I remember good ole Senator Charles Percy-Ill remark about how "The Jews should not use American taxpayer dollars to build their Holocaust memorials in a nation, thousands of miles from where the Nazi's crimes were committed." He was never reelected after the JEWISH LOBBY financed his defeat.

Now we have another US Congressman that has gotten his tit-in-the-wringer for his anti-Jewish (Semitic?) remarks.

http://maarivenglish.com/tour/benhorin20030324.htm

Gosh, and if things aren't BAD enough right now--can you imagine Joe LIEberman being elected to the US Presidency!

Ist move--The US Embassy is moved to Jerusalem!
2nd move--More US taxpayer dollars for the Israel warmongers.
3rd move--all males over age 1 get circumcised :)
4th move: More US weapons to Israel

5th and last move: The horse driven caison takes his body to the DC dump for burial! :eek:

AbdullaTheBomber....

Now, you see ... this is where it just gets ridiculous, all around.

The Irish in this country ran cities like Boston and New York and Chicago for decades, yet it wasn't until the 1990s that the IRA got any real credibility from the American scene. Even in the nineteenth century, American newspaper editorials condemned the ungrateful Irish; it wasn't until people could see in living pictures what the newspapers were telling them that they figured out the whole thing was ridiculous all around. Sure, it didn't win the six counties back, but the Loyalists came apart when the IRA got its due credit.

Likewise, I have serious questions about the nature of the "Jewish Conspiracy". The Jews of influence to which Rep. Moran seems to refer have more in common with the Bush-class WASP: old, blue-blooded money bent on establishing a quasi-authoritarian "freedom" designed to ensure luxury for the luxurious.

I've never met a full-blown "evil Jew" such as those seemingly depicted by such debates. On the one hand, I repeat to this day that the nastiest argument I ever had with a Jew concerned whether to use salt or sand on the roads in snowy weather. I'm as sure as I can be that her Jewishness had nothing to do with the situation. (I think I won the argument when I pointed out that three people we knew who were also from Chicago--as she was, transplanted to Oregon--had bought 1970's cars with big engines: Camaros and even a Javelin. There are very few of these cars left where there is salt on the roads because the salt dissolves them.)

But it doesn't change my opinion that Moran is not entirely off the mark. The American left has gotten increasingly ridiculous in recent months; I'm not sure the guy catching crap for his anti-gay remarks really deserves it, and I don't think Moran is entirely out of line here. If the American Jewish community stood up and said, as a body politic, Enough war crimes, period! the American government could not fail to listen and respond. One of the downsides of influence is that an allegedly free society brings responsibility to influence. The influential generally don't like this notion; they're as sanctimonious as the rest of us.

One question nobody seems to be asking is, "Why wouldn't Jerusalem want Iraqi regime change and greater American influence in the petrol community?" That Israel wanted a war seems natural; that Israel used its ties to advocate a war seems natural.

If, however, Yitzhak Ben-Horin has described the situation accurately, then perhaps Moran's answer was the wrong one for the occasion. Influential Jews shouldn't have as much sway as Moran implies in the context of the question asked of him; we have to look to WASP money and declining American educational standards. People just aren't smart enough to get it.

But almost as interestingly, how is it that I find myself on the same side of anything as Pat Buchanan? With Pat Buchanan it isn't new. In the past he has blamed Israel's "amen corner" for the first Gulf War. Now he is accusing Bush of being Sharon?s client and a prisoner of the "neo-conservative war party." There's a joke going around the political circles that Bush's cabinet is a "millionaire's club" (which it is) in which the poorest member is black (Condoleeza Rice) but has an oil tanker named after her. (I still don't see how Powell fits into it, but short of that it makes a cute joke; maybe she's the poorest of the actual millionaires; maybe Powell's book sold that many copies and I didn't notice.)

In the 1980s the chief real estate holders in the US were the Japanese and the British, interestingly enough.

This war is about money. It is not really about religion, despite Bush's best efforts to make it so. That rich Jews happen to be Jews is a convenient coincidence for those who disapprove of rich Jews.

For some in the Arab world, this war is already a thousand years old. Americans just hate looking at history as a living, flowing process. It is about cultural supremacy in the sense that Islam spreads very rapidly, and for the last thousand years, the West has been looking to close itself off to that influence the whole time. (Song of Roland, for instance, is morbidly hilarious.)

And that's where the money comes in. We have values that say that we in the West can't exterminate anybody entirely (that's why we stopped at 95% of the indigenous peoples of this continent, I guess), but come on---who gets crapped on in the US? Dark-skinned people. Indigenous, Mexican, African, Islamic, even Hindu. We have a weird love-hate relationship with Asians in this country; they're sort of "honorary whites". (cf Vonnegut, Hocus Pocus) Islam? It comes from people not lily-white enough to be European.

We can't exterminate them, but we can keep them economically suppressed.

That Jews are involved is merely a coincidence of issues.

Remember, some people said that electing Kennedy was electing the Pope. It didn't happen that way. Especially when we consider that, as a nation derived from revolution against the British, I personally think that despite the number of Catholics in the US, our siding with the British in that whole messy affair, at least from the 19th century onward (I've read a few of the newspaper editorials from '48 ... I'll have to dig up the links sometime) seems to be at least in part a continuing American-Puritan disdain for Catholicism.

Focusing so exclusively on the Jews is a bit like fencing shadows. And Moran is definitely guilty of that.

"Government transparency" will help with that. I still haven't heard of truly full disclosure of campaign finances, and after the GAO lost its pursuit of the Enron/Cheney meetings, and what with the Bush administration generally dropping as many veils of secrecy as possible over its doings ....

And let's also remember, insofar as any specific "Jewish connection" or conspiracy is concerned ... it's not like the Bush administration has made itself unavailable to Israeli concerns.

It's too bad Moran wasn't smarter. And it's too bad that it could cost him his job in the long run. But in the cutthroat world of politics one has to be prepared for the fact that such general and casual statements can be that harmful.

He's a politician. It's kind of hard to feel sorry for a career politician.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

tiassa,
As an aside from someone from Ireland, the IRA not only have no real credibility, they never deserved any, since they are little more than a gang of murderous thugs. Any political or social changes that they have cited over the years as justification, have in fact been the result of nonviolent work by other groups. The one and only thing they've ever given to the people of Northern Ireland is misery and suffering.
Not to preach you understand, but this one's a bit of a raw nerve.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
tiassa,
As an aside from someone from Ireland, the IRA not only have no real credibility, they never deserved any, since they are little more than a gang of murderous thugs. Any political or social changes that they have cited over the years as justification, have in fact been the result of nonviolent work by other groups. The one and only thing they've ever given to the people of Northern Ireland is misery and suffering.
Not to preach you understand, but this one's a bit of a raw nerve.

Re: The Catholics of ( IRA ) southern Ireland as "murderous thugs."

Abdulla: Interesting thing, huh? The Palestinian's kill the Zionist interlopers and trespassers who murder their people, steal their land and water and demolish homes where the Palys have lived for decades and they are referred to by the Jews as "the terrorists(?)"

Conversely, the Protestant thugs of Northern Ireland have been murdering the Catholics of Belfast and Cork for decades--and the victim Catholics ( IRA ) are the terrorists(?).

The protestant Orangemen parade through Catholic neighborhoods trying to intimidate and threaten and the Catholics cringe and hide--lest they be called terrorists(?).

A few years ago the protestants firebombed a Catholic home burning three children ( brothers ) to death--and somehow the Catholics ( the victims ) were blamed for the act for "just being there!"

Like the Jewish Settlers needing to be erradicated in Palestine--it's about time the protestants of northern Ireland were shipped to England with a shillelagh stuck up their fat arses--where they can be with their prejudiced ilk! :(

AbdullaTheBomber....

Abdulla.
Conversely, the Protestant thugs of Northern Ireland have been murdering the Catholics of Belfast and Cork for decades--and the victim Catholics ( IRA ) are the terrorists(?).
That's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard about the troubles in the north.
For a start, Cork is in the republic of ireland, not northern Ireland, it's never been bombed by either side, and is in fact at the other end of the country...
Further, the Catholics in the north are not all members of the IRA, and the vast majority are not supporters of the IRA. The things the IRA was supposedly set up to obtain (equal civil rights for both religions) were obtained through legal means over twenty years ago. All the IRA serves as now is as the Irish version of some LA-type gang.

The protestant Orangemen parade through Catholic neighborhoods trying to intimidate and threaten and the Catholics cringe and hide--lest they be called terrorists(?).Actually, they don't cringe and hide.

A few years ago the protestants firebombed a Catholic home burning three children ( brothers ) to death--and somehow the Catholics ( the victims ) were blamed for the act for "just being there!"
Look pal, I grew up with this going on less than a hundred miles from my home. I know the facts, you don't. The facts are that this kind of event has happened so often on BOTH sides, that I can't identify which event you're going on about. All I see anymore is the damage done - and most Irish people are the same. We don't hear "protestant eighteen-year-old boy found crucified on a building estate with rebars through his elbows and knees", we hear "protestant eighteen-year-old boy found crucified on a building estate with rebars through his elbows and knees". Do you understand the difference?

Like the Jewish Settlers needing to be erradicated in Palestine--it's about time the protestants of northern Ireland were shipped to England with a shillelagh stuck up their fat arses--where they can be with their prejudiced ilk!
Those protestants are citizens of Northern Ireland and have as much of a right to live there as the Catholics have.
And before you accuse me of religious bias, I'm an atheist from a roman catholic family, and have many friends living in the middle of all of this crap, from both sides - and let me tell you, the divide that you're trying to imply exists simply is not there - the Northern Ireland situation is different from the Israeli one.