Miss Glick makes the point that the destruction of Israel is a key requirement by the Left for the triumph of Socialism just as the jihad against Israel is the spear head in the global movement to create the Caliphate. As we celebrate the week of Passover, let us never forget that the eternal liberation movement is that of the Jews.
by Caroline Glick
Hamas terror boss Fathi Hamad is a notable figure. Hamad is both the director of Hamas’s al-Aksa television station and the terror group’s “minister” of the interior and national security. His double portfolio is a clear expression of the much ignored fact that for terrorists, propaganda is inseparable from violence.
[.......]
On March 23, Hamad was interviewed by Egypt’s Al Hekma television station. The interview was translated by MEMRI.
Hamad made two central points. First, he claimed that the Palestinian war against Israel is the keystone of the global jihad. Second, he said the Palestinians are not a distinct people, but transplanted Egyptians and Saudis.
In his words, “At al-Aksa and on the land of Palestine, all the conspiracies, throughout history, have been shattered – the conspiracies of the Crusaders, and the conspiracies of the Tatars. At al- Aksa and on the land of Palestine, the Battle of Hattin was waged. The [West] does not want this noble history to repeat itself, because the Jews and their allies would be annihilated – the Zionists, the Americans and the imperialists.
[......]
Hamad next explained, “Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis. Who are the Palestinians? We have many families called Al-Masri, [Egyptians] whose roots are Egyptian. Egyptian! They may be from Alexandria, from Cairo, from Dumietta, from the North, from Aswan, from Upper Egypt. We are Egyptians.”
What Hamad’s interview tells us is that today Hamas – the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood – is more interested in unity with Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Egypt than with Fatah. Whereas in the past it joined Fatah in obscuring the direct link between the jihad against the Jews and the jihad against the non-Muslim world, today it seeks to emphasize the connection. To this end, Hamas is willing to abandon the myth of Palestinian nativism and acknowledge that the Palestinians are an artificial people, invented for the purpose of advancing the global jihad in the key battlefield of Israel.
Hamad’s statements underscore a widespread sentiment among Israelis about the revolutions now tearing apart the Arab world. That sentiment is that while the results of these revolutions will be catastrophic in the medium and long term, in the short term they bring respite to Israel. With Arab regimes – new and old – struggling to consolidate power, they have little time or energy to devote to their war against Israel.
[......]Unfortunately for Israel, while the Arab world is increasingly uninterested in the Palestinian war against Israel, Europe and the American Left are more than happy to pick up the slack.
Consider two recent events. First, two weeks ago the UN Human Rights Council voted to launch a commission whose goal is to criminalize Israel for the existence of Israeli communities beyond the 1949 armistice lines.
The council’s decision to form a new kangaroo court to criminalize Israel was not the result of the Arab diplomatic war against Israel. It is the consequence of the European diplomatic war against Israel. It is Europe, not the Arabs that has barred Israel from caucusing with its UN regional group – the Western European and Others Group. By barring Israel from the caucus, the Europeans have denied Israel the ability to make its case to other UN member nations.
For its part, the Obama administration pays lip service to the need to end the Human Rights Council’s obsessive war against Israel. But at the same time, it has effectively joined that war by legitimizing the anti-Israel council both by joining it, and by refusing to use its membership as leverage to coerce the council into abandoning its campaign against Israel.
[.......]Then there was last Friday’s Global March to Jerusalem, in which a consortium of protesters organized by Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and the international Left intended to storm Israel’s borders and fill the state with hostile foreigners.
As Ribhi Halloum, the coordinator of the march said last year, the goal of the GMJ was “to move the right of return possessed by Palestinian refugees from theory to practice.”
In a press conference in Amman days ahead of the operation, Halloum said that organizers expected for two million people to mass at Israel’s borders and attempt to breach them.
In the end, the GMJ failed to mount its planned invasion. The sum total of the day’s events amounted to several violent local demonstrations by Palestinians in Judea and Samaria joined by foreign and Israeli leftists. Israel’s borders were not breached.
The GMJ’s failure to achieve its aims owed to the same pan-Arab distraction that Hamad tried to address in his interview with Egyptian television.
But while the Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians and Lebanese have more urgent business to attend to, the international Left has intensified its own campaign against Israel.
Leading anti-Israel, (and anti-Jewish) leftists including George Galloway, Desmond Tutu, Mairead Maguire, Noam Chomsky, Jeremiah Wright, Cindy Sheehan and Medea Benjamin served as members of the GMJ’s various organizing committees. These self-proclaimed human rights activists had no problem with the fact that the Iranian regime took a central role in organizing the operation or that the clear goal of the campaign’s Muslim organizers is the destruction of Israel.
To the contrary, this goal is now openly shared by growing numbers of Western leftists. In an op-ed on the Guardian’s online opinion forum, Sarah Colborne, a member of the GMJ’s organizing committees and its national coordinator for the UK as well as the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in the UK wrote, “The struggle for Palestinian rights is at the core of the global movement for social and economic justice.”
Judith Butler, one of Colborne’s American counterparts, has opined that “understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important.”
So just as Hamas’s Hamad claims that the jihad on Israel is the key campaign of the global jihad, Hamad’s Western partners claim that destroying Israel is the key to the Left’s campaign for socialism.
Disturbingly, the international Left is receiving indirect support for its goal of destroying Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem, (and through it, destroying Israel), from the US government. Just days before the GMJ failed to unravel Israel’s physical control over Jerusalem, in a jaw-dropping exchange between State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland and AP reporter Matthew Lee, Nuland refused to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
The US has always been deeply hostile to Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem. Beginning in 1950 the State Department directed US diplomats to discourage other governments from establishing their embassies in Jerusalem. But while the US has always undermined its own alliance with Israel by aligning its policy on Jerusalem with Israel’s worst enemies, under President Barack Obama, the US’s willingness to express this hostility has been unprecedented.
This hostility has been demonstrated most famously by Obama’s demand that the government stop respecting Jewish property rights in the city.
It has also been given graphic expression by the administration’s decision to move the Consular Section of the US Consulate in Jerusalem from an Arab neighborhood in eastern Jerusalem to the site that Israel allocated for a new US embassy.
The site is located in the Jewish Arnona neighborhood in western Jerusalem.
Israel allocated the land to a future US Embassy after Congress passed the US Embassy Act in 1995 which obligated the US government to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The site was chosen, among other reasons, because its location in western Jerusalem put it outside the dispute regarding whether or not Israel will retain sovereignty over eastern, southern and northern Jerusalem in a hypothetical peace treaty with the Palestinians. The US government uses the non-resolution of the Palestinian conflict with Israel as its justification for refusing to accept Jewish property rights in those areas of the city.
The US Consulate in Jerusalem is not subordinate to the US Embassy in Tel Aviv. It presents itself as the unofficial US embassy to the non-existent state of Palestine. By utilizing the site in western Jerusalem allocated for a future embassy as an extension office of the consulate, the Obama administration made clear its rejection of Israel’s right to sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. And in light of the US law that recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and orders the government to relocate the embassy to Jerusalem, the Obama administration not only indirectly legitimized the cause of those who seek the destruction of Israel.
It did so in contempt of US law.
In truth, there is nothing new about the West’s rejection of Israel’s right to sovereignty or even to its support and sponsorship for the Arab war for the destruction of Israel. Such animosity predates not only the 1967 Six Day War. It predates the establishment of Israel.
British Col. Richard Meinertzhagen, who served as an intelligence officer in wartime and post-World War I Mandatory Palestine, made this point clearly in his memoir Middle East Diary.
Meinertzhagen wrote that the first Arab terror assaults on Jews under the British military government were instigated by the British military. Just before Easter in 1920, British military authorities contacted future Nazi agent Haj Amin el Husseini and encouraged him to attack the Jews of Jerusalem.
They told him, “He had a great opportunity at Easter to show the world that the Arabs of Palestine would not tolerate Jewish domination in Palestine… and if disturbances of sufficient violence occurred in Jerusalem at Easter, [the British High Commanders] would advocate the abandonment of the Jewish home.”
Today, the Jewish people begin their week-long celebration of Passover, the Jewish festival of freedom. This evening we will read in the Haggada that our fight for freedom is an eternal struggle.
When we assess the global nature of the current assault on Jewish freedom and sovereignty in our country, we see the truth of that message.
While our present circumstances give us much to celebrate, the work of Jewish liberation is far from over.
Read the rest – The eternal liberation movement
It seems that Mitt Romney and Benjamin Netanyahu once worked for the same organization.
Editorial
One of the things to think about in respect the current political campaign is the impact that would be felt were the president of America and the prime minister of Israel on the same page. We were put in mind of this by Michael Barbaro’s illuminating dispatch in today’s New York Times, describing the friendship that sprang up in the late 1970s between Benjamin Netanyahu and Mitt Romney. At the time the future prime minister of Israel and the future front runner for the Republican nomination for president were both working for the same company, the Boston Consulting Group, and honing their analytical abilities in the same weekly brainstorming sessions, “absorbing,” Mr. Barbaro reports, “the same profoundly analytical view of the world.”
We will never forget how America’s relationship with Israel descended into acrimony during the latter years of President Clinton’s administration. That was when Secretary Albright was hectoring the new premier in Jerusalem, Mr. Netanyahu, over the so-called peace process. It wasn’t, at least not then, a problem of the Democratic Party. We also watched President Reagan’s near magical relationship with Israel fall off during the accession of George H.W. Bush as the 41st president. That was the period of feuding over loan guarantees that America was giving to enable the Jewish state to build the housing it needed, partly because so many thousands of Jews were fleeing the Soviet Union.
We didn’t see a return to relationship that was both warm and successful until the rise, here, of President Bush’s son, George W. Bush, and, in Israel, of Ariel Sharon. The two had bonded when the former defense minister of Israel gave the future American president a tour of the Samarian hills, from which the logic of Israel’s strategic choices becomes so clear. Under the leadership of George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon, the acrimony disappeared from the relations between the two governments. No doubt this was helped by the degree to which their common interests became so evident in the war on Islamist terror.
That President Obama permitted that warmth to evaporate is one of the errors of his presidency. We would not say that there has been no working relationship, but the political warmth has gone. Instead we have had a roller-coaster of ups and downs in the two administrations, even while both sides have protested that everything is in fine shape. The tension between the two has loosed a cataract of leaks on what might, or might not, be the plan for Iran. It has returned us to the days when the secretary of state — in this case Mrs. Clinton — exhibits an Albrightian disdain for the way the Israelis are handling what is left of the peace process.
We would not want to suggest that relations between any two countries, leastwise those between Israel and America, are merely a matter of personalities. Relations are ultimately governed by national interest. But neither would we want to suggest that leadership doesn’t matter. We learned this in, among other moments, the late 1960s and early 1970s, when Golda Meir’s envoy in Washington, Yitzhak Rabin, swung behind President Nixon. This helped sideline the peace plan hatched in the state department and advanced by Secretary of State Rogers. The plan was recognized as short-sighted by Henry Kissinger, who encouraged Mr. Rabin not to blame, indeed to appreciate, President Nixon. Rabin’s sagacity led to the breakthrough understanding that Republicans could be the party more sympathetic to Israel.
* * *
[......]
Read the rest – The Romney-Netanyahu friendship
Tags: Caroline Glick
I am very glad to know that Netanyahu and Romney actually knew each other. I could never imagine Netanyahu and Obama even if they were the same age, having anything in common.
The US Consulate is in Jerusalem (West Jerusalem by the way) yet it acts as if it is not under the control of the US Embassy in Tel Aviv. The Consulate acts as if it is the Embassy to the PLO.
I would like to ask the State Department what country is Jerusalem in and what is the official currency there?
Personalities at times do count in foreign relations -- Reagan/Thatcher, Bush/Blair, Nixon/Meir -- Obama has bonded with Erdogan the fascist Islamist from Ankara.
Speranza wrote:
I am sure the response would match their bosses in the OIC.
@ Speranza:
You forgot Carter/Arafat…
Speranza wrote:
Stimulus?
Speranza wrote:
As we’ve learned from Obama, a lot can be gleaned from one’s acquaintances and friends.
@ MacDuff:
The people with whom you choose to associate can say a lot about you. Look at Obama’s ties: Ayers, Wright, van Jonse, even Valerie Jarret. All hard-Left idealogs and in the case of Ayers an actual terrorist. Those are not usually the associations that one would look for in a Presidential Candidate, yet Obama was given a pass for them all. Rather sad and frightening, if you ask me.
Iron Fist wrote:
Yep. You’re looking at that little man behind the curtain again……….
Mike C. wrote:
Carter/Khomeini
MacDuff wrote:
Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers concurring.
Speranza wrote:
Carter / [Insert Despot Here]
@ Speranza:
Whatever the House of Saud tell them is the currency.
@ Iron Fist:
Plus Obama’s involvement in the Nuclear Freeze Movement.
Thanks Speranza, there’s at least one positive thing to say about Mitt Romney. I’m still not happy mind you, but at least I can put off my push for a third party until December of 2012.
@ Flyovercountry:
I had some Colombian and Chilean relatives over for Easter yesterday. They really hate the GOP (They don’t like the Dems either), but when I told them about Obamacare and the cutting of cancer screening, that changed their mind. I convinced most of them to vote against Obama.
Speranza wrote:
What an eloquent understatement.
@ Rodan:
And that is key. Obama must be defeated. The country really cannot weather another four years of him. Just as we couldn’t have weathered another four years of Carter. If I have to swallow four years of Romney (or eight, if that is what it takes; no more Democrats!), then I will, and hope for a Congress that holds his feet to the fire.
Check out the Special Report
@ Iron Fist:
I’m not hopeful for a Romney Presidency. He’s a liberal and there’s no masking that and I have no faith in Congress because when you have a Republican President, the Republican Congress doesn’t care about fiscal issues and becomes a doormat for the President.
I just want Obama gone and then I will deal with a Romney Presidency.
MacDuff wrote:
Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jomng-Il, Kim Kardashian
Rodan wrote:
Sad but true.
Flyovercountry wrote:
Hey we have to play the cards we are dealt. If he beats Obama I will be eternally grateful.
Rodan wrote:
Not voting at all is equivalent to voting for Obama.
huckfunn wrote:
The difference between a man and a man/boy.
@ Rodan:
No matter how bad Romney is, Obama would be worse. I just don’t think Romney will win it. It isn’t that he can’t. Obama is not in an overwhelming position in regards to winning the presidency. But I don’t think Romney will campaign against Obama as vigorously as he has Santorum and Gingrich, and he certainly won;t be in a position to out-spend Obama as much as he has his primary opponents. He has to start giving people a reason to vote for him, and he doesn’t seem to either realize this or care about it. I don’t know which of those options is worse, but neither brings confidence that Romney will do what it takes to reach out to the base and pull voters out to pull the lever for him. And if he doesn’t do that, he will lose.
@ Iron Fist:
Agreed. none of this purity of defeat B.S. Vote as if your life depends on it because in ways it does.
Iron Fist wrote:
Remember what he whispered to Medvedev. He will have more “flexibility” if reelected.
@ Speranza:
They don’t look it that way. To them The GOP and Dems are both evil. But Obamacare scared them. The Republican brand is not too popular with some communities.
@ Speranza:
Don’t get me wrong, I am full out going to support Romney. I will write on his behalf to the utmost of my ability. After his election come November however, it will be different. I am done with a Republican Party that feels entitled to my vote and completely ignores my voice. Romney whoever in 2012! All bets are off for 2016.
@ Iron Fist:
I think Romney feels he is entitled to the Presidency. I don’t think he will win, but even if he does I have no high hopes for him. He will be better than Obama, but its like saying a car thief is better than a serial killer.
I really don’t have hope for this country anymore.
@ Flyovercountry:
That’s my sentiment. I can’t support a Party that doesn’t share my priorities. Some say the GOP of today is the Democratic Party of the Truman-JFK era. Well my family didn’t like that Democratic Party and if the GOP has become that, I want no part of it. The Democratic Party of the 40′s and 50′s supported bigotry and discrimination. No thanks.
Flyovercountry wrote:
I am too however I think it is so important to keep the Democrats out of the White House for a long, long time.
@ Speranza:
He will govern as full bore 3rd World Liberation Ideologue.
Rodan wrote:
The rank and file of the GOP is far better then the rank and file of the Democrats.
Good morning. No friend of Israel hangs out with
anti-semites like Wright, Farakhan & terrorist
enabeling Palestinian academics in Chicago.
He also pretends not to be at war with the Catholic
Church. This morning FNC had a sychophantic BHO
supporter on. She said that she is Catholic & fellow
Catholiocs that she talks to support Obamas’ “compromise”
with the Church.
My guess is that she talks to three Catholics in Midtown
while doing lunch.
@ Speranza:
If the Republicans don’t govern responsibly, People will be done with them.
@ Iron Fist:
True, Romney does not have a “I want to be president
because……..” narrative.
He better come up with one.
@ Speranza:
It depends, there are good Democrats and Good Republicans. Then there is the trash scum both parties cater too.
@ Flyovercountry:
The thing to do is start NOW to effect 2016. We should all start getting involved with the Republican Party at the lowest levels. Find out whou your state representative is, and if he/she is a Repubilcan put pressure on them. If they are a Democrat, work to get them out of there. That is how we can change the Party and save the Country. We can do it at the grass-roots level. I know that all our lives are busy. It seems like all I do is eat, work, and sleep. But we need to try to get involved. The fate of the country really does depend on us.
@ RIX:
He wants to be President because its his turn.
@ Iron Fist:
I think the GOP is beyond saving. They maybe good at a local level, but they are horrible at a national level. Its time for something new. But get Obama out 1st.
@ Speranza:
As long as the Democrats are beholden to their hard-Left base, they need to be kept from the levers of Power at all levels. When they change from that (if they change from that), it may be possible to trust them with power again, but I’d caution you that the Democrats ran “conservative” Democrat candidates in 2006, and they promptly put Queen Pelosie Galore in the office of Speaker of the House. So much for “conservative” Democrats.
Rodan wrote:
That is pretty much what it seems like.
Imo,he needs to say something like “I want to be
President because I don’t want our children &
grandchildren to have their lives destroyed by a
mountain of debt. A second Obama term will be a disaster.”
@ Iron Fist:
The Democrats will probably put a face of moderation if Obama loses.
@ RIX:
Romney doesn’t give a crap about our future. Hence why he’s not articulating a positive vision.
Rodan wrote:
He better come up with something, or we will see
another McCain debacle.
@ RIX:
He should at least run against Obamacare.
Rodan wrote:
Tough sell, while he defends RomneyCare.
He is having trouble explaining the difference
between a state program and a national program.
Ah yes, here I linked to the Romney/Nethanjahu friendship
Iron Fist wrote:
Not a fan of Coulter much anymore but she did say that every 25 -- 30 years the public gets an attack of stupidity and will vote an unqualified Carter or Obama in.
OT, but an interesting factoid I just saw on Fox News. The subject was “change in drilling permits approved on Federal land during the past three administrations“:
Clinton + 58%
Bush +116%
Obama -38%
I return you now to your regular scheduled programming since amplification isn’t really necessary.
Guggi wrote:
I did not see it. I saw this editorial in the New York Sun.
Rodan wrote:
I was referring to the typical center-right GOPer as opposed to the center-left Democrat.
Rodan wrote:
He pretty much is there already.
RIX wrote:
I’m no real Romney fan, but with all due respect, that’s pretty much what he’s been saying, isn’t it?
@ MacDuff:
How dare you bring facts about our divine Pharaoh! You are Racist(heretic)!
/////////////////////////////////
@ MacDuff:
You do know that any criticism of Obama , for
any reason is a prima facie case of raaaaaciam.
Report for reeducation at 0800 hours.
RIX wrote:
The show trial with self abasement and condemnation before execution to follow shortly.
@ Speranza:
@ RIX:
No criticism of our Pharaoh is allowed!
Rodan wrote:
When I spend $70 to fill my Camry, I feel a bit of nostalgia for “Chimpy BusHitler who’s in the pocket of Halliburton an Bog Oil”
There should be billboards with those stats, strategically placed around gas stations……..
RIX wrote:
I think I likely spewed enough racism in the NRO/Derbyshire thread to net me the death penalty. I’m a regular desperado now, armed with the facts and unafraid to use them.
MacDuff wrote:
I feel your pain, the sad thing is that Obama actually prefers higher gas prices.
@ MacDuff:
I never thought I would agree with you on this. But I kinda miss Bush. Not that I agree with his fiscal policies nor his foreign policy, but he wasn’t the scumbag Obama is. Also he was trying to make the Republican Party more inclusive and diverse. Its a shame that the GOP has turned its back on that attempt.
I have a reassessment on certain aspects about Bush. Obama and the current GOP are that bad that even a Bush critic like me has retrospective higher opinion of Bush.
@ Speranza:
He wants them higher to make Green energy more commercial.
@ Speranza:
.
It’s only fair.
@ MacDuff:
Heh, “Bog Oil” = “Big Oil”. Perhaps I was thinking of my plans for the Peatmobile.
@ MacDuff:
Exactly. If gas prices are still high in September, Romney should run hard on those stats. The run up in oil prices is because of a shortage in supply, not (primarily) because of tension in the Middle East. If we’d started drilling back during the Clinton Administration, there would be plenty of oil right now.
@ MacDuff:
You are not a racist until Charles Johnson says
that you are a racist.
He has special powers & knows if even you do not.
I do believe that he has judged everybody over here
as racist, just because.
@ Iron Fist:
Obamacare is Obama’s Achilles heel. I saw it with my relatives who were thinking of sitting the election out. The only persuasive argument I was able to get in was Obamcare. That changed some minds.
@ Rodan:
Yeah, ObamaCare is a big hammer to give up, but Romney shows no more interest in renouncing ObamneyCare than he does reaching out to the Tea PArty. Those are two big reasons I expect him to fail in his quest for the Presidency. If he succeeds, they are two big reasons I expect his term of office to be a failure. He shows no interest in motivating or reaching out to the majority of Republican voters. HE Deserves to lose, but the consequences of his loss are so catestrophic that I will do my part in trying to make this loser as palatable as possible.
MacDuff wrote:
Ed Morrissey over at HotAir spoke his piece on that subject today. As many here already know, I consider Ed to be a RINO, more concerned with being Politically Correct than with the actual truth. His article suggests that his politically correct mentality isn’t just skin deep, but goes all the way to the bone.
A brief note on NRO’s personnel decisions
Over the Easter weekend, as I was finishing up my vacation, National Review terminated longtime contributor John Derbyshire over a column he wrote for Taki Magazine that was breathtakingly offensive and, as fellow NRO contributor Jonah Goldberg tweeted, indefensible. I only read the column late on Saturday afternoon after Rich Lowry had already announced Derbyshire’s termination, and assumed it was a badly-handled attempt at satire until it got to point 11 of Derbyshire’s version of “the talk,” which baldly asserted that blacks are intellectual inferiors to whites as a group. The entire piece as a whole demonstrated an almost unhinged hostility towards blacks, and it’s not surprising that NR would want to disassociate themselves from Derbyshire after the mask slipped.
@ Iron Fist:
Well said and I agree.
@ MacDuff:
@ doriangrey:
This is where I will disagree with Conservatives. Most of Derbyshire points I agreed with. However his IQ stat is very flawed. It doesn’t factor in environmental factors. If a group has lower IQ it has to do because they have a higher amount in poverty and less cultural affinity for reading. Take a baby from that group and raise them in a Middle Class environment with an emphasis on reading and the IQ rises.
I am not into the biological arguments for inferiority. If this is where Conservatives is going, no thanks. There is nothing Conservative about claiming certain groups are biologically inferior. Its actually a Progressive concept.
@ doriangrey:
Point 11 is pretty hard to let slip by. Frankly, I don’t believe it is true, and I don’t believe that it advances any decent agenda to act as though it were. The problem in the black community is one of culture and peeer pressure, not of the basic human material available.
@ Rodan:
We are, again, in accord
@ Iron Fist:
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is nothing Conservative about claiming a group is biologically inferior. Its actually Progressive. I’m glad you reject this!
@ Iron Fist:
You believe in a color blind National Unity society like I do. The concept of Group X is inferior is contrary to what real Conservatism is about.
Rodan wrote:
Running on a “color blind” society is a winning issue. Too bad we abandoned it for “contraception”.
Rodan wrote:
Presidential administrations have such wide-ranging influence and power in the modern era that it’s hard to place an “en toto” value on some. George W certainly wasn’t Reagan by a long shot, but he was head and shoulders above Clinton , and we needn’t mention Carter. JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford? He was more conservative than his father, and more conservative than he often gets credit but his governance did tilt leftward from his rhetoric. For whatever his obvious foibles and abject wrong-headed ness at times, we could have done far worse on 9/11, and he always showed himself to be a man of good character with a deep love of his country -- traits that he shared with his father.
Hell, Rodan, right now Clinton is looking REAL good!
@ Speranza:
So you think we should have just let Obama attack religious liberty? I am not convinced that the issue is a loser, myself. Women are of mixed views on the issue. We should have more forcefully stated that ObamaCare was (and will) force people to pay for abortions. That is a much more controversial provision. One that many women reject. It is still early, and I don’t think abandoning the field to the enemy is warrented here.
@ MacDuff:
I like Clinton’s fiscal policies, but hated his foreign policy. I would take either Bush or Clinton any day of the week.
@ Iron Fist:
That should have been the focus. That the government should not force people to pay for abortions or contraceptives. But Santorum and other Conservatives made it into a moral issue and this turned women off.
Rodan wrote:
Accept that Derb didn’t do that. He made no attempt to suggest any reason for the documented statistics. Nor did he make any suggestion or imply any motive. What he did do, is to provide documentation of his assertion.
ETHNIC GROUP DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS: A META-ANALYSIS
IQ and you-know-who: the great white hero faces reality
Iron Fist wrote:
I was referring to Santorum and his dumb words about the dangers of contraceptive devices. It went form Obama’s War on the Church to the GOP’s War on Women.
Rodan wrote:
In other words, he’s a worm, and it’s the worm’s turn?
Rodan wrote:
Thanks.
It’s hard to tell the left from your average neo nazis these days.
refugee000 wrote:
They have much in common.