Yes, but if it were FOX and an anti-liberal view point ad...
Posted By: Kendra on 2009-02-03
In Reply to: NBC has the freedom to reject the ad! - SM
all liberals would be screaming "censorship".
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Between The View and the liberal media they extract
their information from, are you surprised?!
Another point of view...
Thinking About Iraq on King Day
By Star Parker
Monday, January 15, 2007
The characteristic of greatness - whether we are talking about a great man or great art - is that it transcends time and place. It dips into that which is universally and eternally true and applies those truths to a particular moment and a particular place.
Re-reading, after many reads, Dr. Martin Luther King's words of Aug. 28, 1963, the famous I Have a Dream speech, his greatness rings clearer than ever.
Because King did indeed touch the heavens on that day and pull down kernels of eternal truths about freedom and the condition of man, those words of 40-plus years ago have relevance to our struggles today. They can serve as guidance in these difficult times.
Am I saying that King's message from 1963 can guide us in today's conundrums _ about our embroilment in Iraq, about the Middle East, about America's role in the world? Yes, I am saying this.
The power of King's message, the unquestionable reason that the movement he led was successful, was his appeal to the truth of freedom and its universal applicability to all men.
By identifying and appealing to the freedom of man as a universal and eternal truth, and going on to make clear that this truth defined what this great country is about, then King's conclusion _ the intolerability of conditions that denied any American full participation in this freedom _ could not be denied.
Beyond this central message, King made other very important points in this speech.
One of key importance was that responsibility for solving a problem does not necessarily imply direct responsibility in having caused that problem.
Although the responsibility clearly was in the hands of those Americans with power, overwhelmingly white Americans, to fix the problems in the country that limited the availability of freedom to all, this did not mean that all those same Americans were racists or had caused the problem to begin with.
The responsibility for fixing these problems came, rather, with being the beneficiaries of a country whose destiny and identity was fundamentally linked with the enterprise of freedom.
In King's words, white Americans have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.
He appealed to blacks not to allow suffering to translate into bitterness nor into categorical hate of white Americans. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
Instead, King exhorted black Americans to Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
So Dr. King accomplished a lot of business that August day in 1963.
He recognized the universal truth of human liberty. He recognized our country as a unique vessel of that truth. He appealed to Americans with power to assume their responsibilities as the beneficiaries of liberty to make this a better and freer country. And he appealed to black Americans to assume a different kind of responsibility _ to not allow themselves to be destroyed by unearned suffering but to be redeemed by it.
The prophet is a lonely man because he brings a message that people do not want to hear.
Dr. King's activism was not welcomed by most whites and a good many blacks.
There is natural appeal in the inertia of the status quo. Change and assumption of new responsibilities and challenges are welcomed by few.
Turmoil tells us that something is wrong and we have no choice but to open our eyes and ears and assume the responsibilities that are cast upon us.
I am, of course, not a military tactician and am in no position to speculate about how best to use American troops to midwife a portion of the world that clearly needs help in becoming more modern, more civil and freer.
However, I can say, that I am in complete sympathy with our president who senses that America has a unique and special role to play in this world. We cannot shirk responsibilities that are clearly ours.
I cannot help but think that it is not an accident that the United States stands so alone, despite many other nations that claim to have similar commitments to and stakes in civility and liberty. The way they act makes clear that they don't.
The truths that Dr. King articulated in so crystal clear a way in 1963 continue to resound today. Freedom is what this country is about. We have no choice. It is our heritage. We thrive and prosper from it. And we cannot avoid the responsibilities that come with it in our engagement with the rest of the world.
I appreciate your point of view, Just Me....
and I will be the first to admit, as I admitted right up front to GT/GW/BW/FPJ who knows what else, she pushed my buttons and took great joy in doing so. She attributed things to me I never said, condemned an entire political party en masse and had the nerve to call me a bigot and that was the nicest thing she called me. If you followed the posts you know that most of the name calling from my end was just repeating back to her what I had been called. The same kinds of exchanges happen on political talk shows every night. Have you ever watched Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann?
Her parting shot...Time to take out the trash.
In deference to your request, I will say this...I believe that GW believes with every fiber of her being that she is right and is passionate about her beliefs, and I certainly understand that. I think she is probably a nice person to those who share her views, loves her family like the rest of us and would like to fix all the perceived injustices in the world, just like the rest of us would. But you can't move forward if you don't let go of the hate and the blame game. There is plenty of blame to go around, on both sides of the aisle. No law, no program, no nothing can be passed in this country without both Republicans and Democrats voting for it, fact. We can't blame it all on the left and we can't blame it all on the right or the middle or whoever. In fact, we shouldn't be blaming at all, just trying to fix. But...as I am sure you well know, Just Me...the radical side of BOTH parties don't see the middle road.
The irony of the whole thing is that I am not a registered Republican...registered Independent. Only register Republican in primary years because I can't vote if I don't register Republican or Democrat...that's the law. Yet I was thrown right in and condemned right along with every other "pub."
