GOP Candidates Speak to Republican Jewish Coalition

Pages: 1 2

On December 7, the Republican presidential candidates spoke to the Republican Jewish Coalition, except for Ron Paul who was not invited. The six contenders went before the influential organization to make their case that they’d be the best one to handle Israel, the Middle East and the war against radical Islam.

Newt Gingrich, the new frontrunner, said that the country is in the same spot in the struggle against radical Islam that it was in 1946 against the Soviet Union. He asserted that the U.S. prosecution of this struggle is “based on a pack of lies and a pack of self-deception,” using the Justice Department’s removal of all mentions of Islam from their counter-terrorism training materials as an example.

Gingrich said he’d support a policy of regime change in Iran and Syria. He would replicate the strategy used by Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II to bring down the Soviet Union. Iran’s gas refinery should be sabotaged and “every dissident group” in Iran should get U.S. funding and other forms of assistance, like with communications. He admitted that the U.S. doesn’t know what a post-Assad Syria will look like, but said it was worth the risk. He ruled out using U.S. forces to topple Assad, but favors helping the rebel forces.

He again promised to sign an executive order immediately after his inauguration that would move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Gingrich pledged to transform the government, including the national security apparatus. He announced that he’d choose former U.N. ambassador John Bolton to be his Secretary of State, drawing a huge applause. Bolton would be tasked with changing the State Department’s culture of appeasement. The intelligence community will be “liberated” so that it doesn’t have to rely upon questionable allies like Pakistan for information.

Gingrich was the only one to mention the State Department’s hosting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Washington D.C. next week and the prosecution of the war in Iraq. He said the U.S. should never work with “those who would censor the world on behalf of Islam.” On Iraq, he argued that it wouldn’t have taken a turn for the worst under his direction. Gingrich said that he warned the Bush Administration to hire, not fire, the Iraqi army and withdraw from the cities. He harshly criticized Paul Bremer, the leader of the Coalition Provincial Authority that governed Iraq after Saddam fell.

Mitt Romney again promised that his first trip abroad would be to Israel. He did not speak about overthrowing Iran’s government, but did say that he’d push for the indictment of Ahmadinejad based on Article 3 of the Genocide Convention. Romney was the only candidate to mention American policy towards Russia. He criticized the New START Treaty, calling it “one-sided” and criticizing President Obama for offering to remove the anti-ballistic missile defense from Poland and to exclude tactical nuclear weapons from the agreement.

Romney said that the Republican presidential field will all stand by Israel and have the same views on Iran but “what distinguishes us is our experience, our perspective and our judgment.” He used the remainder of the speech to highlight his credentials on the economy and his personal history. He was sure to talk about his long marriage and strong family in a discreet contrast with Gingrich.
Michele Bachmann sounded like a policy wonk, demonstrating her depth of knowledge with facts and examples. She opened up by comparing the early sighting of a Japanese submarine before the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor to today’s warnings about Iran. She mentioned that the Iranian constitution mandates jihad. She called for a policy of regime change based on supporting the Iranian opposition and increased covert operations while developing a war plan to stop Iran from going nuclear if necessary.

Bachmann spoke at length about her feelings towards Israel. As Gingrich earlier pledged, she said she’d authorize the moving of the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on her first day as president. She said that the first step towards peace must be taken by the Palestinian Authority, which is in violation of its agreements to fight against terrorism and to not inspire it. She said that Fatah must change its constitution so that it no longer calls for the destruction of Israel.

Pages: 1 2

  • Flipside

    Jews didn’t invite Ron Paul to kiss their butt along with the rest of the Republicans? The irony is that these Jews will still be invited to an America they don’t support or believe in. Gingrich is promising them Jerusalem. Romney is promising to make a Mormon aliyah to Israel. Ron Paul is promising a freer solvent America with a reduction in domestic surveillance. These particular Jews don’t want that.

    • WildJew

      I've got mixed feelings about their decision to not invite Dr. Paul. Ron Paul and (perhaps) his son Rand, are on the side of the jihadists against the U.S. and the West. Some might counsel that he should have been invited so he could make his case for neutrality in the face of a great moral evil. Others would argue, was it productive or counter-productive that Columbia University invited Iranian President Ahmadinejad to speak, thus providing him legitimacy?

      • ASG

        They did Ron Paul a favor by not inviting him. They realized, like most people, that on domestic issues, Paul is solid. But this confrence seemed more focused on International issues, and when Paul starts speaking about those he seems a bit like a crazy old man.

        • thechristiansolution

          Crazy is WildJew calling all the Republicans who groveled at this anti-American event as genocidal anti-Semites who are bent on seeing Israel destroyed. You are perfectly right about the RJC censoring Ron Paul being a favor in not inviting him. Paul is looking better everyday.

  • WildJew

    Has even one of these candidates stated he or she will reverse immoral Bush administration policy aimed at the division of Israel and the establishment of a Muslim-killer state in Israel's heartland, including Gingrich? Have any of them declared they will jettison the Bush-Saudi Road Map for Israel's destruction? Have any of them declared they will call for erasing the immoral language — Bush put in our national party platform — calling on Israel to establish a Muslim-enemy state at her throat; calling on Israel to retreat in the face of deadly Islamic terror in order to bring "peace" to the region? How can you call any of these a friend of Israel, including Gingrich, short of all that? Gingrich has a better grasp than the others on the threat Islam poses, as do Bachmann and Santorum. Have any of these repudiated their party's stated goal of pressuring Israel to establish a jihad-state, which poses a mortal threat to the Jewish state? Until I hear a commitment to dispense with the Bush-Saudi road map, I will consider moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel's capital mere rhetoric. Didn't Bush and Obama both pledge to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem? I know Obama pledged, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," and then the next day he back-peddled on that one.

    • ASG

      Santorum. He seems to have the best Isreal policy going. I think the only reason he is not up or hasn't had his turn is he may be a little too Socially Conservative.

      • WildJew

        Is it because of all the libertarians in the Republican party? Libertarianism (though there are similarities) is not conservatism.

        • ASG

          I think the majority of people could care less what homosexuals do or don't do. The old Conservatives tend to harp on some issues that the majority of the population couldn't care less about like homosexuality or abortion to name a couple. I'm a 33 year old Conservative and I live in Massachusetts, so maybe due to my location I see it that way, but I feel like those are not issues of grave importance right now and Santorum essentially made his career fighting homosexuality. I think weather you agree with him or not on that issue, the language he has used has been a bit harsh and made people a bit uncomfortable, even when they agreed. It's one of those 'you need to pick your battles,' things.

          • WildJew

            You make an important point. What issues are of grave importance right now; at his point in our history? For me, national security and foreign policy are critical as well as the proper function and size of government. My preference is as little government as is necessary for a country to function. I don't like government seizing my money and my property, so that it can be re-distributed, as Obama envisions the role of government.

            Though homosexuality is not a burning issue for me, I can share Santorum's vision that that traditional marriage is what society should strive toward as an ideal. Abortion is a different matter.

            Though again it is not a burning issue for me at this juncture, we are talking about innocent human life. If at some point in a pregnancy we believe there is a human life involved (particularly in the later term of a pregnancy) then isn't that human life worthy of protection? Of course there are the difficult cases but should we allow these difficult cases dictate law in every instance?

            I'm guessing, like others, Santorum has altered his priorities within the past decade or so. I could be wrong about that. I have altered my since the 9/11 attacks.

    • Stephen_Brady

      Newt Gingrich has already publicly stated that … on his first day in office … he will order the State Department to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He has decried the fact that Israel is the only nation in the world where our embassy is NOT located in the nation's capital.

      A four decade-long support for Israel should give people some hope as to where he would take the American-Israeli relationship. After the Obama-engineered "Arab Spring" which is quickly leading to the "Islamist Winter", Israel will need all the frirnds it can get. Gingrich is one of those friends, and no one can take that away from him.

      • Atronach

        How does moving the embassy do anything useful? It's going to cost a fair amount of money to move operations to a new building, and there's little practical point in this, such a move would really be purely symbolic.

        Also, this thing about the Arab Spring….The countries in which this is occurring were never quite fond of Israel to begin with. I definitely agree that we should not be sponsoring uprisings abroad because it unnecessarily complicates our foreign relations, but I don't feel that this adds a threat, just merely replaces one.

        • Stephen_Brady

          Symbolism is the whole point. It is the United States of America saying that, "We shall stand by Israel, come what may, and the capital of Israel is Jerusalem."

          Of course, the Arab countries are not fond of Israel. They're Muslim. This can be assumed. However, I ask you, how much of a threat to Israel existed during the Mubarak years? What is the potential threat against Israel when the Muslim Brotherhood takes over one of the most powerful Muslim countries in ther world, literally bristling with NATO weaponry?

    • thechristiansolution

      Even if Gingrich had said he was moving Washington DC to Jerusalem, WildJew would still not be happy. So much for groveling to a people who defend another country before they defend the one they're in. Sick, really sick!

      • thechristiansolution

        A good thing Ron Paul did not go to this traitor fest. Every Republican just got slammed as Hitler bent on Israel's destruction! Ron Paul gets smarter each day in my eyes.

  • Asher

    We need to look at the entire package ror an administration. Who would serve this country best, not only as President or VP but Secretary of State in a dangerous world with nuclear weapons and Islamic terrorists who hate mankind and peace. John Bolton would be an excellent Secretary of State, and Paul Ryan is great on finances and Budgets, We also need someone who is not an invironmental wacko who will use the vast resources the US has in Oil and Shale Oil and start drilling in the Gulf, The Obama administration does not realize the God given resources we have and wants to keep us energy dependent on his Arab buddies. Newt Gingrich is totally qualified to be President, not just because of his experience in getting things accomplished, but his knowledge of history, and the Communist movement that is threatening our nation, and also the volatility of Iran, N. Korea, and Pakistan in using Nuclear weapons. Its dangerous when radicals and crazys have this kind of power. I think we should be really serious in selecting a President, not sure whether it will be Gingrich or Romney, maybe heading up Michele Bachman for Vice President. We need intelligent debates to make this important decision.

    • Stephen_Brady

      I agree, and we can't have those debates in the current style. For example, three traditional debates is not what the American people need to see, if either Gingrich or Romney is the nominee. We need depth, only a modicum of moderation, and no more soundbytes.

      I would suggest 6-7 debates, on neutral soil (all the networks would be allowed to televise). Each candidate would be asked a question, and allowed 10 minutes to answer. His opponent would then have 3 minutes to rebut, with a followup by the other candidate to last no more than 2 minutes. This would mean staying on an issue for a total of 15 minutes.

      By the way, did anyone see the Mike Huckabee Presidential Forum, last weekend? That got closer to what I would like to see than anything else. The questioners were three States Attorneys-General, and Mike moderated. It was VERY effective.

      I would also require, as part of the right to televise, that no network break away for commercials while any candidate is speaking.

  • mrbean

    Iran’s nuclear push towards nuclear weapons leaves only two options: a military strike or an acceptance of a nuclear Iran. If you take the former, it is likely to lead to an all out war in the Mid-East with all Shiite Muslims siding with Iran. The latter will also lead to both a power struggle in the Mid ast between Iran and her Shiite allies and the the Saudis and their SUnni allies. You can guarantee and all out war with Israel pulling us in for sure and China and Russia may well side with the Iranians. A third way is a long shot which is fund and support a regime change- which in a Muslim world may be be careful whatyou wish for – as in Yemen, Egypt, and Libya.

    • wayne

      There's another option. Assasinate Amadinajad. I really mean it. The people of Iran tried in vain to remove him by a vote but the govenment falsified it making amadinajad the winner. Think how many lives could be saved. There's no reason it can't be done. The world has to realise that we have to remove all the murderous dictators so another Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin cannot rise to power. Amadinajad is the problem, not the Iranian people.

      • mrbean

        Assasinating Amadinajad really would not make any change in the policy and goals of Iran towards nuclear weapons or continued sponsorship of terrorists that include Hamas, Hezbolla, the taliban in afghanistan and Pakistan, and even cellsof al Qaeda. Nor will it deter their desires to rule the Moslem world. Iran is dominated by Shiites and run by Shiite Imans , by the way Shiites are dominant in Iraq as well.

      • Atronach

        Actually, if you wanted to talk about assassinations, I'd aim for the ayatollah for being the primary aggressor…But, ultimately I feel that promoting any attempted assassination totally ignores the immediate and long term foreign relations ramifications, because of how we would be perceived, as administering our own justice in foreign territory, regardless of how tyrannical their leader definitely is (they pose no threat to us militarily anyways….in any real conflict we'd swat them like flies).

      • thechristiansolution

        Heh Wayne, instead of knocking off the leader of Iran, how about knocking off the leader of Israel. If we knock off Netanyahu then…. Sorry, just getting into the international criminal activity you guys are planning.

  • Reason_For_Life

    As usual the Jews will not be able to see the real anti-Semite.

    Franklin Roosevelt was a god-like hero to American Jews who voted for him in extraordinary numbers. H. L. Mencken was considered to be a vicious anti-Semite because of deprecating remarks he had made.

    When Jewish refugees come asking for sanctuary in America who says 'Yes" and who says "No"? Mencken demanded that the refugees be admitted but Roosevelt, pandering to anti-Semites who vote, refused to allow them to enter the US.

    Did this change after the war? No, Roosevelt is still a hero and Mencken is still thought to be an anti-Semite.

    I have little doubt in my mind that the Republican Jews will endorse the candidate that if elected will screw them. I may not know who that candidate is but I'm still sure that he will be the one chosen to be supported.

