Man! You can't make this stuff up! Our President made an error any kid in a high school history class could counter. Instead of countering the thesis, the news media goes on another lynching mob calling him out for being "vulgar" and "racist". (Always the "racist". When they can't come up with an counter argument, go to name-calling.)
It doesn't matter whether President Trump used vulgar language in
describing certain African countries and Haiti as "s-hole countries". Frankly, they are!
The problem is that the President's thesis stated that these countries make for undesirable immigrants. Somewhere, I read that he suggested Norway provided better immigration candidates.
Folks! People who are fat and happy don't run away from home. Once in a while, boy from country A meets girl from country B and one of them moves. That's been known to happen. By and large, American immigrants are people who fled countries that were stressed by tyrants, natural disasters, economic failure, violent political upheaval etc. In other words, "S-hole countries".
I'm not going to waste a S-load of my valuable time explaining this. Why should I! Sam Kinison gives a brief, simple, and far more vulgar presentation of a counter argument to President Trump's.
With great fanfare, President O'Bama visited Holland, Michigan to celebrate the opening of the LG battery factory; a factory built to supply batteries for the Chevy Volt. The plant was built with federal tax dollars to support a vehicle funded by federal tax dollars made by a company owned by the government. "This is a symbol of where Michigan is going, this is a symbol of where
Holland is going, and this is a symbol of where America's going,"
President Barack Obama told a crowd at the groundbreaking.
Where is President O'Bama now? Where is his praise for "green jobs"? Or should I tell you that studies have shown that for every green job created, 3 are lost from the high cost of electricity.
What kind of "job" is this when it creates nothing of value? Is this what the insane left enviro-whackos call "sustainable"? I have a secret for you people: if it doesn't create something of competitive value, it is not sustainable.
What is the O'Bama Administration's response to this massive waste? "We are sending this to the Inspector General, Department of Energy, for
his review," said Ed Pound, spokesman for the board. The Inspector
General's Office would decide whether to open an investigation. Pound
refused further comment.
A review? Any fool could have told you that this was a waste before they broke ground. Why should there be "further comment" when the real goal was to BUY VOTES in an election year. Detroit and points east of US 127 can be taken for granted to vote O'Bama's way. But with economic devastation, a few thousand votes in solidly Republican West Michigan can turn the tide of the election toward O'Bama and the Democrats.
Folks! The government is spending a king's fortune just to make you feel good about yourself. It's "green". It's "new technology". It's "jobs". That's what they tell you, but none of this is sustainable because it isn't competitive and creates nothing of real value. For every Volt sold, 10,000 Chinese (and 7,500 Indians) bought their first conventionally fueled vehicle. That's because THEY are making things of competitive value while your government encourages us to make worthless batteries for worthless cars that cost too much and won't accommodate Michael Moore's fat-infested torso.
The big corporations don't have a problem because they didn't have to bear the risk. The people who built the plant have taken their money and run; the executives of those contracting firms now contemplate early retirement. LG has their O'bama bucks. They'll close the factory when there's a loss to write off to offset the immense profits they make on their own products.
And you? HA HA HA! You get to struggle to buy frozen peas at your local grocer because the O'Bama Administration is forcing electricity prices through the roof. You get to buy gasoline at $4 a gallon because the O'Bama Administration won't let us use our natural gas surplus to make methanol. It (methanol) can be blended with gasoline in any ratio with cheap ($100/car) off-the-shelf technology. Coal miners out of work. Petrochemical lobby happy. Electric cars in the junk yard. Saudi Arabia laughing all the way to the bank.
Thank you Mr. President! Thanks for hiring hundreds of workers who are now reading magazines, playing cards and watching videos. That's what you called "Hope and Change" 4 years ago, but we all knew what it really was: patronage worker creation - Chicago Style.
If the Japanese politicians had preceded the attack on Pearl Harbor with the kind of bluster we've been hearing (in the media, pols, pundits, politicians running for office etc.) for the past 5 years, the attack never would have succeeded.
There is wide consensus that Iran should not possess nuclear weapons. Beyond that, there's no telling truth from fiction regarding this issue from the news media and political debates. That's why I ignore it.
It's not a subject worth talking about. Nobody I know is anxious for war. The scope of a military mission (by anyone, U.S., Israel, others) that could succeed is beyond the knowledge and competency of the average civilian. If you don't see much posted on this blog on the subject, now you know why.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has ordered the suspension of $800 million in aid to the Pakistani military, his chief of staff said Sunday, as part of what experts say is a tougher line with a critical U.S. partner in the fight against terrorism.
