn about the land and build attachments. Yet for Israelis living abroad - living in North America, its different. One the one hand, organized efforts are made to advocate for building connections to Israel, on the other hand and to the contrary - opposing the efforts of that very same nation to reach out to its home born overseas.

This quote tells the story

"We fear this campaign will only backfire, and rather than simply bringing Israelis back, will alienate and divide Diaspora Jews from Israel. Rather than playing Israeli Jews against American Jews, we should be seeking to reinforce our shared love of Zion and to build the bonds of Jewish people hood worldwide."

What they are saying is that we don't want our donors to see the truth of living in exile. We are concerned that upon realizing that Chanukah Bushes and children knowing more about the other cultures in which they inter-mingle than their own - one in their eyes which is backward, repressive, anti-woman, racist and overall inferior to the wonders provided by the "modern" world will be offensive and result in a loss of donations (HaShem yirachem). After all Jewish Federations represent all Jews - even those who need the most Jewish - (read Torah) influence, education and enlightenment. We don't want to offend anyone - even at the risk of mis-representing what our our holy Torah teaches us and what our tradition demonstrates for us. The children of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov have a unique culture and law. It is not to be held hostage to The Jewish Federations of North America and their kowtow to its donor base.

In this weeks parashah Vayeitzei, Yaakov is sent away by his parents - away from the hatred of his "brother" Eisav and to find a wife. As he lay down to sleep, he protects his head with a set of stones. In one of my favorite Torah commentaries Vedibarta Bam, Rabbi Bogomilsky quotes Rashi explaining the rocks are to protect Yaakov from "wild animals". He then brings this gem "Yaakov knew that in the world at large there are many forces that are alien to Torah and mitzvot and hostile to the religious Jew. These forces influence the mind of the Jew and try to persuade him to leave the path of Torah. Therefore, Yaakov made a great effort to protect his "head," to prevent negative influences from interfering with his yiddishkeit." Further Rabbi Bogomilsky brings another explanation:

"He took of the stones of the place, and he placed them around (under) his head, and lay down in that place to sleep." (28:11)


QUESTION: Why did Yaakov rest his head on a stone?

ANSWER: The Gemara (Bava Kamma 30a) says: "He who wants to be a chassid should observe the laws of nezikin — damages" (being careful not to hurt anyone or damage property). Rava says that he should follow the teachings of Avot (Book of Ethics), and others say that he should be observant in the laws of berachot (recognizing the supremacy of Hashem and thanking Him for everything). The word "even" — "stone" — is an acronym for "avot, berachot, nezikin."

As Yaakov was preparing to enter the "outside world," his first resolution was to be a chassid. The placing of the placing of these three stones as the guidepost for his "head," was, as though to say, that his thoughts would always be directed to exceling in these three matters.

The three stones united to emphasize that each approach is equally important and that through these three things one can make the world a "beit Elokim" — a "house of G-d."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It may also be said that "berachot" — recognizing the supremacy of Hashem and thanking Him for everything — is an allusion to the relationship between man and Hashem. Being careful not to hurt or injure a fellow man, "nezikin," represents inter-human relationships. To be exemplary, one must conduct himself within these two realms, in accordance with the guidelines and teachings conveyed by "avot" — our ancestors.

To answer the criticism that my opinion is too negative, note the above paragraph. We must balance our approach to our relationships with fellow Jews (and all mankind) with recognition of Hashem's supremacy and the lessons of our Avos - whose actions lead us still. And to fend off "wild animals", one needs to live within fences.

In other words, the actions to oppose Israel's interests in bringing back Israelis to Eretz HaKodesh by the Jewish Federations is contrary to the needs and interests of the Jewish people and is being espoused for the wrong reasons.


Israel Matzav posts the videos of the advertising campaign

And here is the contrary view: Israeli ad campaign suggests Israelis shouldn’t date Americans (VIDEO). What this article sarcastically points out is an all true phenomenon that many an observer of the Jewish world can point towards as the best reason why the Israeli absorption effort is needed. I have known far more Israelis than I care to remember - who came here for "a short time" to "make some money" or "learn a professional" with the goal of returning to Israel later. Most of them become very comfortable in America and decide "for their family's ie. children" to stay in America. Really? For the children? They have learned from the politics of America how any policy choice can be advocated - its for the children. The same justification of the Jewish Federations to fund Israel programs... I'm confused.

Obama's Israel Policy Goes Native

To my most holy Jewish brethren - those who still worship at the feet of the idol O'Ba'alma and who drink from the bitter waters flowing from Jstreet, the time has come for you to do teshuva, if you still can.

Yesterday, in what must have a been like removing a load of bricks off his back, (not to be confused with the fallen ruins of the Twin Towers), the president of the United States of America shrugged off national interest and the hard and painful lessons learned from history in favor of his latent anti-Jewism, born of his early-years Medrassa education. How much of a relief it must have been for him to express his real inner feelings of despise for the lives of the Jewish people in the land of Israel?

Perhaps due to the frustration of having wasted two full years of solitary liberal rule in DC, the emir in chief has finally decided to "be himself" and express his true intentions. Israel, he told us must be reduced to the size it once was when former Ambassador Abba Eban coined the phrase, "the Auschwitz lines".

Since yesterday afternoon's Obamaism, many pundits have made reference to the 1967 "lines" where both friend and foe of the Jewish people have not justly explained what this means. On the surface, it merely means the pre-Six Day war line separating arabians and Jews. What it really means is the 1949 armistice line - the line separating between the Jewish army and the retreating arabian armies who attacked Israel immediately following Israel's declaration of Independence in 1948. The "green-line" as it was known became the Berlin wall of the middle east - demarcating not between freedom and tyranny as in Europe but between civilization and barbarism. So in reality Obama the terrible is calling for re-do, back to 1949, back to the Auschwitz line, back to the time before the humiliating defeat of the arabian armies at the hands of the descendants of monkeys and pigs. Sultan Hussein Obama's inner muslim is on display.

The next few days should be interesting to say the least. This Shmuly Boteach story kinda says it all. Obama will arrogantly speak at AIPAC and tell the Jews and supporters of Israel, that his recommendations are in Israel's best interests and that America's support for Israel is unshakable - just like he said in his Middle East speech on Thursday.

So let's backtrack a little to yesterday and look at just one paragraph of Obama's speech:

For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security, prosperity, and empowerment to ordinary people.

We could really hours on every word, every innuendo, every inflection, etc. But with better things to do, lets be brief. In the eye's of the president, the conflict is about death to the Jews vs. humiliation. Plain and simple it is what Obama said. I don't know that many Israelis that are constantly worried about buses blowing up or a rocket falling on their home - not to belittle these things are say they are not serious. But they are not worries. What does worry Israelis is having the carpet, (a prayer carpet, perhaps) pulled out from underneath them the way Obama did yesterday. What worries Israelis is the possibility of a major regional war with missiles flying in from Iran along with a newly muslimized Egyptian army attacking from, not in, the Sinai joined with a Syrian-Hizbollah offensive in the north. That is a worry. The pali-terrorists are a thorn in the side in comparison.

To equate the two ideas of death to the Jews and humiliation is of course, a demonstration of how little Jewish blood must be valued by the president. And as to the idea that the poor palis have never had a nation of their own, well who is to blame here? I wonder if Obama expressed this same concern to the little King Abdullah II who rules as a minority tribal sultan over millions of "palis" living on the east bank of the Jordan river? I wonder if Abdullah, in the midst of protests in Jordan, feels any safer today? One could argue of course that no arab living in an arabian land today has a country of his own unless he is prince or of royal ancestry. In those lands where an Emir or King or Prince or even Colonel or someone acting like one without the title rules, is the country really theirs? Where tyranny rules, one cannot be free. And where arabians rule, freedom is stifled and only those in power or support those in power can claim any form of ownership.

What is the nature of this statement by Prince Hussein Obama: "Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security, prosperity, and empowerment to ordinary people". Is he saying that the US and arabians are suffering diplomatically and strategically because of "the conflict"? Really? Is peace in the middle east contingent upon the palis building a thug-terror state in Judea and Samaria? He could mean something else but knowing the president and his historically cold view of Israel which is well-documented on this blog and other places, it is a fair assumption to read between the lines and expect the least from Obama's intentions.

