Received by email--Author Unknown. If after reading this piece you can ID the author, please advise me by posting a comment.
-------
Watching the rescue of the 33 miners in Chile one could not help but make a comparison between the President of Chile and the President of the United States.
1. The President of Chile spent over 24 hours awake, standing in the freezing cold at night and in the extreme heat of day, waiting and cheering on the work being done by common, everyday workers to bring the miners to the surface. Never once did I hear him use the word "I", or "I've", or "Me". I heard the words "us", "we", and "Chileans" as he was speaking and his conversation was being translated on the T-V broadcast.
2. I witnessed the President of Chile who did not require two teleprompters to deliver a message, the message from the President of Chile was from the heart, tears in his eyes, emotion in his voice that was real, coupled with concern for his countrymen rather than political posturing that we witness day in and day out from our President as he reads from the twin teleprompters while dealing with a crisis.
3. I witnessed the thanks the President of Chile gave to the national leaders and all who helped and who called in support of the effort being made to bring the miners to the surface---included if you noted were the countries of Israel, England and others in Europe, and from the Americas--Canada, and all the countries of South America---only one was missing, there was no mention of a call from the President of the United States. Did our President fail to call and show concern or did our only support come from NASA and the private sector?
4. Standing side by side for hours in the cold and heat was the wife of the President of Chile--she was not in Martha's vineyard with an entourage or Europe or New York shopping as ours was during the disaster in the gulf.
5. The President of Chile was willing to spend his political capital to invite help from throughout the world to save 33 men trapped one half mile below the ground. A comparison--our president would not over-rule the Jones Act and receive foreign ships that were offered in an effort to clean and correct a disaster, the oil spill. The ship building union might be offended while thousands of citizens are unemployed in the gulf. Similar effort is lacking in the pursuit of the trial of those involved in the bombing of the Cole on the part of our President.
I saw a real leader in the President of Chile. A President that might not speak as precisely as one with a teleprompter, but with feeling for the people of that nation facing a huge problem. He spoke with emotion and commitment that was real. He put himself last and the needs of his nation and citizens first.
That man is a leader, one ours could take a lesson from.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
575magazine.com v 21.0
Israel’s Loyalty Crisis
©2010 By David Talbot
On October 10, 2010, the Israeli Cabinet, under the direction of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, met to discuss a proposal to require non-Jewish Israeli immigrants to take a loyalty oath to the Jewish State, as part of the immigration process. The proposal passed 22-9 and now goes to the full Knesset (Israeli Parliament) for consideration.
As one might expect, liberal groups around the world broke out in righteous indignation at the thought of requiring a loyalty oath as part of becoming a new citizen of a country, any country.
But wait a minute, my wife became a citizen of the United States in 1965 after fleeing Cuba, along with her mom and sister. I was at the ceremony where she became an American. I distinctly recall her and 60 or 70 others being told to raise their right hand and swear to support and defend…..etc.
After administering the Oath, each and every person there was required, one at a time, to state: “I do swear.” Some of the individuals taking the oath were so emotional they stated those words through tears of joy. And all of us in attendance cheered each one.
When I enlisted in the Army, I swore allegiance to the United States of America. When I was promoted to Warrant Officer, and then Commissioned Officer, I swore allegiance again, and again.
Why would liberal groups be so upset with what should be a “no-brainer”?
Here’s the answer: It’s only non-Jewish immigrants who will be required to take the oath, if it becomes law. And, being the conservative Orthodox Jew that I am, I hate to say it, but I’m on the liberal’s side of this issue.
If there are terrorists in the immigrant group, trying to get into Israel, you think a simple oath will be any deterrent to their nefarious plans? I don’t either. So why go through this exercise? It’s pure politics! Netanyahu’s coalition needs to be assured that he will be tough with Arabs, the United States, and the UN.
There is an simple solution to this problem. The Israelis should amend the legislation and require every immigrant, regardless of former nationality, to take the Loyalty Oath. The Loyalty Oath legislation as it’s currently drafted, is not in the best interests of all Israelis.
Anyway, that’s my opinion. What’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
Contact David at: talbotnotes@gmail.com
©2010 By David Talbot
On October 10, 2010, the Israeli Cabinet, under the direction of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, met to discuss a proposal to require non-Jewish Israeli immigrants to take a loyalty oath to the Jewish State, as part of the immigration process. The proposal passed 22-9 and now goes to the full Knesset (Israeli Parliament) for consideration.
