The Blood of Some is Sweeter Than the Blood of Others

You don't have to go & join a biker gang.  We'll give you a new jacket.

This Orgnization is way out of control. Their politics reek. Hate Crimes Bill, Immigration etc etc. So prdictable. All the time. The more they open their mouth the embarrasing they are. Ugh. They create more Jew hate than prevent it.

They create more Jew hate than prevent it.

It's good for fundraising. 

Good grief, Kelsey, you actually linked to VDARE.com to support your argument? I’m no fan of Abe Foxman, but VDARE.com!? Do you know what these people are about? It may have started out as a legitimate conservative website, albeit a conservative website with an anti-immigrant viewpoint, but now VDARE.com is a lair for all sorts of racists, racialists, and white nationalists. If there are any legitimate conservatives left at the site, they’re the kind of conservative that doesn’t mind fanning the flames of racism to achieve a political goal.

Besides, Snorri Þorfinnsson was the first Europerson born in the New World, not Virginia Dare.

Kokapelye,

The only hate site I linked to was the ADL. But I judge hate by the policies promoted, or historical revisionism, conspiracy theories, etc. And I have seen nothing on VDARE that advocates a double standard towards American citizens in terms of law. Can't say that for the ADL site. That doesn't mean I like everything I read there -- it's a large group site, for crying out loud. But maybe I just don't offend as easily as Jews are supposed to.  

But I have a simple suggestion for all those offended by VDARE.

 Take away their gripes.

 When, or rather, if, mainstream conservatives and the moderate Left adopt fair-minded policies on Hate Crimes, reverse discrimination, and abandon the demand for continued mass immigration--both the legal and illegal kind--desired by rogue employers and racial Marxists,  I think we can rest assured that VDARE will no longer be a site that so many turn to. For now, it's a major resource for people of all races and religions (admittedly, less Muslims) focused on these issues. And unfortunately, advocating for fairness on these issues in a consistent way is considered quite right-wing, even radical.  

 As for Virginia Dare, no one is claiming she was the first European child born in the New World. They are claiming she was the first British child born in the New World.

I can't condemn that kind of pride. I am quite proud that Shearith Israel was the first Jewish congregation in New Amsterdam, and have an annoying habit of reminding anyone who think the Jewish community is a 19th century or even post-war phenomenon that in fact, we have been here since 1654.  

 Who am I to deny to WASPs that which I revel in for my own people? 

I feel that BrookeLynn's negative comments about those of us in biker gangs borders on "hate speech".

 And if we can only get Attorney General Eric Holder to recognize Biker gangs as an "historic victim group" we may be eligible for all types of government programs, mandatory sensitivity training to all those who speak or think things that create a climate of hate against us...

:-)

Thanks to everyone here who viewed our Hate Crime awareness video - and I will add that we have at least one other NYC Jewish supporter (Orthodox) who worked in the Bronx in the 80s and 90s and had some experiences with crime  - where surprisingly the criminals/thugs were not straight, English speaking, White Protestant Gentiles.

:-)

Jack Ellis

www.bikers4freedom.com 

Let me start again by expressing my disenchantment with the ADL, or rather Abe Foxman and his cronies. Foxman’s outbursts would funny if he were only a figment of Eli Valley’s imagination, but unfortunately Foxman isn’t, and he’s dragging the ADL down. Mebbe it is less dangerous to be a Jew these days and Abe hasn’t enough real offenses to occupy his time, mebbe it’s senility. I pray that as the Old Guard retires or passes away, the ADL will get back to the business of fighting racism and promoting tolerance.

However, to claim that the VDARE Foundation isn’t a hate group and doesn’t harbor racists is disingenuous. Were you wearing blinkers or was it the glare from that horrible yellow jacket? The Southern Poverty Law Center lists VDARE as a hate group. I suppose one could dispute the SPLC’s findings, but their track record in this respect has been excellent. Perhaps if you had read more of VDARE.com beyond mining the internet for an offbeat quote to support your position, you would have noticed the racism and hate.

Your blog entry was to make a case against the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 [S.1105], and that case seems to be that the act will place a higher value on the lives and liberties of some citizens than others. The arguments you and others present are based on misreading the text of the act and selective citation of the congressional hearings. The meat of S.1105 is:

 SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS. 

(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-

(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--

(A) constitutes a crime of violence;

(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal laws; and

(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws.

Nowhere does this legislation preclude prosecution of hate crimes against white Americans. If it can be shown, for example, that a victim was injured, kidnapped, or killed because the perpetrator perceived the victim was a white, NYC Jew, that hate crime will be prosecuted just the same as if the victim were perceived to be a brown, Hispanic Catholic Texan. 

“But,” you ask, “shouldn’t laws already in place take care of violent crimes regardless of the victims perceived  race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, etc.?” In the best of all possible worlds, yes —altho’ in my best of all possible worlds I would hope there was no crime or violence— but in practice that does not always happen. Historically, in some jurisdictions similar violent crimes were presented as “just some good ol’ boys having fun that got out hand.” If the case made it to court, the result would frequently be a reduced sentence or acquittal because the jury pool was skewed to exclude the victim’s peers. 

While such bias has been largely corrected in these days —we hope— some jurisdictions may be reluctant to pursue such crimes because investigation, forensics, prosecution, etc. is beyond their capability or budget. That is where the novel part of this S.1105 comes into play. In these situations, the federal government may step in to supply needed expertise, funds, or if necessary, take over the case. 

As for Virginia Dare, I have the feeling Peter Brimelow has back-pedalled on this one. I first read VDARE.com after following some innocuous links from a Google search. After I delved a little deeper, I realized what a pernicious little den of racism I had stumbled upon. Since I had been following links relating to early European settlement, I did pay attention to the references to Virginia Dare. I can’t prove that I read she was the first European child born in the New World because the archival documentation is missing, and links result in “article does not exist” and similar messages [Damn those liberal Jews, their fingers are everywhere!].  

But let’s take Mr. Brimelow at his word. In an entry to VDARE.com titled Emotion At Reason [18 December 2003], Brimelow explains why he refers to Virginia Dare as “first English child to be born in the New World” [italics original]. Brimelow’s reason is that “...the U.S. is not a ‘proposition nation’ but an organic growth from a British root.”  The closest that may have ever been true was the Thirteen Colonies at the start of the American Revolution. Even then, a significant number of these original colonies were not founded by the British —New York, for one— and more importantly, the population was  Dutch, French, Germans, Swedes and others who had settled prior to British control of the territory. Even before the various waves of immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries the United States if not a melting pot was well on it's way to becoming the cultural stew most of us know and love. So the choice of Virginia Dare as a mascot is based on a mythical British primacy. Elsewhere in the same entry Brimelow specifies that she was the “‘first white child of English parents’ born in America.” This may be merely a relic of earlier, less culturally sensitive discourse in the US, but I have to ask, what was the purpose of adding “white”?  What other color could the child of English parents be in the 16th century? Would it have mattered to Brimelow if her mother were an African or NatAm liberated from the Spanish? 

And by the way, Kelsey, if you had read A Voyage Long and Strange by Tony Horwitz, you would have learned that a yid from Prague was among the colonists Raleigh left at Roanoke in 1587. Be warned, Tony Horwitz’s books are on the VDARE shit list.

Kokapelye wrote,

I suppose one could dispute the SPLC’s findings, but their track record in this respect has been excellent. 

Not really. The SPLC is just as unreliable as the ADL. In fact, they may even be worse. The only reason I pick on the ADL more is that they are a Jewish organization. The SPLC tried to hang Stephen Steinlight for a connection between the organization he works for (cis.org) and a different one that ended about five minutes later...in the 80s(!). I wrote about this here (http://www.jewcy.com/post/post_not_publication -- sorry -- link attachment is not working). So from my perspective, the SPLC is not fit to be judge and jury. This common theme -- the SPLC or the ADL said so -- isn't good enough for me. It is their job to call people racists, extremists, etc.

