How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History

Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History 

 

Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History

Marc B. Shapiro

I am happy to announce that my new book is now with the printer and should be at the distributor by May 4. Amazon and book stores will have the book not long after that. Changing the Immutable has taken quite a long time and I hope readers find that it was worth the wait. One of the main reasons it has taken so long is that some of my time in recent years has been devoted to my posts on the Seforim Blog. When I first started posting here I saw it merely as a pleasant diversion. However, I now see my Seforim Blog posts as an important part of my scholarly writing.  Throughout Changing the Immutable I reference not only my posts but many others that appeared on the Seforim Blog.

I am making this announcement now rather than after the book appears because Amazon is offering a pre-order discount (link). For those who want to wait, I know that Biegeleisen will be selling it at a very good price.

Changing the Immutable focuses on how segments of Judaism's Orthodox society have taken it upon themselves to rewrite the past by covering up and literally cutting out that which does not fit their own world view. 

For reasons ranging from theological considerations to internal religious politics to changing religious standards, such Jewish self-censorship abounds, and author Marc B. Shapiro discusses examples from each category. His analysis is illustrated by a number of images of the original texts next to their censored versions, together with an explanation of what made them problematic and how the issue was resolved. Shapiro considers the concepts of history that underlie such changes, looking at how some Orthodox historiography sees truth as entirely instrumental.

 Drawing on the words of leading rabbis, particularly from the haredi world, he shows that what is important here is not historical truth, but a truth that leads to observance and faith in the Sages. He concludes with a discussion of the concept of truth in the Jewish tradition, and when this truth can be altered. Changing the Immutable also reflects on the paradox of a society that regards itself as traditional, but, at the same time, is uncomfortable with some of the inherited tradition, and thus feels the need to create an idealized view of the past.

Shapiro considers this in context, detailing precedents in Jewish history dating back to talmudic times. Since the objects of censorship have included such figures as Maimonides, Bahya ibn Pakuda, Rashi, Naphtali Herz Wessely, Moses Mendelssohn, the Hatam Sofer, Samson Raphael Hirsch, A. I. Kook, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and J. B. Soloveitchik, as well as issues such as Zionism, biblical interpretation, and attitudes to women and non-Jews, Shapiro's book also serves as a study in Jewish intellectual history and how the ideas of one era do not always find favor with later generations. 

Perhaps, just perhaps,Obama is worse than Chamberlain...

Is Obama worse than Chamberlain?

Op-ed: The comparison between Lausanne 2015 and Munich 1938 lets Iran off lightly, as Germany at the time wasn't calling for 'Death to the Jews'.

By Ben-Dror Yemini

When Jan Masaryk, the foreign minister of Czechoslovakia at the time, heard first-hand the English Parliament greet Neville Chamberlain's announcement about a summit meeting with Adolf Hitler with raucous applause, he was rather confused.

After all, the threatening German leader was demanding appeasement in the form of a piece of Masaryk's own country. The summit took place two days later. Representatives of Czechoslovakia weren't even invited. They were simply notified. The rest is history.

The comparison between Lausanne 2015 and Munich 1938 lets Iran off lightly. Because Germany at the time, despite being a dark country, wasn't calling for "Death to England" or "Death to the Jews." It wasn't in control at that stage of four European countries. The Iran of today, however, has been singing its genocidal mantra for years. It preaches and strives for the destruction of the State of Israel. And many, too many, simply don't want to listen.

A few years ago, a leading US newspaper, the Washington Post, conducted a discussion on the question: Did the Iranian leader call for wiping Israel off the map? The arguments raised spoke of mistranslation and other nonsense. The discussion ended. The question marks were erased. The cries of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel "are sounded again and again, with ecstatic fervor, on all levels and by the masses.

Just recently, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei himself joined the masses in calling for "Death to America." The Houthis, Iran's affiliates in Yemen, have a flag bearing the words "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." And a senior Iranian official, Mohammad Reza Naqdi, the head of the Basij militia unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, again made it clear on Iranian state television, two days before the agreement was signed, that "wiping Israel off the map is non-negotiable."

Are these statements only made for show? As we speak, Iran continues to equip Hezbollah with far more precise weapons, with the purpose of causing much greater damage to Israel. This is the same Iran that is being choked by sanctions. This is the same Iran whose economy is teetering. But nothing is as important as the ultimate goal – of the warmongering and the destruction of the State of Israel.

It's not that they really can. But they are gripped by fervor. The irrational behavior is reminiscent of those dark days. Even with its forces taking a pounding and on the verge of defeat, Germany continued to pour all its efforts into maintaining its extermination enterprise. But going back to comparisons, Germany of 1939 wasn't preaching destruction; Iran of 2015 is.

The facts are laid out before us. The declarations are crystal clear. The actions are open and widely known. And yet, those same voices keep saying to Israel: Enough already with these comparisons. Why enough? Why shouldn't Israel take the Iranian declarations seriously? Are we oblivious to the murder fest of recent years, recent months, recent days of the Jihadists wherever they may be? Why does the leader of the free world refuse to listen?

The supporters of appeasement with Iran at all costs, who are now lauding the agreement, argue that there is no need for another war because all the wars have only made things worse. Another bit of misdirection. Because the opponents of the agreement weren't demanding that the US embark on another war. On the contrary. The regime of sanctions is proving itself. If Iran was ready to capitulate temporarily, it was due to the sanctions.

