Is John Kerry a closet Anti-Semite?
by David Hart and Joanna Rice, ACSA Journal

This would not be the first time it was asked of John Kerry, is he truly committed to equal rights among different religious sectors, and on whites and blacks...

Kerry on Jews and Israel
(from various analysts looking at his planks)

Regarding the Israeli security wall in the West Bank, Kerry stated, “I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build a barrier off the green line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israel's security over the long-term, they increase hardships to the Palestinian people, and they make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder.” 

On Israeli Settlements: “Israeli settlements are a key issue that must be resolved for a successful Mideast peace process." suggesting it must do this and that the Palestinians must "reign in militants" in response.  The small number of Israeli settlements does not equalize with the tens of thousands of murders of Israelis, despite Kerry balancing them in his mind.

According to Political Analyst, James Zogby, John Kerry has appointed several key Arab American political power movers to his reelection committee, with strong Pro-Palestinian, Anti-Jewish, Anti-American sympathies. READ THIS

On his intention to hire Jimmy Carter, whose peace initiatives have failed miserably in the past in North Korea, Oslo (the failed Israeli / Palestinian Peace Summit), and elsewhere READ THIS

For a commentary about why we believe John Kerry is a dangerous candidate for President READ THIS

ON Kerry's not being a leader in pro-Israel efforts, from his defense spending cuts, to covert undermining of foreign entanglements while publicly espousing the opposite, is he a passive-aggressive Anti-Semite under cover? READ THE FOLLOWING:

Reading the minds of Jewish voters
By Mitchell G. Bard  March 8, 2004

In 1916, Republican presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes won 45% of the Jewish vote, but lost the election. Four years later, Warren Harding won 43% of the Jewish vote and the presidency. Since then, Eisenhower (in 1956) is the only Republican who won as much as 40% of the Jewish vote. On average, Republicans have received less than 25% of Jewish votes since 1916. That could all change this year.

In 2000, George W. Bush received only 19% of the Jewish vote in large measure because Al Gore was viewed as a good friend of Israel and most Jews suspected Bush would inherit the policies of his father, which were widely regarded as the most hostile toward Israel since Eisenhower. Four years later, few Jews would question that President Bush's policies toward Israel have been, if not the most favorable in history, pretty darn close.

No one believes Bush will win a majority of the Jewish vote, but he has a good chance of reaching the levels achieved by Eisenhower, Harding, and Hughes. Jewish Republicans suggest there is a realignment taking place as Jews become more conservative, but Jews remain the most liberal group of voters other than African-Americans, and the constituency that is most likely to vote against its economic interests. Some of the data from the last midterm election supports the idea of a realignment, but it is too early to tell. If Bush does as well as many expect, it is less likely to be a result of a Jewish shift to the Republican Party, which still has social policies that do not sit well with most Jews, than because of their support for his approach to foreign policy and the lackluster Democratic alternatives.

The President, and the Republican Party in general, have also aggressively courted Jews in recent years. I know first-hand that the GOP and elder Bush had a very different view in the 1980s and early 1990s. They believed they could win without Jewish voters and didn't really care about them, as famously expressed by James Baker's "F- the Jews" comment.

The truth is the Jewish vote does matter. Though the Jewish population in the United States is roughly six million (about 2.3% of the total U.S. population), roughly 89% live in 12 key electoral college states. These states alone are worth enough electoral votes to elect the president. Therefore, it can make a difference in the outcome if the Jewish vote shifts.

A lot of folks have started to worry about the Arab/Muslim vote. The disproportionate influence of the American Jewish population is in direct contrast with the electoral involvement of Arab-Americans. There are approximately 1.2 million Arabs in the United States, and roughly 38 percent of them are Lebanese, primarily Christians, who tend to be unsympathetic to the Arab lobby's goals.

Only about 70,000 Palestinians (6 percent of all Arab-Americans) live in the United States, but their views have received disproportionate attention because of their political activism. Similarly, a great deal of attention has focused on the allegedly growing political strength of Muslims in the United States, but fewer than one-fourth of all Arab-Americans are Muslims.

About half of the Arab population is concentrated in five states - California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York - that are all key to the electoral college. Still, the Arab population is significantly smaller than that of the Jews in every one of these states except Michigan.