Just Me, sometimes you just have to stand for what you believe, and not let a bully pigeon hole you and call you things you are not. And sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. That is just a part of life. I apologize if you were offended by witnessing it. I truly do. I apologize to anyone who was.
Just to clarify: I don't hate immigrants or immigration. That is how this country was born. Save Native Americans, we ALL descend from immigrants. I just feel immigration should be legal, and that immigrants should become tax-paying citizens before they get the benefits of citizenship. That's it. Real simple. And not bigoted.
And for the record, I don't hate all Democrats or blame them for all the ills in the world. Like I said...plenty of blame to go around on both sides. My parents were Democrats (old school Democrats). There have been Democrats I greatly admired...John Kennedy...Zell Miller. Great Americans in my opinion.
My point of view
I really don't care if a president cheats on his or HER spouse under most circumstances. But when his little playmate testifies he was being "serviced" by her with talking on the phone with important people, that bothers me. She very well could have heard confidential things she shouldn't have. When you are in the Oval Office you are on the clock and should act like it.
Another point of view...or two (sm)
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=17587
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-11/20/content_10388377.htm
exactly my point of view, thanks, just me'.......nm
nm
You're entitled to your point of view
but not everybody thinks he has lied. Just because people say he has lied does not make it true. There has been nothing substantial to support that he lied. I just wish people would just quit throwing the word lie around so freely, because they are jumping to conclusions with no substantiation.
What scares me is I wonder how many people could withstand a real threat to this country. We are so un-unified if it came across the television that we were being attacked....I'm not sure some of you would believe it....you'd just say, "another Bush lie..."
Our generation knows nothing of true hardship. The Iraq war is not a quagmire...it's not another Vietnam...it's not anything like the dems are whining about it being....
what a bigoted point of view!
I suppose it is okay for the "men" to have affairs and the other issues they have had? that's not dysfunctional? It is okay to leave it to the women to take to fix their crap?
This really makes me both mad and sad --
I'd like to see things from your point of view but
I can't seem to get my head up that far in my behind.
Someone who respected her point of view
Both similar to yours. Though her point of view was a little different from yours, she had a great sense of humor. She knew she was going to be attacked by certain posters on this board no matter what she said and she never cared and never caved in to the ridicule and the ignorance.
If they finally got to her, then I'm really sorry about that, though I can understand why. I considered her a friend, and I miss her. 
A good uplifting point of view from God.....
http://www.sjchurchofchrist.org/freeboot.shtml
Case in point...what a democratic view....NOT.
YOu have been exposed for what you are, and in typical spin, turn it on to someone else and make them the villain. You guys are like the Wizard of Oz...one head and lots of little bodies running around. :)
Simply displays a different point of view...nm
x
Clarification...do not allow dissention to their point of view...nm
x
Case in point. Complete intolerance for any view other than their own.
This is what the Democratic party has become.
Good point. I see no problem with both points of view being taught...
and letting indivdiuals decide. Isn't that what America is about?
My point of view was stated quite clearly. People on the left may be blinded....
Kind of sad, actually.
My point of view was stated quite clearly. People on the left may be blinded....
I have to point out your rather liberal
sprinkling of the word "all" which would make a rather interesting discourse untrue. It should also be noted it was legal on both sides to pay someone to go in your place or your son's place to service. There also were blacks serving on both sides, some even freely. I honestly don't know who or where the southern blacks served, but the northern ones were made to stay in their own units, not with whites. Not all plantation owners were rich, nor did they all leave and come back later. After Sherman went through, there really was not much left to come back to in all honesty, nor was there any money since confederate money was worthless. Are you saying you think they should have kept the "freed slaves" on their land? How were they going to support them. Anyway, they probably would have been accused to still having slaves. Many of them could no longer pay the exorbitant taxes, at least the ones where reconstruction had not moved in people from the north into their homes. There is just is no one single story here to define the whole that was happening.
And, excuse my confusion, but weren't the northerners republican and the southerns democrats? Just commenting regarding your post, don't plan on starting a range war over it.
Liberal talking point for the day
Pro-war. Tell all the little neocons they are pro-war because they want victory in Iraq. You're so transparent.
Thank you for answering her post with a liberal talking point. :-) nm
nm
Anti-Semitism versus Anti-Zionism
I wanted to address an exchange below that occurred between myself and a couple of others on the board (just the big bad and another poster who did not use anything to identify herself) last night. In response to my post about the righteous prevailing meaning the Israeli's would prevail because they are the "righteous", just the big bad responded "So was Hitler righteous?" She was likening the Israeli's treatment of the Palestinians as being akin to Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews. I then pointed out her anti-Semitic rhetoric. To which I was blasted for accusing an anti-Zionist as being an anti-Semitic.
