Vocal Minority

Chanukah Wishes from Sarah Palin

From Sarah's Facebook page:

Todd and I would like to offer our best wishes to the Jewish community as they celebrate Hanukkah. Known as the Festival of Lights, Hanukkah commemorates the eight-day miracle that took place when the Temple in Jerusalem was rededicated. Though there was only enough consecrated oil for one day, the flame miraculously burned for eight – just long enough to prepare more. This beautiful story is rich with life lessons for members of all faiths. With hope and dedication nothing is impossible, and the Almighty never abandons those who seek the light.

Aw, that's nice.

Joe Lieberman Is Either a Good Jew, Bad Jew, or Just Plain Stupid ...

... according to this piece in the left-leaning Politics Daily [h/t reader and occasional guest blogger Loud Lion]. It is a piece trying to determine whether Joe Lieberman’s position on government-run health (s)care makes him a “good Jew,” a “bad Jew,” or someone who’s just not that smart (you know: like a conservative). Columnist David Gibson just can’t understand what makes Lieberman tick, considering most Jews he seems to know and all the Jews he quotes in his article are in support the unconstitutional liberty-sapping and life-destroying piece of legislation.

Here are some of the “gems” from this piece.

Just like his foes, Lieberman sees his opposition as grounded in Jewish ethics, arguing that the health care proposals on the table would hurt America and would not help those who need it—although, as The Washington Post reported, his varying explanations of his varying positions have left various observers scratching their heads over his real reasons.

Gibson, I believe, is insinuating here that Lieberman’s opposition to the legislation currently on the table has a more nefarious explanation, e.g., being bought off by “Big Insurance.” Stay classy, David.

Whatever the motives, Lieberman is so committed to his political views and his religious traditions that he walked more than four miles to Capitol Hill from his Georgetown synagogue on a recent frigid Saturday to take part in a rare weekend health care debate—one of just two dozen or so times during his senate career that he has made that trek on the Sabbath, when strictly observant Jews do not drive. "I have a responsibility to my constituents, really to my conscience, to be here on something as important as healthcare reform," he told The Hill.

Such high-minded talk grates on many Jewish leaders,

What a BS phrase. Does Gibson think liberal politicians don’t make high-minded talk that grates on people? (Our own president does every time he opens his lying trap.)

who see passing health care reform as integral to the Jewish principal of tikkun olam, or repairing the world, which undergirds much of Judaism's longstanding tradition of social and political activism, mainly of the liberal variety.

Unless, like Lieberman apparently, you consider bankrupting the country three generations down the road for a 2000-page piece of socialism that’s going to worsen the quality, and duration of life for all Americans, while at the same time empowering an unstoppable capitalism-hating Democrat bureaucracy that will enslave every citizen not to be a good example of tikkun olam.

Other factors are at play as well: Jews are immigrants whose history of persecution and constant exile have made them especially sensitive to the plight of the marginalized, and as a minority they know that liberal social policies that protect the weak from the strong can help them, too;

Bzzzzzt. Sorry, Mr. Gibson, no. For 40+ years minorities have been conned into believing that liberal social policies protect the weak from the strong. What liberal social policies really do, as more and more people have woken up, is create a government-dependent slave class and very powerful rich Democrat politicians.

Jews also tend to be better educated and wealthier than most Americans, both markers of socially progressive views. (And something that makes the fierce band of neo-con Jews like Norman Podhoretz, author of the recent "Why Are Jews Liberal," even more furious than Lieberman's liberal critics.)

That’s rich; Gibson is calling right-leaning Jews of the Podhoretz school “fierce” and “furious.” Funny, I never witnessed such fierceness and fury. But when you’re a liberal writing for a liberal rag, why back up statements with facts? Just demonize your ideological opponent knowing your readers will buy it and move on. Notice it’s always right-wingers that are “fierce” and “furious” and “angry” and “violent”?

I wouldn’t call this piece anti-Semitic, but I still can’t help but wonder how liberals would react if some conservative publication criticized a Jewish public official in this disrespectful way.

Jewish Support for Obama Tanking - Or Is It?

Last week the Republican Jewish Coalition joyfully issued this press release:

Jewish support for Obama continues to tumble
Wednesday, December 09, 2009 By: RJC Press Office

According to a Quinnipiac poll released today, Jewish support for President Obama has tumbled to 52%. In January, Obama’s approval rating among Jews was 83%; by September it had fallen to 64%, according to a Gallup poll.

The Quinnipiac poll asked respondents whether they approved of President Obama’s handling of specific issues. Only 52% of Jewish respondents approved of the way President Obama is handling the economy, and 49% approved of his handling of health care.

Among Jewish respondents, only 36% were satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the way things are going in the U.S. today.

Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks said, “Overall support for President Obama is falling in this country; Rasmussen polls have pegged him with around 48% approval and 52% disapproval for the last few weeks. [As of Sunday, Dec. 13, the numbers are even lower: 46% vs. 53%.] Even among Jewish voters his numbers are declining quickly.

“Voters are becoming more aware of the details of President Obama’s agenda for this country. The glow of the ‘hope and change’ mantra has faded in the face of the higher unemployment, higher taxes, and higher national debt that his agenda will impose on us and our children.