Similarly, Jewish campaign contributions dwarf those of Arab-Americans. From 1990-2002, Arab and Muslim Political Action Committees contributed a total of less than $300,000. During the same period, pro-Israel PACS contributed nearly $20 million, and other donations totaled another $28 million. Arab-Americans are unquestionably more politically active then ever before, and while they have achieved increasing levels of access, there's little evidence that this has translated into influence.

Jewish giving to the Democratic presidential candidates has been inhibited by Bush's popularity as well as a reluctance to commit resources until there was a presumptive nominee. Now that John Kerry appears to be Bush's opponent, most Jewish Democrats can be expected to coalesce behind him.

Kerry's record in Congress has been good, but he has never been a leader on Israel-related issues. His major theme is the need for the United States to be more engaged in the peace process. Kerry's suggestion that James Baker or Jimmy Carter would make good Middle East envoys (which he now blames on his staff), and his belief that envoys are likely to move the parties are troubling. Kerry has also suggested the security fence is "a barrier to peace" and seemed to equate Palestinians stopping terror with Israel freezing settlements.

Had Dean been nominated, it is possible that Bush could have broken the record for Jewish support; however, Jews do not find Kerry as scary. Still, large numbers of Jews are saying they will cast their first vote for a Republican this year and Bush should do much better than last time, but he will fall short of our old friend Charles Evans Hughes.

Views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.

Jeffrey Rubinoff

Arabs and the U.S. Political System: Innocent or a hidden Agenda
By Jeffrey Rubinoff
Jan 19, 2004, 00:30 EST

There is an alarming trend developing in the United States. Arab Americans are being organized with “Get Out the Vote” campaigns.


According to James Zogby “Arab Americans are playing key roles in the upcoming elections. Most of the leading Democrats have hired or appointed Arab Americans in major roles and most states have Arab Americans already slated to run for delegate positions to the National Democratic Convention.”


This may seem innocent, but we must ask ourselves two questions: Is this involvement due to an unprecedented acceptance by Muslim-Arabs of the U.S. political system? Or, is there a hidden agenda that is only now beginning to reveal itself and rear its ugly head?


I must say that their intentions are not noble. Muslim-Arabs in the United States have overwhelmingly not accepted our Western Political system, which supports freedom and democracy. These Arab “Americans” are not mobilizing to advance the American Political system, but they are setting the stage to advance their “Arab Agenda”. This agenda does not take freedom, democracy and coexistence into consideration. Their objective is to change U.S. domestic and international policies in such a way as to garnish sympathy for their Terrorist brethren in the Middle East.


James Zogby inadvertently reveals their true intent. “In more than ten states, where the political process allows issues to be raised, Arab American delegates will bring forth resolutions on Palestinian rights, a call for justice and peace in Iraq and a condemnation of civil liberties violations of Arab and Muslim immigrants.”


In order to understand the statement above, one must read between the lines and understand the history of the matter. For a number of decades there has been a concerted effort by many Muslim governments and organizations to send professional propagandists to the West. The Muslim Brotherhood has been one of the lead organizations, consisting of Palestinians, Syrians, and Egyptians, backed financially by the Wahabi government of Saudi Arabia.


These propagandists were sent as students to attend American universities, to coordinate Muslim and non-Muslim support in an effort to promote their anti-Israel, anti-American, Anti-Semitic and anti-Christian agenda. The fact that these propagandists were originally sent to Universities was not an accidental occurrence, as they knew very well whom they wanted to initially target in their propaganda campaign. First, University campuses are predominantly liberal institutions. Second, students are young, lacking in worldly knowledge and thereby easily molded. Lastly, students of today will be aides to Senators and Congressman in the future.


In recent years, in order to expedite political change in their favor, the professional propagandist have refocused their efforts from the Universities to that of a more coordinated and concerted effort to subvert the American political system itself.


Obviously, there are many ethnic groups that organize in order to support their political interests here in the U.S. AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is one such organization working to support U.S.-Israel relations in the fields of joint scientific and medical research, trade, hi-tech cooperative programs and humanitarian causes. Other ethnic groups promote such noble causes as: employment opportunities, education, and freedom for the people in their home countries still ruled by dictators. However, the Arab Muslim organizations differ in that they do not noticeably work towards the betterment of their society but rather focus on promoting an agenda seeking to impact U.S. domestic and international policies in such a way as to garner support and sympathy for terrorist supporting regimes.


What do these Arab Political groups mean when they call for “justice and peace in Iraq?” Whose justice? Whose peace?


Muslims in the U.S. did not predominantly support the Bush initiative to oust Saddam Hussein and his terror backing regime. It was quite common to hear daily condemnation of Bush by Arab American leaders who were guests on various news programs. When these groups call for justice and peace, they must be referring to Iraqi justice and peace from the Americans. They overlooked Saddam’s regime of terror and the American liberation of the Iraqi people, ignoring the mass graves uncovered.


What do these Arab political groups mean when they call for a “condemnation of civil liberties violations of Arab and Muslim immigrants?” What violations are they even referring to?


They must be referring to the legal search, across the United States, of homes belonging to Arabs suspected of involvement with terror organizations. The reason that they are claiming civil liberties violations is because they do not see these individuals as supporters of terror, but as freedom fighters combating the western imperialist who are invading Muslim land in the Middle East. Laws passed in the United States after 9-11-01 make supporters of terror just as guilty of terror as the terrorist himself. There is no dispute here to be argued. An individual who supports terrorists is a terrorist and will face prosecution.


What do these Arab political groups mean when they call for Palestinian Rights? Which Palestinian Rights are they advocating for?


They must be referring to the Palestinian right to self-determination in creating a terrorist supporting regime in place of Israel. These groups do not rally for peace or co-existence with Israel. In lieu of condemning suicide attacks they laud them.


If their agenda is innocent, then why would these Arabs need coaching in a concerted effort called “Yalla Vote”, instead of being educated on the process of the political system?


This organized group is not helping the Muslim population here in America to better understand the American political system through the means of their “Get Out the Vote” campaign. They are organizing a rallying cry in an attempt to garner enough support from Muslims and non-Muslims to achieve a political outcome that is obliging to dictatorial Muslim regimes.


The aftermath of the 2004 elections and the near political future will begin to reveal the impact of the Arab involvement and the unfolding of the extremist Muslim agenda.
It will then become obvious that their intention here is to support the Muslim Extremist cause, backing the Arab dictators and their anti-west philosophies.

John Kerry And Howard Dean Are Out Of Step With America About Israel
By Ariel Natan Pasko
Jan 27, 2004, 00:10 EST

Both Democratic wanna-be presidents, John Kerry and Howard Dean proved recently how out of step with the rest of America they are in regard to US policy vis-a-vis the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

The leading US Democratic presidential contender, John Kerry, just said that the government in Israel currently lacks someone - i.e. Sharon - who can provide the goods in everything connected to negotiations with the Palestinians.

Yet, according to a poll commissioned by the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and carried out by the firm of McLaughlin & Associates during mid-January of 2004 -the poll questioned 1,000 Americans from throughout the United States - 67.4% of Americans say that the Palestinian Arabs have not met US President Bush's conditions for statehood, such as fighting terrorism, halting incitement to murder, and respecting human rights. So why blame the Israeli government?

Kerry, who spoke at a political rally ahead of the New Hampshire primary, criticized the settlement policy of the Israeli government, i.e. building homes for Jews in their ancestral homeland. He said that it was a mistake to increase building there at this time. When will it be a good time? When Palestinian Arabs stop hating Jews and being racist?

Yet, 66.6% of Americans disagree with the Arab position that all Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria - the West Bank - and Gaza should be expelled from their homes. Most Americans see Jews continuing to live in all parts of their ancient homeland; even after a peace deal is made.
John Kerry called for strengthening the Palestinian Authority so that it will be stronger than Hamas. Here, Kerry's main rival, former front-runner Howard Dean, agrees with him. Dean said at a campaign event recently, that America should increase resources for the Palestinian Authority in order to persuade the Palestinians to relinquish the right of return.

I guess they haven't heard about how Arafat and his cronies have embezzled most of the donor money they've been given till now. That's hundreds of millions of dollars, and the reason that even the pro-Palestinian European Union has curtailed funding to the Palestinian Authority.

Yet, 65.2% of Americans say the Palestinian Authority "cannot be trusted to fulfill peace agreements that it signs with Israel." That means most Americans don't believe the Palestinian Arabs will stop terror or give up the right of return.

