Trending Topics:

Chris Hayes stunning ‘Story of the Week’ featuring Sheldon Adelson

on 102 Comments

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.


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’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)

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .

Posted In:

102 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    pabelmont on January 29, 2012, 10:25 am

    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.

    • annie
      annie on January 29, 2012, 10:48 am

      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.

      • pabelmont
        pabelmont on January 29, 2012, 12:02 pm

        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”?

      • richb
        richb on January 29, 2012, 12:06 pm

        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.

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen on January 29, 2012, 5:16 pm

        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.

      • jewishgoyim
        jewishgoyim on January 30, 2012, 6:11 am

        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.

    • annie
      annie on January 29, 2012, 10:50 am

      or bigger issue of why USA’s democracy is strictly for sale

      exactly. 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?

      that is from the script.

    • on January 29, 2012, 3:30 pm

      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.

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen on January 29, 2012, 5:17 pm

        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

    • Citizen
      Citizen on January 29, 2012, 4:02 pm

      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.

  2. Krauss
    Krauss on January 29, 2012, 10:48 am

    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.

    • annie
      annie on January 29, 2012, 10:57 am

      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.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 29, 2012, 4:07 pm

        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.

      • annie
        annie on January 29, 2012, 4:33 pm

        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?”

      • marc b.
        marc b. on January 30, 2012, 8:35 am

        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.

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen on January 30, 2012, 11:02 am

        I believe Max Boot is one of his advisers

  3. Scott
    Scott on January 29, 2012, 11:03 am

    “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.

  4. richb
    richb on January 29, 2012, 11:28 am

    Here’s the link to the New Yorker article Chris is referring to:

    The story told in the New Yorker addressed DeLay’s Christian Zionism:

    Weidner, in his deposition, described the relationship between DeLay—“a very religious guy”—and Adelson. “The link between Sheldon Adelson and right-wing religious Christians is the commonality of a strong Israel,” he said. “So it just happens to be Sheldon has taken Tom DeLay to Israel and he’s a friend.” DeLay told Adelson that he supported the resolution because of his concern about China’s record on human rights but added that he would be discussing the legislative agenda shortly. “Sheldon folds his cell phone up and says to the mayor of Beijing, ‘I’m going to do my best,’ ” Weidner said. “About three hours later DeLay calls and he tells Sheldon, ‘You’re in luck,’ ” he continued, “ ‘because we’ve got a military-spending bill. . . . We’re not going to be able to move the bill, so you tell your mayor that he can be assured that this bill will never see the light of day.’ So Sheldon goes and he goes to the mayor and he says, ‘The bill will never see the light of day, Mr. Mayor. Don’t worry about it.’ ” Weidner also instructed the Sands’s lobbyists in Washington, Patton Boggs, to suggest to the Chinese Embassy that Adelson and Las Vegas Sands were involved in the process that stalled the bill. (According to DeLay’s spokeswoman, DeLay does not recall the conversation and had no role in blocking the bill. Representative Lantos died last February.)

    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:

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was organizing a major conference in the United States, in an effort to re-start the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and her initiative had provoked consternation among many rightward-leaning American Jews and their Christian evangelical allies. Most had seen Bush as a reliable friend of Israel, and one who had not pressured Israel to pursue the peace process. Adelson, who is seventy-four, owns two of Las Vegas’s giant casino resorts, the Venetian and the Palazzo, and is the third-richest person in the United States, according to Forbes. He is fiercely opposed to a two-state solution; and he had contributed so generously to Bush’s reëlection campaign that he qualified as a Bush Pioneer. A short, rotund man, with sparse reddish hair and a pale countenance that colors when he is angered, Adelson protested to Bush that Rice was thinking of her legacy, not the President’s, and that she would ruin him if she continued to pursue this disastrous course. Then, as Adelson later told an acquaintance, Bush put one arm around his shoulder and another around that of his wife, Miriam, who was born in Israel, and said to her, “You tell your Prime Minister that I need to know what’s right for your people—because at the end of the day it’s going to be my policy, not Condi’s. But I can’t be more Catholic than the Pope.” (The White House denies this account.)

    Now the anti-Iran angle where the Shah’s son is too much of a pacifist:

    After Emerson’s presentation, Pooya Dayanim, a Jewish-Iranian democracy activist based in Los Angeles, chatted with Adelson. Recalling their conversation, Dayanim observed that Adelson was dismissive of Reza Pahlevi, the son of the former Shah, who had participated in the Prague conference, because, Adelson said, “he doesn’t want to attack Iran.” According to Dayanim, Adelson referred to another Iranian dissident at the conference, Amir Abbas Fakhravar, whom he said he would like to support, saying, “I like Fakhravar because he says that, if we attack, the Iranian people will be ecstatic.” Dayanim said that when he disputed that assumption Adelson responded, “I really don’t care what happens to Iran. I am for Israel.”

    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.

    • tombishop
      tombishop on January 29, 2012, 1:35 pm

      Thanks richb. And then there is the infamous Max Blumenthal video of the 2007 CUFI conference:

      “Rapture Ready: The Christians United for Israel Tour”

      • richb
        richb on January 29, 2012, 4:10 pm

        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.

        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. and are good places to start.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 29, 2012, 4:17 pm

        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.

      • richb
        richb on January 29, 2012, 4:38 pm

        Romney is surging in recent polling. I will be digging through the cross tabs of the exit polls to see who voted and why.

      • richb
        richb on January 29, 2012, 6:06 pm

        Newt Ginrich speaking at CUFI:

    • Sand
      Sand on January 29, 2012, 5:26 pm

      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?

      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.

      The Biggest Pro-Israel Group in America? That’s Us, Says Christians United. Religious Organization Claims 500,000 Members, Though Some Say Its Definition of Membership Is Expansive

      “…Last year the group distributed, through its sister organization, John Hagee Ministries, more than $8 million to Israeli and Jewish organizations, according to CUFI. CUFI has stated that less than 5% of that sum went to settler organizations operating in the West Bank…”
      Read more:

      Where’s the Christian Zionist base — The hoards of Christians demanding that protecting Israel be their single issue?

  5. FreddyV
    FreddyV on January 29, 2012, 12:22 pm

    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?

    • yourstruly
      yourstruly on January 29, 2012, 2:49 pm

      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.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 29, 2012, 4:22 pm

        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.

      • Sand
        Sand on January 29, 2012, 6:23 pm

        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?

        “…Attitudes toward Israel, however, are more mixed. Overall, 48% of the evangelicals say the state of Israel is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy about the Second Coming of Jesus, while 42% say it is not. More say they sympathize with Israel (34%) than with the Palestinians (11%), but a small majority say they either sympathize with both sides equally (39%) or with neither side (13%). Leaders from sub-Saharan Africa are especially inclined to sympathize with Israel (50%), while sympathy for the Palestinians is strongest in the Middle East and North Africa (26%). Among evangelical leaders from the United States, three-in-ten (30%) sympathize more with Israel, 13% sympathize more with the Palestinians and nearly half (49%) say they sympathize with both sides equally.

        Remembering that these guys control what’s being said from the pulpit.

      • richb
        richb on January 29, 2012, 7:13 pm

        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.

      • jewishgoyim
        jewishgoyim on January 30, 2012, 6:51 am
    • annie
      annie on January 29, 2012, 3:30 pm

      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.

      • American
        American on January 29, 2012, 3:53 pm

        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.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 29, 2012, 4:25 pm

        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.

      • richb
        richb on January 29, 2012, 4:30 pm

        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.

      • john h
        john h on January 29, 2012, 4:49 pm

        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:

        a general estimate of the nation’s evangelicals could safely be said to range somewhere between 30-35% of the population, or about 90-100 million Americans

      • john h
        john h on January 29, 2012, 5:52 pm

        The number of evangelicals is not as significant as is the number that does not vote. Note this from a 2003 report:

        When all Evangelicals were polled regarding their Party and voting preferences, some of the results were surprising. Not surprising is that almost half of all Evangelicals are Republicans, while only one-quarter are Democrats.