When PM Netanyahu speaks to the Obama today, what will he say? More importantly, when Bibi speaks to the joint session of Congress on Monday, what will he say. If I were Obama, I would be very careful how I treat Netanyahu today and with what I say at AIPAC. Netanyahu may not be the perfect Israeli Prime Minister but I would not want anyone else speaking at AIPAC and more importantly before the Congress of the United States of America. My hope is that Bibi will clearly state before Congress that Israel is under no more moral or legal compulsion to negotiate with the terrorist thugs of a party which honors and trusts Hamas as an equal party than the US has a moral need to negotiate with al-Qaeda. Any party which routinely calls for the destruction of Israel and cannot even draw a map where Israel can be found is no partner for peace - only a partner for war. My hope is that strongly and unequivocally states "Jerusalem is not for sale" while calling upon the US to once and for all move the embassy to Jerusalem, not because it is Israel's capital but because it is Hakadosh Baruch Hu's capital.

See Ketzaleh's speech he wishes PM Netanyahu would deliver.

Privacy and Technology

Thoughts about changing technology and how it affects the public need for and access of public records and the relationship to identity theft.

Does new technology which enhances access to information pose an inherent danger to the privacy rights of individuals? Does ease of access to information increase the number of identity theft victims? Are more people likely to fall victim to information based frauds because of the World Wide Web?

These questions on the surface require an analysis between two ideas which have been in conflict since mankind has sought to build a better mouse trap. The essence of the dispute can be explained with the following debate question: do new technologies which change an existing process so much that even though all agree the process is vital, the new process brings with it costs that were not conceived of when the previous process existed. At such time, should the process be banned or changed into something else?

In English, what do I mean? Virginia, resident, Betty "B.J." Ostergren , runs a website named The Virginia Watchdog whose mission is to expose public records of public officials found online in order to bring attention to her supposition that the availability of electronic public records is a cause of identity theft. Ms. Ostergren contends that public records should only be available at a clerk’s office. So the question becomes, is there a fundamental difference in the nature of safety for consumers between access of public records which might contain personal identifying information electronically, online vs. electronically or by hand in a clerk’s office? With no dis-respect to Ms. Ostergren, I want to look at the question from a different perspective. Can’t identity theft occur under either scenario? (Note that data shows that most identity theft results in old fashioned theft of information by hand not by computer)

New technologies or new ways to do things have always come with new or shifting perceived costs and benefits. It is safe to say that before the introduction of automobiles, the frequency of significant traffic accidents where people were left with life-long injuries often resulting in costly court trials to determine who is liable for the costs of the disability was insignificant compared to today. Okay, horses occasionally threw riders and could damage someone else’s property or even another horse. But when automobiles came along, land speed increased and new dangers quickly became apparent. What did we, as a society gain with automobiles? For a start, quicker access to emergency medical care, ability to be mobile to visit family, to move out of crowded living environments, to travel to places we would never have scene otherwise and plenty more. Both new benefits and costs followed the mass introduction of the automobile. New businesses creating good wage jobs supporting the automobile also arose. And, along with the automobile came the shift from urban horse by-products to urban air and noise pollution.

Which was worse? It depends. Streets perceived as already crowded, and designed for slow horse traffic quickly became insufficient. Imagine driving in the middle of a city without traffic control. But it wasn’t necessarily the automobile itself which resulted in the negatives or the positives but how it came to be used and how society learned to manage the new challenges posed by automobiles. Yes, criminals too learned how to use a getaway car. But, police also learned how to use sirens and lights. So did ambulances and fire trucks. Did people learn to drive recklessly? You bet. Was law written to address reckless driving? Yes. Does the law deter reckless driving? Sometimes it does, and sometimes it does not.

Let us apply the lesson to identity theft. What causes identity theft? Is it easy access to personal information or a realization that most identity thieves are never caught or prosecuted? Maybe it’s some of both. But if identity theft were not so easy to commit and the perceived cost of perpetrating it so low, no matter how much personal information were to be accessible, the crime would not be amongst the biggest of consumer fears and result in losses to the US economy of $50 billion annually.

Is it a moral crisis that leads perpetrators to steal identities from other consumers or is the business of identity theft just too profitable to resist? Is the threat posed by possible prosecution for the commission of the crime too unconvincing? Does the perceived benefit or profit of committing identity based crimes exceed the perceived costs of apprehension and prosecution? These are questions which merely reflect upon the debate question above, a question which has arisen in every generation and with every new idea or new technology which opens the door for those who wish to exploit it for bad instead of good. Those who defend society from those whose intent is to exploit the situation for criminal means must decide between spending limited resources on either or both deterrence and remediation. Is the situation different with technology and identity based crimes than any other societal challenge previously faced?

interesting related read

Chief Rabbi Amar Speaks on the Conversion Bill

Chief Sephardic Rabbi Shlomo Amar has spoken and written in strong support of the proposed Rotem law (AKA Conversion bill). His support for the bill is based upon the idea that Olim with questionable Jewish status (or no Jewish status) will be able to work with local Rabbis under Rabbinate supervision to officiate at conversions, thus insuring that halachic standards are met for conversion in Israel. Rabbi Amar also expressed great concern that foreign intervention in Israel's internal affairs could jeopardize the effort to keep Israel a Jewish state. As posted previously on
APRPEH, American non-Orthodox interests feel threatened by Chief Rabbinate conversion supervision in Israel.

The Conversion bill has an interesting coalition of supporters in Israel. Missing in the minds of the American non-Orthodox who preach regularly on their pulpits and at their conventions (unfairly) that Orthodox (ie. Jews committed to halacha) are divisive is the fact that this bill is supported by the Orthodox political parties and secular nationalist parties in Israel. As Rabbi Amar implies, significant numbers of Russian Olim are not halachically Jewish and would be more inclined to become Jewish if the path to conversion were not stifled by red tape. Interestingly, even in the US where strong voices within liberal Orthodoxy have sought to garner publicity by advocating local rabbinical autonomy, by opposing the Rotem bill they are arguing for exactly the opposite in Israel.

Critics of the bill in the US and other diaspora communities seem to have a point that Israel is a place for all Jews and therefore they command a right to intervene in Israel's internal affairs for reasons of personal interest. However, the quote from Rabbi Amar below strongly rebuts that idea. Israel is indeed a land for all Jews. It is the Jewish homeland and as such, all Jews much seek to protect and support the land even when its government might not be all that we would like it to be. What should be consistent in the approach of diaspora Jews concerning issues in Israel is a rule that criticism is okay but pressure beyond argumentation should not be utilized.

In recent years, perhaps since the late 1980s, we saw liberalism's infectious breaking down of conventional wisdom expressed within the context of breaking Jewish consensus on Israel. This pervasive and dangerous threat of backing off of support for Israel in general, if this law were passed or that law were passed is becoming the strategy of first not last resort. It should never be an option.

The observation that consensus on Israel was breaking was made by Rabbi Zalman I. Posner in a radio interview conducted by Rabbi Jacob J. Hecht (date uncertain)
(real player format) see "Who is a Jew" Tape 4 side B (at time of posting, this audio is not working). Rabbi Posner pointed out that for the first time, during one of the previous "who is a Jew" debates, threats to cease supporting Israel or not going out of the way to support Israel within the American political context were first heard. Rabbi Posner went on to say that US pressure on Israel vis a vis the arab conflict became stronger as a result of a perception that American Jews were divided.

I find it ironic that the same Jews who loudly protest the anti-Zionism crowd amongst the charedim, are themselves, with righteous indignation claiming the possibility of deep divisions resulting from a conversion bill affecting Israelis only. "Look at what the Israeli government is doing? How could we support them?" From which camp do you expect to hear such words, Neturei Karta or the Rabbinical Assembly of Conservative Judaism? What about JFNA?

The true Jewish heart needs to stop for a moment of reflection, especially in this month of Elul to consider what sort of interests should prevail - the political and financial vested interests, positions taken that are framed within a context of egotistical minded fear of irrelevancy or true unification the Jewish people? Should there be more than one definition of Jew? Should there be people with the status of Jew in some congregations of America but not others, all the more so not in Israel? These questions require deep soul searching within. Conservativists and Reformists have built a career writing their own rules all the while claiming that ancient halachic rules cannot stand in the place of their own new and improved versions. The time has come to base decisions of status not rooted in what is seen as easy for the masses of people and convenient for their leaders but what is right for the future of Judaism and Torah.

---

'Diaspora Jews 'coercing the Israeli government'' - JPOST

“Israeli laws should be determined by residents of Israel who defend its security and bear its burdens,” he said. “If our Jewish brethren immigrate to Israel, we will welcome them with great joy, and then they would be entitled, as citizens, to struggle for the adoption of their perspective. Diaspora Jews who are coercing the Israeli government to drop the proposed legislation are causing great damage. The bill, within the framework of Jewish law, would expand the ambit of conversion, prevent the application of unjustified stringencies, and provide more leniency and flexibility in administration. Many Russian Israelis would benefit substantially. In fact, this legislation was proposed by Israel Beiteinu – a secular party – representing more than a million Russian Israelis,” Amar’s letter read.

NYT Letter to the editor by Rabbi Amar

Conversion in Eretz HaKodesh: JFNA Seeks to Undermine Halacha

In my email today, I along with probably many readers received the communication below from Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA). The email addresses the conversion bill now in consideration in Knesset which would place all conversions in Israel officially in the hands of the Chief Rabbinate. The Jewish people will only be blessed when the State of Israel advocates the keeping of Halacha and doing mitzvos. What Jew could possibly disagree with this idea? Halacha and mitzvos are the core of Judaism.

I fundamentally oppose the position taken by JFNA and encourage readers to submit the APRPEH suggested letter at the bottom of this post which can be found after the JFNA communique and the letter JFNA suggests be sent to the PMO.

JFNA URGES PM NETANYAHU AND OTHERS TO HALT CONVERSION BILL

July 14, 2010

The Jewish Federations of North America, with the Jewish Agency and other partners, are leading a concerted and high-profile advocacy campaign to stop a bill in the Knesset that could prevent some Diaspora Jews from gaining automatic Israeli citizenship as immigrants.

These efforts are the latest phase of an initiative that began this winter, when a Knesset member proposed revising the Law of Return. Though the change was initially aimed at giving local Israeli rabbis greater authority, it carried the potential effect of threatening to delegitimize those who converted to Judaism through the Conservative and Reform movements and preclude conferring citizenship under the Law of Return to those who did not qualify for such status on prior visits.

This Sunday, the Knesset member, David Rotem of the Yisrael Beitenu Party, advanced a newer version with stronger language giving the Orthodox-run Chief Rabbinate full control over conversions in Israel and urging that any convert "accepts the yoke of mitzvot according to halacha."

The Knesset Law Committee on Sunday approved the bill on first reading, sending it to the full Knesset plenum, where it would require three readings and approval before becoming law.

On Sunday, The Jewish Federations of North America's President and CEO Jerry Silverman, Senior Vice President Rebecca Caspi, and JAFI Chair Natan Sharansky, along with representatives of the liberal religious streams, began a major advocacy campaign to prevent the measure from advancing. JFNA is also urging Federations to appeal to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the issue (see below).

This advocacy involves daily strategy meetings, attending the Knesset committee session, meeting with Knesset members including Rotem and speaking out publicly through Israeli and international media.

In addition, Silverman and JFNA Chair Kathy Manning, along with the JFNA Coordinating Council of professional and lay leaders, have sent Prime Minister Netanyahu two strongly worded letters urging him and members of his Likud Party to speak out publicly against the proposal.

Until now the prime minister has not done so, though he did reportedly tell The Jerusalem Post he thought the bill would not pass.

On Tuesday, Silverman, Caspi and the 125 members of the JFNA Campaign Chairs & Directors Mission now visiting Israel also met with Israel's President, Shimon Peres, about this important issue. Peres called for greater dialogue on the proposed bill so that discussions embrace both Diaspora and Israeli Jews (click here for JFNA's briefing with his remarks).

JFNA is also leading an e-mail effort among Federations and their partners urging Prime Minister Netanyahu to oppose the bill. To read more background on the conversion bill and to send Netanyahu a prepared letter (or edit the letter before sending), click here.

JFNA will continue to keep Federations informed about the conversion proposal as developments occur.

The letter JFNA suggested that should be sent to PM Binyamin Netanyahu follows:

To: Prime Minister Netanyahu
Re: Conversion Bill

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

I am writing to you regarding the controversial conversion bill currently before the Knesset.

The language used in this bill is highly problematic. This bill raises issues about the chief rabbinate having full authority over conversions and includes new language about the stringent commitment to halacha. Finally, it changes the 62-year agreement over the Law of Return, which could in turn drive a deep wedge between the Jewish State and Diaspora Jews. This could significantly affect our ability to connect and inspire varying parts of our community around Clal Yisrael.

I know you are aware of the deep sense of concern this proposal has stirred among Diaspora Jews. If successful, this bill will damage the Diaspora-Israel relationship and create significant long-term impacts. We urge you and members of your Likud party to speak out against this legislation now, before it proceeds further.

I hope you will show your concern for the unity of the Jewish People and work with the Knesset and the leadership of the Jewish Diaspora to amend the bill in a way that is acceptable to Jews across the world.

With respect,

The APRPEH suggested letter:



B"H

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

I am writing to you regarding the courageous effort underway in Knesset to maintain a universal standard in Jewish conversion. The bill before the Knesset is being viewed by many non-Orthodox in the United States as divisive and controversial. Some say it has the potential for alienating American Jews who have not yet realized that Halacha already prescribes only one way for someone to join the Jewish people. I appeal to you as a fellow Jew to be strong and to support the conversion bill in its current form. To not maintain the Halachic standard of conversion would be to undermine the consistency and simplicity of the only standard for conversion accepted universally by all Jews for most of our modern and ancient history. The variations that exist today in the United States for conversion, if forced upon Israel would cause severe damage to the state and to the Jewish people. These variations have contributed to a negative Jewish population shift in North America, a resistance to Jewish culture and a distancing of many Jews from the interests of Medinat Yisrael. These phenomenon have occurred in correlation with the non-Orthodox structure being the dominant Jewish force in the United States. Interestingly, those arguing against the Conversion bill are saying that its passage into law would result in those very same phenomenon. This is the best evidence as to why passage of the Conversion bill is necessary. These backwards trends must be reversed. They will only be reversed when the standards of who is a Jew are strengthened, not weakened. We Jews are rational, yet spiritual. Rationality born by convenience and access to non-Jewish culture conceived in non-Jewish religions has been winning the day in North America for far too long. As the Jewish spiritual homeland, Israel must lead the way to spiritual revival of Jewry world-wide. That effort will be enhanced, not weakened by reinforcing in law the Halachic standard for conversion. World-wide, Jews look to Israel for spiritual leadership. Failing to provide it will sanction their looking elsewhere. This is the true struggle beneath the surface of this discussion. The halachic standard for conversion is an eye-opening moment for Jews world-wide, especially for many of those in North America who have grown accustomed to creating their own standards and rules - kashering them within the structure of "movements". Israel will only garner increased respect and support, not less for telling the truth and doing what is right by the vision of our sages and prophets and in the eyes of Heaven.


With wishes of comfort in this season of national mourning,

Blockade Running for Hamas

The Israeli Navy interception of the flotilla of islamo and islamo sympathizing blockade runners resulted in casualties to both Jews and terrorists. It didn't have to be that way. In the eyes of the world media, governments around the world, the UN and almost everywhere except for in Israel and in pockets of conservative commentators, Israel is being vilified. For the record, there are wronged parties and aggressors in this story. As to be expected in this period in birth pangs of moshiach, far too many people continue to confuse the aggressor with the party being aggressed against.

Additionally it must be noted that blockade running is an inherently dangerous occupation, tantamount to reverse piracy, even when the runners are carrying politicians and media representatives. The logic and facts supports Israel's claims that this was a pre-meditated provocation on behalf of the cause of the 'Free Gaza' movement. inciting, preparing to engage Israel



'Activists threw stun grenades'



What is it about Gaza which so moves anti-Jews? Gaza is the armed gang headquarters of Hamas. Hamas is an elected by the arabians terrorist organization from its inception. Hamas fires rockets and mortars into Israel from Gaza, has been responsible for numerous terrorist actions and seeks "liberation" of the lands arabians wish to steal from Jews. {pardon the simplicity of this writing but it has to be said}. Hamas is solely responsible for Operation Cast Lead in 2008 and solely responsible for the current blockade of all but humanitarian aid being delivered through official channels. In short, the "misery", if there is any in Gaza is solely the fault and responsibility of the Gazans who elected Hamas and Hamas itself.
Fancy restaurants and Olympic-size pools: What the media won’t report about Gaza

"Blockaded" Gaza is Awash in Goods

Behind the Headlines: The seizure of the Gaza flotilla


The Mavi Marmara ship on which the assault, described by those watching as an attempted lynching of the Israeli Navy commandos, was staffed and sponsored by the IHH, "affiliated with Hamas and the Union of the Good, an Islamic umbrella affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood."