Despite its limited means, Iran continues to invest all its energy into weapons, in addition to the nuclear project. What's going to happen without the sanctions? Will Iran become a peace-loving country that seeks reconciliation? Will Iran put the brakes on its expansionist aspirations and will Iran stop aiding Hezbollah? The answers today are well known. In 1938, they were much less clearer.

I wrote a while ago that Obama isn't Chamberlain. The agreement raises some tough questions. Perhaps, just perhaps, he is worse than Chamberlain. I hope to God we're proven wrong.


Ben-Dror Yemini was born in Tel-Aviv, Israel in 1954. He studied Humanities and History in Tel Aviv University, and later on he studies Law. After his university studies, he was appointed advisor to the Israeli Minister of Immigration Absorption and then became the spokesman of the Ministry. In 1984, he began his career as a journalist and essayist. He worked as a lawyer and was a partner in a law firm. Since 2003 he is the opinion-editor of the daily newspaper Maariv and also published many articles and essays in other journals.

http://mideasttruth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11844 

AWARENESS & EDUCATION ON CHILD ABUSE!

Israel must attack to remove those nukes before it’s too late!

300 RUSSIAN SAM-300  BEING "SOLD" TO IRAN

Op-Ed: Attack Now – Russian Interference Leaves Israel No Choice

Soon it will be too late, if it is not too late already...

Jack Engelhard

Jack Engelhard’s classic international bestselling novel Indecent Proposal,...

► More from this writer

The Obama Doctrine – scorn your friends, reward your enemies – has finally reaped the whirlwind, namely Russia and its pledge to provide Iran with an array of the most advanced “defensive” missiles on earth. This leaves Israel with no choice except to act BEFORE those missiles are deployed.

Israel must attack to remove those nukes before it’s too late.

If it was difficult to successfully strike Iran’s nuclear facilities today, tomorrow will be near impossible. So the scientific experts tell us.

The S-300 Surface-to-Air Missile System would provide Iran with an impenetrable shield.

It’s been explained that the S-300 Surface-to-Air Missile System would provide Iran with an impenetrable shield.

If anything, Russia’s move has clarified the situation. Israel’s duty to defend itself has never been more urgent and an attack scaled to wipe out Iran’s nuclear emplacements would likewise be a favor to any number of Sunni states that tremble from Iran’s Shiite encroachments throughout the Arab world.

Read this for one newsman’s heroic efforts to stop a worldwide caliphate, reminding readers that “The Koran Has Arrived And It Has Come To Devour The Bible.”

Jordan’s King Abdullah II told Fox News’ Bret Baier that somebody better do something, quick, seeing Iran on the prowl throughout the Middle East and beyond:  “You’ve got to connect all these dots together.

 All these issues are areas of instability,” declared Abdullah in connection to Iran’s heavy footprints throughout the region.

He cited Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan and his own country as being at risk.

Abdullah did not directly call for help from the United States or Israel, but the hint was unmistakable.

On seeking a deal to stop or stall Iran’s nuclear program, America’s infantile negotiators, led by John Kerry were no match for the ayatollahs. These were children bargaining with grown men. The ayatollahs trifled with Obama’s “best and brightest” during the negotiations and scorned them as laughable losers after the negotiations.

The result was no deal at all. Iran gets to keep arming itself with no one to stop it from growing bolder.

Certainly the United States, under Obama, cannot be counted on to come to the rescue. Thus, a vacuum waiting to be filled.

Enter Vladimir Putin, who saw the perfect opening, an opening he’s been waiting for along the decades to replace America as the dominant world power in the Middle East. He can’t be blamed. Russia does what Russia does because it is Russia. But the United States has no excuse for being so lame.

Putin and the ayatollahs must be dancing at finding Obama and Kerry so easily duped,

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu phoned Putin to voice his displeasure. Apparently Netanyahu was assured that these missiles for Iran are weapons meant only for defense – which is terrible enough since the system could destroy (Israeli) jets trying to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.

But as noted in a recent column here, during the Cuban Missile Crisis Putin’s ancestor Nikita Khrushchev gave similar assurances to John F. Kennedy. No worries. Those missiles are only defensive. Until it turned out differently and the United States was ready to go to war – world war! – to get those Soviet arms removed from Cuba, be they defensive or offensive or both.

Israel finds itself in the same perilous spot as regards Iran. There is no choice but to take action now.

Jack Engelhard writes a regular column for Arutz Sheva. The new thriller from the New York-based novelist, The Bathsheba Deadline, a heroic editor’s singlehanded war on terror and against media bias. Engelhard wrote the int’l bestseller Indecent Proposal that was translated into more than 22 languages and turned into a Paramount motion picture starring Robert Redford and Demi Moore. Website: www.jackengelhard.com

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/16800#.VTE69fBcrKh

Six years of endless attempts to undermine Israel’s diplomatic position and the last few months of bitter, personal and even vulgar criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu culminating in threats to leave it isolated at the United Nations made his protestations absurd if not completely disingenuous...

Why Is Obama’s Stance on Israel Questioned by So Many?

