From the NYT:
Parties See Obama’s Israel Policy as Wedge for 2012
By JACKIE CALMES and HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON — Few issues in American politics are as bipartisan as support for Israel. Yet the question of whether President Obama is supportive enough is behind some of the most partisan maneuvering since the Middle East ally was born six decades ago, and that angling has potential ramifications for the 2012 elections.
The visit of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel in the past week captured just how aggressively Republicans are stoking doubts about Mr. Obama. Republican Congressional leaders and presidential aspirants lavished praise on Mr. Netanyahu as quickly as they had condemned Mr. Obama for proposing that Israel’s 1967 borders, with mutually agreed land swaps, should be a basis for negotiating peace with the Palestinians.
Republicans do not suggest that they can soon break the Democratic Party’s long hold on the loyalty of Jewish-American voters; Mr. Obama got nearly 8 of 10 such voters in 2008. But what Republicans do see is the potential in 2012 to diminish the millions of dollars, volunteer activism and ultimately the votes that Mr. Obama and his party typically get from American Jews — support that is disproportionate to their numbers.
And that's not counting unpaid media: of the traditional big 4 newspapers, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and LA Times, are all Jewish-owned. Jews make up about half of the Atlantic 50 list of most influential pundits.
While Jewish Americans are just 2 percent of the electorate nationally, they are “strategically concentrated,” as Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, put it, in several swing states that are critical in presidential elections. Those states include Florida — which in 2000 illustrated the potentially decisive power of one state — Ohio and Nevada.
A test of Mr. Obama’s support will come June 20, when he will hold a fund-raiser for about 80 Jewish donors at a private dinner.
John R. Bolton, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations and a possible Republican presidential candidate, argues that because of administration proposals, Republicans will be able to make gains not only among American Jews but also among evangelicals who are supportive of Israel on biblical grounds, and other voters.
Mr. Bolton said that he was on a cruise sponsored by the conservative magazine Weekly Standard last week in the Mediterranean, and that most of the people on the ship “reacted very strongly against” Mr. Obama’s speech outlining his Mideast vision. “As a Republican,” he said, “you can use this to show how radical the president’s policies are on a whole range of issues.”
The depth of Democrats’ worries was evident from the competition to out-applaud Republicans on Tuesday during Mr. Netanyahu’s speech to a joint meeting of Congress
How many standing ovations did Netanyahu get from Congress? 20? 29? That reminds me of a story in Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago:
At the conclusion of the conference, a tribute to Comrade Stalin was called for. Of course, everyone stood up (just as everyone had leaped to his feet during the conference at every mention of his name). ... For three minutes, four minutes, five minutes, the stormy applause, rising to an ovation, continued. But palms were getting sore and raised arms were already aching. ...
However, who would dare to be the first to stop? … After all, NKVD men were standing in the hall applauding and watching to see who would quit first! And in the obscure, small hall, unknown to the leader, the applause went on – six, seven, eight minutes! ... They couldn’t stop now till they collapsed with heart attacks! ...
The director of the local paper factory, an independent and strong-minded man, stood with the presidium. Aware of all the falsity and all the impossibility of the situation, he still kept on applauding! Nine minutes! Ten! In anguish he watched the secretary of the District Party Committee, but the latter dared not stop. Insanity! To the last man! With make-believe enthusiasm on their faces, looking at each other with faint hope, the district leaders were just going to go on and on applauding till they fell where they stood, till they were carried out of the hall on stretchers!
Then, after eleven minutes, the director of the paper factory assumed a businesslike expression and sat down in his seat. And, oh, a miracle took place! Where had the universal, uninhibited, indescribable enthusiasm gone? To a man, everyone else stopped dead and sat down. They had been saved!
... That same night the factory director was arrested. They easily pasted ten years on him on the pretext of something quite different. But after he had signed Form 206, the final document of the interrogation, his interrogator reminded him:
“Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding."
It has been widely noted that VP and President of the Senate Joe Biden merely rubbed his knuckles pensively after Netanyahu's statement that Jerusalem must be the united capital of Israel, while everyone else in the room cheered as if Beyonce had just finished singing "Single Ladies."
Yet it is the Republican Party’s close identification with evangelical Christians in recent years that is perhaps its biggest hurdle to winning over significant numbers of Jewish voters and donors. On issues that are crucial to the conservative Republican base — like opposition to abortion, gay rights, liberalized immigration and much government spending — most American Jews are on the other side, and strongly so. ...
Indeed.
Mr. Netanyahu on Monday experienced first-hand the tension arising from that complaint among Democrats, and Republicans’ rejection of it, in a private meeting he held with representatives of the National Jewish Democratic Council and the Republican Jewish Coalition to underscore American Jews’ bipartisan consensus on Israel.
A partisan argument ensued after Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, whom Mr. Obama recently named as chairman of the Democratic Party, suggested they agree not to make support for Israel an election issue. Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican group, objected, accusing her of proposing a “gag order.”
Posts
59 comments:
"Yet it is the Republican Party’s close identification with evangelical Christians in recent years that is perhaps its biggest hurdle to winning over significant numbers of Jewish voters and donors. On issues that are crucial to the conservative Republican base — like opposition to abortion, gay rights, liberalized immigration and much government spending — most American Jews are on the other side, and strongly so."
Here's the real problem for Republicans. They do have some solid positions, but the Christian Right spiritualizes than rationalizes those issues. Opposition to 'gay marriage' should be on biological, moral, and rational grounds. Tolerance for gays is okay but we have to say NO to the idea that homosexuality is the moral, biological, and cultural equivalent of real sexuality. We don't need bring God into this argument. It is so obvious why 'gay marriage' is ludicrous, but the argument we hear is mostly religious or on grounds of 'tradition', which is why opposition to 'gay marriage' is associated with atavistic thinking.
Christian Right is okay for votes, but conservative principles should be argued on rational grounds, not spiritual grounds.
Just a couple of posts ago Bibi was only like Khruschev. Now he is like Stalin!
Jews are "strategically concentrated" in...Ohio?
Tolerance for gays is okay but we have to say NO to the idea that homosexuality is the moral, biological, and cultural equivalent of real sexuality.
The principle is "permission vs promotion."
You can permit homosexuality etc even if you hate it.
But you promote heterosexuality, traditional marriage etc.
You can apply it to any controversial issue. "Oh, sure, I've got no problem with [X]. But what I stand for is [Y]."
"the New York Times, the Washington Post, and LA Times, are all Jewish-owned. "
New York Times: Publicly traded.
Washington Post: owned by a publicly traded company.
LA Times: Owned by the Tribune Company, which is employee-owned.
0 for 3. Maybe after you fact check for Malcolm Gladwell, the New Yorker can fact check for you.
Yet it is the Republican Party’s close identification with evangelical Christians in recent years that is perhaps its biggest hurdle to winning over significant numbers of Jewish voters and donors.
So, the GOP is fervently pro-Israel because of these so-called "evangelicals", and the party is also radioactive among Jews because of them?
New York Times: Publicly traded.
You're an imbecile.
The Ochs-Sulzberger family, one of the United States' newspaper dynasties, has owned The New York Times since 1896. After the publisher went public in the 1960s, the family continued to exert control through its ownership of the vast majority of Class B voting shares. Class A shareholders are permitted restrictive voting rights while Class B shareholders are allowed open voting rights.
You can buy all the Class A stock you like, and they'll be happy to take your money, but you can never get ownership of the paper.
You know, the Bible does not actually command Christians to worship the state of Israel. Theologically speaking, these "evangelicals" are Christian heretics.
Great post, Steve.
As long as we're day dreaming about getting Israel's PM to run for president here, can we figure out a way to get Israel's Rhodesian-born central bank governor Stanley Fischer to become our next Fed chairman? Like Netanyahu, he spent time at MIT (but as a professor).
In our system most decisions are made out of view altogether. Legislators are permitted very little variation in what they support. Mostly they maneuver over the small number of dollars that are at their discretion. Still a legislator must have some prize or position to show his district, and if it isn't the MLK Memorial Sewage Treatment Plant, it has to some symbolic issue they are allowed some room on- with Israel it might be 98% support for a Bay Area Democrat, or 110% support for a Texas Republican. (You can't actually do or support anything more than 100%, despite what all the football coaches of the world say, so as we can see the effective difference is 2%.) It's all a show for those too sophisticated for professional wrestling, but they have to have *something* to put on all those cable channels.
http://plainfield.patch.com/articles/are-rash-of-gay-slurs-in-pro-sports-just-part-of-the-macho-culture#photo-6252831
Jews now found a way to control the blacks. Accuse them of 'homophobia' and fine them big time.
So, Jews get whites on 'racism' and get blacks on 'homophobia', though in this particular case, the 'gay slur' wasn't really used as a gay slur.
Blacks, who've been socially and politically so difficult to control and handle, are falling all over themselves to apologize and atone when accused of 'homophobia'. Well, at least big-name blacks who are making lots of money. Since Jews own much of sports and media, and since many of fans of stuff like basketball are white liberals, it is necessary for some blacks to play ball.
The message from Jews seems to be, "white racial bigots once used to call you black guys bad names and discriminate against your kind, so should you be doing the same thing to gays?" In the context of this narrative, blacks who use 'gay slurs' are victimizing another group just like they'd been victimized by whites. It is the one issue that fills blacks with some degree of guilt, even if it's only faux-public guilt.
And since Jews and white gays are very wealthy and influential, and since the gay agenda is regarded as a means to de-masculinze and subvert white culture as a whole, blacks will pretend to go along with the 'gay rights' thing even though the core of black community will always remain too macho to take it to heart.
There is another aspect to this, a racial one. Oftentimes, blacks use 'gay slurs' against white and Jewish men, as if to suggest that white or Jewish men aren't really men but a bunch of 'pussies'. It's like black guys beat up and rape white guys and call them 'my bitches'.
In fact, most times when black men use the term 'fag', they aren't against actual gays but against other men--white, Jewish, or even black(generally bleeks)--who are deemed as less manly.
Now, it would be embarrassing for a Jewish or white guy to complain about this since he would sound like a wimp pleading with a black guy not to insult him. No guy wants to say, 'oh, please don't call me fag cuz it hurts my feelings, boo hoo.'
Besides, PC tells us that white males are oppressors, not worthy of an social or political sympathy. So, it's difficult for whites to use the 'racism' charge against blacks.
So, what can be done about the machology of black bullying and thuggery? How about connecting it to the sin of 'homophobia', which today is considered as an highly politically incorrect form of bigotry.
Thus censuring and shaming black male machismo, maybe the hope is black guys will tone down a bit in all manner of aggressive behavior, even or especially against swapple and Jewish men.
PC generally says blacks cannot be 'racist' against whites, especially white males, but PC says blacks can be 'homophobic' against gays. And since black 'homophobia' seems to be linked with black machismo, maybe white/Jewish males can kill two birds with one stone: by censuring and penalizing black 'homophobia', it ight also have a mellowing effect on black macho thuggery as a whole, which means they'll be less aggressive to all sorts of people. And since black athletes and rappers are the biggest role models of black society, shaming and pressuring them might have a ripple effect on all of the black community.
Even so, privately blacks will likely say, 'okay, we'll go along with this funnyass bullshit cuz we need Jewish boys and gay boys as political allies and against white 'racist' conservative mofos... but that gay shit aint funny!'
It is classic reflexive politicking, or Hegelian epistemic ressentiment as I call it. Starting around the 50s pre-boomer Democrats accused Republicans of being anti-Semites due to their disturbing lack of faith. In the late 60s Russia was getting back into practice. In 1990 Republicans accused Democrats of being anti-Semites if they opposed the gulf war (by this point, all world conflict revolving around nations who use Semitic languages). After Camp David 2000 the anti-Israel left and anti-Israel right hate each other more than the main parties, who are now completely confused as to the appropriate nemesis. Meanwhile Congress can't be bothered to say a word against Pakistan (a fellow member of the $3 Bil Club), OPEC member Nigeria is banking more than half a billion according to foreignassistance.gov, but Sailer bangs on about the magical force-field around the Zionist supervillain? It's as bad as magazines who run cover stories criticizing the people with the temerity to voice criticisms of other people who've dared to criticize Sarah Palin, or the Dixie Chicks, or Michael Vick, or Madonna. p.s. if only Israel could be really self-sufficient like South Korea and Taiwan!
"You know, the Bible does not actually command Christians to worship the state of Israel. Theologically speaking, these "evangelicals" are Christian heretics."
They should be called geli-heads or geli-beans. They got the numbers but no brain cells.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390790/Sarah-Palin-furious-Bristols-new-Disney-Show-star-boyfriend-Kyle-Massey.html
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As long as we're day dreaming about getting Israel's PM to run for president here, can we figure out a way to get Israel's Rhodesian-born central bank governor Stanley Fischer to become our next Fed chairman? Like Netanyahu, he spent time at MIT (but as a professor).
Umm how is Fischer any different from Ben Shalom Bernanke, PhD from MIT?
John Bolton on a Med cruise lecturing the faithful? He's on the National Review Caribbean cruise in November, too, with John Sununu, John Derbyshire, Rich Lowry, Jonah Goldberg, Dinesh D'Souza, Mark Steyn, and many, many more.
"Additional speakers to be announced" - do you fancy your chances of an invite?
The video you linked of Biden not applauding has over 400 comments denouncing his heresy. Of course, Biden is a huge supporter of Israel and was probably just fantasizing about applesauce - as Whiskey has pointed out, the VP has had 2 brain aneurysms and is mentally deficient.
"Additional speakers to be announced" - do you fancy your chances of an invite?
Sailer on an NR cruise? The Israel Fan Club would probably toss him overboard.
On May 6, 2011, LA Times publisher Eddy Hartenstein is named CEO of Tribune Co:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/06/business/la-fiw-tribune-20110507
I am not sure about the ethnicity of WaPo publisher Katherine Weymouth.
The bottom line is if Republicans think they are going to get American Jews to support Obama any less in 2012, I think they need a better plan. F**king around with medicare? Probably need a better plan.
Steve's point about seeing the parade of member of both parties rushing up to be seen and sing the praises of AIPAC automatically makes me suspicious. Probably having something to do with bipartisanship being both stupid and evil.
"Anonymous Anonagon said...
"the New York Times, the Washington Post, and LA Times, are all Jewish-owned. "
New York Times: Publicly traded.
Washington Post: owned by a publicly traded company.
LA Times: Owned by the Tribune Company, which is employee-owned.
0 for 3. Maybe after you fact check for Malcolm Gladwell, the New Yorker can fact check for you."
You cannot possibly be this stupid and ill-informed. The NY Times and Washington Post have been Jewish owned and controlled for so long it is comical to deny it. Sure you can buy public stock: it doesn't give you any control of the company. It's who controls the company that matters.
Even a brief reading of the wiki articles would enlighten you as to who owns and controls the NYT and WP, and deeper reading on the topic is overwhelming: it is hardly an "anti-semitic canard". Don't be fooled by the "publicly traded" nonsense. Observe which tribe keeps showing up as the top executive officers in these "publicly traded" companies.
The LA Times is owned by the Tribune Company which was also Jewish owned, until the Tribune Company went into bankruptcy a few years ago, so yeah, now that the Tribune newspapers aren't worth anything and are on the way out of business, suddenly it is "an employee owned business".
So Steve got two right and one wrong based on information a few years out of date. Big deal: unpaid bloggers can't afford to pay for fact checkers. What they can do is use their brains unfettered by PC taboos, which you appear unable to do.
Israel and the Soviets - yep, same thing basically!
I remember when this blog talked about race instead of the hobbyhorse of Jews not wanting to die.
Seems like most of the people posting on this thread don't understand the attraction of Israel to many evangelicals.
FIRST, the Bible says that Jews are God's chosen people. If you believe the Bible is literally God's Word,then you can't ignore this.
SECOND, without the existence of Israel, there can be no Apocalypse. Until the Apocalypse happens, there can be no Second Coming.
>Jews are "strategically concentrated" in...Ohio?<
Well, I don't know about Ohio, but they are in Tennessee and Florida.
"Just a couple of posts ago Bibi was only like Khruschev. Now he is like Stalin!"
The congress-whores applauding were just like old film of sov-bloc politicians praising the great leader. Obviously it's only the same in appearance. A more accurate analogy would be trained seals applauding for fish - where in this case fish means future campaign funding.
.
It is significant that 99% support for Israel is now a wedge issue in American politics. It has to be 100% or else.
.
According to Wikipedia, the chairman of the board of the New York Times is Arthur Ochs Sulzberger who was raised Episcopalian.
This seems like a case of the anti-Semitic one-drop rule. If the head of any media company has any Jewish blood, the anti-Semites consider him to be Jewish.
AIPAC syndrome is a case of laughingstockholm syndrome.
Interesting that Paul Schrader made both AMERICAN GIGOLO and PATTY HEARST. In AG, the guy thinks he's free but he's just a hired gun/whore.
And Patty, to repress her shame and degradation as a hostage, becomes as or even more radical than her captors.
Congress, the crib of gigolo hostages.
One can claim the NY Times is still Jewish owned due to the class B voting stock being mostly in the hands of the Jewish and non-Jewish descendants of the Ochs-Sulzberger families that bought the newspaper in 1891. The Times is very anti-Israel due to Pinch Sulzberger who runs it. He is Episcopalian via his mother and self-hates his Jewishness he got via his father
Washington Post -- publicly traded. Not Jewish owned though it was so in the past
LA Times? What a joke. They are in bankruptcy because their owner, the Tribune Company, is in bankruptcy. Sam Zell (Jewish) is largest Tribune owner and owns about 4% of Tribune company. Kinda pathetic to call LA Times Jewish owned
from 2007
"If the deal goes through as planned, billionaire Zell will wind up with a controlling minority stake in Tribune, even though he is putting up just $315 million of his own money for a company valued at $8.2 billion."
Schmafia in control of everything.
The last to applaud story reminds me of another from Solzhenitsyn:
Guard to prisoner: How long are you in for?
Prisoner to Guard: 25 years
G to P: What did you do?
P to G: Nothing!
G to P: That's a lie! For nothing, you get 10 years!
"Umm how is Fischer any different from Ben Shalom Bernanke, PhD from MIT"
Fischer has been raising interest rates recently to support his country's currency and ward off inflation. Bernanke has been printing money. The current central bank interest rate in Israel is 3.25%.
Concerning NYT: "You can buy all the Class A stock you like, and they'll be happy to take your money, but you can never get ownership of the paper."
Can any for profit corporation be structured in that way? What are the implications of Citizens United in such cases? Zero shareholder control?
Paul Mendez said...
FIRST, the Bible says that Jews are God's chosen people. If you believe the Bible is literally God's Word,then you can't ignore this.
The church is now God's chosen people, read Romans. Jews are welcome to join in, and not only were the first Christians Jews, including Jesus, but many joined in through the centuries. Messianic Jews are Jews who converted to Christianity but retain their Jewish customs, traditions, language and culture. Just like all the other peoples from many cultures and tribes retain their identity even though they became Christians. Its one of the beauties of Christianity.
SECOND, without the existence of Israel, there can be no Apocalypse. Until the Apocalypse happens, there can be no Second Coming.
Revelations has been mostly distorted by evangelicals. They need the panic and fear in order to "bring people to Jesus". But Christ said that God draws people to Himself through love, not fear. (btw., sounds more like Ron Paul is my guy if I believe the teachings of Christ). Most interpretations of Revelations and the end times is subjective, there are numerous and many different opinions. It's unclear whether the modern day Israel is really what God is referring to. We have a limited view. The Crusaders also headed that way and actually ruled parts of Israel for a while, believing this was God's design.
Suppose Arab-Americans had an IQ of 115(while Jewish-Americans were only 95). Suppose Arab-Americans were 2% of the population but owned 40% of all the wealth, comprised nearly 40% of all billionaires, and controlled 90% of the mass media. Suppose Ivy League universities were controlled by Arab-American intellectuals, and Arab-American businessmen poured gazillions as donations into think thanks, institutions, lobbies, political parties, etc. Suppose Democrats got 60% of their funds from Arab-Americans and Republicans got 40% and hoped for more. Suppose, Arab-Americans, through their control of the media, milk white Christian guilt about the Crusades and Western imperialism. Suppose Arab-Americans turn one of their holidays into the equal of Christmas, and create the notion of a Christo-Islamic civilization or Islamo-Christian heritage.
Suppose Hollywood was created and is owned by Arab-Americans who become some of its biggest stars--comedians, film directors, writers, etc. Suppose an Arab-American had made blockbusters like ET. And suppose a whole bunch of movies had been made to sacralize Muslims/Arabs than Jews(as in those Cecil B. Demille movies). Suppose most Americans laugh every night to Arab-American written jokes. Suppose Arab-American controlled media/Hollywood and portrayed themselves as the best friends of America while depicting Jews as dangerous radicals and subversives. Suppose a movie that won Best Picture is SCHMIDT'S LIST, a story of good Christian who saved Muslim lives during the Crusades, etc, etc, etc.
Would we be slavish to Arab-Americans than to Jews?
Nah!!!!!
"Yet it is the Republican Party’s close identification with evangelical Christians in recent years that is perhaps its biggest hurdle to winning over significant numbers of Jewish voters and donors. ""
Exactly. As a former evangelical, I've come to believe that fundamentalist Christianity ought to be categorized more as a branch of Judaism than Christianity because of the obsession with the second coming of Christ.
Yet, Jews respond to most other tenants of evangelical Christianity as if these people are psychotic inbreds missing essential DNA that would make them safe, sane and moral. So, while evangelical Christians are the last in the world to boycott Israel over the human rights violations of the Palestinians, Jews would rather affiliate themselves with the better educated, though much more prone to antisemitism Catholics.
So, like the minority golfer who wouldn't want to belong to any club that would willingly accept him, the Jews would die rather than acknowledge the love and respect given Jews and Israel by those simpleminded, mithric cultish evangelicals who, rather than hate Jews, think that they(Jews) will ultimately realize that when Jesus takes over and rules from Israel, it's the 2nd rather than the 1st time he's visited Earth. ;0)
That Jews often don't know who their real friends are is a given.
In a month, will anyone at all remember the pretend controversy here? The lessons that will be learned are, first, that it's a bad idea to annoy the Israeli lobby if you're a politician, not really because anyone believes anti-Semetic smears from the fringes, but because a lot of wealthy potential donors are Jews who care a great deal about Israel, and many politicians want their votes.
The deeper message that's lost is that overwhelming support for Israel in the US isn't something carved in stone, any more than having the treasury bill rate define the riskless rate of return and being able to fund our deficit in dollars is carved in stone.
One day, circumstances may change, and support for Israel will be a liability for many politicians. And then, guys like Lieberman and Emanuel will keep on supporting it, because that's something they care a lot about, but the Reids and Boehners will suddenly find that they're too busy to return AIPAC's phone calls. If I were Israeli, I'd be worried about what that day might look like.
FROM VANITY FAIR:
On a stage before a big audience at the University of California, Berkeley, in 2002, Arthur Sulzberger was asked a question on the subject by his host, Orville Schell, then the dean of Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism. Earlier, Arthur had joked with Schell about how he had achieved his position in the same way as Kim Jong Il, the North Korean dictator, who had succeeded his dictator father, Kim Il Sung.
Schell: “You said the difference was that they [the Kim dynasty] were only two generations, and your family was four.”
“I don’t like where this is going one damn bit!,” Arthur protested comically, to much laughter. “And if you don’t be a little more careful, I may nuke you!”
“My question is,” Schell persisted, “really, I mean, The New York Times is governed and held in a very unique way in corporate America. It is a family company, and the family, I assume, decides who the successor is in a way that isn’t either particularly corporate or democratic. Tell us a little bit about that, and what effect you think it has on how this great paper can comport itself in the world.”
Arthur sighed.
“There’s a lot behind that question,” he said. “First of all, just to get it on the record, the family did go for talent.” More laughter.
MORE FROM VANITY FAIR:
But Arthur Sulzberger wasn’t just born to his position—the story is more complicated. He may have been the firstborn son in the line of succession, but he also staked his claim to the crown deliberately and dramatically, when he was only 14 years old. His mother, Barbara Grant, and Punch Sulzberger divorced when Arthur was just five. He lived throughout his early childhood on the Upper East Side with his mother and her new husband, David Christy, a warm and supportive stepfather. Punch is nominally Jewish, although not at all religious, while his son was raised Episcopalian. Arthur senior and Arthur junior were not close: Punch was generally aloof, even when Arthur was around. Yet, understanding what his famous name meant, and who his distant father actually was in the world, he packed up his things and moved himself the half-mile to his father’s home on Fifth Avenue, to live with Punch and his stepmother and their daughters. He was not pulled by any strong emotional connection. It seemed more like a career move. His biological father and his stepmother were wealthy, socially connected, and powerful; his biological mother and his stepfather were not. Arthur opted for privilege and opportunity. That his stepmother, Carol Sulzberger, despised Arthur—she would stick out her tongue at pictures of him—did not seem to matter.
He was Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., and showing up on his father’s doorstep was a way of asserting, consciously or not, that when Punch changed wives he had not washed his hands of an obligation to his son. While the inheritance was his by birth, it was also very much Arthur’s choice.
Some heirs flee the burdens and expectations of family, determined to make their own way. Arthur chose to be defined by his name, and his father. When he went off to summer camp in 1966, the year he moved in with Punch, Arthur took his father’s old portable-typewriter case with him. It was stamped, “A. O. Sulzberger, The New York Times.”
This at a moment when many members of Arthur’s generation were questioning received wisdom in all its forms, turning their backs on conventional careers, disdaining not just their parents but the entire Establishment. Arthur, too, would grow his bushy hair long, try drugs, demonstrate against the Vietnam War, and embrace the style and rhetoric of the 60s. He has said that he worked on his high-school newspaper but not his college paper, at Tufts, because “we had a war to stop.” But even then Arthur, draped in Punch’s old (and newly fashionable) Marine Corps fatigue jacket, was just acting out the editorial policy of the newspaper he planned someday to run. Appearances to the contrary, he was the exact opposite of a rebel.
Pat Condell on Jews:
In the 1930s after the great purge that eliminated most of the Politburo and the killing of the Old Bolshiviks, the new Politburo installed lights to signal when it was OK to stop clapping. The puppets who would applaud J.V. Stalin were all so afraid of being the first to stop clapping that they would keep going until he would personaly signal to the audience to stop. Now that is adulation.
FIRST, the Bible says that Jews are God's chosen people. If you believe the Bible is literally God's Word,then you can't ignore this.
The Bible says a lot of shit. Like, "there is neither Jew nor Greek"...
To echo what the commentator none of the above said, the Israeli government has gradually manuevered itself into a position where the U.S. is its only ally. All its other allies, such as France, South Africa, and Turkey, have been lost for one reason or another over the years. Not only that, except for the U.S., Israel is close to being a pariah state.
Ironically, this may be an explanation for why Israeli influence over things like Congress is increasing. If you only have one basket to put your eggs in, you better watch that basket. As Israel becomes more unpopular in the rest of the world, they have to double down on their influence in the U.S.
I think there was some interest on the part of the Israeli elite in pursuing ties to China, and this strikes me as a sensible approach.
FIRST, the Bible says that Jews are God's chosen people. If you believe the Bible is literally God's Word,then you can't ignore this.
If so, Evangelicals are even stupider than commonly thought. Leon Trotsky, Bernie Madoff, and DKS all chosen by God for us to look up to.
Thanks God.
"All its other allies, such as France, South Africa, and Turkey, have been lost for one reason or another over the years."
You mean the France with Sarkozy bombing Libya?
"To echo what the commentator none of the above said, the Israeli government has gradually manuevered itself into a position where the U.S. is its only ally."
Even if this were true, it wouldn't be a bad deal because being allies or puppets of the US means being allies/puppets of the American Jewish elite(that controls the US), which means having to accept the reality of Israel. Ukraine and Vietnam want increased trade and aid with the US, right? Why would they do anything to offend Israel? Poland and Philippines want good trade relations with the US, right? Why would they piss on Israel?
If a nation seriously opposes Israel, American media and government--controlled by Jews--will target that nation with bad publicity, hostile diplomacy, and even economic sanctions. And even without official sanctions, the Soroses of the world could conspire to undermine that nation's economy. It will end up diplomatically and economically far more isolated and ruined than Israel could ever be. Just how did Iraq fare in the 90s? And how is Libya faring?
Of course, many nations may not choose to officially lend support to Israel, but their close ties and dependence on America means they can't be overtly hostile to Israel either.
And by doing business with the US(and the West), they'll defacto be doing business with Israel since the Western economy, especially in high-tech nad medicine, is so closely linked to that of Israel.
Any nation that does business with Microsoft, for instance, is doing business with Israel since so many cutting edge computer programmers are Israeli Jews.
Also, whatever the political statements of various nations, many do have offices, investments, projects, and enterprises in or linked with Israel.
Also, the example of Taiwan should tell us all we need to know about how the world really works. When US recognized Mainland China, so did rest of the 'free world'. Some observers said this spelled doom for Taiwan.
This may have been true on the superficial political level, but the fact is Taiwan has done onoly better since Nixon met with Mao. The world still trades with Taiwan, Taiwan enjoys close relations with the US--despite US change in diplomacy--, and so it's pretty much been business as usual.
As long as economic sanctions are not imposed by major powers on a nation, it will do fine. US will always be close to Israel, and Europe, whatever its misgivings about Zionist policy, will never shut Israel out economically.
And the rest of the world, as long as it does business with the West, will be doing business with Israelis, many of whom are at the cutting edge of high-tech revolution and pharmaceuticals.
"headache said...
Revelations has been mostly distorted by evangelicals."
Revelations was written during or soon after the reign of Nero, and described, in allegorical and prophetic form, the events of that time. That is at least, per the biblical scholars I have read - most of whom are probably athiests. Of course, a believer would reject this interpretation precisely because it is informed by an athiest world view.
"Revelations was written during or soon after the reign of Nero, and described, in allegorical and prophetic form, the events of that time."
I believe the Catholics view it this way too and probably the mainstream Protestant denominations. As an agnostic, I've come to wonder that many people who are obviously intelligent can remain rather literal minded about religion. However, it's not necessary for their faith that evangelicals interpret Revelations in relation to current events in the Middle East.
Why is it that even Baptists who are now as educated as Protestants still use this interpretation? Some of the predictions about globalization are being realized in my adult life. Even the social decay resulting from the movement away from traditional values has been accurate, oddly enough, without the recognition that failure to have enough children would end up being a bigger problem than conflict between generations.
Whatever you believe about the Second Coming, you can't ignore that many evangelical preachers have provided real information about the NWO that we are only now able to recognize exists.
Politically and socially, I see what I expected to see based on sermons I listened to as a child. And it's not entirely wrong that the potential apocalypse of a handful of white ethnicities and/or of the Western world is at hand. I'd have to get into the references but, to me, it's obvious someone knew how political events from a few generations back would culminate and found a way to disseminate the information.
Mr. Anon said...
Revelations was written during or soon after the reign of Nero, and described, in allegorical and prophetic form, the events of that time. That is at least, per the biblical scholars I have read - most of whom are probably athiests. Of course, a believer would reject this interpretation precisely because it is informed by an athiest world view.
Interesting info. I used to go to evangelical churches, and when I came back to Lutheranism, my pastor (who was a believer in the true sense) taught us the proper view of Revelations: it is based on a classical Jewish theological apocalyptic tradition and caters to those believers who came from that background. The great thing about his clarifications was that I no longer feared the things written there, and can laugh off most of the Christian-Zionist fear-mongering. So much of the distorted views of Christian-Zionism and much of that of Evangelicals is simply based on a lack of knowledge. This has profound political implications, which are off course not discussed in public.
Anonymous said...
All its other allies, such as France, South Africa, and Turkey, have been lost for one reason or another over the years.
The PM of South Africa prior to de Klerk, PW Botha, recalled that he was approached by the World Jewish Congress, amongst other organizations, with tons of bribe money to turn over power to the ANC. Prominent Jews such as Anglo-American/de Beers owner Oppenheimer, Gordimer, Suzmann and many others did all in their power to obtain black rule. The inner circle of the South African Communist Party, which was the real power behind the ANC, was run by 50% Jews and 50% Indians. No blacks! The list goes on and on.
Jews played a crucial role in destroying white rule in South Africa, so they only have themselves to blame when the ANC takes the side of the Palestinians, which was a logical and foreseeable outcome.
One of the more ironic and funny outcomes of all this Jewish co-mingling with the ANC was that character Goldstone. During Apartheid he actively abused his position as judge to score political points on behalf of the ANC against the white government. The ANC rewarded him by sending him to the UN. Once there, he wrote the infamous Goldstone report which probably had a balanced view of the situation in Gaza initially. But then the Jews set about massaging their man and soon enough he reverted back to the crypto-ethnocentrism of the Jewish variety, the exact type of attitude he fought with all his might amongst white Afrikaners. Hypocrisy in your face if there ever was any.
"The great thing about his clarifications was that I no longer feared the things written there, and can laugh off most of the Christian-Zionist fear-mongering."
Interesting b/c there were plenty of secular thinkers who were fearful of what the loss of national sovereignty would mean in a global world order. Also, the political implications aren't great since Jews don't really exploit Christian-Zionism.
It's not uncommon for politicians or theologians to take an allegory for a past situation and use it for a current or future scenario. This is valid.
Besides, I hear more fear-mongering out of the non-evangelicals on this blog than I ever heard in a church. "Breed smart children or else!" is the motto around here. Any day now I'm expecting to read that some WN fanatic out of California has been caught dumping FSH into the water supply.
Then there are horrible facts of modern life I don't remember being touch on in a sermon like the total and complete lack of privacy. Of course dystopian novels provided us with that view of the future. Dying out doesn't seem like such a bad thing in the face of being made part of the Borg, btw. Must your breathing be so LOUD? Can't you stop fidgeting, ever? Wouldn't a summary or a synopsis of one of my typical days been preferable to knowing every stinking detail of my life?
Weirdos!
There is no support in the Bible to worship Jews as special before God.
Here is what the Bible really says:
For God so loved the (whole) world (that is the entire human race, not just part of it) He sent His son to redeem it.
All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (including Jews)
Thou shall have no other gods before me. (So, break up the golden calf of the Jewish race or you will go to hell).
Jews served in the Bible as a metaphor of the whole human race, with all of its faults and rejection of God both in his Old Testament form and in his New Testament form.
To favor Jews over other people, for example Arab Christians, is not only irrational and heretical but wicked. If there is truth to the fire and brimstone religion, those self righteous Christian Zionuts will face damnation.
The orthodox Christian teaching is that the Church is the New Israel and that God's promises to Abraham are fulfilled through her. The Christian Zionist ideology is a modern heresy and a good example of the bad consequences that follow from bad theology.
"If there is truth to the fire and brimstone religion, those self righteous Christian Zionuts will face damnation."
You're good. Definitely advanced beyond mere literalcy.
There is no support in the Bible to worship Jews as special before God.
If you are speaking about your personal interpretation of what the Bible says, then fine. I won't argue. I don't consider Jews as having God's special love, either.
If you are speaking about what the Bible factually says, however, then you are wrong. The fact that Jews are God's treasured people is a major theme of Genesis, Exodus & Deuteronomy.
"For all the earth is mine: and you shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation" Exodus 19:6
"FIRST, the Bible says that Jews are God's chosen people. If you believe the Bible is literally God's Word,then you can't ignore this."
The New Testament very explicitly states that Jews no longer have any kind of special favor from God and that the believers in Christ are the "New Israel." That's orthodox Christianity. Christian Zionists are heretics.
Paul Mendez,
you exclusively quote the Old Testament. Then you would have to come to your conclusion.
News Flash: Jesus came to the earth 2000 years ago and there is a New Testament which supersedes the Old Testament and which states that the church is now God's chosen people. That includes those Jews who put their faith in Jesus.
The political issue here, and which relates to Steve's thread, is that Christians (aka Evangelicals and Christian-Zionists) have no business formulating a political ideology or position which discriminates against fellow Christians and theologically promotes Jews against fellow Christians. That position is against the solidarity of Christianity, it goes against the positions of the New Testament, and it also damages Christendom since organized Jewry was always actively anti-Christian.
"That position is against the solidarity of Christianity, it goes against the positions of the New Testament, and it also damages Christendom since organized Jewry was always actively anti-Christian."
I was never aware of the "solidarity of Christianity". I think it's always been a kind of tolerance for other denominations you view as heretical at best, cultish at worst.
As for the rest of it, I think you're going too far in the wrong direction. Religious Jews must feel about Christianity much the way Christians feel about other sects or denominations. Any Jews who are hostile to Christianity would be of Jewish ancestry though not religious.
I don't like what you did with my original query at all. And as the former member of a church with three or four major denominations resulting from splits in congregations, good luck with that Christian Solidarity Movement. You must be CATHOLIC. LOL.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with being given a healthy dose of respect for your parent religion.
To many Evangelicals, it's like the New Testament and the new covenant never occurred.
They are what E. Michael Jones might refer to as "spiritual Jews," in revolt against Christ's mission.
I'm not relgious, but a good read is Jones's book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History. In this, he exposes the root line of conflict in this issue.
"As an agnostic, I've come to wonder that many people who are obviously intelligent can remain rather literal minded about religion... Why is it that even Baptists who are now as educated as Protestants still use this interpretation? Some of the predictions about globalization are being realized in my adult life."
It adds meaning to their lives. Why do intelligent liberals pretend races are all the same? Why do secular conservatives pretend American Jews are the most wonderful people? It's how the meaning of life is defined in their minds and hearts.
"News Flash: Jesus came to the earth 2000 years ago and there is a New Testament which supersedes the Old Testament and which states that the church is now God's chosen people. That includes those Jews who put their faith in Jesus."
You are both as stupid and gullible as each other.
Post a Comment