Woman Yells "Heil Hitler" at a Jewish Man at a Health Care Town Hall

I came across this video clip (h/t Amanda Terkel) that was shot in Las Vegas during a town hall meeting that was sponsored by radio station KDWN AM720. In this clip you can see an Israeli man being interviewed by local media in Las Vegas about his health care system in Israel. This man is describing how fantastic his government-run care has been over the course of his life when you can hear a woman yell out "Heil Hitler!".

The man is shocked and then confronts the woman. Here is the video:



There are several things that don't make sense regarding what point this woman is trying to make. First, if she is opposed to health care reform and is upset that this man is defending his country's government-run health care system, then why yell out a phrase that is so offensive in support of the leader of the Nazi's?

Secondly, when challenged, this woman states "you ought to be the most against Obama, you ought to be the most scared." Why does she state this? Does she believe that Obama is Hitler and will therefore target Jews (like the gentleman speaking)? If this is the case then why would she have yelled "Heil Hitler" at this man to provoke him?

Third, the gentleman in this clip states that he isn't talking about being "for Obama" or "against Obama", but wants to talk about health care. He then states that he had to go to the emergency room (apparently locally in Nevada), had to wait two hours, and then was billed $8,000 because he didn't have insurance. The woman then responds by making crying noises in order to mock this man.

One can only conclude that this woman not willing to have a rational discussion about this issue, but is one of the many who are so ill-informed that it is painful to watch them interact with anyone who tries to have an actual conversation about health care reform. In the mind of this woman and many like her, Obama = Hitler, health care reform is evil, and anyone who thinks otherwise should be mocked and shouted down. How can anyone hope to have a rational conversation when this happens? It seems even more ridiculous if I were to take out the hyperbole and emotion of the conversation:

Man: Our government-run system in Israel is great!

Woman: Heil Hitler!

Man: Why are you yelling Heil Hitler at a Jew? I am Jewish and you think it is appropriate to yell "Heil Hitler"?

Woman: You should be the most against Obama and the most scared!

Man: I am not talking about being "for" or "against" Obama, I am talking about health care. I recently had to go to a local emergency room and I don't have insurance. On top of waiting for 2 hours, guess how much they charged me? $8,000!

Woman: Boo-hoo you baby!


Is this really the level of discourse that we have been reduced to?

Israeli Government Concealed Knowledge of Illegal Settlements in the West Bank

It is being reported that the Israeli government is complicit in illegal construction of settlements on land that belongs to Palestinians, a violation of international law.

The human rights group Yesh Din has obtained classified documents from the Israeli Defense Ministry which indicate that the Israeli Government has known that as many as three out of every four settlements in the West Bank, have been built without proper permits and have occurred on private property. The data in the report demonstrates:

• Over 30 settlements – including longstanding settlements such as Ariel, Kochav
Yaakov, Beit El, Elon Moreh and Ofra – that were to some extent built on private Palestinian land.
• Construction activity within settlements being conducted without necessary building permits or in direct violation of the building plans.
• The extent and locations of unauthorized building in outposts across the West Bank.

The organization Peace Now, also recently released a study which documents the rapid expansion of settlements in 2008. The study indicates that 1,518 new structures were built in Jewish West Bank settlements, an increase of 60% from 2007. Further interpretation of the study indicates:

Of the news structures, which include homes and caravans, 927, or 61 percent, were built west of the security fence and 591, or 39 percent, were built east of the security fence. One-quarter of the structures east of the fence were built in outposts. The 261 structures built in the outposts represent a more than doubling of the 98 built in 2007, and include five new structures in the Migron outpost, which the Israeli government announced it would relocate to a nearby settlement.

There was also a very good report on this topic on 60 Minutes recently. You can view the report below:

A Collection of Discourse on the Current Israel/Palestinian Conflict

President-elect Barack Obama has finally weighed in on the conflict that continues to wage between Israel and Palestinians today, stating that he "deplores" the civilian deaths on both sides of the conflict. He also stated that he will have "plenty to say" after January 20th on the issue. These statements come as Israel continues their assault on Gaza and amid new claims that UN schools have been hit in the attack. Yesterday it was reported that Israel has been using white phosphorous to screen their attack. This element, which can cause severe burns, is illegal if it is used as anything other than smokescreen.

There are many viewpoints that are being expressed about this current situation and instead of writing up a lengthy piece of my own at this point, I will use this entry to point your attention to a few of the pieces which can better help us understand this conflict and put it in a context that can be more helpful than we are usually subjected to.

First and foremost, I would like to point your attention to a Palestinian journalist, on the ground in Gaza, who has been bravely reporting during these times of violent clashes. His name is Sameh Habeeb and the link to his blog that he is updating is here. He is giving daily updates and first hand accounts of the events that he is seeing on the ground and yesterday, he posted that he may stop blogging if he either has to flee or if he dies due to the attacks. He has since resumed and his time is limited due to the Israeli power cuts to the region. A sample of today's entry:

1-Bombings in Jabalia Refugee Camps, 5 killed and several wounded. Many houses were damaged in the camp while hundreds of people leave their houses into some schools and safer places.2-Israeli F16s bombarded two adjacent houses for Al Shorafa family in Toffah area. The houses were hit without previous notification. Many people killed and several wounded.3-A massare against house of Al Daya family southern east of Gaza City. The father was killed, the mother, his son Fayez, his daughter in law Rawans, infant

I have attempted to contact Habeeb for an interview, but have so far been unsuccessful in reaching him. I will continue to try and post the interview here should he manage to reply. He has given an interview to Democracy Now!, which you can find here.

For some other views and productive discussion about this issue I recommend reading this article from the Nation entitled "To Live and Die in Gaza". The author is Laila Al-Arian and here is a clip of the piece:

With Israel's draconian blockade of Gaza, imposed as punishment for the election of Hamas and backed by the US and Europe, my grandfather's life was transformed yet again. Medication to treat his diabetes was in short supply and
because of a shortage of gas and electricity, his family was forced to use primitive kerosene burners for cooking. Bakeries now had to resort to baking bread with animal feed and sewage treatment plants were crippled as fuel ran out, forcing the water authority to dump millions of liters of waste into the Mediterranean Sea. Electricity was scarce, with homes receiving an average of only six hours a day. Unemployment shot up to 49 percent.

I will also point you to the views of Tariq Ali in his recent piece, "From the Ashes of Gaza". A clip:

The assault on Gaza, planned over six months and executed with perfect timing, was designed largely, as Neve Gordon has rightly observed, to help the incumbent parties triumph in the forthcoming Israeli elections. The dead Palestinians are little
more than election fodder in a cynical contest between the right and the far right in Israel. Washington and its EU allies, perfectly aware that Gaza was about to be assaulted, as in the case of Lebanon in 2006, sit back and watch.

and in perhaps one of the most interesting discussions that I have seen as of late, journalist Glenn Greenwald was interviewed on the right-wing talk radio program hosted by Hugh Hewitt. You can find a full transcript here and the discussion quite substantive considering the forum. Here is a sample of one of the exchanges:

HH: Let’s come back to that, but pause for a moment on Hamas. Do you think Hamas is a threat to the United States?

GG: No, I don’t think Hamas is remotely a threat to the United States. I think Saddam Hussein was more of a threat to the United States, and I don’t think he was a threat to the United States.

HH: Do you think Hamas is an extension of Iran?

GG: No, I don’t think Hamas is an extension of Iran.

HH: And do you believe Hamas is a terrorist organization?

GG: I mean, every person has their own definition of terrorism. The definition I use would include probably a lot more things than you would include, but I would include things like sending people to blow themselves up in pizza parlors and buses inside Israel to be acts of terrorism, sure.

HH: And does Israel have a right to exist unqualifiedly?

GG: Absolutely.

HH: And so given that Hamas is a terrorist organization that denies Israel’s right to exist, how do you think Israel ought to deal with the Qassam rockets, the 7,200 rockets, I believe, that have landed in Israel in the last many years?

GG: Well, I think that in order to answer that question, you have to look at the broader context, which is the fact that while I think Israel has a right to exist, I think the Palestinians have the right to autonomy over a land that virtually everybody outside of a few extremist religious sects in the United States and Israel recognize does not belong to Israel, recognizes it and should be Palestinian land. And so it’s not just a one-sided question, which is what should the Israelis do about rocket fire, the question also is what should the Palestinians do about the fact that they’re essentially occupied for a foreign army for four decades, and have walls built around them, and blockades imposed on them. And I think all these issues need to be resolved in order to have a real resolution. I think dropping bombs in a densely populated civilian area like the Gaza Strip isn’t going to solve any of it. It’s just going to exacerbate it.

The interview is very interesting and well worth your time. This is all for the time being, but I am sure that there will be much more to speak about as this situation continues to unfold.

Michael Savage Suggests Bombing Iran and Seizing Their Oil Fields in the Name of Democracy

Commentator Michael Savage has long been a controversial figure both on his long running radio program as well as his short-lived television show. (Savage was fired for telling a caller to "get AIDS and die" on the air.) On his radio program he has advocated putting the homeless in workcamps, stated that he would hang every lawyer who went down to Guantanamo, and played a song for Ted Kennedy by the band the Dead Kennedys after the Senator was diagnosed with a brain tumor.

Savage came out with a short piece entitled "Making the World Safe for Theocracy" in which he likens the current situation in Iran to the rise of Hitler and advocates that the United States take military action against the country. Savage states that Iran "continues to challenge Western democracies" and has tested "missiles designed to do in 6 seconds what Hitler did in 6 years to 6 million Jews". Savage fails to provide this situation with much context including mention of the Israeli military exercise that took place a couple of weeks ago that was largely seen as a rehearsal for a strike against Iranian targets. Washington, the Bush Administration, and Israel have been rattling sabers toward Iran for quite some time over their nuclear ambitions and Iran has responded to the threats by test firing missiles and stating that they will retaliate if their country is attacked.

The Bush Administration continues to argue that Iran is on the path to develop a nuclear weapon dispite the fact that the National Intelligence Estimate stated that there is no evidence that Iran is developing such a weapon post-2003. Iran maintains that they are enriching uranium for peaceful purposes but contrary to the NIE report, both Presidential candidates in addition to the Bush Administration have continued to falsly claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

Despite these facts, Michael Savage states that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "flaunting his nation's nuclear technology" and compares his actions to Hitler's defiant military build-up in the 1930's. Savage continues by labeling President Bush the "Chamberlain of our time" who just rattles sabers and "refuses to act".

Savage begins his last paragraph by asking the question: "And why won't Bush act to save Western democracies from this madman?" Posing this question implies that Western democracies are at a risk of destruction from Iran, this is misleading and quite contrary to the NIE findings. Savage concludes his piece:

And so to fuel his own vanity, he lets the cancer of Iran metastasize and spread throughout the world. If Bush were to unleash the military might of the United States on this petty dictator and seize control of the Iranian oil fields, we could regain control of the Middle East, boost John McCain's poll numbers, greatly reduce oil prices, and save Israel from a second Holocaust. Instead Bush has decided to make the world safe for theocracy. And that's something everyone but the far left Democrats understand we have to fight.

That's right, Michael Savage actually suggests that we "unleash the military might" of the United States on Iran and "seize control of the Iranian oil fields" in order to "greatly reduce oil prices". That is called pillaging and invading a country to gain control of their resources is against International Law. Nothing says democracy quite like pre-emptively striking a sovereign nation in order to gain control of their resources! Kudos Mr. Savage, you always seem to out-do yourself.

Military Action in Iran: The Role of the United States and Israel

Seymour Hersh has written a piece for the New Yorker that claims the United States has increased covert military operations inside Iran. After a request from President Bush, Congressional leaders approved funding of an escalation in covert operations against Iran that would work to destabilize the Iranian regime. This funding, which was approved by leaders of both parties, allows for up to $400 million dollars to be spent on actions such as spying on nuclear facilities and support for various dissident groups.

The Democratic Party has continually denounced this administration for its stance on Iraq and claims that they will not be duped by this Administration again, yet top leaders of the party are joining with Republicans in authorizing measures against Iran that seem to circumvent any diplomatic measures. As Hersh states:

Although some legislators were troubled by aspects of the Finding, and “there was a significant amount of high-level discussion” about it, according to the source familiar with it, the funding for the escalation was approved. In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership-Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections-were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy

Hersh goes on to mention that the timing of this request, made by President Bush, coincides with a period of time AFTER the Administration was told by the National Intelligence Estimate that Iran had halted its nuclear program in 2003. The Administration has continually downplayed the findings of the NIE and to this day, maintains an Iranian threat against their neighbors.

This ties in with two other recent developments:

1. The recent report by the New York Times that Israel has conducted a military training exercise believed to simulate an airstrike on Iranian targets.

2. John Bolton, the former American Ambassador to the United Nations, has stated that Israel will attack Iran before the next President of the United States is sworn in.

As information continues to gather regarding the so-called "Iranian Threat" it is becoming more and more clear that the United States may choose to play a complicit yet indirect role in any military action against Iran. An Israeli attack on Iran would not only accomplish an objective friendly to insiders in Washington, but would allow for Washington to avoid direct military confrontation. An action by Israel would not remove blame from the United States as the U.S. would be complicit in such actions, but would serve to further the interests of two countries that have an alliance of strategic regional objectives. Iran has threatened to retaliate against any attack and I need not outline the potential consequences of such actions only to say that any military action against Iran would have major and catastrophic results in the region.

