“public opinion in America was focused on the Holocaust as a result of the “Jewish domination of the media”

I would hardly call the thought that the media is dominated by Jews or that Jews have played up the Holocaust for their own purposes original. These types of anti-Semitic stereotypes dating back to the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion have  have been played out time and time again throughout history around the world.

Stone’s comments come at at time when he is promoting his upcoming documentary, “The Secret History of America. I have no doubt that in  his view, Stone is simply “keeping it real”.  That is the perspective of  Holocaust Deniers. While Stone is not a denier in the traditional sense of  rejecting the historical fact of the Holocaust, he is a denier in the use of antisemitic stereotypes to diminish it’s place in history.

Here is what is “real”.  Eleven Million innocents murdered under Hitler.  Twenty million or more murdered under Stalin. None of Stone’s antisemitic marketing tactics or ignorant revisionism will change that.  The real secret exposed here is Stone’s antisemitism.  I doubt anything will change that either.

This presents an interesting dilemma for the federal government. While the benefits of medical marijuana are documented and vets are being helped by its use, it is still illegal under Federal law and certainly in federal facilities like VA clinics.  Legally, the fact that it is being used in a state that allows medical marijuana is irrelevant to federal enforcement. While the Obama Administration and the DEA have taken the position that they will not go after those using the drug in compliance with state law, it remains to be seen if medical marijuana crossing the border into federally funded facilities and getting that first foot hold into the federal domain a will sit well with Eric Holder and the DEA.  No one wants to look like the bad guy where our vets are concerned.

I came across the video on the blog of Debbie Schlussel. Debbie and I have had our differences on various issues.  This is however, one time I am completely on board with her views. There is a huge difference between pimping out a tragedy and celebrating survival of that tragedy. I will not restate the entire controversy as she has covered it quite well.  As goofy as the video is, I frankly cried when I watched it.  For a survivor to go back and joyfully dance on the horrendous memories of his fight and the fight of all European Jews for their survival to me is a celebration of life and our ability as humans to take tragedy and smile back at it.  We did survive and more power to Adolek Kohn for allowing me to remember with a smile on my face.  IMHO, Adolek Kohn has earned the right to “dance his experience” any damn place he pleases.

Kenya, while having some guarantees of free expression in place, takes a much different view on hate speech than the United States. They experience it differently on a cultural and ethnic level.  Hateful rhetoric similar to speech targeting Jews, Muslims, Hispanics and other religious and ethnic minorities that we may find despicable but part of a free society has resulted in full scale riots in Kenya.  They are therefore much more sensitive to the relationship between words, violence and ethnic incitement.

Kenya’s hate speech laws read as follows under Section  Section 62 of the National Cohesion and Integration Act 2008:

“Any person who utters words intended to incite feelings of contempt, hatred, hostility, violence or discrimination against any person, group or community on the basis of ethnicity or race, commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one million shillings, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both or a newspaper, radio station or media enterprise that publishes the utterances referred to in subsection (1) commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one million shillings.”

Section 13 of the Act stipulates that a person is liable to be charged with hate speech when he or she uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or displays any written material.

Think that would fly here in the United States?

I found of particular interest, an opinion piece written by John Orso on the allAfrica.com web site entitled “Hate Speech Must Be Penalised“referring to the recent arrests of Kenyan politicians on hate speech charges. He wrote:

“After the turmoil which followed the 2007 general elections, Kenyans developed certain sensitivities which every politician and public speaker needs to observe whenever addressing the public. On its part, the government has no option but to ensure that laws against hate speech and incitement are applied. In any case, such laws can only serve their purpose as preventative measures”

If that article was written regarding U.S. politician and media exhortations, we would probably snicker.  As long as Glenn Beck or some other political pundit does not exhort us to go out and commit murder, it’s no holds barred with the ratings winner to he or she or screams the loudest and in the most outrageous fashion. Accusations of hate speech routinely fly back and forth here. In reality, they have no standardized meaning so no one cares on a societal level.  It’s just speech.  Words don’t hurt, unless you live in Kenya.  In Kenya it’s life or death.  As we bask in the glory of free speech and the right to say the outrageous at no cost but to our dignity, lets not lose site of the fact that words are sticks and stones, just not here…

The United States Code Title 18, Part I Chapter 115 defines treason as follows:

“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States”

“The full resources of the Justice Department will be devoted to ensuring that those persons who would betray their country and the people of the United States are prosecuted and severely punished.”-The United States Attorney commenting on the Robert Hanssen case.

The cold war is back. Federal prosecutors have accused 11 people of spying for the Russians. In true mole fashion sounding like something right out of the movie  “No Way Out” the FBI alleges that these spies were sent here by the Russian overseas intelligence service known as the SVR — the successor to the Soviet KGB — as early as the mid-1990s, and were provided with training in language as well as the use of codes and ciphers.

Spying is a time honored means of learning about our enemies even when they are formally no longer our enemy. Sometimes they are moles whose allegiances were never to the United States. Sometimes they are turned. What motivates people to turn against their country? “Treason” is a terrifying word. Any time it is invoked, a person has either successfully or attempted to sell out the United States to the highest bidder.  Treason is also one of the very few crimes on the Federal books that carry the death penalty without having to prove that the crime actually resulting in death.  So why do traitors turn when they are facing death? “

I was able to speak with an current FBI agent who has worked on the intelligence side. He wishes to remain anonymous. He stated that most traitors turn for the following reasons:

• Money
• Ideology (Political or religious)
• Sex / Drugs other dependencies

In the years since the Robert Hanssen case, it has been business as usual for those selling out our country both intentionally and unwittingly for the above reasons.

Robert Hanssen is considered the most damaging traitor in terms of lives, intelligence lost and dollars to repair the damage done to national security. That is quite a title in the company of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Aldrich Ames and Benedict Arnold. His case was dramatized in the move Breach. Hanssen consistently passed critical intelligence information on to the Soviets over 20 years. He divulged information such as Soviet double agents(resulting in their execution) and the United States continuity of government plan in case of nuclear attack.  Hanssen was spared the death sentence in exchange for his cooperation in undoing the damage he did. He is currently serving his life sentence at the Federal Supermax facility in Florence Colorado.

Has everything we learned since Hanssen prevented further “megaton” breaches in national security?  There is no question that counter Intelligence spending has increased dramatically post Hansen.   It was mistakenly revealed that in 2005 the United States spent 40 billion dollars on its’ spy agencies.  One would have hoped we had successfully “whack a moled” most Russian plants and disaffected government agents.  Who are some of the spies that have betrayed our loyalties and for what reasons?

Gregg William Bergersen was sentenced to five years in prison for conspiracy to disclose national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it. Bergersen was a Weapons Systems Policy Analyst at the Arlington, Va.-based Defense Security Cooperation Agency, an agency within the Department of Defense.  While in this position, Bergersen provided national defense information on numerous occasions to Tai Shen Kuo, a naturalized U.S. citizen and a New Orleans businessman. Much of the information pertained to U.S. military sales to Taiwan and was classified at the Secret level.  Mr Kuo in return provided Bergersen with money, gifts and trips to Vegas. Tai Shen Kuo was sentenced to almost 16 years in federal prison.

The Bergersen case highlights the continuing tension with China with regards to their aggressive efforts to obtain United States military and technology data. This case was one of the more serious cases of espionage since Robert Hanssen. Interestingly, his handlers ran what intelligence professionals call a “false flag” operation. They made him believe that the information he was providing was going to Taiwan, an American ally.

In the end, the true motivation was far less altruistic. It was the second oldest temptation. Like 90 percent of the espionage cases that came before him, it was all about money. Mr. Kuo promised Bergersen that he would make him as a partner at 400k per year in a defense consulting firm after he retired from the Pentagon. This was in addition to the gifts and Vegas trips.

While the Bergersen case was a case of a planned attempt at espionage by the Chinese government, many more of these cases are in the Grey zone between breaches of national security and commercial espionage by foreign governments to gain a technology advantage.  An article in the New York Times highlights the concern the United States government has over very aggressive Chinese efforts to obtain classified information by conventional and unconventional means probing for openings at the lowest levels in areas we would never expect in the hopes that it will lead to the locations of weakness in our commercial and government intelligence defense systems.

The FBI recently investigated and obtained one of the 1st convictions under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. Xiaodong Sheldon Meng, a software engineer born in China was sentenced to 24 months in prison for stealing a military source code from his employer and attempting to transfer it and other military technology he took to the Chinese Government.

In addition to China, the Middle East will undoubtedly be a fertile recruiting ground for moles, double agents and infiltrators. The Middle East scenario has already reared its ugly “two face” in the name of Nada Nadine Prouty, a former FBI agent who plead guilty in November 2007 to fraudulently obtaining U.S. citizenship and improperly accessing sensitive computer information about Hezbollah.   Prior to her resignation she was a CIA spy assigned to Middle East operations.  Prouty is an interesting case. There are those who feel she was a true spy treated much too leniently in receiving a $750 fine and no jail time for her actions.  There are those who feel she is a scapegoated patriot.

Ironically one of the more recent arrests of an accused traitor involved the Middle East but not with one of our enemies. In 2009, Stewart David Nozette, 52, rrested Monday on charges of attempting to pass along classified information to an undercover FBI agent he believed was an Israeli intelligence officer.

Speaking of Israel, In 2008, 85 year old Ben-ami Kadish a former U.S. Army mechanical engineer, was arrested and charged with four counts of conspiracy. The charges allege that Kadish passed classified documents to the government of Israel during the 1980s. His alleged spy activities have been linked to convicted spy Jonathan Pollard who also passed secrets on to Israel.  Kadish did no jail time but was fined 50k.

What about Jonathon Pollard?   Pollard, a former civilian intelligence analysis was convicted of spying for Israel. He received a life sentence in 1987 with a recommendation against parole.  The Pollard case has been a consistent source of  diplomatic tension between the State Of Israel, and the United States.  Israel granted Pollard citizenship in 1995 and would like to see him freed for return.  Pollard is in fact eligible for parole but has never applied for it.

Pollard  has denied spying “against” the United States. He said he provided only information he believed was vital to Israeli security and was being withheld by the Pentagon. This included data on Soviet arms shipments to Syria, Iraqi and Syrian chemical weapons, the Pakistani atomic bomb project and Libyan air defense systems.

If you take a look at the Victim’s Impact Statement filed by the Federal Government at Pollards sentencing, his activities and the damage done to our national security take a much more personal bent and even more so when the video below is viewed.  Video of Pollard in the actual act of stealing classified material from the United States. In effect stealing the security of every citizen of this country.

How much damage did Pollard do?   That is in dispute but he was certainly no Robert Hanssen.  In my mind that is irrelevant.  Once he put our vulnerabilities into the open he lost control over the material as to where it ended up and every American ,Jew and non-Jew lost control to a small degree over their future safety.  Not because he passed information to an ally but because we lost control of  every other place that information could end up.

Should Jonathan Pollard be released.  I would prefer not.  Those who steal my security and comfort in going to bed every night by putting our countries most protected secrets and  vulnerabilities into the open regardless of intentions should serve out their full sentence.

Pollard has many high profile supporters asking for his release.  Among them Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz who represented Pollard early in the case.  You can read his family’s  web site outlining why should be released and come to your own conclusions.

Moral of story? Old spies never die, they just blend into the masses. The other moral? When it comes to money and national security love is fleeting….

At a 1993 conference at the University of Chicago Law School she spoke on the benefits of regulating certain “classes” of speech, specifically referring to pornography and hate speech.   The video of the speech was reviewed by Politico. She stated:

“those of us who favor some form of pornography and hate speech regulation” and told participants that “a great deal can be done very usefully” to crack down on such evils.

She further stated:

“Statutes may be crafted in ways that prohibit the worst of hate speech and pornography, language that goes to sexual violence”

While Kagan appears to be focusing more on conduct based regulation when it comes to hate speech, one has to be concerned when we start talking about  a categorical balancing of the costs and “value” inherent in certain speech.  This takes us into a legal form of “social engineering” that has no place on the court.

If speech leads to imminent lawless action or fits a few other very narrow categories  we already can regulate it and we do. Even these types of laws, however, have been subject to moral flexibility. The use of child pornography laws to prosecute sexting is an example.  What about hate speech? Who sets the bar?   Are we going to criminalize Holocaust Denial?  That’s low value speech to me.  Why not?  If she gets hers, I want mine.  It’s ad hoc right?   What about inflammatory political speech?   We tried that once. It was called Sedition. Didn’t work out well.  Certainly not for those who went to prison for criticizing the government.

I am not contending that Kagan is going to go off the “free speech deep end” but to even consider any type of “value balancing” approach to hate speech even with the best intentions could take us down a free speech rabbit hole that will be hard to climb out of, setting the 1st Amendment back decades.

Is there low value speech?  I agree with Kagan that there is.  That does not mean the court should start adding ad hoc categories designed to tell me what it is. I can decide for myself and make my personal decision if I want to view it, engage in it or debate it.  There is already enough subjectivity to go around without opening up a Pandora’s Box of  moral interpretation.

When I look back at my own Jewish Immigrant background, the “specter” of Jews fighting for the Nazis in the traditional sense sickens stomach. My ancestry is much like other Jewish immigrants. Both sides of my family immigrated to the Unites States from Czarist Russia in the early 1900′s. They came to escape the brutal exterminating pogroms of the Russian authorities much like the extermination of Jews by the Nazis. Czarist officials not only promoted pogroms to blame Jews for government failures and economic depressions but also to isolate jews and keep them fearful. They forced the “Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion,” a documents used the to justify persecuting Jews ans stil in circulation now in Middle Eastern Countries to “prove” that Jews controlled World Finance. Moreover, the Czars conscripted Jewish youth as young as 12 to serve 25 years in the army. Some Russian Jews immigrated to Poland only to be ultimately persecuted by both the Hitler regime and their very own. German born Jews treated Eastern Jews as inferior calling them “Ghetto Jews”. Jews of this background constituted the majority of the Jews massacred pursuant to “The Final Solution“.

The common public notion is that no one of Jewish descent would have ever been allowed to serve in the Nazi regime and, if discovered, would be immediately deported to a forced labor or extermination/concentration camp. This was not the case. The Nazi racial classification or “Nuremberg Laws” were complex and bizarre as to who was classified as a “Jew”. (see Nazi classification chart) This classification dispute is responsible for some controversy. Some scholars have complained that the title of Rigg’s book is sensational and misleading because it implies that these Nazi soldiers were Jewish when, in fact, many of them would not be classified as Jews under Jewish law (Young men were considered Jewish if their mothers were Jewish.). Many of the soldiers interviewed did not consider themselves Jewish at all and had been baptized into a Christian tradition. I view this as a simplistic criticism since the overall issue of how Hitler bent and twisted the racial laws of his regime to serve his own bizarre purposes in the face of the Nuremberg laws is a fascinating idea that Riggs explains from a unique perspective. Riggs demonstrates the willingness of the Nazis to bend their own laws of racial classification and Jewish persecution and documents Hitler’s extensive , obsessive involvement in deciding which “Jews” received a pass ,which would be discharged, and which would ultimately be deported. Riggs also explores the historical, religious and cultural individual personal conflicts of “The Jewish Identity”.

While most of Jewish descent were ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers, some rose to very high ranking positions of authority in the Nazi Regime. Some either directly or indirectly participated in the Jewish killing machine. Germans of Jewish descent were fighting for a country whose official policy was that they were regarded as second-class citizens and, in most cases, not even human. Germans of Jewish descent were fighting for a country that was deporting their relatives to concentrations camps for eventual extermination. Germans of Jewish descent were fighting for a country who, some say, planned to ultimately exterminate them also when Germany won the war.  How could these “Jews” fight for a country that planned their extinction?  Why did Hitler allow this to take place?  We know it is not due to the common misconception that Hitler was part Jewish.  Scholars universally agree that there is no evidence of this.  Rigg’s thesis certainly goes against everything I believed about my identity as a Jew and what it means to be Jewish.  Does having “Jewish blood” in itself make you Jewish?  While the simple answer seems to be no, it was quite complicated in Nazi Germany.

A fascinating aspect of the lecture and the book is the method by which the Nazis determined who was Jewish and who was not. For racial and military purposes, the Nazi Party classified Jewish people as full Jews, half Jews, and quarter Jews. Each classification was treated differently with regards to whether they could serve in the German military and what rights, if any, they had under German law. As previously mentioned, according to Jewish law, a person is determined to be a Jew if the person’s mother is Jewish.

