MOVE THROUGH LIFE WITH GRACE, EQUANIMITY, KINDNESS, CHARITY AND HOPE; FREE OF RESENTMENT AND BITTERNESS; FOR AS SOON AS BITTERNESS LEAVES YOUR SOUL, YOU SEE THE WOLD WITH ROSE COLORED GLASSES. BE FILLED WITH EMPATHY FOR YOUR FELLOW MEN. AND UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD YOU TAKE KINDLY TO STUPIDITY OR CONSENT TO A POLITICAL SYSTEM THAT VIOLATES YOUR FUTURE AND YOUR RIGHTS. FOR CHRISTIANS AND JEWS I REMIND THEM: G-D HELPS THOSE WHO HELP THEMSELVES! AND G-D HELP YOU!
Most Jews wish you a Merry Christmas.
As a Jew, and a religious one at that, I want to wish my fellow Americans a Merry Christmas.
Not "Happy Holidays." Merry Christmas.
I write, "my fellow Americans" because, as reported by the Pew Research poll released just last Wednesday, nine in ten Americans say they celebrate Christmas.Apparently, many Americans have forgotten that Christmas is not only a Christian holy day, but also an American national holiday. Just as we wish one another a "Happy Thanksgiving" or a "Happy Fourth," so, too, we should wish fellow Americans a "Merry Christmas."
It doesn't matter with which religion or ethnic group you identify; Christmas in America is as American as the proverbial apple pie. That is why some of the most famous and beloved Christmas songs were written by . . . guess who? Jews.
"White Christmas" was written by Irving Berlin (birth name: Israel Isidore Baline).
"Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer" — Johnny Marks.
"Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!" — composed by Jule Styne, lyrics by Sammy Cahn.
"Silver Bells" — by Jay Livingston (Jacob Harold Levison) and Ray Evans (Raymond Bernard Evans).
"The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire)" — Mel Tormé and Robert Wells (Robert Levinson), both Jews.
"Sleigh Ride" — lyrics by Mitchell Parish (Michael Hyman Pashelinsky).
There are many others as well.
The notion that non-Christians are excluded is absurd.
Americans who feel "excluded" are not excluded. They have decided to feel excluded. Which is, of course, entirely their right to do; no one forces anyone to celebrate any American holiday. But attempts to remove Christmas from the public sphere are destructive to our society. It would be as if Jehovah's Witnesses attempted to remove public celebrations and references to the Fourth of July because they don't celebrate national holidays.
Why are these attempts destructive? Because the entire society — Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists as well as Christians — benefits from the goodness and joy that the Christmas season engenders.
It never occurred to my Orthodox Jewish family not to enjoy this season. It was a tradition in our home to watch the Christmas Mass from the Vatican every Christmas Eve (unless it was a Friday evening, and therefore the Sabbath, when no television watching was allowed). Had you visited our home, you would have seen my mother — and my father, my brother, and me, all wearing our kippot (Jewish skullcaps) — watching Catholics celebrate Christmas.
Nor did it ever occur to my brother, Dr. Kenneth Prager, an Orthodox Jew, not to sing Christmas songs when he was a member of the Columbia University Glee Club. He happily sang not only secular Christmas songs, but religious Christ-centered Christmas songs as well.
So when and why did this pernicious nonsense of non-Christians being "excluded" by public celebrations of Christmas develop?
It is nothing more than another destructive product of the 1960s and 1970s, when the Left came to dominate much of the culture.
One way in which the Left has done this has been through "multiculturalism," the Left's way of dividing Americans by religion, ethnicity, race, and national origin.
The other way has been through its aim of secularizing America — which means, first and foremost, the removal of as many Christian references as possible.
The Left regularly mocks the notion that there is a war against Christmas, a description that left-wing writers almost place within quotation marks, as if it were a manufactured falsehood.
By Dwight Kehoe
December 29, 2013 ~TPATH~ Over the years, as part of the planned ruination of our culture and society the left has endeavored to label and define activity, by use of words they choose and phrases they create. All the while, our side, acquiesces and accepts and even uses those terms and then wonders why they always lose the propaganda battle.
Here are a few examples:
This may be one of the most irritating and misleading liberal slogans being used everyday and accepted by those being targeted by it. The nefarious inference here is that those who have earned or created enough wealth to give charitably, have somehow, by odious or unscrupulousness activity, acquired that wealth from their victims and hence, need to GIVE IT BACK.
Giving back is something one does if caught taking what is not his. What GIVING actually is, is those working and earning something are taking some of those earnings and giving it to those who have not earned it, nor have they ever had it taken or stolen from them.
Conservatives, by astronomical amounts, give more of what they have earned to those in need than the liberal side of the donation spectrum. This is a fact as well as it is a fact that liberals would much prefer to give to those who have not earned it from the pockets of those who have. Provided of course it comes not from their pockets.
It is time those GIVING what is theirs, to help those receiving it, cease allowing this term to be used. It not only degrades the giver but also degrades the charitable nature of that which is being given. If the next time you see the term Giving Back on a donation or charity event form, before you send your check, use a maker and x-out the BACK word. Unless of course you have stolen what you are returning.
While it may be true that most progressive leftist politicians love this word and its concept, it is also true, they hide from it. Those who espouse Marxism and follow that manifesto, such as the "Forger in the White House", push policies which confiscate what others have earned and secretly love the term Redistribution of Wealth, even as they publicly deny that is what they are doing.
Why did Marx use that term? Its quite simple. It is used, as is required to build and hold onto power, to create separation, envy, covetousness and malignity between the so called classes.
For things such as money, property or other forms of wealth to be RE-DISTRIBUTED, it must first have been DISTRIBUTED. Clearly that indicates it wasn't earned or created. It was distributed to some and not to others. The only recourse then would be to redistribute it, more fairly.
Its time we stopped using this leftist term and began calling it what it is, CONFISCATION and DISBURSEMENT.
COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS:
When you hear this term being used by politicians and law makers, you had better check for the latest shredding of our Constitution. As with every bill or law that slithers out of state and national legislative sessions, whatever they name it, for sure, it will represent exactly the opposite. Case in point, "The Affordable Health Care Act".
These heavy thinkers consider it Common Sense to announce that no one in schools or public places will be armed and able to stop mass killings. And that those who may be planning to slaughter people, will carry out their attack in a location where there are armed defenders. After all, its just common sense that if no guns are allowed no one will commit a crime with one. Makes one feel so safe and snugly.
Who could argue that restricting magazine capacity for law abiding citizens is anything but Common Sense? With these laws working to protect us, no self respecting terrorist, drug cartel member or homicidal maniac would take advantage of their victims by flouting magazine capacity laws.
These of course are just a few examples of legislative "Common Sense". It appears that Common Sense is not very Common anymore.
December 29, 2013 ~TPATH~
Contact Dwight HERE
In his article, "Why Americans Are Not Taught History," Christopher Hitchens, identified the vulnerability of America's present-tense culture to the utopian myth.
That is, for the truly blissed-out and vacant servitude required by the Obama strategy, you need an otherwise sophisticated society to lose any sense of its own history and traditions. Using media deception and historical revisionism, the low-information voter will slouch towards Obama's utopia by a combination of governmental coercion as in George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" and the hedonist nihilism of a painless, amusement-sodden, and stress-free consensus managed by the nanny-state found in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World."
In the book "Amusing Ourselves to Death," Neil Postman notes that in "Nineteen Eighty-Four," people are controlled by inflicting pain; in "Brave New World," they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture. Obama plans to do both.
Ultimately, when the government is ruled by individuals unconstrained by law, there are few things that power cannot do. It can make political allies rich or paupers of political enemies. It can waste billions of dollars without accountability and destroy an economy without responsibility. It can make incompetent men high officials or make extraordinary men corpses.
The accumulation of excessive power in the federal government transforms it into a dysfunctional super-state dedicated to maintaining its own power irrespective of truth or the well-being of the country. The bureaucrats can ignore both morality and the lessons of history, in order to protect their appetite for and the use of raw power. Under such circumstances, the government need not fear that any of its agencies will intervene on behalf of the people, nor will it hear any protests from their elected representatives, nor anything but polite questions from the national media.