        Yet, the single biggest bloc (among all Evangelicals) in 2000 was non-voters at 52 percent, followed by Bush voters at 37 percent and Gore voters at 11 percent. Even among Republican partisans (comprising 47 percent of all Evangelicals), while 77 percent voted for Bush, 33 percent chose not to vote; making non-voters the second biggest voting bloc in the Christian Right. Independent Evangelicals gave 19 percent and 18 percent of their votes to Bush and Gore respectively, but the biggest bloc for Evangelical Independents was also non-voters at 41 percent.[9]

        Many Evangelicals are “swing voters” oscillating between the Republican and Democratic Party; and many more simply feel neither Party represents their interests.

      • American
        American on January 30, 2012, 1:11 am

        John h

        O.K. I will find the data later and re post it.

      • FreddyV
        FreddyV on January 29, 2012, 4:36 pm

        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.

        ‘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.

      • Sand
        Sand on January 29, 2012, 5:54 pm

        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.

        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

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen on January 30, 2012, 11:06 am

        “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

      • FreddyV
        FreddyV on January 29, 2012, 4:55 pm

        OK, here’s a scary little thought for you:

        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.

      • richb
        richb on January 29, 2012, 5:54 pm

        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:

        Sheets is an internationally known leader of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) and one of the apostolic authorities over the 50-state prayer networks. Other NAR apostles, including Lance Wallnau, promoted Gingrich through these networks prior to the South Carolina primaries. Participants were encouraged to read an 18-page letter from Jim Garlow citing reasons for his support of Gingrich and the validity of his spiritual “restoration,” and also directed participants to a link to audio of a January 12 conference call with Gingrich and South Carolina pastors.

        It’s impossible to measure the impact of the NAR’s support on the outcome in South Carolina, but it is becoming clear that NAR leadership is getting in line behind Gingrich despite the endorsement of Rick Santorum by James Dobson and other “old guard” of the Religious Right.

        Jim Garlow is a national co-chair for the Gingrich campaign’s Faith Leaders Coalition which was formed prior to the South Carolina primary, and includes George Barna (chair), Don Wildmon, Matthew Staver, Richard Lee, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, and J.C. Watts. Michael Youseff was also added to the list this week.

        Garlow also heads Renewing American Leadership (ReAL) founded by Gingrich and Rick Tyler in 2009. David Barton, the nation’s most prominent promoter of Christian nationalist history, is also on the board and has traveled around the nation with Gingrich speaking at Pastors Policy Briefings. Both Garlow and Barton have worked closely with the NAR apostles for years, as noted in previous articles.  

        Garlow led a conference call on January 9, to introduce pastors “from South Carolina and across the country.” Garlow introduced George Barna, chairman of the Faith Leaders Coalition, who remarked that in twenty-plus years he had never endorsed a person or a product, but that he was supporting Gingrich out of sense of urgency for the future of the nation. Barna was followed by Donald Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association and then Gingrich, who began with testimony of his spiritual development.  Right Wing Watch has pulled a few short audio clips from the call.

      • john h
        john h on January 29, 2012, 6:14 pm

        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.

      • FreddyV
        FreddyV on January 29, 2012, 7:09 pm

        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.

      • FreddyV
        FreddyV on January 29, 2012, 7:20 pm


        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?

      • john h
        john h on January 30, 2012, 3:09 am

        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.

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen on January 30, 2012, 11:08 am

        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

      • mudder
        mudder on January 29, 2012, 5:37 pm

        In 2005 the Pew Research Center released survey results on evangelicals’ attitudes toward I/P:

      • richb
        richb on January 30, 2012, 12:46 am

        Note the split between traditionalist and modernist evangelicals in the Pew poll but little difference between modernist evangelicals, mainline Protestants and Catholics.

      • richb
        richb on January 30, 2012, 10:04 am

        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.

      • richb
        richb on January 30, 2012, 11:55 am

        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.

        For some time, I have been raising the alarm that evangelical Christianity has been infiltrated by theological leftists. Among other things, this impacts our nation’s view of Israel.

        Recently, I was made aware of a movement of young evangelicals who are embracing what the British lecturer Paul Wilkinson calls “Christian Palestinianism.” Loosely, 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.