Top aide William Daley described the U.S. relationship with Pakistan as "difficult" and said it must be made "to work over time." But he added that until "we get through that difficulty, we'll hold back some of the money that the American taxpayers are committed to give" Pakistan.
Well wadda ya know! Just as I pointed out down the blog several weeks ago, the unraveling of US/Pakistani relations is something the President wanted desperately to distract us from. I mentioned it HERE on this blog.
In that blog entry, I noted:
You see, the real problem is that U.S./Pakistani relations are in free-fall. A quick look at a map should tell you (or anyone) what that means to U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan.
You might think this problem just cropped up out of nowhere, but it's been festering for many months. The President and Sec. of State did a good job of distracting us from this diplomatic crisis. I wasn't distracted and if you read this blog, you weren't distracted either.
May 1, 2011 12:00 PM
By George C. Loehr, Management Consultant
Many of you will remember the original Star Trek episode, “The Trouble With Tribbles.” The Enterprise is transporting grain to a planet with the unlikely name of Sherman's Planet, which is in dispute between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. But Kirk et al discover their ship has been invaded by thousands of cute, furry, purring little critters called tribbles. They do no harm, except they eat voraciously and reproduce prodigiously. They're so cute that no one has the heart to do them any harm, but pretty soon, they've eaten all the grain and threaten to take over the ship. (Without going into plot details, Kirk and crew escape this predicament when Scotty, ever the resourceful engineer, beams the tribbles from the Enterprise onto a Klingon ship.)
Wind turbines are a little like tribbles. They're appealing, they can displace kilowatt-hours from carbon generators, and they seem to do no harm; but they consume prodigious amounts of money, and they're reproducing all over the countryside. Everybody seems to think they're wonderful, but are they going to contribute anything to our energy requirements? And, if they do, what are the downsides, if any?
I fully agree with George C. Loehr's basic thesis. In fact, I think he's too kind to the wind turbine proponents. I encourage you read it and take Mr. Loehr's warning to heart.
I'm a big fan of alternative energy, but wind turbines are NOT the way to go.
The President's daily failures continue to mount. Yemen is imploding. Syria is torturing its citizens in broad daylight proving our diplomatic impotence. Libya screams in agony of civil war. The price of gas is high. The price of food is going up. Unemployment won't go down no matter how many "stimulus" dollars we spend.
You'd think the news media would report these things and provide some novel solutions. You'd think the President would work longer hours. You'd think Congress would roll up their sleeves and work with a sense of urgency... and you'd be wrong.
Having played the "Israel card" to divert our attention away from the President's overwhelming failures, we now have Anthony Weiner. Ah! There's nuthin' like a good old fashioned SEX SCANDAL to commandeer our attention.
I'm still not sure what this scandal is all about, but anyone with the name of Weiner emailing pictures of his dick on the internet really should have thought of a career path other than the U.S. Congress. I mean... it's not like I have figured out "what it all means". The simple conclusion that has long existed is that Americans are stupid and continue to elect scoundrels to lead our country. I really hope that's not news to you. If it is, you're either very young or... well... you know.
In the mean time, I think you should all look past the Weiner news articles and observe what is going on in the rest of the world. It ain't a pretty picture. Count your blessings and don't let all these silly Weiner news stories distract you.
Since Jimmy Carter was elected President, the battle cry heard from Muslim nations has been "Death to America!". Every President from Jimmy Carter onward replied: "We're willing to negotiate. Certainly there is a compromise to be had. We'll meet you halfway."
Carter
Reagan (Yes! Reagan too!)
Bush Sr.
Clinton
Bush Jr.
O'Bama
<fill in the blank>
Just in case you don't believe me, Accuracy in Media notes the following in an article dated May 17, 2011:
The Arab-funded Al-Jazeera is hosting a two-day inaugural “Al Jazeera U.S. Forum” in Washington, D.C., featuring Bob Woodward of The Washington Post among the celebrity journalists. But of particular interest is Politico’s revelation that Republican Senator John McCain showed up at the opening night of the forum to praise the channel’s coverage of the Middle East.
