Jews

Surprise! Man finds himself in audience full of people he saved as children from Nazi camps [W/VIDEO]

Sir Nocholas Winton

Oscar Schindler once said: (paraphrased) He who saves a life saves a generation.

This actually occurred in 2009 but I ran across it today and wanted to share what the word hero means to me…

Truth Seeker Daily

Sir Nicholas Winton organized the rescue and passage to Britain of about 669 mostly Jewish Czechoslovakian children destined for the Nazi death camps before World War II in an operation known as the Czech Kindertransport.

After the war, Nicholas Winton didn’t tell anyone, not even his wife Grete about his wartime rescue efforts. In 1988, a half century later, Grete found a scrapbook from 1939 in their attic, with all the children’s photos, a complete list of names, a few letters from parents of the children to Winton and other documents. She finally learned the whole story.

In the video below, the survivors gathered to give him a wonderful surprise:

Martin Luther King – I Have A Dream Speech – August 28, 1963

I Have a Dream Speech

Martin Luther King’s Address at March on Washington
August 28, 1963. Washington, D.C.

When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

Uploaded by sullentoys

Full text of the speech

Tuesday Blog Round Up 7-31-12

 

Cheers and Jeers: Tuesday

Conversion in the Holy Land

How for-profit schools get rich

Scalia open to regulating guns?

The Best TV Show You’ve Never Seen

Former Bachmann staffer sues campaign

Romney Takes ‘You Didn’t Build That’ Global

Romney praises Jews’ cultural ability to make money

Online Education Will Leave Many Students Behind

Greg Sargent: Why Romney keeps attacking things Obama didn’t say

 

Newt Gingrich’s “Invented Palestinians”

Newt Gingrich, the “so-called” historian, courts the Jewish base at the expense of yet another minority.  The problem with Newt’s hypothesis is that Jewish people here and in Israel will not fall for Gingrich’s obvious race baiting.  It’s a terrible and shameless case of pandering on Gingrich’s part…

Mario Piperni

Another Republican pandering for the Jewish vote by making an extremist and ridiculous statement.

We’ve had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and are historically part of the Arab community and they had a chance to go many places. And for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel since the 1940s. It’s tragic.

What is tragic is that this 1980s dinosaur has even the remotest of chances of becoming President. Insulting Palestinians by declaring them to be an “invented” people is another sign of how disastrous a Gingrich foreign policy would be.  He’s also declared he’d move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem ’cause you can never stoke those flames of division enough.

And worst of all, Gingrich has said he’s considering neocon nutcase John Bolton as his choice for Secretary of State which just about guarantee another war within two years of a Gingrich presidency.

Newt Gingrich – the stupid man’s smart man.

Related articles

The Right’s Failed Protest Smear

You know the Occupy movement is working when Right-wingers start trying to smear the massive movement…

The Daily Beast

Right-wing figures like Bill Kristol are pushing the idea that Occupy Wall Street is anti-Semitic to scare Jews and embarrass politicians like Obama, but the tactic is not gaining traction. 

When your cries of anti-Semitism fail to rile the Anti-Defamation League, you might be on the wrong track.

That, however, has not stopped various right-wing figures from pushing the idea that Occupy Wall Street is a hotbed of Jew hatred. A group called the Emergency Committee for Israel, co-founded by Bill Kristol, is running television ads designed to scare Jews about the movement and embarrass politicians who’ve been sympathetic to the protesters. They feature footage of three men saying hateful things about Jews, before a voiceover asks: “Why are our leaders turning a blind eye to anti-Semitic, anti-Israel attacks? Tell President Obama and Leader Pelosi to stand up to the mob.” Since then, other conservatives have ceaselessly amplified the message, while complaining that the rest of the media is ignoring rampant bigotry on the left.

But the Anti-Defamation League, which no one can accuse of ignoring anti-Semitism, has been less than alarmed. In a statement, ADL head Abraham H. Foxman expressed concern about a few anti-Semites who’ve showed up at the protests, but said, “There is no evidence that these anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are representative of the larger movement or that they are gaining traction with other participants.” Indeed, when Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen went to the demonstrations searching for bigots, he failed to find any. “This was my second visit to the Occupy Wall Street site and the second time my keen reporter’s eye has failed to detect even a hint of the anti-Semitism that had been trumpeted by certain right-wing websites and bloggers, most prominently Bill Kristol,” he wrote.

This is not to say that there is no one at Occupy Wall Street, or its many national offshoots, expressing despicable views. Protests always attract fringe characters, particularly when they provide free food and warm clothes to all comers. The footage that the Emergency Committee for Israel used is real, though somewhat disingenuous. For example, one of the ad’s anti-Semites, a guy holding a sign saying “Google: Zionists Control Wall Street,” has since been identified as a homeless man known to picket the area with such placards before the protests even began. Occupy Wall Street has tried desperately to get rid of him, but the police have (correctly) refused to eject him, citing his free-speech rights. “This guy with the Google Zionist banker sign, nobody wants him there,” says Daniel Sieradski, a Jewish activist who organized an open-air Yom Kippur service at Occupy Wall Street, attended by almost 1,000 people. “Everybody is harassing him, screaming at him, totally flipping out on him. Everybody wants him gone, and the police say if you have a right to freedom of assembly so does he.”

Continue reading here…

Related articles

Southern Poverty Law Center Reminds GOP Of The Hate Groups Behind Values Voter Summit

All one has to do is see  how the folks at the “Values” Voter Summit behaved in past conferences.

