Jewish Wealth

Republicans Grovel before Sheldon’s Billions

Usually the media downplays any hint that strongly identified Jews acting out of Jewish motives are able to influence American politics or anything else. But Sheldon Adelson’s conference of Republican hopefuls apparently was too obvious, especially in the wake of his donating around $100 million to Republicans in the 2012 election cycle (and “much more in 2016“).

So the LATimes made it official: Republicans who are serious about being nominated for president had better genuflect before Jewish money: “2016 Republican hopefuls hope to woo Jewish donors.”

The occasion was a meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition in which Adelson was only one of many politically active Jewish billionaires. And what do Jewish billionaires care about?

During speeches Saturday, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie all addressed the key concerns of Adelson and many group members — the threat of a nuclear Iran, their desire to strengthen U.S. ties with Israel, and what they view as the waning prestige of the U.S. abroad. With varying degrees of deftness, the candidates each touched on their own ties to Israel and Jewish tradition.

Ah yes, the real issues facing America. I guess we are supposed to believe that, like every neocon who ever graced the op-ed pages of our elite media, these rich Jewish Republicans are absolutely certain that American interests are being served with their obsession about Israel. Read more

Free to Cheat: “Jewish Emancipation” and the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood, Part 2

The Cousinhood on the World Stage.

In 1847, London’s Jewish community had produced a statement for public consumption stressing that the election of Lionel de Rothschild would represent nothing more than the election of another politician who would work for “the welfare of the nation, and the prosperity of his country.”[33] However, later actions by members of the Cousinhood who had taken places in the legislature and in government would provide cause for pondering precisely which nation was being referred to. David Feldman has revealed that entry into the legislature facilitated greater Jewish involvement in the administration of the British Empire, and that the Cousinhood was involved in a succession of financial and political scandals which had at their root “family and religious connections,” “the pursuit of profit,” and attempts to “influence colonial affairs when it deemed [global] Jewish interests were at stake.”[34]

By 1900, through a process of ethnic and familial networking, the Cousinhood had secured many of the most significant administrative positions in the Empire. Feldman notes that the Nathan family alone had by that date secured the positions of Governor of the Gold Coast, Hong Kong and Natal, Attorney-General and Chief Justice in Trinidad, Private Secretary to the Viceroy of India, Officiating Chief Secretary to the Governor of Eastern Bengal and Assam,  and Postmaster-General of Bengal.[35] In Parliament, Lionel Abrahams was Permanent Assistant Under-Secretary at the India Office, working under his cousin Edwin Montagu who was then Parliamentary Under-Secretary for India.[36] Read more

Free to Cheat: “Jewish Emancipation” and the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood, Part 1

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”

                           Charles Mackay, 1841[1]

Shortly after his election to Parliament in 1830, Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–1859), a famous historian and one of Britain’s leading men of letters, took up the cause of removing Jewish “civil disabilities” in Britain. In a succession of speeches, Macaulay was instrumental in pushing the case for permitting Jews to sit in the legislature, and his January 1831 article Civil Disabilities of the Jews had a “significant effect on public opinion.”[2] Professing Jews residing in Britain at that time were unable to take seats in the House of Commons, because prior to sitting in the legislature one was required to declare a Christian oath. In addition, Jews were “excluded from Crown office, from corporations, and from most of the professions, the entrance to which bristled with religious oaths, tests, and declarations.”[3] Even the 1753 Naturalization Act which had granted citizenship to foreign-born Jews had been repealed following widespread popular agitation, and a pervading atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust of Jews generally, and foreign Jews especially.[4] Ursula Henriques states that because of the resolute opposition of the British people to the involvement of Jews in British political life, since their readmission in the 17th century “the Jews had remained quiet.”[5]

However, buoyed by the granting of political emancipation to Protestant Dissenters and Catholics in 1828 and 1829, British Jews began to agitate for their own “emancipation,” and this agitation was augmented and spearheaded to a great extent by Thomas Macauley. Within thirty years the British elite had capitulated; not only had all Christian oaths been abandoned, but six unconverted Jews sat in the House of Commons. Within fifty years, Britain had sixteen Jewish Members of Parliament, and a Jewish Prime Minister who espoused a doctrine of Jewish racial superiority — Benjamin Disraeli; and under Disraeli Britain would pursue a foreign policy dictated to a large extent by what future Prime Minister William Gladstone called “Judaic sympathies.”[6] This foreign policy would include support for the Ottomans who were friendly to Jews and were massacring Christians in Bulgaria. And it would include waging of war on the Boers in a move highly beneficial to Jewish mining operations in South Africa.[7] How and why did such a dramatic change in circumstances occur? And how did the Anglo-Jewish elite repay Britain for its act of ‘justice’? Read more

We’re Rich; We’re Jewish; We Have Big Houses

Last year, in keeping with his writing on Jews and money, John Graham wrote a blog called “We’re Rich; We’re Jewish: We Rule.” His point was that Jews have lots of money and use it to advance their interests, in this case promoting gay marriage in New York from a Republican base.  He noted that “the NYT avoids the most significant aspect to this story, but the Capital J blog at the JTA.org website is made of sterner stuff:

The New York Times runs a piece today on how the big money behind the push for sanctioning gay marriage in New York State is coming from Republicans.

The figures named are also Jewish….But I mean every name. Here’s what a quick Google search came up with:

–Paul Singer: on the boards of Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and Commentary

–Daniel Loeb: Appeared at events for YIVO and the Jewish Enrichment Center.

–Clifford Asness: Likened Obama’s proposed tax policies to pogroms. (Yes, philanthropy would be nicer than name calling, but this is still a form of identification.)

–Steven A. Cohen: this excellent Tablet piece by Allison Hoffman exposes a rabbi who tried to use Cohen’s Jewishness in a scheme to extort money from him, but otherwise notes that Cohen’s philanthropy does not have much of a Jewish slant…

And then there’s former Republican National Committee chairman, Ken Mehlman, who’s organizing the whole GOP push, and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who also backs the initiative (but is no longer a Republican.) Jewish, Republican, pro-gay rights by Ron Kampeas – May 14, 2011

“But I mean every name.” That’s exactly the sentiment I am feeling now as I read just the beginning of a YAHOO! FINANCE article titled “Living Very Large.” It is about Americans who are building massive houses despite the pronounced trend among average Americans to scale back on size.

Just in order of what I’ve read so far we find:

— Hyatt hotel heir Anthony Pritzker has a new 49,300-square-foot mansion. Wiki says that “The Pritzker family is one of America’s wealthiest families, and has been near the top of Forbes magazine’s “America’s Richest Families” list since the magazine began in 1982.”

— Hedge-fund manager Cliff Asness [mentioned above] is building a 25,900-square-foot, Colonial-style home with an indoor swimming pool and tennis court in Greenwich, Conn.

— Nearby, a 31,500-square-foot mansion is being built for Lee Weinstein, founder of data-center concern Xand, with 15 bathrooms (plus additional powder rooms), a 2,500-square-foot master suite and a basement with a theater, wine cellar, juice bar, dance studio and sauna.

— Twenty miles away, in Westport, Conn., Melissa and Doug Bernstein are creating a compound of more than 30,000 square feet with a stand-alone ice-cream parlor, plans show. The main house alone is 29,500 square feet and includes a gym partially covered by glass; there’s also a guest cottage, pool cabana and rec-room-and-garage building. The property also has a pool, tennis court and playground. Read more