Big Girl Pants

thank god football isn't our national pastime -

else this performance by christina aguilera would have been wholly disgraceful.

 and it's not just that she didn't know the words to our national anthem - in trying to put her own spin on the song, she came up with something that wasn't quite right - no meter, no passion, no awe, no joy. 

compare ca's version from today, to whitney's version from 1991:

admittedly wh's voice isn't, today, what it used to be. however, she did a beautiful job and i believed then - as i do now - that she loves this country with her whole heart and soul.

at what point does the star who's singing become more important than the song he or she is singing? 

...it is the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to alter...

on 04 july 1776, the delegates of the thirteen united states of america, unanimously put their signatures to thomas jefferson's "declaration of independence".  we all know that this declaration was meant to itemize for king george all of the reasons the colonies were declaring themselves to be a separate country from england.

lately, i've heard much talk about the need to issue another sort of declaration - a reminder, if you will, to the idiots in washington who think they know better than the governed how things should be run.  a reminder that "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." and "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."  a reminder that "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."  a reminder that the majority of We The People believe that (also from thomas jefferson) "The government is best which governs least."

but what does that mean in real world terms?  according to my american dictionary of the english language1828 (noah webster), govern is defined as such:    GOV ' ERN, v.t. [Fr. gouverner; Sp. gobernar; It. governare; L. guberno.  The L. uberno seems to be a compound.]

1. To direct and control, as the actions or conduct of men, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to regulate authority; to keep within the limits prescribed by law or sovereign will.  Thus in free states, men are governed by the constitution and laws; in despotic states, men are governed by the edicts or commands of a monarch.  Every man should govern well his own family.
2. To regulate; to influence; to direct.  This is the chief point by which he is to govern all his counsels and actions.
3. To control; to restrain; to keep in due subjection; as to govern the passions or temper.
4. To direct; to steer; to regulate the course or motion of ship.  The helm of the helmsman governs the ship.
5. In grammar, to require to be in a particular case; as, a verb transitive governs a word in the accusative case; or to require a particular case; as, a verb governs the accusative case.
6. To exercise authority; to administer the laws.  The chief magistrate should govern with impartiality.
7. To maintain superiority; to have the control.

my uncle david wrote a short essay concerning what governance is.  it was one of the primary inspirations for this post and you may download it here: Download What is governing - david michael myers

in his essay, my uncle says that as he was positing the concept unique to americans - that government governs by consent of the governed - he began to ask himself the question "What is governing; what is the legitimatefunction of government?" and he made a list of 10 items that governments DO following each item with the question of "Is this governing?"

1. Is sweeping the streets governing?
2. Is collecting and disposing of refuse governing?
3. Is delivering mail and parcels governing?
4. Is providing transportation such as airlines, airplanes, bicycles, buses, cars, horses, hovercraft, motorbikes, motorcycles, oxen, race cars, roller skates, ships, skateboards, taxis, ultra-light aircraft, etc. governing?
5. Is farming, providing food and fiber governing?
6. Is any form of manufacturing governing?
7. Is providing energy such as coal, electricity, natural gas, nuclear, oil, petroleum, solar, steam, tidal, wind, wood, etc. governing?
8. Is providing education, entertainment and information such as amusement parks, computer games, colleges, concerts, elementary schools, intermediate schools, high schools, internet service providers, lectures, libraries, magazines, middle schools, motion pictures, music, newspapers, occupational schools, plays, radio, skating rinks, swimming pools, technical schools, telecommunications services, television,universities, video games governing?
9. Is providing housing, shelter, and living space governing?
10. Is providing emergency-rescue, fire, and security services governing?

at different times in our history - and in the history of other countries - each of these items has been provided by private entities/businesses and at other times by different governments (local, state, federal - or national if you're not in the u.s.a.).  which, in accordance with OUR country's constitution, should provide these activities?  

 in perhaps the most important of the federalist papers (#51) james madison wrote the following paragraph in defense of a proposed national constitution.  said constitution would establish a series of "checks and blanaces between the different departments" of the government to constrain the government's oppression of the people.  this paragraph is, essentially, a short lesson in political science:

"... the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."



his passage referencing angels is not merely rhetorical genius, so memorable as to be nearly cliche, it is the propelling argument for madison's consideration of "...framing a government which is to be administered by men over men..." which is "the greatest of all reflections on human nature."

over the years, it has become the common assumption that without a state, society will necessarily fall immediately into violent disorder; anarchy and chaos are generally used as synonyms of this violent disorder.  but what is anarchy?   The Random House Dictionary gives the following four definitions for anarchy:

1. a state of society without government or law
2. political and social disorder due to absence of governmental control
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society
4. confusion; chaos; disorder

i am not going to argue the point of whether or not the assumption of locke, madison, olson was valid.  but i am going to propose that very few (if any) of the activities listed above, when administered by government, do anything to ward off or countermand violent disorder.  i am positing that these activities, when conducted by government - any government - are nothing more than bureaucracy.  and we all know the enduring power of bureaucracy - regardless of whether it's a government bureaucruacy or a corporate one.

 in 1944 ludwig von mises wrote a book titled "bureaucracy" that not only stands the test of time, it  effectively renders time inconsequential.  In fact, it is alarmingly and eerily evocative of what has been going on in our politics, in our government, in our society right now.

"Powerful political parties and pressure groups are fervently asking for public control of all economic activities, for thorough government planning, and for the nationalization of business. They aim at full government control of education and at the socialization of the medical profession. There is no sphere of human activity that they would not be prepared to subordinate to regimentation by the authorities. In their eyes, state control is the panacea for all ills...

The champions of totalitarianism call themselves "progressives." ...Because of these "progressive" policies, new offices and government agencies thrive like mushrooms. The bureaucrats multiply and are anxious to restrict, step by step, the individual citizen's freedom to act."

as much as we despise bureaucrats, they are NOT the root of all evil, but rather only a symptom.  von mises reminds us: "congress made the laws and appropriated the money".  the progressives, in otherwords, were voted into office. 

the premise of his book is that there are essentially two ways society can be organized: 1. on the basis of private ownership, capitalism, and freedom; or 2. on the basis of government control, socialism, and eventual totalitarianism. von mises compares both systems of societal organization, and investigates the nature of bureaucracies to reveal why socialism results "not only in impoverishment but also in the disintegration of social cooperation - in chaos."

each of the activities listed by my uncle require the creation of an enterprise in order to provide the services to the public.  government-controlled enterprises (regardless of whether it's in a full socialist market or  semi- or mostly-free market economy) are ruinous when applied to the market sector.  and remember that all of those listed activities require enterprises that are part of the market sector regardless of who is controlling them.

bureaucracies, or government enterprises, operate on the rules and regulations that have been issued by the powers that be who are often located far away from the realities they are seeking to manage.  and, since the resources don't belong to them and they are viewed by the bureaucrat be infinite, there is no reward for efficiency, and the bureaucratic managers lack incentives to be fiscally prudent.  they also discourage progress and innovations of any sort as there is no provision for them in their rules and regulations and such behavior would threaten the status quo.  in short, bureaucrats are incapable of conducting any sort of market enterprise in a rational or expeditious manner.  there is no effort or concern of serving the public in a manner to make their customers happy.

