Maureen Dowd recently resorted to anti-Semitic stereotypes in order to bash Mitt Romney’s foreign policy and his advisers. This is the end result of the Left feeling that their hold on power is slipping. “Slithering,” “puppet-master,” “powerful,” “neocons” – she touches all bases.
by Jonathan Tobin
After all these years of endlessly repeating the same tired tropes on the New York Times op-ed page, taking Maureen Dowd’s columns seriously requires a suspension of disbelief that is normally only needed to watch science fiction. But though the Queen of Snark lacks the credibility to discuss virtually any issue in an intelligent manner, she does have a knack for picking up on whatever hateful viruses are circulating through the circulatory system of our body politic. Worried about prejudice against Mormons? [........] Dowd again is the one to ensure this nasty piece of business gets another airing by arguing that Romney wants to fight wars for the sake of the Jews.
In her column in today’s Times Sunday Review, Dowd picks up on the same theme explored on the paper’s website on Thursday that I discussed earlier today. While it can be argued that she can always be relied upon to seize upon any point, no matter how trivial, to heap scorn on any Republican (her brief stint as a bipartisan basher of Bill Clinton during l’affaire Lewinsky may have earned her a Pulitzer but since then she has stuck to snarking conservatives), her attack on Mitt Romney’s foreign policy stance is particularly creepy. Unlike the rest of the Obama cheerleading squad that occupies the Times opinion pages, she is not content to just bash him for attacking Obama’s apologies, weak leadership and disdain for Israel. Dowd sees him and running mate Paul Ryan as the cat’s-paws of a shadowy group of “powerful” Jewish “neocons” who are out to seize the country in his name and enforce, “a duty to invade and bomb Israel’s neighbors,” on Americans. In a perfect illustration of how hate for Israel shows where the left and right meet, Dowd channeled Pat Buchanan in arguing that Romney/Ryan are the “puppets” of neoconservative conspirators who want Americans to die for Israel.
Dowd doubled down on Eric Lewis’ point that it is “outrageous” for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to demand that the president state some red lines about Iran. But all Netanyahu is doing is asking the president to show us that he has some intention of doing something about Iran other than talking about the threat. [..........]
Dowd’s biggest target is Dan Senor, an author and former Bush administration staffer who is one of Romney and Ryan’s top advisors. But neither Senor nor Romney nor any American supporter of Israel needs to apologize to the likes of Dowd for their belief that the U.S. should keep its word to stop Iran. Though those who write about “neocons slithering” are clearly intending to stoke prejudice, even Obama has paid lip service to the fact that a nuclear Iran is a deadly threat to the entire Middle East as well as to the interests of the United States. [.......]
President Obama came into office determined to try to distance the United Stats from Israel and to appease the Muslim world. He accomplished the former but failed miserably with the latter as the spectacle of besieged U.S. embassies in the Middle East this week has shown. Throughout the last year, Obama’s critics have noted that he seemed more interested in stopping Israel from defending itself than in halting Iran’s nuclear program. Now his supporters seek to suppress any pressure for action on Iran by branding it the work of neocon conspirators.
The bottom line here is the same despicable “Israel Lobby” smear that seeks to silence friends of Israel through the use of traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes. Dowd’s column marks yet another step down into the pit of hate-mongering that has become all too common at the Times. This is a tipping point that should alarm even the most stalwart liberal Jewish supporters of the president.
Read the rest – Liberal Smear: Romney’s War for the Jews
Tags: Dan Senor, Israel Lobby, Jonathan Tobin, Maureen Dowd, neoconservatives
The stupid is strong with Ms. Dowd. This is why I like reading history. There is nothing new under the sun. People might have iPads, internet, cell phones, etc… but the base sinful nature of man never goes away.
There is nothing Anti-Semitic in that column. Neo-cons are slime. It has to do wit the Jewish faith. I despise Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Bill Kristol, John Bolton, John McCain, Miss Lindsay, and Vinegar Joe equally. Only two of them are Jewish, but they are all war mongers. Remember, the first Neo-con, was Woodrow Wilson.
@ theoutsider:
I meant to say nothing to do with the Jewish Faith.
