web analytics
September 21, 2014 / 26 Elul, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Newt Gingrich’

Santorum Continues to Challenge Romney for Republican Nomination, Wins Two More States

Wednesday, March 14th, 2012

Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum won Tuesday night’s primary contests in Alabama and Mississippi, while frontrunner Mitt Romney won in Hawaii and American Samoa.

With almost all of the votes tallied in Alabama, Santorum earned 35% of the votes, while Newt Gingrich edged Mitt Romney for second place by a few hundredths of a percentage point, at approximately 29%.

In Mississippi, Santorum won a tighter race, receiving 33% support, compared to Gingrich at 31%, and Romney at 30%.

“We did it again!” Santorum exclaimed to supporters Tuesday night. “This is a grassroots campaign for president. Who would have ever thought in the age of media that we have in this country today that ordinary folks from across this country can defy the odds day in, day out?”

“Now is the time for conservatives to pull together,” he continued. “The time is now to make sure — to make sure that we have the best chance to win this election, and the best chance to win this election is to nominate a conservative to go up against Barack Obama who can take him on, on every issue.”

Santorum’s victories in the conservative South continue his swing of momentum, and cement the notion that the Republican presidential nomination is down to a two person race. Santorum himself weighed in on the subject, saying, “this adventure’s going to be a two person race, and when it does, the conservative will win.”

Romney issued a terse statement emphasizing his sizeable lead in the accrual of delegates ahead of the GOP convention, saying, “I am pleased that we will be increasing our delegate count in a very substantial way after tonight.”

Romney won the Hawaii caucuses by a comfortable margin (45%, 20 percentage points higher than Santorum in second place) and won the support of all nine delegates in American Samoa.

According to an AP count, Romney has received the votes of 494 Republican delegates to Santorum’s 251, while Gingrich trails far behind with 131. A candidate needs 1,144 delegates to win the Republican nomination.

 

Billionaire Adelson Weighs Pouring $100 million into Newt’s Campaign

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012

Just when you thought Newt Gingrich was out of the 2012 presidential race for the second, or is it the third time, billionaire casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson, 78,  is contemplating seeing his man get yet another shot of adrenaline, the green kind.

Earlier this year, Adelson handed Gingrich’s super PAC $5 million, then his Israeli-born wife Miriam gave another $5 million, then Newt lost Iowa and New Hampshire. But then he won South Carolina. And was abysmal in Florida. And Vegas, the Adelsons’ home turf, despite the special post-Shabbes vote. Then Rick Santorum stole Conservative hearts in a succession of states and Newt was quickly demoted yet again.

But now, not only is Adelson planning to deposit yet another $10 million into Gingrich’s account, so he could play in the March 6 Super Tuesday primaries, but great moneybags Sheldon just intimated to Forbes that he is contemplating giving his man a fat $100 million.

Say you had $25 billion, and the house and the car were already paid for, would you give Newt this much money? Better yet, how much do you have to love a guy to pump this kind of cash into his arteries?

Marc Tracy at The Tablet says the $100 million pledge is “an attention-grabbing statement, but a largely meaningless one,” at least for Newt. He argues that more than wishing to see Newt get the nomination, Adelson wants to see President Obama going back to a life of community organizing. So Sheldon won’t pay for negative ads against fellow Republicans, so Newt will lose again.

Then, who knows – would Mitt or Rick be interested in talking to a Jewish senior citizens with more money than Greece? You bet your mousaka they would.

Jewish Mega-Philanthropist Backing Gingrich, Drawing Critique

Friday, January 27th, 2012

Republican US presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich’s relationship with Jewish megabillionaire and foremost donor Sheldon Adelson has raised the ire of critics, who say Gingrich’s very public support for Israel is an exchange for support.

Gingrich reiterated his belief that the Palestinians are an “invented” people at a CNN Republican debate in Florida ahead of Tuesday’s primary, promising to issue an executive order moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in accordance with a law passed by Congress in 1995 which has been waived by every US President since.

View statements to the Republican Jewish Coalition in June 2011 by Gingrich, posted by his campaign on YouTube:

At the time the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which stated that “”Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem” as an “undivided city”, was passed, Gingrich was Speaker of the House of Representatives. It was during that tenure that Gingrich met Sheldon Adelson, wealthy casino resort magnate and staunch advocate for Israel.  To assist in promoting the law, Adelson arrived in Washington to talk to leaders about the matter on Capitol Hill.  Gingrich introduced the legislation, and Adelson and Gingrich’s relationship grew.  Ultimately Adelson became a big sponsor of the work Gingrich did prior to his candidacy, and then the foremost supporter of the campaign itself.