As one might expect, liberal groups around the world broke out in righteous indignation at the thought of requiring a loyalty oath as part of becoming a new citizen of a country, any country.
But wait a minute, my wife became a citizen of the United States in 1965 after fleeing Cuba, along with her mom and sister. I was at the ceremony where she became an American. I distinctly recall her and 60 or 70 others being told to raise their right hand and swear to support and defend…..etc.
After administering the Oath, each and every person there was required, one at a time, to state: “I do swear.” Some of the individuals taking the oath were so emotional they stated those words through tears of joy. And all of us in attendance cheered each one.
When I enlisted in the Army, I swore allegiance to the United States of America. When I was promoted to Warrant Officer, and then Commissioned Officer, I swore allegiance again, and again.
Why would liberal groups be so upset with what should be a “no-brainer”?
Here’s the answer: It’s only non-Jewish immigrants who will be required to take the oath, if it becomes law. And, being the conservative Orthodox Jew that I am, I hate to say it, but I’m on the liberal’s side of this issue.
If there are terrorists in the immigrant group, trying to get into Israel, you think a simple oath will be any deterrent to their nefarious plans? I don’t either. So why go through this exercise? It’s pure politics! Netanyahu’s coalition needs to be assured that he will be tough with Arabs, the United States, and the UN.
There is an simple solution to this problem. The Israelis should amend the legislation and require every immigrant, regardless of former nationality, to take the Loyalty Oath. The Loyalty Oath legislation as it’s currently drafted, is not in the best interests of all Israelis.
Anyway, that’s my opinion. What’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
Contact David at: talbotnotes@gmail.com
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
www.575magazine.com v.20.0
More on the “Peace Talks”
©2010 by David Talbot
This is my response to an article published in Ynet News on October 4, 2010. You can find a link to the English language version of the article on David Talbot’s Blog: http://talbotnotes.blogspot.com.
I don't know enough about the players, and the politics, in Israel. What Ido believe, however, is that a peace accord with Palestinians can never be achieved until some agency or government assumes, either by free elections or some other mechanism approved by all the parties, control of all Palestinians,and has the authority to impose civil order over the territory granted to this agency or government.
The degree to which Obama, and his agents,does not understand the Arabs is astounding. Peace is not the end game for them,it is simply a part of the process of total destruction of all Jews and the State of Israel.
Statements, many coming from individuals claiming leadership of the Palestinian people,are spoken with one meaning in English and a totally diametrically opposed meaning in Arabic,on the same day,and from the same people.
Obama seizes on the inane ramblings of terrorist governments when it seems they support his agenda, but he is totally unaware of the Arabic translation or, more accurately, the Arabic version, which is 180 degrees out of sync with the English version broadcast worldwide.
In some cases, these quasi leaders like Abbas flip opinions faster than a weather vane in a tornado, even to their own people. Leaving them totally baffled as to what their leaders think.
I believe the Foreign Minister is correct in his assumptions. So,no more freeze on settlements, no carving up Jerusalem, and if we have to go it alone, we will!
Anyway, that’s my opinion, what’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
Contact David Talbot at: talbotnotes@gmail.com.
©2010 by David Talbot
This is my response to an article published in Ynet News on October 4, 2010. You can find a link to the English language version of the article on David Talbot’s Blog: http://talbotnotes.blogspot.com.
I don't know enough about the players, and the politics, in Israel. What Ido believe, however, is that a peace accord with Palestinians can never be achieved until some agency or government assumes, either by free elections or some other mechanism approved by all the parties, control of all Palestinians,and has the authority to impose civil order over the territory granted to this agency or government.
The degree to which Obama, and his agents,does not understand the Arabs is astounding. Peace is not the end game for them,it is simply a part of the process of total destruction of all Jews and the State of Israel.
Statements, many coming from individuals claiming leadership of the Palestinian people,are spoken with one meaning in English and a totally diametrically opposed meaning in Arabic,on the same day,and from the same people.
Obama seizes on the inane ramblings of terrorist governments when it seems they support his agenda, but he is totally unaware of the Arabic translation or, more accurately, the Arabic version, which is 180 degrees out of sync with the English version broadcast worldwide.
In some cases, these quasi leaders like Abbas flip opinions faster than a weather vane in a tornado, even to their own people. Leaving them totally baffled as to what their leaders think.
I believe the Foreign Minister is correct in his assumptions. So,no more freeze on settlements, no carving up Jerusalem, and if we have to go it alone, we will!
