About Me

Name:J-GOP
Email: moreinfo@j-gop.org Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Nader Calls Out Obama's "Pro-Palestinian" Past

After remarks made by Ralph Nader Sunday on "Meet the Press," Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks said, "Ralph Nader added to the debate on Senator Obama's views on Israel and the Middle East and raised serious doubts and questions about the true leanings of Senator Obama on these important issues."

During his interview on "Meet the Press," Nader said that Sen. Obama had reversed his positions on Israel. Nader said Sen. Obama's "better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself" and that Sen. Obama was "pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate" and "during the state Senate."

Sen. Obama has caught criticism for pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel statements and sentiments before. In March 2007, Sen. Obama was criticized for saying that "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinians." Obama has also been criticized for stocking his campaign with several controversial advisors including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Samantha Power and Susan Rice.

"People should be very skeptical of Barack Obama's shaky Middle East policies. When a long-time political activist like Ralph Nader, with a well-documented, anti-Israel bias, claims that Senator Obama shares this anti-Israel bias, that is alarming," said Matt Brooks. "If Senator Obama supports Ralph Nader's policies, which consistently condemn Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism, and if Sen. Obama has only reversed his positions to run for president, it once again raises serious questions about his grasp of the geo-political realities of the Middle East and puts into doubt his commitment to the safety and security of Israel. These are important questions we in the community will be asking."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Takin' Out the Trash

Whether it was the Israeli Defense Force, the Mossad, or someone on the inside of Hezbollah, the assasination of Imad Mughniyeh is something worthy of praise since it will certainly deliver a blow to the Islamic terrorist group.
 
Mughniyeh was responsible for the terrorist group's overseas operations including the assistance it provided to Palestinian terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. He was also directly responsible for many terrorist acts including the 1983 bombings of the US Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, the 1994 bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish community center that killed 85 people, the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in that same city two years earlier, and more recently, the abduction of the two IDF reservists that sparked the 34-day Second Lebanon War.
 
His death is a blow to Hezbollah operations and a boost to Israel's security since any large-scale attack he might have been planning  - possibly in response to the air strike alleged conducted by Israel on a Syrian nuclear facility in Syria in September 2007 - is likely now thwarted. It also sends a message to any terrorist attempting to seek shelter in another Arab country that Israel will hunt them down wherever they may be living.
 
So here's to taking out the trash. It won't be friendly virgins that Mughniyeh will be finding on the other side, but instead a red guy with horns and a three-pointed pitchfork.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain Expected To Do Well with Jewish Voters

Matt Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, has one singular focus: how to lure Jewish Democrats into supporting the Republican party and the presumptive nominee, John McCain come November.

According to Brooks, “We feel there is a strong compelling case as to why John McCain is better than either one of the Democratic candidates on the issues and the policy differences that Jewish voters care most about,” he told New Jersey Jewish News.
 
Brooks said McCain needed to make Jews “feel comfortable about voting Republican. Joe Lieberman has embraced and endorsed the candidacy of John McCain, and that sends a powerful signal. People like safety in numbers. People like to feel comfortable with knowing they are not out there all alone in the Republican Party.”

Bolstering that hope with a press release, the RJC sent out an excerpt of McCain’s Feb. 7 speech to the Conservative Political Action Committee, attacking both of his potential Democratic rivals, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, for their policies on Iran.
McCain said neither Democrat would “recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally, Israel, and the region. I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish….”
 
Democrat attacks notwithstanding, Brooks said he believes McCain will be able to attract moderate Jewish voters, even as he caters to unhappy right-wing Republicans view him as not conservative enough. Historically, "George Bush increased his share of the Jewish vote from 19 percent to 26 or 27 percent from 2000 to 2004 being pro-life and supportive of the war in Iraq,” two issues that Jews have historically been opposed to, Brooks said.

