MSNBC: Up with Chris Hayes Jan.28, 2012
I was blown away by Chris Hayes's mainstream coverage of Sheldon Adelson yesterday. Especially after the shocking Isikoff coverage. Hayes features Adelson in his show's 'Story of the Week', a whooping 13 minute segment titled 'Democracy for Billionaires'. Hayes covers so much terrain it could be groundbreaking for the weekend morning shows. He says if Gingrich won he could move into the White House with a personal "debt to a lone billionaire".
And that's not all, by a long shot. Hayes explained how the lionshare of Adelson's profits come from his casinos in Asia, several on the Chinese island of Macua.
Adelson was granted and extremely rare and lucrative gambling license by the Chinese state, which is more or less a license to print money..... Beijing's mayor ask Aldeson for help with a resolution pending in Congress that opposed China's Olympic bid on the grounds of its "abominable human rights record"....Adelson made an immediate phone call to then congressman Tom Delay. [Delay] Called him back 3 hours later to say the legislation was off the agenda. Adelson was able to tell the Beijing mayor "the bill will never see the light of day, don't worry about it"....Adelson got the license and edged out other casino offers.
Hayes later dives into Adelson's relationship with Israel. These are a few of the highlights:
Most troubling are Adelson's views on foreign policy. He's most focused on Israel where his wife was born and where he owns one of the country's three major papers. His views on the Middle East place him far outside a mainstream that is already quite far to the right. He does not believe in a two-state solution telling Jewish Week last year the two-state solution is a steppingstone for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.
He even attacked AIPAC from the right when it circulated a letter in Congress urging members to fund the Palestinian Authority.
New Yorker reports he referred to the wildly praised and respected and peaceful Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyed as 'a terrorist'.
One prominent Israeli journalist saying of Adelson "When it comes to his views on the Palestinian Israel conflict he is a right-wing extremist".
Perhaps most worryingly Adelson is also a strenuous advocate of war with Iran.
You'll notice of course Adelson view on foreign policies aren't very different than Newt Gingrich's. And indeed the Daily Beast . . . tracked Gingrich's rightward drift on Israel Palestine policy over the years as his relationship with Aldeson developed, culminating in Gingrich's offensive contention this year that Palestinians are an 'invented people'.
Here's Hayes's stunner:
Now, whether or not Gingrich comes by his dangerous and morally bankrupt policy views honestly or whether he views them as a strategic means of keeping Adelson's checks coming, the point here is less Gingrich and Adelson than the new frontier they are forging, together.
The complete and total breakdown of our campaign finance system, combined with the explosion of inequality means that the such pairing was inevitable and is likely to grow more common in the future.
Think about it for a second. If you were a multi billionaire.... how much would you spend to own the President of the United States?
At 6:20 in the video the second part of his show includes the panel.
Hayes:
Whatever Adelson's particular beliefs are ...the bigger issue is the new Post-Citizen's United Superpac Universe that we operate in...this is the frontier.. at a certain point you wonder when we're gonna see a $100 million spent, because it's worth quite a bit to have the President of the United States owe you a favor.
Richard Kim chimes in (9:26) and clinches some key points:
[Adelson] shoved the entire debate on Israel, which by the way, none of the Winning Our Future ads are about, you would think if you watched that, Adelson's key issue in his life is venture capitalism, but it's actually not..it's Israel.
And on that he has not only shoved Newt Gingrich to the right.. but Romney has now adopted a position that in some ways is to the right of Netanyahu. For example, at the debate in December, this is when Gingrich said Palestinians are invented people, Romney attacked him. In the last debate Gingrich doubled down on that, saying Palestinians are an invented people, Romney didn't say anything and in fact said that Obama threw Israel under a bus!
Then they discuss moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in terms such as "provocative" and "dangerous".
Truly stunning amazing coverage, go Chris!
(Hat tip Bill from Maryland in the comments)
Glad to have a little light on two issues, [1] USA’s weird subservience to AIPAC et al (against what many consider USA’s interests) with the explanation that “It’s the money, stupid” and [2] the more general and to the 99% the equally big or bigger issue of why USA’s democracy is strictly for sale (BIG corporations and billionaire rich guys with narrowly focused not-necessarily-good-for-the-USA fixations).
If these stories can get widely broadcast and amplified and detailed before August-September and Israel’s anticipated attack on Iran, then, it might be possible to defang the pro-war axis of evil before the USA is sucked into yet another war.
And that might paradoxically be good for American Zionists, at least the Jewish ones, because a costly war with Iran, especially if perceived to have been brought about by Jews, especially if it goes spectacularly wrong, could boomerang against all American Jews, whatever their positions on such a war.
i couldn’t believe they devoted 13 minutes to the program. and they didn’t just mention, it was a key issue.
i’m curious if you noticed the sound effects, the strength of the drum beat that develops and becomes a dominant theme throughout second part with the panel discussion, almost to it’s completion. It is unusually distracting, a loud fast drumming jazzy beat usually only used as the commercials are approaching and when the show starts up again after commercials. This noise plays all throughout the panel discussion until almost the end of the segment.
is that normal? i don’t usually watch these programs but it seemed very peculiar to me. maybe kathleen can tell us. or someone who knows about these shows. i don’t usually watch them.
Maybe some “youth” can answer whether the music/drumming is exciting or off-putting. I am 73 and cannot easily hear over any music. SO, were they hiding the discussion or (with those sooo young commentators) making it more immediate for “youth”?
It sounds like someone in the control room messed up. The bumper should have ended with the Rock Center piece at the start of the segment. Then someone caught it and stopped it. I seriously doubt it was intentional.
