JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rubystars on November 30, 2007, 12:15:51 AM
-
deleted by author
-
I agree with you in most ways, I always like Ron Pauls stance on firearm ownership. As Newman has said, I really think Ron Paul is a blessing in disguise. I know many won't agree with me.
This is the only way I can really defend Ron Paul, I know there has been talk that he is a anti-semite because he "appeals" to anti-semites. Think of it from this perspective.
I am a political activist. I have been involved in many political protests against illegal immigration with the minutemen and what not, we get a lot of criticism from leftists and liberals and Mexicans, what's worse is sometimes we get people that show up who are in the KKK or part of StørmFrønt or Neo Nazis. They don't always identify as one but they start talking about the same issues we do then people say "Hey if you are against illegal immigration, you must support neo nazis!" this is just a comparison.
I am a advocate of gun rights, in many of my gun debates, unfortunately guns are viewed in a bad light. I say how guns have been used for good purposes and some liberal will say how crazy rednecks and nazis love guns and claim i'm some right wing extremeist red neck with a confederate flag on my wall (well I do have a confederate flag living in the south). They associate gun owners as redneck racist white trailer park trash.
Judaism, you know what? I am Jewish, Nazis accuse me of being a liberal leftist neo-con who supports homosexuality, gay marriage, gun control, communism, hollywood, pornography, globalism, the war on Iraq, and democrats. Guess what, some people who happen to be Jewish (or self hating Jews) do, does that make all Jews liberals or supporters of homosexuality, gay marriage, gun control, communism and whatever else? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Heck JTF is living breathing proof of that.
Guys the point I am trying to make is yes Ron Paul has stated things that are taken out of context.
Not every person who is critical to Israel is a anti-semite, i'll give you an example. Most of us "HATE" our current government. We do NOT hate America. We HATE the government and some of the people here, just like we do not HATE Israel, we HATE the current person in power (OLMERT). We HATE that Sharon sold the Israeli people out. Unfortunately some people find it easier to critisize Israel as a whole rather than the people in power. You are going to get vast variety of people that support Ron Paul on this for different reasons.
Some people support him because they do not agree with foreign aid to Israel, now this could be because they hate Israel that they are neo nazis and muslims, this could be because people don't support the situation going on in Israel today, this could be because we simply do not want to send foreign aid to any country to be fair, and this could also be because we don't want to see Israel become a welfare state (like myself). There are various purposes for supporting this.
9/11, same. Ron Paul never said that 9/11 was a conspiracy, he never said 9/11 was a inside job nor did he blame America or Israel. He blamed US policy which is quite a bit different. This again can be taken into context.
Some conspiracy nuts associate this as that 9/11 was a inside job by the government, therefore they support Ron Paul and use this to their agenda. Some neo nazis use this and claim it is our alliance to Israel or that it was done by Israel. Others like myself simply feel that our involvement in the middle east gave them a reason to attack us.
Intervention. Ron Paul abides by the founding fathers that they were against intervention. Some may feel that this is similar to the democrats that he doesn't want to fight and wants to back down, some feel Ron Paul is doing it because he is sympathetic to muslims, others like myself feel he doesn't want to get involved because he simply doesn't see Iran as a threat to the United States and this is moreso a threat to Israel and they are capable of taking out Iran by themselves.
The point I am making here is that Ron Paul does not have a agenda, He is not an anti-semite, you must realize that people are using Ron Paul for their own political agendas. Think of it from their viewpoint how he benefits them, then think of Ron Paul how he benefits you.
To the Nazi, Ron Paul benefits them because they figure (please note these quotes are sarcastic)
"Hey this guys against illegal immigration, we all know how Jews love illegal immigration to destroy white culture"
"Hey he believes 9/11 was a sham, we all know those Jews and Israel did it!"
"Hey he's against foreign aid, no more aid to the zionists woo hoo!"
"Hey he supports guns, we all know those Jews support gun control for the new world order!"
"Hey he's against the war in Iran, we all know Zionists are mad about this because we won't fight their war for them!"
"Hey he's against the IRS, no more money for Israel!"
Now reverse that and think how he benefits us, the Jews
"Hey this guys against illegal immigration, so are we, illegal immigrants are destroying this country"
"Hey this guys against foreign aid, not only will Israel be free from US money with strings attached, but US will no longer funds Israels enemies!"
"Hey he supports guns, nazis took away guns from Jews, this guy supports the constitution and believes in getting rids of backround checks"
"Hey this guys against the IRS, the 16th amendment was never ratified and we have more money to spend for private college or stocks or whatever, good for business"
Guys the point i'm making is you can make Ron Paul out to what you want him to be, you can make him out to be a Nazi, you can make him out to be a Muslim sympathizer, you can make him out to be a Anti-Semitic Jew hating bastard, whatever you want. The problem is, you are projecting your views on him because unfortunately there are anti-semites who happen to support him and muslims who support him. Would you not vote for Guiliani or Hunter or Huckabee if Nazis were donating money to him?
Even Ron Paul said, he doesn't screen donations, he doesn't question who sends him money, he only cares about freedom or liberty. Isn't that what America is about? You guys really need to look at the bigger picture, the Nazis and the White Supremists are the fools for voting for him, the Nazis are practically opposite of what Ron Paul supports.
Sorry if anything I said was taken the wrong way but I don't view Ron Paul as evil.
"
-
By attempting to blame the Iraq War on AIPAC, are you attempting to blame it on Jews?
Maybe AIPAC supported the Iraq War but in no way should the idea of the Iraq War be attributed to them.
You are repeating false propaganda.
Some politicians said that the war would make security in the region safer. Some politicians probably to AIPAC that the Iraq War would improve Israel's security. So people affiliated with AIPAC who supported the Iraq War were probably wrong to believe the politicians.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Don't be making accusations like that when you misinformed.
-
Ron Paul is practicing Nazi taqqiyah.
He says he is a non-interventionist, but really wants America to enter an alliance with Syria, Lebanon, and Iran.
He is a filthy liar.
If he is such a neutral person on the subject of Israel, then why does he hang out with and accept checks and endorsements from white supremacists all over the world?
-
"Israel espionage in America"
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Most politicians know that Jonathan Pollard was correct and that they were wrong. They keep him in jail because they have no respect for Israel and they try to use him as a pawn for political purposes against Israel with threats that the only way he'd ever get released is if Israel makes concessions--to those who hate Israel.
-
Ron Paul is practicing Nazi taqqiyah.
He says he is a non-interventionist, but really wants America to enter an alliance with Syria, Lebanon, and Iran.
He is a filthy liar.
If he is such a neutral person on the subject of Israel, then why does he hang out with and accept checks and endorsements from white supremacists all over the world?
Ok please provide the evidence where he wants america to enter an alliance with Syria, Lebanon and Iran.
-
Have you looked at his voting record, read his essays and editorials, or listened to Chaim during Ask JTF?
-
Have you looked at his voting record, read his essays and editorials, or listened to Chaim during Ask JTF?
Yeah I have, i've read plenty of his essays, voting record and watched both of Chaims videos on it. I have NEVER heard of him wanting to ally with Syria or Iran or Lebanon. Where has he actually said "I support an alliance with Lebanon and Syria" or what not? He's never said that.
-
Did you read any of what he said about Israel and Hezbollah last summer?
-
Did you read any of what he said about Israel and Hezbollah last summer?
Yes I've seen the article, he also wrote a very interesting article about foreign aid how in many ways we fund Israel but at the same time we fund Israels enemies and we continue to fuel the fire in the region and that we shouldn't be involved. He has never chose one side over the other. He has also spoken on terrorism before. He is not directly opposed to the war on terror as he has wrote said articles about it but feels the war in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with it and our soldiers in Saudi gave the terrorists a reason to attack the world trade center on 9/11. That doesn't mean he directly blames Americans for this but rather foreign policy. There is quite a difference.
And where are these comments coming from that when Ron Paul talks about Neo Cons he's talking about Jews? We critisize Neo Cons all the time here, Chaim has done it as well and we have stated that most are not actually Jewish (though unfortunately some are). Why is it ok for us to call people Neo Cons but if someone else does it, they are using it as a secret code word for Jew? That doesn't even make sense.
-
From an American perspective it can certainly SEEM like all Jews are either neocons or outright liberals, even communists. I know of course that isn't true for all Jews. I don't think you can find a quotation from Ron Paul saying that either. If so, I'd like to see it. I think if there was much dirt to dig up on Paul it would have been out by now. The globalist neocons certainly want to destroy his campaign.
What is certainly true is that most of the globalist organizations, gay rights organizations, feminist organizations, civil rights organizations, pro-immigration organizations, and other civilization rotting groups tend to be either run by Jews or have many Jewish (mostly nonreligious, but some religious) members. This is not anti-Semitism or anti-Jewish to state. It is simply the truth. I'm curious to know JTF's views of these groups and those who run them.
I'd like to stop these groups from harming all people. They want to wipe out our racial and cultural identities and religions.
They're also harming Jewish people in particular by causing anti-Semitic feelings among non-Jews. As has been stated in this thread, when people realize that all these Jewish run groups are harming their nations, and threatening their cultural values and identity, they begin to blame, guess who? The Jews! I call this the "name and blame game". It's not a game though, because it will have deadly serious consequences for innocent Jews who don't have anything to do with this evil stuff that some Jews (and evil gentile helpers) are involved in.
