anti-obama question
Posted By: honestly asking on 2008-11-29
In Reply to: They ARE dying. They're losing every one of them. - get it?
Can I ask you anti-obama folks, why don't you like him? Is it something personal? May sound simple, but I don't get it. Do you feel he is not qualified? Too young? Not born in US? Wrong color? I am serious about this. What's your gripe?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Yes, but there is a difference being anti-Obama...
because of his politics and where he wants to take the country than being anti-Obama because of the color of his skin. These "nuts" could not care less about his politics. If a black man (or lack woman for that matter) had run on the Republican side they would be in the same danger. This is about the color of his skin...and now that he has picked as his chief of staff a militant pro-Israel Jew...talk about inflaming the "nuts." Again, I do not say that Obama should not have chosen Emanuel for that reason, and I don't think he should hide in the shadows. However, I DO think he should listen to the Secret Service and do what they tell him. I wish him no harm and pray for the safety of he and his family, and for those who are charged with his protection.
BBC publishes anti-Obama article--whoa!
The BBC is very liberal, so this is quite shocking!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7700913.stm
Viewpoint: The case against Obama
Peter Wehner
Former deputy assistant to President Bush
If the polls hold, the American people will elect Barack Obama as their 44th president.
He is a man of prodigious political talents who exudes grace, equanimity and self-possession. He is unflappable, possesses a first-rate mind, and is capable of inspiring rhetoric.
And he would be a very bad choice for president.
On the most important issue he has confronted as a legislator, the surge of forces in Iraq, Senator Obama was a harsh critic.
His opposition to President Bush's new strategy was wrong.
Much worse is the fact that Obama continued to oppose the surge at every stage, even after it was obviously succeeding.
To this day, even as he finally concedes the surge has "succeeded beyond our wildest imagination," Obama insists his opposition to the surge was correct.
Senator Obama's view is that a defeat in Iraq would somehow help our efforts in Afghanistan.
Indeed, if Obama had had his way, all American combat troops would have been withdrawn from Iraq by March 2008, which would have led to civil war and genocide; an unprecedented victory for al-Qaeda and Islamic jihadists; and a boon to Iran.
This fact is, by itself, a shattering indictment to Obama's judgement, and in the area that is the most important responsibility of a president: his duties as commander-in-chief.
Extreme liberalism
I suspect, too, that Obama will, as his running mate has said, invite an international challenge early on.
Obama appears to be a man who dodges conflict and hard decisions; the result may be dangerous displays of indecision and weakness.
Beyond that is the fact that Senator Obama, while exuding a centrist style and employing soothing rhetoric, has amassed a record that places him on the extreme left end of our political spectrum, whether the subject is taxes, trade, healthcare, the size and role of the federal government, the federal courts, missile defence, or virtually any other policy area.
In fact, Senator Obama has been judged by the non-partisan National Journal as the most liberal member of the Senate.
His record as an Illinois state senator is, if anything, more troubling. He opposed legislation that would have prevented infanticide against children who had survived abortion attempts.
Senator Obama has presented himself as a post-partisan figure. Once again, however, his record belies his claim.
He is among the most reliably partisan voters the Democrats have.
He has not opposed the special interest groups of his party on a single important issue. And he has no impressive bipartisan achievements to his credit.
Senator Obama is, in short, an orthodox partisan, a man of left-leaning instinct who has - through the power of his rhetoric, head-snapping shifts in his position, and the attractiveness of his personality - won people over.
Race card
Even Senator Obama's claim of being a practitioner of a "new politics" is fraudulent.
Much of what Obama has presented about himself is a mirage - an impressive one for sure, but a mirage nonetheless
He has run ads about Senator McCain's position on healthcare, social security, immigration, and the Iraq war that are demonstrably false.
After saying he would never do such a thing, Obama and his supporters have employed the "race card" in a disturbing fashion - with Obama warning that key Republicans would use the fact that he's black against him, and later saying that George Bush and John McCain were going to try to frighten voters by saying Obama has "a funny name" and "doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills" (both claims are untrue).
And Senator Obama's intimate 20-year relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright - an anti-American extremist - is troubling.
It reinforces the sense that much of what Obama has presented about himself is a mirage - an impressive one for sure, but a mirage nonetheless.
And even if you were inclined to believe that Senator Obama will govern as a centrist - a questionable claim, given his record - the Democratic Party will hold a commanding position in the House and Senate.
Speaker Pelosi and majority leader Reid and their committee chairmen - many of them partisan, ideological, and ruthless - will exert enormous pressure on Obama to move left.
From all we know about him, Senator Obama will not resist it or defy them. And that, in turn, will lead to overreach.
Which is why even though next Tuesday will be a difficult day for Republicans and conservatives, the wise ones will understand that our moment will come again, and perhaps sooner than we think.
Our task is to be ready.
VIEWPOINTS
Peter Wehner is a former deputy assistant to President George W Bush, and currently a senior fellow at the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center. This is one of a series of comment and opinion pieces published on the BBC News website in the run-up to the US election.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/7700913.stm
Anti-Semitism versus Anti-Zionism
I wanted to address an exchange below that occurred between myself and a couple of others on the board (just the big bad and another poster who did not use anything to identify herself) last night. In response to my post about the righteous prevailing meaning the Israeli's would prevail because they are the "righteous", just the big bad responded "So was Hitler righteous?" She was likening the Israeli's treatment of the Palestinians as being akin to Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews. I then pointed out her anti-Semitic rhetoric. To which I was blasted for accusing an anti-Zionist as being an anti-Semitic.
I want to point out to many of you who hold strong opinions regarding the Israel/Palestinian conflict, there is a very fine line between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, a line that was very clearly crossed when just the big bag posted her Hitler remark, a line many have crossed in this discussion by likening the Gaza Strip to a concentration camp. When you say these things you have become an anti-Semitic. Below is an excerpt from an article written by Ami Isseroff:
If you judge a Jewish state by standards that you apply to no one else; if your neck veins bulge when you denounce Zionists but you've done no more than cluck "well, yes, very bad about Darfur";
if there is nothing Hamas can do that you won't blame 'in the final analysis' on Israelis;
if your sneer at the Zionists doesn't sound a whole lot different from American neoconservative sneers at leftists;
then you should not be surprised if you are criticized, fiercely so, by people who are serious about a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians and who won't let you get away with a self-exonerating formula "I am anti-Zionist, but not anti-Semitic" to prevent scrutiniy. If you are anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic, then don't use the categories, allusions, and smug hiss that are all too familiar to any student of prejudice.
I think that sums it up.
No dear, it's anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic.
Horrific is as horrific does. This long term occupation has spanned 60 years. The Holocaust spanned 12. Thanks to your Zionist government, its historic anmesia and its barbaric practices, the Jewish people have lost their exclusive claim to pain and suffering at the hands of state-sponsored terrorism aimed at the genocidal annihilation of an entire population. Your Holocaust was based on religious affiliation and racial purification. The Palestinian Holocaust is based on the ethnic cleansing of a pathologic nationalism that has been out of control for 6 decades.
You cannot declare yourself in charge of defining any other person's beliefs based on your concepts of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. I very painstakingly explained to you where I was coming from with that and how I make the distinction. It is the nationalistic fascist ideals that underpin the Zionist movement, not the Jewish people or their religious affiliation that are the targets of the hatred. In fact, they are also captive to their own Zionist leadership, but to a much lesser degree than the Palestinians.
The Holocaust is the only thing in recent history that can be used by comparison to describe the plight of the Palestinians. In fact, there is no parallel historical context that it can be placed in, other than perhaps the apartheid of South Africa. The most accurate description would be a combination of the two horrors.
Any way you slice it, you are trying to defend the indefensible and will never succeed in gaining any credibility, global tolerance of acceptance (except, of course from the US, who is using your country and your people for their own personal gains...better watch your backs) as long as you are the occupiers and the oppressors.
The American people didn't listen to the anti Obama sentiments sm
That Ayers crapola is not applicable. All that bashing of Obama is over SOUR GRAPES BABY!!! WE WON, YES WE CAN, YES WE DID
And anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage
will fix the economy? I think not. Besides anyone with half a brain cell knows BOTH of them will raise taxes on all of us. Forget tax breaks. How do you think the $700 billion and climbing is going to get paid....from money falling out of the sky????? Get real.
Anti-choice, anti-welfare,
No hypocrisy there?
Anti-gay/anti-abortion
I'm someone who believes in minding my own business. What others do in their family lives is none of my business. There hasn't been one single (or married) gay person who has ever hurt me.
On the other hand, the policies of the last eight years have hurt me a great deal. I don't have health insurance, so McCain can't tax mine, but he will tax everyone else's.
I want a President who can speak English (for a change), one who is intelligent and even tempered, and one who not only acknowledges that there is a huge problem with the middle class but whose entire platform has been devoted to solving that problem.
One day, McCain says the "fundamentals of the economy are strong." The next day, he's canceling a debate to rush back to Washington to fix the "crisis," except that he doesn't really "rush," and he didn't cancel the debate. He's running around like a chicken with its head cut off.
Obama's slogan has always been change, from the very beginning, and McCain has stolen that slogan.
I'm just personally sick and tired of politicians who are pro-corporations and anti-Americans.
Corporate tax breaks simply don't work. The beneficiaries of these breaks pocket the money. They don't create jobs; they outsource them. As MTs, we should know that more than anyone.
Obama wants to reward businesses who KEEP jobs in America. That's why I voted for him, along with the other reasons above, and that's why my daughter and son-in-law also voted for him, so he has received three votes from this household alone.
The "trickle-down" theory doesn't work and depends on the non-existent benevolence of greedy executives. It's time to try the "trickle-up" theory, IMHO.
Everyone is so upset at the thought of rising taxes. I wish someone would tell me just HOW we expect to pay for all Bush's wars, as this will fall to the next President, along with the present financial fiasco.
Anti-Semitism
I would be mindful of how this word is tossed around. The Arabs are Semites too.
Not too sure. There have been a lot of anti-Bush sm
and military criticism articles the last week. I think they are feeling cornered.
Also, the US doesn't kill women and children??? It's just incredible to me that anyone cannot see what a total liar Bush is. Maybe that's why the media is finally getting some guts. Fallujah is proof they kill innocents, including women and children. White phosphorus was used in Lebanon too, apparently, although not reported very widely in the U.S. like everything else. Sane people see these horrific realities, and hopefully we are growing in numbers.
I suppose you are anti-gun as well.
//
The anti-christ??
Please-with all the damage done by Bush, and Obama is the anti-christ to you?? He is a Christian man with a lovely, loving family, strong values, and wants what is best for America. And he hasn't even been sworn in yet? What is with you folks that see it necessary to act like Obama is the devil incarnate! I have prayed for my country, the my prayers have been answered. He takes office in January.
How did you get anti-welfare out of any of this?
nm
Anti-war people
All you anti-war people I would like to know what your position was right after 9-11? Were you antiwar then or screaming for the President of the United States to DO SOMETHING to protect us. That makes you hypocrites.
Shame on YOU, anti-SSM... it's not about
If the church is going to start dictating what the goverment does, then we d****d well better start TAXING them. Now THAT would be of help to the economy.
New Anti-Smoking Law
President Obama knows all too well how difficult it is to quit smoking, and today he addressed his struggle to kick the habit just before signing a law he hopes will help other people put out their cigarettes too.
"Each day, 1,000 young people under the age of 18 become new, regular, daily smokers, and almost 90 percent of all smokers began at or before their 18th birthday," Obama said today. "I know. I was one of these teenagers. And so I know how difficult it can be to break this habit when it's been with you for a long time."
The new tobacco law gives the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco in the same way the government regulates breakfast cereals and pharmaceuticals.
"This legislation is a victory for bipartisanship, and it was passed overwhelmingly in both houses of Congress," Obama said today. "It's a victory for health care reform, as it will reduce some of the billions we spend on tobacco-related health care costs in this country."
Public health organizations and many lawmakers, several of whom joined Obama today for the signing, have been fighting for regulation for nearly a decade in hopes of helping an estimated 45 million adult smokers in the United States to kick their habit.
The law means the government will have the power to decide how cigarettes are advertised and monitor how they're promoted to young people. It means cigarette makers will be required to include new, larger warning graphics with more health information on their products and will be prohibited from using words like "light" and "low tar" in their marketing.
While the law does not have the power to ban cigarettes and nicotine outright, it does allow the FDA to reduce nicotine levels and harmful chemicals in tobacco products.
"Forty-five years after the first U.S. surgeon general's report linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer, the most deadly product sold in America will no longer be the least-regulated product sold in America," said Matthew Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, in a statement earlier this month when Congress passed the bill.
Within the year, a rule will also be reinstated that prohibits outdoor tobacco ads within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds, and bans tobacco brands from sponsoring sports and entertainment events, according to the law.
At the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, CEO John R. Seffrin said the changes "will finally put an end to Big Tobacco's despicable marketing practices that are designed to addict children to its deadly products."
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also pinned high hopes on the effort.
"This legislation is a key part of our plans to cut health care costs and reduce the number of Americans who smoke," Sebelius said in a June 11 statement.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 440,000 people die prematurely from smoking each year, with an estimated 49,000 of those deaths due to secondhand smoke exposure.
"This legislation provides a tremendous opportunity to finally hold tobacco companies accountable and restrict efforts to addict more children and adults," American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown said in a June 11 statement. "It has been a long and challenging process to move the bill through Congress but the determination of many concerned parents and supporters has never wavered."