 If it can be shown, for example, that a victim was injured, kidnapped, or killed because the perpetrator perceived the victim was a white, NYC Jew, that hate crime will be prosecuted just the same as if the victim were perceived to be a brown, Hispanic Catholic Texan. 

A Jew, yes. Just white? Hardly. And that's the point. Minority on majority crimes are not enforced in an equal manner at all. Are you really not aware of this? 

Look: http://gothamist.com/2006/04/10/hate_crime_2.php

This is consistently a problem. And Holder -- who loves an honest conversation on race -- is just being open about it.

In these situations, the federal government may step in to supply needed expertise, funds, or if necessary, take over the case. 

Only when the victim is a member of a protected class.  

Unless there is something I am missing--it seems David K is correct on this one.

Way to go David.

Although we commenters are in agreement against federal "punishment-enhancement" for select groups, I read the comment,"It's about time.", regarding today's news blurb:  

The U.S. Senate has passed a bill that will significantly expand the hate crimes law, to cover those attacked on the basis of gender identification and/or sexual orientation.

There's another good reason to be against this, from a completely different perspective--  Free thinking is as important as free speech.  You have the right to hate, or love, anyone you wish, for whatever reason you wish, just don't commit a crime, period!  It is very dangerous to define thoughts, and feelings as criminal. 

BTW, Jack Ellis, your above post made me smile! 

The video said it all.  My computer wasn't allowing that video to play when I initially read David's blog entry.

I'm sorry for the redundancy!

BrookeLynn writes:

 >BTW, Jack Ellis, your above post made me smile!

 Well Miss Brooke Lynn, I am glad you enjoyed a smile and I am proud to have contributed to this small, but very symbolic event.

 Understand that certain evil Powers That Be (and I do consider them evil) do not want us to smile, enjoy a good laugh - they say they are fighting against "hate" but most everything they do shows anger, resentment and yes Hate and they get most upset when those on the other side show humor and well, just enjoy life.

Ever seen a Cultural Marxist, Stalinist or any of the official spokesmen for these PC official victim groups ever laughing, enjoying a joke or just having a good time?

Here is a revolutionary or (counter revolutionary) act that the PC commissars are sure to hate:

Smile, laugh, tell a joke and if you are hanging out with some rowdy biker folks having a few brews and saluting various up-tight folks with the middle finger salute - you might feel blessed to be living in the USA. 

Kokapelye:“....However, to claim that the VDARE Foundation isn’t a hate group and doesn’t harbor racists is disingenuous.... The Southern Poverty Law Center lists VDARE as a hate group. I suppose one could dispute the SPLC’s findings, but their track record in this respect has been excellent.”

The SPLC is a race hoax factory.

Kokapelye: “Perhaps if you had read more of VDARE.com beyond mining the internet for an offbeat quote to support your position, you would have noticed the racism and hate.”Unlike you, David has read plenty of VDARE articles. Methinks you are projecting just a little, in the ignorance department.

Kokapelye: “Your blog entry was to make a case against the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 [S.1105], and that case seems to be that the act will place a higher value on the lives and liberties of some citizens than others. The arguments you and others present are based on misreading the text of the act and selective citation of the congressional hearings. The meat of S.1105 is:...”

More projection. David was making a case against S. 909, a 2009 “Hate Crimes” bill, not the 2007 version which you referred to. So you referred to and selectively cited the wrong bill, in order to ... make yourself look ridiculous? Provide comic relief? 

Kokapelye: “Nowhere does this legislation preclude prosecution of hate crimes against white Americans. If it can be shown, for example, that a victim was injured, kidnapped, or killed because the perpetrator perceived the victim was a white, NYC Jew, that hate crime will be prosecuted just the same as if the victim were perceived to be a brown, Hispanic Catholic Texan.”

Of course it does, and you implicitly acknowledged as much. The same crime committed “because the perpetrator perceived the victim was a white” Christian will not be prosecuted as a hate crime. (And to anyone who thinks that a crime motivated by a black, Hispanic, or homosexual attacker’s belief that the victim was a white Jew will be prosecuted as a “hate crime,” I have a great deal for you on a slightly used bridge.)

Kokapelye: “‘But,’ you ask, ‘shouldn’t laws already in place take care of violent crimes regardless of the victims perceived  race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, etc.?’ In the best of all possible worlds, yes —"

No, in any world. Or haven’t you read the Constitution? 

Kokapelye: “altho’ in my best of all possible worlds I would hope there was no crime or violence— but in practice that does not always happen. Historically, in some jurisdictions similar violent crimes were presented as ‘just some good ol’ boys having fun that got out hand.’ If the case made it to court, the result would frequently be a reduced sentence or acquittal because the jury pool was skewed to exclude the victim’s peers.”

What does S. 909 have to do with skewed jury pools? 

Kokapelye: “While such bias has been largely corrected in these days”

Actually, no. Blacks murder whites all the time out of racist motives, and need count on only one racist black juror to at least get a hung jury. Due to the scourge of jury nullification by racist black jurors in Baltimore City, the county prosecutor’s office rarely holds murder trials there anymore. She offers virtually every black murderer a deal on a lesser charge, no matter how solid her case. But S. 909 racially discriminates against those victims. So, far from being in “the business of fighting racism,” you embrace racism.

Kokapelye: “—we hope— some jurisdictions may be reluctant to pursue such crimes because investigation, forensics, prosecution, etc. is beyond their capability or budget.”

Baloney.

Kokapelye: “As for Virginia Dare, I have the feeling Peter Brimelow has back-pedalled on this one. I first read VDARE.com... After I delved a little deeper, I realized what a pernicious little den of racism I had stumbled upon. Since I had been following links relating to early European settlement, I did pay attention to the references to Virginia Dare. I can’t prove that I read she was the first European child born in the New World because the archival documentation is missing, and links result in ‘article does not exist’ and similar messages [Damn those liberal Jews, their fingers are everywhere!].”

Bull. Your posts make clear that you never delved deeply at VDARE. You hit a bad link? Like this one?http://www.vdare.com/misc/stix_urban_crime.htm

Old links sometimes get changed. You have proved nothing.

Kokapelye: “But let’s take Mr. Brimelow at his word. In an entry to VDARE.com titled Emotion At Reason [18 December 2003], Brimelow explains why he refers to Virginia Dare as ‘“first English child to be born in the New World’” [italics original]. Brimelow’s reason is that “...the U.S. is not a ‘proposition nation’ but an organic growth from a British root.”

“The closest that may have ever been true was the Thirteen Colonies at the start of the American Revolution. Even then, a significant number of these original colonies were not founded by the British ... and more importantly, the population was  Dutch, French, Germans, Swedes and others ... So the choice of Virginia Dare as a mascot is based on a mythical British primacy.”

Nonsense. America’s legal system, including its constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights, grew out of English law. That’s English primacy, right there. Clearly, you despise such limits on governmental power, and desire a legal system, in which the state recognizes no limits.

Kokapelye: “Elsewhere in the same entry Brimelow specifies that she was the  “‘first white child of English parents’ born in America.' This may be merely a relic of earlier, less culturally sensitive discourse in the US, but I have to ask, what was the purpose of adding ‘white’?”

He didn’t. As you well know, and your quotes betrayed, he was quoting thousands of Web entries. Thus, you lied about Brimelow.

By the way, nice try with that sophistic framing device of criticizing Abe Foxman in your opening. I’m sure it fooled people who were skimming. If you love the racist SPLC as much as you say you do, your only beef with Foxman could be that he was insufficiently racist, anti-American, etc.

For those interested in the unconstitutional, 2009 bill that David criticized, and which was just attached, in the dead of night, to the Defense Authorization Bill, I heartily recommend the following articles:

http://www.vdare.com/stix/090604_hate_crimes.htm 

http://www.vdare.com/stix/090701_usccr.htm

On 20 July I completed my comment started on 16 July. I had problems with the spambot and had to build the comment paragraph by paragraph until the spambot in its infinite wisdom stopped me for that session. [I am in awe that NicholasStix got so much verbage into his post, but not impressed with much else in that post]. Kelsey et al. lost no time to begin savaging my post, altho’ they seem to have missed ripping me for an orphan colon, a non sequitur heading, and numerous other artifacts of spambotage.