Annie that is interesting I did not even notice that. Interesting how you can get so wrapped up in the listening to what they are saying and not notice other things. Going to go back and listen again. I think if we all push Hayes he will go even further in his fair and measured way.
I agree with Annie. By the end of the video, I had come to notice this bothering jazzy/noisy sound in the background which makes me think it is really out of the ordinary. Difficult to know what the people with the gizmos can do when the show takes a direction that is unwanted.
or bigger issue of why USA’s democracy is strictly for sale
exactly. can you believe they said this on national television:
that is from the script.
Gingrich’s latest rave is how he would overthrow Venezuela. He doesn’t like Chavez. Maybe Adelson wants to build a casino there and Chavez won’t play ball.
Adelson is the one who needs to be taken down — law suits? treble damage lawsuits, like REICO act violations? Because if it’s not Gingrich, Adelson will find another pol to buy.
When an individual is an agent of influence for another country like Adelson they need to be required to register under the FARA. OK you can lobby but influence peddling for Israel in our elections has been going on way to long
Not to mention it might seriously harm the other 98% of Gentile Americans, beginning with gas pump price and not stopping for generations, which might even include a real civil war over whether females should be drafted for combat, same as males, in a WW3 following Israeli attack on Iran.
Let me make a few cynical observations:
Notice the ‘liberal’ democrat from New York. She was shifting very comfortably when the discussion about Israel came up, she knows who her donors are. As fast as she got the word, she tried to shift the debate towards generalist ‘campaign reform’ and blabbing on about judicial proceeds instead of the main issue being discussion; Sheldon Adelson and his ability to move the debate to the right on foreign policy and Israel in particular.
Second: considerif all these reports would come out at all if Gingrich would be clearly besting not only Romney but was deemed by, in Gingrichian terms, the ‘elite media’ to actually pose a serious, substiantial challenge to Obama rather than being a bit of an uppity clown.
The fact that Mr. Adelson himself is portrayed in this way is an improvement, but don’t forget the NYT piece a week ago or so – on front page nontheless – who didn’t even mention Israel to begin with. Only last day did a new piece on him emerge, which did include some bits about Israel but it was very defensive, his positions were described as ‘full-throated defence for Israel’, very mild in many ways for a man who officially wants Apartheid.
What I’d be more interested to know is, what about Romney’s donors? Weiss has stepped in these waters, noting that he flew to NYC to meet Wall St titans who are mostly, but not all, fervent Zionists. They might be less colorful than Adelson(who makes a very good bad guy, because he is so brash), but on substance, are they different?
Yet, Romney’s taken much more seriously and I doubt there will be a search on his donors and their motivations. And let’s not even talk about Obama. In some ways, I think Adelson’s outing, so to speak, was inevitable because the man is larger than life, first, and second he was essentially the only reason why Gingrich was even able to survive beyond New Hampshire in the first place. It was an open goal from the get go, yet it took weeks for the MSM to actually report the issues and often in a muddled way.
Once Gingrich is cleared out, don’t expect any major investigative reports on Paul Singer, one of Romney’s main donors who’s also a fierce Zionist, but a much more elegent, sophisticated man. Or why not the VP of Comcast, who recently hosted a blockbuster Obama fundraiser, what are his reasons, is he for a war with Iran which would be a disaster for the world economy and could send millions of Americans into renewed unemployment? If the President is relying on people who want a war, the American people should know.
Gingrich is a clown, who was under special circumstances where it was basically all down to Adelson keeping him alive on life support. But once Gingrich is gone, I don’t think we’ll see very hardhitting pieces anymore.
Romney’s taken much more seriously and I doubt there will be a search on his donors and their motivations.
krauss, i was reading an article the other day in tablet or somethign about how many of the regular jewish gop big top donors are holding back and ..waiting. something about how they can’t quite tell what romney is going to do. perhaps some of his supporters are wondering if it could be just like pouring money down the drain going up against adelson. perhaps i will look for the article.
Well, Annie, Romney was competing with Newt at the last FLA debate; Newt saying Pals are an invented people, Romney competing that Obama has thrown Israel under a bus. Neither candidate has the slightest interest in Dick and Jane. And they have no clue what all these TV campaign ads mean.
here’s the article
“A review of 175 major Jewish Republican donors shows that many who gave in the 2008 primary have yet to pony up for a GOP candidate. Why the wait?”
link to tabletmag.com
amazing, annie. what is particularly curious is the willingness to spend on apparent ‘non-starter’ candidates. did anyone really expect giuliani to be a viable candidate in 2008, for example? i sometimes think these campaign contributions are a way of paying someone back for past favors, like the nonsense book deals and speaking fees.
I believe Max Boot is one of his advisers
“Notice the ‘liberal’ democrat from New York. She was shifting very comfortably when the discussion about Israel came up, she knows who her donors are. As fast as she got the word, she tried to shift the debate towards generalist ‘campaign reform’ and blabbing on about judicial proceeds instead of the main issue being discussion; ”
Good catch, Krauss. She used to be my Congresswoman. I don’t like vulgarity, but the word whose syllables begin with “Z” and “w” would fit nicely.
Here’s the link to the New Yorker article Chris is referring to:
link to newyorker.com
The story told in the New Yorker addressed DeLay’s Christian Zionism:
Too much has been made with the money it’s the Christian Zionism that’s the central point of influence. Watch how Adelson deep-sixed Condi Rice’s attempt to push forward the peace process:
Now the anti-Iran angle where the Shah’s son is too much of a pacifist:
Too much is made on the “Jewish vote”. When Gingrich was talking to Florida Jews this week none brought up Israel. It’s the Christian Zionists who are obsessing on this. Unlike the Jews the Christians really believe the propaganda. Thus you get comments like Santorum’s that Palestinians on the West Bank are Israelis and Gingrich’s invented people! So you have a significant portion of the electorate who believe things that are simply not true. This in turn results in economic crashes, environmental devastation, and stupid wars.
I’ll close with a fundraising video for CUFI on campus. (Note at 38 seconds in is the infamous Emily Schrader of the crying Ron Paul video.) Last week they tried to push a student resolution at the University of Colorado which sought to veto Palestinian statehood and as part of the resolution itself have CUFI publicized the coup. Due to the diligent work of CU-Divest and Palestinian students on campus the resolution went down 35-1.
link to dailycamera.com
link to youtube.com
Thanks richb. And then there is the infamous Max Blumenthal video of the 2007 CUFI conference:
“Rapture Ready: The Christians United for Israel Tour”
link to youtube.com
I was thinking of that when I wrote my post. Note Max’s interview with Tom DeLay. Money gets you access but you need that something extra for influence. For DeLay it was the propaganda from visiting Israel. The key to influence is the COFI trips and the Birthright trips. Adelson is a great businessman and he manages his “investments” well. He only spent $10 million on Gingrich but $60 million on Birthright.
link to youtube.com
Zionism’s biggest opponent is the truth and that’s why they invest more in groups that create a reality distortion field than in individual candidates. They take advantage of the religious impulse of Christians and Jews and by casting the debate in Manichean terms they innoculate religious folk from the truth. That’s also why when following the money more emphasis should be on following the so-called educational foundations rather on purely political ones. Sourcewatch.org and talk2action.org are good places to start.
Re: “Too much is made on the “Jewish vote”. When Gingrich was talking to Florida Jews this week none brought up Israel.”
I just watched a CSPAN coverage of Newt talking to a retirement village in FLA. Newt told them, “Romney, the flaming liberal, has the money, so I need your votes.” It’s true, the old Jewish geezers didn’t bring up Israel, because Newt brought that subject up first, right off the bat, almost as soon as he got off the bus.
Romney is surging in recent polling. I will be digging through the cross tabs of the exit polls to see who voted and why.
Newt Ginrich speaking at CUFI:
link to youtube.com
richb says: It’s the Christian Zionists who are obsessing on this.
I need more evidence? Christians United for Israel (CUFI), a group that claims to have 500,000 members, but only 5,000 turn up to show their support? link to sacornerstone.org
As I’ve said before — they’re no AIPAC crowd! This apparently being the best photo they could muster of Christian Zionist support.
CUFI (under their sister organization) handing out a mere $8 million to Jewish causes — compared to Adelson $10 million? Something doesn’t smell right.
Where’s the Christian Zionist base — The hoards of Christians demanding that protecting Israel be their single issue?
richb is bang on the money (no pun intended).
Rich Jews may be able to buy congress and candidates, but it’s the 50-70 million voters who have sympathies for Israel based on their theology that’s going to make the difference.
Why do you think Obama is sucking up for the pro Israel vote?
what remains to be seen is whether, despite widespread publicity and increasing awareness that israel-firsters are anti-american, these 50-70 million evangelical voters remain steadfast in their support of the zionist entity? oh, but how will this public awareness materialize? via the social media, for starters, same way the occupy movement began.
Let’s not forget that those Christian fundies backing Israel due to their devotion to bible text saying the chosen jewish people must be followed because God said so, are the same folks who Obama sneered at as people devoted to “guns and bible.” Because they won’t forget it. They actually see themselves as white victims here in America, and they see Israeli Jews as victims of the resisting natives “over there” in the holy land.
yourstruly says: “…what remains to be seen is whether, despite widespread publicity and increasing awareness that israel-firsters are anti-american, these 50-70 million evangelical voters remain steadfast in their support of the zionist entity? …”
That’s the question are they steadfast in their support of Israel? A recent Pew Report on Evangelical leaders. How many Israeli flags are being flown in their churches?
Remembering that these guys control what’s being said from the pulpit.
What’s being said in the pulpit is not the issue. It can largely be silent. Why? Because it’s not necessary. There isn’t ANY knowledge of the other side. None. They don’t know another evangelical viewpoint even exists and they get mad at me for disabusing their ignorance. . In early 21st Century I gave my non-evangelical friends comfort that a significant minority of evangelicals believed in good stewardship of the planet. I said that as late as 2008 where all the Republican candidates for President save Fred Thompson had similar views. I was able to give talks at my church on that, again until about 2008.
So, If I sensed that I had anybody with me on the issue of Israel/Palestine I would say it here. But, it’s not the case and my religion compels me to tell the truth even when it is painful. If things change and either evangelicals change their mind (It’s happened in the past — evangelicals were progressives in the early 20th Century — so it’s not impossible) or if the political strength of evangelicals is being overestimated I will certainly let people know. But, as of now I cannot do that.
where does the 50-70 million voters figures come from. how many evangelicals are there? does anyone know? i don’t think all the voters who have sympathies for israel have them for ideological reasons.
There are numerous churches and non major religious groups that come under the heading of Evangelical –but not all of them Christian Zionist.
Some where on here I posted the Census report of religious affiliations.
Then I took out all the majority ( Esp, Bapt.Pres,Med.Catholic are the majority US affiliations) and looked up the lesser ones one by one to find which were Christian Zionist sects……And Now I can’t remember the figures!! LOL
Anyway it’s not near what is claimed.
It’s on mondo somewhere with the Census link to the data if anyone wants to go thru my post to find it.
American, but I know Christian fundies who never heard the term “Christian Zionist” yet will support whatever Israel, the state, does, because they believe God told them to do so. They’ve never read one book or leaflet on Zionism.
Speaking as a non-Zionist evangelical, I can safely say I am in an extreme minority. If you are not Dispensational like I am then there’s a chance you are not a Zionist. What takes away from that, however, is for that group many are Republicans. Recent trends that I’ve seen is political worldviews of evangelical are more dominant than theological ones. For example, the Bible is clear that we should be good stewards of the planet. Republican orthodoxy on Global Warming trumps that amongst evangelicals.
Almost no progressive evangelicals are Zionists. No PEPs here. The problem is progressive evangelicals are a smaller minority than non-Dispensational ones. For a quick estimate of evangelical support of Zionism you can pretty much count all of them. I haven’t seen recent figures but the numbers cited above seem too big. The heyday of rapid evangelical growth is over, ending in the late 20th Century.
I haven’t seen recent figures but the numbers cited above seem too big.
It seems getting an accurate figure is very difficult. There are so many additions and subtractions that may be involved one can only make an educated guess.
American, how about you do the homework and bring us what you found earlier? What both Citizen and richb say are relevant parts of the puzzle.
Here is one interesting assessment:
link to isae.wheaton.edu
The number of evangelicals is not as significant as is the number that does not vote. Note this from a 2003 report:
link to publiceye.org
John h
O.K. I will find the data later and re post it.
Hi Annie,
Estimates as to the size of the movement as a whole vary considerably.
Whilst figures are hard to confirm, here’s some info for you. I guess it at around 50 million. Not necessarily saying that you have that many hard line ‘church every Sunday’ believers. Many are lapsed or ‘receive’ their faith from parents but don’t practice it. Their vote will always be pro Israel as they believe Israel’s existence is a miracle and necessary for their ‘end times’ understanding of Christ’s return and as a result, they won’t abstain.
link to informationclearinghouse.info
‘While critics like Crowley claim, ‘At least one out of every 10 Americans is a devotee’, that is between ‘25 to 30 million’, Christian Zionists such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell claim weekly access to 100 million sympathetic Americans.[4] What ever the true figure, all are agreed, that number that is growing in size and influence.[5] They are led by 80,000 fundamentalist pastors and clergy, their views disseminated by 1,000 local Christian radio stations as well as 100 Christian TV stations.[6] Doug Kreiger lists over 250 pro-Israeli organisations founded in the 1980s alone.[7]‘
Scary stuff eh? A few rich Jews can only do so much. It’s these people and where they’ll put their votes that scares the bejeepers out of me.
FreddyV says: “…It’s these people [Evangelicals] and where they’ll put their votes that scares the bejeepers out of me….”
No brainer. They are going to vote Republican regardless who the candidate is going to be. Even if it was Newt vs. Obama. — I still see them voting Republican.
link to pewforum.org
It’s the apathetic American voter that scares me. Those Americans that (rightly) see the entrenched corruption in their politics, and won’t bother turning out to vote because they believe their vote won’t count.
BTW: Perry was supposed to be the Christian Zionist pick — and look what happened to him!
– How Rick Perry courts the Zionist vote
Appearing with Jewish extremists is designed to win over apocalyptic Christians
link to salon.com
“Many are lapsed or ‘receive’ their faith from parents but don’t practice it. ”
You can say “don’t practice it” again and again and again. People who hide brutal, racist, sexist, stances behind alleged religious beliefs drive me insane. There are millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhist etc who are guilty of this. Millions
OK, here’s a scary little thought for you:
link to infoplease.com
Voter turnout in US Presidential elections seems to be around 50-55% on average.
Last election had a turnout of 132 million, and that was a biggy.
Throw even the most conservative estimate of Christian fundies who will always vote and always vote for the biggest Israel guy and you’ve got a major lead. Christian Zionists are the biggest Israel Firsters you’ll ever meet.
Another doctrine of Christianity that is gaining momentum (richb touched on this) is Dominionism. Their view is that the world is so rotten that Jesus won’t come back until all the good Christians take control of education, Government etc. At the moment, there’s a lot of Christian Zionists who are dabbling in this and can’t work out that it’s at odds with their core faith. Bachmann was one of them, but that kind of makes matters worse as we’ll have them voting for the ‘Israel guy’ too.
Here’s talk2action on Christian Right supporters of Gingrich. As an evangelical it makes me sick how easily they can dismiss and indeed give blessing to Gingrich’s vile behaviors because it advances their political agenda. Note prominent Christian Zionists on the Faith Leader’s Coalition list, particularly Tim and Beverly LaHaye:
link to talk2action.org
Christian fundies who will always vote and always vote for the biggest Israel guy
Right Freddy, but who knows how many are in that Israel-first category? From what I quoted above, 50% of evangelicals don’t vote, which means they cannot be avid Israel-firsters.
I’ve got to say, those figures you quoted have surprised me. The impression I’ve been given is that if a candidate can push from the pulpit, he’ll get a strong vote. I was told that Bush’s second term was won this way.
Given your figures, I’m wrong. And in this case I’m actually extremely happy to be.
richb:
Another surprise. Tim Lahaye of the Left Behind novels, close friend and associate of Hal Lindsey, Tommy Ice and other noted Christian Zionists falling in with the New Apostolic Reformation (Dominionalism). Lindsey and Ice have both criticised this theology. Why would Lahaye part ways with these stalwarts who he’s been in bed with all these years?
Maybe he’s realising Christian Zionism and it’s Dispensationalist theology is dead in the water as a doctrine and is looking for somewhere else to hawk his false teachings and maintain his book sales?
Just remember though, those were 2003 figures, so this year a higher % could vote, we really don’t know for sure.
There are so many reasons why people vote or don’t vote, or for who people vote for at any particular election. Our priorities can change over time.
They won by turning Kerry’s service against him. In southeastern Ohio they definitely spent a great deal of time pounding on the gay, guns, god, prejudices
In 2005 the Pew Research Center released survey results on evangelicals’ attitudes toward I/P: link to pewforum.org
Note the split between traditionalist and modernist evangelicals in the Pew poll but little difference between modernist evangelicals, mainline Protestants and Catholics.
The best predictor of whether an evangelical is Zionist or not is age. Politically, young evangelicals are nearly identical to their secular peers. When interpreting these polls you have to take into account another demographic trend noted in American Grace and You Lost Me, the massive exodus of 18 to 29 year-olds from the church. In American Grace, the number one reason cited for leaving the church was right-wing politics. What this means is any trend towards Zionism within the evangelical cohort may simply be the case that non-Zionists are leaving the cohort.
What this means for Democrats is they should not be chasing the evangelical vote but the young evangelical vote. That should be done by concentrating on increasing youth turnout. That means they should be dealing with a demonstrably more Palestinian-friendly policy. Note the difference between 2008 and 2010 where there was a big difference in youth turnout. You aren’t going to change the minds of the older evangelicals and they WILL turnout. You need to get the younger evangelicals into the polling booth.
Some more on young evangelicals, particularly evangelical college students. Note this complaint about them and note what’s happening on evangelical college campuses such as Wheaton and Moody.
link to bibleprophecyblog.com
I’ve read Paul Wilkinson’s tract and know people who know him. He’s a hardline Dispensationalist, which one would think is impossible nowadays. He produced a pamphlet which misquotes and slurs every Christian and non Christian anti Zionist, even Finklestein.
I’d love to see him in a room debating with any of them. He’d last less than 5 minutes.
Thanks for that, richb, a window on the CZ mindset.
evangelical Christianity has been infiltrated by theological leftists.
That’s an essential counter to the earlier infiltration by theological “rightists” with their supposed “bible prophecy”.
Leftists will always present themselves as reasonable, compassionate, “careful thinkers.”
It is not about leftists and rightists. It is about truth and justice and following the real Jesus.
Christian Zionism is a theology that legitimates oppression? That is a lie.
Rather, that is the plain truth, which only the blind cannot see, and the closed-minded cannot grasp.
the proponents of “Christian Palestinianism” will be a continual problem. with their loathing of Christian Zionists. he lambasts Bible-believing Christians.
Names mean nothing. What matters is spiritual reality as portrayed in the New Testament.
this means a Christian who supports the Palestinian Arabs, and dismisses Jewish claims to the land. Obviously, these “Millennial Generation” Christians (18-34) do not embrace Bible prophecy. Their worldview is different.
We uninfiltrated evangelicals embrace the New Testament and its fulfilment of Bible prophecy in the person of Jesus. It is a worldview that puts the new wine just where it belongs, in the new wineskin, in which the land, the temple, the chosen, and so much else, is spiritual reality, not physical shadow.
one isn’t clear if these men acknowledge that Jesus is a Jew.
Of course they do. Jesus is both Jew and Palestinian, and yet is neither. He was a Jewish Palestinian, something Mark Braverman, an American Christian, calls himself, link to markbraverman.org
These infiltraters are just like the Pharisees, their so-called Christian Zionism straining out a gnat to swallow a camel. For them it’s all about the letter that kills, rather than the spirit that gives life. They want to Judaize the gospel.
You thought that was stunning? Have you seen the piece on Adelson in the NYT today? I couldn’t believe it.
link to nytimes.com
From the link
“In December at an event in Israel for a charity he supports, Mr. Adelson made a point of endorsing Mr. Gingrich’s assertion that the Palestinians have no historic claim to a homeland.
Read the history of those who call themselves Palestinians and you will hear why Gingrich said recently that the Palestinians are an invented people,” Mr. Adelson said at the event for Birthright Israel, which takes young Jews on trips there.”
Imagine any journalist in the US stenographing the views of David Irving who says that there was never a Holocaust and then leaving it without any comment.
See Chris Hayes’ Postcard from Palestine in The Nation (Nov 2010).
Looks like the Adelson-Gingrich alliance has given him a gigantic opening to take this to a wider audience. Now if MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow will just interview him on the subject! :)
Rachel Maddow is a perfect example of all those who won’t vote for Ron Paul because they don’t prioritize by looking at which American government policies have the most negative on the most humans in the world.
Yep Hayes has been stepping out for awhile. Chris Matthews a bit, Rachel Maddow, Ed, Lawrence, Al Sharpton…not. I think Dylan Ratigan went further than anyone on MSNBC when he had Glenn Greenwald on and they wiped up Cliff May’s false claims with facts. Dylan has not touched the issue that I am aware of since then.
Rachel did have Carter on who of course said things based on facts that Rachel seems unwilling to say herself. Keep pushing. Go on over to Chris Hayes facebook etc ask him to keep covering these issues
Sheldon Adelson (Dr. Frank-N-Furter): the inventor who invented the New(t) Gingrich tells his invention to call real people invented.
With his money he can reinvent the weakling weighing ninety-eight pounds.
“In just seven days I can make you a man.
I don’t want no dissension, just dynamic tension.
