NJDC Accuses McCain of “Picking on Jewish Supreme Court Justices”
Group also whitewashed MoveOn.org hate speech, published anti-Christian hate video
by Bill Levinson
The National Jewish Democratic Council is grasping at straws in its latest effort to smear John McCain. “McCain Picking on Jewish Supreme Court Justices?” says,
- When Pastor Rick Warren asked Senator John McCain to name his least favorite current U.S. Supreme Court justices it seemed that he was picking on the Jewish members of our highest court.
A review of the Kelo vs. New London decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that municipalities can collude with private developers to use eminent domain to steal property for private (as opposed to public) use shows that Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer–the four justices whom McCain says he would not have appointed–cannot be trusted to protect the Constitutional rights of Americans. Needless to say, the NJDC, which whitewashed the most vicious imaginable anti-Semitic hate speech from MoveOn.org, stepped up immediately to bleat that McCain is “picking on the Jewish justices.” Meanwhile, the two Justices whom Obama said he would not have appointed (Scalia and fellow African-American Clarence Thomas) voted to uphold the Constitution in Kelo vs. New London.
More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees an individual as opposed to a collective right to own firearms. Although the anti-Second Amendment side contends that the Second Amendment guarantees only the right of states to arm the National Guard or its equivalent, this could not possibly have been the Founding Fathers’ intention:
- (1) The Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part, refers exclusively to individual as opposed to collective rights until one finally comes to the tenth and last amendment (”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”) The latter is probably the basis of “states’ rights” arguments.
(2) There was no such thing as a National Guard when the Constitution was written, although there were militias that consisted of men who provided their own arms. The closest equivalent, the Prussian Landwehr, was created in 1813 to fight Napoleon. The Federally-controlled National Guard was created more than 100 years later.
The four Justices who voted against individual Constitutional rights were of course John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer–the same ones whom McCain said he would not have appointed. Scalia and Thomas, whom Obama would not have appointed, voted in favor of individual civil rights.
It is even more interesting that Obama said he did not think Clarence Thomas was qualified at the time of his appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, even though Thomas had far more experience at the time than Obama has now–and as more than a “community organizer.” It seems that, by Obama’s own standards, Obama is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court or appoint Supreme Court justices.
We must return, however, to the National “Jewish” Democratic Council’s effort to depict John McCain as “picking on the Jewish Supreme Court Justices,” whom we (a Jewish voter) also do not think can be trusted to uphold the Constitution as it was written, as opposed to how they wish it had been written. The Anti-Defamation League recently cited as anti-Semitic, and rightly so, a white supremacist cartoon of McCain and Obama kissing the buttocks of an Orthodox Jew, with a flag in which the Star of David replaces the fifty stars. The latter is typical of anti-Semitic “the Jews control America” hate images. The NJDC’s “Bubbie versus the GOP” video contains equally repulsive anti-Christian hate images.
So here we have an organization that not only whitewashes genuine anti-Semitic hate speech from MoveOn.org, but also publishes on its own behalf vicious anti-Christian hate images: images that are identical in every respect to hate cartoons from white supremacists, except they use the Cross instead of the Star of David. Said organization then has the audacity to suggest that John McCain is picking on Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Steven Breyer because they are Jewish, and not because they want to rewrite the Constitution the way Squealer the Pig rewrote the laws of Animal Farm.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg deserves to be picked on. She does not act very Jewish. In fact I refer to her as the Jewish B*TCH on the Supreme Court. She is responsible for what happened to Pollard (and I am not even going to get into the fact that she would not postpone the hearing even one day so Dershowitz would not have to appear on the second day of Rosh haShana when she had routinely granted postponements to other lawyers who did not give a reason).
A few years back, when asked what her favorite recipe was, she mentioned something with ham in it.
Comment by i_am_me — August 21, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Lots of Jews, it seems, equate “anti-Christian” and “anti-American” with “pro-Jewish”. I imagine these are the types that gravitate towards the NJDC. Increasingly, though, it describes “religious zionists” as well. Hatred and nationalism (Jewish or otherwise) are alive and well on the Left and on the Right. I pity the people who let these elements rule them: Look at the Third Reich, at Gaza, at the Khmer Rouge. This isn’t what I want to see happen to the Jewish people, or to the American people. Israpundit does a good job of pointing out that most of the racist rhetoric is coming from Obama’s Jewish and non-Jewish supporters. As long as we don’t become like them, we do well.
Before the Israelites entered the Promised Land, God sent His angel to lead them. I believe it was Joshua who met him, and demanded to know whose side the angel was on “Are you for us, or for our enemies!” The angel replied, essentially, “Neither — I’m here to fight God’s battles, not yours…” to which he might have added, “pipsqueak”.
