RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/being-beastly-to-the-germans

I was going to open this column with remarks on the plight of the German Romeike family, who in 2008 fled Germany to the U.S. to escape the prohibition there against homeschooling and the severe penalties, such as harsh financial fines and the removal of children from their homes, for not obeying the state.

But, unexpectedly, and for unknown reasons, the Department of Homeland Security called the organization representing the Romeike family, the Home School Legal Defense Association, and said the Romeikes had been granted permanent asylum status and would not be deported back to Germany.

World War II has been over nearly seventy years, but apparently Germany still has a Nazi law on the books that requires German parents to send their children to state schools. In Germany, your children are not your own, neither to teach nor to claim. They are the state’s. You, the parents, are mere stewards of your children, and if they are not raised to be good, docile citizens, they will be reclaimed by the state and removed from your deleterious influence.

Among other blogs, the Free Republic reported the astounding and unexpected news:

“Today, a Supervisor with the Department of Homeland Security called a member of our legal team to inform us that the Romeike family has been granted “indefinite deferred status”. This means that the Romeikes can stay in the United States permanently (unless they are convicted of a crime, etc.) “This is an incredible victory that can only be credited to our Almighty God.

“We also want to thank those of who spoke up on this issue-including that long ago White House petition. We believe that the public outcry made this possible while God delivered the victory.

Up until yesterday, the issue has been reported in one fundamentally wrong way: that the Romeikes were escaping from “religious persecution.” Todd Starnes of Fox News, for example, feared the worst for the Romeike family after the Supreme Court refused to listen to their appeal, which would have resulted in almost instant deportation of the family back to Germany. On March 3rd, in his article, “Team Obama wins fight to have Christian home-school family deported,” he wrote:

Uwe and Hannelore Romeike came to the United States in 2008 seeking political asylum. They fled their German homeland in the face of religious persecution for homeschooling their children.

They wanted to live in a country where they could raise their children in accordance with their Christian beliefs.

The Romeikes were initially given asylum, but the Obama administration objected – claiming that German laws that outlaw homeschooling do not constitute persecution.”The goal in Germany is for an open, pluralistic society,” the Justice Department wrote in a legal brief last year. “Teaching tolerance to children of all backgrounds helps to develop the ability to interact as a fully functioning citizen in Germany.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Romeike’s appeal – paving the way for the Christian family of eight to be deported.

Why didn’t the Justice Department call with the good news, instead of the DHS? What was the motive behind the reversal? That remains unknown, but very likely it was the “negative” publicity of a callous, behemoth government picking on a single family. The federal government isn’t scoring high in the likeability polls, lately.

The issue is not one of mere religious persecution. Certainly the German law accomplishes that, but isn’t it more than just “religious” persecution? It’s more than that. It is the negating of one’s convictions, religious or not, by fiat law backed by government force.

Fundamentally, the Romeike family fled to the U.S. to escape ideological persecution. That their reasons were religious are secondary.

http://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/2014/03/anti-judaism/?utm_source=Mosaic+Daily+Email&utm_campaign=5d68df65c3-2014_3_7&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0b0517b2ab-5d68df65c3-41165129

In 1844, Karl Marx published his essay “On the Jewish Question.” This wasn’t an engagement with Judaism, or with Jewish history, or even with the sociology of German Jews. Its occasion was the contemporary debate about Jewish emancipation, but its real purpose was to call for the overthrow of the capitalist order. The call was expressed in a language that is probably not surprising to readers today and that was entirely familiar to readers in the nineteenth century. Still, it is a very strange language. Capitalism is identified by Marx with Judaism, and so the overthrow of capitalism will be, he writes, “the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.” The argument is worth quoting, at least briefly:
walzer_1-032014.jpg Hermitage, St. Petersburg/Bridgeman Art Library Rembrandt: Portrait of an Old Jew, 1654

The Jew has already emancipated himself in a Jewish way…not only insofar as he has acquired financial power, but also insofar as, through him and without him, money has risen to world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian peoples. The Jews have emancipated themselves to the extent that the Christians have become Jews.

“Through [the Jew] and without [the Jew]”—mostly without him: as Marx certainly knew, Jews made up a very small part of the moneyed elite of England, the most advanced capitalist country, and an even smaller part of the “rising” German bourgeoisie. His own father had converted to Protestantism in order to facilitate his entry into bourgeois society, where Jews were not welcome in the early nineteenth century.

