EVERY SIGNATURE MATTERS - THIS BILL MUST PASS!

EVERY SIGNATURE MATTERS - THIS BILL MUST PASS!
CLICK - GOAL - 100,000 NEW SIGNATURES! 75,000 SIGNATURES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED TO GOVERNOR CUOMO!

EFF Urges Court to Block Dragnet Subpoenas Targeting Online Commenters

EFF Urges Court to Block Dragnet Subpoenas Targeting Online Commenters
CLICK! For the full motion to quash: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/hersh_v_cohen/UOJ-motiontoquashmemo.pdf

Thursday, June 09, 2016

What The Agudath Israel of America (and their ilk) Will Never - or Refuses - to Understand!

The Jewish Take on the Stanford Rape Case—And How We Can Teach Our Kids Not to Rape

stanford rape case

Just when you think the Stanford rape case couldn’t get any worse, it does. In addition to the judge handing down a lenient sentence to a man who was convicted on three felony charges because of the way it might impact his future, now Brock Turner’s father has written an open letter, claiming that his son should not have to face prison for what he called “20 minutes of action.” In a powerful statement, the victim explained just what those 20 minutes did to her and how it robbed her of so much.

Judaism teaches that anyone who destroys a single life, it is as though he has destroyed a world. In those 20 minutes, Brock Turner not only destroyed his victim’s life, but her world as well. She writes, “You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my safety, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today.”

It is remarkable that, out of that destruction, the destruction of the entire world, she finds her voice. Although her world was destroyed, she is attempting to bring some tikkun, some repair, to her life and the lives of those around her.

I am outraged that a father would choose, in attempting to protect his son, to discount the real and lasting impact his son’s actions had on this woman. But outrage does nothing without action, and this is a chance for us as parents to join this woman in making a tikkun. So I commit to teaching my children to respect boundaries, to understand that their bodies and the bodies of those around them are created in the image of God.

This starts young, by not forcing them to hug or touch people they don’t want to, by teaching them the proper names and proper uses for their body parts (even if it leads to lots of shouting of “penis!” every bath time), and that everyone deserves to be looked in the eye and spoken to respectfully. It also means teaching them that the lines of communication are open, and that they should come to me if they have a question about how they, or another person, has acted. It means teaching them to accept reasonable consequences, like an early bedtime if they can’t get up for school in the morning. It means starting small, and building on their knowledge and experience until they are able to make these, and more difficult choices, on their own.

In the Talmud, the rabbis lay out the obligations that a parent has towards their child. In addition to the ones you would expect, like teaching your child a trade and teaching them Torah, the rabbis say that parents should teach a child to swim. Rabbi David Hartman, in his commentary on this verse, says that swimming is a metaphor for teaching a child to cope with unpredictable circumstances and events. You give your child the strokes and the kicks, but you can’t control every wave and current.

Eventually, in the course of teaching your child to swim, you must let go and let them swim alone. Eventually, we must teach our children that they need to make their own choices in a changing and unpredictable world knowing that we gave them the tools for success.

You can argue that once a child becomes an adult, a parent is no longer responsible for their actions. But what we teach our children when they are young shapes who they are. In Proverbs, we learn to educate a child in the way they should go, and when they are old, they will not depart from it. If we all commit to teaching our children to respect others, to care for others and to do tikkun olam when they are young, they will grow up with this imprinted on their minds and hearts.

And we all know, that as much as Judaism might say we are done when our kids hit 13, that we will always be their parents, that our guidance and teachings will impact how they act in the world. Our obligation to continue teaching our children does not stop just because they also have responsibility for their actions.

But it is not enough to teach our children not to destroy a world. You see, Judaism also tells us that if you save one life, you have saved a world. Two men on bikes saw what was happening and intervened. They stopped Turner from continuing his rape and from sending his victim’s world further into a spiral of destruction.

And so, as a parent, I want my children to grow up to be the two men on bikes. The way we respond to this tragedy and miscarriage of justice is to actively work to save the world, to respect those around us and intervene. After all, saving one life is no small thing.

http://kveller.com/the-jewish-take-on-the-stanford-rape-case-and-how-we-teach-our-kids-not-to-rape/?utm_source=Kveller+Newsletter&utm_campaign=7e473d54ff-Kveller_6_7_20166_7_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_eece40deea-7e473d54ff-28562397

Wednesday, June 08, 2016

This community of perverts gets aroused by little girls riding bikes!

Ultra-orthodox Israeli rabbi bans girls over five from riding bikes because it is 'provocative'

Ruling is latest in series of restrictions imposed on groups of Haredis









    19K



    An ultra-orthodox Jewish leader has reportedly banned girls aged five and older in some areas of Israel from riding bicycles - claiming it is “immodest”.

    The rabbi of the Jerusalem neighbourhood of Nahloat distributed the stringent decree to his followers in synagogues across the area.

    He had said young girls riding bicycles could “cause serious damage to their modesty” and that bicycle seats caused young girls to sit in a way men found “provocative”, according to the Arutz Sheva 7 website.

    The ruling said: “We inform parents that they are obligated to forbid their daughters from age five and up from acting in this illegitimate way.”

    Those affected by the ruling are members of the ultra-orthodox Haredi branch of Judaism.

    In December ultra-orthodox rabbis requested women in Israeli city Bnei Brak refrain from studying in higher education.

    They claimed institutions which teach secular subjects presented a real danger, and that girls and women should not study.

    Haredi leaders have also attempted to effectively ban the internet from their communities, even declaring smartphones non-kosher.

    However, studies suggest this interdict has had little effect, with ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel using the internet just as much as anyone else, according to the Washington Post.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/ultra-orthodox-judaism-haredi-israeli-rabbi-bans-girls-over-five-riding-bikes-provocative-a7064201.html

    Tuesday, June 07, 2016

    The 17-page indictment, obtained by JTA, accuses Maklev of raping his alleged victims — sisters now aged 23 and 27 — hundreds of times since they were 6 and 7, sodomizing them, performing obscene acts on them and assaulting them while telling them that the sexual contact was required by religious law, or halacha. He also is charged with attempting to perform and performing an indecent act under deceitful pretenses on a third sister, now 29, when she was 19.


    Man’s alleged rape of relatives’ daughters seen denting insularity of Jerusalem’s haredim

    (JTA) — A court in Jerusalem extended the remand of a haredi Orthodox school supervisor from Jerusalem whose indictment for the alleged rape of two girls from his own family is reportedly eroding taboos on reporting  sex crimes within his community.

    The Jerusalem District Court’s decision Thursday on Naftali Maklev, 50, came two weeks after his May 18 indictment, the news site Kikar HaShabbat reported. According to Haaretz, the affair is leading to unusual developments within highly insular haredi Orthodox communities, including increased reporting of molestation and warnings to haredi schoolchildren to be wary even of adults known to them.

    Maklev’s lawyer, Yehuda Fried, told Kikar his client was innocent and that a “detailed examination of the evidence will show the accusations and alleged evidence are made up.” Maklev is not accused of molesting pupils at the Jerusalem religious school for boys where he worked.

    The 17-page indictment, obtained by JTA, accuses Maklev of raping his alleged victims — sisters now aged 23 and 27 — hundreds of times since they were 6 and 7, sodomizing them, performing obscene acts on them and assaulting them while telling them that the sexual contact was required by religious law, or halacha. He also is charged with attempting to perform and performing an indecent act under deceitful pretenses on a third sister, now 29, when she was 19.

    The indictment said the alleged acts happened at Maklev’s home, at the homes of the complainants, at his office at the yeshiva and in his car. Spanning over 20 years, his actions are said to have begun in his alleged victims’ early childhood and continued until they were young mothers in their 20s.

    According to the indictment, Maklev began molesting one of the girls when she was was 6, “turning her into an instrument for the fulfillment of his sexual desires.”

    “The defendant used his status in the family and the community, as an authority on the Torah, and the fact that he supported financially the families of the victim, while encouraging her sense of dependence and duty,” the indictment said of one victim. “As she matured, the defendant added to these manipulations, falsehoods and lies, claiming halacha makes his actions not only permissible, but a mitzvah.”

    The document also said Maklev claimed his life and health depended on the girl’s compliance and that his actions with her were necessary to repair damages to her soul sustained during a previous incarnation.

    The mainstream haredi Orthodox media has ignored the case, but coverage of it in other media, including Kikar and Behadrei Haredim, as well as reports on social media is “sending shockwaves through the haredi society,” Yair Ettinger, a Haaretz reporter who covered the case, wrote in an article published last week.

    Some haredi schools, including the Beit Yaakov school for girls in Elad near Tel Aviv, have handed out fliers warning pupils against sexual predators, Ettinger reported.

    “In any case of doubt, respond with a resolute ‘no’,” one flyer urges. “Beware of people you know or do not know, and do not be tempted to accompany him even if he is friendly to you. Disengage, stay away and tell your parents,“ it adds.

    The affair has resulted in a surge of dozens of reports about sex crimes at Lo Tishtok, a group set up by three activists six months ago to encourage victims from insular Orthodox communities to report abuse to the authorities, according to a co-founder of the group, Avigail Karlinsky.

    http://jta.org/2016/06/03/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/israels-haredi-community-rattled-by-sex-abuse-case-involving-jerusalem-yeshiva-supervisor

    Friday, June 03, 2016

    The Disappearance of Yemenite Babies During the Aliyah of 1949-1954...An Ugly History of What Happens To Jewish Children When There Is No Accountability..."Especially By People Who Call Themselves Religious"...

     
    The Yemenite Children Affair (Hebrew: פרשת ילדי תימן) was the disappearance of hundreds of babies and toddlers of new immigrants to the newly founded state of Israel, mainly from Yemen, between the years 1948 to 1954. Most cases involved the parents being told in the hospital that their newborn children had died although they never received additional reliable information about their fates.[1] The parents claim that their children were really kidnapped and given or sold to Ashkenazi families. In several cases, the children tracked down their parents many years later and conclusively determined their relationship to their Yemenite relations using DNA testing.[2]
     "There is reason to believe according to the Cohen Committee that a Rabbi Bernard Bergman of New York had allegedly brought many babies to the U.S. However in order to do so, passports must have been issued. So logic then tells you that besides nurses, doctors, drivers, and the Jewish Agency, the Immigration Department was also involved. Otherwise, how did the children leave the country?

    Yossiphov also asked if I could set up a meeting with the New York City Prosecutor Charles Hynes, who had prosecuted Rabbi Bernard Bergman. This powerful and wealthy Rabbi in New York was indicted and sent to prison for stealing a huge amount of money from elderly people in the nursing homes he operated. He was also known to be the middle-man, according to an article published by the journalist Uri Avneri. On January 11, 1967, under the title: “The Earthshaking Discovery of the Year. The children of Yemenite immigrants were sold to America - $5000 per child.”

    By this time, Bergman had died in jail and Charles Hynes was now the District Attorney of Brooklyn. The hope was that when Bergman’s phones were tapped, he may have mentioned Yalde Teman. Through my friend Jack Chartier, the N.Y. State Deputy Comptroller, I was able to set up an appointment for Yosseph Yossiphov and Charles Hynes. Mr. Hynes said he would also invite all the investigators of Bergman to the meeting...."
     
