February 13th, 2018

Our Anglo-American legal system

CNN reports:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday brought up sheriffs’ “Anglo-American heritage” during remarks to law enforcement officials in Washington.

“I want to thank every sheriff in America. Since our founding, the independently elected sheriff has been the people’s protector, who keeps law enforcement close to and accountable to people through the elected process,” Sessions said in remarks at the National Sheriffs Association winter meeting, adding, “The office of sheriff is a critical part of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcemen.”

Big yawn, right? Of course not:

Sen. Brian Schatz (D. Haw.) led the charge. He tweeted:

“Do you know anyone who says ‘Anglo-American heritage’ in a sentence? What could possibly be the purpose of saying that other than to pit Americans against each other? For the chief law enforcement officer to use a dog whistle like that is appalling. Best NO vote I ever cast.”

Schatz was educated at Punahoe (Obama’s private school alma mater) and then went to Pomona College and majored in philosophy. He’s been in politics since the age of 25.

And yet somehow, despite his academic credentials, an education has managed to elude him (I’m being kind here, because the jury’s out on the fool/knave question). Just about everyone who knows anything about our legal system either uses or is aware of the suitability of the phrase “Anglo-American heritage.” But Schatz would apparently rather accuse others of divisiveness (while being divisive himself, a neat trick but a common one) than to learn anything about that system.

One person he could have learned something from is the pre-presidential Obama of old, who is quoted as having said the following in 2006:

The world is watching what we do today in America. They will know what we do here today, and they will treat all of us accordingly in the future—our soldiers, our diplomats, our journalists, anybody who travels beyond these borders. I hope we remember this as we go forward. I sincerely hope we can protect what has been called the “great writ”—a writ that has been in place in the Anglo-American legal system for over 700 years.

It’s no accident that Schatz is either ignorant of the Anglo-American foundation of our legal system or ignores it. One of the pillars of that system is that people are treated as individuals rather than groups by the legal system. Schatz’s politics would pit group against group, and use the legal system to do it, and to stir up anger by talking about “dog whistles” that aren’t even there.

Our Anglo-American heritage is a shared one open to all who come here. Is it flawed? Of course. But I believe it’s the best legal system possible and the most protective of the individual.

[NOTE: Also please see this from Bill Murray. Yes, that Bill Murray.]

29 Responses to “Our Anglo-American legal system”

  1. j e Says:

    It is highly unlikely that this insanely stupid remark (from someone whose profession it is to craft legislation) will receive much criticism from the left. No-one capable of tweeting anything so utterly devoid of any understanding of this nation’s history and legal system is qualified to hold elected office.

  2. Kimo Says:

    The great state of Hawaii is the perfect example of Anglo-American heritage as embodied by their state flag… American red & white stripes and the British Union Jack in place of the stars – a throwback to the time when Great Britain was an ally of Hawaii before statehood. Maybe he missed that as well, the Hawaiian flag flies in front of Punahou every day.

  3. n.n Says:

    Not unlike dividing Americans into Fifty Shades of [color] Diversity. Is anyone else offended when an American citizen is referred to as an immigrant, as a colorful clump of cells, as a half breed (e.g. African-American)?

    As for Anglo-Americans, the founding principals were indeed of English heritage. However, America was founded for “the People” and “our Posterity”, which is [color] diversity neutral.

  4. Oldflyer Says:

    The Senator proves my observation that one of the great benefits of social media is that it provides increased opportunity for fools to reveal themselves. The down side is that it increases the opportunity for fools to impose their foolishness on the public. “Twits tweet”. (Not suggesting that all tweeters are twits.)

    Punahoe and Pomona are both very pricey institutions. His parents should have demanded refunds.

  5. Oldflyer Says:

    The Senator proves my observation that one of the great benefits of social media is that it provides increased opportunity for fools to reveal themselves. The down side is that it increases the opportunity for fools to impose their foolishness on the public. “Twits tweet”. (Not suggesting that all tweeters are twits.)

    Punahou and Pomona are both very pricey institutions. His parents should have demanded refunds.

  6. Gringo Says:

    Per Kimo’s comment about the Hawaii state flag, here is a link with picture of the flag: definitely a touch of Great Britain and its horrible “Anglo-Saxon heritage.” Does Congressman Schatz want to change Hawaii’s state flag?

    I hope Schatz gets mocked so much he will be afraid to show his face in public.

    I recall reading about Schatz making some absurd statement on the environment and thinking that someone with a philosophy degree doesn’t have much expertise in that field.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Hawaii

  7. Stu Says:

    Without further research I immediately assumed this politician was not a lawyer and perhaps managed to earn an academic degree,without ever having studied the form of government which incredibly he is a part. Not only did our common law tradition come from England but our jury system and the foundations of most of our Bill of Rights were developed there.

  8. DNW Says:

    “I recall reading about Schatz making some absurd statement on the environment and thinking that someone with a philosophy degree doesn’t have much expertise in that field.”

    Philosophy degree?

    What was his supposed concentration? Anyone know?

    One of the interesting things about philosophers [and as far as I know no one is saying he has a PhD in it] in a very narrow sense, is that some of them are surprisingly ignorant of what we imagine they would have to know.

    One amusing example is AJ Ayer’s realization when he was expected to tutor in philosophy, that he didn’t really know the corpus of Plato to any real degree.

    And that was “philosophy”.

  9. rtc Says:

    “A great many intellectual positions are obvious and incontestable to people who are ignorant of and incurious about history. That’s why they go to such great lengths to maintain that ignorance.”
    http://blog.ayjay.org/making-life-simpler/

  10. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Our legal system’s anglo-American heritage must be denied by the Left, as it is evidence of the basic flaw upon which multi-culturalism is premised; that all cultures are equal in beneficial value.

  11. neo-neocon Says:

    Oldflyer:

    But are all twits tweeters?

  12. Ymar Sakar Says:

    Just take a look at all the Greek gods being worshiped at the altars of DC and then think about why people think a certain god established this country.

    This country was in a divine covenant and contract with multiple gods, and the Jehovah one “merely” tolerated the establishment of the colonies after the Pilgrims.

    Most of the history Americans were taught about the USA is subtly distorted, the rest was just flat out deception and untruth.

  13. Zigzag Says:

    Sorry… Elephant in the Room Time, but it has to be said:

    This is the same old same old “The Cossacks are Coming” syndrome at work.

    For the sake of *all* concerned, people need to grow up and accept that Nations and Localities *do* have traditions and folk ways and that these are not automatically KKK/Nuremberg in nature.

    Punahou and the Hawaiian stuff are Red Herrings. I hear ‘Sheriff’ and think Merrie Olde England / Officer of the Court blah blah… Schatz starts hallucinating bits of Ivanhoe and free-associates from there.

  14. Ira Says:

    I’m so embarrassed that such disproportionate numbers of the accused sexual harassers and intentionally stupid liberals are Jewish.

  15. Angel Says:

    they are just consumed with self hatred! HAPPY VALENTINES DAY! xoxoxo:)

  16. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    What greek gods might those be? Somehow I missed their altars when I visited DC in 62. Is this a new thing? After all of this time, how could I have missed reading about it?

    Not sure I follow but who here has asserted that other nation’s traditions and folk ways automatically equate to “KKK/Nurenburg”?

    On the other hand, some other culture’s disregard for basic hygiene is alone proof that all cultures are not of equal value. That of course is not advocating that they possess a lesser value in human dignity but simply acknowledging that those cultures in certain areas have yet to embrace objectively superior cultural standards.

  17. Ymar Sakar Says:

    I presume they aren’t referring to the founding of the USA based upon the Vatican’s Liberation Theology.

    Somehow I missed their altars when I visited DC in 62. Is this a new thing? After all of this time, how could I have missed reading about it?

    It’s not surprising you missed reading it from the mainstream culture and MSM propaganda arms. Why would they tell the peons and slaves anything about what was really going on. They didn’t tell me, so I presume they didn’t tell anyone else either. Everything I know about the DS (Deep State) came from non MSM sources, which nonetheless qualified as 2 independent sources in Ymar style triangulation and Ancient Hebrew legal requirement traditions for credible witnesses. My fore knowledge of the Leftist alliance didn’t even come from human sources to begin with, that was merely the later research to figure out how something like the LA was allowed to form and exist in the US. I no longer expect to read things about the truth of human history or about the truth of the crimes against humanity, in the newspapers or Yahoo news, or the AP Reuters network, or Journolist NYTimers. It is wiser to declare it all fake news and become the greatest ignorant entity, than to become misinformed as Twain and his wife remarked.

    This story goes back to the Apotheosis of Washington after his death. They might have held one for Lincoln as well. This is a standard Greek or Roman tradition, to elevate to deus hood various great leaders and generals.

    As for the District of Columbia, that is an interesting backstory in itself. Columbia was known to the colonists as the goddess of liberty, a patron goddess or spirit, complete with Greek/Roman style robes and symbology, that protected and propelled the divinity of the independent colonies. The old pictures are still available online. The Romans also had a goddess of liberty, they called her Libertas. The US using Greek architecture, columns, fasces, and naming the Senate, the Senate, and various other things such as “capitol”, may be merely coincidence or a passing fad of the ancient founders. The Statue of Liberty, also, could be merely the passing fancy of those cowardly French, as the USA people would view it.

    Ahh, if it was only that, then it might have been merely coincidence, but wait there is more…

    http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/11/11/liberation-theology-rooted-in-bible-says-movements-founder/

    The Vatican’s Liberation Theology. Most often commonly known of and seen in Latin America, but a potential first iteration and application of it was the Colonial Revolution of the latter USA.

    If Jehovah is said to be tolerant of the creation of the USA, I wonder why it is mere tolerance instead of Divine Providence and exceptional protection. Certainly the USA has gained economic, cultural, and military might equal to the protection of the gods. From where else would the exceptional might of the USA be attributed to; the resources of the people perhaps. If the USA stole more resources than any other nation, then certainly the “resources of the people” would be greater, but that is a flawed theory on several fronts, not all due to fracking vs peak oil.

    The Jesuits had an interesting hand in liberation theology, which is connected to the current or Protestant meme of the “Last Pope”, Francis, the self proclaimed “Vicar of Christ” which in fact is merely, at best, the Patriarch of Rome. What is the Vicar of Christ? It is the middle man, the gatekeeper. You shall not ascend to the heavens or descend to purgatory and hell, except through the gatekeeper. It is only through him, that your salvation and plea for mercy, may be granted by the Divine King. It is not hard to wonder why the colonies and the latter USA, so detested and feared the power of the Papacy, Popery, and the Vatican’s Jesuit covert ops branch. Even in the age of JFK, worries were raised about his Catholicism. Too late by far, Americans, too late by far. The sources I use are not certain but they have sufficiently qualified under my standards to be released now, and humans are free to believe in whatever elohim, the princes of the air and darkness and the powers of this world that should not be but that are, they wish. The Divine Counsel did not give me any message or authority to decree what humans should or should not worship. Thus if Americans want to worship Columbia, go right ahead; I am not part of that however.

    The Ancient Israelis and Hebrews could worship whatever elohim and gods they wanted to as well. There was just a minor fine print in the contract they often ignored.

    You could worship whatever elohim you wanted under the Vatican too, so long as you were willing to be considered a heretic, to be burned alive at the stake if you refuse to recant, and to have all your property seized and given to the “lawyer” Jesuit inquisitors, Dominican torturers born of the Cathar extermination holy war, and the Vatican’s coffers. You could read and translate whatever bible you wanted, so long as you kept the fine print costs in mind.

    The Vatican is in its own sovereign territory, near Rome. That is why for all ostensible appearances, it is called the Church of Rome, as well as the Universal Catholic Church of God the Father. Which god, however, was best left to people’s imaginations and religious dogma.

    Indeed, our “Anglo American Legal system” is supreme. DC, London, the Vatican: 3 centers of power in the West. But that’s okay, I am sure Americans won’t over react to the idea of State powers that they have never seen nor heard of before. They’ll just trust in the FBi, IRS, Hussein their Messiah and Trum their Messiah to save them. That will be enough… right.

    To clarify an earlier point, this isn’t a “conspiracy”. The Roman, Greek, and goddess/spirit worship of the Colonies and later USA is well known in the public domain. It is so non controversial it is even mentioned in a line or two on wikipedia. That is how non controversial it is. Nothing to see here people, move along. So don’t jump to the conclusion, as many neophyte initiates of the Conspiracy Theory World tends to do, that everything is a conspiracy from the DS (Deep State). That is not my conclusion nor is it my recommendation that others should jump to it.

    The Vatican’s Jesuit history and the Founding Fathers being nearly all Free Masons reconstructing the Temple of Solomon, may be more hidden or illuminated but that is an entirely separate essay. Connected, yes, but separate or later.

    I can feel the knee gut reactions now. How dare someone cast doubt on the official dogmatic histories, he must be anti American. I once had the same reaction as you patriots here, to the true history of the DS and of the USA, but it turned out my rah rah patriotic reaction was wrong and the sources revealed to me was the more correct on the CIA and USA covert actions. That is because I was ready to hear the truth. The DS keeps you humans on the human livestock farm, why… because they know you are Not Ready for the truth. You cannot handle it. Well some of you can, and thus it is the Test.

    Anyways, back to the primary point of contention and mystery: the Greek and Roman gods of DC. *Has anyone yet noticed that my turn of phrase intentionally makes it hard for people to believe certain facts and theories… well cookies to you for noticing it, it is all part of the strategy though. It is better for humans and students to connect the dots themselves than learn through DS dogma that one cannot veer from the status quo MSM propaganda lines*

    wiki/Statue_of_Freedom

    Who is over your Capitol, American mortals? Do you even know any more…

    Does that look like Jesus or Yehovah to anyone. But it is okay, we can put statues of good goddesses and saints up, the Vatican said so. Well, yes, they did, and so did Patriarch of Rome Francis.

    10 commandments out of the legal system? You peeps haven’t had the TEN COMMANDMENTS for a few centuries by now. Ridiculous apathetic denizens of a totalitarian system under the gods. Oh, she’s the goddess of liberty or some such, that means we’re okay, we’re protected by the Might of the Watchers or some such…

    Somehow humans missed it. But the Watchers and kami are always above you. Look up, perhaps. The Watchers were originally called the Watchers not because they were told to observe humanity and not interfere (analogous to some sci fi concepts), but because as angels of spirit and the level of the heavens, they do not sleep. They are always awake, for the last 6000 years even. Meanwhile mortals spend 5-10 hours sleeping each day. Indeed, we are all “asleep” by comparison.

    But wait, there’s more in DC…

    Look up the word “capitol” in your online dictionaries, humans. Why do you think the architects, Founding Fathers, and other respected denizens of this Contracted Covenanted Holy Land of the Americas under Columbia, used the word capitol? Were they ignorant of the definition, denotation, and connotation of Senate too… Are they the stupid ones or are the modern “publicly educated” elites that we call modern education…

    Of course they understood what “capitol” meant in the Roman and Greek lexicons. Only their rah rah patriotic descendants appear clueless. Nobody sees an altar? Try opening your eyes. Here’s a talisman of magic to aid you, grab a US dollar pill and meditate upon the meaning of the Pyramid.

    Novus ordo seclorum

    As for your other contentions or mysterious inter locutions and points, GB, I’ll probably address them later.

    P.S. Believe not in humans nor in humanity, which obviously includes me. But let us see, once and for all, whether mortals can truly match the power of the DS. I have doubts, given that Americans can’t even killed a single LA (Leftist alliance).

  18. DNW Says:

    ” Ira Says:
    February 13th, 2018 at 10:19 pm

    I’m so embarrassed that such disproportionate numbers of the accused sexual harassers and intentionally stupid liberals are Jewish.”

    Interesting remark. Someone here , probably Neo, had previously linked to an article by a rabbi bemoaning what he saw as the prominent role of Jews in the production of pornography. I tried to quick search it just now and only came up with something from the Jewish Quarterly, Nathan Abrams, Winter 2004 – Number 196, : which was considerably more intellectually disturbing in some respects. https://www.jewishquarterly.org/issuearchive/articled325.html?articleid=38

    I guess no one quite knows what to make of secular and a-thiestic persons who persist as “Jews”, nor their moral sensibilities.

    Nor in all the discussions here, by presumably well-informed and qualified commenters, has there ever been a clear-cut and precise definition of a “Jew” in any sense that carries any categorical freight, or certain moral implications.

    One gets to the point wherein calling someone – or granting they are – Jewish makes about as much logical sense as respectfully referring to Lesbian New Age Practitioners of Wicca, as real “Catholic Nuns”.

    My guess, is that there is some tendency which I have never quite grasped, wherein some portion of obviously bona fide Jews [by any reasonable metric] persist in extending the privilege of solidarity through shared identity to others who are perpetually obnoxious. This is a growing tendency among Christian religious professionals as well.

    There seems to have been no obvious historical process of, nor tendency toward, excommunication or outlawry among most people who self-identify as Jewish.

    Instead there seems to have been a great reluctance to cast the obnoxious out once and for all, and declare them absolute moral aliens.

    But then, that is just an outsider’s observation, and I stake no flag on that ground.

  19. Delilah Says:

    Neo,

    In a 30 second search I found 4+ examples of Obama et al. using the same phrase. The crap the Left thinks up continues to surprise me. Even if I were crazy, I couldn’t think up such garbage.

    Here’s Senator Obama in 2006, arguing in favor of habeas corpus on the Senate floor: The world is watching what we do today in America. They will know what we do here today, and they will treat all of us accordingly in the future—our soldiers, our diplomats, our journalists, anybody who travels beyond these borders. I hope we remember this as we go forward. I sincerely hope we can protect what has been called the “great writ”—a writ that has been in place in the Anglo-American legal system for over 700 years.

    And here’s Obama during the 2008 campaign, making broadly the same point: But Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for more than a decade, said captured suspects deserve to file writs of habeus corpus. Calling it “the foundation of Anglo-American law,” he said the principle “says very simply: If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, ‘Why was I grabbed?’ And say, ‘Maybe you’ve got the wrong person.’” The safeguard is essential, Obama continued, “because we don’t always have the right person.”

    And here’s Obama as president, at it again: Obama would not say whether it could be achieved within the first 100 days of his term, citing the challenge of creating a balanced process “that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, but doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.

    In 2009, then-President Barack Obama cited the “Anglo-American legal system” while discussing his administration’s approach to law enforcement, CBS News reported. In 2016, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer used the term “Anglo-American” during a speech in China with no apparent controversy.

  20. Mike K Says:

    I hope the left has recovered its sanity by the time my grandchildren are adults.

    Ann Althouse linked to a NY Times article attacking Ivanka Trump, and of course, her father.

    Highly rated comment.

    Given the disgusting history of the entire trump menagerie, I tend to see this as an insult to Kim Yo-jong, not to little Ivanka. And no, to all jingoists, this is not some incendiary indictment of the democratic US vs the NK regime…it is an indictment of the perverse trumps.

    The left is truly insane.

  21. neo-neocon Says:

    DNW:

    Jewish identity is a complex thing. It is both a “people” and a religion, and that’s where the persistence of the identity originates for many (not all) Jews themselves. Nazis, of course, thought it persisted for other reasons (blood, and their crazy ideas of racialism) and even conversion generations back didn’t change it.

    A great many Jews today have no Jewish identity at all except maybe humor and bagels.

    And Jews, by that broad definition, are disproportionately involved in many endeavors. Most are good endeavors. A few are bad.

  22. ConceptJunkie Says:

    See, I don’t think this comment was made out of ignorance. Senator Schatz most likely is very cognizant of the “Anglo-American heritage” of our legal system. However, he can score political points among the ignorant of the electorate with comments like this, and that is what matters, or so it would seem to the distinguished gentleman from Hawaii.

    Let’s face it, playing to the lowest common denominator gets the most bang per buck for stupid statements by politicians.