And even more Americans, 73.6% say the US should stop sending the $200-million each year to the Palestinian Arabs, that it does send. So why exactly does Howard Dean and John Kerry want to waste American taxpayer dollars?

Dean called on Israel to demonstrate flexibility in regard to final borders in order to allow the creation of a Palestinian state.

Yet, 55.7% of Americans say that the Palestinian Arabs' goal is "the eventual destruction of Israel"; only 21.3% say their goal is "to have a small state living in peace alongside Israel." And here, Americans are right on target again, and the Democratic candidates are way out of touch.

Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi not long ago said, "We will continue with our holy war and resistance until every last criminal Zionist is evicted from this land. By G-D we will not leave one Jew alive in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews."

Finally, John Kerry promised that if elected president, he would ask former US presidents Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter to serve as a special envoy to the region.

Clinton's Foreign Policy failures are well known. His peace-making efforts in Northern Ireland and the whole Oslo peace process have gone nowhere. He coddled Saddam Hussein for eight years, need I say more. As for Jimmy Carter, other than receiving a Nobel Prize, what good has he done lately? Both have been soft on terror, the Palestinians, the Iranians, every evil dictator and regime in fact. Their re-involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian issue would be disastrous.

As ZOA National President Morton A. Klein recently said, "It is a myth that American public opinion supports creating a Palestinian Arab state or expelling the Jewish residents of Judea-Samaria and Gaza. An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose creating what would be a new terrorist state, and oppose the racist, un-American concept of kicking people [Jewish "settlers"] out of their homes and towns on the basis of their religion or ethnicity."

If these pronouncements by candidates Kerry and Dean are as "wise" as they get, then (1) It's clear they are out of step with the American people and, (2) Need to go back to school and learn a lot more about the Middle East.


These and other articles reproduced here are for the purposes of providing the reader with a valid statement of an express opinion about the dangers associated with John Kerry and his run for election.  In our opinion, Mr. Kerry is a Hypocrite who has punctuated hurtful and baseless attacks on his opponent, with lies and a covert agenda that is hidden behind Massachusets smoke-filled room liberal politics that disguise their true intent: to economically hijack the Federal Budget and spend it on pork barrel projects funded through extensive increases in taxation.  We also believe Kerry projects a Jay Leno-ish form of comedic cynicism that inspires no one but smirking members of the Leno Show audience at NBC, GE and STANDARD OIL, the special interests whom Kerry is a front for.  We believe not only would Kerry devote his time to securing Iraqi Oil for Standard Oil, and not for the benifit of the Iraqis, he will turn every military confrontation in the war on Terrorism into an exposure session where he makes the US look more and more vulnerable as did his Democratic predecessors, Bill Clinton and Al Gore. 

In our opinion, electing John Kerry President would likely be a fatal mistake for America, a potential death sentence for Israel, and the beginning of an undertaking of prosecution of Jews and Minorities, while putting on a lip service series of seemingly benevolent public welfare programs, to fatten the fattened calf.

This opinion comes from years of watch-dogging "the Hypocrite" (Senator John Kerry's euphemistic nickname in the halls of the Senate.)

Unlike past elections, since America's National Security could well hang in the balance, the ACSA and it's 2.5 Million Computer Industry professionals voted 80% to 20% to issue a statement of confidence in support of the re-election of President Bush.  Let Him Finish His Job, America, over the next five years!  Don't be fooled by the rhetoric concocted by Kerry & by the carpetbaggers he works for.  Remember our words as you vote.  Recognize two wars won quickly by the Bush Administration, an economy in recovery, rapid rebuilding of our global image, and a message to Terror Sponsoring Nations everywhere: "Don't tread on me!"  Remember, the international leaders who want Kerry in office, are the same ones who condemn Israel every time they take police action against militants who suicide bomb in Israel, and like the French, condemn America for it's efforts against Terrorism, while stirring up Anti-American politics in the Islamic Fundamentalist community, the kind of stirring that led to 9/11.  Do NOT be fooled:  These international leaders are not our friends. They are our FISCAL COMPETITION for the Global Control and Business Markets.  They are not our friends, and Kerry is "their boy" for the negative impact he will have on America.  They love a loser in the White House.  They hate President Bush, because he isn't one...