    READ MORE:
    https://www.facebook.com/notes/judah-moshe/the-disappearance-of-yemenite-babies-during-the-aliyah-of-1949-1954/699857353380856/
     
     It is also crucial to mention that Rabbi Dr. Bergman died a few
    years ago while in jail for a different crime - his fraud and
    abuse in New York nursing homes that he ran. This was an issue
    covered thoroughly in the United States and Israel. The New-York
    Times reports:

    "Bernard Bergman, the central figure in investigations into
    possible fraud and abuse in New York nursing homes, has decided
    to abandon his public defense of his business dealings. In
    refusing to testify at televised Senate hearings last week, he
    invoked his constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment. His
    lawyer has argued that to testify would be prejudicial if
    inquiries by Federal and state prosecutors result in criminal
    proceedings against Mr. Bergman. A Federal grand jury is known to
    be looking into his affairs. And a state grand jury, assisted by
    Special State Prosecutor Charles J. Hynes, has also been
    impaneled to study alleged improprieties in the state's nursing
    homes. This is not the first time Mr. Bergman has been prominent
    in such inquiries. At a state hearing on nursing homes last week,
    Civil Court Judge Louis I. Kaplan, who in 1960 issued a report on
    city nursing-home abuses, testified that Mr. Bergman was then,
    too, the major figure in the industry under investigation. He
    said he presented evidence of criminal fraud in the industry to
    former Mayor Wagner. No prosecutions followed and Mr. Wagner says
    he doesn't recall what happened to the so-called Kaplan report.
    The first indictments in the investigations of the industry have
    been handed up. The owner of a Smithtown, L.I., nursing home and
    an accountant were accused of swindling Medicaid out of more than
    $500,000 by charging personal and improper business expenses to
    the program. In Connecticut, which is also investigating its
    nursing homes, a state official said at General Assembly hearings
    that top state officials had financial interests in nursing homes
    and used their influence to get favorable treatment for them".

    It appears that the entire issue of Rabbi Dr. Issachar Dov
    Bernard Bergman, and the nursing homes in New-York were a big issue
    in the United States back then, and the New-York times spent much
    work on getting articles about it written. Bergman was a main
    figure in the Orthodox religious community in the States,as well as
    President of the United States branch of the "Mizrachi" movement...
     
    MORE: http://unorthodoxjew.blogspot.com/2005/11/bigger-bastardpart-two-yemenite.html

    Thursday, June 02, 2016

    The assault transformed and shaped his life. More than 30 years later, the trauma of the four-hour-long assault continues to have repercussions, and Dr. Douglas argues persuasively that rape is an experience that one can never really relegate to one’s past. Rape, he says, “is always now.”

    Talking About Male Rape




    Raymond M. Douglas

    In his new book, “On Being Raped,” Raymond M. Douglas, a professor of history at Colgate University, writes publicly for the first time about being brutally beaten and raped at the age of 18 by a familiar parish priest. The assault transformed and shaped his life. More than 30 years later, the trauma of the four-hour-long assault continues to have repercussions, and Dr. Douglas argues persuasively that rape is an experience that one can never really relegate to one’s past. Rape, he says, “is always now.”

    I recently spoke with Dr. Douglas about his decision to break his decades-long silence about the assault, why he prefers the word “victim” to “survivor” when talking about sexual violence, and his hope of initiating a broader public conversation about sexual assaults on men and boys. Here’s an edited excerpt of our conversation.

    Q.
    You’ve avoided discussing the assault for more than three decades. Why are you breaking your silence now?
    A.
    There wasn’t a specific trigger, but advancing age may have had something to do with it. I have been aware for many years that little has changed for men since the time of my attack. I am familiar with the women’s anti-rape movement in the late 1960s and early ’70s, and it was clear to me that what moved the needle of public perception about rape at that time was the willingness of victims to speak publicly under their own names about their experiences. In my mother’s time, rape was very much the “Great Unspeakable” for women. What changed that was people coming out and challenging the depictions of their experience. I didn’t see things changing for men unless they started doing the same thing.
    Q.
    Talking about the assault was so traumatic for you that you confided in very few people, and did not even tell your wife, whom you met many years after the assault. How did you prepare her for the book?
    A.
    We did have a conversation, and I did disclose to her. It didn’t come as a massive surprise to her, oddly enough. She said that she had suspected something of the kind for quite a few years, though she always assumed that it had been something that had happened to me in childhood, rather than early adulthood. That took her aback to a degree.
    Q.
    After the assault, you found out that there had been rumors about this priest for years and that there had been jokes about him having sexually assaulted other young men. Was his behavior an open secret?
    A.
    It certainly wasn’t [an open secret] to me. My friends knew him as a certain kind of, shall we say, boundary pusher. I don’t think they had the faintest idea just how dangerous he was. But I found out — and I was neither the first nor the last of his victims — that it went further than that. You need to remember the time and the place this occurred, and especially the time. It was a period where priests were quite literally gods anointed. They were the moral exemplars, the arbiters of good and evil, of what is acceptable conduct and what is not. They were not used to being contradicted and those who did challenge them were not supported – especially if you were an 18-year-old kid just out of school.
    Q.
    One of the most powerful messages of the book is that the trauma of being raped never goes away. Why do you think this is the case?
    A.
    In my opinion the real damage, the lasting damage, isn’t done by the episode as much as by the aftermath. Humans encounter trauma not infrequently. What’s different about sexual trauma is the type of social response one encounters from both sexes. I’ve spoken to people who have managed quite successfully to get over what were objectively pretty ghastly episodes of sexual victimization — much, much worse than anything I experienced. The common factor I’ve seen in those circumstances is that you find appropriate reactions on the part of others in the victim’s circle.
    When you experience something as a big deal, and everybody else around you asserts with great certainty that no, it isn’t, or worse, that it isn’t even a thing, then trying to bridge that conceptual gap is likely to exacerbate difficulties with adjustment.
    When you’re encountering denial, impatience, dismissal, contempt – which of course is something common to victims of both sexes – or when there is not even a vocabulary with which to describe the events to oneself, much less to others, the difficulties are increased exponentially.
    Q.
    In the book you tell us that you still have an aversion to being touched without permission and would prefer to sleep with the lights on. You say there is occasionally a “third person” in the room with you and your wife. Is your response typical?
    A.
    People respond to things like this in different ways. Some engage in a great deal of sexual activity, often risky sexual activity which can frequently lead to re-victimization. Another common way out is to withdraw into oneself. This was, as you know, my first sexual experience. It wasn’t of the nature to make me look forward to the next one with keen anticipation.
    Q.
    You talk about language a lot in this book, and say you prefer the word “victim” to “survivor.” Can you explain that?
    A.
    I strongly believe people should be able to call themselves whatever they like. But just as there are problematic overtones bound up with the word “victim,” it seems to me that there are problematic elements with the term “survivor.” It takes for granted something that requires demonstration. For both men and women, the suicide rate is increased very dramatically when people have undergone experiences of this kind. One can never be entirely sure that one has survived. I think most people who have had experiences like this would agree that years and decades afterward it still has the capacity to surprise them.
    Our notion of trauma is a linear sort of notion: a bad experience, followed by a crisis, followed by re-normalization when you put it behind you, as the saying goes. I think most specialists would tell you that’s not really how it works in real life. Sometimes people are fine in the immediate aftermath and only have difficulties afterward. A lot of people have problems when they have children of their own, or when those children reach the age that they were when they were assaulted. Sometimes they get over some aspects of the experience and not others. I don’t think it’s ever safe to say one is ever completely past this kind of thing.
    Q.
    You say that you have maintained your Catholic faith, but have lost your trust in the leadership of the church, which never took action against your assailant. Is it difficult to walk this fine line?
    A.
    It’s very difficult, and that is reinforced every time I go to Mass on Sunday. The record of the church on this question is atrociously bad. It’s not on the radar screens of any of the major Christian denominations. This is something that we have a duty to do for our brothers and sisters, against whom we are sinning by omission as well as by commission.
    Q.
    Has any progress been made since your assault?
    A.
    At the time the very existence of male rape outside correctional institutions was largely and explicitly denied. This was a huge stumbling block for me at the time. I was assured that what I had experienced did not in fact happen.
    Q.
    You say your book is a first step to drawing attention to male-on-male rape. What must come next?
    A.
    I think we’re doing an abominable job of listening to men and boys who have been raped. When we notice their existence at all — which is a rare thing — we’re extremely prone to talk over them and to redefine their experience for them. We need more research that’s victim-centered. Our current understanding of what that experience involves is obtained from the crudest possible stereotypes, principally Hollywood films like “Deliverance” or “The Shawshank Redemption.” It’s not merely because men and boys are not speaking about it. The question worth asking is: What needs to be done that would make them feel safe in disclosing their experience?

    Second, we need somewhere for men and boys to go when this has happened to them. We don’t have that. If one of my female students came to me on a Monday morning and said that something terrible happened last Saturday night, I have a good idea where to send her for support. If one of my male students came to me, I haven’t a bloody clue where to send him.

    Third, we need an integrated approach to the whole problem of sexual violence. Right now there are numerous bodies and agencies and victims’ groups, each with its own particular mission, but in my view this situation is not advantageous to anybody. 

    We can talk about the gendered aspects certainly, but in my view, the fight against sexual violence in all its aspects is a single fight that ought to unite people of all genders and sexual orientations. The basic elements are fundamentally the same.

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/talking-about-male-rape/?emc=edit_tnt_20160601&nlid=32999454&tntemail0=y&_r=0

    Wednesday, June 01, 2016

    This man is a LIAR and a HUGE part of the problem! For such a Simpleton (WHO UNDERSTANDS NOTHING OF THE PLAGUE HE BABBLES ABOUT) to occupy any position in any organization, says much about the state of Orthodox Judaism!


    If we keep allowing our perception of what mental illness looks like to dictate how we go about recognizing and treating it, we will continue to overlook those who don’t fit the mold. We cannot keep forgetting that there are people out there who, though they may not be able to check off every symptom on the list, are heavily and negatively affected by their mental illness. If we forget, we allow their struggle to continue unnoticed, and that is pretty scary.



    I first saw a psychiatrist for my anxiety and depression as a junior in high school. During her evaluation, she asked about my classes and grades. I told her that I had a 4.0 GPA and had filled my schedule with Pre-AP and AP classes. A puzzled look crossed her face. She asked about my involvement in extracurricular activities. As I rattled off the long list of groups and organizations I was a part of, her frown creased further.

    Finally, she set down her pen and looked at me, saying something along the lines of, “You seem to be pretty high-functioning, but your anxiety and depression seem pretty severe. Actually, it’s teens like you who scare me a lot.”

    Now I was confused. What was scary about my condition? From the outside, I was functioning like a perfectly “normal” teenager. In fact, I was somewhat of an overachiever. I was working through my mental illnesses and succeeding, so what was the problem?

    I left that appointment with a prescription for Lexapro and a question that I would continue to think about for years. The answer didn’t hit me all at once; rather, it came to me every time I heard a suicide story on the news saying, “by all accounts, they were living the perfect life.” It came to me as I crumbled under pressure over and over again, doing the bare minimum I could to still meet my definition of success. It came to me as I began to share my story and my illness with others, and I was met with reactions of “I had no idea” and “I never would have known.”