“In addition, the Jewish community has been troubled by the efforts of this administration to pressure Israel on the issue of ‘settlements’ and has raised questions about the sovereignty of Israel over a united Jerusalem. These and otherwise actions by the President have fueled the growing ‘buyers’ remorse’ on the part of Jewish voters.”

This was gleefully reported by some talk show hosts as well, such as “Rite Jew” Steve Malzberg. But while this news is welcomed by some, I view it skeptically. For one, the polling sample used by Quinnipiac is only 2,313 registered voters, a rather tiny portion of the entire American populace. Rasmussen also uses a small sample: 1500 Likely Voters over a three-day period. Given that Jews make up anywhere from 1.8–2.2% of the U.S. population, it’s possible that these samples comprise only a couple dozen Jews. 

While the Gallup poll seems much more comprehensive—nearly 15,000 adults over 18 polled over the month of September (their most recent)—the number of Jews sampled is 379. While still a small number, I’d trust their 64% number over Quinnipiac’s 52% until Gallup conducts a more up-to-date poll.

I also can go from personal relations: My own list of Facebook friends contain more than 379 Jews, and I can safely guess that of those who voted for Obama—probably 90%—very few of them have jumped off the Obama bandwagon. In fact, I have many Jewish friends who, in the face of my criticism of President Golden Calf and his policies, have become even more supportive of him.

Don’t get me wrong—I’m sure some American Jews have sobered up from their Obama-Kool-Aid Bacchanalia and have seen the truth. I’d just rather have more reliable polling samples to confirm this. So consider me cautiously optimistic.

Surprise Surprise: Anti-Semitism Finds Home in Hard-Left Democrat Party

A relative alerted me to this weekend story from the Jerusalem Post.

Nov 22, 2009 22:34 | Updated Nov 23, 2009 11:10
What a difference 35 years make
By MICHAEL M. ROSEN

In an October 1974 cable to Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, following passage of his legislation helping Soviet Jews emigrate, Israel’s Foreign Minister Yigal Allon wrote that “your efforts in this matter manifest once again your deep understanding of our needs and your constant support of the cause of Israel.” What a difference 35 years make.

Nowadays, liberal members of Jackson’s party routinely cast votes against Israel, while the leftist commentators supporting them relish vilifying the Jewish state. Whether it’s blasting the settlements, criticizing Israel’s Lebanon or Gaza conflicts, or deferring sanctions on Iran, the American Left is more unified than ever in its opposition to Israel and its policies. …

Took you long enough to wake up. I could have told you the left has been been the home to anti-Semitism for years.

Meanwhile, who did the Anti-Defamation League go after last week with charges of fomenting hate, violence, and potentially anti-Semitism? Glenn Beck! Why? Because he is a harsh critic of President Golden Calf's destructive policies and because he says, "I fear for my country." [h/t radio host Steve Malzberg]

It is a topsy-turvy world!

End the Occupation! Cynthia McKinney Preaches Hate and Silences Opposition at Binghamton

Last time former Georgia Democrat Congressman Cynthia McKinney made national news was in 2006, when she struck a Capitol police officer after the supposedly racist bastard had the audacity to stop her for failing to show I.D. But before that embarrassing display, McKinney had amassed a list of anti-white, anti-American, and anti-Semitic remarks. She is truly the embodiment of left-wing hate. 

The mainstream media is very good at reporting supposed right-wing anti-Semitism, like last month when two South Carolina Congressmen made the mistake of stereotyping Jews as being frugal with their money. But radical leftist anti-Semites—especially non-white ones—Louis Farrakhan comes to mind—the media tends to sweep under the rug.

It is also an unfortunate reality that leftist racists and anti-Semites are regular guests at universities, as painstakingly documented by David Horowitz et al. This was the case last week at my wife’s alma mater Binghamton University (formerly SUNY Binghamton). 

McKinney delivered anti-Semitic rant speech called “Black in America, Black in Palestine.” But if that wasn’t bad enough, all opposing views were suppressed via physical intimidation at the speech location and the theft of flyers alerting the Jewish community of McKinney’s visit.

Earlier this week, my wife received this email from the school’s Hillel organization informing alumni of what happened. Had my wife never received it, I would never have known these disgusting events took place:

Dear Friends,

By now, many of you have heard about a disturbing event that took place at Binghamton University on Tuesday, November 10th when former Congresswoman, and noted anti-Israel speaker, Cynthia McKinney came to campus. …

We are deeply saddened that our students were silenced by the event organizers and by physical intimidation. Throughout the evening, event coordinators threatened to remove anyone who offered a dissenting opinion, and during the question and answer period anyone who even hinted at a different point of view was either intimidated or embarrassed into silence. Student “bodyguards” were in place to prevent anyone who had an opposing viewpoint from speaking.

The Jewish campus community has been deeply affected by this incident.

We are concerned that the University’s statement in the above article does not go far enough. It does not condemn the physical intimidation used by event organizers. Furthermore, the University’s statement leaves students to work out conflicts amongst themselves, without University guidance and leadership about what constitutes civil discourse.