Think Progress

As all of the major GOP presidential contenders prepare to speak at the Family Research Council’s (FRC) annual Values Voter Summit, the Southern Poverty Law Center is holding a press conference and has published an ad in the Washington Post reminding the candidates and the press that the groups behind the event “spread lies designed to demonize the LGBT community,” Muslims, Mormons, Jews, and others:

 

Karl Rove: It’s ‘Offensive’ To Say We Are A Christian Nation

Seems like Karl Rove understands the Founding Fathers’ intent to see this country as fundamentally neutral when it comes to religion.

Some would interpret their view as wanting us to accept all religions without persecution of any particular religion.  In fact, The Establishmet Clause in the First Amendment speaks to that very issue:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Think Progress

Social conservatives often insist the U.S. was founded to be a “Christian nation,” and they accuse progressives and President Obama of undermining these supposedly core values.

But leading conservative strategist Karl Rove called the notion that the U.S. is Christian “offensive” on Fox News last night. “We are based on the Judeo-Christian ethic, we derive a lot from it, but if you say we’re a Christian nation, what about the Jews, what about the Muslims, what about the non-believers?” Rove said the president, in one of his books, inaccurately quoted Rove as calling the U.S a “Christian nation,” a misquote he was clearly offended by.

Watch it:

Related articles

Deja Vu all over again?

 Huffington Post – Max 1

Then:

“First they came for the Socialists­, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

==========­==========­==========­==========­=========
Now:

First they came for the Democrats calling them Socialists­, and I did not speak out -
Because I am not a Socialist.

Then they came for the organizing power of Unions, but I did not speak out -
Because I’m not a Union member.

Then they came for the Hispanics and Muslims, but I did not speak out -
Because I am neither Hispanic or Muslim.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Wash Times: Criticism Of Palin’s ‘Blood Libel’ Part Of ‘Ongoing Pogrom’ Against Conservatives

Sarah Palin at a campaign rally in Raleigh, NC.

Image via Wikipedia

What is wrong with some people on the Right?  Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo says it best:

I thought Sarah Palin’s “blood libel” comment was crude and stupid. And I understand that many found it offensive, though I can’t say I was really offended in any personal way. The truth is very few things actually offend me. But this actually did. The Washington Times says that the reaction to Palin is part of an “ongoing pogrom” against conservatives in America.

That strikes me as offensive and even disgusting.

I really don’t know what’s with these people.

Talking Points Memo

A Washington Times (not to be confused with The Washington Post) editorial defends Sarah Palin’s use of the phrase “blood libel” in the wake of the Tucson shootings, by calling media criticism of Palin “the latest round of an ongoing pogrom against conservative thinkers.”

Palin had been criticized for using the term “blood libel” to characterize media attacks against her, because of associations between “blood libel” and persecution of Jews in Europe. The term has its roots in the false charge that Jews would murder children and use their blood in religious rituals.

The choice by the Times to describe media attacks as “pogroms” is even more unfortunate since the term usually refers to destructive riots that targeted Jews during the time of the Russian Empire, and often resulted in massacres.

Palin had been criticized for posting a map of the U.S. last year with gunsights over 20 Dem districts that were targets for Republicans, including that of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head on Saturday. Palin responded to the criticism in a video this week: “Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”    More…

Palin’s unfortunate response to controversy

Salon’s War Room is reporting updates on various political pundits’ reaction to Sarah Palin’s video…

Salon

UPDATE (12:59 EST): War Room editor Steve Kornacki’s response

Salon’s own Steve Kornacki explains that “This is why Palin ’12 just won’t work:”

Her defiant statement today will reinforce Republicans’ growing doubts about the wisdom of nominating her… FULL POST

 

UPDATE (12:33 EST): A roundup of the pundits

Digby scoffs at Palin’s attempted martyrdom, and name calling, on Hullaboo:

Memo to conservative morons: there’s a perfectly good all-American term to express your perpetual feeling of victimhood. It’s called “waving the bloody shirt.”

You don’t have to use the phrase “blood libel.” It’s inappropriate to use the term cavalierly at any time, but especially inappropriate when the real victim was Jewish.

 

Adam Serwer goes in depth on “The foolishness of the ‘blood libel’ charge:”

“Blood libel” is not wrongfully assigning guilt to an individual for murder, but rather assigning guilt collectively to an entire group of people and then using it to justify violence against them.

This is a new low for Palin, but outsize comparisons of partisan political conflict to instances of terrible historical oppression is a fairly frequent rhetorical device among conservative media figures.

 

 Jonah Goldberg, similarly, on the attempt to coopt a very old (and loaded) phrase:

I should have said this a few days ago, when my friend Glenn Reynolds introduced the term to this debate. But I think that the use of this particular term in this context isn’t ideal. Historically, the term is almost invariably used to describe anti-Semitic myths about how Jews use blood — usually from children — in their rituals. I agree entirely with Glenn’s, and now Palin’s, larger point. But I’m not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have.

 

UPDATE (12:23 EST): Josh Marshall in brief

TPM editor Josh Marshall:

Today has been set aside to honor the victims of the Tucson massacre. And Sarah Palin has apparently decided she’s one of them.

 

UPDATE (11:59 EST): Dave Weigel weighs in

Dave Weigel reacted somewhat light-heartedly at first via Twitter but then speculates about what Sarah was up to in between Saturday and today in his early morning post:

It’s the other part, that the coverage of Palin served “to incite the very hatred and violence” that liberal pundits were condemning. She doesn’t say it, but I assume Palin got angry or hateful e-mails, and possibly some death threats, in the wake of the shooting.