jlink
Friday, September 20, 2019

The Jewish Link welcomes letters to the editor, which can be emailed to [email protected]
Letters may be edited for length, clarity and appropriateness. We do not welcome personal attacks or disrespectful language, and replies to letters through our website comment feed will not be posted online. We reserve the right to not print any letter.

To the Editor:

I was saddened to learn about this group and your report of the recent Teaneck councilmens’ further endorsing of Governor Chris Christie.

A law was presented by the previous legislature and signed by the previous governor providing for medical marijuana for people in the state suffering from chemo, MS, various cancers, AIDS, glaucoma, and many other severe illnesses for which cannabis is the best medicine—in accordance with many medical and global patient endorsements. Yet all he has done has been to stonewall this program. To this day, nearly four years after the fact, there is only one dispensary that is open and it cannot handle the demand of the entire state. A relative of mine, undergoing chemo, was told to not even expect to get any medical cannabis.

This is the type of behavior—the real harming and torturing of people—that make me ashamed that this man is our governor and enjoys such popular support. He should be put on trial as a criminal against humanity. At the very least, I urge those council members, who exhibited such wide smiles in his presence, to at least study this issue;to take the moral high ground and demand that he end all of his road blocks, and that he have a more favorable approach to medicinal cannabis in this state. Indeed, polls show that a vast majority of New Jersey residents want medical cannabis—and even decriminalization, so that our police can stop wasting time on petty possession arrests.

Thank you,

Alan Amster

To the Editor:

As the Days of Awe, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are upon us, we pray God should forgive us for a long list of sins, among that list is: “And for the sin wherein we have sinned before thee wittingly and unwittingly.” In other words, we are obligated to find out what is actually going on, what is the truth. We are also asking forgiveness for “the sin wherein we have sinned before thee by scoffing (Latzon. )”

In the article that appeared in your August 22, 2013 issue entitled, “Groups Gift Garrett With ‘Climate Change Denier’ Award,” I agree with Congressman Scott Garrett, “the evidence (for man-made global warming – the question is still out there.”

The following links to two articles--“Crime Inc. : What ‘Greening of America’ Means” and the Forbes article, “Climategate II: More Smoking Guns From The Global Warming Establishment,” will provide you with some important information on this subject, so that you will make an informed decision and not err “unwittingly.”

http://www. glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/40154/

http://www. forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/11/29/climategate-ii-more-smoking-guns-from-the-global-warming-establishment/

These articles consist of about six pages. For the sake of brevity, I will include two paragraphs from the Forbes article.

“As if the first round of e-mails purloined from the U. K. ’s East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) network weren’t damning enough, the new batch of about 5,000 more obtained through an anonymous source identified as “FOIA” are truly stunning. Many clearly confirm that top IPCC scientists consciously misrepresented and actively withheld important information…then attempted to prevent discovery. Included are CRU’s Director of Research, Phil Jones, the U. S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) climate’s analysis section head, Kevin Trenberth; and beleaguered Penn State University “hockey stick” originator, Michael Mann.

‘If there were any doubts remaining after reading the first Climategate e-mails, the new batch of e-mails that appeared on the web today [November 22, 2011] make it clear that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an organized conspiracy dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis that requires a drastic response,’ said Myron Ebell, Director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center on Energy and Environment. ‘Several of the new e-mails show that the scientists involved in doctoring the IPCC reports are very aware that the energy-rationing policies that their junk science is meant to support would cost trillions of dollars. ’ ”

Congressman Garrett is ridiculed and mocked here by being given a “unicorn fashioned award” for his views on global warming. Anyone who disagrees with man-made global warming. is mocked, ridiculed, vilified and destroyed. In fact, anyone who disagrees in general with this administration in Washington, D. C. , is mocked, ridiculed, vilified and destroyed

“The Jewish Link” should not include articles that mock (here one of the few good men, a mensch, in Congress) based on incomplete knowledge.

May we merit to be inscribed in the Book of Life. Shanah Tovah all.

Sincerely,

Name Withheld on Request

To the Editor:

I was taken aback, though not surprised, to see a Shana Tova greeting from Congressman Bill Pascrell in your September 3rd issue. Back in May, Pascrell participated in, and got a Congressional resolution passed, recognizing “Palestine Day” in Paterson, NJ. The “Palestinian” flag flew over Peterson City Hall while the local Palestinian community celebrated their “heritage”. I am sure that our community and Mr. Pascrell have totally different things in mind when we think of what that heritage could possibly be.

Shana Tova greetings are nice, but it is obvious where Pascrell’s true loyalties lie. I hope the Jewish community of Bergen County remembers this when Bill Pascrell comes up for re-election.

Marsha Greenberg Motzen

Englewood

 

To the Editor:

Loretta Weinberg makes a series of false or illogical statements in attempting to explain her opposition to guns (“Weinberg: Forget About Vouchers Happening Anytime Soon,” Aug. 21, 2013). Most egregious is her false claim that “law enforcement” is “responsible for keeping us all safe.” In general, law officers have no legal duty to protect an individual citizen. The Supreme Court decided as much over 150 years ago in South v. Maryland, and district courts still follow this approach today. Dial 911 if you wish, but if the police do not arrive in time, they bear no liability. You, on the other hand, might be considerably worse off. (Additionally, as a practical matter, the police cannot usually arrive fast enough to stop violent crimes in progress. The fact is that you, not they, are the first responder. ) Weinberg also states twice that the New Jersey gun licensing process has “no instant background checks.” In fact, a background check is run when someone applies for a gun permit, and again if the permit holder buys a gun from a dealer.

Weinberg’s other remarks are likewise indefensible. She declares, “I do not believe that people in Bergen County need guns to protect themselves.” Assuming that Weinberg does not deny the existence of violent crime in the county, she seems to support leaving women defenseless in the face of male attackers. In Englewood this past January, for example, a mother and her child were murdered by the mother’s boyfriend. Apparently in Weinberg’s view, it was a good thing that woman did not have a gun. Furthermore, Weinberg states, “Owning a gun may be a constitutional right,” but that statement is plainly incorrect. The Constitution recognizes not merely the right to own but the right to possess and carry a gun (“keep and bear”), a right that had been expressly protected in Anglo-American law for at least a century before 1789. Weinberg and other legislators have trampled this right, not only by effectively banning the carrying of guns in the state but also by imposing an ever-increasing number of other bans and burdens aimed ultimately at removing the right altogether. Finally, it is peculiar that Weinberg “can’t account for those who feel threatened” after she herself has spent many months waving the bloody flag of Newtown. On the one hand she expresses bemusement that we might be concerned about the danger from murderous criminals, and on the other hand she warns us non-stop to be concerned about the danger from murderous criminals. Which is it?

In sum, Weinberg has no business agitating for civilian disarmament when she does not know the elementary facts and rules of logic.

Sincerely,

Josh Levy,

Teaneck