Really, the man is priceless. Ever since he launched his smear campaign against Michael Forrest (who has never been guilty of anything against Bob other than keeping him accountable on Jewish issues), he has been an absolute peach about making rebuttal-writing easy.
I usually don't have to say much of anything. I can just quote Bob, and my case is made. And the more he keeps writing, simultaneously back-pedaling and trying to attack, the more material he ends up providing. This is no less true now than it was several months ago, and his latest series of Q&A's dealing with Michael Forrest and myself is no exception (see here and here).
First, Bob writes:
Frank, when we make a mistake, we own up to it. But we haven't made a mistake about Leon Suprenant and Jacob Michael, or even Mr. Forrest.
Au contraire, Bob. And once again, the proof is not far away; in this case, it's on the exact same web page as this very claim itself! Scroll up the screen a bit, and we find this same "Frank" asking, "did you have evidence when you accused CUF of being pro-war and pro-zionist?," and Bob's response: "No, I did not have any direct evidence that Mr. Suprenant was pro-war. I made the assumption he was, and that was probably said in anger, since Mr. Suprenant was not cooperating with me. I then told Mr. Suprenant in a subsequent email that I did not know whether he was pro-war or not."
But I thought Bob owns up to the mistakes he makes? Not in this case, I guess; all he did was quietly remove Q&A #33 from his site, without any sort of apology to Mr. Suprenant or CUF. Now, I can understand someone quietly removing an essay that one no longer feels is worthy of publication, or one that no longer reflects accurately one's own views. But when you publicly libel someone in the way that Bob has done with Mr. Suprenant (not to mention Michael Forrest), justice demands that reparation be made. No, Bob doesn't own up to his mistakes - at least, not until he's explicitly called on the carpet, as he was here, by "Frank." But even then, do you see any apology to Mr. Suprenant here? I don't.
As for his claims that he hasn't "made a mistake about Leon Suprenant and Jacob Michael, or even Mr. Forrest," he should know by now that this is not a true statement. He should know, but, as he has now admitted in this same Q&A regarding rebuttals written by myself and David Palm, "I don't have the time to read their tomes, and I really don't care what they have to say, since everytime I do read somethng from them it is always distorted and twisted."
So there you have it. He's admitting here, basically, that all his ranting and raving about how everything we're saying isn't true, isn't accurate, etc., is based on ... what? He hasn't read what we've written. He doesn't even know what is the evidence against him. He just knows he's innocent.
Well, let me say it again, then. Here are just a few of the mistakes he's made with regard to Michael, all of which are documented on this site, in Bob's own words:
But again, Bob doesn't know about the evidence which flatly contradicts his false claims, because - as he admits - he hasn't bothered to read the material in question. This is what we call "prejudice," and as is becoming clearer every day, it fits Bob's character perfectly.
Now here's the clincher:
Bottom line: they are attacking me because I am writing articles critical of the Jews. If you understand that, you will understand their devilish motivation.
Ah, you see, now we're all devils, or at least motivated by devils. And why? Because we're against Bob "writing articles critical of the Jews." Such is Bob's mantra, and apparently he's determined to repeat it until everyone else believes it is true.
So let me set the record straight, for myself, personally - I am not speaking here for David Palm or Michael Forrest, only for myself. I am against Bob Sungenis writing articles critical of Jews, because I am convinced that Bob has a serious bias against Jewish people. I don't know why he has this suspicion and prejudice, and that's the only reason I stop short of calling him anti-Semitic. But he is at least a "soft" anti-Semite, in that he has demonstrated a gross prejudice against Jewish people - not just their religion, but their very ethnicity.
