We've been over this and over this and over this......I'm not going to address it anymore. When you realize what the term "Zionism" means, and what a Zionist is, and can create a post or even a comment within a post, without trashing the Jews; we'll all take note!
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 12:44 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > your Anti-Semitism; you obviously hate Jews > --- > your ignorance and accusation has been noted. > when you learn the difference between a zionist and a jew get back to us > ... until then keep fucking yourself, asshole republican. > > You're mindset and positions have radically changed in the last twelve to > eighteen months. > --- > wrong again. > I have been and will remain to be an independent ... free from the ills of > republicans, democrats, and warmongering abrahamic myth believers like you. > > On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 11:26:25 AM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: >> >> But your rhetoric, dogma, and most everything that you've written, >> posted, stood for, align with, sound off about for the last year or so, are >> the talking points right out of the "Secular Progressive/New World >> Order/Marxist-Utopian/Democratic Party" playbook Plain Ol'! >> >> The only distinction is your Anti-Semitism; you obviously hate Jews, >> (more than you do Traditionalists, Conservatives, Republicans, Christians, >> or any other group that you seem to fear); and as Perp and Ms. Navy will >> see, (and as Bruce Majors, MJ, the Annointed One; and other long term >> members can attest) You're mindset and positions have radically changed in >> the last twelve to eighteen months. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 12:15 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> But let's not forget who it is that Plain O' most closely identifies >>> with and supports: >>> --- >>> wrong agian, zioboy. >>> it was a fucked up poll ... and no, I do not and will not support >>> Hillary ... the warmongering zionist pig or that you nork asshole Trump. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 11:06:06 AM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: >>>> >>>> But let's not forget who it is that Plain O' most closely identifies >>>> with and supports: >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: plainolamerican <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:02 PM >>>> Subject: Re: Your 2016 Presidential Picks >>>> To: PoliticalForum <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >>>> Candidates you side with... >>>> >>>> 89% >>>> [image: Hillary Clinton]Hillary Clinton Democratic >>>> >>>> on economic, domestic policy, healthcare, social, education, and >>>> environmental issues. >>>> compare answers >>>> >>>> <http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1840736686:801556209> >>>> >>>> 82% >>>> [image: Bernie Sanders]Bernie Sanders Democratic >>>> >>>> on environmental, domestic policy, healthcare, social, and economic >>>> issues. >>>> compare answers >>>> >>>> <http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1840736686:801556211> >>>> >>>> 61% >>>> [image: John Kasich]John Kasich Republican >>>> >>>> on environmental and electoral issues. >>>> compare answers >>>> >>>> <http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1840736686:585676237> >>>> >>>> 56% >>>> <http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1840736686:801556201> >>>> [image: Jeb Bush] >>>> <http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1840736686:801556201>Jeb >>>> Bush Republican >>>> <http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1840736686:801556201> >>>> >>>> on healthcare, immigration, and criminal issues. >>>> compare answers >>>> <http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1840736686:801556201> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 11:33 AM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> the problem with Hillary is that she is just as big a socialist as >>>>> Bernie Sanders is >>>>> --- >>>>> she's also a zionist who will sacrifice American interest for israel. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 172 >>>>> shares >>>>> >>>>> <http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commentarymagazine.com%2Farticles%2Fgop-went-zionist%2F> >>>>> <http://twitter.com/home?status=How+the+GOP+Went+Zionist%20-%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commentarymagazine.com%2Farticles%2Fgop-went-zionist%2F> >>>>> <http://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commentarymagazine.com%2Farticles%2Fgop-went-zionist%2F> >>>>> A >>>>> T >>>>> he movement to isolate Israel may be in full swing on college campuses >>>>> across the country, and Israel may be the subject of ever-louder >>>>> international denunciations, but when it comes to a Republican Party riven >>>>> by squabbles, the Jewish state has become a unifying glue. Support for >>>>> Israel is all but unanimous among the party’s politicians in Washington, >>>>> and in the presidential race, candidates vie to outdo one another when it >>>>> comes to expressing their commitment to it; even the isolationist >>>>> presidential candidate Rand Paul has gone to great pains to attempt to >>>>> establish his pro-Israel bona fides. >>>>> >>>>> It was not ever thus. Indeed, the emergence of the GOP as the nation’s >>>>> pro-Israel voice is an odd and fascinating element in the modern political >>>>> history of the United States. For the first 45 years of Israel’s >>>>> existence, >>>>> the Republican Party was deeply divided when it came to the Middle East. >>>>> Powerful forces inside the GOP had long been at best uncomfortable with >>>>> Israel and at worst openly hostile. Those forces included big businessmen >>>>> and oilmen with deep connections and interests in Arab lands and so-called >>>>> foreign-policy realists who did not see why the U.S. should maintain a >>>>> special relationship with a tiny, economically negligible country >>>>> surrounded by 22 Arab nations that wished it would disappear. >>>>> >>>>> Old-line country-club anti-Semites played their part, as did a certain >>>>> camp among America’s anti-Communists, for whom Israel was suspect in large >>>>> measure because it called itself socialist and because Marx and Trotsky >>>>> had >>>>> both been Jews. >>>>> As a practical political matter, there were few discernible electoral >>>>> incentives for the GOP to support Israel, given that the Jewish community >>>>> was so completely in the Democratic camp (save for many progressive Jews >>>>> in >>>>> the Northeast, such as Senator Jacob Javits of New York, who were members >>>>> of the Republican Party because they loathed the role Southern >>>>> segregationists played in the Democratic electoral coalition). >>>>> >>>>> Richard Nixon served as Eisenhower’s vice president and shared Ike’s >>>>> views on maintaining the balance of power in the Middle East. When he >>>>> became president in 1969, he wanted his administration to serve as a >>>>> corrective to what Nixon believed had been the Johnson administration’s >>>>> tilt toward Israel. Nixon also had a fraught personal relationship with >>>>> Jewry and Judaism. >>>>> >>>>> The first Republican to serve as president after Israel’s founding was >>>>> Dwight David Eisenhower, elected in 1952. Eisenhower was put off by >>>>> Israel’s democratic-socialist ideology. Additionally, its tiny size, >>>>> martial weakness, and lack of strategic resources of any kind marked it as >>>>> an irritant. Eisenhower believed that his predecessor, Harry Truman, had >>>>> only supported the creation of the state because of political >>>>> considerations—the 1948 Jewish vote—not strategic calculations. His view >>>>> was that the United States needed to preserve friendly relations with Arab >>>>> states to maintain access to oil reserves and to keep the Arabs from >>>>> forging stronger ties with the Soviet Union, which had begun to advocate >>>>> for the Arab world against Israel in international forums such as the >>>>> United Nations during Eisenhower’s first term. When Israel, France, and >>>>> Britain invaded the Sinai to reestablish Western control of the Suez Canal >>>>> after its seizure by Egypt, Eisenhower reacted with rage and forced the >>>>> coalition to withdraw. >>>>> >>>>> The nascent conservative movement had a similar perspective on Israel. >>>>> In 1957, an unsigned *National Review* editorial noted the importance >>>>> of “reaching a friendly understanding with the surrounding Arab world” and >>>>> warned against “sacrificing America’s primary strategic interests to >>>>> Zionist pressures at home.” The magazine insisted that Arabs “must be >>>>> fully >>>>> compensated for the economic and social consequences of the Jewish >>>>> conquest >>>>> of Palestine.” There was one hint of changes to come, where the editorial >>>>> went on to say that “the Israeli government, to be sure, deserves to be >>>>> congratulated on its hardheaded firmness in staring down the busybodies of >>>>> the UN.” This was an early planting of a seed that would help to grow a >>>>> new >>>>> GOP foreign policy—one that would emerge both from the evolution of the >>>>> party’s intellectuals and from its grassroots. But the seed would take >>>>> decades to cultivate, as the party’s standard-bearers