‘Does he believe in a God’? — DNC leaders wanted to undermine Sanders

US Politics
on 99 Comments

This is nuts. Wikileaks has published a hack of 20,000 emails from Democratic National Committee staffers that show the party leadership worked against the anti-establishment candidate, Bernie Sanders, including the notion by a DNC executive to challenge Sanders’s religious belief on the grounds he’s an “atheist.”

Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage.

Just as bad, party chair says Debbie Wasserman Schultz says of Sanders’s effort to water down the party platform’s commitment to Israel to maybe include reference to the “occupation,” now in its 50th year:

“The Israel stuff is disturbing.”

While the party communications director observes that the Hillary Clinton campaign regards the Israel issue as an “ideal” one to “marginalize” Sanders.

Donald Trump has seized on the emails to try and recruit Sanders voters, calling the emails vicious evidence that the system is rigged, and noting the attack on Sanders’s faith.

CNN reports that the emails, obtained from the accounts of seven Democratic National Committee staffers, threaten to upend the modus-vivendi between Clinton and Sanders forces ahead of the coming Democratic convention.

The revelation threatened to shatter the uneasy peace between the Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders camps and supporters days before the Democratic convention kicks off next week.

Here’s the atheism email, on May 5, from “Marshall” at the DNC– identified as Brad Marshall, the chief financial officer of the organization, and titled, “No shit.”

It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.

Amy Dacey, chief executive officer of the DNC, chimed in, “Amen.

The Israel lobby stuff came up later in May in the context of a Washington Post story about the Sanders push to change the Democratic party platform. Wasserman Schultz commented to staff on the story: “The Israel stuff is disturbing.”

While communications director Luis Miranda told Wasserman Schultz that the Hillary Clinton campaign was pushing the Israel difference to the Washington Post reporter in order to marginalize Sanders:

“HFA [Hillary for America] specifically pushed that part of it…. The Israel plank, that they see it as an ideal issue to marginalize Bernie on.”

Here is the “Israel stuff” in that Post article that Wasserman Schultz found “disturbing.”

But the issue of U.S. policy toward Israel — which a Sanders adviser said “absolutely, legitimately will be a point of conversation” — has made some of Clinton’s backers nervous. Sanders is seeking a more “even-handed” U.S. approach to Israeli occupation of land Palestinians claim for a future state.

The current platform does not address the nearly five-decade occupation directly, but it endorses “a just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian accord, producing two states for two peoples.” Speaking last month during a contentious debate with Clinton, Sanders — who declared himself “100 percent pro-Israel” — said that Israel’s 2014 military assault on the Gaza Strip was “disproportionate” to the threat posed by Hamas rockets launched from the Palestinian territory into Israel.

Behind his words is a long debate among U.S. and international policymakers — one that divides the Democratic base and could pose a challenge for Clinton when she must bring her party together: how to weigh Palestinian interests when dealing with Israel, and whether resolute U.S. backing for Israel diminishes leverage to promote peace and fair treatment of Palestinians.

“On one hand there is not an enormous amount of difference between them. They are both pro-Israel, they are both pro-peace,” said one longtime Clinton supporter. “But in the context of the campaign terms like ‘even-handed’ can come to mean that the United States is signaling a shift” — and Clinton would oppose that.

Sanders has since folded on the Israel/Palestine issue in the platform, although the platform will come up for a vote on the convention floor this coming week; and then who knows what Sanders delegates will do…

Meantime, these emails are clear evidence of the role of the Israel lobby inside the Democratic Party. The base doesn’t love Israel; increasingly, poll numbers show that young Democrats, and women and Latinos and blacks, are turning against Israel. But the party relies on big pro-Israel money to a “shocking” “gigantic” degree and also relies on mainstream media that is dedicated to Israel. That’s why Clinton forces felt that they could “marginalize” Sanders by pushing this issue. And you wonder why Hillary Clinton pandered in her speech to the Israel lobby AIPAC, has promised megadonor Haim Saban that she will fight the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) along with Republicans, and has shown she will run to Trump’s right on this question (just as her husband ran to George H.W. Bush’s right in 1992 on settlements, and won). No, Bernie Sanders didn’t take her on on these issues, really. But his followers might.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

99 Responses

  1. Talkback
    July 23, 2016, 1:17 pm

    “The Israel stuff is disturbing.”

    The support of this stuff is even more disturbing.

  2. Boomer
    July 23, 2016, 3:21 pm

    As an American, I find it “disturbing” that U.S. policy on this matter is not “even-handed.” Indeed, after so many years of enabling the dispossession and oppression of Palestinians, I think even-handedness would imply an equal number of years of favoring the Palestinians: let us send aid to them, not to Israel. I find it disturbing that American foreign policy on this issue is immoral, unjust, and contrary to our national interest. I find it disturbing that our policy on this issue is dictated by a small group with a passionate attachment to a foreign country.

    • Blownaway
      July 23, 2016, 4:05 pm

      Ridiculous to worry about evenhandedness that hasn’t been the case for 59 years. Who cares what the platform says at least it’s now honest on both sides. The US is not and never has been even handed. That’s the most important point to come of this the farce is at least over

      • Boomer
        July 24, 2016, 7:03 am

        @ Blownaway: “Ridiculous to worry about evenhandedness that hasn’t been the case for 59 years.”

        You refer, I assume, to the time when President Eisenhower forced Israel to withdraw from the Sinai, despite pressure from Congress and the pro-Israel lobby. That took courage on his part. I like to think that Kennedy might have followed a similar policy, but we can only speculate about that: we know what happened to him.

        PS: I don’t think it is ridiculous to feel as I do. It may be ridiculous to express such opinions in most places, especially in letters to elected officials. Still, I have sometimes done so, despite knowing that I’ll be ignored.

    • lonely rico
      July 23, 2016, 8:41 pm

      > Boomer

      I find it disturbing that American foreign policy on this issue is immoral, unjust, and contrary to our national interest. I find it disturbing that our policy on this issue is dictated by a small group with a passionate attachment to a foreign country

      A foreign country passionately attached to –

      theft, destruction, cruelty, murder.

      Maiming and murdering

      TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PALESTINIAN CHILDREN

      • Blownaway
        July 24, 2016, 9:02 am

        @boomer ok I defer to you on Eisenhower it’s just that I wasn’t born till ’57 in my almost 60 years 50+ in diaspora I have not seen evenhandedness so I ask your forgiveness. For many years decades in fact my mom would instill in me the hope that only America can force Israel into a solution. She took that to the grave with her

      • Boomer
        July 24, 2016, 2:40 pm

        Blownaway, no apology or deference is needed: we are on the same side, and your feelings are justified. I’m old enough to remember Eisenhower and what he did as President (though my understanding of the world was limited back then.)

        As you say, it is a sad fact that we haven’t seen much in the way of even-handedness — or even attempts at it — since then. There have been a few modest gestures. George Bush the Elder was probably the last President who tried to do more than utter platitudes.

        Your mother instilled worthy ideals. For those of us who outlive her, the loss of cherished notions about our nation is painful. In part, it may be the loss of youthful innocence, but in part the loss reflects a change in our nation.

      • captADKer
        July 25, 2016, 12:32 pm

        lonely rico: also to be mention the WOMEN slaughtered, some of whom might be PREGNANT MOTHERS of more palestinian CHILDREN who will then be lost to the cause of their noble resistance. and then the MEDICINE- all the theraputic, pain and anxiety alleviating medicine, all so indiscriminantly destroyed or wasted in inestimable quantities . a true humanitarian and pharmacutical tragedy where there is only one, and only one, resolution.

    • Doubtom
      July 25, 2016, 6:48 pm

      Let the world know when you progress from “disturbed” to downright angry, Boomer, because that’s what it’s going to take to effect change.

  3. Kay24
    July 23, 2016, 4:02 pm

    What the DNC has done is outrageous, and totally not democratic. It was very unfair of the DNC to treat Bernie Sanders this way, and that it had already decided who their nominee was going to be, by trying to sabotage the Sanders campaign. The idiotic Drumpf was right on this. This was rigged. It is hard to believe that the world’s greatest democracy has political parties that resort to such undemocratic tactics. Wasserman – Schultz should be kicked out asap, and treated like a criminal for what she has done. I doubt Clinton would however do the right thing and do so, as she needs wealthy Jews and AIPAC darlings like WS to help her win her next term. She even thanked her today, first thing, when she had her first appearance with Tim Kaine.

    I feel bad for Bernie Sanders, because if he was not treated so badly by the establishment, he may have been the nominee, and the party would have a better chance of beating Drumpf.

    • RoHa
      July 23, 2016, 9:07 pm

      “It is hard to believe that the world’s greatest democracy has political parties that resort to such undemocratic tactics. ”

      Yes, sad to say, not all the political parties in India are quite as honourable as we would like.

      But what has that got to do with Sanders? He’s in the USA, where rigged elections are the norm.

    • echinococcus
      July 24, 2016, 8:16 pm

      Kay,
      “he may have been the nominee, and the party would have a better chance of beating …”

      Still hoping to get “The Party” to suddenly turn into a champion of justice? No matter what?

  4. Blownaway
    July 23, 2016, 4:03 pm

    People are terrified of Trump and the media is fanning the fear so that the lessor of two evils theory kicks in. But in total Hillary is far more dangerous than Trump and Pence is more dangerous than Hillary. Kane got the blessing In the Israeli press as a pro Israel centrist. One thing trump is right about the system is corrupt and rigged by dirty blood money.

    • RoHa
      July 23, 2016, 9:10 pm

      “the lessor of two evils”

      You can lease out evils, or spell checker strikes again?

      • Mooser
        July 23, 2016, 10:01 pm

        “or spell checker strikes again?”

        Gotta watch out for those ‘homonym howlers’.

        In this case “the lessor” instead of “the morer”.

    • Emory Riddle
      July 25, 2016, 12:06 pm

      Latest polls out put Trump ahead by 5%.

      The absurd attacks the elites are using against Trump in the MSM that they control are backfiring badly.

      Wait until the total loyalty to Israel BS gets read at the DNC and the delegates start booing.

      Can’t wait. Hillary and her neocon handlers are going down. I hope.

  5. RoHa
    July 24, 2016, 1:21 am

    Interesting that such a big deal is made of Sanders’ faith. Australian and British politicians who have any belief in God usually prefer a discreet silence about it, along with their share dealings and that business with the teenage girls and the whipped cream. (No, I haven’t got a copy of the video.) God talk makes the punters nervous.

    • Mooser
      July 24, 2016, 2:02 pm

      “that business with the teenage girls and the whipped cream.”

      RoHa, if a man wishes to reproduce an iconic Tijauna Brass album-cover as a tableau vivant, that is entirely his business.

  6. JLewisDickerson
    July 24, 2016, 5:29 am

    RE: “My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.” ~ identified as Brad Marshall, the chief financial officer

    MY COMMENT: Yuck, atheists are l-i-b-e-r-a-l, y’all! Gotta make good use of those Southern Baptist “peeps”!

    JENNIFER RUBIN SHOWS HOW: “Inside CUFI’s 2011 Washington ‘Summit'”, Special to JewsOnFirst.org, 07/29/11
    ● Our eyewitness report on Christians United For Israel’s annual Washington conference

    [EXCERPTS] Over this past July 17th – 20th, Christians United for Israel (CUFI) held its 6th annual Washington Summit in the nation’s capital to rally its staunch, militant support for Israel. . .

    . . . There were also some newcomers to this year’s Summit from the conservative end of the pro-Israel spectrum. These included Elliot Chodoff, a major in the IDF reserves; Colonel Ben Tzion Gruber, also from the IDF reserves; Commentary Magazine editor, John Podhoretz; conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager; the ultra-hawkish blogger Jennifer Rubin; and, of course, conspiracy theorist and former Fox News personality, Glenn Beck…

    . . . CUFI seems quite clearly disinterested in the concerns of Liberal Jews, and although touting itself as an organization dedicated to allowing Israel to choose for itself what it wants to do, this notion has yet to be seriously tested considering the current Government in Israel shares identical earthly aspirations to Christian Zionists (the other-worldly aspirations, are of course, different).

    And this is the rub – Christian Zionists love the idea of Jews – not Jews as they actually are, but as representatives of God’s ongoing truth and impending Christian salvation. They love religious Jews who, through the conflation of American and Israeli identities, many seem to think of as sharing the exact same values as them, minus Jesus. Whether it is CUFI on Campus students excitedly Tweeting “there are so many Jews here!” or women fawning over their new Star of David necklaces and sharing stories of possible Jewish lineage, it seems that actual interaction with Jews of diverse opinions is significantly lacking.

    So while conversion attempts are waning (some attendees expressed the idea that God is creating “one new man” with Christians and Jews as they are) there is still a need for conversion to the political philosophy of Christian Zionists. And this is where those Jews who are strong supporters of CUFI come in handy. They can criticize Jews to a far greater degree than any Christian Zionists would be willing to do. Conservative commentator Jennifer Rubin [of the “Washington (Neocon) Post” – J.L.D.] spent a great deal of her talk slamming her co-religionists for being naively liberal, and referencing her fellow panelist’s father’s book – Norman Podhoretz’s “Why are Jews Liberal?” – as a way to try and explain that they have fallen away from God and been captivated by the “religion of liberalism” to which the audience expressed considerable dismay. Rubin and others are useful for this kind of criticism because it allows them to express contempt for their fellow Jews, which coming out of the mouth of anyone else would, quite rightly, be considered anti-Semitism. . .

    ENTIRE REPORT – http://www.jewsonfirst.org/11a/CUFI2011a.aspx

  7. Kay24
    July 24, 2016, 6:34 am

    The good news is Wasserman-Schulz and the DNC will have to answer to some awkward questions, and who knows, might even regret interfering in our political system to rig the primaries. I hope they have to pay until it hurts. She lied and was deceitful.
    Maybe she should resign and move to Israel.

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz Served Class Action Lawsuit for Rigging Primaries
    This is the first of many consequences the Democratic Party will face for manipulating millions of voters

    http://observer.com/2016/06/debbie-wasserman-schultz-served-class-action-lawsuit-for-rigging-primaries/

  8. Citizen
    July 24, 2016, 11:20 am

    Debbie and her friends wanted to exploit the ignorance of Southern Baptist voters, who think Jewish Atheism is inherently contradictory when in fact at least half of American Jews are also atheists or persistent agnostics. I never met a fundee Christian, Evangelical, who was not abysmally ignorant of the various senses of being Jewish. The first condition of being a fundee Christian is belief in God, the second is Belief in Jesus as the son of God. The third is “faith will set you free,” and lastly, contrition for one’s sins will get you to “heaven.” Nothing could be less Jewish IMHO.

    • echinococcus
      July 24, 2016, 1:12 pm

      Citizen,

      What they wanted to exploit is the Americans’ religious fundamentalism that has all candidates to any elective post feel obliged to practice religious pandering. If you check your religiosity statistics, we aren’t that better off than the Saudis.

      On the other hand, it’s no “ignorance” to believe that “Jewish Atheism is inherently contradictory when in fact at least half of American Jews are also atheists or persistent agnostics” but a totally correct assumption. The “various senses of being Jewish” are totally self-invented by tribal nationalists who well know that there isn’t anything outside religion to allow those various senses in non-tribal language. Not language, not ethnicity, not actual descent, not culture. No one outside the fake-nationalist/Zionist bubble can be forced to adopt that crazy ideology. Language cannot be forced to create a special niche to satisfy the racist bronze-age beliefs of one particular little tribe. Try saying that atheist Irishmen are Italians –because they were (and arguably still are) ruled by Catholic theocracy. How does that sound in English?
      At the end of the day, either you are religious or you aren’t.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 24, 2016, 1:52 pm

        it’s no “ignorance” to believe that “Jewish Atheism is inherently contradictory when in fact at least half of American Jews are also atheists or persistent agnostics” but a totally correct assumption. The “various senses of being Jewish” are totally self-invented by tribal nationalists who well know that there isn’t anything outside religion to allow those various senses in non-tribal language.

        hmm, not so sure about that echi. a person becomes jewish by birth or religious conversion. so if you’re born to a jewish mother you’re automatically jewish (by ethnicity) and if you’re raised in that culture you’re ethnically jewish. and if you don’t believe in god so be it. people frequently engage/participate in cultural ritual without believing in a religion. like weddings and burials and things like that.

        and every person or culture can choose to self identify however they choose (whether you like it or not). and if one religion says – if you don’t believe in god you can’t call yourself one of us (like christians). while another religion says if you’re born into our tribe you’re one of us unless you convert to another. but one thing that’s sort of consistent is that people tend to assign their own concepts of ethnic identity onto others groups. so while fundamental Southern Baptists think you have to believe in god/christ to be a baptist or a christian they would also believe that a jewish person would have to believe in god to be jewish — it’s also could be a standard for jewish people to think if you’re born into a christian family you are always going to be christian (the state of israel does not accept a statement of no religion/atheist as valid because they regard religious designation as ethnic identification to the pt if you don’t believe in the religion the ethnicity stays with the person).

        The “various senses of being Jewish” are totally self-invented

        the various senses of being anything or self identifying in itself is an invention of humans.

        by tribal nationalists who well know that there isn’t anything outside religion to allow those various senses in non-tribal language.

        not necessarily. just because you think there’s nothing outside religion “to allow those various senses in non-tribal language” doesn’t mean a jewish atheist is a nationalist. it could be you’re imposing your own beliefs/standards on what it means to be jewish based on your own beliefs — which is sort of human nature i suppose.

        Try saying that atheist Irishmen are Italians –because they were (and arguably still are) ruled by Catholic theocracy.

        that would require merging the 2 different definitions of nationalisms — which is what zionist do when they claim jews are a nation. whereas it’s not inherently jewish to be israeli. i think you’re merging zionism with judaism which is something tribal nationalists do — not all jewish people. it’s not inherently jewish (but i could be wrong — a tribal nationalist would probably think so).

      • MHughes976
        July 24, 2016, 2:12 pm

        I agree with Annie! It does make sense to define as ‘X-Ist atheists’ those who do not believe in a deity but regard, with or without good reason, the X religious tradition as being of great and unique moral value.

      • Boomer
        July 24, 2016, 2:50 pm

        There are many definitions of religion [and of God(s)]. To some extent the context determines the appropriate definition. A definition that I often find apt is one proposed by Emile Durkheim: “Religion is society worshipping itself.”

        http://www.iep.utm.edu/durkheim/

      • Mooser
        July 24, 2016, 2:54 pm

        “At the end of the day, either you are religious or you aren’t.”

        I’ve never been much of a lad for vespers, myself. I tend to fall asleep.
        Give me a good matins any day.

      • Mooser
        July 24, 2016, 3:06 pm

        “those who do not believe in a deity but regard, with or without good reason, the X religious tradition as being of great and unique moral value.”

        A religious tradition can be a powerful argument in a battle of wills.

      • Keith
        July 24, 2016, 3:44 pm

        ECHINOCOCCUS- “The “various senses of being Jewish” are totally self-invented by tribal nationalists who well know that there isn’t anything outside religion to allow those various senses in non-tribal language.”

        I agree that Jewish ethnicity and “Jewishness” are essentially manufactured constructs for those non-religious Jews who still identify as Jewish. I would suggest, however, that Zionism has constructed a secular identity and vocabulary to augment the religious imagery. First of all, Israel was founded by Blood and Soil atheists, the appeal being a “Jewish” homeland. The identification of Israel as a “Jewish” state with a right of return for Jews buttresses the appeal of a Jewish identity when combined with the reality of the Holocaust and the feeling this engendered among Jews that non-Jews considered Jewishness to be a birth fate. I have long believed that without Hitler and the Holocaust, Zionism would have faded away and there would be no Jewish state in the Middle East. The Holocaust and perceived anti-Semitism provides much of the ideology and vocabulary of Jewish Zionists. One doesn’t have to be religious to believe in eternal and irrational anti-Semitism, and to adopt some degree of anti-Gentilism which this belief necessarily entails. In my view, Zionism has been remarkably successful in resurrecting Jewish tribalism.

