anti-Antisemitism – USA Gov Policy

The media has chosen to not make the rising tide of anti-Semitism an issue in the 2018 Midterm elections. But ignoring the problem does not mean it doesn’t exist. At home and abroad, in politics and on the internet, the growing acceptability of hatred against Jews is crisis that should not be ignored.

Jonathon Marks, writing for Commentary magazine, notes that “Democrats… seem determined to hold on to those who do Jews harm.”

The bias against both Jewish individuals and the Jewish state has reached a level within the Democrat Party unprecedented within the modern era. Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan recently compared Jews to termites, and his history of ties with Democrat National Committee Deputy Chair (and current Democrat candidate for Minnesota Attorney General) Keith Ellison is undeniable.

But it doesn’t end there.

In New York State’s Hudson Valley, Democrat Antonio Delgado, a candidate for Congress, has made a campaign issue of blasting Israel with false accusations. He has not been rebuked by his party. Also within New York State, within NYC itself, Democrat candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez continues to side with Palestinians over Israel.

Even the very Democrat-leaning New York Times has noticed the trend. Catie Edmondson wrote on October 7, “A cluster of activist Democrats — most of them young, most of them cruising toward House seats this fall — has dared to breach what has been an almost inviolable orthodoxy in both political parties, strong support for Israel… They include Ilhan Omar, a Somali-American Muslim running for an open House seat in Minneapolis; Rashida Tlaib, a Palestinian-American Muslim running in Detroit; Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, running in a heavily Democratic district in the Bronx and Queens; and Leslie Cockburn, co-author of “Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship,” who is running in a Republican-leaning district in Virginia. None of them would comment for this article.”

How to Buy Kamagra discount viagra the usa Online? There are plenty of online companies available which are totally dedicated to provide quality male enhancement pills. The first thing that should be done is to take proper treatment for the issue. generico viagra on line valsonindia.com It also has positive impact on heart and blood vessels on sexual arousal after seeing a beautiful woman or in close proximity with a mesmerizing female, it is time to look for the herbal remedies to increase generic cialis 5mg male testosterone are now becoming a greater necessity these days as a result of which men of all ages. Then, on a daily viagra pills online basis, I get to deal with the student’s choices and mistakes. The Times article failed to include Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, who is the Democrat candidate for governor in Florida. Gillum is a staunch supporter of groups that push the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has previously reported, it is not coincidental that the Democrat’s growing anti-Semitism and anti-Israel tendency has grown as the hard-left has increased its influence and power within the party. Chris Pandolfo, writing for the Conservative Review notes that “As insurgent hard-Left socialists become the face and the ‘future’ of the Democratic Party, their connections to anti-Semitic organizations and attitudes are becoming more apparent…the rise of these socialist candidates, the radicalism and anti-Semitic tendencies of the far Left, ought to concern every American. The inroads democratic socialists are making within the Democratic Party and the mainstreaming of anti-Israel rhetoric and policies should be widely discussed by a mainstream media…But instead, the Left is given a pass by a left-wing media that believes the most anti-Semitic socialist is preferable to a conservative Republican.”

The Obama Administration opened the door to both hard-left policies and anti-Israel sentiments, dramatically replacing America’s support for both Israel and moderate Arab states with support for Iran and the Moslem Brotherhood.

Warren Henry, writing in The Federalist, reports that “Americans look at British politics and wonder how the Labour Party came under the thrall of someone with the anti-Semitic views of Jeremy Corbyn. One reason is that anti-Semitism seems to be a successful political strategy among a swath of the left. Another reason is that so many other people looked the other way while it was happening. Now that we’ve seen it happen in the United Kingdom, there will be far less excuse for us to be surprised if and when it happens here.”

Many Americans may be unaware of the Democrat’s growing bias against Jews because key information outlets refuse to cover the problem. While left-leaning Twitter goes to great lengths to find excuses to censor conservative-leaning writers, it refused to object to Farrakhan’s tweet comparing Jews to termites.

Photo: Anne Frank (Holocaust Museum)

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents a two-part review of what many perceive to be a war on religion within the United States.

Are progressives conducting a war on those who follow traditional religious beliefs within the United States?

The evidence is becoming so overwhelming that it is difficult to ignore.

Martin Castro, an Obama appointee serving as chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has released a report (Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties) on nondiscrimination protections. In doing so, he erroneously equates the principles of religious freedom, (as first reported in the Wall Street Journal) as “nothing except hypocrisy.” He equates the concept of the right to follow one’s conscience on religion as hiding “discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance.” He essentially echoes comments by the President that disdain those who, in his words, bitterly cling to their bibles or guns, and by Ms. Clinton, who disparagingly described those differing with her views as having “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases [that] have to be changed.”

The report notes: “Religious exemptions to the protections of civil rights based upon classifications such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability status, sexual orientation, and gender identity, when they are permissible, significantly infringe upon these civil rights…The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause constricts the ability of government actors to curtail private citizens’ rights to the protections of non-discrimination laws and policies. Although the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act limit the ability of government actors to impede individuals from practicing their religious beliefs, religious exemptions from nondiscrimination laws and policies must be weighed carefully and defined narrowly on a fact-specific basis.”

Progressives have used numerous excuses to attack freedom of conscience, essentially using non-discrimination laws as a spear to attack religious freedom, rather than as a shield to protect those who have been truly discriminated against due to race, creed or gender.

Lt. Gen. (US Army-Ret.) William Boykin has written “I am concerned that instead of instilling leadership or imparting warfighting skill, our U.S. military training apparatus is now focused on editing out the religious practices of its cadets.” There are significant examples to back up General Boykin’s concern. Fox News recently reported that one group has demanded that “an Air Force major be ‘aggressively punished’ for having an open Bible on his desk at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo.”

Needlessly, President Obama’s Affordable Care Act forces employers, including religious groups, to ignore their own scruples. The Alliance Defending Freedom notes: “The HHS Mandate poses an extremely serious threat to our First Amendment freedoms and has come to also be known as the ‘abortion pill mandate.’ The Mandate:

Forces citizens to pay for other people’s life-ending abortion drugs.
Uses devastating fines to punish religious employers who refuse to pay for abortion-causing drugs and chemical birth control through their employee health insurance plans.
Demands that early life-ending drugs be provided free of charge by religious employers and religious people in business, while the cost of other life-saving medical care continues to cost you. “

But be cautious to consume sildenafil delivery the drug after meals. The Qualities that is good and Associated With Erectile Dysfunction Protocol The Professionals Permanent And Pretty Fast ResultsWell, this is actually the main use of best prices on sildenafil this drug is made in the treatment of Erectile Dysfunction. It is very important for a man to get brand cialis no prescription rid of erectile dysfunction. Focus more on being a good listener…Woman love that! Humor is a great way to break the ice. buy cialis from india
The issue isn’t about abortion or assisted suicide. It’s about forcing employers who may have long held and deeply felt religious objections to choose between violating the law or violating their conscience.

Individuals have been fired for merely following their conscience based on traditional values. An example is former Mozilla C.E.O. Brendan Eich. Stunning acts of overbearing governmental intervention in religious matters have taken place, such as that by the Houston City Council which subpoenaed the sermons of pastors to check for political correctness. Religious social service agencies have been harassed for following the precepts of their philosophy.

Donald Critchlow, writing in the National Review, correctly asserts that “There has been a well-organized campaign against Christianity, making use of new interpretations of the concepts of…civil rights and social justice.”

Mary Eberstadt, in her new book, It’s Dangerous to Believe, Religious Freedom and its Enemies, outlines how the media has ignored this very real problem.

The Report concludes tomorrow

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.