  23. DNW Says:

    “neo-neocon Says:
    February 14th, 2018 at 1:26 pm

    DNW:

    Jewish identity is a complex thing. It is both a “people” and a religion, and that’s where the persistence of the identity originates for many (not all) Jews themselves. Nazis, of course, thought it persisted for other reasons (blood, and their crazy ideas of racialism) and even conversion generations back didn’t change it.

    A great many Jews today have no Jewish identity at all except maybe humor and bagels.

    And Jews, by that broad definition, are disproportionately involved in many endeavors. Most are good endeavors. A few are bad.”

    Well, like I’ve said, I have never seen a modern definition that makes categorical sense: yes/no, on/off, in/out.

    And the aspect of it which would bother me most, were I Jewish, is the in-theory unqualified privilege which reprobates might deploy in order to shield behind a common identity.

    Now, this is of course a very common and disreputable strategy employed by many varieties of humans.

    One of the more comically inept manifestations of this immunization strategy is found in that famously fatuous liberal rhetorical question formula thrown at conservatives whenever some contentious social question crops up which involves consequences if government spending is reduced: first a supposed “harm” scenario set-up and then comes, “Why do you hate (or ‘wish to harm”) Americans?

    Thus, we are all “Americans”, it is implied trumps liberty and every other bloody consideration of reason, or self-interest.

    A similar thing happens when liberal leaning types try to credential and then shield themselves behind military service, as if that immunizes their motives from being critiqued.

    White Power clowns are seen doing the same thing in a particularly pathetic and ineffective way.

    But in the case of gentiles, I don’t think that that card plays well: except perhaps among liberals who are hung up on “inclusion” as the primary moral value above all else. And my reason tells me that as human nature is presumably of one kind, it follows that quite a few persons culturally Jewish, would probably welcome some way of drawing lines and cutting ties if necessary.

    Quite possibly that stance is one of the primary differences between so-called liberals, and those persons actually interested in liberty whatever their culture or religion. Though recent liberal jabber about secession, might make one rethink even that commitment.

  24. Yankee Says:

    If you ever have the misfortune to be in court for a serious matter, whether civil or criminal, then you may certainly wish for an Anglo-American judge, for the best assurance of fairness and at least some justice.

    There is the fictional example of Tom Wolfe’s 1987 novel “Bonfire of the Vanities”, where a car accident is transformed into a racial incident, with the Bronx DA going after the “Great White Defendant.” And it would not take long to find current real cases, with judges (usually appointed by Democrats and often minorities or women) making questionable rulings, because they have other motivations, and want to use particular individual cases to bring about universal cosmic justice, fairness, and equality, regardless of the facts.

    Because of the politicization of the judiciary, and how some judges see so many things in racial terms, I have less confidence in the justice system today.

  25. Yackums Says:

    Yankee…

    Yeah, to today’s America, Bonfire of the Vanities, like 1984 and Brave New World before it, are instruction manuals, not cautionary tales.

  26. Watt Says:

    775.01 Florida Statutes (still on the books):

    Common law of England.—The common law of England in relation to crimes, except so far as the same relates to the modes and degrees of punishment, shall be of full force in this state where there is no existing provision by statute on the subject.

  27. Ymar Sakar Says:

    My guess, is that there is some tendency which I have never quite grasped, wherein some portion of obviously bona fide Jews [by any reasonable metric] persist in extending the privilege of solidarity through shared identity to others who are perpetually obnoxious. This is a growing tendency among Christian religious professionals as well.

    This ostensibly goes back to the Tower of Babel where the nations (goyim and goy) were divided and divorced under the fragmentation of not only language but also the assignation of 70 Watcher class elohim (angels in the vernacular) as their rulers and princes.

    Israel, in the Hebrew tradition, was selected as Jacob’s allotted portion, not a nation with the 70 divorced at Babel.

    Thus even for Jews (Tribe of Judah and .5 of Benjamine), they would be reluctant to excommunicate or get rid of a Jew, due to political disagreements or religious disagreements. To them, all of you are goyim, of the nations, and they are not. They are Chosen and Clean and Pure, while the goyim are not.

    This is why Peter had to be given a vision to meet with a Genteel, a Roman as a goy and Jews could not touch nor eat with them. Certainly they were told not to touch the unclean Samaritans. Peter later recorded in the New Testament that god was no respecter of persons. No respecter of goy and chosen.

    What about the other 10.5 tribes? Many modern Jews consider them no longer heirs of Israel, although they are still heirs of Israel because Israel means 12 tribes, not 1.5 tribes.

    Anti Semitism and Holocaust terms were useful to the Jewish cultural leaders, even though they were a derivation of Nazi actions. The Holocaust is considered by some Jews to be the sacrificial payment (as per Leviticus) for the Jews to get the holy land back. Anti Semitism was useful, though inaccurate, for teaching Jews that the goyim are still the goyim and Israel is still Israel. Anti Semitism was designed to apply to both secular and religious Jews, because Germany had people of Jewish descent that were quite well integrated militarily or culturally with the German culture. Thus “Semitic” was a term used to label their ethnicity. But that didn’t apply to the Islamic Jihad that received some kind of honorary Aryanhood, when Germany allied with the mullahs.

    Kurds, Arabs, Persians, and Hebrews are all Semitic in part or whole.

    Excommunication requires a religious head. That means the theocratic oligarchy of the Jehovah Witnesses, the communal system of the Amish, and the Protestant splintered factions all share the same issue with Jews. They have no religious head.

    Only the main faction line of Mormonism and the Catholics via the Vatican, claim a religious head that have the powers to excommunicate. Thus Israel, at best, can only deny and deport people. They cannot excommunicate Jews. And if they could, it would be merely a light punishment as they cannot make a goy into a Chosen or a Chosen into a goy, that would be blasphemy and anti Moses.

    Also the Shia and Sunni used to have religious heads, they called it the Caliph, and the Caliph could excommunicate or kill Muslims.

    The Patriarchs of Eastern Orthodox Greek, can excommunicate, but these are autocephalous heads. Meaning, they only hold authority in their specific territory, not over every faithful believer. Israel is getting closer to that system due to their political territorial system.

    If a religious rabbi or his family members were to proclaim themselves Christian, in Israel, it would be the same as proclaiming yourself a terrorist in the US. Becoming a Christian and converting away from Judaism, is considered worse than being an Arabic suicide bomber in the public consciousness of the Jews in Israel.

  28. Ymar Sakar Says:

    Well, like I’ve said, I have never seen a modern definition that makes categorical sense: yes/no, on/off, in/out.

    The Ancient Israelites were not modern people, thus modern definitions cannot and will not apply to them.

    Hebrew traditions that the Tribe of Judah uses (at least the ones we call Jews), goes all the way back to the Torah, the first 5 books of Old Testament. Genesis, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Exodus, Leviticus by recollection.

  29. neo-neocon Says:

    Ymar sakar:

    Jews do not think that Jews are clean and pure.

    Those ancient rules about eating had to do with this sort of thing.

    “The Jews in Israel” don’t agree on anything. There are so many different kinds of Jews with so many opinions that it would make your head spin. You are talking about Jews in a way that does not conform to the reality of Jews today, or even what is behind the practices of the group known as ultra-orthodox Jews.

    And you write:

    Thus Israel, at best, can only deny and deport people. They cannot excommunicate Jews. And if they could, it would be merely a light punishment as they cannot make a goy into a Chosen or a Chosen into a goy, that would be blasphemy and anti Moses.

    That last sentence is incorrect. Of course a “goy” (gentile) can be “made into” a “Chosen” (Jew). Conversion happens every day, both in Israel and elsewhere. It is easier to do in the US because it can be done in any Jewish denomination, whereas in Israel only Orthodox conversions are accepted (see this for an example of how it works).

    As for the idea that, as you write, “The Holocaust is considered by some Jews to be the sacrificial payment (as per Leviticus) for the Jews to get the holy land back,” I have read a great deal of Jewish discussion and explanation for the Holocaust, and that is a view that is exceedingly unusual. Not just “some” but most Jews would consider it an abomination. No doubt there are “some Jews” who believe as you say, since there are “some Jews” who believe just about anything on earth (just like most people). In fact, there are “some Jews” who believe that Israel should not exist because the Messiah hasn’t come. But it’s a highly unusual and minority belief.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge