Anti-Semitism in the Obama administration

Obama’s National Security Advisor, General James Jones (Ret), has just been captured on video telling a joke that portrays Jews as greedy merchants.

“This happened recently in Southern Afghanistan. A member of the Taliban was separated from his fighting party and wandered around in the desert lost, out of food and water, and looked out on the horizon and saw a little shack…he got closer and found that it was a store of a Jewish merchant. The Taliban warrior went up to him and said, I need water, give me some water. The merchant said we don’t have any water but we have some ties, we have a nice sale on ties today. Whereupon the Taliban erupted into a scream of language I can’t repeat…and passively the merchant sat there until the Taliban was through with his diatribe and said I’m sorry I don’t have water for you, and I forgive you for all your insults…but I’ll help you out. If you go over that hill about two miles there is a restaurant there and they have all the water you need. The Taliban said thanks and still muttering under his breath disappears over the hill only to come back an hour later and walking up to the merchant says ‘your brother tells me I need a tie to get into the restaurant.”

The language of this joke is disturbing. How is it possible that a high level government official actually thinks that telling “Jew jokes” at an official speech is appropriate?

It is very interesting that while the General refers once the merchant as a “Jewish merchant” and from that point on only uses the term “merchant” for the Jew, in a manner that seems to reduce the Jewish aspect of the joke but, having set the premise, then uses a code word for the Jew from that point on. Meanwhile, the Taliban is never a “terrorist” or an “insurgent”: he is a “warrior”.

While contemplating this speech, I found that Rush Limbaugh is under attack for a comment he made in which he attempted to point out the use of code words used by the Obama regime that appear to subtly refer to Jews.

LIMBAUGH: To some people, “banker” is code word for Jewish; and guess who Obama is assaulting? He’s assaulting bankers. He’s assaulting money people. And a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish. So I wonder if there’s — if there’s starting to be some buyer’s remorse there?

The assault on Rush seems to be based upon the premise that he is anti-Semitic for pointing out that Obama is engaging in a constant attack on “Bankers”, which is, in fact, undeniable, and by pointing out that the term “bankers” appears to be a code-word for “Jews”. Take it in light of how General Jones used “merchant” as a code word for “Jew”. However, it should be noted that Limbaugh was discussing Norman Podhoretz's book, Why Are Jews Liberals?

This same topic has been discussed ad nauseum by none other than Jewish conservative talk-show host (and Rabbi), Dennis Prager.

In fact, Mr. Prager writes:

"The most frequently asked question I receive from non-Jews about Jews is, why are Jews so liberal?..." He then goes on to write about the six main reasons why Jews tend to be Liberal, and points out that "just as liberal Jews fear a resurgent Christianity despite the fact that contemporary Christians are the Jews' best friends, leftist Jews fear American nationalism despite the fact that Americans who believe in American exceptionalism are far more pro-Jewish and pro-Israel than leftist Americans. But most leftist Jews so abhor nationalism, they don't even like the Jews' nationalism (Zionism). If you believe that leftist ideas and policies are good for America and for the world, then you are particularly pleased to know how deeply Jews — with their moral passion, intellectual energies and abilities, and financial clout — are involved with the Left. If, on the other hand, you believe that the Left is morally confused and largely a destructive force in America and the world, then the Jews' disproportionate involvement on the Left is nothing less than a tragedy — for the world and especially for the Jews."

I guess, despite the fact that Limbaugh is a conservative and a staunch supporter of Jews and Israel, because he is a Gentile, he's not allowed to talk about the same topic that Prager and Podhoretz are discussing. Therefore, he is attacked. Mark Silk writes in Spiritual Politics:

“As MediaMatters pointed out, that last bit is patently untrue--unless Limbaugh wants to include himself among the Jew-haters. He begins with what "some people think" and then associates himself with the view. His speculation is that Jews--three-quarters of whom voted for Obama--may be having buyer's remorse because Obama has started attacking their co-religionists on Wall Street. Only someone a lot more familiar with traditional Gentile attitudes about Jews than with the American Jewish community could entertain the idea that the latter would have second thoughts about supporting a candidate who attacks Wall Street bankers.”

So, somehow, the Liberal left wants us to believe that it is “patently untrue” that the word “banker” is used as a form of code-word against Jews. But this is not the case. The use of the concept has been used since before the Nazis took control of Germany, and was in fact commonly used by American progressives such as FDR and his acolytes. Read a little about the Catholic Priest Charles Coughlin as just one example. Coughlin, an avid supporter of FDR blamed the Depression on an "international conspiracy of Jewish bankers", and also claimed that Jewish bankers were behind the Russian Revolution. He later said that "When we get through with the Jews in America, they'll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing." Mind you, this Priest was the one who founded the National Union of Social Justice. (If the term “social justice” doesn’t jump out at you, you obviously have not been listening to the attacks on Glen Beck for his suspicions about the renewed infatuation by the Obama administration with “social justice”).

As Andrew McCarthy points out on his blog, Obama’s constant discussion about Economic justice “is simply the finance angle of ‘social justice,’ the idée fixe of Obama and his coven of Change-agents — like Michael Klonsky, the communist educator who ran a “social justice” blog on Obama’s official campaign website.”

There are many, more recent examples of “progressives” trashing Jews such as the Rev. Al Sharpton and Former President Jimmy Carter, to name just two.

Meanwhile, it is perfectly true that Obama’s attacks on bankers have been on-going and quite vitriolic.

Example ONE:
Speaking from the White House, Mr. Obama said, "I want to send a strong warning to this country's bankers," before turning to his economic team and saying, "I don't mean you guys."
After the President excused them from listening to the rest of his address, approximately one hundred former bankers filed out the door, leaving the room virtually empty.
Once the room had cleared, Mr. Obama resumed his attack on bankers, using his strongest rhetoric to date: "If you do not clean up your act, I am prepared to give you heck."
Example TWO:
Obama: "I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street.”

Example THREE:
President Obama attacks banking 'masters of the universe'


Democrats want to convince everyone that it’s the Conservatives who are the bigots, but even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was forced to distance himself Wednesday from the views of his brother-in-law, who called President Obama "anti-Semitic" over the airwaves this morning.

Perhaps Limbaugh’s belief that there are many Jews who see through the lightly veiled code words is accurate after all. And having his National Security Advisor stand up and tell “Jew Jokes” certainly does not help matters.

The Global Trend Toward Fascist Restriction of Speech

Imagine for a moment a world in which individuals who do not believe that the Holocaust occurred are jailed for publicly stating that belief. Well, that doesn’t take much imagination; this can actually happen in Europe, where laws in some EU nations prohibit individuals from denying the historical basis for the claims of systematic mass-murder against the Jews.

So, imagine now a world in which it is forbidden to deny that global warming is caused by human activity, and could be penalized—even jailed—for daring to speak out against the anthropogenic theory of climate change. That could never happen, right? I mean, that’s the kind of thing that happened to heretics during the inquisition, but surely that would never be done by open-minded, secular governments.

Well, think again.

We have all been witness to the recent, systematic discrimination and disenfranchisement of scientists who have begun to rethink the current global-warming dogma. Former Vice-President Al Gore has repeatedly denigrated these scientists as “Flat-Earthers”, as described in an article by James Murray:

“In an interview with Lesley Stahl to air on "60 Minutes"…, Gore piously declares those who don't buy his climate change theories are akin to crackpots who believe the earth is flat and don't believe man landed on the moon in 1969.”

At subsequent events, Gore maneuvered to deny access to these heretics, in order to avoid embarrassing disagreements over the accepted liberal environmental canon.

The Global-Warming hysteria is reaching the point at which proponents believe that their cause will “save the world”, and therefore, anyone who opposes them must threaten the world, and should therefore be treated like criminals, almost as terrorists. James Nash, writing for Environment, said:

“The British foreign secretary ‘has said that skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and denied access to the media,’ Doctors for Disaster Preparedness report in their January newsletter. George Monbiot wrote in England’s “Guardian” that ‘Every time someone drowns as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.’”

Read that again, and consider very carefully the wording: skeptics should be treated like terrorists and their access to the media should be blocked! In Britain, Sir David King, chief scientific adviser to the government, went on record as saying that, "Global warming is worse than terrorism."

How ironic that global warming skeptics are to be treated “as terrorists”, since the liberals are perfectly willing to invest time trying to sympathize with the real terrorists, in order to understand what we did wrong to make the terrorists hate us, but won’t think for one moment why some scientists are skeptical about the anthropogenic causes of global warming!

But the excesses do not stop there. Brendan O’Neill, in his article “Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech”, writes:

“The message is clear: climate change deniers are scum. Their words are so wicked and dangerous that they must be silenced, or criminalised, or forced beyond the pale alongside those other crackpots who claim there was no Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Perhaps climate change deniers should even be killed off, hanged like those evil men who were tried Nuremberg-style the first time around.”

According to O’Neill, one Australian columnist proposed outlawing the public expression of “climate change denial”.

Ian Murray, in his analysis of the behavior of the environmental inquisitors, quotes the Times' economics editor having described the fervor of the environmentalists pushing these policies as being similar to "the medieval monks who favored self-flagellation as the road to virtue. For a Government to enshrine such thinking in policy is truly perverse." He continues: “In equally medieval fashion, adherents of the environmentalist religion have launched an inquisition against scientific views that they consider heretical.”

The trend for secular governments to adopt a popularly held belief and penalize opponents appears to be growing. Muslim nations have managed to convince the United Nations that the world is suffering from Islamophobia, and are pushing for the criminalization of any speech they believe “offends Islam.” A simple cartoon by Jyllands-Posten of Prophet Muhammad triggered violent reactions by Muslims around the world. So what is the natural reaction among “freedom loving” nations in the UN? Ban any criticism of Islam. No such support for Catholicism will be forthcoming, allowing artists like Andres Serrano to continue display more “Piss Christ” creations. Perhaps, if Catholics burnt a few art museums and murdered the artists, they would get the same sympathy the Muslims do.

And now the UN “torture envoy” has declared that the United States must prosecute the Bush administration lawyers whose only “crime” was to offer legal advice that certain “enhanced interrogation” techniques were legal.

“Manfred Nowak, who serves as a U.N. special rapporteur in Geneva, said Washington is obligated under the U.N. Convention against Torture to prosecute U.S. Justice Department officials who wrote memos that defined torture in the narrowest way in order to justify and legitimize it, and who assured CIA officials that their use of questionable tactics was legal. …‘That's exactly what I call complicity or participation’ to torture as defined by the convention, Nowak said at a news conference. ‘At that time, every reasonable person would know that waterboarding, for instance, is torture.’”

The most recent example of the chilling effect these attitudes have on open and reasonable debate can be found in Andrew C. McCarthy’s letter to Attorney General Holder, in which he rejects the invitation to participate in the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy. “The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls ‘individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.’ “

Why?

“Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people.”

More importantly, McCarthy explains that the current administration’s openness to prosecution of Bush-era lawyers who advised the President about the legality of using “enhanced interrogation techniques” on the al Qaida detainees in Guantanamo Bay prison:
“Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.”

Western values are at risk of being subverted by ecstatic fervor of liberals who are so convinced of their own moral certitude, they are willing to silence any discussion on the topics, punish lawyers who provide legal opinions that differ from their own (which is not a crime, by the way), and treat the skeptics worse than terrorists.

***UPDATE***
As if to prove my point, the English Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said "she decided to publicize the list of 16 people banned since October to show the type of behavior Britain will not tolerate..."

Number three on that list is conservative talk-show host Michael Savage.

Savage responded reasonably: "She's linking me with mass murderers who are in prison for killing Jewish children on buses? For my speech? The country where the Magna Carta was created?...It's interesting to me that here I am a talk show host, who does not advocate violence, who advocates patriotic traditional values – borders, language, culture – who is now on a list banned in England," Savage said. "What does that say about the government of England? It says more about them than it says about me."

Why did Smith do this? In an interview with the BBC, Smith said Savage, the No. 3-rated radio host in the U.S., is "someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country."
We again see that the "progressives" are willing to ban free speech if it might make certain "communities" uncomfortable. And YET they don't ban the "free speech" of Muslims who call for the destruction of Western civilization and repeatedly call for Jihad!

We need to update the dictionary, and add "cowards" as a synonim for "progressives".