What Marx is doing here, David Nirenberg argues in his brilliant, fascinating, and deeply depressing book Anti-Judaism, is exactly what many other writers have done in the long history of Western civilization. His essay is a “strategic appropriation of the most powerful language of opprobrium available to any critic of the powers and institutions of this world.” That sentence comes from Nirenberg’s discussion of Martin Luther, but it applies equally well to Marx. Still, we should be more surprised by Marx’s use of this language than by Luther’s, not only because of Marx’s Jewish origins but also because of his claim to be a radical critic of the ideology of his own time. He might, Nirenberg says, have questioned the association of Judaism and capitalism and written a critical history aimed at making his readers more reflective about that association. Instead, he chose to exploit “old ideas and fears about Jewishness.”

Consider another famous use of this language of opprobrium, this time not in support of but in fierce opposition to revolutionary politics. In his Reflections on the Revolution in France, published in 1790, Edmund Burke compared what was going on in France to previous revolutions (like England’s in 1688) that were led by noblemen “of great civil, and great military talents.” By contrast, he wrote, the revolutionary government in Paris is led by “Jew brokers contending with each other who could best remedy with fraudulent circulation and depreciated paper the wretchedness and ruin brought on their country by their degenerate councils.”

In Burke’s case, the choice of this language was probably not “strategic.” The choice was structural—anti-Judaism was a feature of the worldview with which Burke was able to recognize what Marxists later described as a “bourgeois” revolution. “Given the complete absence of Jews from the actual leadership, whether political, pecuniary, or philosophical, of the French Revolution,” Nirenberg writes, the line about “Jew brokers” (and also Burke’s proposal to help the revolutionaries by sending English Jews to France “to please your new Hebrew brethren”) may, again, seem very strange. In fact, it is utterly common; only Burke’s ferocious eloquence is uncommon.

http://sarahhonig.com/2014/03/07/another-tack-krake-zuckerberg/

Most German publications no longer even pretend any wariness about coming off as anti-Jewish. Gone are the days when Germans had to at least appear a tad more cautious than their fellow Europeans. The latter reverted quickly enough to their old Jew-baiting habits but the Germans have willy-nilly caught up.

A cogent example is being consistently provided by Munich’ s left-liberalSueddeutsche Zeitung, which also happens to be Germany’s largest broadsheet daily. It recently featured a cartoon lampooning Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg after his outfit had acquired WhatsApp. The idea was to show Zuckerberg as a voracious octopus that swallows up everything around it. The caption at the bottom left-hand corner of the cartoon clearly read “Krake Zuckerberg” (German for Octopus Zuckerberg.) Up to this point, it’s tolerable criticism.

But the octopus, as drawn by cartoonist Burkhard Mohr, was also given quite a distinctive face. Its function, presumably, was to make sure we don’t lose sight of the fact that young Zuckerberg – innovative enough to have given the world a social network which millions of Germans also use – is a Jew. To that end, Mohr portrayed him with a preposterous hook-nose and thick fish-lips – as per the freakish stereotype sinisterly ascribed to Jews by their tormentors.

The most glaring example was Julius Streicher’s Nazi-era Der Stürmer which surpassed all competitors in caricaturing Jews as hook-nosed spiteful grotesques. However, while Der Stürmer was the worst, it wasn’t alone. In fact, it’s still seemingly unobjectionable all over the globe to gratuitously picture Jews in Der Stürmer style.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4206/nigeria-middle-belt

During a priority-setting session, “equal opportunity for all tribes or groups,” “job creation,” “better education,” and “recognition of excellence” were rated significantly higher than “defeat of Boko Haram,” perhaps because that is seen primarily as the job of the military.

The security situation across northern Nigeria is unstable-to-terrible. The Islamists of the Boko Haram group have threatened to eradicate Christianity through a campaign of violence against Christians and churches, and have killed 2,000 people including moderate Muslims in four years.

Further, the next federal elections are planned for just twelve months’ time; during the last ballot in 2011 the re-election of Christian presidential candidate, Goodluck Jonathan, resulted in the death of 800 Christians and other minorities and the destruction of up to 300 churches at the hand of rioting Muslim protestors in the twelve northern Sharia states.

Nonetheless, Dr. Bala Takaya, vice-president of Nigeria’s Middle Belt Forum, former head of the Department of Political Science at Jos University and alumnus of the London School of Economics, is hopeful. Speaking to the media outside the second Stefanos Foundation conference for the country’s northern ethnic minorities — an initiative of Gatestone Institute held in Abuja recently — he claimed that the northern minorities are becoming stronger and more united. “We have come of age,” he said.

  http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4207/obama-budget-israel-missile-defense Missile defense buys time and the Administration should appreciate — and fund — that. When the President is leaning hard on Israel to be forthcoming and flexible on issues of its own short and long-term security, the signal that missile defenses are expendable sends the wrong signal to both friends and adversaries. Does […]

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4205/britain-immigration “The free market to which our EU partners are fundamentally committed has turned out to have rather different and serious implications in the UK. The fundamental mistake was to expand the EU to include 100 million people with a standard of living of about one quarter of ours.” — Migration Watch UK. Net immigration […]

On Tuesday March 4th, the Primaries for both major parties was held in Texas. With the exception of District 4 and District 36 where runoffs are scheduled on May 27, 2014, all incumbents of both parties held their grounds against challengers in their own parties.