Anyway, that’s my opinion, what’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
Contact David Talbot at: talbotnotes@gmail.com.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
www.575magazine.com v 19.0
Debate on the Mosque At Ground Zero
©2010 By David Talbot
(This opinion is a rebuttal to a recent article by Newt Gingrich, on his website, Newt.org, July 21, 2010)
I respectfully disagree with Newt Gingrich's thesis on the subject of the mosque at Ground Zero. I do agree the mosque should be built in another location. But that's on moral, not legal grounds. And I totally disagree with his demand that until churches and synagogues are allowed to be built in Saudi Arabia, or any other country before we allow a mosque, any mosque, to be built in this country. That kind of logic will get us in trouble here in America with unintended consequences.
It is not our business to demand how other countries conduct their internal affairs. In my opinion, it is totally inappropriate to tie a religious denomination of any kind that operates within the United States, to a specific action of a religious group within another sovereign nation, operating within the scope of that nations legal structure. It is precisely this kind of arrogance and ethnocentrism, that got us where we are today. It's reminiscent of the spoiled brat with a ball demanding the team play by his rules or he's taking his ball and going home. That doesn't work with kids and it won't work with sovereign nations around the globe.
Mr. Gingrich is attempting to inflame Americans to behave exactly like those he despises. His comments about the "double standard" that allows Muslims to demand our submission and weakness, is a vailed assault on two of our most precious freedoms: Freedoms of Speech and Freedom of association. Once we slide down that slope of identifying and then isolating a specific religious organization, who's next?
When you demand to know the funding of a specific project to determine the source of the funding, you imply the information will initiate some legal course of action. Who will decide the parameters of the action and the outcome of the legal proceedings? Who determines the standards of appropriate funding sources? When has any religious organization become the target of such draconian measures in the history of this country?
It is unconstitutional for congress to pass a law that targets a specific person or group of people. If this mosque is required to divulge it's source of funds, so the donors can be identified and investigated, isn't any donor to any religious project in America, or around the world, just one tiny little step away from being investigated as well?
This is all election year politics tapping into certain American’s fear and hatred to achieve a political agenda. The consequences of following ideologues, such as Newt appears to be, could result in the United States becoming the exact duplicate of those countries he's trying to repudiate.
Anyway, that’s my opinion. What’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
©2010 By David Talbot
(This opinion is a rebuttal to a recent article by Newt Gingrich, on his website, Newt.org, July 21, 2010)
I respectfully disagree with Newt Gingrich's thesis on the subject of the mosque at Ground Zero. I do agree the mosque should be built in another location. But that's on moral, not legal grounds. And I totally disagree with his demand that until churches and synagogues are allowed to be built in Saudi Arabia, or any other country before we allow a mosque, any mosque, to be built in this country. That kind of logic will get us in trouble here in America with unintended consequences.
It is not our business to demand how other countries conduct their internal affairs. In my opinion, it is totally inappropriate to tie a religious denomination of any kind that operates within the United States, to a specific action of a religious group within another sovereign nation, operating within the scope of that nations legal structure. It is precisely this kind of arrogance and ethnocentrism, that got us where we are today. It's reminiscent of the spoiled brat with a ball demanding the team play by his rules or he's taking his ball and going home. That doesn't work with kids and it won't work with sovereign nations around the globe.
Mr. Gingrich is attempting to inflame Americans to behave exactly like those he despises. His comments about the "double standard" that allows Muslims to demand our submission and weakness, is a vailed assault on two of our most precious freedoms: Freedoms of Speech and Freedom of association. Once we slide down that slope of identifying and then isolating a specific religious organization, who's next?
When you demand to know the funding of a specific project to determine the source of the funding, you imply the information will initiate some legal course of action. Who will decide the parameters of the action and the outcome of the legal proceedings? Who determines the standards of appropriate funding sources? When has any religious organization become the target of such draconian measures in the history of this country?
It is unconstitutional for congress to pass a law that targets a specific person or group of people. If this mosque is required to divulge it's source of funds, so the donors can be identified and investigated, isn't any donor to any religious project in America, or around the world, just one tiny little step away from being investigated as well?
This is all election year politics tapping into certain American’s fear and hatred to achieve a political agenda. The consequences of following ideologues, such as Newt appears to be, could result in the United States becoming the exact duplicate of those countries he's trying to repudiate.
Anyway, that’s my opinion. What’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)