About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Beck: ADL "has as much to do, I believe, with the plight of the Jewish people" as NOW "has with the plight of women"

November 25, 2009 11:32 am ET

From the November 25 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by shaggles (November 25, 2009 11:34 am ET)
      2  
      Meaning none at all?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Max Credits (November 25, 2009 11:39 am ET)
      7  
      I think he's realized that he really screwed up with his "I no longer support the military" comment and is racketing up the crazy to draw attention away from his disdain for the Troops.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by k1dork (November 25, 2009 11:43 am ET)
          12
        He said he no longer supports the military ACTIONS that we are in right now.

        Uh, MANY on the left don't support them either.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Max Credits (November 25, 2009 11:47 am ET)
          5  
          I don't support your actions, nor do I accept your distinctions.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by k1dork (November 25, 2009 11:51 am ET)
              9
            I guess you told me.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Max Credits (November 25, 2009 11:53 am ET)
              8  
              Beck screwed up big time. He's not dissenting from the government, he's dissenting from the Troops. Epic fail, even for him.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by k1dork (November 25, 2009 11:56 am ET)
                  9
                He said he doesn't want troops being put in harms way without adequate support. How is that dissenting from the troops?

                I'm just asking, bro. Not trying to provoke insults.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Max Credits (November 25, 2009 12:04 pm ET)
                  7  
                  Hey, bro, you can't figure out why Beck supported the bank bailout, bro, so maybe you should take a pass on explaining how his support for the military means that he no longer supports the military, bro.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by k1dork (November 25, 2009 12:10 pm ET)
                      7
                    Did you go to college? I'm wondering, because you seem unable to have a rational discussion with someone who doesn't share ALL of your ideas.

                    I mean, when you go to a party or something do you just insult and ridicule people who don't agree with you? Uh, be careful with that, because one day you might provoke the wrong person.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (November 25, 2009 12:30 pm ET)
                  4  
                  He said he doesn't want troops being put in harms way without adequate support. - dork

                  Yet, he supported the invasion of Iraq where our troops had insufficient body armor, flimsy humvees, and a lack of ammunition.

                  Flip. Flop.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by k1dork (November 25, 2009 12:33 pm ET)
                      6
                    We didn't know that when the invasion happened. That information about the inadequate gear came out a good time after the initial invasion.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by foghornleghorn (November 25, 2009 12:37 pm ET)
                      4  
                      Point taken. But where does the theory come in that Obama won't provide adequate support? Because he's a Democrat?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by k1dork (November 25, 2009 12:42 pm ET)
                          6
                        I guess. I'm not even a Republican. I'm an independent. I think Obama has SOME good ideas, and I think he is sketchy about some things.

                        I tend to think the rules of engagement are our troops biggest enemy, not really either political party.
                        Report Abuse
                • Author by wzwriter (November 25, 2009 12:52 pm ET)
                  3  
                  I'm just asking, bro. Not trying to provoke insults.

                  If you don't want to provoke insults, then go back to Free Republic or whatever right-wing cybersewer site you slithered over here from.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by k1dork (November 25, 2009 12:55 pm ET)
                      7
                    Are you incapable of discussing topics like an adult, you know, discussing with people who may not agree with you on everything without insulting them?
                    Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (November 25, 2009 11:51 am ET)
          7  
          MANY on the left haven't supported them from the beginning. Beck's flip-flop is clearly based on who is in the White House and not on policy.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by k1dork (November 25, 2009 11:52 am ET)
              11
            Do you know that for a fact? There are Democrat members of congress who supported the war at first, but who do not support it now. Let's be fair.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by shaggles (November 25, 2009 12:07 pm ET)
              4  
              There were many Dems who voted to authorize these wars and turned against them when public support wained. That's hypocritical too. But Beck continued to be for them under Bush and now is against them. He has not given any plausible policy reason for his change of heart so I can only conclude that it is for partisan reasons.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by k1dork (November 25, 2009 12:13 pm ET)
                  10
                His reasoning is that he doesn't think the Obama administration is adequately supporting the troops. It seems that his reasoning deals with the Obama taking so long in making a decision after the general made the troop request.

                Now let the thumbs down rain in.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mjh (November 25, 2009 12:20 pm ET)
                  4  
                  "His reasoning is that he doesn't think the Obama administration is adequately supporting the troops. It seems that his reasoning deals with the Obama taking so long in making a decision after the general made the troop request.

                  Now let the thumbs down rain in." -- A1dork



                  Welcome to PLANET WINGNUT!!

                  . . . Where Obama taking the TIME to consult with his national security council BEFORE making a decision to put more troops in harm's way in an already unpopular war is "not adequately supporting the troops" . . .

                  . . . While Dumbya and Cheney's decision to send in troops without a clear mission, an exit strategy, or even proper body armor is NOT to be criticized, because it constitutes "treason" . . .

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by foghornleghorn (November 25, 2009 12:33 pm ET)
                    4  
                    Exactly. Plus the troop increase for Afghanistan collected dust on Bush's desk for more than a year.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by soze169880 (November 25, 2009 12:21 pm ET)
                  2  
                  His reasoning is that even though wars are normally awesome because they allow him to cheerlead while never having to serve himself (much like a certain troll), he must, regrettably, pause in his bloodlust because it would mean approving of anything Barack Obama did, even if it was something as beautiful as killing Arabs. It's partisan Obama Derangment Syndrome, and you're blind and/or your normal intellectually dishonest self if you claim otherwise.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by shaggles (November 25, 2009 12:32 pm ET)
                  3  
                  WHy wasn't Becky concerned about the Prez supporting the troops in Afghanistan when Bush was basically ignoring that war for 5 years? My guess is because he's a partisan hypocrite. You may disagree. ;) Obama has already increased troop levels in Afghanistan by 40K since taking office and yesterday he committed to sending in another 30K. The length of time it took to make that decision is at least as much the fault of the general for not providing an adequate plan for what he would do with the additional troops as it is of the Prez. Do we really want to go sending more troops in without a battle plan? None of the troops the general asked for would have been deployed until next year anyway so I don't see that it makes a whole lot of difference if the decision was made yesterday or a month ago. Beck is full of it.
                  Report Abuse
    • Author by blesscurse (November 25, 2009 11:41 am ET)
      6  
      Beck would be shocked to find out that there is diversity of opinion in Israel, that there are many secular Jews, that there is a Peace movement, that the early years of the Israeli nation were greatly influenced by SOCIALISTS and COMMUNISTS, the two ideologies Beck hates most. I wonder if the Mormons embrace the concept of the Rapture as do persons like Sarah Palin. Much of the evangelicals' love of Israel has to do with the Jews all ending up in Hell if they do not embrace Jesus Christ at the end.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by k1dork (November 25, 2009 11:45 am ET)
          11
        This is an outright lie. Evangelicals don't want Jews to go to hell. Are you kidding?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by k1dork (November 25, 2009 11:53 am ET)
            9
          Wow. Thumbs down for saying that Evangelicals don't want Jews to go to hell.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by christopher howard (November 25, 2009 11:57 am ET)
            7  
            "Much of the evangelicals' love of Israel has to do with the Jews all ending up in Hell if they do not embrace Jesus Christ at the end."

            "This is an outright lie. Evangelicals don't want Jews to go to hell. Are you kidding?"

            No, unfortunately not a lie.

            According to many with a fundamentalist and/or evangelical world view, if you do not convert to Christianity you will burn in Hell. Jews who stay Jewish will thus burn according to that odious doctrine.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by k1dork (November 25, 2009 12:15 pm ET)
                7
              That seems like a fringe ideology to me. I think that the more prevalent view is that all people will get an opportunity to stand before Christ and accept him.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by blesscurse (November 25, 2009 12:19 pm ET)
                4  
                Why would I as a Jew stand before some Jewish guy named Jesus and accept him, when my faith sees God as not embodied in human form. So, assuming I choose not to embrace Jesus, will I go to heaven also? I assume the love thy neighbor part of Christianity means that nonbelievers will get to at least survive the end times, even if they don't get the 72 virgins or whatever else else they are promised in Christian heaven. Right?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by k1dork (November 25, 2009 12:23 pm ET)
                    7
                  The Christian answer to WHY you would stand before him is because he is who EVERYONE will stand before individually before being able to enter heaven.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (November 25, 2009 5:18 pm ET)
                    2  
                    Wow. Just...WOW. You believe that stating that evangelicals believe Jews will go to hell is a fringe movemement because, wait for it...Jews will be given a chacne to renounce their Judaism before they are sent to hell? How thoughtful. What the - ?!
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by k1dork (November 25, 2009 12:16 pm ET)
                6
              Also, THINKING that people will go to hell is NOT the same as WANTING them to.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by blesscurse (November 25, 2009 12:21 pm ET)
                4  
                But if the End Times and the Rapture means the final judgement and the end of Israel, and fiery death for those who do not embrace Jewish guy Jesus as their God, it's the same thing, no? The evangelicals' support for Israel is devilishly self-serving.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by christopher howard (November 25, 2009 12:25 pm ET)
                  4  
                  re. Fringe: It may be fringe, in so far as it's nonsensical, but it is very common within the "mainstream" of the evangelical movement. I will add as a caveat that not all Christians (nor even all evangelicals) buy into it, but it is a very common viewpoint.

                  re. Thinking VS Wanting: If you are an evangelical Christian, then I would think you would WANT God's will to be done. If someone dies without being converted and God sends them to Hell, then wanting otherwise is to wish for an abrogation of God's omnipotent justice.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by k1dork (November 25, 2009 12:29 pm ET)
                      5
                    "re. Thinking VS Wanting: If you are an evangelical Christian, then I would think you would WANT God's will to be done. If someone dies without being converted and God sends them to Hell, then wanting otherwise is to wish for an abrogation of God's omnipotent justice."christopher howard

                    Not necessarily. Hate the sin, not the sinner. It would take an exceptionally heartless bastard to not feel sorry for those condemned to hell.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by christopher howard (November 25, 2009 12:42 pm ET)
                      6  
                      I don't feel sorry for those condemned to Hell because I don't believe for a second that such a place exists, but...

                      1) I have seen enough ghoulish Christians who seem to take absolute delight in describing the torments of Hell for non-believers. Those heartless bastards exist.

                      2) Regardless of any misgivings about those in Hell, evangelicals of this bent believe that they will be happy forever at God's side, so any misgivings will be brain-washed away once in Heaven.

                      3) To feel sorry for those being tortured by God is still to reject God's will. If God says someone should burn for all eternity, who is an ardent believer in God's omnibenevolence to say otherwise? Is God wrong for sending them to Hell? Is he a sadist?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by k1dork (November 25, 2009 12:46 pm ET)
                          5
                        "3) To feel sorry for those being tortured by God is still to reject God's will. If God says someone should burn for all eternity, who is an ardent believer in God's omnibenevolence to say otherwise? Is God wrong for sending them to Hell? Is he a sadist?" christopher howard

                        I disagree. I don't think it is "rejecting God's will" to feel sorry for someone. Someone may deserve a punishment, but that doesn't mean that one does not mourn for them. But, if that's what you think...
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by christopher howard (November 25, 2009 12:49 pm ET)
                          4  
                          Does God "mourn" for them?

                          If so, why punish someone forever based merely on the finite crime of disbelief?

                          If not, then you are in at least one respect better than God because you have a quality of empathy that he lacks.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by k1dork (November 25, 2009 12:52 pm ET)
                              7
                            I don't think it's possible to no longer believe in God if one is dead and standing before Christ. So my personal belief is that there will NOT be as many people going to hell as the brimstone crowd would have you believe.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by christopher howard (November 25, 2009 1:02 pm ET)
                              4  
                              Okay, I guess that speaks well of you at any rate.

                              But if everyone gets to see God in all his glory and make that decision AFTER death, then I'd say the number going to Hell would be something around 0%. I'm a die-hard atheist, but if I saw God face-to-face, I wouldn't be one any more.

                              If no one goes to Hell, is there a need for a literal Hell at all?

                              And why bother to have faith in this life? Do you believe entry into Heaven can be based on good works instead of faith?
                              Report Abuse
                • Author by k1dork (November 25, 2009 12:26 pm ET)
                    5
                  It doesn't mean the end of Israel. I don't know where you get that. The NT teaches that the world will turn against Israel (which isn't really that hard to imagine, considering where Israel is located and the regimes calling for it to be WIPED OFF THE EARTH).
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by blesscurse (November 25, 2009 12:34 pm ET)
                    3  
                    But do Christians believe that the OT and the NT are literally the truth or rather metaphorical myths, legends and stories? If one takes the Bible literally, there's a whole lot of strange stuff one has to swallow, like the tale of the 100 foreskins: http://www.drbo.org/chapter/09018.htm
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by soze169880 (November 25, 2009 12:36 pm ET)
            1  
            Thumbs down for blatant lying, actually.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (November 25, 2009 5:14 pm ET)
          1  
          That is actually not a lie, dork. And you seem, once again, to have no concept of evangelicals. Study up.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by k1dork (November 25, 2009 11:41 am ET)
        6
      Did anyone listen to the whole clip? Beck is such a liar. He asks "who has spoken up for Israel more than he has?"

      Well, Beck, I know a couple. How about Michael Savage and Michael Medved. Beck is such a liar.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (November 25, 2009 11:53 am ET)
        4  
        I wouldn't call Weiner and Medved the best examples of people speaking up for Israel but why the thumbs down? Beck is a liar.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by blesscurse (November 25, 2009 12:28 pm ET)
        3  
        Yes, Savage (Michael Alan Weiner) is a homophobic racist demagogic narcissist who has spoken up for Israel.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by k1dork (November 25, 2009 12:31 pm ET)
            5
          This coming from the "Jewish" person. Hey "blesscurse," what do the ancient texts you hold so dear say about homosexuality?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by soze169880 (November 25, 2009 12:38 pm ET)
            1  
            Quick! A diversion! Reverend Wright!
            Report Abuse
          • Author by blesscurse (November 25, 2009 12:46 pm ET)
            3  
            I don't hold the ancient texts all that "dear" in a literal sense. I often work on Saturday and/or Sunday, and don't want to be stoned or smited for it. I see the Bible as rather charming and instructive historical fiction, filled with metaphor, myth, and scores of outdated wrongheaded superstitious fallacies as well as wisdom. I don't believe in the dowry of 100 Philistine foreskins, or the prohibition against wearing linen/wool blends, or cutting up a rape victim's body into 12 pieces and giving each of the twelve tribes a piece, etc.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by soze169880 (November 25, 2009 11:41 am ET)
      1  
      So who REALLY looks out for Jewish people? Oooh, can I guess? Is it... this schmendrick?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by John Paradox (November 25, 2009 4:33 pm ET)
        1  
        Should do a book with a title similar to O'Reilly: Who's Looking Out For Jews?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by achorn316 (November 25, 2009 11:46 am ET)
      5  
      Me thinks Beck doth protest too much.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by caveman (November 25, 2009 11:46 am ET)
      3 1
      People here do realize that ADL is a neo-con pro-Israel organization that only combats bigotry as a front? It did use to be a genuine anti-discrimination outfit...many years ago.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mescal (November 26, 2009 2:55 am ET)
        1  
        Yeah, but the point is that even THEY think that doughboy is a hatemonger and a conniving, manipulative little putz.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotshark (November 25, 2009 11:52 am ET)
      6  
      Beck: ADL "has as much to do, I believe, with the plight of the Jewish people" as NOW "has with the plight of women"

