Nobody loves a shabbos
Bush, Iraq, and Israel
By DOUGLAS OLSON
|If you find this column of value, please send a donation of $2 to TLD. More information appears below.|
In olden days, before most just said "the hell with this" and abandoned real Judaism for its "conservative" and "reform" mutations, Jews spent an incredible amount of time and energy evading the inconvenient tenets of their religion. The endlessly creative mental and verbal gymnastics performed by their wise men to sidestep clear provisions of religious law were worthy of Olympic champions, and unquestionably were the intellectual precursors of Bill Clinton's explanation that his answer to a simple question "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
One of the most troublesome restrictions was the absolute bar on "work" during the Jewish sabbath. The restrictions were so tight that it was forbidden to light a candle, or, later, turn an electric light on or off. Over the centuries, rabbis crafted an endless series of innovative dodges, including the memorable contention that performing chores in a unusual manner, such as manipulating a light switch with one's foot, somehow changed the fundamental nature of the act sufficiently so as no longer to constitute "work."
But the surest method of evasion for Jews of means was to hire a "shabbos goy" a gentile servant to do their work on the sabbath. Some would even deed over their businesses to this underling prior to Jewish holidays, so they could remain open for business, and the goy would obediently deed them back on the following day. It completely avoided any mortal danger from cooking, cleaning, or other physical exertion, and it kept the money rolling in.
One of the very few times that this concept was ever mentioned in the media was in 2000, after Al Gore chose Orthodox Jew Joseph Lieberman as his vice-presidential candidate. Half-Jewish shock-jock Howard Stern quickly painted an unforgettable verbal portrait of President Gore running through the White House on Saturdays, turning lights on and off for his Veep.
Now, being a servant is no disgrace. The British raised it to an art form, and their Empire could never have survived as long as it did without a loyal, efficient, and effective servant class to prop up its degenerate hereditary rulers. But there is a real distinction between those who serve and those who are servile.
Anyone who serves aliens and alien interests to the detriment of his own people, who puts the resources of his country and the flower of its young manhood at risk for the benefit of a foreign country, whose relentless kowtowing to an alien race from an official position of trust renders the entire populace subject to terrorism, deserves nothing but contempt and repudiation from his countrymen.
During his first three years in office, George W. Bush out-shabbos-goyed all of his predecessors by becoming the first president to actually send U.S. troops into combat for the benefit of Israel. At a tremendous expenditure of manpower and money, he has brought low Israel's greatest living nemesis Saddam Hussein, the man whose nuclear-power plant was bombed by the Israelis in 1981, who lobbed Scud missiles into Tel Aviv during the First Gulf War, who encouraged and financially supported Palestinian suicide-bombers in the Holy Land: in short, the only ruler in the Middle East with the power, ruthlessness, and courage to confront Israel. Thanks to Bush and the resources of the United States he mobilized, that threat is now gone.
There is plenty of independent corroboration that the latest Iraq war was staged for the benefit of Israel. Just a few examples:
"I'll tell you what I think the real threat [from Iraq is] and actually has been since 1990 it's the threat against Israel," declared Philip Zelikov in 2002. A member of the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board at the time, and later executive director of the 9/11 Commission, Zelikov went on: "And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it's not a popular sell."
Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) got into serious trouble in March 2003 by observing, "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this." Moran faced down a Jewish primary challenger who ran primarily on this issue and will coast to re-election in November.
Then there is Senator Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.), who wrote, "With Iraq no threat [to the United States], why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel." (Hollings may not be quite as brave as Moran: the senator spoke out after deciding to retire. ) He further stated: "Led by [neoconservatives] Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Charles Krauthammer, for years there has been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area." And he then claimed that Bush felt "spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats."
On CBS's "60 Minutes," former Marine General Anthony Zinni, special envoy to the Middle East in 2001-02, was asked about "a group of policymakers within the administration known as 'the neoconservatives' that saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel." Zinni replied: "I think they are [the architects of the war]. It's the worst-kept secret in Washington. That everybody everybody I walk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were going to do." (May 24, 2004)
What is Bush's reward for his extraordinary service to the Zionist state?
Bush received 19 percent of the Jewish vote in 2000. Despite frantic efforts by the GOP at all levels  to court Jews who have supplied between 50 percent and 70 percent of all large Democratic donations in critical states such as Florida and Ohio this year Bush trails Kerry in that demographic by fully 53 percentage points, 75 percent to 22 percent, according to a recent poll commissioned by the National Jewish Democratic Council (though you should consider the source). The Kerry figure assuming it's accurate is even more impressive when one realizes that Gore got just 79 percent in 2000, with a genuine Jew sharing his ticket.
If there's anything more pitiful than a shabbos goy, it must be a shabbos goy who can't even find a way to collect for his services.
September 15, 2004
© 2004 WTM Enterprises. All rights reserved.
If you found this column to be interesting, please donate at least $2 to our cause. You should make your check or m.o. payable in U.S. dollars to WTM Enterprises and send it to:
P.O. Box 224
Roanoke, IN 46783
Thanks for helping to assure a future for TLD!
Notice to visitors who came straight to this document from off site: You are deep in The Last Ditch. You should check out our home page and table of contents.
2. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the only Jewish Republican in the House, and, not
coincidentally, tapped as a freshman to be groomed for party leadership,
recently commented: "Democrats do not speak with a unified voice on Israel any
more. The Democrats want to re-inject the United States into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a neutral arbiter and neutral voice." Horrors, what a
blatantly anti-Semitic prospect! [Back to the
1. To his credit, Hollings did refer to his obnoxious colleague, Howard
Metzenbaum (D-Ohio), as "the senator from B'nai B'rith" in 1993, and two years
ago he compared rampaging Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to Saddam
[Back to the text.]
2. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the only Jewish Republican in the House, and, not coincidentally, tapped as a freshman to be groomed for party leadership, recently commented: "Democrats do not speak with a unified voice on Israel any more. The Democrats want to re-inject the United States into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a neutral arbiter and neutral voice." Horrors, what a blatantly anti-Semitic prospect!
[Back to the text.]