        A battle for Israel is being fought in the United States right now. Traditionally, Americans have supported the Jewish state, and the U.S. has always been one of the few friendly havens for Jews. I believe that is changing.

        Chris LaTondresse, CEO of Recovering Evangelical ( is such a leader. By embracing new media and technologies, they are reaching vast numbers of young people. To be perfectly frank, while many of us in the Bible prophecy community cling to old models in presenting our worldview, young people aren’t paying attention at all. They are running to the “recovering evangelicals.” Listen to what LaTondresse posted on his website:

        “Our generation’s tutors are child-soldiers in Uganda, girls rescued from sex-slavery in Thailand and homeless youth living in the crumbling remains of America’s inner-cities. Our primary classrooms are Brazilian favelas, rural villages in Kenya and bombed-out neighborhoods in Gaza. These people aren’t our causes. They’re our friends.

        “For these reasons and more, we’re turned-off when faith becomes a bludgeon used to condemn those outside of our tribe. We think the world needs fewer culture warriors and more peacemakers, reconcilers and bridge builders.”

        Of course, he is interested in building bridges with those of like-mind. I seriously doubt the young evangelicals who consider themselves centrists or left-leaning are interested in building bridges with what I’d call Bible-believing Christians. And, it is perfectly acceptable for them and Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo — mentors of a sort — to use their faith as a bludgeon against those with whom they disagree. Amazingly, McLaren is considered to be a voice of reason and a compassionate voice, at the same time he lambasts Bible-believing Christians.

        LaTondresse has been impacted by the teachings of Elias Chacour, a Palestinian Catholic from the Galilee who promotes the “Palestinian narrative” which essentially blames the Arab refugee problem on Israel. As LaTondresse claims, Chacour “loves Jesus,” but one isn’t clear if these men acknowledge that Jesus is a Jew. Certainly, the godfather of modern terrorism, the self-proclaimed leader of the Palestinian people, Yasser Arafat, absurdly identified Jesus as a Palestinian. This lie has also been peddled by such “evangelical icons” as Phillip Yancey.

        The leadership team of Recovering Evangelical, seven-strong, is comprised of college graduates — including one from Princeton Theological Seminary. One hundred years ago, Princeton was in the midst of a transformation from being a bastion of conservative scholarship, to a liberal school. That is why such wonderful teachers as Robert Dick Wilson departed Princeton. The spirit of the age was against them, and it is against us.

        Interestingly, one of Recovering Evangelical’s senior contributors, Brian Kammerzelt, currently serves on the faculty at Moody! He also taught at Wheaton, which many Christians do not realize is more liberal than conservative. He also attended Willow Creek, the seeker-friendly church in north Chicago started by Bill Hybels.

        Hybels’ wife, Lynne, has become more and more vocal about supporting the Palestinians. On her blog (, she recently posted some comments about a sermon her husband had delivered the month following the 9/11 attacks.

        Predictably, Bill Hybels decried what he described as unfair characterizations of Muslims, by Americans. This after 19 Muslim terrorists had murdered more than 3,000 Americans. ABC’s Peter Jennings went down the same path, almost immediately holding a town-hall meeting to present Muslims as misunderstood peaceniks.

        Lynne Hybels wrote this about her husband’s message:

        “He talked about ‘hot reactors,’ people who ‘opinionate before they reflect, before they bow down and pray; who ventilate before they ask God for sober-mindedness and self-control; who indict whole races of people before they know the facts. Let’s call this what it is: not good. Not good behavior. Not good Christianity. This is Christianity gone awry.’”

        Lynne Hybels also spoke at the “Christ at the Checkpoint” International Conference, organized by Palestinians and Christians who oppose Christian Zionists. On the website (, we also learn that Tony Campolo characterizes Christian Zionism as “theology that legitimates oppression.”

        Christian Zionism is a theology that legitimates oppression? That is a lie.