French, Danish Intelligence Say The IHH Backs Terror [05.31.2010] This was no ship of peace activists.


All of this detail supports the idea that the delivery of relief aid was never the purpose of this blockade run. Essentially the goal was to render the blockade obsolete opening the door to out right weapons delivery to the Jew killers of Gaza to support their stated goal to destroy Israel. Israel had no choice but stop these ships. The best evidence of the intent of the mission is that the request to sail to Ashdod, to unload the goods and permit Israel to deliver them along with the usual convoy of aid trucks was declined. To this end, those accusing Israel of piracy and defending the blockade runners are accomplices of Hamas's mission to kill al Yahud and remove Israel from Dar al-Islam.

The Myth of the Gaza Blockade

Behind the Headlines: The Israeli humanitarian lifeline to Gaza

'Equipment not in shortage in Gaza'

Link to pictures of weapons on the Mavi Marmara

Notice the comments on this Flickr page. The supplies on this ship have been laid out and organized for the photographs. The arabian and islamo-fascists commenting on this page are ridiculing that knives, bats, and slingshots are weapons compared to firearms. But how was the scene described? A lynching? These are the implements of arabian style lynching, the kind in which arabians thrive - spilling blood by hand in public shows of machismo. Remember Ramallah? Blood spilling is a common custom in arabic and islamo culture.



Photos of Bullet Proof Vests, Sawn-Off Rods, Night Vision Goggles and Rifle Scope Found on Mavi Marmara, 2 June 2010

An interesting wrinkle in this story is the revealed linkage between Barack Obama's friends and the Free Gaza movement. This was mentioned today on both the G. Gordon Liddy show and on Glenn Beck (not sure of others).


GGLiddy interview, Aaron Klein
AUDIO: Aaron Klein discusses Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Jodie Evans, and Code Pink associations with the flotilla organizers. One can only hope this effort to blacken Israel's eye was not perpetrated with covert consent. How is it these people keep popping up? Klein who covers the Middle East for World Net Daily comments on this interview that based upon his knowledge and contacts with Hamas, an operation of this nature is too creative and organized to have been home grown in Gaza throwing a little speculative fuel on the fire. also on Glenn Beck

In the United States where support for Israel's right of self-defense, (facing the same islamo-fascist terrorism that America is fighting) is still high everywhere but in the White House and at Foggy Bottom, INN reports this story "Lone Jewish High School Student Faces Down Arab Mob in LA". I doubt you will see too many of these pro terrorist rallies outside of California and Dearborn, MI, home of Ms. Shaheda USA, Rima Fakih.

additional sources below:

IDF: Global Jihad on flotilla

PA and Hamas Boats Also Planning to 'Greet' Anti-Israel Flotilla

Foreign Ministry: Flotilla Organizers Promote Agenda, Not Aid

The Left's De-Construction

The coalition of the establishment left and far left is fracturing. Watch James Carville and Matthew Dowd with George Stephanopoulos on GMA below from 26 May. Carville lays into Sheikh Barak Obama on both the BP oil spill and the Arizona immigration law. In both cases, Carville claims Obama is failing to act and thereby failing to garner any political advantage. To Carville, it's all about politics. To Obama, it's all about arrogance. In any event, Carville's sharp reactions to Obama not responding to either issue with clarity and an eye to politics are entertaining. What could be read into this interview is that an establishment democrat is saying that you,(Obama) just aren't up to the job. You mean, inexperienced? unprepared? indecisive? arrogant? demagogic? If only Carville would have added that Obama treats America's enemies like friends, and her friends like enemies... Is it a sign of things to come?

A Boy and the Power of Tefillin

By this time, the entire world has been exposed to the story of the poor 17 year old bachur who's act of davening Shachris, the morning prayer service of the Jewish people, resulted in the diverting of a small commuter aircraft from its route. On the surface, it is an "oy vey" moment. How could the aircrew be so uninformed? How, after questioning the passenger and observing his behavior could they still "error on the side of caution"? Never mind that tefillin are described in the Torah and have been worn since the time of Moshe. On the one hand, the most knee jerk reaction is to deem the flight crew ignorant and ill-trained. Surely, they must have heard of tefillin? Certainly, in training, they are taught about unusual religious practices they could see during a flight?

These doubting questions are natural, which is a good indicator that a sensitive Jew should not judge these goyim so harshly. Instead, think of the wonderful opportunity afforded to share with the world the practice of wearing tefillin. Every major news service, print, audio, television and Internet have discussed tefillin today. Amazing!!!! Gentiles world over have learned that Jewish men wear tefillin in the morning. And this is true even as we read in this week's parasha, Bo the first command to wear tefillin (Ex 13:9 - And it will be for you a sign on your hand and for a remembrance between your eyes...)

It is an unnatural thing to do, to see the positive in the strange. But indeed this situation can be a turned into light, a kiddush HaShem, for such is the way of a Jew. The message that HaShem runs the world can be taught even at the cost of flight delay. Even in a cramped commuter plane, a Jew can still be a Jew - tefillin and all. Now, all those who are lax in their observance of tefillin have no excuse. If only their non-Jewish colleagues, friends, co-workers and acquaintances would ask every day, "did you wear tefillin this morning?"

Having experienced putting on tefillin during a flight (albeit pre-9/11), I think the following advice might be useful to Jewish men who will be flying during morning davening time. First, tell a member of the flight crew before you start to daven what you are about to do, that you will be wearing particular religious garments and most importantly, that what you are about to engage in is a daily routine, not just today, on this aircraft. If possible, take some literature with you that will support your position. Be humble, not pushy - poised, not erratic. Explain to the other passengers seated next to you and explain to them what is happening in the event they are questioned. "During part of my prayer service I am unable to speak unless it is an emergency. If someone asks me what I am doing, please relate to them what I related to you". Incorporating is a very powerful tool.

The potential impact of the story will be determined by the decision making process which some Jews, who may not yet be so secure in their yiddishkeit will go through when deciding to publically wear tefillin or not. A Jew might think, do I really want to put on tefillin with all these other people around? Non-Jews might laugh or stare or G-d forbid think me crazy. Maybe that Jew believes it to be dangerous?

These are fears which are caused by a galus inspired weakness. Maybe that same Jew could or should think instead, "these people looking at me are astounded that my faith is so strong; that I am oblivious to my surroundings". The fear is shifted to its proper place. It is the goy or not yet strong Jew who then thinks, "I could never do that". The answer to that theorized inquiry is, "I am a servant of HaShem and he commanded me to put on tefillin". Such faith is not scorned or ridiculed but admired, maybe quietly, maybe enviously, but admired.

This bachur and his tefillin were very powerful, enough to divert a flight in progress. That's some davening!!! What power a single Jew possesses! The non-Jewish world should see Jews davening in tefillin more often. Tefillin is a sign, a segula, a branding of the wearer as in service to G-d. The Jew wearing the uniform of HaShem's service, testifying to all who see him that HaShem is the boss, not just the captain, but the air traffic controller as well.

Below, Rabbi Posner writes about the various meanings of a "sign".

Bindings - Rabbi Zalman Posner, Chabad.org - an excerpt from Think Jewish

A nice tefillin story:

Tefillin on the Train

J-Street Mythology and Deception

On Saturday, 16 January, the "Tennessean" ran "Group backs 2-state solution", a story sub-titled "Jews in J-Street want to put political pressure on Israel". The report on the visit by Hadar Susskind, directory of policy and strategy for J-Street, focuses on the idea that J-Street offers American Jews an alternative to the mainstream Israel advocacy organization AIPAC. J-Street, however is a contradiction not just of logic but of religious values. Logically, since J-Street advocates the mythical "two-state solution" where Israel being one of the two with the other being not a country, not a country in waiting, not even a nationality but a gang masquerading as a government in waiting, J-street clearly is not a pro-Israel advocacy group.