I would have been a full Jew under Nazi laws. All four of my grandparents on both sides were Jewish. I am also of Russian descent. Not only would I have been prohibited from serving in the German military, I would have in all likelihood been on the first train out to to Auschwitz or some other extermination camp. Jews of Eastern descent or “Ghetto Jews” were also looked down upon and discriminated against by German born Jews as well as the Germans. It was a double whammy. (it was an upper vs lower class type discrimination as compared to the totalitarian discrimination of the Nazis)

Many of those of partial Jewish descent while Jewish by both Jewish law and Nazi racial classification had become so assimilated into the German-Christian society through mixed marriages that they did not consider themselves Jewish. Some were practicing Christians. This was only changed through Hitler’s racial classification system and the Nuremberg Laws which officially made the majority of people of full and partial Jewish descent second-class citizens called “Mischling“, meaning they came from a mixed marriage and had partial Jewish ancestry. Germans of partial Jewish descent who had practiced Christianity all of their lives, were suddenly classified as a “Mischling,” Jews under Hitler’s racial classification laws. They were suddenly stripped of most rights under German law.

Interestingly, the situation was not just a German/Jewish phenomenon. In 1941, Finland joined the war as a “co-belligerent” of Germany. (Finland refused to call itself an ally.) There were 250-300 Finnish-Jews fighting alongside Germany on the eastern front against Russia, and some of the Finnish-Jews were even awarded German battle decorations. Soldiers with Jewish heritage also fought along side the Nazis when Romania was aligned against the Soviet Union as well as for Italy.

There was a huge ideology gap between what occurred in Finland and Nazi Germany. Finland was not under Nazi rule. Finland, from its perspective, was fighting for its independence from Russia rather than to support any anti-Semitic ideology or German persecution. Finland as a nation refused to endorse the Nazi anti-Semitic policies and refused to deport, persecute or discriminate against its Jewish population. It is quite the paradox that despite this policy their fighting alongside Germany certainly helped Germany achieve military goals and indirectly aided in the Jewish persecutions. The Finnish-Jewish soldiers were not blind to what was going on. It caused quite a bit of internal conflict and tension with the German soldiers. This was also not a racial classification issue. Finland did not discriminate against or classify their Jews. In this situation, full, practicing Jews were fighting alongside the Nazis against the Allies, fighting predominately at Leningrad.

The German racial classification system for Jews and the resulting disparate treatment with regards to military service in the Nazi army highlights some of the fundamental issues of Jewish Identify that exist even today. What does it mean to be Jewish? What qualities and beliefs make someone Jewish? If your mother is Jewish you are certainly a Jews by definition of Jewish Law but that may not be how you may look at yourself if you were not raised in the Jewish tradition. Are we as Jews defined by our culture, our religious practices or how other view us? As an example, several years ago I got into a heated argument when a person who was close to me told me in her opinion I was not Jewish because I did not adhere to Jewish religious practices. I was infuriated. It was and is my belief that my bond to Judaism is through culture, common history and suffering. The bond that all Jews share. That is what defines me as a Jew. She could not grasp this concept. This was the dilemma faced by many of the Mischling in Nazi Germany. This is a historical and religious conflict faced by Jews today as mixed marriages have become much more common and accepted in the United States. Jews argue among themselves over this issue. It is a conflict that transcends time.

Enjoy this piece?  Be sure to join the Cuban Revolution Fan Club and/or subscribe to my newsletter to stay abreast of future posts and live celebrity interviews on The Revolution Rant

There is a huge difference between Thomas Paine and the Bloggers of today.  In 1776, the pamphleteers were the media with a focused audience. They did not have to rise about 2 million others  pamphleteers competing for the attention of America. Now it seems that whoever shouts the loudest fits the Patriotic criteria.

So what is a Patriot in the 21st Century?  From a historical perspective we know what one is.   Our forefathers who fought to gain our independence were Patriots.  I think we can all agree on that.  There were also founding fathers who fought for our independence with pens and not their swords.  These pamphleteers were the Bloggers of the Revolution.  Thomas Paine is an example.  Is he any less a Patriot because he fought the war with words?   Of course our soldiers past and present are Patriots.   Many of use have never fought for defense our country or for democracy in any other country including myself.  Can we still be Patriots?  I  consider myself Patriotic but a Patriot?  I have no idea what that means in a generation where one man’s Patriot is another man’s idiot and everyone blogs about it.

In a Pittsburgh Post Gazette Op-Ed entitled “What Is  A Patriot” Meagan Loewly of Sewickley, Pennsylvania defines a Patriot as follows.:

“I, however, believe in a broader definition of a patriot.

I am a law-abiding citizen. I participate in my community, donate to charity and attend my children’s school functions. I educate myself on the issues, understand the workings of our government and vote. I value the beauty and resources of our great land. I support local businesses. I am raising two children to do these same things.

As a teacher, I work hard every day to make this country a better place. I believe in the goodness of the American people and in the bounty of our untapped potential. I believe in the principles of the Constitution and that they should apply to all Americans.

And I believe I am patriot.”

Here is to Meghan and the Patriot’s of the 21st Century who every day work to make our Country a better place beyond ranting on a blog.

“Hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio and cable television programs masquerading as ‘news’,”

The request further urged the Commission to:

“examine the extent and effects of hate speech in media, including the likely link between hate speech and hate crimes, and to explore non-regulatory ways to counteract its negative impacts….”

The memo is extensive and detailed.  It makes great points.  I agree that “hate is for sale” in 21st Century Media and on the internet including Social Media.  It has become the primary means of profit for many talk pundits. It is dished out for free on blogs, Twitter and Facebook.  While networks such as Facebook  would never admit it, hate speech does have a monetized value in social media. When a network monetizes the free exchange of ideas and a portion of those ideas are hate speech you can put a dollar sign on  it.

Hate speech is a viral epidemic that has  spiraled out of control with no end in site.  Something needs to be done.  Something, but not this.  An FCC study is an interesting and noble concept but also an expensive and dangerous waste of time.  It’s an information gathering mission  doing nothing more than documenting the obvious. It  can either sit in a file to be studied by academics or be used in an attempt to regulate. Regulation is a non-starter. We have this little thing called the 1st Amendment. Hate speech enjoys protection in this country like no other country in the world. The academics can conduct their own studies without the FCC muscling into our minds.

It is also simply not feasible.  Where would the FCC begin?  How would they decide the parameters of the study?  Are they going to nitpick every pissy thing said in cable media and on the internet?  What about social media? If you listen to some, Facebook is fast on its way to for many purposes becoming the internet. Despite their rules against hate speech, it runs rampant within the borders of the new “3rd largest country”  Twitter for all intensive purposes has no rules against hate speech. You can’t make a true threat of bodily harm but other than that its the Wild West.  Is the FCC going to assert jurisdiction over these private companies to gather data? Good luck. Regardless, there is simply too much data.  This would be nothing more than a “hit and run” random sample study.

How will they define hate speech?  It’s easy if someone calls me a kike or uses another standard racial or ethnic slur. That’s too easy. What about the subjective media rhetoric?  We have seen claims of Sedition against politicians, racism against our President and every perversion in between. Cable and online hate speech associated with the Israeli-Palestine conflict could be a complete study in its own right.  How will the internal values of those evaluating content affect their decision on what constitutes hate speech?  What’s hate speech to one person is simply the truth to someone else.  I had someone tell me once that calling that Denver Nuggets “The Thuggets” was hate speech  She was dead serious. She blocked me on Twitter.  Too many questions with no objective means to provide answers.

Finally, we have what amounts to the government creating  a “hate list”.    Joseph McCarthy did that once, holding up a piece of paper in Wheeling West Virginia with the names of  of communists allegedly working in the State Department. It was of course bullshit.  There was no list.  America however, then and there, fell into one of its darkest periods.  I certainly would not want to be on an FCC official hate speech list.  Even if that is not the intent, when you start attaching names to negative content, there is a “defacto list” even if there is no piece of paper. Cable pundits who profit off of hate speech love to talk about  lists.

The vaccine for the for hate speech virus is not to deal with it on the back end with government studies. It starts at home with parenting.  It’s too late for the Beck’s and Olbermanns of the world.  They are who they are.  An FCC study is not going to change them or stem the tide of evil rhetoric.   It will simply give pundits more fodder and create a specter of government regulation and McCarthyism. Once again, more to talk about but other than that, no upside at all.