She isn't just antiwar. She an anti-semite. sm
She is using her son's death as a platform to spout her left-wing lies and hysteria.
anti-semite? You are truly a wacko!
Anti-semite..oh please!! You fling your thoughts about jews around these boards all the time. How awful of you to accuse Cindy Sheehan of that. She is not anti semite. I truly believe you have a hang up or obsession with jewish people by your previous posts. Can we leave the jews alone..havent they suffered enough throughout time? Focus on the true issue..THE WAR IN IRAQ AND THE UNNECESSARY DEATHS IT IS CAUSING..
Your anti-Americanism is disturbing. sm
*Sorry arses* You compare the Revolutionary War to World War II. You call names and label. You are violently nearly out of control with your anger and your very wording borders on horrendously out of control. Do people really take you seriously in discussion. If so, why?
Zionism and Anti-Semitism
Zionism and Anti-Semitism
We implore and beseech our Jewish brethren to realize that the Zionists are not the saviors of the Jewish People and guarantors of their safety, but rather the instigators and original cause of Jewish suffering in the Holy Land and worldwide. The idea that Zionism and the State of “Israel” is the protector of Jews is probably the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the Jewish People. Indeed, where else since 1945 have Jews been in such physical danger as in the Zionist state?!
Jews are enjoined by their religious laws to be loyal to the country of which they are citizens. Ever since the destruction of the holy Temple in Jerusalem and the exile of the Jewish People some two thousand years ago, we have been enjoined to be scrupulously loyal to the countries we reside in. One of the great biblical prophets, Jeremiah, in chapter 29 of his book proclaimed G-d's message to all the exiled; verse seven reads, Seek out the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you and pray for it to the Almighty, for through its welfare will you have welfare. This has been a cornerstone of Jewish morality throughout our history to this very day.
Torah-true Jews wish to live in peace and harmony with their neighbors in every country among the community of nations, including in historic Palestine. They deplore acts and policies of violence carried out by those who, misusing the name of Israel our forefather, have substituted the ideal of chauvinist nationalism for the eternal values of the Torah, the eternal divinely bestowed inheritance of the Jewish people.
It has been the age-old intention of Zionism to intentionally stir up anti-Semitism anywhere possible, and even more commonly, to take advantage of any Jewish suffering anywhere in order to enhance its cause Indeed, hatred of Jews and Jewish suffering is the oxygen of the Zionist movement, and from the very beginning has been to deliberately incite hatred of the Jew and then, in feigned horror, use it to justify the existence of the Zionist state – this is, of course, Machiavellianism raised to the highest degree. Thus, the Zionists thrive on hatred and suffering of Jews, and seek to benefit thereby through keeping Jews in perpetual fear, causing them to ignore the true nature of Zionism, and instead to consider the Zionist state is their salvation.
ANTI-SEMITISM BY POLITICAL ZIONISM
Although Zionists and others dispute it, the undeniable fact is that revolutionary secular and apostate elements in the Jewish community in Europe contributed greatly to hostility towards Jews after World War I. This aroused hatred of Jews in general among many non-Jews. While a prisoner in 1924 in the fortress of Lansberg on the River Lech, Hitler wrote his Mein Kampf. When he became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he was assisted by Goebbels, Roseberg and Streicher. From them came the declarations, “The Jews of Germany caused the defeat of Germany in the 1914-1918 war; the Jews of Germany were responsible for the terrible conditions in Germany that followed the war; the Jews of Germany are foreigners and they wish to remain foreigners; they have no loyalty to the country of their birth; they are not human; they are filthy dogs; they have no right to intrude into Germany’s affairs; there are too many Jews in Germany.
As far as Zionism is concerned, the founder of Zionism and apostate, Theodor Herzl, sought to intensify hatred of the Jew in order to enhance the cause of political Zionism. Here are some of his “pearls”:
“It is essential that the sufferings of Jews. . . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-semites shall be our best friends”. (From his Diary, Part I, pp. 16)
Additional words from the vivid imagination of this dreamer, from p. 68 of Part I of his Diary.
So anti-Semitism, which is a deeply imbedded force in the subconscious mind of the masses, will not harm the Jews. I actually find it to be advantageous to building the Jewish character, education by the masses that will lead to assimilation. This education can only happen through suffering, and the Jews will adapt.
Hateful views of Jews as being subhuman did not have to be invented by Nazi theorists such as Hitler, Goebbels, Rosenberg and Streicher. This ideology was simply adapted from statements of political Zionists such as those found in the writings of the Zionist Yehezkel Kaufman in 1933.
In 1920 there were statements hostile to Jews expressed at Heidelberg University. These statements, arguing that Jews of Germany had caused the turmoil that followed the war; that the Jews of Germany had nothing in common with Germans, and that Germans had the right to prevent the Jews of Germany from intruding into the affairs of their volk were not made by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, but by Nahum Goldmann, who went in to become the President of the World Zionist Organization and head of the World Jewish Congress, and, indisputably, the most influential political Zionist in the world, second only to the Prime Minister of the State of Israel.
In 1921, Germans in Germany were told that:
“We Jews are aliens… a foreign people in your midst and we… wish to stay that way. A Jew can never be a loyal German; whoever calls the foreign land his Fatherland is a traitor to the Jewish people“.
Who spoke these vile words? It was Jacob Klatzkin, the second of two political Zionist ideologists in Germany at the time, where the Jews of Germany were enjoying full political and civil rights. It was he who had advocated undermining Jewish communities as the one certain way of acquiring a state. “They had no qualms concerning tearing down the existing Jewish communities.”
Who spoke in a public address at a political Zionist meeting in Berlin and declared that “Germany… has too many Jews”? Was it Hitler or Goebbels? No, it was Chaim Weizman, later to become the first President of the State of Israel. This address was published in 1920, and, thus, four years before Hitler had even written Mein Kampf.
How many Zionist Jews know of this vicious treachery uttered by these senior political Zionist leaders, these apostates from the Jewish People? At the Nuremberg Trials of Major War Criminals, Nazi propagandist, Julius Streicher testified: “I did no more than echo what the leading Zionists had been saying”, it is clear that he had told the truth.
In addition to Hitler, Rosenberg, Goebbels and Streicher, many other Nazi leaders used statements from Zionists to validate their charges against the Jews of Germany. Such are the efforts of Zionist leaders to this very day to maintain a high degree of anti-semitism in order to enable them, in feigned horror, to then point to anti-semitism to support their idolatrous and anti-Jewish cause. In 1963, Moshe Sharett, then Chairman of the Jewish Agency, told the 38th Annual Congress of the Scandinavian Youth Federation that the freedom enjoyed by the majority of Jews imperiled Zionism, and at the 26th World Zionist Congress, the delegates were told that the Jew is endangered by the easing of anti-Semitism in the United States “We are endangered by freedom” he declared.
Ben Gurion's Scandals
Available in our bookstore
As we stated earlier, Zionism thrives on anti-Semitism. Ben Gurion declared, “…not always and not everywhere do I opposed anti-Semitism”. Zionists regularly pull out their handy “anti-Semite” race card against anyone, Jew or non-Jew, who dares to speak out against the wickedness of Zionism.
During World War II, the Lehi organization, an offshoot of Begin’s Irgun that was headed by Yitzchak Shamir sought an alliance with Nazis! The following is a quote from the writings of the Lehi in their contact with the Nazis:
The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis and bound by a treaty with the German Reich would be in the interests of strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East ... The NMO in Palestine offers to take an active part in the war on Germany's side ... The cooperation of the Israeli freedom movement would also be in line with one of the recent speeches of the German Reich Chancellor, in which Herr Hitler stressed that any combination and any alliance would be entered into in order to isolate England and defeat it.
To those who assume that Zionists have been on the side of freedom and equality, these words seem strange. However, to those who understand the root of Zionism, which is the transformation and eradication of the concept of the traditional Jew and Judaism, these statements are not strange at all. They are to be expected.
The Zionists agreed with Nazism in general, even prior to the advent of Nazism. They believed that Jews could not, and should not, live in harmony in any other society in the world, and that should be removed from those societies for the benefit of those societies. They believed that the new Jewish existence in its own State would remake the image of Jews as “useless” and “parasites.” These ideas existed long before Adolf Hitler!
There is a huge amount of literature describing how the Zionists made it very difficult to save Jews during and after World War II. As various individuals and organizations were trying to arrange departures of Jews to western countries, the Zionists worked overtime to prevent this from happening. They expressed the opinion that building up the Jewish population of Palestine was more important than enabling Jews to go to third countries, and they insisted to western powers that Jews should not be accepted anywhere other than Palestine. Indeed, Yitzchak Greenbaum, a famous Zionist, proclaimed that “one cow in Palestine was worth more than all the Jews in Poland.” The infamous David Ben-Gurion said in 1938:
If I knew it was possible to save all the children in Germany by taking them to England, and only half of the children by taking them to Eretz Israel, I would choose the second solution. For we must take into account not only the lives of these children but also the history of the people of Israel.
Read about the brutal Zionist role in the Holocaust.
After the war, a Zionist “religious” leader, Rabbi Klaussner, who was in charge of displaced persons presented a report before the Jewish American Conference on May 2nd, 1948 :
I am convinced people must be forced to go to Palestine...For them, an American dollar appears as the highest of goals. By the word force, I am suggesting a programme. It served for the evacuation of the Jews in Poland, and in the history of the 'Exodus'... To apply this programme we must, instead of providing 'displaced persons' with comfort, create the greatest possible discomfort for them...At a second stage, a procedure calling upon the Haganah to harass the Jews.
It is ironic that the Zionists proclaim their State as the safe haven for the Jewish People, when since World War II no place on earth has been as dangerous for Jews, both spiritually and physically, as the Zionist state.
The Zionists worked relentlessly to create fear among Jews in the Arab countries after the Zionist state was established. Their tactic work most successfully in Yemen, Morocco, Iraq, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia.
It is common knowledge among Iraqi Jews that during 1949-1950 the famous Zionist, Mordechai ben Porat, who had the nickname of Morad Abu al-Knabel (Mordechai Bomber), was instrumental in seeking to bribe Iraqi officials after the creation of the Zionist state to pass laws to encourage Jews to leave Iraq. This was enhanced by the Zionists planting bombs in synagogues in Baghdad in March 1950. Information about this is readily available on the internet.
Read The Jews of Iraq by Naim Giladi, a first hand account of violence and intimidation of Iraqi Jews to leave their homeland.
The writings of Mr. Naim Giladi document in detail what the Zionists did in Baghdad in 1950 to provoke the departure of the Jews to the Zionist state. The Zionists do not care what effect their policies have on the Jewish communities of any country. When they accuse European nations of every sin under the sun, do the Zionists care that this will produce hostility towards Jews? No! Not a bit. On the contrary, as we have discussed, they thrive on such circumstances, clinging to the vain hope that these Jewish communities will rush for the “salvation” of the “safe haven” of the Zionist Paradise where Jews are in constant danger as the Zionist regime undertakes every form of cruel provocation against non-Jews.
Horrifying Accusations of Violence and Intimidation
Read More
In more recent times the Zionists have sought every opportunity to encourage Jews to leave their home countries. Anytime there is even the smallest event of hostility toward Jews on the heels of Zionist policy, or if there are signs of economic distress and dislocation, the Zionists magnify it a thousand times, seek to ruthlessly humiliate the nations involved, and agitate for Jews to go to the Zionist state, the so-called “natural home” of the Jewish People. This has been the case in countries such as France, Argentina, Uruguay, the former Soviet Union and Egypt.
The promises of the Torah are always to be realized. This verse from the Torah demonstrates that those who are his enemies will pay a price when The kingdom of G-D will prevail.
Deuteronomy 32:43: Praise his People, O Nations: For he will avenge the blood of his servants. He will render vengeance against his adversaries and make expiation for his land and his People.
Sources:
- Guardian Volume two Issue 7
- Satmar Grand Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum
- The Jews of Batna, Aleria: A Study of Identity and Colonialism by Elizabeth Friedman.
- The Jewish Communities of Morocco and the AIU by M. Laskier, State University, Albany, N.Y.
- The Impact of Western European Education on the Jewish Millet of Baghdad by Maurice Sawdayee.
- Outcaste Jewish Life in Southern Iran by Laurence D. Loeb. Gordon and Breach.
- The Last Arab Jews. The Communities of Jerba, Tunisia by Abraham Udovitch and Lucette Valensi. Harwood Academic Publishers.
- The GENOCIDE IN THE HOLY LAND (available for purchase on the site)
- Ben Gurion's Scandals by Naeim Giladi (available for purchase on the site)
|
|
Before I get labeled an anti-semite...
since I have already been branded with the B word...let me please invite everyone to read the entire thread between Maryland Gal, myself, and others. I have never, nor would I ever, compare any of the Jewish race to Hitler, nor would I compare abortion to what Hitler did (other than in the general sense I believe both to be murder). That being said, the point I was trying to make is that when morals decline and the moral compass turns and what used to be unacceptable and horrific becomes acceptable, people like Hitler can rise up and convince thousands of people that it is all right to exterminate a race of people simply because they believe them to be inferior or subhuman. It happened once and it could happen again. And it starts as people begin to rationalize things like abortion. And assisted suicide. And euthanasia (check out how Holland handles euthanasia right now today and you will see what I mean). That was my only point entirely. I certainly do not hate the Jewish people. I certainly do not minimize what happened to them, nothing can compare with how horrific that was. Many American soldiers died fighting to stop it. That is what America does. We point at what we believe to be wrong and say so. At least we used to. I am just concerned that the less we point and the more we turn our heads, the worse it will be for us, especially with the threat facing us today. And what Maryland Gal needs to understand is I am not pointing at her and I am not pointing at the Jewish faith. I am pointing at a practice I believe to be wrong, which I still believe to be wrong.
