ללא מחבר No Author

Rules For Thee, Not For Me

Pelosi Confused By Strange Word ‘Laws’ These Peasants Keep Using

September 6th, 2020
SAN FRANCISCO, CA—Amid a controversy involving getting her hair done and possibly being set up like some kind of patsy, Nancy Pelosi has been hearing a weird word some of the lower classes keep using: “laws.”

“Huh? Laws? What are those?” Pelosi asked, confused after hearing rumors that people were upset she was breaking them.

“So these ‘laws’ are like rules or guidelines the peasants are supposed to follow?” asked a confused Pelosi to one of her many servants. The servant explained that laws are a set of agreed-upon rules that everyone abides by.

“That sounds awful! Why don’t they just stop being peasants? I wouldn’t want to live like that. I’m glad we in the politician class don’t have any of these strange — what did you call them again? Loos? Lawns?”

“It’s ‘laws,’ your majesty,” the servant explained as she opened another pint of ice cream for the Speaker. Unfortunately, she then timidly informed Pelosi that even the Speaker of the House was supposed to follow the laws. Pelosi immediately pulled a nearby lever and sent her plummeting through a trapdoor into the dungeon.

From The Babylon Bee, here.

Persecuted Minorities Should Emulate This Man

This teacher’s story of compassion has a twist that will leave you touched

Dec 01, 2019

The exact details of what happened to Laurence C. Jones one day in 1917, are uncertain.

But several reports tell that on a certain day, a lynch mob of angry young white men chased the African American school teacher, surrounded him, and threw a noose around his neck.

Jones was an influential and compassionate educator.

He had devoted his entire life to helping the poorest of the poor, the most underprivileged children, wherever he could find them.

In Mississippi, Jones had started a school in a sheep shed to teach poor kids in a county with an 80% illiteracy rate. When he learned about their lack of education, he had taken it upon himself to change that. And he did.

He was also black, during a time when African Americans were lynched for minor offenses.

His “offense” was supposedly inciting a riot, because he was overheard at a speech earlier using words that were misconstrued as calls to take violent action, which they were not.

So on that day, he stood surrounded by this mob, his life in their hands.

And Jones began telling them about his school. Perhaps how needy these kids were, and how he stepped in to change that.

He told them how he has been trying to raise money to pay for school supplies.

He told them that they misunderstood him when he was giving that speech, and he was not trying to incite any kind of riot.

It’s said that he even cracked a couple jokes to lighten the mood.

It worked. All of it. They angry crowd had a change of heart.

And then something truly miraculous happened.

The lynch mob, so moved by Jones’ words, decides not only to let him go…

but to raise money for his school themselves!

 

“No man can force me to stoop low enough to hate him”.

That’s a quote from Jones.

Jones devoted his entire life to helping others learn, grow, and understand.

By turning an angry mob into donors to his cause, he showed the selfless power of compassion, love, and turning against hate, which would have been difficult, faced with a mob after your life because of who you are.

Sources:

Forbidden Fruit: Love Stories from the Underground Railroad
Hall of Fame: Laurence C. Jones
Crisis, Volumes 6 – 7
Des Moines Register
Wikipedia

From History Hustle, here.

Please Keep Mentioning Israel’s Injustice System in Birkas Haminim!

Opinion: Israel’s Supreme Court cruel to the kind in politically charged decision David Isaac

August 31st, 2020

Israel’s Supreme Court appears to be on a mission to erase any doubts within the Israeli public that it has been corrupted by politics.

In less than three weeks, Israel’s Supreme Court went from bleeding hearts to hard-hearted. After refusing to destroy the home of a confessed Arab terrorist, the High Court ruled on the destruction of 56 homes of innocent, law-abiding Jews.

Israel’s Supreme Court appears to be on a mission to erase any doubts within the Israeli public that it has been corrupted by politics. Not being lawyers, we won’t parse the rulings in too great detail, partly because it’s not necessary. The contrast is so stark.

In the first case, the court ruled that the home of a terrorist should not be destroyed (a punitive measure adopted by the IDF) because his wife and eight children live there and had nothing to do with the crime. In June, the terrorist had dropped a rock from a height, killing an IDF soldier.

Justice Manni Mazuz wrote, “The serious harm done to innocent family members cannot be ignored — those to whom no involvement in the attack is attributed.” Justice George Kara agreed: “Justice will come to the attacker when he gets his punishment. But the consequences of his actions should not be cast on those who have not sinned.

Jump ahead, and in under two and a half weeks, the court is arguing that 56 Jewish homes in Mitzpe Kramim, a Jewish settlement in the Binyamin region of southern Samaria, have got to go.

One would have expected, if consistency has any part in justice, to hear from the court that “the serious harm done to innocent family members cannot be ignored – those to whom no involvement in the decision to move there is attributed.” And, “the consequences of the actions should not be cast on those who have not sinned.”

Instead, the justices, in this case Supreme Court Chief Justice Esther Hayut and Deputy Chief Justice Hanan Melcer, appeared to go out of their way to find the justification to destroy those homes. First, they overturned a Jerusalem District Court ruling allowing them to stay. Then they decided they knew what was in the heart of some unnamed clerk in 1999 – the year the Jews were allowed to move there – who allegedly made the decision with malice aforethought and purposefully ignored the evidence, not that there appeared to have been any hard evidence, that the ownership of the land was in question.

The justices needed to attribute nefarious purposes to someone. Israel has adopted an old Jordanian law in Judea and Samaria that has a “good faith” clause. In other words, if there’s an irregularity in property ownership, as long as the deal was made in “good faith,” with no intention to harm, the situation stands. The Jews who moved to Mitzpe Kramim certainly did it in good faith. The government told them to go there. They figured the government had the right to the land.

If malice lies anywhere, it’s with the judges, who are suddenly Detective Columbos, rummaging through old maps, reading into peoples’ minds and their intentions 20 years ago and spinning out whodunits all so they can smash a Jewish settlement. No appeal to humanity here. No call for mercy on the innocent. That’s reserved for terrorists’ homes.

The court has offered a concrete example of the old Jewish adage: “He who is kind to the cruel will ultimately become cruel to the kind.”

From World Israel News, here.