Monday, October 20, 2008

A Comment from an Obama oponent

Check out Howard's comment on the preceding post. Here it is:
Obama has been relentless in seducing America's youth, and controlling the media. What's next? ... teaching our children to turn their parents in to the Gestapo? These tactics have been used before ... and, they're right out of the Nazi and Islamic/madrassa play books. Wake up America ... the price of freedom is eternal vigilance

Nazi and Islamic playbook?

It's a perfect example of the type of responses I have been getting.

Alan Dershowitz tells me he has also been getting these off the wall responses to his Obama piece in the Forward and in the Jerusalem Post

Do these people have any idea how insane they sound???


hockey hound said...

As a Rabbi told us lately regarding statements such as these about Barack Obama, "Lies are lies, and Lashon Hara is Lashon Hara." Which is to say, regardless of which presidential candidate you favour, your choice does not permit you to tell lies about or calumniate the other.

Happy Simchat Torah, Prof. Lipstadt.

Epaminondas said...

Whether they sound ridiculous or not, Obama still has appointed Walt and Mearsheimer defenders as major foreign policy advisers (Zbig), as his major military adviser he chose Merrill ('the reason there is no peace in the middle east is CERTAIN GROUPS in NYC and Miami') McPeak, and STILL close the campaign and being mentioned as NSA Samantha ('anytime a jew criticizes Obama it's about Israel')Powers, and let's not leave out her comments about what the USA SHOULD do to Israel to ensure Palestinian rights.

And let's not leave out Malley who was 'discovered' to have been negotiating with people who have stated that since Israel is acutally an Islamic Waqf there is nothing to negotiate(HAMAS).

With regard to the Hitler's an overblown response to the attempt to criminalize (Missouri), intimidate(WGN) and suppress criticism they regard as invalid by smearing (Kurtz et al) critics as smearers.

It's is also self delusion to imagine a man as intelligent and ruthless (how many under the bus?) as Obama never heard Wright's real opinions about the nature of the USA, or that Bill Ayers was a guy in the neighborhood.

But don't worry, it doesn't matter, none of it does. Too many have decided that Obama's naked comment to Mr. Wurzelbacher, which was in essence, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", really means he MIGHT be FDR DEUX, and no one wants this hope complicated by ugly facts.

Unfortunately for us, Mr. Obama is no FDR. How I wish he was.

Toby said...

There was only one FDR... I see no evidence that Obama is radically anti-Israel. Is he any different from any other former Democratic Presidential contender? Wouldn't "epaminondas" be writing much the same stuff about Bill or Hilary Clinton?

I recall recently a senior Israeli journalist remarking that when he interviewed Bush, the President brought half a dozen advisers to ensure he did not screw up his answers. The same reporter interviewed McCain when he visited Israel, and was a bit disappointed to find McCain brought Joe Lieberman and batted most of the questions over to him.

When he interviewed Obama, there was only one minor staffer in the room with them, and his single input was to suggest they change places for the photograph. The journalist was highly impressed at Obama's knowledge of the Middle East and his command of the issues.

My memory is a bit defective here .. the journalist is well known, I think his name is Daniel H....?

Obama has been interviewed by several American Jewish (e.g. J. Goldberg at the "Atlantic") and Israeli journalists, and none of them came away with a strong feeling of an anti-Israel candidate. The only pro-Israel American of prominence I can think of who is against Obama is Joe Lieberman, and that is surely more because of his friendship for McCain that for any other reason.

hockey hound said...

Let's not forget that the Bush Administration was instrumental (in my opinion) in extorting the Israeli government into forcing Jews from their homes in Gaza. Also the Bush Admin. has recently sold high-tech arms to Saudi Arabia (who are not known for sending love notes to the State of Israel). Bush invited (and kissed on the cheek) a Saudi prince (whose choice of Islam is a Wahhabism sort), to his Texas ranch so how is Obama at all as bad as these Republicans? He's not. My only anxiety about Obama is his past associations, but he is not even close to being as anti-Israel as the present Bush Administration.

I honestly don't understand how being a Republican becomes an instant exculpation from anti-Jewish (as regards Torah defined borders) and anti-Israel foreign policy measures (like selling high-tech arms to the Saudis). Bush has betrayed the Jews and Israel, as far as I'm concerned. Ask the Jews of Sderot if they are fond of President Bush and Condoleeza Rice. Jews living in tempory shelters and Bush hosting the Saudis at his ranch? This does not look good on the Republican party...unless of course Bush is no longer a Republican (personally I don't know what the hell Bush is anymore, but he's not a Republican of the old order; perhaps the Bush's avant-garde Republicans are permitted to betray the trust of Israel's Jews).

I remember Henry Kissinger (I don't know what the hell he is either) telling an Iraqi Arab that the US would not negotiate the existence of Israel, but could "reduce its size to historical proportions." Kissinger is still honoured as a statesman, so I guess betrayal of Israel's Jews is permitted in international politics and, by the sounds of it, in American politics.

"Three lies and it's politics." -Yiddish proverb

hockey hound said...

"Obama has been relentless in seducing America's youth, and controlling the media"

Isn't this what politicians normally do at election time? Isn't this what both Republican and Democrat constituencies expect-with unmerciful zeal-of their candidate? Isn't this the primary stratagem of every political campaign? How else to win votes?

McCain's mammoth problem, as I see it, is that he is NOT seducing the American voter and controlling the media.

The media, for that matter, and with few exceptions, go with what and who is most popular; and at this point in the American election, Barack is most popular. A sad reality for Republican voters, but it's true.

Forgive my sounding cynical, but I think American voters feel they are faced with an election of few choices, a situation Mae West once articulated with the line, "When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before." I think Americans are tired of disjointed, Whitehouse cavil and want from Obama a president who will not fade from their expectations of him. I think Americans are hopeful Barach Obama will manifest himself as a decent and good man, as much more than just the "lesser of two evils."

Epaminondas said...

Willful blindness:
"I see no evidence that Obama is radically anti-Israel"

Obama in FACT has lauded his adviser Zbig, who HAS agreed with Walt and Mearsheimer. And no one held a gun to his head over Powers, or McPeak. All of their statements are facts and are well known
See list above.

If you can REFUTE THOSE FACTS you can claim to say you see no evidence. And by the way, nowhere did I say he was anti Israel. I don't even get that far. Every person who Obama appointed in that list has expressed problems with americans who happen to be jewish, and their purported influence on america to HER detriment and to Israel's benefit

Refute that.

Impossible for a progressive to have such problems?

Hymietown to you.

We are all human and subject to ignorance.

hockey hound said...

"Every person who Obama appointed in that list has expressed problems with americans who happen to be jewish, and their purported influence on america to HER detriment and to Israel's benefit"

As I've noted before, Obama's political faux pas is his affiliations with those of dubious character. I wish he would address these affiliations publicly once and for all.

Anyone who votes for Obama without looking into these matters is being imprudent, and, in light of this reality, Obama should forsee that many Americans will want to know the truth about his associations with these "dubious characters," otherwise they will vote against the Democratic candidate. Were he to win the favour of these prudent voters, and these are the votes pivotal to winning this election, his becoming the next president of the USA is a sure thing. So why put off clearing these foggy areas any longer? I don't understand his hesitation.

hockey hound said...

"Hymietown to you."

Why did you write this? What are you trying to say? Didn't Jesse Jackson make this anti-Semitic statement in reference to New York City's large Jewish population?

I'm not nearly as refined as my Jewish friends, so I'll reply to your vulgarity with, "Kiss my ass to you."

Please forgive my pugnacious tendencies, Prof. Lipstadt. I apologize.

Epaminondas said...

The expression "HYMIETOWN" is used to indicate that people who identify themselves as "progressive" are not excepted from bigotry.

"As I've noted before, Obama's political faux pas is his affiliations with those of dubious character. I wish he would address these affiliations publicly once and for all."

He can't.

How can he defend his choice of a man like Brzezinski after the lavish praise he has given him, AND abhor his characterization of americans who happen to be jewish, and his belief that Walt and Mearsheimier are right?




This is why he has never addressed these issues.

The closest he has ever come is to claim he never heard Wright say any of 'those things' ...sure and he wasn't in favor of talking to HAMAS either,,,, just one problem (Malley).

Mr. Obama has a problem. He is just far more polished and articulate than Mr. Jackson.