Posted on 06/03/2009 1:43:42 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator
American Jews overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama, the Candidate of Change, despite credible warnings and ample evidence that he would obsessively seek to create a Palestinian state at Israel's expense and "engage" nuclear-arming, Islamist Iran.
After four months of Change, Obama's support in the Jewish community seems rock solid. Besides, many Jews say, Obama's appointment of two Jews to key White House positions - Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff and David Axelrod as presidential senior adviser - proves Obama is OK for Israel. So what if the meeting with Netanyahu didn't go as well as first advertised? Bibi's a right-winger, anyway. Under Obama, there was a kosher Passover Seder in the White House. Progress! Hope! Change!
Hmm. The head-spinning, stomach-turning developments make this lifelong Jewish supporter of Israel think Hitler made two big blunders in his quest for world domination. He attacked the Soviet Union - and he did not invite American Jewish leaders to a catered kosher lunch in Berlin before the war.
Seriously. Had Hitler been able to hide his fanatical hatred of Jews for only a few hours, he might have been able to mobilize liberal American Jewish opinion in favor of a policy of appeasement toward Nazi Germany - perhaps, even, a formal pledge of non-interference in Germany's internal affairs.
Admittedly, a free kosher lunch might not have been enough to win over the so-called Jewish leaders. The Nazi madman probably would have had to appoint a Jewish adviser (on Jewish affairs, say) to accomplish his aim.
A high-level Jewish adviser - yes! That would have worked wonders for the Fuhrer. The Jewish leaders would have returned home to reassure their concerned fellow Jews and the American media that Hitler had no intention of starting a war, regardless of Germany's ominous rearmament and military buildup; that he was instead interested in forging a closer relationship between Germany and the United States, one that could possibly even lead to an alliance of some sort to preserve peace in Europe.
As for "the Jewish Problem," the American Jewish bigwigs would have said that while some Jews were indeed suffering in Germany, there really was room for progress - quietly, of course, behind the scenes. Quiet, patient, principled diplomacy - that's the ticket!
And so it would have gone. Dialogue and diplomacy are the answers, the Jewish leaders would have said; no sanctions, no big, public protests - they would only make matters worse for Germany's Jews and needlessly antagonize the Nazis. No talk of armed intervention or future conflict, heaven forbid.
The impact of their meeting with Herr Hitler and call for engagement and dialogue would have been instant (or what passed for instant in the time before television and the Internet). Overnight, the brave minority warning of a rising, imperialist threat across the ocean would have been marginalized -maybe forever. Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, there could have been a crucial decision by the U.S. government to avoid or delay declaring war on Germany as well as Japan, perhaps accompanied by a presidential speech reminding the public of Germany's great contributions to Western civilization and culture and to the shaping of American society.
Though the anti-Semitic rabble - the foot soldiers in armbands and jackboots and white sheets - would have been appalled by Hitler's meeting with Jewish leaders, the Fuhrer's more sophisticated American supporters and sympathizers would have understood his diabolically clever move. Influential isolationists and fascists - the Pat Buchanans of that era - would have laughed all the way to the next America First or German American Bund (or Silver Shirts, or Black Legion, or Ku Klux Klan) rally.
The Roger Cohen of that day - there is always a Roger Cohen whenever and wherever Jewish communities are threatened with annihilation and persecution - would surely have written a series of articles for The New York Times about Jewish conditions in Germany being not so bad after all, despite the beatings and racial laws, the persecution and the humiliation, the incessant anti-Semitic propaganda. (In fact, the liberal Jewish columnist Walter Lippmann wrote approvingly of Hitler in the late 1920s, advising his readers that the Nazi leader would "moderate" his views upon achieving power.)
Obama is no Hitler. Obviously. God help us if that were the case. But Obama's policies and actions are giving new Hitlers - the leaders of Islamist Iran - time to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles capable of destroying Israel and bringing America to its knees.
In other words, Obama's appeasement of Iran and betrayal of Israel is effectively helping to prepare the ground for a new Holocaust and a new world war.
And American Jews and Jewish organizations - seemingly slavishly bound to a Democratic Party with a left wing that now views the establishment of Israel as a mistake - are going along for the ride. American Jewish voters overwhelmingly chose Obama over John McCain, a proven friend of Israel, and they don't seem at all ready to jump ship. They are not even close to the exit ramp.
What will it take for American Jews to stand up and be counted? Would a call by Obama for a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem open their eyes? Probably not. In contrast with bible-believing Christians and observant Jews, liberal Jews are fashionably forsaking Israel's capital. Strong support for Israel is so yesterday ... so ... Bush/Cheney.
The time is fast approaching for American Jewry to decide between loyalty to a political party that bears no resemblance to that which their parents and grandparents adored for generations and their professed love of Israel whose security, along with the security of the United States, is being undermined by everything Obama is presently doing, has done, and plans to do.
With whom do you stand, American Jews - America and Israel or Obama and the Democratic Party?
Christians remain in favor of Christ.
Btw, there is also a gender gap in the Jewish vote, with Jewish men more likely to vote GOP.
Given the gender gap, it’s probable that Bush won about 40% of Jewish men under 30 in 2004
It’s like inverse-zionism or something.
It goes far beyond that. They've made Auschwitz into the new Sinai, the basis of post-modern, "politically correct" morality, and a higher, newer, and superior covenant to the one made at Sinai.
They've turned Jewish history into an anti-Semitic (lehavdil) "passion play" in which the Jews suffer, die, and are buried in order to redeem the world from religion. They've turned the ashes of the Qedoshim into the seed of a new, post-Theistic moral/ethical system. Of course, these are the people who think the "palestinians" are the (lehavdil) "Qedoshim" of our day.
Think about it for a moment. The survival of the Jewish People should be a major bit of evidence for the existence of the Jewish G-d, but the atheists have inverted that precisely. Instead Jewish survival has been turned into a symbol of "the undying human spirit" in its war with "religious obscurantism" and the Jews have been changed from the People of G-d to "the people religion couldn't kill."
For what it is worth, at the JCC on the Monday eve of the election (for the ritual Jewish game of basketball), I counted exactly 5 political bumper stickers: 3 McCain/Palin, 1 Ron Paul, and 1 Obama (the youth director’s car).
Not that that means much.
I know many couples that fit that pattern.
Duh. Hence the name.
And of course the fact they've been taught chr*stianity all their lives doesn't in and of itself make chr*stianity true, but this isn't the forum on which to argue about this.
McCain won 29% of Jews under 35 in 2008 according to Gallup - 6-4 points worse than Bush got in 2004, but McCain fell across all ethnic and religious groups - including whites - compared to Bush in 2004.
I think I sat through that lesson one time at a temple.
Made me realize I was not Reform.
Not that that means much.
I also saw a Ron Paul sticker on a car driven to shul last year. What's up with that???
Of course, it was Purim, so . . .
However, when this group, the ACLU, looks to destroy the traditions and customs of this country, that is wrong, and they should be disbanded if not imprisoned. I completely agree with Michael Savage that the ACLU should be prosecuted under RICO statues.
>> If the Jews don’t support Israel, why should we?
What does that have to do with support of our ally, Israel? Absolutely nothing. Neglect by one party doesn’t justify neglect by another.
Paul was popular with college students across the country.
I suspect it had something to do with legalizing weed...
That's "temple." They call their synagogues that because they believe they have superseded the Holy Temple. Doesn't that make them supersessionists?
Made me realize I was not Reform.
Hey, nice to meet you! I'm a typical twanging, gap-toothed, Bible-thumping "redneck" who has loved Israel and `Am Yisra'el all his life while hearing all that time from the likes of Phil Donahue that he's really a Nazi who doesn't realize it.
Turned out I was so "anti-Semitic" that I learned Biblical Hebrew and became a Noachide and for many years drove two hours in both directions in order to be present for Purim and for Simchat Torah.
If it's obvious, why state it? I mean, it's obvious, right? Unless you're just doing it to scare Jews away from associating with conservatives. And btw, I'm not Jewish; I'm a redneck.
However, when this group, the ACLU, looks to destroy the traditions and customs of this country, that is wrong, and they should be disbanded if not imprisoned.
Oh, so you believe that everyone has a moral obligation to be a member of the religion of whatever country he lives in? You believe Americans are supposed to be chr*stians (Protestants, I assume), Saudis should be moslems, the Irish should be Catholics, the Japanese shinto/b*ddhists, the Indians hindus, and the Haitians practitioners of voodoo? You're saying that chr*stianity is true in America because America was founded by chr*stians but it isn't true in countries like Turkey or Thailand?
If chr*stianity is true, it is true because it is, not because it was the religious heritage of the founders of the United States of America. And if it isn't true (as I maintain), then the fact that America was founded by chr*stians can't make it true. What's true is true for all, and what's false is false for all.
You people who justify your religious beliefs by the founders of the country sound to me just like the lefty "indigenous pipples" you run around shouting (in funny accents) "dese is de ways of my pipples." So? I don't give a flying frick what the "ways" of anybody's "pipples" is . . . I want to know what G-d has said, what is the objective, universal truth. I humbly suggest you do the same.
BTW, you know that Michael Savage is Jewish, right?
Because Jesus cares about Israel. Bible believers know that it is a barometer, if you will, of where we are in prophetic time.
Shabbos? Or just Purim party? Even then, I'm too drunk.
Nah, you're just too drunk. As I said, it was Purim--very much a weekday.
I, being non-Jewish, of course would make the long two hour drive on Shabbat or Yom Tov.
Unfortunately, not every member of this site, or every conservative, is a "Bible believer." Would that they were!
uh...ok.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.