mises explains why government-controlled enterprises all suffer the same deficiencies: profit does not guide the operation, government resources are limitless, and consumer preferences are immaterial. Other values - not necessarily shared by the public - dominate.  how can we then justify allowing or requiring government to provide services that have nothing to do with governing?  how can we, in good faith, allow the federal government any more power than explicitly granted by the constitution?

in the second-to-last chapter, von mises concludes, "Mankind is manifestly moving toward totalitarianism." he outlines the struggle between freedom and an ever-encroaching government as a war of ideas. "Public opinion will determine victory and defeat," he says.  further, he urges every lover of liberty to join the battle.

and that is exactly what we see happening now with the tea partiers; a resurgence of conservative values and ideals.  even thought it's a bit of a harder sell to get people to join the fight for our country, our future, our freedom, people are joining at a faster pace and in numbers much larger than anyone would have predicted even 18 months ago.  earlier struggles for freedom were easier for the populace to understand and get behind because those struggles were between tyrants and the people: "Who should rule?... The despot or the aristocracy or the people?"

here in america we chose the people.  we accepted the u.s. constitution - a FEDERAL, NOT NATIONAL - constitution - as the supreme law of the land when new hampshire became the 9th state to ratify it on 21 june 1788.  the bill of rights went into full force and effect upon ratification by virgina on 15 december 1791.  and since that time we, as americans, have repeatedly reaffirmed our dedication to self-governance.

as benjamin franklin left the final meeting in philadelphia where the constitutional delegates had accepted the u.s. constitution, a woman stopped him on the street and asked what kind of government had been established he replied "a republic madam, if you can keep it."  if we don't step up and refuse to back down, we may lose our republic forever.  not sure about the differences between a republic and a democracy?  here's a great resource for you.

the 2010 mid-term elections are just 15 days, that's two weeks, away.  the time for once again altering our government - for trimming the federal government back to what we consented to with the ratification of the constitution and its subsequent ratified amendments - is now.  if we don't succeed in turning back the tide of progressivism, we should come to terms with the loss of our republic, of our future, of our freedom.

a profound divergence of values

these are not my words, but they are the most important words i have read in a very long time. 

the message is quite clear; it is a look at the world today that is singularly cogent.  it depicts for us the  world today, the world of the past and plight of the jews, and america, and world at large.  to appreciate the words of the atlanta rabbi schlomo lewis, one need not be jewish.  i cannot remember a sermon - from a servant of any denomination - that has moved me the way this sermon has.

i am not a holocaust survivor, but i am a diligent student of history, and i am absolutely certain of the validity of his words.  it is a fact that those who seek to destroy another or a group of others have no hidden agenda.  need proof?  read mein kampf.  or the koran.

ignoring the lesson is lethal; you do so at the peril of the world as it should be.  rarely do we get a second chance to make things right; we have that chance now.  but we must act expeditiously and efficiently.

read these words - yes, it's long but it's well worth the time required.  read these words and share them with everyone you know.  now is the time to act; bystanders need not apply.  failure is STILL not an option.

EHR KUMT

First Day of Rosh Hashanah 2010
 
Many years ago a Chassid used to travel from shtetl to shtetl selling holy books.  On one occasion he came to a wealthy land owner and asked if he would like to purchase a book of Torah teachings.  The banker agreed and not only purchased the book, but paid for it with a hundred ruble note.  He then began to chat with the Chassid and offered him a cigar, taking one also for himself.  The Chassid noticed that the banker proceeded to rip a page from the holy book he had just bought and holding it to the open flame on the stove, used the page to light his cigar.  The Chassid said not a word but simply drew out from his pocket the 100 ruble note he had just received from the banker, held it over the stove as well and used it to light his cigar.
 
This simple, little tale reflects a profound divergence of values.  Our sympathy clearly and instinctively is not with the banker but with the pious Chassid.  None of us would come to the defense of the banker.  None of us would claim moral supremacy for the banker.  None of us would justify his boorish deed.  As the sages of the Talmud would say– “Pshita – It is so obvious.” Sadly though our planet is immersed in perversity where morality is not so manifest – where the book burner is a hero and the pious one, a villain.
 
I thought long and I thought hard on whether to deliver the sermon I am about to share.  We all wish to bounce happily out of shul on the High Holidays, filled with warm fuzzies, ready to gobble up our brisket, our honey cakes and our kugel.  We want to be shaken and stirred – but not too much.  We want to be guilt-schlepped – but not too much.  We want to be provoked - but not too much.  We want to be transformed - but not too much. 
 
I get it, but as a rabbi I have a compelling obligation, a responsibility to articulate what is in my heart and what I passionately believe must be said and must be heard.  And so, I am guided not by what is easy to say but by what is painful to express.  I am guided not by the frivolous but by the serious.  I am guided not by delicacy but by urgency.      
 
We are at war.  We are at war with an enemy as savage, as voracious, as heartless as the Nazis but one wouldn’t know it from our behavior.  During WWII we didn’t refer to storm troopers as freedom fighters.  We didn’t call the Gestapo, militants.  We didn’t see the attacks on our Merchant Marine as acts by rogue sailors.  We did not justify the Nazis rise to power as our fault.  We did not grovel before the Nazis, thumping our hearts and confessing to abusing and mistreating and humiliating the German people.  We did not apologize for Dresden, nor for The  Battle of the Bulge, nor for El Alamein, nor for D-Day.
 
Evil – ultimate, irreconcilable, evil threatened us and Roosevelt and Churchill had the moral clarity and an exquisite understanding of what was at stake.  It was not just the Sudetenland, not just Tobruk, not just Vienna, not just Casablanca.  It was the entire planet.  Read history and be shockedat how frighteningly close Hitler came to creating a Pax Germania on every continent.

Not all Germans were Nazis – most were decent, most were revolted by the Third Reich, most were good citizens hoisting a beer, earning a living and tucking in their children at night.  But, too many looked away, too many cried out in lame defense – "I didn’t know.”  Too many were silent.  Guilt absolutely falls upon those who committed the atrocities, but responsibility and guilt falls upon those who did nothing as well.  Fault was not just with the goose steppers but with those who pulled the curtains shut, said and did nothing.
 
In WWII we won because we got it.  We understood who the enemy was and we knew that the end had to be unconditional and absolute.  We did not stumble around worrying about offending the Nazis.  We did not measure every word so as not to upset our foe.  We built planes and tanks and battleships and went to war to win… to rid the world of malevolence.
 
We are at war… yet too many stubbornly and foolishly don’t put the pieces together and refuse to identify the evil doers.  We are circumspect and disgracefully politically correct.
 
Let me mince no words in saying that from Fort Hood to Bali, from Times Square to London, from Madrid to Mumbai, from 9/11 to Gaza, the murderers, the barbarians are radical Islamists. 
 
To camouflage their identity is sedition.  To excuse their deeds is contemptible.  To mask their intentions is unconscionable.
 
A few years ago I visited Lithuania on a Jewish genealogical tour.  It was a stunning journey and a very personal, spiritual pilgrimage.  When we visited  Kovno we davened Maariv at the only remaining shul in the city. Before the war there were thirty-seven shuls for 38,000 Jews.  Now only one, a shrinking, gray congregation.  We made minyon for the handful of aged worshippers in the Choral Synagogue, a once majestic jewel in Kovno.
 
After my return home I visited Cherry Hill for Shabbos.  At the oneg an elderly family friend, Joe Magun, came over to me.
 
“Shalom,” he said.  “Your abba told me you just came back from Lithuania.”  “Yes,” I replied.  “It was quite a powerful experience.”  “Did you visit the Choral Synagogue in Kovno?  The one with the big arch in the courtyard?”  “Yes, I did.  In fact, we helped them make minyon.”  His eyes opened wide in joy at our shared memory.  For a moment he gazed into the distance and then, he returned.  “Shalom, I grew up only a few feet away from the arch.  The Choral Synagogue was where I davened as a child.” 
 
He paused for a moment and once again was lost in the past.  His smile faded. Pain filled his wrinkled face.  “I remember one Shabbos in 1938 when Vladimir Jabotinsky came to the shul”  (Jabotinsky was Menachim Begin’s mentor – he was a fiery orator, an unflinching Zionist radical, whose politics were to the far right.)  Joe continued “When Jabotinsky came, he delivered the drash on Shabbos morning and I can still hear his words burning in my ears.  He climbed up to the shtender, stared at us from the bima, glared at us with eyes full of fire and cried out. ‘EHR KUMT. YIDN FARLASST AYER SHTETL – He’s coming.  Jews abandon your city.’ ”
 
We thought we were safe in Lithuania from the Nazis, from Hitler.  We had lived there, thrived for a thousand years but Jabotinsky was right - his warning prophetic.  We got out but most did not.”
 
We are not in Lithuania.  It is not the 1930s.  There is no Luftwaffe overhead.  No U-boats off the coast of Long Island.  No Panzer divisions on our borders.  But make no mistake; we are under attack – our values, our tolerance, our freedom, our virtue, our land, is under attack. 
 
Now before some folks roll their eyes and glance at their watches let me state emphatically, unmistakably – I have no pathology of hate, nor am I a manic Paul Revere, galloping through the countryside.  I am not a pessimist, nor prone to panic attacks.  I am a lover of humanity, all humanity.  Whether they worship in a synagogue, a church, a mosque, a temple or don’t worship at all.  I have no bone of bigotry in my body, but what I do have is hatred for those who hate, intolerance for those who are intolerant, and a guiltless, unstoppable obsession to see evil eradicated.
 
Today the enemy is radical Islam but it must be said sadly and reluctantly that there are unwitting, co-conspirators who strengthen the hands of the evil  doers.  Let me state that the overwhelming number of Muslims are good Muslims, fine human beings who want nothing more than a Jeep Cherokee in their driveway, a flat screen TV on their wall and a good education for their children, but these good Muslims have an obligation to destiny, to decency that thus far for the most part they have avoided.  The Kulturkampf is not only external but internal as well.  The good Muslims must sponsor rallies in Times Square, in Trafalgar Square, in the UN Plaza, on the Champs Elysee, in Mecca condemning terrorism, denouncing  unequivocally the slaughter of the innocent.  Thus far, they have not.  The good Muslims must place ads in the NY Times.  They must buy time on network TV, on cable stations, in the Jerusalem Post, in Le Monde, in Al Watan, on Al Jazeera condemning terrorism, denouncing unequivocally the slaughter of the innocent – thus far, they have not.  Their silence allows the vicious to tarnish Islam and to define it. 
 
Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.
 
I recall a conversation with my father shortly before he died that helped me understand how perilous and how broken is our world; that we are living on the narrow seam of civilization and moral oblivion.  Knowing he had little time left he shared the following – “Shal.  I am ready to leave  this earth.  Sure I’d like to live a little longer, see a few more sunrises, but truthfully, I’ve had it.  I’m done.  Finished.  I hope the Good Lord takes me soon because I am unable to live in this world knowing what it has  become.”
 
This startling admission of moral exhaustion from a man who witnessed and lived through the Depression, the Holocaust, WWII, Communist Triumphalism, McCarthyism, Strontium 90 and polio.  – Yet his twilight observation was – “The worst is yet to come.”  And he wanted out. 
 
I share my father’s angst and fear that too many do not see the authentic, existential threat we face nor confront the source of our peril.  We must wake up and smell the hookah. 
 
“Lighten up, Lewis.  Take a chill pill, some of you are quietly thinking. You’re sounding like Glen Beck.  It’s not that bad.  It’s not that real.”  But I am here to tell you – “It is.”  Ask the member of our shul whose sister was vaporized in the Twin Towers and identified finally by her charred teeth, if this is real or not.  Ask the members of our shul who fled a bus in downtown Paris, fearing for their safety from a gang of Muslim thugs, if this is an exaggeration.  Ask the member of our shul whose son tracks Arab terrorist infiltrators who target – pizza parlors, nursery schools, Pesach seders, city buses and play grounds, if this is dramatic, paranoid hyperbole.
 
Ask them, ask all of them – ask the American GI’s we sit next to on planes who are here for a brief respite while we fly off on our Delta vacation package.  Ask them if it’s bad.  Ask them if it’s real. 

Did anyone imagine in the 1920’s what Europe would look like in the 1940’s.  Did anyone presume to know in the coffee houses of Berlin or in the opera halls of Vienna that genocide would soon become the celebrated culture?  Did anyone think that a goofy-looking painter named Adolf Hitler would go from the beer halls of Munich and jail, to the Reichstag as Fuehrer in less than a decade?  Did Jews pack their bags and leave Warsaw, Vilna, Athens, Paris, Bialystok, Minsk, knowing that soon their new address would be Treblinka, Sobibor, Dachau and Auschwitz?
 
The sages teach – “Aizehu chacham – haroeh et hanolad – Who is a wise person – he who sees        into the future.”  We dare not wallow in complacency, in a misguided tolerance and naïve sense of security.
 
We must be diligent students of history and not sit in ash cloth at the waters of Babylon weeping.  We cannot be hypnotized by eloquent-sounding rhetoric that soothes our heart but endangers our soul.  We cannot be lulled into inaction for fear of offending the offenders.  Radical Islam is the scourge and this must be cried out from every mountain top.  From sea to shining sea, we must stand tall, prideful of our stunning decency and moral resilience.  Immediately after 9/11 how many mosques were destroyed in America?  None.  After 9/11, how many Muslims were killed in America?  None.  After 9/11, how many anti-Muslim rallies were held in America?  None.  And yet, we apologize.  We grovel.  We beg forgiveness. 
 
The mystifying litany of our foolishness continues.  Should there be a shul in Hebron on the site where Baruch Goldstein gunned down twenty-seven Arabs at noonday prayers?  Should there be a museum praising the U.S.  Calvary on the site of Wounded Knee?  Should there be a German cultural center in Auschwitz?  Should a church be built in the Syrian town of Ma’arra where Crusaders slaughtered over 100,000 Muslims? Should there be a thirteen story mosque and Islamic Center only a few steps from Ground Zero? 
 
Despite all the rhetoric, the essence of the matter can be distilled quite easily. The Muslim community has the absolute, constitutional right to build their building wherever they wish.  I don’t buy the argument – “When we can build a church or a synagogue in Mecca they can build a mosque  here.”  America is greater than Saudi Arabia.  And New York is greater than Mecca.  Democracy and freedom must prevail. 
 
Can they build?  Certainly.  May they build?  Certainly.  But should they build at that site?  No - but that decision must come from them, not from us.  Sensitivity, compassion cannot be measured in  feet or yards or in blocks.  One either feels the pain of others and cares, or one does not.
 