    • WildJew

      How will we know who the Republican candidate is that's going to screw us? I believe George W. Bush betrayed us. At this point, I am NOT planning on voting for either of the top tier candidates in the primary. I want to vote for a consistent conservative. But if Romney or Gingrich is the Republican nominee how can I not vote for one or the other November 2012, hoping for the best? Do you think this nation can withstand another four years of Obama?

      • Reason_For_Life

        America withstood 17 years of Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter. America will survive, but what it will look like is another matter.

    • thechristiansolution

      As usual the Jews will not be able to see the real anti-Semite
      Get a grip – There are no anti-Semites in this race. Every last one of them are pandering wimps. Even Ron Paul says that he is helping Israel by cutting off the welfare check to Israel, instead of saying he is helping America.

      Anyway, WildJew is way ahead of you. He goes straight to the chase and accuses them all of planning Israel's destruction.

      • Reason_For_Life

        Ron Paul want to abolish all foreign aid which he sees as helping America by reducing the deficit. Besides, the Jewish Republican organization wouldn't even invite him to hear what he had to say.

        The candidates most likely to want to help Israel are Christians that believe in biblical prophecy. Yet, most Jewish organizations fear fundamentalist Christians more than they fear Hamas. The real people to fear are the pragmatists who, having no respect for principles, will sacrifice anyone at any time for short term political gain.

        The point was that most Jews, like most people in general, aren't very good at knowing who their friends are.

  • BS77

    I like Mitt Romney.

    • WildJew

      What do you make of this?

      Asked by Dan Gilgoff of U.S. News & World Report if his repeated references to "jihad" in a speech at the Heritage Foundation characterized Islam in sinister terms, Mitt Romney surprised Gilgoff with this reply:

      I didn't refer to Islam at all, or to any other religion for that matter. I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam. If you want my views on Islam, it's quite straightforward. Islam is one of the world's great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise families and have a bright future.

      There is, however, a movement in the world known as jihadism. They call themselves jihadists and I use the same term…. It's by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam.

    • ASG

      As a Massachusetts resident I can tell you Mitt's greatest ability is making people like him. When he is done being President though, let us know if you feel the same way, I'd bet you wouldn't.

  • Liberty4All

    I watched several segments of this event on C-SPAN. What a bunch of sycophants! Are these jokers running for the Prime Minister of Israel or the President of the United States? Why are they putting Israel's interests over America's? Ron Paul is right: our unwavering support for Israel is part of the reason why we're embroiled in all these wars and why the so-called "terrorists" hate us. And if you dare point this out, you're called an "anti-Semite." Why is that? I used to support Israel, but I'm so sick of these Zionists (and no, not "the Jews") flagrantly putting a foreign nation above our own.

  • NotaBene

    Sure, but did any of the candidates actually bring a Palestinian and kill him right on stage? No? Then how do they expect to prove their loyalty to Israel?

  • Fred Dawes

    Why so much hate For Paul what did he do to get on the bad side of the big Jews?
    Jews must get on the right side of this question or
    the Muslims thing will become the American side and that would be evil as hell.

    • Stephen_Brady

      Quite apart from Mr. Paul's isolationist sentiments, there is an age-old involvement by him in a now-defunct newsletter, which was strongly anti-semitic. In addition, he has attracted practically every Libertarian in America who is an anti-semite.

      I cannot tell you how many times I've been called a "neocon", simply because I don't support Ron Paul. Note that the term is code for "Jew-supporter".

      • Reason_For_Life

        Is it because you don't support Ron Paul or is it because you support an aggressive American foreign policy, a stronger role for religion in generating laws, more forms of community service including the re-institution of the draft and the preservation of welfare state elements like Social Security and Medicare? (I don't know whether you do or not)

        These have been associated more with the term "neo-con" than support or the lack there of for any particular candidate.

        See "Neoconservatism – an Obituary for an Idea" by C. Bradley Thompson.

        • Stephen_Brady

          I don't support Ron Paul for the reason that his foreign policy ideas are, in my estimation, isolationist, and China, Russia, and aggressive Muslim nations are just waiting to fill the power vacuum. I would think that someone who uses the name "Reason for Life" would have, at least, a religious component in their oppositon to abortion. I do not support the draft, because it's not needed, and won't be, as long as America maintains a technological superiority. I'm in favor of SS for people who are close to retirement, as they've paid into this atrocious system all of their lives. Younger people should get a choice in planning their retirement, however. I place Medicare in the same category.

          The ideas behind neoconservatism were a direct outgrowth of the fall of the Soviet Union. Neocosnervatives saw a chance to spread democracatic ideals throughout the world, which wouldn't have been a bad thing. The moment for this has long passed, however.

          In modern usage, however, the term "neocon" has been primarily used by libertarians as code for anti-Semitic rants, ie, anyone who fails to agree ith them must be controlled by the Jews and, therefore, a "neocon".

          • Reason_For_Life

            The anti-Semite smear of those critical of neocons is as absurd as the claims that anyone who opposes Obama is a racist. Neoconservatism is worthy of nothing but contempt regardless of the religion of it authors. .

            You don't support the draft because it isn't needed. I oppose the draft because it is immoral, and incompatible with human nature.

            "Pragmatism" is one of most salient features of neoconservatism — the idea that anything that accomplishes a short term goal is the proper choice. That's why Irving Kristol found religion to be "useful" since it has the power to constrain the populace through fear and guilt. Kristol, himself, was not religious.

            The draft and other forms of compulsory community service is the ideal of neocons since it subordinates the individual to a "cause higher than himself" a phrase that springs from the lips of every neocon. There is no cause higher than the individual. The atavistic philosophy of compulsory servitude has no place outside of primitive warring tribes.

          • Stephen_Brady

            I love to quote myself! "In modern usage, however, the term "neocon" has been primarily used by libertarians as code for anti-Semitic rants, ie, anyone who fails to agree with them must be controlled by the Jews and, therefore, a "neocon". "

            Considering the post I am responding to, point made …

            By the way, sir, I oppose the draft because we don't need it, as long as we maintain technological superiority over our enemies, real or potential. The idea that someone would support a military draft because "it suubordinates the individual" to the state is palpably ludicrous.

            I also oppose the draft … not because of any ativistic attitudes or outlooks on my part … but because I was a volunteer in Vietnam and served with draftees. The volunteers were almost always the superior of the draftee. I'll leave it to you to discern the reason for this …

          • Reason_For_Life

            "The idea that someone would support a military draft because "it suubordinates the individual" to the state is palpably ludicrous."

            Perhaps you have heard of Sparta, the closest mankind has ever come to pure communism? Virtually every advocate of conscription has cited Sparta as an example of the success of compulsory service. Military boot camps are modeled on Spartan living and are intended to mold an individual into an efficient cog in a military machine. Fortunately, the requirements of a modern volunteer army has resulted in significant changes away from the Spartan model boot camps.

            Your own experience in Vietnam showed you that conscription produced inferior soldiers. This is not a new discovery, it has been known for centuries that free men are much more effective soldiers than slaves.

            Given this, and the extraordinary success of the American professional volunteer armed forces in combat, what conceivable purpose does conscription serve?

            It has been retained in the hope of establishing universal service, a goal of not only the Carter administration that re-instituted the draft but of George H W Bush and Colin Powell. It's very hard to see any purpose in conscripting high school graduates into state service besides accustoming young people to servitude and to seeing the state as the source of societal progress.

          • Stephen_Brady

            I'm not really sure that you understand me, sir. I'm opposed to conscription. Also, I'm not in favor of the national service model, that has been thrown about for some time, now.

            I agree with you about the success of professional volunteer armed forces. I don't really understand what we are debating.

          • Fred Dawes

            BS For the world bankers is always to use PC On the good guy.

      • thechristiansolution

        Ron Paul has attraced every Liberatarian PERIOD!!!!!

        You equating the idea of libertarianism with anti-Semitism? Wow that is one overused word. Yu guys don't even realize you are creating anti-Semites every day with your attitude of "You are either with us, or God DAMM you!"

        • Stephen_Brady

          Anti-Semitism is an overused word to everyone but a Jew. To them, it was the cause of the Holocaust, and something that they never intend to endure, again.

          It's actually more of a case of, "You are either with us, neutral on the matter, or our enemy."

          BTW, I would expect a man who ran for President as a Libertarian to attract libertarians …

        • Fred Dawes

          Why do you hate our freedoms? and the American way? stop the hate look into your head and heart. and think that the FBI Was running the KKK For 80 years and bin laden was in fact working for the CIA And the third in line of al queda is a mosad?cia boy, facts are evil.

    • Fred Dawes

      The USA Is dead but if we caqn only get him into power we may save something.

  • Dane

    like how Republicans keep pretending they are all-knowing in everything. First of all, Islam doesn't equal "evil", as some of you might think. Secondly, you all speak as if Israel is the holy site of the whole world, and they never do anything wrong. Did you know the first acts of terrorism in the Middle-east was committed by Zionists and not arabs? Did you also know, that Britain promised Palestine to the Palestinians (Whom where the natives at the time), with the Hussein-McMahon correspondence, but broke that promise more than once? Did you know the Irgun and Haganah committed terrorist acts against the Palestinians after WWI and beyond? Heck, they even killed Folke Bernadotte after WWII because he didn't cope with the way the ZIonists where comitting their >Ethnic Cleaning< of the Palestinians! Can you believe that? The guy that saved countless thousands jews during wwII?

    Jeez, and you speak as if the arabs are the evil-doers. Educate yourself in the abomination of a state that is Israel and what Islam really is. Do you say that all Christians are terrorists because of Anders Brievik? It seems as if when a so called "muslim" says something in the news, they are quick to label him as a muslim, yet when a Christian commits an terrorist act like Anders did in Norway, the reporters call him simply an extremist. You always speak of the propaganda going on in Iran and stuff, when you're doing the exact same thing! And don't even get me started on Iran having nuclear capabilities, oh wait, you mean like Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

    You Republicans are so full of yourself. Try to educate yourself in the events of 9/11, Islam, Israel and the list goes on.

    No, I don't hate Americans, in fact, I really like it. I dislike the way you speak of others and think you are the Earth's police force and has to do something about everything.

    Sincerely, a young danish guy :-)

    • Stephen_Brady

      "All-knowing"? Guilty as charged, because we do.

      "Arabs … the evil-doers". Arent they?

      "Full of yourself." We never claimed that the oceans would sink back into their basins if only we could be elected. BTW, if someone named Mohammed or Abdul says something in the news, it likely that the fellow IS a Muslim. Right? I've never met a Christian or a Buddhist named Abdul, have you?

      "I don't hate Americans". Not likely, mate …

      "Sincerely". Of that, I have no doubt.

      "Danish guy." What ever happened to the Vikings? …

      • Dane

        You didn't answer many of my accusations, but I guess there's no way to argue with history. I'll try to answer some of yours.

        Yes, all-knowing. You "think" there's nuclear weps in Iran, like Iraq, and therefore have to start an entire war because of that!

        You say Arabs are evil does, – I thought it were you who tried to inspire democracy in the world, fight for freedom or justice? Or at least, that's the bull you let out. Isn't one of democracy's values that every man is equal, and that you can't just a whole people based on the actions of a few? Great, go educate yourself.

        Abdul.. That's a funny one, yes I have. Need I remind you that Islam, Christianity and Judaism originates from the Middle-east? Should I also remind you, that arabs were Christians before you, and some still are? All right. Not that that's out of the way, you say that evil-does are muslims. You know nothing about Islam, that's clear. Islam doesn't value hatred, bloodshed or whatever your propagande media is trying to spew, again, go educate yourself. (Same goes for Christianity and Judaism, they value justice and love for all, yet it is people like YOU and the Israeli government that make it seem so!). Therefore, the ones you see on tv are not muslims, same goes for Anders Breivik! (But you didn't have an answer for that, I could see….) ¨
        And another; You claim, on your website, (Republican Jewish Coalition), that the world would have been a communist one or Nazi world. Hah! No I must laugh. Yes, when you joined the war, you certainly made a difference, and I am grateful, but you didn't by no means turn the tides of the war. You joined, just as you did in WWII, when everyone was certain the allies would win. It was the Russians who did it mate, the Germans were retreating when you joined the war, Hitler was being delusional, there were no more regiments left, and those that were were weak. You joined so you could claim bs like "We saved the world." when you didn't…

        No I don't hate Americans, I hate people like you and people like you and Zionists. Look at my post above, unlike you, I think that you cannot judge a people by the actions of a few. (Way to shoot yourself in the foot, mister).

        Sincerely – at least we have something we can agree on.

        Again, go educate yourself, Danish people are Vikings… Jeez, one would think you didn't go to school over there….

        Btw, do you know how I know all this? I've actually been to the middle-east and Africa and seen countries like Morocco and Egypt. They are beautiful, and the poeple are nice. The language is the most poetic thing I've ever heard, bordering to that of French and Italian. So no, they are not all evil.. Besides, there's a lot of Turks and Arabs in Denmark, some are stupid (But I don't judge all because of those), just like some Danes are stupid. That goes for everyone in the entire world, and some are really, really nice.

        Sincerely, the Danish Viking.

        • Stephen_Brady

          Viking, I didn't address your accusations because your accusations have been shot down innumerable times, in the past.

          For xample, if the Arabs were Christians before they "became" Muslims, how did they "become" Muslims? And these Muslims, who commit innumerable crimes of terrorism against the Israelis – they are truly evil. Note that I don't include all Muslims as evil. However, I do believe that the Muslim religion is evil.

          The Germans were on the ropes, in 1945, precisely because of US shipment of strategic resources to to the UK, and to Russia. Indeed, Russia would not have survived the winter of 1941–42, without US assistance. The Germans retreated because of the redoubtable nature of the Russian resistance, aided by the United States of America, and the strategic aerial bombardment campaign …. 1942-45. Otherwise, instead of speaking to the "Danish Viking", I would be talking to a Hitler Youth, today.

          You didn't get my "Viking" comment. I'm not asking where the Vikings went, physically. I'm asking where the Viking spirit has gone. If the Scandinavian countries do not rid themselves of the enemy within, they wll not survive this century.

          By the way, where is that Republican Jewish Coalition website, you talked about. I can't find it. As for myself, I am an American evangelical Christian who supports Israel 100%.

          • Dane

            Shot down, really, by who? I'm currently reading a book by Stewart Ross, The Israeili-Palestinian Conflict, and in that book, everything is documented. You might also look the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, the Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Decleration up. You might also listen to a guy called Norman Finklestein, the coolest Jew ever! He certainly has something to say regarding the subject. Tell me, by who are these accusations shot down? :p The Ethnic Cleansning did take place, the Haganah and Irgun did go from house to house to commit some atrocity vile enough to get the inhabitants to leave, and the list goes on. Read some un-biased books mate, they really might help.

            I won't say muslims, because you really don't know if the people are or aren't, so i'll just say Palestinians. The Palestinians are daily being discriminated, not only by jews, but by their neighboring countries. They have been betrayed countless times, their families have been exterminated and they have witnessed an ethnic cleansing of their people, can you blame them for fighting back? Tell me, who are the terrorists, those who invade, or those who defend? The Palestinians are freedom fighters, not terrorists. And for the record, I do not share the opinion that Israel shouldn't exists anymore, its too late for that unfortunanetly, however, the Israeilis should give some of their land back to the Palestinans, as it were in 1949 (where it were divided equally between the two, before the Israili took more than was given to them, again.), and the Palestinians should have their own state, i.e. the two-state solution.

            No, the US never gave aid to Russia. You might have given something to the UK, but that would never have changed the tides, the UK were worn out by the end of WWII, and would have no doubt survived, but would never have conquered Germany or the like.
            Again, you never gave aid to the Russians. You come here, and tell me that you knew better to protect the Russians against the Russian winter than they did? lol!! But I have to agree on one thing; it was more the Russian winter that killed many of the Nazi's, than the Russians themselves. And to be honest, I don't think Iran are stupid enough to go to war with the US, they would lose. And don't you forget, the only ones who ever dropped a nuke till this day are you ;) Also, the David-Goliath pictures that Israel is trying to portray is utter bs. They were 92.000 men when the war of 1948-49 broke out, the arabs only 6.000, and Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the surrounding countries only went into the war to help themselves….

            We survive just fine, the people here are quite nice, aside from some bad apples, but where are such people not?

            Here is the website,

            And to say that Israel never did something wrong is pure stupidity.. Really, do you really believe that? I'm not saying that the arabs never did anything wrong, but to say that Israel never did anything…. Then you are truly lost.
            Read some un-biased books mate, and take everything you hear in the news with a grain of salt, you will be much happier after. I can recommend books by Stewart Ross:
            and Norman Finklestein (Who is a jew):

            This is the kind of people you need to listen to! Spread the love, not the hate! Be just and forge peace, not war. This is what Danes and the rest of Scandinavia stand for, not the blind and hateful crusade that you are part of.

            – The Danish Viking.

          • Stephen_Brady

            Dane, you shouldn't believe your own propaganda.

            During WWII, starting in 1941, the United States gave $12 billiion in aid to the Soviet Union, without which Stalin's regime would not have survived, Russian winter or not. What saved Russia in the winter of 1941-1942 was undoubtedly the amount of food and and medical supplies, which kept the Red Army in the field. By 1942, steel, iron ore, oil supplies, ad infinitum, went to the USSR, which helped them to build the tanks and aircraft they used againt Hitler's armies.

            Estimates taken directly from Soviet archives are that the US supplied 92.7% of the USSR's railroad equipment, including locomotives and rails, and from 15% to 90% of production in all other categories. While Hitler used his railroad capacity to kill Jews, the Soviets used their US-supplied railroad capacity to supply and move their armies.

            Have you ever heard of the Murmansk convoys? Did you know that massive amounts of military aid went through the Middle East, by land?

            It doesn't hurt to acknowledge that you might be wrong about something. It hurts on this side of the Atlantic, because our aid unwittingly helped to spread Soviet communism.

            I know that you're the product of a Leftist public school system. It shows in your logic. But, son, you are the one spreading the hate, not Americans. And if we wanted to go on a crusade, do you think anyone could stand up to us? This single fact the is greatest proof that you're full of it.


  • Dane

    Here you are ! Ben Affleck's got it all right:
    Enjoy. I'm done here, made my message, over and out.

  • Stephen_Brady

    Ben Affleck? Wonderful source …

  • Fred Dawes

    We must all vote for Ron Paul to saVE THIS NATION, Or you will some day see 20 million people like me but young ones, Save a nation vote Ron Paul.

  • ASG

    You are right, on many policies Newt is a stand up Conservative, but on immigration he has already clearly promised amnesty, he just promises to rename it first. He has vowed to replace Obamacare, not repeal it meaning he is just taking one governmental monstrocity and replacing it with another.

    No fundementally he is not as bad as Obama, he is as he outlined in this particular speach an extension of the Bush administration. That might not on it's face seem like a bad thing, but think about it. Much like everyone says, "After Carter came Reagan." well, after Bush came Obama; we put in another Bush now, what will come after him?

    More importantly, at one point in time he was the third in-line to the Presidency and he could have put in place Conservative measures that would have at very least softened the blow of the most recent downturn.

    Ultimately I will vote for him if he is the nominee, but I won't vote for him in the primary.

  • Reason_For_Life

    Republicans vs Obama is just the big league version of "good cop / bad cop". Both simply want to take away more of your wealth and your freedom.

    As for Israel? Israel's existence is dependent upon Israel and trusting American politicians is foolish. Americans have done that and we ended up broke.

  • WildJew

    "Ultimately I will vote for him if he is the nominee, but I won't vote for him in the primary…"

    Right. I hope to vote for a committed conservative in our state primary. Obama is evil in my opinion; and un-American. I hold that George W. Bush, his lies about the enemy, his betrayal of only reliable friend in the Middle East, his repudiation of conservative principles and his uncritical supporters are in large measure responsible for Obama. Had conservatives held him accountable – I am talking about the Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys, this and other right-leaning sites, conservative media, etc. – we might not have this nightmare in the White House.

    I see little no difference between the right and the left when it comes to circling the wagons around "our man," whether it be Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Herman Cain, what have you. Uncritical support for a candidate or an elected official borders on idolatry.

  • WildJew

    I agree with your point that Israel trusting American politicians is foolish but as far as America's welfare is concerned, I also believe Genesis 12:3. Regarding your first point, were you living in Germany in the early nineteen thirties would you say Social Democrats vs. National Socialists is just a big league version of good cop / bad cop; both simply want to take away more of your wealth and your freedom?

  • WildJew

    What do you think of Genesis 12:3? Does it apply to the United States?

  • ASG

    In a recent debate, and then again on the Sean Hannity show the next night he mentioned that it will be very important to replace Obamacare so that those who were un-covered will be able to have coverage. Now he hasn't said what that would be, but unless it is employer based, and not government funded, I want nothing to do with it. I'm sick of paying for people who can't be bothered to get off the couch or out of the tent.
    And like Newt's critisism to Cain's 999 plans, with his "Welfare reform" he left that door open for the Dems because he reformed it and didn't abolish it. Now we have today more people on food stamps than ever before. We currently have the smallest percentage of the population in the workforce at 42%. That's right, only 42% of Americans are in the workforce; we support the other 58%…

    I agree they are distinguishable; my problem is I fear they are two different entities from the same organization. The CEO in my company is definitely different than my COO, but their goals are the same. It's all one more step to total Government control.

  • Dave

    Why do people cherry pick??? No!! As it plainly states: "all peoples on earth"… And where does it determine what a blessing or curse is?? It certainly doesn't say a blessing is attacking Iran. Couldn't it be free trade, letting Israel determine their own destiny as written in the book you mention, or simply a blessing (prayer)? What is a curse? Controlling when, who, and how they protect their borders and sovereignty, calling them names, or not backing them when they do "ASK" for our help? Or maybe overthrowing a democratic Iranian government? What about Matthew 5:9? Does that apply to the united states??

  • Reason_For_Life

    The German Social Democrats were every bit as totalitarian as the Nazis. There were no voices for freedom of speech or freedom of trade. The Nazis, the Communists and the Social Democrats were united in their view that the sole purpose of the individual was to serve. The Nazis wanted service to the race, the Communists wanted service for the international proletariat, the Social Democrats wanted service to the German proletariat.

    The Social Democrats were explicitly Marxists whose purpose was to fight "capitalism and reaction".

    This was more a case of "bad cop, worse cop and monstrous cop". The Nazis won out because they, more than the other totalitarians, were most in tune with the soul of Germany which was authoritarian to the core. It is the same reason that radical Islamism is winning throughout the Muslim world. It most thoroughly expresses the soul of Islam and its demands for submission.