Eastwood Explains His Improv, Invisible Obama and the Stool

By John Surico Sat., Sep. 8 2012 at 2:15 PM

When we reported a few weeks back that Clint Eastwood endorsed Mitt Romney, we had no idea that the campaign would give him the podium; one that was being watched by millions of people. Or that he would give one of the most memorable speeches in convention history. Needless to say, we were gleefully surprised by it all (as was most of Twitter and the blogosphere).

While the media tried to decipher the cultural/political/economic implications of the speech, Eastwood remained silent on his remarks. Until yesterday: in an interview with the Carmel Pine Cone, the newspaper of the town in which Eastwood used to be Mayor, Clint had a few things to say about what exactly happened in Tampa. He called the Obama administration the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" and told reporter Paul Miller the inside story.

So, here at the Voice, we're going to take you through the good, the bad and the ugly of Clint Eastwood's speech, one theme and one defense at a time.

On the constituencies: "I may have irritated a lot of the lefties but I was aiming for people in the middle."

On the facts: "I had three major points I wanted to make. That not everybody in Hollywood is on the left, that Obama has broken a lot of the promises he made when he took office, and that the people should feel free to get rid of any politician who's doing a bad job."

On the improv: "They vet most of people, but I told them, 'You can't do that with me, because I don't know what I'm going to say." "I didn't make up my mind exactly what I was going to say until I said it." "That's what happens when you don't have a written-out speech."

On the stool and Invisible Obama: "There was a stool there and some fella kept asking me if I wanted to sit down. When I saw the stool sitting there, it gave me the idea. I'll just put the stool out there and I'll talk to Mr. Obama and ask him why he didn't keep all of the promises he made to everybody."

On Clint Eastwood: "They've got this crazy actor who's 82 years old up there in a suit. I was a mayor, and they're probably thinking I know how to give a speech, but even when I was mayor, I never gave speeches. I gave talks."

On Romney and Ryan after the speech: "They were very enthusiastic and we were all laughing."

On the audience: "They really seemed to be enjoying themselves."

Ain't that the truth, Clint.

(For the full interview in the Carmel Pine Cone, click here).

[jsurico15@gmail.com/@JSuricz]

Tags:

clint eastwood, paul ryan, Politics, rnc, Romney

We Recommend

tallandwisecentre

The Talmud is Judaism's holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition):

"My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament)."

Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, in "Judaism on Trial," quotes Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph:

"Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible ... God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own ... anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture."

Second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia—permitting molestation of baby girls even younger than three! He proclaimed,

“A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a day is permitted to marry a priest.” 1

Yebamoth 60b,

Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia as "halakah," or binding Jewish law. 2 Yebamoth 60b

Has Rabbi ben Yohai, child rape advocate, been disowned by modern Jews? Hardly. Today, in ben Yohai’s hometown of Meron, Israel, tens of thousands of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing and dancing in his memory.

References to pedophilia abound in the Talmud. They occupy considerable sections of Treatises Kethuboth and Yebamoth and are enthusiastically endorsed by the Talmud’s definitive legal work, Treatise Sanhedrin.

The Pharisees Endorsed Child Sex

The rabbis of the Talmud are notorious for their legal hairsplitting, and quibbling debates. But they share rare agreement about their right to molest three year old girls. In contrast to many hotly debated issues, hardly a hint of dissent rises against the prevailing opinion (expressed in many clear passages) that pedophilia is not only normal but scriptural as well! It’s as if the rabbis have found an exalted truth whose majesty silences debate.

Because the Talmudic authorities who sanction pedophilia are so renowned, and because pedophilia as “halakah” is so explicitly emphasized, not even the translators of the Soncino edition of the Talmud (1936) dared insert a footnote suggesting the slightest criticism. They only comment: “Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now.” 3

In fact, footnote 5 to Sanhedrin 60b rejects the right of a Talmudic rabbi to disagree with ben Yohai's endorsement of pedophilia:

"How could they [the rabbis], contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon ben Yohai, which has scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?" 4

1 Yebamoth 60b, p. 402. 2 Yebamoth 60b, p. 403. 3 Sanhedrin 76a. 4 In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex with girls under three years and one day should be endorsed as halakah.

Out of Babylon

It was in Babylon after the exile under Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC that Judaism's leading sages probably began to indulge in pedophilia. Babylon was the staggeringly immoral capitol of the ancient world. For 1600 years, the world’s largest population of Jews flourished within it. As an example of their evil, Babylonian priests said a man's religious duty included regular sex with temple prostitutes. Bestiality was widely tolerated. So Babylonians hardly cared whether a rabbi married a three year old girl. But with expulsion of the Jews in the 11th century AD, mostly to western Christian lands, Gentile tolerance of Jewish pedophilia abruptly ended. Still, a shocking contradiction lingers: If Jews want to revere the transcendent wisdom and moral guidance of the Pharisees and their Talmud, they must accept the right of their greatest ancient sages to violate children. To this hour, no synod of Judaism has repudiated their vile practice.

Sex with a “Minor” Permitted

What exactly did these sages say? The Pharisees justified child rape by explaining that a boy of nine years was not a “man” Thus they exempted him from God’s Mosaic Law: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Leviticus. 18:22) One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes,

“All agree that the (sexual) connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not." Sanhedrin 69b 5

Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature, he can't "throw guilt" on the active offender, morally or legally. 6

"…the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act." 7 The Talmud also says,

"A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother's wife acquires her (as wife)."8

Clearly, the Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.

5 Sanhedrin 69b. 6 Sanhedrin 55a. 7 Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b. 8 Sanhedrin 55b.

bbridges7

@tallandwisecentre You misunderstand this completely. Priests are not allowed to marry non-Jews, converts, or divorcees. The Talmud here is debating whether a priest can marry a woman who was converted to Judaism prior to the age of three, so that she is raised as a Jew presumably with Jewish values around sexual purity and is not assumed to have engaged in non-marital sex or pagan sexual practices. The passage about the young boy relates to penalties for same-sex intercourse and for adultery; the Talmud was introducing a leniency so that children would not be considered liable in the event of molestation. Though I'm fairly certain your interest in Talmud is motivated by anti-Semitism rather than vice versa.