 

In an interview with the New York Times Thomas Friedman, President Obama purported to be aggrieved that anyone would question his support for Israel or his respect for concerns about its security. Not satisfied with merely asserting his devotion to the Jewish state, he said it was “personally difficult” to hear such criticism and that he would consider his presidency “a failure” if anything he did weakened it.

Six years of endless attempts to undermine Israel’s diplomatic position and the last few months of bitter, personal and even vulgar criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu culminating in threats to leave it isolated at the United Nations made his protestations absurd if not completely disingenuous. But Israelis could at least console themselves that in the course of trying to sell his appeasement of Iran to Congress, he was trying to downplay the crisis in the alliance that he had created. But it only took 24 hours for Obama to answer his own question about why so many Americans and Israelis question his attitude about Israel.

 In another interview, this time with another friendly questioner from the reliably liberal NPR, Obama was dismissed the suggestion that Iran be asked to recognize Israel as part of the nuclear deal he is promoting. His reason: doing so would mean asking Iran to change the nature of its regime. To which critics must respond that this is exactly why it can’t be trusted with a nuclear infrastructure.

Obama said the following to NPR’s Steve Inskeep:

The notion that we would condition Iran not getting nuclear weapons in a verifiable deal on Iran recognizing Israel is really akin to saying that we won’t sign a deal unless the nature of the Iranian regime completely transforms. And that is, I think, a fundamental misjudgment.

Obama went on to say that he believed the reason why the deal couldn’t be struck in that matter was because his goal was to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and that he couldn’t count on it changing.

That makes a sort of superficial sense. And if the as yet unwritten deal actually ensured that Iran could never get a nuclear weapon, he might have a strong case for ignoring the nature of the Iranian government. But despite his ardent salesmanship, he can’t honestly claim that it does.

Obama has made an endless string of concessions that have allowed to keep its nuclear infrastructure, included its fortified bunker at Fordow, not forced it to export its stockpile of nuclear fuel, reveal the extent of its nuclear research and put an expiration date on the restrictions on its program. All this means that Iran can, if it is patient, build up its nuclear capabilities and then have a bomb in short order at the end of the agreement. Or, if it is not that patient, it can easily cheat its way to a weapon due to the weakness of the deal and the lack of a truly strict inspections regime or the ability of the West to quickly reimpose sanctions.

At best, all Obama has accomplished is to delay an Iranian bomb. At worst, he has allowed it to get close to one with Western permission and after having made it impossible to reassemble the international coalition that might have brought Iran to its knees had it been led by an American president with the guts to stick to a tough line rather than one that folded at every opportunity. The reason for this was that Obama’s goal throughout this process was détente with an aggressive, anti-Semitic and tyrannical regime rather than an effort to keep his 2012 campaign promise to eliminate its nuclear program.

Thus, the question about forcing it to recognize Israel is actually an apt one. Having empowered Iran at a time when its quest for regional hegemony via actions in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and now Gaza are scaring Israelis as well as moderate Arabs, it is fair to ask why the deal ignored Tehran’s support for terrorism and its frequent threats to obliterate Israel.

The president is right that to ask Iran to give up its rhetoric about Israel, let alone its policies aimed at bringing its dream of its elimination about, is to seek to change the nature of its theocratic government. But that is exactly why any deal that leaves people who have such goals in possession of thousands of nuclear centrifuges and a stockpile of nuclear fuel and a free pass to build a bomb in 15 years is tantamount to saying you don’t give a damn about Israel’s legitimate worries about Iran.

It was beneath the dignity of the presidency for Obama to feign hurt feelings about criticism for his efforts to undermine the U.S.-Israel alliance. Had he not spent most of his presidency (with the exception of the one year grace period of a Jewish charm offensive that accompanied his re-election campaign) sniping at Netanyahu, tilting the diplomatic playing field in the direction of the Palestinians and ignoring the latter’s consistent rejection of peace, there would be no justifications for questioning his bona fides as a friend of Israel.

But when he treats the vile threats against Israel as an insignificant detail about his prized negotiating partner, he betrays his own mindset that sees the Jewish state’s existential worries as a tiresome drag on his diplomatic ambitions. The president would probably prefer that the Iranians pipe down about their desire to destroy Israel but he doesn’t feel strongly enough about it to let it derail his grand design for a rapprochement with Tehran.

The president can complain about his hurt feelings as much as he wants though to do so strains even the credulity of his most fawning interviewers. But by agreeing to a deal that makes Iran a threshold nuclear power without insisting on it dropping its ideology of hate, the president has answered questions about his negative attitude toward Israel by confirming the worst fears of his critics.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/04/06/obama-answers-his-own-question-about-antagonism-toward-israel-iran-nuclear-deal/  

 

Our position was summed up in the slogan “the only thing worse than bombing Iran is letting Iran get the bomb.” And to those like President Obama who charged us with warmongering, our response was that the choice was not between a negotiated settlement and war. It was between a conventional war now and a nuclear war later.

Whenever Barack Obama says, as he often does, that another war in the Middle East is the only alternative to the deal he is making with Iran, his critics immediately accuse him of setting up a straw man, which indeed he also often does. Even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the sternest and most effective critic of Obama’s deal, declares that the true alternative to it is not war but “a better deal.” So, too, leading domestic opponents like Senators Lindsay Graham and Tom Cotton.

Now I consider the agreement Obama has negotiated a dishonorable and dangerous product of appeasement, and so it pains me to side with him against political figures I admire and generally support. Nevertheless, I have to confess that I think he is right in arguing that the only alternative to a deal is war.

By this I do not mean that war is the only alternative to Obama’s deal alone. What I mean is that war is the only alternative to any deal the Iranians would be willing to sign–if, that is, the purpose is really to prevent them from getting the bomb. Obama keeps insisting that this is what his deal will accomplish. But it seems increasingly clear that he no longer thinks, if he ever did, that an Iran armed with nuclear weapons would be so dangerous that it must be prevented at all costs from getting them.

Up until a few years ago, there was hardly any dissent from this conviction. Yet while just about every political leader and pundit throughout the West agreed that the threat of military force had to be “kept on the table” in order for peaceful means to succeed, most of them were confident that a judicious combination of carrots and sticks would do the trick and that military force would never need to be taken off the table and actually used.

There was, however, a small minority–myself included–who contended that the Iranians were so determined to build a nuclear arsenal that nothing, not sanctions and not the chance (in Barack Obama’s words) to “get right with the world,” could ever induce them to give up their pursuit of it. And since we were convinced that negotiations could accomplish nothing but buy the Iranians more time to forge ahead, we also thought that the sooner we bombed their nuclear facilities the better.

We were fully aware that such a course was very risky. It would almost certainly trigger Iranian retaliation against our troops in the region and against Israel, and it might well lead to the dire economic consequences that Iran could let loose by blocking the flow of oil. Yet in our view all this was as nothing compared with the nuclear arms race that an Iranian bomb would set off throughout the Middle East.

Even worse, there was also the high probability that Iran–once possessed of the means to make good on their openly and repeatedly stated dream of “wiping Israel off the map”–would either provoke the Israelis into a preemptive nuclear strike or try to beat them to the punch with a preemptive nuclear strike of its own. Either way, the casualties and the destruction would reach unimaginable heights.

Our position was summed up in the slogan “the only thing worse than bombing Iran is letting Iran get the bomb.” And to those like President Obama who charged us with warmongering, our response was that the choice was not between a negotiated settlement and war. It was between a conventional war now and a nuclear war later.

As for the Obama deal, if its purpose were really to prevent the Iranians from getting the bomb, it would be a total failure, if only because it leaves their nuclear infrastructure intact and gives them plenty of room to cheat. But judging by deeds rather than words, it is reasonable to conclude that what Obama is trying to do is not to keep Iran from getting the bomb but to further his quest for a detente, or even a de facto alliance, with Iran. Already we see the foreshadowing of such an alliance in his willingness to cooperate with the Iranians in the fight against ISIS in Iraq and his reluctance to take any steps in the Middle East (against their ally Syria, for example) that might displease them.

At this point, the slogan that best applies comes from Winston Churchill’s devastating comment on Neville Chamberlain’s pact with Hitler at Munich in 1938: “You were given a choice between dishonor and war. You have chosen dishonor and now you will get war”–and this time a nuclear war at that. Unless, that is, the Israelis were to choose conventional war now over nuclear war later. My guess is that they will, but it is just as likely that Obama, despite his repeated assurances that he “has Israel’s back,” will stop them by threatening to withhold the diplomatic support and the resupply of lost weaponry they would need. In that case God help us all.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/04/07/obamas-right/

Israeli Document Asks 10 Questions About ‘Irresponsible, Dangerous’ Iran Deal

On April 6, Israel posed questions to the US-led negotiations with Iran that it said underlined “the extent of the irresponsible concessions given to Iran” in the framework agreement reached on April 2, and made clear “how dangerous the framework is for Israel, the region, and the world.”

The questions were listed in a document distributed by Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz, a Likud party member and confidant of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The document reiterated Netanyahu’s assertion that “a better deal” can and must be reached. The document protested that the framework agreement reached in Lausanne, Switzerland, and hailed by President Barack Obama as “historic,” “ignores the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program to Israel.”

However, it charged that “great consideration” was given to Iran, “an enemy of the United States, whose regime, even during the negotiations, continued to conduct aggression in the region and to call for the destruction of Israel.”

The document charged that “the framework deal does not block Iran’s path to the bomb. By removing the sanctions and by lifting the main restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in about a decade, this framework paves Iran’s path to a bomb.”

Echoing criticisms made by Netanyahu since the deal was reached, the document further protested that “not a single nuclear facility will be shut down. Iran will be permitted to continue its advanced centrifuge R&D and [the issue of] its intercontinental ballistic missile program remains unaddressed.”

Apart from what it called “the significant differences in the parties interpretations of the framework—reflected in the conflicting statements and ‘fact sheet’ they issued”—the Israeli document posed the following 10 questions:

1. Why are sanctions that took years to put in place being removed immediately (as the Iranians claim)? This would take away the international community’s primary leverage at the outset of the agreement and make Iranian compliance less likely.

2. Given Iran’s track record of concealing illicit nuclear activities, why does the framework not explicitly require Iran to accept inspections of all installations where suspected nuclear weapons development has been conducted? Why can’t inspectors conduct inspections anywhere, anytime?

3. Will Iran ever be forced to come clean about its past nuclear weaponization activity?

4. What will be the fate of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium?

5. Why will Iran be allowed to continue R&D on centrifuges far more advanced than those currently in its possession?

6. Why does the framework not address Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program, whose sole purpose is to carry nuclear payloads?

7. Following Iranian violations of the framework, how effective will the mechanism to reinstitute sanctions be?

8. What message does the framework send to states in the region and around the world when it gives such far-reaching concessions to a regime that for years has defied UNSC resolutions? Why would this not encourage nuclear proliferation?

9. The framework agreement appears to have much in common with the nuclear agreement reached with North Korea. How will this deal differ from the North Korean case?

10. Why is the lifting of restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in about a decade not linked to a change in Iran’s behavior? According to the framework, Iran could remain the world’s foremost sponsor of terror and still have all the restrictions removed. Instead, the removal of those restrictions should be linked to a cessation of Iran’s aggression in the Middle East, its terrorism around the world and its threats to annihilate Israel.”

The document ended with the claim that“the alternative to this framework is a better deal, one that will significantly dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, bring about a cessation of its aggression in the region and terrorist activities around the world, as well as end its efforts to destroy Israel. The framework deal does not block Iran’s path to the bomb. By removing the sanctions and lifting the main restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in about a decade, this framework paves Iran’s path to a bomb. The result will be a dramatic increase in the risks of nuclear proliferation and an increase in the chances of a terrible war.”

http://www.jspacenews.com/israeli-document-asks-10-questions-irresponsible-dangerous-iran-deal/

Family court gives pro-vaccination father decisionmaking authority over children’s medical care...

By Eugene Volokh April 6 at 4:21 PM

 

Two Herens cows fight during the annual “Battle of the Queens” cow fight finals in Aproz, on May 11, 2014. Cow = “vache” in French, “vaca” in Spanish; “vaccination” begins with “vac.” Coincidence? No!

 

The case is a Connecticut trial court case, Archer v. Cassel (2015 WL 1500447), decided March 10; the court views the mother’s refusal to vaccinate as a strike against her, though it also seems to view it as part of broader evidence that the mother would use any tool to spite the father:

[T]he court does not question [Mother]‘s religion, moral convictions or the sincerity of her [anti-vaccination religious] beliefs. The court is focused instead on the best interest of the children and which parent is best suited to make health decisions for them. There is no need for the court to assert its authority when a parent can act in the best interests of their children….
[The court then applied the “best interests” criteria set forth in Connecticut General Statutes Section 46b–56(c), and reasoned, in relevant part: -EV] …
The court believes [Father]‘s testimony that he did not know [Mother]‘s religious views on vaccination until after their first pregnancy. The vaccination issue that is now so important to [Mother] did not prevent her from having a second child with [Father]. The court concludes that both parents adequately understand the children’s needs, but [Mother] is willing to use them and the events of their lives to controvert and thwart their father. This may meet her needs, but not those of the children….
The court found portions of [Mother]‘s testimony confusing at best. As the case progressed, however, she re-stated and conformed her assertions to fit case law she thought supported her aims. Such “fluidity” is notable. [Mother] threatened the father of her other children with legal action if he cooperated with the [lawyer appointed to represent the children] in this case. The current dispute may well be the product of her hatred of the [Father]. The court finds that [Mother] will not hesitate to involve the children in her ongoing conflict with their father….
The U.S. Supreme Court stated that “parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children.” The Court also stated that the “right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.” …
This court’s decision is grounded in its view of the judgment each parent would apply to the events of their daughters’ lives. When [Mother]‘s beliefs conflict with those of her co-equal guardian [Father], … [the] advice of the children’s doctors[,] and [the] recommendation of the [lawyer appointed to represent the children], the court must question whether she has completely thought through the developmental needs of her children as they relate to their adjustments at school and the community or if this is yet another issue on which to controvert and thwart [Father].
The court concludes on the basis of 46b–56 and its guiding criteria that [Father]‘s judgment in health-related decisions is in the best interests of his daughters….
The court grants [Father]‘s Motion for Order … to the extent that if a non-emergency question or choice arises about either child’s health and after a good-faith discussion of the options between the parties, the parents cannot agree, … [Father] shall have and exercise final decision-making authority in matters of his daughters’ health.

Note that Connecticut law provides for a religious exemption from vaccination requirements, stating, “Each local or regional school board of education … shall require each child to be protected by adequate immunization against [diseases] … before being permitted to enroll in any program operated by a public or non-public school under its jurisdiction … Any such child who … presents a statement from the parents or guardian of such child that such immunization would be contrary to the religious beliefs of such child … shall be exempt from the appropriate provisions of this section.” As the court points out, it’s hard to know what the “religious beliefs of [a four-year-old] child” might be, but even if one assumes that they follow the parents’ religious beliefs, “Connecticut law is silent when the parents disagree.”
For other cases on the subject, see here and here.

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/06/family-court-gives-pro-vaccination-father-decisionmaking-authority-over-childrens-medical-care/

Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.

*BOOM* - *45 MILLION*

 CLICK: https://plus.google.com/u/0/106580239978263655484/posts

Life Lessons from the German Air Disaster

It is far easier for an individual to do great evil than to do great good.

That the world isn't fair is known to every human being who thinks. It may be our first insight into life. What child who ever complained, "That's not fair," wasn't told by some adult, "Life isn't fair"?

One sad example of how unfair life is concerns how much harder it is to do massive good than massive evil. One psychopath, in one hour, killed 149 innocent people aboard a Germanwings airliner. How many people will ever be able to do nearly as much good for 149 people in a lifetime?

With very few exceptions, good can only be achieved one by one by one. That's why, if you want your name remembered by many people, you have a far better chance of accomplishing it by doing evil than by doing good. And that's why most great evils are done by movements that want to change the world. If you really want to change the world for the better, work on making better people, not a better world.

Depression and lack of conscience aren't the same.
We've heard repeatedly that Germanwings co-pilot Andreas Lubitz was being treated for depression -- as if that largely explains why he did what he did.

Yet, every one of us knows one or two depressed individuals, and it is inconceivable that they would commit mass murder. As a number of Lincoln biographers have noted, most recently Richard Brookhiser, the great president was probably depressed all his life. And he was a moral giant.

Lubitz murdered 149 people because he was a narcissistic individual who lacked a properly functioning conscience. The number of people walking around in the world with a broken moral compass is quite large. Not all of them are depressed. And I am not only referring to violent Islamists. The U.N. just voted to condemn one country in the world for mistreatment of women: Israel.

 Are all those U.N. ambassadors depressed?

The 149 were ultimately killed by the 9/11 terrorists.
The pilot of the Germanwings plane could not get back into the cockpit because after 9/11, cockpit doors were made impregnable. That is how it should be. If anyone could get into a locked cockpit, terrorists would also be able to do so. For that reason, it can be said that the 149 passengers and crew were additional victims of 9/11.

The West takes truth seriously.
We take it for granted that Germanwings, the German government and the German people will fully acknowledge any findings, no matter how damning of one its pilots.We shouldn't. Acknowledging painful truths is not a universal value.

  To this day, neither the Egyptian national airline, nor the Egyptian government, nor the Egyptian people acknowledge that it was the Egyptian first officer, Gameel Al-Batouti, who deliberately sent EgyptAir flight 990 into the ocean south of Massachusetts en route to Cairo on Oct. 31, 1999.

In many societies, the Arab world most particularly, saving face matters far more than truth. And where that is the case, social and moral progress is impossible.

It would be a sign of major progress in Egyptian life if, watching the German airline and German society acknowledge that a German deliberately crashed his plane into the Alps, Egyptians rethought their position on Al-Batouti and EgyptAir 990.

The damage Lubitz did is incalculable. 
This one man murdered 149 people. An ancient Hebrew saying is worth repeating here: He who destroys one life is considered to have destroyed the whole world. This is not mere hyperbole. Every one of us is an entire world. Read the stories of those on board Germanwings flight 9525, and this insight becomes all too clear.

But the damage is much more than that.

Lubitz not only killed all of these people. He thrust them into a state of terror the likes of which few humans ever experience. People with terminal illnesses know that they will soon die. But they have time to prepare for it. And, over that time, and given the illness, they eventually expect to die. There is, of course, great sadness, but there is no terror — certainly none in any way comparable to the terror on board the Germanwings flight. For at least five minutes, these people knew they were about to die. Out of nowhere. They had just boarded an airplane — one of modern society’s most routine and safest activities. And suddenly they were about to die. Add to that the terrified screaming of everyone else, and you realize what an almost unique hell these people — many traveling with a child or a spouse — went through.

Then there are the people who were not on this flight who loved the people who were. These people — parents, grandparents, siblings, children and, never forget, friends — will suffer this loss in varying degrees until they die.

And then there are the pilots of the world. I flew the day after the crash. Though I fly, on average, every week, on that day, I looked at the pilots at the airport a bit differently. It was not an intellectual reaction. But I have no doubt just about every passenger did the same.

Finally, there are Lubitz’s parents — arguably the most harmed people of all. Losing a child is the ultimate parental nightmare. But there is something much worse: when your child is a murderer. And even worse than that: a mass murderer.

As a parent, I can only imagine the pain of parents who lose a child. But nowhere in my imagination is there a place for a child who is a mass murderer.

This column was originally posted on TownHall.com

View Full Article

"My Commander-In-Chief has locked himself in the cockpit"

rabbiaz@aol.com

rabbiaz@aol.com

Search Emails

MIT expert: US rules make chances of cockpit takeover slim - (photos added by blogger)

  READ: http://article.wn.com/view/2015/03/26/MIT_expert_US_rules_make_chances_of_cockpit_takeover_slim_i/

 My thoughts: The tragedy over the French Alps is a perfect metaphor for The Obama Administration

"My Commander-In-Chief has Locked Himself In The Cockpit

by Andrew Bloom

Reading this tragic story and imagining the frustration and helplessness that the pilot felt 

and the utter panic the passengers had once they too became aware of what was happening

I think it is a pretty good metaphor for our President's actions of attempting (ch'v'sh) to plunge this country, Israel and the World into chaos. 

With Obama's twisted view on how things run and should run

and his total disregard for the democratic process and Will of the (majority of the) American People,

(along with his total disregard for the will of the Israeli voters,)

it is as if he is purposely setting the course for a slow, steady descent.  

And he has locked the doors to prevent anyone from too easily changing this suicidal direction.

