|
Forum
Donate
Search
Subscribe
jews/911
Wiki
Beerhouse
Blog
Feedback
dna
RCC
AIDS
Home
Surveys
Holocaust
IQ
14th Amdt
19th Amdt
Israelites
NWO
Homicide
Blacks
Whites
Signatory
Talmud
Watchman
Gaelic
TRAITORS
Medicine?
| |
To characterize
Durshowitz's response to Alan Keyes in this debate as "childish" would be an
insult to children. It's hard to imagine that an adult in this country would hold
such childish views. If we accept this jew's words as truthful [a true oxymoron],
then he must be the first man on the boat to Madagascar.
Take five minutes to complete the Poll on Exiling Blacks
When asked the direct question: "what makes
something right?", Dirshowitz gave a number of lame excuses for not answering, like
"there are no simple answers", before he finally admitted "I don't
know". He went on to say that, not only does he not know what is right, but
that he knows that WE don't know what's right.
Huh? He believes that he is so much smarter
than every single Christian in the country, that if he doesn't know what's right, then
nobody else possibly could? Dirshowitz is even smarter than God, and therefore
nobody else in the world could possibly know what's right? The supreme arrogance of
such a statement is bad enough, but the implication is that, if Christians don't know
what's right, then jews like Dirshowitz, who ADMIT that they don't even know what's right
or wrong, should be the ones telling Christians what's right and wrong?! This
brilliant moral minor then followed up by calling the Holy Bible "homophobic",
"racist", "sexist", and "anti-jewish". This is
blasphemy in every sense of the word, and it's the type of blasphemy which disqualifies
him to practice, much less teach, law in this country.
Dirshowitz then LIED
in such a convincing manner that his contribution to and continuation at Harvard MUST be
SERIOUSLY questioned. Alan Keyes was at his most brilliant when he called him
on that LIE. Dirshowitz said, and I quote: "He [Keyes] simply has no
right to tell two adults who choose to gratify themselves in a certain way
[sodomites] that they are wrong, and he has no basis for his conclusion. What is he
going to do--cite some Biblical verse?"
Alan Keyes then challenged Dirshowitz that believing
that Americans have no "right" to even speak out against ANYTHING is the very
definition of totalitarianism. If Dirshowitz had had false teeth, they would have
flown across the auditorium as sputtered and LIED:
" I said no such thing", which of course was met with the first
spontaneous "boos" of the entire debate.
"I said
no such thing"! For 5,000 years now, Jews have believed that they can say
ANYTHING to Christians because they think they can merely deny that they ever said
it. And for 4,950 years they were just about right. But now we have TV and
radio and the internet which keep permanent RECORDS of their jew LIES.
This is EXACTLY
what Dirshowitz said. It's on video tape. Nobody but Durtbag said it, nor
could have said it!
From this point forward, what Dirshowitz says has
utterly no credibility. He doesn't know right from wrong but wishes to impose his
ignorance on those who DO. He can willy nilly say that they "simply have no
right" and then claim that he never even said it. He admitted that he knows
that sodomy is a learned behavior, claimed that sodomy occurs only in private bedrooms,
then ignored that sodomy is INEVITIBLE when sodomites are permitted to be around young Boy
Scouts. He misquoted George Washington, then when Keyes called him on it, he
reversed himself by claiming that the New York Times misquoted Joseph LIEberman who
misquoted George Washington. He whined that the Boy Scouts is "too
Christian" and "an established right wing" organization, after admitting
that he was admitted to the Boy Scouts as a known JEW. He attempted to hold Alan
Keyes to the purportedly Constitutional principle of "separation of church and
state" [which is not in the Constitution], criticized Thomas Jefferson as "just
a man" [whose misquoted letter about separation of church and state was the issue],
and then said that even if this wasn't in the Constitution that "I would add it"
[read: jews can't be held to mere words, contracts, nor written statements in
Constitutions and bibles because they're morally superior to the written word]. He
condemned the Baptists for the statement: "women must submit gracefully" and
claimed that Christians will be apologizing for that "travesty ... just as they
apologized for the Inquisition and the Crusades".
It was the most supreme display of jewish arrogance
this author has ever witnessed, and I've witnessd planty. He invoked the holocaust
in the name of his 40 dead relatives, to which Keyes, a black man, challenged
Durtbag to try to top slavery--a brilliant deep six to Durtbag which deflated his
victimization baloon like a sharp pin. Of course like all jews, he'll always ignore
the 264 million dead WHITE Christians in Europe, many of whom are direct ancestors of the
majority of the American population, who presumably gave their lives to protect the poor
jews from the Nazis (another big jewish LIE).
When booed, Dirshowitz screeched in a little girl's
voice: "If you think your boos will scare me, you don't know me". No,
Durtbag, audiences don't boo people to "scare" them--they boo them to let you
know how STUPID you look and sound when you get caught in a big fat LIE, right there on
stage, before thousands of viewers, on VIDEO TAPE, by denying that which you just
stated.
How revealing that this little faggot expert on
victimhood, who went to great lengths to make sodomy appear as nothing but a life style
choice rather than the social pathology it is, would view a boo as an attack on his life
or safety.
Boo, Durtbag. Boo, boo, boo. Sue me.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 1:07 AM
Alan M. Dershowitz
National Post
If a visitor from a far away galaxy were to land at an American or Canadian
university and peruse some of the petitions that were circulating around the campus, he
would probably come away with the conclusion that the Earth is a peaceful and fair planet
with only one villainous nation determined to destroy the peace and to violate human
rights. That nation would not be Iraq, Libya, Serbia, Russia or Iran. It would be Israel.
There are currently petitions circulating on most
North American university campuses that would seek to have universities terminate all
investments in companies that do business in or with Israel. There are also petitions
asking individual faculty members to boycott scientists and scholars who happen to be
Israeli Jews, regardless of their personal views on the Arab-Israeli conflict. There have
been efforts, some successful, to prevent Israeli speakers from appearing on college
campuses, as recently occurred at Concordia University. There are no comparable petitions
seeking any action against other countries that enslave minorities, imprison dissidents,
murder political opponents and torture suspected terrorists. Nor are there any comparable
efforts to silence speakers from other countries.
The intergalactic visitor would wonder what this
pariah nation, Israel, must have done to deserve this unique form of economic capital
punishment. If he then went to the library and began to read books and articles about this
planet, he would discover that Israel was a vibrant democracy, with freedom of speech,
press and religion, that was surrounded by a group of tyrannical and undemocratic regimes,
many of which are actively seeking its destruction. He would learn that in Egypt,
homosexuals are routinely imprisoned and threatened with execution; that in Jordan
suspected terrorists and other opponents of the government are tortured, and that if
individualized torture does not work, their relatives are called in and threatened with
torture as well; that in Saudi Arabia, women who engage in sex outside of marriage are
beheaded; that in Iraq, political opponents are routinely murdered en masse and no dissent
is permitted; that in Iran members of
religious minorities, such as Baha'is and Jews, are imprisoned and sometimes executed;
that in all of these surrounding nations, anti-Semitic material is frequently broadcast on
state-sponsored television and radio programs; in Saudi Arabia apartheid is practiced
against non-Muslims, with signs indicating that Muslims must go to certain areas and
non-Muslims to others; that China has occupied Tibet for half a century; that in several
African countries women are stoned to death for violating sexual mores; that slavery still
exists in some parts of the world; and that genocide has been committed by a
number of countries in recent memory.
Our curious visitor would wonder why there are no petitions circulating with
regard to these human rights violators. Is Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza
-- an occupation it has offered to end in exchange for peace -- worse than the Chinese
occupation of Tibet?
Are the tactics used to combat terrorism by Israel worse than those used by the Russians
against Chechen terrorists? Are Arab and Muslim states more democratic than Israel? Is
there any comparable institution in any Arab or Muslim state to the
Israeli Supreme Court, which frequently rules in favor of Palestinian claims against the
Israeli government and military? Does the absence of the death penalty in Israel alone,
among Middle East nations, make it more barbaric than the countries which behead, hang and
shoot political dissidents? Is Israel's settlement policy, which 78% of Israelis want to
end in exchange for peace, worse than the Chinese attempt at cultural genocide in Tibet?
Is Israel's policy of full equality for openly gay soldiers and members of the Knesset
somehow worse than the policy of Muslim states to persecute those who have a different
sexual orientation than the majority? Is Israel's commitment to equality for women worse
than the gender apartheid practiced in Saudi Arabia?
Our visitor would be perplexed to hear the excuses made by university professors and
students for why they are prepared to delegitimate Israel while remaining silent about the
far worse abuses committed by other countries. If he were to ask a student about the
abuses committed by other countries, he would be told (as I have been): "You're
changing the subject. We're talking about Israel now." This reminds me of an incident
from the 1920s involving then-Harvard president A. Lawrence Lowell. Lowell decided that
the number of Jews admitted to Harvard should be reduced because "Jews cheat."
When a distinguished alumnus, Judge Learned Hand, pointed out that Protestants also cheat,
Lowell responded, "You're changing the subject; we're talking about Jews."
It is not surprising, therefore, that as responsible and cautious a writer as Andrew
Sullivan, formerly editor of The New Republic and now a writer for The New York Times
Magazine, has concluded that "fanatical anti-Semitism, as bad or even worse than
Hitler's, is now a cultural norm across much of the Middle East and beyond. It's the acrid
glue that unites Saddam, Arafat, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran and the Saudis. They all hate
the Jews and want to see them destroyed."
Our intergalactic traveller, after learning all of these facts, would wonder what kind of
a planet he had landed on. Do we have everything backwards? Do we know the difference
between right and wrong? Do our universities teach the truth?
These are questions that need asking, lest we become the kind of world the visitor
would have experienced had he arrived in Europe during the late 1930s and early 1940s.
Dershowitz is Professor of Law at Harvard.
|
| |
|