I would like to know the definition of “neo-con”.
@ Guggi:
Neo-Con basically means someone that wants someone that wants continuous wars. Look at John McCain’s RNC speech as an example.
theoutsider wrote:
Really ? Any supportive argument for this claim ?
Scratch a hard core left wing liberal and watch the inner Stalinist anti-Semite come out.
theoutsider wrote:
Piss off.
theoutsider wrote:
Oh bull shit.
theoutsider wrote:
So your argument is Woodrow Wilson should have stayed out of WWI. Are you an isolationist like Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul ?
theoutsider wrote:
I guess you despised Harry Truman, FDR, and JFK.
Neo-con is another term for uppity Jew/Jew lover.
I read the article in question. Aside from the puppet master terminology and neo-con slur. I didn’t really see it as anti-semite. Clueless and shrill yes, not anti-semitic. Then again, I may not be as up to snuff in seeing all such things.
@ Speranza:
Are you going to tell Rodan to piss off too?
PaladinPhil wrote:
The terminology/imagery “slithering,” “puppet master,” etc. is the same description that the Germans used to use. Liberal Obama supporter Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic Magazine called her article “border line” anti-Semitic.
@ Speranza:
Bull shit.
theoutsider wrote:
I’ve told him a lot worse in private. We aren’t attached at the hip.
PaladinPhil wrote:
This is an antisemitic term. They always claim that the “Jews are the puppet-masters of the government”.
@ Speranza:
I’m an FDR, JFK Truman libaral. They wer not Neo-cons.
theoutsider wrote:
You and Pat Buchanan and the whole American Conservative paleocon crowd ought to share a beer at a summit.
theoutsider wrote:
Rodan doesn’t hate Wilson because he went to war but because he established the League of Nations.
Most leftists at heart are anti-Semites and that includes Jewish leftists as well.
@ Guggi:
It is not Anti-Semitic.
Guggi wrote:
He also trampled on civil liberties.
@ Guggi:
Rodan hates Neoconservative thinking. That is why he hates Wilson.
theoutsider wrote:
OK, now that’s just funny right there.
@ Speranza:
@ Guggi:
Personally I think people are reaching here. One thing we have to be careful of when throwing accusations about. She should be vilified for such a poorly written rant and her ravings. This is typical of what most liberals were accusing GWB of being the puppet of Cheney and Rove.
I have a hard time fathoming why y’all put up with obvious trolling…
@ AZfederalist:
I guess you disagree with Rodan then.
@ PaladinPhil:
The term “Neo-con “He is to domestic policy what the term Anti-Zionist is to relations with Israel, which is to say that it is a code word or dog-whistle for anti-Semitism.
@ PaladinPhil:
Neo-Con refers to Christians who stand with the Zionists in direct opposition to the Atheist Communist-Muslim bloc but who’s economic/social policies don’t much differ. More or less a power & control structure where Jerusalem is in control instead of the Kremlin.
This term arose shortly after Israel was formed in ’48 & Truman was president & folks like Vidal were quite fond of using it.
This is the definition as was explained to me a good while back so I may not have it all together but I believe it the gist anyway.
The folks who use it the most these days are the white power types over at StormFront who accuse conservatives of being slaves to The Juice™ so it makes me a little curious as to where our friend The Outsider likes to hang out when not crapping up these threads.
Mike C. wrote:
I am starting to wonder about that myself.
@ theoutsider:
Here’s a quarter. Go buy yourself a history book, educate yourself on Wilson’s policies and his view of the US. Hint: he held the same hatred toward the US as founded as the current sitting President.
After you’ve educated yourself, then come back and you can have a conversation with the adults.
John Difool wrote:
The raging alcoholic girlie man Chwissy Matthews throws that term “neocon” around quite a bit.
AZfederalist wrote:
He also was a virulent racist.
@ AZfederalist:
No, it’s true he was.
Speranza wrote:
“Neo-Con” is White Nationalist “ZOG” talk pure & simple and anyone who bandies that ridiculous term about is either a marxist or an anti-semite or both.