If those behind this project are good, peace-loving, sincere, tolerant Muslims, as they claim, then they should know better, rip up the zoning permits and build elsewhere. 
 
Believe it or not, I am a dues-paying, card carrying member of the ACLU, yet from start to finish, I find this sorry episode disturbing to say the least. 
 
William Burroughs, the novelist and poet, in a wry moment wrote – “After one look at this planet, any visitor from outer space would say – “I want to see the manager.”
 
Let us understand that the radical Islamist assaults all over the globe are but skirmishes, fire fights, and vicious decoys.  Christ and the anti-Christ. Gog U’Magog.  The Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness; the bloody collision between civilization and depravity is on the border between Lebanon and Israel.  It is on the Gaza Coast and in the Judean Hills of the West Bank.  It is on the sandy beaches of Tel Aviv and on the cobble-stoned mall of Ben Yehuda Street.  It is in the underground schools of Sderot and on the bullet-proofed inner-city buses.  It is in every school yard, hospital, nursery, classroom, park, theater – in every place of innocence and purity.
 
Israel is the laboratory – the test market.  Every death, every explosion, every grisly encounter is not a random, bloody orgy.  It is a calculated, strategic probe into the heart, guts and soul of the West.
 
In the Six Day War, Israel was the proxy of Western values and strategy while the Arab alliance was the proxy of Eastern, Soviet values and strategy.  Today  too, it is a confrontation of proxies, but the stakes are greater than East Jerusalem and the West Bank.  Israel in her struggle represents the civilized world, while Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Queda, Iran, Islamic Jihad, represent the world of psychopathic, loathsome evil.
 
As Israel, imperfect as she is, resists the onslaught, many in the Western World have lost their way displaying not admiration, not sympathy, not understanding, for Israel’s galling plight, but downright hostility and contempt.  Without moral clarity, we are doomed because Israel’s galling plight ultimately will be ours.  Hanna Arendt in her classic Origins of Totalitarianism accurately portrays the first target of tyranny as the Jew.  We are the trial balloon.  The canary in the coal mine.  If the Jew/Israel is permitted to bleed with nary a protest from “good guys” then tyranny snickers and pushes forward with its agenda. 
 
Moral confusion is a deadly weakness and it has reached epic proportions in the West; from the Oval Office to the UN, from the BBC to Reuters to MSNBC, from the New York Times to Le Monde, from university campuses to British teachers unions, from the International Red Cross to Amnesty International, from  Goldstone to Elvis Costello, from the Presbyterian Church to the Archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
There is a message sent and consequences when our president visits Turkey and Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and not Israel. 
 
There is a message sent and consequences when free speech on campus is only for those championing Palestinian rights. 
 
There is a message sent and consequences when the media deliberately doctors and edits film clips to demonize Israel. 
 
There is a message  sent and consequences when the UN blasts Israel relentlessly, effectively        ignoring Iran, Sudan, Venezuela, North Korea, China and other noxious states. 
 
There is a message sent and consequences when liberal churches are motivated by Liberation Theology, not historical accuracy. 
 
There is a message sent and consequences when murderers and terrorists are defended by the obscenely transparent “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
 
John Milton warned, “Hypocrisy is the only evil that walks invisible.”
 
A few days after the Gaza blockade incident in the spring, a congregant happened past my office, glanced in and asked in a friendly tone  –
 
“Rabbi.  How’re y’ doing?”
 
I looked up, sort of smiled and replied – “I’ve had better days.”
 
“What’s the matter?  Is there anything I can do to cheer you up?” he inquired.
 
“Thank you for the offer but I’m just bummed out today and I showed him a newspaper article I was reading.
 
“Madrid gay pride parade bans Israeli group over Gaza Ship Raid.”  I explained to my visitor – “The Israeli gay pride contingent from Tel Aviv was not allowed to participate in the Spanish gay pride parade because the mayor of Tel Aviv did not apologize for the raid by the Israeli military.”
 
The only country in the entire Middle East where gay rights exist, is Israel.  The only country in the entire Middle East where there is a gay pride parade, is Israel.  The only country in the Middle East that has gay neighborhoods and gay bars, is Israel. 
 
Gays in the Gaza would be strung up, executed by Hamas if they came out and yet Israel is vilified and ostracized.  Disinvited to the parade. 
 
Looking for logic?
 
Looking for reason?
 
Looking for sanity? 
 
Kafka on his darkest, gloomiest day could not keep up with this bizarre spectacle and we “useful idiots” pander and fawn over cutthroats, sinking deeper and deeper into moral decay, as the enemy laughs all the way to the West Bank and beyond. 
 
It is exhausting and dispiriting.  We live in an age that is redefining righteousness where those with moral clarity are an endangered, beleaguered species.
 
Isaiah warned us thousands of years ago – “Oye Lehem Sheh-Korim Layome, Laila v’Laila, yome – Woe to them who call the day, night and the night, day.”  We live on a planet that is both Chelm and Sodom.  It is a frightening and maddening place to be.
 
How do we convince the world and many of our own, that this is not just anti-Semitism, that this is not just anti-Zionism but a full throttled attack by unholy, radical Islamists on everything that is morally precious to us?
 
How do we convince the world and many of our own that conciliation is not an option, that        compromise is not a choice? 
 
Everything we are.  Everything we believe.  Everything we treasure, is at risk.
 
The threat is so unbelievably clear and the enemy so unbelievably ruthless how anyone in their right mind doesn’t get it is baffling.  Let’s try an analogy.  If someone contracted a life-threatening infection and we not only scolded them for using antibiotics but insisted that the bacteria had a right to infect their body and that perhaps, if we gave the invading infection an arm and a few toes, the bacteria would be satisfied and stop spreading
 
Anyone buy that medical advice?  Well, folks, that’s our approach to the radical Islamist bacteria.  It is amoral, has no conscience and will spread unless it is eradicated. – There is no negotiating.  Appeasement is death.
 
I was no great fan of George Bush – didn’t vote for him.  (By the way, I’m still a registered Democrat.)  I disagreed with many of his policies but one thing he had right.  His moral clarity was flawless when it came to the War on Terror, the War on Radical Islamist Terror.  There was no middle ground – either you were friend or foe.  There was no place in Bush’s world for a Switzerland.  He knew that this competition was not Toyota against G.M., not the I-phone against the Droid, not the Braves against the Phillies, but a deadly serious war, winner take all.  Blink and you lose.  Underestimate, and you get crushed.
 
I know that there are those sitting here today who have turned me off.  But I also know that many turned off their rabbis seventy five years ago in Warsaw, Riga, Berlin, Amsterdam, Cracow, Vilna.  I get no satisfaction from that knowledge, only a bitter sense that there is nothing new under the sun.
 
Enough rhetoric – how about a little “show and tell?”  A few weeks ago on the cover of Time magazine was a horrific picture with a horrific story.  The photo was of an eighteen year old Afghani woman, Bibi Aisha, who fled her abusive husband and his abusive family.  Days later the Taliban found her and dragged her to a mountain clearing where she was found guilty of violating Sharia Law.  Her punishment was immediate.  She was pinned to the ground by four men while her husband sliced off her ears, and then he cut off her nose. 
 