Adelson, who grew up as the son of poor Ukrainian Jewish immigrants to Boston, scratched his way to the top in business, first selling toiletries and ultimately becoming owner of 3 successful Las Vegas casino hotel s and convention centers, as well as contracts for casinos in Macau and Singapore.  He is now the 8th wealthiest person in the United States, according to Forbes’ most recent ranking, behind George Soros and ahead of Jim Walton.

Since making his billions, Adelson has earned a name as a pre-eminent Jewish philanthropist, giving $100 million to the Birthright Jewish identity-building project taking youth on trips to Israel, $25 million to the Yad VaShem Holocaust Memorial in Israel, and donated a new headquarters to the Israel lobby in Washington, AIPAC, despite his reservations that the organization is overly pro-Palestinian.  Adelson is against a two-state solution which would give the Palestinian Authority control over lands historically belonging to the Jewish people, and has supported Gingrich’s remarks on the subject of Palestinian nationhood.

Adelson also started the free daily newspaper distributed in major Israeli cities called Israel HaYom (Israel Today), which espouses views leaning more toward Likud than Labor.

Adelson’s wife, Miriam, is an Israeli-born doctor specializing in the treatment of addictions.  Together, they have opened treatment centers in Las Vegas and Tel Aviv.  The pair have made many of their contributions in tandem, with Miriam donating $5 million of the $10 million the couple have thus-far given to Gingrich’s campaign.

While media speculations that Gingrich’s pro-Israel outlook was bought by Adelson, Gingrich told the Associated Press that he has only promised Adelson to “seek to defend the United States and United States allies,” with Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) President Morton Klein telling the AP that Gingrich has been known as “one of the few politicians who has had the courage to tell the truth about Israel,” saying that is probably why they formed a relationship.

As for himself, Adelson says that his support for Gingrich comes from an interest in helping his friend win.  “Our means of support might be more than others are able to offer,” Adelson said, “but like most Americans, words such as friendship and loyalty still mean something to us.”

Acquiescing To Our Enemies’ Lies

Wednesday, December 28th, 2011

Newt Gingrich recently stunned the political and diplomatic establishments, the professional peaceniks and the entire Arab world by terming the Palestinians “an invented” people, presumably with a history fabricated solely to counter and then eradicate the Jewish national idea.

He was right, of course. Interestingly, few if any of his most rabid critics in the Arab world and in the anti-Israel media even challenged his thesis. They focused on the prudence and propriety of the statement, on the ever-shifting balance between the Old Newt and the New Newt, and the prospects of “peace” in the Middle East given this startling and audacious admission.

But of course Newt was right, if impolitic. It wasn’t that long ago when then-Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir made such an assertion herself. In a statement to The Sunday Times (June 15, 1969), she said: “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people…. It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn’t exist.” All Newt did was state a bald-faced truth that has been obscured for too long.

That is not to say that there have not been Arabs living in what they called Palestine for generations. There have been Arabs living in the land of Israel for quite a while, just like there have been Jews living in Israel – in an unbroken chain of residence – since antiquity. But the Arabs of Israel never had a national identity, and never sought statehood or independence until the Jews returned en masse in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. (Previous Jewish residents were forced to live without any national rights and subservient to the Muslim, Christian, Turkish – the latter for 400 years until 1917 – and finally British rulers.) It is Palestinian “nationalism” and “peoplehood” that were contrived by Jew-haters and anti-Zionists.

Thus, it is well known that the early 20-century Arabs of the land of Israel called themselves “Southern Syrians” and derided the early Jewish settlers as “Palestinians.” (How’s that for marketing?) Those same Arabs rejected the UN state proffered to them in 1947, and then “neglected” to seek statehood from 1948-1967 when Judea, Samaria and Gaza were controlled by fellow Arabs.

In other words, the “Palestinian people” and “Palestinian nationalism” were both inconsequential formulations that only exist to undermine and disqualify the Jewish state of Israel. To underscore the point, had there been no “Israel” created in 1948, the territory of “Palestine” would have been distributed to a variety of Arab entities to the north and east, themselves creations of the international community. But an “Arab Palestine,” as an independent state, would have been on no one’s radar, as it was not until the 1970s.

Jews have lived in Israel since time immemorial (the title of Joan Peters’s famous work), and even after the destruction of the Second Temple and the great exile, Jews remained. Jews remained in the 2nd-4th centuries to write the Jerusalem Talmud, draft the permanent calendar and even entertain, for a time in the fourth century, the building of another Temple with permission from Julian the Apostate; in the 5th-6th centuries to cling to the land amid the Byzantine and Christian persecutions; in the 6th-11th centuries to survive the Muslim invasion – returning to Yerushalayim with permission from the Emperor Omar and observing the founding of the only town founded by Arabs in the land of Israel during their entire sojourn – Ramle; suffering the torments of the Crusaders in the 12th century; enduring the Muslim reconquest in the 12-15th centuries in which the land saw a constant stream of Jewish visitors and/or residents, including Rambam, Ramban, R. Yechiel of Paris, and many others; the 16th century that witnessed the flourishing of Jewish life – the composition – in Israel! – of the Shulchan Aruch and the rise of the giants of Kabbalah; the 17-18th centuries during which both Sephrdic and Ashkenazic Jews bolstered existing communities throughout the land of Israel and founded new ones, and the 19th century, when the Zionist movement in a variety of forms took root.