J-street, as with many of the leftist organizations which wish to create a "Palestinian" state composed of arabs living in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria, are driven not by a grand desire to make peace so much as motivated by a leftist, theological view that all 3rd world revolutionary movements which challenge the establishment possess inherent virtue. It doesn't matter what tactics or beliefs the 3rd world movement uses because the virtuous goals of the revolution permit excesses. So thus, we find that Israel's system of checkpoints and the construction of the partition wall in Judea and Samaria, proven effective anti-terror tactics are considered evil and repressive, while the excesses of the Palestinian revolutionary movement, primarily the wink and nod to terrorism (provided it is the PA gang and not the Hamas gang perpetrating the attacks), and arabic press messages espousing the pose of the old-fashioned PLO propaganda (conveniently not translated into English) are excusable.

Since J-street advocates policies which, if enacted would endanger the lives of millions of Jews in Israel, their positions are in direct contradiction to Torah values. One need not be a biblical scholar to know that siding with those who seek to harm their fellow Jews are not held guiltless or blameless. The actions of those Jews who support the enemies of the Jewish people will delay the final redemption and will result in their own extinction. This is not my opinion but supported theologically and historically. It is a most perplexing and bitter moment in time, the result of a long and seemingly unending exile, which finds Jewish advocates for "peace" hosting common ground with terrorists and enemies of "peace". A better day will come when honesty of thought will permit clearer vision. Palestine, does not and has never existed. There is no legal requirement for Israel to withdraw from any additional territory. An honest reading of UN Res 242, instead of the arabian propaganda version will lead a reader to understand that Israel's secure borders were the primary goal. Palestinians? The name "Palestinian" is not found in the text of the agreement, meaning the "Palestinian" national myth had not yet been created. Instead, "refugees" are discussed. Refugees from where? Not Israel, but disputed territory, administered by Jordan between 1948 and 1967 and unowned. In any event, Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai in 1982 exceeds any obligation of withdrawal from " from territories occupied in the recent conflict " as stated in Res 242.

All of this returns us to our discussion of J-street and its Jewish proponents. After reviewing the historical and religious views of Israel's security, one will then understand it is not Israel's security which drives J-street proponents but another belief. A belief that "peace" does not come through historical right or even strength, but through weaknesses, pacifism and "Chamberlainian" appeasement. Ultimately, such beliefs bring war, bloodshed and eternal conflict.

J-street background

Res 242 background

The New Iraq is the Old Iraq

Back in the day, when the Iraq post-war outcome was in question, one of the favorite claims made by my politically conservative brethren, (those who were the most invested in success of the post-war) was that a Iraqi democracy would bring a change to the political structure of the Middle East. A successful Iraqi democracy would put pressure on the other arabian countries to leave behind primitive beliefs and modernize - voila - end of conflicts in the Middle East. Never mind that somewhat real elections have been held for years in arabian countries, this rising tide lifts all boats argument was strongly advanced by President Bush as a way to end terrorism and conflict. This argument seemed reasonable, after all we went to war against Saddam basically because he was a squeaky cog in the islamo-fascist terrorist infrastructure.

Other great hopes of modernization included the now distant expectation that a democratic Iraq would normalize relations with Israel. It is well beyond any shadow of a doubt that this was all fantasy. Iraq is not becoming the great arabian democracy any more than it is becoming a friend of Israel. While the voices pontificating the fall of Iraq after US troops withdraw may be premature, what will certainly not change is the fact that Yishmael is still Yishmael.

Take for example two recent stories. Both represent a different focus, or pose of the "new" Iraq. One example is representative of the fact that Iraq is still a very islamic land. In the INN story below, we find that the Tomb of Yechezkel is slated to become a mosque. Democratic Iraq seems to have no tolerance of religious expression or history. Islam has no need to turn a Jewish shrine into a muslim one if it is recognized as a place of holiness already with the exception of wanting to erase all vestiges of the once large and proud Iraqi Jewry. How irrational this is? One day, the Iraqi government mouth piece may even deny Jews ever lived in Iraq.

The second story from Jpost is also outrageous. US ally PM al-Maliki has approved a plan to ask the UN to demand Israel pay for damages (financially) caused by the 1981 bombing of the Osirak nuclear reactor under construction at that time for Saddam Hussein (YmShm) by French nuclear engineers. At the time of the first Gulf War, then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney pointed out that the bombing by Israel made the US attack much simpler. Conceivably, a Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons would have changed the balance of power in the region and possibly the world in very bad ways. (this is the best lesson in thinking about Iran with nuclear weapons). At the time of the bombing though, Israel was treated as a villain. The UN resolution al-Maliki is basing his claim on Security Council Resolution 487 according to the story below gives Iraq the opportunity to demand compensation. Of course, al-Maliki would not have been PM nor been involved in the government of Iraq had Saddam lived and had still been running the show there. What a strange way to say thanks for helping to bring democracy to Iraq. But this brings us back to the theme of the story - Irrational arabians doing irrational things. This is the new Iraq. This is the new and improved Iraq. This is the Iraq which carries the hope of arabian social revolution and modernization with it. This is the new Iraq which, if it holds together, could become a democratic and powerful force opposing Israel in the future.

---

Iraq De-Judaizing Ezekiel's Tomb - by Hillel Fendel

(IsraelNN.com) Early reports that Iraq plans to retain the Jewish nature of the Tomb of the Prophet Ezekiel are apparently false. Sources in Baghdad say that the government plans to turn it into a mosque and erase all Jewish markings.

Iraq announced earlier this year that it would revamp the ancient burial site, which is located in Al-Kifl, a small town south of Baghdad. The U.S.-backed government announcement implied that its Jewish nature would continue to be emphasized.

Since then, however, reports have surfaced that the government is actually planning to build a mosque there, including removing the ancient Hebrew inscriptions that adorn the site. Some reports say that all or some of the lines of Hebrew script have already been erased.

Ezekiel (Yechezkel, in Hebrew), lived in the sixth century BCE, having accompanied the exiled Judeans to Babylon. His prophecies include the Vision of the Dry Bones, as well as the future return of Jewish People to the Land of Israel even if they are not deserving (Chapter 36: 22-25). Thousands of Jews often visited the site of his tomb annually before Iraqi Jewry came to an abrupt end in the middle of the 20th century, and Moslems and Christians continue to visit it even today.

Shelomo Alfassa, Director of Justice for Jews from Arab Countries, reports that Islamic political parties have pressured the government to remove the Jewish inscriptions. He quotes the Iraqi news agency Ur News as reporting that the writing and ornamentations “are being (or have been) removed… under the pretext of restoring the site.”

Alfassa quotes sources to the effect that Iraq’s Antiquities and Heritage Authority “has been pressured by Islamists to historically cleanse all evidence of a Jewish connection to Iraq - a land where Jews had lived for over a thousand years before the advent of Islam.”

Professor Investigates
Four months ago, a German-based Iraqi journalist tipped off the Association of Jewish Academics from Iraq in Israel (AJAII) that plans were afoot to build a mosque on the site of Ezekiel’s Tomb. AJAII asked Dr. Jabbar Jamal al-Din, a lecturer in Jewish Thought at Kufa University in Iraq, to investigate these reports – and he said that he believes them to be untrue.

Baghdad Sources: Room for Concern
Sources in Baghdad, however, feel otherwise. Prof. Shmuel Moreh - Israel Prize Laureate in Arabic Literature and Professor Emeritus at Hebrew University of Jerusalem - told Israel National News that he had received worrisome phone calls from non-Jewish friends in Baghdad. Prof. Moreh, who serves as the Chairman of the Association of Jewish Academics from Iraq, said that the plans are to turn the holy site into a mosque, and “some told me that they are taking off the Hebrew inscriptions.”

Alfassa provides the following translation of the relevant report in Ur News: “The officials of the Department of Antiquities and Heritage say that their restoration programme will continue until 2011 and is designed to carry out essential maintenance and prevent the dome and roof from collapsing. But their hidden purpose, sources say, is the removal of features that emphasize a historical connection with the Jews who built the shrine and lived in the city for hundreds of years after the Babylonian exile.”

Though well over 100,000 Jews lived in Iraq a few decades ago, this number has now been decimated to no more than eight, Prof. Moreh said. “There are others,” he added, “but they barely know that they are Jews; in many cases, their parents did not tell them.”

Alfassa concludes: “Iraq - the Biblical Mesopotamia -is almost as rich in Jewish history as the Land of Israel. The tomb of the prophet Ezekiel dates back to the Babylonian exile in the sixth century BCE. It was there in Iraq that Abraham discovered monotheism, and it is where the prophets Ezra, Nehemiah, Nahum, Jonah and Daniel are all buried.”

---

'Israel must compensate Iraq for Osirak'- Jan. 5, 2010 JPost.com Staff - THE JERUSALEM POST

Iraq will demand that Israel pay compensation for bombing the unfinished nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981, an Iraqi member of parliament told the Iraqi al-Sabah newspaper in an article published on Tuesday.

Muhammad Naji Muhammad claimed that his government was planning to enlist the United Nation's help to pressure Israel into compensating Baghdad, according to a DPA report cited by Channel 10.

"Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the Foreign Ministry turned to the UN and the Security Council demanding that Israel pay us reparations for damage caused to the reactor in 1981," Muhammad was quoted as telling the newspaper.

Baghdad is demanding that the UN establish a committee to assess the scope of the damage caused by the Israeli strike in order to calculate the appropriate compensation.

The Iraqi demand is based on UN Security Council Resolution 487, which was drafted following the bombing of the reactor in June 1981. The resolution harshly condemned Israel's aerial attack and determined that Iraq had a right to demand compensation over the damages.

Pharoah, Taxation, and Population Control

(Ex 1:8-11)

A new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. He said to his people, "Behold! the people, the Children of Israel are more numerous and stronger than we. Come, let us act wisely to it lest it become numerous and it may be that if war will occur, it, too may join our enemies, and wage war against us and go up from the land." So they appointed tax collectors over it in order to afflict it with their burdens; it built storage cities for Pharoah, Pithom and Raamses. (translation from Artscroll, The Saperstein Edition Rashi.)

When Pharoah, king of Egypt wished to oppress Bnei Yisroel, he first chose heavy taxation as a method. It is clear from the text that the priority of Pharoah was not a national building campaign, but to reign in what was perceived as a foreign population for which Egypt felt both compelled to control but afraid to allow to leave. The Egyptian reasoning is bizarre. Logically, if Bnei Yisroel were a threat to the land, they should have been thrown out. If they were essential to the country, Pharoah should have engaged in efforts to incorporate the people. Whatever the Egyptians thought about Israel, what was not in the calculation was the conclusion that Bnei Yisroel was loyal to Egypt. To Pharoah, Israel was a necessary evil. So, how did Pharoah choose to handle the necessary evil? Tax them. Increase the burden on them. Show them who is boss. How do you control populations in order to repress them and enslave them? Taxation. How do put people in their place? Taxation.

Manipulating populations through social and economic means is not a phenomenon of the 20th century. The dictators and villains of history can count Pharoah of Egypt as one of their role models.

20 Teves/6 January - I realized later that I forgot to cite the source for the Torah graphics. This came from ORT - Navigating the Bible.

The Conservative Movement Searches For Its Soul

Conservatives to tackle intermarriage,'homo-lesbian' ordinations. Dec. 28, 2009
Matthew Wagner, THE JERUSALEM POST

Burning issues threatening to split the Conservative Movement, such as the ordination of homosexual and lesbian rabbis, the sharp drop in the number of young members and the challenge of intermarriage will be raised this week during a two-day conference in Jerusalem's Van Leer Institute entitled "Conservative Judaism: Halacha, Culture and Sociology."

"This will be the first time that an institution not associated with the Conservative Movement will devote a scholarly conference to Conservative Judaism," said Professor Naftali Rothenberg, Jewish Culture and Identity Chair at Van Leer. "And this is happening on the backdrop of a major crisis that the Conservative Movement is undergoing, in which members of the religious Right and Left in the movement are headed in opposite directions."


To be truthful, there has not been a real "Conservativist movement" in many years. What exists now is another version of "Reformism" albeit with different managers and owners. Conservativism ceased to exist after the driving on shabbos decision. Going forward, the impetus to figure out new ways to break away from halachic Judaism disguising rulings as formulated from halacha has set a tone which is leading to an inevitable split up of "Conservatism" in favor of Reformist and Traditionalist "movements".

Having learned that all Jews in their heart's really want to follow Torah and do mitzvos in a proper way but are knocked off course do to outside influences, one must look at "conservativism" and "reformism" for that matter, with pity. These holy Jews, congregants of Conservativists synagogues (those who actually are halachically Jewish that is) have been convinced by the credibility of multi-generational participation and the goodwill presumed by the religious experience that the evolution of their religious experience is supported by Torah. A slow, but certain evolution it is. There was never a drive to do away with halacha (like in Reformism), but to make halacha bend to the will of simple people who merely wanted their religious experience to be consistent with their secular experience or that of their children.

There is plenty of room for understanding Torah in a modern context. Torah must make sense at all times and in every place. There is no room, however to re-define Torah to permit the forbidden and kasher the treif. Conservativism sought to do this and fell into a trap of its own making. And thereby set its own course to obsolescence.

For each generation to make its own mark and find its own way there must be a structure upon which to build. Generationally speaking, there is no “Conservative” movement to build upon. It has come to its logical conclusion.

The conference in Jerusalem has scheduled as one of its topics the decline in young membership, a problem not faced by Orthodoxy. The reason is that there is no room to continue moving Conservativism towards Reformism without fully becoming Reformism and it cannot go backwards. Those youth who want to be fully connected to the Jewish world find their way to Orthodoxy, possibly in college, through Chabad or other outreach programs. Those who do not find it necessary yet to connect to the Jewish world may, on occasion check in at a Reformist Temple or blend into the woodwork, vulnerable to the delights of Edom and “marriage” to non-Jews or worse. Thus, one can see the reason why Conservativism at the grassroots is so interested in kashering the relationship between Jews and non-Jews and male to male and female to female. These reflections of the world of Edom, now fully part of life in Reformism, will soon be the norm in Conservativism. What is Conservativism other than a Reformism with different owners?

But sigh, more perversion awaits in the world of Edom. For today, marriage to non-Jews and homosexual professional staff is the trend. What comes next? When does Torah-true Judaism stand up and say enough. Be our brothers or be something else – but please stop the attempt to drag the holy Torah and halachic credibility into your world, the reflection of Edom.

On Bringing Redemption

Rabbis: Abortion will delay the redemption - Jpost, Dec. 29, 2009, Matthew Wagner

Rabbi Metzger and Rabbi Amar (JewishPress)

Declaring that abortions "delay the redemption," Israel's chief rabbis have pledged to "strengthen" the work of an anti-abortion council in the rabbinate and urged state-employed rabbis to take other steps to reduce abortions.

In a letter sent out on Monday, Chief Rabbis Shlomo Amar and Yona Metzger encourage local rabbis to devote their Shabbat sermons to speaking against abortions, distribute anti-abortion literature to couples registering for marriage at religious councils, and work in coordination with the pro-life organization Efrat to encourage grassroots opposition to abortions.

It is indeed gratifying to find those all too few occasions where Jewish leadership draws a clearly demarcated line of separation where virtue of Torah supersedes political expediency. Cast within the announcement by the Chief Rabbinate that aborting the unborn will “delay the redemption” Chief Rabbis Amar and Metzger have revealed yet another disconnect between the Jewish liberalism espoused by mainstream non-Orthodox organizations at the will of their constituent’s and Torah values. It is cliché to point out that the desires and values reflected in the non-Jewish world of Edom are given favor by our non-Orthodox brothers and sisters at the expense of a Jewish world view.

The Rabbinate’s ruling is focused upon the misogynistic procedure known as abortion, {short for the aborting of a pregnancy, IE withdrawing through barbaric means, “potential” life called a fetus, from the womb of a female, (in the Jewish sense we must hold by halachic interpretation not conventional wisdom) and preventing it from attaining a full gestation at which time the fetus would leave the womb of the female carrying her, and attain rights under both halacha and US law as a live human.}

The act of destroying potential life is antithetical to Torah values. While our non-Orthodox brethren emphasize and focus upon the Torah’s imposition of financial remuneration for the miscarriage caused unintentionally by another Jew as the pivotal point in understanding what is perceived to be permission to destroy a fetus, those same Jews fail to continue the logic which follows when learning the din of the intentional act of causing an abortion, (see pg 2 Daf Digest) which reviews the Gemara in question and the response of R. Moshe Feinstein, (ZTL) to the idea that a Jew intentionally causing an abortion is viewed as a murderer.)

