From 1939 to 1945, The New York Times (America’s so-called “paper of record”) deliberately downplayed, under-reported, and misrepresented the murders of Jews which the Germans and their allies were conducting on such an unprecedented scale. This was due to several factors amongst which was the Sulzberger family, particularly publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger, did not want The New York Times to be known as a “Jewish ” newspaper, their ambivalent (to say the least) feelings about Zionism, and their belief that Judaism was a religion and not a people and to label victims as Jews would be playing into the notion of Jewish peoplehood. Therefore Jews killed in Poland were “Polish victims” and not (or oftentimes not) referred to as Jews. In 2005, Laurel Leff wrote an excellent book on this subject called “Buried by the Times: The Holocaust and America’s Most Important Newspaper“. today, not only The New York Times but virtually the entire main stream media has covered up the blatant, in your face, anti-Semitism and calls for genocide emanating from Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and virtually the entire Islamic world, as well from the Left with it’s call for boycott’s of the Jews of Israel.
by Caroline Glick
So it works out that Iran’s vice president really hates Jews. In fact, he hates Jews so much that even The New York Times reported it. On Tuesday, the Times published an account of Iranian Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi’s speech before a UN forum on fighting drug addiction in Tehran.
Rahimi claimed that Jews control the illegal drug trade. We sell drugs, he said, in order to fulfill what he said is a Talmudic writ to “destroy everyone who opposes the Jews.”
He said that our conspiracy is obvious since, he claimed, there are no Jewish drug addicts.
He went so far as to promise to pay anyone who can find a Jewish drug addict.
[......]
Oops, sorry, he doesn’t hate Jews. He hates Zionists.
Some of his best friends are Jews.
At least that is what the Times would have us believe. As reporter Thomas Erdbrink put it, “‘Zionists’ is Iran’s ideological term for Jews who support the state of Israel.”
He also helpfully noted, “More than 25,000 Jews live in Iran, and they are recognized as a religious minority, with a representative in Parliament.”
Aside from that, just so we don’t get the wrong impression about the Iranian government, Erdbrink calmed us down by noting, therapeutically, “Several Iranian ministers gave politically neutral briefings on the impact of the drug trade on the country.”
So aside from the fact that its vice president is a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Semite, the Iranian regime is perfectly respectable. Nothing to see here folks, move on.
Except, of course, that this is not the case.
Iran’s “Supreme Leader” routinely refers to Israel as a cancer. For instance, in a sermon before thousands of Muslim worshipers in February, Ali Khamenei said, “The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor and it will be removed.”
Then, of course, there’s Rahimi’s direct boss, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who can’t ask what the weather is like without calling for the annihilation of the Jewish people.
But then he too usually calls us Jews “Zionists,” (which most of us are), so his calls for the genocide of Jewry is really just a political statement and not proof that what moves him when he wakes up in the morning and goes to bed at night is a passionate, obsessive desire to murder an entire people.
Many commentators seized on Erdbrink’s write-up of Rahimi’s diatribe as further proof that the civilized world cannot permit Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. And that is fair enough.
Of course Iran cannot be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons. They are religious fanatics who rule under a deranged banner of messianic genocide.
[......]BUT THE real issue here is that these commentators felt it necessary to seize on the Times’ write-up of Rahimi’s speech to make this obvious point. That is, the real issue here isn’t the Iranians. The real issue is the Western media. From the New York Times to the BBC to the European media, Jew-hatred is the most under-reported – and arguably most important story – of our times.
No issue unites the Muslim world more than venomous, murderous hatred of Jews.
No single issue informs their foreign policies more than hatred of Jews. And yet, reporting – even biased, misleadingly understated reporting – of this massive, strategically pivotal phenomenon is almost nonexistent in most major media outlets. As a consequence, it is a major event when the Times finally publishes an anemic report about it. And again, even that report hides the real story.
[......]
What both Erdbrink and his European interlocutor failed to acknowledge is that Rahimi won’t be punished for his views. He was promoted because of his views. Helping Iran fight drugs doesn’t encourage non-genocidal Iranian politicians. It legitimizes the regime that promoted Rahimi and Ahmadinejad and Khamenei and every other powerful politician and military commander because of their hatred of Jews.
The Western media has two basic approaches to their non-reporting of Islamic Jew-hatred and its significance for international security. The first approach is to ignore the issue because it is ideologically inconvenient.
