Maureen Dowd, "Hi-Ho, Lone Ranger": More Anti-Semitism Courtesy of The New York Times

Tweet


I am so sick of New York Times op-eds alluding to Jewish money, Jewish power and Jewish control over government.

In May 2009, The New York Times published an op-ed by Roger Cohen entitled "Obama in Netanyahu's Web" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinion/28iht-edcohen.html). In response, I quickly shot off an email to Andrew Rosenthal of The Times:

"The Times should have given more thought to the title of Cohen's op-ed. As I tried to illustrate in my e-mail to Clark Hoyt, there is a long anti-Semitic history of depicting Jews as ugly voracious spiders. Netanyahu is no spider, and Obama is no butterfly. The title could only serve to inflame hatred."

Rosenthal replied:

"It was not a good headline, I agree. By the time this column gets to the times website it has already been published in the IHT [International Herald Tribune] on paper and online. This is not an excuse. It is an explanation. The headline should have been changes there [sic]."

Problem resolved? Not a chance. In December 2011, Thomas Friedman wrote a New York Times op-ed entitled “Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir,” in which he declared:

"I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."

Yup, the money of the "Israel lobby," according to Friedman, controls Congress.

And then in February 2012, The New York Times published an op-ed by Roger Cohen entitled "The Dilemmas of Jewish Power." Does this title remind you of something? It should. In a 1935 speech to the Reichstag introducing the Nuremberg Laws, Hitler stated:

"The third [law] is an attempt to regulate by law [the Jewish] problem, which, should this attempt fail, must then be handed over by law to the National-Socialist Party for a final solution."

After I complained to Rosenthal about the title of this op-ed by Cohen, it was quickly changed to "The Dilemmas of Israeli Power."

Well, it is now July 2015, and Maureen Dowd has just one-upped (one-downed?) Cohen and Friedman. Dowd concludes her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hi-Ho, Lone Ranger" by informing us (my emphasis in red):

"Obama has always radiated the smug air that he was right and any other positions were illogical. But it is gratifying when aimed at the obnoxious Republicans and more obnoxious Bibi.

Republicans were never going to go for the Iran deal. Their apocalyptic statements were written well in advance and they just had to hit 'Send' followed by a fund-raising appeal to Jewish donors.

Obama is gambling that he won’t hurt his party and that in 10 years Iran will be a better member of the international community. But he can’t do worse as an oracle of the Middle East than the conservative warmongers who ravaged the region."

Notice that Dowd directly refers to "Jewish donors" and does not even bother pointing an accusing finger at the "Israel lobby" or AIPAC. No mention by Dowd that billionaire George Soros, a Jew, is lobbying hard for the nuclear deal with Iran through the various "progressive" organizations that he funds, e.g., J Street and MoveOn. Also no mention by Dowd that the nuclear deal was negotiated by Jewish social worker Wendy Sherman, who "aced" the nuclear negotiations with North Korea. And no mention by Dowd that Obama had the overwhelming support of American Jews in both 2008 and 2012.

But tell me, Maureen, why shouldn't Jews be concerned by the daily calls by the Khamenei regime for the annihilation of Israel, i.e. a second Holocaust? Jews should have believed Hitler, but they shouldn't believe Khamenei? And is it only the Jews who should be concerned by the very real prospect of a second Holocaust.

A pity, indeed, that Dowd does not consider the threat of some 100,000 missiles given by Iran to Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon, all aimed at Israel. As stated by Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's leader, "If all the Jews were gathered in Israel, it would save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." Yes, Hezbollah is one of the various terrorist organizations funded by Iran, which stands to benefit when the sanctions against Iran are removed and more than $120 billion flood Khamenei's coffers.

And when Khamenei's speeches following Obama's nuclear deal with Iran are still accompanied by calls for "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!" as happened yesterday, is it prudent to allow Iran to arm itself with ballistic missiles capable of hitting the US after eight years, and to allow Iran to build a nuclear arsenal after ten years (provided of course that all of this doesn't happen sooner if the mullahs cheat - which they will)?