Tomorrow at Family Security Matters we’ll have the results and the candidates for November. This is out of alphabetical sequence because the primary has concluded. Coming very soon….Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware and Georgia….and the mighty state of Illinois which holds its primary on March 18….

Stay tuned and stay optimistic…there are many really good legislators in America…..and remember that every single district counts….rsk

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/how-obamacare-slaps-the-sick?f=puball

“Lies,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid calls the TV ads that feature people complaining about ObamaCare. Sorry: The people in those ads are sick, but their new health policies don’t let them see the specialists or get the medications they need.

These patients aren’t liars; they’re people President Obama claimed he would help, who instead are being harmed.

They had insurance, but their plans got canceled because of the Affordable Care Act, forcing them into ObamaCare. Now they’re discovering that ObamaCare plans aren’t for sick people. They offer “free” mammograms, “free” colonoscopies and “free” contraceptives – meaning you don’t have a copay. But if you have cancer, MS or Parkinson’s, you’re in trouble: Most ObamaCare plans skimp on specialists and life-saving drugs.

Dr. Jeffrey English, a Georgia neurologist who treats patients with advanced MS, worries that such patients forced into exchange plans will deteriorate rapidly. Some plans don’t cover six out of the 10 drugs that can treat MS, including the ones most effective at staving off irreversible paralysis.

“ObamaCare is a throwback to the old HMO model of the 1990s, which promised a broad package of coverage for primary-care benefits like vaccines and routine doctor visits. But to pay for these benefits, the ObamaCare plans skimp on other things, principally the number of doctors you’ll have access to and also the number of costlier branded drugs,” explains Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a practicing physician and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

It’s like a car with leather seats and Bose speakers, but a lousy engine. Another aspect of this approach: Most exchange plans exclude the academic medical centers that cancer patients look to when their local hospital runs out of answers.

How To Fight The Left in Political War — On The Glazov Gang

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/ben-shapiro-crashes-ucla-divestment-from-israel-hearing-on-the-glazov-gang/print/

This week’s special editon of The Glazov Gang was joined by Ben Shapiro, the Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org, Elisha Krauss, Morning Co-Host at KRLA AM 870 The Answer and a staff writer at TruthRevolt.org, and Jeremy Boreing, the Managing Editor of TruthRevolt.org.

The Gang gathered to discuss How To Fight The Left in Political War. The dialogue occurred within the context of Ben’s recent successful appearance at the UCLA Divestment from Israel Hearing, in which he blasted both the student sponsors and those considering the anti-Semitic measure.

Other themes included Flashback: Shapiro’s Debate KO of Piers Morgan, UN Ambassador Samantha Power’s Jew-Hatred, and much, much more:

Watch the two-part series below:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/a-cop-killer-advocate-goes-down-in-flames-in-the-senate/print/

In a major defeat for the Obama administration, the Senate voted 52 to 47 to block the confirmation of Debo Adegbile, President Obama’s nominee to head the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department. Every Republican Senator opposed the effort, and they were joined by eight Democrats, including Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Chris Coons of Delaware, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and John Walsh of Montana. Nevada’s Harry Reid joined his seven colleagues, but only to preserve his ability to reconsider the nomination late if necessary. Though the vote was close, the blocking of Adegbile’s nomination strikes a significant blow to the Obama administration’s attempt to further radicalize the already out-of-control Department of Justice.

Under Adegbile’s leadership and supervision, the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund (LDF) undertook an unconscionable effort to politicize the murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. Faulkner was murdered on December 9, 1981 by Wesley Cook, a former Black Panther more familiarly known as “Mumia Abu-Jamal.” Abu-Jamal was also a supporter of “MOVE” a racist-anarchist group that encouraged violence against police officers. When Faulkner tried to arrest Abu-Jamal’s brother during a traffic stop, Abu-Jamal ran across the street and shot Faulkner in the back. Faulker turned and fired one shot, hitting Abu-Jamal in the chest before falling to the ground. Abu-Jamal then proceeded to shoot Faulkner four more times at close range, including once directly in the face. The murderer was still at the scene when officers arrived seconds later. The murder weapon, a .38 caliber revolver that records showed Abu-Jamal had purchased months earlier, was found at the scene.