If Ron Paul helps to stop some of these organizations from getting any further with their diabolical plans then there should be a drop in anti-Jewish hatred as well. If you want to prevent another Holocaust scenario then you need to fight day and night against these groups like the CFR and others which are causing hatred against Jews to grow stronger.
I honestly see Ron Paul and other paleocons as one ingredient in the antidote to this globalist mess. Another ingredient that's needed is for good moral Jews to stand up to these corrupt organizations and try to put a stop to them.
I've often been very annoyed by the fact that Muslim imams will not condemn terrorism. This is probably because terrorism is part of their religion.
I'd like to think that Jews are much smarter and more moral in general than Muslims. However, I'm also becoming annoyed by the fact that Jewish leaders are not, by and large, standing up to the likes of these groups in a visible and public way. I think to stop a tide of hatred they need to stand up and have their voice heard before it's too late.
Ruby, I understand where you are coming from. When I grew up in Chicago, I always noticed that much of the Jewish population downtown was very liberal. I used to have a perspective thinking "WHY ARE SO MANY JEWS LIKE THIS WHY!", I just assumed most Jews were like that politically because that's where I grew up. We never left the city. But you know what I realized? These traits that are attached to Jews as being liberals or leftists is not actually a Jewish trait at all, the problem wasn't Jews, it was liberalism.
I took a look at the bigger picture, I noticed that most Jews tend to stick to cities in their own communities. I left the city and I moved to the south isolated from everyone, living amongst the gentiles. At first I thought the right wing ideology was indifferent but I felt at home.
I think the problem is that Jews like any other minority have always felt at home in the city, infact many of the Jews living in the city aren't acting Jewish at all when they vote left wing. When a Jew in Chicago votes Democrat, they are acting like a Chicagoan, when a Jew in New York votes for a democrat, they are acting like a typical New Yorker. These behaviors are not Jewish influenced at all but I could never get that through my head at the time.
I think the problem with Nazis is the same, I'm never going to make excuses for a Nazi but instead of blaming the real problems on a political ideology or a person for their own behavior, they flat out attack us for their problems or the problems in society.
I've mentioned I am a large gun activist, and I used to notice a huge trend of politicians who happened to be Jewish who opposed gun rights, I figured "Why are Jews so anti-gun?" because that's all I saw, I associated Jews with being anti-gun (despite me being one myself) and thought I was out of the norm. One day I woke up and saw an organization called the JPFO. I finally felt I could agree with someone. I realized this isn't Jewish behavior. At the same time, I started wondering, why didn't I start blaming Irish Catholics for being anti-gun or liberal, or how about Europeans who are even more liberal and socialist than us? Because it's not Jewish or Irish to be anti-gun, these people chose these political positions because they are evil people suiting their own agendas.
It's the same way nazis always call Jews communists because Karl Marx had Jewish Parents or Lenin had Jewish background in his family somewhere. Yet these very people were against the principals of being Jewish in the first place.
Everytime I hear of someone with Jewish background being involved in something leftist, I used to want to run my head into a wall, now I don't really care anymore. You know what? They may be Jewish but they don't represent Judaism, they represent themselves when they make a decision.
-
moRON Paul
-
From an American perspective it can certainly SEEM like all Jews are either neocons or outright liberals, even communists. I know of course that isn't true for all Jews. I don't think you can find a quotation from Ron Paul saying that either. If so, I'd like to see it. I think if there was much dirt to dig up on Paul it would have been out by now. The globalist neocons certainly want to destroy his campaign.
What is certainly true is that most of the globalist organizations, gay rights organizations, feminist organizations, civil rights organizations, pro-immigration organizations, and other civilization rotting groups tend to be either run by Jews or have many Jewish (mostly nonreligious, but some religious) members. This is not anti-Semitism or anti-Jewish to state. It is simply the truth. I'm curious to know JTF's views of these groups and those who run them.
I'd like to stop these groups from harming all people. They want to wipe out our racial and cultural identities and religions.
They're also harming Jewish people in particular by causing anti-Semitic feelings among non-Jews. As has been stated in this thread, when people realize that all these Jewish run groups are harming their nations, and threatening their cultural values and identity, they begin to blame, guess who? The Jews! I call this the "name and blame game". It's not a game though, because it will have deadly serious consequences for innocent Jews who don't have anything to do with this evil stuff that some Jews (and evil gentile helpers) are involved in.
If Ron Paul helps to stop some of these organizations from getting any further with their diabolical plans then there should be a drop in anti-Jewish hatred as well. If you want to prevent another Holocaust scenario then you need to fight day and night against these groups like the CFR and others which are causing hatred against Jews to grow stronger.
I honestly see Ron Paul and other paleocons as one ingredient in the antidote to this globalist mess. Another ingredient that's needed is for good moral Jews to stand up to these corrupt organizations and try to put a stop to them.
I've often been very annoyed by the fact that Muslim imams will not condemn terrorism. This is probably because terrorism is part of their religion.
I'd like to think that Jews are much smarter and more moral in general than Muslims. However, I'm also becoming annoyed by the fact that Jewish leaders are not, by and large, standing up to the likes of these groups in a visible and public way. I think to stop a tide of hatred they need to stand up and have their voice heard before it's too late.
You are repeating the same false accusations against Jews that Jew haters have always used. Why don't you tell the truth and admit if you're a Nazi-supporter?
-
moRON Paul
That's all you have to say? Read what's been said in this thread.
-
moRON Paul
Thank you for contributing to the thread, such words of wisdom! ::)
-
moRON Paul
That's all you have to say? Read what's been said in this thread.
What else is there to say?
I don't think Ron Paul hates Jews or Israel but I do think his argument that a cabal of Jewish neocons are pushing Israel's interests at the expense of the United States' is completely invalid.
Ron Paul could even argue that a cabal of Jewish neocons are pushing what they perceive as Israel's interests and that would still be wrong.
The case has been made, time and again, that the neocons promote a CFR/globalist agenda which believes that democracy and neoliberal economics is what will bring stability and security to all regions of the world.
-
moRON Paul
That's all you have to say? Read what's been said in this thread.
What else is there to say?
I don't think Ron Paul hates Jews or Israel but I do think his argument that a cabal of Jewish neocons are pushing Israel's interests at the expense of the United States' is completely invalid.
Ron Paul could even argue that a cabal of Jewish neocons are pushing what they perceive as Israel's interests and that would still be wrong.
The case has been made, time and again, that the neocons promote a CFR/globalist agenda which believes that democracy is what will bring stability and security to all regions of the world.
Ok but we made it clear not all Neocons are Jews, other than that, is it wrong to critisize a Neocon if the individual that takes such a political position is indeed a person who practices Judaism or is considered Jewish? I don't the person being Jewish or not should matter. The issue is Neocons, not Jews.
-
moRON Paul
That's all you have to say? Read what's been said in this thread.
What else is there to say?
I don't think Ron Paul hates Jews or Israel but I do think his argument that a cabal of Jewish neocons are pushing Israel's interests at the expense of the United States' is completely invalid.
Ron Paul could even argue that a cabal of Jewish neocons are pushing what they perceive as Israel's interests and that would still be wrong.
The case has been made, time and again, that the neocons promote a CFR/globalist agenda which believes that democracy is what will bring stability and security to all regions of the world.
Ok but we made it clear not all Neocons are Jews, other than that, is it wrong to critisize a Neocon if the individual that takes such a political position is indeed a person who practices Judaism or is considered Jewish? I don't the person being Jewish or not should matter. The issue is Neocons, not Jews.
I think it's fascinating that many of the prominent neocons are Jews given the insignificant percentage of Americans Jews who would identify as neo-conservatives.
-
Neocon is a fake term.
The real term is "globalism." There are politicians affiliated with both political parties are globalists.
-
Neocon is a fake term.
The real term is "globalism." There are politicians affiliated with both political parties are globalists.
When I think of Neocon, I think of mainstream republicans that support authoritarian garbage and political correctness, people that work with the world community though you may call it globalist if you want, those that claim loyalty to Israel but are really loyal to a two state solution and foreign aid, those that claim they support the constitution but tax us on our labor and pass restrictive gun control laws, those that claim to build a border fence and allow illegals in. Basically they are nothing more than Liberals who have infiltrated the Republican party. Romney is a perfect example of that who used to be a liberal and became a lobbyist quicking switching his views when it benefitted him.
If the majority of Neo Cons as you claim are truely of Jewish background, then why shouldn't we critisize them? It is our duty to educate fellow Jews so they do not follow in their footsteps. It isn't anti-semitic for us to critisize a fellow Jew. It shouldn't be anti-semitic for anyone to question a person of any ethnic background because of their political agenda. I mean, put it this way, doesn't it [censored] you off when Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton make a outlandish statement and then when you critisize them, they claim your racist or anti-black? We are not anti-black for calling them out on disputes in regards to their political agenda.
-
You are repeating the same false accusations against Jews that Jew haters have always used. Why don't you tell the truth and admit if you're a Nazi-supporter?
If I said I was a Nazi-supporter, I'd be lying. I'm being honest about my feelings and my observations.
I am a proud white gentile woman and a Christian. According to some groups, that's enough right there to get labeled as a Nazi, but I'm certainly not that. I wouldn't bother to be here if I felt that way.