We will continue to work with the University to resolve these matters and make our opinions known. …

More details:

Pro-Israel fliers confiscated at campus speech
November 17, 2009

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Fliers distributed by Binghamton University Jewish students outside a campus speech by a critic of Israel were collected and confiscated by event organizers during the event.

Students from the Hillel Jewish Student Union at Binghamton passed out information outside auditorium doors before a Nov. 10 speech by former Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney. The New York State university’s Hillel president, Rebecca Kohn, described the fliers as facts about Israel and Hamas and other points that they did not believe McKinney would address in her speech, which was titled “Black in America, Black in Palestine.”

But before McKinney spoke, leaders of the Binghamton Political Initiative, a graduate-student organized group, asked that anyone who had received a Hillel flier should pass them to the end of the row so they could be collected.

Kohn also said that during the question period, those who asked questions critical of McKinney’s views were quickly cut off or embarrassed. For example, when one pro-Israel questioner briefly stuttered from nerves, McKinney held up the flier that Hillel passed out and said, “Do you need this?”

An article by Hillel describing the events of the McKinney speech was printed as a letter to the editor in the campus newspaper last Friday. Kohn said Hillel was reaching out to the Binghamton Political Initiative to discuss the event. The event was co-sponsored by the Multicultural Resource Center and other campus organizations.

A university spokeswoman said Tuesday that school administrators had met with the Hillel director to discuss Jewish student concerns and said the school hoped that students could work out the issue among themselves.

“While the University defends the right of event organizers to determine the content of their programs, we hope and expect that all attendees at events held on campus will be treated respectfully regardless as to the extent of their agreement with the program’s message,” the university said in a statement. “When that does not occur, our response is to continue to work with students and student organizations to promote a more respectful community. Part of that work is helping students to develop the necessary tools to resolve disputes effectively amongst themselves.”

The statement also said that “student organizations are under no requirement to be neutral or balanced in their expressive activity and we have been made aware of concerns that the hosts of this event were not interested in presenting critiques of the guest speaker as part of the program. At Binghamton University, as at most campuses, those who stand in disagreement with a program’s message certainly have many alternative avenues available to them to express their own viewpoints including hosting their own events, letter writing campaigns and rallies.”

Kohn said that while the administration had met with the campus Hillel director, no one had met with any Jewish students. She said the university’s statement amounted to administrators saying that while they did not approve of the disrespect shown to attendees at the McKinney speech, they were not going to take any action.

McKinney, whose father famously blamed “J-E-W-S” when she was defeated in a race for re-election to her Atlanta-area congressional district in 2002, has most recently been involved in the Free Gaza movement. She was arrested last summer by Israel for attempting to break the naval blockade on the Gaza Strip and called Israel’s operation in Gaza “full-scale, outright genocide.”

During her Binghamton speech, she made comparisons between Palestinians and blacks in America, and called Israel an apartheid state.

Binghamton Hillel published this response:

Response to Cynthia McKinney
Published Monday, November 16, 2009

by Hillel Executive Board

We write to you because our voices have been silenced.

Tuesday night former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney spoke at Binghamton University at an event sponsored by the Binghamton Political Initiative, the Walter Rodney Committee and other campus groups. While we expected her speech to be biased against Israel, based on her well-documented record of past presentations of this nature, we were utterly unprepared for our opposing points of view to be so forcefully suppressed.

As executive board members of Hillel at Binghamton and members of an academic community, we felt that it was our responsibility to educate our peers on all angles of the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Therefore, we had spent the week leading up to the event preparing handouts with information representing various points of view that we believed would not be shared by Ms. McKinney.

To our shock, at the beginning of last night’s event, student coordinators were forcibly taking this information away from people. The moderator publicly announced that anyone who received handouts should pass them to the aisle for immediate confiscation. These actions are unacceptable. As students at an institution that promotes academic honesty, integrity, and truth, we are angered that our right to free speech was so clearly denied. Once we distributed the sheets, those who held them had the choice to read the information or disregard it, but it was in no way the coordinators’ or moderator’s right to aggressively take away that choice.

Throughout the evening, student coordinators threatened to remove anyone who offered a dissenting opinion, and during the question and answer period anyone who even hinted at a different point of view was either intimidated or embarrassed into silence. An extreme lack of respect was shown to anyone in attendance who did not wholeheartedly endorse Ms. McKinney’s presentation.

As representatives of the Jewish community on campus, we are outraged that our fellow students chose to bring a speaker to campus who has such a clear record of bigotry. MsMcKinney is strongly tied to the New Black Panther Party, which the Southern Poverty Law Center calls a “black racist” group and is decidedly anti-white and anti-semitic. In 2006,McKinney lost her seat in congress. “Following McKinney’s concession speech, a reporter attempted to ask the Congresswoman why she thought she lost. The New Black Panther member (part of McKinney’s security detail) interrupted, shouting, “Why do you think she lost? You wanna know what led to the loss? Israel. The Zionists. You. Put on your yarmulke and celebrate.” (Anti Defamation League Press Release, August 9, 2006)

We are deeply saddened by the fact that our peers who planned this event clearly had no desire for any real discourse other than the hate speech that was delivered to the audience. While we do not have to agree with one another, we do have a responsibility to respect one another and allow for the open exchange of opinions. Ms. McKinney’s visit to Binghamton was an affront to any multicultural efforts on campus. Furthermore, it insults the significant struggles that African-Americans went through to gain civil rights in the United States and the Jewish community’s support for those civil rights. Jewish leaders marched in Montgomery and Selma. Fifty percent of white civil rights workers were Jewish and fifty percent of civil rights attorneys in the south were Jewish. Jews helped to found the NAACP. Historically Black Colleges welcomed professors who were Holocaust survivors to teach on their campuses. Ms. McKinney wants us to throw away this glorious shared history and begin a new relationship of bitterness and misunderstanding.