I don't know how fair this article is. All I know is that John McCain's passionate words of support for Israel have always come with the asterisk that comes with cooperation with the Saudi Petrochemical Lobby. If he's showing up to praise Al-Jazeera, what does that say about his confrontation of Barack O'Bama's proposed U.S./Israel policy when he was running for President in 2008?
While I'm at it, let's note that Senator McCain was a loud proponent of U.S. military intervention in the Libyan Civil War. Who benefits from that war? Let me give you a hint.
Upon the start of U.S. Armed Forces intervention against Libya, Saudi Arabia "re-assured" the U.S. and our allies that they would "make up" any deficit in petroleum production caused by the Libyan "unrest". This might sound like a generous offer but think about it! With prices for petroleum skyrocketing past $100/barrel, Saudi Arabia is CASHING IN on the war against Libya. "Such a deal I have for you!"
As the Libyan war drags on and the Saudis get richer from it, Americans continue to struggle with rising gasoline prices. American politicians from both parties run to make kissy-face with the Saudis and their Persian Gulf OPEC conspirators. Just to make sure you don't notice, the President offers a "bold new policy" dealing with the War Against Israel.
See how it works?
*UPDATE* My friend Debbie Schlussel has informed me that Accuracy in Media is anything but. I've known Debbie for a long time and I trust her judgment on this. Debbie's views aside, the nature of the headlines on their website are too loaded to be automatically accepted as objective. That is why I made sure to qualify my column with "I don't know how fair this article is."
If someone can confirm that Sen. McCain and Nancy Pelosi attended the Al-Jazeera U.S. Forum and offered praise for that news organization, please let me know. It certainly wouldn't surprise me, but for now, I have to question the accuracy of the claim and seek additional confirmation that Sen. McCain's participation actually occurred as it was described by Accuracy in Media.
*UPDATE* In retrospect, I have to be fair so let me extend my comments a little to clarify one point that came up yesterday during a lunchtime conversation with some Friends of Israel. While it seems likely that Sen. McCain's diplomacy would have been very similar to President O'Bama's had the former been elected, I believe there would be one significant difference. That difference becomes clear when you go down to the column below to read my entry regarding the President O'Bama's scapegoating of Israel.
President Bush pressured Israel for political and territorial concessions. That much was made clear by his Sec. of State Condeleeza Rice. However, when President Bush spoke of Israel, he always presented the Jewish State in the most positive terms. President Bush routinely acknowledged Israel's past territorial concessions and the risks it had taken for peace. Moreover, President Bush was willing to acknowledge that these risks often failed to bring about the expected results. President Bush routinely rallied American public support for Israel.
In observing Sen. McCain, I can say that I've personally witnessed him doing the same thing. Had John McCain been elected President, the policies probably would have been much the same. The difference would be that the President's "bully pulpit" would rally public support behind Israel and avoid scapegoating Jews for his diplomatic failures throughout the Muslim world.
I won't elaborate on how this differs from President O'Bama's public presentation of the War Against Israel. I've already done that in a column below. I just thought I'd take a moment to put my comments in perspective regarding Sen. McCain.
There are some who say that President O'Bama is "pressuring Israel" for more concessions. I disagree. The President is not pressuring Israel. He is scapegoating the Jewish State.
Any sentence the President utters that includes "Israel" and "borders" is problematic to Israel's enemies. Israel's enemies will resent it. President O'Bama knows that. Thus, he has incited additional enmity toward the Jewish State by its enemies. He has not advanced the cause of peace between Israel and its enemies. That might be a problem for Jews, but there's a bigger problem for America.
You see, the real problem is that U.S./Pakistani relations are in free-fall. A quick look at a map should tell you (or anyone) what that means to U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan.
Last year, the Administration gave a $500 Million aid package to Pakistan only to find Osama bin Laden (i.e. "Public Enemy Number One") enjoying safe haven there. The "Arab Spring" has resulted in Arab regimes (either existing or in-waiting) losing trust in America. As the euphoria of the bin Laden assassination quickly wears off the U.S. public in an election season, it is only natural for the President's domestic political adversaries to criticize the Administration's handling of affairs in that region.
In order to deflect attention away from these problems, the O'Bama Administration has decided to direct attention away from their mis-management of the ongoing turmoil in Arab/Muslim nations and focused on Israel. This is being done with the knowledge that the news media will quickly respond in knee-jerk reaction and take the ongoing turmoil in Arab/Muslim nations off the front pages of their news reports.
Scapegoating Israel deflects attention away from mounting problems in Pakistan (quite unrelated to the War Against Israel) and throughout the region before they bite the American public. The established governments throughout the Muslim world are being de-stabilized with little hope that any of these countries will be more friendly toward the United States under new management. This is all happening on President O'Bama's watch. Many of these situations are bringing the O'Bama Administration under severe criticism from its political opponents (and even amongst its allies). Faced with this criticism, President O'Bama has returned to his "Plan A" thesis established on day two of his Administration: "Solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict and 'all these other problems' go away." Since President Nixon resigned from office, virtually every one-term President has applied this thesis.
President Bush's policy toward Israel was hardly any better. However, President Bush always had the basic courtesy to mention that Israel had taken MANY risks for peace (i.e. one-sided concessions). In doing so, President Bush avoided the stigma that he was scapegoating Israel.
President O'Bama rarely (if ever) acknowledges past Israeli concessions in the Jewish State's search for peace. Both Administrations demanded more concessions. While I did not appreciate Bush Administration policy on the War Against Israel, at least I appreciated his personal statements acknowledging that Israel was making an effort to pursue peace. President O'Bama's personal statements are void of these acknowledgments. That is why I believe President O'Bama's statements, including his comments last week, scapegoat Israel.
Over the next few days, I hope to share with you some of my thoughts and comments regarding President O'Bama's policy speech last Thursday (May 19 2011) and some of the media/political frakus that has followed. This is the first of a series of comments.
Well! Wadda ya know! The news media LIED.
Sunday morning, May 22 2011, President O’Bama addressed the AIPAC policy conference. It contained statements that were insincere and untrue, but one thing he made certain: He did not use the words “1967 borders” in his Thursday 5/19/11 policy speech. He used the words “1967 LINES” [emphasis mine] in his speech last Thursday.
I haven’t read an exact transcript of last Thursday’s speech, but I’ve listened to President O’Bama’s speech this morning to AIPAC and believe he stated his words exactly as he made them on Thursday.
OK. That’s the good news. The bad news is that President O’Bama continues to call for a Palestinian State with “contiguous borders”. I think we know what that means. This condition was unilaterally INSERTED by the Bush Administration and was never agreed to by the Israelis. Certainly, arrangements for travel between Gaza and the West Bank were discussed during the Clinton Administration, but a Palestinian State with “contiguous borders” was never an ingredient in public U.S. Policy until the Bush Administration. I believe this element has stalled peace talks more than any other American policy.
Lastly, the statement in President O’Bama’s AIPAC speech that he will prevent Israel from being “singled out at the U.N. or any other international forum” is a bold-faced LIE. Time and time again, this President has singled Israel out as the soul source of failure in peace talks. The constant harangue that “Israel must act boldly to advance a lasting peace” is the routine line. The numerous territorial and political concessions by Israel, have been met with no reciprocation, end-of-violence, end of incitement, or even continuing negotiations. The obvious conclusion that these calls on Israel to "act boldly to advance a lasting peace" are demands for one-sided concessions.
And frankly, I’ve grown tired of people who are not Israeli citizens routinely saying that “Israel should….”, or worse, “Israel must….”.
As an American, I believe my President needs to stop making policy statements that he knows (darn well) the news media will deliberately interpret as demands on Israel, one-sided or otherwise. The news media clearly mis-reported his speech.
Public opinion drives public policy. News reporting shapes public opinion. If the President stops making these kinds of policy statements, few will question his claim of support for Israel.
If you're like me, you've probably been following the rescue effort being mounted in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan recently. I encourage you to donate money to the rescue effort. The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee has established a Japan/Pacific Disaster Relief fund. I encourage you to make a donation immediately.
I pray to Gd in heaven, the Japanese people are not further harmed by the damage done to their nuclear power plants. So far, so good! The containment buildings haven't been breached. Though several Japanese nuclear plant workers have made heroic sacrifices for the public good, the likelihood of a Chernobyl scenario still looks remote in the short term. Cleaning up the mess might take years and cost a lot of money, but so far the public appears safe. While it can't be comfortable living in evacuation, at least those living near the effected reactors enjoy the supreme gift of life and will ultimately recover.
Unfortunately, this is not the purpose of my column. Moreover, I have very mixed feelings about leveraging a current event tragedy like this to make a political statement on an unrelated matter. Japan needs our help, but something else needs to be said.
You see, in the wake of the Japan quake and tsunami, there has been a lot of discussion among all nations about the safety of their civilian nuclear power plants. Some nations that were considering building new plants are thinking twice. Americans are wondering if "it could happen here" and what we're doing to make certain our commercial nuclear power plants can withstand natural disasters. Suddenly, everybody seems concerned about nuclear safety EXCEPT IRAN and that's the point of this post.
For years Iran has given mixed signals about their nuclear "program". Frankly, I think the Iranian nuclear program is a weapons program and they do little to disguise it. Nonetheless, there are many people in denial about this.
Now we have virtually all industrialized nations worried about the safety of their nuclear power plants. For some strange reason, no such public discussion seems to emanate from Iran. If Iran's nuclear research program were really for "peaceful purposes', I would think they'd be talking about increasing safety and foregoing the construction of new plants. Don't hold your breath, folks!
Iran's nuclear program is for making weapons to attack America. If you don't believe me, you'll know soon enough. When all the industrialized nations of the world re-examine their civilian nuclear power production facilities, I fully expect Iran to forge ahead in their nuclear research as if nothing at all has happened in Japan. When that happens, there will be no longer any doubt as to the purpose of Iran's nuclear research program. If my prediction is correct, all question as to the intent of Iran's nuclear research program should be evident for all to see.
So keep those Japan/Pacific donations coming in folks! Just remember! This won't slow down the Iranian nuclear weapons program. For Iran, the nuclear jihad must go on.
Today is election day; a day that reminds us that our republic was founded on the slogan of: "Taxation without representation is tyranny". Indeed, no matter how you view Republicans, Democrats and their respective philosophies on taxation and spending, we get to vote them in and out of office every so often.
This year, we have the phenomenon of the "Tea Party"; a party of conservative "pure constitutionalists" who can probably speak for themselves better than I can with regard to what they stand for. For the most part, with no exceptions that I am aware of, the "Tea Party" candidates are all Republicans theoretically from the more conservative wing of the party.
Therein lies the problem with the "Tea Party" for in the end, these are the same Republicans who voted in George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush to the White House without protest. It puzzles me. After all, the "Tea Party" appears to be named after the "Boston Tea Party" which was for all practical purposes, a militia attack against an English ship carrying Tea which bore a tax that the colonists objected to. "Taxation without representation is tyranny", that's what the Boston Tea Party was about, but today, things are much different.
Today, the prime example of taxation without representation is the illegal and tyrannical manipulation of world petroleum prices by the Saudi-led OPEC cartel. The amount of wealth being siphoned off the industrialized countries is staggering. The OPEC cartel serves as the greatest threat to America's freedom and independence since the World War II. The horrific impact that this oppressive tax has on developing countries is devastating literally in terms of malnutrition and disease that these countries cannot control due to their petroleum bill. Yet for all the cruel tyranny the OPEC cartel inflicts upon us all, nowhere during the political debate have I seen this "Tea Party" address OPEC's oppressive taxation without representation. Given the fact that all the "Tea Party" candidates are Republican, it leaves me to wonder whether they're any different than the same old politicians we already have.
It might feel good to vote Tea Party candidates in office today and I don't discourage you from doing so if that is your wish. I'll merely point out to you that two years from now, you're likely to be thinking "We've been here and done that before. Why did we think it would be different this time?"
For all that is being said, I don't support the Cordoba House. I think Muslims have a right to build it. They have a right to build it right there at Ground Zero where they can insult the United States. The problem is this: they could NOT build it there or anywhere if they didn't have MONEY gained from the illegal manipulation of petroleum prices by Saudi Arabia and OPEC.
The strategic path to victory in the war against Islamic terrorism is the elimination of petroleum as the prime mover of our transportation system. As long as that doesn't change, Muslims will continue to receive enormous amounts of cash to do with as they wish. They'll buy our politicians; newspaper editors, college professors, judges, supreme court justices, bureaucrats, city councils, zoning boards, corporate executives etc. They'll build skyscrapers wherever they want. At the going rate, they'll have enough money to buy majority shares in the Fortune 500 in a few years.
The Cordoba House plan is merely a symptom of the disease. At best it can be delayed. As long as the wealth of the Western World continues to flow into the hands of Saudi Wahabbists, Muslims will buy whatever money will buy.