I didn't realize that you had to be PC on this board or I wouldn't have come. If I step over the line then I trust a moderator will let me know, and I'll tone it down, but I don't think I've said anything hateful. On the contrary, I want to prevent genocide, both of my people and yours.
I see a very real danger looming on the horizon for Jews, coming from angry white gentiles who are blaming all Jews instead of the perpetrators of this mess, and I also see a real danger on the horizon from certain groups of extremist Jews toward my people.
I would think for such a dilemma, this would be one of the best possible forums if not the best forum for me to discuss it and get perspective on it.
I think the dilemma is real, and I think it needs to be resolved for innocent people (both Jew and Gentile) to be safe.
I've proposed a couple of steps to help solve it, but I'm sure that the people on this board could think of more constructive ways to mend these wounds.
What do you mean your people?
JTF is an alliance of Jews and Christians.
Angry white gentiles? Are you referring to StørmFrønt?
You made accusations against Jonathan Pollard without defending them:
http://www.jonathanpollard.org/facts.htm
-
Just because the war in Iraq didn't turn out to be good for Israel after all, that doesn't mean that certain groups, like AIPAC, weren't pushing for the Iraq war. You may call them self-hating, but I don't see how you can deny their input into the push for the Iraq war and now for Iran.
I would like evidence for your assertion that AIPAC 'pushed' for war with Iraq. Also, I would like evidence of their 'undeniable push' for war with Iran. Lastly, I would like you to rate, on a scale of 1-10 how influential AIPAC was in the drive to go to war (with 10 being the most).
I think it is very possible to be supportive of Israel as a nation, yet hate the Israeli lobbyists, Israeli espionage in America, and other things related to those.
Who are the Israeli lobbyists? Define this term. Also, please give examples of Israeli espionage in America
I don't understand why they're actually pushing so hard for something that's ultimately going to harm Israel, and yet, claim to be working for Israeli interest.
Where is the proof of this claim?
I want there to continue to be friendly relations between Israel and the United States, but I want that relationship to be much different than it currently is.
Tell me how you think Israel's alliances would change/stay the same if the U.S. stopped providing it funding.
Stop babbling and please use logic to support your simplifications and/or outright lies.
-
Neocon is a fake term.
The real term is "globalism." There are politicians affiliated with both political parties are globalists.
When I think of Neocon, I think of mainstream republicans that support authoritarian garbage and political correctness, people that work with the world community though you may call it globalist if you want, those that claim loyalty to Israel but are really loyal to a two state solution and foreign aid, those that claim they support the constitution but tax us on our labor and pass restrictive gun control laws, those that claim to build a border fence and allow illegals in. Basically they are nothing more than Liberals who have infiltrated the Republican party. Romney is a perfect example of that who used to be a liberal and became a lobbyist quicking switching his views when it benefitted him.
If the majority of Neo Cons as you claim are truely of Jewish background, then why shouldn't we critisize them? It is our duty to educate fellow Jews so they do not follow in their footsteps. It isn't anti-semitic for us to critisize a fellow Jew. It shouldn't be anti-semitic for anyone to question a person of any ethnic background because of their political agenda. I mean, put it this way, doesn't it [censored] you off when Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton make a outlandish statement and then when you critisize them, they claim your racist or anti-black? We are not anti-black for calling them out on disputes in regards to their political agenda.
STOP USING THE TERM NEO-GON.
THERE ARE POLITICIANS FROM BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES WHO ARE GLOBALISTS. HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS HAVE TO BE REPEATED?
DON'T REPEAT MISINFORMATION.
-
Just because the war in Iraq didn't turn out to be good for Israel after all, that doesn't mean that certain groups, like AIPAC, weren't pushing for the Iraq war. You may call them self-hating, but I don't see how you can deny their input into the push for the Iraq war and now for Iran.
I would like evidence for your assertion that AIPAC 'pushed' for war with Iraq. Also, I would like evidence of their 'undeniable push' for war with Iran. Lastly, I would like you to rate, on a scale of 1-10 how influential AIPAC was in the drive to go to war (with 10 being the most).
I think it is very possible to be supportive of Israel as a nation, yet hate the Israeli lobbyists, Israeli espionage in America, and other things related to those.
Who are the Israeli lobbyists? Define this term. Also, please give examples of Israeli espionage in America
I don't understand why they're actually pushing so hard for something that's ultimately going to harm Israel, and yet, claim to be working for Israeli interest.
Where is the proof of this claim?
I want there to continue to be friendly relations between Israel and the United States, but I want that relationship to be much different than it currently is.
Tell me how you think Israel's alliances would change/stay the same if the U.S. stopped providing it funding.
Not all Israeli lobbyists are loyal to Israel in it's original form. That's like the United Kingdom saying they'll give us money if we give up the southwest chunk of America to Mexico so that they can retain peaceful terms with the rest of south america.
Heck, on youtube, people claim Hilary Clinton is a Zionist. You guys know she's not a Zionist. AIPAC composes of many people that are supposedly in support of Israel from different political parties. That really depends what you consider a Zionist. Hillary Clinton supports the two state solution, same with Giuliani and Bush. They pledge money to Israel but does that make them loyal Zionists? Absolutely not. These are the people that harm Israel.
-
Neocon is a fake term.
The real term is "globalism." There are politicians affiliated with both political parties are globalists.
When I think of Neocon, I think of mainstream republicans that support authoritarian garbage and political correctness, people that work with the world community though you may call it globalist if you want, those that claim loyalty to Israel but are really loyal to a two state solution and foreign aid, those that claim they support the constitution but tax us on our labor and pass restrictive gun control laws, those that claim to build a border fence and allow illegals in. Basically they are nothing more than Liberals who have infiltrated the Republican party. Romney is a perfect example of that who used to be a liberal and became a lobbyist quicking switching his views when it benefitted him.
If the majority of Neo Cons as you claim are truely of Jewish background, then why shouldn't we critisize them? It is our duty to educate fellow Jews so they do not follow in their footsteps. It isn't anti-semitic for us to critisize a fellow Jew. It shouldn't be anti-semitic for anyone to question a person of any ethnic background because of their political agenda. I mean, put it this way, doesn't it [censored] you off when Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton make a outlandish statement and then when you critisize them, they claim your racist or anti-black? We are not anti-black for calling them out on disputes in regards to their political agenda.
STOP USING THE TERM NEO-GON.
THERE ARE POLITICIANS FROM BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES WHO ARE GLOBALISTS. HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS HAVE TO BE REPEATED?
DON'T REPEAT MISINFORMATION.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Yeah it's wikipedia but you can look at the citations if you like. This explains the definition.
-
Not all Israeli lobbyists are loyal to Israel in it's original form. That's like the United Kingdom saying they'll give us money if we give up the southwest chunk of America to Mexico so that they can retain peaceful terms with the rest of south america.
Heck, on youtube, people claim Hilary Clinton is a Zionist. You guys know she's not a Zionist. AIPAC composes of many people that are supposedly in support of Israel from different political parties. That really depends what you consider a Zionist. Hillary Clinton supports the two state solution, same with Giuliani and Bush. They pledge money to Israel but does that make them loyal Zionists? Absolutely not. These are the people that harm Israel.
I'm lost with your first statement about Israeli lobbyists. Please define that term. Who are they? Who is part of that lobby and who isn't?
Second, there is an argument that can be made that people who favor a two-state solution are Zionists. Alan Dershowitz and Hillary Clinton have approximately the same view of the conflict. Does that mean Dershowitz is not a Zionist? Of course not. They are both left-wing Zionists.
The term 'Zionist' can be reduced to anyone who supports the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East.
-
Not all Israeli lobbyists are loyal to Israel in it's original form. That's like the United Kingdom saying they'll give us money if we give up the southwest chunk of America to Mexico so that they can retain peaceful terms with the rest of south america.
Heck, on youtube, people claim Hilary Clinton is a Zionist. You guys know she's not a Zionist. AIPAC composes of many people that are supposedly in support of Israel from different political parties. That really depends what you consider a Zionist. Hillary Clinton supports the two state solution, same with Giuliani and Bush. They pledge money to Israel but does that make them loyal Zionists? Absolutely not. These are the people that harm Israel.
I'm lost with your first statement about Israeli lobbyists. Please define that term. Who are they? Who is part of that lobby and who isn't?
Second, there is an argument that can be made that people who favor a two-state solution are Zionists. Alan Dershowitz and Hillary Clinton have approximately the same view of the conflict. Does that mean Dershowitz is not a Zionist? Of course not. They are both left-wing Zionists.
The term 'Zionist' can be reduced to anyone who supports the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East.
How can you call yourself a Zionist yet support a Palestinian state? That's like me saying lets create a Mexican state in the Southwest but yet still waving an American flag. You can't.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Yeah it's wikipedia but you can look at the citations if you like. This explains the definition.
Then what would you categorize liberal globalists as?
-
How can you call yourself a Zionist yet support a PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi state? That's like me saying lets create a Mexican state in the Southwest but yet still waving an American flag. You can't.
I don't favor that meaning but it is certainly valid. A Zionist is anyone who supports Zionism. Zionism is the Jewish nationalist movement to establish a homeland in Eretz Yisrael.
-
The US and Israel had an agreement to share intelligence. Reagan's defense secretary despised Israel so he was intentionally hiding important information. The information that Pollard passed along was not used against US interests. In fact, the government secretly is glad that Israel received the information.
Pollard is kept in jail for other reasons.
-
Here we have Paul comparing Israel to Hezzballah http://towelianism.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/muslims-discover-ron-paul/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Paul stood up in Congress in 2006 and opposed a resolution that sided with Israel in the Lebanon-Israel conflict. He stated the following.
Ron Paul: “Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn’t authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does
-
Here we have Paul comparing Israel to Hezzballah http://towelianism.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/muslims-discover-ron-paul/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Paul stood up in Congress in 2006 and opposed a resolution that sided with Israel in the Lebanon-Israel conflict. He stated the following.
Ron Paul: “Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn’t authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does
The way I read it, it sounds like he was debating over calling one side bad and one side good, that he doesn't favor either side. It doesn't sound like he's comparing Israel to hezballah at all.
-
Here we have Paul comparing Israel to Hezzballah http://towelianism.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/muslims-discover-ron-paul/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Paul stood up in Congress in 2006 and opposed a resolution that sided with Israel in the Lebanon-Israel conflict. He stated the following.
Ron Paul: “Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn’t authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does
The way I read it, it sounds like he was debating over calling one side bad and one side good, that he doesn't favor either side. It doesn't sound like he's comparing Israel to hezballah at all.
He seems to be saying either neither side are terrorists or both sides are terrorists.Forget the part the Hezzballah is a miltia not the army of lebanon,Israel allows red cross visits to arab prisoners ,Israel does'nt even know if it' 2 soldiers are alive
-
Thats not what i mean what i'm saying is that during the debate in congress he went out of his way to compare the IDF to hezzballah
reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians
http://mariahussain.wordpress.com/
-
Rubystars: "...I really never meant anything harmful but reading back over my posts, I may have come on a bit too strong..."
Rubystars,
We here are all meek and mild.
Sweet and agreeable dispositions abound.
We give love, and we....receive love!
SO...WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM?
:'(
-
"It's a non-intervention policy like yours that allowed Hitler to come to power" John McCain on Ron Paul's Policy at the CNN Youtube debate
-
"It's a non-intervention policy like yours that allowed Hitler to come to power" John McCain on Ron Paul's Policy at the CNN Youtube debate
When Hitler came to power, there was no state of Israel, no IDF, no Israeli flag. It was a artificial state at the time created by the British known as the British mandate of Pa1estine. The Jews were only able to rely on themselves at this point and had no weapons to fight back.
Ron Paul simply stated that Israel has the capability to take out Iran and that they have nukes. Israel does not need the US to fight it's battles for her.
-
Rubystars,
According to most polls, at least 75% of Americans supported the war at the time. However, they probably wouldn't have supported how it was managed.
To claim that AIPAC caused 75% of Americans to support the war is a complete distortion and lie.
-
"It's a non-intervention policy like yours that allowed Hitler to come to power" John McCain on Ron Paul's Policy at the CNN Youtube debate
When Hitler came to power, there was no state of Israel, no IDF, no Israeli flag. It was a artificial state at the time created by the British known as the British mandate of Pa1estine. The Jews were only able to rely on themselves at this point and had no weapons to fight back.
Ron Paul simply stated that Israel has the capability to take out Iran and that they have nukes. Israel does not need the US to fight it's battles for her.
Are you saying that nothing should have been done while allies were under invasion?
Israel has never asked the US to fight a battle for it. These are accusations that Israel-haters try to make; don't fall for it.
-
Rubystars, you want us to believe you that you are a legitimate contributor to the forum, but yet ALL you have posted on, so far, is how you support Ron Paul and how the Israeli government's interests are inimical to those of the United States.
Notice a pattern?
-
C.F. ..."you want us to believe you that you are a legitimate contributor to the forum, but yet ALL you have posted on, so far, is how you support Ron Paul and how the Israeli government's interests are inimical to those of the United States..."
As to Rubystar's support of Ron Paul...
Rubystar both supports one of the Republican Party's candidates for their Presidential nomination, and by this choice also supports one ten-term Congressional Member from Texas who each year returns a portion of their Congressional salary back to the United States Federal Government.
Would C.F. rather know that Rubystar supports one of the Democrat Party's candidates and not one from the Republicans?
If Congressman Paul is the worst of all possible choices, then how can the Republican Party consider him as a member and candidate?
Would not this, in and of itself, denote the acceptance and embracing of the totally unacceptable by the Republican National Committee?
Is C.F. inferring that the "interests" of the U.S.A. and the "interests" of The State of Israel and 'one and the same' and do not diverge at some point?
If so...please do explain how Washington's plan for an Israel returned to its pre-1967 "Auschwitz borders" with Jerusalem, Gaza, Judaea, and Samaria recognized as a new Muslim Terror State, combined with Washington's determination to see the Golan Heights given back over to a Ba'athist Dictatorship so that it may be used once again to shell Jewish Land and cut off the source of Israel's water supply, are consistent with Jewish National aspirations.
Apparently my education and understanding are misinformed, so I eagerly await C.F.'s wisdom.
Perhaps C.F. infers that MassuhDGoodName's contributions to this forum are also 'less than legitimate'?
-
Rubystar,
Your concern with the "influence" of AIPAC is based on a media barrage of propaganda which is both myopic and focused only on one fully legal lobbying group, to the total exclusion of all others.
The State of Israel's "peace process" in which it is considering giving land to terrorists, is the result of the U.S.A.'s policy FORCING Israel to do it.
The canard is often spoken and printed, that "the tail [Israel] is wagging the dog [U.S.A.]", but it is a complete lie.
Forty years ago, all of Israel's Arab enemies were funded and militarily supplied by the Communist Soviet Union; Israel being helped by the U.S.A., Western Europe to some degree, and the Union of South Africa.
Today, ALL of Israel's sworn enemies are funded and militarily supplied by the U.S.A. ... Are you thus concluding that AIPAC is working to control American foreign policy?
More Muslims have been brought into the United States under George Bush, than at any time in history.
During the 1990's the Republican leaders planned to "end Republican reliance on the Jewish Vote", and have been importing literally millions of Christian-hating, Jew-hating terrorists from the 6th Century into our American heartland.
To you this indicates that "no President and no Congress and no Senate can say 'NO' to "the Israeli Lobby"?
Arab Muslims just bought 10% of CITIBANK, the largest Bank in the United States.
More undue Jewish influence?
The largest group of influence in Washington is the Saudi presence.
Do just a little research, and you will find that virtually every Government official from Presidents to Legislators have been totally and completely "compromised" with Saudi money.
Guess who funds the largest part of all "Presidential Library" funds?
Guess who assures all State Department officials a retirement of luxury and wealth in exchange for enacting Saudi Foreign Policy rather than U.S. foreign policy?
Hint: It's not AIPAC, not Israel, not the Jews.
Stop swallowing the "anti-Zionist" propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
Incidentally, there are numerous Americans both in and out of government with dual-citizenship.
It is completely legal and authorized by Federal Law with certain friendly nations.
In theory, I can agree with you that Chertoff should be only an "American citizen", but in practice the ownership of a dual citizenship is not by definition an indication of disloyalty or behavior which is suspect.
Legislation to end this practice of legal dual citizenship can be enacted.
Chertoff would turn my stomach regardless of his citizenship.
Finally, I observe that the Saudi Lobby and its Muslim influence over our government and media have been an unqualified success...your acceptance of untruths and partial truths as your personal world view are proof of it.
Research who it is that owns controlling influence over the American media, banks, and government, and you will find out that is not the Jews or Israel, but the Muslim Terrorists who have hoodwinked you.
-
Ruby, it is difficult for me to believe in your sincerity when you keep talking about such things as AIPAC's influence and how what the Israeli government wants is bad for the United States. Also, you say all Jews should go to Israel. Now, I'm not a fortuneteller by any means, but I do know coded language pretty well, and I have yet to encounter one who ignorantly uses it.
And you did not address my question--for being a legitimate contributor, you have not posted anything except stuff in defense of Ron Paul.
-
Ruby, it is difficult for me to believe in your sincerity when you keep talking about such things as AIPAC's influence and how what the Israeli government wants is bad for the United States. Also, you say all Jews should go to Israel. Now, I'm not a fortuneteller by any means, but I do know coded language pretty well, and I have yet to encounter one who ignorantly uses it.
And you did not address my question--for being a legitimate contributor, you have not posted anything except stuff in defense of Ron Paul.
All Jews should go to Israel...
-
I did not say they shouldn't.
I said I get suspicious when Gentiles who have views like Ruby's say they should all go to Israel.
-
I did not say they shouldn't.
I said I get suspicious when Gentiles who have views like Ruby's say they should all go to Israel.
Why is it ok for a Jew to say we should all go to Israel but not for a gentile?
-
I did not say they shouldn't.
I said I get suspicious when Gentiles who have views like Ruby's say they should all go to Israel.
Why is it ok for a Jew to say we should all go to Israel but not for a gentile?
Becuase sometimes what matters is the intent. When a Jew (like Chaim) says so, he is stating his Halahic opinion, and wants to do it in to building up of the Jewish presence in the Land of Israel, but when Many (not all) Gentiles say the same thing (that Jews should leave their countries- expecially before the state was established)- they were saying (and implying) that they don't want Jews in their countries and cant wait to get ride of them.
-
I did not say they shouldn't.
I said I get suspicious when Gentiles who have views like Ruby's say they should all go to Israel.
Why is it ok for a Jew to say we should all go to Israel but not for a gentile?
Becuase sometimes what matters is the intent. When a Jew (like Chaim) says so, he is stating his Halahic opinion, and wants to do it in to building up of the Jewish presence in the Land of Israel, but when Many (not all) Gentiles say the same thing (that Jews should leave their countries- expecially before the state was established)- they were saying (and implying) that they don't want Jews in their countries and cant wait to get ride of them.
But, while that makes said Gentiles idiots - it's good for the Jews.
-
Cohen: "...Why is it ok for a Jew to say we should all go to Israel but not for a gentile?..."
Question:
What is the definition of a Zionist?
Answer:
One Jew, who extorts money from a second Jew, in order to send a third Jew to Israel.
As regards Senator McCain's pointed response to Congressman Paul, saying that it was a "non-interventionist" policy which once enabled Hitler to rise to power and launch a World War, this point is well taken.
Historically speaking, the greater portion of the American citizenry wanted to stay out of "Europe's Wars" both in WWI as well as in WWII.
A strong case can also be made for the historical fact that many, but not all, who supported the "interventionist" line prior to both wars, did so out of anticipation for the profits to be earned in a war time economy.
It stands as common sense, not to mention fiscal sense, that a nation can not long sustain a worldwide "empire" which is financed with money which is borrowed from foreign nations, many of whom are itself no friends of ours.
It also stands to reason as common sense, that once any nation is planted firmly across the globe as is the U.S. today, some among its leadership inevitably will "cross the line" between 'maintaining peace and stability' vs outright 'direct intervention in the affairs of others'.
Clearly, the U.S. leadership today is unable to distinguish one from the other and is caught on the horns of a dilemma.
Freedom and liberty can not be maintained at home whilst simultaneously using force abroad intervening in the affairs of other sovereign states which in themself do not and never have posed a threat to our own national security.
The question which I myself am unable to answer satisfactorily is "Where on the planet, and at which point, must the U.S. draw a line between 'protecting freedom and promoting self-rule by other nations' vs 'becoming so entangled with states who despise freedom and actively work against U.S. interests, that we no longer have any friends or allies?
On the Republican side, Congressman Paul is the only candidate offering any alternative to the 'status quo' of "business as usual once the elections are over".
The foreign as well as domestic policies of the U.S.A. in 2007 mirror all too closely the policies enacted by our one-time sworn enemy the U.S.S.R.
After the 1967 Israeli Victory over her Arab enemy states, the Communist Party of the USSR funded all of Israel's enemies, trained all of Israel's enemies in terrorism and warfare, and supplied all of Israel's enemies with advanced military weaponry and technology, all the while demanding that Israel retreat to the indefensible 1948 borders from which she had been attacked daily by her enemies.
During that period of time, from 1967 up until the fall of the Soviet Union, America stood by Israel, supported her financially, diplomatically, and militarily, and supported her claims to the Land of Israel on moral grounds, historical grounds, and on grounds of national defensive needs.
Statement after statement was issued by Washington which clearly refuted the claims of the phony PLO terror groups and refuted the need for there to be another state carved out of the former British Mandated Middle East.
Beginning with President Carter, and now gaining full momentum from the Bush "conservatives", U.S. policy towards Israel is identical to that of its former Soviet enemy.
Is "business as usual" what the Jewish State needs to survive today, or perhaps is a more "non-interventionist" policy one that would more enable Israel's physical survival?
-
when Many (not all) Gentiles say the same thing (that Jews should leave their countries- expecially before the state was established)- they were saying (and implying) that they don't want Jews in their countries and cant wait to get ride of them.
Exactly, Tzvi.
I am not trusting Ruby's motivations for saying this.
-
But, while that makes said Gentiles idiots - it's good for the Jews.
Od, a lot of Nazis say that "Jews should leave" or "Jews should go to Israel". They don't all say outright that Jews or Israel should be destroyed. Before they realized they could get away with the Final Solution, that's what the Third Reich said.
Maybe all Jews should go to Israel, but that is not something for Gentiles to decide, especially those who support Ron Nazi Paul (ys"vz).
-
But, while that makes said Gentiles idiots - it's good for the Jews.
Od, a lot of Nazis say that "Jews should leave" or "Jews should go to Israel". They don't all say outright that Jews or Israel should be destroyed. Before they realized they could get away with the Final Solution, that's what the Third Reich said.
Maybe all Jews should go to Israel, but that is not something for Gentiles to decide, especially those who support Ron Nazi Paul (ys"vz).
You misunderstood me. What I meant was that obviously the "lot of Nazis say that 'Jews should leave' or 'Jews should go to Israel,'" are idiots - and believe it for the complete wrong reason. But it still works out for us, doesn't it?
-
It is quite true that those who once painted swastikas and shouted "Jews Go Home!", are today pointing at the Jews who took their advice, returning to live in their own ancestral homeland, but the same Nazi Jew-Haters have only had to make one minor change in their behavior in order to find acceptance among those who "think" that they oppose Nazism and Fascism:
They still wear and paint swastikas, only they are now shouting "The Zionists stole all the Arabs' Land!".
When asked why it is they still hate the Jew, even though the Jew has returned home where they belong, they always answer with the lie "oh!...we aren't against Jews...we are against Zionism!".
"...Can the leopard change its spots?..."
Any and all people who "oppose Zionism", are followers of Nazi ideology; this whether they realize it or not.
-
It "works for us" only if the Jews actually WOULD all go to Israel at once. The Nazis who say that really want to see the Jews dead and to destroy Israel.
-
It "works for us" only if the Jews actually WOULD all go to Israel at once. The Nazis who say that really want to see the Jews dead and to destroy Israel.
Come on now, Chaimfan. This is exactly the point. What do you think's going to happen if he threatens to do that?
-
I wouldn't want to leave America, this is where I grew up, where my friends are, where I feel at home.
-
C.F. ..."you want us to believe you that you are a legitimate contributor to the forum, but yet ALL you have posted on, so far, is how you support Ron Paul and how the Israeli government's interests are inimical to those of the United States..."
As to Rubystar's support of Ron Paul...
Rubystar both supports one of the Republican Party's candidates for their Presidential nomination, and by this choice also supports one ten-term Congressional Member from Texas who each year returns a portion of their Congressional salary back to the United States Federal Government.
Would C.F. rather know that Rubystar supports one of the Democrat Party's candidates and not one from the Republicans?
If Congressman Paul is the worst of all possible choices, then how can the Republican Party consider him as a member and candidate?
Would not this, in and of itself, denote the acceptance and embracing of the totally unacceptable by the Republican National Committee?
Is C.F. inferring that the "interests" of the U.S.A. and the "interests" of The State of Israel and 'one and the same' and do not diverge at some point?
If so...please do explain how Washington's plan for an Israel returned to its pre-1967 "Auschwitz borders" with Jerusalem, Gaza, Judaea, and Samaria recognized as a new Muslim Terror State, combined with Washington's determination to see the Golan Heights given back over to a Ba'athist Dictatorship so that it may be used once again to shell Jewish Land and cut off the source of Israel's water supply, are consistent with Jewish National aspirations.
Apparently my education and understanding are misinformed, so I eagerly await C.F.'s wisdom.
Perhaps C.F. infers that MassuhDGoodName's contributions to this forum are also 'less than legitimate'?
MassuhDGoodName,
You know that C.F. means that Israel is an ally of the US and does not do anything that is bad for the US.
-
Rubystar,
Your concern with the "influence" of AIPAC is based on a media barrage of propaganda which is both myopic and focused only on one fully legal lobbying group, to the total exclusion of all others.
The State of Israel's "peace process" in which it is considering giving land to terrorists, is the result of the U.S.A.'s policy FORCING Israel to do it.
The canard is often spoken and printed, that "the tail [Israel] is wagging the dog [U.S.A.]", but it is a complete lie.
Forty years ago, all of Israel's Arab enemies were funded and militarily supplied by the Communist Soviet Union; Israel being helped by the U.S.A., Western Europe to some degree, and the Union of South Africa.
Today, ALL of Israel's sworn enemies are funded and militarily supplied by the U.S.A. ... Are you thus concluding that AIPAC is working to control American foreign policy?
More Muslims have been brought into the United States under George Bush, than at any time in history.
During the 1990's the Republican leaders planned to "end Republican reliance on the Jewish Vote", and have been importing literally millions of Christian-hating, Jew-hating terrorists from the 6th Century into our American heartland.
To you this indicates that "no President and no Congress and no Senate can say 'NO' to "the Israeli Lobby"?
Arab Muslims just bought 10% of CITIBANK, the largest Bank in the United States.
More undue Jewish influence?
The largest group of influence in Washington is the Saudi presence.
Do just a little research, and you will find that virtually every Government official from Presidents to Legislators have been totally and completely "compromised" with Saudi money.
Guess who funds the largest part of all "Presidential Library" funds?
Guess who assures all State Department officials a retirement of luxury and wealth in exchange for enacting Saudi Foreign Policy rather than U.S. foreign policy?
Hint: It's not AIPAC, not Israel, not the Jews.
Stop swallowing the "anti-Zionist" propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
Incidentally, there are numerous Americans both in and out of government with dual-citizenship.
It is completely legal and authorized by Federal Law with certain friendly nations.
In theory, I can agree with you that Chertoff should be only an "American citizen", but in practice the ownership of a dual citizenship is not by definition an indication of disloyalty or behavior which is suspect.
Legislation to end this practice of legal dual citizenship can be enacted.
Chertoff would turn my stomach regardless of his citizenship.
Finally, I observe that the Saudi Lobby and its Muslim influence over our government and media have been an unqualified success...your acceptance of untruths and partial truths as your personal world view are proof of it.
Research who it is that owns controlling influence over the American media, banks, and government, and you will find out that is not the Jews or Israel, but the Muslim Terrorists who have hoodwinked you.
Great job.
-
I know Chaim doesn't like Ron Paul but has he endorsed any other presidential candidate?
Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are great choices. They're both against any North American Union, they've both criticized the State Department, etc.
Hunter made sure that a fence in San Diego was built and wrote the border bill that Bush and the Democrats don't want to be built. Tancredo has worked very hard against illegal aliens invading the country. Tancredo got into a verbal altercation with Karl Rove and was told to stay away from the White House.
They've both against corrupt trade policies like NAFTA and CAFTA.
Hunter has called for the Bush administration to release border patrol agents who were wrongly jailed and to suspend or reform trade policies with China.
-
And after the exchange between McCain and Paul, Tancredo gave a good response to both of them.
-
Then you should vote for him. He is the only TRUE limited-government classical conservative on the ballot. (Well, Tom Tancredo is decent also, but has gotten a bit too close to Pat Buchanan for my tastes).
-
I like Duncan Hunter. I took a quiz to see which republican presidential candidate lined up most with my views and he came up.
The only problem is most people won't vote for him. :( ???
-
I like Duncan Hunter. I took a quiz to see which republican presidential candidate lined up most with my views and he came up.
The only problem is most people won't vote for him. :( ???
Don't base your decision on who you think has the best chance to win the primary. In primaries, you support the candidate who you like the best.
-
Here we have Paul comparing Israel to Hezzballah http://towelianism.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/muslims-discover-ron-paul/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Paul stood up in Congress in 2006 and opposed a resolution that sided with Israel in the Lebanon-Israel conflict. He stated the following.
Ron Paul: “Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn’t authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does
The way I read it, it sounds like he was debating over calling one side bad and one side good, that he doesn't favor either side. It doesn't sound like he's comparing Israel to hezballah at all.
You know something, Cohen ?
This exchange between Mord and yourself has convinced me that you're truly a moron.
The piece of excrement Paul that you continually defend --in this thread and others-- clearly demonstrates that he thinks there are 'terrorists' on both sides of the Israel/Hezbollah war. In other words, he's calling the IAF and IDF terrorists.
And what is Paul's reason for doing so ? Because there are "more civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians". That's quite a yardstick to use in determining that the Israeli Defense Forces are terrorists. Absolutely un-freaking-believable.
Read the beginning of this crucial sentence again...."It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side"....so Paul can't support the resolution because it's not objective. In other words, Paul's objective opinion is that there are terrorists on 'both sides'.
So you're defending a piece of [censored] that thinks Israel committed terrorism during the war.
Paul's going to be 'neutral' on the issue. The scumbag can't side with Israel, because maintaining neutrality precludes him from taking sides-- even when one side is clearly right and the other side is a bunch of freaking genocidal moooozie thugs !! He would prefer to be neutral rather than picking sides. What leadership ! What a fooking tool !!
You want a person like this occupying the most powerful office on the planet ?
You're either an idiot, or a scumbag like Paul, that can't differentiate between good and evil, or terrorists and an army defending a nation from mooozie nazi swine.
Now, I don't want to call you a scumbag (that strong of an insult might be a violation of forum rules), so I'll have to settle for calling you a boneheaded moron that makes me want to puke.
-
I like Duncan Hunter. I took a quiz to see which republican presidential candidate lined up most with my views and he came up.
The only problem is most people won't vote for him. :( ???
Don't base your decision on who you think has the best chance to win the primary. In primaries, you support the candidate who you like the best.
That makes perfect sense, but sometimes I think it's a wasted vote. It's ridiculous for myself to say such a thing but if the candidates that most likely win that are better than "decent" and are in the majority than I'll vote for one in the majority like Giuliani or Huckabee, but I thought about Hunter.
-
Duncan Hunter has always been my Candidate
-
"One major reason I was wanting to vote for Ron Paul is that he's the only Presidential candidate on the Republican side who will bring the troops home immediately and won't get us into more wars during his term."
This type of thinking is typical of the Paul supporters.
'Ron Paul won't get us into more wars during his term'---Really ?
Has it ever occurred to you that we're (meaning the USA, Israel, Western civilization) at war with Islam whether we like it or not ?
Has it ever occurred to you that this war is unavoidable and is imposed on us, that we don't have a choice in the matter, that the mooooozies have declared war on us ??
Nah, Ron Paul supporters think that hiding their heads in the sand will make the war with Islam go away.
Ron Paul supporters think we won't have more 9/11's if we just change our foreign policy. Ron Paul supporters agree with Paul's assertion that we brought 9/11 on ourselves because of our foreign policies, especially siding with Israel.
Ron Paul supporters think we can prevent Iran from obtaining nukes and perpetrating a nuclear holocaust against the USA or Israel through increased dialogue and trade with the Iranian madmen mullahs and the rest of the tyrannical mooozie world---or worse yet, they just don't care if Iran and other moooozie nations develop nukes, that it's none of our business.
I can understand how Paul would be getting support from moooozies, nazis, 9/11 truthers, etc.---but explain to me how in the hell Ron Paul is getting support at the JTF forum ?
Do the Ron Paul supporters here actually think Ron Paul would be good for Israel or America ? Apparently so, and this is truly sad.
"I wish I hadn't started this thread now, with people being called scum bags, etc."
That's something we can agree upon. I wish you hadn't started it either.
There's already far too much spamming of the internet blogs, forums, polls, YouTube, debates, news organizations, and media by the myopic 'Ron Paul revolutionaries' in support of their candidate. It's disgusting to see it here.
-
Listen to Ronald Reagan who many Paul supporters like to compare Paul to.They really seem do think differently http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvg7lRsCVJ8
-
Here we have Paul comparing Israel to Hezzballah http://towelianism.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/muslims-discover-ron-paul/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Paul stood up in Congress in 2006 and opposed a resolution that sided with Israel in the Lebanon-Israel conflict. He stated the following.
Ron Paul: “Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn’t authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does
The way I read it, it sounds like he was debating over calling one side bad and one side good, that he doesn't favor either side. It doesn't sound like he's comparing Israel to hezballah at all.
You know something, Cohen ?
This exchange between Mord and yourself has convinced me that you're truly a moron.
The piece of excrement Paul that you continually defend --in this thread and others-- clearly demonstrates that he thinks there are 'terrorists' on both sides of the Israel/Hezbollah war. In other words, he's calling the IAF and IDF terrorists.
And what is Paul's reason for doing so ? Because there are "more civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians". That's quite a yardstick to use in determining that the Israeli Defense Forces are terrorists. Absolutely un-freaking-believable.
Read the beginning of this crucial sentence again...."It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side"....so Paul can't support the resolution because it's not objective. In other words, Paul's objective opinion is that there are terrorists on 'both sides'.
So you're defending a piece of excrement that thinks Israel committed terrorism during the war.
Paul's going to be 'neutral' on the issue. The scumbag can't side with Israel, because maintaining neutrality precludes him from taking sides-- even when one side is clearly right and the other side is a bunch of freaking genocidal moooozie thugs !! He would prefer to be neutral rather than picking sides. What leadership ! What a fooking tool !!
You want a person like this occupying the most powerful office on the planet ?
You're either an idiot, or a scumbag like Paul, that can't differentiate between good and evil, or terrorists and an army defending a nation from mooozie nazi swine.
Now, I don't want to call you a scumbag (that strong of an insult might be a violation of forum rules), so I'll have to settle for calling you a boneheaded moron that makes me want to puke.
Yes that's right, i'm the moron, lets start insulting people because we all know how mature that is in a debate. Isn't that what the liberals do when they lose a debate is scream "RACIST!" "WARMONGERER!" when they can't face the facts? It's all emotion.
You need to look at the bigger picture, you are critical of me because I support Ron Paul, yet Ron Paul apparently is a Nazi because he somehow has Nazis and Muslims supporting him. You don't think Muslims and Nazis vote in this country? Who do you think they supported before? Lesser of two evils? I don't support all of Ron Paul's policies, I support his policies for the fact that he is following the constitution regardless if you want to believe it or not. Have you ever read the constitution or the bill of rights? As I listed in my first post, you can twist Ron Paul however you want.
Meanwhile, this is what I have observed on my time on JTF.
Most of the members are against foreign aid to Israel because the money has strings attached to it.
Ron Paul is against foreign aid not only to Israel but to other middle eastern countries as well. Suddenly he's an anti-semite because Nazis and Muslims support ending foreign aid as well, duh. What do you expect? Any time you have a candidate that wants to end foreign aid to Israel, this is going to appeal to Israel haters as well.
Yet we are supposed to endorse Rudy Giuliani who supports foreign aid to Israel and will force Israel to continue to dismantle settlements after he said he supported the "peace in the middle east process" right that makes sense.
Ron Paul is against the Iraq war and intervention.
Nazis and Muslims support this because they claim "hey it's the Zionists who started this war for oil", ok we've heard it all, they are twisting this for their own agenda.
JTF, most of them feel the Iraq war is wrong, don't they? They feel it's a disaster. Many of our members here are supporters of the constitution aren't they? The constitution talks about intervention and how we shouldn't involve ourselves in the affairs of other nations. You are taking Ron Pauls quote out of context, his meaning of us being attacked on 9/11 has absolutely nothing to do with blaming America but rather giving the terrorists and excuse to attack us. He's never said 9/11 was a inside job, he's never said that Zionists did it. Where are you getting this idea because 9/11 truthers talk about him and support him? Again they are using him for their own agenda.
Gun Control
Gee seeing as most of us are pro constitution here, the constitution is strict about what it says
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Guess what? Ron Paul is against Gun Control, guess what, Nazis support Ron Paul because of that, they claim that current republicans are infringing on their rights. Both Republicans and Democrats are supporters of some sort of control and this is a problem, this is against the constitution.
Know what i've observed? Most Nazis are hypocrites. They say they support the constitution but they really don't, they think the founding fathers wrote the constitution only for whites living in America and that blacks were only 2/3 a person (which is true at that time), courts passed that blacks are considered "people" therefore they have the right to bear arms. Go ahead on StørmFrønt and ask Nazis if they support Jews right to bear arms and they will give you a flat out "NO"
What have I observed on this forum? Some of the members here feel only Jews should have guns on a few of my threads or that we should disarm Muslims, Mexicans, anyone not white, the mentally ill (yes lets disarm all our veterans with PTSD), etc. Unfortunately some of the members here actually WANT the Government to have control of what guns people should be allowed to have yet at the same time throughout history, governments have disarmed us Jews. StørmFrønt supports disarming other people, now some of the members here support gun control and a candidate who HAS A LONG HISTORY of disarming people in new york city? *cough* Giuliani *cough* sorry i'm not falling for that.
Now in reference to this quote.
Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn’t authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does
If you bothered to post the full script, it doesn't sound like he is calling the Israelis terrorists at all, he is referring to the bill H.RES.921
"Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel's right to defend itself, and for other purposes. "
Reading the full article, it appears that he is referring to the bill stating that it clearly mentions that the terrorists are all on one side and victims and innocents are on the other. In specific, the way I interpret it is that not all the targets bombed in Lebanon were terrorists and that he opposes the way Israel handled the war. If you go on to read the rest of the article, you can see how he blames American intervention in fueling the war to begin with.
Before the U.S. House of Representatives, July 20, 2006
I rise in opposition to this resolution, which I sincerely believe will do more harm than good.
I do agree with the resolution's condemnation of violence. But I am convinced that when we get involved in foreign conflicts and send strong messages, such as this resolution will, it ends up expanding the war rather than diminishing the conflict, and that ultimately comes back to haunt us.
Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn't authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does.
Some would say that there is no room to talk about neutrality, as if neutrality were a crime. I would suggest there should be room for an open mind to consider another type of policy that may save American lives.
I was in Congress in the early 1980s when the US Marines were sent in to Lebanon, and I came to the Floor before they went, when they went, and before they were killed, arguing my case against getting involved in that conflict.
Ronald Reagan, when he sent the troops in, said he would never turn tail and run. Then, after the Marines were killed, he had a reassessment of the policy. When he wrote his autobiography a few years later after leaving the Presidency, he wrote this.
Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.
In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.
It is very easy to criticize the Government of Lebanon for not doing more about Hezbollah. I object to terrorism committed by Hezbollah because I am a strong opponent to all violence on all sides. But I also object to the unreasonable accusations that the Government of Lebanon has not done enough, when we realize that Israel occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years and was not able to neutralize Hezbollah.
Mr. Speaker, There is nothing wrong with considering the fact that we don't have to be involved in every single fight. That was the conclusion that Ronald Reagan came to, and he was not an enemy of Israel. He was a friend of Israel. But he concluded that that is a mess over there. Let me just repeat those words that he used. He said, he came to the conclusion, "The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there.'' I believe these words are probably more valid now even than when they were written.
July 21, 2006
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
If you bothered to read my post about the JPFO (Jews For The Preservation Of Firearm Ownership) where Aaron Zelman bashed the ADL about writing anti-semites support Ron Paul, he mentions that the Neo Nazis who support Ron Paul are hypocrites because Ron Paul supports freedom for everyone, the Nazis only support freedom for themselves. Muslims are also hypocrites for voting for him considering that they are supporters of the Quran. The only reason Neo Nazis and Muslims are supporting him are for specific issues. Muslims and Nazis see his stance on being against the war in Iraq, Iran, and foreign aid to Israel as beneficial to them. You guys don't see it that way, but if you look at his issues, he is more in touch with the issues we have going on in this country than we may think.
I don't agree with Ron Paul 100 percent, theres a lot I don't agree with him on, but I find him a better choice than any democrat or republican in this debate.
-
It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does
No here and i gave the link he's comparing a terrorist militia with Israel ,of course one side will have more casualties. The words in italics are the thought i'm talking about it speaks for itself he's almost being sarcastic about Israel
-
It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does
No here and i gave the link he's comparing a terrorist militia with Israel ,of course one side will have more casualties. The words in italics are the thought i'm talking about it speaks for itself he's almost being sarcastic about Israel
He never stated that the Israelis were terrorists, if you read the text of the bill, it defines that Israel was under attack first and has a right to defend it's self. He clearly states he doesn't pick sides. The way he views the bill is that the bill specifically states Lebanon are the terrorists and the Israelis are the innocent, he goes on to say that there are more innocent civilians who were killed in Lebanon and therefore finds it unfair to specifically state Lebanon as the terrorists when it was Hezballah that was attacking and the civilians had nothing to do with Hezballah although it was impossible to not have collateral damage due to where Hezballah had their rocket launchers located in the city. He then goes on to state the resolution is about picking sides which is why he rejected it as he is neutral. The quote has been taken out of context like all his other quotes.
-
Any Jew who supports Ron Paul is self-hating. His entire campaign reeks of the worst Nazi Jew-hatred and Jews that are comfortable with that are demented.
Paul himself is the ONLY Republican who accepts the support and contributions of open Nazis because he privately agrees with them.
Any Jew who supports Paul when he says that we should not care if Muslim Nazi Iran develops nuclear weapons is a traitor. And any American who supports that suicidal policy is a traitor to the United States.
And yes, ALL Paul supporters are certifiable morons. Only a moron would believe that the world's 1.5 billion Muslims will stop trying to conquer the world for Allah if the U.S. ignores their genocidal plans. ALL Paul supporters have learned nothing from history and know even less about Islam or Arabs. These insane imbeciles will guarantee that America will be hit with an Islamic nuclear attack.
That filthy pig Paul keeps saying that the Muslim terrorists murdered thousands of Americans "because we're over there in their countries. We would feel the same way if someone came here to our country." In other words, he justifies the Muslim terrorism and feels that we would do the same thing. Just as he thinks there's nothing wrong with taking money and support from open Nazis, he thinks there's nothing wrong with the Muslim terrorists, because they are just defending themselves against America and Israel. America and Israel are the real bad guys. There's nothing wrong with Iran or Hezballah or with open Nazis giving Paul money. The only bad people are the "neo-cons".
I'm getting tired of seeing these sicknesses on our forum. Supporting Paul is supporting Muslim terrorism, supporting Iran's nuclear bomb-making program, supporting enabling the Iranians to commit nuclear genocide, and legitimizing open Nazis.
-
You can read up Ron Pauls voting record here, he voted against Israel giving up land for peace.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
Don't pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace
Q: Past presidents have expected Israel to give up land, not for peace but for the promise of peace. With this mindset, Pres. Bush introduced the "roadmap" in 2003, yet 60 terrorist acts are attempted & 300 rockets fall every month in Israel. Will you stand behind Israel to not give up land for unfulfilled promises of peace, even in the face of opposition of European & Arab countries?
* HUCKABEE: Yes.
* TANCREDO: Yes.
* COX: Yes.
* BROWNBACK:Yes.
* PAUL:Yes.
* HUNTER:Yes.
* KEYES: Yes.
-
see cohen mr. ben pesach agrees with me and as he said all of his jewish supporters are self hating
-
see cohen mr. ben pesach agrees with me and as he said all of his jewish supporters are self hating
Anyone who supports the current administration or any candidates that are identical to the administration is a self hating Jew in my opinion. Would you vote for Hilary Clinton if she said she supports Israel because Israel comes first meanwhile sacrificing all your other freedoms?
I support America and Israel, I don't support either current government in power.
Israel has a right to exist but America does not need to intervene. If you want a better understanding about Israel from Ron Pauls point of view you can watch the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Jn2xCF92Y
More about intervention and Israel, stating he is not anti-Israel and does not take sides
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpfxr5yyZ7s
-
These Ron Paul morons just don't give up.
Show them a Paul quote in which he clearly infers that Israel and the IDF are committing acts of terrorism in the war with Hezballah and the moronic Paul supporters claim it's being taken out of context.
It's not being taken out of context. He's calling the IDF terrorists.
The Paulian morons defend their man refusing to 'take sides' when it comes to Israel as if this is some sort of positive attribute.
The Paulian morons (Cohen in particular) can't understand that Paul's refusal to 'take sides' with Israel is a clear indication that he's not qualified to lead America and is a morally bankrupt, rudderless piece of crap.
Worse yet, by calling the IDF terrorists because they resist moooozie kidnapping, murder and genocide, Paul is actually 'taking sides'---WITH THE MOOOZIES !!!
Here's another quote from Paul defender Rubystars earlier in this thread regarding Paul's utter lack of concern about Iran getting nukes:
"I think he would try to decide whether or not there was a valid USA interest involved before he acted one way or another. Maybe Iran needs more inspections to start off with."
Paul would have to decide if Iran getting nukes is a valid USA interest ?
He's still undecided whether Iranian nukes are a valid concern ??
Are you freaking kidding me ?!?!
Oh wait, you're not kidding me.
Chaim is 100% correct when he says "ALL Paul supporters are certifiable morons."
-
Here's the problem Ruby.
Ron Paul is living in a dream world.
He says "Israel has 300 nukes, nobody's going to touch them."
The problem is Israel is being 'touched'. Continuously being touched by moooozies who want nothing more than to annihilate Israel and the USA.
Israeli nukes certainly didn't stop Egypt from 'touching' Israel in 1973.
Israeli nukes didn't stop Hezballah from 'touching' Israel last summer.
And to compound things, when Israel 'touched' Hezbollah back, Ron Paul had the audacity to stand before Congress and call the IDF terrorists.
But why am I wasting time talking to someone that doesn't think Iran is on the verge of developing nukes ? The centrifuges that are spinning in Iran and enriching uranium are there for peaceful purposes and more inspections are needed to confirm this.
Besides, it's not really a valid USA interest, and we shouldn't take action or jump into a war until we have definitive proof -- like a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv or NYC.
Please stop trying to defend Ron Paul. He's a piece of crap and by defending him you're becoming one too.
-
Muck, I don't think Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. That's why I feel that we need more inspections before we jump into a war.
is this a joke or just stupidity if we dont stop irans nuclear program by the next few years they will g-d forbid have nuclear weapons. oh yeah and ron paul says america should not have intervened in world war 2 how do you feel about that. to me today germany is like iran and if we dont stop them theyll try to wipe us out. and oh yeah isolationism wont make everything better, ok ban foregin aid but dont let terroist countries have weapons that can destroy earth
-
What is in the past, is in the past. World War 2 ended a long, long time ago.
The American public was sold a pack of lies about Iraq being on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. Are you really willing to sit down and listen to that load of crap again about Iran without inspections finding anything suspicious?
I'm not saying that it's impossible, or that he necessarily doesn't have them coming soon, but my B S meter goes off when I hear about some rogue dictator harboring weapons of mass destruction.
Iran has been a top sponsor of terrorism since the Iranian Revolution. That should be an indicator to you of what their goal is.
JTF stated that it didn't think Iraq had wmd and warned years before the Iraq War, that Iran was a greater threat.
-
Muck, I don't think Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. That's why I feel that we need more inspections before we jump into a war.
is this a joke or just stupidity if we dont stop irans nuclear program by the next few years they will g-d forbid have nuclear weapons. oh yeah and ron paul says america should not have intervened in world war 2 how do you feel about that. to me today germany is like iran and if we dont stop them theyll try to wipe us out. and oh yeah isolationism wont make everything better, ok ban foregin aid but dont let terroist countries have weapons that can destroy earth
Ron Paul never said anything about World War II, The reason the US went into war is that it was a threat to it's national security when Japan attacked the US and then Germany being an ally of Japan declared war on the US.
Ron Paul stated he is not a isolationist when Mccain put in a low blow saying that was the reason Hitler came to power and the troops saying "let us win". Mccain is not anti-war, he is non-interventionist which is different from isolationist. He still wants trade and if something threatens our national security then we will go to war. What he is for is talking with Iran similar to what happened during the cold war and if it indeed does become a threat to our national security, then we would go to war. Ron Paul is simply stating we cannot go to war everytime a conflict arises and we aren't the police men of the world.
-
There are Israelis who believe like this guy:
http://israelilibertarian.blogspot.com/2007/10/questions-for-republican-jewish.html
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Questions for The Republican Jewish Coalition
Questions for the Republican Jewish Coalition
Recently, there was a large hoopla in the libertarian areas of the political Internet about the Republican Jewish Coalition. The Coalition – so did the Internet have it – refused to receive Ron Paul at their “Victory 2008 Republican Jewish Coalition Candidates Forum”. According to a variety of sources, Ron Paul was not allowed to get on the forums because he was 'not seen as a top tier contender' and 'opposed aid to Israel'. Given that the Internet is plagued with the kind of folks that'll blame 'the Israeli lobby' for global warming if you let them loose, I was doubtful.
But given that the editors of http://capitalism.co.il are very interested in the Ron Paul Revolution, I went out and called the RJC myself to verify. RJC's very kind press secretary (whose surname I was, unfortunately, not able to write down) confirmed to me that this was indeed true: Ron Paul was not invited because he was considered a 'long-shot candidate' and because he 'votes against aid to Israel' and 'criticizes the Israeli lobby'.
I will not discuss the first of these statements – the RJC has invited Huckabee, who polls consistently behind Ron Paul in both straw polls and scientific Gallup and Harris polls, and then refused to replace him with Ron Paul when Huckabee refused to arrive at the Candidates Forum. It is clear to me that the main reason for Ron Paul not being invited is the difference in policy between him and the RJC.
Is Ron Paul an enemy of Israel? He clearly isn't. He supported Israel's action against the Osirak reactor when practically everybody – including the Reagan Administration – condemned Israel. He has steadfastly refused to support congressional condemnation of Israel, or military aid to nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
What seems to be the core of the argument? The military aid to Israel. The 2.25 billion dollars per year of funding that Israel receives. For those not in the know, this aid comes in the form of funds that must be spent on American equipment and services – essentially a subsidy for U.S. companies. As such, it is a subsidy program for both Israel's government and the United States' military-industrial complex.
And yet, is this program necessary for Israel's survival, or even beneficial for its well-being? Certainly not according to the Jerusalem Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, who state outright: “Foreign aid is the greatest obstacle to economic freedom in Israel.” Certainly not according to Binyamin Netanyahu, who, during his tenure as Prime Minister, hinted quite broadly that Israel would be better off without foreign aid.
Foreign aid does not only destroy Israel's indigenous military industries – even now, production of army shoes, Tavor assault rifles, and other items have been shifted in part or in whole across the Atlantic to qualify for the American funds – but it has a more insidious effect. It acts as a crutch for a military bureacracy that is huge, inept, and corrupt.
Not unlike Third World officials who feel they don't need to modernize their economy because the West will keep pumping in aid and money, Israeli Ministry of Defense officials believe that no matter how bad their own screw-ups are, they are safe – as long as they can fall back on American money and weapons.
As a result, the Israeli MoD is capable of immense amounts of waste – wasting, in fact, more Israeli taxpayer money then it receives in aid from America. When I spoke to Knesset Member Yossi Beilin, he told me that the Knesset members are not even allowed to read most of the military budget before passing it. This allows for truly unprecedented amounts of waste.[2]
There is no place here to speak about army units deploying more vehicles then they have personnel[1], army units purchasing brand new armored personnel carriers and allowing them to rust away on the lawn unused until they are beyond repair. Let us just mention that an IDF officer retiring at the rank of major 33 receives $100,000 in benefits, that the amount of generals in the Israeli army rises 80% every ten years. Israel still practices the draft, which recruits thousands of soldiers the country doesn't need for any sensible military use. Ehud Barak, the Minister of Defense, claims 75% of the nation's non-combat soldiers serve no national defense purpose. The hidden economical costs are estimated to be $15,000 per draftee.
And here's the punchline: the budget for the civilian MoD bureaucracy (not the army) comes up to half the sum of US aid to Israel on its own (4-5 billion NIS). Further, according to the Ministry of Defense, only 20% of the military budget funds actual fighting and combat support units. 80% is the cost of bureacracy and rear-echelon units. That comes out to over ten billion dollars – over FOUR TIMES the size of US aid to Israel.
I would understand support for this sort of 'aid' among the American Democrats – they are known to believe that throwing money at problems solves them. But those are Republicans we're talking about here. And thus I have a few questions for any RJC members who happen to be reading this:
You people are smart enough to realize that welfare to African countries doesn't help them develop. Why do you think welfare to Israel is going to have any different effect? You people are smart enough to oppose subsidies for an abortion clinic in Omaha or a farm in Texas. Why are you willing to throw America's money at a government institution thousands of miles away? Why do you insist throwing money at people who let billions of dollars of their own money go to waste pointlessly? Maybe, just maybe, if Israel was deprived of the American government teat, it would use it's own taxpayer money with more efficiency.
Most importantly, why are you so quick to assume that a person who opposes this welfare program is not a candidate whose opinions bears listening to, if not on this one issue, then on others? Does disagreement on this one point make a candidate unlegitimate to you, even though he agrees with the Republican Jewish Coalition on so many others?
Boris Karpa is a libertarian columnist and professional translator in Ashdod, Israel.
He can be contacted at [email protected]