A Political Climate Shift

I sensed it when I walked outside the the other day. I stopped in my tracks, looked around, and couldn't quite figure out what it was. Was there a different smell in the air? Had the temperature dipped a few degrees? Did the wind feel a little different? I didn't realize exactly what it was until I began look at the news of the day and read some related articles. Some called it a "shift toward the center" and some called it "standing up to the left", but it became clear to me that the political climate is what had shifted. Not only has John McCain gone through an experience since the year 2000 that the reality show world might dub "Extreme Makeover: Political Edition", but now it seems that Barack Obama is the latest candidate to begin shifting and even reversing his position on some key issues.

In a recent article Chris Hedges refers to Obama as a "courtier" who is agile and eloquent and makes us feel good. Hedges states:

"We cannot differentiate between illusion and reality. We trust courtiers wearing face powder who deceive us in the name of journalism. We trust courtiers in our political parties who promise to fight for our interests and then pass bill after bill to further corporate fraud and abuse. We confuse how we feel about courtiers like Obama and Russert with real information, facts and knowledge. We chant in unison with Obama that we want change, we yell “yes we can,” and then stand dumbly by as he coldly votes away our civil liberties. The Democratic Party, including Obama, continues to fund the war. It refuses to impeach Bush and Cheney. It allows the government to spy on us without warrants or cause. And then it tells us it is our salvation. This is a form of collective domestic abuse. And, as so often happens in the weird pathology of victim and victimizer, we keep coming back for more. "

Hedges' reference to voting away our civil liberties refers to Obama's new found support for the FISA bill which will help to give telecom companies retroactive immunity for spying on Americans. Matthew Rothschild gives further insight into this issue in his recent piece in The Progressive. Rothschild points out that the rhetoric Obama used to defend his reversal in position, is quite similar to President Bush's:

Obama, sounding on Friday a lot like Bush, said: “Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay.”

Here’s what Bush said the same day as Obama: The bill “allows our intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists abroad, while protecting the liberties of Americans here at home.”

But it doesn’t protect our liberties, and Obama ought to know that.

Obama's previous position was that he would support the filibuster of any legislation that would give the telecom companies retroactive immunity. His support for this latest FISA bill, is a direct reversal and a shift not necessarily towards the so-called "center", but in allowing the Administration to continue their assault on our civil liberties.

The media coverage on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" of this very issue has been astounding. Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com pointed out in his most recent blog the amazing shift in discourse on this program that directly aligned with Obama's shift on this issue:

What's much more notable is Olbermann's full-scale reversal on how he talks about these measures now that Obama -- rather than George Bush -- supports them. On an almost nightly basis, Olbermann mocks Congressional Democrats as being weak and complicit for failing to stand up to Bush lawbreaking; now that Obama does it, it's proof that Obama won't "cower." Grave warning on Olbermann's show that telecom amnesty and FISA revisions were hallmarks of Bush Fascism instantaneously transformed into a celebration that Obama, by supporting the same things, was leading a courageous, centrist crusade in defense of our Constitution.

Greenwald goes on to mention the danger in this type of "blind devotion" to a candidate no matter his/her stance on policy issues. Greenwald mentions that it is no different than the blind devotion than many loyalists of President Bush have ascribed to in the last 8 years no matter how harmful his policies on important issues.

Obama's stance on FISA is simply the latest in a series of events where his position on issues seems to run counter to the type of change that some of his supporters have come to expect. Obama's speech in front of AIPAC was meant to assure Israel that the policy of the United States will remain in direct alliance with Israeli interests. He stated that the United States would continue to give military aide ($30 billion) to Israel, believes that Jerusalem should remain undivided, and all options would remain on the table to defend the "sacrosanct" and "non-negotiable" security of Israel.

On Iraq, Obama has not pledged to withdrawal all troops and has not voiced a clear stance on the role of private contracting firms operating with Iraq. In fact, in a recent Wall Street Journal article the Iraqi Foreign Minister mentions that after a phone call with Obama, he believes that Obama will not make any drastic decisions or take any drastic actions to jeopardize Iraq's security gains.

Let us be clear on the meaning of these shifts in Obama's positions. It is continually shown, through the examples I have listed, that Obama's actions and words do not represent a drastic change in policy away from the our current situation. Obama is voting for the FISA bill which will give expanded powers on the government to spy on Americans, has pledged his staunch support for the security of Israel, and has not pledged an end to the war in his lack of support for a full withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Citizens of the U.S. need to begin to look at what is being said on these issues that are so important to our future and if Barack Obama is starting to look less like a "change" and more like the status quo, then perhaps people should look to other candidates that may fully represent the type of change that they wish to see in this country.