Having determined that the performance of an abortion by a Jew is murder, one must look with curiosity at the non-Orthodox heterim for abortion. All opinions that I could find in my review express a value statement upholding the sanctity of life within all of the opinions. However, strangely, this expression of sanctity gives way to what appears to be an equal or greater “right” of giving a woman “the choice” of withdrawing the potential life, IE the fetus from her womb with varying degrees of permissibility. The woman's right is usually based on an undefined “psychological” condition.

This wording of choice has always baffled me. What choice? The natural order of pregnancy is concluded by the female giving birth. This is how Hashem determined procreation should occur and gave a positive mitzvah to the Jewish male to have offspring. Mitzvah of procreation.

Tragically, miscarriages occur. Both the conception, pregnancy, delivery and even miscarriage when it occurs (it should be His will that they never occur) are acts of G-d. How does someone choose a different path? How can destruction of the fetus be considered a choice when it is the Aibishter that made the pregnancy possible?
We learn that jealousy is a great sin, less because the negativity it portrays but the fact that jealousy represents a denial of the existence of G-d's will. Who determines what should happen and how? Who is the rich man? (hint: look for the answer in Pirke Avos). The same goes with pregnancy. It is Hashem's will that pregnancy exists and his will who will become pregnant and who will not. We merely need to look no further than the early chapters of Sefer Bereshis and learn this from the matriarchs. So choice, does not represent what the modern American feminist says, a woman's control over her body but a denial of the G-d's order in the world. Only intentional disinformation bred of Edomite culture can interpret a blessing as a curse. Our poor brothers and sisters in the non-Orthodox world have adopted this twisted non-Jewish inspired kefira.

Now, there is a danger here of going too far. We must recognize that there are clear halachic grounds where destruction of the fetus is not only permissible but required most notably when the continuation of the pregnancy would be the direct cause of death to the mother – a rare occasion these days. In all of these situations, a competent halachic expert must be consulted. One Orthodox Rabbi once told me in fact that since the Pro-life movement could restrict halachic abortion as well as impermissible abortion that he was leery of the movement. However, given a choice between the two movements, one would have to conclude that Torah has more in common with the Pro-life movement than the alternative. If Jews were put in this world to bring the light of Torah to this dark place than we must emphasize the position which most reflects the Torah's perspective. Indeed, not only must we bring the light here but we must turn the darkness into light. One step in that process is for pulpit Rabbis to speak passionately on the theme suggested by the Chief Rabbinate and not shy away for political reasons from the truth. For bringing light into the darkness must start in the Jewish congregations.

Supporting articles

USCJ
Jewish Virtual Library Article on Reform Practices
Hadassah
Women's League of Conservative Judaism
Ask Moses Article on Abortion
JLaw Article on stem cell research which discusses life issues

Abbas's Newest Jew Murdering Martyrs

PA, Abbas Bless Rabbi’s Murderers as ‘Martyrs’

Abu Mazen gives thinking people another reason to pause and contemplate what futility it would be to engage in final status negotiations with the arabians known as "palestinians". Abu Mazen is no different than Arafat,YmSh except for the expensive suits he wears. The formula of duality-politics, giving red meat to arabians in their native language and for the English speaking, non-arabic speaking audiences - peace drivel has not changed an iota in decades. We have come to expect such arabian non-sense. Things that become a 'matter of course' also fall victim to the adage 'familiarity breeds contempt'. Except as it applies to Israel. It is Israel and the Jews to whom the contempt is focused and not the arabian antagonists.

It is most discouraging that in this day and age that the antiJews around the globe choose to encourage arabian foreign policy by deceptive behavior. Jews, on the other hand have no halachic or moral reason to give fatah or the PA any benefit of the doubt. To the extent that Bibi believes that it is a time to negotiate, one can only hope that he intends this call to be a ploy - giving the arabians another noose to hang themselves. With hamas re-gaining nerve and weapons, a new show down between fatah and hamas cannot be too far away.

Perhaps Bibi would be strengthened by reading the opinion piece which ran in the WSJ earlier this week Israel's Right in the 'Disputed' Territories written by Danny Ayalon, Deputy FM.

Rabbi Meir Avshalom Chai (H'Y'D), the father of 7 - murdered in a car for the "crime" of being a Jew by arabians on the payroll of fatah, was remembered by his 17 year old son, Eliyahu with these words, “The difference between us and them is that we are human beings. We won’t shoot them in the head for no reason. We are Jews, holy people, human beings.” Matzav.com story. This is as good a summary as any of the truth for why the world hates the Jews.

Palestinian Myth on Video

Appearing earlier this past summer, the video below of Azmi Bishara is being re-cycled by Israel National News in an attempt to publicize the fallacy and deception of the palestinian myth. The myth remains in the concealed cranial crevices of arabian leadership except during those moments of candor when the truth slips out exposed by ego trips in front of cameras and microphones.

Azmi Bishara: There is No "Palestinian" Nation. Never Was! - INN

Translation: “Well, I dont think there is a Palestinian nation at all. I think there is an Arab nation. I always thought so and I did not change my mind. I do not think there is a Palestinian nation, I think its a colonialist invention - Palestinian nation. When were there any Palestinians? Where did it come from? I think there is an Arab nation. I never turned to be a Palestinian nationalist, despite of my decisive struggle against the occupation. I think that until the end of the 19th century, Palestine was the south of Greater Syria.”

WeJew link

some backgrounders:
The No-State Solution

Palestinian problem: anti-Jewish racism

Rep. Ellison's "CAIR"ing for Congress

David Horowitz's excellent news blog, NewsReal blog posted an article today, Congressional Group Comes to CAIR’s Defense which sheds light into the dishonesty and purpose of Congressional leftists to sell out America through subterfuge.

The short version is that some Republican Congressmen are concerned that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), with its history of supporting an agenda to Islamify America along with its agenda to support terrorists in their war against the west and Israel, (see more here) is advancing its cause in Congress through the auspices of Congressional interns and want an investigation into their activities. Well as the old saying goes, if you ain't done it you have nothing to worry about. In fact, if the parties under investigation are innocent, inviting a review of their activities would bring them additional credibility would it not?

Now for the subterfuge; Congressman Keith Ellison, (D,MN) America's Congressional voice for Islam is all in a huff over the idea along with allies from the Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus, and Asian Caucus. In a fashion typical of Islam, which takes the truths of Torah and flips them on their head adding a uniquely Arabian twist to them (such as replacing Avraham and Yitzchak in the akeida narrative going to Har haMoriah, it is Ishmael going with Ibrahim to be bound and for which the Muslim holiday of Eid ul-Adha commemorates. The Torah of course, appeared well over one thousand years before the Koran, so go figure) Ellison uses an argument form which utilizes what is to be interpreted as value statements and positions them in support of his deceptive effort to defend what is indefensible. In contrast to Ellison's position, the logic pointed out above is a balanced approach to determine if the interests of CAIR's alleged and verified illegal activities are being represented in Congress.

Here is an example of Ellison's end run from the story:

If anything, we should be encouraging all Americans to engage in the U.S. political process; to take part in, and to contribute to, the great democratic experiment that is America.

Of course. Who would argue with this? Who would discourage participation in the political process in America? Now, this quote was the end of the statement. It was proceeded by:

The idea that we should investigate Muslim interns as spies is a blow to the very principle of religious freedom that our founding fathers cherished so dearly.”

Hm - I don't get it. Has someone suggested that Muslim interns are not allowed to practice their Islam? Has someone suggested that Muslims cannot be interns? Is anyone insinuating that all Muslims are spies? Would the Founding Fathers have ignored a threat of spying because the accusation of such would anger the accused or the coreligionists of the accused? Is CAIR so firmly and fully ingrained into Muslim America that suspecting CAIR of illegal activity is off-limits?

The other quotes can be found in the original article. Ellison is clearly mis-leading the listener/reader to defend against even a fair investigative review of certain individuals actions. There is no Constitutional right to be a Congressional intern nor is there a right to represent the interests of organizations which are supporting terrorism and advocating policies which are detrimental to the interests of the United States.

Real Jewish Activism

The term "Jewish activism" can pass as many things. The nature of English as a language permits a deceptively common string of otherwise disparate entities or events to define the core nature of both entities. Jewish activism is a good case study of this trick. One might assume that Jewish activism must be both Jewish and be activist to warrant this description. As most readers already know, most Jewish activism has little to do with Judaism and is usually only called such merely by virtue of the fact that it is activism of Jews or by Jews but without a Jewish soul.

Two recent articles however define in my opinion what real Jewish activism is. The first found at Shmais.com comes from the United Kingdom where chairman of the Rabbinical Council of United Synagogue(RCUS), Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet is going the distance in the UK court system to defend the halachic definition of "Who is a Jew". The court case involves a child of a non-Jewish mother and Jewish father who sought to enroll their son into a school in London which requires it's students to be Jewish. Where the common "Jewish activist" sentimentalism and raw emotionalism would call for a decision to be made in a non-traditional way, over-ruling halacha for the family's sake (in the mode of the US Federations who adopt non-traditional Jewish break-away definitions to keep the money pie as big as possible), the RCUS and Rabbi Schochet are standing firm. Bravo, kol hakavod. This is real Jewish activism.

The second story comes from Jpost in the form of an editorial by David Weinberg calling out JStreet for what I would refer to it as (although I doubt this is original), the Yevsektsiya of American leftist politics, serving its masters at the DNC and the White House.

JStreet is holding its first ever "hug-in" as Weinberg calls it this week to discuss how to better re-define support for Israel by opposing Israel and to justify this opposition by calling it a Jewish thing to do. Weinberg says:

J Street is a new form of Jewish apostasy. Its adherents hasten to embrace their Jewishness (even if they don't really know much about authentic Jewish tradition and morality) in order to besmirch Israel and the mainstream Jewish community. They earnestly declare how "profoundly" Jewish they are, in order to engender a distancing in US-Israel relations.

Indeed, David Weinberg scores a full body blow in this editorial. And again, this is real Jewish activism, no apologies, no ill-will, just telling the truth, doing the right thing for the right reason, not looking back.

Both Rabbi Schochet and David Weinberg should be an example for American Jewry. We will never overcome the problems that endanger the survival of our community until we are willing to tell the truth about what ails us and speak up to defend our Torah, tradition and our Holy Land. Our common destiny awaits.

PSA - Lulav Ring Tying

ALSO:
A nice story and photo exhibit to bring you into the Sukkos mood, see A Growing Enterprise on Kingston, Lulav Rings!

PREVIEW:

Chag Sameach

Privacy Vs. Privacy

Below is an article printed in a recent "InformationWeek.com" reporting on a federal civil case involving a Wyoming bank and Google Inc. The core issue running underneath the case is the definition of a data breach and when it should be disclosed. The plaintiff, (Rocky Mountain Bank) wished to seal the court documents to prevent the publicizing of the breach.

A Rocky Mountain Bank employee inadvertently emailed a list of bank customers along with account information to a Gmail account belonging to an unknown party. The error was discovered the next day and the bank employee attempted to re-mediate the problem by recalling the email and then sending a follow up email informing the unknown recipient to delete the email and file immediately.

Question: Do the account holders of the 1,325 individual and business accounts that were breached in error, have an established right to notification before the bank can determine whether or not any illegality on the part of the recipient has occurred? The bank argued that there is no reason to panic. The court ordered otherwise. (a footnote to the denied order establishes that a breach occurred whether or not the data will be used for fraudulent purposes or with or without a determination on the active or inactive status of the account).

Question: Does Google have a mandate to inform the bank about the status of the email account and possibly additional contact information on file for the email account holder? What if that action could prevent the illegal use of the mistakenly sent data or does the privacy of the email account user force Google to maintain a policy of requiring a court order to take such action which would result in a significant delay by the custodian of the information in possibly seeking the assistance of law enforcement?

The court's denial of the request by the bank to seal the docket was made in deference to established precedent that court documents are public record and should be sealed only when absolutely necessary. Breaches, the court found - do not qualify as absolutely necessary. Google, for its part merely requested its procedures for release of information be followed. Wouldn't Google's pre-mature release upon request of an email holders name, while not qualifying as a "breach" of personally identifying information constitute a breach of trust? Email accounts are provided, as most software, with a fine print user's agreement.


However Google's privacy policy reads as follows:

Information sharing

Google only shares personal information with other companies or individuals outside of Google in the following limited circumstances:

· We have your consent. We require opt-in consent for the sharing of any sensitive personal information.

· We provide such information to our subsidiaries, affiliated companies or other trusted businesses or persons for the purpose of processing personal information on our behalf. We require that these parties agree to process such information based on our instructions and in compliance with this Privacy Policy and any other appropriate confidentiality and security measures.

· We have a good faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request, (b) enforce applicable Terms of Service, including investigation of potential violations thereof, (c) detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or technical issues, or (d) protect against harm to the rights, property or safety of Google, its users or the public as required or permitted by law. Google Privacy Policy

It seems from their stated privacy policies that the request for a court order goes above and beyond what they state in their published privacy policy. Nowhere does it say "must" have a court order to release information. Therefore, if fraudulent activity does occur as a result of this breach, it is possible to hold Google, Inc. somewhat liable for delaying action which could have (possibly) prevented or limited the resultant fraud.

The trade-offs in this case are not pleasant. The email account that received that transmission may not have been logged into in many months and could have been a "throw away" email. Which group of people has the greater claim to privacy - the bank account holders or the Google email user?

---

Lawsuit Tied To Bank Gmail Error Can't Be Secret, Judge Says

A lawsuit seeking to identify a Gmail user who accidentally received confidential bank information must proceed in public.


By Thomas Claburn, InformationWeek
Sept. 21, 2009
URL: article link


A bank's effort to prevent the disclosure of information about a data breach arising from an errant Gmail message has been rejected by a federal judge in San Jose, California.

On Friday, Judge Ronald M. Whyte of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, acting on behalf of another judge, denied a motion by the Wyoming-based Rocky Mountain Bank to seal its lawsuit against Google.

An attempt by a bank to shield information about an unauthorized disclosure of confidential customer information until it can determine whether or not that information has been further disclosed and/or misused does not constitute a compelling reason that overrides the public's common law right of access to court filings, the judge said in his ruling.

The lawsuit seeks to force Google to reveal information about a Gmail account holder who received a misdirected e-mail sent by a bank employee.

The message, intended for a bank customer, included an attachment that should not have been sent containing confidential customer information for 1,325 individual and business accounts, according to the court's summary of the case. The data is question is said to include names, addresses, tax identification numbers, and loan information.

According to the facts summarized in the judge's order -- the actual complaint has not yet been made available in response to the judge's ruling -- the bank employee attempted to e-mail loan statements to one of the bank's customers who had requested them. But the message went to the wrong person, with a confidential file.

After learning of its inadvertent disclosure of confidential customer information, Plaintiff tried to recall the e-mail without success, the court's summary states. It then sent another e-mail to the Gmail address, instructing the recipient to immediately delete the prior e-mail and the attached file in its entirety without opening or reviewing it. Plaintiff also requested that the recipient contact Plaintiff to discuss his or her actions. The recipient has not responded to Plaintiff's e-mail.

Representatives of Rocky Mountain Bank, based in Wilson, Wyoming, did not return repeated calls seeking either confirmation or denial of the bank's involvement in the lawsuit.

Neil Arney, an attorney for the plaintiff with the Denver, Colorado branch of law firm Kutak Rock, declined to provide any information about the case. Separately, a spokesperson for the firm said he had been instructed by attorneys working on the Rocky Mountain Bank case not to respond to media inquiries.

A clerk for the court said that the case was still sealed until the parties responded to the judge's order and declined to provide further information. The judge has allowed the Gmail address of the accidental recipient of the bank's data to be redacted in court documents.

Rocky Mountain Bank filed its lawsuit because it asked Google to provide information about the account holder who received the errant message and Google declined to provide any information without a court order.

Google said that it is waiting for the bank to comply with the judge's order that it resubmit its filing before deciding on a response.

When Google receives legal process, such as court orders and subpoenas, where possible we promptly provide notice to users to allow them to object to those requests for information, a company spokesperson said in an e-mailed statement. In this case, RMB must comply with proper court process, and the court has required it to resubmit its papers. Once we have a chance to review these papers, we will determine our response.

The judge's ruling sets Monday, September 21, as the deadline for the plaintiff to resubmit the filing.