Vocal Minority

Liberal Media Bias: NYT, WaPo Cover Attack by Jews, Not Against Jews

From American Thinker:

At NY Times and WaPo, Arab pain trumps Jewish pain

... In Jerusalem, in a despicable hate crime, a mob of Jewish youngsters assaulted an Arab youth, beating him mercilessly while no one intervened.  The victim was left bloodied, unconscious and had to be hospitalized.

The incident prompted wide coverage in the Israeli press and lengthy reports by the New York Times and the Washington Post.

The Times said it shed light on a backdrop of Israeli "racism and violence" and wondered "how Israeli society could have come to this point."  Its own diagnosis was that the attack occurred in a "poisoned political environment that affected the moral compass of youths growing in it."

The Post, which devoted three quarters of a page to the assault, reported that "the vicious beating of an Arab teenager by a mob of Jewish youths prompted soul-searching about the depth of ethnic hatred in Israeli society."

At about the same time, in an eerie parallel with the shocking attack in Jerusalem, a Jewish student at Michigan State University was attacked at an off-campus party by a couple of men, who he said asked him if he was Jewish and then gave the Nazi salute, yelling "Heil Hitler," as they proceeded to beat him.  He was left unconscious with a broken jaw and his mouth stapled shut.  He also required hospitalization.

The MSU incident prompted coverage in the Israeli press and some U.S. media, including the New York Daily News.

But as to the New York Times and the Washington Post, with three days on, these two newspapers have yet to take notice of what happened at that MSU party.  So far, not a single paragraph, not a single sentence.

A Sign of Awakening Among American Jews?

Last week I attended a four-day Jewish conference. Having attended it several times over the past several years, I am fully aware of the prominently left-liberal leanings of the crowd (which has comprised anywhere from 500-1200 people).

That has meant righties like myself have had to tread lightly when political discussions come up. I pick my battles carefully and stick in my two shekels only when I’m pretty sure my audience is somewhat open to debate without confrontation or ad hominem attacks. In fact, my usual contingent of friends at this conference—all left-of-center—know where I stand and we’ve actually engaged in lively debates around the meal tables.

Anyone else of my ideological ilk at this conference I’ve been able to count on one hand. And I didn’t expect that to change this year ‘round. But what follows is something I did not expect:

Someone at this year’s conference thought it would be a good idea to hold lunchtime discussions on various topics regarding Judaism, but the one that caught my eye immediately was, “Barack or Mitt: Who’s better for the Jews.” Assuming I was going to be the token Romney supporter, I eventually mustered up enough courage to sign up for that one.

When I walked into the classroom there were only three other people. None of us had met before and after introductions I immediately assumed I was going to be the lone Romney supporter: There was a woman in her late 40’s/early 50’s from Washington State, a young woman around 30 who was from Boston and a graduate of the very left-feminist Bryn Mawr College, and a young man in his early 20’s from Washington, D.C.

Well, you can imagine my surprise when both young people explained how their constantly being surrounded by nonstop liberal ism had turned them into hard core Republicans! Granted, their social predilections were more on the liberal side but still, these two young people knew well enough to vote Republican in 2008 and they were definitely going to it again in November. Only the older woman was a Democrat, and even she said she was coming to this discussion with an open mind about the other side!

About 45 minutes into our discussion, during which we three Republicans were as respectful and tolerant toward the lone Democrat as possible, a fifth person came in. He was around 70 and I’ve known him through this conference for many years. He’s your staunch liberal Democrat, and during those Bush years, he and I had gone back and forth quite passionately, so his entrance into the debate really riled things up. Still, at this Jewish conference, Republicans still outnumbered Democrats.

Then another woman (mid 50’s?) came in to the classroom, but not to join the convsersation. She was delivering the workshop that was scheduled in that room following lunch and came early to set up. Well, not even five minutes after our conversation continued, that woman piped in from the opposite corner of the room, and proceeded to deliver the most delicious anti-Obama rant I’d heard all week!

So, to tally up, at a conference of around 500 predominantly liberal Jews, I was sitting in a classroom where people were invited to discuss the upcoming presidential election and Romney supporters outnumbered Obamabots 2-1!

Where were the other Obama supporters, I thought? Were they busy participating at a lunch conversation in another classroom? Why were they not here making a case for their Golden Calf?

Whatever the reason, you can imagine I left that lunch discussion a little more optimistic about Obama and the Jewish vote. Don’t get me wrong, I am fully aware he’ll get the majority of us. But it seems it won’t be as much as last time around.

Jewish Floridians Rebel Against Obama for the 2nd Time

Today Joel Pollak at Breitbart reports 

Earlier this month, UN Ambassador Susan Rice--a key mouthpiece for the Obama campaign in 2008--appeared at B'nai Torah Congregation in Boca Raton, Florida. Several dozen members of the community staged a silent walkout; many more who were suspected of planning a protest were barred from entering. The spectacle of Jews being told they could not enter a synagogue--or threatened with trespassing for having entered one--was recorded and made its way onto YouTube, where activists raised outrage against the synagogue and its rabbi.

This marks the second time this month that a visit from an Obama lackey to a synagogue. As Pollak himself mentions, the insufferable DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was dis-invited from speaking at a Boca Raton temple when congregants complained about the political inappropriateness of the visit.

Good for you, folks! You telling me these Obama critics wouldn't be celebrated as heroes is the president were still George W. Bush and a member of his team came to speak? Of course they would!

Obama's Jews telling critics to shut up, again

From Abby Schachter at the NY Post.

Obama's Jews are at it again. The Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee are once more advocating that the President's critics shut up. Last time it was about Israel, this time it is about religion.

According to a letter entitled "Religion in political campaigns -- An interfaith statement of principles" , signed by a variety of religious organizations, there should be less discussion of religion among those seeking political office. After allowing that those running for office are "free to worship as they choose" (well, thank you very much!) the letter warns as follows:

"There is a point, however, where an emphasis on religion in a political campaign becomes inappropriate and even unsettling in a religiously diverse society such as ours. Appealing to voters along religious lines is divisive. It is contrary to the American ideal of including all Americans in the political process, regardless of whether they are members of large and powerful religious groups, religious minorities, or subscribe to no faith tradition."

Signatories include the usual suspects in terms of Jewish Obama defenders -- the ADL, the AJC, and the Union of Reform Judaism. Funny. but these groups didn't see fit to warn against religiously-based Jewish endorsements of Candidiate Obama in 2008, for example the group Rabbis for Obama . Somehow advocating casting a vote for the Democratic presidential candidate for religious reasons wasn't "divisive" back then. ...

 

Liberal Fascism: HHS Now Inspecting, Regulating Pre-K Lunches (in N.C.)

This was the first story out of the gate when El Rushbo came on today:

Preschooler’s Homemade Lunch Replaced with Cafeteria “Nuggets”
State agent inspects sack lunches, forces preschoolers to purchase cafeteria food instead
By Sara Burrows Feb. 14th, 2012

RAEFORD [North Carolina]— A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.

The girl’s mother — who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation — said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.

Now, as close to perfect as El Rushbo is, there are two things he seemed to overlook in his commentary that followed. First, at least the way he presented it, this seemed to be a federal mandate, but the Division of Child Development yada yada yada is actually a division of the North Carolina state HHS Dep't. The article didn't specify one way or another whether this mandate was being imposed by a state or federal department, but I really think it's the former.

Not that this can't eventually go nationwide; in fact, as soon as the Obama administration finds out about this, they'll be giddy to get it started in your state too!

Which brings me to the next thing Rush missed, because he's not Jewish: Two of the required items in pre-K lunches are one meat item and one milk item. This can pose a problem for Jewish institutions with pre-K programs if they observe kashrut (the Jewish dietary laws prohibit the mixing of meat and dairy products.)

Now, all of last week I was in quite a heated debate with several Jewish and non-Jewish Facebook friends about the Obama mandate that forces Catholic institutions to provide free contraception for their employees. Some Obama-worshiping Jewish liberals did agree with me that the contraception mandate was a governmental overreach. Others, however, were not fazed by it at all. One friend who's very pro-choice abortion called this blatant violation of the First Amendment a "non-issue."