(Miriam) I’m a muscle fan.”
link to youtube.com
“A weakling weighing ninety-eight pounds
Will get sand in his face when kicked to the ground.
And soon in the gym with a determined chin,
The sweat from his pores as he works for his cause…
Will make him glisten… and gleam
And with massage, and just a little bit of steam
He’ll be pink and quite clean
He’ll be a strong man. Oh honey…
But the wrong man.” !!!!!!!!!!
link to youtube.com
This election is like the Rocky Horror Show, with a mad inventor creating the perfect drone/”politician”/Frankenstein’s monster.
In a sane world Rocky Anderson would win.
Meanwhile, Cain, the cheap n crappy pizza seller, and lobbyist for smokes and alcohol in American restaurants, the guy who does not know his way around a map of the globe & dropped out of POTUS contention due to more light on his cocky black adventures with very needy white women, just endorsed fat Newt, the picture of Dorian Gray in the closet, because, he says, Newt champions big ideas. Who’s for selling pizza on the moon? And giving Israel the whole slice of the pie in the ME.
I thought Kim’s points were the best. He took it to the Israel issue. Later on in the program they bring up that Maloney had voted for some legislation from some years back to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Adelson would probably pay for the whole move.
Chris Matthews stepped out several times on the Israel/Adelson who will own the election issue.
Today (Sunday) Chris Hayes said that they had invited Adelson on. Clearly did not accept the invite.
What I want to hear someone ask is how much money does Adelson donate to Israel. How much of that ends up helping build illegal settlements in the West Bank and illegal housing in E Jerusalem. And how these donations are often tax exempt. How these donations to illegal settlements undermines US National security, international law and UN resolutions. If an individual donates to a situation that is in violation of international law how does that stack up?
Now this is an interesting bit. On Chris Hayes Up program on Saturday they also discussed the situation in Afghanistan with Micheal Hastings (the Rolling Stone article on McCrystal (sp) and who is out with a new book about Afghanistan. During the discussion Hastings said that the Bush administration had soon after 9/11 demanded that Afghanistan officials hand over OBL and that the government had refused. I posted a bit about my hundreds of hours of discussions with a young man who was a Fulbright scholar (speaks 5 languages) from Afghanistan who had been studying at Ohio University. I have permission from him to share what we discussed over a two year period and also say his name (but I don’t say his name even though he has told me it is ok over and over again) Anyway during our talks he stated that the government of Afghanistan had demanded that the Bush administration suppy hard evidence that OBL’s so called fingerprints were on the 9/11 attacks. According to him and his father (who I was able to ask questions of via his email conversations with his father back in Afghanistan) and allegedly the equivalent of an upperl level officer in the army of Afghanistan who had fought with the Mujahadeen against the Russians. They both said that the Bush administration could not provide verifiable evidence at that time that OBL had taken part in the planning or implementaion of the attacks. I also posted at Chris Hayes page information about the Convoy of Death…the Afghan Massacre that Amy Goodman had covered after that documentary came out I believe it was in late 2001 or early 2002 (saw it on Democracy Now). The documentary (a must watch ) has to do with the mass killing of several thousand Taliban who had surrendered to occupying forces and an Afghanistan I believe war lord (cannot remember his name)soon after the US invaded Afghanistan. These surrendered Taliban had suffocated in the back of the convoy as they were being transported. The US media other than Amy had not touched this story. From what my friend from Afghanistan had said this mass killing had really pissed off not only the Taliban but many peopld in Afghanistan. No surprise there.
But here is the kicker after I posted it at Chris Hayes Up (and all my other post made it up) it came down after five or so minutes. And did not make it up on my facebook page which automatically happens anywhere else you post a comment. Anyway very odd. It was on topic..Afghanistan. I can not imagine that there was some information that was off limits or what? Going to put up again. But I thought this was odd.
Went up today
This (from 2004 BBC) supports your POV, Kathleen: link to video.google.com
“I believe war lord (cannot remember his name)”= Rashid Dostum, irony in arabic and dari(?) or some other sort of persian. sort of may mean upright or guided friend, Dostum is cool if you like blood soaked sadistic mass murderers, always good to have guys like Rashid along when you are humanitarianly intervening among the savage tribes, in particular the women of afghanistan must be thrilled by his new found american sponsored authority, to be fair the convoy of death is hardly his most exciting exploit, he has done really deeply disturbing stuff, him and that hekmatyar guy who is my particular bogeyman, the US gave hekman 600million i am told back when the ussr was in afghanistan (at the invitation of the then secular socialist government, but that was before the end of history).
General [sic] Dostum
Documentary ‘Massacre of Talibans – The Convoy of Death, a documentary (2002)’ @ link to youtube.com
thanks
I absolutely remember this from the time (October 2001), Kathleen, but then I was travelling abroad and heard it there. It was standard MSM reporting.
And I absolutely remember the Convoy of Death.
Adam Curtis has more in Pt 3 of The Power of Nightmares. . . a must-watch as well.
Another story on Adelson. You may have already linked to it — but just in case.
Chris Hayes: “What are the terms of this relationship?”
Well, they are probably the same as the terms of the relationship between Obama and his multimillionaire donors, the same as the relationship between Bush and his multimillionaire donors and the same as the relationship between Clinton and his multimillionaire donors.
Hayes’ fear here seems to be misguided in the sense that he views Adelson’s involvement as something new. The only new aspect here is that the donations came largely from a single donor.
Let’s not pretend that previous White House administrations didn’t have privileged relationships with 7 or 10 millionaires/billionaires at the same time, or that said administrations were not guided in their policy decisions by donor interests.
Avi_G says: Well, they are probably the same as the terms of the relationship between Obama and his multimillionaire donors,…”
Exactly, I agree.
The focus seems to be on Adelson’s outrageous gamble of spending $10 million on a guy that most people see as nothing more than a used car dealer. However, if people actually bothered to check Obama’s collectively billionaire/millionaire donors [e.g. via OpenSecrets] noting their front and center pro-Israel Zionist agenda — I believe they could ‘collectively’ out fund Adelson by a wide margin. Collectively, when looking at the Israel issue — the Zionist $$$ is still flowing into the Democratic camp — the something we shouldn’t ignore.
Blast from the past (back in 2001/02), before the rules changed:
Something of note — In 2012, the Zionist camp on both sides of the aisle are definitely upping the ante.
@Avi G. & Sand,
A simple look at [US] foreign politics provides all the answers.
Yeah,Walter Annenberg(sic) comes to mind as Reagan’s enabler,and he was the son of Moe Annenberg,of Meyer Lansky(sic, oy all these spelling errors) infamy.
IMHO another interesting story:
OK folks, just imagine how much money is going into our elections!
The Falic family is in Debbie Wasserman-Schultz district — note, our special DNC ‘fundraising’ lady. They donate to both sides of the aisle, but appear to mostly favor republicans (from the $$$ we know about). However, the Falic family will also give generously to Jewish Democrats that have a strong Israel obsession e.g. Shelley Berkley (could quite possibly be our next Joe Lieberman if she gets into the Senate). Also, Simon Falic is part of the political strategy to get US Latinos on board to shill for Israel via the Bridges & Pathways Organization link to bridgesandpathways.org. This should be interesting.
Doh! – noting from the ‘Jewish’ perspective they have a lot of work to do!
breakdown of the poll numbers -
46% of latinos believe u.s too supportive of israel
18.4% of latinos believe u.s not supportive enough
56% of jews believe u.s. not supportive enough
14% of jews believe u.s too supportive
any reason not to believe that exposing israel-firsters for the anti-americans that they are won’t increase the percentages in the too supportive camp?
isn’t this chris haye’s story of the week exposing israel-firster sheldon adelson a breakthrough. break, as in its widespread circulation online could be the start of a campaign to undo the u.s-israel special relationship? if so, internet savvy/social media experts, please do your thing.
I think Dylan Ratigan was one of the very first to say more about this special destructive US /Israel relationship. He went further along with Glenn Greenwald (who did not have as much to risk as Dylan on MSNBC) But Dylan has never gone there again as far as I know. Chris Matthews has been dipping his toes in. Ed, Al Sharpton, Lawrence, Rachel do not go near the issue. Although Rachel did have Former President Jimmy Carter on awhile back and of course he goes where few go…all based on facts
But do celebrate Chris getting close. Hope he goes even further with his coverage on this special relationship. What kind of coverage would a panel on his show with Noura Erakat, Barghouti, Lieberman, Colonel Ann Wright, and Barbara Boxer be like.
I think nothing will come of it. No story, no matter how compromising it may be to the Zio-machine will make much of a difference imo. Aside from their ability to twist, spin, obscure whatever damaging info comes to the fore, I think their main power is the ability is simply to turn attention away from it before it gets too big. Sooner or later the questions, the focus will just stop or be reduced to insignificance. As they’ve done with the USS Liberty, the Adelson thing is nothing to them.
Amar all we can do is keep pushing pushing hard
And, something to make your eyes pop:
Accompanying article:
With regards to Daniel Levy’s comment – I’m leaning towards hogwash, unless he can prove it? Obama’s foreign policy is AIPAC all the way. How Levy can even mention J-Street with a straight face I don’t know — unless he thinks we’re stupid?
And this:
Thanks Annie- I think Chris Hayes deserves much credit for highlighting this issue on cable TV. Just like Chris Matthews, Hayes must be aware of the connections between NBC/ MSNBC and the Israel Lobby yet, even so, Hayes went ahead. Also it is probably not a coincidence that Hayes mentions early in the segment that Sheldon Adelson has a habit of “suing journalists”, so I forgive him for being a little cautious in his approach.
I agree with Krauss (above) regarding the evident discomfort of the “liberal” US Congresswoman from New York and how she tried to shift the focus of the discussion. Yes, she knows what side her bread is buttered on!
i will have to watch it again and check her out.
She looked down most of the time. I remember later that the fact that she had voted in the past to move the US embassy form Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Maloney moved the discussion to the Citizens United Supreme court decision.
Mort Klein, at ZOA meeting, playing Newt Gingrich on fire: link to youtube.com
Man, what an ugly speech. The gall to call the Palestenians racist when that is the very thing that makes him ticks.
Adelson under criminal investigation for alleged bribery of foreign officials
link to haaretz.com
Thanks. this is what needs to be looked at. Agent of a foreign nation. Register under FARA
Gingrich says the Palestinians have no link to Erez Israel.
So no rights there.
What does he propose to do with them ?
One interesting difference between the Nazis and the Israelis is that the Nazis couldn’t convince the international community to feed all the Untermenschen in the Lebensraum they liberated.
That’s the kind of journalism we need, and the kind of journalism Annie wrote about some days ago. I applaud Hayes and MSNBC.
Now could the MSM please drop the notion that Newt Gingrich is a viable candidate? They should cover the rest of the nomination process as a contest between two more or less conservative candidates, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, and two lunatic slimebags, Gingrich and Santorum.
All Chris Hayes did was broadcast a New Yorker story. His ass was covered as a result.
Don’t forget that Adelson has said he’ll support the Republican candidate, whoever he is. He might give just as much money, or more, to Romney, so he can own a President.
FOLKS- This is a clear example of a dynamic that I have been stressing from the start, the relationship between Zionist organization and Jewish Zionist success in wealth and power accumulation. Adelson calls Tom Delay and gets a bill scuttled to the relief of the Chinese government. Why would Tom Delay do that? Adelson wasn’t nearly as wealthy in 2004 as he is now, and spending limits were still in effect. Was Delay responding to the entreaties of one man, or was he responding to a request from a representative of organized Zionism, what James Petras refers to as the Zionist Power Configuration? We can’t be sure, but some folks tend to believe that the lobby has a tad more influence than one rich Jew.
He obtains his unusual gambling license from China in May of 2004. In December of 2004, his company has an IPO at which Wikipedia informs us that he vastly increased his wealth. You make the connection. His major “philanthropy” starts in 2005 focusing on Jewish causes. Now one can draw various conclusions from all of this. Some will see meritocracy in action, or the value this City College of New York dropout places on education. Others, like me, will see a possible connection between Zionist organizational solidarity and influence and the worldly success of Jewish Zionist fat cats who go on to fund various Zionist causes, direct their wealth consistent with Zionist organizational objectives, and work diligently to shift Israel ever rightward and to protect Israel and Zionism. Of course, one can disagree. However, is this not a relevant subject for inquiry and discussion? Or is it prima facie evidence of anti-Semitism for a Gentile to have the temerity to even broach the subject?
Folks, it is my sincere belief that a primary determinant of much activity is the struggle for power among the elites. In the real world, power is fought for by ruthless men who are usually corrupt and rely at least as much on influence and intimidation as on any positive qualities. Machiavelli recognized the ubiquitous use of fraud by those who accumulate power. In attempting to understand political economy, it is essential to be aware of this struggle for power. Who has power, how they got it, what they are doing to keep and increase it. Power matters. Linkages need to be exposed, particularly now that we have entered a period of rampant corruption.
“several on the Chinese island of Macua.”
The Special Adminstrative Region of Macau proper is named after Macau proper, which is not an island but a peninsula.
The islands of Taipa and Coloane (part of the SAR of Macau) are connected to Macau by bridges, and have been connected to each other by a strip of reclaimed land.
Interesting tidbits from Wikipedia article on Chris Hayes: “Hayes is married to Kate A. Shaw, Associate Counsel for President Barack Obama … Hayes’s brother Luke is a Democratic political operative.”
I understand Citizens United changed the rules of campaign finance by allowing superPACs to spend as much as they want on the candidate that they want.
What I don’t understand is that the US political system has been corrupted to the core by money well before Citizens United. Yet, there were limits ($2000/person for presidential election?). So I know there were “bundlers” and all but I don’t understand how the political system could have been so corrupt with these limits. Also the amounts involved seemed rather small. One could think “if it costs so little, why aren’t there more bidders for the US political system?”. (The explanation is probably that those who own it will price out any new bidders and that “would-be” new bidders know it.)
So I don’t see how the US political system could become more corrupt than it was during the Iraq war or the financial crisis. Yet Citizens United is removing a real limitation. What am I missing?
I guess the elephant is so damn big now, it just can’t be ignored without looking like an idiot.
Anyone may be excused for not recognizing an elephant when it’s so big it’s pressing up against their noses :)
Lots of idiots out there
“… can you believe they said this on national television:
“Think about it for a second. If you were a multi billionaire…. how much would you spend to own the President of the United States?”
Another of the reasons why I am stirred by the Ron Paul campaign is that he seems to actually practice — not advocate but actually practice — campaign finance reform. His campaign relies on small donations from individual voters, not on corporations and certainly not on foreign powers.
I don’t think we’ll get democracy back on track in this country until we legislate and follow through on campaign finance reform. The case of Israel, a foreign country having so much influence on the US political system is the extreme edge of the wedge, the ultimate example of how campaign money is corrupting our politicians.
Here’s some of what is needed, brenda, link to mondoweiss.net
Just in passing, nice to have you on board, appreciate your posts.
thanks John
I thought I recognized that quote you linked me to! I read Seymour Hersh, The Sampson Option a few months ago. I only got it to check out a couple of details about JFK going up against Ben Gurion — not being interested, I thought, in the Israeli nukes. Not understanding the significance of the Israeli nukes.
Hersh is a great writer, very engaging and makes complicated things, like how to build an atomic bomb, very accessible to the lay reader. I ended up reading the entire book and I’m glad I did. Now I know how Israel uses her nukes. They have come in handy a number of times already.
Israel uses nukes to blackmail the US into doing what Israel wants, against the better judgement of the US government. Great, great story about Kissinger and the beginning of the Yom Kippur War in 1974. I came away with an appreciation for Kissinger — which at one time I would have considered to be about as likely as sending early money to a Republican candidate. Which goes to show, ya’ just never know, keeps up your interest in life…
But yes, Kennedy apparently did send a number of bills to Congress for campaign finance reform, which didn’t go anywhere of course. This increased my appreciation of Kennedy — at least he had the wit to know he was being blackmailed and tried to do something about it, for the sake of the country. Also, Hersh told well documented stories, as they all were, book was great for documentation, about LBJ and suitcases of cash delivered by Feinberg. LBJ’s presidency was so awash with unaccountable cash it sounded like something out of The Godfather.
Sheldon, Newt and Bibi: Egomaniacs for a strong Israel
link to 972mag.com