Scratch a “Progressive,” find an anti-Semite. Or as Zombie writes at the Tatler:
As you may have heard by now, San Francisco will be voting this November on whether or not to ban circumcision in the city.
Defenders of the measure say it’s all about “human rights” and “protecting babies” from unnecessary procedures.
AdvertisementBut critics suspected there was something vaguely anti-Semitic about the whole proposal, since among Jews (and Muslims, as well) circumcising male babies is a religious duty, not just a mistaken medical procedure.
Ban proponents insisted their proposal had nothing to do with Jews — really, it’s all about the rights of children.
Well, any doubt that they were lying have now been dispelled, with the publication of new campaign literature for the upcoming circumcision ban. The campaign comic book, called “Foreskin Man,” after its baby-saving superhero, features a litany of evil Jews doing battle with blond Nordic saviors.
Yes, really.
Click over to Zombie’s post for the artwork, which is as bad — and stereotyped — as you might imagine. (Hint: the baddy is called “Monster Mohel,” and looks like he’s just stepped off the set of Der ewige Jude.)
Speaking of which, as Bay Area blogger Bookworm Room writes:
I often say I’m shocked by something that crosses my computer screen, but that’s not really true. I mean, I probably sort of shocked insofar as I’m surprised that someone has behaved according to type, but in an extreme way, or that something I’ve long assumed would happen actually did happen (or, in a surprising way, didn’t happen). But I’m very seldom shocked to the core of my being. Today, though, I was shocked, shaken really, by an email Zombie sent me.
Zombie has gotten hold of some of the campaign literature from those supporting the circumcision ban that made its way onto San Francisco’s November ballot. I am not kidding when I say that the material is indistinguishable from something the Nazis would have prepared.
San Francisco in a very insulated, in its own way provincial little enclave where people are accustomed to thinking that everyone around them shares the same opinion. I am choosing to believe, for now, that this is merely the case of one person with vile views overconfidently overreaching within that community, and that he’ll be slapped down. If he’s not, then it might be time to get very worried, because, as someone mentioned in an email exchange:
San Francisco has always been a loony city, but it’s also been a leader. Back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, my educational process started decaying big time, as the SF schools abandoned traditional teaching in favor of all the “new” theories coming out of the educational Left. Although we stopped learning, those failed techniques became de riguer in public education and are a large part of what’s driving our failing schools. Where San Francisco leads, even if off a cliff, too many other cities, anxious to appear forward looking, follow.
Of course, Frisco has already gone off a cliff in one very real sense. I mean, it’s not like there are many newborns left in the city these days to circumcise anyhow.
Update: At Hot Air, J.E. Dyer notes:
Some readers have pointed out that Muslims also perform ritual circumcision. The practice is widespread and has religious significance as evidence of following the practices of Abraham. I suspect we’ll be waiting for a while to see a comic depicting an evil imam attacking a baby boy.
Of course. But it’s only a matter of time before another phase of the Islamofascist culture war comes to San Francisco. Actually, it already has.












Jewish and Islamic peoples practice circumcision. So, when a dumb bomb explodes and kills people who are in favor of banning circumcision it will be blamed on:
A. The Elders of Zion
B. Radical Jewish Extremists
Or
C. Radical Jewish Extremists acting on orders from The Elders of Zion
It certainly couldn’t have been done by a representative of the religion of peace.
” The more we do to you, the less you believe we are doing it”.
Dr. Joseph Mengele
Any surgical procedure that comes by the descriptor “routine” is – and sure as hell ought to be – automatically suspect.
Male circumcision undertaken for religious reasons is insane and stupid, but efforts to outlaw insanity and stupidity are both ineffective and contrary to natural selection. Unconstitutional, too.
It would be sufficient in modern America simply to make it possible for third-party health “insurance” payors to deny remittance for routine infant circumcision (based on the spurious “diagnosis” of neonatal phimosis or adhesions binding down the infant prepuce at birth, which is not a pathology but an effectively universal physical finding in newborn males). That’d do it.
Imagine the obstetrician interviewing pain-medicated, exhausted, groggy Mommy an hour or two after she’s grunted out her male infant.
“All right, Mrs. Johnson. We’ll need your signature right here so we can go ahead and circumcise little Johnny.”
“Wha…? How…?”
“And it’s going to cost you three hundred dollars out-of-pocket, I’m afraid. Your health insurance doesn’t cover circumcision for neonatal phimosis now.”
Suddenly very awake, Mrs. Johnson fixes the doctor in her glare: “Three hundred bucks and I gotta pay it? Not on your life!”
Very, very little routine infant circumcision will henceforth take place.
Real choice would eliminate the effect of that “We want little Johnny to look like all the other little boys, don’t we?” bullpuckey the obstetricians use to hang an additional charge on their billing schedules.