These were the same people, by the way, who just a week before were caterwauling about Susan J. Komen rescinding their donation to Planned Parenthood. That was a problem for them. The contraception mandate was not. See what liberals consider as priorities?

So, what would such people say if they woke up one day to find the Obama administration forcing Jewish pre-K programs to adhere to their USDA requirements, thereby violating their own religious beliefs?

I know what I'd tell them: First, I'd call them hypocrites. Then I'd tell them not to say I didn't warn them.

Reactions to Obama URJ Speech

On Friday morning, as Reform (read: liberal) Jews lined up and endured security checks to see President Obama's address, I snarkily posted on my Facebook page that I "warn the ghost of Moses to stay away from D.C. There's a Golden Calf in town and we all know what happened the last time he saw thousands of Jews worshiping a false idol." That drew many "Likes," including from some non-Jews.

Here are what some Jewish commentators said about the performance. The first two are from Jonathan Tobin at Commentary:

Obama’s Jewish Pitch: Liberal, Not Israel

That Obama’s speech followed a lengthy tribute at the event on the 50^th anniversary of Reform’s Religious Action Center was not exactly a coincidence. The RAC is the embodiment of the belief by some that the liberal political stands are indistinguishable from Judaism. Much of the RAC’s agenda: support for abortion, Obamacare, “economic justice” (so defined as to encompass support for higher taxes and more entitlement spending) and gay marriage are not Jewish issues even if they are ideas that many Jews support.

And it is to those concerns that Obama spoke with passion on Friday as he bragged that “the change we needed and voted for” had satisfied much of the laundry list of the RAC’s political wish list. The old quip that Reform Judaism consists of the Democratic Party platform with holidays thrown in never seemed more true as thousands yelled their approval when Obama let loose with class warfare rhetoric. By casting the political debate as a “moral issue” of the interests of “working people” against “the powerful,” the president played to the desire of liberal Jews to interpret their own partisanship as somehow being part of their religious tradition. Indeed, so deeply entrenched are such attitudes among liberals that it never occurred to the cheering throng that letting a candidate for public office — even an incumbent president — use a religious gathering for partisan political purposes was inappropriate. ...

I’m not surprised in the least by this reaction. Unfortunately, the hateful and un-American class warfare rhetoric of Obama’s is red meat for Jewish liberals.

But I wonder if any of the clergypeople in attendance -- there had to be at least 2,000 -- are aware of their own hypocrisy. How can you castigate "the rich" for "not paying their fair share" when they, as clergy, as well as their houses of worship are exempt from paying income taxes! In addition, most (Reform) clergy, while not being quite the 1%, reside in quite luxurious homes and drive pretty fancy cars. Not all of them, of course, but very many. To these clergypeople -- many of whom are happy to give lectures about those evil Christian theocrats trying to impose their religion on us and invoke the putative "separation of Church and State" -- I say put your money where your mouths are. Really believe in a separation of Church and State? Then put your money where your mouths are and abdicate your tax exempt status.

Tobin goes on in a subsequent post:

What’s the “Different Story” About Obama and Israel?

... [T]hough the president told his Reform listeners not to “let anybody else tell a different story,” his account of his relations with Israel is, to put it mildly, incomplete.

From his first moments in office, Obama set out to distance the United States from Israel. The intention was both to draw a distinction between the closeness of the Bush administration to the Jewish state but also to create a greater bond between the Arab and Islamic world and the United States. President Obama’s June 2009 Cairo speech drew a moral equivalence between the Holocaust and the plight of the Palestinians. This attempt to reach out to Muslims failed miserably, but the one thing he accomplished was to convince the Palestinians they could avoid negotiating with Israel because Obama was willing to fight the Israelis for them.

In his speech, the president noted his frustration with the lack of progress toward peace but failed to acknowledge that he has chosen to vent that anger solely at Israel by picking damaging and unnecessary fights with the Netanyahu government. No president has done more to undermine Israel’s position on Jerusalem. His stance on the 1967 borders was, like his stance on Jerusalem, a precedent setter that tilted the diplomatic field toward the Palestinians. It is this record that has caused Israelis to regard him with less favor than any other American president in a generation. ...

Indeed. And yet after the speech I found myself debating the issue on Facebook with Jewish friends in attendance at the speech. They can't see what makes Obama so anti-Israel.

At the Israel's daily paper HaAretz, Chemi Shalev wrote:

 The bottom line: Obama speaks Jewish, Republicans don’t

If I were a Republican watching the live stream of President Obama’s speech before the Reform movement’s biennial convention in Washington on Friday, I would have reached two immediate conclusions: 1. Obama, the consummate campaigner who has been more or less missing in action since his inauguration, is back and 2. Forget about the Reform Jewish vote. He’s got that locked up.

Yes, he does. That's for sure. Remember that old nasty quote from George H.W. Bush's Secretary of State: "F**k the Jews. They won't vote for us anyway."? Well, for Obama and the Democrats, the strategy is evidently: "F**k the Jews. They will vote for us anyway."

Indeed, they must have been tearing their hair out, the Republicans, to see the audience give wave after wave of ecstatic applause and standing ovations to the man who, as Mitt Romney put it, “threw Israel under a bus” - especially after weeks of having fallen over themselves to express their undying love and uncritical support for the Jewish state. Perhaps there won’t be a sea change in the Jewish vote, they might console themselves after this speech, but let’s hope for a modest stream, or a trickle, at the very least. ...

 

Prominent Republicans Speak at the RJC Convention

Honestly I didn't even know there was an Republican Jewish Coalition Convention. I'm sure they sent emails about it, but when you get so many emails from so many sources, they often tend to go right to the trash folder. Oh well.

If I did know I would have tried to go, especially in light of the fact that in just a couple of days about 5,000 Reform Jews will be converging upon metropolitan Washington, D.C. for their Biennial convention, at which one of the guest speakers will be none other than President Golden Calf.

Oh, I heard that Rep. Eric Cantor (R-OH) will be there too. But make no mistake about it: The URJ Biennial -- actually, virtually any large gathering of Reform Jews -- is a convention by liberal Democrats for liberal Democrats to espouse and endorse all things liberal Democrat.

For this reason I am curious as to whether the RJC planned their convention for the same week of the URJ Biennial purposely ...

In any case, AIM [h/t All American Blogger] compiled highlights of the speeches. Some good stuff here, including from my gov Chris Christie and Newt Gingrich:

Liberal Anti-Semitism: OWS, Installment #2 [WARNING: Language]

The Blaze [via Zombie via Urban Infidel]  reports last night on a couple more anti-Semitic incidents from OWS. The following transcript shows the two Americas that exist right now: The hard-working, socially responsible, and productive (represented by the Jewish man) and the slovenly, entitled, and unproductive (and foul-mouthed):

Jewish man wearing a yarmulke: I work 65 hours a week.
Protester: You probably live in the Hamptons ‘n’ some shit.
Jewish man: I live in the Hamptons? I live in Brooklyn…I work 62 hours a week. Do you work 62 hours?
Protester: You know what’s funny? Your people own schools and fuckin’ government buildings, but your wives are on welfare. I don’t understand that. I don’t understand that. I met a public assistance officer. And they were Jewish, but their husbands own fuckin’ everything.
Jewish man: I work 62 hours a week. How many hours a week do you work?
Protester: I don’t work. How about them apples?
Jewish man: So why don’t you get a job?
Protester: I don’t need a fuckin’ job.
Jewish man: Why not?
Protester: You don’t need paper! We can grow our own fuckin’ food. We can shoot our own fuckin’ animals. We can do all that shit. We can build our own fuckin’ houses.
Jewish man: How do you get the materials?
Protester: We can just take it from the Earth! You come from the Earth. This comes from the Earth. Everything comes from the Earth, you dumb motherfucker! Like seriously. Technology comes from the Earth, protons, neutrons, electrons.
Jewish man: Is this a real conversation? Is this a real conversation?
Other OWS protester: He’s making points. But he’s making points.
Jewish man: What are the points?
Protester: I don’t need a point. It comes from here (indicating the ground). It came from here for free! Why we gotta pay for it? It’s here for free! Why we gotta pay for it? It’s bullshit. This is bullshit.

Yet another instance is exemplified by this discussion:

Anti-Israel protester: War — that’s the only thing you understand. Them people in Palestine, you killing ‘em so bad that they gotta strap themselves up with bombs, and go take buses into Israel and blow themselves up and die. Ain’t an Israeli person going into Palestine, strapping themselves up with a bomb, and killed one Palestinian person. They gonna shoot them with guns, they gonna shoot them with [fire]. They ain’t got no heart, because they don’t have no righteousness. There’s no love for that. You got to really be about what you’re saying to sacrifice your life. C’mon, don’t tell me that they’re about that. C’mon, man, don’t talk to me about that, Israel. When you said that, I got to stop you, because what you’re saying is the lies. Actual lie. They’re not about peace. Israel is doing the same thing to the Palestinians that the Germans did to the Jews. Bottom line. They’re doing the same thing to the Palestinians that the Germans did to them.
Anti-Israel protester #2 (pointing to pro-Israel protester): You don’t want to hear the truth. You don’t like the truth! Ha ha!
Anti-Israel protester: You think we about lies? You think I came out here on my day off to just hear some lies? I came out here to bear witness to the truth. You can’t be talking lies in front of the people. C’mon, man. Talking about ‘Israel is about peace.’ It ain’t about peace. They’re about destroying people. If they had ovens, they’d put the Palestinians in ovens. And you know it.
Anti-Israel protester #2: That’s why the Jews come into existence.
Anti-Israel protester: Ain’t nothing about peace when you come to Israel. Israel is totally about war and destruction. And you know it. …
Arabic-speaking man: Can she ask you a question? She’s a journalist from the Middle East, and we cover these stories here.
Middle-Eastern journalist woman: [Asks question in Arabic.]
Arabic-speaking man: [Translating her question] Has there [been] anyone that has responded to what you’re calling for?
Anti-Israel protester: Everybody agrees with what I said. Every word I said, everybody agrees with it.

Absolutely no coverage of this by the mainstream media. Could you imagine if anything remotely like this occurred at a Tea Party!

Why I Left Liberalism #21 - They Can't Handle the Truth: Liberal Friends Respond to Attack on French News Office

It's like a broken freaking record:

(1) Yet another violent act in the name of Islam occurs somewhere around the world.

(2) Politically correct head-up-their-ass apologists insist the act has nothing to do with Islam (or at least with authentic Islam).

(3) Those who dare to attribute the attack to the global threat known as radical Islam are accused of "Islamophobia" or are at least admonished for blaming an entire "community" just because a couple of kooks does something violent.

Yesterday, in an incident reminiscent of the Danish newspaper "Mohammed comic strip" ordeal, a French news office was firebombed for daring to disrespect Islam's dear prophet:

Fire at French newspaper after Muhammad issue
By ELAINE GANLEY, Associated Press

PARIS (AP) — A firebombing that destroyed the offices of a French satirical weekly that "invited" the Prophet Muhammad as its guest editor was denounced Wednesday by Muslim leaders and politicians from all sides.

But behind the public show of unity was a silent fear that the spoof could trigger a wave of violent protests among western Europe's largest Muslim population, and beyond.

No one was injured in the blaze that started around 1 a.m. in the offices of Charlie Hebdo in eastern Paris, hours before the issue featuring a caricature of Muhammad on its front page hit the newsstands.

"Everything will be done to find those behind this attack," said Interior Minister Claude Gueant, visiting the newspapers burned and disheveled offices.

The director of the weekly, who goes by the name Charb, called the issue "a joke" and defiantly held up a copy of the paper as he stood amid the rubble. He vowed that next week's issue would be published.

"We'll do it with pencils and paper," said one writer, Patrick Pelloux, on the i-Tele TV station.

The latest issue of Charlie Hebdo, with its typically cutting humor, was focussed on last week's victory of a once-banned Islamist party in Tunisia's first free elections and last month decision by Libya's new leaders that Sharia, or Islamic legislation, will be the main source of law in post-Gadhafi Libya.

A police official cited a witness saying that someone was seen throwing two firebombs at the building. The official was not authorized to speak publicly while an investigation was in progress.

Charb, the director, said a Molotov cocktail lobbed into the offices caused the fire. He blamed "radical stupid people who don't know what Islam is," for the attack. ...

You got it? It wasn't Muslims, but rather "radical stupid people." And where do these "radical stupid people" get their ideas from? A voice in their head?

But it's not just the newspaper director who refuses to accept the truth. When I posted this story on Facebook, two of my liberal/Democrat friends responded in part like this:

FB Friend #1: Is it really necessary to lump an entire community together when a group of extremists does something insane?

FB Friend #2: Why is it necessary to dehumanize and degrade the entire religion with this kind of phrasing? Is there not value in making distinctions between the thugs who cannot bring their religion out of the 14th century and those Muslims who do practice their faith in peace? And how can we ask those that do practice a peaceful brand of Islam to be brave and stand up with us against the extremists in their religion if we continuously mock their religion. ...

It should be mentioned that one of these writers, who I know to be a big Obama fan, doesn't seem to hold the President of the United States to the same standard as s/he does me. For the past few weeks President Golden Calf, Veep Biden, and other prominent Dems have been ratcheting up the leftist base accusing Republicans as a whole for booing gay soldiers and for wanting people without health insurance do die.

This because at a recent GOP debate two to three people in an audience of thousands booed not a gay soldier but the loaded question the soldier asked, and because at another debate two to three people in an audience of thousands cheered at a question posed to candidate Ron Paul whether a 30-year-old man who was irresponsible enough not to purchase his own health insurance should be "left to die" by society.

These two occurrences were enough for countless members of the Democrat-media complex including Obama himself to paint the entire Republican Party as enjoying booing gay soldiers and wanting uninsured people to die.

This is a true example of "lumping an entire community together when a group of "extremists" does something insane". But don't you dare connect the umpteenth act of Muslim violence to being a problem with Islam in general. That would be unfair and insensitive!

Who can recall when only 11 months ago, when a lone crazed kook shot down Arizona Dem. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, the most prominent members of Democrat-media complex took to their respective megaphones to point at the "climate of incivility" created by Sarah Palin (???), conservative talk-radio, and the conservative / Tea Party faction of the Republican Party! President Golden Calf himself traveled to  Tucson to usher in a new "Era of Civility" (which he and the Democrats immediately reneged on the second he walked off the podium, by the way).

To add insult to injury, the Tucson shooter wasn't even associated with or inspired by any Republican whatsoever, yet the Democrat/liberals blamed the Republican Party anyway! 

This is a true example of "lumping an entire community together when a group of "extremists" does something insane". But don't you dare connect the umpteenth act of Muslim violence to being a problem with Islam in general. That would be unfair and insensitive!

And finally, even to this day -- as Obama- and Pelosi-approved Occupy Wall Street protests continue to create ravage, destruction, and violence upon dozens of U.S. cities -- the Tea Party Movement is painted as being extremist, radical, and possessing "elements of racism".

Why?

Because the Democrat-media complex says so, that's why. No substantiation of accusations necessary when you're of the Left.

But if one needs a specific example, a Tea Party-hater would probably cite the hurling of 15 racial epithets and spitting at black congresspeople when they walked out of the Capitol building after passing the Obama(Doesn't)Care bill.

Except that never happened, and video footage and a yet-unwon $100,000 bet proves it never happened.

But, believing that it did happen, the Democrat-media complex used the fake story to paint the entire Tea Party as racist and violent.

This is a true example of "lumping an entire community together when a group of "extremists" does something insane". But don't you dare connect the umpteenth act of Muslim violence to being a problem with Islam in general. That would be unfair and insensitive!

