Thomas Keyes is losing it.  What could make a man I've lauded many times and admired for the breadth of his knowledge, suddenly go narrow-minded and pea-brained when Israel is mentioned?  I think it is about time Thomas explains his irrational hatred for that country.  Continuing to attack Israel with vague innuendo makes him sound as fanatical as the terrorists attacking that country.

And Thomas has resorted to attacking me with bald-faced lies.  In his latest article, he states:

"contributors like Mick, PAIN, Gelbart, Abraham and Chamberlain make all sorts of wild, unsupported counterarguments and unfounded accusations."

I have done no such thing.  In fact, my rebuttals of Thomas' hysterical rages against Jews have all been thoroughly documented and founded on facts.  They have specifically quoted his articles and provided persuasive logic denying his bigoted accusations point by point.

They were so persuasive, he refused to even acknowledge reading them (just as he did Ed Abraham's) and covered his ears like a small child.

He keeps accusing Israel of expansionist intents - I documented how the opposite is absolutely true to date and how all evidence (Israel has repeatedly returned land legitimately seized in defensive wars they won) is to the contrary.  He ignores me and continues to make the same accusation without ever offering a single justification for his claim.  Tells us, Thomas, since Israel's formation in 1948, to where have they expanded?  And if they've grown slightly, wasn't that land acquired through victory in a defensive war?  And how many times have they returned such land, only to have to conquer it again a few years later in another defensive war?

He doesn't answer, like a child with his hands over his ears.

Today, he again tries to manipulate opinion by skewing facts to match his prejudice.  Listen to this blatant distortion of his:

"A resolution to support Israel against Hezbollah passed in the US House of Representatives by a vote of 410 to 8, which amounts to 98%....   Why does the House of Representatives show a 98% pro-Israel stance, when only 57% of the general public does likewise? Obviously, the representatives are utterly contemptuous of their constituencies, and obey the wishes of the Jewish lobby implicitly."

So, tell us, Thomas, which Congressman should have voted against Israel when 57% of his/her district supports them?  Don't these facts prove just the opposite of your allegation - shouldn't we suspect those 8 who voted for Hezbollah of being under the control of terror lobbyists since 57% of their constituents back Israel?

The truth, of course, is that neither representation is accurate.  A nationwide poll does not reveal anything about the status of any one Congressional district.  In fact, perhaps the best indication of how the majority in any district feel is ... the vote of their Congressional representatives.   DUH!

How far apart would those percentages have to be for Thomas to acknowledge the common sense reality?  If 99% of Americans supported Israel, would he still wonder why 1% of Congressmen didn't vote against them?

Yet, to go from that foolish distortion of the numbers to the outrageous insult that those Congressmen are "utterly contemptuous" and that they "obey" the Jewish lobby is, itself, utterly contemptuous.

Thomas is obviously and blatantly bigoted against Jews.  He has posted dozens of articles with insults and fabricated accusations against them.  Yet, he denies it.   If he claims that today's distortion was simply a silly mistake and not bigotry - I say, "You must be bigoted to be blinded to the truth of those numbers.  No one but a bigot or idiot sees anything except the truth in those numbers."

How about his next distortion?  Citing this quote:

‘The American people overwhelming support Israel's war on terrorism and understand that we must stand by our closest ally in this time of crisis, "said Jennifer Cannata."

Thomas states:

"So Jennifer's statement is an out-and-out lie, an utter and total piece of mendacity, an abject and despicable falsehood."

We examine the Ms. Cannata's quote and see that only one word can be at issue - "overwhelmingly."  Surely, Thomas does not accuse Ms. Cannata because he disagrees that Israel is in a "war on terrorism," - he might disagree with that characterization, but it's a matter of opinion, not a lie.  Likewise, if he disagrees that Israel is our "closest ally."  Otherwise, there are no other quantitative words to question, so, obviously, he disagrees with "overwhelmingly," to the extent that he goes off on another explosion of hatred. 

But what are the facts from the survey?  To the question, "... are your sympathies MORE with Israel or MORE with Hezbollah?," 57% of the Americans polled chose Israel and 4% chose Hezbollah.  57% to 4%?  That seems "overwhelming" to me.  One has to be really stretching to count those others without a definite opinion as anti-Israel.

So, who is really the liar - Thomas Keyes or Ms. Cannata?

I'm probably boring you, but here's Thomas' next distortion:

"Now if 63% of Americans expressed their disapproval of American involvement in the conflict, let us assume that the other 37% were for it."

First, there is no such metric in the poll - neither the number 63 (I assume an innocent typo on his part) nor a question asking that.  Here is the closest poll question and the one to which I suspect Thomas refers:

Do you think the U.S. should play an active role in trying to resolve the conflict between

Israel and Hezbollah, or should the U.S. stay out of the situation?

I agree that he's close in his wording, but the negative nuance he inserts is reflective of his overall manipulative intent.  For an American to say, in effect, that "the U.S. should stay out of the conflict RATHER than playing an active role" is not the same thing as saying "I disapprove of American involvement in the conflict." 

If Thomas' distortion were accurate, how would he explain this other result?

Would you favor or oppose the presence of U.S. ground troops, along with troops from

other countries, in an international peacekeeping force on the border between Israel and

Lebanon?  45% of Americans favor that concept.

It seems to me that putting American troops in an international peacekeeping force between the warring parties constitutes an "active" role in the conflict.  Since the two questions seemingly contradict each other, suffice it to say Thomas' attempt to paint it as one-sided is corrupt.

When Thomas ends that despicable article by saying, "I wish I could just write the article and have confidence that my figures would be believed, on grounds of my integrity," I am forced to ask:

WHAT INTEGRITY, THOMAS?

Now, everyone please pay attention:  Would it be fair to characterize this rebuttal of mine as "wild, unsupported counterarguments and unfounded accusations" as Thomas accuses of me and the others?  Or, have I supported my counterargument logically?  Are my accusations of his distortions "unfounded" or are they obvious and irrefutable?

If you agree that I have not resorted to the ugliness Thomas accuses, then you'll agree when I tell you that Thomas will be a coward if he doesn't answer my accusations - just as he cowardishly did not answer my last logical, documented rebuttal.

	Web useless-knowledge.com