That is the enemy (see enlarged copy of magazine cover.)  
 
If nothing else stirs us.  If nothing else convinces us, let Bibi Aisha’s mutilated face be the face of Islamic radicalism.  Let her face shake up even the most complacent and naïve among us.  In the holy crusade against this ultimate evil, pictures of Bibi Aisha’s disfigurement should be displayed on billboards, along every highway from Route 66 to the Autobahn, to the Trans-arabian Highway.  Her picture should be posted on every lobby wall from Tokyo to Stockholm to Rio.  On every network, at every commercial break, Bibi Aisha’s face should appear with the caption – “Radical Islamic savages did this.” And underneath – “This ad was approved by Hamas, by Hezbollah, by Taliban, by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, by Islamic Jihad, by Fatah al Islam, by Major Nidal Malik Hasan, by Richard Reid, by Ahmanijad, by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, by Osama bin Laden, by Edward Said, by The Muslim Brotherhood, by Al Queda, by CAIR.”
 
“The moral sentiment is the drop that balances the sea” said Ralph Waldo Emerson.  Today, my friends, the sea is woefully out of balance and we could easily drown in our moral myopia and worship of political correctness.
 
We peer up into the heavens sending probes to distant galaxies. We peer down into quarks   discovering particles that would astonish Einstein.  We create computers that rival the mind, technologies that surpass science fiction.  What we imagine, with astounding rapidity, becomes real.  If we dream it, it does, indeed, come.  And yet, we are at a critical point in the history of this planet that could send us back into the cave, to a culture that would make the Neanderthal blush with shame.
 
Our parents and grandparents saw the swastika and recoiled, understood the threat and destroyed the Nazis.  We see the banner of Radical Islam and can do no less.
 
A rabbi was once asked by his students…  “Rebbi.  Why are your sermons so stern?”  Replied the rabbi, “If a house is on fire and we chose not to wake up our children, for fear of disturbing their sleep, would that be love?  Kinderlach, ‘di hoyz brent.’  Children our house is on fire and I must arouse you from your slumber.”
 
During WWII an the Holocaust was it business as usual for priests, ministers, rabbis?  Did they deliver benign homilies and lovely sermons as Europe fell, as the Pacific fell, as North Africa fell, as the Mideast and South America tottered, as England bled?  Did they ignore the demonic juggernaut and the foul breath of evil?  They did not.  There was clarity, courage, vision, determination, sacrifice, and we were victorious.  Today it must be our finest hour as well.  We dare not retreat into the banality of our routines, glance at headlines and presume that the good guys will prevail. 
 
Democracies don’t always win.
Tyrannies don’t always lose.
 
My friends – the world is on fire and we must awake from our slumber.  “EHR KUMT.”

of pottery and willow

today is the ninth anniversary of the most horrible attack against americans on our soil.  it's the anniversary of pottery and willow.  and there is no doubt that the heinous act our world witnessed on that beautiful tuesday morning has irrevocably changed our world forever.  i know that on that morning all those years ago my world changed forever.

i imagine it's much like those who survived a major illness or a tragic accident or a war.  when i think back on things that have happened in my life there is now a "before" and an "after".  and for me, no matter how wonderful a thing is that's happened since 9/11, in the after, it's never as wonderful as it would have been if it had happened before.

for a long time i struggled to grasp the enormity of the tragedy - to fully comprehend that what i witnessed when i stepped out of my shower on that fateful day was NOT a hollywood special effect.  to understand that my tears were for real people: mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, aunts, uncles from all religions, all colors and all walks of life.  it was a tragedy that BEFORE i could never have imagined and now, after, i can never forget.

the pictures of the planes hitting the towers are strangely absent from the images being presented on television by the mainstream media.  they claim the images are inflammatory against those who practice islam.  but they're wrong.  we need the images - not only so that we who were old enough to truly bear witness to the horror committed remember, and not only so that those who weren't alive can witness it for themselves so that they understand how awful it was for our country and the world,  but also to remind those who did this to us that we remember WHAT they did and WHO they are.

with each passing year the accute pain that i experienced on that fateful morning diminishes just a little bit.  but my soul is still frayed and my heart is still broken - as it will always be.  and although i'm unable to say HOW the world would have been different had those men not boarded those four planes and crashed into the world trade center towers, or the pentagon or that isolated pennsylvania field, i know that it would be.

and while the attack of 11 september 2001 isn't still a raw, open wound, i am still tempted to fear what the future holds.  but i fight that fear each morning i wake to face the day.  i take comfort in the fact that i have my children and my granddaughter and both my parents and my sisters and cousins and aunts and uncles - all of whom love me and i love deeply in return.  i take heart in the friendships - old and new - christians, jews and muslims - and the uprising of patriots and conservatives around the globe. 

i have faith in the greater good that leads us forward to our future.  i know that we emerged from this national - no, global tragedy - stronger than we had ever been.  and even though we have recently faultered in our knowledge of our role in the world, i know that individually (and as a country) there are even greater things in store for us than we could possibly know at this point.

jeremiah 29:11 promises us that god knows the plans he has for us, plans to prosper us and not harm us; plans to give us hope and a future.  i trust in that scripture.  we also know through several scriptures that god either orchestrates or allows all things to happen to best glorify him.  i don't pretend to understand what god intends, i only know that although it was - and still is personal - i trust that god is in control. 

i'm still crying, but through my tears i see a time when i - and we - will surmount our pain and fears.  i see a time when others will join us in our steadfast resolve to rid the world of those who mean all who do not believe as they do harm.  i see a time when we will stop apologizing for our strengths and fortunes and use those strengths and fortunes, once again, for true good.

yes, it's still personal - but maybe, just maybe, i see a light at the end of the tunnel.  do you see it too?

step-by-step on noiseless foot.

in a 31 october 1823 letter to monsieur a. coray, a greek doctor and translator of ancient greek texts, thomas jefferson had the following to say about the federal judiciary:

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."

our judges of today - even at the state level - are generally speaking "secured against all liability to account."  it is a very rare thing, indeed, that even an elected judge is ever taken out of office until he (or she) decides to retire.  in point of fact, as jefferson noted in an 1821 letter to charles hammond "...impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow..." for the irresponsible body of the judiciary.

not much has changed in the past 190 years; well, it HAS gotten immeasurably worse over the course of those years.

in iowa, voters are gearing up to toss out three state supreme court justiceswho suddenly found a right to gay marriage in the iowa constitution.  in predictable fashion leftists intent on using judicial activism to further their progressive agenda, are hand-wringing over the notion that this could "have a chilling effect on judges nationwide."  and this is a bad thing why?

in establishing our independence as a free and sovereign nation, our founding fathers established a set of moral principals that laid the foundation for what would become the greatest nation on the face of the earth.  the moral principals began with the belief that all people are created equal and are further endowed by our creator with certain INALIENABLE rights.

i believe that it was not whim or folly that led to the order in which they those inalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  laws from our creator; or as jefferson called them "laws of nature and nature's god."  nowadays we call them natural laws.  there are two systems of law that mankind uses: natural law and man-made (so called "positive") law.

my uncle david describes man-made laws as such:

"Man-made laws are those canons, charges, charters, codes, commands, constitutions, directives, imperatives, mandates, maxims, orders, ordinances, precepts, procedures, proclamations, regulations, rules, statutes, etc. that governments the world over create and enforced in an effort to control human behavior."

in the late 1500's through the early 1600's there was an enlightenment of sorts; men began to rebel against the totalitarian "positive" law of the emperors, kings, sovereigns, and tyrants.  using their god-given faculty of reason, they asserted claims of individual freedom of action.  this enlightenment, which somewhat morphed into british common law (or judge law) was the basis for many of the ideas from which the declaration of independence and the u.s. constitution were crafted.

but even in the colonies and the early united states, some people longed for a king; they longed for someone to "be in charge".  thankfully george washington was a genuine hero and leader and refused the title of "king of the usa", but that didn't stop people looking for that white knight, that hero, that strong powerful leader who will exert just the right amount of force to "set things right."  and therein lies the crux of our problem in modern day usa; the problem with all three branches of our federal government.

it is human desire to gain the most with the least amount of personal expenditure - whether that expenditure be money, industry, initiative, energy or responsibility - and it has been nurtured by the "progressives" in order to further their agendas.  as this desire has been turned into the norm for many, many, many of our fellow countrymen, those progressive "leaders" have been emboldened to gradually impose more and more positive law into our legal system, displacing the natural law that our country was founded on, over the past two centuries.  and it has been largely facilitated by an activist judiciary.

today's justice system, with the aid of an insidious indoctrination program cleverly disguised as the public school system and the mainstream media, falsely states that we are ONLY a nation of [positive] law rather than a nation founded on a set of moral principals that all laws MUST comply with.  justice is not defined as the interpretation of man's laws, but rather the delivery of a just resolution, the determination of what is right based not only on our code of law, but also our standards of moral righteousness.

in recent years, the judiciary branch of our federal AND state governments has been largely guided by the liberal (or progressive) ideology - you need only to look at the writings and speeches of the majority of lawyers and judges to see that this is true.  using the progressive ideology it has anointed itself the ruler of all men by establishing a rule of law that separates moral codes and standards of righteousness from those laws.  based on that distinction, in direct opposition to the intent of our founders, they assert their RIGHT to dominion over men.

using their power from the bench, not fearing impeachment or (at the state level) being voted out, they have advanced their agenda gaining a little here and a little there and have turned the constitution into "..a mere thing of wax..."  the judiciary has been so busy twisting and shaping the constitution into what the political ideology of the judges mandates that is hardly recognizable as the document ratified by our ancestors little more than two centuries ago.

but finally the country is waking up.  finally, people are forcing a movement back to our creator's natural law which was the basis for our country's governance.  finally there is a growing recognition among the electorate that has been too long asleep and i get the sense that perhaps we will NOT go quietly as the judges and progressives (is that redundant) destroy our country.

it is well past time that we should be de-funding judiciaries and impeaching the judges who are creating law to advance their social agenda rather than interpreting whether a law comports with the plain language of the constitution.  these men (and women) who want to change the legally binding words of the constitution to suit their beliefs and further their agenda are not judges, but politicians - and despots at that.  they think themselves answerable to no one.

i'm glad iowa is taking a stand.  think of the message that will be sent to california, arizona, and the courts across the land - "we the people are fed up with you judges who have taken on too much power and seek to silence our will."

join in the fight people - not just on the blogs or facebook or twitter - but get out and get active.  yes, we need to change congress, but until and unless we take back the reigns of activism from the judiciary we will not be able to effect real, lasting change. 

a disgrace of labor

ulysses s. grant, former union general and potus, once said " Labor disgraces no man, but occasionally men disgrace labor."  i think we have reached a point as a society where political correctness has disgraced the notion of right and wrong...

i have often attempted to have logical conversations with people who say that the "undocumented workers" do not take away from our society but add to it.  i hate that term "undocumented worker".  it ignores the entire reason that the person is "undocumented".  they are "undocumented workers" because they are here ILLEGALLY.  and if they are here ILLEGALLY then, by definition they cannot be GOOD people. 

this is not an esoteric conversation like with my fourth amendment case, there is no question of whether or not they are legally in this country.  if they did not come here in the manner prescribed by law, they are here illegally.  and if they came here illegally, than they are teaching their kids that no law matters so long as you're trying make a better life for yourself.  how can any good come of that for our society or our country?

today i received an email that broke it down so well, that i knew i had to share it.  it was titled "joe legal vs. jose illegal" and it went like this:

You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal".

Both families have two parents, two children, and live in the same area of Southern California.

Joe Legal works in construction, has a legal Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".

 Ready?  Now pay attention...

• Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year.  Now take 30% away for state and federal tax and now has:  $31,231.00.
• Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year, pays no taxes and still has:  $31,200.00.

• Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year and now has:  $24,031.00.
• Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year and still has: $31,200.00.

• Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare, so he pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year, and now has: $18,031.00.
• Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare and still has: $31,200.00.

• Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year and now has: $9,631.00.
• Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy, pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year and still has: $31,200.00.

• Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 per year for insurance and now has: $7,231.00.
• Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has: $31,200.00.

• Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
• Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.

• Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
• Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

• Joe Legal and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.
• Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch.

• Joe Legal's children go home after school each day where Joe pays for child care out of that $7,231.00 he had left.
• Jose Illegal's children have a FREE after school ESL program provided by the U.S. tax payers.

• Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.

Do you get it, now?  If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens or amnesty for illegals then YOU are part of the problem!

i'm looking for my invite to the whitehouse now.

the fourth amendment to our constitution - one of the venerable notions known as our 'bill of rights' - reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

on the morning of 16 november 2009 i got to personally experience a breach of this fundamental right.

i am sharing this story with all of you, because my attorney (bruce m. margolin) believes that we need to make people aware of this case.  that we need to make people aware that some of our police officers - at least here in the mountains of southern california - are stepping on the constitution and doing harm to the people they are sworn to protect.

on that fateful morning, i was on the phone with mr. j (had been for at least 30 minutes) when there was a knock on my front door.  upon answering i discovered a san bernardino county sheriff's deputy standing there.  the following exchange ensued - please note that mr. j heard everything that i have written here and will act as my "ear witness" in court:

haj: yes?

sbsd: we had a call from this residence to 911.  is everything ok? (or words to that effect)

haj: i didn't call 911 and i am the only one home.

sbsd: was there anyone else here with you today?

haj: my son was here earlier but he left nearly an hour ago.

sbsd: why didn't you answer the phone with dispatch called back?

haj: aside from my husband calling, the phone has not rung this morning.

---- at this point the deputy radioed to dispatch to ask if they had called back and the dispatcher responded that she had called AND left a voicemail. it was also at this point that she revealed the supposed call to 911 was a hang-up.  ----

sbsd: do you mind if i come in and look around?

haj: yes, i do mind.  there is no need for you to come in; as i told you i am the only one home and there is no problem.

sbsd: i am coming in.

haj: not without a warrant.

sbsd: my supervisor is on his way.  you will be arrested.  this will not end well for you.

haj: can you tell me what law says my right against an unwarranted search is abdicated because you say that someone called 911 from my residence?

sbsd: i'm not certain there is an actual law, but under certain circumstances we are allowed to enter the premises without a warrant.

haj: i have nothing to hide.  i will be happy to wait with you while you obtain a search warrant and then you're welcome to enter the house.