In the interest of avoiding further delays from the spambot, I think I'll try to keep my comments restricted to a single topic, regardless of how long the original post was. This’ll prob’ly waste a lot of white space with multiple comments generated from a previous comment, but the plus side is that you’ll more pictures of me soaking my feet in Snorri Sturluson’s hot tub.

Kelsey,

When I stated that the SPLC had a good record for sniffing out hate groups, I was basing this on their success rate in court against such groups. These cases would not have been tried if they did not involve actionable charges. The SPLC would not have won these cases if the defendants had not violated civil statutes. Of course from your perspective, the American court system is prob’ly not fit to seat judges and juries.

Mazel tov, Kelsey! Not only did you get yourself in Jeשcy regarding Stephen Steinlight, but you were mentioned in the FORWARD. Too bad it didn’t involve anal sex or you could have parleyed your investigative journalism into a regular gig on the Rachel Maddow Show. On second thought, you prob’ly don’t like Rachel Maddow anyway. 

Concerning Steinlight, I have yet to wade through every mention of him on the internet. Lots of people cite him, but since you’re already here Kelsey, let’s cite you quoting Steinlight: “God spare us all from tikkun olam Jews...." WTF Kelsey? If Dr. Steinlight wants to criticize  hypocrisy and shallow values among liberal Jews, let him, it’s his right. But to use tikkun olam as an insult? L'takken olam is one of the most basic Jewish values, reinforced every time we recite the Aleinu. Of course, that may be of no consequence to Steinlight, because it appears he has already trashed this mitzva:

When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your own citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I the LORD am your God. 

You don’t have to prove your edgy, ethnic bona fides Kelsey, to me or to muggers and klansmen. The point of my comparison [“white, NYC Jew...”] was that the Hate Crime Act does not distinguish between races. It does not establish a minority as a protected class and neither does it preclude the member of a majority from being considered a protected class. What matters to the law is that the victim of a violent crime became a target because they were perceived as an “objectionable class” by the attacker. 

I have no idea what you were trying to prove by linking to the article in the Gothamist: Broderick Hehman, a white, died as a result of being mugged by a gang of black teenagers. Searching through other newspapers of record I learned the police have some doubts about the reliability of the reports of the attackers yelling “Get whitey.” [I suppose yelling "Get the mo’fo’” wouldn’t have been specific enough.] Mebbe the NYPD is biased or mebbe they want to make the charges stick, however it should be noted that even the Gothamist mentioned that the ACLU and 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care are involved, requesting that the [alleged] attackers are charged with a hate crime. 

Again, what were you trying to prove? Broderick Hehman’s death is only one data point. Give me real statistics or shut up. 

Thje AJC et all are not promoting Judaism or Jewish interests; they are acting as leftist grievance mongers. 

This bill would enshrine Homosexuality as above rebuke. In other countries, priests and ministers have been prosecuted for quoting their Bible on Homosexuality. Why is the American "Jewish" Committee setting up Rabbis to be persecuted for preaching about homosexuality as a sin?

Similarly, this bill would be used to crack down on immigration reform activists. How is it a Jewish interest to prevent discussion of immigration? Why should it be a crime to propose reduction in illegal and legal immigration? These policies objectively hurt Jews by importing antisemites. 

Who will stand up to these modern day followers of Menelaus ? 

Any group or individual that questions mass immigration or Hate Crimes is defined by those groups and their supporters that are in favor of both as racist, nativist, radical, etc. Hence, such dissenters aren't "legitimate" opposition, and should not even be heard. Who is the "legitimate" opposition? Only those that don't spend a significant amount of their time lobbying against Hate Crimes, mass immigration, etc. In other words, no serious opposition at all is the only opposition that is tolerated. 

You can mutter under your breath. That's okay. But you better keep voice down--at least most of the time--if you know what's good for you. 

Kokapelye 07/20/09 5:02 pm,
"[I am in awe that NicholasStix got so much verbage into his post, but not impressed with much else in that post]."

To interested readers: Kokapelye apparently felt he ought to say something, after I exposed him as a liar. Go back and read his 7/20/09 4:12 pm entry, and my 7/19/09 6:28 am response. (No, I'm neither psychic nor confused: Kokapelye had posted his comment on 7/16; I have no idea how he got the date changed.) Then check out the original statements at VDARE, which Kokapelye misrepresented.

Unimpressed at being exposed as a fraud, Kokapelye? Why, is that an everyday experience for you?

...no, not really.

NicholasStix, I don’t have to directly address interested readers, because I assume they can figure it out for themselves. You, on the other hand, I wonder about. My comment which you ripped referred to —no, specified that the spambot has an annoying tendency to reject my longer posts, necessitating that I piece them together over several days because the spambot randomly locks me out of the system. I am impressed that you apparently got such a long comment past the spambot. What’s your secret?

As for them mysterious date of my post, that was the date I completed the comment using the edit option, which I’ve been up front about. No time travel was involved, you’re not psychic, but you are confused.

And no, I did not misrepresent the statements at VDARE. 

Kokapelye invoked God to *prove* the U.S. needs to provide "a path to citizenship."

 When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your own citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I the LORD am your God.  

Unfortunately, Kokapelye, the U.S. is not bound by Jewish law. Not even a most dubious Liberal interpretation of Jewish law.

But since you feel this oh-so-solid interpretation of immigration policy is incumbent upon Jews, I invite you to demand that Israel absorb all immigrants, their extended families for the sake of "reunification," their extended families, and so on and so on. And then round after round of that nonsense.

But here in the U.S., we are not bound by Liberal nor racial Marxist interpretations of the Torah. So go harass the Jewish State with your Torah commentary. There sure are a lot of people who would love to move to Israel. If only Israel can get past her "racism," her "nativism," and her "xenophobia." 

Israel needs to learn that diversity is her greatest strength! 

Cripes, Kelsey! I don’t know what is worse, your mean-spiritedness, your reliance on reductio ad absurdum, or your short attention span.

My citation of Kedoshim was twofold: 1) In this goyim haunted world, a lot of Jews can’t tell whether a scriptural quote comes from our books or theirs. 2) I was suggesting that as Jews, Steinlight included, when we discuss immigration we should consider the Torah’s frequent admonishment not to wrong the stranger in our midst. Nowhere did I suggest the US is bound by Jewish law.

Sidestepping for a moment the issue of translation and interpretation, the cite from Kedoshim is from the 1999 JPS TaNaKH. No interpretation beyond that involved in producing a translation. Yes, I know the original is in Hebrew, but I’m guessing some of the readership would appreciate the text in English. Besides typing the Hebrew text is a pain in the ass.

Now to translation and interpretation: If the JPS translation is a “dubious Liberal interpretation of Jewish law,” I invite you to provide a definitive, Conservative translation of the text from Kedoshim. Better yet, provide the Hebrew text and give us a dvar Torah that explains why it is incumbent on us to slam the doors shut now that we have ours.

Nowhere in my comment to which you were apparently responding did I mention Israel’s immigration policy. Your blog piece was originally about a hate crime bill. You brought up Israel’s immigration policy, you brought up Steinlight, you brought up issues external to hate crimes. There seems to be a pattern. Is it that you can’t keep your mind on the subject at hand —your subject at hand— or is it that you resort to throwing out new and largely irrelevant comments to disguise the fact can’t muster a reasoned response to those who disagree?

P.S.: I still don’t know if you approve using “tikkun olam” as a slur. 

Jewcy is a unique web site, concentrating on a unique, very specific readership/audience.

So it is to this unique readership/audience that I would ask this question:

Are Federal Hate Crime Laws, PC/cultural marxism really good for Jews?

And if Muslims, Muslim immigrants, the Palestinians become a/THE PC minority victim group -are these hate crime laws, group justice laws good for Jews?

 I ask this question after reading the astounding comment Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made to support the Fed Hate Crime bill:

 "This bill simply recognizes that there is a difference between assaulting someone to steal his money, or doing so because he is gay, or disabled, or Latino or Muslim."

Source The Two-Way NPR News Blog

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/07/senate_passes_hatecrimes_bill.html?ft=1&f=103943429

 Uhhhhhmmmmmmm, OK we are to image the evil haters ( RACIST, SEXIST, Homophobic, Latino-phobic. Islamaphobic, White Protestant, Anglo Gentiles) plotting to assault gays, THE DISABLED (?), Latinos and MUSLIMS - all because of their hateful bias. The rest of the violent assaults in America - including rape and pre-meditated murder are supposed to have the motive of robbery!

I think American Jews should step back a bit and see where this is going, re-watch my video - the part where Attorney General Eric Holder explains that hate crime laws are not designed to protect all Americans from bias related violence, just those groups who are historic victim groups.... which now apparently are the victim alliance of militant homosexuals and Muslims, plus the disabled (Vietnam War Vets?)!

Consider the events of 9-11-01 where Al-Qaeda Muslim extremists committed the most violent, hateful crime in American history. Under the latest PC Cultural Marxist Fed Hate Crime mindset Muslims can only be victims of hate crimes, so the motive of 9-11-01 must have been robbery, or maybe 9-11 never even happened!

Again, forget about considering the "fairness" of Fed hate crime laws, or if they violate the 14th Amendment I think the question of the day here is:

Do Jews really want to promote this #$@%#^#?

Are hate crime laws good for Jews?

I would think that most sane Jewish people would say

NO

But then again I once thought most sane Jews  would be against unlimited Third World immigration to America, including unlimited Muslim immigration.

You’re not one for fine points are you, Kelsey? Or do you intentionally misinterpret views opposite yours so you can avoid an actual response?

No, I make no Biblical demands on US policy. It’s hard enough for us Jews to understand what the Torah requires, I wouldn’t wish it on the goyim. But there are times when demands on us as Jews and the responsibilities as US citizen coincide. Immigration reform is one of these. 

The questions remains, Kelsey, do you have anything substantive to say about immigration? Or is your opinion driven by a dislike of the ADL, the HIAS, or any number of abbreviations, or do you just plain don’t like immigrants?

Yes, ger can mean a convert to Judaism. But ger also means stranger, as in a foreigner or “resident alien.” The verse from Kedoshim certainly applies to resident aliens, why else specify “for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”? Or, Rav Kelsey, do you propose that all Israel had converted to pharaonic religion when in Egypt?

But let’s assume that ideally all gerim were expected to eventually convert to the religion of Israel. Why develop laws concerning the treatment gerim unless it was anticipated that other non-Jews would immigrate? I mean, where were all the gerim to come from if not immigration? 

I’m still waiting to hear whether you approve using “tikkun olam” as a slur.

Kokapelye wrote, 

Or is your opinion driven by a dislike of the ADL, the HIAS, or any number of abbreviations, or do you just plain don’t like immigrants?

We have already established that anyone  and everyone who disagrees with either pro-mass immigration groups or questions Hate Crimes is by definition, a hateful person filled with contempt and rage because of their xenophobia. So clearly, I am a hateful person. You know that. The SPLC would say so. Or at least, they could say so. And if the SPLC should say so, that should good enough for all of us. 

 So why are you asking rhetorical questions? I disagree with you and your allies on some issues, therefore I am a hater. Keep the name calling coming. See where it gets you on this site. You just can't stop can you? You're too trained that this is how you get what you want. 

I mean, where were all the gerim to come from if not immigration? 

Many would come from the Canaanites who lived there before we took over. In part through settlement. You guys call that "immigration," right?

I'm glad that you, Mr. Kelsey, are striving arm in arm with like-minded individuals, you know, like the Klan, to do your part to end the oppression "certain ethinic groups" like the  poor, oppressed masses of English-speaking, straight, white Protestant males held down by the "cultural Marxism" of those hateful PC, gasp!, liberals, and double-gasp!, Jews!

Give me a break.

I'm no fan of Abe Foxman, (he's the too-often embarassing embodiment of the  stereotypical paranoiac Jew.) but seriously, the bone you choose to pick with him is over a hate-crime bill? Way to pick your battles.

Racist groups made me special. I didn't choose to be. They'd burn a cross in front of my house as fast as they would for yours because we are Jews. And yet you defend that group from supposedly "unfair" laws coming down on them? Is the irony lost on you about a Jew supporting "Nativist" (a stupid word when applied to white Americans) groups? They'd happily throw your ass out too, you know.

Speaking of Hate Crime Bills, though. Please cite the portions of the Bill that specifically outline the "special groups" that the dubiously-edited right-wing-nutjob propaganda piece you felt necessary to repost here took so much joy in talking about. Is there specific language in the bill citing which groups are protected by it and which are not? If not, you can pretty much take your precious "equal protection" argument and flush it down the toilet, where your "nativist" tendencies belong.

No really, Kelsey, do you have anything substantive to say about immigration? This is not a rhetorical question, and I don’t want a rhetorical answer [like above]. Do you have anything substantive to say about immigration?

After a couple of generations of conversion/naturalization, the supply of local Canaanites would have run out. Besides, many archaeologists —the “minimalists” for example— think that the bulk of the early Israelite population was native to the Canaan highlands and that the Abraham and Exodus narratives served to create a national identity.

By the way, I’m still waiting to hear whether you approve using “tikkun olam” as a slur.

DoctorT wrote, They'd burn a cross in front of my house as fast as they would for yours because we are Jews. 

Now you're the one who sounds like a "stereotypical paranoiac Jew." Maybe give Foxman another chance, DoctorT? Do you wake up every morning wondering if this is the day you will need to call a landscaper to repair the damage that is surely coming from the guys in white sheets?

If not, you can pretty much take your precious "equal protection" argument and flush it down the toilet,

Not really. Hate Crimes are not leveled with the same degree of consistency when it comes to minority on majority crimes. Holder made clear this will be more of the same. Maybe watch the video above? 

Kokapelye wrote,

No really, Kelsey, do you have anything substantive to say about immigration?

What do you mean? Just invoke The Stranger, and there's nothing else to discuss. Alternatively, maybe read CIS (http://cis.org/). Now is a particularly rotten time to seek additional low-skilled labor by the millions. You are aware that many of your countrymen are out of work, correct? Have you ever considered how an increased labor supply affects these issues? Oh, let me guess, more immigration helps everyone always.

Nonsense. 

 Additionally, I am not pleased with how Muslim communities are assimilating in every Western country where they have a significant population. This is not something I see a need to risk here. Why should we risk that? So people like you don't call us names? 

Generally, I don't think Jewish groups should be advocating for massive immigration because it isn't in our interest, but rather, is likely to harm us, and we have no business pushing ourselves to the forefront of issues that don't directly affect us. We may have disproportionate wealth, but we don't own this country. We are a tiny minority. Who are we to demand that the U.S. alter its immigration policy because we are sooooo moved (or so we say that's the reason) by Social Liberal Jewish interpretations of, "Love The Stranger"? What kind of nonsense is that? Why are so many Jews intent on displacing the majority population? Why don't you explain your real motivations, since I've laid some of mine down before you? You tell us your real reasons -- without BS references to The Stranger. Go ahead. We're listening.

 By the way, I’m still waiting to hear whether you approve using “tikkun olam” as a slur.

Who cares? You think I'm going to get upset about that? Are you unaware that Tikkun Olam is referenced sardonically by many Jews even on the moderate Left? 

Jack Ellis, 07/21/09 6:06 pm

"Again, forget about considering the "fairness" of Fed hate crime laws, or if they violate the 14th Amendment I think the question of the day here is:

"Do Jews really want to promote this #$@%#^#?

"Are hate crime laws good for Jews?

"I would think that most sane Jewish people would say

"NO

"But then again I once thought most sane Jews would be against unlimited Third World immigration to America, including unlimited Muslim immigration."

Jack, my take on such agitation is that it is the work of leftwing (often communist) Jewish anti-Semites. Since coming to New York in '85, I've run into 'em by the thousands. Hell, some of them are my relatives!