      • MHughes976
        July 24, 2016, 5:20 pm

        On religion and battles of will, Mooser, you never spoke a truer word. But there’s something extraordinarily ingenious about the Wiesel-style ability to target religion with arrows of doubt, even of scorn, and yet to wield it like a sword. Only Zionists have really got the hang of this martial art and they do great execution with it.
        However, the BBC is saying that DWS is resigning as from the end of the Convention. Can she hold out that long?

      • echinococcus
        July 24, 2016, 5:39 pm

        Annie,

        so if you’re born to a jewish mother you’re automatically jewish (by ethnicity) and if you’re raised in that culture you’re ethnically jewish

        Not by “ethnicity”, as that would be something verifiable by objective measures. It would suppose, as you rightly say, the existence of a given “ethnic culture”. The latter is not provable in this case. Nothing but religious or ritual habits and ritual language are “common-Jewish” here. As much as, or in fact somewhat less than, between the Irish and the Italian in my example.
        The point being that “born to a Jewish woman” is a self-serving, self-defined criterion of a tribal religion, a non-converting religion originally reserved to small tribes that were imposed, under penalty of death, the exclusive adoration of their particular tribal god. Once the religion started spreading by conversion, as documented, the criterion is no longer tribal but fake-racial (i.e. seriously racist.)

        The fact is that, at least while using our accustomed language and categories, we do not take this kind of shit from anyone, except, for the indoctrinated, from the shrill advocates of a small wannabe tribe. For all others, we use our usual categories, no matter their own past and complications etc.
        Just as an example, try explaining to a normal, passably well-educated American that you are Greek, born of ancient Greek stock in Turkey but that you aren’t a Turk. That person will classify you by your place of birth, exactly as we do in the US. That same guy, though, swallows the “atheist Jewish” nonsense instead of clarifying it for everyday English as “Yiddish-speaking Bessarabian –pardon, Moldavian now– whose grandparents may have practiced Judaism”. Even more absurd regarding an American who culturally is 101% general-American.

        and every person or culture can choose to self identify however they choose (whether you like it or not)

        I don’t have to like it but I not only don’t have to accept it, I have the right to ask the affabulators to please conform to the language usage
        norms without creating a self-serving category just for themselves.
        That habit of totally integrated, atheist people to suddenly insist in the non-religious “Jewish” designation is relatively new, by the way. In the 19th century people couldn’t get rid of it fast enough. It became a fashion with Zionist propaganda, WWII and Nazi genocide, and finally the Zionist domination over all our US culture.

        it’s also could be a standard for jewish people to think if you’re born into a christian family you are always going to be christian (the state of israel does not accept a statement of no religion/atheist as valid because they regard religious designation as ethnic identification to the pt if you don’t believe in the religion the ethnicity stays with the person).

        Correct. The Zionists do that (not “the Jewish people”, goddam it!) That’s because the Zionists keep the so convenient old, tyrannical Ottoman “millet” system, used in the Empire to assure the self-policing of all ethnic minorities (or majorities) by allocating a nominal-religious membership to everyone. Again, it doesn’t strike me as a good idea to accept this kind of imposition. As far a I know, no “Jewish” person in the US was or is any longer under the temporal jurisdiction of the Grand Chacham of Constantinople.

        This being said, I have absolutely no problem with an Eastern Yiddish or Sefardí or Mizrahi community that still keeps its language, jokes, food, family relationships etc. In fact, I belong to one of them myself.
        Of course, the word “Jewish” does vary in local context. Just as, when spoken in New York it generally means “American-born Ashkenaze”, the guys I am with differentiate in their dialect between “Jewish”, i.e. those who “speak Jewish” (Spanish) vs. “the Poles” (Ashkenaze, not to be confused with “the Polish-speaking Poles”), etc.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 24, 2016, 9:13 pm

        like i said earlier, sticking “the fact” in front of your opinion does not make it more worthy.

      • echinococcus
        July 24, 2016, 8:08 pm

        Keith,

        No contest.
        The calamity of Zionism and its colonialist guns has, as you said, created an “Israel” culture, in part with a lot of social engineering and National-Socialist-style nationalist indoctrination.

        But so what? This “culture” wasn’t there outside private clubs up to the totally illegitimate Zionist invasion and has no place in non-Zionist Judaism. In all justice this has to be reversed and that is why I won’t even mention it.

      • Mooser
        July 24, 2016, 8:37 pm

        “On religion and battles of will, Mooser, you never spoke a truer word”

        Inheritance is the way most wealth is transferred. And an inheritance is a gift, not an obligation.

      • Mooser
        July 24, 2016, 9:11 pm

        We need to sort out the difference (and the different consequences, such as they are at different times) of three different things:

        1)Perceiving, and/or identifying yourself as Jewish.

        2) Being perceived or identified as Jewish by others, in a social or ethnic sense.

        3) Having a Jewish identity imposed on you by a state. (Current example: Israel)

      • Mooser
        July 24, 2016, 9:24 pm

        “Can she hold out that long?”

        I hope not. She might cry over it, and I bet a friend of mine that when she does, her forehead gets wet.

      • echinococcus
        July 24, 2016, 9:54 pm

        Correct, Annie.
        That’s why the relevant question is “is this a fact or not, and how do we establish it?”

      • silamcuz
        July 24, 2016, 11:54 pm

        Mooser.

        We need to sort out the difference (and the different consequences, such as they are at different times) of three different things:

        1)Perceiving, and/or identifying yourself as White.

        2) Being perceived or identified as White by others, in a social or ethnic sense.

        3) Having a White identity imposed on you by a state. (Current example: USA)

      • silamcuz
        July 25, 2016, 12:02 am

        Inheritance is the way most wealth is transferred. And an inheritance is a gift, not an obligation.

        Yeah, lets see your wife agree with that when you tell her the kids are not obligated to inherit your wealth. Seriously, what a irresponsibly selfish thing to say.

      • Mooser
        July 25, 2016, 11:47 am

        “Seriously, what a irresponsibly selfish thing to say.”

        You may check my statement: “an inheritance is a gift, not an obligation” with any lawyer.

        That’s the way it is. After all, my kids have my genes, what more do they need? And I brought them up with “good old fashioned slaps, as you recommend.

      • Mooser
        July 25, 2016, 1:48 pm

        “Simalcuz”, I think you have given us a practical precis of your child-rearing methods:

        “Is smacking a child any worse than leaving him to degenerate into a beast of an adult, making life hell for who knows how many people? Is castrating a rapist any worse than placing him in a secure cell for a particular length of time?” – “Simalcuz” : http://mondoweiss.net/profile/silamcuz/?keyword=child#sthash.3lSXhQDE.dpuf

      • silamcuz
        July 25, 2016, 8:29 pm

        Mooser,

        You sound like a deadbeat dad. It doesn’t matter if you have the genetics of Einstein and Usain Bolt combined, you owe children love, nurturing, protection, and material support. You don’t get to choose to opt out of any of these obligations, unless you’re ofcourse a deadbeat lowlife.

        Inheritance is not a gift, your children are legally entitled as your biological offsprings, to parts of your wealth after you passed on. If you don’t like it, simple.. don’t have kids. I’m sure even Annie would back me up on this.

      • echinococcus
        July 25, 2016, 9:14 pm

        Simlacruz,

        Please stop that number. It’s been very successful but makes the reader laugh hisherself to exhaustion. I have been rolling on the carpet, laughing hysterically until my chops hurt. Can’t stop, can’t stand still enough for typing.

      • silamcuz
        July 25, 2016, 9:37 pm

        you may check my statement: “an inheritance is a gift, not an obligation” with any lawyer.”

        Typical entitlement white male response. Unless that lawyer is a lawfully wedded wife of yours, their opinion on the matter bear little relevance.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 25, 2016, 10:29 pm

        i have no idea what is “entitlement white male” about that statement.

        Inheritance is not a gift, your children are legally entitled as your biological offsprings, to parts of your wealth after you passed on. If you don’t like it, simple.. don’t have kids. I’m sure even Annie would back me up on this.

        as far as i know, in this country, only if you do not leave a will and a spouse is deceased does a child (or children) legally inherit ones estate.

        children are not legally entitled, as biological offsprings, to parts of your material wealth when you die if your will says otherwise. every person can leave their estate to whomever they want. the state may step in for the benefit of a minor child. so if the parent is a legal guardian at the time of their death — there are undoubtedly exceptions. i don’t think you can disinherit a minor child from a past marriage and give all your estate to your new wife and kids from that marriage. but i don’t think one is required to leave their inheritance to an adult child. i could be wrong, i’d consult a lawyer.

        here is a 2015 story from the UK that says differently https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jul/31/disinheritance-and-the-law — but note the woman who died had benefited from money originating “in the compensation payout that followed” her husband’s death (the child’s father). so there are exceptions but in general i think a parent can disinherit an adult child.

      • RoHa
        July 25, 2016, 11:14 pm

        “in this country children are definitely NOT legally entitled as your biological offsprings, to parts of your material wealth when you die.”

        But is simalcuz’s “this country” the same “this country” as yours? Inheritance law varies from country to country, and some countries (France, for example) do require at least part of the estate to go to legitimate offspring.

        (Note that the plural of “offspring” is the same as the singular, and that you either need another comma after “entitled’ or no comma after “*offsprings*”.

        http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/offspring

        Kudos for “whomever”. You outdid the Guardian.)

        And I’m certain that this whole comment positively reeks of white male entitlement.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 25, 2016, 11:29 pm

        I’m certain that this whole comment positively reeks of white male entitlement.

        no doubt!

        But is simalcuz’s “this country” the same “this country” as yours?

        no, he already let slip “here in israel” the other day.

      • Mooser
        July 26, 2016, 12:18 pm

        “You sound like a deadbeat dad.”

        I am not a deadbeat!
        My wife and kids send me checks every month, without fail.

      • Mooser
        July 26, 2016, 2:20 pm

        “You sound like a deadbeat dad.”

        Get a clue, dude!

        I’m a trophy husband.

        And we got on this subject because I reminded “MHughes976” (way up thread) that “religion can become a battle of wills”

      • gamal
        July 26, 2016, 11:17 pm

        “How on earth could I claim to “speak for the Palestinians”? I’m a Jew.”

        really speak for us, no one hears us here, i mean it, Arabs love you man.

      • Raphael
        July 29, 2016, 2:09 pm

        it’s also could be a standard for jewish people

        I think there may have been a policy change, regarding the religion on the Israeli ID. My new Israeli ID has no religion section , for my religion. It simply says that I’m Israeli, in the Hebrew language. Which to me is acceptable, because I would rather it say that then say I was Catholic for my religion.

        No one, ever asked for my ID though while I was living there. I don’t really want to identify with being religiosity Jewish; other then having a interest in learning Hebrew to get to the roots of my Jewish history; and to understand Zionism, and Judaism as it is day to day for the average Jew. Because I was myself attacked for being Jewish. Hebrew, for me was generally neglected by the US Jewish community that; I was in a superficial way a part of, though I’m technically a Israelite, if I accept my Jewish heritage, with being born of a Jewish father and a non Jewish mother.

      • echinococcus
        July 29, 2016, 8:33 pm

        Raphael,

        How intensely fascinating! Almost as much as Silmacruz’ identity games.
        But tell me, weren’t you told by the Zionist Guardians of the Official Faith that you can’t know if your father is Jewish, given that your mother isn’t? That is exactly how they put it –not my invention.

    • silamcuz
      July 25, 2016, 10:40 pm

      Annie,

      Your wealth obtained after marriage and creation of children are not legally yours exclusively. There are rights for the spouse and offsprings to claim a part of that wealth, always, even if they didn’t have a direct involvement in the creation of such wealth. This is the most fundamental component of family law, which as a mother I would assume you to be aware of. A man who believes he does not owe his spouse and children his wealth is no man.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 25, 2016, 11:21 pm

        Your wealth obtained after marriage and creation of children are not legally yours exclusively.

        i never said they were. every state has its own laws and in california its a 50/50 state so your estate when you die is only 50% of your accumulated wealth (unless there’s a pre nup). and i think you can do whatever you want with it unless you have minor children, then you’d probably be subject to the same obligations whether you were dead or alive. but i am not a legal expert.

        if a 50 year old man dies and leaves all his money (20k — 50% of their accumulated wealth of 40k) to his 2nd and last wife and nothing to the wife he married in his 20’s, and he has a 30 year old son from that earlier union, i don’t think the son or ex wife can sue unless he had owed a prior debt to them. but if he made all his child payments and paid for the kid’s college he owes nothing to his son. he could leave him his car or a dollar, as far as i know.

        why are we talking about this?

      • echinococcus
        July 25, 2016, 11:57 pm

        “why are we talking about this?”

        Excellent question. Because Mooser used a good simile about identity and Simlawhatever jumped on it with the literal discussion.
        Essentially, we are talking about this because you discuss seriously with everybody, even with that guy.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 26, 2016, 12:09 am

        even with that guy

        argh. yeah ok. i should ignore him.

      • silamcuz
        July 26, 2016, 1:02 am

        Echinoccus,

        I cannot understand how you find humour in a person claiming to not owe any obligations to pass down his material wealth onto his own children. How is this funny, seriously? Especially since he is speaking for the Palestinians, whose entire society is based on the servitude of man towards his wife, children and family.

        The legal system of Palestine states that the children have the right to claim their part of the wealth generated by the father after his death. This is true regardless of the relationships between them or the wishes of the father against the children. As such, Mooser is behaving in contempt of the very culture he is speaking for, and as such, must be made accountable for his words.

      • silamcuz
        July 26, 2016, 1:34 am

        Annie,

        Do you as a mother believe your husband has the right to not pass down the collective wealth of the family to your children?

        If he views it as a “gift” that can be given or disposed off per his liking…would you as a legal partner to such individual object or consent to this?

        I realise the conversation may have strayed far off-topic, but please humour me just in this instance.

      • eljay
        July 26, 2016, 8:35 am

        || Annie Robbins: argh. yeah ok. i should ignore him. ||

        I’ve been wondering when you’d finally take the advice you and Mooser gave me back in May. ;-)

      • Annie Robbins
        July 26, 2016, 10:17 am

        right. sorry everyone.

      • Mooser
        July 26, 2016, 12:36 pm

        “why are we talking about this?”

        Because my wife is quite a bit younger, and a whole lot healthier than me, I have made her inheritance contingent on her quoting at my funeral, the same Spiritual so movingly quoted by Dr Martin Luther King Jr.

      • Mooser
        July 26, 2016, 12:43 pm

        I have a great idea! Why don’t we simply Google the sentence “Inheritance is a gift not a right” and see what we get?

      • Mooser
        July 26, 2016, 12:50 pm

        “Especially since he (Mooser) is speaking for the Palestinians “

        I have never, ever said that, or anything close to it.
        How on earth could I claim to “speak for the Palestinians”? I’m a Jew.

      • Mooser
        July 26, 2016, 1:03 pm

        “Annie, Do you as a mother believe your husband has the right to not pass down the collective wealth of the family to your children?” “Simalcuz”

        Hey, “Simalcuz”, do you have any idea how deeply you just stepped off into it? Good job,”Simalcuz”.

      • silamcuz
        July 26, 2016, 10:11 pm

        Mooser,

        “I have a great idea! Why don’t we simply Google the sentence “Inheritance is a gift not a right” and see what we get? ”

        Claiming inheritance is not a right for his own children is the most treacherous view a man can hold.

        Say what you will, but I will never allow my daughter to marry a guy who feels like my grandchildren wouldn’t be rightful inheritors of their parents wealth. I would rather her marry a penniless pauper than marry a traitor.

      • Mooser
        July 26, 2016, 11:08 pm

        “Say what you will, but I will never allow my daughter to marry a guy”

        That is entirely up to her. Many women marry outside their sex and lead happy fulfilled lives.

      • silamcuz
        July 26, 2016, 11:11 pm

        I am a Jew

        A Jew who believe his wealth is all his own even after his death, a wealth in which his own Jewish children are not entitled to. A Jew who believes his own children do not possess birthright to their inheritance.

        No, I think your just Mooser. A man with no country. When a Jew dies, he is survived by his Jewish children. When Mooser dies, he takes everything with him. The kids should be glad they got “genetics”….Man I wish my dad got me genetics, instead of a few title deeds, some jewellery, some cash when he passed. I wish my dad was more like Mooser. – Said no one ever.

      • echinococcus
        July 27, 2016, 6:57 am

        Can you believe it? Silmacruz has managed to make a fleeting wordplay on a battle of the wills into the Battle of the Will, the one that will only end with the exhaustion of the last combatant in his foxhole!
        If one didn’t know that it’s all inconsequential banter, one would have thought that Silmacruz himself had been cut off with a penny by his White father…

      • Mooser
        July 27, 2016, 5:23 pm

        “When Mooser dies, he takes everything with him.”

        My wife and offspring will have their priceless memories, and a notebook full of aphorisms, mottoes and succinct advice I composed for their edification. Like the song says: “Who could ask for anything else?”

        Oh, and I found a rock at the beach which was sort of shaped like a heart, and I gave it to my wife, and she kept it. She gave me a comb when I went bald, and I told her I would never part with it. She then threw the rock at me, and raised a lump the size of a plover’s egg on my cranium.

      • Mooser
        July 27, 2016, 5:31 pm

        “A Jew…/…inheritance.”

        Okay, have it your way, I’m not a Jew. Happy now?

      • Mooser
        July 27, 2016, 5:38 pm

        “one would have thought that Silmacruz himself had been cut off with a penny by his White father…”

        Yup, sometimes that great White Father, turns out to be, well, not-so-great, after all. He cuts up rough, now and then.

      • silamcuz
        July 27, 2016, 8:52 pm

        Legally, one has no right to “disinherit” their spouse, children and other legal dependents from their estate after death. So Mooser claiming inheritance is a gift is lawfully invalid.

        But one must also ask, why would he and many others like Annie and Echinnocus would think as such in the first place? Why would he feel to not owe his wife and children money and property despite the fact that he married and had children under his own free will? This is white male entitlement, one which unfairly overvalues men at the expense of women and children.

      • RoHa
        July 27, 2016, 9:59 pm

        “When Mooser dies, he takes everything with him.”

        Perfectly understandable. If I can’t take it with me, I’m not going to go.

      • Teapot
        July 27, 2016, 11:38 pm

        Simalcuz: “Say what you will, but I will never allow my daughter to marry a guy who feels like my grandchildren wouldn’t be rightful inheritors of their parents wealth.”

        I’ve been trying really hard to ignore simalcuz’s derail tactics, but I’ve reached my breaking point. I just can’t keep myself from pointing out that it’s a little hypocritical to lecture others on male entitlement while holding patriarchal views like the one expressed above. Just saying…

      • Keith
        July 28, 2016, 12:39 am

        SILAMCUZ- “Legally, one has no right to “disinherit” their spouse, children and other legal dependents from their estate after death. So Mooser claiming inheritance is a gift is lawfully invalid.”

        You are as obstinate as you are ignorant. Depending upon circumstances, a wife can claim one-half of the community property. Adult children have no legal claim whatsoever unless the parent dies intestate. Perhaps you should begin quoting the law which you claim supports your position?

      • silamcuz
        July 28, 2016, 9:29 am

        Keith

        Perhaps you should begin quoting the law which you claim supports your position?

        Most state laws of the US has passages allowing for adult children to be disinherited, though I strongly reject their legitimacy because these laws were written as part of a patriarchal framework that deliberately aimed to give undue powers to men over women. I view these laws the same way you would view laws allowing blacks to be enslaved or Natives killed and scalped. I do not wish to be an accomplice of an unjust system by being silent on my disagreement with it.

        However, I did research on the laws in other nations, and unsurprisingly, in the more gender-equal nations, disinheritance is not allowed under law. Examples are below:

        Germany (https://www.german-probate-lawyer.com/detail/article/forced-share-under-german-law-1492.html)

        Sweden (http://www.researchmagazine.lu.se/2015/09/03/life-after-death-on-the-distribution-of-inheritance/)

        Norway (http://www.norjus.no/visartikkel.asp?art=254%20)

        In addition, the Shariah Law which all Muslims whether in Palestine or California follow as part of their legal framework for family matters absolutely disallow any measures for disinheriting adult children, regardless of reasoning or circumstances.

        http://iecoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Muslim_Will_Notes.pdf

        As such, this is not a straightforward matter as you are suggesting, Keith. Btw, do you have a daughter?

        If her prospective husband came, and openly disclosed his plans of not passing down any part of his estate towards the children created from the union between him and your daughter after his death….would you be fine with it? It is legal after all. A lifetime of marriage potentially resulting in the children being tossed to the curb, with nothing on their name. If they had known of such a fate awaiting them, would they have consented to being born to such a wicked father?

      • silamcuz
        July 28, 2016, 9:53 am

        Teapot

        “I’ve reached my breaking point. I just can’t keep myself from pointing out that it’s a little hypocritical to lecture others on male entitlement while holding patriarchal views like the one expressed above”

        Hi Teapot, I’m a bit hurt you would consider me calling out the oppressive mindsets of pro-Palestine commenters as derailing. Anyways, I do not wish to overspend emotional labour justifying my actions to you or anyone else so I’ll skip to addressing the above.

        The original comment you are referring to was written in a figurative manner of speech. Think of it as a father saying he will never allow his daughter to date a known rapist, or allow his daughter marry a convicted serial killer. The lack of legal ability to actually stop a consensual marriage between adults was assumed to be obvious and therefore the comment shouldn’t be taken literally.

      • echinococcus
        July 28, 2016, 12:54 pm

        Simbacruz has been droning on in this shameless hijacking of the thread for how long now? a year? two? If your son was such a pain in the neck and a thread hijacker, wouldn’t you disinherit him? Anyway, I can say that if he were mine he wouldn’t have survived to adult age.

      • Mooser
        July 28, 2016, 4:58 pm

        “Hi Teapot, I’m a…/… shouldn’t be taken literally.”

        Yup, crazier than the proverbial lavatory rodent.

      • Mooser
        July 29, 2016, 10:41 am

        My father was a leather worker, a man who punched the holes in belts.
        He told me “Son, someday this awl will be yours”.

        My mother was a laundress, (and sewed those new blue jeans) and she told me:
        “Son, someday this All will be yours!”

        My Uncle was a sailor from the South, who told me: “Someday, this yawl will be y’awls.”

  9. yonah fredman
    July 24, 2016, 4:56 pm

    oh, please. Hillary Clinton for all her lying and triangulating and playing the game, is the first major party candidate woman for president. and Bernie Sanders until last november or whenever he filed, wasn’t even a Democrat, and the Democratic party favored Hillary, but of course. That’s politics. So grow up.

    Listen, if Trump wins, he’ll win the electoral college and not the popular vote and he will not be considered a legitimate president by the people of NYC of color for example, so there will be a revolution beginning on January 20, 2017, so save up all your rhetorical nonsense and keep your rhetorical powder dry, because there will be plenty of reason to revolt against an electoral college white against mexicans and muslims presidency.

    And listen, Hillary, if she wins, will be very weak from day one and there is no reason why the rebellion against her cannot also begin on January 20th.

    Hillary was a freak candidate, as in the last of the old school. Trump and Sanders are the signs of the future: chaos and unicorns.

    • Donald Johnson
      July 24, 2016, 9:32 pm

      “So grow up” has a kind of sputtering sound to it. Let me try. So grow up, Yonah. See? Now there’s saliva all over my IPad.

      Okay, on to substance. One thing I learned from the Internet is that there are people who take party loyalty seriously, for reasons that seem more connected to the iron law of institutions ( google it) than for any sensible reason. Politics should matter to people because of the issues, not because of when someone joined a party. Sanders did exactly what all the Nader bashers said people should do if they want to pull the party to the left. He ran as a Democrat and pledged to support the winner and is doing so and yet he was still treated as a pariah.

      I would actually have more respect for the DNC people if they favored Clinton because they preferred her stance on issues, repulsive as some of those stances are. If it was based on how long she was part of the party compared to Sanders, that’s got a high school flavor to it. Anyway, Sanders is trying to start a movement to get progressive Dems in office, which party types should welcome unless they are conservative DLC types.

      Agreed about Trump. I hope he loses, but things are going to get real interesting if he wins.

      • Mooser
        July 24, 2016, 9:59 pm

        Hilary got her start working for Goldwater, if I remember.

      • echinococcus
        July 24, 2016, 11:03 pm

        Donald,

        I would actually have more respect for the DNC people if they favored Clinton because they preferred her stance on issues, repulsive as some of those stances are. If it was based on how long she was part of the party compared to Sanders, that’s got a high school flavor to it.

        No hard evidence in hand, but I’d still bet the farm that if Sanders happened to be a newcomer (which he is not) but defending all the official positions required by the owners of the country and the Harpy Empress were the established Old Member (that she is) but with a seductive, socialdemocrat-ish economic policy and (gasp!) some light-liberal Zionism, all the official support would have gone to BS.

      • yonah fredman
        July 25, 2016, 3:41 am

        donald- nice to hear from you. i need to say, “grow up”, before i can hear from you? (that line needs to be read with an exaggerated jewish mother singsong). but okay, now i’ve heard from you, so let me not dwell on your prolonged absence.

        i am looking at this election globally and on this eve of the democrat convention after hillary has chosen the most boring person in the country for a running mate, i wonder what will transpire that will help or hurt her a millimeter in her battle against donald trump. (how does it feel to share the first name with a presidential candidate of his dubiousness? not too many politicians with the first name of yonah. right away i am preparing for the onslaught from mooser. talk about seventh grade cliques, this place really sets a low bar for the democratic party to hopefully not emulate.

        Bernie Sanders lost the primary battle due to the fact that blacks voted overwhelmingly for hillary. (again, the only one who has even engaged me on this issue has been mooser, calling me podhoretz and implying me a racist.) again. bernie sanders lost the primary battle because of black voters. if biden would have run, it would probably have been the same result. democrats favor a sitting veep over a ralph nader type. yes, robert reich the tiny dude from game of thrones, is right. this is an outrage.

        certainly, debbie wasserman’s career has peaked. i don’t know what her district is like, so she might be a fixture for a while longer, but she did wrong and she resigned. and vamanos, muchachos. so long, debbie.

        if clinton loses it will be the radical left that takes to the streets to protest the donald. if clinton wins, she will be a very weak president and the country’s polarization will increase. this kerfuffle about debbie wasserman is a tempest in a teapot from a global perspective.

        to me the story is that russia and putin are rooting for the donald. they leaked these e mails and for that, donald will trade them the baltics. like monopoly and atlantic city, see.

      • Donald Johnson
        July 25, 2016, 12:14 pm

        Having Trump’s first name is a bit of an annoyance. I sometimes see someone say something nasty about “Donald ” in a thread and ( usually) after a second realize they weren’t talking about me. It’s not that common a name. I used to get Melanie Griffiths references.

        As for the comment section, most of them at most blogs are pretty tribal. Even if you are in agreement on most things, step outside the box and you will be attacked. Someone lashed out at me at another blog recently. It’s irritating. You either develop a thick skin or you do a lot of lurking.

        I’m slightly puzzled at Clinton’s popularity with so many black voters , though I have read it’s partly a generational thing. I sort of maybe understand it, but am not sure. So much of what goes on under the name of analysis online and in the press is just partisan character assassination, so it’s hard to sift out what makes sense and what doesn’t.

      • Mooser
        July 25, 2016, 12:17 pm

        “i am looking at this election globally”

        Wow! That is so universalist of you, “Yonah”!
        As for me, I only have two questions about the election!
        Is it good for the Jews, or bad for the Jews?

    • Mooser
      July 25, 2016, 12:47 am

      “so save up all your rhetorical nonsense and keep your rhetorical powder dry, because there will be plenty of reason to revolt against an electoral college white against mexicans and muslims presidency.”

      Uh-oh, “Yonah’s” Poddy training doesn’t extend to a “white against mexicans and muslims presidency”.
      I think he’s gonna wet hisself over it.

  10. Kay24
    July 24, 2016, 6:34 pm

    Finally WS decides to resign. The question is will they replace her with yet another pro Israel pro establishment person in the DNC, and will Hillary C. reward her with a plum post in her administration?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns_us_5795044ae4b0d3568f8397f7

    • Boomer
      July 25, 2016, 7:20 am

      >Kay24 “will they replace her with yet another pro Israel pro establishment person in the DNC, and will Hillary C. reward her with a plum post in her administration?”

      Yes.

  11. Boomer
    July 24, 2016, 7:02 pm

    Just an observation about the MSM coverage. I’ve heard quite a bit about this issue on NPR and from the broadcast TV networks, but none of the reports I’ve heard from those sources allude to issue of Israel, or of “even-handedness” being “disturbing.”

    Instead, the network reports I’ve observed all focus on the lack of “even-handedness” of the Democratic Party apparatus between Sanders and Clinton. To me, that isn’t surprising at all. It’s barely newsworthy. Obama has been actively supporting Clinton, even saying she was not guilty of any offense worth mentioning before the FBI finished its work. Given that, what else would one expect, even if Sanders had not been complaining about this?

    I suspect that the honchos at the networks don’t want the American people to know that supporting a fair deal — or at least some kind of a deal — for Palestinians is “disturbing” to those in power. I know a lot of Americans would agree with that, but a lot would not. I suspect most Americans were not even aware that there was any difference between Sanders and Clinton on this. Obviously, those for whom Israel is an all-important issue knew, but those people are a minority.

    Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe the honchos just think the American people would not be interested.

  12. Froggy
    July 25, 2016, 2:16 am

    “Does he believe in a God.”

    Why is this anyone’s business?

    • Mooser
      July 25, 2016, 12:08 pm

      “Why is this anyone’s business?”

      Because their answer tells you so much about a person.
      It’s the kind of thing nobody ever lies or equivocates about.

  13. inbound39
    July 25, 2016, 2:48 am

    To be Jewish or not to be Jewish….all very complex. In my view its like this. To be Christian you need to have a belief in Christian faith and ethics….if you don’t then it is not possible to be a Christian or called one. Surely the same applies to Jews. They are Jewish if they believe in the Jewish faith and ethics…if not then they cannot be viewed as Jewish. Christians are not a race and neither are Muslims so how can Jews be a race when they aren’t.

    • Mooser
      July 25, 2016, 12:06 pm

      “To be Christian you need to have a belief in Christian faith and ethics….if you don’t then it is not possible to be a Christian or called one.”

      Nonsense. Fer gawd’s sake, I’m Jewish, and I pass as Christian all the time, whenever I want to.
      It just requires some buzzwords, and a few catch-phrases and a facility for making sanctimonious and worshipful faces at the right time.
      I had to fool my wife’s family until the big reveal, didn’t I?

      “Surely the same applies to Jews. They are Jewish if they believe in the Jewish faith and ethics…”

      Which particular set of “Jewish faith and ethics” are you talking about? At what time in Jewish history?Orthodox? (several varieties, too) Conservative? Reform? (like they have any) If you can find commonalities, it’ll be more than they can do.

      • captADKer
        July 25, 2016, 12:44 pm

        need the binding “commonality”-

        a belief in all things israel where it may not always be right but is never wrong.

        end of discussion.

    • echinococcus
      July 25, 2016, 1:04 pm

      Inbound,

      Nuttin’ don’apply to us from your reality-based world, friend.

      We invent ourselves. We create our own reality –pardon, define our own “ethnicity” and even Antizionist Americans like it and swallow it. Hook, line and legendary sinker.

      As in the discussion here: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/07/believed-criticism-disturbing/#comment-848330

  14. genesto
    July 25, 2016, 12:42 pm

    “We have the problem of assimilation. We have the problem of intermarriage”. These are words that could have come from the mouth of an outspoken racist against Blacks or Latinos in this country and there would have been a major outcry. However, this was Debbie speaking back in February of this year about this ‘problem’ within the Jewish community – and the media totally ignored it!

    This woman is a racist Zionist, as well as a political dinosaur and liability that should never have gotten her position in the first place. Now she has potentially ruined the Dems convention, to the utter delight of the RNC and Mr. Trump. But, the self-destructive Dems STILL haven’t learned their lesson – she is still scheduled to open and close the convention! How utterly STUPID is that??

    As George Bernard Shaw once said, “Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve”. Right on!

  15. genesto
    July 25, 2016, 3:06 pm

    News flash – Debbie is finally gone from the Convention (although she certainly didn’t leave quietly)! I consider this a win for the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party and, therefore, a win for our cause as well!

    Can’t wait to see what Bernie’s supporters will do with this now!

    • echinococcus
      July 25, 2016, 6:39 pm

      What the Sandersites will do? Form the Popular Front Against Bid Bad Maneater Donald, of the “middle class”, the Owners of the Country, the AIPAC-Zionists, the Adelson-Zionists, the JStreet-Zionists and the Harpy Empress, and of course with the latter’s pet, her new honorary campaign manager Wassermann-Schultz. Of course.

Leave a Reply