Anti-Christian posts
And your post linking swastikas and racial slurs to Christians wasn't spewing hate? You'd better look in a mirror.
There are a lot of anti-smoking laws
I did not realize this was an old campaign. It seemed like a modern idea when the surgeon general came out in 1969 against smoking.
Whose in charge of this anti-IQ crusade?
An ineffective tactic to use to try to excuse a sitting president's white matter deficit.
Because the repubs are anti abortion nm
nm
Yea, right...those anti-war Dems really stepping up
US drones have already bombed Pakistan, so no doubt Obama has already ordered that. The democrats squeal foul play until they're holding the bag and then it's a free for all with those bombs. Funny THEY don't mind bombing anyone. But, of course, Obama lovers will of course be able to justify HIS actions.....they always do. Can't blame this one on Bush.......
Anti Gay (and USA) Protests to Hit Key West
I read a daily blog on Key West real estate and today's posting happened to be on a slightly different subject.
Apparently Fred Phelps and his minions are planning on a trip to Key West to demonstrate their hate of not only gay people but the USA.
Can we take them down as the terrorist organization they are yet? One of his cohorts is already down there:
====================================================
The Key West community will meet tonight to decide whether -- and if so, how -- to respond to a nationally infamous man who hates homosexuals.
The Rev. Fred Phelps, head of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, is scheduled to be in Key West on May 22 to protest the Gay/Straight Alliance at Key West High School. Phelps also is planning to demonstrate at the entrance to the island, in front of Sigsbee Park and at B'Nai Zion synagogue, according to a letter Phelps' daughter sent to Police Chief Donie Lee.
The group is planning an outdoor demonstration "regarding the judgment of God with respect to the dangers of promoting homosexuality, and the rest of the filthy manner of life and idol worshipping in this country," the letter states. The city does not require a permit for such assemblies.
Phelps' church is not recognized by mainstream Baptists and is monitored by the Anti-Defamation League as a hate group. His "church" comprises mostly his family members, about 60 of whom are said to protest three times a day, with signs that read, "God Hates Fags" and other anti-homosexual slurs. The church also protests at military funerals, claiming the deaths are the result of America's tolerance of homosexuality.
The Rev. Joe McMurray, pastor of the gay-friendly Metropolitan Community Church, where tonight's meeting will be held, said he does not think that Anthony Charles Capo Jr., who often holds a sign that says "God Hates Fags.com" on Key West street corners, is formally connected with the Kansas group.
Meeting organizers will solicit ideas from community members and law enforcement officials, said McMurray. The gathering will include the police chief, Schools Superintendent Randy Acevedo and some city commissioners.
"We can come together and decide if there will be a response, and what it would be," McMurray said. "We'll also hear from law enforcement to see what they prefer in the interest of public safety."
The Police Department is developing an operational plan for Phelps' demonstration, but Lee emphasized that the general public should ignore Phelps.
"I know it's difficult and I know, firsthand, that it's an emotional issue, but as far as I'm concerned, that's the way to deal with it," said Lee, who is gay. Any demonstrations from counter-protesters would only make it more difficult for officers to keep the peace, Lee said.
Phelps' First Amendment rights allow him and his followers to express their opinions, and the police cannot arrest them for doing so.
Lee explained that if someone says something that directly creates a public safety issue, then the situation changes. He used the example of someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater as an example that would jeopardize public safety and therefore be an arrestable offense.
"Short of that, people have the right to express their opinion," Lee said.
McMurray said he does not know what prompted Phelps to target the high school group in a town known for its acceptance of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, and its official motto of "One Human Family."
"I don't know if anybody has the 'why' behind Fred Phelps," McMurray said. "He wants to come disrupt, create unease and disturb the peace in a peace-loving community, and he raises money by suing municipalities who violate his civil rights during protests. He intimidates communities."
McMurray and others hope to hear ideas that would turn Phelps' protest into something positive for the community. One option would be a fundraiser for every hour that Phelps is here. People could make an hourly pledge to local charities such as AIDS Help and the Gay and Lesbian Community Center, so the longer Phelps remained in town, the more money he would help raise for gay-friendly service organizations.
"This cannot be personal," said McMurray, who is gay. "Once it becomes personal, we're operating on his level."
J.T. Thompson, a graphic designer who founded the "One Human Family" movement, emphasized that confrontation with Phelps and his group will not serve any purpose.
"This guy earns a living making confrontations happen," Thompson said. "It will be a good day in the fact that we can unite people here. The meeting will gather input to unite the community in a peaceful, positive and loving response."
So when do we canonize this radical anti-American? sm
Hugo Chavez I believe is a growing symbol on the American radical Left like his mentor Fidel Castro. Chavez is a paranoid anti-American who believes America is out to get him just like Fidel believed the same thing.
Robertson’s comments to assassinate Chavez, unfortnately strengthens Chavez’s tyrannical grip over his people (and his paranoia). Chavez himself is becoming a tyrant who is funding international terrorism. From al-Qaeda to FARC. Chavez’s mentor Fidel Castro has funded international terrorism from the PLO, Hezbollah, Tamil Tigers, African National Congress and a whole bunch of other terrorist groups.
Chavez is a threat to America because of his ties to Fidel Castro and to international terrorism. I mean if the radical Left really believe Robertson’s comments were wrong, why does it give them the right to support Fidel Castro and his pal Hugo Chavez? Why does the left-wing media like people such as Ted Turner who owns CNN get away with being Fidel Castro’s admirer? Yet when there are reports of Castro and Chavez killing or making tyrannical iron fist rules against their own people, it’s okay but complain whenever someone like Robertson or someone else makes a harsh comments against their idols (i.e. Castro and Chavez)?
There in lines the double-standard of the American radical Left and how much influence they have over the media. If it’s wrong for Pat Robertson to make those comments, then it’s ten times worse for any hardline Lefty in the American media to admire Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez. But that never seems to be scorned by the media. Only Robertson’s statements.
Cindy re-energized the anti war movement
Well, guess we are looking at different news papers and news programs cause from what I have seen and read, most of the country is behind Cindy 100%. In fact, it was her camping out in Tx that re-energized the anti war movement. If she was a quack or clown which is what Rove called her (takes a clown to know a clown), she could not have possibly started the ending of the Iraq war..which is what she did, you know. If you dont agree, I would suggest you study the ending of the Vietnam War. Nixon refused at first but the roar of the majority got too loud. As far as sacrificing a son. She probably feels guilt cause she feels that way as any mother wants to protect her children and not send them into harms way. So, if she had known he would die, she probably would have fought every which way to try to keep him out of the military. In her mind the guilt trip is she sacrificed her son..she should have *protected* him. I think that is what she feels. Me? I think when a child turns 18, they need to be on their own and make their own decisions..So, to me it would be the sons decision.
Bin Laden as anti-fur demonstrator and vegan?
New Files Show FBI Watched Domestic Activist Groups
By ERIC LICHTBLAU, The New York Times
[0]
Getty Images
One of the groups targeted by the FBI was People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
More Coverage:
· Cheney Cites Presidential Power
· Post-9/11 Law May OK Spying
· Dems Deny Approving Wiretaps
Talk About It: Post Thoughts
WASHINGTON (Dec. 20) - Counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show.
F.B.I. officials said Monday that their investigators had no interest in monitoring political or social activities and that any investigations that touched on advocacy groups were driven by evidence of criminal or violent activity at public protests and in other settings.
After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, John Ashcroft, who was then attorney general, loosened restrictions on the F.B.I.'s investigative powers, giving the bureau greater ability to visit and monitor Web sites, mosques and other public entities in developing terrorism leads. The bureau has used that authority to investigate not only groups with suspected ties to foreign terrorists, but also protest groups suspected of having links to violent or disruptive activities.
But the documents, coming after the Bush administration's confirmation that President Bush had authorized some spying without warrants in fighting terrorism, prompted charges from civil rights advocates that the government had improperly blurred the line between terrorism and acts of civil disobedience and lawful protest.
One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a Vegan Community Project. Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's semi-communistic ideology. A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
The documents, provided to The New York Times over the past week, came as part of a series of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. For more than a year, the A.C.L.U. has been seeking access to information in F.B.I. files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored.
One FBI document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a Vegan Community Project. Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's semi-communistic ideology.
The F.B.I. had previously turned over a small number of documents on antiwar groups, showing the agency's interest in investigating possible anarchist or violent links in connection with antiwar protests and demonstrations in advance of the 2004 political conventions. And earlier this month, the A.C.L.U.'s Colorado chapter released similar documents involving, among other things, people protesting logging practices at a lumber industry gathering in 2002.
The latest batch of documents, parts of which the A.C.L.U. plans to release publicly on Tuesday, totals more than 2,300 pages and centers on references in internal files to a handful of groups, including PETA, the environmental group Greenpeace and the Catholic Workers group, which promotes antipoverty efforts and social causes.
Many of the investigative documents turned over by the bureau are heavily edited, making it difficult or impossible to determine the full context of the references and why the F.B.I. may have been discussing events like a PETA protest. F.B.I. officials say many of the references may be much more benign than they seem to civil rights advocates, adding that the documents offer an incomplete and sometimes misleading snapshot of the bureau's activities.
Just being referenced in an F.B.I. file is not tantamount to being the subject of an investigation, said John Miller, a spokesman for the bureau.
The F.B.I. does not target individuals or organizations for investigation based on their political beliefs, Mr. Miller said. Everything we do is carefully promulgated by federal law, Justice Department guidelines and the F.B.I.'s own rules.
A.C.L.U officials said the latest batch of documents released by the F.B.I. indicated the agency's interest in a broader array of activist and protest groups than they had previously thought. In light of other recent disclosures about domestic surveillance activities by the National Security Agency and military intelligence units, the A.C.L.U. said the documents reflected a pattern of overreaching by the Bush administration.
It's clear that this administration has engaged every possible agency, from the Pentagon to N.S.A. to the F.B.I., to engage in spying on Americans, said Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the A.C.L.U.
You look at these documents, Ms. Beeson said, and you think, wow, we have really returned to the days of J. Edgar Hoover, when you see in F.B.I. files that they're talking about a group like the Catholic Workers league as having a communist ideology.
The documents indicate that in some cases, the F.B.I. has used employees, interns and other confidential informants within groups like PETA and Greenpeace to develop leads on potential criminal activity and has downloaded material from the groups' Web sites, in addition to monitoring their protests.
More From the Times
* · New Drug Points Up Problems in Developing Cancer Cures
* · In Holiday Displays, Tributes Remembering the War Dead
* · New Airline Navigation System Is Displayed
In the case of Greenpeace, which is known for highly publicized acts of civil disobedience like the boarding of cargo ships to unfurl protest banners, the files indicate that the F.B.I. investigated possible financial ties between its members and militant groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front.
These networks, which have no declared leaders and are only loosely organized, have been described by the F.B.I. in Congressional testimony as extremist special interest groups whose cells engage in violent or other illegal acts, making them a serious domestic terrorist threat.
In testimony last year, John E. Lewis, deputy assistant director of the counterterrorism division, said the F.B.I. estimated that in the past 10 years such groups had engaged in more than 1,000 criminal acts causing more than $100 million in damage.
When the F.B.I. investigates evidence of possible violence or criminal disruptions at protests and other events, those investigations are routinely handled by agents within the bureau's counterterrorism division.
But the groups mentioned in the newly disclosed F.B.I. files questioned both the propriety of characterizing such investigations as related to terrorism and the necessity of diverting counterterrorism personnel from more pressing investigations.
The fact that we're even mentioned in the F.B.I. files in connection with terrorism is really troubling, said Tom Wetterer, general counsel for Greenpeace. There's no property damage or physical injury caused in our activities, and under any definition of terrorism, we'd take issue with that.
Jeff Kerr, general counsel for PETA, rejected the suggestion in some F.B.I. files that the animal rights group had financial ties to militant groups, and said he, too, was troubled by his group's inclusion in the files.
It's shocking and it's outrageous, Mr. Kerr said. And to me, it's an abuse of power by the F.B.I. when groups like Greenpeace and PETA are basically being punished for their social activism.
NYT should change their name to the anti-American Times
They are out to destroy national security. It's so blatant. They don't care about national security, because they don't think we are in danger. They think this despite the fact that the WTC towers fell in their own yard. That is what is so crazy about it.
i'm appalled that she is anti birth control
into office?!?!
His plans are anti-American -socialism.
nm
If you believe in UFOs, ghosts, anti-Semitism and
conspiracy theories, then by all means, we have a credible source here where "truth" is the order of the day. These are the primary foci of Jeff Rense and his kind. As for the rest of us whose beliefs are founded in reality, this article is a waste of time.
I know, I know, I know, you don't care, you don't care, you don't care. Got it.
It is easy to label someone the anti-Christ..
if you have enough time on your hands. Here is an article asking if President Bush is the anti-Christ. People will believe what they want to.
http://markswatson.com/bushac.htm
I would think with all your anti-semetic rhetoric that you would be a big fan of Hitler's!
Oh the hypocrasy!
Well sugar, it becomes anti-Semitic the minute
you use Hitler to illustrate your point. This "occupation" you speak if simply a myth created and perpetuated by the Palestinians. Aside from the history I posted below, allow me to post more on the subject of "occupation."
The Jewish perspective on Palestine was that with proper development there would be room for all. Many of the early settlers were Labor Zionists and they identified with the poor Arab fellahin. In 1920, David Ben Gurion (who would later declare the State of Israel and become its first Prime Minister) stated: "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them... Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price."
Thus the focus was on the purchase of uncultivated lands, often swamps or barren sand dunes, and with no tenants (e.g. the Hula valley, Tel Aviv).
In 1930, John Hope Simpson (chair of the Hope Simpson Commission) noted that Jews "paid high prices for land, and in addition they paid to certain occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay." (P. 51, Hope Simpson report)
The next year, after Arab cries about being dispossessed from their land, Lewis French led a British effort to provide land to Arabs that had been displaced. Of the 3,000 applications received, 80% were determined to be invalid. Ultimately, only about 100 landless Arabs were offered alternative plots. (from French's Supplementary Report submitted to the Palestine Royal Commission.)
In 1936 the Peel Commission arrived on the scene. From its PRC report (p. 242): "much of the land now carrying orange groves were sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased.... there was at the time... little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land."
The vast majority of Jewish owned lands had been uncultivated, often thought to be uncultivatable. Jews, who comprised roughly a third of the population, only held 11% of the land that was defined as "arable." The Peel Commission found that any land shortage was "due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population."
This increase far exceeded population increases in neighboring countries and, not surprisingly, took place in areas where development by Jews was at work. While Jewish immigration was regulated, restricted, and at times totally forbidden by the British, scores of thousands of Arabs crossed into Palestine from miles and miles of poorly patrolled land borders.
So this was the glorious country of Palestine that the Palestinians (most of them great, great grandchildren of those who live there now) talk about. Most of their ancestors were immigrants, brought to Palestine between WWI and II by the British at the request of the other Arab countries who promised them cheap oil if they helped. They did. In the meantime, Jews had started settling there and building up the land.
The myth that the area was thriving prior to Jewish development is false. It had its moments, but alternated between desert and malaria infested swamps. So much for the claim that the land had been held, or at least worked if not owned by a family, for "generations." Plots were changed "annually."
Thus, while most people who don't know the history of Israel, think Jews stole the land, they are very much mistaken. It was purchased. Israeli land was developed into orange groves from swamps, from sand dunes into cities. And now, the Palestinians who hadn't the least interest in that land until the Jews developed it. wanted it. While the Israeli population increased slowly, the Arab population increased ten-fold both from immigration and very large families huddled into poor neighborhoods. Instead of building infrastructure, US aid was pocketed by Arafat and other Palestinian leaders to increase their bank accounts and to wage wars.
Arafat himself was no Palestinian. Like most Palestinians he was also an immigrant; an Egyptian. After the UN partitioned Palestine, and declared Israel a state, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, armed to the teeth, declared war on Israel. Though Israel had few weapons, and no help from any other country, they won the 1948 War of Independence. The Arabs have waged 5 wars on Israel, and lost all of them. In addition there have been many multi-terrorist attacks. Though won in bloody battles, Israel was forced to return the West Bank, most of Jerusalem, the Sinai and other territories which they gained with their lives in wars that the Arabs started.
That's the story. Most of you know the rest. The Intifada, the suicide bombers, the constant attacks of Arabs on Israeli settlements, the canons from the Golan Heights, which, rained down on Jewish kibbutzes, (farms) and the theft of all the money supplied by the US to Palestine which enriched Arafat's pockets and is now in the hands of his young late wife and a Swiss bank. To blind the people as to what he was doing (stealing American money) Arafat ( a terrorist himself who in his younger days blew up Jewish children's school buses) encouraged Arab Palestinians to terrorize the Israelis. Arafat continued his terrorism from Jordan and Lebanon (two Arab countries), and was kicked out of both for causing anarchy and chaos. He returned to Palestine, and more terrorist groups formed and developed, most under his directive.
Palestinian groups that support and carry out acts of political violence include Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, - General Command, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Abu Nidal Organization, all of which are officially listed as terrorist organizations by the United States and the European Union. Until 1993, the PLO was also listed as a terrorist group, but in 1988 Arafat renounced violence. (duh) Didn't happen. The PLO Charter's full text of this infamous document negates Israel's right to exist and calls for its destruction through violence. Peace Watch has explained, the PLO's vote on April 24, 1996 did not satisfy its legal obligation to amend the charter.
Terrorism was picked up by other Arab countries. Now it goes on around the Arab world.
I used to be a Repub, and when they added anti-abortion to
(And I'll never go back.)
Yes, but if it were FOX and an anti-liberal view point ad...
all liberals would be screaming "censorship".
You anti-choice people are a bunch of
Get a life, and keep your hands of my body, and every one else's who doesn't happen to agree with you. If you don't like a woman's freedom to choose, then don't choose it yourself. But you sure as he11 aren't going to tell me or anyone else what to do.
I'm Topaz - Democrat, pro-choice, anti-
Question for anti-gay marriage folks...(sm)
Since you claim that marriage is only a christian right, then how about this:
What if we strip down "marriage" to what you claim is its purpose....that being a joining of a man and woman in god's eyes. Let's say that only heterosexual christians are allowed to be "married." However, lets also take away all the benefits that now come with marriage such as insurance coverage, joint taxes, hospital privileges, etc. Why? Because these are not things that are covered in the bible and have nothing to do with the "sanctity" of marriage.
Once that is done, you have "marriage" all to yourself and should not be threatened whatsoever by anyone.
Now lets say that the rest of us -- that would be those who are not heterosexual or do not believe in "marriage" in a biblical sense have "unions." Because this would be a legal status and not affiliated with any religion, we would be able to claim benefits that would come such as insurance, taxes, etc. In order for you (christians) to be able to enjoy these benefits you also would have to have "unions." As far as any other religions, the same would apply. They would be able to hold whatever ceremonies for their "marriage" for their religious beliefs, but would also have to have "unions" in order to receive legal benefits.
How are anti-abortion people nuts
when we as a country are allowing doctors to murder babies that could survive outside of its mother's womb? I am not for abortion but I don't condone violence at abortion clinics either. You have, once again, grouped us all into one huge group and title us as nut cases. I am so sick and tired of a few people doing crazy things and people like you, JTBB, running with it and grouping us all into that. That is close minded and just plain pathetic. Someone who is against waterboarding but has no problem killing babies that could survive outside of its mother. WTH is wrong with some of you people? Let's be nice to people who want us dead but by all means kill a baby we don't want even though it could survive outside of the womb. That makes a whole he!! of a lot of sense, huh? Wise up!
Noam Chomsky, the supreme anti-American. sm
If someone told you that they supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, would you think they were a great guy? He did, you know. There's quite a dossier on him at www.DiscoverTheNetwork.com. You might want to check it out.
So you're saying that Israel is also anti-Semitic? Interesting.
Below is a Jewish editorial. One of the comments made by a reader of the editorial, also a Jew, was that Israel ITSELF felt the Gaza pull-out might help abate some level of terrorism. So, you're saying that Israel itself is anti-Semitic? Could you PLEASE stop with your lying and constant twisting of the truth?
Cindy Sheehan: Anti-Semite or Jewish Hero?
Cindy Sheehan is purported to have said that if Israel pulls out of Palestine it will contribute to a reduction in terror. That sounds like a pretty reasonable statement to me. If I hear another white, right-wing, Christian pundit speak for the Jewish community again and call Cindy Sheehan an anti-Semite for that statement, I think I am going to explode. The same goes for the Jewish pundits who are part of a radical minority of Jews in they way they come down on this issue. It is obscene and wrong to call her anti-Semitic, and all Jews in the country should pay close attention to and not forget the arguments that the GOP and its mouthpieces are trying to make on this occasion.
As a member of the Jewish community I can say that it is likely that the vast majority of Jews in this country (76% of whom voted for John Kerry) realize that the separation between George Bush and Cindy Sheehan on the Israel issue is minimal at best. Bush did better with Jews than his predecessors, but to come away in 2004 with just 24% of the Jewish vote, and then to try to play the “religion-card” in this circumstance leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. There is an underlying feeling of anti-Semitism emanating from the person playing the “religion-card”.
A small minority of Jews believe in a manner similar to Republicans and the George Bush administration. They believe that anything goes; the ends justifies the means; ethics is not important as long as you win; caring for the poor, sick, and helpless in the community take a back seat to capitalism, and it is better to get a tax cut during war than to shoulder a heavier weight to prepare our government (and its budget deficit) for our children. Most Jews do not subscribe to this philosophy.
We are by and large Democrats and we by and large share the values of Cindy Sheehan, and to tarnish her as an anti-Semite and associate her with the likes of racist-Republican David Duke, as some have done, is obscene. Some Jews in this small minority may speak out against Cindy Sheehan. While they are entitled to their opinions, they are not entitled to speak for the vast majority of Jews. The voices of this radical minority are much louder right now, and in fact this is a direct result of the Republican Party having a superior message machine and media infrastructure than the Democrats.
A brief history lesson might be instructive as to why the political party in America with a “religion problem” and a “race problem” is the Republican Party. Howard Dean called the Republican Party mainly a "white-Christian party". One can argue about whether he was tactful or not when he said it, but what he said was essentially true. One of the ONLY demographics Republicans win consistently is white, Christian men. Lucky for them it is a large demographic. Democrats, on the other hand, win with Latinos, blacks, immigrants, gays, and Jews (pretty much everyone else).
These voters are not stupid. They vote the way they do for reasons. Most Jews support Democrats for the very reason that there is no component of racism or religious persecution in that party. Moreover the Democrats by and large believe in peace, social justice, social tolerance, religious tolerance, minimum wages and standards that can improve the lives for the weakest among us, cheaper health care for the sick, dying, and mentally ill, and an education system that works in a manner that is equal for all, and without any external religions pushed on the students.
Most Jews support Cindy Sheehan because she is acting in a manner that is consistent with (and even required by) the bible. She is speaking out for peace in a non-violent manner, and almost shaming the President to finally devise a plan for Iraq. Anyone who would attack her for that is suspect at best. From a Christian perspective you should ask yourself “what would Jesus be doing?” Would he be protesting the war right now or flying a fighter jet to carpet-bomb Fallujah?
The "white-Christian" Republican Party is supported mainly by the “white-Christian” Southerners--the same descendants of former slaveholders, with an only partially changed mentality. Abraham Lincoln called himself a Republican, but everyone knows that the Republican Party of Lincoln is now the Democratic Party, and the descendants of the Democratic Party of the segregated-South, make up the current Republican base.
The anti-Semitic, anti-black Southerners, from Zell Miller, to David Duke, to Tony Perkins, to Trent Lott, to Jesse Helms, to Strom Thurmond, are all remnants of the racist past of the Democratic Party, who are now firmly implanted at the highest levels of the Republican Party. Some of these Republicans have even switched parties in our lifetime from Democrat to Republican, ala Strom Thurmond and David Duke, or switched this millenium ala Zell Miller, providing even further proof that if Abraham Lincoln were alive today he would be called a “liberal” by James Dobson and would be a key component of the Democratic Party.
This shift is not unnoticed to Jews, and apparently other minorities see it as well (88% of African-Americans voted for Kerry). The base of the segregated South is now the Republican base. The family-values, anti-gay, Christian prayer in school crowd, who are a danger to Jewish culture and an overt threat to the African-American descendants of the freed slaves, are the people that should be worried about the label of anti-Semite, not Cindy Sheehan.
Cindy Sheehan's statement on Israel, if she even made them at all, sounds exactly like Bush's public position. She wants Israel to leave Palestine and she thinks that will contribute to peace in the Middle East. Guess what, big shocker, SHE IS RIGHT. Israel pulling back will not be an end all to terror, nothing will, but certainly it will help. If Cindy Sheehan understands this fundamental concept, why doesn’t George Bush?
This post is also available at RAFC.org and
Whoa, Bessie. Can't be anti-Semitic and Pro-Palestinian
at the same time. Let us not defy logic here. Semitic peoples is an ethnologic reference based on a language group, and incluced both Arabs and Hebrews/Jewish people. This is a tired tactic dragged out in desperation in an attempt to discredit by implying someone is a bigoted Jew-hater. NOT.
The term Israeli based on nationality and the term Zionist is based the political movement that seeks to establish a national homeland (echoes of Hitler) in Palestine. It is not even accurate to state anti-Israel unless followed by a qualifier. The sentiment expressed on this forum is anti-Zionist, straight up, no more, no less, no doubt. It is not about hating a race of people, it's all about hating a set of ideas.
Whoa, Bessie. Can't be anti-Semitic and Pro-Palestinian
at the same time. Let us not defy logic here. Semitic peoples is an ethnologic reference based on a language group, and incluced both Arabs and Hebrews/Jewish people. This is a tired tactic dragged out in desperation in an attempt to discredit by implying someone is a bigoted Jew-hater. NOT.
The term Israeli based on nationality and the term Zionist is based the political movement that seeks to establish a national homeland (echoes of Hitler) in Palestine. It is not even accurate to state anti-Israel unless followed by a qualifier. The sentiment expressed on this forum is anti-Zionist, straight up, no more, no less, no doubt. It is not about hating a race of people, it's all about hating a set of ideas.
ANTI-RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS are even more arrogant and ignorant.
Q.E.D., my blind friend.
the definition of anti-semitism is prejudice against or hostility towards Jews. SM
The terms literal meaning may indeed include all semitic people, it is used exclusively to refer to hostility towards Jews which you have displayed here in living color.
So, wait, you're ANTI nukes but PRO North Korea.
Uhhhh...do you see the flaw in your logic?
I didn't think so.
German anti-Nazi activist, Pastor Martin Niemöller:
In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
|
