 |
 |
 |
The Jhmoon (Jewish Shmoon), aka Jews for a Second Holocaust
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/11765
Comments
1
.
Laura
said:
"In last year's election, for example, Democratic candidate John Kerry, a moral albeit not legal traitor to our country's Armed Forces, knew he could count on the Jhmoon to vote for him even while he consorted openly with a proven racist and anti-Semite. Kerry welcomed Al "Juden Raus" Sharpton of Krystallnacht, excuse me, Crown Heights riots and Freddy's Fashion Market arson fame to give a major speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention: the moral equivalent of inviting the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The Jhmoon even voted for him after he embraced the support of America-hater Michael Moore, who described the terrorists who are murdering our soldiers as "Minutemen," and of billionaire international financier, convicted inside trader, and Israel-hater George Soros, who also called the United States a "threat to world peace."
...................................................................
And would you call a party that has the likes of islamo-fascist friend and apologist grover norquist and those who vote for that party, traitors?
Posted by: Laura on December 20, 2005 09:10 PM
2
.
Laura
said:
There you go again distorting the real meaning of the second ammendment.
Posted by: Laura on December 20, 2005 09:18 PM
3
.
Robert Hand
said:
Laura wrote:
"There you go again distorting the real meaning of the second ammendment."
Laura, correct me if I'm mistaken, but you appear to be one of those poor, misguided souls who think the Second Amendment has only military implications. Our founding fathers intended that the masses be armed, rightfully, to protect against both potential foreign invaders and/or domestic tyranny. Gun control is a tool of tyrants, no more and no less
As for the Jhmoons, they are too real and entirely too dangerous, no less so than their Gentile counterparts on the American left and in increasingly dhimmi Europe. Political correctness has deadly consequences, and appeasement is no more than ethnic/cultural suicide, but Chamberlain would probably be proud of his modern Jewish and Gentile counterparts. "Peace in our lifetime"? In a pig's eye it was and is!
Posted by: Robert Hand on December 21, 2005 12:57 AM
4
.
Bill Levinson
said:
Laura, I have very little use for Grover Norquist. The more I read about him, the less I like him. However, I didn't even know who he was in 2004. At least the Bushites had the good sense to keep him hidden away somewhere, while Kerry insulted the American people as a whole by parading Soros, Moore, and Sharpton around as prominent elements of his campaign.
Furthermore, Kerry himself knifed our Vietnam soldiers in the back with his phony accusations of war crimes, and recently did the same to our soldiers in Iraq. Either he lacks the brains to realize that the enemy can use his own words to recruit terrorists by proclaiming, "Look! A U.S. Senator says American troops are terrorizing Iraqi women and children!" or he doesn't care. Kerry has some very serious character problems that disqualify him from holding any position of trust.
Bush is admittedly not the brightest bulb in the chandalier, and the Democrats would have won easily had they put up a human being with a body temperature of roughly 98.6 degrees F. They put up Kerry instead, so your party has no one to blame but itself. I don't agree with Joe Lieberman on everything (e.g. gun control and the Kyoto Treaty) but I have little doubt that he would have easily made mincemeat of Bush. Like Kerry, he is "not Bush" (good for about 47% of the votes cast) but, unlike Kerry, he is honest and strong on national defense. That would probably have made the difference in Ohio. If Zell Miller had run independently, he might well have beaten both Kerry and Bush.
Posted by: Bill Levinson on December 21, 2005 01:00 AM
5
.
Laura
said:
Bill, Kerry is strong on national defense despite the election year propaganda of the Bush White House.
Now regarding the second ammendment, Robert, if you believe that it is meant for private citizens to amass arms, then taken to its logical conclusion private citizens ought to be allowed to possess stinger missles, tanks, grenades, explosives etc. The second ammendment says the right to bare ARMS, not specifically guns. After all how else would we be able to fight against a tyranical government with all the resources it has with merely guns? And if you reject the idea that private citizens should possess the above armaments, then that makes you acknowledge the second ammendemnt is not absolute, which means we could have restrictions on automatic weapons for example.
Now I want to stress that I believe private citizens should be allowed guns for self-defense, as long as they are registered and licensed, which no law-abiding citizen should have a problem with. Gun ownership becomes a right because we legislate it to be so through our elected representatives. Let's not confuse this with it being a constitutional right.
Posted by: Laura on December 21, 2005 01:56 PM
6
.
Bill Levinson
said:
Laura, if Kerry had had his way, we would probably be speaking Russian. Unlike patriotic Democrats like Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, and Hubert Humphrey, Kerry has done everything possible to undermine our country's defense and its Armed Forces. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/tj20040825.shtml "Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry opposed all the key policies Reagan used to win a bloodless victory in the Cold War. ... In August 1986, two months before Reagan met Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Kerry fought to pre-emptively scuttle SDI. After a measure to steeply reduce SDI funding failed in the Senate, Kerry, according to the Associated Press, "called Star Wars 'a cancer' and said 'what we must do is deny this program the funds that would enable this cancer on our nation's defense to grow any further.'"
I didn't need to listen to what Bush said about Kerry; all I needed to do was to listen to what Kerry said and did himself. He embraced the Brady Campaign's support but then posed with a rifle to insult gun owners' intelligence by claiming he was pro-Second Amendment. He attacked Bush for pulling the U.S. out of the Kyoto Treaty (whose economic driving forces would destroy even more U.S. jobs), told blue-collar workers with a straight face that he would not support Kyoto because it would destroy jobs, and then attacked Bush again for pulling the U.S. out of Kyoto. This individual-- I hesitate to refer to him as a "man"-- has absolutely no character or integrity whatsoever. I have more respect for a declared enemy like Dianne Feinstein who says openly that she would ban handguns if she could round up the necessary votes than a shameless liar like Kerry.
As for the range of weapons that private citizens should be allowed to own, it seemed to be the Founding Fathers' intention that these should include the most destructive ones available. Private citizens could and did own cannons; think of armed merchant ships that carried them for self-defense against pirates. Now I don't think this idea should be extended to, for example, private ownership of nuclear weapons* or tanks but I have no problem with the idea of my neighbor owning a fully-automatic machine gun if he is a law-abding citizen. (If he is a violent criminal, I don't want him to own so much as a kitchen knife and I don't want him living next to me either.)
I have a major problem with gun licensing and registration because (1) governments can use the procedures to deny gun ownership to people they don't like, such as Black people during the bad old days and (2) the registration lists can then be used to confiscate the guns, as was done in New York and California. Governments, especially those elected by the political Left, cannot be trusted with authority to determine who can own a weapon or even the knowledge of who owns weapons. Note that Nazi Germany used gun control legislation to disarm Jews in 1938 so the Gestapo could take them away to the concentration camps without getting shot in the process.
Anyway, most of the backers of the gun control movement are lying hypocrites like Ted Kennedy and Rosie O'Donnell who want one set of gun laws for people like you and me and another for themselves, the lords of the manor. When Rosie OinkDonnell says, "You are not allowed to own a gun," she means exactly that: YOU and not WE. You and I are not allowed to own guns but she, or her armed bodyguards, are. If you or I carried any gun in Washington DC we would go to jail but Ted Kennedy's bodyguard did not get into trouble for carrying a machine gun (illegally) into a Senate office building. You or I would be jailed, and rightly so, for shooting a trespasser who was not actually invading our homes but gun control supporter Carl Rowan was not punished for shooting a trespasser with an unregistered handgun in Washington DC. It is impossible to respect these individuals, whose complete lack of character and integrity is obvious.
* In Cordwainer Smith's science fiction story "Norstrilia," it is quite legal and normal for citizens of Old North Australia to keep one-kiloton tactical nuclear weapons in their homes. Since every pirate and bandit in the universe wants to attack the planet for its wealth, this might indeed be a sensible precaution.
Posted by: Bill Levinson on December 21, 2005 06:48 PM
7
.
macnietspingal
said:
I don't get it. Bush and Kerry are frat brothers. There's no difference. Wealthy tax cutters give $$$ to both parties. If you want to see the real difference, then all you have to do is compare Kerry's treatment of tax cuts with Clinton's. It's that easy. Can't get anyone in the media to do this.
So shadow box folks. Why don't you start a competition between Jesus and Talmud Torah. Now that would be real Israeli Pundit :) You do know the Koran mentions Torah 16 times. Ask Bush and Kerry why?
Posted by: macnietspingal on December 21, 2005 09:14 PM
The Jhmoon (Jewish Shmoon), aka Jews for a Second Holocaust
by Bill Levinson
Al Cap's L'il Abner comic strip featured a plump and armless creature known as a Shmoo (plural Shmoon). The Shmoon were so accommodating that, if a person looked at it with an expression of hunger, it would cook itself as whatever kind of meat the person desired.
The Shmoon are purely fantasy but, as shown by Michael Lerner's Tikkun.org and Eric Yoffie's Union for Reform Judaism (URJ), there seem to be plenty of Jhmoon who would be delighted to turn themselves into lampshades and soap for the sake of political correctness. They are also known as the JudenRAT (Jews for Rapproachment and Appeasment of Terrorists), aka JudenRats, aka Jews for a Second Holocaust, aka Jewish DHIMMIs (Dupes, Helpful Idiots, and Misguided Morons for Islamofascism).
To understand the true meaning of Jhmoon, imagine Jews who would vote for Adolf Hitler and then jump into the cattle car if it was the politically correct thing to do.
In last year's election, for example, Democratic candidate John Kerry, a moral albeit not legal traitor to our country's Armed Forces, knew he could count on the Jhmoon to vote for him even while he consorted openly with a proven racist and anti-Semite. Kerry welcomed Al "Juden Raus" Sharpton of Krystallnacht, excuse me, Crown Heights riots and Freddy's Fashion Market arson fame to give a major speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention: the moral equivalent of inviting the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The Jhmoon even voted for him after he embraced the support of America-hater Michael Moore, who described the terrorists who are murdering our soldiers as "Minutemen," and of billionaire international financier, convicted inside trader, and Israel-hater George Soros, who also called the United States a "threat to world peace."
Recall that the Islamofascist enemy often slanders pro-Israel Jewish-Americans as having "divided loyalties." This is strange because one will find few if any pro-Israel Jewish-Americans who call terrorists who murder American soldiers "Minutemen," slander American soldiers with phony war crime allegations, call our country "a threat to world peace," or consort with those who do. Less-than-loyal Jewish-Americans like Soros camp with their own kind, namely less-than-loyal Gentile-Americans like Moore and Kerry. They find common ground with the idea that there is no moral difference between Judeo-Christian Civilization (as represented by the United States and Israel) and Islamofascist barbarism.
Now we come to Jhmoon like Rabbi Eric Yoffie of the URJ. As described by Mona Charen,
Furthermore, two of the URJ's chief Jhmoon wasted no time in blaming the United States for the problems in Iraq, as if Saddam's shredding his political opponents alive while his son Uday threw woman to attack dogs for entertainment were not problems:
Now I seem to remember seeing the URJ's chief Jhmoon somewhere before. Actor Donald Sutherland portrayed Eric Yoffie, Robert Heller, Tikkun Magazine's Michael Lerner, Noam Chomsky, or Judenrat leader Adam Czerniakow (it's so difficult to tell them apart) in the movie Uprising, about the Warsaw Ghetto resistance of 1944. Had it been up to Yoffie, of course, the Warsaw Jews would have had no weapons whatsoever.
I don't know which Torah calls weapon control a religious obligation, unless Yoffie was reading messages on a music roll in a stall in the Brady Campaign's (formerly Handgun Control Inc.'s) restroom. If so, I can understand his confusion because the Torah also comes in rolls, although it is parchment instead of soft perforated paper and it is written in Hebrew. In any event, Yoffie is doing his best to disarm all Americans during a time in which his Islamofascist counterparts are proclaiming another "religious obligation" as described in Mortimer Zuckerman's "A Fulcrum Moment" (U.S. News & World Report, December 19 2005).
So Jhmoo-in-Chief Eric Yoffie proclaims that Jewish-Americans have a relgious obligation to attack their own Second Amendment rights and those of their their Christian neighbors (known to the enemy as Kafirs, Infidel Pigs, and Dhimmis) while his Palestinian counterparts proclaim a religious obligation to kill Jews. The latter statement, in conjunction with the well-known Islamofascist position on what is to be done with Christians, is a strong argument for not one but two or more guns in the home of every "infidel" in the United States as well as Israel.
Yoffie is of course far from the only Jhmoo in the United States. Michael Lerner's Tikkun.org also seems to consider terrorists and those who fight terrorists to be at the same moral plane, and of course we have Noam Chumpsky and Rabbis for Human Rights as Long as the Humans Are Palestinians and not Israeli Civilians Who Merely Want to Exercise Their Natural Human Right to Not Be Blown Up by Nail Bombs. ("Rabbis for Human Rights" for short.)
If the Jhmoon want to gas themselves or turn themselves into lampshades and soap, it is of course their right to do so as long as they don't drag our country down with them. The instant they try to do the latter as URJ has done, they become every bit as much an enemy as a fifth column organization like the International Solidarity Movement and must be attacked with whatever legal and nonviolent methods are applicable and available.
Posted by Bill Levinson at December 20, 2005 05:39 PM