Is there a similar “Palestinian” history ? Of course not. Throughout the ages Jews persevered in the land and prayed for the restoration of Jewish sovereignty. It is absurd to even suggest there is a competing Palestinian narrative that bears any substance or validity. Choose any century in the past 2,000 years, and try to name a “Palestinian” of any sort. That is why the Arab apologists have been forced to assert that “Jesus was a Palestinian” (Yasir Arafat, apparently unaware that Jesus was a Jew). That is why the official Palestinian line of the last decade, emanating first from Arafat, is that there is “no Jewish Temple, no Jewish nationalism and no Jewish connection to the land.” The hat burns on the thief’s head. They have no indigenous connection to the land of Israel, and only arrived in large numbers after Jewish settlement began and to take advantage of the opportunities presented by Jewish settlement.

Gingrich And The ‘Invented People’

Wednesday, December 14th, 2011

Newt Gingrich is taking a lot of flack for telling a Jewish cable channel that the Palestinians are an “invented people.”

This leaves us with three questions: Was Gingrich right? If so, what implications should this have for U.S. policy? And even if he was correct, was it wise for him to say it?

The answer to the first question is simple. Yes, of course, he is right.

There was no Palestinian Arab state or political entity under the Ottoman Empire or any previous ruler of this region. Indeed, prior to the 20th century, there is no evidence of there ever having been a consciousness on the part of the inhabitants of having a separate political identity that was distinct from the rest of the Arabs of the region.

When the Jews began to return to the country in large numbers over a century ago, Arabs and Ottomans, not Palestinians, met them. Indeed, may of those who now call themselves Palestinians are the descendants of Arab immigrants into the country from surrounding countries who came to find work that was available when the Jews began to rebuild the land. This was asserted in Joan Peters’ controversial book, From Time Immemorial, whose scholarship was roundly criticized when it was published by liberals who didn’t like her conclusions. The fact remains that Arab immigration into Palestine did take place.

It is also a fallacy to claim, as some do, that Zionism is as much a modern invention as Palestinian identity.

The only people to call themselves “Palestinians” prior to the creation of the state of Israel were the Jews who were the first, and up until that time the only, group to conceive of the land as being the home of a separate people or national identity. That was no accident since the land now called Israel or Palestine was sacred only to one people.

For centuries it was an Arab backwater, but it has been the object of prayers for two millennia for the Jews who not only never ceased to hope for the restoration of their sovereignty but also, as is rarely mentioned, never entirely left its soil. Zionism was merely a new name for an ancient people’s belief about their homeland and their destiny.

By contrast, Palestinian nationalism is, as Gingrich rightly said, a 20th century invention. It arose and flourished purely as a reaction to Zionism, a factor that has fatally complicated the quest for peace as Palestinian identity seems to be predicated more on a desire to extinguish the Jewish state and to delegitimize the Jewish presence than it is on the re-creation of an Arab political culture that is specific to this locality.

Even 50 years ago, there was little notion of a separate Palestinian political identity. After all, from 1949 to 1967 Jordan ruled the West Bank and half of Jerusalem and Egypt controlled Gaza. During those 19 years, there was no international clamor to create a Palestinian state in those territories. It would only be after Israel took control over the territories during the Six-Day War that the absence of a Palestinian state was deemed intolerable.

That said, it must be conceded that even if the Palestinians did invent themselves in the last 100 years, it is pointless to deny they do exist now. Millions consider themselves to be part of a distinct Palestinian people with a common history and destiny. The United States and Israel both understand that their desire for self-rule must be accommodated so long as it does not infringe on the rights and security of Israel. A two-state solution that would allow a state of Palestine to exist alongside Israel is now believed by most Israelis to be a commonsensical idea even if it would involve painful territorial compromises.

The catch is that the Palestinians seem unable to accept the idea of the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders would be drawn. And that is where their “invented” history comes in. Since the Palestinians only arrived on the world stage as a result of their revulsion at the notion of Jewish sovereignty over any part of the country, it is difficult if not impossible for them to come to terms with a peace that would imply Israel’s permanence.

The role of the United States in this mess is not so much to point out the myths about Palestinian history, though myths they are, as to impress upon the Arabs and their supporters that they must abandon their rejection of Zionism.

As for Gingrich’s judgment in saying what he did, it must be said it was refreshing to hear a major American political figure state the truth about the history of the Palestinians and to say the myths they have created have been in service to one goal only: the destruction of Israel. Doing so will not fuel anti-American terrorism as much as it will disabuse the Palestinians of the idea they have long cherished that sooner or later, the U.S. will abandon Israel.

Nevertheless, it must also be pointed out that if he is elected president, Gingrich will have to deal with the Palestinians and the Arab world. Being upfront about America’s closeness with Israel is fine. But it remains to be seen whether Gingrich has the ability to be more than an accurate student of the history of the Middle East.

Jonathan S. Tobin is senior online editor of Commentary magazine with responsibility for managing the editorial content of its Contentions website – where this originally appeared – as well as serving as chief politics blogger.

Attack Of The Virtuecrats

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010
   Every so often an issue arises that seems tailor-made to give liberals an excuse to parade their supposed moral virtues while denigrating the poor benighted rednecks, bigots and ignoramuses foolish enough to disagree with the received wisdom of The New York Times editorial page.
   The proposed mosque near Ground Zero is one such case, and, predictably enough, virtuecrats like Michael Bloomberg have seized on it with a vengeance. Media liberals have been even worse than the politicians, going out of their way to signal disdain for anyone who raises even the slightest doubt about the wisdom of the plan.

   The Media Research Center has documented the most outrageous examples of how the liberal media are trying to drive this issue. Here are just a few:

 

● “One of the finest moments of his presidency. Obama didn’t just stand up for the legal right of the group to build the Islamic center. He voiced powerful support for their moral right to do so as well, casting it as central to American identity…. Obama directly confronted the demagoguery at the core of much of the opposition to this project…. Ultimately, though, Obama’s speech transcends the politics of the moment, and will go down as a defining and perhaps even a breakthrough performance.”

            - Washington Post “Plum Line” blogger Greg Sargent in an August 14 posting.

 

● “When do we stop praising politicians for doing what is right just because it’s not politically expedient? I thought the reason everybody’s groaning all the time about our politicians is because they’re such hacks and nobody stands up for what’s right. Who cares about the concrete? Somebody’s got to say that, you know, we’re not going to act like the people who stole freedom from Americans, the people who attacked America and killed 3,000 people.”

            - NBC correspondent Norah O’Donnell on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” August 17.

 

● “Despite all the high-minded words about ‘sensitivity’ for the families of the victims, this is slimeball politics, pure and simple, except for when it descends into outright religious bigotry – which seems to be what happens every time Newt Gingrich opens his mouth. Does that demented, anger-infused doofus actually believe that putting the mosque near Ground Zero is the equivalent of putting a swastika next to the Holocaust Museum? I mean, what a jerk.”

            - Time’s Joe Klein writing on the magazine’s “Swampland” blog, August 16.

 

● MSNBC’s Mike Barnicle: “Look, Mika, we’ve descended to one of the lowest points in our politics over the past five, ten years. Newt Gingrich is nothing more than a political pyromaniac here. He is just putting gasoline on fires that don’t even exist….”

Co-host Mika Brzezinski: “That’s a great term…. That is such a great term.”

            - MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” August 16.

 

            ● “The last legal hurdle to the proposed Islamic center near the site of the World Trade Center has been removed, but ignorance, bigotry and politics are more formidable obstacles…. Criticism spans the gamut, from the ill-informed anguish of those who mistakenly view Islam as the malevolent force that brought down the towers to the ill-considered opportunism of right-wing politicians who see Islam as an easy target.”

            - Time’s Bobby Ghosh in an August 3 web posting, a shorter version of which appeared in the magazine’s August 16 issue.

 

● “The proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero created a convenient rallying point for those who instead want to foment hatred, according to national Islamic leaders and academics who study Islam….Which is why it is reprehensible for people claiming national leadership to stir the pot.”

- From a USA Today editorial, August 16.

 

● “Finally, tonight, as promised, a ‘Special Comment’ on the inaccurately described Ground Zero mosque. ‘They came first for the communists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. And then they came for me and by that time, no one was left to speak up.’ Pastor Martin Niemoller’s words are well known…. In quoting him, I make no direct comparison between the attempts to suppress the building of a Muslim religious center in downtown Manhattan and the unimaginable nightmare of the Holocaust. Such a comparison is ludicrous – at least, it is now.”

            - MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann delivering a “Special Comment” on Countdown, August 16.

 

Jason Maoz can be reached at jmaoz@jewishpress.com.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/media-monitor/attack-of-the-virtuecrats/2010/08/25/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: