First Jew on national ticket?

Hmmm,
Anyone ever consider that one of the key votes for Hillary is going to be the Jewish vote in NYC? Token religious candidate or soldier in the Democratic army? How many folks are going to vote a straight Democratic ticket that otherwise wouldn't vote for Hillary. IMNSHO, Joe is being asked to take one for the party. I said it before, I'll keep saying it. This is a throw down for the Democrats, just like Dole was a throw down for the Republicans. If Gore gets in, just so much the better. The real focus is being diverted from the smaller races. Hasn't America seen 7 plus years of sleight of hand enough to realize this?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>THURSDAY AUGUST 10 2000

by Tanya K. Metaksa

Renouncing Sam Colt

On a very, very hot humid day in August 1969 the Hall of the House at the
Capitol in Hartford, Conn., was packed with hundreds of citizens. The issue
was gun control and the main act was Sen. Thomas Dodd, the father of the
1968 Gun Control Act.

The GCA, the first federal gun control legislation in over 30 years, had
passed after the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther
King, and Senator Bobby Kennedy during the turbulent '60s. Tom Dodd, who was
chairman of the Senate subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency had become the
prime gun control proponent in the U.S. Senate and had used the issue to go
around the country holding public hearings to further his cause. Even after
the passage of GCA he kept hammering away for more and more restrictive gun
legislation. Whether the unusual summer hearing was his idea or the idea of
one of the members of the Connecticut legislature was irrelevant; proponents
and opponents showed up and many signed up to speak.

A blond young man took to the floor and announced that he was from New Haven
representing the Bobby Kennedy Youth Corps. He gave an impassioned speech
for more gun control. The speech, of course, used the deaths of the Kennedys
and King to illustrate why we needed state gun control legislation. It
included the usual misstatements concerning current federal and state law
and ended on a plea for more restrictions. The speaker was very earnest and
quite effective. His name was Joseph I. Lieberman.

Since that time 30 years ago Joseph I. Lieberman has risen to the top of
Connecticut politics and during all these years he has been involved with
Bill and Hillary Clinton. When Bill and Hillary were students at Yale Law
School they were volunteers in Lieberman's first political campaign for the
Connecticut State Senate in 1970. Now the Democrats will try and position
Lieberman as someone who took Clinton to task during his impeachment
hearings, yet when it came time to vote on removing his fellow Yale Law
School alumnus from office, Joe Lieberman voted no.

After Lieberman's impassioned speech on gun control in 1969 he didn't
mention his support for gun control for many years. It was the politically
smart thing to do. After the statewide elections of 1970 when sportsmen were
instrumental in throwing out Sen. Tom Dodd and both electing Lowell Weicker
as their U.S. senator and former representative, Tom Meskill, as governor,
the gun issue became a non-issue in Connecticut for over a decade.

Lieberman served six years in the State Senate rising to become majority
leader. In 1976 he made an unsuccessful attempt to become a congressman and
left public service for several years reappearing as a candidate for
attorney general. He was successful in that race in 1982 and was re-elected
in 1986. He took the plunge into national politics by challenging and
beating the incumbent, Sen. Lowell Weicker, in 1988.

In the U.S. Senate, Lieberman has not, like Al Gore, voted on both sides of
the gun control issue. His record is clear. Although he comes from the state
which gave us the Colt .45, the gun that won the West, he casts his vote in
lockstep with Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, and Vice President Gore. Expect a
Gore-Lieberman administration to continue and build upon the anti-Second
Amendment bias of the Clinton-Gore administration.

The Clinton-Gore administration is utilizing every opportunity to push their
anti-gun agenda. They don't miss a beat; even at events that one would think
to have nothing to do with gun control, they push it. This week the
Department of Housing and Urban Development held a conference in Washington,
D.C., on "Building a Better Tomorrow: Best Practices." At the opening
session they played a video featuring Clinton, Gore, and HUD Secretary
Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo's assault of the firearms' industry was prominently
featured in this blatantly political video.

In addition the agenda of the HUD conference included a workshop session on
Cuomo's gun initiative on each day of the conference. Every other workshop
appeared only once on the schedule. Additionally, most other sessions
featured success stories presented by local participants; Deputy General
Counsel Max Stier was the only presenter at the gun seminar. The description
read as follows:

"The workshop will provide an overview of the comprehensive program HUD is
sponsoring to promote community safety and reduce gun violence in all the
communities HUD services. In particular, the workshop will discuss HUD's
successful work encouraging gun manufacturers to take responsible steps to
reduce gun violence, HUD's BuyBack American initiative, the Public Housing
Drug Elimination Program, the Communities for Safer Guns Coalition and other
efforts."

Anyway you cut it, a Gore-Lieberman administration will continue the gun
control efforts of Clinton-Gore. And, if elected, they won't have to waste
any time reinventing programs, they just will continue to build on those
started under Bill Clinton and Al Gore. For gun owners this election is
about whether they get to take back their rights or watch as the federal
government renounces Sam Colt, abandons Winchester, and rejects an industry
that has kept this country free for over 150 years.

Tanya K. Metaksa is the former executive director of the National Rifle
Association's Institute for Legislative Action. She is the author of "Safe,
Not Sorry," a self-protection manual, published in 1997. She has appeared on
numerous talk and interview shows such as "Crossfire," the "Today" show,
"Nightline," "This Week with David Brinkley" and the "McNeil-Lehrer Hour,"
among others.
[/quote]

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Gentically? What, is there a Jew gene that was recently discovered? [/quote]

Actually, Yes. Among others there is a paternal "Cohenim" gene, that was passed on from apparently Aaron, to all of his descendents. There are tests to find it, and it has been found in 99% of Cohenim and is being used to try to find the lost tribes. BTW I am a Jew. It is an ethnicity and a religion. I am not religious. The ethnicity and the religion are connected but not totally similar.

By the way, Goldwater was Jewish enough that he would have been allowed to become an Israeli citizen, or would have been killed by Hitler. As I understand it though, he didn't identify himself as a Jew, which I think is the primary necessity.

[This message has been edited by Belasarius (edited August 14, 2000).]
 
Regnav could be a troll, but I think his main point has been missed. He is referring to comments made by DNC spokesmen recently. When asked whether they were worried that anti-semites would refuse to vote for Lieberman, they replied that anti-semites wouldn't be voting Democratic anyway. The obvious implication was that anti-semites all vote GOP, probably because they're the kind of heartless bastards who also don't care about the children or the elderly, etc. It was an attempt to smear Republicans as the party of anti-semitism.

As far as I can tell, Regnav was simply pointing out that, far from that image, the Republicans nominated Goldwater. And whether Regnav is right about Goldwater still being a Jew, the point is valid because any anti-semite worth his salt would have believed that conversion was worthless and probably a trick--maybe part of a larger "Jewish conspiracy." And he makes a valid point--if everyone who votes Republican this year is a de facto anti-semite, then does that apply to everyone who voted Democratic in 1964? Probably not, since, as a convert, Goldwater was "a traitor to his people." Just like Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice and George Bush's Mexican in-laws.
 
I myself made the same stupid remark about antisemities not voting Democrat. Of course I quickly realized I was saying something untrue. The problem is that antisemitism is largely attributed to KKK, rednecks, etc. In reality I think that most Southern folks have been educated beyond such things. The ADL says that blacks are 14 times more likely to be antisemitic than whites. they are also much more likely to vote Democrat. Even Willian Kristol made the same stupid remark about antisemites voting Republican. The real problem is poor/uneducated people and socialist/communists. Anyway I see more antisemitic democrats than I do Republicans/conservatives.

[This message has been edited by Belasarius (edited August 14, 2000).]
 
In my neighborhood, the most racist and bigoted people I know are Democrats. Every other word seems to be a racial epithet of some sort. In my old neighborhood, it was the liberals who were the most angry at me when I rented my upstairs flat to a young black lady, the first black on our block. And it was the liberals who were the first to move to the 'burbs when more blacks moved into the neighborhood. And it was the liberals who never talked to the rabbi who lived next door to me.

It really ticks me off that conservatives get painted with the "racist" brush.

Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
Belasarius, that is what I have thought all along thanks for clairifing.

Main Entry: Jew
Pronunciation: 'jü
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French gyu, from Latin Judaeus, from Greek Ioudaios, from Hebrew YehudhI, from YehudhAh Judah, Jewish kingdom
Date: 13th century
1 a : a member of the tribe of Judah b : ISRAELITE
2 : a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the 6th century B.C. to the 1st century A.D.
3 : a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people
4 : one whose religion is Judaism
 
I don't quite buy the "Jew Gene" argument. Hitler's own grandmother had some Jewish ancestry. I had a great-grandfather who was Jewish and converted to Christianity. I probably carry the "Jew Gene" myself.

Now if you extrapolate the Jewish migration of the last 2000 yrs and factor the number of Jews who undoubtedly "assimilated" into the European community (assimilation sometimes being the alternative to death) I'm willing to bet MOST folks of European ancestry also have some Jewish ancestry. Can probably even find the genetic evidence. Doesn't make us all Jewish, does it?

As I once told my mother as she explained we were a little bit Jewish, "Are you sure, I don't feel very Jewish."
 
Let's not go all stupid over this. The Dems have more than enough stupidity for everyone.

Judaism is a religion. There are Jews on every continent and in most countries. There are Jews of all races (yes, black and oriental Jews. Remember the Ethiopian rescue by Israel several years ago).

Lieberman is self-destructing before our eyes. He's having to back-pedal on every issue he had supported that is antipathy to the Liberals, the National Education Association, and Al Sharpton. I, a Jew, am loving every moment of it.

And I doubt JPFO is supporting Lieberman, either.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Don Gwinn:
Regnav could be a troll, but I think his main point has been missed. He is referring to comments made by DNC spokesmen recently. When asked whether they were worried that anti-semites would refuse to vote for Lieberman, they replied that anti-semites wouldn't be voting Democratic anyway. The obvious implication was that anti-semites all vote GOP, probably because they're the kind of heartless bastards who also don't care about the children or the elderly, etc. It was an attempt to smear Republicans as the party of anti-semitism.

As far as I can tell, Regnav was simply pointing out that, far from that image, the Republicans nominated Goldwater. And whether Regnav is right about Goldwater still being a Jew, the point is valid because any anti-semite worth his salt would have believed that conversion was worthless and probably a trick--maybe part of a larger "Jewish conspiracy." And he makes a valid point--if everyone who votes Republican this year is a de facto anti-semite, then does that apply to everyone who voted Democratic in 1964? Probably not, since, as a convert, Goldwater was "a traitor to his people." Just like Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice and George Bush's Mexican in-laws.[/quote]

Don: Thanks! You have said what I was trying to say but made it much clearer.

As for the "troll" bit, let's get real here. Many, many of the posts on Free Republic get someone riled, whether intentionally or not. For example, Tecolote says he finds my "threat" out of place. Now that "inflames my emotions" because I did not make a threat. Never do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top