| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2003 7:48 am Post subject: Congressman Moran Said Jews Are Pushing War |
| Of course, it was predictable. No member of Congress is allowed to tell
the truth about the role of mainstream American Jewish organizations in
fomenting this war, in fomenting the first Gulf War, and stifling
criticism of Israel's barbaric treatment of the Palestinians. And Moran,
like so many others was forced to apologize.
Jeff Blankfort
Moran Said Jews Are Pushing War
By Spencer S. Hsu
Jewish organizations condemned Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.)
yesterday for delivering what they said were anti-Semitic remarks at an
antiwar forum in Reston, where he suggested that American Jews are
responsible for pushing the country to war with Iraq and that Jewish
leaders could prevent war if they wanted to.
At the forum, attended by about 120 people at St. Anne's Episcopal
Church on March 3, Moran discussed why he thought antiwar sentiment was
not more effective in the United States.
"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this
war with Iraq, we would not be doing this," Moran said in comments first
reported by the Reston Connection and not disputed by Moran. "The
leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could
change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."
Moran, a seven-term incumbent representing Alexandria, Arlington County
and part of Fairfax County, yesterday apologized in a statement, saying,
"I made some insensitive remarks that I deeply regret.
"I should not have singled out the Jewish community and regret giving
any impression that its members are somehow responsible for the course
of action being pursued by the Administration, or are somehow behind an
impending war," Moran said, elaborating on an apology issued Friday to
Jewish news organizations and rabbis that was distributed more widely yesterday.
Moran said he was trying to make a larger point that "if more
organizations in this country, including religious groups, were more
outspoken against a war, then I do not think we would be pursuing war as
an option." He said he framed his answer the way he did because his
questioner identified herself as Jewish, and "I regret doing that."
The dispute became the latest in a string of political controversies
surrounding Moran, 57, a former mayor of Alexandria. Previously, he has
acknowledged poor judgment in handling his personal financial problems.
He also has been the target of ethics complaints for accepting loans
from parties with business before him in Congress.
In recent years, Moran's relations with pro-Israel organizations and
U.S. Jewish leaders have deteriorated. The groups cite his 1991 vote
against foreign aid to Israel, rhetorical support for the Palestinian
cause, statements on Israeli history and leadership, and acceptance of
campaign cash from individuals sympathetic to the terrorist organization
Hamas or under investigation for possible links to terrorists. He later
sent back those contributions.
"When Moran realized just how outrageous his remarks were, he
attempted to backpedal, saying he didn't mean what he clearly said,"
said Sophie R. Hoffman, president of the Jewish Community Council of
Greater Washington, which represents 210 organizations. "This time it
just won't work."
Hoffman's spokesman called Moran's statement "reprehensible and
anti-Semitic," and David Bernstein, spokesman for the American Jewish
Committee, said it was "anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent."
Leaders of the Anti-Defamation League, a civil rights organization, and
the National Jewish Democratic Council, an unofficial arm of national
party activists, also criticized the remarks.
Rabbi Jack Moline of Alexandria, one of six rabbis who called
yesterday for Moran's resignation, said the congressman repeated "the
most scandalous rhetoric of the last century" by singling out Jewish
influence and scapegoating Jews as controlling international events.
"Such remarks about any minority group in America, whether
African-Americans, Hispanics, Muslims or others, are beyond
inappropriate in the rhetoric of a member of Congress," Moline wrote.
A January poll commissioned by the American Jewish Committee found that
59 percent of American Jews supported war against Iraq, a percentage not
appreciably different from that of Americans generally.
Reports of Moran's comments and his apology drew a variety of responses
among political leaders and observers of U.S. policy in the Middle East.
Virginia Senate Minority Leader Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax), who is
Jewish, said: "Was it tremendously insensitive? Yes. Is [Moran] an
anti-Semite? No. I've known this guy since 1979, and he's not an anti-Semite."
Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in
Washington who opposes U.S. policy toward Iraq and Israeli settlements,
said Moran's comments were wrong but not necessarily anti-Semitic. Bush
administration officials who advocate strengthening Israel's "power in
the region as a surrogate for U.S. interests" are driving U.S. policy,
Bennis said, not American Jews.
However, "the claim that this is anti-Semitic is just a canard that is
designed to undermine the antiwar movement," said Bennis, who is Jewish.
"Acknowledging that the Jewish community is one of several influential
communities in the U.S. is not anti-Semitic."
Kevin Hall, a spokesman for Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner (D), said
Warner "believes the congressman's remarks were offensive, and the
governor is pleased to hear the congressman has now offered a public apology."
Virginia Democratic Party Chairman Lawrence Framme said, "Jim has
apologized profusely, and I believe his future conduct will reflect that apology."
Katherine K. Hanley (D), chairman of the Fairfax County Board of
Supervisors, called Moran's remarks "indefensible." State Sen. Janet D.
Howell (D-Fairfax), an 11-year incumbent from Reston, said they were
inexcusable and intolerable.
"For the congressman to scapegoat and blame the Jewish community for
the impending war is intolerable. Whether we support or oppose the war,
we must respect all religious communities," Howell said. "There is no
question that responsible Democratic leaders should distance themselves
from him."
In an interview yesterday, Moran said: "I know in my heart that I am
anything but anti-Semitic."
Moran added that his daughter Mary Elise is marrying a Jewish man and
converting to Judaism, along with her 9-year-old son.
"Nobody could berate me more than I do when I see my words in print
compared to what I intended to say," he said. | |  | | LeFrenchman | | Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:10 am Post subject: Congressman Moran |
| Congressman Moran should get a medal. He called it as it is. And, I have to think that the guy got 1000-1 positive responses for saying so.
It's reaching critical mass. Jews are overplaying their hand. | | | | hateliars | | Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2003 7:47 pm Post subject: Moran having second thoughts. |
| | Moran is already trying to back away from what he said because he doesn't want to damage his career so watch for him to do a Trent Lott. He's telling people his daughter is marrying someone Jewish and is converting to Judaism. Soon he'll be genuflecting at the alter of the holocaust and declaring his undying love for Arial Sharon. All politicians are whores. Don't you people know that yet? | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 12:23 am Post subject: Jews Increasingly Blamed For War |
| Jews Increasingly Blamed For War
Backlash evident before first shot fired in Iraq; fury over Rep.
Moran’s comments.
The Jewish Week
03/14/2003
James D. Besser - Washington Correspondent
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=7554
American Jews increasingly are being blamed for an impending war that
polls show many fear and oppose. And Jewish leaders, facing divided
constituencies and conflicting concerns as the nation braces for the
expected onslaught against Iraq, inadvertently may be contributing to
that backlash by remaining silent as the national debate rages.
This week, comments by a liberal Democratic congressman blaming the
Jews for the impending war ignited a firestorm of protest and convinced
some doubting Jewish leaders that an anti-Semitic backlash could be at
hand.
“The idea that the Jews are responsible for the war is moving into the
mainstream,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the
Anti-Defamation League.
A ceaseless barrage of leaks from Israeli officials about when the war
will start has added to the impression that the Jewish state and its
supporters are the most active cheerleaders for an immediate U.S.
invasion.
The blame game got a big boost last week when Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.),
speaking to a suburban Washington church group, expressed a view that is
gaining traction in the emerging anti-war movement: When it comes to war
with Iraq, it’s the Jews’ fault.
In response to a question, the lawmaker, who has had numerous brushes
with Jewish organizations over the years, said: “If it were not for the
strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would
not be doing this,” according to the Connection weekly newspaper of
Reston, Va.
Moran, a seven-term congressman, added that “the leaders of the Jewish
community are influential enough that they could change the direction of
where this is going and I think they should.”
That produced a tidal wave of protest, starting with the National
Jewish Democratic Council, a partisan Democratic group. The Interfaith
Alliance, representing diverse faith communities, labeled Moran’s
comment “imprudent as it is erroneous and divisive.”
A group of six prominent local rabbis, charging that Moran regularly
“singles out” Jews for criticism, went further and demanded his
resignation.
“As leaders in the Jewish community ... we have reached the end of our
patience with Congressman Jim Moran,” the rabbis said in a written
statement. “Congressman Moran has a longstanding pattern of public
statements that are offensive to our community and to the integrity of
our concerns.”
Rabbi Jack Moline, senior rabbi at a large Conservative synagogue in
Moran’s district and one of the signers, said that “I haven’t seen
anybody read or see [Moran’s] statement without their jaw dropping. It
resonates so clearly for us from a very dark time in our history — and
it appears to resonate not at all for Mr. Moran.”
Rabbi Moline said his own congregation reflects a divided, worried
Jewish community.
“I see the gamut here,” he said of the Conservative Agudas Achim. “I
don’t think there is anybody who is aching for the war, but there are
many who find it sadly necessary, given events in the past few months. A
lot more would have been happier if we had found a different way to
handle the Iraq situation. And a significant minority oppose the war
under any circumstances.”
In an interview with The Jewish Week, Moran said he will not resign,
but admitted that his comments may have been offensive.
“I don’t blame Jews for reacting that way,” he said. “I realized that
the way these remarks were written, they sounded terrible.”
And he insisted he was referring to “all the major religions,” not just
Jews. “All three have been derelict in not opposing the war,” Moran
said.
But Rabbi Moline and others rejected a written apology by the lawmaker.
Moran’s comments prompted a sea change among Jewish leaders who had
previously minimized the likelihood of an anti-Semitic backlash.
“The problem is not Jim Moran; he’s symptomatic of a greater problem,”
said Foxman.
In 1991, accusations of Israeli and Jewish complicity in causing the
Persian Gulf War came from only a handful of right-wing columnists. But
“in the last few weeks we’ve been hearing a chorus,” Foxman said. “It’s
not just the Buchanans; it’s moving from the extremes into the
mainstream.”
The ADL leader cited recent op-ed columns in major papers blaming
Israel and its supporters for the war, including a column in the Chicago
Tribune charging that the war “is mainly in Likud’s interest rather than
our own.”
Critics, including Moran and some prominent columnists, portray a
united Jewish community eager to see U.S. forces destroy Israel’s bitter
enemy.
“I agree that there is a perception about Jewish organizations being
supportive of a military response [to Iraq], although I don’t think it
is an accurate perception,” said Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the
Union of American Hebrew Congregations. “If you look at the actual
statements adopted by various organizations, you would find they reflect
the caution, the ambivalence, the concern that exists in the community.”
But other factors have combined to add to the impression of a pro-war
Jewish community.
“As everybody has pointed out, there are very prominent Jews in the
political process, both within and without the administration, who have
been identified with support for the war,” Rabbi Yoffie said. “That has
led to the perception that the Jews are pushing for war.”
Those Jews include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz,
Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and Pentagon adviser Richard
Perle. Feith and Perle were involved in preparing a 1996 position paper
for then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that among other things
called for the removal of Saddam, although it said Israel and a
coalition of moderate Arab states should do the job, not the United
States.
Rabbi Yoffie also pointed the finger at a “few individual [Jewish]
leaders who have given the impression that they’re speaking for the
entire Jewish community” when they support the war.
President Bush himself may have reinforced the impression of Jewish
support in recent speeches discussing the administration’s view of
sweeping changes in the Middle East once Saddam is removed and stressing
his concern about nonconventional attacks against Israel.
“For months we’ve been working to make the case that the Iraq situation
and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be viewed as separate,” said
a Jewish leader in Washington. “Suddenly the president seems to be doing
the opposite, and that’s reinforcing a lot of misinformation about the
reasons for this war and the positions of the American Jewish
community.”
Rabbi Sidney Schwarz, founder and president of Panim: The Institute for
Jewish Leadership and Values, said the refusal of most Jewish groups to
wade into the war debate may be the inevitable result of the community’s
lack of consensus, but that it may also add to the potential for a
backlash.
“We’re quiet because we’re hoping to avoid the Jim Morans,” he said.
“But if you sit quietly and hope nobody notices you, be assured it won’t
be long before people start pointing fingers at the Jews and Israel for
causing this godforsaken war.”
Jewish leaders, Schwarz said, are torn between Israel’s obvious
interest in ridding their region of one of its most dangerous and
unpredictable dictators, and concerns about what the war could mean for
a divided America. Many are reluctant to criticize the top foreign
policy priority of an administration that has stood by Israel during a
difficult period.
The result, Schwarz said: Jewish leaders face a barrage of conflicting
pressures — from constituents upset about the war, from pro-Israel
hard-liners who say it would be good for Israel, from those who fear a
backlash if the Jewish community is too prominent on either side of the
debate.
“Given all that, standing on the sidelines is probably the best thing
to do,” he said. “People want camouflage.”
Jewish community groups around the country are seeing “undercurrents”
suggesting a possible backlash, said Hannah Rosenthal, executive
vice-chair of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
Some Jewish activists are focusing on the emerging anti-war movement,
which they believe has the potential to burgeon if the Iraq war goes
badly.
“In our community, the big concern is the joining of the anti-Israel
and the anti-war agendas,” said Rabbi Doug Kahn, executive director of
the San Francisco Jewish Community Relations Council. “A number of the
leading organizers of anti-war activities have fairly clear anti-Israel
agendas. I don’t think that’s true of the vast majority of the people
who as a matter of conscience attend these events, but it’s true of the
organizers.”
But Rabbi Michael Lerner, a leading Jewish anti-war activist and editor
of Tikkun magazine, lay much of the blame at the feet of major Jewish
leaders and the Israeli government.
“The State of Israel seems unequivocally committed to the war, the most
prominent advocates of this war inside the administration have been
Jews, the major sentiments being expressed inside the Orthodox
synagogues is that of support for the war, and the voices of liberals
who might normally be counted on to be raising questions are in fact
silent,” he said in an interview. “Isn’t that enough reason for most
people to feel that this is a war supported by the Jewish community,
though in fact it is only the ‘organized community’ and not most Jews
who support it?”
But David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee,
said that “issues of war are extraordinarily complex, and it’s not for
us to advise the government on whether war is the best response or not.”
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=7554 | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 8:59 pm Post subject: |
| Guess which PAC Moran's name shows up on?
[url]http://www.aaiusa.org/pr/release10-24-02.htm [/url]
Third Election Cycle Where Arab American PAC Hits Goal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 24, 2002
WASHINGTON, D.C. —With less than two weeks left before Election Day, the nation’s largest Arab American PAC, the Arab American Leadership Council PAC (ALCPAC), has reached its goal of contributing $100,000 or more for the third consecutive election cycle. The ALCPAC is a non-affiliated federal PAC that raises money to support Arab Americans and other qualified candidates.
In all, 53 contributions were made to federal campaigns and 21 to non-federal campaigns during the 2000-2002 election cycle. Among contributions to federal campaigns, 33 incumbent campaigns received support from the ALCPAC. Of the non-federal contributions made, all but three were for candidates challenging incumbents or seeking an open seat. The majority of those non-federal candidates receiving support were Arab Americans and many were first time office seekers.
Senators receiving contributions include Chuck Hagel (NE) and Paul Wellstone (MN) along with challengers John E. Sununu (NH) and Jeanne Shaheen (NH). In addition to incumbent Arab Americans Nick Rahall (WV), Ray LaHood (IL), Chris John (LA) and Darrel Issa (CA), challenger Chris Kouri (NC) also received an ALCPAC contribution. Other Members of the House receiving ALCPAC support include John Dingell (MI); Henry Hyde (IL); Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL); Joe Knollenberg (MI); James Moran (VA); and Dana Rohrabacher (CA).
"Although the amounts may seem modest to some, they are significant because all of the fundraising occurred within the Arab American community. Across the nation, Arab Americans contributed in an effort to support not only Arab American candidates, but candidates who support our community and listen to our concerns. Reaching our goal signifies that Arab Americans are committed to the political process and will not be deterred from participating in it," said ALCPAC Assistant Treasurer Jean AbiNader.
For many years, Arab Americans have demonstrated a high degree of political activity, only one component of which is financial support. According to a 2000 Zogby International poll, 88.7% of Arab Americans are registered to vote. Only African Americans and Jewish Americans have a higher percentage of voter registration. Once more, 16% of Arab American voters contributed to a presidential campaign and nearly 82% watched a presidential debate. Of six ethnic groups polled (African American, Asian American, Hispanic, American Jews, Italian Americans and Arab Americans), Arab Americans ranked first in both these issues.
Founded in 1985, the Arab American Institute (AAI) is a nonprofit organization committed to the civic and political empowerment of Americans of Arab descent. AAI provides policy, research and public affairs services to support a broad range of community activities.
For more information contact: Jenny Salan at (202) 429-9210 or jsalan@aaiusa.org. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2003 11:14 pm Post subject: Moran's remarks on Jews stoke debate |
| http://electronicintifada.net/v2/printer1244.shtml
EI in the Press
Moran's remarks on Jews stoke debate
David R. Sands, Washington Times, 12 March 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. James P. Moran's remarks on the influence of American Jews on the Bush administration's hard line against Iraq have put a public face on a bitter and intensely personal debate among policy-makers and pundits over the motivations of those pushing a new war in the Middle East.
The Alexandria Democrat has apologized profusely for his March 3 comment that there would be no military strike against Saddam Hussein "if it were not for the strong support of the [American] Jewish community." But some argue that Mr. Moran did not go far enough with his apology.
Both the White House and senior Democratic leaders in Congress were swift to condemn Mr. Moran's comments. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer called the remarks "shocking. They are wrong, and they should not have been said."
Charges of "dual loyalty" and countercharges of anti-Semitism have become common in the feud, with some war opponents even asserting that Mr. Bush's most hawkish advisers — many of them Jewish — are putting Israel's interests ahead of those of the United States in provoking a war with Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein.
"A stronger Israel is very much embedded in the rationale for war," said Richard Stengel, a columnist with Time magazine's online edition. "It is a part of the argument that dare not speak its name, a fantasy quietly cherished by the neoconservative faction in the Bush administration and by many leaders of the American Jewish community."
MSNBC talk-show host Chris Matthews said war supporters in the Bush Pentagon were "in bed" with Israeli hawks eager to take out Saddam.
That line of argument has spurred a furious counterattack, with many saying that some of the criticism has crossed the line from legitimate policy debate to classic anti-Semitism.
"The Moran argument is outrageous on its face," said Mitchell G. Bard, executive director of Bethesda-based American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise and a former editor for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
"President Bush has always said he is pursuing his policy to protect American lives, not to aid Israel," he said. "The idea that Israel or its American supporters can convince a president of the United States to go to war when he doesn't want to is ridiculous."
Sometimes the line between legitimate and illegitimate criticism is difficult to see, said Shoshana Bryen, special projects director for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a small but influential Washington think tank. "Any policy is subject to legitimate criticism, and you can even debate whether America's interests and Israel's interests are the same or different in a given situation.
"Where you cross the line, as Moran did, is when you make a blanket statement ascribing a view or a motivation to an entire group of people. It is not legitimate when you impute hidden motives to someone or some group, when you don't address their arguments but attack them for who they are."
JINSA's advisory board in recent years has boasted such prominent Iraq hawks as Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Pentagon adviser Richard Perle.
Ms. Bryen said JINSA, which was founded in 1976, attracted such people as Mr. Perle and Mr. Wolfowitz because the organization dealt with issues they already cared about deeply. "It's not as if they were waiting for JINSA to come along and tell them how to think about the problems of the Middle East," she said.
The leading U.S. Jewish groups have not taken a formal stand on war with Iraq, and polls indicate that American Jews' views on the war mirror those of the U.S. population as a whole — with 59 percent of American Jews backing military action compared with 58 percent of the population.
Patrick J. Buchanan writes, in the American Conservative magazine, which he edits, that it is "a cabal of polemicists and public officials" who "seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests."
Mr. Buchanan raised the question before, in the run-up to the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
But both sides say the debate has substantially broadened this time, in part because of the strong influence of neoconservative hawks on the security policies of the Bush administration and in part because many leftist protesters in the anti-war movement have raised the same issue.
Critics such as Mr. Buchanan and many peace activists say that Israel and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will be the prime beneficiary of any move to oust Saddam. From Israel's perspective, they say, a successful war would cripple a regional rival and military threat, destabilize regimes such as Iran and Syria that are hostile to Israel, ease the pressure to make concessions in the conflict with the Palestinians, and leave Mr. Sharon as the sole remaining worthwhile U.S. ally in the region.
"For some of Israel's supporters both within the U.S. administration and the think tanks that feed it ideas, catastrophic developments ... and the instability, chaos and violence that would ensue, fit into a broader plan to completely remake an unruly Middle East with Israel as the dominant local power under overall American hegemony," wrote columnist Ali Abunimah for the Electronic Intifada, an Internet news service that covers Middle East events "from a Palestinian perspective."
Mr. Buchanan says his opposition is to war, not to Jews. "[Neoconservatives] say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not," he writes. "We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon."
The U.S. debate has presented a delicate dilemma for Israel, which has tried to keep a low profile even though an Iraq war is frequently referred to by many in the Sharon government who believe it would help solve many of Israel's economic and strategic problems.
Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to the United States, said in a speech earlier this week that his country was "trying to be very low-profile here because Iraq is not our business. Iraq is not an Israeli problem. It's an international problem, it's a problem for the region, it's a problem for its own population. ... For anyone to suggest that the road to Baghdad runs through Jerusalem, nothing could be further from the truth." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2003 12:37 am Post subject: The Trial of James P. Moran |
| e Trial of James P. Moran
by William Hughes
Place: Court House at Reston, Virginia
Date: March 17, 1793
Presiding Judge and Prosecutor: Abe Foxman
It was a small court house by post-Revolutionary War standards. Every
seat in it was taken. Heck, this was the most excitement around these parts,
since old Patrick Henry had said, ³Give me liberty or give me death.²
The defendant, James P. Moran, was a popular local delegate to the
House of Burgesses, in Williamsburg. He had been in office for several
terms. Most of the voters really liked him. They called him, ³Big Jim.²
Defendant Moran was asked to stand by Judge Abe Foxman, who, strange
enough, was from New York City, and not Virginia. He had arrogantly
appointed himself as the delegate¹s judge and prosecutor.
Foxman announced that Moran was charged with two counts of wrongdoing.
Under Count One, he had, ³Injured the Zioncrats, (a politically active sect,
known for its campaign fundraising abilities), by accusing it of covertly
wanting a Virginia led war against the Iraqi Tribe, which was camped on the
west side of the Blue Ridge.² Under Count Two, Moran had further harmed the
Zioncrats by insisting they had, ³The power to stop this war from happening,
if they wanted to do so.²
Oddly, Moran was charged with crimes that weren¹t on the statute books
or recognized under English Common Law. It was an alien kind of experience
for the defendant, and the locals, too. They thought as Virginians, that
their new federal Constitution, (co-drafted by James Madison, himself), and
Bill of Rights, (inspired by Thomas Jefferson), were supposed to protect
them from the wrath of any arbitrary authority. They were wrong! There was a
new menace threatening their liberties.
Foxman declared a jury wasn¹t needed in the matter, ³since his private
organization, ŒThe Zioncratic Protective League,¹ had absolute jurisdiction
in any case of this type.² The Zioncrats also owned the local newspaper. It
had been running a series of vicious editorials, even before the trial
began, roundly condemning Moran for being a ³conspiracy kook.² It had also
branded the peace protesters in town, ³as appeasers.²
When Judge Foxman finished his remarks, a man, later identified as Ariel
Sharon, an unhinged member of the Zioncrats, stood up. He screamed, ³We
don¹t need any trial. Moran is guilty and he should be taken out and hanged!
In fact, everybody that lives in his district should be subjected to
collective punishment. They are all guilty. They are all terrorists and
terrorist supporters. Reduce their homes to rubble.²
Well, that violent outburst was too much for Moran¹s friend, Captain
John Marshall. He rose up in righteous fury, as he had done so many times in
the Revolution War, as a Continental Army officer. He took Sharon by the
back of his pants and swiftly ran him out of the court room and tossed him
into the street. He told him, ³Don¹t come back into this court room. It
belongs to the people of the sovereign state of Virginia.²
Windbag Sharon, who was used to bullying teenagers, dusted himself off.
Like all cowards, he refused to fight anyone his own size.
The bold action of Marshall, who was later to serve as a chief justice
on the U.S. Supreme Court, unnerved Foxman. It had also liberated the crowd,
that seemed to have been mesmerized. Foxman barked at them, ³Order in the
court or I will call out Sheriff Joe Lieberman!²
Then, another of Moran¹s friends - George Mason, a young lawyer - roared
defiantly back at Foxman, ³Who are you to sit in judgment of a citizen of
our Republic? Who gave you any of the judicial power of our government? What
right to you have to intimidate our elected representative from speaking out
on issues of war and peace?²
Foxman, a weasel of a man, was stunned by the questions. No one in any
of the 13 new states had ever dared to address him in a confrontational
manner. Moran then spoke. ³As a delegate, I have every lawful right to my
own opinions. Everyone knows that there are Zioncrats, neocoms, in this
government, who have been cunningly urging a war with the Iraqis. This
powerful group must be exposed. And you, Sir, and that propaganda sheet,
too, have no right to vilify me or people, like me, who are opposing this
unjustified war. The Zioncrats are not above our laws.²
Foxman, red-faced, said the court would ³adjourn until tomorrow
morning.² He then quickly exited out the back door, followed by a very angry
crowd. The last time, the so-called ³judge² was seen, he was running out of
town. The locals were right on his tail, shouting ³down with the wire
pullers,² while carrying their tar and feathers, along with a long rail.
³Big Jim² Moran was the last elected official that was ever brought to
trial to answer such dubious charges, before such a bogus court and a rogue
judge. The reason was simple: Once the American people got their Yankee
Doodle Dandy up, the wire pullers knew the game was over!
© William Hughes 2003 | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2003 9:46 pm Post subject: |
| Funny piece of fiction.
But the Constitution does not grant anybody freedom of speech free from criticism. Moran got to say what he wanted and he wasn't jailed. That's all the Constitution guarantees. It doesn't guarantee him respect or a job. Other people are also free to dislike what he said. And for a politician, that sometimes means removal. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
