Leftist were overt in their anti-semitism all throughout the anti-war years( other great Fister protest) and this did not  persuade 77% American Jews to vote Republican.

Fercryinout loud not even Samantha ’America should invade Israel’ Powers -Special Assistant to President Barack Obama and runs the Office of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights as Senior Director of Multilateral Affairs on the Staff of the National Security Council- was an overt warning that Obama would be bad news.

Herman Cain’s strong defense of Israel won’t do much to persuade the 77% American Jewish voters to vote Republican-on the contrary, he will be vilified just as other stauch allies of Israel- George W Bush and Sarah Palin-were vilified.

Perhaps the propagandized brainwashing is complete?  What else explains why 77% of American Jews would vote for overt anti-semitism.   Or explains why 50% of weekly Catholic goers would vote for overt pro-abortionism when they cast their vote for Barack Obama.

I’d like to believe the scales have been removed from blinded eyes but I’ll believe it when it actually happens

Im sorry but you are dumb. That is one sign and one crazy lady.

This is why it is a HUGE mistake to embrace this movement.  Yes most are just misguided youth, but it is drawing in all sorts of nasty flies.  Let Obama own OWS. 

Yes Romney, Cain is right to denounce them.  You are wrong to appease. 

Check your premises.

First of all, “Jewish” does not necessarily mean “pro-Israel.”

Secondly, the only way Obama could get more “pro-Israel” is if he personally went to the West Bank and castrated every last Arab male he came across. He makes Ronald Reagan look like Yasser Arafat.

Explain how Obama is more pro Israel than George Bush.  I am sorry, but I do not see it. 

Joe,

All Bush had to do was make the agreement with Israel for $3o billion in new US-taxpayer-to-Israeli-mooch welfare over 10 years.

Obama’s the one who’s had to keep those welfare checks coming.

And he has. His 2012 budget request includes yet another ($75 million) increase in welfare to Israel, bringing the direct tab to $3.075 billion.

Rhetorically, he’s toed the George W Bush / Bill Clinton / George HW Bush / Ronald Reagan line of calling for an end to the “settlements,” a return to 1967 borders, etc.

But on the ground, he’s actually gone Israel’s way on every one of those topics, every time, when his Republican predecessors occasionally at least made a show of putting up a fight.

Are you arguing for an end to ALL foreign aid (a la Ron Paul) as well as an end to ALL arms sales to foreign countries? If not, on what basis would you object to aid and/or arms sales to Israel versus other countries?

I don’t believe he has 30% yet. If he gets the nomination I’d be damn well surprised if he gets 20%, and damn well pleased if he gets that much. When push comes to shove blacks just aren’t going to vote against the Democrats in any significant numbers. Before Obama, the GOP typically drew about ten percent of the black vote, give or take a percentage point or two in any given election.

If Cain draws twenty percent or more, it won’t have anything to do with the actual number of voters so much as a the fact that a sizable percentage of Democrat black voters will just stay home on election day.

Under that scenario, the percentage of Cain’s vote increases just due to his voters getting to the polls.

PGlenn,

I wasn’t arguing for or against anything — I was merely pointing out that according to the standard criteria for being “pro-Israel” — said criteria coming down to whether or not one descends to one’s knees, puckers up and kisses the ass of whomever happens to be in charge in  Tel Aviv at any given moment with sufficient alacrity and regularity — Obama’s at least as “pro-Israel” as any president since Truman, and more “pro-Israel” than most.

That said, if I still believed that the Westphalian nation-state could be made to work at all, I would argue for an end to ALL foreign aid, and to an end to all state-subsidized arms sales (with arms manufacturers of course free to sell arms to, and in, any nation-state upon which the US Congress has not declared war).

Linked here:
http://zillablog.marezilla.com/2011/10/surgery-today.html
 

No, I’m not a “Rockwellian” (I assume that you’re referring to Lew Rockwell, not George Lincoln Rockwell, with whose ideas I am also most manifestly non-affiliated).

I don’t particularly dislike Rockwell and the Mises folks, and can get along with them on some things, but certainly not everything, and I doubt they’d claim me.

For one thing, I’m at least nominally a Zionist myself .

For another, I’m not much of a Ron Paul fan.

You still seem to be missing the point, so I’ll put it more bluntly: My point has nothing to do with whether being “pro-” or “anti-” Israel is good or bad. My point is that anyone who claims that Obama is noticeably less “pro-Israel” than any recent American president needs to put down the fucking crack pipe.

The people attending these #Occupy infestations would believe my name is Jewish.

No, but anti-Israel usually means anti-Jew if you talk to them long enough.  The #OWS freaks aren’t talking about Palestine. they’re talking about Jews controlling banks and Wall Street… and the Democrats are encouraging them.

“Yeah, I remember when George Bush demanded Israel return to its pre-67 borders”

If you don’t, let me refresh your memory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W73v4p6Yyg
As far as arms sales go, if the US government is going to be involved in approving such sales at all (personally I think the market should be the decider), it only makes sense to cut off countries that agree not to pass sensitive technology on to China, and then turn right around and do so.

knappster: then I need to put down the crack pipe because I don’t believe that Obama is pro-Israel by a long shot. I’m no expert on the intracacies of diplomatic language, etc.; however, Obama’s statements on using the ’67 borders as a starting point of negotiations was most definitely a shift, one that was hostile to Israeli interests. The Israeli government certainly perceived it to be a new American position – are you suggesting that the Israeli’s were pretending, for strategic reasons, to be concerned about it?  

Perhaps my crack habit is also complicating my efforts to figure you out, because I’ve been unable to do so. Usually people who talk about the end of the Westphalian nation state are favorable inclined to that possibility – I assume you’re not, but are merely being a realist about the future? Also, how would you characterize American foreign policy over the last 50 years?  

Sorry, Rich, but the History of The Left is replete with incidents of Anti-Semitism.  These current protesters are merely following a tradition dating back to the creation of Leftism in the 18th Century.

Maybe I should go and see how they treat me: I’m of half-Italian descent so I have the Guinea features, but I have very light skin [from Mother's German, Scots-Irish, and English ancestry], and I have a beard, and I’ve been called ‘Rabbi’ before when I wear my black fedora and black overcoat.  Oy!  What would they say to me?

knappster, in saying that I couldn’t figure you out, I meant that I didn’t know where you’re coming from.

Your ”school of thought” is not important when it comes to evaluating facts, but it is useful in analyzing your interpretive approach. Whether Obama’s statements on the ’67 borders was a shift in policy is a question of INTERPRETATION, not a question of FACT. I disagree with your interpretation of Obama’s attitude toward Israel, which btw you’ve supported with no facts, only assertions.

Of course, I’ve presented no facts of my own in support of my interpretation, and now I’m too strung out on crack to go find any.