Democrat Jon Ossoff on Jewish Identity & Liberal Values

Democratic Candidate Jon Ossoff is leading in the polls to take Georgia’s sixth congressional district in a special election this week. If so, the voters of the Atlanta suburb can expect to be represented by a Russian Jew with liberal values he attributes to his ethnic identity and upbring.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports:

One candidate has the endorsement of a civil rights giant. Another boasts that he changes his oil in his pickup truck. A third coached soccer at the local community center.

It’s politics as usual in Georgia, except that these three candidates – among the 18 running in the special election on April 18 in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District — are Jewish.

…The election is atypical, however, in two ways: Democrats see it as their first opportunity to wound President Donald Trump, and the presence of the Jewish candidates, notably Jon Ossoff, a Democrat attracting national media attention as the likeliest to pull off an upset.

That one-sixth of the candidates are Jewish in the 6th is something of an anomaly, said Steve Oppenheimer, a businessman who backs Ossoff.

“What are we, 2 percent nationwide?” asked Oppenheimer, who has served on the national boards of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Hillel. “If we were twice that here – and that may be a stretch – we [Jewish voters] are not going to be the swing vote.”

Not that Ossoff, a scholarly and serious 30-year-old, is reluctant to chat about his Jewish upbringing if he is asked.

“I was bar mitzvahed at The Temple, which is a Reform synagogue,” he told JTA, somewhat didactically. “My Jewish upbringing imbued me with certain values, a commitment to justice and peace.”

The article continues in this manner, touting Ossoff’s Jewish heritage and identity and his work to welcome Muslim immigrants into Georgia. It also highlights the ethnic loyalty of fellow Jews in the area and their activism on his behalf.

Sheri Labovitz, a longtime Democratic activist, has not formally endorsed Ossoff among the five Democrats running, but she believes he has momentum.

“He’s got a machinery working with him that has some very good research, he’s got bodies knocking on doors every day and every weekend,” she said. “If you can turn your voters out, you’ve got a great shot.”

And Labovitz said Jewish interest is unexpectedly strong. She expected perhaps 30 people to show up last month at a salon she organized for Jewish Democratic women that featured Ossoff and two other candidates: Ron Slotin, a former state senator who also is Jewish, and Sally Harrell, a former state representative who has since withdrawn. Instead, 200 people packed the room.

Ossoff said he was wowed by the turnout.

“Jewish women are leading a lot of the political engagement in the community,” he told JTA.

…He turned up at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport on the Saturday night that Trump’s first executive order banning refugees and other travelers from Muslim-majority countries went into effect, and identifies with them as a matter of heritage.

“American Jews all share that immigrant story,” he said, “and that perspective hardens my resolve to fight for an open and optimistic vision of our country where if you work hard you can get ahead, where we welcome those who come here to build the country.”

Ossoff also signals familiarity with the Middle East. His campaign biography notes that when he was at Georgetown, he studied under Michael Oren, the historian and former Israeli ambassador to Washington. Oppenheimer, Ossoff’s backer, says as a congressional aide the candidate helped draft Iran sanctions, but also is quick to note that Ossoff had left the job by the time Democrats were backing the Iran nuclear deal that so riled AIPAC.

A win by someone like Ossoff would have been impossible a few years ago but anti-White demographic trends have seen the district fill full of foreign immigrants. Thankfully, Salon reports that he will likely not win 50% of the vote Tuesday, sending the top two candidates to a run-off which would favor the Republicans. It seems sure to be close though.

NOTE: Clearly, Ossoff is not of the Southern Sephardic Jewish stock that supported slavery, the Confederacy and segregation. They seem to be an almost an extinct breed in the New (Anti-) South.

About Michael Cushman 153 Articles
South Carolinian. Southern nationalist. Anglican.

9 Comments

  1. @ John…

    We’ve all thought this (what you say), for years, here, but, we’ve just grown tired of talking about it.
    We agree with you.

  2. @Billy Ray Jenkins…

    My criticism of Judah P. Benjamin stems mostly from the fact that he and Davis kept the idea going that the UK and France would come to the South’s aid far too late. Stonewall Jackson said in 1861, hit them hard and wipe them out. For this in 1861 the Southern media turned against him as his speech was considered too inflammatory. I believe that Mr. Benjamin may have been a part of Davis’s decision to maintain full control of the Military, even though he was not in the field. Unlike the United States, which had long had a Commanding General of the US Army, the South’s armies were semi-autonomous. Robert E. Lee had no real say over the entire war effort until 1865 when Davis finally created the eqivilent post and named Lee head of all Southern forces.

    Stonewall Jackson from what I have read was personally hurt by the treatment he received early on from Richmond but like a dutiful soldier he did his duty. He believed early on that Benjamin was harming the war effort, and even offered to resign because of it.

    Had General Lee had the authority to pick and organize his lieutenant generals, Braxton Bragg would have been assigned some obscure post and we’d never have heard about him again.’

    Yes, I gathered the basis for your negative appraisal of Benjamin. I think both Benjamin and Davis had a very defenceable position – their appraisal that The South, in spite of remarkable fighting ability, has little chance in that war, without outside aid, and, with the heroicks of Rochambeau still in the back of their minds, it is all perfectly understandable.

    If I had been El Presidente, I would have pursued both angles.

    Stonewall should have taken upon himself to simply go north, without permission. Sometimes Generals have to go above and beyond the call of duty, when they assess that something must be done.

    Yes, the selection for the commander of the West, after Albert Sydney Johnson bled out, was a sad comedy of mistakes – whether it was Bragg, or Johnson (only defence minded) or Hood (only offence minded) the army never received a commander like Beauregard, who had the expertise, temperment, and capacity to make a difference, ye,t the hatred he and Davis had going for each other was very expensive for us.

    At any rate – thank you, again!

  3. ‘I was bar mitzvahed at The Temple, which is a Reform synagogue,’

    Reform Judaism is a contradiction in terms – more of a political and social organization than one religious.

    These reforms are Jews who want some vague connection to their faith, without having to be constrained to practice most of it’s edicts. (350+ don’ts and 250+ dos)

    Essentially his statement means he will be a stormtrooper for the burgeoning Yankee Empire police state – one which advancing the continue division of society into beleaguered minorities with special stati, that continue to chip away at the White majority’s capacity to defend itself.

    Yet, a sizeable minority of Whites, scalawags one and all, will find this kind of candidacy fetching.

    As always, it’s hard to believe.

  4. @winbornmill, thanks for the response. These hypocrits need to be called to account for their appalling double standards. People like us are the only ones going in to bat for the white race. Nobody else will do it. White guilt is a disease I don’t suffer from.

  5. Hope getting a Yankee’s two cents worth doesn’t annoy people too much, but here goes.

    The South’s biggest Achilles Heel was not the Jews, but its own society. It was agrarian, completely lacking in diversification of its labor.. The rich consisted of mega-plantations with a huge number of unassimible Negro slaves as workers. Any White who was not a rich planter was more likely a yeoman farmer. So you had rich agrarians, slave agrarian labor or independent agrarian labor. You did not have industries full of factory workers. You did not have a trade class.

    Now consider if the South, at its inception, instituted a share cropping system using White peasant labor imported from Europe. Let’s assume that a substantial number of those White sharecroppers saved enough money from their labors to open shops and small foundrys. With new White peasant labor pouring into the South, that means new customers, building wealth for these shops and foundrys to then grow into industries with factory workers.

    Since their labor pool consists of free White men, the South doesn’t end up with 3/5ths voters. With industry as well as plantations and farms drawing new workers, the South has enough White voters to either match or overtake those of the North. They dominate the Congress and decide several laws that favor the South legislatively. Moreover, with their own factories, they have the muscle to tell the North to stick those tarriffs up the old wazoo. Or, irony of ironies, they impose their own tarriffs to support their own regional industries. The average Southerner gets screwed (but so does the average Northerner).

    In any case, the South had more open land available than the North. If they had a similar population per mile density that the North had in place, they would dominate Congress and the National culture so much that I imagine a lot of the North would want to secede (again). A couple of them actually considered doing so when the Southern influence was too great, but were betrayed by their own legislators who felt they would lose standing if they ran a much weaker Northern country.

    I always felt that it was a pity that the South did not go along with abolition, but pressing for a gradual imposition so they could then do what many slaveowners did in the North. They sold their slaves south shortly before abolition went through in their area. Brazil was still a slave-holding country. The South could have negotiated the turn of the century for freedom and then phased out their slaves with White labor, selling their slaves to Brazil as they acquired more White workers.

  6. @John…

    ‘@winbornmill, thanks for the response. These hypocrits need to be called to account for their appalling double standards. People like us are the only ones going in to bat for the white race. Nobody else will do it. White guilt is a disease I don’t suffer from.’

    You’re welcome, John.

    You’re in the right place, here, as we are all a bunch of hateful pro-White racist bullies – the cream of the extremist intellectual crop!

    All the best to you and yours.

  7. @Clytemnestra…

    Thatnk you for your interesting and lengthy remark.

    As to diversification of labour, I reckon we had our share in 1861, though, as you mention will were badly out number 3.5-1 in manpower and 9-1 in industry.

    No such situation exists today, but, as a whole Southerners, as most Whites, don’t want to be involved in nation building – when it comes to our own.

    ‘Now consider if the South, at its inception, instituted a share cropping system using White peasant labor imported from Europe.’

    It couldn’t work, Clytemnestra – as most Whites do not have what it takes to work in our fields, in the blazing sun.

    Do you realize that most farmers, nowadays, ride around in air-conditioned tractors?!?

    Also, the profit margin would have been far less on that, and, down here, unlike up there, we would have felt bad about enslaving fellow Whites. Not that there we not White slaves in North Carolina – there were; and this because of the ‘one drop law’.

    We did have a trade class, and it’s remnants can be seen all over Eastern North Carolina, so I am unsure where you are going with this.

    Yes, I agree, Jews were not why the Confederacy lost, those comments were just a genteel satire on those who think everything that has ever happened in this country is because of Jews.

    Listen, we very nearly won that war, at the several junctures, but, in the end, we did not. It’s like a near run football game : you can analyze it to death, and we do that.

    The war that is most interesting to me is 2017. What is Dixie going to do?

    Anyway, have a nice day.

  8. This invading parasite demon doesn’t even live in the district is wishes to parasite on, and it’s shekels are all coming from outside. So very very JEW.

Comments are closed.