You really have to hit the link because the article has so many links exposing NJDC
National Jewish Democratic Council: Bush Tried to “Pander” to Jews
Jews for Obama claims that Judaism condones infanticide
by Bill Levinson
“Pandering to Jews” is language typical of anti-Semites who talk about Jewish control of the media, Jewish control of the economy, and other activities depicted in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and similar publications. In this case, it comes from Obama’s supporters at the National “Jewish” Democratic Council. Meanwhile, the Jews for Obama Web site suggests that traditional Judaism sanctions live birth abortion. It may be remembered that the original blood libel accused Jews of using infant blood to make matzo.
The Republicans tried to make the same claims and tactics in the 2004 election when President George W. Bush tried to pander to the Jewish community for donations and votes.
Clara Hersh, McCain tries to lure Jewish Donors (National Jewish Democratic Council blog)
This is not the first time that the National “Jewish” Democratic Council has published anti-Semitic material in addition to its anti-Christian “Bubbie versus the GOP.”
From NJDC’s Republicans’ Elephant in the Living Room comes this beauty:
As for the purportedly common ground between Jews and Christians on American domestic issues, it is narrow indeed. Research by a variety of scholars and pollsters - Ken Wald of the University of Florida, Eric Uslaner and Mark Lichbach of the University of Maryland, the survey released just last week … shows a chasm between American Jews and evangelical Christians on issues ranging from the Iraq war to legal abortion to gay rights. More than identifying the schism on any specific topic, the research describes a visceral distrust, bordering on antipathy, for Evangelical Christians on the part of American Jews. For myself, I find this attitude to be exaggerated, or at least more suited to the past than the present, and yet it is an undeniable political reality. It is the kind of passionate reflex that a political consultant of my acquaintance, who happens to be a Republican, refers to as an “emotional trigger.” And in any campaign, he says, you need to find your side’s emotional trigger to get people out the door to vote.
The National Jewish Democratic Council posted a statement that is clearly designed to damage relations between Jews and evangelical Christians, and it is therefore anti-Semitic. It is, in fact, similar to “Jew as Christian-hater” propaganda that anti-Semites have spewed for centuries to incite pogroms and, most recently, the Holocaust. From “Propaganda and Children during the Hitler Years” by Mary Mills at Nizkor’s Web site,
Drawing on several centuries of anti-semitism, Bauer intensifies her anti-semitic assault by making the virtuous German the object of the Jewish hate. …An example of this concept of the Jew as a Christian-hater occurs in Uncovered Jewry, Or A Thorough And Truthful Report About The Horrible Ways The Hidden Jews Desecrate The Holy Trinity.
It is therefore clear that the National “Jewish” Democratic Council, despite its nominally Jewish identity, is not above the use of anti-Semitic terminology and images (”a visceral distrust, bordering on antipathy, for Evangelical Christians on the part of American Jews”) to advance its agenda, which is in this case to get credulous Jews to vote for Barack Obama.
Now we come to the National Jewish Democratic Council’s new friends at Jews for Obama. Jews for Obama kicked off its Web site by posting what can easily be construed as a blood libel of Judaism.
His [Obama’s] nuanced position on abortion parallels the traditional Jewish view.
This is the “nuanced position on abortion” that Jews for Obama says “parallels the traditional Jewish view.”
According to Barack Obama, Gianna Jessen shouldn’t exist.
Miss Jessen is an exquisite example of what antiabortion advocates call a “survivor.” Well into her third trimester of pregnancy, Gianna’s biological mother was injected with a saline solution intended to induce a chemical abortion at a Los Angeles County abortion center. Eighteen hours later, and precious minutes before the abortionist’s arrival, Gianna emerged. Premature and with severe injuries that resulted in cerebral palsy. But alive. Had the abortionist been present at her birth, Gianna would have been killed, perhaps by suffocation.
…As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as “persons” babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother’s wombs are “persons,” and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
A federal version on the same legislation passed the Senate unanimously and with the support of all but 15 members of the House. Gianna was present when President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002.
…To Mr. Obama, abortion, or “reproductive justice,” is “one of the most fundamental rights we possess.” And he promises, “the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act,” which would overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and bans on public funding of abortion.
The Audacity of Death By Daniel Allot, Wall Street Journal, June 5, 2008
This is what Obama, and apparently “Jews” for Obama, construes as “reproductive choice.” It is bad enough that “Jews” for Obama embraces this reprehensible position, and it is even worse that the group blood libels Judaism by claiming that Jewish tradition supports it. Per “Judaism and abortion,”
Judaism does not forbid abortion, but it does not permit abortion on demand. Abortion is only permitted for serious reasons. …Strict Judaism permits abortion only in cases where continuing the pregnancy would put the mother’s life in serious danger.
…Jewish law is more lenient concerning abortions in the first forty days of pregnancy as it considers the embryo to be of relatively low value during this time. Abortions because of defects in the foetus or to protect the mental health of the mother are forbidden by some schools of Judaism and permitted by others under differing circumstances.
…Classical Jewish arguments about abortion are mainly concerned with the distinction between killing someone who is fully a person, and someone who is not so fully a person. There’s more about these arguments in the next two sections.
…Jewish law permits abortion to save the life of the mother - in fact it insists on an abortion if this is necessary to save the mother.
However, even when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, abortion is not permitted once the top of the baby’s head has emerged. We are not qualified to give medical advice, but it is hard to see how a normal delivery after the baby’s head has begun to emerge would harm the mother more than an abortion. On the other hand, the reference says that the baby may be dismembered in the womb (before the head begins to emerge) to save the mother’s life. We agree with this, noting that such decisions also must be made in the case of Siamese twins that cannot survive together, and of which only one can survive surgical separation. With regard to abortion of babies with birth defects,
Waldenberg accepts abortion in the first trimester of a foetus which would be born with a deformity that would cause it suffering, and abortion of a foetus with a fatal defect such as Tay Sachs (a genetic defect found particularly in Asheknazi Jews) within the first two trimesters.
Nowhere in this reference do any traditional Jewish authorities condone live birth abortion: the murder of a baby outside the uterus by euthanasia or neglect, as endorsed by Barack Obama. In fact, even where an abortion is necessary to protect the mother’s physical safety,
For as long as it did not come out into the world, it is not called a living thing and it is permissible to take its life in order to save its mother. Once the head has come forth, it may not be harmed because it is considered born, and one life may not be taken to save another.
In other words, and in direct contravention of the statement by Jews for Obama, traditional Judaism says that a baby outside the uterus is a human being, with no exceptions whatsoever. Obama’s position is that such a baby, if unwanted, may be killed or set aside to die from hunger, thirst, and lack of medical attention. This makes the statement by “Jews” for Obama an outright falsehood and a vicious defamation of all branches of Judaism. “Jews” for Obama certainly has the right to support the legalization of infanticide but, the instant they invoke Judaism or Jewish tradition to support this, they are blood libeling genuine Jews and they must therefore be regarded as enemies.
Jerrold Nadler, who is pro-choice and one of the most liberal members of Congress, said of the Federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act, “There is no such thing as a right to a live birth abortion.” This shows just how far Obama is from the mainstream or even left wing of anything recognizable as Judeo-Christian values. Jill Stanek is an excellent source of further information about Barack Obama’s support for infanticide, as shown by his efforts to derail Illinois’ Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=1319#more-1319
Topic: NJDC despite being Jewish is Anti semitic (Read 739 times)