The National Jewish Democratic Council has called on Republicans to stop accepting donations from billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, after a former employee claimed Adelson’s casino in Macau encouraged prostitution (a charge Adelson denies). Needless to say, this is one of the most dumbfounding political moves the NJDC has made in awhile.
Adelson is one of the top pro-Israel philanthropists in the country; he’s given $50 million to Israel’s Holocaust museum Yad Vashem, and over $100 million to the Birthright Israel program; he’s also been a major contributor to AIPAC and sat on its executive committee. Does the NJDC recommend that Yad Vashem cut ties with its single largest donor? Does it suggest that Birthright Israel stop accepting his contribution checks? Does it demand that AIPAC quit associating with the billionaire?
Or is the “dirty money” directive simply aimed at Republican politicians?
Even Democrats have noted the NJDC’s double standard.
Alan Dershowitz and the Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman came out blasting the NJDC for its attacks on Adelson, according to JTA:
The National Jewish Democratic Council wants Republicans, including presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney, to stop taking “dirty money” from Adelson because of allegations surrounding his lucrative casino properties in Macau, China.
The “dirty money” jibe, in turn, has seen the NJDC slammed with charges of “dirty politics,” and not just from Republicans. Prominent civil rights attorney Alan Dershowitz and the Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman also have called on the Jewish Democratic group to stand down.
If evidence actually emerges that Adelson supported prostitution at his Macau casino, then the NJDC would be within its rights to demand Republicans stop accepting his money. The Democratic Party clearly wants to demonize Adelson the way it’s done with the Kochs and Karl Rove. But by attacking Republicans for accepting money from Adelson, the NJDC is basically attacking the reputation of every philanthropic group Adelson currently supports. And that puts them on the wrong side of many pro-Israel Democrats.
Last I checked the Teamsters Union wasn't exactly run by the Boy Scouts
Double standards from a Democrat group? Shocking!
I have come to the conclusion that the National "Jewish" Democratic Council is 99% Democratic, 1% Jewish. n nI'm on their email list, and they send frequent messages reminding me what a great guy Barack Obama is, and how much he loves Israel. the emails always include veiled threats of bad Republican behavior–since there's no actual bad behavior, they just make up some. the emails are so transparently partisan they're laughable. n nI wrote to the NJDC suggesting that they just go ahead and remove the "Jewish" from their name, since it's clearly the least important part. oddly enough, I didn't get a response.
__Shocking as it would be, really, really shocking if true, I suspect that Adelson's casino in Macau may not only have countenanced prostitution, but that it has encouraged gambling too! And all under the nose of the Chinese government!!__Now, when will the Dems lead through example, declining all campaign donations tainted to the same degree that they allege Adelson's are tainted by the business that produced the money? TheDems haven't done so in the past and I don't expect they will in this election cycle either. Indeed, I would bet a substantial sum of money that they won't. __
I really hope you are a better diagnostician than you are a logician, doc, because again, you miss the whole point. The Democrats are saying that the Republicans are accepting money from people whose immorality they decry. The Republicans oppose both legalized gambling and legalized prostitution, but they are happy to take money from purveyors of both. Do you support legalized prostitution?
American Jews are fairly united in their support for this twenty year disciple of this Jew-hater, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Surely you are not serious.
Clarespark, I wish he were. You saw the poll numbers from 2008 – 78% of the Jewish electorate. Even with 4his first (and please G-d last) term nearly over, many Jews refuse to believe his actual record, while assuming the worst about anyone who opposes him. n nAccording to the polls, Orthodox Jews were least likely to vote for him in 2008, yet I know of Orthodox Jews who plan to vote for him again, either out of denail, or from the insane delusion that a Republican would have to be worse, or both.
I am not as pessimistic as you two are: I believe that many Jews, even the assimilated ones, will come around and realize the danger of re-electing this person, whose views of Israel are well-known. In the blog I posted, I pointed out the loyalty to immigrant ancestors that still tie living Jews to the Democratic Party. As for the Orthodox, I know many through my son-in-law, and they are firmly on the Right and very knowledgeable about the politics of the Mid-East. They are young and read.
Clare, I agree with you about Orthodox Jews – most of the Orthodox Jews that I know see through Obama. But my point was, that those I know who did not see through him in 2008 don't see through him now, either. n nBut pessimistic? Me? Remember, the Jewish pessimist says "Things can't possibly get any worse." It is the Jewish optimist who replies "Oh yes, they can!"
I actually have some respect for Wright, even though I disagree with his worldview; he at least seems to be very honest and forthright about his thoughts and his agenda, unlike Obama who is deceitful about his aims. As Obama said to Wright at one of their meetings, "the trouble with you is that you always have to tell the truth!"
Doesn't Harry Reid, the Democrat Senior Senator from Nevada live and represent a state, and the Senate Majority, within which prostitution is legal in various counties? Isn't there some sort of limerick about not throwing stones if you live in a glass house? I do not agree with the author of this article. Even if the obvious dirty, totally unproven, political jibes the Dems are making were true, there is loads and loads of dirty money floating all around in the Democrat party. And those tens of thousands of small contributions – where is that money coming from? This entire bullsh-t is nothing but just that.
Isn't this the same outfit that was going after "Joe the Plumber" for his statement that both Turkey and Nazi Germany banned the private ownership of guns — implying that had the Armenians and European Jews been armed, the bloody history of the 20th Century would have turned out a bit differently….. n nRemember that a good chunk of the Holocaust occurred outside the territorial borders of Germany, and that a lot of folk (such as Ann Frank's family) fled Germany proper but couldn't escape Occupied Europe. Germany invaded these countries – and an armed populace would have made it a whole lot more difficult for the National Socialists to do so. I may be dating myself, but the 1984 movie _Red Dawn_ wasn't completely unrealistic about what a bunch of high school kids could do with just sporting weaponry. n nNine Million Jews lived in Europe before the Holocaust. If only 11% of them had owned a gun, that would have been a million guns — and look at how effective the brave folk of the Warsaw Ghetto were with something like only three guns – a million armed Jews likely would have stopped the Holocaust if not prevented it outright. Israel understands this concept. n nBut the NJDC is attacking "Joe" for pointing this out. Or are they attacking him for being a Republican? Is the NJDC going after George Soros???
Ok, let me get this straight. Are those posting here willing to go on record as supporting the legalization of prostitution? Fine with me The "double standard" is not the condemnation of Adelson while ignoring the prostitution in Democratic constituencies, it is that traditionally, Republicans have condemned prostitution as immoral. All those here who are willing to state for the record that they have no moral objection to women being forced into prostitution are free from criticism and should be respected. Any person here who is unwilling to make that statement, yet is willing to turn a blind eye to the profits that Adelson is making from the association of his casino in Macau with prostitution is a hypocrite.
Tell me, if the NJDC's remarks are true, are they lashon hora? If they are not true, are they motzei shem ra? Have you protested their libelous remarks about Adelson the same way that you protested the thread about Moveon.org's apology for using harsh but accurate remarks about a Jew-hating basket-case? If not, I encourage you to go to the NJDC web site and do so now, perhaps couched in terms of a congratulatory remark over their removing the offensive accusations.
Have you ever paused before writing one of your comments to ask yourself why you bother, and have you ever paused before publishing one of your comments to ask yourself whether you would do so if you had to put your real name on it and be accountable? Once again, you are riffing off a word or two and failing completely to address the issue I brought up. nPoint of fact, there's no libel in NJDC's remarks under US law. nPoint of fact, I never defended NJDC. nPoint of fact, my post discussed the reason that the left can criticize the right for doing business with smut merchants. Period. nPoint of fact, you never addressed my challenge, which was to state that you support the legalization of prostitution or admit that the right is employing a double standard if it accepts funds from smut merchants while condemning the smut. nI'm sorry to have to say this, but I think you are either purposely taunting me, which makes you a sadist, or you are psychologically incapable of seeing how unresponsive your comments are. Perhaps you are still an adolescent; that would explain your behavior. If you are, however, older than 25, I urge you to seek professional counseling. If there were some way for me to help you with the cost, I would be happy to. Of course, that would require you to reveal your identity, and I don't expect that to happen. After all, it's my opinion that if your real name were required to be posted along with your comments, we'd never hear another word from you…
Have you ever paused before writing one of your comments to ask yourself why you bother" This one, for one, but call me a lover of lost causes. n"whether you would do so if you had to put your real name on it and be accountable?" Ask me again under your real name. n"Point of fact, I never defended NJDC. " nPoint of fact, you are quick to attack what you consider lashon hora when it comes from what you consider the right, but not when it comes from a self-styled Jewish group on the left. n"Point of fact, my post discussed the reason that the left can criticize the right for doing business with smut merchants. Period. " Point of fact, there has been no proof offered that Adelson is a smut merchant. Point of fact, even if there were, for a Jewish group to publicize that fact would be lashon hora, unless one of the exceptions apply. Point of fact, if the charges are not true, then for a Jewish group to make those charges is [cont'd]
[part 2] " motzei shem rah. Period. It seems to me that it is you who are employing a double standard. n"Point of fact, you never addressed my challenge" Point of fact, you issued that challenge to dcdoc, not to me. n"I'm sorry to have to say this, but I think you are either purposely taunting me, which makes you a sadist," I think the technical term for what you are doing is 'projection'. This is discussed in Kiddushin (third perek? I forget, it's been a while) as well as in later psychological and medical literature. n"Of course, that would require you to reveal your identity," and for you to reveal yours. n" it's my opinion that if your real name were required to be posted along with your comments, we'd never hear another word from you" Said oldleftie, or is that the name on your driver's license?
