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". --- wrong again, xian zionist pukage. *Zionism* (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת Tsiyyonut IPA: [t͡sijo̞ˈnut] after Zion) is a nationalist political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land). Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*Zionism* Wikipedia
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. --- which member and comment are you referring to? and fuck you and your opinions, xian myth believer, homophobe and islamophobic republican. On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 12:17:47 PM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: > > 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] > <javascript:>> 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.
