Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on January 12, 2011, 10:05:15 AM
-
Apologize for 'Blood Libel' Accusation
By Chris Good
A pro-Israel lobbying group is calling on Sarah Palin to apologize after she accused the media of "manufactur[ing] a blood libel" against her and conservatives after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
Said J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami in a statement released Wednesday:
J Street is saddened by Governor Palin's use of the term "blood libel."
The country's attention is rightfully focused on the memorial service for the victims of Saturday's shooting. Our prayers continue to be with those who are still fighting to recover and the families of the victims. The last thing the country needs now is for the rhetoric in the wake of this tragedy to return to where it was before.
We hope that Governor Palin will recognize, when it is brought to her attention, that the term "blood libel" brings back painful echoes of a very dark time in our communal history when Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous deeds. When Governor Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words.
The term "blood libel" refers to the slander, dating to the late Middle Ages, that Jews serially kidnapped and murdered Christian children to use their blood in rituals. After such accusations were leveled, Jews frequently were persecuted and killed. The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, who publish essays on religious tolerance, hold up this explanation and timeline of the term.
-
J Street?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Fuck you Step in Fetch It - you are a joke.
Corner of Webster & Nereid any time you pathetic little shoe shine bitch.
-
Alan Dershowitz Defends Palin on ‘Blood Libel’
January 12, 2011 1:45 P.M. By Daniel Foster
In a statement to BigGovernment.com:
The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People, its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.
-
Hmmmmm, well in my humble opinion they should shut the fuck up and grow the fuck up. Contrary their belief not everyone gives a shit about some perceived slight for something that happened 500 years ago.
-
Hmmmmm, well in my humble opinion they should shut the fuck up and grow the fuck up. Contrary their belief not everyone gives a shit about some perceived slight for something that happened 500 years ago.
J Street - is a FAR LEFT group. They want dividsion of Jerusalem and Israel to give away the store to Hamas.
Don't buy a word of this crap from S & F It.
-
Hey benny you racist little dumpster diver - take your communist shit somewhere else.
________________________ ________________________ _______
September 24, 2010
Categories:Middle East.Soros and J Street
Eli Lake reports that the liberal Jewish group essentially hid funding from George Soros:
Mr. Ben Ami said Mr. Soros "made the public decision not to support us once we launched. Once we got started, he provided us with some money."
Mr. Ben Ami's words on Thursday contrasted sharply with statements on the J Street website concerning the group's receipt of funding from Mr. Soros.
In a section of the website called "myths and facts," the group until this week included a section that read: "George Soros very publicly stated his decision not to be engaged in J Street when it was launched — precisely out of fear that his involvement would be used against the organization."
After Mr. Ben Ami spoke with The Times, the website was abruptly amended Thursday night to read: "J Street has said it doesn’t receive money from George Soros, but now news reports indicate that he has in fact contributed."
Soros's views on Israel have put him outside the mainstream of American Jewish politics for a while, both because he's to the left of center -- though he's not alone there -- and because he has no particular warmth for Israel.
"I don't deny the Jews their right to a national existence--but I don't want to be part of it," he told the New Yorker a few years ago, suggesting that Jews should overcoming anti-Semitism by "giv[ing] up on the tribalness."
You can see why J Stret didn't want to advertise his ties, as he's not a particularly "pro-Israel" figure. And the 2004 election turned him into the sort of exaggerated caricature that Democrats are now trying to make of the Kochs.
But this also seems like a classic case of obfuscation making the underlying facts look much worse.
UPDATE: J Street's Amy Spitalnick says they didn't remove anything from their website, just added to it.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0910/Soros_and_J_Street.html
-
The Urgency of a Two-State Solution (and Permanent Borders)
The outlines of an agreement are by now well-known and widely accepted: Borders based on the 1967 lines with agreed reciprocal land swaps allowing Israeli incorporation of a majority of settlers, as well as Palestinian viability and contiguity; a sharing of Jerusalem that is based on demographic realities establishing the capitals of the two states and allowing freedom of access and respect for all holy sites; robust security arrangements; and an agreed upon resolution of the refugee issue that resettles refugees outside of Israel.
Unfortunately, time and political-will in the region are in short supply and it appears to many observers that the window of opportunity for achieving a two-state solution is rapidly closing. While majorities of both the Israeli and Palestinian populations continue to support a two-state solution, ongoing developments, entrenched and expanding settlements, and a growing movement in some Palestinian and international circles for a one-state outcome suggest that the trajectory is trending against the two-state option, thereby threatening Israel’s future. Lastly, growing radicalization in the region makes achieving a two-state solution evermore challenging. We no longer have the luxury of waiting for a riper time to pursue peace; now is that time.
J Street believes that urgently reaching a sustainable two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is both a fundamental American interest and essential to the survival and security of Israel. In the seventh decade following its establishment, Israel and most of her neighbors have yet to secure internationally recognized borders or to make peace.
With the Jewish and Arab populations between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea at near-parity, demographic trends preclude Israel from maintaining control over all of Greater Israel while remaining a democratic state and a homeland for the Jewish people. As former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in November 2007, "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished."
The two-state solution represents the best way to ensure that Israel remains a democracy and a national home for the Jewish people. The two-state solution has been American policy across four administrations and has been endorsed by each of the most recent Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Israeli Defense Minister (and former Prime Minister) Ehud Barak recently said, "The lack of a solution to the problem of border demarcation within the historic Land of Israel -- and not an Iranian bomb -- is the most serious threat to Israel's future." The contours of a two-state solution are well known. President Clinton outlined the parameters in 2000, and progress on this basis was made in Taba in 2001 and under Israeli Prime Minister Olmert in 2008. Various initiatives have spelled out the principles and even the details.
Click here to download this page in PDF format.
http://www.jstreet.org/page/the-urgency-a-two-state-solution-and-permanent-borders
________________________ ________________________ ___-
Yeah ok Benny - J Street is Pro-Israel. ::) ::)
-
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
J Street Paid Thousands to PR Firm Owned by Its President
J Street is the left-wing Jewish political organization whose philosophy is to support Israel by loud public criticism of all of its actions and policies, and advocating peace at any price, including especially Israel's national security. Consequently, it quickly became the favorite Jewish communal organization of the Obama White House. For example, Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, did not attend J Street's annual conference in October 2009, but senior Obama Administration officials, including national security advisor James Jones, were delighted to participate.
Now a Washington Times news story has revealed that J Street also has a second agenda, namely lining the pockets of a PR firm in which J Street founder and President Jeremy Ben-Ami (photo top LEFT) owns a 15% interest. The Washington Times reports that Ben-Or consulting charged J Street, a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organization, $56,000 over a six-month period.
Ben-Ami has denied any conflict of interest, saying in a statement released through a spokesperson that even though he started Ben-Or and still retains a 15% shareholder's interest in the firm, he relinquished "all rights to on-going compensation" from the company when he left the firm in 2000. However, that statement belies the fact that no common stock shareholder of a corporation ever has a right to "on-going compensation." Rather, shareholders have a right in dividends and distribution from the company, as determined by the corporation's board of directors. Also, the value of a shareholder's stock is directly related to the earnings of the corporation.
Moreover, Ben-Ami has shown less than complete fidelity to the truth in the past. He repeatedly publicly denied that J Street had any connection with the left-wing and anti-Israel billionaire George Soros, only to apologetically confirm another Washington Times scoop this past September, which revealed that Soros and his children had donated $245,000 to J Street in the year of its founding, 2008, and another $500,000 since, about seven percent of J Street's total fundraising.
The current Times story notes, "According to nonprofit analysts, Mr. Ben-Ami's stake creates a conflict of interest that runs afoul of ethical — if not legal — restrictions on acts of 'self-dealing,' in which an officer in a tax-exempt organization receives undue benefit from that organization's transactions."
As J Street and Ben-Ami continue to dissemble in reaction to this newest revelation concerning its activities, one need only ask how J Street would react to a report of similar self-dealing at the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), which is J Street's favorite whipping boy on account of its steadfast political advocacy for Israel.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qtU9wP2ie3cJ:hedgehogcentral.blogspot .com/2011/01/j-street-paid-thousands-to-pr-firm.html+j+street+left+wing&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
-
The Campaign Spot
Election-driven news and views . . . by Jim Geraghty.
About | Archive | E-mail | Log In
TEXT RESIZE
RSS Print
The Term ‘Blood Libel’: More Common Than You Might Think
January 12, 2011 9:51 A.M. By Jim Geraghty
Tags: Sarah Palin
The use of the term “blood libel” in non-Jewish contexts is out of bounds, eh?
Andrew Sullivan, October 10, 2008:
A couple of obvious thoughts. Paladino speaks of “perverts who target our children and seek to destroy their lives.” This is the gay equivalent of the medieval (and Islamist) blood-libel against Jews.
Ann Coulter’s column, October 30, 2008:
His expert pontificator on race was The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson, who said the Pittsburgh hoax was “the blood libel against black men concerning the defilement of the flower of Caucasian womanhood. It’s been with us for hundreds of years and, apparently, is still with us.”
From a the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, September 30, 2009:
Almost immediately following the aftermath of the shooting, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation was the unlikely voice that called for the safeguard of Muslims in the armed forces.
Within hours of the news breaking, MRFF founder and president Mikey Weinstein called upon President Barack Obama to “immediately issue a statement as Commander-in-Chief making it clear that there would be a zero-tolerance policy against any member of the U.S. military inflicting harassments, retribution or reprisal against an Islamic member of the U.S. military.” …
He criticized former Alaska Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin for saying that she was “all for” profiling against Muslims.
“We’re not painting all Jews as thieves for Madoff’s economic crimes,” said Weinstein, comparing Palin’s comments to a “blood libel.”
During the recount in 2000:
Florida Democrat Peter Deutsch last night on Crossfire:
Let me just talk a little bit about the whole, I guess, spin from the Republicans about — which has been to me the absolute most — the worst statements I have ever heard probably in my life about anything. I mean, almost a blood libel by the Republicans towards Al Gore, saying that he was trying to stop men and women in uniform that are serving this country from voting. That is the most absurd thing and absolutely has no basis in fact at all.
In the grand scheme of things, the idea that Palin used a phrase associated with one particular, egregious and historically recurring false accusation to rebut a modern false accusation seems like little reason for outrage. For perspective on what really is worth outrage, the services for 9-year-old victim Christina Taylor Green are tomorrow.
UPDATE: Some more examples, from my side of the aisle:
Jed Babbin, September 8, 2004: “When, in April 1971, John Kerry testified to a Senate committee that “…war crimes committed in Southeast Asia [were] not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command,” he said that the average American soldier who fought in Vietnam was a war criminal. Kerry’s statement was false, a blood libel that hangs in the air to this day.”
Michael Barone, November 15, 2004: “And the argument against Michael Dukakis, which he never effectively countered because there is no effective counter, is that giving furlough to people who have life without parole is a position that Dukakis defended over 11 years as governor of Massachusetts or governor candidate, is a crazy law, and he supported it over 11 years. You don’t have to be a racist to want a murderer, whatever his race, to stay in jail and not be allowed outside on the weekend. To say that the American people were racist and they just want black people in, is blood libel on the American people.”
John Hood, September 23, 2003: “A ‘Blood Libel’ Against the News & Observer.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Either Joel Roberts or Andrew Cohen of CBS News (both names are listed), February 9, 2005: “Ward Churchill still doesn’t get it. Even though he has tried to clarify and backtrack upon the worst of his intemperate remarks about the victims of the terror attacks on America, he persists in hanging a blood libel on thousands of victims and, by clear implication, you and me.”
Andrew Cohen of CBS News, May 7, 2008: “So-called “judicial activism” occurs, in other words, when it’s your side that lost the case and it is nothing short of a blood libel against judges to accuse them of operating by fiat.”
Alex Beam in the Boston Globe, January 14, 2005, discussing the accusation that an official had used the “n-word” in meetings overseas: “My two anonymous sources were making charges that amounted to ‘blood libel’ against former colleagues; that raised the bar for ethical publication.”
John Derbyshire, April 28, 2008: “A Blood Libel on Our Civilization.”
AP, July 28, 2008: “Just before Obama spoke, Newsday editor Les Payne had called “blood libel” the argument that African-American journalists could not objectively cover Obama’s candidacy.”
ANOTHER UPDATE: Frank Rich, New York Times columnist, October 15, 2006: “The moment Mr. Foley’s e-mails became known, we saw that brand of fearmongering and bigotry at full tilt: Bush administration allies exploited the former Congressman’s predatory history to spread the grotesque canard that homosexuality is a direct path to pedophilia. It’s the kind of blood libel that in another era was spread about Jews.”
E-mail Author | Archive
________________________ _______________________
The disgusting communists on the far left are about to go 2 for 2 in getting owned.
-
Jewish Week: Sarah Palin is Right--We're Looking at a Blood Libel
Jewish Week ^ | Wednesday, January 12, 2011 | Jonathan Mark
Let's count who has been blamed so far by the Moderate & Tolerant Ones: Sarah Palin, the entire state of Arizona, the Tea Party (which was slandered as anti-Semitic during the election campaign, as well, by the same people who defended Obama churching with Jeremiah Wright), and let's blame all of talk radio, too, while we're at it, because the killer in Tucson must have been listening to talk radio stations in Cleveland and Philadelphia.
As Jon Stewart pointed out, blaming talk radio for the Tucson killer is like blaming hard rock radio for the Columbine killers.
It's like blaming Paul McCartney ("Helter Skelter") for Charles Manson, or J.D. Salinger for Lennon's killer. At least Manson and Chapman said they were inspired by "Helter Skelter" and "Catcher In The Rye." The Civility Police are only guessing when they blame talk radio or everyone who is opposed to criminal immigration from Mexico.
SNIP
Sarah Palin is right. She is being slandered. Nothing reflects the vulgarity of the national conversation over the past few years more than the relentless "hating" of Sara Palin, particularly in the Jewish community, particularly those Jews who flatter themselves as being tolerant, as masters of civility.
Yes, articles, such as Michael Daly's in the Daily News, are exactly a blood libel, with headlines charging "Giffords' Blood Is On Sarah Palin's Hands."
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at thejewishweek.com
-
Palin doesnt have to excuse shit.
She wasnt being offensive towards jews
Fucking crybabies