As for Jews who support open borders, they come in at least two flavors: 1. The aforementioned, leftwing anti-Semites, and 2. Neoconservative and libertarian class warriors, who want an umlimited supply of cheap, oppressed, "help."

I realize that you were responding to DrT, but were you equating all minority on majority crime with hate crime? Even if you weren’t, and were merely asserting that the law is unequally enforced/adjudicated, do you have any supporting data? As there is a federal Hate Crimes Statistic Act [28 USC § 534], state and federal agencies would be a good place to start. Regurgitating the raw numbers will prove little: you’ll at least have to normalize the hate crimes numbers against something pertinent and objectively measured, liked all violent crime broken down by race/ethnicity. 

I also [re]watched the video. For starters, there were a number of edits positioned so as to bring up the question of selective editing of the proceedings. The hypothetical scenario presented by Senator Sessions was a bait and switch: The minister presents anti-gay views in a town hall meeting and then is attacked by a gay activist. Sessions does not say "physically attacked” nor specifies any context outside of the town hall meeting. AG Holder reasonably assumes that it was a verbal attack within the town hall meeting, then... edit! and Sessions is back discussing physical violence. The murder of Pvt. William Andrew Long is a red herring: as a soldier he took upon himself certain responsibilities including the possibility of dying for our country. If the shooting was motivated by the war on terror, then plant Pvt. Long in Arlington and try his murderer as a terrorist or an honest-to-God unlawful combatant. Jack Ellis’ comparison of Chicago versus Wyoming crime stats neglects that Chicago has a greater population and vastly greater population density. Overall, the flaws of the video make it less than convincing.

 ...sort of.

The Stranger is a popular title, Kelsey, any hints? I’m going out on a limb here that you weren’t referring to the Animorphs book. Perhaps you could summarize how whichever Stranger you referred to would shut down discussion?

I then check into CIS and the first thing that greets me is “Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border:
Coyotes, Bears, and Trails” [Is that like “Lawyers, Guns, and Money”?]. I can’t help wondering that don’t we already have laws covering trespassing, drug smuggling, human trafficking, and use of wheeled vehicles off-road on federal lands? That part of Arizona is the old Pimería Alta. Most of the Mexicans crossing the border there are of NatAm background, have family on both sides of the border, and their ancestors crossed back and forth for centuries before there was a border. By the way, these native names always confuse me: Krikorian, what is that, Pima, O’odham, or mebbe Dilzhe’e?

Your labor argument is disingenuous. Of course I’m aware that many of my countrymen are out of work: I’m out of work myself, and since the ding letters reference that I’m “over qualified,” I suspect it has more to do with the abundance of cheap student labor in my college town. My college town is in Texas and I see firsthand the crap jobs Hispanics work [please excuse me if I didn’t check green cards and voter registration, but I don’t want to put Kephart and Griffith out of work] and I don’t see white folks clamoring for these jobs. Chronologically, your argument makes no sense either. The nativist camp has been howling about immigration long before the economy officially went in the toilet, and they were howling about immigration even as the business and financial deregulation that got us into this mess was being passed.

What’s wrong with assimilating Muslims into the US? Some are already playing pro basketball. I know a few that are waitressing at local diners. I'd love to see American Muslims mowing their lawns, writing letters to the editor, and waving Old Glory at Four of July parades just like the rest of us. The risk is in not assimilating immigrants.

And what’s your hang-up with name calling? The only thing I've called you is “Kelsey.” I thought that was your name, or at least your internet alias. Is it like the “n-word”: “Yo waddup, Kelsey?” Or mebbe you’re taking “Kelsey” back from the haters?

Okay, Kelsey, so you think that a liberal [small l] immigration policy is contrary to Jewish self-interest. Fine, I don’t agree with you, but fine. But then you throw in something that boils down to: Jews in the US should limit our public discourse on US policy so as not to draw attention to our minority status. If that is your belief, you have so blown it with the Kvetcher, your Jeשcy blog and comments.

Now for my motivation: I know that the US is a nation of immigrants. [If one goes back far enough, even the NatAms are immigrants, but that’s another story.] It hardly behooves us as US citizens —Jew or Gentile— to categorically deny other people entry into our country. If immigrants want to come to the US, work hard, contribute to society, and become citizens, God love ’em. [For all you NYC Jews, that was a Texasism, not a religious endorsement.] Sure, we can control our borders, but we don’t have to be dicks about it. If there’s a problem with illegal immigration, mebbe the problem isn't with the immigrant but that the legalization and naturalization process needs work. Historically, the US has had spasms of nativism —that's the polite word for it— against Jews, against the Irish, against swarthy southern Europeans, against Slavs, against Jews again, etc. Just look through historical photographs, editorials, and editorial cartoons if you need proof. But after more than 200 years, I would hope we've grown up and can stop acting like selfish children.

By the way, your “tikkun olam” response was no answer. Most of the Jews I know could be described as moderate left, and none them have used  tikkun olam sardonically, nor commented on learning that the Jewish Moderate Left —’cause we’re that organized— has authorized the the use of  tikkun olam to indicate disapproval. Did Lenny Bruce come up with that one? So Kelsey, I still wait. Do you find tikkun olam an appropriate term of disdain? Do you think the concept of tikkun olam should relegated to the trash heap of history?

I don't worry about, as you so eloquently hypothesized, "Do
you wake up every morning wondering if this is the day you will need to
call a landscaper to repair the damage that is surely coming from the
guys in white sheets?" Because I know I don't have to worry about it for the most part, living in Los Angeles, just as you probably live in, I'm guessing here, in Brooklyn or something, where you don't worry about it either. The point I was making is the jerks in that sort of organization don't make distinctions, any Jew is a bad Jew. If you don't get that, I pity you, especially since you seem to defend those groups as needing the protection of the law as much as people dragged behind trucks because of the color of their skin.

And since you dodged my request to actually state the part of the bill that singles out, by name, individual groups, I'll ask again. Is there specific language in the bill citing which groups are protected by it and which are not? I'm not talking about edited Senate hearings, because when I last checked Senate hearings aren't signed into law, bills are. Well?

Kokapelye writes:

"What’s wrong with assimilating Muslims into the US? Some are already playing pro basketball. I know a few that are waitressing at local diners. I'd love to see American Muslims mowing their lawns, writing letters to the editor, and waving Old Glory at Four of July parades just like the rest of us. The risk is in not assimilating immigrants."

Jack Ellis writes:

I feel like I have stumbled upon a Monty Python sketch - The Ministry of Silly Walks, silly comments about welcoming the entire world to move to New York City, getting Muslims to embrace gays, feminism, AIPAC etc.

Jack Ellis,

Do you actually read —as in comprehend— the quotes you cut and paste? I wrote and you quoted: “The risk is in not assimilating immigrants.”

Assimilation means the immigrants adopt the laws and culture of their new homeland, the United States, like the millions before them. The US may have its ethnic tensions, but we’ve done an amazing job of amalgamating disparate communities into a single Union. What difference will some more Muslims make? And what makes you think Somali, Nigerian, Pakistani, Algerian, Indonesian, etc. Muslims can agree on a single form of Islam? The reason many immigrants have gratefully adopted our country is that in the US they can escape the sectarian strife of their former homelands.

Using the same obstructionist brush to paint all Muslims as jihadists will not promote US security. There are plenty of Muslims who are ready to adopt our laws and lifestyles —just as many have already— it is in the US’s best interest to give these people a stake in America. In other words, the more Muslims who know it’s alright living in the USA, with halal burgers on the grill, night and day, the safer the rest of us Americans are. 

And despite your confidence —which could be the result of antiperspirant, good oral hygiene and possibly some Dale Carnegie classes— I doubt your numbers. There are excellent universities and libraries in the Chicago area, have you tried their reference departments? The State Department certainly keeps track of such data, and prob’ly makes much of it available to civilians.

By the way, you do know that Jewess is feminine, right? 

Excellent comment, my non-paranoid khaver! I pity the fool that crosses DoctorT.

Reasonable discourse is certainly not promoted when you’re forced to re-explain your stance after the other side feigns ignorance for the umpteenth time. Being in a charitable mood I won’t pursue that train of thought beyond adding that anyone who ever watched Schoolhouse Rock should be able to understand your last paragraph, even NicholasStix.

Mea Culpa.

 I thought I was dealing with a crazed Jewess who wants to unite the entire world - making the entire world one by inviting the entire world to up and move in to America, hold hands, sing ""Kumbaya" and work to end bias violence against Gays, the disabled. Latinos and Muslims in evil, racist Red States like Wyoming, which came in 47 out of 50 States in murder totals (check per capita murder rates, Wyoming has very low violent crime rates).

I thought I was dealing with a female - an Amy Biehl type, because I couldn't imagine any male going in for this nonsense.

;-) 

Well, as for your mission to "change", assimilate the entire Muslim world how about choosing some other country besides my country the USA for this experiment?

Maybe you could write a letter to the Israeli Knesset, suggest Israel take in 50 million Arab Muslims, give them the right to vote, affirmative action in jobs and education over Israeli Jews, pass Hate Crime Legislation making Muslims an official PC victim group, in other words present your plan of destruction for America to Israel?

M'thinks the leaders of the Israeli Knesset will reject your plan and some may call you worse names than "Jewess"

:-) 

Peace/Shalom 

Kokapelye wrote,

What difference will some more Muslims make?

The same as they are making in France, Holland, Belgium, Canada. Or worse.

 And what makes you think Somali, Nigerian, Pakistani, Algerian, Indonesian, etc. Muslims can agree on a single form of Islam? 

They don't need one for it to be a problem. The Satmar Chassidim do not agree with the Ger chassidim in Jerusalem. And still, there are problems. 

Using the same obstructionist brush to paint all Muslims as jihadists will not promote US security.

All? Who are you talking to? Is it straw man time?  

In other words, the more Muslims who know it’s alright living in the USA, with halal burgers on the grill, night and day, the safer the rest of us Americans are. 

Isn't working like that elsewhere. 

By the way, your “tikkun olam” response was no answer

Because your Tikkun Olam diatribe was no question.  

Most of the Jews I know could be described as moderate left, and none them have used  tikkun olam sardonically,

If they are like you, they are not moderate left, they are social left. There is a huge difference.  There is nothing moderate left about your arguments. They are -- so far -- down the line those of social-leftists.

Your labor argument is disingenuous.

No. It is based on economic law. Supply and demand. Would you like a link? 

I know that the US is a nation of immigrants.  

That is only the part of the story, oh caricature of a social Leftist. Many of the whites who came here--including the Jews prior to the U.S. (and the founding of this nation, which you kind of need to be an immigrant) were SETTLERS. Not immigrants, settlers.

Also -- fyi -- the blacks who came here chained in their boats? Also -- NOT IMMIGRANTS. Try to be more sensitive to diverse entry to this country and not see things only through Leftish Jewish hegemonic eyes, okay? 

...Except that you’re a bigot, a full-fledged sexist, and prob’ly a ghost writer for junior high bullies. Had you paid attention —not your strong suit— you would see in my picture that I have a much fuller, manlier beard than you. And it’s also whiter than yours will ever be if you keep riding without a helmet.

So, Wyoming has the 47th lowest murder rate. Wyoming also has a low population density. According to 2007 estimates [based on the 2000 census] Wyoming has the 49th lowest population density among the states, only Alaska has a lower density. What are Wyomingites doing wrong that their state is two positions ahead in per capita murder rate? Has Dick Cheney been quail hunting again?

I made no claims of changing or assimilating the entire Muslim world, and you know that.  That fantasy exists purely in your head, as apparently do your estimates of the numbers of Muslims waiting for our guard to drop. Oh my, those numbers have disappeared from  your entry “Kokapelye Embraces the Muslims & Multi-cult, cult.” Lose your confidence?

Now you’re quoting “50 million Arab Muslims.” Where’d you get that number? Threats from the long-dead Ibn Saud?  Perhaps the Wikipedia entry on “Arab diaspora”? Gotta remember some of that 50 million [maximum estimate] are Christian. Where’d you get those numbers, and if there’s an imminent threat of Arab Muslim invasion, WTF are doing wasting time here? Jack Ellis, you should call the State Department and CIA and tell them what you know. You should call the Knesset and ZH"L and warn them. This is a real question Jack Ellis, so don’t change the subject: Where did you get those numbers?

Except that you’re a bigot, a full-fledged sexist

Do you ever stop the typical enraged Jew-Leftist exhortations? And Jack meant those numbers about Israel immigration as an example -- that numbers MATTER when discussing immigration groups. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt with this question, Kokapelye: Why are you being intentionally obtuse?

If anybody knows straw men, Kelsey, it’s you and your acolytes.

Are you claiming my statement [“Using the same obstructionist brush to paint all Muslims....”] is a a straw man argument? In what way? I s’pose I could ’ve left out the “all,” but Jack Ellis keeps changing his estimate of the Muslim threat. As for whom I was addressing, it was Jack Ellis, whose name was at the top of that comment. That particular comment fits nicely into one screen without scrolling. You really do have a short attention span, don’t you Kelsey? 

Your comment about the Satmar and Ger is beside the point, unless you can specify how the problems they cause in Jerusalem are applicable to US immigration. 

I will admit to American exceptionalism in so far as I believe that the American Experiment in representative democracy and producing a national culture that welcomes innovation and amalgamates disparate ethnicities is so different from any other state in history that the US is not necessarily limited by experiences of France, Holland, Belgium, Canada, or anywhere else. Isolationism is the worst direction for the US to take, and a draconian immigration policy is a stumble in that direction. 

I seriously wonder about your political and economic ideas, Kelsey. [Ooh, Kokapelye’s a Marxist ’cause he used “political” and “economic” in the same sentence!] Supply and demand is not a law, it’s a model. Supply and demand curves are a useful model in microeconomics, but not so much in macroeconomics: the jiggering necessary to adequately describe macroeconomic phenomenon it still an unsettled topic in the field. Growth and unemployment are phenomena covered by macroeconomics, especially when considering a system large enough include immigration of workers and export of jobs across national borders. Guido Sarducci’s “Five Minute University” was funny. You, Kelsey, are just wrong.

Your tendency to define your opponents ever leftward is intriguing: will you run out of room at the left end of the spectrum, and what meaning has your choice of using a descriptor as an noun or adjective? Does “social left” have any meaning outside of Europe? Does “social liberal” have any meaning in the US outside of various media outlets and expanded versions of the Libertarian Nolan Chart. [Really, if the Libertarians set up shop beside the Clinique counter, I could fiddle with with their chart and not the complexion computer while my wife picks up make-up.] I’m serious Kelsey, what do these terms mean when you use them? And how would you describe yourself? 

In separating immigrant and settler, you’ve started awfully late in the discussion to begin defining terms. I settled on immigrant because the discussion veered toward immigration policy [and small wonder, since you cited VDARE]. Settler also carries a sense of “moving into an uninhabited region” that immigrant does not. For that reason I deemed immigrant appropriate to describe all people that have come into this country, including the forced immigration of African slaves. 

Tirade Kelsey!? Since when was a paragraph here and a paragraph there a diatribe? There is no anger in my question to you, only mounting frustration that you continue to weasel out of an answer. You started this by referencing your defense of Steinlight. You end it by answering my question: Do you now defend Stephen Steinlight using “tikkun olam” to malign his fellow Jews?

Kelsey [and Jack Ellis],

Oh I agree, wholeheartedly, numbers do matter. And I’m not being obtuse or enraged. I’ll even give you the benefit of a doubt that Jack Ellis was only using those numbers as a "for example.” But what was the purpose of pulling out such large numbers? A few orders of magnitude less would have made no less a point as an “for example.”

Now for your intentions, Kelsey. How are you coming with the answer to my tikkun olam question? 

The spambot “CAPTCHA code” for my last entry was “KmbYA.”

Do you now defend Stephen Steinlight using “tikkun olam” to malign his fellow Jews?

 I didn't understand your question until now, as it rests upon a perfectly legitimate criticism, and a false assumption that most Jews consider the concept of tikkun olam as an integral concept of Judaism and the way you interpret it. Most of us do not consider Judaism (or Jews) synonymous with drippy, hippy "Tikkun Olam.

Steinlight wasn't maligning his "fellow Jews." He was attacking a certain mentality, a segment of a segment. There are indeed problems with some political Jews who invoke Tikkun Olam like it's Rambam's top of the 13 list, absolutely. It is sometimes used in an axiomatic, passive-aggressive manner in order to avoid serious policy dissent on issues. Just like "The Stranger."  

It was hardly a central concept ever to Judaism, and certainly not meant the way the people Steinlight is criticizing mean it to be. Not for the vast majority of Jews. 

Or let me put it more succinctly. As Mobius (http://danielsieradski.com/) once said in a very different context (but of similar people), "Get that fucking hippy shit out of my face!"

My Litvak ancestors didn't reject the nonsense of the "mystical" Chassidim so that their descendants would walk around singing about "Tikkun Olam." 

And by the way, the Vilna Goan was right about the Chassidism. 

Tikkun Olam the way you mean it is central or historic to Jews and Judaism? About much as Duran Duran is.

As the Forward's scholar Philogolos wrote, (http://www.forward.com/articles/8495/)

Yet the words tikkun and tikkun olam would have in all likelihood remained unknown in America to anyone not immersed in Jewish lore were it not for the efforts of Michael Lerner, the founder in the mid-1980s ofTikkun, a San Francisco-based Jewish bimonthly magazine that has served as an intellectual voice for left-leaning elements in the American Jewish community. Lerner, known for his Rainbow Coalition politics and attacks on Israel, combined the Lurianic sense of tikkun with the mishnaic one of tikkun olam to create a Jewish counterpart of Christian “liberation theology 

 Now run along and find a new thing to try to smear your dissenters with -- better than debating them. Right, Tikkun Olam guy?

I’ll even giveyou the benefit of a doubt that Jack Ellis was only using those numbers as a "for example.” But what was the purpose of pulling out such large numbers? 

Jack Ellis is a smart guy. He is referencing that it is all in the numbers. As John Derbyshire wrote (right here on Jewcy)

http://www.jewcy.com/dialogue/2007-10-10/where_should_jews_stand_immigration_derbs2 

 Every statement of immigration restrictionism should begin with the observation that British restrictionist Enoch Powell took pains to include in all his speeches on the topic: Numbers are of the essence. This seems to be especially difficult for us Americans, with our individualist ethos, to grasp. The settlement of one (or ten, or a hundred) people from Algeria, Bangladesh, or Chile is of no consequence to America's future. The settlement of ten million is of mighty consequence. An individualist approach to immigration issues, while occasionally illuminating, does not scale up well.

After many exchanges of this kind, to-ing and fro-ing withadvocates of lax immigration policies, I have come to the conclusion that the real gulf in immigration talk is not betweenconservative and liberal, cruel and kind, nativist and xenophile, or practicaland sentimental. It is between those who are keen to discuss numbers and thosewho, for whatever reason, are unwilling to do so.

Kelsey,

For someone who claims pride in his rational Litvak ancestors, you seem to have a lot of difficulty with reason.

Putting aside for a moment that Steinlight had a legitimate criticism of the mentality of a segment of American Jews, who and how many are these “some Jews” that agree with you? Unless you can provide more evidence than “most Jews,” “most of us” and “the vast majority of Jews,” you are arguing on the basis of generalization from an insufficient sample. I’ll give you the six other respondents that have agreed with you and Stephen Steinlight, even if only you and Steinlight mentioned tikkun olam: Eight is by no means the majority of American Jews, and are all six of the respondents MOTs? Okay, so all your Jewish friends and office mates agree with you, that sample has meaning for that population, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that most American Jews agree with you. You’ll have to do better than that. I’ve heard the “most people” argument before, and without backing evidence it’s always someone adding the weight of an unseen, unknown crowd to their opinion.

What makes you so certain my interpretation of tikkun olam is “drippy, hippy”? Granted, Rambam’s top 13 doesn’t mention tikkun olam, but there he restricts himself to belief in God and the Torah. However, tikkun olam is not the invention of 20th century touchy-feely, New Age Jews —at least that’s what I think you mean by Social Liberal Jew— it is referred to in the Mishnah, and as I previously mentioned, enshrined in the Aleynu. Or will you tell me that using his power of kefitzat haderekh, Nachman of Breslov picked up Jerry Garcia and traveled back in time to insert tikkun olam into various Jewish texts?

Seriously, are you totally rejecting tikkun olam, or just your perception of my interpretation? I honestly can’t imagine tikkun olam without some social justice. As Isaiah writes: “Learn to do good. Devote yourself to justice; aid the wronged. Uphold the right of the orphan; defend the widow.”  But if it’s my interpretation you reject, I’d be glad to hear your alternative.

That’s a nice story about your Litvak ancestors, but as part of your argument, it’s what is called a genetic fallacy. I could argue my Yekkish ancestors prob’ly thought both your ancestors and the khasidim were backwards Medievalists [Motto: Eastern Europe, where the Ren Fest never ends!] but it would prove nothing.

I’m a regular reader and frequent contributor to the FORWARD’s Philologos column and was pleased you cited it. But are you suggesting —among other things— that I am insufficiently “immersed in Jewish lore” and only lately hopped on Lerner’s bandwagon? You know little of me or my yiddishkayt, save what I have written, and that you choose to ignore or misread.

And what about the last paragraph of Philologos’ column? Did you actually expect no one to follow the link and read the full column, which as a whole contradicts your defense of Steinlight’s tikkun olam remark? From Philologos:

Neither in its mishnaic nor its kabbalistic sense does “repairing the world” have anything to do with the politics of either the left or the right, or with the differences between a British Laborite like Tony Blair and an American Republican like George W. Bush. The relevance we appear to give it by decontextualizing it in this way comes at the expense, it seems to me, of honestly dealing with what tradition is trying to tell us.

It is you and Steinlight, Kelsey, that have cheapened tikkun olam by using it to label those who dissent from your views.

Seriously, are you totally rejecting tikkun olam, or just your perception of my interpretation?

I am rejecting the scope of Tikkun Olam as you imply it. I am rejecting your interpretation of it as I perceive it.

I honestly can’t imagine tikkun olam without some social justice. 

Social justice stands in our tradition as something quite separate of Tikkun Olam. It is not an umbrella category. 

So too, I do not interpret social justice as mandating specific policies on mass immigration nor Hate Crimes.  

Unless you can provide more evidence than “most Jews,” “most of us” and “vast majority of Jews,” you are arguing on the basis of generalization from an insufficient sample. 

Most American Jews do not appear to consistently invoke Tikkun Olam, but often appear to be of a specific Left class. Philologos already noted how it was not heard of by the vast majority of American Jews until the 80's. You have to prove that most American Jews hold this concept dear today. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

 Additionally, I am still confused as to your dismissal of the laws of supply and demand generally, or labor seriously. Supply and demand are real forces. I think you should revisit this more seriously, and not be flippant about them. http://cis.org/Wages

Kelset,

As I wrote before, I wholeheartedly agree that numbers do matter. But how you use the numbers matters as well.

The example you give by John Derbyshire —with whom I generally disagree— is an excellent example of the proper way to use numbers. Derbyshire compares a smaller number [“one (or ten, or a hundred)]” to a a larger number, [“ten million”] in a manner that makes it clear that these are abstract, stand-in values meant to express a comparison, not actual population statistics.  He then explains why the comparison matters: “An individualist approach to immigration issues... does not scale up well.” Bravo, Mr. Derbyshire, I’m not necessarily convinced of the rest of your argument, but point well made!

Jack Ellis’ forays into population studies is an example of how not to use numbers. First he misrepresents my position: nowhere did I claim the possibility of changing or assimilating the entire Muslim world. Such misrepresentations are what is known as straw man arguments, Kelsey. I don’t intend to harp on Ellis’ “entire Muslim world,” but that this is a fallacy seems not to have sunk in, in some quarters. Then he makes a suggestion involving “50 million Arab Muslims.” I was willing to give you, Kelsey, the benefit of doubt that Ellis was using this number as a “for example,” but you brought it up again. If a number is attached to group of people [Arabs, Jews, bikers, Mizrakhi bikers...] with no additional language indicating it is a hypothetical number, then that number takes on the appearance of a population statistic. This lapse presents a number of alternatives: 1) As described above, did Jack Ellis fail to distinguish a hypothetical number from an actual number or merely pull a number out of thin air? If so, it’s sloppy use of numbers. 2) Did he fail to provide the source for a real count of Arab Muslims? If so, that’s sloppy documentation. 3) Did he choose a number to inflate the actual risk? Then it is an appeal to fear, just another red herring on the buffet table of fallacies. In any case, none are proper use of numbers.

Jack Ellis may be be a smart guy in some ways, but he missed that Wyoming’s low murder rate is connected to its low population density, which suggests to me that use and analysis of numbers is not one of his strengths. At least I hope so, because the alternative is scary.

With so witty and wise a defender as David Kelsey who's native skepticism, intellectual integrity and sense of irony allows him to understand perfectly the difference between the authentic voice of prophetic Judaism and the political correctness that flies under the rubric "Tikkun Olam" (all but the most obtuse recognize this is a political/cultural term, not one that characterizes Jewish ethics or religious moral obligations so much as caricatures them) there's no necessity for me to wade in.  But Mr. K's attack on me by quoting Leviticus 33:19 ("even the Devil can quote Scripture") cannot stand without response.  This is a perfect example of eisegesis -- reading into Scripture what's not there -- or advocacy exegesis.  Quoting Leviticus 33:19 hardly ends the discussion as the passage has NOTHING to do with the situation of of illegal aliens seeking permanent residence.  The fact that it is routinely abused to make this political point shows (1) the person doing it isn't acting in good faith; and (2) the person doing it cannot read Biblical Hebrew.  To underscore how simplistic is Mr. K's misuse of the passage, I am attaching a record of my Testimony to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration at a hearing that was devoted to the perspective of different faith traditions on current issues in immigration politics.  Fear not: the execrable Gideon Aronoff was present and he predictably butchered this passage, as did a Cardinal.   If you're interested, you can read below:

have to say about immigration.  

Kokapelye's Eisegesis: A Hebrew Lesson for a "Tikkum Olam Jew"

With so witty and wise a defender as David Kelsey who's native skepticism, intellectual integrity and sense of irony allows him to understand perfectly the difference between the authentic voice of prophetic Judaism and the political correctness that flies under the rubric "Tikkun Olam" (all but the most obtuse recognize this is a political/cultural term, not one that characterizes Jewish ethics or religious moral obligations so much as caricatures them) there's no necessity for me to wade in. But Mr. K's attack on me by quoting Leviticus 33:19 ("even the Devil can quote Scripture") cannot stand without response. This is a perfect example of eisegesis -- reading into Scripture what's not there -- or advocacy exegesis. Quoting Leviticus 33:19 hardly ends the discussion as the passage has NOTHING to do with the situation of of illegal aliens seeking permanent residence. The fact that it is routinely abused to make this political point shows (1) the person doing it isn't acting in good faith; and (2) the person doing it cannot read Biblical Hebrew. To underscore how simplistic is Mr. K's misuse of the passage, I am attaching a record of my Testimony to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration at a hearing that was devoted to the perspective of different faith traditions on current issues in immigration politics. Fear not: the execrable Gideon Aronoff was present and he predictably butchered this passage, as did a Cardinal.

If you're interested, you can read below: Faith-Based Approaches to Immigration PolicyMay 22, 2007 Statement of Stephen Steinlight Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Immigration StudiesRemarks for Hearing of Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law Committee on the Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this panel. It’s a privilege for a first-generation American, the son of a refugee.I’m Stephen Steinlight, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies. I’m here in a different capacity, however: to share my understanding of my faith’s teachings regarding the current immigration debate. I’m a proud American and a faithful Jew.My religious values are rooted in Judaism’s prophetic tradition that teaches redemption is achieved through pursuing justice. As I understand it, justice is defined – in part – as the absolute, peremptory connection between actions and consequences. Without individual accountability, justice means nothing.The holiday of Shavuot – Pentecost – begins at sundown today. It commemorates God’s giving of the law, the Torah, to the Israelites and, through them, to humanity. Rabbinical commentators traditionally linked Pentecost to Passover, the Exodus from Egyptian bondage – reflecting rabbinic understanding of freedom’s dangers. Unrestrained liberty leads to anarchy. At Mount Sinai, God bestowed the gift of law to educate, limit and ennoble freedom. Kathleen Bates echoed this union of principles in “America the Beautiful:” “Confirm thy soul in self control by liberty in law.”The millions that have entered America unlawfully and broken countless laws to remain traduce these principles. So does S.1348 by offering the profligate Z visa to those that exhibit contempt for the rule of law. We ignore history and justice at our peril. The 1986 amnesty multiplied illegal immigration five-fold.Since the devil can quote Scripture, it’s not surprising how frequently faith representatives supporting the Bush-Senate immigration bills employ it – or, rather – abuse it – obsessing on passages from the Hebrew Bible, especially Leviticus 19. This includes the Jewish Establishment, which surveys show does not speak for America’s Jews. Ordinary Jews, like most Americans, are not xenophobes, but draw a bright line between legal and illegal immigration. They oppose exponentially increased immigration, guest worker programs, and amnestying illegal aliens. Like most Americans – given the option – they choose attrition of the illegal population through vigorous law enforcement.Supporters of the Senate-Bush bills fixate on Leviticus 19: “When strangers sojourn with you in your land, you shall do them no wrong. The strangers who sojourn with you shall be as the natives among you, and you shall love them as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”This is their routine rhetorical climax. It’s presumably unassailable. Leviticus 19, they declare, supports S.2611 cum S.1348. End of story.Or is it?It doesn’t require much hermeneutical acumen to see the meaning of a key term – sojourn – has been misconstrued for political purposes.The word in the Hebrew Bible for stranger is “Ger v’toshav.” The precise English equivalent is sojourner. It first appears in Genesis 4:23 describing Abraham when he dwells briefly with the Hittites in what is now Hebron. It last appears in Chronicles 29:15 where King David employs it to contrast the transitory nature of human existence with the eternality of God, creator and steward of the earth on which we briefly dwell as wanderers.Richard Elliot Friedman, a leading authority on biblical Hebrew, translates it as “alien” and “visitor.” Every English dictionary defines sojourn as a temporary stay. Thus, this passage offers no scriptural sanction to argue some 12 million illegal aliens should be permitted to remain permanently in the United States.Terms for immigrant or immigration are absent in the Bible. Narratives of inclusion are rare. We know the rule by the exception – the Book of Ruth.The Bible also addresses the inclusion of strangers in civil and legal terms. In Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 24:22 and in Numbers 15:14, it proclaims there shall be one law for citizens and strangers alike. This is often cynically misread as a bill of rights for sojourners. The contrary is true. Strangers must conform to Israelite law.Strangers did have rights, but they earned them by an ancient form of naturalization: circumcision and abandoning idolatry. Strangers were required to obey all Israelite laws strictly and not undermine the legal fabric of Israelite society.Leviticus 19 commands us to love the stranger. S.1348 is about greed, not love, and Leviticus 19 surely does not command us to exploit strangers as cheap labor or for partisan advantage. S.1348’s reactionary, inhumane provision for 400,000-600,000 “guest workers” violates the Holiness Code of Leviticus that demands dignity for laborers, including the most humble. We are told to be “holy because I the Lord am holy.” Our holiness is tested by how justly we treat laborers.Cherry-picking the Bible to exploit poor immigrants at the expense of working-class and impoverished Americans – African Americans especially – to enrich wealthy employers is nothing less than sacrilege. Thank you. have to say about immigration. edit reply Print -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------