It’s interesting, that the racial and religious background of the Supreme Court Justices has little to do with how their decisions affected their own people. Does Scalia favor Italians? I doubt it. Does Thomas favor Black people? Then why is the dark Arab Obama against him? Ginsberg and Breyer are Jewish: have their decisions helped Jews to exercise their religion more openly? Souter’s a Vermonter. Do his decisions reflect traditional New England values? Stevens is from a filthy rich family of hotelliers and lawyers, the son of a convicted embezzler. Whose side is he on? He was appointed by a Republican: Does he uphold Republican values?
People who think their race’s or religion’s values are best upheld by their kinsmen and co-religionists, are sadly mistaken. This applies, of course, to the NJDC… but also to others.
Shalom shalom
Comment by BlandOatmeal — August 21, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
Then what does it mean in the second amendment by the term “a well regulated “militia”?
With regard to the NJDC, it is quite a stretch to imply McCain is anti-Semitic because of his opposition to SC justices he disagrees with, simply because they happen to be Jews. Yet the NJDC has bent over backwards to excuse obama’s association with outright anti-Semites such as Wright and Khalidi.
Comment by Laura — August 21, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
That National Jewish Democratic Council is not grasping at straws at all in its latest effort to smear John McCain by alleging “McCain Picking on Jewish Supreme Court Justices?”
That Council by such an allegations however demeans and shames itself and all Jews affiliated with it, though they are obviously not aware of that. They should be made so aware and so advised in the strongest terms.
Barak Obama would do credit upon himself if he were to take them to task himself.
It is inconceivable that either Obama or McCain had in mind the religious or ethnic backgrounds of the Supreme Court justices when they sought to answer the question of pertaining to Supreme Court Judicial appointments.
Comment by Bill Narvey — August 21, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
A well regualted militia can mean a lot of different things, that is why the Supreme Court smacked down D.C.’s Fascist anti-gun law. You know who was really against private citizens have guns, and was glad Germany got rid of private gun ownership, a man named Adolf Hitler, also his good buddy Joe Stalin was a strong advocate of no one owning a private gun.
Comment by NoNameDenton — August 21, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
Re: “Then what does it mean in the second amendment by the term “a well regulated “militia”?”
The historical precedent was that men would make themselves available for service in times of emergency, and they were to provide their own (privately owned) weapons.
As an example, the szlachta (gentry) of the Polish Commonwealth were expected to show up for duty with their own swords, firearms, and (optionally) privately-owned cannon. The ability to field a battery of artillery was doubtlessly a status symbol, and the Polish nobles enjoyed showing off their wealth. The only weapon that the government supplied to the gentry was the kopia, a long and hollow cavalry lance that could outreach infantry pikes. This might have been because it was extremely expensive, and often shattered upon hitting an enemy. On the other hand, the government did issue weapons to enlisted soldiers, but they were not voting citizens.
The key point is, however, that the government most certainly did not issue weapons as they are issued to the National Guard. Furthermore, everyone who was entitled to vote was not only allowed but expected to own weapons. (Peasants were also allowed to own firearms and other weapons, but it was not mandatory.)
A colonial milita (Massechusetts) not only allowed but required all able-bodied men to own weapons for the purpose of militia duty.
In the somewhat more distant past, land-owning knights and nobles were, in exchange for a fief of land from their overlord, required to report for military duty with private armies. Under the Turkish timariot system, a cavalryman was given a plot of land in exchange for his service, and he also was required to supply his own weapons. During peacetime, they lived off their grants of land, and the Sultan did not have to pay or support them.
It seems that history’s “well-regulated militias” involved privately-armed citizens, as opposed to reservists with government-issued weapons.
Comment by Bill Levinson — August 22, 2008 @ 12:22 am
Bill, I take my hat off to you, that was excellent.
Comment by NoNameDenton — August 22, 2008 @ 2:56 am
I actually read a very small part of the recent US Supreme Court Decision on the 2nd amendment and asked a lawyer about it. This is what I got out of it.
The whole reason for the 2nd amendment is so the states can have a militia to fight against the federal government if the federal government starts “acting naughty” (my words). There is no other reason for it, which means that hunting and fighting crime are not reasons for the 2nd amendment (However those could be justifications someone might use in opposing the repeal of the 2nd amendment).
That having been said, that the reason for the 2nd amendment is the militia does not mean one is limited to having guns for the militia. One can have guns for other purposes. This sounded a little fishy to me so I asked a lawyer I know (who also teaches part time at a law school). This is what he told me:
Recently, Congress voted an economic stimulus package into law. The money we received was meant to be spent in order to give the economy a boost. However, even though the money was given to be spent, there would be nothing illegal with investing the money or even stuffing it in your mattress.
Comment by i_am_me — August 22, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
You are correct i_am_me, that is also why secession was also constitutionally legal (despite what Abraham Lincoln thought).
Comment by NoNameDenton — August 22, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
i-am-me, I don’t think you’re familiar with American history. At the time the Constitution was written, ownership of firearms was considered more essential than home ownership. Practically every colonist had a firearm, and I dare say that no legislator of the time ever dreamed of an America in which individuals were not allowed to bear arms for the very vital purposes of hunting for food and for personal protection. The danger, it seems, was that an overbearing federal government would try to restrict the assembly of armed Americans into a well-regulated militia, a fighting force capable of resisting such a government. There was no more a perceived need to restrict private ownership of firearms for hunting, etc., than there was a perceived need to restrict ownership of axes and Dutch ovens.
Comment by BlandOatmeal — August 22, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
BlandOatmeal:
I don’t think you’re familiar with what I wrote. Nothing I wrote had anything to do with how familiar I am with American history. It had everything to do with the part of the Supreme Court ruling I read and what a lawyer told me. What I read and what I was told may either be in agreement with disagreement with the actual facts. However I am not responsible for that.
Comment by i_am_me — August 24, 2008 @ 8:48 am
As for McCain choosing a VICE PRESIDENT: I think that TOM RIDGE is an excellent choice because he understands NATIONAL SECURITY IN WAYS THAT JOE BIDEN DOESN’T!
If you were going to compare JOE BIDEN’S FOREIGN POLICY with Tom Ridge’s NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERIENCE – EXPERIENCE DOMINATES and Ridge can smoke out Biden/Laden any time!
ABOUT MCCAIN’S 7 HOUSES NOT BEING RELEVANT:
My grandfather started with nothing and ended up with 27 apartment buildings and 7 houses. Because he was a drunken dummy, he got arrested and charged with Murder one. He had to sell almost everything to pay for bail and lawyer fees, etc. My aunts and uncles all got to get something out of him before he went broke and got caught cheating on my grandmother with another woman. My other grandfather, to stay alive, had to work with the Italian mafia to care for six children.
My father and I both worked honest jobs: Never murdered anyone and never broke the rules of society, but we drowned in a democratic society because Affirmative Action demanded that white men get pushed aside to meet status quotas for women, gays, and blacks. My father was a highly skilled manager but couldn’t get back in, especially after his health failed. I didn’t get any land or property I could call my own and have been reduced to living in a tiny house. Shouldn’t I feel angry, gipped and cheated? Of course I should. But it’s not merely the wealthy Republicans I blame. It’s the entire DNC who used reverse discrimination as a tool to cut us down!
I understand WHY Republicans have to be wealthy and it’s not just to save themselves and their own families, but to save THE SYSTEM itself and save the American economy. But HOW DEMOCRATS GROW WEALTHY is designed to destroy America and Americans; not save the Republic; and make foreign countries wealthier than America; selling out to foreign corporations; and promoting an anti-Biblical approach to everything.
The fact that MCCain has 7 houses is really a childish and stupid point to make and doesn’t hold much weight in convincing me that just because McCain and his wife are wealthy, that this makes them criminals. Fox News hit it home by showing how Edwards has a 6 million dollar mansion; how Obama has a 4 million dollar lifestyle and went to the most expensive universities; and how it’s hypocritical for rich democrats to condemn rich Republicans for being rich.
I don’t agree with the philosophy that if you work hard and honestly you can always succeed like both parties did and for me, working honestly and succeeding is an illusion. But despite the fact I’m poor, broke, and angry, mostly with democrats, I understand why wealthy people are wealthy, but don’t have a problem with their affluence, because truthfully, THEY LOVE THEIR FAMILIES! Who doesn’t? I do agree that it’s time to change THE SYSTEM when it comes to LOANS for College; LOANS for mortgages; bringing down energy prices; and giving away FREE HEALTHCARE to everyone!
This way, everyone can be FREE and EQUAL without dependency on democratic corporations ruining everyone’s lives through layoffs, cutbacks, and social dominance of dog eat God mentality. G-d bless McCain for his affluence! I wish that every United States soldier could have 7 houses too! AS for Obama’s tribe, I wish that Lincoln had gotten his wish to send them back all to Africa. Really, Reverend Wright should be sent to Africa to live with his BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY and free the Sudanese or Darfur! When it comes to voting time, hopefully Obama will be exiled from THE WHITE HOUSE! That will be sufficient to save America from another evil democratic regime.
Comment by Michael Sunstar — August 24, 2008 @ 1:08 pm