Григорий Громов (abcdefgh) wrote,
Григорий Громов

Are the Democrats turning into Dhimmicrats or just plain Anti-Semocrats?

    Outside of the Islamic world, the anti-Semitic upsurge of recent years is mainly a left-wing phenomenon.

В американском Конгрессе от демпартии всегда была группа черных жидоедов, но и кроме них также один белый конгресмен от этой партии иногда при случае в унисон с черными выступает.

На днях опять - к выборам поближе когда температура политической жизни повышается, то и соответственно в том числе и жидоеды как тараканы из всех щелей на свет вылазят - он выступил с традиционным у них заявлением что это жиды втянули Америку в беспросветную войну в Ираке.

Обычно на такие его заявления никто не отвечал, поскольку нет по-видимому кроме него в Конгрессе никого с белых, кто не знал бы за кого евреи Америки голосуют на всех выборах и кто составляет основной костяк активстов в том числе и антивоенного движения левых в этой стране.

Однако на этот раз - непоянтно покамест почему это так случилось - с возхражением ему выступили 16 конгресменов-демократов еврейского происхождения. Они не дискустировали вопрос кто там есть кто, а сказали что тот их партайгеноссе повторяет антисемитские бредни всех времн и народов. И кажется на том все.

Это напомнило заметку в газете Сиэтла четырехлетней давности - в канун выборов тоже - в которой обсуждался ровно этот вопрос: про парадоксы америкамнской политической ситуации последних лет, которые заключаются в том, что все жидоеды когда бы и где они до того не находились теперь мигрируют в демпартию - ровно ту партию за которую всегда сколько можно кому вспомнить голосуют почти все евреи этой страны.

Республиканская партия от жидоедов последовательно очищается, а демократы наоброт старательно их по всем углам как ценнейших политчиеский ресурс собирают.

Тот же факт что евреи Америки при том продолжают как те бараны которых ведут с известной целью известно куда единодушно голосовать всегда за эту самую все более жидоедскую демпартию, отдельно отмечался в дискуссии к той заметке.

Один из дискусантов отметил что американские евреи бы стали голосовать за демпартию даже если бы она выдвинула в Президенты страны Арафата (он тогда еще был в добром здравии).

Под катом копия той статьи:

The Democratic Party's anti-Semitism problem
By Edward Alexander. August 09, 2004

One of the most prominent figures at John Kerry's nominating convention was the Rev. Al Sharpton, who seemed almost as fixed a presence at Kerry's side the night of his acceptance speech as were the nominee's wife and vice presidential candidate John Edwards.

Yet, it is common knowledge that this failed contender for the Democratic nomination incited anti-Jewish violence in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn in 1991 and in Harlem in 1995. In the latter incident he encouraged the explicitly anti-Semitic boycott and picketing of a Jewish-owned store named "Freddy's." Eight employees of the store were killed in a fire started by one of Sharpton's followers.

But none of this unpleasantness has kept Sharpton from being treated with oily sycophancy by the Democratic leadership.

Among the victors in the July 20 Democratic primary in Georgia was Cynthia McKinney, who served five terms in Congress before being defeated in the 2002 primary by Denise Majette. Like many other inhabitants of the fever swamps of the Democratic Party, McKinney believed and said that President Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 plot but allowed it to proceed in order to line his pockets.

She also, as The New York Times said in reporting her victory, had made "a series of other incendiary, often racial comments." This is The New York Times' delicate way of alluding to the stridently anti-Semitic character of McKinney's 2002 campaign, in which "Jews" were repeatedly blamed for her faltering in the polls and for her eventual defeat. Her behavior did not deter House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, then the Democratic whip, from backing her to the hilt.

Also in 2002, the Alabama Democratic congressional incumbent Earl Hilliard attacked his challenger, Artur Davis, in a flier that read: "Davis and the Jews, No Good for the Black Belt." (Both men are black.)

Hilliard's racist rhetoric did not prevent him from receiving support from 24 members of the Congressional Black Caucus and from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, one of the party's funding agencies.

The antics of McKinney and Hilliard recalled those of a far better-known and more powerful figure in the Democratic Party, Jesse Jackson. His description (in 1984) of New York City as "Hymietown" and his 1979 complaint about being "sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust" proved no impediment to his holding the Democratic conventions of 1984 and 1988 hostage with his political might within the party or to orating from the convention podium in 1992 or to being appointed President Clinton's special envoy to Nigeria.

Some have argued that the Democrats' reluctance to criticize the anti-Semitic demagoguery of the aforementioned politicians can be explained by the fact that they are all blacks, and white liberals believe that blacks are their equals in every sense — except that of being equal. Perhaps.

It is true that when Democratic Congressman James Moran of Virginia, who is white, charged in 2003 that "the leaders of the Jewish community" sent the country to war in Iraq, he was criticized (no more than that) by fellow Democrats. Also, on May 20 of this year, Ernest Hollings, the South Carolina Democratic senator, alleged, on the floor of the Senate, that Bush had sent the country to war "in order to win Jewish votes." (Apparently Hollings, during his seven terms, had never discovered that a majority of Jews would vote Democratic even if Yasser Arafat and Osama bin Laden were at the top of the ticket.)

To his credit, Kerry on the very next day condemned Hollings for "lend[ing] credence to... anti-Semitic stereotypes that have no place in America or anywhere else." Nevertheless, it is clear that the Democrats have a growing "problem" at the grass-roots or Michael Moore level of the party that they know not how to deal with.

By contrast, the Republicans, when Trent Lott made remarks in 2002 that could be construed as racist, promptly forced him from his position as Senate majority leader. More to the point, Pat Buchanan, who never misses a chance to stick it to the Jews, was roundly denounced for his anti-Semitic pronouncements, in a 40,000-word National Review essay of 1991 by the party's leading intellectual figure, William Buckley.

Buckley not only labeled Buchanan a menace to the body politic, but urged Republicans to expel him from their midst, which they eventually — though not quickly enough — did. By 2000, Buchanan was forced to run for the presidency on the Reform Party ticket, after which he retreated to the world of journalism from which he had emerged.

Outside of the Islamic world, the anti-Semitic upsurge of recent years is mainly a left-wing phenomenon. It is therefore not surprising that it should have brought the Democratic Party, more swiftly than the Republicans, to that dark and bloody crossroads where politics and conscience collide.
Edward Alexander is professor of English at the University of Washington and author of, among other books, "Classical Liberalism and the Jewish Tradition" (Transaction Books).

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Compan


In today's Seattle Times, UW professor Edward Alexander bluntly recounts the Democrats' unwillingness to oust the anti-Semites from their midst: Al Sharpton, Cynthia McKinney, Earl Hilliard, Jesse Jackson, James Moran, Ernest Hollings. Alexander concludes:

Outside of the Islamic world, the anti-Semitic upsurge of recent years is mainly a left-wing phenomenon. It is therefore not surprising that it should have brought the Democratic Party, more swiftly than the Republicans, to that dark and bloody crossroads where politics and conscience collide.

Having Michael Moore sit with the Carters at Kerry's nominating convention doesn't help either.

And Alexander doesn't even mention the local party's support for the jihad against Israel. A comprehensive account of the Democratic Party's slide into anti-Semitism requires more space than an 800-word op-ed allows.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 09, 2004 01:52 PM

Of course the most interesting part of this column will be the letters to the editor in a couple of days. It's too easy to predict what they will say so perhaps one should try to guess how many "It's the Joooos fault" or "Who cares - what about the Palestinians?" or, or, or. Same damn dance we'll see, just to perhaps a different tune.
Posted by: Carol on August 9, 2004 04:07 PM

Let the nuts come out of the woodwork for this one and expose their bigotry. If the D's don't come to grip with this problem it will only benefit the R's. I don't pretend to understand why there has been such loyalty to the Democratic party. Maybe someone can clue me in.

I think it would be more interesting to see the letters that the Seattle Times doesn't print.
Posted by: Tim Ford on August 9, 2004 04:16 PM

The loyalty of american Jews to Dems reminds me of the uncanny loyalty of Jews to communist party. At least the communist faithful could claim that communism defeated nazis and saved many Jews. What's the rationale for following the Dems? What have Dems done that Reps haven't?
Posted by: marek on August 9, 2004 07:03 PM

As this relates to kerry, here is my spin. First off, we all know that kerry waffles - unlike clinton, who was a congenital liar out of a sense of low self esteem (hardly explicable given his abilies), kerry is not so much a liar, as wanting to hear himself be heard, and be commented on - i actually think that once kerry got in office, he would not waffle as much - he would be the center of attention, but when you are just one of100 senators - you say in 1998 that we must go after saddam, even ahead of the curve of clinton, solely for the purpose of being heard. When the position is untenable, he retracts - and actually, one can attribute waffling to changes in circumstances.

In any event, i dont really mind his waffling, except as it relates to israel. He spoke before the arabs and condemned the wall quite hardball. then he had a come to jesus talk with aipac and said the wall is fine - now the wall is not about sharon, it is supported by a large majority of the israeli public even if it is placed beyond the green line.

so now, come january 2005, and kerry is president - he decides to make nice to europe by selling off israel - a la bush 1 in the 1990s, except this time it is not money for loan guarantees, but rather by abandoning any attempts at "selective restabilitzation" of the arab world. simply, kerry, will waffle and sell out israel - and he will be leading the charge of the moderate left and further left democratic/UN party - there will be no real brake on him - at least when bush 1 did it, the dems sort of took him on - and shamir had to be the sacrificial PM who lost his job.

But now imagine kerry going hard on israel - who will stick up for israel - the republicans? They are in congress and really have no power - plus, the political margin is low - cause how much jewish vote can you move. The democrats such as lieberman? They will be silenced - it is a bad scene my friends.

So although I really have to say that Bush is not a good president in terms of reliance on his advisors a bit too much and his sort of ADD on his whole strategy, i can predict, with 90% certainty, what position he will take on the ME.

With kerry, given his lack of ability not to waffle, and his stated aim, i really do not see how a pro-israel jew can vote for kerry, unless he does a sista souljah shaming of moore, mckinney, sharpton, moran, hollings, maxine waters, jesse jackson jr. - the list is simply too long for a weak person like kerry.
Posted by: jannol on August 9, 2004 10:12 PM

Stefan, do you happen to have the full-length version of Professor Alexander's op-ed? I imagine that he had a longer version that was pared down to fit in the Times.

Life on campus at the UW and in academia exposes a person to the undistilled agenda of the anti-Semitic extreme left. For this reason, I would imagine that most Jews, if they were in Professor Alexander's shoes, from his unique vantage point, would see the Democratic party for what it is (and not vote Democratic even if the candidate were Yasser Arafat). I realize, of course, that he was exaggerating on purpose, to force (Democratic Jewish) readers to reassess where they would draw the proverbial line in the sand and opt to abandon the party when it becomes openly hostile to them.

I can understand why many Jews have remained loyal to the Democratic party. Pat Buchanan is merely a visible representative of a deeper (but shrinking) undercurrent of anti-Semitism on the extreme right, but as Alexander writes, the political right has been far more introspective on this issue than the political left, which has a conversely growing streak of anti-Semitism of its own. For this reason, I predict that more Jews will vote for Bush in 2004 than in 2000.
Posted by: Tim B on August 10, 2004 12:40 AM

Tim B, that is a given. No question jews will vote for him in greater numbers. Among the orthodox, no one can even say john kerry without cracking a sardonic smile. Again, the democratic party has to have a "come to jesus" talk with the hate israel/blame america first crowd. Kerry has zero back bone to do it - clinton shocked me when he did it to sista soulja, and clinton has about as much fortitude as elmer fudd, it is scary what a glass jaw kerry is.
Posted by: jannol on August 10, 2004 08:53 PM

Here are some of the letters to the editor. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002002905_thulets12.html
Posted by: Tim Ford on August 12, 2004 08:51 AM

So opposing s racist occupation is anti-semitism?
Posted by: Rabii LNMB on August 12, 2004 12:23 PM

Gee, I wonder how the occupation really started?

Was it that Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 and lost control of the West Bank and the eastern sector of Jerusalem? This begs the question of whether there really is a "Palestinian" identity at all if this was previously Jordanian "occupied land".

Would you try to convince me that the Jordanian occupation was racist? Would you try to convince me that the Jordanians are no better than the Israeli's because prior to 1967 the Jordanian's "occupied" the West Bank? Did the so-called "Palestinians" ever do suicide bombings against innocent Jordanian civilians to free the occupied West Bank?

This piece of land has been fought over for thousands of years. It has belonged to many different people. If you learn your history, you will know that it is not a "racist occupation," the Jewish people have always been there. Playing the race card is just rhetoric used by anti-semites.
Posted by: Tim Ford on August 12, 2004 03:29 PM

You can also check out some helpful info dedicated to... Thanks!!!
Posted by: antique watches on December 21, 2004 10:51 PM

Politicians are very attuned to public opinion polls and always have a wet finger to the wind to determine which way they should be swayed. Again, political partisans are not only the most likely voters, but also the most energized activists who can be utilized during political campaigns as cheap labor. However, more than a few Democratic Congressmen seem to be ignoring the maxim 'do no harm' and have taken the lead in comments and actions that should be disconcerting to every Jewish person (and every American).

# �James Moran (D—Va.) felt free in 2003 to state that the leaders of America's Jewish community sent America into war in Iraq to benefit Israel. These comments were echoed by Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings (now retired) who, on the floor of the Senate, said that Bush had sent the country to war in order to win 'Jewish votes' — this despite the fact that American Jews opposed the war by greater percentages than the rest of America and that they vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. This is the type of high—level analysis popular on neo—Nazi websites and Arab terror group. Oh, and on leading Democratic blogs, too.

# �Cynthia McKinney ran a stridently anti—Semitic campaign in 2002; when she was defeated in that campaign she blamed the Jews for her defeat (her father, who also has a history of anti—Semitism, spelled out publicly who was responsible 'J—E—W—S'). She had also objected to the Bush Administration pull out�from the Durban Conference against racism when it became clear it had turned into an anti—Semitic hate—fest. She has also been the recipient of a high level of Arab—American political donations, some linked to terror—supporting groups or individuals.

# �McKinney's colleague Alabama Democratic Earl Hilliard had a history of anti—Israel positions and used anti—Semitism to appeal to his constituents. His opponent was Artur Davis. Hilliard's campaign slogan was�'Davis and the Jews, bad for the black belt'. Hilliard was defeated a few years ago, as was McKinney. However, McKinney was re—elected in the next cycle. She continued her anti—Israel activities in the current term, but was defeated and will not be serving in the next Congress. One can speculate 'she will be back'.

# �Charles Rangel stated, 'the Iraq war was the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country just as bad as six million Jews being killed' (Democratic Senator Durbin also made facile and insensitive comparisons of the torture and murder meted out by the Nazis to the actions of a few wayward guards at Abu Ghraib). Rangel has a history of tangling with the Anti—Defamation League but blames his problems with the ADL on their desire to create controversy to raise money.

# �Leading Democratic Congressman John Conyers is on the House Judiciary Committee and held a mock impeachment hearing to criticize President Bush. The hearing did much more than that, however. Conyers called 'expert witnesses' who had histories of peddling anti—Semitic conspiracy theories regarding the 'cabal that controls the White House.'

# The meeting was attended by 30 Democratic Congressmen. One of the witnesses, Ray McGovern, declared that the US went to war for

'Oil, Israel, and military bases coveted by neocons so that the US and Israel could dominate that part of the world'.

He also said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was 'doing the bidding of Ariel Sharon', Israel's Prime Minister at the time. The aforementioned James Moran cheered him on, despite (or because of?) McGovern admitted that a former head of the CIA had characterized him as being anti—Semitic. While this inquisition was underway, activists were handing out anti—Semitic leaflets at the Democratic National Campaign headquarters—where the proceedings were being telecast.

# �The most senior Democrat from Michigan, John Dingell, declared himself ambivalent about which side he wanted to win in the war between Hezb'allah and Israel. Hezb'allah has in its charter that its goal is a genocide against the Jews (not 'just' the destruction of Israel. Hezb'allah is the number one terror group in the world. It�has killed hundreds of innocent Jews in Argentina, hundreds of Americans sent to Lebanon as peace—keepers, and makes clear its desire to continue such 'good works'.

Nevertheless, Dingell states that ' I don't take sides for or against Hezb'allah, or for and against Israel'. He has certainly shown it during his years in Congress, where he has compiled an anti—Israel voting record. Perhaps he is being educated on the issues by the websites that he linked to on his own official website: they included groups support Hezb'allah (when these links were publicized, Dingell took them down).

# �Jim McDermott, the Democratic Congressman from Washington, enjoyed his moment in the sun by traveling to Iraq before the war started to support Saddam Hussein. This particular travel junket was paid for by an Arab—American 'charity' group recently raided by the FBI and IRS. The federal government is investigating the group, which it suspects violated sanctions regarding doing business with Iraq.

# �The Democratic nominee for Congress in Minnesota's Fifth District is a Black Muslim who has a long history of anti—Semitism�that he has tried to obfuscate by a variety of means—including name changes and pseudonyms. He seems to be following the Cynthia McKinney playbook.

# �Neil Abercrombie is a Democratic Congressman from Hawaii who takes such pride in his anti—Israel stance that he was the sole 'No' in a Resolution that stated that America should never give foreign aid to a Palestinian government if it is controlled by people calling for Israel's destruction. He also was one of 8 members who voted 'No' on House Resolution� 921 that defended Israel's right to defend itself against Hezbollah. See also 'Neil Abercrombie, D—Hezbollah'�on Front Page Magazine�for a further analysis of his voting record.

Other prominent Democrats who may not currently serve but certainly have sway within the party include such anti—Israel and anti—Semitic luminaries as Jesse Jackson (who described New York City as 'Hymietown' and said he 'was sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust') and the Reverend Al Sharpton who led an anti—Semitic pogrom in Harlem and rails against 'diamond merchants' and 'bloodsuckers' in black communities. Both of these figures flanked Ned Lamont during his speech when he declared victory against Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut.

Of course, Jimmy Carter is the elder statesman of the Democratic Party. He had pride of place at the Democratic National Convention. His anti—Israel stances are by now widely known through innumerable op—eds and speeches he has given (his new book will be titled 'Palestine: Peace or Apartheid' ) that are basically screeds against Israel. Little—appreciated is that he held these views, and others that can be construed as anti—Semitic, during his Presidency. According to Cyrus Vance, his Secretary of State, had Carter won a second term he 'would have sold Israel down the river'

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded