Redstate

of Israel be due to anti-semitism?

If Carter wants to try to convince his fellow-believers that support of Israel is misinformed, he has a right to do so. You're welcome to make fun of his politics, of course. I enjoyed Patrick O'Rourke's commentary on one of his previous books immensely. But let's save the cries of bigotry to the intolerant left, barring some real evidence.

Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, is a rabid anti-Semite, has been one for at least 50 years. He is cut from the same mold (and I do mean MOLD as in fungus) as Jim Baker and Whatshisname the President of Iran.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I could get a jury of 12 of Jesse Jackson's and Calypso Louie's family members to convict Carter of anti-semitism based on the Book as Exhibit "A".

Actual bigots and racists need to be identified so as to show the public the real thing as opposed to the misidentified racists the left regularly slurs.

Truth is a defense to alleged slander.

And honestly, it is hard to imagine what could be behind criticisms of Israel given the black and white situation visavis their enemies. They have bent over backwards my whole life to try and appease their neighbors. They would be justified in going Dresden on every country that touches their border and many that don't.

Heck, they are even "gooder" than us in many ways!

I will say this about Carter though. He is fully capable, in his arrogance, to have all kinds of reasons for hating. It could be personal or just beacuse they dare disagree with him on scripture's application to the circumstance.

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

No sensible person is going to buy "Lookit the poor terrorists". That Carter seems to is, IMO, natural considering his general political confusion. When has he not taken the victim card at face value?

Back in reality, submitting to terrorism tends to encourage more terrorism, especially when the other side wants nothing less than Israel's annihilation. If I'm going to fault Israel's response at all, it would be for being too mild.

Yet that doesn't mean Israel is acting properly in its occupation. It's been several decades now. Let it annex the land (and accept its people as equal citizens), leave, or some combination of the two. Nor is its religious and ethnic discrimination something to cheer about. (I've talked to Israel supporters who agreed that an Israeli Jew who converts to Christianity will lose his house. That's not even close to the slaughter in the Sudan, but it's not a good thing either.)

IMO, the principal reason to support Israel is because the alternatives are worse. Letting Israelis be slaughtered, or forcing them to move at gunpoint, aren't acceptable options.

Surrounded by enemies that want them dead, they have shown unparalleled restraint. Over a million Palestinians live in Israel proper, as citizens, and have more rights and a better life than they would in any other country in the region. Israel occupies land for defensive purposes due to wars waged against them for no good reason. They show extreme restraint despite war being waged against them constantly since...well since forever. Israel earned their nationhood.

The "Palestinians" are a fake nation that won't even accept a gift. Israel's policies? The Palestinian policy is that all Jews die. The "occupation"? Come now. There is no gray here. The Christian anecdote? That was too puny to stick in this discussion, even if true, in this context. Israel fights for its life, literally everyday, and has forever! For a nation that has been a target for extinction since they became God's people?

And, as a fellow Christian, Whitfox, Christ beats real estate!

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

...but from the title, I thought this was another comment on the "circumcision" thread...

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

is total, politically correct, bull s**t. Israels neighbors made war on her. Israel was victorious and took the area in question as a buffer from unfriendly states - see the Golan Heights. That the land is labeled "occupied", is an outrage that Carter had a hand in. They should never, ever have to "return" the land to anybody, especially not a bunch of murdering anti-Semites who want only Israel's destruction.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

that they have to return the land. They won it; they can keep it. But that means they also win the people as new citizens.

I can understand Israel's reluctance to give these people full citizenship and voting rights. It could potentially threaten the original intent of setting up a Jewish state in the first place. But Israel can't have it both ways - at least not morally.

that obligates Israel to grant citizenship to person in occupied territories. Israel has made no move to make the land acquisition permanent, its just occupied.

The US occupied Germany and Japan for years after WW II and there was never a suggestion that the residents be granted US citizenship. The people in question live in occupied territory taken in war; there is a penalty for losing. Unfortunately, the people who pay the price are not always the people who started the war, but life is seldom fair.

John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.

the lands really are occupied territories, which the post I repsonded to denied.

Yet a military occupation has its limits as well. It's part of a war or its aftermath, not a holding for all time. The latter is annexation.

So what do we see? It will soon be forty years since the 1967 war. Do you think Iraqis would be justified in complaining, if we stayed in Iraq running things that long? And then there are attempts to settle these captured lands, and even to replace the original inhabitants using governmental preferences. It sure looks like land annexation to me.

If Israel intends only a military occupation, then it needs to act like a temporary occupier.

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

I mean besides killing the terrorists and their network of support. How exactly do you get from here to the long term settlement of the region? Unless of course they do mean to annex it, in which case the argument above applies.

That terrorists are bad does not necessarily make Israel good. It does mean we should be supporting Israel over the terrorists. Yet that support should not be unqualified.

Israel has been at war 24/7 its whole life, esp since 1967. I see nothing they have done and nothing you have mentioned as unreasonable under the circumstances of war and/or the purpose of the creation and existence of the state as a safe haven for this persecuted people.

'fox, won't it be great when we meet in Paradise when God can set you (or me?) straight! smile my brother

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

.......are not intelligent enough to recognize that the political party they support is actually working against their interests..?

Or is it perhaps that your analysis is somewhat flawed..

There were people who opposed civil rights laws in the 1960's. The highest concentration of these civil rights foes was in the south and these folks had traditionally voted Democratic. They became enraged when the leaders and other factions of the Democratic party strongly supported new civil rights laws..

These civil rights foes and their children now vote solidly Republican...and it is questionable whether their views on civil rights have changed all that much in the past 40 years..

Well...at least Mehlman said something like that last year... when he apologized to the NAACP convention for 40 years of Republican race baiting during elections...

.

You are confusing opposition to particular laws with support for segregation. Those who opposed segregation were, almost exclusively, Democrats. As to whether their views have changed . . . mostly those that joined the Republican Party did so because their views on race changed. Those that stayed in the Democrat fold were more divided. George Wallace always claimed that his views changed, and I suppose we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Robert Byrd also makes the claim, but I think the evidence is that he is lying. He is, as you know, still a hero to the Democrat Party and is shortly to be installed as fourth in line to the Presidency. Al Gore Snr. also remained a Democrat until his death, and I think, if you check, you will find that his son is still one today.

The growth in Republican support in the South is not due to race baiting. In fact, race baiting, by Democrats, has been used, and still is, to slow the growth in GOP support. You will be aware of the racially-charged language used against Michael Steele only last month.

The growth in GOP support is entirely for other reasons. The South is a broadly conservative area. Southerners were mostly aligned with the GOP on many issues decades ago. But as long as the Democrats were offering segregation this was too important to a large chunk of people to risk voting for Lincoln's Party. Thus people who disagreed with the Dems on defence, abortion, taxes, guns, and pretty much everything else, were held hostage.

Now that neither party offers formal, legally enforced, segregation (though Democrats still oppose school choice on the same grounds, preserving segregation in some areas at a practical level) Southerners are free to vote on other issues.

This is why Southerners were willing to vote for Eisenhower at the Presidential level, while continually re-electing segregationist Democrats at the state level. They thought that Wallace could protect them from Eisenhower's support for integration.

The one southern Democrat who really emerges as a hero in all this is Johnson. He knew that sweeping away segregation would also break the lock his party had on the South, but he knew it was right and did it anway.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

“This is why Southerners were willing to vote for Eisenhower at the Presidential level, while continually re-electing segregationist Democrats at the state level. They thought that Wallace could protect them from Eisenhower's support for integration.”

Here is the list of states that Eisenhower lost in the 1952 election:

Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
West Virginia

Here is the list of states that Eisenhower lost in the 1956 election:

Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Mississippi
Missouri
North Carolina
South Carolina

Notice any geographical similarities..?

Your view that the Republican’s “southern strategy” had nothing to do with race is naïve and quite frankly a silly proposition.

What did Mehlman mean last year when he addressed the NAACP Convention (see below)..?

*********

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial-politics_x...

7/14/2005

GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics
By Richard Benedetto,
USA TODAY

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to one of the nation's largest black civil rights groups Thursday, saying Republicans had not done enough to court blacks in the past and had exploited racial strife to court white voters, particularly in the South.

"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

Mehlman's apology to the NAACP at the group's convention in Milwaukee marked the first time a top Republican Party leader has denounced the so-called Southern Strategy employed by Richard Nixon and other Republicans to peel away white voters in what was then the heavily Democratic South. Beginning in the mid-1960s, Republicans encouraged disaffected Southern white voters to vote Republican by blaming pro-civil rights Democrats for racial unrest and other racial problems.

.

I did not say Eisenhower won the south. I said southerners were prepared to vote for him. Nowhere did I say that all, or even the majority, of southerners voted for him.

This was the beginning of breaking the Democrat lock on the south, but at Congressional level this stayed in place until 1994 and is only now breaking down at state level. The first southern state to elect a Republican governor and legislature was Florida - hardly a typical southern state - and that was in 1998.

The naivete is, I am afraid all yours. The fact that people have frequently alleged that Republicans engaged in race-baiting does not make it true. This remains a Democrat strategy, employed in Maryland only last month. The fatuous Democrat claims about TN were race-baiting in themselves, alleging racism when the obvious actual point was about a (literal) playboy lifestyle.

Race is what the Democrats used to hold onto an otherwise conservative vote in the south. When Democrats were unable, or unwilling, to offer legally sanctioned segregation they lost that lever. Once Democrats were no longer offering segregation, people who disagreed with them on other issues no longer needed to vote for them, and many have stopped doing so. But this is not because Republicans have offered them racism. It is because Republicans have offered tax cuts and gun rights.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

It may be difficult, but ignore all the editorializing in the above-referenced "news story" and focus on what Mehlman said.

"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

The statement that "some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote" by either ignoring them or attempting to benefit from racial polarization does not mean that the Republican party as a whole was engaged in race-baiting.

"Those who opposed segregation were, almost exclusively, Democrats."

Huh...???

Opposition to segregation came almost exclusively from Democrats in the 1950's and 1960's...????

This is an excerpt from a blog page of a person (who says) that he is a black Republican....discussing segregation in the 1950’s and 1960’s...

*****************

http://blackrepublican.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_blackrepublican_archive.h...

Monday, June 06, 2005

Juneteenth - A Celebration of the Emancipation of Blacks by Republicans
By Frances Rice

...Republicans took actions during the 1950's and 1960's to help remove the last vestiges of slavery. The Supreme Court ruled that the "separate but equal" doctrine violated the Fourteenth Amendment and that "it deprived children of equal protection" and was therefore "unconstitutional." Chief Justice Earl Warren, an appointee of Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, achieved the decision even though one member of the Court was a former Klansman.

During that era, President Eisenhower sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also overcame Democratic Party opposition and pushed to pass the 1957 Civil Rights Act. In the face of fierce opposition by racist Southern Democrats, Republicans helped Democrat President Lyndon Johnson push into passage the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960's. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois provided the language and changes to get the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts passed despite opposition from Democrats. For instance, Only 61 percent of the Democrats in the House of Representative voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, compared to 80 percent of Republicans. In the Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats voted for the law, compared to 82 percent of Republicans.

.

The mistake is mine. I meant to say that those who SUPPORTED segregation were almost exclusively Democrats. Nearly all Republicans opposed segregation - and always have done - and the large majority supported the specific legal measures to end it.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

...compared to the errors of your revisionist history as to the reasons for the GOP's ascendancy in the south...

Why did the Republicans fail to carry any of the deep south states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi or Arkansas from 1880 to 1960....and then beginning with the election of 1964...the Democrats...who had always carried those deep south states from 1880 to 1960...starting with the election of 1964 and continuing to this day...the Democrats rarely carried any of those deep south states with the exception of 1976 when a former governor from the deep south was a presidential candidate...?

The sudden and dramatic shift of these deep south states away from supporting Democratic presidential candidates to supporting Republican presidential candidates can only be logically explained by the occurrence of a catalyzing event that impacted the entire region....that event being the civil rights struggle in the 1960's..

.

1964: God Himself couldn't have beaten the martyred John F Kennedy.
1968: The Deep South was carried by Wallace - or, as nobody likes to call him, the renegade Democrat.
1972: Yup, Nixon won the Deep South. Everywhere else, too.
1976: Carter wins the Deep South, and the Outer South, but he's a Democrat and you've already admitted it.
1980: Yup, Reagan won the Deep South. Everywhere else, too.
1984: See 1980, only more embarrassingly so.
1988: Bush Senior didn't do as well as Reagan, but the phrase 'country-wide humiliation for Dukakis' still applies.
1992: Deep South split down the middle; first real sign that the GOP is starting doing well down there.
1996: Deep South continues to trend GOP.
2000: South in general looking reliably GOP.
2004: South reliably GOP on the Presidential level, and starting to seriously erode for the Democrats in Congress.

In other words, your 'sudden and dramatic shift' took three decades to occur: when GOP candidates took the South in '72, '80, '84 & '88 it was as part of a nationwide sweep. Try thinking about the legislative branch...

You know something? I'm tired of having to point this out every three weeks. 1,000 word analysis of the trends in partisan makeup of Senators and Congressmen in States part of the Confederacy, between the years 1964 - 2004. We'll turn your account back on once we get it.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

This type of comment goes unopposed in most circles and has gained "known fact" status on the left.

I appreciate you not letting these comments that are basically calling all Southern Republicans racists go unchallenged.

I grow weary of these attacks.

______________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

...who would probably use this Zinn quote--if he could--to explain away the landslide elections:

"It [the Deep south] is everything its revilers have charged, and more than its defenders have claimed. It is racist, violent, hypocritically pious, xenophobic, false in its elevation of women, nationalistic, conservative, and it harbors extreme poverty in the midst of ostentatious wealth. The only point I have to add is that the United States as a civilization embodies all of those same qualities. That the South possesses them with more intensity simply makes it easier for the nation to pass off its characteristics to the South, leaving itself innocent and righteous."

This is where the kids are getting the "Southern Republican Racist" dogma.

--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

I happen to know that your insinuations that the Republican party used racism as the catalist in the 60's offensive. In case you don't know, Dirksen was a Republican and was the main driving force behind and one of the authors of the Civil Rights Act.

Those who voted against the act were southern Democrats like Sen. Albert Gore.

Quit believing the crap you read on KOS and actually read some unbiased history. You might find out who the "revisionists" really are....

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

At first I thought you were just naively parroting the dominant Democrat meme about the southern strategy: that it was a result of racially-tinged Republican tactics. A meme that is dominant precisely because the Democrats remained the dominant party in the southern states into the 1990s.

The five decade slide of the Democrat dominance at the Presidential level - beginning with Eisenhower chipping away at the solid south and ending with Bush sweeping it - is not, as Moe points out below, a sudden and dramatic shift. And I think you know this. That is why my suspicions are rising: that you are not as naive as you appear, but that you are actually joining in a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.

Of course it relates to the shattering of the Democrats over civil rights. A large part of the Democrats - mostly northerners, but including LBJ - came over to back the GOP on civil rights. Once that happened the Democrat hold on the south began to slip not because the GOP aligned with the segregationists but because NO PARTY was offering segregation any more.

At that point southerners started to vote on other issues. Duh! If no-one is offering that policy you assess the parties on their other policies. And as a broadly conservative region the south slipped towards the Republicans. That is why people like John Connally switched to the GOP.

Your claim that it was the staunchest segregators and their children that switched is simply false. In 2000 the son of one of the staunchest segregators was Democrat candidate for President and the following year the Democrats installed another as fourth in line to the Presidency - just as they will do again in January.

Race baiting remains principally (though not entirely) a Democrat strategy up until last month. I cited specific examples. You, I note, could not.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Yes, as are most people who aren't liberal agenda ideologues. However, Jews and Blacks are particularly suspect in their block voting mentality. It is inexplicable behavior from a rational viewpoint. I know this postor has been temporarily suspended for applied ignorance, but I thought that his question deserved an answer.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

so much as coming from a different basis of thought.

If you assign advances in race to a strong federal government and affirmative action, it makes great sense to vote Democrat. We conservatives disagree, but that's not an insane interpetation of what happened in America.

As this narrative slowly sinks under the load of facts about our changed situation, we can expect votes to change. And they are changing, but these shifts in thinking aren't quick. Insulting people's intelligence probably won't speed things up any. :)

and I don't give a rat's patooti if some idiot gets insulted.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.