Jew hater Bush?!??

Anti-Semitic sign at the February 16, 2003 "anti-war" rally, San Francisco, California.


It's seldom I dissect somebody else's stuff. I have enough problems with my own. But sometimes, ya gotta say something.

When you read JON CARROLL's piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, you have to wonder if his editor was on vacation that day.

Here's how he opens up:

"Apparently President Bush, as titular leader of the Republican Party, has started campaigning in earnest now. His coattails are just a wee bit short this year, so he's had to pick his opponent carefully. He has chosen to campaign against the New York Times.

The Times is a good target. People who believe in the "left-wing media" believe that the New York Times is the leftiest of them all. The people who believe in the "mainstream media" believe that the Times is the mainest of them all. Hardly anyone has a good word to say about it, except that it's the best newspaper in the country. But really, how important is that?

Also, the name of the New York Times contains the word "New York." Many members of the president's base consider "New York" to be a nifty code word for "Jewish." It is very nice for the president to be able to campaign against the Jews without (a) actually saying the word "Jew" and (b) without irritating the Israelis. A number of prominent Zionist groups think the New York Times is insufficiently anti-Palestinian, so they think the New York Times isn't Jewish enough."

Lovely, huh?

Let's ignore the quaint little fact that Bush is not the `titular head' of the Republican party...because Bush isn't running for anything. Let's get to the meat of this gem, that `New York' is a code word for `Jew' and thus proof of the Bush Administration's innate anti-Semitism.

I have my own differences with the Bush Administration, but the fact is that they have more Blacks and Jews in high profile positions than any administration in history. Of course, they're probably not really proper Blacks and Jews in Jon's eyes..since they don't stay on the Leftist plantation and Keep Their Place.

The real code words for `dirty Jew' in our society nowadays are words like `neocon'. `PNAC', and of course `Zionist'...all of which I'm sure Jon's very familiar with, and may even use with full knowledge of those connotations.

The real home of Jew hatred in America today is on the Left, not among so-called `evangelicals', as many a self-identified `liberal' Jew has discovered to their shock and dismay. Just look at some of the things leftist icons like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan have had to say, or look at who consistently votes in Congress against those Evil Zionists in Israel and notice the small (d) after their names. Or go to any Leftist rally and read the signs and look at the pamphlets and literature being passed out.

I have. And so has Jon, I'm sure.

It gets better:

"I have heard about how evangelical Christians really like ultra-Orthodox Jews because both groups are eagerly anticipating the end of the world. Since the Bible sets forth certain conditions for the end times, both groups are working hard to fulfill those conditions. We may assume that the New York Times is, implicitly at least, against the end of the world. It's a controversial position -- death of the human race: aye or nay? -- and is another good reason to make the Times a target."

It's fascinating to me when aggressively secular bigots try to parse the Bible..which of course they've almost never actually sat doewn and read. Jon, of course, is more of a zealot and much less tolerant than the vast majority of religious Christians or Jews, except his religion is Leftism (or as Ann Coulter calls it in her latest book `Godless', liberalism).

Anyone who's actually read the Bible and/or the New Testament knows, of course that what religious Christians and Jews are anticipating is not `the end of the world' but the advent of the Messiah and the institution of G-d's Kingdom on earth, a time of love, peace and brotherhood...
something self-proclaimed `liberals' like Jon claim to be in favor of.

The Book of Isaiah says this quite plainly, and is the messianic base for both faiths. Isaiah also gives the answer as to why religious Christians support Israel and the Jewish people...along with several thing Christ had to say in the New Testament. Of course, I wouldn't expect someone like Jon to have a clue about that.

He goes on to say, essentially, that the New York Times was perfectly justified in running the story on the government's efforts to track terrorist funding, because if `prying, as he puts it is OK for the US government, it's OK for the Paper of Refuse, the New York Times. And besides, the terrorists know all about it anyway, so what's the harm?

First of all, Jon is clueless about the fact that not all terrorists knew about about...like the mastermind of the Bali Bombing, for instance, who was put behind bars because of this very program. Nor was he the only one caught, by any means. If nothing else, it makes them a lot more cautious and careful....which could keep a number of them from being caught.

And second, I realize that people like Jon, at their core, despise democracy, but the fact is that President Bush was elected to protect our republic. Elitists like Jon and his brethren at the New York Times weren't elected to do squat. And being elitists, of course, they fell that their freedom and their feelings, and prejudices come before anything or anyone else.