    It’s easy to put depression into a box of symptoms, and though we as a society are constantly told mental illness comes in all shapes and sizes, we are stuck with a mental health stock image in our heads that many people don’t match. When we see depression and anxiety in adolescents, we see teens struggling to get by in their day-to-day lives. We see grades dropping. We see involvement replaced by isolation. People slip through the cracks.

    We don’t see the student with the 4.0 GPA. We don’t see the student who’s active in choir and theater or a member of the National Honor Society. We don’t see the student who takes on leadership roles in a religious youth group. No matter how many times we are reminded that mental illness doesn’t discriminate, we revert back to a narrow idea of how it should manifest, and that is dangerous.

    Recognizing that danger is what helped me find the answer to my question. Watching person after person, myself included, slip under the radar of the “depression detector” made me realize where that fear comes from. My psychiatrist knew the list of symptoms, and she knew I didn’t necessarily fit them. She understood it was the reason that, though my struggles with mental illness began at age 12, I didn’t come to see her until I was 16. Four years is a long time to deal with mental illness alone, and secondary school is a dangerous time to deal with it.

    If we keep allowing our perception of what mental illness looks like to dictate how we go about recognizing and treating it, we will continue to overlook those who don’t fit the mold. We cannot keep forgetting that there are people out there who, though they may not be able to check off every symptom on the list, are heavily and negatively affected by their mental illness. If we forget, we allow their struggle to continue unnoticed, and that is pretty scary.

    If you or someone you know needs help, please visit the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. You can also reach the Crisis Text Line by texting “START” to 741-741. Head here for a list of crisis centers around the world.
    The Crisis Text Line is looking for volunteers! If you’re interesting in becoming a Crisis Counselor, you can learn more information here.

    The Mighty is asking the following: What is a part of your or a loved one’s disease, disability or mental illness that no one is aware of? Why is it time to start talking about it? Check out our Submit a Story page for more about our submission guidelines.


    Tuesday, May 31, 2016

    BUYER BEWARE!

    Scarsdale Integrative Medicine

    2 Overhill Road, Suite 260
    Scarsdale NY 10583
    Phone: 914.722.9440
    Fax: 914.722.9441 


    Spiritual and Psychological Counseling

    Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblatt, Phd

    Spiritual and Psychological Counseling





    Rabbi Jonathan I Rosenblatt, an ordained rabbi, holds Bachelor and Masters degrees of the Johns Hopkins University and a Phd of Columbia University in modern British literature. He recently returned from a Fellowship at Harvard University. He has studied in the United States, Israel and France. He combines the ancient wisdom of the Jewish tradition with the sophistication of a broad Western liberal arts and social science education.

    Recently retired from more than three decades in the community rabbinate, Rabbi Rosenblatt is now sharing his broad experience in counseling and guidance with the community at large. In addition to extensive experience guiding his flock through the gamut of human trials, traumas and relationships, Rabbi Rosenblatt was the founding Director of Spiritual Care at the Zicklin Jewish Hospice Residence. In this role, the rabbi counseled and comforted families and patients of many faith traditions and backgrounds in cooperation with a cross-disciplinary team of healthcare professionals. Known widely as ‘a Rabbi’s Rabbi’, Dr. Rosenblatt has mentored and trained a generation of young Rabbis, supporting both their personal and professional development. Many Rabbis from around the world call him to consult on their thorniest counseling situations. 

    Rabbi Rosenblatt has deep experience across a broad spectrum of challenges: coping with serious illness and bereavement, stressful family relationships, parenting challenges, life transitions, loss of a sense of meaning and direction, workplace conflicts.
    • Service Provided: Spiritual and psychological counseling
     

    Monday, May 30, 2016

    "There aren’t a whole lot of dots to connect to uncover the logic of where this leads: if you abolish sex distinctions in law, you can abolish state recognition of biological family ties, and the state can regulate personal relationships and consolidate power as never before."

    A De-Sexed Society is a De-Humanized Society



    President Obama’s transgender directive isn’t about civil rights or bathroom use. It’s about state control over personal relationships.

    As usual, tyranny comes disguised as “civil rights.”

    The latest exhibit of this general rule is President Obama’s directive that seeks to force a transgender bathroom, locker room and dorm policy on the entire nation, starting with schoolchildren. Many of us are taken aback by this news, but we really shouldn’t be. The order is merely the latest incarnation of a long line of social engineering. The goal, as is always the case with such movements, is to remake humanity. What the people behind this latest version won’t tell you is that their project requires each and every one of us to deny our own humanity.

    Let me explain.

    The transgender movement has never been about “gender.” It’s all about sex. Sex is the real target. “Gender” is merely the politicized linguistic vehicle that facilitates a legal ban on sex distinctions. There aren’t a whole lot of dots to connect to uncover the logic of where this leads: if you abolish sex distinctions in law, you can abolish state recognition of biological family ties, and the state can regulate personal relationships and consolidate power as never before.

    Let’s Review Reality
    Physical reality exists independent of “gender identity non-discrimination” law—or any man-made law. Laws have no power to make reality go away, but they can change how people behave in response to reality. They can enforce disregard for reality through speech protocols, social and economic pressures, invasions of privacy, and thought policing. And that is what the effect of Obama’s executive order is all about.

    It will serve to outlaw speech that identifies males as males and females as females. At the moment, it may not seem that way, since we see people striving to pass as one specific sex or the other. But, trust me, we’re all being forced to “transition” into conformity of thought. In New York, you can now be fined if you don’t re-engineer your speech (and thoughts) to align with new and ever-changing pronoun protocols.

    We’re being pushed to “evolve” rapidly from laws that seem to allow male-female distinctions to laws that will categorically reject those distinctions in the not-too-distant future. Federal forms are already reflecting these changes by erasing sexed terms such as “mother” and “father.” And at every turn, we’re seeing the specific term “sex” replaced with the meaningless, ambiguous term “gender.”

    This puts us on the path to banning recognition of the reality that every single human being exists through the union of one male and one female. There are no exceptions to this reality. You exist as the union of the two opposites through whom you were created.

    So the administration’s action is an order for a somewhat suicidal type of behavior modification: it attempts to make us deny the reality of our humanity. In a real sense, this amounts to a denial of our very existence. All such denials of reality require heavy-handed censorship. We have already seen the governors of South Dakota and Georgia fold in the face of threats that federal funding would be withheld and big businesses would withdraw from the states if they attempted to enforce single-sex restrooms.

    Without Sex, There Are No Families

    What will happen when all of society is sexless in both language and law? If the law does not recognize your body as physically male or female—applying only the word “gender” to your internal, self-reported self-perception—does the law even recognize your body? Every single cell of you has either “male” or “female” written into its DNA, but the law refuses to recognize such categories.

    Such laws will only recognize an infinite, immeasurable “gender spectrum,” your place on which is determined only by your mind. So what exactly are you after the law has de-sexed you? In what sense is your body a legal entity?

    And what happens to your familial relationships after the law has de-sexed you? Are they legally recognized? I don’t see how they could be. Certainly not by default, certainly not by the recognition that each child comes through the union of two opposite-sex parents.

    In a society de-sexed by law, would the state recognize your relationship as a husband or a wife? 

    Mother or father? Daughter or son? Those are all sexed terms. A system that does not recognize the existence of male and female would be free to ignore the parentage of any child. You might be recognized as your child’s “legal guardian,” but only if the state agrees to that. Anybody can be a guardian to your child if the state decides it’s in the child’s “best interest.” In this vision, there is nothing to prevent the state from severing the mother-child bond at will.

    In such a scenario, the state controls all personal relationships right at their source: the biological family. The abolition of family autonomy would be complete, because the biological family would cease to be a default arrangement. The “family” would be whatever the state allows it to be. Again, in the de-sexed world of gender politics, all personal relationships end up controlled and regulated by the state.

    Martha Fineman, a gender legal theorist, touched on this in her 2004 book The Autonomy Myth. In it, she argues for the abolition of state-recognized marriage because it allows for family privacy, writing that “Once the institutional protection [is] removed, behavior would be judged by standards established to regulate interactions among all members of society” (emphasis added).

    Gender ideology is an effective statist tool. Cultural Marxists use it to corrupt language and sow confusion, especially among children. It paves the way for the removal of the institutional protections for freedom of association and family privacy that stand in the way of “regulating interactions among all members of society.”

    How Could a Society Reject Its Own Freedom?

    Getting free people to reject freedom may seem a tall order. How, you might ask, could people ever be convinced to let go of their families and consent to such a dystopian social structure? How do you get public opinion on board with an agenda that leads them to deny the reality of their own humanity?

    There are lots of pieces to this puzzle, including the erosion of social trust, the breakdown of family, social polarization, and growing ignorance of history. But the groundwork has been laid over a long period of time.

    First, virtually all outlets of communication had to be on board—Hollywood, academia, the media. Check. All medical personnel, particularly mental health personnel, had to be “educated” to comply with the transgender program or risk losing their licenses. Check. The educational establishment had to imbue schoolchildren with the ideology. Check. Large corporations had to get on board as stakeholders and enforcers. Check. And, of course, the push to legally de-sex society had to be embedded—Trojan Horse style—within a slightly less alien idea, with the slick slogan “marriage equality.” Check. Churches had to be brought on board so that even religion became a conduit for anti-truth. Check. Social, emotional, and economic pressures had to be established to censure anyone who dared to question the wisdom of it all. Check. Any such person had to be labeled a bigot, a hater, and a non-person. Checkmate.

    At this point, the most primal and universal of human fears comes into play: the fear of being socially rejected. Self-censorship takes off. People start falsifying what they believe, until they eventually don’t even know what they believe anymore. Nobody can talk openly to one another. In the end, it’s as though we are each being marched into a separate solitary confinement cell. That’s what happens when free association takes a hit, when the state severs particular relationships in the name of a collective togetherness. Then, when we can’t verify reality with one another anymore—because we are so afraid of being ostracized—we end up living in an age of mass delusion.

    The only way out is to affirm reality. We must reclaim our full humanity. Let’s start by reinjecting our language with one very good word that points to reality: sex. Yes, let’s revive the word “sex,” and use it generously whenever referring to the biological reality of our physical nature. (And spiritual nature too.) At the same time, let’s refuse—always—to use the word “gender” when we mean sex. It’s a poisoned and weaponized word that has been used to legally de-sex and thus dehumanize us all. We must work together to resist its deceptions.

    Stella Morabito is a senior contributor to The Federalist and blogs about relationships, power, and freedom at stellamorabito.net.

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/05/17041/

    Sunday, May 29, 2016

    "Men who rape three-year-olds still get probation instead of prison time. We claim to despise rapists and child molesters, but there’s Roman Polanski, a convicted child rapist, still lauded and awarded by Hollywood. There’s Woody Allen, accused of molesting his daughter, on the red carpet to promote his new film while famous power-players circle the wagons."

    Corey Feldman’s Claims Show Why Sex Crimes Should Have No Statute of Limitations

    Jill Filipovic is a lawyer and writer
     
    Bill Cosby stands accused of sexually assaulting dozens of women. Woody Allen, now married to his adopted step-daughter, faces accusations of molestation from his biological daughter. (Both men have denied the charges.) The Hollywood Reporter recently published an interview with actor Corey Feldman in which Feldman says that he and now-deceased actor Corey Haim were routinely raped (Haim), molested (Feldman) and abused (both, among other children) by Hollywood predators. In his interview with THR, Feldman said that despite knowing “every single person” who targeted Haim—a man who died at 38 after decades of drug abuse—he couldn’t name them.

