Re:  Your Nov 12 JJ column, my response:  Ill-liberal Liberals

 

Shalom Dean,

 

    I must decline your kind offer to add me to your elist.  I am simply overwhelmed and do not have the time, unfortunately.  I am the president of Jarrow Formulas, Inc., a dietary supplement company, and chairman of our manufacturing arm, Jarrow Industries, Inc.  I have 170 employees.  This is in addition to existing advocacies, including periodic letters such as the one I wrote to you and that so-called Jewish Journal.  My inbox is already overstuffed.

    True to my letter, of course, the JJ posted no letters in support of yours.  Eshman is at least consistent in his dishonesty, which he gets away with because he has a monopoly.  I believe the reason why there were so few letters in support of you is because people who do not agree with the Journal know that since they will be ignored anyway, there is no point in writing to it.  (They also tend not to be "Bolsheviks" living in retirement or on a union dole.  They tend to have to actually work, such as myself.) 

    I cannot share your enthusiasm for having published you.  It is a begrudging crumb to cover their own cynical, manipulative -- and even vindictive -- views.  With all due respect to you, if they had any desire to open up that disreputable bird cage liner of theirs to opposing views, they would contract with a nationally recognized conservative Jewish voice on a regular basis.  In fact, they do not even have a local one.  Editor Rob Eshman is a hypocrite and a disaster for the local Jewish community.  His Yiddishkite is a thin veneer for leftist sludge, the real message.

    As for the letters to and about you, they are not really responding to any of your points.  None of them.  This is typical of liberals.  They are emotional Exxon Valdezes.  They shriek that you are irrationally and improperly invoking the Holocaust.  Not one of those Prozac cases who wrote you responded to the fact that the Holocaust 2 to which you were referring is the threat of an Iranian nuclear attack against Israel.  Not one of them addressed what sort of credible policy Obama has enunciated regarding Iran.  Since the IAEA has recently announced that Iran now has 630 kg of enriched uranium, we now have barely a year left for decisive action before it is too late.  Again, Obama has said nothing other than that he would talk to Iran.  Since Germany, France and the UK has done that for five years and have recently announced that their talking cure has been an utter failure, your detractors would better serve themselves by addressing Obama's virtual lack of any other approach to date.  His references to sanctions have been vague, and in fact, his opposition to the 2007 Senate Resolution 3017, designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, did little more than signify that Obama does not have a serious position regarding Iran.  His position would certainly be viewed that way in Tehran.  If nothing else, Obama is subject to severe reproach for having no consistent, comprehensible message on or to Iran.  Nor, for that matter on anything else....

    And that is the further problem with your detractors and their fugue-state support of Obama.  For them to crow triumphantly over the appointment of Rahm Emanuel is opportunism at best, like a child receiving an unexpected -- and undeserved -- treat but acting as though it was expected all along.  Where or when in Obama's history do we find anything of weight equal to his associations with Arabists, terrorists and radicals?  Where?  There is a complete lack of self-awareness in the letters written to you that, if nothing else, Obama has set himself up for whatever skepticism, criticism and downright suspicion he has been subjected to.  He has never owned up to these associations, such as Khalidi and Abuminah, corroborating with William Ayres at the Woods Foundation to fund Khalidi's Arab-American Action Network $75,000, much less explained where he might have parted company with these disreputable ilk.  But these are mere facts and they simply do not get in the way of the sickos that have bombarded your email inbox.  It is somewhat mind boggling that your detractors attack Palin for associations she does not have and for which these accusers have no evidence, but are in frothing-at-the-mouth denial of the well-documented associations of Obama with malefactors.

    The worst of the screwballs that wrote you accused Governor Palin of Nazi sympathies -- among other things.  I find no sense of definition of what the term Nazi means to these people must less what evidence they have for a single one of their accusations.  As stated above, they are Prozac cases -- and add to that some lithium and whatever anti-psychotic nooleptics they obviously need. 

    Fortunately, the majority of JJ readers are not mentally ill like those writers, but they are, as described above, emotionally and intellectually stunted, generally incapable of formulating a well-founded, factual, well-reasoned political positions.  (So perhaps they deserve Rob Eshman after all.)

    Ever notice how publicly unavailable Eshman generally is?  It is not as if he takes the risk of exposing himself to the sort of public debate and criticism someone in his position owes the community over which he has a virtual media monopoly.  Now, if only they can get that "Fairness Doctrine" through and really muzzle any opposition....

    Last point, I am ashamed to admit it, but liberal Jews are generally a bunch of Christian haters.  They don't mind intermarriage with pagan Christians (meaning unchurched), but they really loathe believing and practicing Christians.  With the reaction to Palin, I am afraid, this bias is too obvious to deny any longer.  They will even accuse of her being a "Nazi" even though it is obvious that she would have hidden Jews if she had been there. 

    For further evidence, see the November 14 Jewish Forward.  It contains a disgustingly vicious anti-Christian "cartoon."  When I called the paper and spoke to Jeffrey Goldberg's assistance, she admitted that there had been a number of phone calls from Jews who were outraged by the cartoon's bigotry.  She reluctantly admitted that I was not alone in my view.  I demanded that the paper apologize for "that filth" and she said that the paper would not do so, that it considered the cartoon to be "satire."  I responded there was nothing satirical about it, that it was base bigotry and a disgrace, a shanda, to the Jewish community and I DEMANDED the paper apologize.  She said I should write a letter.  I did.  We'll see whether Goldberg is as "honest" as Eshman....

    You have my permission to post this letter.

 

Los Angeles