@ Speranza:
Just because someone doesn’t like Neoconservatism doesn’t make them an anti-semite. I am no fan of that ideology because it’s pro Islamic.
While I do think Dowd’s rant was anti-semitic, that should not shield Dan Senor from criticism. He is an agent of the House of Saud and was one of the assholes that messed up the Iraq War.
@ John Difool:
No it’s not. Yes they use that term, but it is an Ideology that one can oppose. I oppose Neconservatism, does this make me a White Supremacist.
@ AZfederalist:
George W Bush had the same ideology as Woodrow Wilson as well. His whole let us spread Democracy. Both Bush and Obama are cut from the Wilsonian cloth.
theoutsider wrote:
Plus I despised Woodrow’s Wilson meddling in Latin America. He created the anti-American mindset that led to Fidel Castro, Juan Peron, the FARC, Chavez and other Leftist scum. He did it all to establish “Progressive” regimes. Well it worked, but not in the way he thought.
Rodan wrote:
I agree with you on the principle that a lot of folks on the left use the term “neo-con” without actually knowing what it really means because it sounds cool like crypto-Nazi or crypto-Fascist or something but the term in of itself does indeed have connotations of antisemitism since it refers to folks like you and I being gorum who do the bidding of a Zionist Occupation Government.
@ John Difool:
No it stand for people who subscribe to the Wilsonian ideology of spreading Democracy at all costs. They love nation building and believe all cultures are the same. It’s actually a Leftist ideology. It is better describe as Wilsonin.
@ Rodan:
I think we have an issue here with the definition of that word. If you look at its origin, it was not originally used until 1979 and was applied as an appellation to conservatives such people in Reagan’s cabinet and the Bush cabinets.
Wilson was a marxist inspired progressive who viewed this country with disdain. He advocated a progressive income tax and redistribution of wealth. He was also a one-worlder, thus his advocacy for the League of Nations; he was more than willing to subject US sovereignty to a gaggle of foreign powers. Wilson was a lot of things, but anything with “conservative” in its root, he was not.
Rodan wrote:
Whether you oppose it or not if you stand in any way shape or form with Israel that is what you will be called by the left.
@ John Difool:
I am NO NECON. I am a Jacksonian style Nationalist. I don’t believe in nation building nor supporting the House of Saud and the Muslim Brotherhood.
@ John Difool:
I reject the term and will fight be called that. I am NO Neocon. I oppose that ideology because it is a Leftist ideology.
Rodan wrote:
if you look at my first post on this:
I’m not disagreeing with you on that. I’m mostly saying the left doesn’t really know jack shit about what the term actually means.
@ John Difool:
Oh Ok, gotcha!
Who had a bad week? Funny how the Dems do not want to discuss Libya or the Arab Spring anymore.
Rodan wrote:
In other words,the definition as I understood it was neo-cons are basically communists who follow the Knesset instead of the Kremlin but outside of that no difference whatsoever in social/economic/foreign policies or strategies.
Thats at least the way it was described to me by my dad.
http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/09/hmmm-this-was-bad-week-for-mitt-romney.html
EBL wrote:
Lets talk about those More-Ham-Ed cartoons that were released by that Parisian publication. Seems France is goading the muzz into doing something stupid so they can initiate a crackdown.They’ve now banned the muzz from basic assembly.
Round 2 of burnings & protests coming Friday.
Speranza wrote:
John McCain and Bush are Jewish?
This is ridiculous that Necons can’t be criticize because anti-Semites use the term wrong. Many Conservatives oppose Necons and they are not anti-Semites. In fact many Israel supporters see that Wilsonian policies have not helped Israel. It has empowered the Islamic side.
This ideology is fair game fro criticism.
@ John Difool:
I never heard that definition before. I always thought it just meant people like McCain, Bush and Cheney who want endless war and nation building in the name of Democracy.
@ Guggi:
It doesn’t have to be neither. I am not an Isolationist, nor am I a Wilsonian. I reject both ideas.
@ Rodan:
I never really got into a debate or an in-depth discussion on the term before because simply put I never really knew a whole lot about it and mostly thought it was just some cool sounding term libs liked to throw out at conservatives to attempt to shut down debate like calling someone racist or something but in my experience if you support Israel that is exactly what they will call you whether they know what the hell they’re talking about or not.
Ignore that scurvy beyotch!
It’s International Talk Like a Pirate Day!
Get yer Pirate moniker here.
I am Captain Fishy Beard of the Pirate Ship Scurvy Enuchs.
heh
Rodan, you don’t read this, you’re allready on war with and at this thread
The article starts out quite well but then slips again into leftwing dreamland:
The America of the Arab Street
@ John Difool:
We should flooding them with anti-Muslim movies and anti-Muslim cartoons till they run out of steam.
FRANCE TO CLOSE 20 EMBASSIES IN FEAR OF CARTOON BACKLASH
Curiously the French government did not condemn the cartoons (As of yet) or make any attempts at contacting the magazine to stop them from printing them. Kinda makes me wonder if they’re looking for any reason whatsoever to start wrapping batons around necks and booting the trash from their country.
The La Pen Nationalist-Socialist types comprise around 45% or more of the vote in France & the only way Hollande won is because he promised more handouts than his opponent.
To me this a curious development because it would seem as if France is taking the lead where historically Germany has twice in one century.
If I were the muzztards I would be very afraid.
Guggi wrote:
Exactly. Desensitize the barbarians & drag them kicking & screaming into the 21st century or let ‘em fry. It’s their choice.
@ Guggi:
So he blames US support of Israel for these riots? Geesh, what does Israel have to do with Coptic Christians being killed in Egypt? This guy needs his head examined.
@ Rodan:
That’s where most of us are. 80% of the country wants to get out of Afghanistan sooner than later. 80% of the country does not want to go to war with Iran. We are pretty much united on war, or lack of it.
@ Guggi:
too.
This guy is delusional. Hey FDR should have invited Hitler and Tojo back in 1939!
@ Rodan:
Rodan, I told you not to read it
Kirly wrote:
EEEEWWWWWW! What a name for a ship! 8)
theoutsider wrote:
Going to war & having to go to war are two different things. If you ask me if I want to go to war with Iran I’d say no too, so count me among that %80, I reckon.
If you’d ask me if I want to go to work Monday I’d probably say no to that also but being as it may I have to.
I am an internationalist but would not waste a single American life trying to democratize Muslims.
Isolationism died on September 1, 1939.
Guggi wrote:
He will meet with Morsi but not Netanyahu.
@ John Difool:
Why should we go to war with Iran? I’m assuming you are too old to volunteer. Are you going to send your kids to die for nothing?
Rodan wrote:
You miss my point -- they use that term as a cover to bash Jews. It’s like saying “I can’t be an anti-Semite I have a Jewish accountant and a Jewish Dentist”. Big effing deal, Himmler had a Jewish nephew who he protected throughout World War II.
@ Speranza:
It’s a fools errand.
@ Speranza:
Gotcha!
When Matthews or Stormfront use Necon, they means something different than me.
When I hear Neocon I think of John McCain and his girlfriend.
@ Speranza:
Morsi is his African Brother!
theoutsider wrote:
Talk about a strawman argument. First off any attack on Iran would be by Tomahawk cruise missiles on nuclear facilities.
“Why go to war for ****ers?”
theoutsider, 1861
@ theoutsider:
Why do you want Iran to develop nuclear weapons? Do you really think that is in the interests of the United States? Obama’s policy is a failure, unless he wants a nuclear Iran (which is entirely possible).
theoutsider wrote:
Don’t use that chickenhawk shit on me asshole. Take that crap over to D.U. or Kos where you came from. Parents don’t send their kids to war numb-nuts, last time I checked we had an all volunteer military where it’s the individuals choice to sign up if they want to.
You folks do not realize the ramifications of Iranians getting nukes. Folks who believe in the 13th Imam aren’t necessarily going to give a rats ass about MAD. If the Iranians go nuclear so do the Arabs & Turks. Everyone from the West Coast of Africa to Indonesia will have nukes.
If that’s o.k. with you, you should go get your head checked.
Speranza wrote:
The de facto Luftwaffe chief in World War II was Erhard Milch who was 1/2 Jewish (he had a Jewish father). Hermann Goering said, “I decide who is Jewish”.
@ Speranza:
Nobody is talking about boots on the ground.
Rodan wrote:
Correct.
I don’t mind an opposing point of view (think “Fulton Chain”) but trolling is starting to annoy me.
Iron Fist wrote:
No doubt theoutsider, like أوباما, spewed white stuff all over his monitor and keyboard when Korea Borealis went nuclear. There’s no reason not to assume he’d do the same again for Iran.
Rodan wrote:
Don’t tell Morsi he is “African” he would keeeeeeel you
@ John Difool:
Pakistan would sell their nukes to the Saudis.
@ Speranza:
He’s starting with the whole Chicken hawk straw man.
John Difool wrote:
Well said -that chickenhawk shit argument’s shelf life has expired.
“Why die for England?” is what the NY Daily News (in those days an isolationist newspaper) had in a headline (or editorial) in 1940.
@ Guggi:
That’s the funny part. Egyptians don’t like to be called Africans. Yet many Black Americans view Egyptians as their African brothers.
@ Rodan:
If Iran is attacked, there is going to be a response, and we are going to have to have ground forces. Do you deny that?
Rodan wrote:
It means he has no cogent argument.
@ Speranza:
Hey I want the police to go after criminals. Does that make me a Chicken Crime fighter? The Chickenhawk argument is the biggest strawman.
theoutsider wrote:
You have no idea what the Iranians are going to do. Ultimately they might lose cred with their own people and the Iranian people will rise up against them and this time we will have a president who actually supports real freedom unlike the bogus Arab Spring.
Obama’s silence in 2009 during the Iranian street uprisings was one of the earliest demonstrations of what a dumb fuck he was.
theoutsider wrote:
Because Iran has been at war with us since the Carter Administration, and with their nuclear capacity imminent we can no longer afford to ignore that fact.
Rodan wrote:
Iran is putting Quds forces and military hardware into Lebanon right now as we speak to have a western front in case of Israeli/Nato attack. Nevermind all of the other hardware they already have there they gave their defacto army The Hezzbolls.
Is there any doubt if they had nukes they wouldn’t move them in there to threaten Israel & southern Europe? How about Venezuela? We already know there are Iranian agents there too. They would have a conduit to move nukes through Central America & into Mexico by paying off the drug cartels.
The Castro regime might even let them park a few in Cuba too.
theoutsider wrote:
How will Iranian ground troops hit the US? The response they will do is Missile and Terror. We will retaliate with Bombing and Missile strikes. Plus Iran is fighting Al-Qaeda in Syria. They might get hit with Sunni terrorists.
The distance that an Iranian missile will have to travel to reach Israel is the same distance an Israeli Jericho missile will have to travel to reach Tehran and the unholy city of Qoms.
John Difool wrote:
Democrats and Gen. McChrystal call for a military draft again.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
We owe them for that 1979 embassy take over and for the 1983 Marine barracks suicide bombing in Beirut.
@ John Difool:
An easier way to do it is put it in a cargo ship and come up to the Shores of the US. They can find an isolated beach have their guys unload it on a truck and presto. Hizballah has a huge presences in NJ and Virginia.
Speranza wrote:
I have a good idea what the plan is. Achmadinijad & his cronies are devout followers of the 12th Imam (or 13th) whatever it is, a cult that believes their messiah cannot return until the earth is destroyed & Israel is defeated in battle. Time is running out for the followers of this cult because the demographics are not on their side to stay in control for more than a decade more so they are working on a limited timeframe here & believe you me they will strike as soon as the iron is red-hot.
Folks think the mullahs & the Ayatollah are in charge but they’re not, they are just puppets of Achmadinijad now & the one influential imam who he follows. Even they think he & his friends are bat-shit crazy.
Speranza wrote:
Don’t forget about the Iranian troops that were slipping over the border to fight us in Iraq. I believe they were involved in that foiled assassination plot upon the Saudi ambassador in DC and may have been involved in either the Khobar Towers bombing or the Cole bombing, or both, as well.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
It is a long, long payback list.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Exactly! The choice is whether we do something before Iran becomes a nuclear power or we allow Iran to dictate to us what will happen with a nuclear Iran. I don’t believe that anybody believes that the latter is in the interests of the United States. So simply put there is only the pro-American position of doing something before Iran becomes a nuclear power or the anti-American position of doing nothing.
John Difool wrote:
I would like to wake up one day and rad about a well placed sniper bullet lodged in his forehead.
@ Speranza:
@ Iron Fist:
We should have never let Pakistan get nukes either. I fear that will come back to haunt us.
Rodan wrote:
It is proof positive of the bankruptcy of their position. Yes calling in the police instead of confronting a violent criminal is a good analogy.
Rodan wrote:
India should have taken them out.
Iron Fist wrote:
Precisely; the reason Obama supports Iran going nuclear is because he knows it is not in the interest of the United States. Primarily, he wants to stick it to Israel, but damaging and diminishing the US is also part of the plan.
@ Rodan:
Ground troops in Iran! If we bomb them, it’s going to be a full scale war. If it happens, I’m looking forward to you volunteering for service.
Speranza wrote:
If you root for an NFL team on sunday but don’t actually play does that make you a chickenfootballhawk ?
If you root for a contestant on The Voice or the X Factor but can’t sing a lick, does that make you a chickensingerhawk?
The chickenhawk strawman is one of the most ridiculous things the left has ever come up with.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
The then chairman of the JCS Gen. Peter Pace said that the Iranian government wasn’t involved in Iraq
theoutsider wrote:
Speaking of chickens looks like someone needs a fresh one, the other one’s worn out from all the buggering.
John Difool wrote:
Especially since they support “chickenhawks” of the classic variety, i.e., older homosexual men having their way with boys.
@ theoutsider: NM. Do you want to or want to pass on to your grandkids the war that will be fought with Islam? You bear the cost now or force it on your children as your legacy?
Guggi wrote:
The totalitarian Iranian government was “not involved” in the appearance of Iranian military weapons in Iraq. Right. Can I interest you in this lovely bridge I happen to have for sale?
It should be obvious that Pace was making a political statement for the purpose of avoiding the necessity of dealing with the fact of Iranian involvement.
@ John Difool:
What the fuck are you talking about? Leave the conversation to us adults.
darkwords wrote:
Kill them in their own backyards or be killed in yours. The choice is obvious.
theoutsider wrote:
You really need to go back to LGF, DU, Daily Kos, Puffington Host et al and hone your debating arguments. I guess you were A-Ok with draft dodger Bill Clinton bombing Serbia then?
@ darkwords:
There is no war to be fought.
@ Speranza:
Yeah, and he throws “racist” around rather inappropriately as well. New racist terms: “golf,” “peanut butter” and “food stamps.”
@ theoutsider:
Please post a link to your statistics.
The Muslims in Benghazi are so thankful for the overthrow of Gaddafi. Not:
Now I’m so offended that I’ll go to the next embassy from a Muslim country and burn it down. Not, not, not.
Guggi wrote:
The West, and its position, would be immensely improved by a few smoldering Muslim embassies. Sad, but true.
@ Speranza:
Bombing Serbia is the same as bombing Iran? Are you really serious? I thought you were smarter than that.
theoutsider wrote:
Translation: It’s o.k. to bomb folks as long as it’s liberals bombing white Christians fighting radical Islamists.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
This was my argument some days ago when I mentioned that the military became more and more politicized since the 1990′s. For me it looks as if the military becomes more and more a political arm of the government which is not good.
@ theoutsider:
You are perfectly content with Iran developing nuclear weapons, aren’t you? It never ceases to amaze me that people who have a zero tolerance for American nuclear ambitions (both civilian and military )was have absolutely no problem with Iran having nukes. That tells me unequivocally whose side they are on.
theoutsider wrote:
So you were OK with bombing a Christian country fighting Islamic terror, but are against bombing an Islamic nation that wants a Nuclear Armageddon?
Explain why we need ground troops in Iran?