    “I’m not able to name names,” Feldman said. “People are frustrated, people are angry, they want to know how is this happening and they want answers and they turn to me and they say, ‘Why don’t you be a man and stand up and name names and stop hiding and being a coward?’ I have to deal with that, which is not pleasant, especially given the fact that I would love to name names. I’d love to be the first to do it. But unfortunately California conveniently enough has a statute of limitations that prevents that from happening. Because if I were to go and mention anybody’s name I would be the one that would be in legal problems and I’m the one that would be sued.”

    I have written that, in light of the Cosby accusations, there should be no statute of limitations for rape. With ever public allegation—every child who was assaulted and never said anything until adulthood, every woman who assumed no one would believe her until she heard so many other women accuse the same man—the case for removing statutes of limitation for rape gets stronger.

    It is a shame that celebrity scandals finally get the American public really talking about sexual violence. One in five women, and one in 71 men, will be raped in their lifetime. Many more will experience attempted rape, or other forms of sexual violence. Thousands of rape kits sit untested in crime labs as the cases associated with them go stale and rapists remain free to assault again. The overwhelming majority of assailants never see the inside of a courtroom, let alone a day in jail.

    Many victims also never report the crime, or wait days, months, years or even decades to speak about it. Despite its ubiquity, sexual violence remains a deep source of shame for many who survive it. The act itself is one of unique cruelty—turning the sexual parts of the body, which is for many people are sources of great pleasure and joy, into a locus of pain and humiliation – only compounded by a society that seems to willfully misunderstand and misrepresent rape and sexual violence. In the same breath as we say that a woman is never at fault for being raped, we still ask what she could have done to avoid it, as if the problem were her behavior and not a rapist who would likely have assaulted some other woman had the one he found not been there.

     We talk about acquaintance rape as if it’s often some sort of misunderstanding, two drunk people just not communicating their needs instead of one person deciding sex is a thing he simply takes and not a mutually pleasurable shared experience. We look at handsome male celebrities accused of rape—Kobe Bryant, for example—and ask why he would ever rape anyone when he could get sex from any number of willing women, as if rape were about uncontrollable and unfulfilled male desire instead of sadism and a desire to make someone else hurt. (Bryant settled a civil suit with his accuser, to whom he had to apologize, without admitting guilt.)

    Americans have a disordered relationship with sexual violence, and the victims of it make us especially uncomfortable. Can you blame them for not speaking up?

    The least we could do is not put arbitrary roadblocks in the way of those same victims getting justice.

    Opponents of doing away with statutes of limitations for sexual assault cases, including the Catholic Church in the aftermath of its own sex abuse scandal, cite legitimate concerns. “Statutes of limitations exist to ensure a just verdict can be reached,” Amy Hill, a spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, told Business Insider. “Over time witnesses’ memories fade, evidence is lost or never found, and in many instances perpetrators or witnesses may be deceased.”

    Those concerns, though, don’t require a limit on how long after a crime is committed prosecutors can bring a case. If a perpetrator or a witness is dead, they’re dead —which may impact a prosecutor’s decision to try a case, and may mean it never gets brought, but there’s no need to impose an artificial constraint. Ditto concerns about lost evidence and fading memories—it’s not clear why capping a case at 12 or 20 years would solve those problems.

    The longer a case sits, the weaker it gets. For that reason, it’s unlikely that doing away with statutes of limitations will result in a wave of decades-old prosecutions. Most old cases are simply too weak to win.

    But some aren’t. And those victims deserve justice—not an arbitrary legal limitation. Statutes of limitations differ by state, so a rape victim in California has a different window in which to report her assault than one in Pennsylvania or New York or Mississippi. There are already sixteen states that don’t have statutes of limitations on rape or sexual assault; no great chaos has broken out, and the justice system has not broken down.

    Criminal defendants have a right to fair trials, and certainly judges should take into account the fallibility of human memory. Even eyewitness accounts soon after an event are notoriously unreliable. And perhaps if sex crimes were treated socially, legally and culturally just like any other violent crime, it would make sense to more or less tell victims, “you have a narrow window of time in which to report this, and after that, it’s too late.”

    But we don’t treat sex crimes like we treat other crimes. Even legally they’re often treated differently—until fairly recently, testimony about a woman’s sexual history or what she was wearing at the time of the assault was all admissible in court. Men who rape three-year-olds still get probation instead of prison time. We claim to despise rapists and child molesters, but there’s Roman Polanski, a convicted child rapist, still lauded and awarded by Hollywood. There’s Woody Allen, accused of molesting his daughter, on the red carpet to promote his new film while famous power-players circle the wagons.

    Sexual assault survivors, even those victimized by men more average than famous, face an uphill legal battle. The vast majority of them will never see their assailant tried for his crime. Doing away with statutes of limitations doesn’t solve the entrenched and vast problems facing sexual assault survivors, but it does open a tiny window for a few of them—and would allow survivors like Corey Feldman to shine a light on those who harmed him. Why stand in the way?

    http://time.com/4349546/statute-limitations-rape-feldman/

    Friday, May 27, 2016

    Rabbi Wanted for Sex Crimes to Be Extradited to Israel

    Shuvu Banim leader Eliezer Berland spent three years on the run from Israeli police, but will now be sent back after arrest in South Africa.

    Rabbi Eliezer Berland, who is wanted for sex crimes in Israel, appears before the Randburg magistrate's court, South Africa, April 20, 2016

    Rabbi Eliezer Berland, leader of the Shuvu Banim community, signed an extradition agreement Wednesday which will see him returned from South Africa to Israel, according to a source involved with the case.