Obama "can’t do worse as an oracle of the Middle East than the conservative warmongers who ravaged the region"? Let's see if Maureen still believes that after the first nuclear-tipped Iranian ICBM lands in Washington.

Sorry, Maureen. Congressional opposition to Obama's deal with Iran is not about "Jewish donors." Rather, it is about common sense. Republicans and Bibi are "obnoxious"? Have a look in the mirror, dear. What you will see is something that is "noxious" as opposed to "obnoxious."

Thomas Friedman, "Is It Sheldon Adelson’s World?": What About George Soros?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Is It Sheldon Adelson’s World?," Obama acolyte Thomas Friedman attempts to tar and feather Sheldon Adelson, who was present at Netanyahu's recent speech before Congress; however, Friedman chooses to ignore the basic questions any impartial observer would ask after reading his opinion piece. Friedman writes:

"We certainly know that Mr. Adelson does. And when it came to showering that cash on Republican presidential hopefuls and right-wing PACs trying to defeat President Obama (reportedly $150 million in 2012), and on keeping Netanyahu and his Likud party in office, no single billionaire-donor is more influential than Sheldon. No matter what his agenda, it is troubling that one man, with a willingness and ability to give away giant sums, can now tilt Israeli and American politics his way at the same time."

Needless to say, there is no mention of billionaire George Soros and his funding of "progressive" organizations such as J Street and The Brookings Institution, which are busy advocating on behalf of Obama's nuclear development deal with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei.

Friedman continues:

"Israel has much stricter laws on individuals donating to political campaigns, so Adelson got around that in 2007 by founding a free, giveaway newspaper in Israel — Israel Hayom — whose sole purpose is to back Netanyahu, attack his enemies in politics and the media, and enforce a far-right political agenda to prevent any Israeli territorial compromise on the West Bank (which, in time, could undermine Israel as a Jewish democracy).

. . . .

Adelson then bought the most important newspaper of the religious-nationalist right in Israel, Makor Rishon, long considered the main backer of Netanyahu’s biggest right-wing rival, Economy Minister Naftali Bennett. Last March, in an interview with Israel Army Radio after the Makor Rishon sale, Bennett said: 'It saddens me. Israel Hayom is not a newspaper. It is Pravda. It’s the mouthpiece of one person, the prime minister. At every junction point, every point of friction between the national interest and the interest of the prime minister, they chose the side of the prime minister.'"

Hold your horses, Tom! Isn't The New York Times the "mouthpiece" of President Obama? Many, including myself, are of the belief that "At every junction point, every point of friction between the national interest and the interest of the prime minister [president], they chose [The New York Times chooses] the side of the prime minister [president].

Friedman concludes:

"When money in politics gets this big, when it can make elected officials bow and scrape in two different countries at the same time, it is troubling. I’m sure Adelson cares deeply about Israel, but he lacks any sense of limits in how he exercises his extraordinary financial power — power he is using to simultaneously push Israel and America toward eliminating any two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians, toward defunding the Palestinian Authority and toward a confrontation with Iran, not a diplomatic solution. People need to know this."

Well, I believe in a two-state solution, but I also support reimposing a stringent sanctions regime upon Iran. Providing the mullahs with an arsenal of atomic bombs in a decade or less, i.e. the deal being pursued by Obama, is certain to result in a Middle East nuclear war, not necessarily involving Israel. But more to the point, you can't ask Adelson to stop funding the right wing causes dear to his heart, while ignoring the left wing organizations being financed by Soros.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. C'est tout.

Paul Krugman, "Wealth Over Work": How Much Are Bill and Hillary Worth?

Politics is a rich person's game, and there can be no gainsaying the link between extreme wealth and political prominence throughout American history. As reported in a USA Today article entitled "Report: The 10 richest U.S. presidents" (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/15/10-richest-presidents/5514567/) by Ashley C. Allen, America's wealthiest presidents have included George Washington, Thomas Jefferson (before he sank into debt), Andrew Jackson, James Madison, LBJ, FDR, JFK and . . . Bill Clinton. Of course, Bill and Hillary Clinton could be headed back to the White House in 2017. What is the combined worth of these two "lovebirds"? According to Allen:

"Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential ticket, according to most political pundits. The presidential hopeful's husband, former President Bill Clinton, has made millions on lucrative book deals and more than $100 million on the speaking circuit. Secretary Clinton has recently begun to earn that kind of money as well.

Secretary Clinton received an estimated $14 million advance on her new book last year, and she has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars for each speaking engagement, figures that rival her husband's. In all, the couple's net worth is estimated by 24/7 Wall St. to be $55 million, making it one of the wealthiest presidential estates in history."

No the Clintons are not suffering financially.

But more to the point, there are more Democrats than Republicans on Allen's list.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Wealth Over Work" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/opinion/krugman-wealth-over-work.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), Paul Krugman blames a "nascent oligarchy" in the US on the Republican Party. Krugman writes:

"America’s nascent oligarchy may not yet be fully formed — but one of our two main political parties already seems committed to defending the oligarchy’s interests.

Despite the frantic efforts of some Republicans to pretend otherwise, most people realize that today’s G.O.P. favors the interests of the rich over those of ordinary families. I suspect, however, that fewer people realize the extent to which the party favors returns on wealth over wages and salaries. And the dominance of income from capital, which can be inherited, over wages — the dominance of wealth over work — is what patrimonial capitalism is all about."

But is it only the Republicans who favor the rich over ordinary families? As was reported by The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444752504578024661927487192), "no major U.S. corporation did more to finance [Obama's] campaign than Goldman Sachs Group Inc." Obama certainly had no aversion to accepting this money from wealthy investment bankers, whose contributions, of course, were not intended to curry favor with the Democratic presidential candidate and influence future policy determinations.

Krugman's conclusion:

"Why is this happening? Well, bear in mind that both Koch brothers are numbered among the 10 wealthiest Americans, and so are four Walmart heirs. Great wealth buys great political influence — and not just through campaign contributions. Many conservatives live inside an intellectual bubble of think tanks and captive media that is ultimately financed by a handful of megadonors. Not surprisingly, those inside the bubble tend to assume, instinctively, that what is good for oligarchs is good for America.

As I’ve already suggested, the results can sometimes seem comical. The important point to remember, however, is that the people inside the bubble have a lot of power, which they wield on behalf of their patrons. And the drift toward oligarchy continues."

Needless to say, no mention by Krugman of George Soros, "The Man Who Broke the Bank of England," who, with a net worth $23 billion (http://www.forbes.com/profile/george-soros/), has made massive contributions to "progressive-liberal" political causes. In fact, Soros once declared that removing President George W. Bush from office was the "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death" (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/12/uselections2004.usa).

In a nutshell, Krugman, who once wrote "It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details," has again discarded objectivity in yet another effort to further his radical objectives. What a surprise . . .

Me, a Republican booster? No way. I was once a registered Democrat; however, today, clinging to the tenets of equality, I am equally contemptuous of both parties.

Paul Krugman, "All the G.O.P.’s Gekkos": Was Obama the Beneficiary of a Gift That Should Have Been Reported to the IRS?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "All the G.O.P.’s Gekkos" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/opinion/krugman-all-the-gops-gekkos.html?hp), Paul Krugman compares Mitt Romney’s lucrative business activity at Bain Capital with the greed and malfeasance of Gordon Gekko, the fictional antagonist in Oliver Stone's movie "Wall Street.” Acknowledging toward the end of his opinion piece that Romney is not a villain, Krugman concludes:

"The truth is that what’s good for the 1 percent, or even better the 0.1 percent, isn’t necessarily good for the rest of America — and Mr. Romney’s career illustrates that point perfectly. There’s no need, and no reason, to hate Mr. Romney and others like him. We do, however, need to get such people paying more in taxes — and we shouldn’t let myths about 'job creators' get in the way."

"Such people" should be paying more in taxes? I agree, and this includes persons such as Obama supporters George Soros and Jon Corzine.

And what about millionaire Barack Obama himself?

On the same day Obama purchased his Chicago mansion, the wife of convicted felon Tony Rezko bought the adjacent empty lot from the same seller, who wanted to sell both properties together. However, as reported by ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1):

"While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land, Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. The house sold for $1,650,000 and the price Rezko's wife paid for the land was $625,000.

Obama denies there was anything unusual about the price disparity. He says the price on the house was dropped because it had been on the market for some time but that the price for the adjacent land remained high because there was another offer."

"Nothing unusual about the price disparity"? As reported by The Washington Times in 2008 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/04/fbi-asked-questions-on-rezko-land-deal/?page=all), a Chicago real estate specialist claimed that the price paid by Rezko's wife for the adjoining property was excessive, whereas Obama paid significantly less than market value:

"A former Illinois real estate specialist says FBI agents have questioned him about a Chicago property that had been bought by convicted felon Tony Rezko’s wife and later sold to the couple’s next-door neighbor, Sen. Barack Obama.

. . . .

'Agents and I talked about payoff, bribe, kickback for a long time, though it took them only a short number of minutes of talking with me while looking at the appraisal to acknowledge what they already seemed to know: The Rezko lot was grossly overvalued,' Mr. Conner told The Washington Times Monday.

'Rezko paid the asking price on the same day Obama paid $300,000 less than the asking price to the same seller for his adjacent mansion,' he said. 'This begs the question of payoff, bribe, kickback.'

In a wrongful-termination complaint filed last month in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Mr. Conner said his appraisal of the Rezko property, held in Rita Malki Rezko’s name, was replaced with a higher one and he was fired when he questioned the document."

Let's ignore any possible allegation of a bribe or kickback and also not examine the question of how community organizer Barack Obama and his wife managed to finance a $1,650,000 house. Instead, let's focus on whether Obama received a gift, which went unreported to the IRS. According to the IRS (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108139,00.html#2), a gift is defined as "Any transfer to an individual, either directly or indirectly, where full consideration (measured in money or money's worth) is not received in return."

In 2005, when the Obama/Rezko real estate transaction was consummated, there was an annual exclusion of $11,000 to each donee. Did Obama receive a "gift" in excess of $11,000? Should a Form 709 have been filed by the Rezkos, listing Obama as a "donee"?

Meanwhile, a hypocritical Paul Krugman would only have us examine Republican avarice. The reality is that the stench of politics permeates both sides of the aisle.

Paul Krugman, "We Are the 99.9%": The Big Winners in This New Gilded Age?

Paul Krugman begins his latest New York Times essay, "We Are the 99.9%" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/opinion/we-are-the-99-9.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), by declaring:

"'We are the 99 percent' is a great slogan. It correctly defines the issue as being the middle class versus the elite (as opposed to the middle class versus the poor). And it also gets past the common but wrong establishment notion that rising inequality is mainly about the well educated doing better than the less educated; the big winners in this new Gilded Age have been a handful of very wealthy people, not college graduates in general."

Let's ignore the class warfare aspects of this introduction, which pits the middle class against the elite and places in question the economic advantages of higher education. I would merely observe that I do not regard George Soros and his ilk to be "the big winners in this new Gilded Age." Quite the contrary, I wonder what they have forfeited as a result of their lifestyles or by getting to where they have gotten, and I don't envy them.

Krugman concludes his opinion piece:

"So should the 99.9 percent hate the 0.1 percent? No, not at all. But they should ignore all the propaganda about 'job creators' and demand that the super-elite pay substantially more in taxes."

No problem, Paul. Let there be higher taxes upon the super-elite, provided all realize that this won't make a dent in the federal government's deficit or debt.

Paul Krugman, "Oligarchy, American Style": The Protesters Have It Basically Right?

In his New York Times op-ed entitled "Oligarchy, American Style" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/oligarchy-american-style.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Paul Krugman warns of the consequences of allowing America's rich to become richer and declares that "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy."

Krugman also swipes at fellow New York Times columnist David Brooks, who several days ago wrote an op-ed entitled "The Wrong Inequality" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/brooks-the-wrong-inequality.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), which concluded that lack of higher education is the most important barrier to economic equality. Krugman writes in response:

"Whenever growing income disparities threaten to come into focus, a reliable set of defenders tries to bring back the blur. Think tanks put out reports claiming that inequality isn’t really rising, or that it doesn’t matter. Pundits try to put a more benign face on the phenomenon, claiming that it’s not really the wealthy few versus the rest, it’s the educated versus the less educated."

Raise taxes on Americans in the highest income percentile? I have no problem with that, although it won't make a dent in the budget deficit or national debt. On the other hand, I find it offensive in the extreme when Krugman seeks to justify the moral rectitude of Occupy Wall Street. Krugman would have us know:

"That is, the protesters who portray themselves as representing the interests of the 99 percent have it basically right, and the pundits solemnly assuring them that it’s really about education, not the gains of a small elite, have it completely wrong."

OWS "has it basically right"? As reported by MSNBC regarding the OWS protests in Oakland (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45144941/ns/us_news-life/):

"Police in riot gear arrested more than 80 protesters in downtown Oakland, where bands of masked protesters took over a vacant building, erected roadblocks and threw chunks of concrete and firebombs. Five people and several officers were injured."

I agree with Krugman when he writes that "our political system is being warped by the influence of big money." Presumably, this includes fund raising activity undertaken by Jon Corzine on behalf of Obama and the J Street subterfuges of George Soros. However, I am nauseated when Krugman chooses to ignore the psychosis of Occupy Wall Street.

Obama, Soros, Petrobras: Time for a Congressional Investigation

In an op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?hp), Frank Rich establishes a new benchmark for naivete combined with bias. Asserting that the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch have personal agendas that extend beyond the interests of the conservative elements whom they support, Rich would have us believe that this alleged phenomenon is unique to the Right and makes light of the financial support provided by George Soros to the Left:

"Soros is a publicity hound who is transparent about where he shovels his money. And like many liberals — selflessly or foolishly, depending on your point of view — he supports causes that are unrelated to his business interests and that, if anything, raise his taxes."

Ultra-rich Leftists support causes that are entirely unrelated to their business interests? Rich should have at least mentioned the controversy that has erupted involving the multi-billion dollar U.S. loan to Petrobras for Brazilian offshore oil drilling. Yes, I know: Glenn Beck raised the issue on Fox (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YICGV7XuLrs), but regardless of what you think of Beck, in this instance there is something involving this loan that doesn't seem wholesome.

I don't have all the facts (this would require an investigation which I would be delighted to manage); however, it is known that the Export-Import Bank of the United States is lending up to $2 billion to finance exports to the Brazilian oil company Petróleo Brasileiro S.A., known as Petrobras, over the next several years, and George Soros is heavily invested in Petrobras.

It has been argued that the commitment of the Export-Import Bank of the United States to this loan was bipartisan and predated the arrival of Obama’s appointees to the Ex-Im board (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/bogus-brazilian-oil-claims/); however, as noted by the Wall Street Journal, Brazilian officials met with White House National Security Adviser James Jones to discuss the matter (http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html).

Will this arrangement create American jobs? Maybe. I would need to see the agreement. However, a host of other questions arise:

• Couldn't $2 billion be better used to create U.S. jobs to improve U.S. infrastructure?

• Why is one of the largest, wealthiest companies in the world the beneficiary of American largesse at a time when the U.S. economy is in such a dire way?

• Why is the U.S. providing this assistance given Brazil's support of Iran's nuclear aspirations?

I am not suggesting that something illegal has occurred, but I certainly doubt its desirability.

Moreover, there is nothing angelic about either liberal or conservative benefactors, and as sadly demonstrated by the Obama administration, there is no altruism in politics.