        These kinds of potshots and smear tactics against Christians who support Israel are growing in number. Christian Zionists, in my view, must determine to do two things:

        Read, study, and educate. Learn the arguments. Study the issues related to Israel and the Jewish people. Then use your brain to articulate these things to your circle of contacts. A word of caution: the nastiness of the proponents of “Christian Palestinianism” will be a continual problem. Yet we must engage these attacks, which are ultimately attacks on the Jewish people.
        Embrace the new technologies. Use tools like social networking, PowerPoint presentations if you speak to groups, etc. If you think you’re too old for Facebook, think again. “Tweet” on Twitter. Realize that cell phones are the new delivery systems for young people. While we are fumbling with overheard projectors and slides, our opponents are laughing, while providing the content they want young people to digest via new technology.

        Leftists will always present themselves as reasonable, compassionate, “careful thinkers.” They focus heavily on social justice issues, and love causes that would make the Pacifists’ Hall of Fame.

        Yet there is a malevolence associated with their loathing of Christian Zionists. Check it out for yourselves.

        We have work to do

      • FreddyV
        FreddyV on January 30, 2012, 3:57 pm

        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.

      • john h
        john h on January 30, 2012, 10:41 pm

        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,

        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.

  6. jabaroot
    jabaroot on January 29, 2012, 12:51 pm

    You thought that was stunning? Have you seen the piece on Adelson in the NYT today? I couldn’t believe it.

    • seafoid
      seafoid on January 29, 2012, 3:44 pm

      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.

  7. bindup
    bindup on January 29, 2012, 12:51 pm

    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! :)

    • Citizen
      Citizen on January 29, 2012, 4:32 pm

      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.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen on January 30, 2012, 11:11 am

      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

  8. Mndwss
    Mndwss on January 29, 2012, 12:56 pm

    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.”

    “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.” !!!!!!!!!!

    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.

    • Citizen
      Citizen on January 29, 2012, 4:38 pm

      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.

  9. Kathleen
    Kathleen on January 29, 2012, 1:06 pm

    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?

  10. Kathleen
    Kathleen on January 29, 2012, 1:24 pm

    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.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen on January 29, 2012, 3:13 pm

      Went up today

    • gamal
      gamal on January 29, 2012, 5:43 pm

      “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).

    • Daniel Rich
      Daniel Rich on January 29, 2012, 6:35 pm

      General [sic] Dostum

      Documentary ‘Massacre of Talibans – The Convoy of Death, a documentary (2002)’ @

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen on January 30, 2012, 11:12 am


    • MRW
      MRW on January 29, 2012, 7:46 pm

      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.

      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. . . . 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 thought everybody knew this!]

      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.

  11. Sand
    Sand on January 29, 2012, 1:36 pm

    Another story on Adelson. You may have already linked to it — but just in case.

    Who Is Sheldon Adelson, the Gingrich Super PAC’s Billionaire Backer?
    By Molly Ball @ The Atlantic.
    Jan 25, 2012

  12. Avi_G.
    Avi_G. on January 29, 2012, 2:05 pm

    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.

    • Sand
      Sand on January 29, 2012, 4:41 pm

      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:

      “…Mr. Saban said he gave $7 million specifically for the construction of the Democratic National Committee’s high-tech headquarters here. The building will cost $32 million, a sum that will be paid entirely with soft money donations that will be illegal after Nov. 6.

      “…Over the three election cycles from 2002 through 2006, Saban contributed $12.7 million to the party and to Democratic candidates — outstripping the runner-up in individual donations, real estate investor and movie producer Stephen L. Bing, who gave $8.9 million. Saban has been a fervent supporter of Clinton in her quest for the White House, as he was of her husband, President Clinton…”

      Something of note — In 2012, the Zionist camp on both sides of the aisle are definitely upping the ante.

      • Daniel Rich
        Daniel Rich on January 29, 2012, 6:40 pm

        @Avi G. & Sand,

        A simple look at [US] foreign politics provides all the answers.

    • dahoit
      dahoit on January 30, 2012, 11:29 am

      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.

  13. Sand
    Sand on January 29, 2012, 2:08 pm

    IMHO another interesting story:

    One U.S. family is responsible for half of Netanyahu’s donations
    Owners of Duty Free America, a large chain of duty-free shops that operates in 13 airports, pledged half of NIS 330,000 Netanyahu raised.

    By Ophir Bar-Zohar

    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 This should be interesting.

    Doh! – noting from the ‘Jewish’ perspective they have a lot of work to do!