We now have a government and media of perfidious men and women, who are willing to risk the survival of the country rather than risk the truth.There is a Cold Civil War underway in the United States to determine who should control the federal government. It is not a contest between the Democrat and Republican ideologies, but a battle between the entrenched power of the bipartisan political establishment versus the rights and liberties of the American people
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE LIED TO, DECEIVED WITH ASTONISHING CONSPIRACY THEORIES, AND DISTRACTED WITH FALSE NARRATIVES...THEY WERE ALSO TOLD THERE WERE NO WMD'S IN IRAQ!
LIES HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT!
After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors.
AGB: The New York Times, not to be outdone, just recently "reported" that al Q'aeda had nothing to do with BenghaziGate...that the waves of co-ordinated mortar and RPG attacks accurately deployed happened because of an obscure video from California, reversing even what the administration shortly admitted to - lies to begin with, the rest redacted. Interestingly, 4000 TWITTER posts data mined the day after the attack could not uncover a single one that referenced the anti-Islamic video, but never mind. Never mind that one of the identified Jihadists at the Annex was released from Gitmo. The New York Times is a propaganda paper long ago taken over by radicals to whom al Q'aeda disappeared with the fish food that was formerly Osama bin Laden.
Meanwhile the White House never let the people see an entire section of Congress' investigative report on 9/11 dealing with "specific sources of foreign support" for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals.
It was kept secret and remains so today.
President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn't just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words).
A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are "absolutely shocked" at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.
Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can't reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they've proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, "Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001."
EVIDENCE WILL EVENTUALLY BE REVEALED CONNECTING SAUDI, IRAQI AND IRANIAN INVOLVEMENT WHEN THESE PAPERS BECOME DECLASSIFIED. MARK MY WORDS!
My own documentation reprinted by a website at the link below will be interesting for those still MARRIED to their own conspiracy theories - all of which are substantially destroyed in the referenced - with the comment below ending the sorry tale:
So Dear Reader, if you had read the link above you will have seen for yourself that documented history proves that just about everything you've read in the US media and abroad too, about how the US entered a decade-long war on false pretenses, was the exact opposite of the media "narratives." Narratives as in myths, fairy tales, tall stories, fibs, outright lies, ghostbusting and UFO sightings.
In other words, everything was so unless it wasn't. And it wasn't so.
You now know that the leftwing of the political divide LIE because of their need to re-allocate the nation's national security and defense resources toward their own ends, to "control" what is; they lie because that is the only way they can get what they want, they lie because that's who they are, and they lie to achieve whatever those ends may be. But then they're always moving the goalposts FORWARD, and not because they are Patriotic Americans.
Mostly because they're so Progressive they are actually BACKWARD, living in the non-workable ideas of the 19th Century, as one great pundit, Sultan Knish, so astutely observed at this link.
No matter how many times they try to convince themselves the left are patriotic (just like you are), just hold this story and these links up to their faces, in the mirrors of which they will see the tyranny they had given birth to reflected right back.
Tyranny is a scandal—not a scandal in the sense of Watergate, or of Eliot Spitzer's socks—but in the sense of being a gigantic lie hiding in plain sight, a lie that seeks to violently compel others to submit to its claims or else participate in them. As with any lie, it is sustained only to the extent that it is believed. And, as with any lie, it is undone the moment one person—whether that's Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn or Natan Sharansky or Václav Havel or Liu Xiaobo or Ayaan Hirsi Ali—stands up and says: It is not so!
- Brett Stevens, Commentary Magazine July 2012 "BORN on the 4th of June"THAT LAST, FRIENDS, IS WHAT YOU NEED TO REMEMBER FOR 2014 AND 2016 AS THE NEW YORK TIMES IS POSITIONING THAT WASHED OUT RAG, aka HILLARY CLINTON, FOR THE HIGHEST OFFICE TO WHICH SHE IS ABOUT AS UNSUITED AS ONE CAN EVER BE.
[It's not often that I send around a piece from the NYT. But this Op-Ed from a Saudi envoy caught my eye because with only a few changes it could easily have been written by an Israeli diplomat - if only Israel had the requisite Jewish pride and self-esteem. Which anyone following the events in the Middle East knows is sorely lacking. df]
Saudi Arabia Will Go It Alone
By MOHAMMED BIN NAWAF BIN ABDULAZIZ AL SAUD
London — Saudi Arabia has been friends with our Western partners for decades; for some, like the United Kingdom where I serve as ambassador, for almost a century. These are strategic alliances that benefit us both. Recently, these relationships have been tested — principally because of differences over Iran and Syria.
We believe that many of the West's policies on both Iran and Syria risk the stability and security of the Middle East. This is a dangerous gamble, about which we cannot remain silent, and will not stand idly by.
The crisis in Syria continues unabated. There have been over 100,000 civilian deaths. Most shockingly of all, the Oxford Research Group reports that of the 11,000 victims under 17 and under, more than 70 percent were killed by air strikes and artillery shells deliberately targeting civilian areas.
While international efforts have been taken to remove the weapons of mass destruction used by the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad, surely the West must see that the regime itself remains the greatest weapon of mass destruction of all? Chemical weapons are but a small cog in Mr. Assad's killing machine. While he may appear to be going along with every international initiative to end the conflict, his regime will continue to do everything in its power to frustrate any serious solution.
The Assad regime is bolstered by the presence of Iranian forces in Syria. These soldiers did not enter Syria to protect it from a hostile external occupation; they are there to support an evil regime that is hurting and harming the Syrian people. It is a familiar pattern for Iran, which has financed and trained militias in Iraq, Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon and militants in Yemen and Bahrain.
And yet rather than challenging the Syrian and Iranian governments, some of our Western partners have refused to take much-needed action against them. The West has allowed one regime to survive and the other to continue its program for uranium enrichment, with all the consequent dangers of weaponization.
This year's talks with Iran may dilute the West's determination to deal with both governments. What price is "peace" though, when it is made with such regimes?
The foreign policy choices being made in some Western capitals risk the stability of the region and, potentially, the security of the whole Arab world. This means the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has no choice but to become more assertive in international affairs: more determined than ever to stand up for the genuine stability our region so desperately needs.
Saudi Arabia has enormous responsibilities within the region, as the cradle of Islam and one of the Arab world's most significant political powers. We have global responsibilities — economic and political — as the world's de facto central banker for energy. And we have a humanitarian responsibility to do what we can to end the suffering in Syria.
We will act to fulfill these responsibilities, with or without the support of our Western partners. Nothing is ruled out in our pursuit of sustainable peace and stability in the Arab World as King Abdullah — then Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince — showed with his leadership of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
We showed our preparedness to act independently with our decision to reject a seat on the United Nations Security Council. What point was there in serving in an international talking shop when so many lives are threatened, and so many opportunities for peace and security are being thwarted by the U.N.'s inability to act?
We continue to show our determination through our support for the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian opposition. It is too easy for some in the West to use the threat of Al Qaeda's terrorist operations in Syria as an excuse for hesitation and inaction. Al Qaeda's activities are a symptom of the international community's failure to intervene. They should not become a justification for inaction. The way to prevent the rise of extremism in Syria — and elsewhere — is to support the champions of moderation: financially, materially and yes, militarily, if necessary. To do otherwise is to walk on by, while a humanitarian disaster and strategic failure continue to fester.
Saudi Arabia will continue on this new track for as long as proves necessary. We expected to be standing shoulder to shoulder with our friends and partners who have previously talked so much about the importance of moral values in foreign policy. But this year, for all their talk of "red lines," when it counted, our partners have seemed all too ready to concede our safety and risk our region's stability.Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz al Saud is Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Britain.
"In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasoning must depend." --Alexander Hamilton
Fair Use Notice: This document may contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owners. NOTICE: Any email sent to my email address is granted rights of reproduction and/or distribution by the sender and/or authors.