But Bob wants proof. Very well. Here's the proof, in his own words:
1) Bob makes his own the belief that the Jews were largely responsible for the atrocities of Russian Communism: "Vladimir Lenin, part Jewish from his mother’s side, chose officers that were predominately Jewish. His Jewish lieutenants included Leon Trotsky ... and Lazar Kagonovich, both of whom were responsible for the unmitigated slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Christians in Russia, which they called 'insects.'" (Neo-Cons and the Jewish Connection)
2) Sungenis insinuates that Disney's movies have become increasingly less moral precisely because it has been taken over by Jews: "A telltale sign in the movie industry of the shift in mores was demonstrated no better than in the Walt Disney corporation. Founder Walter Disney was well-known in the 50s and 60s for wholesome family entertainment. Once Walt died, things began to change. Eventually, Jewish entrepreneur Michael Eisner got control of the Disney enterprise and Harvey Weinstein grabbed its subsidiary, Miramax. Soon, Disney studios were turning out sex and violence like all the other studios." (ibid.)
3) Sungenis approvingly repeats the conspiracy theory that the Jews were involved in the Kennedy Assassination: "We also know through the exhaustive effort of Michael Collins Piper’s new 738-page book, Final Judgment, how [Edgar] Bronfman is implicated in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The story begins when Kennedy refused to capitulate to Israel’s demand for nuclear weapons." (ibid.)
4) Sungenis claims that world politics and finance are largely controlled by rich Jews "behind the scenes" (Genesis and the Jewish Connection, Part I)
5) Sungenis accuses Catholic Answers and EWTN of being "fronts for Zionism." (ibid.)
6) Sungenis says that Hitler's concentration camps and genocide were modeled after the example set by Jewish Communists in Russia: "In fact, the concentration camps and genocide instigated by the Jewish communists in Russia against Christians and other groups dwarf those against the Jews in Nazi Germany. Hitler was merely modeling what was already practiced in Russia, a fact ignored by such Jewish authors as Daniel Goldhagen. Contrasted to the dozens of concentration camps in Hilter’s regime, the Russian Jews had thousands of such camps ... but evidence of these camps have been systematically destroyed and their existence denied by the Jewish controlled media in Russia and the United States ..." (Neo-Cons)
7) Sungenis insists that Hollywood is controlled by Jews and promotes a Zionist agenda: "Jews own the four largest Hollywood film studios ... Often the Zionist agenda of Hollywood’s elite subtly but effectively misdirects the public ... The 'Holocaust' is all we are allowed to see by the Jewish-controlled media." (Neo-Cons)
8) Sungenis claims that Judaism "tends to be" an "inherently violent" religion, because Jews consider the rest of us to be "less than animals", and Jews can be "some of the most ruthless people on the face of the earth" when they obtain power." (proof)
This is just a small sampling of some of the prejudicial and - dare we say the word? - "racist" things that Bob has publicly stated on his web site. If a person does not understand the problem with claiming, for example, that Disney went down the tubes because Jews took over, that the Jews are inherently violent and ruthless, that Jews are behind Communism, that Jews killed JFK, and so forth, then there is nothing left to explain.
And this is why I believe that Bob - not "everyone," not "anyone," just Bob - has no business writing about any Jewish issues, period. Of course, he wants to distort that and make it sound like I'm saying the Jews are beyond criticism; that's a convenient thing for him to say, because it absolves him from having to deal with the fact that this has nothing to do with "Jewish criticism in general" - it has to do with Bob's personal prejudice against the Jews. That's not something he's willing to acknowledge or deal with, and hence, his critics must bear the brunt of his verbal attacks.
Let me repeat: I have no problem with reasonable criticisms against Jewish politics or religion; I have a problem with Bob writing on these issues, because he has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is prejudiced. Want one more proof?
Here it is: Bob insists that there will be no mass conversion of the Jews at the end of time. He argued vociferously against Mark Cameron on this point, and he has argued against me on this same point. He has argued that God doesn't "do" mass conversions - that's not how God works, according to Bob. But ask him about Fatima and the conversion of Russia, and he'll tell you that someday there will be a mass conversion of Russians. In other words, he can deal with the thought of thousands of Russians converting; but he can't deal with the thought of thousands of Jews converting. The really strange thing is that, if you read his Neo-Cons paper, he comes right out and says that Russia and Communism is largely a Jewish thing - Jews are responsible for Communism, the Russian Communists are of Jewish descent, etc. Connect the dots. According to Bob's scheme, the conversion of Russia will be a mass conversion of Communist Jews. But not for Bob - the Jews won't convert. That's not how God works.
He just needs to stop.