I'm not going to address it anymore. --- good ... go crawl back into your hole, bitch.
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! --- lol ... you still don't know what a fucking zionist is, you ignorant fucking lawyer. On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 11:48:47 AM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: > > 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] > <javascript:>> 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] <javascript:>. >> 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.
