So I am reading Yahoo’s AR list and its amusing comments on the total Jewish domination with the goal to keep the rest of the world permanently submitted. As evidence they will cite, out of context, some Jew they think agrees with them (a lot of Jews in Hollywood = it’s an organized effort to bring down the white race), some out of context quotes, bad acts by individual Jews, etc.
And I am sitting here thinking, “don’t you guys realize how ridiculous you sound. Does it not bother you that your stories are only believed by people from Alabama and Montana, where more people claim to have seen aliens than Jews?”
Then I see a NY Times article posted. And it’s the same exact crap, except the victims of the assault are right-wingers and whites rather than Jews. It’s exactly the same crap, which makes it that much worse.
A person from Arkansas who never saw a Jew will fall for anything someone he trusts will tell him. If his Minister tells him thst Jews are the Chosen People who must be supported in their fight agaist the exclusively evil Moslems, he will believe it.
Likewise, having never seen a Jew he can think they are a different race out to destroy whites with some diabolical scheme.
I never met any Bulgarians so it would be easy to convince me either way on them.
But everyone in the US met whites. We are not talking about some mysterious people from a far away land. So how does this crap fly?!
Why is nobody calling BS on it?
There’s nothing entertaining
about watching goons hurl venomous slurs at congressmen like the civil
rights hero John Lewis and the openly gay Barney Frank. And as the week
dragged on, and reports of death threats and vandalism stretched from
Arizona to Kansas to upstate New York, the F.B.I. and the local police
had to get into the act to protect members of Congress and their families.
How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows
so little about history that it doesn’t recognize its own small-scale
mimicry of Kristallnacht. The weapon of choice for vigilante violence at
Congressional offices has been a brick hurled through a window. So far.
No less curious is how disproportionate this red-hot anger is to its
proximate cause. The historic Obama-Pelosi health care victory is a big
deal, all right, so much so it doesn’t need Joe Biden’s adjective to
hype it. But the bill does not erect a huge New Deal-Great Society-style
government program. In lieu of a public option, it delivers 32 million
newly insured Americans to private insurers. As no less a conservative
authority than The Wall Street Journal editorial page observed last
week, the bill’s prototype is the health care legislation Mitt Romney
signed into law in Massachusetts. It contains what used to be considered
Yet it’s this bill that inspired G.O.P. congressmen on the House floor
to egg on disruptive protesters even as they were being evicted from the
gallery by the Capitol Police last Sunday. It’s this bill that prompted
a congressman to shout “baby killer” at Bart Stupak, a staunch
anti-abortion Democrat. It’s this bill that drove a demonstrator to spit
on Emanuel Cleaver, a black representative from Missouri. And it’s this
“middle-of-the-road” bill, as Obama accurately calls it, that has
incited an unglued firestorm of homicidal rhetoric, from “Kill the
bill!” to Sarah Palin’s cry for her followers to “reload.” At least four
of the House members hit with death threats or vandalism are among the
20 political targets Palin marks with rifle crosshairs on a map on her
When Social Security was passed by Congress in 1935 and Medicare in
1965, there was indeed heated opposition. As Dana Milbank wrote in The
Washington Post, Alf Landon built his catastrophic 1936 presidential
campaign on a call for repealing Social Security. (Democrats can only
pray that the G.O.P. will “go for it” again in 2010, as Obama goaded
them on Thursday, and keep demanding repeal of a bill that by September
will shower benefits on the elderly and children alike.) When L.B.J.
scored his Medicare coup, there were the inevitable cries of “socialism”
along with ultimately empty rumblings of a boycott from the American
But there was nothing like this. To find a prototype for the overheated
reaction to the health care bill, you have to look a year before
Medicare, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both laws passed by similar
majorities in Congress; the Civil Rights Act received even more votes in
the Senate (73) than Medicare (70). But it was only the civil rights
bill that made some Americans run off the rails. That’s because it was the one that signaled an inexorable and immutable change in the very identity of America, not just its governance.
The apocalyptic predictions then, like those about health care now, were all framed in constitutional pieties, of course. Barry Goldwater,
running for president in ’64, drew on the counsel of two young legal
allies, William Rehnquist and Robert Bork, to characterize the bill as a “threat to the very essence of our basic system” and a “usurpation” of states’ rights that “would force you to admit drunks, a known murderer or an insane person into your place of business.” Richard Russell, the segregationist Democratic senator from Georgia, said the bill “would destroy the free enterprise system.” David Lawrence, a widely syndicated conservative columnist, bemoaned the establishment of “a federal dictatorship.” Meanwhile, three civil rights workers were murdered in Philadelphia, Miss.