I want to point out to many of you who hold strong opinions regarding the Israel/Palestinian conflict, there is a very fine line between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, a line that was very clearly crossed when just the big bag posted her Hitler remark, a line many have crossed in this discussion by likening the Gaza Strip to a concentration camp. When you say these things you have become an anti-Semitic. Below is an excerpt from an article written by Ami Isseroff:
If you judge a Jewish state by standards that you apply to no one else; if your neck veins bulge when you denounce Zionists but you've done no more than cluck "well, yes, very bad about Darfur";
if there is nothing Hamas can do that you won't blame 'in the final analysis' on Israelis;
if your sneer at the Zionists doesn't sound a whole lot different from American neoconservative sneers at leftists;
then you should not be surprised if you are criticized, fiercely so, by people who are serious about a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians and who won't let you get away with a self-exonerating formula "I am anti-Zionist, but not anti-Semitic" to prevent scrutiniy. If you are anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic, then don't use the categories, allusions, and smug hiss that are all too familiar to any student of prejudice.
I think that sums it up.
No dear, it's anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic.
Horrific is as horrific does. This long term occupation has spanned 60 years. The Holocaust spanned 12. Thanks to your Zionist government, its historic anmesia and its barbaric practices, the Jewish people have lost their exclusive claim to pain and suffering at the hands of state-sponsored terrorism aimed at the genocidal annihilation of an entire population. Your Holocaust was based on religious affiliation and racial purification. The Palestinian Holocaust is based on the ethnic cleansing of a pathologic nationalism that has been out of control for 6 decades.
You cannot declare yourself in charge of defining any other person's beliefs based on your concepts of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. I very painstakingly explained to you where I was coming from with that and how I make the distinction. It is the nationalistic fascist ideals that underpin the Zionist movement, not the Jewish people or their religious affiliation that are the targets of the hatred. In fact, they are also captive to their own Zionist leadership, but to a much lesser degree than the Palestinians.
The Holocaust is the only thing in recent history that can be used by comparison to describe the plight of the Palestinians. In fact, there is no parallel historical context that it can be placed in, other than perhaps the apartheid of South Africa. The most accurate description would be a combination of the two horrors.
Any way you slice it, you are trying to defend the indefensible and will never succeed in gaining any credibility, global tolerance of acceptance (except, of course from the US, who is using your country and your people for their own personal gains...better watch your backs) as long as you are the occupiers and the oppressors.
And anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage
will fix the economy? I think not. Besides anyone with half a brain cell knows BOTH of them will raise taxes on all of us. Forget tax breaks. How do you think the $700 billion and climbing is going to get paid....from money falling out of the sky????? Get real.
Anti-choice, anti-welfare,
No hypocrisy there?
Anti-gay/anti-abortion
I'm someone who believes in minding my own business. What others do in their family lives is none of my business. There hasn't been one single (or married) gay person who has ever hurt me.
On the other hand, the policies of the last eight years have hurt me a great deal. I don't have health insurance, so McCain can't tax mine, but he will tax everyone else's.
I want a President who can speak English (for a change), one who is intelligent and even tempered, and one who not only acknowledges that there is a huge problem with the middle class but whose entire platform has been devoted to solving that problem.
One day, McCain says the "fundamentals of the economy are strong." The next day, he's canceling a debate to rush back to Washington to fix the "crisis," except that he doesn't really "rush," and he didn't cancel the debate. He's running around like a chicken with its head cut off.
Obama's slogan has always been change, from the very beginning, and McCain has stolen that slogan.
I'm just personally sick and tired of politicians who are pro-corporations and anti-Americans.
Corporate tax breaks simply don't work. The beneficiaries of these breaks pocket the money. They don't create jobs; they outsource them. As MTs, we should know that more than anyone.
Obama wants to reward businesses who KEEP jobs in America. That's why I voted for him, along with the other reasons above, and that's why my daughter and son-in-law also voted for him, so he has received three votes from this household alone.
The "trickle-down" theory doesn't work and depends on the non-existent benevolence of greedy executives. It's time to try the "trickle-up" theory, IMHO.
Everyone is so upset at the thought of rising taxes. I wish someone would tell me just HOW we expect to pay for all Bush's wars, as this will fall to the next President, along with the present financial fiasco.
The so called liberal media is not so liberal anymore...sm
Case and point Fox News is the #1 media outlet via ratings and hardhitting conservative anchors, pundits, and journalists. Other than Hardball, I don't know of another mainstream show that puts the liberal point of view out there and checks this administration and their policies.
liberal hit piece by a liberal deep thinker....
x
Anti-Semitism
I would be mindful of how this word is tossed around. The Arabs are Semites too.
Not too sure. There have been a lot of anti-Bush sm
and military criticism articles the last week. I think they are feeling cornered.
Also, the US doesn't kill women and children??? It's just incredible to me that anyone cannot see what a total liar Bush is. Maybe that's why the media is finally getting some guts. Fallujah is proof they kill innocents, including women and children. White phosphorus was used in Lebanon too, apparently, although not reported very widely in the U.S. like everything else. Sane people see these horrific realities, and hopefully we are growing in numbers.
I suppose you are anti-gun as well.
//
The anti-christ??
Please-with all the damage done by Bush, and Obama is the anti-christ to you?? He is a Christian man with a lovely, loving family, strong values, and wants what is best for America. And he hasn't even been sworn in yet? What is with you folks that see it necessary to act like Obama is the devil incarnate! I have prayed for my country, the my prayers have been answered. He takes office in January.
How did you get anti-welfare out of any of this?
nm
Anti-war people
All you anti-war people I would like to know what your position was right after 9-11? Were you antiwar then or screaming for the President of the United States to DO SOMETHING to protect us. That makes you hypocrites.
Shame on YOU, anti-SSM... it's not about
If the church is going to start dictating what the goverment does, then we d****d well better start TAXING them. Now THAT would be of help to the economy.
New Anti-Smoking Law
President Obama knows all too well how difficult it is to quit smoking, and today he addressed his struggle to kick the habit just before signing a law he hopes will help other people put out their cigarettes too.
"Each day, 1,000 young people under the age of 18 become new, regular, daily smokers, and almost 90 percent of all smokers began at or before their 18th birthday," Obama said today. "I know. I was one of these teenagers. And so I know how difficult it can be to break this habit when it's been with you for a long time."
The new tobacco law gives the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco in the same way the government regulates breakfast cereals and pharmaceuticals.
"This legislation is a victory for bipartisanship, and it was passed overwhelmingly in both houses of Congress," Obama said today. "It's a victory for health care reform, as it will reduce some of the billions we spend on tobacco-related health care costs in this country."
Public health organizations and many lawmakers, several of whom joined Obama today for the signing, have been fighting for regulation for nearly a decade in hopes of helping an estimated 45 million adult smokers in the United States to kick their habit.
The law means the government will have the power to decide how cigarettes are advertised and monitor how they're promoted to young people. It means cigarette makers will be required to include new, larger warning graphics with more health information on their products and will be prohibited from using words like "light" and "low tar" in their marketing.
While the law does not have the power to ban cigarettes and nicotine outright, it does allow the FDA to reduce nicotine levels and harmful chemicals in tobacco products.
"Forty-five years after the first U.S. surgeon general's report linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer, the most deadly product sold in America will no longer be the least-regulated product sold in America," said Matthew Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, in a statement earlier this month when Congress passed the bill.
Within the year, a rule will also be reinstated that prohibits outdoor tobacco ads within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds, and bans tobacco brands from sponsoring sports and entertainment events, according to the law.
At the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, CEO John R. Seffrin said the changes "will finally put an end to Big Tobacco's despicable marketing practices that are designed to addict children to its deadly products."
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also pinned high hopes on the effort.
"This legislation is a key part of our plans to cut health care costs and reduce the number of Americans who smoke," Sebelius said in a June 11 statement.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 440,000 people die prematurely from smoking each year, with an estimated 49,000 of those deaths due to secondhand smoke exposure.
"This legislation provides a tremendous opportunity to finally hold tobacco companies accountable and restrict efforts to addict more children and adults," American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown said in a June 11 statement. "It has been a long and challenging process to move the bill through Congress but the determination of many concerned parents and supporters has never wavered."
She isn't just antiwar. She an anti-semite. sm
She is using her son's death as a platform to spout her left-wing lies and hysteria.
anti-semite? You are truly a wacko!
Anti-semite..oh please!! You fling your thoughts about jews around these boards all the time. How awful of you to accuse Cindy Sheehan of that. She is not anti semite. I truly believe you have a hang up or obsession with jewish people by your previous posts. Can we leave the jews alone..havent they suffered enough throughout time? Focus on the true issue..THE WAR IN IRAQ AND THE UNNECESSARY DEATHS IT IS CAUSING..
Your anti-Americanism is disturbing. sm
*Sorry arses* You compare the Revolutionary War to World War II. You call names and label. You are violently nearly out of control with your anger and your very wording borders on horrendously out of control. Do people really take you seriously in discussion. If so, why?
Zionism and Anti-Semitism
Zionism and Anti-Semitism
We implore and beseech our Jewish brethren to realize that the Zionists are not the saviors of the Jewish People and guarantors of their safety, but rather the instigators and original cause of Jewish suffering in the Holy Land and worldwide. The idea that Zionism and the State of “Israel” is the protector of Jews is probably the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the Jewish People. Indeed, where else since 1945 have Jews been in such physical danger as in the Zionist state?!
Jews are enjoined by their religious laws to be loyal to the country of which they are citizens. Ever since the destruction of the holy Temple in Jerusalem and the exile of the Jewish People some two thousand years ago, we have been enjoined to be scrupulously loyal to the countries we reside in. One of the great biblical prophets, Jeremiah, in chapter 29 of his book proclaimed G-d's message to all the exiled; verse seven reads, Seek out the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you and pray for it to the Almighty, for through its welfare will you have welfare. This has been a cornerstone of Jewish morality throughout our history to this very day.
Torah-true Jews wish to live in peace and harmony with their neighbors in every country among the community of nations, including in historic Palestine. They deplore acts and policies of violence carried out by those who, misusing the name of Israel our forefather, have substituted the ideal of chauvinist nationalism for the eternal values of the Torah, the eternal divinely bestowed inheritance of the Jewish people.
It has been the age-old intention of Zionism to intentionally stir up anti-Semitism anywhere possible, and even more commonly, to take advantage of any Jewish suffering anywhere in order to enhance its cause Indeed, hatred of Jews and Jewish suffering is the oxygen of the Zionist movement, and from the very beginning has been to deliberately incite hatred of the Jew and then, in feigned horror, use it to justify the existence of the Zionist state – this is, of course, Machiavellianism raised to the highest degree. Thus, the Zionists thrive on hatred and suffering of Jews, and seek to benefit thereby through keeping Jews in perpetual fear, causing them to ignore the true nature of Zionism, and instead to consider the Zionist state is their salvation.
ANTI-SEMITISM BY POLITICAL ZIONISM
Although Zionists and others dispute it, the undeniable fact is that revolutionary secular and apostate elements in the Jewish community in Europe contributed greatly to hostility towards Jews after World War I. This aroused hatred of Jews in general among many non-Jews. While a prisoner in 1924 in the fortress of Lansberg on the River Lech, Hitler wrote his Mein Kampf. When he became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he was assisted by Goebbels, Roseberg and Streicher. From them came the declarations, “The Jews of Germany caused the defeat of Germany in the 1914-1918 war; the Jews of Germany were responsible for the terrible conditions in Germany that followed the war; the Jews of Germany are foreigners and they wish to remain foreigners; they have no loyalty to the country of their birth; they are not human; they are filthy dogs; they have no right to intrude into Germany’s affairs; there are too many Jews in Germany.
As far as Zionism is concerned, the founder of Zionism and apostate, Theodor Herzl, sought to intensify hatred of the Jew in order to enhance the cause of political Zionism. Here are some of his “pearls”:
“It is essential that the sufferings of Jews. . . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-semites shall be our best friends”. (From his Diary, Part I, pp. 16)
Additional words from the vivid imagination of this dreamer, from p. 68 of Part I of his Diary.
So anti-Semitism, which is a deeply imbedded force in the subconscious mind of the masses, will not harm the Jews. I actually find it to be advantageous to building the Jewish character, education by the masses that will lead to assimilation. This education can only happen through suffering, and the Jews will adapt.
Hateful views of Jews as being subhuman did not have to be invented by Nazi theorists such as Hitler, Goebbels, Rosenberg and Streicher. This ideology was simply adapted from statements of political Zionists such as those found in the writings of the Zionist Yehezkel Kaufman in 1933.
In 1920 there were statements hostile to Jews expressed at Heidelberg University. These statements, arguing that Jews of Germany had caused the turmoil that followed the war; that the Jews of Germany had nothing in common with Germans, and that Germans had the right to prevent the Jews of Germany from intruding into the affairs of their volk were not made by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, but by Nahum Goldmann, who went in to become the President of the World Zionist Organization and head of the World Jewish Congress, and, indisputably, the most influential political Zionist in the world, second only to the Prime Minister of the State of Israel.
In 1921, Germans in Germany were told that:
“We Jews are aliens… a foreign people in your midst and we… wish to stay that way. A Jew can never be a loyal German; whoever calls the foreign land his Fatherland is a traitor to the Jewish people“.
Who spoke these vile words? It was Jacob Klatzkin, the second of two political Zionist ideologists in Germany at the time, where the Jews of Germany were enjoying full political and civil rights. It was he who had advocated undermining Jewish communities as the one certain way of acquiring a state. “They had no qualms concerning tearing down the existing Jewish communities.”
Who spoke in a public address at a political Zionist meeting in Berlin and declared that “Germany… has too many Jews”? Was it Hitler or Goebbels? No, it was Chaim Weizman, later to become the first President of the State of Israel. This address was published in 1920, and, thus, four years before Hitler had even written Mein Kampf.
How many Zionist Jews know of this vicious treachery uttered by these senior political Zionist leaders, these apostates from the Jewish People? At the Nuremberg Trials of Major War Criminals, Nazi propagandist, Julius Streicher testified: “I did no more than echo what the leading Zionists had been saying”, it is clear that he had told the truth.
In addition to Hitler, Rosenberg, Goebbels and Streicher, many other Nazi leaders used statements from Zionists to validate their charges against the Jews of Germany. Such are the efforts of Zionist leaders to this very day to maintain a high degree of anti-semitism in order to enable them, in feigned horror, to then point to anti-semitism to support their idolatrous and anti-Jewish cause. In 1963, Moshe Sharett, then Chairman of the Jewish Agency, told the 38th Annual Congress of the Scandinavian Youth Federation that the freedom enjoyed by the majority of Jews imperiled Zionism, and at the 26th World Zionist Congress, the delegates were told that the Jew is endangered by the easing of anti-Semitism in the United States “We are endangered by freedom” he declared.
Ben Gurion's Scandals
Available in our bookstore
As we stated earlier, Zionism thrives on anti-Semitism. Ben Gurion declared, “…not always and not everywhere do I opposed anti-Semitism”. Zionists regularly pull out their handy “anti-Semite” race card against anyone, Jew or non-Jew, who dares to speak out against the wickedness of Zionism.
During World War II, the Lehi organization, an offshoot of Begin’s Irgun that was headed by Yitzchak Shamir sought an alliance with Nazis! The following is a quote from the writings of the Lehi in their contact with the Nazis:
The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis and bound by a treaty with the German Reich would be in the interests of strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East ... The NMO in Palestine offers to take an active part in the war on Germany's side ... The cooperation of the Israeli freedom movement would also be in line with one of the recent speeches of the German Reich Chancellor, in which Herr Hitler stressed that any combination and any alliance would be entered into in order to isolate England and defeat it.
To those who assume that Zionists have been on the side of freedom and equality, these words seem strange. However, to those who understand the root of Zionism, which is the transformation and eradication of the concept of the traditional Jew and Judaism, these statements are not strange at all. They are to be expected.
The Zionists agreed with Nazism in general, even prior to the advent of Nazism. They believed that Jews could not, and should not, live in harmony in any other society in the world, and that should be removed from those societies for the benefit of those societies. They believed that the new Jewish existence in its own State would remake the image of Jews as “useless” and “parasites.” These ideas existed long before Adolf Hitler!
There is a huge amount of literature describing how the Zionists made it very difficult to save Jews during and after World War II. As various individuals and organizations were trying to arrange departures of Jews to western countries, the Zionists worked overtime to prevent this from happening. They expressed the opinion that building up the Jewish population of Palestine was more important than enabling Jews to go to third countries, and they insisted to western powers that Jews should not be accepted anywhere other than Palestine. Indeed, Yitzchak Greenbaum, a famous Zionist, proclaimed that “one cow in Palestine was worth more than all the Jews in Poland.” The infamous David Ben-Gurion said in 1938:
If I knew it was possible to save all the children in Germany by taking them to England, and only half of the children by taking them to Eretz Israel, I would choose the second solution. For we must take into account not only the lives of these children but also the history of the people of Israel.
Read about the brutal Zionist role in the Holocaust.
After the war, a Zionist “religious” leader, Rabbi Klaussner, who was in charge of displaced persons presented a report before the Jewish American Conference on May 2nd, 1948 :
I am convinced people must be forced to go to Palestine...For them, an American dollar appears as the highest of goals. By the word force, I am suggesting a programme. It served for the evacuation of the Jews in Poland, and in the history of the 'Exodus'... To apply this programme we must, instead of providing 'displaced persons' with comfort, create the greatest possible discomfort for them...At a second stage, a procedure calling upon the Haganah to harass the Jews.
It is ironic that the Zionists proclaim their State as the safe haven for the Jewish People, when since World War II no place on earth has been as dangerous for Jews, both spiritually and physically, as the Zionist state.
The Zionists worked relentlessly to create fear among Jews in the Arab countries after the Zionist state was established. Their tactic work most successfully in Yemen, Morocco, Iraq, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia.
It is common knowledge among Iraqi Jews that during 1949-1950 the famous Zionist, Mordechai ben Porat, who had the nickname of Morad Abu al-Knabel (Mordechai Bomber), was instrumental in seeking to bribe Iraqi officials after the creation of the Zionist state to pass laws to encourage Jews to leave Iraq. This was enhanced by the Zionists planting bombs in synagogues in Baghdad in March 1950. Information about this is readily available on the internet.
Read The Jews of Iraq by Naim Giladi, a first hand account of violence and intimidation of Iraqi Jews to leave their homeland.
The writings of Mr. Naim Giladi document in detail what the Zionists did in Baghdad in 1950 to provoke the departure of the Jews to the Zionist state. The Zionists do not care what effect their policies have on the Jewish communities of any country. When they accuse European nations of every sin under the sun, do the Zionists care that this will produce hostility towards Jews? No! Not a bit. On the contrary, as we have discussed, they thrive on such circumstances, clinging to the vain hope that these Jewish communities will rush for the “salvation” of the “safe haven” of the Zionist Paradise where Jews are in constant danger as the Zionist regime undertakes every form of cruel provocation against non-Jews.
Horrifying Accusations of Violence and Intimidation
Read More
In more recent times the Zionists have sought every opportunity to encourage Jews to leave their home countries. Anytime there is even the smallest event of hostility toward Jews on the heels of Zionist policy, or if there are signs of economic distress and dislocation, the Zionists magnify it a thousand times, seek to ruthlessly humiliate the nations involved, and agitate for Jews to go to the Zionist state, the so-called “natural home” of the Jewish People. This has been the case in countries such as France, Argentina, Uruguay, the former Soviet Union and Egypt.
The promises of the Torah are always to be realized. This verse from the Torah demonstrates that those who are his enemies will pay a price when The kingdom of G-D will prevail.
