Chicago style: The Left's really ugly attack on Chuck Schumer
President Hussein Obama and his minions continue to play Chicago-style take no prisoners against opponents - especially Democratic opponents - to his sellout to a nuclear Iran.
Obama set up the disloyalty argument, and it’s no surprise that it’s
being used against Democrats who don’t support the deal, particularly
Jewish Democrats like Schumer.
The dual loyalty charge is almost exclusively made against Jewish
supporters of Israel. You rarely hear it used against American
Christians who support Israel.
As The Tablet magazine
reports, given the various dog whistles put out by the Obama
administration, it’s no wonder these type of accusations are
resurfacing.
Schumer long has been a target of that charge by the anti-Israel boycott movement and anti-Zionist progressive websites.
Now it is on overdrive.
My friend Professor Jacobson has many more examples here.
'Post-partisan President'? You've got to be kidding.
When Chuck Schumer came out against the Iran sellout on Thursday night, I considered the possibility that he had coordinated with New York's Junior Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, and with the Obama White House, so that Gillibrand would come out in favor so that the White House would have one New York vote, and Schumer could protect his Senate seat by coming out against. I should have known better.
The Obama White House - and the entire Left wing of the Democratic party (the so-called 'progressives') have gone to war against Chuck Schumer. The tweets embedded above are the least of it. For example, the Left-leaning Jewish Tablet Magazine has all but called out the Obama administration for being anti-Semitic(more at Memeorandum).
What we increasingly can’t stomach—and feel obliged to speak out
about right now—is the use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and
retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a
political deal, or to smear those who oppose it. Accusing Senator
Schumer of loyalty to a foreign government is bigotry, pure and simple.
Accusing Senators and Congressmen whose misgivings about the Iran deal
are shared by a majority of the U.S. electorate of being agents of a foreign power, or of selling their votes to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests
of the United States, is the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and
prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights
Era South.
This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening
new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too
much of it lately—some coming, ominously, from our own White House and
its representatives. Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about “money” and
“lobbying” and “foreign interests” who seek to drag America into war is a
direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card.
It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white
power rally, not from the President of the United States—and it’s gotten
so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the
administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it.
Schumer's announcement has also brought Stephen Walt's anti-Semitism out of the woodwork.
Schumer has also said that he will vote to override an Obama veto of a resolution of disapproval of the deal. That means that Schumer's fallout with the 'progressives' may be permanent.
Credo Action is not alone. Dylan Williams, the political director of J Street, a Jewish group campaigning for the Iran deal, tweeted last night, "Seeing lots of Democratic heavy-hitters noting that, unlike the #IranDeal, there are alternatives to Chuck Schumer."
Steve
Rabinowitz, a Democratic communications consultant who works with
Jewish organizations, told me Friday that Schumer was in a "lose-lose
situation." At the same time, Rabinowitz speculated that Schumer could
turn it into a win-win and retain progressive support to be Democratic
leader in the Senate if he voted against the deal initially but didn't
press his colleagues to do so, and then voted against overriding an
Obama veto of the resolution of disapproval.
"Now we just have to
see if he really whips his colleagues, I hope not, and if there is a
veto override vote, what he does," Rabinowitz told me. "If he doesn't
whip his colleagues, and he votes with the president after a veto, then
he will have a way to have it almost both ways. I am disappointed, but I
get it. I get all these members and Jews going the other way, it bums
me out, but I get it."
Based on what his staff told me Friday,
however, that's not the plan: Schumer will stand against the deal no
matter what. The question now for New York's senior senator is whether
progressive Democrats who support the Iran nuclear agreement will go the
other way on Schumer's candidacy to lead his party in the Senate after
Harry Reid retires.
Schumer may have blown his chance to be party leader in the Senate (even that is doubtful, because the vote will be one of his Senate colleagues and I haven't heard any of them attacking him). But his apparently principled stand will likely mean he will keep his Senate seat.
The participant told me that some Jewish leaders in the meeting
objected to how the administration characterized the JCPOA’s critics.
“Words have consequences, and when they come from official sources, they
can be even more dangerous,” he said the president was told. “The
community worked hard to keep it from getting personal and didn’t make
it specific to him. The president complained about the lobbying, and
said some of the same people who brought you Iraq are opposing the Iran
deal. He was told those characterizations are not accurate. Jewish
lobbyists didn’t support the Iraq war.”
Another participant who also asked to remain anonymous told me that
some people expressed discomfort with “how the debate is being
framed—framed as, ‘if you are a critic of the deal, you’re for war.’ The
implication is that if it looks like the Jewish community is
responsible for Congress voting down the deal, it will look like the
Jewish community is leading us off to another war in the Middle East.”
Apparently, President Obama wasn’t paying attention because the one point he made sure to drive home in his speech the
next day at American University in Washington, D.C. is that there are
only two choices: the JCPOA or war. And the only nation in the world
that does not think this is “such a strong deal” and “has expressed
support” is the Israeli government. In short, if you don’t like the agreement, then you want war and you’re aligned not with the United States and the rest of the civilized world, but with a Jewish pariah state.
A senior official at a Washington, D.C.-based Jewish organization
involved in the Iran fight told me: “The President told concerned Jewish
Americans that he would turn down the constant refrain of anti-Semitic
insinuations from the White House. Then he went out and gave a speech
implying that Jews are dragging American boys and girls into war.”
It’s unfortunate that the president of the United States seems to
really believe that Israel and the American Jewish community was
responsible for taking America to war in Iraq. But Obama is not an
anti-Semite and it seems he doesn’t even really want to
use anti-Jewish dog whistles, like he did last month on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
But the JCPOA is the cornerstone of his foreign policy legacy and he’s
determined to win. AIPAC is leading the countercharge with a
multi-million dollar campaign managed by a group called Citizens for a
Nuclear Free Iran. According to The Washington Post, “The president suggested to AIPAC that ‘if you guys would back down, I would back down from some of the things I’m doing.’’’
Or, as one of the participants told me Obama said, “If you don’t like
the claims that are being made, don’t run the advertisements.” In other
words, lay off criticizing the Iran deal and I’ll lay off the
Jew-baiting.
Whether or not it happens before January 20, 2017, Islamophile Hussein Obama's 'legacy' is meant to be the destruction of the one and only Jewish state of Israel. Here's hoping he will never succeed.
Obama's @TheIranDeal twitter shill tweets a link to anti-Semitic website
Among anti-Semitic websites, one Jewish one stands out: Mondoweiss. Don't take my word for it. Listen to MJ Rosenberg writing on the Far Left Tikkun website:
Lately I have been struck by the raw anti-semitism evinced on
anti-Israel websites (most egregious example, Mondoweiss).
http://mondoweiss.net/
There is nothing novel about it. It’s not “the new anti-semitism”
that the Anti-Defamation League likes to talk about. But the old kind,
masquerading as anti-Zionism but manifesting itself as support or, at
least, sympathy for every group or individual hostile to Jews: from Pat
Buchanan to Hizbullah.
On Tuesday, @TheIranDeal, which is the official White House twitter account that shills support for Hussein Obama's sellout to a nuclear Iran, tweeted this:
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