Part of McCain’s job is making sure that conservatives turn out and don’t stay home,” said Brooks. “Except for the fringe, the fact that he will be running against Clinton or Obama will be enough to motivate the conservative base. They may hold their nose. He may not be their ideal candidate. But all he has got to do is make sure they turn out.”

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Feminism and The Democratic Spousal Albatross

Sometimes it seems that the Democrats would have a better chance of getting to the White House if they chose single candidates rather than married ones because of the comments, actions, and speeches made by their spouses. Let's take a brief look back through history:
 
1992: Hilliary Clinton makes her infamous remark equating stay-at-home moms with "baking cookies" paralleling Tammy Wynette's popular hit song with the comment, "I guess I could have stood by my man". The remark brings howls of protest from working mothers across the country.
 
2004: Teresa Heinz's speeches to foreign audiences in Spanish and French diminishing U.S. standing in the world as a result of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is construed by voters as anti-American, populist, and elitist. The sour impression of Heinz is one of the factors that contributes to John Kerry's election loss.
 
2008 - Michell Obama says that as a result of her husband's run for the Presidency, for the "first time" she is proud of her country. The remark is construed as historically "short-sighted" and a verbal slam against her country.
 
Why does it seem that Democratic spouses are the only ones that tend to embarass the candidate? When was the last time you heard Republican spouses like Pat Nixon, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, Janet Huckabee, Ann Romney or Cindy McCain say anything can could be used to embarass their husbands? Is this indicative of values, upbringing, or a better understanding of their role in a presidential campaign?
 
The reason these issues don't occur on the Repbulican side is simple. Faith, Family Values, and a lack of the "Feminist Doctrine" that has historically been a big part of the Democrat party. With the healthy dose of feminism doled out in college, spouses of Democrat candidates feel that they are "entitled" to an equal share of the speeches, input, and comments made during the Presidential campaign. After countless speeches, the odds that a left-leaning feminist spouse is going to put their foot in their mouth and say something that will embarass their husband, country, military, or big corporations is just a question of time.
 
We're seeing that in play right now with Michelle Obama. Stay tuned for more embarassing remarks as the campaign ensues.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hooray for Sarkozy!

After years of dealing with the pompous, anti-American statements made by far-left French leader Jacques Chirac, the pro-American moderate leader Nicolas Sarkozy is a breadth of fresh air. Here is a an article that appeared on the liberal leaning news source (ugh) Reuters:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, facing a tide of criticism over his call for schoolchildren to "adopt" Jewish child victims of the Holocaust, hit back on Friday saying France had to raise children "with open eyes".

In a speech praising faith that also drew fire from secularists, Sarkozy told France's Jewish community on Wednesday that every 10-year-old schoolchild should be "entrusted with the memory of a French child victim of the Holocaust". The proposal unleashed a storm of protest from teachers, psychologists and his political foes who said it would unfairly burden children with the guilt of previous generations and some could be traumatized by identifying with a Holocaust victim.

More than 11,100 French Jewish children were deported from France to Auschwitz and other Nazi death camps in eastern Europe during the German World War Two occupation. "The emotional burden can have negative consequences for a child who is developing," Gilles Moindrot, general secretary of the Snuipp-FSU trade union which represents most primary school teachers, said in a statement. "One can not place on a child of 11 the responsibility for what happened back then." The EMDH children's rights group said: "No educational project should be constructed on death."

But Sarkozy, speaking in Perigueux in central France, brushed off the uproar."It is ignorance that produces abominable situations. It is not knowledge," he said in a speech. "Let us make our children, children with open eyes who are not complacent."
 
Vive la France!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Don’t Jews Like the Christians Who Like Them?

Enclosed is an interesting article taken from Volconvo.com, a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and new-based topics:

In the United States, the two groups that most ardently support Israel are Jews and evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. Jewish support is easy to explain, but why should certain Christians, most of them politically quite conservative, be so devoted to Israel? There is a second puzzle: despite their support for a Jewish state, evangelical and fundamentalist Christians are disliked by many Jews. And a third: a large fraction of African-Americans are hostile to Israel and critical of Jews, yet Jewish voters regard blacks as their natural allies.

The evidence about evangelical attitudes is clear. In 2006, a Pew survey found that evangelical Christians were more favourable toward Israel than the average American was—and much more sympathetic than either mainline Protestants or secularists. In another survey, evangelical Christians proved much likelier than Catholics, Protestants, or secular types to back Israeli control of Jerusalem, endorse Israeli settlements on the West Bank, and take Israel’s side in a Middle Eastern dispute. (Among every religious group, those who are most traditional are most supportive of Israel. The most orthodox Catholics and Protestants, for instance, support Israel more than their modernist colleagues do.)

Evangelical Christians have a high opinion not just of the Jewish state but of Jews as people. That Jewish voters are overwhelmingly liberal doesn’t seem to bother evangelicals, despite their own conservative politics. Yet Jews don’t return the favour: in one Pew survey, 42% of Jewish respondents expressed hostility to evangelicals and fundamentalists. As two scholars from Baruch College have shown, a much smaller fraction—about 16%—of the American public has similarly antagonistic feelings toward Christian fundamentalists.
 
The reason that conservative Christians—opposed to abortion and gay marriage and critical of political liberalism—can feel kindly toward Jewish liberals and support Israel so fervently is rooted in theology. One finds among fundamentalist Protestants a doctrine called dispensationalism.
 
The dispensationalist outlook, which began in early-nineteenth-century England, sees human history as a series of seven periods, or dispensations, in each of which God deals with man in a distinctive way. The first, before Adam’s fall, was the era of innocence; the second, from Adam to Noah, the era of conscience; the third, from Noah to Abraham, of government; the fourth, from Abraham to Moses, of patriarchy; the fifth, from Moses to Jesus, of Mosaic law; and the sixth, from Jesus until today, of grace. The seventh and final dispensation, yet to come, will be the Millennium, an earthly paradise.

For dispensationalists, the Jews are God’s chosen people. For the Millennium to come, they must be living in Israel, whose capital is Jerusalem; there, the Temple will rise again at the time of Armageddon. On the eve of that final battle, the Antichrist will appear—probably in the form of a seeming peacemaker. Fundamentalists differ over who the Antichrist will be (at one time he was thought to be Nero, at another time the papacy, and today a few have suggested the secretary-general of the UN), but dispensationalists agree that he will deceive the people, occupy the Temple, rule in the name of God, and ultimately be defeated by the Messiah.
 
Therefore, many dispensationalists believe that how a person treats Israel will profoundly influence his eternal destiny.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Commies

Check out this video from Houston's KRIV-TV.

The reporter caught a glimpse of a different kind of flag hanging on the wall of what is described as a new Barack Obama campaign office in Texas' largest city. During a report on the run-up to the March 4 Texas primary, the KRIV camera pans past a Cuban flag with an image of Che Guevara, an ally of communist dictator Fidel Castro. Guevara presided over show trials and executions of Castro enemies after the communist takeover of Cuba in 1959 before leaving Cuba in 1965 to foment terror and revolution elsewhere in the Third World.

Does Che Guevara symbolize the kind of "change" Barack Obama wants to bring to America?

Obama's Web site announced that the office is funded by volunteers of the Barack Obama Campaign and is not "an official headquarters for his campaign." But it is yet another indication of how creepy his supporters tend to be. If this were a Republican and a Confederate flag was hung in a campaign office, the calls for that candidate to denounce it would be deafening by now. Of course, don't hold your breath waiting for this story to air on the "mainstream" media.
 
And he wants to be thought of as a legitimate Commander-in-Chief?
Tags:  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Used to be a Democrat

The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) announced today the launch of its new national advertising campaign.

The series of ads entitled "I Used to Be a Democrat" tell the true-life, political journeys of former Jewish Democrats. While the circumstances may vary, one common theme persists among them: Each is now a Jewish Republican.

In one ad, Glenn M. Taubman of Annandale, Va says: "I don't agree with the Republicans on every issue, but the Democratic Party just doesn't represent me anymore." In another, Stephen Rosenbach of Arnold, Md says: "I couldn't stay in the party dominated by the far left who won't stand up to the threat posed by Iran, Syria and growing radical Islamic extremism." The ads also encourage other former Jewish Democrats to share their political journeys with the RJC.

"The ads reflect the movement we've witnessed for years: More and more American Jews express serious misgivings with the direction of the Democratic Party. Again and again, they are finding that the Republican Party better represents their concerns ranging from national security to the well-being of the state of Israel," said RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks.

The ads will run in major Jewish newspapers across the country through late spring or early summer.

Click here to view the first ad.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Will the Jewish Republican Vote Decline in 2008?

Since 1992, the percentage of Jews that have voted Republican has steadily increased. According to the Republican Jewish Coalition, approximately 11% of the Jewish vote went Republican in 1992, increasing to around 25% in 2004. In fact, Larry Greenfield, director of the 3,000-member strong Republican Jewish Coalition of Southern California, believes that the Jewish vote in 2004 was closer to 30 percent for Bush.

In addition, from the political pundit, The Politico, during the the 2006 Congressional election, the Republican Jewish vote held steady at 26.4 percent, according to exit polls that were conducted at that time. From their research, Jews under age 55 were more likely to vote GOP -- 30.7 percent -- compared with 23.8 percent support from voters over 55.

But the left keeps on denying this obvious trend, and instead holds onto wishful thinking that this is merely a strange anomaly. From their perspective, only real Jews vote for Democrats. Reporter Shmuel Rosner from Israel's left-leaning Haaretz newpaper, believes that the increasing trend for Jews to vote Republican is more of a myth than a reality. In his words, the most recent Presidential primaries serve as a better barometer:

In New York, they (Republicans) make up 4 percent of the voters (Jewish Democrats are 16 percent). In California it's 2%. In New Jersey, 3 percent of the total Jewish vote (Democrats 9 percent) are Republicans. In Massachusetts, the number is also 3 percent (6 percent for Jewish Democrats). We had similar percentage in Florida (3 percent). Exit polls don't deal with such small numbers of voters, so we do not know who they voted for. But we know they could barely make a difference.

So who's right here? The data compiled by the RJC spans over 16 years on a national basis, while the data compiled by Haaretz's Rosner is a snapshot taken during the most recent primaries held in heavily Jewish-populated blue states. Is this a trend? Are an increasing number of Jews that previously voted for a Republican so fed up with the Bush Administration that they will now vote for a Democrat in 2008?

Let's get real here. It's hard to imagine that any Jewish voter that previously voted Republican would now go back to vote for a Democrat. Instead of being smaller, it's highly likely that the Jewish vote in 2008 will be even greater than the 25-30 percent range in 2004.

But even a brain-washed simpleton knows when they're being handed a skewed report as this one clearly is from Haaretz. Then again, for liberal Kool-Aid drinkers, maybe not.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Looks Who Making Nazi-Like Statements

What most liberal Jews either don't want to, or simply can't bring themselves to acknowledge is the fact that the left today is where the majority of Anti-Semitic and Anti-Israeli sendiments, statements, and actions take place.

While Alan Dershowitz isn't a person that is often quoted by Republicans, his recent quiz/article in FrontPage Magazine entitled,  Who’s Making These Nazi-like Statements?, should be a sobering exercise for many Jews on the left. Here is his thought provoking, multiple choice quiz:

1. Who made the following statement? “We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that culture of violence is eventually going to destroy humanity."

A) A person named “Hitler”,

B) A person named “Stalin”

C) A person named “Gandhi”?