The New York Times, like every other major Western media outlet except The Wall Street Journal, is of the opinion that the Islamic world should be appeased. The Muslim Brotherhood and Iran should be accommodated.
If they gave Islamic Jew-hatred coverage commensurate with its actual significance, they would be undermining their ideological agenda. In light of their ubiquitous and vituperative obsession with Jewish people, it is obvious that it is impossible to appease the Muslim world.
The second approach to contending with Islamic Jew-hatred is to justify it by claiming that Israel has earned all the hate coming its way. It’s “political” they say. The Islamic demonization of Jews is understandable given the Palestinians and all that.
Obviously, both of these approaches to the story of Islamic Jew-hatred are appalling. The former approach involves a breach of the very concept of objective journalism. After all, the purpose of journalism is to report on the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.
[......]
AND IF Rahimi’s hatred had been directed against any other people, race, creed, state or color, no one would support cooperation with “these people.”
No one would support the Palestinian national movement if its inherent, overwhelming hatred was directed, say, against the black state rather than the Jewish state.
Demonizing and delegitimizing Israel is the core goal of the Palestinian national movement.
To this end the Palestinian Authority’s Information Ministry published a style guide to instruct Palestinians what terms they should use to avoid legitimizing Israel.
According to Palestinian Media Watch’s report about the style guide, language must be chosen that will avoid presenting Israel’s existence as “natural.” As the book’s introduction explains, using Israeli terminology “turns the essence of the Zionist endeavor (i.e., Israeli statehood) from a racist, colonialist endeavor into an endeavor of self-definition and independence for the Jewish People.”
[......]
But a central goal of Palestinian propaganda, and advanced by all relevant sectors of Palestinian society, is to rewrite history and erase the Jews from the history of the Land of Israel.
And rather than call them on this intellectual crime of literally biblical proportions, the Western media collaborates with them. For instance, on Tuesday, the New York Times published an article about the efforts of the Palestinians from Battir, an Arab village southwest of Jerusalem, to have their ancient terraced irrigation system recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. They claim the designation is necessary and urgent because if they don’t get it, Israel may build a portion of the security barrier through the village and harm the irrigation system.
Isabel Kershner, the Times’ reporter, referred to the irrigation system as “a Roman-era irrigation system.”
But as the bloggers Yisrael Medad and Elli Fischer pointed out, it is a Jewish irrigation system from the Second Temple period. And while Battir is a reasonable candidate for World Heritage Site status, it is first and foremost a Jewish heritage site. Battir is the Arab name for the ancient Jewish village Betar, the site of Bar- Kochba’s last stand against the Roman Empire.
It is the last place where Jews were sovereign until the establishment of the State of Israel.
But Kershner didn’t mention any of that.
[.......]
On the face of it, it can be argued that the Western media’s willful blindness towards Islamic Jew-hatred and its influence on world affairs are part and parcel of the Western elite’s collective refusal to recognize and contend with the implications of the phenomenon.But this is too forgiving.
Policy-makers who ignore Islamic Jew-hatred are doing so because they are trying to sell their policies. What’s the New York Times’ excuse? The media are supposed to report facts, not shape perceptions. The facts, not the perceptions are supposed to inform policy.
That is, they are not supposed to collaborate with policy-makers, they are supposed to inform policy-makers and the general public.
And this leads us back to the well-meaning commentators who seized on Erdbrink’s report about how Iran’s vice president believes that Jews – sorry Zionists – are monsters, and used it as proof that Iran cannot be permitted to get the bomb. Yes, of course, they are right that it is worth re-quoting his vile remarks to make the point. But by quoting the Times, they may be scoring a couple of tactical points today, but they are losing a long-term strategic battle. They are giving respectability to a media organ that is consummately unworthy of our respect. They are giving respectability to a news organ with an institutional policy of denying, underreporting, and misleadingly reporting about themost important issue that shapes events in the Middle East today: Islamic hatred of Jews.
Read the rest – About those Jews………….
Tags: Caroline Glick
I find it so strange that American Jews do not (in the vast majority) hold the New York Times and Democrats (such as FDR) in contempt over the Holocaust.
EBL wrote:
They certainly should -as should most other Americans as well.
hmmm… I don’t know any Jewish drug addicts so it must be true! /
I do know a few Jewish potheads though, do they count?
So the Times not only lied about the genocide in the Ukraine to protect Stalin, they lied about the Holocaust to protect Hitler. Lovely. Why do people trust the NYT? It isn’t like their reporting has gotten better with time.
Kafir wrote:
I have known plenty of Jewish potheads too.
These stone-age subhumans in Iran, Egypt, Syria, etc. will never change while the rest of the world just shrugs.
Relatives of slain Yemeni Jew describe an ancient community on verge of extinction
Speranza wrote:
I’ve seen the Hasidim in Williamsburg buying pot.
@ Iron Fist:
NY Times also promoted Castro’s rebellion in Cuba. They also lies about the Serbs. The NY Times supports Hugo Chavez. See a a pattern?
@ Rodan:
If the New York Times supports it, it is probably vile. They are in the tank for Obama too.
@ EBL:
I do.
As a semi-related aside. I own guns, several in fact. I know how to use them. No chest thumping just a fact. The antisemitism I have known in my life has been trivial compared to that which islam engenders. However even I learned that as a Jew you are on your own to protect yourself. How much more so against muslims?
I do not understand anti Second Amendment Jews.
@ Iron Fist:
The NY Times view Obama as a divine being of galatic essence. I still can’t get out of my head the Hispter Friday night who said Obama is one with the Galactic essence and has come to lead Earth into a new age.
I’m reading The Islamic Anti-Christ right now. It clearly lays out the Islamic end times. In a nutshell, Moslems believe they are doing the work of the Mahdi and their Jesus. They believe that Jesus will come to kill ALL Jews and Christians.
I highly recommend this book for all whether Jew or Christian. It very clearly shows what we are up against. Not that folks here don’t already know.
Where is Coldwarrior? I have a Bakers Cyst after my knee surgery and wanted to get his take on it. It mimics a blood clot so I had to go to ER last night to get an ultrasound. Good news, no clot. Bad news, this thing hurts like a mofo. It’s beginning to impact my normally sunny disposition. Heh. Ok, off to the doc to see if it must be “drained”. Shudder.
@ Kirly:
I know all too well about Islamic end times prophecies. It’s a mockery of Jewish/Christian end times. Plus its based of the Gnostic/Hertical end times.
I recommend the book “In the Shadow of the Sword.” It exposes Islam as an Arab scam to justify their domination over the Middle East after Roman and Persian power waned. It seems Islam not not start in Arabia. It started in Syria. There was no Arab Invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire. Instead it was a rebellion of Arab Federated tribes who were employed by the Empire on their borders in Syria and Jordan.
@ Kirly:
He’s working.
Kirly wrote:
Some refuse because to admit there is a problem is to admit how overwhelmingly huge the problem is. That is terrifying, so some retreat into happy muli-culty make believe.
I stopped listening to Michael Medved because he seems to have a similar blindness to islam.
Kirly wrote:
Muslims are nuts.
citizen_q wrote:
I thought he was an observant Jew.
Rodan wrote:
Walter Duranty covering up the Ukrainian Famine for Stalin.
@ Rodan:
.
The Dear Prophet cibbed a lot from Judaism & Christianity.
Adam & Eve, the prohibition against pork & Ramadan
is nothing but a knock off of Lent.
@ RIX:
Read the in the Shadow of the Sword. It’s very possible Mohamed did not exist.
Speranza wrote:
That is my understanding as well.
It has been a couple of years since I regularly listened to him. I wish I had a better recall of the several instances this came up so I could better frame my reasoning. Not quite the minority of extremists hijacking islam cliche, but I seem to remember him rejecting the argument of the problem being islam because doing so would implicate a high proportion of the supposed billion muslims.
@ citizen_q:
So if there’d been enough Nazis he’d have ignored the Third Reich? That is really the equivalent. Islam is Nazism with better PR.
@ Iron Fist:
The Muslim Brotherhood was influenced by the Nazi party.
@ Rodan:
“Galactic essence?” What, where’s the SPAAAAAACE DC-8?! 8)
citizen_q wrote:
I hope he does not buy into that “religion of peace” moderate nonsense.
@ Speranza:
Medved is a Bushie, that says it all.
Iron Fist wrote:
The rational I remember hearing, was if islam itself was supremacist, expansionist, hateful, and violent in it’s core teachings than much of the muslim world must share those beliefs. I can’t believe that there are that many people who would believe and act that as islam is presumed to require therefore the premise must be wrong.
I reject that reasoning, and stopped listening because I saw him escaping an unpleasant conclusion on this important subject his opinion on others was questionable in my mind.
@ Speranza:
It’s been awhile, but I think he was more like, and minority twisting islam.
citizen_q wrote:
PIMF! ‘and’ should be ‘a’.
Rodan wrote:
Which makes me wonder what they are teaching as history in Europe.
It is criminal the inversion casting the paleosimians as the new Jews, and the Israelis as nazis.
However it is understandable in a sick way if you consider Europe in a large part not being ashamed of their Jew hatred culminating in the Holocaust. They were ashamed the horror of their hatred and actions became known. Jew hatred never went away, it was the shame of having been caught red handed that sublimated it until they received the gift of the paleosimians and surrounding arabs multiple failures at genocide of the Jews in Israel and the ensuing manufactured open wound of the paleosimian refugees.
Rodan wrote:
The type that probably thinks that John Roberts is terrific.
@ citizen_q:
Actually Muslims are more despised than Jews in Europe. Its the Euro-Leftist elites who hate Jews and love Islam. Talk to the common Euro, they may not like Jews but they HATE the Muzz. If a genocide happens in Europe, its the Muzz who are catching it.
@ Speranza:
Yup, that Roberts made a genius decision that knee capped the Commerce Clause. Never mind the fact now the Government can Tax you if you don’t buy a product or service.
Rodan wrote:
Roberts has shown himself to be a master of sophistry. Another in a long line of Republican appointed failures to the Supreme Court.
Jews are a minority group that are the exception to the ‘special’ status for minority groups. So, women are a minority group, blacks, Muslims, the disabled, etc. That pretty much trashes any numerical basis for the term ‘minority’.
(It’s because we gots ALL the money and control the world) /
@ Speranza:
The Democrats vet their appointees better than our side does. My suspicions is that Bush only vetted him on Social issues. He didn’t vet him on economic issues. Bush didn’t care about economic issues, it was all about the culture war. Well this is the result.
Rodan wrote:
Now Romney appears to be saying it would be difficult to repeal Obamacare. Even so, the Marxist Muslim in the WH has to be voted out of office.
Rodan wrote:
That is heartening. Sort of.
I don’t know anyone from Europe, that is a hole in my assessment.
yenta-fada wrote:
Mitch McConnell said that -- the first thing we do is replace him as GOP Senate leader.
Speranza wrote:
Ah, I stand corrected. Good plan.
@ Speranza:
The Republicans are playing with fire. If they don’t deliver on what they claim, many Economic/Fiscal Cons will defect to the Libertarians. This is their final chance.
I have no faith in a trio that consists of Romney, Boehner and McConnell.
@ yenta-fada:
Romney is not to be trusted with this either.
@ yenta-fada:
The term “minority” means what Leftists feel it means. It has nothing to do with any mathematical construct. For that matter, it has no grounding in reality. That is how you get such utter nonsense as “majority minority” schools districts.
@ Iron Fist:
Minority is also an insulting term if you think about it.
@ Rodan:
By voting Libertarian you are effectively voting Democrat. The Libertarians can’t elect a school board member anywhere in the United States. They just can’t. Vote for better Republicans in the primaries, if you are interested in effecting real change.
@ Rodan:
It is the way Liberals have defined it. As Liberals see it, a minority is defined it by their “victimhood”. They have no real individuality at all. It is a very demeaning portrayal for those people that they call minorities.
@ Iron Fist:
How long do Conservatives keep supporting a Party that doesn’t act in their interests?
If the GOP doesn’t get rid of Obamacare, improve the fiscal situation, improve the economy or they decide on a nation building exercise in Syria I’m out to the Libertarians. I’m done with the charade.
The GOP will not have the Obama bogeyman to scare people into voting for them.
@ Guggi:
Will he tell Netanyhu that he supports the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria? Hopefully Bibi talks some sense into him.
@ Iron Fist:
It’s actually very insulting. It implies inferiority of a person.
@ Guggi:
@ Rodan:
See the headlines on the sidebar from yesterday.
Rodan wrote:
I take some comfort in the reports saying the Far Left feels the same way about Zero. Not nearly radical enough for them.
I expect you’ll have a lot of company in the Libertarian camp, but the R’s will still have the edge.
Iron Fist wrote:
The stakes are too high to throw your vote away this November.
Rodan wrote:
You take over the party -- you do not defect to a losing cause which is what the Libertarian Party is.
@ Speranza:
I am talking about after the election. If the GOP doesn’t deliver Many Economic/Fiscal Cons will look elsewhere.
Rodan wrote:
It is being used successfully as a ‘divide and conquer’ mechanism. ‘Equality’ is a bogus term that politicians throw around.
@ grambo:
Many on the Left will probably join the Greens.
Rodan wrote:
Oooooooo! From your lips (OK, fingers) to God’s ear.
Rodan wrote:
Regardless of Party affiliation, what this is telling you is that YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN. To the extent we can, we should all take this message to heart. I see scant evidence that politicians are busy representing the people who placed them in office. The SCOTUS ruling shows contempt for the electorate, imo.
@ Rodan:
That is what we hope for. Just as the Leftists would be thrilled if 10% of the Republican party vote were to defect to the Libertarians. Speaker Pelosie Galore would love it if that happened.
@ Iron Fist:
I think we are in for some interesting political times. If the god-king loses, there will be bloodletting on the Left.
The ball will be in Romney/Republican party’s court if they win. They can choose to do the right thing and be rewarded or they can screw up and face the consequences.
@ yenta-fada:
Words of wisdom, right there.
Rodan wrote:
The repeated failures of the Republican Party to provide true leadership makes the rise of a third party inevitable and there’s not one damn thing the Kool-Aid™ Drinkers can do to stop it.
In November I’m voting for Goode rather than the lesser of two evils.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
And who might that be?
@ 64 Da_Beerfreak: Obama is the third party this election. That is where the effect of a 3rd party provide benefits.
@ darkwords:
Exactly. A vote for Gary Johnson is a de facto vote for Barrack Obama. There is no getting around that.
Iron Fist wrote:
That is not true for Voters in deep red and deep blue States.
Regarding the crooks and thieves in D.C..
Take their law lis when ever possible.
http://www.sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com
Use any legal means to get in these commie and RINO’s hair.
ms tfk has us booked into the pickup truck and off to a Ted Cruz rally and fund rais event over west of here.
Ted Cruz is just one of the things we need in D.C..
12 more real conservatives on the R team in the Senate will do wonders for the constition and liberty.
We must control the power and greed of the two party evil money cult.
@ Da_Beerfreak:
No I guess if you can be assured as to how your state will go you can vote without impacting the decision, but then I ask what’s the point? You have no chance of electing your candidate. OTOH, people in swing states might as well vote for Obama as Gary Johnson. Florida may be really close again. So close Holder is hoping voter fraud will win the day. No matter what you think of Romney he will be better than Obama.
Iron Fist wrote:
She would, but then again Pelosi could not successfuly
locate North America on a map.
An Electrical Vehicle Mandate for Washington DC.
Iron Fist wrote:
This needed to be repeated. Right now we are at a tipping point to which way this country goes. Romney is who we have and I do feel he will govern better than we think. He has already ran his campagin better than many have thought.
@ Iron Fist:
Indeed.
Much better.
1. He believes in the Constitution
2. He doesn’t hate the United States
3. He actually loves his country
Yes it has come down to that.
@ Da_Beerfreak:
Which makes no sense. Romney isn’t the lesser of two evils. There is only one evil on the ballot…we need to throw out obama and his communist parade. Instead of throwing away your vote. Sorry I just can’t go there.
@ Lily:
He isn’t so much for country as you’d think.
Romney is Planetist
Obama is a caliphatist
darkwords wrote:
Exactly. It would be more honest to just straightforward vote for Obama.
All this Romney hate makes no sense. For one he isn’t the president yet. For two we need to really, really, really get on the same page and get obama out!!!
@ Iron Fist:
I’m in Minnesota, not much hope of a Romney win here…
waldensianspirit wrote:
Lily wrote:
You want prefection out of a man. Do you honestly think Romney is thesame as obama??? I don’t. So go ahead and vote for a third party. That third party isn’t going anywhere. If obama gets re-elected it is the people who want a PERFECT candidate. No candidate will EVER, EVER meet everyones expectations. Ever.
Oh dear again I have killed another thread.
Lily wrote:
You had help this time.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
You never know….vote!!! One vote after another will add up. I hate to see people give up there are some points that obama may loose Minnesota….as far as this election goes I have no idea how it will turn out. Everyone thought obamacare would be thrown out…wrong.
Everyone thinking their states will double-down on obama could be wrong too.
Is Minnesota in play for Romney?
@ Da_Beerfreak:
You are my partner in crime!!!
@ Lily:
I want an imperfect man/woman who knows it. And turns this country fully over to the tax payers of this country and we rebuild.
Romney after he gets it won’t speak or listen to me again. Kinda reminds me of someone, another Democrat
Lily wrote:
That is the height of insanity.
Just different pig snouts in the tax payer paid trough
By the way Ronnie Reagan did not run as a Reaganite in 1980. He had no intention of allowing the media to impale him as they did Barry Goldwater in 1964. He talked about the misery index, America’s loss of credibility in the world, and the Soviet threat. Not much talk about morality.
@ waldensianspirit:
How do you know? He may surprise you. Plus obama is so much worse.
Yes I would prefer another candidate …but we have what we have.
You only think Romney will not speak or listen to you again. Right now you would perfer 4 more years of obama?? That would be better?
@ Lily:
I will be watching closely. If it looks like it might swing to Romney I will vote for him but I don’t think that is going to happen.
Speranza wrote:
I asked you a question…I didn’t say you did. So you actually know Romney is better than obama. Then help save this country.
@ Lily:
I’ve dealt with the type all my life. I know. As I knew McCain was a disaster and didn’t vote for him in Pennsylvania
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
You never know. Another 4 years of obama is something I honestly don’t care to think about. My son will be classified as unfit for medical care under him.
waldensianspirit wrote:
All the bashing of the Republicans for 8 years meant a shoe-in for who ever ran as democrat.
waldensianspirit wrote:
Either way better than obama.
Speranza wrote:
Minnesota is not a battleground state!!
The only reason the lame stream media wants to portray Minnesota as a swing state is to get a hold of some of the campaign money.
@ Lily:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/business/glaxosmithkline-agrees-to-pay-3-billion-in-fraud-settlement.html?pagewanted=all
I may or may not work for 3 similar companies. Do you think any of this will stop under Romney? An immoral country will die no matter who is in charge
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
This is why we lose elections -- we concede vast swaths of electoral votes even before the battle. Maybe we don’t win Minnesota but how about making the Democrats fight for it and spend their time and money defending their own turf? Bush lost by small margins there in both 2000 and 2004. To their credit the Democrats run 50 state campaigns and try to get electable Democrats as their candidates (which means a Ben Nelson in Nebraska). Too many people here think we can win by concentrating on the Old Confederacy states combined with some of the Southwestern states.
@ waldensianspirit:
You are right a immoral country will pay the price. I totally agree to that.
I have to have hope that we kick obama out and turn this country around. We all need to be in this together instead of fighting among ourselves.
Speranza wrote:
Indeed we need to concentrate on all the states…not just the ones we think are red. All the people of all the states need to step up instead of giving in!!!!
@ Lily:
This is what is known as a “yellow monkey” year, meaning
that a yellow monkey would be better than the guy in the
White House.
I personally would vote for a box of rocks over Obama.
Lily wrote:
Yes, the demographics have changed since 1980. We cannot come across as the party of curmudgeons and “culture warriors”.
RIX wrote:
You and me both…I will not bash Romney because he isn’t Reagan…and that is really what this is all about.
Speranza wrote:
Not to mention the infighting.
RIX wrote:
I sometimes am forced to wonder if some people here don’t believe that Obama is the only solution.
I want to be able to look future generations in the face and say I voted against Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama (twice).
@ Lily:
You don’t want infighting?
The Truth. It Hurts.
Btw, Romney says he’d act on. Not repeal. His amnesty and foreign policy will be a shocker too
doriangrey wrote:
Indeed. The ones that don’t NEED to speak out!!!
@ Lily:
I was a bitter ender on the Cain train, but Romney
is a HUGE upgrade over Barack Hussein.
doriangrey wrote:
I just hope that he doesn’t return to Chicago.
waldensianspirit wrote:
So? He isn’t president yet now is he? You think he will change a lot of things once he is briefed on National things? I do. Obama wants the end of this country as we know it. Romney no.
waldensianspirit wrote:
We are in trouble because we have been electing liberals from both the Democrats and Republicans for the past 80 years. America has been wrongly called immoral even before we declared our independence. A working nation is a contented nation.
RIX wrote:
Indeed but some people here don’t think so.
Speranza wrote:
assuming of course the nation is receiving the fruit of their labor.
@ Speranza:
What choice do we have with this election? Obama a liberal…meh…full blown leftist/communist.
Rix wrote:
Someone please tell me what that guys qualifications to be POTUS exactly was?
Lily wrote:
Anyone who feels the way you or I do and does not vote for Romney or sits it out, is in effect voting for Obama.
Speranza wrote:
Wise words and wise comment.
Speranza wrote:
Yes, I am telling you to go down into the Little Bighorn Gen Custer, every single Indian in North America is waiting for you, their going to kill you, so yes, by all means go down there General…
Speranza wrote:
Yes they are and I will cry for the country I once knew.
@ Lily:
It’s time to evict that Obamas from their home in January.
I know that they are a Black family & all, but still./
Lily wrote:
I mean you play the cards that you are dealt. Even McCain as big an asshole as he was and is, was/is still preferable to Obama.
brookly red wrote:
Excatly and no matter who was on the democratic ticket … would have been viewed …he wasn’t Bush.
Lily wrote:
My Dad (RIP) used to say towards the end of his life (he died in 1996) that he lived to see and participate in the best of America.
Speranza wrote:
Exactly.
Assad: I wish downed Turkish jet had been Israeli
“The plane was using a corridor which Israeli planes have used three times before. Soldiers shot it down because we did not see it on our radar and because information was not given,” the Cumhuriyet newspaper quoted Assad as saying in an interview published on Tuesday.
“Of course I might have been happy if this had been an Israeli plane,” Assad said.
RIX wrote:
I am hoping he decides to be caliph of Indonesia and goes there to start his jihad.
Not of course that he hasn’t been fighting a jihad against us in the meantime.
Lily wrote:
I was talking about the guy whose every response to a question was “9, 9, 9″. Meanwhile the Family in Texas who gave us David Souter and John Roberts (and ultimately Barack Obama) is already grooming Porky Pig (Jeb) for a run for POTUS down the road.
RIX wrote:
So tragic that the first black family are communists and hate the United States and play the race card and are actively trying to destroy this country. Pathetic.
Lily wrote:
and guess what? you don’t need to vote for someone in and election, you can vote against someone too. O is running against himself and losing.
Lily wrote:
The black president who will lead us into a post racial America will be a Republican (and I am not referencing Colin Powell or Clueless Condi Rice).
@ Urban Infidel:
To hell with the chinless ophthalmologist. In the end I hope he meets that same fate as qadaffy.
citizen_q wrote:
and Mussolini.
@ Speranza:
That Family has been the Left’s best friends.
Speranza wrote:
Jeb isn’t going anywhere near the White House. We need new blood….not Clinton again or another Bush. Oh we got new blood with the obamas but that was one huge ass mistake to be honest.
citizen_q wrote:
You took the words right outta my mouth!
brookly red wrote:
Do not underestimate him and the power of the forces he has behind him.
Speranza wrote:
Yep the first man that comes to mind is Allen West. A true American.
Lily wrote:
Well, I’m sorry to not be able to join all those who are gnashing teeth and wearing hair shirts and stocking up on drugs in order to vote for Mitt. I actually am quite pleased with him -- or, rather, with my expectations of what he will do.
A year from now maybe y’all can trash me about this, but for now, I’m focused on helping him get it done.
Lily wrote:
Just the thought of that mediocre family trying to hoist another of their unspecial sons on us is sickening. I blame them for Obama.
@ Lily:
@ Speranza:
Looking forward to Col. West leading
I hope Romney includes him in his administration.
That was clear during the 08 campaign & yet he was
elected.
Obama is the “other” He is an exotic creature that
never lived on the Mainland until he went to college.
He has been influenced by Marxists, Islamists and
racists like Rev Wright.
He seems to have no American values or affinty for this
country.
@ Lily
Lily wrote:
There are others. I was very impressed by South Carolina congressman Tim Scott when I saw him on Hannity (hosted actually by Tucker Carlson) last night.
@ Speranza:
Another reason for me to be leery of Romney. He has a lot of sons
citizen_q wrote:
I would prefer him to stay in congress.
waldensianspirit wrote:
Hey right now all I want is to get rid of Obama.
Speranza wrote:
I don’t underestimate him….he plays very dirty.
waldensianspirit wrote:
So???
Speranza wrote:
Bingo!!!! Who cares if he has a lot of sons…they are old enough to be in politics and yet they aren’t. Oh lets be afraid Romney has 5 sons….
/good grief.
Rodan wrote:
They certainly are not friends of the Republicans.
Reagan’s two biggest mistakes:
1. picking G.H.W. Bush as his V.P.
2. nominating Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court.
@ Lily:
We will be weary with the family name Romney as we are of Bush and one Obama. A dynasty would finish my years.
@ Speranza:
There is no perfect candidate..even Reagan made mistakes.
Lily wrote:
The Kennedy’s (Joseph Sr. brood) had like 30 kids total -- each one more left-wing then the next.
Lily wrote:
Oh I don’t underestimate him he has the full weight of the DoJ to implement voter fraud with.
Lily wrote:
He made a bunch of mistakes.
brookly red wrote:
Unlike McCain -- he also plays to win. Anything goes.
@ waldensianspirit:
I certainly don’t care about that. So let’s obama stay in office because Romney has 5 sons. You ever think they may want to stay out of politic’s???? My sons certainly didn’t follow the path of their father and he has been very sucessful.
Salon: Yup, The “Dissent” Was Mostly Roberts’ Old Majority Opinion
Roberts got to write both sides
Someone once asked Dwight D. Eisenhower what his biggest mistakes as president were and he responded -- “They are both sitting on the Supreme Court” (Earl Warren and William J. Brennan).
New Thread.
@ waldensianspirit:
He (Roberts) sold out.
Rodan wrote:
This one is going good. lol
@ Speranza:
@ Lily:
@ brookly red:
I will be very very happy just to rid of obama.
That will be a tall order, and I will cross other bridges when I come to them.
@ citizen_q:
Barry is not a physical guy. He lets others get dirty.
Speranza wrote:
Yep…but lets worship him…Romney is no Reagan…Reagan was no Reagan until he was president. Give the man a chance…I have already seen obama and don’t like what is going on at all.
I agree with Rix a box of rocks would be a better president than obama.
@ Speranza:
But, but , but now he can go to all the cool parties with Huffington, Sarah Jessica Parker and Ann Wintour!
citizen_q wrote:
Amen to that!!!
Speranza wrote:
He was honest.
Speranza wrote:
Sorry you think the Romney’s are the Kennedy’s….NOT!
Lily wrote:
That he was. He also said that the worst two years of his life was 1958 and ’59 -- we had a bad recession those two years (my Dad told me).
Report: Obama Is Granting Amnesty to Illegal [Leftist] Immigrants Behind Americans’ Backs
Lily wrote:
I did not say that. From all appearances Mitt Romney leads an exemplary personal life.
Speranza wrote:
Oh indeed there are others. I agree.
waldensianspirit wrote:
Bleech to those three.
Speranza wrote:
You equated the two families. Did you not? It was Joseph Kennedy that pushed his sons into politics.
@ Lily:
But we are on the same page…get obama OUT AND LIKE YESTERDAY.
/so I will let the Kennedy’s and Romney’s go.
Gotta go for a minute or so….
/hope I didn’t insult anyone.
@ RIX:
There are many ways to prosecute a jihad, there is lawfare and infiltration for example, think cair. We generally agree that obama has been purposely destructive. His background is ambiguous enough that he could be a stealth muslim. Heck rev. wright’s church allowed muslim members. He is very favorable to the spread of islam, from striking language related to islam agencies fighting terrorism, NASA’s new mission of muslim outreach, and the so-called islamic spring.
Also, islamic scripture calls upon those not able to fight to support the jihad in other ways.
Not that far a leap to call his actions jihad.
@ Lily:
in the sense Obama doesn’t have any sons that we know of
PIMF! “islam agencies” should be “islam from government agencies”
See y’all later.
Rodan wrote:
It doesn’t matter if he did or not since there are a billion Moslems who will believe exactly the opposite as reality -- they will believe the false prophet and insist that he is the savior. It’s completely flipped. Whatever human source might have been involved in creating or furthering Islam is irrelevant. What matters today, to us, is they will almost certainly never be converted and will go to the bitter end with their hatred. And they will kill a great many of us in the process.
waldensianspirit wrote:
Lily wrote:
No I was talking about the Kennedy’s and Bush’s, not the Romney’s.