I think you get the picture.

To conclude, I am so tired of the notion that it is unfair to point out the continual execution of violent acts of many members of a community. Perhaps my Facebook friend's Muslim neighbor doesn't condone violence in the name of their religion, and my Muslim neighbor doesn't either. But many Muslims have and continue to commit violence worldwide. Even before the French news office bombing happened, Coptic Christians in Egypt and their churches are being attacked by Muslims in Egypt, and a "Palestinian" woman is reported in the news to be pleased that her fifth son has sacrificed his life as a suicide bomber.

The West is committing suicide with the p.c. head-in-the-sand belief that unless every single Muslim commits an act of terror, you dare not attack them! Well screw that. My children's lives are more important than offending the Muslim community, OK?

Liberal Antisemitism: Occupy Wall Street

For weeks now my liberal Jewish friends have been praising the filthy spoiled-brat group temper tantrum known as OWS -- and even participating in it during Yom Kippur and Sukkot (!). Meanwhile, the DBF* media has predictably failed to accurately report on the now-nationwide event. Among the most disturbing aspects of OWS -- and there are many, from calls to behead and eat "the rich" to converging on private citizens' personal residences to bullying NYC officials into postponing Zuccotti Park cleanup or face riotous consequences -- is the blatant widespread antisemitism.

In a piece earlier this week in Commentary called "Occupy Wall Street Has an Anti-Semitism Problem," Abe Greenwald writes:

Anti-Semitism is the preferred medium of the pitchfork crowd. And today as the Manhattan mob heads uptown to protest at the homes of American business leaders (for their “”willingness to hoard wealth at the expense of the 99 percent”) there can be little doubt that that’s whom we’re dealing with.

Outside of immigrant-rich America, class warfare is often synonymous with ethnic prejudice itself. The Jews or the Gypsies or the Southeast Asians simply constitute the class to be held accountable. Class warfare is the pointed finger as economic philosophy. It eats away at the national project, lays waste to the self-reliant citizen, and disguises prejudice as justice. Liberal pundits and leftist intellectuals are at pains to impose upon the protesters a thoughtfulness that just doesn’t exist. In the New York Times, Todd Gitlin wrote, “This new protest style is more Rousseau than Marx.” But in truth there is no new protest style. What we’re witnessing is dumb, ugly, dangerous, and very old. And we will see a lot more anti-Semitism as this toxic swarm grows.

Indeed, antisemitism exists not just in the trenches but at the top of OWS. It seems OWS is the brainchild of an antisemitic anti-capitalist organization from Canada called Adbusters, which registered an occupywallstreet.org domain name only months in advance of the protests. Jeff at the Protein Wisdom blog reports:

Adbusters has a history of (thinly-veiled) anti-Semitism — and today’s protests against “Wall Street” and “bankers” is merely an extension of its earlier protests against the controlling cabal of “neocons.”

Adbusters sees filthy, sneaky Jews everywhere — and everywhere this stealthy cabal of neocons, bankers, and Zionists, is controlling the world, robbing The People, and hoarding The Wealth.

This fact has been pointed out in the right-osphere, including by El Rushbo at least twice. But the Adbusters-OWS connection is virtually nowhere in the DBF media. Isn't that interesting?

Among the first to report on OWS antisemitism was Glenn Beck (ironic, since I know of no Jewish liberal friends who are not scared to death of this guy! Go figure.)

Here's a Blaze piece from last Thursday (the 6th) with video of an OWS protester complaining how the Jews control Wall Street and even accusing Obama of being a Jewish puppet:

On Wednesday afternoon, The Blaze posted a video of a man telling the crowd that “the Jews control Wall St.” and spouting anti-Semitic hate.

So a GBTV cameraman and I decided to go down to the center of the protests later that day to see if we could find the man behind the comments and ask him a few questions. We found him. And he was more than happy to explain himself.

Who is he? Well, the only name he would give me is “Jesus.” He told me he’s homeless and going blind. And when I asked him about his former anti-Semitic remarks, he was sure to go in-depth on his views, as well as hold up his sign with Atlas-like determination.

He’s convinced that Jews have a “firm grip” on the media and the country’s finances. He even tried to selectively quote scripture to back up his case. That said, he claims he’s not against all Jews, just the ones who are “robbing” America or aren’t speaking out about their “bretheren” who are. Considering his comments, I asked if he would be in favor of a tax on just rich Jews. His response? “That sounds good, but all billionaires.” ...

If you think his answers are a bunch of confusion wrapped in a conundrum, you’re not alone. And it’s about to get even more perplexing. See, after hearing his obvious anti-Jewish remarks, I asked him why he decided to single out the Jews. He responded by saying he “loves” Jews but he’s “tired of them swindling us:” ...

At this post from yesterday, the Blaze posts this follow-up, this time from Occupy Los Angeles:

The Blaze was one of the first to report on the anti-Semitism plaguing Occupy Wall Street. While not shocking given the movement’s track record, photographs from Occupy Los Angeles have now surfaced also revealing definite anti-Semitic messages. The age-old “Jewish banker” conspiracy theory being the most common thread across the various “Occupy” movements.

Pajama’s Zombie was first to publish the latest crop of offensive images straight out of OWS/OLA:

All Los Angeles photos and video here were taken by Ringo, and will appear in future reports at Ringo’s Pictures. This is the first time any of them have been shown online.

To view the rest of this post and photos please click here.

Excellent footage courtesy of the folks at Zombietime, who also provided oodles of footage of Bush-hatred during the "peace" protests of the 2000's.

"Bookworm" at Bookworm Room has a well-written post and accompanying video on the matter:

Antisemitism in connection with OWS was a no-brainer.  The Left is antisemitic.  It has been since Marx.  Hitler institutionalized it to deadly effect.  Stalin was less methodical than Hitler, but he made Judaism illegal and instituted various pogroms within his own party to drive out, imprison or kill Jews.

No matter how many Jews are on the Left (and Jews are, unforgivably, still drawn there), the Left understands that Judaism in the abstract stands for individualism and justice, two notions antithetical to collectivism.  The Left has also historically conflated Jews with capitalism.  Jews, of course, aren’t the onlycapitalists (statistically, they’re only a small percentage of capitalists); they’re just visible capitalists if you’re a Jew hater.

In the coming days and weeks, you’re going to see an increasing number of articles and videos in the conservative media about the increasing antisemitism connected with the Occupy this city and that city.  Today, we’ll start with just two:  a photo essay from L.A. and a video, which you can see below:

My questions for you:  How long do you think it will be before the MSM pays attention?  Or, an even better question, do you think the MSM will ever pay attention?  Same question[s] regarding leading Democrat politicians, such as Obama, Pelosi and Reid….

You might be wondering how, in light of all this evidence, my liberal Jewish friends and relatives are reacting. After linking to some of these stories over the week on Facebook, the responses have fallen into basically two camps: First and foremost is pooh-poohing: "Sure, there are a couple of kooks at protests, just like the Tea Party. So what's the big deal? You can't paint an entire movement with such a broad brush!"

To which I adamantly reply: WRONG! For one thing, these aren't a couple of kooks, these antisemites are rampant and are among the leadership of OWS. As I explained above, antisemitism exists at the top of the OWS. As far as the "couple of kooks" at Tea Party goes -- and that was when the kooks weren't simply left-wing infiltrators sent in by DailyKos or MoveOn.org to deliberately make the Tea Party look bad -- the Democrat-media went out of its way to paint the Tea Party with their broad brush! In fact, today as prominent liberals in Washington, the media, and Hollywood praise OWS they still bash the Tea Party! The hypocrisy is enough to make one's head spin!

A second type of response I got from liberal Jewish Facebook friends was one of disgust ... towards me! Some apparently are offended that I would be so callous as to smear this innocent noble group of victims by posting such slanderous material! 

To conclude, let me say that if you are a Jew and you are even attending let along holding freaking Yom Kippur worship at OWS, you are what Vladimir Lenin would have called a useful idiot. And believe me, that is being kind. I could've said it's like you're digging the graves that you will be falling into once your Nazi captors shoot you in the back. (But I won't say that 'cuz that would be mean-spirited!)

* DBF = Democrat-b*tt-f**king

For Jon Stewart: 10 Major Ways OWS Is NOT Like the Tea Party

Ya know, sometimes the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart gets it right. In fact, I’ve even commended him on this blog when he does.

This, however, is not one of these times. Wednesday night he wondered out loud why conservatives were criticizing the Occupy Wall Street protests now going on nationwide, arguing:

I don’t get it! Here’s a group of Americans, disenchanted, railing against big government bailouts, angry because they played by the rules, worked hard, now they’re in debt from student loans and they’re unemployed… I mean, look, if this thing turns into throwing trash cans into Starbucks windows, nobody’s going to be down with that. We all love Starbucks.

But these protesters, how are they not like the Tea Party? Alright, some of them, you know, smoke and have pants made out of pot. So call them the THC Party. Aren’t these folks real citizens with real problems? Aren’t they also speaking for America?

I guess an adequate proficiency in criticial thinking skills was not a requirement for Stewart’s position at Comedy Central.

OK, Jon, really? You actually need it explained to you how OWS is not like the Tea Party? Other than at the former they’re smoking lots of weed. Fine …

Of course, I’m not the first one to note the obiously stark contrasts between OWS and TP. Wednesday morning, even before Stewart’s broadcast, my girl Ann (Coulter) wrote:

I am not the first to note the vast differences between the Wall Street protesters and the tea partiers. To name three: The tea partiers have jobs, showers and a point.

No one knows what the Wall Street protesters want—as is typical of mobs. They say they want Obama re-elected, but claim to hate “Wall Street.” You know, the same Wall Street that gave its largest campaign donation in history to Obama, who, in turn, bailed out the banks and made Goldman Sachs the fourth branch of government.

This would be like opposing fattening, processed foods, but cheering Michael Moore—which the protesters also did this week.

But to me, the most striking difference between the tea partiers and the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd—besides the smell of patchouli—is how liberal protesters must claim their every gathering is historic and heroic. …

The modern tea partiers never went around narcissistically comparing themselves to Gen. George Washington. And yet they are the ones who have engaged in the kind of political activity Washington fought for.

The Tea Party name is meant in fun, inspired by an amusing rant from CNBC’s Rick Santelli in February 2009, when he called for another Tea Party in response to Obama’s plan to bail-out irresponsible mortgagers.

The tea partiers didn’t arrogantly claim to be drafting a new Declaration of Independence. They’re perfectly happy with the original.

Tea partiers didn’t block traffic, sleep on sidewalks, wear ski masks, fight with the police or urinate in public. They read the Constitution, made serious policy arguments, and petitioned the government against Obama’s unconstitutional big government policies, especially the stimulus bill and Obamacare.

Then they picked up their own trash and quietly went home. Apparently, a lot of them had to be at work in the morning.

In the two years following the movement’s inception, the Tea Party played a major role in turning Teddy Kennedy’s seat over to a Republican, making the sainted Chris Christie governor of New Jersey, and winning a gargantuan, historic Republican landslide in the 2010 elections. They are probably going to succeed in throwing out a president in next year’s election. …

So, if I may humbly pick up where Coulter left off, here are just a few way that OWS is completely different from the TP:

1. The Tea Party’s key demand is to restore the size and reach of government to that enshrined by the Framers in the Constitution. The Tea Party wants lower taxes, less regulation, less federal spending, and less intervention by the federal government into citizen’s private lives and businesses. To reiterate, the Tea Party’s rule book is the U.S. Constitution; they want to restore America to what it was supposed to be, as prescribed by the Framers. Thus, the Tea Party’s goals are spec ifically and uniquely American.

By stark contrast, the demands of OWS are for more taxes, more regulation, more federal spending (on them, of course), and more government intervention in people’s private lives and businesses (not theirs of course, just those of the eeeeevil rich).

Have you even seen a reference to the Founding Documents at an OWS? Of course not. Then there would be no room to display to Marx and Lenin literature. If you listen to any of the myriad demands of OWS attendees, it is clear they seek a revolution (their words, not mine) and start from scratch based on a Marxist-socialist model. Thus, OWS’s goals are spec ifically and uniquely un-American. They are not, as Jon Stewart ridiculous suggested “speaking for America.”

2. The Tea Party consists predominantly of the nation’s producers, those who own businesses and employ people, older citizens who have worked their entire lives to secure a home and retirement but who are seeing the value of their investments plummet and the financial security of their offspring diminish. They are, as Obama likes to say, “working Americans.” They value success and don’t want to see it punished—by the government or anyone.

On the other hand, The so-called occupants of Wall Street are primarily aging hippies, avowed Marxists and socialists, professional protesters like MoveOn.org and Code Pink, and tattooed, multiple-earringed, rainbow-haired twentysomethings who in all their years of college apparently never learned one single damn thing about how the economy works. They resent success and exist precisely to see it punished.

3. One can safely guess Tea Partiers are mostly members of the 53% who pay some sort of the share of the nation’s income tax burden. From them you’ll hear messages of personal responsibility, hard work, and absolute moral standards that are essential for a prosperous civil society.

On the other hand, despite their martyr-like “99%” moniker, it would be safe to say that OWS participants are part of the 47% of Americans who receive rather than contribute to the income tax burden of the U.S. They are members of your quintessential entitlement generation, having been reared in a liberal-dominated educational system rooted in self-esteem, multiculturalism, and a “whatever feels right is right” code of morality. Their sense of personal responsibility is as developed as the horns growing out of my Jewish head.

4. Whereas the Tea Party was falsely accused of being corporate-funded conservative-media-backed “astroturf,” when it is a legitimely grassroots movement, there’s evidence that OWJ has big-powered and big-moneyed support, including unions and Hollywood useful idiots like Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon.

5. As documented by Brent Bozell and the folks at NewsBusters, the peaceful assemblies known as the Tea Party have been fallaciously depicted by the mainstream media as violent, angry, dangerous, and extremist mobs.

By stark contrast, the actually violent, angry, dangerous, and extremist mobs called OWS have been championed by the MSM as the nation’s most beautiful display of democracy in action. The blatantly biased culprits include the NY Times, CNN, NBC, the NY Times again, NBC again, ABC and the NY Times yet again.

6. The Tea Party was (and still is) relentlessly smeared by the highest officials in the federal government. A prime example is Nancy Pelosi. Keeping his own hands clean, Obama gleefully allowed then-House Majority Speaker to swing mercilessly at them. First, she accused them of being “astroturf” being funded by big-moneyed people. Then, she likened them to Nazis and spun public tales about seeing swastikaaaaahs. She mocked them in March, 2010, as she emerged from the Capitol building upon the passage of the Obama(S)care bill, wielding that huge gavel and cackling like the Wicked Witch of the West as she walked through an understandably angry crowd. She also said the Tea Party’s supposedly violent rhetoric reminded her of the social unrest that occurred in San Francisco in 1978, the year gay mayor Harvey Milk was murdered.

The actually violent, physically threatening OWS? Politico reports:

“God bless them for their spontaneity,” Pelosi told reporters. “It’s young, it’s spontaneous, it’s focused and it’s going to be effective.” Queen Nancy also said, “The focus is on Wall Street and justifiably so,” Pelosi said. “The message of the American people is that no longer … will the recklessness of some on Wall Street cause massive joblessness on Main Street.”

Actually, the focus on Wall Street is not justified, San Fran Nan. Rather, the correct message is that the recklessness of you and your fellow Democrats in Congress and the White House is what has caused massive joblessness on Main Street.” That was the message of the Tea Party, of course, and you have spent the past two years smearing and libeling them.

Veep Joe Biden has also recently smeared the Tea Party as “barbarians at the gate” in the presence of none other than the Community-Organizer-in-Chief himself. That was at the same event where Union thugster Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., said they needed to “take the sons of bitches out” and that those present were Obama’s army that were ‘ready to march,” also to Obama’s approval. So much for that New Civility Obama preached about this January in Tucson.

What about the malcontents at OWS? Yesterday Obama incredibly legitimized them by declaring that they “expresses the frustrations that the American people feel.”

No, that would be the Tea Party, you a-hole. (Oooooo, someone better let AttaaaaackWaaaaatch know I just called the president an a-hole!)

7. As far as I know, no one at a Tea Party has called for the targets being beheaded (compliments of Hollywood actress and “comedienne” Rosanne Barr) or eaten.

I don’t believe a Tea Partier has suggested people kill their parents either, as did this clearly frustrated gay guy at OWS. While the Tea Party is accused of violent, hateful rhetoric despite no substantive evidence, the violent rhetoric of OWS is boldly on display.

Hell, even their name contains “occupy,” which is a military term meaning to overtake by means of physical force! 

8. As far as I know, no throng of Tea Partiers has blocked traffic or overtaken bridges, nor have they started brawls with police and gotten pepper-sprayed and arrested on masse. This, of course, has been happening nationwide at OWS protests.

9. As far as I know, no Tea Partiers have blamed the Jews for our economic mess or hurled antisemitic slurs at people, such as at least four which have occurred at OWS rallies. 

10. As far as I know, none of the lovely ladies of the Tea Party movement have gone topless or in bras to make their points. If, however, you’d like to see young ladies publicly brandishing their bras or bearing their breasts for their cause, please head to your nearest OWS protest [h/t Mike Haltman at the Political Commentator].

So there you are, Jon Stewart. Merely ten of the myriad ways Occupy Wall Street is nothing like the Tea Party. Put that in your hash pipe and smoke it.

And for those of you at OWS who need a job, there might be a spot for you over at Comedy Central. Apparently, having a properly functioning brain is not a job requirement.

Yom Kippur y’all. I is outa here!

Reason #47355 Why I Will Never Rejoin the Reform Movement: "Green Spaces" in Synagogue Parking Lots

Here’s a real WTF moment I had earlier this week:

As I went to park in a synagogue parking lot I noticed the two closest spots to the building (other than the handicap spots) had been newly designated with green line paint and a sign. According to this sign, provided by the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the spots were reserved for flex-fuel or hybrid cars that get 30+ MPG. It then said in smaller letters at the bottom: “Reduce America’s Dependence on Foreign Oil.”

Sure enough, when I got home later that day, I did a search on-line and lo and behold: This NJ Jewish News has this story on the Green Spaces campaign.

I was actually surprised to find out the article was dated June 29 of this year. That means for a good three months it passed under the radar; I do not recall anyone speaking of this on the news sites or blogosphere.

The piece reads in part:

Drive a hybrid? Shuls may have a space for you
by Robert Wiener
NJJN Staff Writer

June 29, 2011

The American Jewish Committee is asking houses of worship to reserve one or more spaces in their parking lots for fuel-efficient vehicles.

The Green Spaces initiative seeks to promote hybrid, flexfuel, electric, or any other cars that log 30 or more miles per gallon of gasoline.

“We want to reward people who drive cars that use less gas. We want to continue to keep this issue on everybody’s mind,” said Allyson Gall, director of the AJC’s New Jersey Area.

The program, launched last year at the AJC chapter in Cleveland, dispenses Green Space signs for parking lots and places explanatory brochures in building lobbies.

Great, it started in Cleveland. That means no matter where you live, look for this at a house of worship near you.

The initiative, said Gall, “educates people about the issue of our dependence on foreign oil, which affects national security, Israel, human rights, and the environment. Someone might come to a church event or a synagogue event and see that not just the handicapped get a good parking spot.”

It doesn’t educate people about anything. It takes a specific position on a far-from-settled political issue and then imposes it on everyone else by enacting policies that affect people’s behavior.

OK, I’m sorry, what kind of business does a house of worship have designating preferred parking spaces for “green” vehicles? What kind of political B.S. is this? Oh, don’t give that “saving the planet” and “keeping the earth clean” and “reducing our dependence on foreign oil” are not political issue but purely religious-moral concepts. That sound you hear is my Bravo–Sierra alarm going off.

Gall talked about the program when she appeared along with several hundred other activists at the Environmental Lobby Day rally in Trenton on June 20. …

Oh yeah, I’m sure that was an apolitical all-sides-represented kind of a gathering. Puh-leeease.

Let’s enumerate some of the problems with designating “green spaces” at a synagogue, shall we:

First and foremost, synagogues that have these parking spaces have made a value judgment on behalf of the entire congregation. That is undemocratic and exclusionary. As of this writing the synagogues listed at the NJJN article are mostly Reform. The key concept distinguishing Reform Judaism from other denominations is that it respects the individuality of its adherents and respects their ability to make informed choices about which Jewish rituals and practices reflect their lifestyle and worldview.

For this reason, I would surmise that to this day no synagogue has ever designated preferred parking spaces for congregants who keep kosher laws (you know, an actual Jewish practice). Or for congregants who donated the most tzedakah that week? Or for those who plan on observing the Sabbath by not using electric or other power (O.K., that one might be difficult logistically because even if you’re driving to synagogue, you’ve already broken that rule. But you get the jist). What kind of odd precedent does it set that of all the truly religious/moral reasons a synagogue could reward its congregants, it’s for driving a hybrid car???

Second, consider the unfairness of this policy. Hybrid cars and the like are only within reach of people whose lifestyle and budget (not to mention mere personal taste) allows them to have one. A carpooling parent transporting a half-dozen kids in their SUV or minivan can actually benefit from a close parking space, but are not going to be able to.

Finally, let’s look at this “reducing our dependence on foreign oil.” Yours truly deliberately buys gas only from stations that sell only or mostly American oil, like Sunoco and Hess. (I also use BP, which is British and not from the Middle East.) So why can’t I park there, even if my car gets less than 30 mpg. I’ve been reducing my dependence on foreign oil for years.

Let’s not delude ourselves: This is just the latest example of a synagogue pushing left-wing policy preferences as Judaism. And I’m not alone in that assessment. Here are the comments of people who as of this writing also responded to the NJJN artice:

“Patti” (June 29, 2011):

Is the New Jersey News funded by or affiliated with the Hard Left AJC? Just wondering as it seems as though the point of view week after week is quite monolithic.

Does the New Jersey Jewish community get a chance to hear the other side? If not, why not? As you can see here, there are different points of view within the Democrat Party.

I understand that Conservative Jews like myself don’t seem welcome in your paper. but it would be nice if once in awhile your paper didn’t read like a series of press releases for the Hard Left Jewish organizations.

“Morris” (June 29, 2011):

So you would penalize the young family with 3 or more children or the soccer mom that carpools her children and their friends to after school activities requiring a larger vehicle? You would give parking preferences to the yuppy couple with 2 incomes at the expense of the family where there is one working parent supporting the family while mom takes care of the extracurricular activities of her family. Another short sighted liberal attempt to push an agenda at the expense of intelligence and logic.

“Phil” (July 6, 2011):

“We want to reward people who drive cars that use less gas. We want to continue to keep this issue on everybody’s mind,” said Allyson Gall,”

If rewards and reminders are key, how about adding a parking space in front of the synagogue that is too small for a car? That way, people will try to walk to services on Sabbath. (The reward might be of an Otherworldly variety.)

And this, my friends, is reason #47355 why I will never rejoin the Reform movement (although, I should note, some Conservative congregations can be just as environ-mental-ly active).

Cain Corner 8/27/11: Cain in Israel

This past week Herman Cain and his wife Gloria have been in Israel. The first two, from The Blaze, are of Cain at the Western Wall. The other two are of the Cains at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial, taken from his Facebook page:

G0d bless you, Mr. Cain.

 

What a Shocker: Most U.S. Jews Still Gaga Over Obama

Why are Jews liberals? Because we're Jews.

Thus wrote a rabbi friend of mine a couple years ago when the question (and book title) was put out by Norman Podhoretz.

And that pretty much encapsulates the mindset of America's mostly liberal/Democrat Jewish population. This despite the fact that huge swaths of liberalism, the Democrat Party, and particularly this administration, are antithetical to Jewish morals and values.

Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit reports this latest depressing but unsurprising finding:

Despite his efforts to hand over Jerusalem and the Holy Land to terrorists, Barack Obama still enjoys strong support from Jewish Americans.
The Hill reported:

President Obama enjoys strong, steady support from Jewish Americans amid concerns that he faced an erosion in their backing.

A new Gallup Poll found Monday that 60 percent of Jewish Americans said they approve of the way Obama is handling his job, a figure that’s relatively consistent with the high level of support he’s enjoyed from that bloc this year.

Thirty-two percent of Jewish Americans said they disapprove of the way the president is handling his job, a figure that hasn’t really jumped since May 19, when Obama delivered a major speech outlining a peace process for Israelis and Palestinians.

That speech was sharply rebuked by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and spurred speculation — especially on the right — that Jewish voters who had been aligned with Democrats might shift their support away from Obama.

Sad.

The destruction of Israel is at hand and Jewish Americans still march blindly behind Obama.

Sad indeed.

Again and again it's revealed that for Jewish liberals, liberalism trumps Judaism every time. Like the scorpion that drowned himself in that old story. They will go to the 21st century gas chambers singing “Yes We Can”; it’s just their nature.

But not mine!

Also discussing: Tina Korbe at Hot Air

Cain Shows Public Support for Israel at NYC Parade

Yesterday was the annual Israel Day parade in New York City. I've heard hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people showed up!

Among the friends of Israel in attendance was my boy Herm. Here is what he said, according to Israel National News:

"I am here for two reasons," Mr. Cain told the audience. "I congratulate the State of Israel on this momentous occasion, and to let you know as a black man, I understand your struggle and share with you my undenying support for the one and only Jewish state."

"My support for Israel started way before I decided to run for the presidency. It started with the old testament of the Jewish people and the biblical significance of that great nation. I am greatly disappointed in President Obama. He has thrown Israel under the bus, and I can assure you that I will never throw Israel under the bus. The president should not be defining terms of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians; but rather he should leave Israel's borders alone", he declared to thunderous applause. "Jerusalem should remain united as the capital of the great state of Israel," Cain said. "I tell you today that I don't stand behind Israel, but I stand beside Israel as the great democracy it is in the Middle East."

If elected president, Mr. Cain said, "I will tell those nations that threaten Israel's survival that if you mess with Israel, that means that you mess with the USA and you don't want to mess with the USA."

In a private interview, Mr. Cain told INN, "I don't agree with the President Obama in terms of Israel making any more territorial concessions for an elusive 'peace.' The bigger issue here is that Hamas has now partnered with the Palestinian Authority, and negotiating with a terrorist organization will go nowhere. I think it is downright arrogant for the president to even suggest that our loyal friend and stalwart ally, Israel, has to jeopardize its own security to appease our enemies in that region of the world."

Media Reaction To Obama's Mid East Speech Reveals Progressive Movement's Jew-Hatred

Good points made by Jeff Dunetz at Big Journalism. He concludes with this great quote:

During the George H.W. Bush administration, Secretary of State James Baker was asked about the Jewish vote, he exclaimed “F**K the Jews, they won’t vote for us anyway.” Today the progressives believe “F**K the Jews, they will vote for us whatever we do.” It’s time for Jewish voters to prove those claims wrong and vote the progressives out of office.

He is more right than I enjoy admitting. Posting a link to Obama’s face-saving AIPAC speech, a diehard liberal Facebook friend commented simply: “My president.”

You can have him, sweetheart.

Is the Jewish State Dividing American Jewry?

On this, the 63rd birthday of the State of Israel, some provocative words from Jonathan Rosenblum at JWR.

That American Jews can no longer rally around Israel is a tragedy. But it would be a far greater tragedy if those Jews who identify with the Jewish state and are comfortable defending it continued to let ineffectual communal organizations speak for them.

Reason #47354 I Will Never Rejoin the Reform Movement: Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss

Let me preface this post by emphasizing that I know URJ president Eric Yoffie personally. Although we are friends, we are quite aware of each other’s political differences. This post is in no way an attack on his character but merely a strong disagreement with his positions and, by extention, those of the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ). Likewise, although I do not know his presumptive successor Rabbi Jacobs personally—we might have met once a few years ago—I’m sure he is a decent human being and my issue is with his positions and not his character. That said …

From where I stand, the Reform Movement has been in need of a change. Even the NY Times admits that the movement was “facing a recent decline in numbers and an uncertain future despite its stature as the largest movement in American Jewry.”

I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I’m sure some of that decline is due to the continuing secularization of today’s youth, as well as the long-standing problem of Jews marrying non-Jews and their subsequent abandonment of the faith. But I have a sinking suspicion that there is another reason membership in the Reform Movement is dwindling.

Ever since the URJ took a public stand opposing George W. Bush’s War in Iraq in 2005, I’ve been amazed how many right-leaning (and Bush-supporting) Reform Jews have come out of the closet to speak their mind. And ever since the new Moshiach was elected president in 2008, those numbers have climbed even more.

Then there’s the conservative Reform Jews who have “come out” to me personally, but not to the public. With still school-aged children needing religious education and the requirements to become a Bar/Bat Mitzvah (at age 13), they begrudgingly remain members, paying dues to a synagogue that in turn pays its own dues to a national organization that promotes positions 180 degrees opposed to your own.

Other Jewish righties I know have in fact left our local Reform synagogue, chosing to educate their children at a local Chabad, or keep Jewish learning in the home. Myself, I left the Reform Movement over a year ago, with no intention of returning anytime soon. Not a month goes by where I witness this and other Reform synagogues are awash with left-wing/Democrat programming and propaganda.

Oh, Reform clergy, educators, and committee-people will insist that they’re apolitical, open-minded, and tolerant of all views.

Really? Visited the website of the URJ’s Religious Action Center (RAC) lately? Pick an issue: environ-mental-ist issues, abortion (excuse me, “women’s rights”) environ-mental-ist issues, oil, environ-mental-ist issues, government-run health (s)care, environ-mental-ist issues, 2nd Amendment rights, environ-mental-ist issues, welfare and poverty programs, environ-mental-ist issues, radical Islamism (oh, did I mention environ-mental-ist issues?). Every one of these topics is—coincidence of coincidences—identical to that of any far-left Democrat Party member. If it didn’t threaten their 501c3 status, they probably could just link to the DNC’s website and get it overwith.

Start 'em young!

This is not what I signed up for. If I wanted to teach my children to be good little lefties and walk in unswerving lockstep with the Democrat Party agenda, then the nearest Reform congregation is for you. If you want to meet Al Gore, far-left Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz [Would you believe the very day after I wrote this blog post, Wasserman Schultz was appointed by Obama as DNC chair!], and any liberal Jewish Hollywood celebrity, then the RAC is the place to be.

But if you want to hear from Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, David Horowitz, Aaron Klein, Caroline Glick, Congressmen Eric Cantor or Michelle Bachmann, forget it! At this Centre of tolerance and open-mindedness, non-lefties need not apply.

So, with more and more righty Reform Jews being bothered by the URJ’s political agenda, who do they choose to replace outgoing President Rabbi Eric Yoffie? Meet Rabbi Richard Jacobs from Westchester County, NY. I’m sure Rabbi Jacobs is a very nice, decent fellow. But what are the main priorities of the incoming president of the nation’s largest Jewish organization?

For Jacobs, that means embracing environmentalism, helping in places like Darfur and Haiti, and speaking out in support of the Islamic center near Ground Zero in Manhattan. He speaks with pride of his synagogue’s green initiatives, noting that its Ner Tamid, or Eternal Flame, is solar powered. He is chairman of the New Israel Fund’s pluralism grants committee, which promotes religious and social pluralism in Israel. He is a board member of the American Jewish World Service, with which he visited Darfur refugees in Chad in 2005. He wears a green Darfur bracelet on his wrist.

Darfur nad Haiti? Wonderful. Religious and social pluralism in Israel? Of course, I get it.

But environmentalism? Green initiatives? Going solar? (I actually know a Conservative temple that is going solar, so it’s not just the Reform movement). This is a priority? Oy vay. I’m all for conservation and recycling, but the man-made global warming climate change hoax has completely taken over this movement!

Supporting the mosque near Ground Zero? Oy! Why don’t we just surrender to all the world’s radical Muslims and cut off our own heads? Dhimmitude on display, brought to you by the URJ. 

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

My Defense (Kinda) of Glenn Beck's "Reform Judaism = Radical Islam" Comment [UPDATED]

Sooo, Glenn Beck is in the cross hairs (yes, cross hairs; can you handle that?) of the Jewish left again. The other day he made what even he considered an inept comparison between the Reform Movement and radical Islam. (He apologized the next day.)  The meat of the comparison: They are both more political movements than religious ones.

The Reform Movement's Religious Action Center (RAC) is has spoken out in protest, as has the ADL. I can understand that.

But let me say this in Beck's defense: One of the reasons I and countless other Jews have left the Reform Movement is precisely because it has become too political. The fact that the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ) even has the RAC -- whose sole purpose is to organize, advocate, and lobby for primarily liberal/Democrat causes -- is proof that Beck's controversial statement has more than a kernel of truth to it. The Religious Action Center is in fact a political action center; the dues of every URJ-member congregation in the country goes partially to them, and synagogue members are encouraged to have a direct relationship with them. In fact, this very weekend hundreds of Reform Jewish teens are traveling to Washington D.C. to visit the RAC, learn about liberal/Democrat political advocacy, and then meet with their representatives in order to lobby for liberal/Democrat causes. 

I myself have expressed to the president of the URJ my concern for the existence of the RAC as an arm of the URJ, but to no avail. And I'm certainly not the only one. Leftist politics (often under the guise of the innocuous description "social action") pervades the Reform Movement -- from rabbis' sermons to synagogue-wide programs and speaker events, and especially youth programming.

The Reform Movement is obsessed with the political issue of global warming climate change, to the point that my region's youth organization have both a Social Action chair and Green chair. (A "Green" chair isn't religious; it's political. Period.)

As I wrote in this post back in 2007, the URJ invited two former members of Bill Clinton's administration as guest speakers at their recent Biennial Convention. No conservatives/Republicans need apply. Reform Jews also gathered at both the national and local level to oppose the war in Iraq.

Oh, did I mention that not once but twice hundreds of Reform rabbis participated in a conference call with President Obama to discuss pushing his policies to their congregations?

So, the point Beck was awkwardly trying to make -- that the Reform Movement is more a political movement than a religious one -- is valid and worthy of discussion. But his critics have missed that point because he made the mistake of comparing them to a group of violent extremists. And I do understand the critics' objections.

I do find it a little hypocritical, though, that liberal Jews are upset with being associated with something unpleasant, given their history of celebrating or engaging in the smearing of conservatives, Christians, the Tea Party, and other politically opposed groups.

As I mentioned above with the link, Beck has apologized for making the ill-advised analogy. That was very big of him. I doubt many of the supposedly tolerant and open-minded liberal Jews who hated him even before he made Tuesday's comment will even accept his apology -- not even on Yom Kippur, when we are commanded by G0d not only to apologize for our mistakes but also to forgive those who have transgressed against us. That's their problem.

But I'd like to ask such Jewish brethren: Now do you know how it feels to be unfairly smeared and compared with human monsters? How many of you have referred to those with whom youdisagree as Nazis, extremists, anti-choice theocrats, etc.? Beck admitted that his statement about the Reform Movement was ignorant. How many of you, dear Reform Jews, have referred to devout Christians in general or to specific adherents like George W. Bush or Sarah Palin in the same way, with no sense of remorse?

Where were you when back in 2001 some Democrat Congressman or Senator (don't remember who, don't care to look it up) called religious Christians "the Taliban wing of the Republican Party"?

I recommend you take stock of of your own glass houses before throwing any more stones at Glenn Beck.

Then I suggest we call this a "teachable moment" for all and move on.

UPDATE 2/25: Sure enough, one Reform Jewish Facebook friend's status reads "Dear Glenn Beck. I do not accept your apology." Do I know how to call it or what?

UPDATE 2/26: Yet even more of my tolerant, open-minded Reform Jewish FB friends continuing to bash Beck post-apology. Pathetic yet predictable.

 

Reason #47353 Why I Will Never Rejoin the Reform Movement: A Green Chair

The nature of my work connects me with many Jewish teens, mostly in the Reform Movement (which readers will know I've formally left after years of tolerating its unabashed efforts to preach hard-leftism.)

I found out just in casual conversation with young friend that the NJ - NYC  regional chapter of Reform Jewish Teens (NFTY-GER) has on its student-run board a "Green" chair.

A Green chair?

And I'm sure this is not the only region to have such a position.

After telling the wife about this, she says, "There's nothing wrong with being green." And she's right, there isn't. But, in my opinion, there's something very wrong about believing in the necessity for a Green chair in a religious organization. 

According to the NFTY-GER chair position application, the job description of the Green chair is this:

One person who will work with the Social Action VP. This person will be responsible for assisting in the SAVP in ensuring that all recyclables are kept organized and separated throughout the event until they can be equally distributed and brought to homes that can recycle them since Camp Harlam does not recycle in its off-season. This person will also be responsible for helping the SAVP in fundraising efforts and publicity of causes during and after the event (ex. signing petitions).  

1. What previous experience do you have in fundraising and publicity? 

2. What new ideas do you have to make the recycling efforts easier at Camp Harlam and/or ideas on how to make NFTY-GER a more eco-friendly community? 

3. What other ideas do you have to increase awareness, advocacy, and action at events involving causes beyond the environment? 

I still don't understand. There already exists a Social Action VP, whose job is to ... well, basically advocate for liberalism and left-wing/Democrat political positions. Why does there need to be an additional position for someone to obsess with recycling at Camp Harlam (a camp owned by the Reform movement located in eastern PA)? And, if there already is a Social Action VP, why is the Green chair required to advocate for causes beyond the environment, as specified in question #3?

Aren't there much more important social and/or religious issues that the Reform Movement's teen organizations can establish positions for? Why not a "Hate Crime and Islamic Terrorism chair"? The year 2010 has seen an increased number of hate crimes against Jews. This report in today's NY Post discloses New York State's latest hate crime trends:

ALBANY -- Hate crimes across New York state jumped 14 percent in 2009, led by an increase in attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions, state records released yesterday show. ...

Anti-Semitic incidents, which made up 37 percent of the reported hate crimes, were up 15 percent in one year, from 219 in 2008 to 251 in 2009.

To be fair, the number anti-Muslim hate crimes also increased ... from 8 to 11. (Yes, you read that right: eleven anti-Muslim hate crimes in all of New York. All while the mainstream news media bellyaches about the epidemic of Islamophobia!)

Many of these hate crimes, no doubt, were at the hands of Muslims. And in the Middle East, teens and small children are indoctrinated to hate Jews and kill them. Wouldn't Jewish teens be interested in learning how young kids are taught songs about shedding their own blood in the pursuit of murdering Jews (via Palestinian Media Watch):

Wouldn't a chairperson focusing on this disturbing and ubiquitous trend be vital and informative?

But no, someone in the Reform Movement (at least in the NJ-NYC region) thought that the Social Action VP position wasn't enough to help them indoctrinate teens with liberal/Democrat politics, so they created the Green chair to help her out.

Look, I was part of this organization when I was a teen. It helped me stay in touch with my religion during those formative years. I had made tons of friends there, and are still in regular contact with many today.

But a Green chair is, in my opinion, a highly superfluous position. But it certainly sheds further light on exactly where the Reform Jewish movement puts its focus.