      2 things beckerhead knows nothing about at all. Jews and Women
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (November 25, 2009 11:57 am ET)
      4  
      Of course Beck also believes that Obama has a deep seated hatred for white people, who are 3/4 of the voters.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by zamfir273114 (November 25, 2009 12:14 pm ET)
        3
      I totally agree with Beck on this one. The ADL is a joke. They are more interested in the success of Israel than any other country, including but not limited to the United States. As a Jewish person, I take offense that people think I have to fully support Israel, even when they do bad things (like kill innocent victims and call it collateral damage). People are people and innocent women, men and children shouldn't be blown up by soldiers. Israel has done this and the ADL disregards it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Rsw58 (November 25, 2009 12:15 pm ET)
      3  
      I see Beck's huge ego is once again on display for all to see. Yep NOBODY has stood up for Israel more than he has. Riiiight.
      But I do admit that he has been a fawning bootlicker when it comes to Israel. In his mind, Israel can do no wrong. No matter how many innocent Palestinians Israel kills Beck finds an excuse for it. Just like he believes our troops can do no wrong. He really is nothing more than a know-nothing demagogue.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by 4teepee (November 25, 2009 12:16 pm ET)
      2  
      Actually, Glenn Beck is right. He and the ADL are on the same page when it comes to their support of Israel's racist policies.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by progressiveright (November 25, 2009 12:19 pm ET)
      3  
      Who is responsable for the plight of the idots like you Glenn?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by doggeddem (November 25, 2009 1:05 pm ET)
      1  
      No one has more exemplified the kind of nationalistic propaganda and zealotry representative of that Hitler movement than this hyperbolic fanatic. He is not an advocate of any faction of society except for those who like Timothy McVeigh would destroy the country thinking they were burning it down to save it. We need him off the airwaves.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (November 25, 2009 1:15 pm ET)
      2  
      You see the Jewish people as people! HA! The Jews in my house leave the room when I put your show on. My husband is a kind and patient sort, he just shakes his head and mutters. One of my daughters mocks your idiocy all the way up the stairs, the other, who has my temper, she cusses and fusses and yells up two whole fights of stairs. I can't think of a single Jew I ever known who could abide anything you have to say. The only reason you want to protect Israel has to do with the coming Apocalypse and Armageddon and the fact that Mormons believe they are descended from the lost tribes. The rest of us are just deeply offended by these deluded, shameful claims. And yes, you are SO much like Fr. Coughlin, except that there isn't a new Bishop to force your hateful, disgusting rants off the TV or radio. Ruprick still finds you amusing.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sharpe (November 25, 2009 1:53 pm ET)
        2  
        Even saying i see the jewish people as people is to me, very disrespectful. What else would he see us as? And the ADL is no longer just focused on countering anti-semitism. They try to fight against all forms of racism and bigotry. Beck has not been anti-semitic necessarily (until that remark that he sees jews as people) but he has been racist and inflammatory and he has advocated for violence against the gov't and the president. He should be called out - he is reckless and a menace to political discussion and rhetoric among other things.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by epkklk851 (November 25, 2009 2:01 pm ET)
          2  
          Yes, there this so much about Glenn that just makes my skin crawl. Even before I heard anything that he really had to say, there was this feeling that I couldn't put on finger on, but still there. I had heard of the ADL, but I really hadn't thought about them in years. I went to the site and read the entire report. It is a very good report, and it touches on some of the things I had discovered on my own-the Three Percenters, for instance. And the Oath Keepers really scare me. I have to say, if I saw someone in uniform with those patches, I would turn them in to the command. I am glad to see the ADL is willing to research and speak up for all people. We need people to call out the hate groups, and then we need to support them.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Sharpe (November 25, 2009 2:13 pm ET)
            1  
            As I said below if there is any positive to take out of one of the greatest tragedies the world has ever witnessed in the Holocaust, it is that YOU MUST speak out for others to expect them to speak out for you. The slogan for Jews about the Holocaust is NEVER AGAIN. And to me, this does not mean that I must strive to never again allow the Jews to be persecuted or allow anti-semitism to reign free but that as Jews we must strive to prevent the defamation or attacks on any minority group as we would expect them to do the same for us. And all it takes is a whisper, a hint of racism or bigotry and it is time to spread the word and sing it from the treetops. Because the lines may be blurred if we allow something that even gives us a taste of racism to go unchecked without condemning such rhetoric. This is why I did not think it was right for people to ignore any signs of racism in the tea party protests or belittle it b/c we allow crap like that to pass, we are saying such garbage is okay with us. We are saying we can tolerate some degree of racism. That is not right, its not fair. We should not have to sit by and watch any degree of racism without severe rebuke. The Dachau picture of the piles naked bodies being compared to healthcare reform was particularly chilling. iTS RARE in america to see such insensitivity to the Holocaust. I wrote some more about the ADL and why i think jews specifically may feel compelled to speak up below.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by epkklk851 (November 25, 2009 2:32 pm ET)
              1  
              "The Dachau picture of the piles naked bodies being compared to healthcare reform was particularly chilling. iTS RARE in america to see such insensitivity to the Holocaust"

              We have a new generation coming up. They didn't see it, and they didn't spend a lot of time with the grandparents who did. So many of them are not really aware of just how awful Hitler and the Nazis were. They know the Nazis were bad, but they either over trivialize Nazi references (as Beck does) or they refuse to refuse to allow them to be used as being too harsh. I hesitate to use Nazi references, but there are times when groups arise, and group think arises and it creates the possiblity of it happening again and it can happen here. Yes, we must fight hatred and oppression when we see it. Not only for ourselves but for the ones who can't fight for themselves. The problem with Jews in Germany, was they saw themselves as Germans first, and they couldn't see that they might be targeted, and by the time that became clear, it was too late. I am very worried about these Teabaggers, they have no common goal or leader yet, there is just a lot of anger and differing targets for the anger. If a leader arises, with a clear goal, we could have an enormous mess on our hands. Something like the McCarthy era or worse. Many of the Teabaggers are armed and they have the internet to communicate, they are not isolated. We have much to fear.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by Sharpe (November 25, 2009 1:50 pm ET)
      2  
      Beck please refrain from talking about the jews. I cant help but feel you would be the one promoting Hitler and Nazism if it was 70 + years ago and we were in Germany.

      The ADL was started with the intent to counter anti-semitism and try to prevent bigotry in general. Im sure the ADL was not pointing to anti-semitism but just general inflammatory speech and racist remarks like when you called our president a racist maybe. How about think before you talk first?

      "The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is an international non-governmental organization based in the United States of America. Describing itself as "the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency", the ADL states that it "fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all" while it "[advocates] for Israel with policymakers, the media and the public" and "defends the security of Israel and Jews worldwide""
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Sharpe (November 25, 2009 2:02 pm ET)
      2  
      Beck speaks poorly of blacks, hispanics, poor, sick, Muslim or anyone else he speaks badly about us all. Because if beck was on fox denying the holocaust every day instead of defaming the religion of Islam and making a mockery out of the plight of the poor, I would hope Muslims and the poor would speak out for me. If the holocaust should have taught humanity one thing, it is that a threat to the rights of one minority can quickly spread to threatening the rights of many. And such rhetoric must be called out at one. We as a people with sound morals should never allow such hatred to violently spread like a plague.

      You see racism - you shout racism from the treetops. You write letters and make calls. You call people out for belitting the remarks. You do everything you can to make sure as many people as possible know what was said and its repercussions. WE MUST SPREAK OUT FOR EACH OTHER. If we dont, no one will speak out for us. Im a jew but I will blast beck just as hard for anti-semitism as i would for insulting Islam as should we all. This is why the ADL was created - Jews learned through tragedy, AS LONG AS WE CAN STOP IT = "NEVER AGAIN!!!!!!!!!"
      Report Abuse