We sincerely disagree with this approach and hope that the leaders of all multicultural groups at Binghamton University share our desire to work together to combat hate and intolerance by creating opportunities for real dialogue. We look forward to a day when we can truly partner with our fellow students and learn to understand and respect one another’s backgrounds.

Hillel E-Board

What’s sad is that Hillel seems surprised that this type of hate speech happened on their campus and that voices of opposition were systematically surpressed. 

But this is the standard MO of the left: spread lies and hate and silence opposition. The mainstream media does it, the Obama administration is doing it, and on left-wing-dominated college campus they are most certainly doing it.

Here’s another sad thing about coverage of this incident: Not once is McKinney’s Democrat party affiliation mentioned.

END THE OCCUPATION! LIBERALS OUT OF THE SCHOOLS NOW!

Profiles in Liberal Ignorance, Hate, and Intolerance: Louis Farrakhan on the Ft. Hood Massacre

Jim at Gateway Pundit reports on an interview with “Nation of Islam” Leader Louis Farrakhan, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on November 6. In it, Farrakhan blames the Ft. Hood massacre on the foreign policy of George W. Bush and on the climate of anti-Muslim sentiment fostered by Jews and Christians alike during his administration. Take it away, Calypso Louie:

As you know, since 9/11, in America and in other parts of the world, those anti-Islamic forces have stepped up their efforts to make Muslims… to cause the Muslims to be looked at as uncivilized, savage, or wicked people. This is an attempt by anti-Islamic forces, and some members of the Jewish community, and some members of the Christian community, who have united to condemn Islam …

It is because, my dear brothers and sisters, Islam was making so much progress in the United States that those anti-Islamic forces are trying to stem the tide of the progress of Islam. …

When there are Muslims who love America, and who join the armed forces to protect America, and to serve the interests of America, and then America, unfortunately, under the falsehoods of the George. W. Bush administration, launches attacks against Iraq and against Afghanistan, and now, those soldiers are killing Muslims… So when they go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the kind of hatred that is built up in the American forces, when they call the Muslims “ragheads” and “desert niggers,” and then, in the Abu Ghureib prison, Muslim women were raped, and Muslim men were sodomized …

All this affects Muslims serving in the army. So when you are being insulted by your superior officers or by your fellow soldiers, at some point, a person might break. Unfortunately, I believe this is what happened to Captain Nidhal Hassan.

Isn’t is amazing when it’s hard to tell when a hateful anti-American rant is being delivered by the leader of the Nation of Islam or by an MSNBC commentator?

Speaking of which, my initial reaction to these statements (other than disgust) was to ask: Hey, ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBCNYTLATWaPo: Will any of you be reporting on this, actual, hate speech (as opposed from the fake hate speech by Rush Limbaugh et al., which is basically any speech that doesn’t echo the liberal template)? Or will you dutifully sweep it under the rug since the speaker is a close personal friend of President Hope&Change’s pastor of 20+ years?

And then I realized: This interview was from November 6. It’s now November 18, and this is the first time I’m hearing about it.

Should I be surprised?

Terrorist-Lover Lynne Stewart Ordered to Jail

She'd probably consider her new orange jumpsuit a badge of honor, but whatever. She can do a whole lot less harm to our country behind bars.

Michelle Malkin has the story.

Ways the Left Has Screwed Up My Country Today: U.S. Agency Helping Palestinians De-Hebraize West Bank

Skimming my favorite sites for anything new and interesting to blog about, I came across this story that I missed from August 27, from the blog of Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes:

American Taxpayer Money Spent on Eradicating Hebrew-Language Signs

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), an independent federal agency “that receives overall foreign policy guidance from the Secretary of State” has embarked on a four-year, $20-million project to help Palestinians prepare for statehood in the West Bank by replacing road signs that include Arabic, English, and Hebrew with ones just in Arabic and English.

Comment: So much for the prospects of normalization, harmonious peace, or a Palestinian population content to live side-by-side with Israel. (August 27, 2009)

Not only that, but isn’t such a move closed-minded and exclusionary? Israel gets called an “apartheid state” by the likes of Jimmah Carter (who on January 20, 2009 became the second-worst president in American history) and gets compared to Nazi Germany for its “genocidal” treatment of the Palestinian people by the anti-Semitic Left including those who run Barack Obama’s own “Organize for America” website.

Not only are both charges patently false—Israel treats its Arab citizens better than their native countries do—but in Israel most public signs are in Hebrew, English, and Arabic. (Don’t you remember how Nazi Germany had printed its road signs in German and Yiddish?)

So here is “Palestine”—purportedly the victim of Israeli genocide and general mistreatment—engaging in wiping anything Jewish/Israeli from its territory, i.e., making the West Bank Judenrein (Jew-free).

This story was from August 27. It’s now November 8. Hello? Any liberal-Democrat Jews out there? This is your precious Obama government funding this.

Meanwhile, this afternoon about 3,000 Reform Jews are returning home from the Union for Reform Judaism’s Biennial convention in Toronto. Having attended these conventions in the past, I can safely bet it was rife with Obama stickers and other such paraphrenalia (At their 2005 convention in Houston, among the invited speakers were Madeleine Albright and Robert Reich, two former Clinton administration members. Yeah, that’s fair and balanced.)

Not sure who was invited to speak this year, but I doubt anyone was talking about how their hero, President Golden Calf, has been helping the Palestinians slowly but systematically wipe Israel off the map.

Which is reason #657581 why I will never rejoin the Reform movement.

Profiles in Liberal Ignorance, Hate, and Intolerance: Larry David [UPDATED 10/30]

Yesterday, true to fascist form, President Golden Calf signed into law a shameful speech-suppressing “Hate Crime” Bill. With the stroke of a pen, government apparatchiks elected and unelected can now decide according to their leftist politically-correct will that my life (a white heterosexual male) and the lives of my wife and two small children (also white) are not equal in the eyes of the law to that lives of, say, an ethnic minority or homosexual. It is a divisive identity-politics-obsessed leftist’s dream come true. Which is why Obama, his Democrat flunkies, and media sycophants, are all excited about it.

(But remember, it was Bush and company that was shredding the Constitution.)

What’s more, this civil-liberty-violating piece of legislation will no doubt allow government apparatchiks elected and unelected to decide according to their leftist politically-correct well whether what you say is punishable as a crime. Remember the Thought Police in Orwell’s 1984? Congratulations. In 2009 they came officially into being.

Of course, not all offensive speech or violence is going to fall under this bill, because, as I said, the list of real or perceived victims is short and finite. If you’re white, male, heterosexual, and/or Christian, forget being protected. By virtue of your mere existence, you are automatically a suspect, and not a victim.

Consider: The very day before the signing, HBO’s “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” created by and starring Jewish uber-liberal Larry David, had a shameful and offensive scene. An entertainment website A.V. Club reviews the episode in question:

… there was the Jesus pee tear miracle, aka Larry David’s own personal Piss Christ. Is it believable that Larry pees like an out-of-control firehose on full blast because of some medicine he’s taking? Sure. Is it then believable that his errant urine would splash onto a picture of Jesus’ face that’s near the toilet in Maureen’s house? Sure, why not? Is it at all believable that Larry would see the pee tear of his own design on Jesus’ face and not wipe it off? Uh, no. No one would leave their host’s bathroom literally dripping with their own urine, if they could at all help it. But if Larry didn’t run out of Maureen’s house like spooked, neurotic deer, then Maureen and her mom never would have thought they’d witnessed a miracle—which was an important card in the unstable, unwieldy house of cards that lead up to Maureen’s rooftop lovehandle rescue. Still, Larry should have wiped it off. Anyone would have wiped it off.

But in the process of analyzing the “believability” of the episode, the commentator makes no judgment statement about the utter offensiveness of this. 

Can you imagine what the Anti-Defamation League (with whom I am normally in agreement, just for clarification) would do if a Christian comedian jokingly got pee on the Torah?

What if a comedian pissed (even accidentally) on a picture of Mohammed? Ask that Danish newspaper what the outcry would be.

You might be wondering why I, a Jew, am getting so worked up about the desecration of a picture of Jesus. It’s a matter of principle and common decency, that’s why. It’s also because if we expect the Christian community to rally behind us if a Jewish sacred item is desecrated, we should be expected to do the same. If we Kol Yisrael arevim zeh ba-zeh: We are all responsible for one another.

Over at Big Hollywood:

Larry David’s ‘Piss Christ’

An email received today:

“First let me state that I’ve been a fan of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” for many years and, even though Larry David is a liberal, I generally enjoy the writing and Larry’s antics. However, this time what I saw made me feel a little sick, extremely disappointed and a bit angry as well. I will never watch the show again as I have lost all respect and feelings of good will for Mr. David.

“Did you happen to see the episode to which I refer? Assuming you did not catch the episode, briefly stated: Larry pisses on the face of a painting of Jesus Christ, followed by mocking of Christians who believe the piss drop on the face of Jesus is a tear, thus they’ve witnessed a miracle. I wonder how many other viewers, Christian and non Christian, are similarly shocked and disgusted? Of course, the hypocrisy is that Mr. David would never exhibit such gross contempt for any other religion, especially Islam.

“Can you imagine the sh*t storm that would follow if David pissed on a painting of the prophet Muhammad? Of course, HBO, the complicit scum that they are, would not have allowed that to air.”

You see how the hypocritical, PC game is played?

