Monday, May 23, 2011

How Jews could Undercut S.F. Circumcision Ban: A Late Term Bris Milah!

Liberal logic illustrated:  Come November in San Francisco, it may be illegal to circumcise your baby boy but you'll still have the have the right to kill him in the womb.  A measure banning male circumcision has qualified for the city's November ballot.

Lloyd Schofield, the proponent of the Male Mutilation Ban, seeks to protect children from "forced circumcision," arguing it is a matter of human rights: "Circumcision is a decision that should be left] up to the choice of the individual -- not the parents, society or religion... This is a choice for body integrity."

Athough even the S.F. Chronicle calls the measure "wacky," Jewish groups are already concerned over the measure's First Amendment ramifications.
"For a city that's renowned for being progressive and open-minded, to even have to consider such an intolerant proposition ... it sets a dangerous precedent for all cities and states," said Rabbi Gil Yosef Leeds of Berkeley. Leeds is a certified "mohel," the person who traditionally performs ritual circumcisions in the Jewish faith.
If enacted, the circumcision ban would apply only to newborns and those under the age of 18.  Violators would face fines and jail time.  And the measure has no tolerance for religious exemptions.

But why worry about the First Amendment when there's an easy way to ... ahem!... circumvent any ban on male circumcision?   Since abortionists can thoroughly dismember a fetus legally, certainly a trim job is...well, shall we biggie.  The proposed law does not ban the removel of preborn foreskin.   I give you the late term bris by an in-utero Mohel! 

Or better yet, just take a page from Dr. Kermit "Snips" Gosnell's approach:  a partial birth bris!  Abortionist prompts a breach "delivery" of the necessary little member while the Mohel stands by ready to perform the bris.  And if something slips, why any legal liability can simply be scissored in utero by turning the partial birth bris back into a partial birth abortion.

And for those Jews objecting that a late term bris would break the eight day rule, what's a few days between birth and bris? Just think of it as a political sacrifice for peace with radical liberals --  kinda like Obama's 1967 boarder peace plan between Israel and Palestine.  

Just like Isreal's right to exist depends upon the Golan Heights, circumcision in San Francisco may become all about location, location, location. And tyrannical liberal politics.

Right to Life.  Right to Exist.  Mazel tov!

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Obama's Secret Service GITMOs 7th grader for FaceBook Post, Media Advises Caution about Posting Political Speech

Thirteen year old Vito LaPinta used his Facebook account to post a concern for President Obama’s safety, reasonably positing suicide bombers might seek revenge in the aftermath of Usama Bin Laden’s assassination. The Washington boy’s Facebook post had NO connection whatever to his middle school. Not on school time. Not on school equipment. Not about school matters, other students or teachers.

A week later, in the middle of the school day, the Secret Service showed up at the 7th grader’s public school and, with the aide and assistance of the local Washington state police and the school principle and staff, they GITMoed this kid. Secret Service water boarded interrogated this 13 year old for half an hour at school away from his parents, without parental knowledge, without informed consent and without legal representation all because the Secret Service couldn’t be sure that a 7th grader’s social network post wasn‘t some sort of coded Al Qaida death threat against our illustrious Leader, Barack Obama.

If this had happened to a Muslim terrorist, the Make-Believe Media would be screaming bloody murder.

I doubt the poor kid even knew he had any rights to assert in the face of his principal, teacher and Tacoma state police wearing badges and Secret Service agents in suits and possibly packing government issued firearms. The school delayed informing the boy’s mother until the Feds’ water boarding interrogation of her son was already complete (security guard tipped mom off -- I guess the principal was too busy to make the call).

It’s been days since Vito LaPinta’s story appeared on Drudge and I‘ve been waiting to see the Make-Believe Media’s angle. Fox News picked up the story, and Yahoo ran a follow up report not on the boy’s civil rights or the mother’s legal options, but rather on the Not-So-Secret Service tweet confirming that Big Brother is indeed monitoring Fox News. (The Secret Service confirms it is indeed the Political Police monitoring all news at a fellow news network and Yahoo giggles over twitter etiquette!!! Ooops indeed.)

The issue of liberty within the original story seems to have been ignored by the serious media outlets. At MSNBC’s “Digital Life” blog, the take was flippancy with comments along the lines of “No Biggie”, or it’s all mom’s fault for not parenting properly. The writer Anthima Chansanchai quipped “if you think someone’s reading your tweets and Facebook posts, you’re probably right.” Her nearsighted caution was similarly parroted by Barabara E. Hernandez over at a local bay area NBC blog too: “keep your most controversial thoughts to your self” was her sage advice to Facebook fans.

At best, these ladies’ Bambi-esque “if you can’t say sumpthin’ nice…” analysis ignores the fundamental issue of liberty and free speech at stake and, at worst, accepts as normal the tyranny illustrated by government oversight imposed on everyday Americans’ political speech. Hopefully these ladies’ ovaries are even less functional than are their dysfunctional brains.

But set aside the lofty legal concepts of the 4th Amendment and Miranda rights. You don’t have to be an ACLU lawyer to figure this out. Whatever happened to the natural Mama Grizzly maternal instincts of protecting children against school yard government bullies?

BTW just where is the ACLU, that defender of minors who create questionable websites and who post provocative rap lyrics on line? Does the ACLU conveniently turn a blind eye when a Democrat President’s henchmen go around mugging childrens’ rights? So it would seem...

Contrast LaPinta’s case to the vigorous defense afforded by the ACLU and CBS to a kid who was sent home from school for wearing a T shirt sporting the image of President Bush bearing the words “International Terrorist.” And yes, you can still buy the T shirt here.

The ACLU was called in, followed by the MBM. Media interest in protecting student speech rights concerning any given president appears to depend on that president’s party affiliation.

So, what was a big story with Bush was a non-starter with Obama…. Typical leftist media, right? It’s worse than that. The T shirt kid dealt with school officials over a free speech issue that happened at the school. Nobody called in the Secret Service to interrogate the T shirt kid to determine whether he was plotting to kill President Bush from something he said out of school on his own time.

Lost in all of this is the media outrage over why anyone in the state, local or federal government had any right to corner any American, let alone a child, inside a secure government owned and operated building (public school) without legal guardian or lawyer for a vague concern over presidential safety over speech posted via the internet on Facebook .

Sadly, with today's twisted liberal bias in the MBM, this story would have gotten MBM coverage only if: 1) if a Republican President had sent his Secret Service to investigate the kid's public school English teacher and andy union connection to Al Qaida; and 2) if the school principal had offered littleVito LaPinta a sugar coated trans fat filled Twinkie or pint of chocolate milk after the interrogation was all over.