2. Who described the establishment of the state of Israel as a “historical, moral, political calamity,” blames the existence of Israel for putting the entire world in “peril” and condemns “American Jews” for the “shame” of failing to denounce Israel?

A) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

B) The Hamas Charter

C) Award-winning American playwright Tony Kushner.


3. Who has said that Israel may eventually cause the “end of the human race” by means of global warming?

A) American losing politician Ralph Nader

B) American losing politician Pat Buchanan

C) Former minister in the Blair government, Clare Short.


The Answers:


Question 1 - Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, and himself the former head of the MK Gandhi Institute for Non-Violence at the University of Rochester.

Question 2 - Tony Kushner, who demonstrates his complete ignorance about the history, morality and politics of Israel’s establishment as the result of the United Nations division of the contested area into two states: one for the Palestinians and one for the Jews.

Question 3 - Clare Short, former Secretary of State for International Development in the UK Labor government.

These individuals on the left mimic the most despised group in modern history – the Nazi Party – in blaming the world’s ills on “the Jews", the Jewish state and “American Jews.” If this were not so dangerous and tragic, its patent ignorance would almost be humorous.

It’s easy to scapegoat “the Jews” or the Jewish state for all the world’s problems. One would expect, however, that in light of the history of Nazism, people like Gandhi, Kushner, and Short would reflect more deeply before issuing this modern day version of the Blood Libel. Shame on them.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Harsh Realities

Well, the all-imortant Republican Florida primary is now offically over, and as everyone is well aware, John McCain, not Rudy Guiliani, is the winner. Boo-hoo!

With Rudy's loss, Republican devotees now much ask themselves a question that the media pundits have been asking for several weeks:

Should someone vote with their conscience and support the candidate that best represents their values, (even if that decision helps to elect a Democrat), or should they vote for the candidate that has the best chance of beating the Democrat, regardless of how that person matches up with one's value list.

Dick Morris had this reality check in his most recent article on his website:

The bitterness of the Democratic contest leaves open the possibility of massive defections from Hillary should she be the candidate, both among blacks and whites. There will be legions of disappointed young voters if Obama eventually loses to the race-baiting Clinton machine.

McCain’s record offers much to attract these disaffected Democrats and independents. His ability to win independents where they are permitted to vote in Republican primaries attests to his appeal to swing voters.

So McCain can win and Romney won’t. That’s the long and the short of it.

Since McCain is the only Republican that can beat either Hillary or Obama, that means that conservative Republican voters will have to hold their nose as they throw the lever for McCain. It's either that or voting for Romney, knowing that the election will go to a Democrat.

Since it's expected that Justices Stevens and Ginsberg will retire in the next few years, such a move means that Republican lose the Supreme Court for another 30 years. And we can only wonder what that move will do for our society.

So now that Rudy is out, I'm voting for the Supreme Court with a vote for McCain. Evangelical and conservative voters should do the same.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Aid Points to Uncertain Future Israeli Relationship

A post on blog site, The Belmont Club, provides a glimpse at how a future Obama presidency would treat U.S. relations with the State of Israel. As the blog indicates:

To question what does Barack Obama really think about Israel the best answer (from his perspective might be) "what do you think I think?"

Ed Lasky (American Thinker) and Paul Mirengoff (Power Line blog) are wondering why Barack Obama has enlisted Robert Malley as one of his foreign policy advisors. As the various links reveal, Malley is just about as pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli as credible foreign policy analysts get, at least in the United States. Now, Malley is but one advisor to Obama among many, and his views clearly diverge from Obama's stated positions. This raises the question, why does Obama list such an inflammatory figure as an advisor? Does Obama merely want different perspectives on his team, or does he genuinely agree with Malley notwithstanding his soothing words to Jewish groups, or is he sending a disingenuous signal to the big-money donors on the transnational left that America will weaken its support for Israel under an Obama presidency? Any of these explanations strike me as possible. It would be wonderful (hint, hint) if mainstream media journalists made some passing attempt to ascertain the correct explanation.

Each constituency may be allowed to think it knows what the candidate's position will be and act on that misunderstanding or understanding. Obama, by saying he is pro-Israel and appointing Malley as an adviser, creates a kind of political Rorschach inkblot test in which those who think Obama is "pro-Israel" support him and those who think he is "anti-Israel" support him too. They are sold a box. And they think they know the contents of the box. But they only get to open the box after Obama is elected President.

The other possibility having an undefined platform creates an implicit bidding situation. Democratic Jewish groups may say, "Oh, if we don't support Obama, then he might be captured by the likes of Malley." And the likes of Malley are probably saying to themselves, "unless we throw everything behind Obama, he may be captured by the pro-Israel lobby." Thus, the two sides will outdo themselves for the favor of the candidate. If in the first case Obama could sell a ticket twice, in the latter case he can hold an auction to sell it to the highest bidder.

Once again it seems that Liberal Jewish voters will vote with their emotions and not their heads when they throw the lever for Obama on Super Tuesday. I guess it will take another Jimmy Carter-like presidency, an administration that elevated terrorists like Yasir Arafat to diplomatic status, before they will realize that today's Democrat party is no longer the friend to Israel as they were in the past.

But hey, it's all about "change", right?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Islamic Politcal Correctness Thrives in the UK

Mark Steyn, the well renowned author of the best selling book "America Alone: The End of the World as we Know it, has written a powerful article entitled, "First they came for Piglet", which dramatizes how pacifistic political correctness towards Islamic jihadism and the worldwide war of terror is impacting life in today's U.K.

In the article, Steyn points to a headline that recently appeared in Britain's Daily Mail newspaper that provides us with a glimpse, that read:

"Government Renames Islamic Terrorism As 'anti-Islamic Activity' To Woo Muslims."

According to Steyn:

So, henceforth, any terrorism perpetrated by persons of an Islamic persuasion will be designated "anti-Islamic activity." Britain's Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, unveiled the new brand name in a speech a few days ago. "There is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorize, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief," she told her audience. "Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic."

But, by insisting on re-labeling terrorism committed by Muslims in the name of Islam as "anti-Islamic activity," Her Majesty's government is engaging not merely in Orwellian Newspeak but in self-defeating Orwellian Newspeak. The broader message it sends is that ours is a weak culture so unconfident and insecure that if you bomb us and kill us our first urge is to find a way to flatter and apologize to you.

So much for the famous British stiff upper lip. If Churchill could see how the Nevill Chamberlain-like attitude of the past seems to be repeating itself with today's British citizens, he'd be turning over in his grave. Can you imagine such reporting during the now famous air blitz of London during World War II? Steyn provides an example:

Killing thousands of people in Manhattan skyscrapers in the name of Islam does, among a certain narrow-minded type of person, give Islam a bad name, and thus could be said to be "anti-Islamic" – in the same way that the Luftwaffe raining down death and destruction on Londoners during the Blitz was an "anti-German activity."

But I don't recall even Neville Chamberlain explaining, as if to a 5-year-old, that there is nothing German about the wish to terrorize and invade, and that this is entirely at odds with the core German values of sitting around eating huge sausages in beer gardens while wearing lederhosen.


If nothing else, the lefts attitude toward Islamic terrorism in Europe should provide a glimpse at what could be in store for our country with a Democratic win in November, and send a chill down the spines of both moderate and centrist Democrats and Republicans alike.

Let's hope for everyone's sake, the need for "change" doesn't extend to this country's fight in the war on Islamic terrorism. If it does, headlines like those in the Daily Mail will be a common appearence on the front pages of the New York Times, (which isn't that far off the mark already).
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dennis Prager: The Case for Rudy

At a time when all the news pundits and political pollsters are measuring the size of Rudy Guiliani's presidential gravesite in anticipation of a poor showing in the Florida primary, Dennis Prager has released a new article on his website called,"The Case for Rudy Guiliani".