Rush Limbaugh was fired years ago from ESPN for making a non-racist comment that was nevertheless deemed racist. Yet Larry David will not apologize, nor will he be expected to.

Just the other day ESPN commentator David Griese was made to apologize and was then suspended for joking that a Mexican NASCAR driver was out somewhere eating a taco. Yet Larry David will not apologize nor will he be expected to.

Currently, the father of a Connecticut 9/11 is battling his town. On a public memorial of his son they are refusing to inscribe the words “Murdered by Muslim Terrorists” for fear it could be offensive to Muslims. But I’m sure the suits at HBO had no problem allowing Larry David to splatter urine on a picture of Jesus on their T.V. channel, even though it could be offensive to Christians. (Indeed it is to many.)

I am informed Jerry Seinfeld appeared in this episode. Even though he had nothing to do with the urination scene, shame on him for being part of such an episode. And shame on that hateful and hypocritical Larry David. You make the rest of us Jews look bad.

UPDATE 10/30: Allahpundit at Hot Air has posted the scene in question from YouTube.

And the Anchoress ponders:

Forget Jewish, forget Muslim. If, let’s say, Kelsey Grammer had done precisely the same thing on his show, but using an image of, oh, let’s just say ferinstance, Barack Obama, do you think he’d still have a career?

Finally, Jamie Glazov at Front Page Mag’s Newsreal blog page opines:

Are producers of this show, or Larry David, or anyone else connected to it fearing for their lives right now? Are there Christian groups calling for the death of anyone in connection to this episode?

In comparison, let us say, to the Muhammad cartoons riots and death threats, what does this say about Islam and Christianity? Which faith is a Religion of Peace and which one is not?

Would the producers of this show have just as easily allowed a scene in which Larry David urinates on a Koran? He couldn’t urinate on a picture of Muhammad because we all know that making a representation of Muhammad gets you an immediate death sentence. So we have to settle for the Holy Book. But how much does anyone want to bet that this would never be allowed?

Question: Why in our culture is urinating on Jesus easily permitted but urinating on the Koran is simply unthinkable? What does this signify?

And why is it that the people who right now are rolling their eyes and saying that Christians should get a life because this is freedom of expression, the same ones who would be up in arms if Larry David had done the same thing to the Koran? They are the ones who blamed the artists of the Muhammad cartoons for provoking and upsetting Muslims. They are the ones who argue that, when it comes to the sensibilities of Muslims, free speech has limits. If Curb Your Enthusiasm had an episode in which Larry David urinated on a Koran, they would be on the front lines saying that this is Islamophobia and that we must be sensitive to the feelings of Muslims, etc. It would be deemed as hate speech. There would be lawsuits and the show would be cancelled and David’s career would be over.

HBO has come to the defense of the episode, saying that it is all about parody. Everyone needs to lighten up. So, if Larry David urinated on the Koran, would HBO tell everyone they need to lighten up because it is parody? What does it say that we know for a fact that the latter would simply never happen?

What meaning and lesson do we draw from this?

As discussed above, the lesson is simple: Some religious, racial, ethnic, and political groups can be ridiculed and offended with impunity; others cannot. The arbitrary rules are drawn up by a politically correct, purely result-oriented ilk who have apparently succeeded in imposing their twisted worldview onto the rest of us.

Schmuck Republicans: Edwin Merwin (R-SC) and James Ulmer (R-SC) [UPDATED: Apologies]

JTA reports this morning:

SC GOPers: DeMint like a Jew watching our nation’s pennies’
October 19, 2009

Two South Carolina Republican officials defended Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) by likening him to Jews who "take care of the pennies."

Bamberg County GOP Chairman Edwin Merwin and Orangeburg County GOP Chairman James Ulmer wrote the Orangeburg Times and Democrat to defend DeMint after a Democratic politician said he didn't help direct enough funds to local projects. "There is a saying that the Jews who are wealthy got that way not by watching dollars, but instead by taking care of the pennies and the dollars taking care of themselves," the chairmen write. "By not using earmarks to fund projects for South Carolina and instead using actual bills, DeMint is watching our nation’s pennies and trying to preserve our country’s wealth and our economy’s viability to give all an opportunity to succeed."

The Palmetto Scoop, a conservative website in the state, said such comments underscored the Republican Party's difficulties.

"It's people like Ulmer and Merwin that make many folks fear for the future of the once Grand Ole Party," it said.

I'm going to say at the onset that this is not the most innocuous example of remarks. I don't even think it's necessarily anti-Semitic, but more an ignorant "stereotype" remark. But, to be sure, it was an inartful (as Obama administration apologists say) way to explain DeMint's fiscal frugality.

At least when a Republican says a stupid bigoted comment, the rest of the party reprimands them. Yet Democrat anti-Semites, or those who are friends with them, get a free pass for decades.

Just trying to put things in context, that's all. Let's not be selective in our outrage. One might question our intellectual honesty.

UPDATE 12:45 PM: Late this morning, the Republican Jewish Coalition posted this press release:

UPDATE: S. Carolina GOP leaders apologize for insensitive reference to Jews
Tuesday, October 20, 2009 By: RJC Press Office

Washington, D.C. (October 20, 2009) — The RJC has learned that Edwin O. Merwin, Jr. and James S. Ulmer Jr. apologized swiftly for the insensitive reference to Jews in their Sunday article in The Times and Democrat.

Late Monday, Mr. Ulmer wrote:

Last week I co-authored a letter to the editor which focused on the vital importance of reining in the unsustainable and excessive federal government spending which is going on currently in Washington, D.C. In one of the paragraphs which I wrote, I quoted a statement which I have heard many times in my life, truly in admiration for a method of bettering one's lot in life.

I admit that perception is indeed reality to many and that I could have certainly worded that sentence much better. I sincerely apologize for this great error. If I had quoted that great man from Pennsylvania, Ben Franklin, using his, "A penny saved is a penny earned," I doubt I would be writing this note.

I meant absolutely nothing derogatory by the reference to a great and honorable people. I hope that anyone and all who were offended by my comment will accept my humble apology.

Early Tuesday morning, Mr. Merwin wrote:

Last week I co-authored a letter to the editor that focused on the vital importance of reining in the unsustainable and excessive federal government spending which is going on currently in Washington, D.C.

At this time I wish to deeply apologize for any material included in that letter that would be considered antisemitic in any way. I have always abhorred in the past, and shall continue to do so in the future, antisemitism in any form whatsoever. I concur fully with the apology offered by my co-author, Jim Ulmer, and likewise beg that any and all who were offended will accept my deep felt apology.

The Republican Jewish Coalition appreciates the prompt and sincere apologies.

Apology accepted. That took just two days.

Now, should we expect any time soon for Jesse Jackson to apologize for his “Hymie Town” remark in 1984?

Or Al Sharpton for his “diamond merchants” remark in 1991?

Or Barack Obama for fraternizing with overt Jew-hating radical Islamist Rashid Khalidi?

Or Barack Obama for doing nothing when contributors to his “Organize for America” website compared Jews to Nazis and Palestinians to concentration camp victims only two weeks ago?

Or Barack Obama for seeking to negotiate without preconditions with Iran’s Israel-threatening, Holocaust-denying dictator Ahmedinejad?

Or Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright for referring to the president’s Jewish WH staff “them Jews” in June?

Didn’t think so.

Like I said earlier, let's not be selective in our outrage. One might question our intellectual honesty.

Ayatollah Khamenei Dead

At least that's what's being reported by Pravda (and we all know how reliable they can be!). And Pravda's source is the Iran opposition party sooo ... Could this really be the end of a figure who has been a cancer on the planet since the Reagan days? (Oh, sorry, one should not speak ill of the dead ... Where are my manners!?)

End the Occupation! At St. Louis U., Radical Leftist Speakers OK, But Not Conservative Horowitz

Here we have yet another example of how our universities have become bastions of closed-mindedness that suppresses all speech that doesn’t espouse politically correct left-wing ideology. Although St. Louis University has had no problem bringing in speakers like radical anti-Israel self-hating Jew Norman Finkelstein in the past, SLU was forced to cancel an appearance by lefty-turned-conservative David Horowitz because he has the audacity to address uncomfortable questions about Islam. Robert Cravatts at Front Page Mag has this story:

As yet more evidence that American campuses have become, in Abigail Thernstrom’s apt description, “islands of repression in a sea of freedom,” St. Louis University has demonstrated that that free speech on campuses begins and ends according to how well that speech conforms to existing political orthodoxies. The University’s College Republicans and Young America’s Foundation had invited conservative author David Horowitz to deliver a speech entitled, “An Evening with David Horowitz: Islamo-Fascism Awareness and Civil Rights,” and university administrators, once again choosing to avoid a close examination of radical Islam, cancelled Horowitz’s planned appearance.

What St. Louis University’s administration has done here is essentially to exercise the “heckler’s veto,” shutting down speech with which it does not agree, or which is feels is too controversial for certain protected minorities on campus; but ominously, and in seeming contradiction to the school’s own stated policy “to promote the free and open exchange of ideas and viewpoints, even if that exchange proves to be offensive, distasteful, disturbing or denigrating to some,” this particular speech was suppressed in advance of the event, based on a belief that the speaker’s words would possibly insult Muslim students and inflame their sensibilities.

And we certainly wouldn’t want to do that, would we—inflame the sensibilities of adherents to the “religion of peace.” Only in the topsy-turvy world of PC-poisoned liberalism could this make sense.

But remember: It’s the right that’s intolerant and closed-minded. Whatever.

End the occupation! Liberals out of the schools NOW!

Liberal Media Bias: How Does the Guardian Really Feel About Israeli Nobel Winners?

Melanie Phillips at the Spectator reports [h/t Mark Steyn]:

Here is a little quiz. The [U.K.] Guardian has posted up a list here of everyone who has won the Nobel Peace Prize since its inception.

Q: Which three names are omitted from the Guardian list (even though they do appear on the Nobelprize.org list which the Guardian has purportedly reproduced)?***

A: Menachem Begin, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin.

And what is the common link between these three names? Precisely.

It appears someone at the Guardian actually went to the effort of removing the names of the three Israeli statesmen who won the prize. Facts are sacred?

Here’s a further curiosity. If you look at the years 1978 and 1994, although the Guardian has air-brushed out the names of Begin, Peres and Rabin it has apparently added in the name of their country, Israel, which is given in a neighbouring column—thus managing to suggest that Sadat and Arafat represented Israel along with Egypt and ‘Palestine’ in winning the prize in those years. So what happend? Did the hand typing in the name of the country accidentally hit the keys three times so that the names that went with it were coincidentally all deleted?

Tsk—standards of censorship on Planet Bigotry are clearly slipping.

***Update, 1650: Lo and behold, the three Israeli names have now been added to the Guardian list.

Oh well, that’s better. Must’ve been an innocent oversight …

Liberal Anti-Semitism: Hope, Change, and Those Zionist Nazis

The Left has going completely apoplectic about right-wing “hate speech.” You should see what they’ve been saying about El Rushbo, Mark Levin, and the other hosts, especially since Obama’s ego took an Olympic-sized crash in Copenhagen.

Guess they’ve been too busy to notice the real hate speech, anti-Semitic speech to be exact, that has been taking place … right on President Obama’s own website “Organizing for America.” Gateway Pundit documents comments, articles, and pictures likening Israel to Nazis and concentration camp children to Palestinian children. References to Israel as the “Zionist enterprise” have appeared since the summer. Now it’s October …

Yes, that sound of chirping crickets you hear is the mainstream media.

Yeah yeah, I know, Obama-worshping Jewish liberals/Democrats. You’re going to say that Obama can’t be responsible for the things that get posted on his website’s community blog.

First of all, B.S. If the man can have someone monitor private citizens who spread “lies” about his draconian health (s)care plan, he can certainly have someone filter hate speech posted to his website. It’s not hard to do. It’s not an issue of ability; it’s an issue of desire.

Second, turn the tables around and tell me if this kind of crap was posted on a website associated with the Bush administration, you’d give W a pass.

Yeah, I thought so.

Looks like the next logical question is: What did Obama know and when did he know it?

Around the Web in 80 Minutes (10/1/09)

First, at National Review Online, Victor Davis Hanson gives it to us straight on the current lethal state of international affairs:

October 1, 2009
Three Dangerous Stooges

Last week, three dictators — from Iran, Libya, and Venezuela — delivered lunatic hate-speeches at the General Assembly of the United Nations. Why do these anti-Semitic dictators feel so free to damn America from downtown New York? Why do their abettors spurn our requests for help? And why do creepy regimes plot to get nukes, and fund terrorists? Easy. They do not fear, much less listen to, an indebted and energy-hungry America that either needs their cash or oil — or both.

Next, at American Thinker, Randall Hoven has all you need to know about ObamaCare, but were terrified to ask:

October 01, 2009
Nothing for Everyone

Just about all of us want some kind of health care reform. But different people want different things from that reform. One trouble with crafting legislation that would make some people happy is that it would make other people unhappy. But the proposals put forth so far by Democrats, and supported by President Obama, have the unique gift of satisfying virtually no one. ObamaCare, inasmuch as there is such a thing, is bound to disappoint you, no matter what you'd like to see in health care reform.

Next, David Horowitz at Front Page Mag castigates the mainstream media for being so busy fear-mongering about predicted right-wing violence that they’ve failed to report about all the actual left-wing violence that has been taking place:

Serious Fascists in America

There are serious fascists in America. But they’re on the political Left.

I wrote yesterday about Glenn Beck’s feature on the violent demonstration by leftists in Pittsburgh (which was covered up by the New York Times and the rest of the left-wing media.) He also reported on the bombing of a radio tower in the State of Washington by the Earth Liberation Front — a left-wing terrorist organization — which went equally unreported. Instead we are treated to a rash of hand-wringings by liberals like Tom Friedman who talk about incitements that could lead to the assassination of President Obama.

Pete Wehner has an excellent blog on this hypocrisy, recalling that a film was actually made by leftists portraying the assassination of President Bush among many other incitements against him by leftists with no — absolutely no — complaints by Friedman and the NY Times. In fact the whole Democratic Party leadership accused Bush of lying to get us into a war and killing young Americans in the process.

Also recommended: Peter Wehner’s Commentary post, which is cited in the above article.

Finally, the Weekly Standard has published the eulogy William Kristol delivered for his father last week:

Irving Kristol, 1920-2009
10/05/2009, Volume 015, Issue 03

In 1994, my father wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal titled "Life Without Father." It dealt with the subject of the family and poverty and welfare--with my father drawing for his argument, as he so often did, on a combination of social science, common sense, history, and personal experience. In the course of the article, my father briefly discussed his father, Joseph Kristol--who, he wrote, "was thought by all our relatives and his fellow workers to be wise, and fair, and good. I thought so too."

So have Liz and I always thought about our father. To us, he was wise, and fair, and good. I honestly don't think it ever occurred to us that we could have had a better father. So as we enter the rest of our life--a life without our father--we are overwhelmed not by a sense of loss or grief, though of course we feel both, but by a sense of gratitude: Having Irving Kristol as our dad was our great good fortune.

Have a blessed day!