There are solutions to this problem in our hands today. They are discussed elsewhere in this blog. Unfortunately, those who are in the pocket of Saudi Arabia have mounted a furious public relations effort to oppose these solutions.
A lot of people wonder why American Jews vote predominantly for Democrats particularly in Presidential elections. For example, Barack O’Bama recorded 77% of the Jewish vote in 2008 in spite of considerable concern regarding his pastor, Jeremiah Wright and his association with other people known for their hostility toward Jews. Even now, with President O’Bama’s popularity dropping, 47% of Jewish Americans recently polled said they would vote to re-elect him if a Presidential election was held today.
Some people shake their head in amazement. They wonder how this can be given some of the foreign relations problems, particularly with regard to U.S.-Israel relations, that have occurred during President O’Bama’s first 18 months in office. I won’t list those problems here, but I think most of my readers are familiar with at least a few of those issues.
There are a lot of theories about why American Jews vote for Democrats and lean toward liberal views. I’ve heard a lot of them and I understand these theories. I also dismiss them. I have my own theory that I’d like to share with you.
The vast majority of Jewish-Americans are descendants of a wave of immigration from Eastern Europe that occurred between 1890 and 1927. Most of these Jews lived in the “Pale of Settlement” of Eastern Europe. This region was ruled directly or indirectly by the Czar of Russia for most of this period.
It would be an understatement to say that the Russian Czars were anti-Semitic. Moreover, the last Russian Czar, Nicholas II was fully willing to use anti-Semitism to divert public discontent away from his critics and toward a common scapegoat. Nicholas II was the last Czar to rule Russia and was overthrown in 1917 by a coalition of Socialists, Social Democrats, and of course Communists.
Thus, during the period of Jewish immigration, the primary opposition to the hated and anti-Semitic Czar were leftists and those who at the very least, sympathized with the leftists’ opposition to the Czar. When the new Americans came ashore and looked around, the party that best resembled the opposition to the Czar was the Democratic Party. Thus came a natural relationship between Jewish-Americans and the Democratic Party; one that has transcended several generations. In other words, Jews vote predominantly Democratic because the Democratic Party best resembles the traditional opponents of the Czarist regime from which our ancestors fled.
This theory might not be so evident to you, but it became evident to me in the 1990’s when I formulated it. During that period, there was a second, smaller wave of Jewish immigration to the United States from the former U.S.S.R. Anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union didn’t die with Czar Nicholas II. It remained a manifest policy of state. The Soviet Union's open assistance to those wishing to destroy the Jewish State are a matter of fact. While Soviet Jews assimilated under the force of the Communist regime, they still faced considerable discrimination regardless of their efforts to be good citizens.
The primary opposition to the Communist regime in the U.S.S.R. were those who supported free market economics in conjunction with personal political freedom. To these opponents of the Communism, personal political freedom could not come about in the U.S.S.R. without economic freedom.
When the U.S.S.R. dissolved, its Jewish population left in droves. Most went to Israel where there were relatives and government programs in place to absorb them. Others came to the United States where there were also relatives and a significant mixture of private and public programs in place to help them start their lives anew.
These new Jewish-Americans identify with those who opposed the anti-Semitic Communist regime in the U.S.S.R. As they looked around the American political landscape, they found that it was the Republican Party that best resembled the opposition to the old country’s repressive regime. To nobody’s surprise, these new Jewish-Americans are attracted to the political party that best resembles the opposition to the repressive Communist regime. That is why these new Jewish-Americans from the former Soviet Union predominantly vote Republican. I do not find that surprising.
In summary, my thesis is that Jewish-Americans tend to support the Democratic Party because it best represents the opposition to the government from which our ancestors fled. This thesis is re-enforced by the phenomenon that Jewish-Americans who have fled the former Soviet Union tend to support the Republican Party because it too, best represents the opposition to the government from which they fled.
I have had the great pleasure of working with Christian Zionists and have found the REAL reason Christians support Israel on a religious basis. I shall now plaigerize the book STANDING WITH ISRAEL - WHY CHRISTIANS SUPPORT THE JEWISH STATE by David Brog.
In Genesis 12:3, God promises Abraham that, "I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you." The "you" employed here is a plural, referring to Abraham and his descendants, that is Israel. To a dispensationalist, therefore, Genesis 12:3 practically commands philo-Semitism and Zionism. Genesis 12:3 is Christian Zionism in a nutshell.
This then, is the REAL reason why many American Christian evangelicals support Israel. They believe it is a Gd-given commandment. I just thought you should know.
On public forums and blogs, I keep hearing the same hysterical rant from Conservatives; many of them my friends. It's all rather meaningless name-calling and resembles much of the nonsense I heard from Liberals about President Bush.
When we see the current O'Bama Administration embracing Hugo Chavez, Conservative commentators froth at the mouth. The Administration says it was just being polite to another foreign leader. When we see Administration policy that supports "affordable health care", Conservatives holler "SOCIALISM". The Administration replies that they are pursuing policy widely supported during the 2008 election. When the President appoints people like Van Jones, well... Conservatives go ballistic, but they can't articulate why others should be concerned.
Yet there's one basic concern about President O'Bama that my Conservative friends fail to articulate time and time again; hard as they try. That basic concern is this: During his formative years as a young adult, Barack O'Bama kept close company with people who hold America in VERY low esteem.
Therein lies the basic concern many in "middle America" have with our President. Too bad Conservatives can't articulate it and explain it effectively to the American public.
Let's face it folks! Israel is the only nation where the recommended remedy to its national sins (real, imagined and mostly invented) is permanent national destruction.
I've been saying that for many years, but thought I'd mention it now for the record.
I voted for Al Gore. I voted for Clinton twice. Unfortunately, I was never liberal ENOUGH because I don't hate Israel.
In his day, Al Gore was a heck of a good public servant. When he lost the 2000 election, he lost his marbles. He went insane. I knew it because I loved him.
Perhaps it was best that he lost that election. In September 2001, when he showed up to President Bush's address to the joint session of Congress, he was bearded and had obviously gained a lot of weight.
George Bush delivered his address, basking in the glory of support from a nation rallying around our President. Al Gore was irrelevant and he knew it. It ate at him. It tore at his self-identity.
In the following years, Al Gore sought relevancy in the American policy-making field by pushing his "global warming" fear. It led to an Academy Award and a Nobel Peace Prize. It was not enough! It was not enough to sooth his loss of sanity. Indeed, his loss of sanity had led to the herculean effort to bring the irrational fear of "global warming" to the forefront of national and international policy making.
Having won all the accolades and adoring attention of throngs of followers, it is only natural that all this made his insanity worse. I saw the signs; others did not. But now, ten years later, we are finally seeing the signs that the bulletproof "Gorebot" is a man of flesh and blood; susceptible to all the things that fame, fortune and international attention provide. Who knows! Perhaps we'll find that he's another "Tiger Woods". Or maybe it's just that his insanity became too much for Tipper to bear. Eventually, we'll find out the details.
In the mean time, I'm not gloating over this. I just think it's important to say that I saw Al Gore crumble badly after the election of 2000. I'm not entirely surprised this happened, but I wish it hadn't.
Why is it that I can't build a house in Jerusalem? I'm Jewish! Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish People.
Nobody questioned whether a black man could move into the White House, the capital of the United States. Certainly not Jewish-Americans, 77% of whom voted for Barack O'Bama to be our President.
So why does this administration have such a problem with Jews building homes in Jerusalem and moving to the eternal capital of the Jewish People? Archaeological evidence shows that Jews founded Jerusalem 3000 years ago. Our liturgy mentions Jerusalem early and often as the capital of our people. It's only natural for Jews to live in Jerusalem.
I don't get it! Certainly in the history of mankind, far more cruel acts against humanity have been perpetrated than the mere building of houses. And let's face it! If someone said that blacks couldn't build homes in a neighborhood where they wanted, we'd hear a never-ending complaint of "racism" consistent with the American movement against segregation. That would be the morally correct position; one I would strongly support.
But for some reason, when Jews build homes in Jerusalem, it's a big federal case. Anti-Semitic Arabs get upset and our State Department thinks that this means that the Jews are causing a problem. This is an embrace of anti-Semitism by our State Department. I have a problem with that.
Even if someone were to say that Arabs have a sovereign right to forbid Jews to build houses in their country, it would be no less anti-Semitic. Why does the United States government embrace this attitude?
It is wrong; morally wrong. I would like the government of the United States to change it's policy to reflect our own American values that says people can build houses where they want to.
If the United States State Department felt insulted by Israel building homes in Jerusalem, let me make it clear that I feel no less insulted by the United State State Department when they tell me that I can't build a house in Jerusalem because I'm Jewish.