The deliberate actions and messages he is sending out practically defy logic:

* Making love to Iran, as it continues to wreak havoc on the world;

* refusing to articulate who is the enemy so as not to offend Muslims -- even in contrast to Europe's pacifist approach;

* applying extreme pressure on Israel at a time when the Arab world is in turmoil and collapsing from all sides;

* exchanging high-ranking Taliban prisoners for a "war hero" hostage who has now been brought up on serious charges of desertion and handing himself over to the enemy;

* intentionally snubbing the new head of NATO on his visit to the US, at a time when Europe too is unstable.

For many, they are pounding on the cockpit door.

For most, they are just looking at scenic view of the Alps, still unaware of the direction things are going.

Fortunately, Hashem runs the world

and His door is always open.

Andrew Bloom

In reality, the most productive way to seek to resolve the Middle East is to take as the starting point the list of what is ruled out, what must never be. No "solution" to the Middle East conflict is possible if it involves creation of an Arab "Palestinian" state, and none is possible if it involves "Palestinians" being granted Israeli citizenship. Both of these nonstarters must be ruled out absolutely. Once that is understood, any proposal based upon those two nevers can be taken into consideration. The immediate implication is that Israel must remain in the West Bank, and the "Palestinian" population there will be granted neither Israeli citizenship nor national sovereignty.

Middle East Non-Solutions

"As President Barack Obama carries on a campaign against Israel, and pressures her to surrender the eternal Jewish lands of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, the words of Prime Minister Menachem Begin, to President Jimmy Carter, according to Ambassador Yehuda Avner, are apt:
"Mr. President, I wish to tell you something personal - not about me, but about my generation. What you have just heard about the Jewish people's inherent rights to the Land of Israel may seem academic to you, theoretical, even moot. But not to my generation. To my generation of Jews these eternal bonds are indisputable and incontrovertible truths, as old as recorded time. They touch upon the very core of our national being. Ours is an almost biblical generation of suffering and courage. Ours is the generation of Destruction and Redemption. Ours is the generation that rose up from the bottomless pit of Hell. We were a helpless people, Mr. President. We were bled white, not once, not twice, but century after century, over and over again. We lost a third of our people in one generation - mine. One-and-a-half million of them were children - ours. No one came to our rescue. We were tertiated, Mr. President. ... Tertiated, not decimated. The origin of the word 'decimation' is one in 10. When a Roman legion was found guilty of insubordination one in 10 was put to the sword. In our case it was one in three - tertiated! ... Sir, I take an oath before you in the name of the Jewish people - this will never ever happen again."

Am Yisrael chai.

by  Steven Plaut

 Israelis have two simple choices," it goes.  "You can either annex all of the 'occupied territories' and grant equal Israeli citizenship to all of the Palestinians there, in which case Israel will no longer be a Jewish state.  Or you can agree to a two-state solution, in which Israel continues to exist alongside a Palestinian Arab state.  Simple.  Make your choice!"  The posing of these two "choices" for Israel is part of the campaign to convince Israelis that there is no alternative to the "Two-State Solution."

The first "alternative" is often dubbed these days the "One-State Solution" by its anti-Israel advocates.  Israel and its Jewish population would be enfolded within a larger Arab-dominated Islamic state.  A better term for this is the "Rwanda Solution."  It is little more than a recipe for a second Holocaust of Jews, a Nazi-style final solution, in which the Middle East conflict would end because the Jewish population of the Middle East would be exterminated.  

But the "Two State Solution" is little better.  The creation of a "Palestinian" state "alongside Israel" would not solve anything and would not end the conflict.  To the contrary, it would be the opening round for a major escalation in the conflict and the launching of an all-out war by "Palestine" against the rump Jewish state -- a war in which "Palestine" would be joined and backed by the entire Arab world and much of the non-Arab Muslim world.  Like rump Czechoslovakia after Munich, the remaining Jewish mini-state would be the target for aggression and irredentist belligerence, manifested in rocket and missile attacks.  The thousands of rockets that were fired at Sderot and the Negev after the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza will appear as a child's game by comparison.

Let us note that neither the "One State " nor the "Two State" is a viable solution to the Middle East conflict.

 Neither would resolve anything.

There is no two-state solution -- only a two-state "solution."  There is also no such thing as a "One-State Solution," at least if one means by that the granting of Israeli citizenship to all those claiming to be "Palestinians."  So how must Israelis respond to the diktat that they choose either the one or the other?  

 They must answer neither.

Israelis cannot formulate and propose "solutions" to the Middle East conflict for the exact same reason why the Western allies could not have proposed or formulated any "solution" to the ambitions of Germany in the late 1930s.  No solution would have satisfied those ambitions, and none could have appeased Hitler.  The quest in the 1930s for "solutions" resulted in years of delay, during which Germany re-armed and support for Hitler within Germany solidified.  Similarly, no "solution" could have prevented the assaults against Pearl Harbor, Malaya, and the Philippines by Imperial Japan.  The only solution to those conflicts was Western victory. 

In short, "solutions" are magical panaceas sought by lazy, shallow, and impatient minds.

The entire Oslo "peace process" initiated by Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres was based upon the belief that peace can be achieved by pretending that war does not exist.  Never mind what the Arabs are saying.

The Middle East conflict also has nothing to do with territory.  The Arab countries already control territory nearly twice that of the United States (including Alaska), while Israel is smaller than New Jersey.  The architects of the "peace process" argued that possession of territory twice the size of the U.S. without the Everglades-sized West Bank is a recipe for endless war, but if Israel just turns that Everglades-sized zone over to the "Palestinians," all will be peaceful.  Twenty-two sovereign Arab states have produced war and barbarism, but creating a 23^rd Arab state as a "Two State Solution" will produce peace. 

Now, if Israelis refuse to embrace the above two pseudo-solutions, insists the left, then Israel will end up an "apartheid regime" -- one in which "Palestinian Arabs" live under endless Israeli "occupation" and control, but without Israeli citizenship, without the right to vote.  It is always amusing to hear whining about the absence of the Palestinian right to vote in Israeli elections, especially when it comes from the very same people who do not care that Arabs have no free elections anywhere else in the Middle East.  And never mind that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that is not an apartheid regime.  Essentially, the insistence that Israel must choose one of the two pseudo-solutions or else it will morph into an "apartheid regime" amounts to the belief that Israelis are better off allowing their country to be annihilated rather than risk becoming the target of name-calling.

So if West Bank "Palestinians" will be granted neither Israeli citizenship nor national sovereignty, what can they be offered?  The original "peace proposals" offered by Israel in the 1970s and 1980s spoke about limited local autonomy.  Had the Palestinians played their cards right, they could have enjoyed as much freedom and prosperity under local autonomy as do Puerto Rica, Guam, and American Samoa.  But the Israeli Labor Party lost patience with the idea after a few years and decided to frog-leap to a "Two State Solution."  It imported Yasser Arafat's storm troopers into the suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and proclaimed its "recognition" of the "Palestinian people."

There is indeed another "solution" for West Bank "Palestinians" unhappy with the two nevers defining conflict resolution.  They can leave.  There are those 22 sunny Arab states, plus lots of other Muslim states, whither any unhappy West Bank "Palestinian" can move and live amongst his kin.  After all, Jews unhappy with life in Argentina, France, or Hungary demand not the annihilation of those countries, but merely the right to move to Israel.  The fact that the "Palestinians" prefer Israeli "occupation" over blissful residence in these alternative countries speaks volumes about just how badly treated the "poor suffering Palestinians" really are.

The "Palestinians" find these constraints on their options distasteful?   Too bad!  Part of adulthood means coming to terms with the fact that, as in Mick Jagger's words, "[y]ou can't always get what you want."  What the "Palestinians" and their apologists want is the annihilation of Israel and a second Holocaust of Jews.

And they are not going to get what they want.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/08/middle_east_non-solutions.html#ixzz3VXuE0ABq
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

If you want to know why Tehran has been so successful in stalling against Obama and SecState John Kerry, look no further than right here. They — and the rest of the world — were given, courtesy of the Obama administration and free of charge, some of Israel’s most vital national security secrets.

 Our peevish, petulant, and impetuous president has struck again.

In a development that has largely been missed by mainstream media, the Pentagon early last month quietly declassified a Department of Defense top-secret document detailing Israel’s nuclear program, a highly covert topic that Israel has never formally announced to avoid a regional nuclear arms race, and which the US until now has respected by remaining silent .But by publishing the declassified document from 1987, the US reportedly breached the silent agreement to keep quiet on Israel’s nuclear powers for the first time ever, detailing the nuclear program in great depth.

The timing of the revelation is highly suspect,
given that it came as tensions spiraled out of control between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama ahead of Netanyahu’s March 3 address in Congress.The timing of the disclosure puts to rest any notion that President Obama acted out of spite for Bibi Netanyahu’s election win last week — but this is still a sellout of Israel, and the reason for it is plain.

Bad as that is, it gets worse.

If you want to know why Tehran has been so successful in stalling against Obama and SecState John Kerry, look no further than right here. They — and the rest of the world — were given, courtesy of the Obama administration and free of charge, some of Israel’s most vital national security secrets.

And that was when there was still six weeks of negotiation time left to go. The mullahs must be drooling at the prospect of what Obama/Kerry might let them have going into the final hours. The March 31 deadline is just days away, and Obama and Kerry are more desperate than ever for a deal, any deal, no matter the cost to Israel’s security.

Never have such two sold out so many for so little.

What must our other allies — I’m assuming for the sake of argument we still have some left — be thinking? “Obama revealed nuclear secrets over a speech?” This is not the action of a reliable ally, or even of a grownup. The man-child behind the Resolute desk is like Anthony Fremont in the classic Twilight Zone episode, “It’s a Good Life.” (2.5 minute capsule version above.) Like little Anthony, Obama has near-omnipotent powers at his disposal, but little use for them other than his own ego gratification, and for meting out harsh punishments to any who dare challenge his narrow worldview. Only instead of holding hostage a small town in Ohio, Obama plays his deadly games across a global stage.

The IMDB plot synopsis of “It’s a Good Life” concludes with the question, “Is there anything more dangerous… than a spoiled, selfish, stuck-up little brat who always gets his way?”

No, there isn’t.

Read more: http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2015/03/26/obama-sells-out-israel-to-iran/#ixzz3VY28Qjn9