What is your objection to Zionism? ---- 1 - I will not allow the USA to be 'used' to provide the jews with a religious state and security. We owe them nothing! 2 - Jews can't be trusted when it comes to loyalty to the USA. Do you know whose military Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, joined during the Gulf War/Police Action? You're either an American or something else. The US government does NOT recognize dual citizenships and never should.
Why do you care if Jews have a Homeland, and want to return to it? --- because they promote socialism and use the USA for jewish/Israel's interests ... even to the point of extorting our politicians for it's welfare and security. On Aug 18, 3:22 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > What is your objection to Zionism? Why do you care if Jews have a Homeland, > and want to return to it? > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:09 PM, plainolamerican > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > the MSM, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann > > --- > > all are zionists > > > know the enemy > > > On Aug 18, 12:54 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ron Paul and Libertyby Walter BlockIf Ron Paul had won the Ames Iowa > > poll, the mainstream media would have dismissed the entire exercise as > > unimportant. If he had come in at, oh, 6th place, they would have used this > > as evidence that he is incompetent, not in the first rank of Republican > > candidates, can’t get out the vote, the American people had rejected his > > candidacy, etc. So, when Congressman Paul took a magnificent second place, > > only 1% behind the winner, I said to myself, Hot diggity dog; the MSM can’t > > ignore him now. They cannot dismiss this entire result since if they did so, > > they would have to also deprecate Michele Bachmann’s win, and that they will > > not do. They now MUST give Dr. Paul his due credit, since he finished in > > close second place to her. They will be forced to discuss his ideas: bring > > the troops home, get rid of the Fed, drastically reduce taxes, eliminate a > > slew of illicit Federal departments, legalize drugs and other victimless > > crimes, stop foreign "aid," save the American dollar via 100% gold backing, > > etc. > > > Silly me. That shows how much I know. Instead, the talking heads are now > > tooting this line: "The three front runners are Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and > > Michele Bachmann." In their view, these are the major candidates, and all > > the others are also-rans. Why Mitt Romney? Well, he looks presidential, and > > he has a good chance with the tea partiers despite his Romney-car health > > policy in Massachusetts, oh so similar to Obama-care. Why Rick Perry? Well, > > he’s the governor of Texas, the second biggest state, isn’t he? And this > > despite the fact that he has not yet won anything in the presidential > > sweepstakes. Why Michele Bachmann? This is because, of course, she just won > > the Ames Iowa poll. Notice any name missing from all of this? I’ll give you > > a hint: this is the guy who came in SECOND, 1% behind "major candidate" > > Bachmann in this recent election. There used to be among the beltway > > "Austro-libertarians" a campaign to promote and study Austrian economics > > without "You Know Who" (Ludwig von Mises, of course). There is now a > > campaign amongst the major media to analyze the Republican presidential > > process without uttering the name of "You Know Who" (Ron Paul, of course). > > > What can be done about this? Well, keep sending in those cards and > > letters; keep protesting; keep writing those e mails to these self-appointed > > judges. Vote for Ron Paul. And, most of all, let us all pledge to donate as > > much as we can to all of the upcoming Ron Paul money bombs. > > > There are some otherwise excellent libertarians who hold their noses at > > the political process. They think it is somehow incompatible with the non > > aggression principle, the foundation of our philosophy. Voting just gives > > "them" sanction, these people think. Well, if so, then libertarians should > > not use fiat currency to transact grocery purchases, travel on government > > roads, attend concerts at public theatres, patronize public libraries, > > parks, museums, teach in, or attend, any public university, or even private > > one that is subsidized. They should also not eat food, since the government > > is heavily involved in subsidizing some of it. They should not live in > > houses, since the statists have heavily involved themselves with building > > materials. They should eschew … the list goes on and on, and includes every > > jot and tittle of the economy, so heavily ensconced in it is the state > > apparatus. > > > The point is, the modern government is so heavily engaged in ALL facets > > of our lives. If we really didn’t want to give "sanction" to them, and > > wanted, also, to be logically consistent, we could not operate in modern > > society at all. We would have to either go off to live in a self sufficient > > farm, or commit suicide. Hey, we don’t want to lose our souls, do we? > > > Some libertarians say that we have a choice regarding whether or not to > > vote, to support Dr. Paul, whereas we have no choice with regard to any of > > these other things. Nonsense. No, nonsense on stilts! Human action always > > includes choice. We are engaging in human action all over the place. Self > > sufficient farming, and/or suicide ARE choices! This attitude of > > libertarians is very self destructive. It prevents us from supporting Ron > > Paul to the extent that would otherwise be the case. > > > I suggest a remedy for this sort of irrational thinking. It is Murray > > Rothbard’s "Do you hate the state?" availablehere. While you’re at it, read > > this other excellentpieceby the same author, about my man Hector. If we > > really see our political leaders as the gangsters most of them are (there > > are but a few honorable exceptions to this general rule, certainly including > > in the modern day You Know Who, and his son, the junior Senator from > > Kentucky), we will reject this utter nonsense that to engage with them in > > any way is to be false to libertarianism. If we don’t engage them, in many, > > many ways, certainly including voting, how will we ever rid ourselves of > > this pestilence? If we don’t support the greatest advocate of libertarianism > > now active in behalf of the cause of liberty (hint: You Know Who), we lose > > the best opportunity we now have to promote this philosophy. > > > -- > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- 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.