If it is possible to defend Geller in a tongue and cheek arena, we can try to find the humor in her hate-filled insanity.  Her posts are often  so nonsensical, rambling and filled with conspiracy blather you need a Star Trek Universal Wacko Translator just to read them.  If not for the terrible hate speech , one may be more inclined to just write her off as a laughable nut.  Unfortunately she is a laughable nut with followers.  Venom such as hers, especially against Muslims and other ethnic minorities spreads out like a spider web in other blogs, capturing like minded readers while virally spreading the message of hatred.  Kudos to Paypal for taking a stand and extricating themselves from Pamela Geller’s web of hate.

Right after Helen Thomas graced us with her views on Jews and her sensitivity to the  Holocaust, we can add California State Attorney General Jerry Brown to the list of those who feel the need cast reasoned rhetoric aside, engaging in what could be viewed as hate speech. The invoking of Holocaust and Nazi imagery to make a point that could be made thousands of other ways.  Brown accused his California Gubernatorial opponent Meg Whitman of putting out propaganda about him in a manner similar to the Nazis. He stated:

“It’s like Goebbels…Goebbels invented this kind of propaganda,” said Brown in reference to Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda. “He took control of the whole world. She wants to be president. That’s her ambition, the first woman president. That’s what this is all about.”

For those unaware , Joseph Goebbels was Adolph Hitler‘s Reich Minister of Propaganda.  It is also creepy that he would use this imagery in conjunction with  perceived desire of Whitman to be president as a comparison of how Hitler used Goebbels to be come Chancellor of Germany.

While not quite out of the Helen Thomas playbook, this attack is offensive and takes on an even more surreal context when you add in the fact that Meg Whitman, while the CEO of eBay, was the driving force in forming eBay’s hate speech policy forbidding the buying or selling of Nazi merchandise on the eBay site.  Here is an excerpt from the extremely revealing interview discussing the decision:

Q. eBay has been criticized over the years for providing a platform for heinous commerce – whether its Nazi memorabilia or a serial killer’s shaved calluses.

A. “Murderabilia.”

Q. Thank you. What sort of soul-searching did this prompt in you?

A. ebay was originally founded with the notion that if the item was legal for sale in the country in which we were doing business, then it would be legal on eBay. And that’s pretty much how the company ran up until the first quarter of 1999. In the first quarter of 1999, there were a number of issues that caused me to say: is this something that we want? The very first categories of items we decided to ban were firearms, alcohol and tobacco. All were legal for sale over the Internet in the United States. But we made a decision that while they were perfectly legal, they were not something we wanted to be involved in. Frankly, it’s a judgment call. Our community of users pushed back on this, not because so many of them felt selling firearms was a great thing, but they were worried, well today firearms, next week maybe my category. There is now an eBay lookalike site that does nothing but sell firearms.

I said I understand that. But we are a big company. We are building a brand. We want to be admired and around for generations.

And it is the CEO who has to make those judgment calls. So over time, we’d make incremental calls – Nazi memorabilia was one. Perfectly legal for sale in the U.S. Not legal for sale in Germany or France. Ultimately we said: not a business we’re going to be in.

Out of that interview, what stands out to me is “soul searching”.  Meg Whitman did her sole searching.  She proceeded to do the right thing with a international stand against hate speech and the sale of hate related items on eBay.  Jerry Brown will hopefully engage in his own soul searching, rise about the noise, put some “reason in his rhetoric” and apologize to Ms. Whitman and Jews for his hate speech.  The insensitive and inappropriate use of the Holocaust to benefit his own political and financial end.

While perusing a site called the Jewish Internet Defense Force, I came across of video of Ms. Thomas  expressing  her views on the the Palestinian conflict.  I don’t agree with them but this is America and she is entitled to her opinion.  I was however stunned when to make her point, she suggested that Jews in that territory go back to Poland and Germany.  Even someone of as  advanced age as Helen should  realize the Holocaust imagery of such a statement.  She is in fact, old enough to have actual recollection of the events unless she is also going the route of being a Holocaust Denier in addition to her other anti-Semitic viewpoints. In case Helen is not aware, about 3 million Jews were murdered in Poland alone.

Her statement is so bizarre and outrageous that one could conclude that  Helen Thomas is either ignorant, anti-Semitic and/or senile.   Either way its time for her to retire and be denied access to the White House.  She could use her free time for a trip to Auschwitz in Poland so she can get a refresher on what happened to the Jews in Poland and Germany.  Not that she cares.  If anyone needs to go home, its Helen Thomas, or to a home, and stay there…