continued on in the >>>>> Eisenhower vein. >>>>> >>>>> One of those standard-bearers was Richard Nixon. He had served as >>>>> Ike’s vice president and shared Eisenhower’s views on maintaining the >>>>> balance of power in the Middle East. When he became president in 1969, he >>>>> wanted his administration to serve as a corrective to what Nixon believed >>>>> had been the Johnson administration’s tilt toward Israel. Nixon also had a >>>>> fraught personal relationship with Jewry and Judaism. On the one hand, he >>>>> was the first president to appoint a Jewish national-security adviser, >>>>> Henry Kissinger, who would also become the first Jewish secretary of >>>>> state. >>>>> But the private Nixon spoke freely in bigoted terms about Jews and enjoyed >>>>> poking at Kissinger’s origins. Once, when Kissinger expressed his opinion >>>>> on an issue related to the Middle East at a National Security Council >>>>> meeting, Nixon called him out by asking, “Now can we get an American point >>>>> of view?” In his memoir *White House Years*, Kissinger recounts how >>>>> Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir called Nixon “an old friend of the >>>>> Jewish >>>>> people” and then notes wryly that this “was startling news to those of us >>>>> familiar with Nixon’s ambivalences on that score.” >>>>> >>>>> And yet, when Israel faced an existential crisis during the 1973 Yom >>>>> Kippur War, Nixon showed little ambivalence. He saved the Jewish state >>>>> from >>>>> a devastating defeat at the hands of the Egyptians, armed to the teeth >>>>> with >>>>> Soviet weaponry. Operation Nickel Grass provided Israel with more than >>>>> 112,000 tons of supplies. Nixon knew he would be criticized over the >>>>> airlift, and this understanding helped steel his resolve: “We are going to >>>>> get blamed just as much for three planes as for three hundred.” When the >>>>> airlift wasn’t moving fast enough, he ordered his generals to “use every >>>>> [plane] we have—everything that will fly.” >>>>> >>>>> Nixon’s decision to arm Israel in the 1973 war would have >>>>> long-standing repercussions. One consequence was the oil embargo initiated >>>>> by the Arab states in 1973, an economically devastating move—and one that >>>>> convinced ordinary Americans who had to cope with the tripling of energy >>>>> costs that the Arab states were hostile entities that deserved to be >>>>> confronted rather than appeased, as the foreign-policy panjandrums of both >>>>> parties had long asserted. Decades of American evenhandedness had failed >>>>> to >>>>> stay OPEC’s intimidation. Perhaps a different approach might prove more >>>>> valid in the future. >>>>> >>>>> The war further clarified for the American people where the various >>>>> Middle East players stood when it came to the Cold War. The Soviet Union >>>>> had made it unmistakably evident that it was Israel’s enemy just as it was >>>>> the enemy of the United States. And the war marked a turning point in >>>>> Israel’s relation with the United States at a strategic level as well. >>>>> Israel not only proved proficient at destroying Soviet weaponry used >>>>> against it by Egypt and Syria, it also shared captured Soviet weapons, >>>>> including the T-62 battle tank, with the United States. This was an >>>>> intelligence coup for the U.S. military, and it demonstrated that oil was >>>>> not the only strategic asset available to the United States in >>>>> the Middle East. Israel, too, was an asset. >>>>> >>>>> Around this time, there was an emerging realization among some key >>>>> foreign-policy thinkers that a coalition of Third World nations and Soviet >>>>> allies was treating the U.S. as a punching bag at the United Nations. This >>>>> was given full voice in Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s seminal 1975 Commentary >>>>> essay, “The United States in Opposition.” Moynihan’s response to the >>>>> rhetorical onslaught against the United States was simple: America should >>>>> fight back. The essay led to his appointment by President Gerald Ford as >>>>> U.S. ambassador to the UN in 1975 and 1976. And the most notable moment of >>>>> Moynihan’s tenure came when he joined with Israel against the UN’s >>>>> Orwellian declaration of Zionism as racism. >>>>> >>>>> Taking tough stands against Third World and Soviet critiques of the >>>>> West put Israel and the United States on the same side and helped shake >>>>> the >>>>> longstanding view that America’s strategic interests required taking the >>>>> Arab view of the Arab–Israeli conflict. Ironically, Moynihan’s actions >>>>> would have their most lasting impact not on his own Democratic Party but >>>>> on >>>>> the GOP. As my brother Gil Troy put it in his history of Moynihan’s fight >>>>> against the anti-Zionism resolution, “Moynihan’s stand against Soviet and >>>>> Third World bullying in the United Nations helped inspire [Ronald] >>>>> Reagan’s >>>>> more aggressive approach there” in the 1980s. >>>>> >>>>> The same would prove true about the influence of another hawkish >>>>> Democrat, Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson. Many of his aides—including >>>>> Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz—shared >>>>> his >>>>> perspective, and it was in Jackson’s offices that the emerging >>>>> “neoconservative” foreign policy was first laid out in Washington. Israel >>>>> was not Jackson’s primary foreign-policy interest. Rather, his top >>>>> priority >>>>> was a strong U.S. stance against Soviet aggression. And because he >>>>> believed >>>>> the Nixon-Kissinger policy of détente was a capitulation, he pressed for >>>>> increased involvement of Congress in international relations to counter >>>>> the >>>>> administration’s appeasement; his greatest success came with the passage >>>>> of >>>>> the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which linked U.S-Soviet trade to Soviet >>>>> human-rights policy, particularly as regarded oppressed Soviet Jews who >>>>> wished to emigrate. >>>>> >>>>> Jackson-Vanik was a landmark because it heralded a new era in which >>>>> Congress would take a more active hand in the making and implementation of >>>>> U.S. foreign policy. The rise of congressional independence in foreign >>>>> policy meant that an individual member’s views on these matters became >>>>> more >>>>> relevant, tactically and strategically, and on Israel in particular. >>>>> >>>>> Pro-Israel lobbying groups such as AIPAC began focusing more effort on >>>>> lobbying Congress, too. Lobbying is not just about applying pressure and >>>>> raising money; successful lobbyists attempt to make the case to those to >>>>> whom they appeal that the vote is right and just and will benefit them, >>>>> their districts, and the country in general. AIPAC’s new focus on Capitol >>>>> Hill was in part educational. Trips to Israel for members and their staffs >>>>> became routine. The effort was extraordinarily successful. Aid to Israel >>>>> became regularized. That began with the signing of the Camp David accords >>>>> when the United States began to supply Israel with money it had lost from >>>>> giving back the Sinai oil fields Israel had captured in the Six-Day War. >>>>> Later, in 1985, U.S. military aid to Israel was converted from loans to >>>>> grants; and an earmark for purchasing military equipment became part of >>>>> the >>>>> annual foreign-aid appropriation shortly afterward. >>>>> >>>>> Outside of Washington, another important trend emerged in the 1970s >>>>> that would have a far-reaching impact on the GOP’s realignment with >>>>> Israel: >>>>> the rise of the evangelical vote. Staunch evangelical support for Israel >>>>> meant that it was no longer mainly Jewish voters who cared where >>>>> politicians stood. As these voters moved in large numbers to the >>>>> Republican >>>>> Party, beginning with the election in 1980, these pro-Israel Christians >>>>> started to emerge as the largest and most important segment of the GOP >>>>> base. Republican politicians started to take notice. >>>>> >>>>> Then–Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin also took notice, and took >>>>> steps to encourage the burgeoning evangelical support of Israel. In 1981, >>>>> Begin spoke to a gathering of 3,000 evangelical Christians in Jerusalem >>>>> and >>>>> issued a medal to Moral Majority leader Jerry Falwell. After Israel bombed >>>>> Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, Begin even called Falwell to explain >>>>> Israel’s reasoning. >>>>> >>>>> Begin stood in stark contrast to American Jewish leaders, such as >>>>> Rabbi Alexander Schindler of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish >>>>> Organizations, who told the *New York Times* in 1981 that he thought >>>>> it “madness and suicide if Jews honor for their support of Israel >>>>> right-wing evangelists who constitute a danger to the Jews of the United >>>>> States.” Begin was also willing to work on less enlightened evangelicals >>>>> such as Bailey Smith. After Smith notoriously said that “God Almighty does >>>>> not hear the prayer of a Jew,” Begin met with him in Israel and helped >>>>> turn >>>>> him around, politically if not theologically. When asked about his work >>>>> with evangelicals like Smith and Falwell, Begin aide Yehuda Avner said: >>>>> “Israel will not turn aside a hand stretched out by a friend in support