ADL’s Attack on Glenn Beck Regarding Soros Remarks

On 11 November 2010 Abraham  Foxman of the Jewish anti-Defamation League criticized Glenn Beck’s depiction of George Soros during his early years in Budapest, Hungary where he, as a 14 year old, assisted in sending many of Budapest’s Jews to concentration camps for extermination, an experience which Soros himself perversely described as “exhilarating”.

For some inexplicable reason, Mr. Foxman seems to persist in describing a 14 year old as a “young boy” in his “childhood”, … like a child in kindergarten or grammar school.

A 14 year old isn’t a child. A 14 year old is a teenager and more appropriately described as a young adult, impressionable … but with many of his formative traits already well established. For a man who is now described as “brilliant” by many of his contemporaries, I can only imagine that his mental development was far beyond that of his peers at the age of 14. Depicting Mr. Soros as a 14 year old as some brainless automaton not responsible for his actions is, in itself, a rather naive assertion.

There was nothing anti-Semitic in Glenn Beck’s comments. George Soros freely admits that his mother was one of the most influential persons in his early life, a person with extreme anti-Semitic views. Soros’ strong support of anti- Israel Palestinians is just one example of his anti-Semitic and anti-Israel position.

The ADL, other Jewish organizations and Israel would do well to study and heed Glenn Beck’s assessment of George Soros and the many organizations that are extensions of HIS grand scheme. Glenn Beck is a friend to Israel and Jews. George Soros, a Jew by birth only, isn’t.

Matthew Richardson: Closet Democrat??

So …

What’s with the heading, “… Closet Democrat??”?

Well, before a week or so ago, I had never heard of Matthew Richardson.

Then, I see this ad on FOX NEWS, of all places, for this man running for the office of Attorney General of South Carolina.

Okay …

But …

Something seemed to be missing.

There was no mention of PARTY AFFILIATION. I’ve seen the ad several times now. I was right … no mention of party affiliation. Interesting. Suspicious …

So … I did a little checking.

Mr. Richardson IS the Democratic candidate for the office of Attorney General. Interesting. So, why doesn’t he say so in his ads?

Mr. Richardson is not just the Democratic candidate for the office of Attorney General. He isn’t just a run of the mill Democrat. He is the South Carolina Democratic Party’s elected representative to the Democratic National Committee, that illustrious group that sets the progressive platform for all supposedly good Democrats to run on.

Yet, Mr. Richardson doesn’t even advertise the fact that he’s a Democrat. Mr. Richardson isn’t just distancing himself from the president, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. He’s distancing himself from the entire Democratic Party in his campaign ads. Even his official campaign page doesn’t indicate he’s a Democrat without a little scratching.

I had heard that this was going to be the strategy for Democrats trying to get elected, but this is the first case where I’ve actually noticed it in such a blatantly obvious strategy of omission of party affiliation.

This alone doesn’t necessarily disqualify a person from being the state’s attorney general, in my opinion, yet it does make me wonder how he, as the state’s lead prosecutor and defender, might be inclined to handle “inconvenient truths”.

In an article on his website, Richardson touts experience, qualifications in his bid for state attorney general, Mr. Richardson makes the following statement:

“… the attorney general’s focus must be the law and not politics.“

Yet, in an article published in “The State” in answer to the question, “Do you separate your professional work from your political work?“, Mr. Richardson replied,

“I try not to avoid politics in my professional career. I want my professional career to be consistent and integrated with the rest of my life.”

So … which is it? Does Mr. Richardson separate his politics from his professional life or not? Can he? In one place he says the attorney general’s role shouldn’t be encumbered and influenced by politics yet, he also states that politics are an integral part of his professional career … inseparable.

So, we have here a man who conveniently doesn’t mention in his campaign ads that he’s the Democratic candidate although I readily admit that one doesn’t have to scratch very deep to discover that fact.

Then he states that the position of attorney general isn’t the place for politics but also states that he doesn’t separate his politics from his professional activities.

Well …

I appreciate his candor when his comments are gathered together and put into context. Has he just disqualified himself for the office of attorney general based on his own standards? And the “no Party” ads for the Democratic candidate …

“Tough and Fair” …

Really??

I agree with Mr. Richardson on one point. The office of attorney general should be about the law and not politics.