Posted on 10/11/2004 8:26:19 AM PDT by jperspective
Due to an overwhelming volume of anti-Semitic posts in their forums JohnKerry.com has finally been forced to disallow all anti-Semitic posts.
From Jewsforkerry:
The forum is no linger allowing hate to be posted to their boards, in direct response to complaints from concerned citizens like you!For those of you who missed it, here's one small example of what was being posted in that forum (a lot of it is just not suitable for a family-friendly site such as this one):
"We are advised here that this issue [Israel] is highly sensitive. Why? Because one dare not tell the truth about a Zionist? Because calling them what they are is not polite? Because we are too used to their dictating to us? Zionists Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton etc now make our policy."
Here are some excerpted comments from our site members about their experiences on the official forum:
"I get nauseated every time I open one of the endless 'blame Israel' threads."
"Last night a person posted an anti-Semitic comment (one of just several), and after I objected, this moderator chewed me out for doing so."
The good news is that these forums threads have been stopped - the Kerry team has realized that this was not how the party should be represented, because it doesn't reflect the party.
I was not surprised at all to hear that a large portion of Kerry voters are blatant anti-Semitic. The shift in liberal thought regarding Israel is becoming more and more apparent. It is very clear that liberal sympathies lie with the Palestinians and not the Israelis. The scary thing is that the Jewish electorate either hasn't picked up on this shift, or doesn't really seem to care.
The Michael Moore left is very much anti-Semitic. It stems from two different reasons:
First the Arabs have done a terrific pr job to convince the left that the Palestinians are the persecuted under-dogs in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the 60's and 70's the world view was that Israel was a tiny spec among hundreds of millions of neighbors who wanted to kill them. After all they had Egypt Syria and Jordan surrounding them. They are out-nubered in the region by 100 to 1. Yet somehow the Arabs have turned peoples attention from that discrepancy. Now the conflict seems to focus on the big bad Israelis against the small weak Palestinians whose only means for self defense is to blow up innocent Israeli women and children.
Next, the liberals traditionally have an appeaser mind set. When we were attacked on 9/11 the Conservatives were immediately interested in striking back to protect America. Liberals by contrast struggled to understand why the terrorists attacked us. They hoped that if we changed whatever it is that we were doing that angered the terrorists then maybe they would leave us alone. That's called appeasement. That is akin to giving the terrorists what they want.
Many liberals have come to the conclusion that Americas friendship with Israel is the reason why the terrorists hate us. This is classic liberal backwards logic. After all the terrorists are attacking in Russia, India, France, Great Britain, Iraq, Spain etc.. Many of those countries clearly support the Palestinians over the Israelis.
Contrast all that with the pro-Israel stance that conservatives have taken. Conservatives overwhelmingly understand that Israel is on the front line in the war on terror. They understand that abandoning our allies and friends because the terrorists want us to is not the American way. It is however the European way. This is why we've seen many European countries like Spain and France act so quickly to appease the terrorists.
In the end the most surprising aspect of all this is that in the face of these clear shifts in party philosophy the Jewish electorate is still slow to come around to this new way of thinking. The Jews continue to fool themselves into thinking that the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic wing of the Democratic party is a small one and not representative of the party as a whole. The reality is that a large percentage of liberal are very much anti-Israel. Michael Moore, Al Sharpton and Howard Dean, are all examples of extreme left wing anti-Semitic leaders.
When Jews vote for Kerry they will be voting to hand power over to their enemies. They will be voting to hand power over to those who would destroy Israel. For a man who by his liberal nature will not be able to fight off his instinct to appease.
How these jokers are getting so much of the Jewish vote is beyond logic.
Yet the Jews continue to vote for the 'Rats...
figure that out???
Whatever happened to the vaunted Jewish intelligence?
I never thought I'd have the opportunity to say 'Stupid Jews'!
Ever.
Very good commentary. Thanks.
I asked a Jewish friend who I went to college with why the Jewish vote leaned so heavily towards the Democrats. His answer was instructive.
"Jews cannot support Republicans because they view them mostly as Evangelical Christians who hijacked their Messiah and Torah.
The good and decent people of the world MUST resist this evil.
President Bush MUST be re-elected.
What throws me is that Kerry's answer to everything seems to be censorship. He didn't like the Swift Boat Vets, so he called on President Bush to shut them up. Of course, this would have violated 527 rules and would have been censorship. Then Kerry didn't like the book "Unfit for Command," so he called on the publisher to stop publishing it. Censorship again. And now he's muzzling visitors to his own web site. Censorship once more.
And Democrats claim we're compromising constitutional rights??
Isn't that the truth!
Every Jewish website or publication I find, supports Bush and things like the Right to Bear Arms and conservative values in general, yet the Jewish 'population' seems 100% contrary to that. It's baffling?!?
"Jews cannot support Republicans because they view them mostly as Evangelical Christians who hijacked their Messiah and Torah.
They would rather support Democrats that are mostly anti-Jew, anti-God, and don't believe in the Tora or the Messiah.
Smart.....
This statement is completely wrong. Observant Jews overwhelmingly support Bush as do Jews under the age of 30. The problem is that the majority of non-observant secular Jews don't care about Israel's well being. They are more concerned with liberalism. The old saying is that you cant teach an old dog new tricks. That may be true in this case but some of us are coming around.
Hehehehehe. Yay for network news!
I actually think that Bush will get close to 40% of the Jewish vote. I simply dont believe the polls that show him getting just 25% of the vote. I know tons of Jews who voted for Gore in 2000 who will be voting for Bush this time around.
John Kerry's Discharge - He won't sign Form 180 - What is he hiding?
http://acuf.org/issues/issue21/040929pol.asp
What a young man did more than 30 years ago should not be a primary criteria in determining his qualifications to be President of the United States. George Bush has had almost 4 years now as Commander and Chief of the World"s largest military force and he should be judged on how well he has done. Yet John Kerry and the Democratic left won"t give it up. On almost a daily basis he says I served this country honorably as a young man in Vietnam (4 months/12 days) and I will serve this country honorably as Commander and Chief. Then the Left yells that George Bush got preferential treatment in getting into the National Guard and even failed to complete his guard obligations; even forging documents to prove their point.
The facts are that George Bush served honorably in the National Guard obtaining service points far in excess of the 50 annual service points required to meet his obligation. Records show that in 1968/69 he accumulated 253 points, 340 in 1969/70, 137 in 1970/71, 112 in 1971/72, 56 in 1972/73 and 56 in 1973/74. Points far in excess of the service agreed to and that required to meets his obligation and be Honorably Discharged. George Bush has never made his National Guard service a qualification to lead this country, nor has he ever questioned the service of John Kerry.
While the Left and the mainstream media have never questioned the Vietnam era service of John Kerry, they seem to feel that the record of George Bush 30 years ago should be of concern to voters in November. But what about John Kerry's record? We are told that he was a decorated veteran. We are also told that he was deeply involved in anti-war activities on his return from Vietnam in violation of his oath as an officer in the US Navy. By his own account of his actions and protests, he violated the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Further he met, on two occasions, with North Vietnamese negotiators in 1970 and 1971, while a Reserve Officer, willingly placing himself in violation of Article three, Section three of the U.S. Constitution, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.
From here the record of John Kerry becomes unclear and the mainstream press won't demand that John Kerry sign a Department of Defense (DOD) form 180 that would release all of his military records. Records released by his campaign are confusing. There are indications that he was Honorably Discharged on Jan. 3, 1970, Feb 16, 1978, July 13, 1978 and even lately Mar. 12, 2001. Why the confusion on a relatively simple service event. Could it be that John Kerry received a less than honorable discharge in the early 70"s because of his anti-war activities? And then was pardoned for those activities when then President Jimmy Carter on January 21, 1978 ( Proclamation 4483) granted a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all persons who may have committed any offense between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973 in violation of the Military Selective Service Act or any rule or regulation promulgated there under.
Did John Kerry request that his service be granted an Honorable Discharge and it was finally granted in 1978? Only a complete release of his military records will show what actually happened during this period. And, to date John Kerry has refused to sign the necessary DOD form 180 which would allow for this release. If the Democratic Party, the media, and the Bush critics are going to demand, as they do on almost a daily basis, that George Bush release all of his records, should they not do the same for John Kerry?
Michael Ashbury is a noted researcher and author, and the author of ''Who is the REAL John Kerry?'' (Booksurge.com 2004). His website is at http://www.whoistherealjohnkerry.com
What I posted was my friend Ben's opinion, and I stated it as such.
The fact that many Jews don't reciprocate the support to Republicans may hurt, but we conservatives will never abandon our support for Israel and our commitment to keep the Jewish people safe from Islamofascists. The phrase "never again" should not be used unless we mean it.
Conservatives should mean it. We are fighting evil--together.
"The problem is that the majority of non-observant secular Jews don't care about Israel's well being."
But to say "They are more concerned with liberalism" is merely to beg the question. Notwithstanding their "non-observance", are they Jews or not? If they identify themselves as Jewish in any meaningful way, then their insistence on voting for the party which welcomes anti-semitism with open arms is infuriating.
I'm here to let you know that many of us very much DO appreciate your support. Those that don't anger and upset me even more then they do you. I think that even the Liberal Jews are coming around to the idea that their support for liberalism is akin to sleeping with the enemy.
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.