Hah! Do you really want me to embarrass you here once again in the Group? I've saved most all of your posts, and clearly you haven't a clue what the whole concept of Zionism is, nor have you (I don't believe that you can) distinguish between Zionism and the word "Jew".
You're a typical Secular Progressive who feeds off of Democratic hate filled talking points and you're vulgar in doing so. Your comment to one of our returned members this morning was despicable; and embarrassing. But that's typical. On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 12:58 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> >> 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. > -- -- 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.