The article does a great job in laying out the reasons why Rudy really is the best pick for the Republican nomination for President. Since just about every Republican candidate loves to compare themselves to Ronald Reagan, Prager believes that Guiliani comes the closest in that comparison:

"But Giuliani is not merely more of a conservative than John McCain. In fact, if it is Ronald Reagan that Republicans want, Giuliani is extraordinarily close to that venerated man. Ronald Reagan stood for two great beliefs: that big government is a big problem for a free society and that America must be militarily strong and lead the war against global communism."

Of course there will be the evangelical segment of the GOP that won't vote for Guiliani under any circumstance due to his pro-choice postion. To those voters, Prager makes one last plea for a reasoned perspective on the issue:

"Ronald Reagan was pro-life, and it mattered little to the pro-life cause. Concerning abortion, what matters most in a president is the type of judges he appoints to the Supreme Court. As George Will wrote on behalf of Giuliani, "The way to change abortion law is to change courts by means of judicial nominations of the sort Giuliani promises to make." It is extremely unlikely that John McCain would appoint similarly conservative judges. Therefore, Pro-life Republicans need to ask themselves: Will a Democrat or Giuliani as president render abortion less common in America? The best is the enemy of the better. And Giuliani is far better on abortion than any Democratic nominee."

So with about a week to go before we learn whether Florida gives Rudy the staying power to remain in the Presidential race, those of us who know in our hearts that Rudy is the best man for the position can only sit back, hope, and most certainly pray that the Republican voters of Florida do the right thing!

Go Rudy!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Getting Florida Jews to Vote GOP

For many Jewish voters, Joe Lieberman is nothing short of a political icon. After all, he was the first Jewish politician to enter the inner circle of a potential presidency when Al Gore selected him as his Vice-Presidential running mate in the 2000 election.

In addition, his continued staunch support for the war on terrorism in the face of widespread appeasement and ridicule by his fellow Democratic party members who were against the war, earned him the respect of Conservative and Republican Jewish voters alike . His re-election as an Independent beating back the Democratic juggernaut that backed his rival Ned Lamont showed the rest of the country that Democrats could be beaten in the northeast, and that Connecticut voters did in fact have their heads screwed on straight.

With Florida so critical to winning Presidential elections as it has shown in 2000 and 2004, could Joe Lieberman be the ticket (pardon the pun) to the GOP once again winning the state? That's the question posed by an article in the Jewish publication, Haaretz.com, entitled, "Will Florida Jews follow Joe Lieberman and vote GOP?". As the article states:

"In national polls McCain is still seen as the candidate most likely to be able to defeat a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama. This was exactly the message that Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman gave in a speech to the "Jewish Republican Coalition" in Boca Raton, Florida.

Over the next week and a half, Lieberman will address a number of heavily Jewish crowds in Florida in support of the McCain campaign. Before the heavily-Jewish crowds, Lieberman emphasized McCain's pro-Israel voting record and his knowledge of the Iranian threat. Lieberman didn't level harsh criticism on the democratic candidates, after all, he is for the most part still a democrat. Nonetheless, Lieberman doesn't seem convinced that the democratic candidates fully understand the Iranian threat."

While many Jewish Repubilicans would prefer to see Rudy Guiliani get the Republican nomination, most may have to hold their nose and vote for McCain should he get the nod. The Jewish vote may get even more complicated should McCain choose Lieberman as his running mate!

One thing is for sure. The upcoming Florida primary will certainly tell us whether McCain or Guiliani will be the ultimate candidate for moderate wing of the Republican party and for Jewish voters of all stripes. In either case, if Joe Lieberman can attract liberal and moderate Jewish Democrats to vote Republican and deny either Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama the presidency, all the better!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive