National “Jewish” Democratic Council reaffirms its support for Sharia in the United States
by Bill Levinson
The National “Jewish” Democratic Council obviously had a chance to re-think “Bachmann “Does Not Hesitate” to Sign Offensive Pledge,” as shown by its update of this entry a few days ago. The fact that the posting reaffirms the group’s support for the implementation of Sharia in the United States demonstrates that the original was not a mistake or misstatement, and that NJDC really does support this repugnant agenda along with the “right” of Islamic fundamentalists to batter or even kill women. Bachmann “Does Not Hesitate” to Sign Offensive Pledge **UPDATED**
Ariela Fleisig — July 8, 2011 – 4:38 pm | Candidates | Have They No Shame? | Republicans Comments (2) Add a comment
Presidential candidate Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) signed a highly offensive pledge advanced by the Iowa social conservative group The Family Leader. The pledge insensitively compares childrearing by single parents and same-sex couples to slavery, declares homosexuality a public health risk and compares it to polygamy, polyandry, and adultery, rejects a woman’s right to make decisions about her health, and continues the right wing’s incorrect straw-man argument against Islam. Nearly every point in the pledge conflicts with the values of most American Jews, who largely disagree with most of the points made by the pledge and oppose racist and homophobic rhetoric.
This tells us the same thing three times in the same sentence. NJDC takes issue not with a few selected points in the pledge but rather “nearly every point in the pledge.” NJDC reiterated this with “conflicts with the values of most American Jews,” and then added, just in case we didn’t get it straight the first two times, added that most American Jews “largely disagree with most of the points made by the pledge.” Then NJDC cited the following points as specific examples of what American Jews supposedly disagree with.
Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.
LBJ’s 1965 War on Poverty was triggered in part by the famous ‘Moynihan Report’ finding that the black out-of-wedlock rate had hit 26%; today, the white rate exceeds that, the overall rate is 41% and over 70% of African-American babies are born to single parents – a prime sociological indicator for poverty, pathology and prison regardless of race or ethnicity.
This statement appears to have been taken out of context even on talk radio, and Family Leader could perhaps have phrased it better because printed words do not carry mental telepathy. NJDC bends over backward to take it out of context, though, as shown by “The pledge insensitively compares childrearing by single parents and same-sex couples to slavery.” Our perception is that Family Leader’s point is that child-rearing by single parents (by choice as opposed to death or divorce, although these are no bargain for children either) leads to the economic equivalent of slavery: “poverty, pathology and prison regardless of race or ethnicity.” Bill Cosby, incidentally, said something very similar.
In his September 8 remarks, Cosby criticized parents who believe children “can be managed by cell phone… My call is for more, tighter reins. Know what your children are doing.” Dispelling popular excuses of racism and hardship, Cosby added “there is nothing that will defeat parenting” and “I know a victim when I see one… but some victims you can look at and say ‘Get up.’”
Now, however, let’s look at what NJDC finds truly disagreeable and repugnant about the rest of the Family Leader pledge.
Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage – faithful monogamy between one man and one woman – through statutory-, bureaucratic-, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc.
Reasonable people can disagree here; our position is that marriage in a Euro-American society is between one man and one woman, while what two or more consenting adults of any sex do in private is none of society’s business.
Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy.
Anybody other than NJDC see a downside here?
Support for prompt reform of uneconomic, anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy, and marital/divorce law, and extended ‘second chance’ or ‘cooling-off’ periods for those seeking a ‘quickie divorce.’
Earnest, bona fide legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the federal and state levels.
Steadfast embrace of a federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in all of the United States.
Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children – from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.
NJDC is now on record as supporting human trafficking, sexual slavery, and infanticide (the latter position being shared by its President, Barack Obama).
Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery or intrusively intimate commingling among attracted (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.); plus prompt termination of military policymakers who would expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.
NJDC is now on record as supporting sexual harassment by other service members; maybe NJDC thought Tailhook was a good idea.
Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control.
NJDC is FOR Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control simply because Michelle Bachmann and Family Leader are against them. Let’s see if we understand this correctly. NJDC believes that gay people should be allowed to marry before the religious police put ropes around their necks to be lifted into the air by cranes to strangle slowly. That is how Sharia law works in Iran.
Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.
Fierce defense of the First Amendment’s rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech, especially against the intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy.
NJDC is now on record as opposing the First Amendment’s rights of religious liberty and freedom of speech, thus making itself a de facto albeit perhaps not de jure domestic enemy of the United States and indeed civilized Humanity. Anybody, and we don’t care who they are or what religion they call themselves, who so much as contemplates limits on free speech (e.g. speech codes to prevent criticism of political Islam) and freedom to practice any genuine religion is our declared and sworn enemy.
To which we add, incidentally, that NJDC’s use of its purportedly Jewish identity to say that “most Jews” disagree with protection of women from human trafficking and sexual slavery, and also with rejection of barbaric Sharia law (which includes not only violence against women but persecution of the gay people whose rights NJDC claims to support), is an anti-Semitic blood libel every bit as loathsome as the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and The International Jew–maybe even worse because nominally Jewish names are signed to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment