Beyond the Cusp

October 20, 2017

Nuking the Nuclear Traditional Family

 

Merav Michaeli, who sits in the Knesset as part of the Zionist Union from the Labor Party, has once again spoken casting tradition and order asunder. This time she has done so from Australia during a Q & A television program. During a lively debate she put forth the latest absurdity stating, “It (marriage) was created back at the time when we women were commodities, as were children, as were men without property and of other colors. This is not something that we should maintain in the world when we realize all of us are human beings. It is not about love … This was a tool that was made to dominate women for the sake of reproduction. This is not something we should sustain.” This is far from a new thought that may have just come out in the heat of the moment as Merav Michaeli stated in a 2012 TED talk on the issue, where she told the audience that marriage was responsible for the abuse of women. “We must cancel marriage. Not only religious marriage, marriage is not an issue of religion. Also civil marriage. I want all secular states to totally eliminate all registration and regulation of marriage. I want to cancel the very concept of marriage.” But she has another set of ideas should we be so ignorant as to continue to have such things as contrary to the modern world MK Michaeli envisions as marriage, then children must be raised by professionals licensed through the government such that they meet certain standards. Quoting a report of her commentary on the Q & A television show in Australia from Arutz Sheva, MK Michaeli purported the following with the video below where we are concerned with the earlier parts of the program.

“The core family as we know it is one of the least safe place for children – not just in Australia but in the entire western world.” Michaeli went on to cite different studies she contended proved that the core family was detrimental to children’s health and added that “marriage and parental rights hurts children.”
Michaeli also said that children should not be automatically raised by their parents, but by the government. “A child can have more than two parents; they don’t have to be their biological parents. The person who takes responsibility for the child should be obligated to fulfill certain kinds of criteria that the State should decide on,” Michaeli argued, saying that the government should decide what values children need to be taught.
“Enough with the neglect! It’s time the government invest in our children accordingly. I have already proposed several laws regarding equal parental leave of one year after a baby is born. I have already pushed for a longer school day. The proposal to protect children and their parents is on its way. This is our most important investment.”

 

The below video can be viewed on YouTube just click to hear on YouTube as requested. Since the video will begin half way through the show, so to hear the pertinent section of the video where the Minister of Knesset Merav Michaeli claims she has been misquoted and selectively edited, just restart the video from its start and those parts are in the start as we stated.

 

The people who wish to tear down society and take us back to tribal barbarism have found a new means for doing so; destroy the basic building block, the family. Hitler wanted to take the German people and the world back to the glorious barbarism of the Viking culture with some slight differences, his ideal Viking society was more idolatry and worship of a ruler god-king with him as that figure. He also believed that the government should have trained people raising the children who measured up to a sufficiently high standard. This became the Hitler youth who were taken from their parents and raised in militaristic fashion by nurturer-teachers who acted like some evil cross between a camp counselor and a drill instructor. These were to be the future leaders of his perfect Reich, the perfect society where people were superior and those who did not meet the standard were to be sacrificed for the greater good. One would hope that this is not the kind of world which Merav Michaeli desires. We pray that she does not desire a world where the government licenses people as fit to reproduce when they find love with another approved individual who was also of sufficiently prime DNA or worse. What could be worse? The government could decide exact numbers of each type of person to complete the tasks for a healthy society and produce them in factories and raise them with nurturer-educator-trainers. Aldous Huxley imagined such a world where the people did not marry because they never had children, it was against the law. This world the people simply had sex whenever and with whomever they felt like every day of the week and where permanent hookups were frowned upon as pairing up was considered unnatural, something those people on the Reservations did who kept the old ways of parochial thought, the savages. This was a “Brave New World” in which the government made just the correct number of people such that the motto to live by was, “Everyone works for everyone else. We can’t do this without anyone.” Everyone from lowest to highest wore their class colors which were; Epsilons dress in black, Deltas wear khaki, Gammas wear leaf green, Betas dress in mulberry, and Alphas wear grey.

 

Epsilons in black-Deltas in khaki-Gammas in green-Betas in mulberry-Alphas in grey

Epsilons in black-Deltas in khaki-Gammas in green-Betas in mulberry-Alphas in grey

 

However one defines a future where the family is no longer in vogue, the society is dysfunctional in some way and people still manage to return to the old ways. Perhaps that is the whole idea in these science fiction tales, that perhaps the way it has been done ever since the advance of agriculture, and possibly before, is perhaps the most responsible and healthiest way to base a society, using a family structure as the basic building block for the society. I realize that these philosophers have huge frontal lobes and intelligence quotas which are nearly, if not, off scale, understand what the inner working of their own psyches are and can extrapolate their broad-minded and deeply thought out Utopian societies such that they must impose them on the rest of us. Have they ever asked themselves if we really desire to live in their ideas of a utopian society or if we would rather reside in our own piece of the real world? Probably not, as they know that they know best and that the rest of us live the way we do because we are mired in the impositions and limitations impressed upon us from childhood by our Judeo-Christian societies. They will talk and talk and hopefully they will never be granted the opportunity to impose their utopian societies upon the rest of us.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

August 9, 2017

Bondi is Part Australia’s and Part Israel’s Fault

 

First, in case you have not yet heard, in Bondi, Australia the city blocked the building of a Synagogue in a residential area near the people it would serve because it might be a tempting target to attract Islamic terrorism. The Jewish community brought this before an Australian court which upheld the city’s prohibition finding the threat sufficient reason to prevent the building of a Synagogue in an area near the people it would serve, or in simple terminology, no Synagogue in a residential area, even a mostly Jewish residential area. Perhaps the next thing will be that Jews need to live in a separate residential area as they too might pose a threat for terrorist attacks. When this story broke around a week or so ago, we waited to write about the situation simply because we desired to give Australia an opportunity to correct this offense to Jews of Bondi, of Australia and of the world. Apparently, the Jews who desired to build their house of worship are not going to be receiving any support for their quest from their presumed friends in the Christian community organizations. Apparently, nobody desires a synagogue in their neighborhood as it is a threat to destroy the kismet of the neighborhood because anything Jewish is a terror magnet so much so that perhaps all Jewish stores, houses of worship and organizations should have bullseyes painted on them for easy identification. What will be next, demands to close the kosher deli or kosher restaurant or kosher grocery store? What about a small grocery store with an aisle of all kosher food, should that be outlawed as it taints the rest of the grocery store? Maybe the next thing will be to push all the Jews into a special neighborhood, not a ghetto, nope, we won’t call it a ghetto, it is just an exclusive Jewish neighborhood, as we cannot have the Jews living with normal people because their houses might be terrorist targets. Where has been the Israeli outrage, the calling of the Australian Ambassador to explain? Such is the least of a reaction from the Jewish State, from Israel, but so far silence?

 

Preventing the building of a synagogue because Jewish houses of worship are more likely to be targeted by Islamic extremist terrorists but churches are fine, as they have not risen to the top of the target list, as there are still Jews in Australia. Tell you what, ask the Christians in Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, Libya, Algeria, Syria, Iraq, Iran what happens once the Christians do not back the Jews and allow the Jews to be chased from the country. You know exactly what they will tell you, the churches and Christians will become the targets of choice and the government will not protect them any more than they have the Jews. Wait a minute. Why wait for the terrorists to come seeking just the right synagogue to use as their next target. We checked and there are a fairly significant number of these terror targets better known as synagogues or houses for worship already strewn throughout the greater Bondi area (see map below). Why would it not be smarter to have them all closed and build one great synagogue and place all the Jews to live in the neighborhood surrounding this new great synagogue. Why there could even be a high wall with fencing around the top of it and the Jews only permitted out for short periods each day and they should probably have to wear something special such that any Islamic extremist terrorist would know whom to target, maybe a bulls-eye with a Star of David in the center which would look like the picture right below the map. If it cuts down on terrorist strikes in Bondi, of which there have been none yet we understand their fears as a planned terror attack was recently prevented from striking a plane presumably at the Sydney International Airport with four of the plotters arrest just a week or so back on July 29, 2017. Perhaps this is what has spooked the good people of Bondi, Australia.

 

Synagogues in Greater Bondi Area Where Danger of Terrorist Attacks are Potentially Imminent

Synagogues in Greater Bondi Area Where Danger
of Terrorist Attacks are Potentially Imminent

 

Jewish Identity Armband

Jewish Identity Armband

 

Still, you have sufficient numbers of synagogues to keep even a hyperactive terrorist busy planning for so long that they are bound to get caught before they figure out how to strike them all in one really busy afternoon. The option you have taken by refusing to permit another synagogue be built because it might some day become the target of a terror attack when you have many synagogues strewn across your area already that if this is really that serious of a concern to you, the entire community would have to be tranquilized just to walk down the street. There are easily over a half-dozen synagogues in the immediate area of Bondi that adding another would not increase your vulnerability in the slightest. There are also an equal number of churches in the same relative area which would pose the same threat once any synagogues would be removed (see map below). Would the same zoning officers also refuse to permit a church be built in a similar neighborhood, as it too would represent an inordinate possibility for becoming a target of an Islamic extremist terrorist attack? If that became or ever would become the case, then please explain how such an area like Bondi, Australia would be any different than say Saudi Arabia where it is illegal to construct or repair any religious building other than Mosques and other Islamic buildings. Has Bondi decided to invoke Sharia replacing the civil laws of the country of Australia in their little section of Down Under?

 

Churches in Greater Bondi Area Where Danger of Terrorist Attacks are Potentially Imminent

Churches in Greater Bondi Area Where Danger
of Terrorist Attacks are Potentially Imminent

 

This is starting to become the way of things not only in Australia but in Europe and soon to come to Canada and areas of the United States we fear. This hysteria once it gets going will see no stopping point and soon religion other than Islam will become banned from the public square. Then where will we be? As long as people believe in freedom of religion, then they have to act accordingly. Banning the construction of a place of worship because it might offend people of other faiths is not what the Western Civilization was founded upon. This battle was fought once and it was called the Reformation. We did away with Inquisitions and the burning of witches and heretics and permitted free choice. That had been the strength of Judeo-Christian culture. What we fear here the most is that this was not done honestly because of a fear of terrorism but because people have decided that it is too dangerous to allow Jews the same freedoms which everybody else will be granted. Trust us when we tell you that what starts with the Jews never ends there and it will spread to either the Christians or the Muslims being told they too cannot build their holy buildings or practice their religion freely. Is this truly the direction society desires to go? If that be the case, then we are glad we live one place where that will never become the situation generally and hopefully the one small instance here will fall as will the one small instance in Bondi, Australia. If one religion is banned, soon many religions are banned until either only one faith is permitted or no faith is permitted, and there really is no difference as where there is no faith permitted, the state becomes the end-all and consumer of all power and the leaders become despots expecting all to revere them and that itself is a strange and horrid religion where men are worshiped as gods. They become Caesar, Pharos or Führer. Does anybody really want such a world again? Then why start down that road again?

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

March 23, 2017

Was Andrew Napolitano Correct?

 

Was Andrew Napolitano Correct when on “Fox & Friends” he claimed that British intelligence officials had helped former President Barack Obama spy on Donald Trump? We know one thing, he was definitely wrong to have said so without having run the idea past Fox News’s law department, the “Fox & Friends” show’s writers, any managers related to both the “Fox & Friends” show and those responsible for Judge Napolitano and perhaps anyone else he could have found even to include the people behind each of the three cameras shooting the show and perhaps the microphone grip just for good measure. Apparently he also needed to include our friends, the British, into the mix of the Trump accusation his phones in Trump Tower were tapped by the Obama Administration. Of course any allegation which includes the Russians with the election victory by Donald Trump is perfectly within bounds as with the Russian allegations the target is President Trump and with Judge Napolitano’s British accusation the target is President Obama. The difference is more than obvious, it is also very revealing. In American media, even the presumed conservative darling Fox News, any accusation against President Trump can spread guilt to any target and still be acceptable while accusations against President Obama may not apply guilt to other targets because expressing potential for guilt of President Obama is what was not permissible and thus also the British. But perhaps delving deeper might be an interesting exercise and be quite revealing.

 

Judge Andrew Napolitano

Judge Andrew Napolitano

 

We need to go back to the era of PRISM or before that Echelon as well as whatever the code name was back to the mid-1950’s which was finally revealed to the public in the mid-2000’s and was simply the latest data gathering system used by the National Security Agency (NSA) in coordination with the data collection abilities of the other Anglo-nations, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand with the United States in order to be capable of collecting, through coordination, the maximized capabilities of their systems. Their coordinating their systems meant that they could prevent duplicating each other’s efforts. In order to guarantee that each nation would still have access to whatever data they needed there was an agreement. The initial agreement was called the UKUSA Agreement, or the United Kingdom – United States of America Agreement. The actual agreement upon full ratification included all the Anglo-nations mentioned above. This agreement also permitted each nation to have total access to the information of the other nations. Now as it was easiest for each member nation to collect complete and total accumulation and compilation of their own population’s data, each nation was assigned with the collection of all electronic communication including phones of all varieties, internet, wireless and any other variety of communication which lent to interception. Obviously ground mail was still safe from this collection processes though e-mail was not and was also collected along with all else.

 

The fact that each nation in the group, the United States, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia and Canada all have laws which do not permit spying on their own citizens without first having a judge issue a warrant; this made it such a tedious and limiting requirement that each country desired some means of getting around this nasty limitation. Unsurprisingly, leaks revealed that they found just the means by which to collect what was their hearts, and snooping, desires without the needless waste of finding some judge to issue a warrant, even after the The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) and the accompanying FISA Courts where warrants could be granted in complete and total secrecy. But what if your target was somebody who you did not believe that even a FISA Court would issue a warrant? Well, one could always resort to the “old school” method for such situations. The five nations which finally entered the UKUSA Agreement agreed that when any one deemed they required intercepting, read bugging, anyone of their own citizens, something universally illegal under several laws, they would simply request a surveillance report covering the individuals phone numbers, their internet e-mail address and internet entrance and other electronic identifiers using all the direct alpha-numeric identifiers such that no names were ever exchanged. The nation receiving the request would then query all five nations’ data collection systems and compile their report simply listing all communications by the target accounts and thus the individual of interest. This report was then presented to the nation unable to actually collect such information themselves legally without making legal requests at some level. This was the method, as we pointed out, back in the day. Now, all those out there who believe that this method of data acquisition has fallen by the wayside and is no longer accessible, raise your hands. Let’s see, OK George, put your hand down, not funny. So, we all believe that if somebody from the political, law enforcement, foreign intelligence collection group or domestic intelligence group desired to gain such information, they could simply contact somebody they could trust from one of the other nations and have all the information they might desire and all without anybody being all the wiser.

 

So, what is the most important concept behind all of this spy vs. spy scenario? Well, it has to be the part that nobody would be any the wiser. Would it be possible for somebody in the government, say the President, or more likely a subordinate, a trusted subordinate with contacts across a border in say New Zealand or perhaps Canada to gather a compiled report which includes all the communications, or simply phone conversations, from a specific set of alphanumerics representing a person of interest even daily? The obvious answer is an obvious “Yes” and all without anybody in either government actually believing anything untoward had taken place. Are such requests made currently? Probably, though nowhere near in the numbers which were likely back twenty or so years ago. Still, this polite gentlemen’s agreement was put in place for just the reason that listening to then candidate Trump’s phone calls was made to produce. Did President Obama actually order or just request such a report from the British? The truth is it is unlikely but did he actually mention that he was wondering what Trump was up to, very likely. Might an overeager subordinate have then issued such a request hoping to have something interesting he or she could then report to the President? You tell me and if you have a name and proof, that would be appreciated as well. We promise not to use such information, well, not without giving you the credit if you desire such as we would not desire taking the heat alone. What is obvious is that the scenario is not beyond possibility.

 

What must be added to this entire scenario is that the new NSA data collection systems currently are capable of collecting every single last piece of electronic data from the United States plus probably Europe and a select dozen additional nations just for fun without taxing their systems which are tied into world-wide communications networks at their sources. Further, when gathering data using the numerical address the actual target remains unidentified in almost every situation as numerical identifiers can be used which disguise the actual target from those collecting the data. Thus, simply using such identifiers one can draw up all the information from any identifier for any period simply by entering a query into the huge data storage complex outside Reno, Nevada. This could even be done directly out of virtually any office of a Congressperson and nothing untoward would ever be suspected. From the White House, well, that might raise some suspicions, but from any agency which is assigned to gather information, nobody would ever suspect anything. Even those who are responsible for guarding that all data acquisition is done all legal and above boards have so much to review that it is very possible that many requests get through never being reviewed as review is probably reserved for such demands made by courts and other persons having a purpose to request such reviews. This means that even had Trump had his file accessed, nobody is likely to have been the wiser and it is entirely possible that the old UKUSA Agreement system of scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours could have been used to make tracing all the more difficult. Whatever the actual situation, Judge Napolitano was hired to give commentary, his best assessments and legal advice. His commentary if presented as fact might have been a bit overly pretentious, but was not entirely out of line. If he presented it as theory, then it was within the assigned duties of a commentator. Whatever the situation proves forth, should the Judge need a part-time, non-paying position, we can always use another commentator here at BTC whose views might be appreciated by our readers and who would add to our broad views of what is, what may be and what we wish would be.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: