Replies

he dustup over the location of Mitt Romney's presidential announcement — the Henry Ford Museum — may be revealing. For Jews over the age of 40 or so, the name Ford means more than Mustangs and American innovation. Ford, of course, was a notorious anti-Semite, publisher of the International Jew (an update of the Protocols of Zion), and an apologist for Hitler who received the Grand Cross of the German Eagle from Hitler's Nazi government in July 1938. In many Jewish homes, owning a Ford was verboten.

Double Standard alert.
Did Jews care that Bill Clinton held an event their in 1989? I don't think so. They also didn't care that his mentor was the anti-Semite Fulbright!
The generation of Jews alive in the 1930's are dwindling. They have little power. (Heck much of their voter turnout is due to over people voting for them in nursing homes.) Those who pray at the altar of FDR obviously care not a wit about the Holocaust, otherwise, they would hold him accountable for not doing simple things like allowing refugees to be interned in Cuba or allowing the State Department to ensure that immigration quotas were not met.
The Tikkun Olam communists of that era are by definition anti-Semites. They just had the audacity to call McCarthy an anti-Semite, when Stalin was planning to kill of Soviet Jewry!
Current Jewish leadership is made up largely of red diaper babies and fellow travellers from baby boom. I seem to recall that their vehicles of choice were VOLKSWAGENS. VW was founded by the Nazis to be the German People's Car for their Autobahn. Hitler had design input in the VW Bug. Ferdinand Porsche designed armored vehicles for the Wermacht while Ford's facilities were building tank parts and armored cars for the US military.
I went to the last AIPAC regional dinner. John "my campaign is virtually run out of Dearbornistan" Edwards was toasted and Hillary "I supported the PLO in the 1980's" Clinton spoke. The people there drove Mercedes. Daimler Benz was an integral part of Hitler's war machine.

He was no cultural icon.
Henry Ford, the man who gave us the assembly line and living wage for factory workers was an icon of industry and culture.

Now he devloved into a conspiratorial lunatic. However, hi isolationist anti-Semitic rants and his importation of Arabs into America is right at home in the Democrat party of today.

Why doesn't Ms. Rubin comment about the thinly veiled Antisemitism of Jimmy Carter and Wesley "KLA member for Life" Clarke? How about the choice of a radical Imam to be a prayer leader at the last Democrat leadership conference?

This isn't commentary. It is perpetuation of a double standard and propaganda by the media.
Those Jews in the leftist shtetl of the New York Duranty Times won't get the truth. Those who read the NY Sun and NY Post may see a bit of it.

Your post # 204 is superb!

I can only add that Henry Ford was indeed a Democrat in his own time (please see my posts #s 172 and 200), so it's quite appropriate that he would still be welcome in today's Democratic Party, the heirs to their tainted political legacy.

There is some truth to the statement that there was some squeamishness about owning Fords among American Jews (especially in Detroit) at one time, but that time has long passed, as the Ford heirs have clearly repudiated the patriarch's antisemitism.

Did Jews care that Bill Clinton held an event their in 1989? I don't think so. They also didn't care that his mentor was the anti-Semite Fulbright!

Hard to imagine, this is about Alan, not the Jews. Does anyone care, heck, we both know virtually no one knows Fords background in this regard.

Speaking for myself only, industrial brilliance doesn't offset moral failings of this magnitude. At the same time, he acknowledged his error. And it's not my place to judge either his conduct or his apology. Since neither are of any consequence any more.

I never got around to responding to your AIPAC post. Nothing to say to excuse political bias in what should be an apolitical organization.

I'm not sure Clark has anything to veil, Carter, the veil is gone. And no, the NYT doesn't think so.