--- conversation continued in this vain for several minutes - me standing in my doorway in my stocking feet with one hand holding the phone up to my ear and the other hand on the open door.  the deputy was all the while standing in front of my door with her boot wedged into the door so that i could not have closed it had i tried.  several minutes into the conversation, her supervisor arrived. ---

sbsd #2: what is your f-ing problem?

haj: i don't have a problem, i merely want an answer to my question before i allow you to enter my house without a search warrant.

sbsd #2: what's your question?

haj: what law says my right guaranteed under the 4th amendment is forfeited the minute you say there was a hang-up call to 911 from my location?

sbsd #2: what?

haj: as i told the other deputy, i will be happy to step outside with you with the premises secured while we wait for a search warrant.  or alternatively, tell me the law that is effective here, i'll look it up and if it checks out i'll gladly let you in without the warrant.

sbsd #2: not going to happen.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

at this point i was essentially tackled by the two of them.  i cannot tell you the exact manner in which it happened, but one minute i was standing at the door talking to two police officers and mr. j at the same time and the next minute i was on the floor of my entry way with a very large man sitting on my chest his knees pinning down my arms, screaming at me to put my hands behind my back.  after several instances of me telling him "i can't move, let alone put my hands behind my back" he got off me, rolled me over and put handcuffs on me.

still essentially sitting on me, holding me down, he starts telling me that the police are always justified in entering a premises any time a 911 call is made because someone might be hurt and that the 4th amendment is always suspended in those cases.  meanwhile several other deputies entered my house - and while the phone had been knocked out of my hand, the line was still open and mr. j heard all of this.  the line was finally closed by one of the deputies as they were taking me out my front door.

at no time was i told that i was under arrest or what the charges were.  until i asked the deputy when we got to the jail, my rights were never read to me. 

there is more from the jail, but it's not actually applicable to my criminal case.  although i did find it interesting that i was told by a deputy at the jail "it's time you people learn that you only have the rights we (i took that 'we' to mean 'the police') are willing to grant to you.  all that came to my mind was "i don't think so!"  all-in-all it was the most degrading and humiliating experience of my life thus far.

the same jailhouse deputy accused me of having "no respect for the rule of law or the authority of the police."  i did respond to that one - i told her "i'm 45 years old.  i'm pretty certain that if that were the case you would have seen me in here before now."

mr. margolin was the victorious attorney for timothy leary.  yes, that timothy leary.  and while my politics could not be further from his (although SURELY there will come a day when he realizes the dems are not on his side for his beliefs) he is one of the leading authorities in this country on defending the fourth amendment in criminal cases.  criminal.  me?  it's a frightening fact that right now i am considered a criminal.

i will be formally arraigned on the 27th of this month.  the court date will be set after that.  we do not, yet, have a copy of the police report - the da has promised to hand it over at the arraignment.  we do know that i have been charged with "resisting an executive officer".

i'm fighting this charge.  it's going to be expensive, and i'm not altogether certain where i will get the funds, but i want this arrest off my record. i have never been arrested before (well once i was held for non-payment of a parking ticket from the st. louis airport from my ex-husband, but that was 21 years ago and when the ticket was paid, it went away) and i want this gone, too.  especially since i did nothing more than question how my rights had been abdicated.  according to my attorney, they had not been.

i want my life back, i want my record clean again, and i want people to know how some police treat american citizens.  citizens.  someday, maybe, i’ll tell you how i was treated in jail but right now i’m concentrating on fighting the charges from the arrest.  and if you can help, i could really use it.  please forgive my begging, but if there is any amount you could contribute - even the smallest amount would be greatly appreciated - to my defense fund please do... oh and share this story with your friends.  this is an important issue and my lawyer wants this to get some attention.  we have to fight this - we have to stop this assault on our constitution.  please help if you can! 

CHARGE!!!

this morning, via a fellow patriot i know fairly well, i was introduced to liuetenant colonel allen west (usa, ret.).  this amazing man is running for the u.s. house of representatives for the 22nd district of florida.  as districts go it's not huge, but it does include a portion of west palm beach, palm beach gardens, boca raton and fort lauderdale.

in october, west was featured in a fox news article by kelly vlahos titled "black republicans say 2010 will be their year" noting that lt. col. west "is one of a small but determined group of black Republicans running for seats in the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives in 2010".  sadly, i believe the author of the article is correct as she continues:

Eager to overturn the "conventional wisdom" that the GOP is mainly a white bread party that offers few opportunities for minorities, these black Republicans believe they can attract increasingly agitated conservatives, as well as independents, to make 2010 their year.

They also conceded in interviews that the injection of race -- a familiar theme since Obama's election last year -- has given them a certain edge and authority when they speak out against the president's agenda. Because they're black, they say, they can lead the charge against Democratic policies without being called "racist." In fact, they say, their skin color may make them more attractive candidates.

the story is the same across the country. 

in colorado a councilman from aurora, ryan frazier, has begun his quest for a congressional seat for colorado's 7th district.  he observes that his skin color will make it impossible for the democrats to use the racism as the reason he is speaking out against the president and his policies saying "I don't think they will be able to use that argument against me or engage in those tactics against me -- I certainly don't hate myself."

in texas, michael williams hopes to succeed retiring senator kay bailey hutchinson when she retires after the primaries in march 2010.  mr. williams is a four-time texas railroad commissioner regulating the oil and gas industry for the state.  mr. williams says, when describing what makes him who he is "Most lives have defining moments.  For me, it was the period between 1967 and 1971. I learned I could compete, could succeed and had value."  in the fox news article he said "Our folks are saying they want a reliable conservative -- that happens to be what's catching on with me," Williams told FOXNews.com. "It just happens to be an added plus, me being an African-American."

but back to colonel west.  this is the second time he's running against democrat incumbent ron klein for the representation of florida's 22nd district.  last time he took 45% of the vote in this florida swing district, this time he's aiming to take the majority.  and with the help of jimmy carter and the rest of the race baiters in the democrat party, he just might have a chance.

this man is incredible. talk about motivation!!  he says some things in this clip that resonate especially well with me:

• "...it's ok to get out here and cheer lead, but you better get your butts out there and understand it's a fight and you better be willing to fight for this country.  the united states of america was founded by the original insurgents. a bunch of farmers, a bunch of people, men and women dedicated and said to the british 'we're not living under your tyranny.'  now we've got to come back and do it again.  we're gonna take saul alinsky's 'rules for radicals' and we're gonna turn it on 'em and we're gonna drive it through 'em and we're gonna take this country back.
• in speaking to the military among the crowd he said "let me tell you something - god bless you all.  but listen, we took an oath and that oath said we would 'support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and alliegance to the same.'  there's so statute of limitations on that oath and tonight EVERY ONE of you needs to take that oath."
• "this 2010 election is a defining moment for the united states of america.  for the future and the legacy from which we go on."
• "...'these are the times that try men's souls; when the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis shrink from his duties.'  if you're here to shrink away from your duties, there's the door.  get out. 
• "...bayonettes.  charge this enemy for your freedom, for you liberty for the future and the legacy of that young lady right there because i will not go down and tell my children that i did not have the courage, the conviction, the committment or the character to fight for this country."

now is the time that we need to act.  now is the time for all of us to (in the words of my friend laura boatright) "GO OUT ON A LIMB....OUT OF *YOUR* "COMFORT ZONE"... IF WE DON'T 'SET BRUSHFIRES OF FREEDOM IN THE MINDS OF MEN'... WE ARE DEFEATED ALREADY!  BE INDIGNANT BUT *PEACEFUL/NON-VIOLENT*... TELL OUR GOVERNMENT TO 'LET OUR PEOPLE GO!' "

who amongst you is with me?

we were a part of history

today i bring you the second in my three-part series on the tea party at the capitol on 12 september 2009.  this is piece is written by one of my oldest and dearest friends - mr. h.  he has a great amount of experience in radio broadcast as a d.j. and in production.  he has worked in both public and private enterprises in that arena.  i have always valued mr. h's insight and opinions and i find it especially so when pertaining to politics, history and driving directions.  i think you'll understand the why for all but the latter after reading his contribution below.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

My wife and I drove down to DC the day before.  We stayed with friends in one of the less tony suburbs between DC and Baltimore, so we weren’t really aware of the impact the event was having on the area until we got to the Greenbelt metro station Saturday morning.  It looked like a weekday morning in terms of the sheer number of people (and buses) present.  It was clear the crowds were not locals when we went inside the station and found them lined up 25 deep at the fare-card machines.  Of course, the signs would have been a giveaway.  About every fourth person or so was carrying something.  

We’d planned to ride the metro to the Archives station, which would put us on Pennsylvania Avenue a few blocks east of the start of the event.  This meant we wouldn’t need to change trains, which looked like a good idea given the sheer number of folks in the system.  When we arrived at the Archives station, it was clear we wouldn’t be walking west to start the march, because it had already begun.

I stood on the curb and looked both ways down Pennsylvania Avenue.  The street was a sea of people all the way to each end and beyond.  At that moment my wife said what I had been thinking, that she suddenly felt like she was a part of history, and that she never imagined she’d be marching down Pennsylvania Avenue.  I can recall watching news clips of people marching on that street all the way back to the mid-60s, and what we saw looked eerily similar to some of the larger demonstrations in the past.  We joined the throng as it flowed toward Capitol Hill. At Third Street we were shunted south and ended up just about centered in front of the Capitol, on the west side of the reflecting pool.

Much has been made of the signs at the event.  The vast majority were reasonable, often humorous.  Some were downright embarrassing.  How could that not be so at an event with this many folks?  You will always have extremists and outliers in any group.  Is there a place for them?  Sure.  Do they define the movement?  Absolutely not.  

In this setting people were encouraged to express themselves and felt no inhibition about doing so.  In practice this meant that it was much more likely that any given sign would be of the ‘questionable content’ variety.  And yet the percentage of signs that fell into that category was really quite small.  The only way to ensure that the signboard messaging at these events is a balanced reflection of the mood of the entire group would be to require everyone attending to bring a sign, which strikes me as a not altogether practical solution.

I saw only one ‘opposition’ group doing counter-demonstrating, and their message was so muddled I’m still not really sure what they were trying to say.  At least they were polite.  

In fact, everyone was.  There was no violence anywhere, no aggression.  Even the small amount of litter

the crowd generated was picked up by members of the participating groups.  Capitol Hill was cleaner when we left than it was when the event began, a marked contrast to the average Fourth of July trashfest or the huge piles of garbage

after the Obama inauguration.    

Media coverage was sparse.  I could see a camera on top of the Fox building for most of the event.  But except for a few un-logoed lone videographers, there were no cameras in evidence.   Funny thing was, the dish on top of the CNN truck (which was just behind us on Third Street) folded up about 12:15 -- in other words, just about as things got started.  Cynical bastard that I am, I expected CNN would run a clip they'd shot at about 9 AM (long before the march was planned to begin and therefore of a mostly empty Capitol lawn) to try to downplay the attendance.  But too many other outlets had video showing how large the event really was for them to get away with that kind of subterfuge.   

What was my on-the-scene estimate of the size of the crowd?  They announced over the PA at one point that CNN had described the crowd as “1000 people”.  I think we can be fairly sure that was on the low side.  I know they had to push it up to "tens of thousands" by that evening.  A British newspaper reported the crowd as about 2 million.  But there’s our defined range.  If I were put on the spot and forced to guess, I’d say the crowd was probably easily in the neighborhood of a half-million, which was where the organizers put the crowd size in an announcement over the PA.  

If you’re familiar with the area or have a large-scale map handy, the crowd covered the Capitol grounds up around both sides and west as far as Third Street, but there was very little spillover across Third Street itself.  My wife, who used to work on Capitol Hill and has seen many different events in the National Mall, says this one was about comparable to an average inauguration crowd – which would make it slightly smaller than my estimate.  It was definitely not in the same class as a July 4th crowd or the bigger historical demonstrations.  Martin Luther King’s speech at the Lincoln Memorial saw the crowd cover West Potomac Park and the entire mall all the way from 23rd Street to the foot of Capitol Hill.  That crowd was about 5 million.  

So, disregard the ridiculous estimates, but be proud of the actual, respectable numbers.  Half a million

concerned Americans gave up their Saturday to make a statement.  At an event with no ‘official’ centralized organization or sponsor, that’s pretty impressive.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

it is impressive and moving for all of us.  i believe that to be true even for those whom did not attend.

we have not yet begun to fight...

today is the first of two very special posts and the first of three in a series.  i realize the tea parties happened nearly a week ago, but i've decided that not everything has been posted on the day - yet.

my cousin, jessica hayes, was one of the more than 50,000 to over a million people - of course, depending on who's estimates you believe: the "official" estimates or your own lying eyes - attending the tea party on the mall in dc last saturday 12 september 2009.  this is her personal accounting of that day.  in a few days there will be a post from one of my very good friends, mr. h, whom also attended the tea party on the mall - a few days after that i'll post my accounting of the tea party on the lawn of the federal building in west l.a.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I had been anticipating the 9-12 March on Washington for a few months but no amount of anticipation could surpass the passion and unbridled patriotism that enveloped my heart bountifully as I marched down Pennsylvania Avenue that cool crisp pre-fall morning.   The spirit emanated from my fellow countrymen adjacent me; they were from every walk of life, from near and far, young and old, black and white.  Without speaking a word we all knew that we were there for the same cause.  As we marched, waves of chants would start from either the rear or fore and roll backwards and forwards until we were all in sync.  Perhaps the most poignant moment was as we were passing by one of the government buildings.   The chant had become loud and strong, “Can you hear us now?”  “Can you hear us now?”; “Can you hear us now?” Awe struck when at that instant to our left was a tremendous marble wall inscribed with...

'CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES'

Time seemed to stand still for that moment in time, for this was the very motive for our March on Washington to petition our government for a redress of many grievances.

We made our way to about midway between the capital and the beginning of the mall.  We listened to all of the speakers; we cheered and chanted until our voices were hoarse.  We held up our signs and waved our flags with pride.  Everyone we encountered was polite, courteous and friendly.  There was no pushing, no shoving and no violence.  As we were headed for the bus we noticed that there was no trash littered about on the lawn or the sidewalks.  Everyone had either placed their trash in a waste can or stacked it neatly by one if it was full.

It is glorious to be an American and on September 12, 2009 an unequivocal message echoed throughout the land that if our elected representatives don’t represent us, "We have not yet begun to fight". 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

what an amazing day for jessica, for me, for our country.