@ John Difool:
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On topic for a minute. EVERY financial site I follow involving precious metals and including the popular zerohedge, believes that Jewish bankers own the financial system through ownership of the Federal Reserve. The FED is owned by private banks for the most part. There is nothing Federal about it. It was created when Congress had adjourned for Christmas in 1913 at Jekyll Island, Georgia. This part is true. It is a barely known fact that the charter for the FED is for one hundred years and will come up at the end of 2013. Don’t ask me for a link, because I have gleaned this from ten years of trying to figure out what is a purposefully opaque financial system.
The term NEOCON in EVERY piece of information I’ve read is interchangeable for JEW, even though it’s not true anymore than only Jewish bankers somehow own the FED. There are private shares for the profits the FED makes through its ability to print money. As far as I know, none of these profits accrue to government. On the internet, alternate financial sites ASSUME that the “Zionists” control the banking system. Dowd is picking up on this all too common assumption.
p.s.
Don’t feed the troll. Treating him as though he is presenting a valid point of debate is an endless road to nowhere.
Rodan wrote:
Maybe not a color thing. Libs had no problem with the Islamists slaughtering black Christians in Darfur either.
At any rate, bombing the Serbs would have never happened with Putin as president.
@ theoutsider:
Of course they aren’t the same. Iran is an actual enemy of the United States. Serbia was not.
Guggi wrote:
For that matter, I believe that Agenda 21 wants an internationalized military responsible to a World government. The outposts in the Sinai being attacked contain forces from around the world.
theoutsider wrote:
I am following your logic.
By the way Obama was a skinny, coke snorting, lazy college student -- what is his military background to advocate bombing Libya and supporting the Syrian rebels? Will he don camouflage or have Sasha and Melia join the armed forces when they reach 18?
yenta-fada wrote:
He’s our Nodrog without Nodrog’s discussion skills and his argument supportive links.
@ John Difool:
Yup, Progressives hate Black Christians.
Guggi wrote:
Gordon at least could debate.
John Difool wrote:
Libs are navel gazing. They filter out information that doesn’t fit their agenda. Due to the Presstitutes they are ill-informed as well.
Guggi wrote:
It is one more signpost that we are far down an extremely dangerous and self-destructive road.
@ Guggi:
I agree and good observation.
Guggi wrote:
Side tracking every debate is hardly a thing that any blog needs. Why put up a thread if it is sidetracked?
Rodan wrote:
Do they like any Christians? Aside, that is, from the “liberation theology” Marxists who masquerade as Christians?
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
As lobo points out, a “war” is when you fight back, not when only one side is attacking.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Good point!
Looks like AQ or the Hezzies did this.
Report: 4 injured after explosion at kosher store
Rodan wrote:
The Religion of Salaami.
yenta-fada wrote:
Sometimes you want to play around and need some fun ?
@ theoutsider:
And you are done. If you can’t see the two similarities you are blinkered.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
They don’t like real Christians,something black Christians are going to have to choose between Christianity and their party this election. Which will they choose? I’ve read that some black pastors are urging their parishinors to not vote this year. It’ll be instructive to see what happens for Obama this year.
@ Guggi:
LOL! Plus it seems to me if you don’t answer the assholes they think you have no answer.
Guggi wrote:
I am irritated by trolls. Of course, the list of things I’m irritated by these days is pretty long. lol
yenta-fada wrote:
Over three years of Obama will do that to you.
Kafir wrote:
What would be a projection
Speranza wrote:
And Moochelle!
@ yenta-fada:
The Obamanation along with their media shills makes me watch old Western DVD’s at night.
Rodan wrote:
This is exactly the reaction the French were looking for after the cartoon publication. Hopefully they’ll start cracking muzzy heads now.
Speranza wrote:
Leadership!
WASHINGTON — Nix the flags and the podium. Cue the opulent 18-foot tower of gold-bottled French champagne.
When President Obama addresses an elite roster of hipsters and multimillionaires, including hosts Beyoncé and Jay-Z, in New York tonight, he will do so next to a custom-designed tower of $800-per-bottle champagne that dominates the main room at Jay-Z’s 40/40 nightclub.
The 350-bottle champagne tower — designed by Jeffrey Beers — is a monument to Jay-Z’s favorite bubbly, Armand de Brignac, which is known colloquially by rappers, clubgoers and connoisseurs as Ace of Spades because of its gold-spade label.
“It’s floor-to-ceiling gold bottles in the entire space. It’s beautiful — breathtaking,” a rep for the Flatiron District hot spot told The Post. “It’s the first thing you see when you walk in.”
But the White House, which meticulously controls Obama’s image, is not expected to release any photos of the president’s appearance at the lavish club.
Details of the party are “under lock and key,” according to the rep, and the White House was guarding the guest list as if it were the latest intelligence profile of Iran’s nuclear program.
Instead, only a White House pool reporter, allowed brief admittance, will file a report tonight during Obama’s ninth fund-raising trip to the Big Apple this year.
.
John Difool wrote:
The French do not get worked up over attacks on Jews.
@ yenta-fada:
You mean he’s hanging out with the 1% & drinking expensive champagne while the world burns?
Why this simply cannot be, the Republicans are the party of the rich.
Speranza wrote:
Sorry Speranza. أوباما is not a dumb fuck. He knows EXACTLY what he is doing!
Speranza wrote:
Which is no doubt why the Islamists targeted them for revenge in the first place. Low hanging fruit in Paris.
@ yenta-fada:
Do not underestimate Obama’s value to the Resentful Class as a proxy.
In the current crumbling of my synagogue community, it is clear that the rabbi has repeatedly driven away the actually-observant, while keeping a core of barely- or nonobservant congregants who are irrationally devoted to him. This devotion is based on he and his family being their “proxy Jews”—they support him because by doing so they are “connected” to observance without having to assume its burdens themselves, and by accepting their support he “forgives” them their laxity.
There are, famously, storefront churches where the impoverished congregants support their preacher in a lavish lifestyle; they cannot have the appurtanences of success, but they can enjoy them by proxy by helping to support the Reverend.
Obama serves this function politically; he is “stickin’ it to the Man” by partying down and living large in the face of all the objections by the rest of the country.
That is why criticizing his doing this is seen as “racist”; he’s like the pimps and dealers who were lionized in blaxploitation films and admired by the audiences because they were “getting over.” In this, the loopy Pastor Manning was absolutely correct.
This should put the kabash on the nekid Kate pics. Submitted herewith, nekid Mo-ham-head.
@ yenta-fada:
Oh, well and 47 percent of the people live from government transfer money. Does he have no shame ?
huckfunn wrote:
Really wish I could see an English version of that. Looks like a real hoot !
Guggi wrote:
See my #166.
@ yenta-fada:
Rush Limbaugh has once again coined a term for the MSM (he was the one who coined the phrase “drive-by media”) --
“Democrats with Bylines.”
Carolina Girl wrote:
There are none so bylined as those who will not see.
John Difool wrote:
Here’s the link from WZ. You can magnify the pic by clicking it. Maybe one of our Fwench-speaking blog mates could give us an interpretation.
Carolina Girl wrote:
Does that make Obama a Democrat with a Bi-Line ?
@ huckfunn:
Saw on Twitter this was equally insulting to Jews as much as Muslims but of course the muzz in France will go after the Jews anyway.
Kafir wrote:
Or they get bored and go away.
yenta-fada wrote:
And I guess you want see any OWS protesters outside.
Guggi wrote:
won’t, you stupid
John Difool wrote:
Well, as long as they don’t insult Presbyterians, I’ll refrain from rioting, burning and killing.
@ John Difool:
Nah -- Obama is more like a “Lie….Bye!”
John Difool wrote:
I can imagine the tongue bath he got form gap toothed Dave Letterman last night.
New thread.
@ huckfunn:
Ohhhhh, now the peaceful muslims have to murder someone!
Prebanned wrote:
It is a bodily function of theirs to kill.
theoutsider wrote:
I didn’t know that Ibn Taymiyyah was a neocon.
Philip_Daniel wrote:
He is furiously googling that name.