of >>>>> Israel’s just cause. Jerry Falwell is one of the most vigorous and >>>>> outspoken friends of Israel. We will not turn aside that hand of >>>>> friendship.” >>>>> >>>>> It was not only conservative clergy who would be converted to the >>>>> pro-Israel cause, but conservative legislators as well. The most important >>>>> example was the evolution of North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms. Helms was >>>>> openly hostile to Israel for his first decade or so in the Senate, and was >>>>> targeted for defeat by Jewish groups in a 1984 Senate reelection bid that >>>>> he survived only by the skin of his teeth. The next year, AIPAC helped >>>>> arrange a trip to Israel for Helms and his wife; Helms himself indicated >>>>> that the trip was life-changing (though surely his near-death experience >>>>> with voters had had a clarifying effect as well). Helms would go on to >>>>> chair from 1995 to 2001 the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, where he >>>>> would actively legislate on Israel’s behalf. >>>>> >>>>> Helms’s shift represented the confluence of forces that were remaking >>>>> the Republican Party. The growing evangelical support for Israel had its >>>>> greatest impact in the South, fast becoming the GOP’s stronghold. And it >>>>> coincided with Ronald Reagan’s eloquence in support of the Jewish state. >>>>> Reagan did not see eye to eye with the Israelis on every issue; he >>>>> approved >>>>> the sale of AWACS radar planes to Saudi Arabia in 1981, criticized the >>>>> Osirak attack, and was not supportive of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in >>>>> 1982. But Reagan spoke and thought of Israel in a manner new to American >>>>> presidents. He saw that Israel was a strategic asset to the United States >>>>> in the struggle against totalitarianism. Reagan recognized the alignment >>>>> not only of interests but foundational Judeo-Christian beliefs: “Israel >>>>> represents the one stable democracy sharing values with us in that part of >>>>> the world,” he said. >>>>> >>>>> He took the historic step of formalizing military cooperation between >>>>> the United States and Israel. This strategic redefinition of the >>>>> relationship had a number of salutary long-term implications for both >>>>> nations. First, it helped improve the Israeli military by giving Israel >>>>> access to U.S. technology, training, and tactics. Linking the American and >>>>> the Israeli militaries established a connection between the two nations >>>>> that went beyond the political vagaries of elections. The Pentagon also >>>>> began to recognize the strategic importance of maintaining its joint >>>>> activities with Israel, which could field-test U.S. weapons, strengthen >>>>> intelligence cooperation, and serve as a base for U.S. equipment in a >>>>> hostile region. >>>>> >>>>> Reagan’s perspective was plain: Reward your friends and punish your >>>>> enemies. Stand up to the USSR, hijackers, and petro-blackmailers, and >>>>> stand >>>>> with people who were on your side. In this context, it made perfect sense >>>>> for Republicans to back Israel, even if you belonged to a country club, >>>>> worked for an oil company, or were an armchair strategist who understood >>>>> the magnitude by which Arabs outnumbered Israel in population. >>>>> >>>>> Congressional GOP support for Israel became even more marked in the >>>>> 1990s after the GOP took over both Houses of Congress. The outspokenly >>>>> pro-Israel Speaker Newt Gingrich set up a contrast on the Israel issue >>>>> between himself and the Clinton administration, which was pressing Israel >>>>> for territorial concessions in the name of peace deals. >>>>> >>>>> Following Reagan’s lead and influenced by the neoconservatives who had >>>>> gravitated to the GOP, pro-Israel voices became more confident in >>>>> expressing their view of the ties that bound the United States and the >>>>> Jewish state—the same monotheistic roots, which disposed them to an >>>>> appreciation for human dignity and self-determination, and a shared belief >>>>> in a covenantal founding of both nations. This view helped the GOP >>>>> establish an ideological framework for foreign policy beyond the binary >>>>> question of Communist versus anti-Communist. >>>>> >>>>> None of this was seamless. Reagan was succeeded by George H.W. Bush, >>>>> himself quite literally a Country Club Republican and oilman by birth and >>>>> occupation and a foreign-policy realist by disposition. He famously >>>>> complained about the Israel lobby, saying ludicrously that he, the >>>>> president, was “one lonely guy” up against “some powerful political >>>>> forces” >>>>> made up of “a thousand lobbyists on the Hill.” His secretary of state, >>>>> James Baker, was even worse, earning the wrong kind of immortality with >>>>> his >>>>> line, “F— the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.” Even as these attacks >>>>> were going on, there were signs that Bush had already become an >>>>> anachronism >>>>> in a rapidly changing world—most notably the fact that the Baker line was >>>>> leaked to the press by his disgusted fellow cabinet secretary Jack Kemp, a >>>>> key figure in remaking the party as pro-Israel. >>>>> >>>>> But Bush’s brand of hostility was not the only anti-Israel tendency >>>>> within the rapidly evolving American right. Open anti-Semitism reared its >>>>> head as well, in the personages of the writers Patrick J. Buchanan (a >>>>> protest candidate for president in 1992 and 1996) and Joseph Sobran. When >>>>> Buchanan called Congress “Israeli-occupied territory,” he was not only >>>>> giving foul voice to a classic anti-Semitic theme but was accurately >>>>> reflecting the fact that by this point, anti-Israel sentiment on Capitol >>>>> Hill had become a mark of extremism in both parties. More important, both >>>>> Sobran and Buchanan received a very public cold shoulder from the >>>>> mainstream conservative movement. William F. Buckley Jr. himself wrote a >>>>> long indictment of his friend Sobran in *National Review* and >>>>> consigned his and Buchanan’s brand of Jew-hatred to the margins of the >>>>> conservative movement. >>>>> >>>>> Congressional GOP support for Israel became even more marked in the >>>>> 1990s after the GOP took over both Houses of Congress. The outspokenly >>>>> pro-Israel Speaker Newt Gingrich set up a contrast on the Israel issue >>>>> between himself and the Clinton administration, which was pressing Israel >>>>> for territorial concessions in the name of peace deals. In 1998, Gingrich >>>>> visited Israel and was so expressive of his admiration and support for >>>>> Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that journalist David Makovsky called >>>>> the >>>>> trip a “love fest.” Palestinians noticed as well, and grumbled about what >>>>> the* New York Times* characterized as “the lopsided support for >>>>> Israel shown by Mr. Gingrich and the Congress.” >>>>> >>>>> Netanyahu would go on to play a key part in facilitating better >>>>> relations between Israel and the GOP in another way as well. As prime >>>>> minister in the 1990s and, more successfully, as finance minister from >>>>> 2003 >>>>> to 2005, Netanyahu embarked on a series of economic reforms that >>>>> liberalized Israel’s previously socialistic and stagnant economy. >>>>> Netanyahu >>>>> made alterations in Israel’s welfare system, slashed government spending, >>>>> privatized parts of the economy, and cut taxes. Unemployment and deficits >>>>> went down, economic growth surged, and Israel developed its reputation as >>>>> the high tech start-up nation. The reforms also opened the door to more >>>>> support from the Republicans, as backing the Jewish state no longer meant >>>>> having to apologize for propping up a socialist economy. Instead, >>>>> Republicans could now tout a free-market Israeli economy, which was far >>>>> more congruent with prevailing GOP economic theory. >>>>> W >>>>> hen the GOP took over the White House after Bill Clinton, the days of >>>>> strategic ambiguity by GOP presidents toward Israel were long gone. George >>>>> H.W. Bush and George W. Bush may have come from the same family, but they >>>>> came from different Republican parties. The party that embraced the >>>>> younger >>>>> Bush was evangelically dominated, congressionally focused, and >>>>> definitively >>>>> pro-Israel. As Bush once told a Jewish leader: “The Saudis thought ‘this >>>>> Texas oil guy was going to go against Israel’ and I told them you have the >>>>> wrong guy.” >>>>> >>>>> As the story goes, when Bush went to Israel, then–Foreign Minister >>>>> Ariel Sharon went out of his way to welcome the visiting governor, and >>>>> Arafat gave Bush the runaround—after which he denounced Bush for refusing >>>>> to meet with him. Sharon’s foresight would be rewarded, and Arafat’s >>>>> shortsightedness would come back to haunt him. This became obvious during >>>>> the Second Intifada, with Israel suffering from a barrage of >>>>> Arafat-encouraged suicide attacks. At the time, America itself was >>>>> recovering from the shock of 9/11, and the televised footage of >>>>> Palestinians celebrating the attacks by handing out candy clarified issues >>>>> in the minds of many Americans. >>>>> >>>>> Bush gave Sharon the leeway he needed to defend Israeli lives. Former >>>>> White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer tells an instructive story in >>>>> this regard. Following one Palestinian attack, Fleischer handed Bush what >>>>> he called “typical” talking points that called for “both sides to refrain >>>>> from violence.” Bush looked at the talking points and responded, “No, >>>>> don’t >>>>> say that. Just say this: ‘Israel has a right to defend itself.’ ” >>>>> According >>>>> to Fleischer, Bush’s preferred response “sent shock waves through the >>>>> bureaucracy,” which was used to deliberately evasive, morally nebulous >>>>> suggestions of “even-handedness.” >>>>> >>>>> In Bush’s view, and as a result of a generational shift in the GOP, >>>>> Israel was our ally and was going to be treated as such. To be sure, Bush >>>>> continued to push for the so-called peace process, especially in his >>>>> second >>>>> term. But Bush’s effort, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, >>>>> featured none of the vitriol that would characterize the Obama >>>>> administration’s push for a negotiated settlement. >>>>> T >>>>> hus, the tale of the transformation of the GOP into an unambiguously, >>>>> proudly, and solidly pro-Israel coalition, 80 percent of whose >>>>> self-identified members now tell pollsters they support the Jewish state. >>>>> In 2014, Joshua Muravchik wrote an important book, *Making David into >>>>> Goliath*, an account of how Israel went from being a widely admired >>>>> nation in 1967 to one of the most reviled. In Muravchik’s telling, this >>>>> development was not accidental, but the result of strategic action by a >>>>> number of actors—on the left, in the Arab world, and in Europe—to >>>>> delegitimize and damage Israel. But while the Jewish state lost many >>>>> allies >>>>> during this period, it also gained an important and reliable friend. At >>>>> the >>>>> same time that the world was learning to hate Israel, the Republican Party >>>>> was learning to love it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 7:07:52 AM UTC-5, MJ wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> July 8, 2016 >>>>>> >>>>>> *The Problem With Hillary *By Thomas DiLorenzo >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem with Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate is not >>>>>> that she is a corrupt and dishonest politician, as her critics have >>>>>> charged. No, the problem with Hillary is that she is just as big a >>>>>> socialist as Bernie Sanders is. “We’re going to take things away from >>>>>> you >>>>>> on behalf of the common good,” she announced to a San Francisco audience >>>>>> in >>>>>> 2004, echoing the *Communist Manifesto* mantra, “from each according >>>>>> to his ability, to each according to his needs.” “We must stop thinking >>>>>> of >>>>>> the individual and start thinking about what is best for society,” she >>>>>> once >>>>>> proclaimed as First Lady. Such statements are a defining characteristic >>>>>> of >>>>>> the socialist philosophy: attacks on individualism in the name of the >>>>>> “common good” of “society” – always defined and enforced *by >>>>>> politicians*, never by society as a whole. And like Sanders, she >>>>>> threatens “the rich” with even more onerous taxes to be used to subsidize >>>>>> the working class (“working families” in the neo-Marxist language of one >>>>>> of >>>>>> her television ads). >>>>>> >>>>>> Hillary Clinton demonstrated her socialist credentials during the >>>>>> Democratic primary debates with the proud, self-described socialist >>>>>> Bernie >>>>>> Sanders. Whenever Sanders would excite the audiences of Democrats with >>>>>> Santa Claus-like promises of “free” healthcare, education, housing, >>>>>> welfare >>>>>> payments, and much else, Hillary’s response was to agree with him, >>>>>> promising to increase federal spending by more than $1 trillion over the >>>>>> next ten years. There was no disagreement over the principles of >>>>>> socialism, only the details. >>>>>> >>>>>> A current fad among the socialists of Europe is to propose some kind >>>>>> of “basic” government-defined income for the entire population. >>>>>> Switzerland just voted down this latest money-for-nothing scheme. >>>>>> Naturally, Hillary is all on board with it, having proposed giving every >>>>>> baby born in America a $5000 account that would be invested and given to >>>>>> the child upon reaching the voting age of eighteen. George McGovern >>>>>> proposed a similar, $1000 “demogrant” in 1972, which was dismissed and >>>>>> ridiculed as socialistic nonsense and may well have caused him to lose >>>>>> the >>>>>> election to Richard Nixon. >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words, Hillary is just as much a socialist as Bernie >>>>>> Sanders, only she doesn’t use the “S” word for marketing purposes. She >>>>>> prefers “progressive Democrat” instead, but that is not very convincing, >>>>>> even to many of her supporters. During a televised interview >>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqq5q11uK0M> with Chris Mathews, >>>>>> she was asked repeatedly what the difference was between a Democrat and a >>>>>> socialist. She refused to answer the question, implying to many that she >>>>>> probably believes that there *is *no significant difference. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the early 1990s Hillary Clinton was the main architect of what >>>>>> came to be known as “Hillarycare” – the Clinton administration plan to >>>>>> impose Soviet-style central planning on America’s healthcare sector. >>>>>> This >>>>>> gives us great insight into her vision of the role of government in the >>>>>> economy, and how she would like to see more and more American industries >>>>>> run – by dictates issued by thousands of anonymous bureaucrats paid for >>>>>> by >>>>>> the biggest tax increases in history and enforced by the heavy hand of >>>>>> the >>>>>> state. >>>>>> >>>>>> Socialist central planning, as such, has always been a perfect recipe >>>>>> for the impoverishment of entire societies while at the same time >>>>>> enriching >>>>>> and empowering a small political ruling class elite. How else could the >>>>>> thirty-five-year-old daughter of the late Hugo Chavez, the onetime >>>>>> socialist ruler of Venezuela, become the wealthiest person in that >>>>>> country >>>>>> with a reported net worth of over $4 billion? >>>>>> >>>>>> Hillarycare was a bureaucratic nightmare that would have forced most >>>>>> Americans to cancel their health insurance and obtain it from a >>>>>> government >>>>>> bureaucracy. It would have forced everyone to purchase a full array of >>>>>> government-defined benefits; it would have been managed from Washington >>>>>> by >>>>>> a board of seven presidential appointees and thousands of bureaucrats; >>>>>> access to physicians would have been restricted and controlled by >>>>>> bureaucrats, not patients; and all outside insurance plans would have >>>>>> been >>>>>> illegal. >>>>>> >>>>>> Price controls on everything from doctors’ salaries to MRI machines >>>>>> would have caused pervasive shortages; the plan would have required >>>>>> massive >>>>>> tax increases, mostly on the lower and middle classes, causing huge job >>>>>> losses (600,000 in the first few years alone according to the Clinton >>>>>> administration itself at the time); 59 new federal bureaucracies would >>>>>> have >>>>>> been created with 20 others expanded; and hundreds of new regulatory >>>>>> mandates would have been imposed on healthcare providers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Insurers would have been required to charge the same rates to >>>>>> everyone regardless of age or health, making a mockery of the very word >>>>>> “insurance.” Costly employer mandates would have forced employers to >>>>>> lower >>>>>> wages and benefits and/or lay off workers; and state governments would >>>>>> have >>>>>> been forced to become “purchasing alliances” for the federal >>>>>> bureaucracy’s >>>>>> central planning scheme. >>>>>> >>>>>> Members of Congress and all federal employees were to be exempted >>>>>> from Hillarycare, however. Only the little people (i.e., everyone else) >>>>>> were to be corralled into socialized medicine. >>>>>> >>>>>> The bizarre thing about “Hillarycare” is that it was an absurdly >>>>>> bureaucratic, Soviet-style central planning program that was promoted by >>>>>> the Clintons barely three years after the final collapse of socialism in >>>>>> the Soviet empire – a collapse caused primarily by the futility of >>>>>> attempting to centrally plan an economy through government “planning” >>>>>> instead of markets – just like “Hillarycare.” >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps “Obamacare,” which has resurrected parts of “Hillarycare,” >>>>>> has been imposed on the American public because so much of it – primarily >>>>>> the younger generation – is unaware of the grotesque failures of >>>>>> twentieth-century socialism. They should look at the current economic >>>>>> implosion of Venezuela – the latest darling-of-the-Left “socialist >>>>>> paradise” – to learn some important lessons. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/07/thomas-dilorenzo/real-problem-hillary/ >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>>> >>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> -- >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