Deuteronomy 32:43: Praise his People, O Nations: For he will avenge the blood of his servants. He will render vengeance against his adversaries and make expiation for his land and his People.
Sources:
- Guardian Volume two Issue 7
- Satmar Grand Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum
- The Jews of Batna, Aleria: A Study of Identity and Colonialism by Elizabeth Friedman.
- The Jewish Communities of Morocco and the AIU by M. Laskier, State University, Albany, N.Y.
- The Impact of Western European Education on the Jewish Millet of Baghdad by Maurice Sawdayee.
- Outcaste Jewish Life in Southern Iran by Laurence D. Loeb. Gordon and Breach.
- The Last Arab Jews. The Communities of Jerba, Tunisia by Abraham Udovitch and Lucette Valensi. Harwood Academic Publishers.
- The GENOCIDE IN THE HOLY LAND (available for purchase on the site)
- Ben Gurion's Scandals by Naeim Giladi (available for purchase on the site)
|
|
Before I get labeled an anti-semite...
since I have already been branded with the B word...let me please invite everyone to read the entire thread between Maryland Gal, myself, and others. I have never, nor would I ever, compare any of the Jewish race to Hitler, nor would I compare abortion to what Hitler did (other than in the general sense I believe both to be murder). That being said, the point I was trying to make is that when morals decline and the moral compass turns and what used to be unacceptable and horrific becomes acceptable, people like Hitler can rise up and convince thousands of people that it is all right to exterminate a race of people simply because they believe them to be inferior or subhuman. It happened once and it could happen again. And it starts as people begin to rationalize things like abortion. And assisted suicide. And euthanasia (check out how Holland handles euthanasia right now today and you will see what I mean). That was my only point entirely. I certainly do not hate the Jewish people. I certainly do not minimize what happened to them, nothing can compare with how horrific that was. Many American soldiers died fighting to stop it. That is what America does. We point at what we believe to be wrong and say so. At least we used to. I am just concerned that the less we point and the more we turn our heads, the worse it will be for us, especially with the threat facing us today. And what Maryland Gal needs to understand is I am not pointing at her and I am not pointing at the Jewish faith. I am pointing at a practice I believe to be wrong, which I still believe to be wrong.
Yes, but there is a difference being anti-Obama...
because of his politics and where he wants to take the country than being anti-Obama because of the color of his skin. These "nuts" could not care less about his politics. If a black man (or lack woman for that matter) had run on the Republican side they would be in the same danger. This is about the color of his skin...and now that he has picked as his chief of staff a militant pro-Israel Jew...talk about inflaming the "nuts." Again, I do not say that Obama should not have chosen Emanuel for that reason, and I don't think he should hide in the shadows. However, I DO think he should listen to the Secret Service and do what they tell him. I wish him no harm and pray for the safety of he and his family, and for those who are charged with his protection.
Anti-Christian posts
And your post linking swastikas and racial slurs to Christians wasn't spewing hate? You'd better look in a mirror.
There are a lot of anti-smoking laws
I did not realize this was an old campaign. It seemed like a modern idea when the surgeon general came out in 1969 against smoking.
anti-obama question
Can I ask you anti-obama folks, why don't you like him? Is it something personal? May sound simple, but I don't get it. Do you feel he is not qualified? Too young? Not born in US? Wrong color? I am serious about this. What's your gripe?
Whose in charge of this anti-IQ crusade?
An ineffective tactic to use to try to excuse a sitting president's white matter deficit.
Because the repubs are anti abortion nm
nm
Yea, right...those anti-war Dems really stepping up
US drones have already bombed Pakistan, so no doubt Obama has already ordered that. The democrats squeal foul play until they're holding the bag and then it's a free for all with those bombs. Funny THEY don't mind bombing anyone. But, of course, Obama lovers will of course be able to justify HIS actions.....they always do. Can't blame this one on Bush.......
Anti Gay (and USA) Protests to Hit Key West
I read a daily blog on Key West real estate and today's posting happened to be on a slightly different subject.
Apparently Fred Phelps and his minions are planning on a trip to Key West to demonstrate their hate of not only gay people but the USA.
Can we take them down as the terrorist organization they are yet? One of his cohorts is already down there:
====================================================
The Key West community will meet tonight to decide whether -- and if so, how -- to respond to a nationally infamous man who hates homosexuals.
The Rev. Fred Phelps, head of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, is scheduled to be in Key West on May 22 to protest the Gay/Straight Alliance at Key West High School. Phelps also is planning to demonstrate at the entrance to the island, in front of Sigsbee Park and at B'Nai Zion synagogue, according to a letter Phelps' daughter sent to Police Chief Donie Lee.
The group is planning an outdoor demonstration "regarding the judgment of God with respect to the dangers of promoting homosexuality, and the rest of the filthy manner of life and idol worshipping in this country," the letter states. The city does not require a permit for such assemblies.
Phelps' church is not recognized by mainstream Baptists and is monitored by the Anti-Defamation League as a hate group. His "church" comprises mostly his family members, about 60 of whom are said to protest three times a day, with signs that read, "God Hates Fags" and other anti-homosexual slurs. The church also protests at military funerals, claiming the deaths are the result of America's tolerance of homosexuality.
The Rev. Joe McMurray, pastor of the gay-friendly Metropolitan Community Church, where tonight's meeting will be held, said he does not think that Anthony Charles Capo Jr., who often holds a sign that says "God Hates Fags.com" on Key West street corners, is formally connected with the Kansas group.
Meeting organizers will solicit ideas from community members and law enforcement officials, said McMurray. The gathering will include the police chief, Schools Superintendent Randy Acevedo and some city commissioners.
"We can come together and decide if there will be a response, and what it would be," McMurray said. "We'll also hear from law enforcement to see what they prefer in the interest of public safety."
The Police Department is developing an operational plan for Phelps' demonstration, but Lee emphasized that the general public should ignore Phelps.
"I know it's difficult and I know, firsthand, that it's an emotional issue, but as far as I'm concerned, that's the way to deal with it," said Lee, who is gay. Any demonstrations from counter-protesters would only make it more difficult for officers to keep the peace, Lee said.
Phelps' First Amendment rights allow him and his followers to express their opinions, and the police cannot arrest them for doing so.
Lee explained that if someone says something that directly creates a public safety issue, then the situation changes. He used the example of someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater as an example that would jeopardize public safety and therefore be an arrestable offense.
"Short of that, people have the right to express their opinion," Lee said.
McMurray said he does not know what prompted Phelps to target the high school group in a town known for its acceptance of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, and its official motto of "One Human Family."
"I don't know if anybody has the 'why' behind Fred Phelps," McMurray said. "He wants to come disrupt, create unease and disturb the peace in a peace-loving community, and he raises money by suing municipalities who violate his civil rights during protests. He intimidates communities."
McMurray and others hope to hear ideas that would turn Phelps' protest into something positive for the community. One option would be a fundraiser for every hour that Phelps is here. People could make an hourly pledge to local charities such as AIDS Help and the Gay and Lesbian Community Center, so the longer Phelps remained in town, the more money he would help raise for gay-friendly service organizations.
"This cannot be personal," said McMurray, who is gay. "Once it becomes personal, we're operating on his level."
J.T. Thompson, a graphic designer who founded the "One Human Family" movement, emphasized that confrontation with Phelps and his group will not serve any purpose.
"This guy earns a living making confrontations happen," Thompson said. "It will be a good day in the fact that we can unite people here. The meeting will gather input to unite the community in a peaceful, positive and loving response."
So when do we canonize this radical anti-American? sm
Hugo Chavez I believe is a growing symbol on the American radical Left like his mentor Fidel Castro. Chavez is a paranoid anti-American who believes America is out to get him just like Fidel believed the same thing.
Robertson’s comments to assassinate Chavez, unfortnately strengthens Chavez’s tyrannical grip over his people (and his paranoia). Chavez himself is becoming a tyrant who is funding international terrorism. From al-Qaeda to FARC. Chavez’s mentor Fidel Castro has funded international terrorism from the PLO, Hezbollah, Tamil Tigers, African National Congress and a whole bunch of other terrorist groups.
Chavez is a threat to America because of his ties to Fidel Castro and to international terrorism. I mean if the radical Left really believe Robertson’s comments were wrong, why does it give them the right to support Fidel Castro and his pal Hugo Chavez? Why does the left-wing media like people such as Ted Turner who owns CNN get away with being Fidel Castro’s admirer? Yet when there are reports of Castro and Chavez killing or making tyrannical iron fist rules against their own people, it’s okay but complain whenever someone like Robertson or someone else makes a harsh comments against their idols (i.e. Castro and Chavez)?
There in lines the double-standard of the American radical Left and how much influence they have over the media. If it’s wrong for Pat Robertson to make those comments, then it’s ten times worse for any hardline Lefty in the American media to admire Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez. But that never seems to be scorned by the media. Only Robertson’s statements.
Cindy re-energized the anti war movement
Well, guess we are looking at different news papers and news programs cause from what I have seen and read, most of the country is behind Cindy 100%. In fact, it was her camping out in Tx that re-energized the anti war movement. If she was a quack or clown which is what Rove called her (takes a clown to know a clown), she could not have possibly started the ending of the Iraq war..which is what she did, you know. If you dont agree, I would suggest you study the ending of the Vietnam War. Nixon refused at first but the roar of the majority got too loud. As far as sacrificing a son. She probably feels guilt cause she feels that way as any mother wants to protect her children and not send them into harms way. So, if she had known he would die, she probably would have fought every which way to try to keep him out of the military. In her mind the guilt trip is she sacrificed her son..she should have *protected* him. I think that is what she feels. Me? I think when a child turns 18, they need to be on their own and make their own decisions..So, to me it would be the sons decision.
|
