Rotating Header Image


If it was possible for viewers to reign-in Alan Colmes on FOX News’ Hannity & Colmes, I’d be happy to volunteer. An ability to listen to what people attempt to reply when he poses a cascade of unanswerable negative assumptions about what he thinks they are saying before they’ve expressed what they have to say would be a good place to start.

Tonight, unfortunately, both Colmes, as also the guest co-host sitting-in for Hannity (Rich Lowry who is a nice enough fellow who, however, matched Colmes’ mania where Rabbi Weiss was concerned on this appearance), both literally attacked-with-tongue-and-nonsense a guest named Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss.

Not to overlook Rabbi Weiss’ controversial opionions and beliefs — some of which I find to be not alarming at all, hardly worthy of him being maligned by it seems nearly anyone who won’t let the guy say what he has to say without applying their worst fears to what he has not said but they think he might be saying even when he isn’t, apparently (based upon tonight’s fiasco on H&C) — but there was not so much as a consistent time segment beyond a few seconds in length when the Rabbi could utter anything that was not overspoken in the roughest possible method by both the hosts.

And, the allegations placed upon Weiss without him having any capacity provided to even respond, much moreso to denounce or disagree, were astounding.

Rabbi Weiss mentioned — just mentioned — that there is a difference between “Jews and Zionists” and Colmes abruptly sunk tonal fangs into the man’s intellectual throat with “are you saying that the Jews are responsible for what Hitler did,” then, “so you’re blaming the Jews for what Hitler did” followed with, “so you think that the Jews are responsible for what Hitler did, that’s all that anyone needs to know about you, you blame the Jews for Hitler.” At no point in all that negative assuming did Colmes pause long enough to hear anything the Rabbi actually said.

Rabbi Weiss never even got to such an extreme statement, that is, and yet Colmes maligned this man before the world with screed such as that. I did manage to hear Rabbi Weiss utter the accurate statement (in my view) that “God will punish them” in regards to “Hitler” and in response to what Colmes said (“…what Hitler did”) but that was lost on the meat-grinder mentality that Colmes exemplifies in his Liberals-Are-the-Real-Fascists blindness and crass behavior with anyone who fails to escape his Liberal alarm jangle.

One day, someone somewhere will be able to discuss our human history without launching into shredding someone else for saying what they think. About the history in Europe, about the history in the Middle East, about the ongoing history here in the U.S., but as times exist at present, anyone attempting to say anything other than the Liberals-Are-the-Real-Fascists mantra of concept sets receives the worst possible level of character assassination from and in our media, and unfortunately also on the internet.

There’s so much fear among so many, fear of even so much as words and moreso about information that might challenge concept presets, assumptions that are the most easily arranged in extremes (this side, that side and nonsense seems to be the triad), so much fear that no one can get a word of consideration in otherwise.

Would it be so bad to air the facts about the human history that occured in Europe from the mid-Nineteenth Century through to about the mid-Twentieth Century? Would it be so horrible to let people air what they know versus what they fear, air what they would like to know more about versus what interest groups with louder voices and a more embittered ability to ruin their opponents does not want to be discussed or academically explored?

Obviously, the festering explosiveness that is present in the Middle East did not occur out of thin air. Nor did the violence and horror that eventually appeared in Europe in the last century also not occur out of nowhere. There are “back stories” to what people know as observable results — conditions and occurences observable in recent and current history are the results of conditions and occurences that took place earlier — and while no back-story event or individual justifies bad and evil deeds that may occur afterward, it would be valuable to explore, for purposes of trying to perceive solutions to problems, to be able to hear people state their opinions without being labelled the Worst Possible Thing when they do.

Since “dialogue” is the current Liberal/Democrat buzzword, where is the dialogue?

God rest ye, merry gentlemen.

The key word in that one line, after and under God, is “gentlemen.”


C O M M E N T S : now closed