    Berland, 78, is suspected in a number of sexual crimes, namely against women who were part of the Suvu Banim community, one of the main groups affiliated with Breslov, which functions as an independent Hasidic branch.

    Since Berland's arrest in April, extradition proceedings have been handled by the international department of the State Attorney's Office.

    Berland was arrested in Johannesburg after three years on the run in the U.S., Morocco, Zimbabwe (from where he was expelled in April, 2014), the Netherlands and other countries on three continents. Berland originally fled Israel in April 2013 when he was called in for questioning.

    He was arrested in Holland in 2014 and extradition talks began with Israel, but Berland managed to flee once more in July, 2015. Holland had already decided that Berland would be extradited and he appealed the decision, but then took the opportunity to flee upon being released to house arrest.

    Berland's lawyer in Israel said that he was resigning from representing his client, but the Justice Ministry declined to confirm or deny the recent developments.

    Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/.premium-1.721704

    Thursday, May 26, 2016

    “The judge called that homicide the worst physical bludgeoning he’d ever seen. How do you get a 5- to 10-year sentence for that?”

    Rafael Robb’s Parole Is Denied, Case Raises Abuse Awareness

    Rafael Robb came from Israel to the U.S. with a bachelor’s degree from Hebrew University. He got his Ph.D. in economics at UCLA, and joined the faculty at the University of Pennsylvania in 1984.
     
    In 1987, he met 30-year-old Ellen Gregory through a dating service; the two married in 1990. As his career as an academic powerhouse thrived, the couple bought a house in Upper Merion and had a daughter, Olivia, in 1994. 
     
    From the outside, everything seemed perfect for this scholarly Jewish son of Holocaust survivors. But inside the house, a battle raged.
     
    The marriage was not a happy one.
     
    Gregory told relatives her husband was controlling. They fought over money. She suffered from depression.
     
    But in 2006, Gregory finally consulted a divorce lawyer, detailing years of physical and emotional abuse on her husband’s part. She told Robb that she wanted a divorce.
     
    Then, on the day when she was scheduled to leave, he bludgeoned her to death in the kitchen of their home. 
     
    At first, Robb denied it, saying an intruder had tried to rob the house. But police arrested him and charged him with first- and third-degree murder, and he eventually pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter.
     
    He said he and Gregory had been arguing that day, and she pushed him; he snapped, took a chin-up bar and beat her to death with it. As the result of a lenient plea agreement, he was sentenced to five to 10 years in prison.
     
    The crime — and all the developments since — made headlines internationally.
     
    It seemed shocking that such a well-respected scholar at an Ivy League university would commit this heinous crime. And there were those who said it was doubly shocking because Robb was Jewish.
     
    This is an attitude that Robin Axelrod Sabag, clinical supervisor and coordinator of the Domestic Violence Program at Jewish Family and Children’s Service, is familiar with.
     
    “People will say to me, ‘You probably don’t have too many cases to work on, in the Jewish community.’ But domestic violence does happen in our community,” she said, noting that it happens at about the same rate as in the community at large. “The one thing that’s different is that it takes longer [for a Jewish domestic violence victim] to leave. It can take five to 15 years longer — three times as long as in other communities.” 
     
    This is, in part, because of the notion that domestic violence doesn’t happen among Jews, so victims are especially chagrined. But there are other reasons, too.
     
    “There’s a shame of leaving — in the Jewish community we’re supposed to stay together,” Sabag said. “And what does that say about you as a woman if that’s happening? There’s the notion of shalom bayit; we’re supposed to have peace in the home.
     
    “There’s the issue of getting a get for more traditional women. There are the financial stressors of leaving. And then, it’s a smaller community, so more people will know about it, and it’s embarrassing and shameful that this could be going on.”
     
    Sabag said if the perpetrator is an upstanding member of the community, the victim may be afraid that they won’t have enough credibility.
     
    “There’s a fear of not being believed.”
     
    Though JFCS’ services are non-denominational, Sabag works with many Jewish clients who come to the organization specifically because it is culturally sensitive. Clients derive comfort from the fact that there are people who understand the cultural and religious dynamics at work in a given situation.
     
    Sabag and her colleagues will mediate with a client’s rabbi, if need be. They also address issues around child abuse in the home, which can complicate a situation enormously.
     
    “There’s a fear of reporting because their child may be placed in a non-Jewish home,” Sabag said.
     
    JFCS even employs someone to work specifically with Orthodox victims of domestic abuse.
     
    “It might pose more issues in leaving if you’re more traditional,” Sabag said. “There’s some spiritual abuse that can occur, especially if you weren’t raised in the traditional sense and then became traditional later in life, the religion might be used as a way to manipulate. Like, you have to do this for me because it’s written in the Torah.
     
    “Someone who’s not as aware of what’s written in the Torah and isn’t as knowledgeable about it might not know what to do. That’s why it’s important to get support, to get a rabbi who says, ‘It’s not okay to do that, and you do have rights.’”
     
    A few weeks ago, the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office announced that the state parole board declined Robb’s recent bid to get out of prison early, which means he’ll serve his entire sentence and be released in January 2017. It also means he’ll stay in the headlines a while longer. 
     
    “When you hear about a high-profile case, you think, that would never happen to me or to my neighbors,” Sabag said. “I don’t know if the cases do a lot to provide awareness. When a casualty happens, people think about it, but I don’t know for how long.”
     
    High-profile cases tend to perpetuate stereotypes, too.
     
    “It’s not just men doing it to women,” Sabag said. “Abuse happens in every community, and there’s some abuse of women towards men.”
     
    But Sabag agrees that the Robb case merits attention, especially because of its sentencing.
     
    “The judge called that homicide the worst physical bludgeoning he’d ever seen. How do you get a 5- to 10-year sentence for that?”