I will be more than happy to meet you in real life at any time. Provide me with the name of a rabbi you trust and I shall call him with details on how you may contact me. I regularly post with equal vehemence under my own name on Facebook. Do you post anywhere under your own name? nHere's a challenge: Name a time you would be willing to appear in front of an audience to debate me. Provided that I can verify security, I will be happy to meet you face to face. Since it is my challenge, however, I require that it be in the DC metro area. I will be happy to pay your bus fare.
"Do you post anywhere under your own name? " nGiven the political sentiments of my current employer, that would be most imprudent. n nI notice that you have not addressed my points about applying the laws of speech to the NJDC. Odd how you applaud Moveon for their regret over calling out a vicious anti-semitic nut, but cannot bring yourself to condemn NJDC's attack on Adelson. n
are you employed to teach people how to avoid responsibility by misdirection and distortion? nI certainly did address your points about the NJDC, I pointed out that I never defended them. If Adelson is making money by the exploitation of vices, It is hypocritical for the Republicans, who deplore those vices, to accept his largesse. It is not hypocritical for Democrats to accept the largesse of those in similar situations, because they do not deplore those vices. NJDC, as you so nicely pointed out in another post, took my advice and moderated their comments, just as Chofetz Chaim would have suggested. NJDC finally focused its attack on the hypocrites who accept Adelson's support, not on Adelson. nNow, why don't you accept my challenge to debate me in public?
very interesting. So let me get this straight. You don't post under your own name because of "the political sentiments of [your] current employer". Why should this make any difference? Are you implying that you would lose your job if your employer discovered your political weltanschauung? And does this mean that you are in fact working against the interests of your employer?
All valid points—sort of…. nHowever, what strikes me as significant is this: that among the "major contributors" to each Party, two names stand out—Soros and Adelson. Two Jews, members of a group that constitutes roughly 2% of the population, donating huge sums in order to manipulate American politics. Soros, by far, is the most sinister of the two, because he is a control-freak reminiscent ot the guys running "Spectre" in the James Bond movies. Whereas, Adelson is a casino mogul and pro-Israel Jew. Sorios manipulates currencies and other markets, to the degree that his presence is "undesirable" in the UK and Malaysia, etc. And there are many unanswered questions regarding his collaboration with the Nazis in Hungary during WWII. n nAdelson's "troops" don't exist. He is who he is. Soros, by contrast, funds and establishes all kinds of secretive "think tanks" whose goals are hard to pin down—-think Tides Foundation, MoveOn.org, etc. n nAnd we sit here thinking: well, it's isn't us doing it, so "What me, worry?" We've been down this road before, friends. It ends badly, every time, without exception. Jews are entitled to vote, like everyone else in the US. What we are wise to avoid doing is seeking to influence the culture and politics of America beyond our 2% slice of the pie! I can think of no other way quite as effective as this—if our goal is to arouse the anger of the other—98%! n nAt least we could limit our "outsized influence" to advocating on Israel's behalf, and leave the rest to—our neighbors. That would make sense. Just not to us.
If there is one thing more than any other that has become manifestly clear it is that truth increasingly does not matter in politics — so much so that there is ***not*** even the pretense any more of being committed to truth nowadays. The idea seems to be simple enough, namely that if one says something often enough or loud enough or uses the right media outlet to say it, then what one says is thereby true by definition. Evidence? Who needs that? Indeed, as things now stand evidence gets in the way of "truth" ! ! ! And the man who ran for president under the idea of Hope and Change is the very embodiment of this new conception of "truth". The indisputable evidence of this that folks roundly ignored was Obama's 20 year membership in the church of Pastor Wright. Only an evil person could be a member of that church for 20 years. That is a TRUTH that people tripped over themselves ignoring ! ! !
Remember the NDJC is the same bunch who claimed that Eric Cantor's statement that he had encountered no anti-semitism in the GOP was irrefutable proof that the GOP was filled with anti-semites.