← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Rudel

Rush Limbaugh names the Jew?

Thread ID: 10412 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2003-10-11

Wayback Archive

Rudel [OP]

2003-10-11 08:21 | User Profile

[I]Shortly before being sacked from his job as NFL commentator:[/I]

“Is every Democrat of prominence going to find Jewish roots in their past?” Limbaugh asked recently. “Remember Madeleine Albright? John Kerry all of a sudden found out that somewhere deep, dark in the bowels of his family is a Jewish relative. And even Hillary [Clinton] found some Jewish relationship way, way, way back. Some ancestor was a distant cousin to Moses or some such thing.”

Limbaugh called the whole thing “a total pander.”

“It never ends,” he said. “Soon they are going to find that they’ve got some black relatives. They’ll dig up relatives to match whatever minority happens to be ruling the roost at the time.”

Limbaugh asked, “Why have we never heard of Wesley Clark’s Jewish roots until he became a presidential candidate? Am I being cynical? You’re damn right I am, folks — and happily so.”

[url]http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=8541[/url]

Faust

2003-10-11 08:31 | User Profile

dtrdtcfhyu [QUOTE]Rush To Judgment Limbaugh having problems with candidates digging deep for their Jewish roots. Jonathan Mark - Associate Editor

Rush Limbaugh, just before his blitz on black quarterbacks, said presidential candidates claiming Jewish ancestry is “getting out of hand.” Limbaugh was ticked off by reports that the retired Gen. Wesley Clark is descended from five generations of rabbis before being raised as a Christian.

“Is every Democrat of prominence going to find Jewish roots in their past?” Limbaugh asked recently. “Remember Madeleine Albright? John Kerry all of a sudden found out that somewhere deep, dark in the bowels of his family is a Jewish relative. And even Hillary [Clinton] found some Jewish relationship way, way, way back. Some ancestor was a distant cousin to Moses or some such thing.”

Limbaugh called the whole thing “a total pander.”

“It never ends,” he said. “Soon they are going to find that they’ve got some black relatives. They’ll dig up relatives to match whatever minority happens to be ruling the roost at the time.”

Limbaugh asked, “Why have we never heard of Wesley Clark’s Jewish roots until he became a presidential candidate? Am I being cynical? You’re damn right I am, folks — and happily so.”

Hey, Rush, The Jewish Week reported Clark’s rabbinical ancestors in 1999, before he became a candidate.

But Judaism might attract Jewish wrath as well as votes. Philip Weiss, a columnist for The New York Observer who happens to be intermarried, has written several pieces in which he questions the right of Jews to hold public office if they are “racist” enough to think intermarriage is a threat to Jewish survival.

Weiss raised the issue at least three times regarding Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman in 2000, and a few weeks ago in a front-page story about Elliot Abrams of the National Security Council. Abrams claims intermarriage has “largely wrecked” the Jewish community.

Weiss’ position is that “a lot of this rhetoric has a segregationist ring to it” and is “oddly reminiscent of southern whites’ concern with miscegenation.” Weiss said Abrams “should pay [the] price ... either give up his job or step back from his extreme views.” Jewish candidates beware.

In Rolling Stone (Oct. 16), Clark didn’t play the Jewish card, but did approve of Israel’s use of pre-emptive military strikes. Asked if Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon “needs to be hemmed in?” Clark answered that Israel “is beset by nations that want to destroy it. Any nation that is under attack has the right to self-defense. And the right to self-defense is the right to strike pre-emptively to disrupt the threat.”

Clark approves of Israel’s security fence because “It says to the Arab world the clock is ticking, we’re not prepared to make unlimited concessions, we have our principles and we will fight for them.”

Israel’s air strike against Syria, in retaliation for the suicide bombing in Haifa, was explained this way by the BBC Ramallah correspondent Barbara Plett (Oct. 5): “Syria is, of course, Israel’s enemy. The two countries are still in an official state of war, caused by Israel’s occupation and illegal annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights.”

Of course, right-wingers might suggest that Syria went to war in 1948 at Israel’s birth, then used the Golan Heights as a tank and artillery perch to destroy Israel in 1967 and again on Yom Kippur 1973. But the BBC takes the more progressive view.

Elsewhere in England, the Telegraph wrote in an editorial (Oct. 6) that Israel is “perfectly justified in striking a neighbor that sponsors groups wishing to drive the Israelis into the sea. That this is the first such attack in more than 20 years suggests that the Assad regime … has been treated with remarkable indulgence.”

The New York Times (Oct. 7) editorial damned the “weekend of despicable Palestinian terror and a recklessly inappropriate Israeli military reprisal deep inside Syria,” chiding President Bush for encouraging Sharon’s “most hawkish impulses.” Yes, “Americans fully understand that no Israeli government can accept endless terrorism,” but no, “Palestinian violence ought not to lead Israel across a military threshold it has wisely respected for three decades.”

Wall Street Journal on-line columnist Claudia Rosett (Sep. 24) cautioned against the cliches of wartime that muddy our sense of reality. For example, there can’t be a “war on terror” without war on the citizens and states that applaud and support terror.

“In Syria,” Rosett said, “the problem is not simply some faceless phenomenon called ‘terrorist sponsorship’ but [a regime] “run by a dictator, Bashar Assad, whose address is Damascus.”

Rosett preferred the term “suicide bombers,” not “homicide bombers,” because the latter doesn’t convey the killer’s willingness to die. “The task is to convey both an accurate description of this revolting act and the depth of malign intent,” she said. “Such killers are monsters, grotesques, and by now may warrant a concise ugly word all their own. Maybe we should call them ‘ghouls’ — a term for evil spirits that feed on corpses — also a word which, derived as it is from Arabic, might have some useful resonance in the Middle East.”

The Wall Street Journal’s editors (Sept. 7) offered a suggestion of their own: Arafat “should enter history not merely as the name of one autocratic man but as the name we assign to an entire Western phenomenon of false thinking. ‘Arafat,’ we now see, has come to represent the act of self-delusion on a massive, international scale. ‘Arafat’ is about refusing to believe that an adversary is simply irredeemable.”

What’s in a word? Israeli papers often play the same story in quite different ways. Haaretz of Sept. 22 headlined, “Jews purchase land near Rachel’s Tomb; planning new settlement.” Hatzofeh that same day didn’t see a settlement. “Buyers establish place of Torah study,” it wrote.

Sadly, there aren’t too many ways to “play” this next item. A Yediot Achronot editorial wondered if the government knows what to do about the 72 percent of Israelis who “believe that there is no future for youth here.” n

[/QUOTE]

il ragno

2003-10-11 08:37 | User Profile

As Rush predictably stepped down today (temporarily, he hopes) because of his 'drug problem', he now has a built-in excuse for many of the things he's recently said.

Biggest joke: "Immediately following this broadcast, I am checking myself into a treatment center for the next 30 days to once and for all break the hold this highly addictive medication has on me,'' he added. Every junkie in the world jumps all over that "30 day total cure". Heck, with any luck he'll score a few doctors' phone numbers there.

Meanwhile today 65-year old has been Tommy Chong began a nine-month bit for selling bongs over the internet. How beautiful is that? Limbaugh eats thousands of black-market OxyContins and gets a 'rest cure'....Chong sells paraphernilia - perfectly legal in most states -and does time.

Oops...guess I forgot J.E. Dubya called Rush a 'great American'.

Recluse

2003-10-11 09:50 | User Profile

"Let's all admit something."

Rush Limbaugh was on his usual tear.

"There's nothing good about drug use," he was saying. "We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

[url]http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/columnists/nyc-henn1003,0,4055397.column?coll=ny-opinion-columnists[/url]

il ragno

2003-10-11 10:04 | User Profile

More wisdom 'on loan from God':

"What this says to me, is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, and send them up the river, too." Rush Limbaugh

"When you strip it all away, Jerry Garcia destroyed his life on drugs. And yet he's being honored, like some godlike figure. Our priorities are out of whack, folks." Rush Limbaugh

The American Dream. Smoke a joint - or grow your own! - go to jail. Send out your maid to buy you $80,000 worth of black-market pills, go golfing with GOP bigwigs the day you get out of your 30-day 'rest cure'.

Sertorius

2003-10-11 12:23 | User Profile

Hmm, Newt Gitrich, Richard Perle, Bill "slots" Bennett and a host of other hypocrites. The list goes on. My, how the mighty have fallen!

Yes, and we are going to see some first rate hypocrisy from the "dittoheads" about Rush. They will conduct themselves everybit as shamefully as the Clinton defenders. I can imagine the fools saying crap like "Rush succumbed to this from fighting a one man war against evil 'liberals" and Democrats!' "He was trying to single handedly trying to save America!," ect. ad nauseam. The excuses from these paragons of virtual ought to be quite funny. Hell, I believe that before it is over they'll find someway to blame Clinton.

That's right, Il Ragno. These worthless hypocrites would throw someone under the jail if they were caught smoking a joint, for they obviously must be a "liberal and a traitor," but when it comes to el Pillbo it is different, for that is their "leader." So much for this man who would have you believe that you could trust your daughter to in a Motel Six, this man of "character and integrity!" :lol: Rush should have practice what he preaches to everyone else-- the business about showing courage and being tough. Yes, in the same way he showed it in Viet Nam, fighting the V.C. and the Chu Luc. (N.V.A.) Right. What a p*ssy.

While I'd normally have some compassion for someone in Limbaugh's straits, I can't in his. This pompus, arrogant son of a bitch has done not only alot of damage to genuine conservatism, but on top of it his smears of paleos, his constant lying about the war, his shrilling for Israel has gone way the hell over the line.

G.I.s are being killed and wounded partially because the efforts of this worthless piece of pig:dung:.

The best thing that bastard can do is to crawl back under the rock he came out from under with his ill gotten millions and retire to play golf.

What would be a perfect conclusion to what I would hope would be the demise to neo-con talk radio would be if it were discovered that the "christian"zionut Sean Hannity turned out to be a devil worshipper! :lol: I wonder if Jim Robinson will pull the link to Rush's website on "Free" Republic. :tnguess:

Have fun in detox, el Swinebo!

Hugh Lincoln

2003-10-28 01:22 | User Profile

There is a difference between a White man doing drugs and holding a job and a filthy negro sticking up stores to feed his crack habit. But because we are all on guard against "inequality," we must pretend they are on the same plane.