    Poll: Latinos Believe U.S. Too Supportive of Israel = National Survey of Jewish and Latino Americans Finds Anti-Semitism Exists Within The Latino Community.

    • yourstruly
      yourstruly on January 29, 2012, 4:06 pm

      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?

  14. yourstruly
    yourstruly on January 29, 2012, 2:31 pm

    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.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen on January 29, 2012, 3:17 pm

      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.

    • Amar
      Amar on January 29, 2012, 3:30 pm

      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.

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen on January 30, 2012, 11:13 am

        Amar all we can do is keep pushing pushing hard

  15. Sand
    Sand on January 29, 2012, 2:34 pm

    And, something to make your eyes pop:

    Barack Obama (D)
    2012 Bundlers

    Bundlers are people with friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who’s willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate in one big “bundle.”

    Even though these donors direct more money to the candidates than anyone else, disclosure can be spotty, candidates generally release bundlers by ranges of fundraising, indicated in this chart with the “max” and “min” columns, and with the top ranges being simply “$500,000 or more.” Together, 357 elites are directing at least $55,900,000 for Obama’s re-election efforts — money that has gone into the coffers of his campaign as well as the Democratic National Committee.

    Accompanying article:

    Jewish Fundraisers Stick With Obama
    Despite Taking Lumps, President Maintains Strong Support

    Read more:

    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:

    “…Despite the fact that he resigned from his post in the Obama administration, longtime American [?] diplomat Dennis Ross just cannot quit. Haaretz has learned that Ross still advises President Barak Obama on a regular basis, and maintains an open channel with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu…

  16. Bill in Maryland
    Bill in Maryland on January 29, 2012, 2:39 pm

    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!

    • annie
      annie on January 29, 2012, 3:41 pm

      i will have to watch it again and check her out.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen on January 30, 2012, 11:15 am

      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.

  17. Citizen
    Citizen on January 29, 2012, 3:48 pm

    Mort Klein, at ZOA meeting, playing Newt Gingrich on fire:

    • iamuglow
      iamuglow on January 29, 2012, 7:15 pm

      Man, what an ugly speech. The gall to call the Palestenians racist when that is the very thing that makes him ticks.

  18. john h
    john h on January 29, 2012, 4:01 pm
    • Kathleen
      Kathleen on January 30, 2012, 11:16 am

      Thanks. this is what needs to be looked at. Agent of a foreign nation. Register under FARA

  19. seafoid
    seafoid on January 29, 2012, 4:07 pm

    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.

  20. Justice Please
    Justice Please on January 29, 2012, 6:04 pm

    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.

  21. MRW
    MRW on January 29, 2012, 7:40 pm

    All Chris Hayes did was broadcast a New Yorker story. His ass was covered as a result.

  22. upsidedownism
    upsidedownism on January 29, 2012, 8:22 pm

    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.

  23. Keith
    Keith on January 29, 2012, 9:17 pm

    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.

  24. RoHa
    RoHa on January 30, 2012, 12:48 am

    “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.

  25. Henry Norr
    Henry Norr on January 30, 2012, 3:08 am

    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.”

  26. jewishgoyim
    jewishgoyim on January 30, 2012, 8:00 am

    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?

  27. Chaos4700
    Chaos4700 on January 30, 2012, 8:45 am

    I guess the elephant is so damn big now, it just can’t be ignored without looking like an idiot.

    • Tuyzentfloot
      Tuyzentfloot on January 30, 2012, 9:45 am

      Anyone may be excused for not recognizing an elephant when it’s so big it’s pressing up against their noses :)

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen on January 30, 2012, 11:17 am

      Lots of idiots out there

  28. brenda
    brenda on January 30, 2012, 11:37 am

    “… 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.

    • john h
      john h on January 30, 2012, 4:57 pm

      Here’s some of what is needed, brenda,

      Just in passing, nice to have you on board, appreciate your posts.

      • brenda
        brenda on January 31, 2012, 6:23 pm

        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.

  29. john h
    john h on January 30, 2012, 6:37 pm

    Sheldon, Newt and Bibi: Egomaniacs for a strong Israel

Leave a Reply