About Us

Name: J-GOP
Email: moreinfo@j-gop.org Biography
Name: KarenKataline
Email: Karen@KarenKataline.com
Name: Dan
Email: dan@dankopelman.com
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Obama's Commies

Posted by J-GOP on Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:08:21 AM
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

Posted by J-GOP on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:35:59 AM
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?

Posted by J-GOP on Monday, February 11, 2008 3:20:47 PM
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

Posted by J-GOP on Sunday, February 10, 2008 1:07:57 PM
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

Posted by J-GOP on Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:23:32 PM
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

Posted by J-GOP on Monday, January 28, 2008 11:09:02 PM
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

Posted by J-GOP on Sunday, January 27, 2008 7:09:13 PM
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

Posted by J-GOP on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:00:48 AM
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

Posted by J-GOP on Monday, January 21, 2008 11:13:31 AM
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

Writing Off Nevada's Conservative Jews

Posted by J-GOP on Friday, January 18, 2008 4:25:03 PM
As with the primaries and caucuses that came before it, Nevada's primary scheduled for this Saturday is sure to be as much of a nail-biter for the Republicans as it is for the Democrats. But with states jockeying for front-runner status and presidential candidates vying for every last vote, contenders from both parties can almost certainly write off one entire constituency as a result of the decision to hold Nevada's caucus on Saturday: the state’s Orthodox and Conservative Jews.

The scheduling of the Nevada caucuses for Saturday, January 19, in the late-morning hours means that Orthodox and Conservative Jews who observe the Sabbath on Saturdays will be unable to participate in what is shaping up to be a pivotal contest. Unfortunately, by the time that Jewish organizations learned about the scheduled date and cried “foul”,  it was too late to change the impending caucus time.

According to an article that appeared in The Forward, both Conservative and Orthodox Jews are raising last-minute vocal opposition:

“The issue is the number of people who have to decide whether to participate in the democratic process or participate in their religious observance,” said Hadar Susskind, Washington director for an umbrella organization of national Jewish groups, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. “They shouldn’t be forced to do that.”

While previous election years, including 2004, saw Nevada primaries held on a Saturday, it wasn’t until the current caucus that religious groups raised eyebrows. In past cycles, Nevada’s placement as one of the last presidential primary states rendered its outcome unimportant, but with Nevada this year holding the coveted third spot in the contest lineup, a new spotlight is being trained on the Silver State. And with the leading Democratic candidates locked in a neck-and-neck three-way race there — and no clear front-runner having emerged from Iowa and New Hampshire — a few thousand votes could make or break the election result, say opponents of the Saturday morning timeslot.

What's the impact? According to Rabbi Shea Harlig, regional director of Chabad of Southern Nevada, estimated that Nevada is home to some 200 Orthodox families, and to nearly 1,500 families affiliated with Conservative synagogues. The state counts eight Orthodox congregations in total, with seven in Las Vegas and one further north, in Reno.

The decision has a greater impact on Republican than Democratic turnout since non-observing secular Jews that plan on voting during the Sabbath are more aligned with the Democratic party than the Republican party, which has been traditionally home to observant Orthodox and Conservative Jews.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The White Army of Al-Qaeda

Posted by J-GOP on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:09:48 PM
If you've been led to believe that all Al-Qaeda supporters exclusively comprise Muslims from the Middle East, you need to think again. A growing number of Al-Qaeda supporters are actually white, non-Muslims from other countries outside of the Middle East.

First, there is Adam Gadahn, 28, also known as Azzam al-Amriki or Azzam the American, a former resident of Orange County, Calif., who has been indicted in the Central District of California on charges of treason and providing material support for making a series of propaganda videotapes for Al-Qaeda. Gadahn is the first person to be charged with treason against the United States since World War II.

Then, there is white,non-Muslim support for Al-Qaeda in Europe. According to News Scotsman.com, hundreds of British non-Muslims have been recruited by al-Qaeda to wage war against the West. As many as 1,500 white Britons are believed to have converted to Islam for the purpose of funding, planning and carrying out surprise terror attacks inside the UK, according to one MI5 source.

One British security source indicated: "There could be anything up to 1,500 converts to the fundamentalist cause across Britain. They pose a real potential danger to our domestic security because, obviously, these people blend in and do not raise any flags."

"The exact figure of those who have converted to Islam and turned to terror is not precisely known. Not everyone who converts becomes radicalised and it may be that just two-fifths go down that path, but it remains a significant and dangerous problem."

More interesting than the newsworthiness of this article is the reaction from many of its commentators. Most took this tone as echoed by someone named icehawk:

At some point you just get sick and tired of hearing "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! THE TERRORISTS ARE GOING TO GET US!!!"

Enough already. The overblown, rediculous claims that the bad guys are going to get us is getting old. At what point will the news media finally say, enough already.

It's always amazing to see the extent that the secular far-left will go to deny the obvious. Their attempts to comfort themselves with false, misguided, naive, and dangerous denials of the facts and events that surround them every day would make the isolationists in the American First Movement of the late 1930s very proud.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bush: "We Should Have Bombed It"

Posted by J-GOP on Monday, January 14, 2008 2:40:46 PM
During his tour of the Yad Vashem memorial during his visit to Israel, President Bush commented with tears in his eyes that "We should have bombed it", referring to the Nazi death camp, Auschwitz. At the time, many U.S. Jews in the 1940s were calling for the bombing of the death camp to halt the genocide of the estimated 1.1 million to 1.5 million Jews that took place at the camp during World War II.

Bush emerged from a tour of the Yad Vashem memorial calling it a "sobering reminder" that evil must be resisted, and praising victims for not losing their faith. Wearing a yarmulke, Bush placed a red-white-and-blue wreath on a stone slab that covers ashes of Holocaust victims taken from six extermination camps. He also lit a torch memorializing the victims.

"Bush was visibly moved as he toured the site", said Yad Vashem's chairman, Avner Shalev.

The interesting part of this story is that at one point during his visit, President Bush called Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice over to discuss why the American government had decided against bombing the site.

What type of answer did Bush think he was going to get to his question from Rice? A history lesson? Perhaps an unbiased view of U.S. Foreign Policy under the Roosevelt Administration?

Maybe the visit was as beneficial for her as is was for him. After all, according to an article in the Washington Times, both Rice and Bush seem to believe that the original roadmap for peace that was approved by former Prime Minister Sharon in 2004 is now considered an impediment to the peach process, instead of a requirement going forward. According to Rice's statement:

The "road map" for peace, conceived in 2002 by Mr. Bush, had become a hindrance to the peace process, because the first requirement was that the Palestinians stop terrorist attacks. As a result, every time there was a terrorist bombing, the peace process fell apart and went back to square one. Neither side ever began discussing the "core issues": the freezing of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the rights of Palestinian refugees to return, the outline of Israel's border and the future of Jerusalem.

"The reason that we haven't really been able to move forward on the peace process for a number of years is that we were stuck in the sequentiality of the road map. So you had to do the first phase of the road map before you moved on to the third phase of the road map, which was the actual negotiations of final status".

Hopefully, the visit to Yad Vashem provided both Bush and Rice an explanation as to why the Israelis are so adamant in requiring that the Palestinians recognize the State of Israel and stop their rocket attacks from Gaza before handing over more land as a condition for peace negotiations. When someone says they are going to anhiliate you, not only do you take them seriously, but you also require your enemy to take very specific measures as a test of their sincerity if you're going to sit down and attempt to negotiate peace.

But given their statements, it appears that both Bush and Rice haven't learned very much from their visit to Yad Vashem. Maybe instead, both President Bush and Secretary Rice need to pick up a book on 20th Century World History are re-read the chapter on the Neville Chamberlain's "peace process" in 1938.

That would provide a much better lesson on how to prevent the next Holocaust from taking place.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Jewish "Bradley Effect"

Posted by J-GOP on Friday, January 11, 2008 1:37:50 PM
Since the New Hampshire Primary, the new media has been wringing their hands in search of an explanation as to why their lavish predictions of a double-digit Obama win were so wrong.

The answer that they have chosen is called "The Bradley Effect", aptly named after Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, who lost the 1982 California gubernatorial election despite a healthy lead (ranging from 9 to 22 percent in various polls) over his opponent. Some pundits have even argued that white voters told pollsters they were intent on supporting the black candidate but that deep-seated racism got the best of them when it came time to pull the leverage behind the voting curtain.

Now according to Commentary Magazine, a similar situation is taking place with Jewish voters that plan on voting for the Republican candidate. Being a Democrat is almost instinctive for American Jews and being a GOP supporter is akin to eating pastrami on white bread with mayonnaise. As Martin Peretz wrote in 2004, signaling his distaste for John Kerry:

"Like many American Jews, I was brought up to believe that if I pulled the Republican lever on the election machine my right hand would wither and, as the Psalmist says, my tongue would cleave to the roof of my mouth."

But as the Commentary Magazine article explains, there may very well be a block of Jewish voters this election year that will pull the lever for the Republican candidate, but tell their friends that they voted for the Democrat:

"Since 9/11, I’m convinced there is a far larger proportion of Jews than the reported 25 percent that voted Republican in 2004. These Jews–perfectly happy calling themselves Bill Clinton Democrats but more hawkish than a party now headed by Nancy Pelosi–don’t want to admit to anyone that they supported a Republican because everyone in their social circle would call them meshugeh." (a crazy person).

The prospects of what a Democratic President in combination with a Democratic-lead Congress will do with the war in Iraq, our involvement in Afghanistan, the war on Islamic-terrorism, and our relations with Iran, one can only hope that this perception rings true come November.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sleepwalking Into a NightMare

Posted by J-GOP on Monday, January 07, 2008 10:35:00 AM
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich delivered a very powerful speech on the current situation with Iran's desire to acquire nuclear weapons. The speech was given to the Jewish National Fund on November 15th, 2007 at the Selig Center for Economic Growth, on the campus of The University of Georgia:

In the speech, he draws several parallels to the Holocaust, the most important of which include:

1. “The complaint about Iraq is a performance complaint, not a values complaint.”

2. “And so we’re living a life of cowardice, and in that life of cowardice we’re sleepwalking into a nightmare.”

3. “Our enemies are peaceful when they’re weak, are ruthless when they’re strong, demand mercy when they’re losing, show no mercy when they’re winning.”

4. ” We had better take this seriously because we are not very many mistakes away from a second Holocaust.”

You can read his entire speech by following this link on Jewish.com. If you would like to see commentary from other bloggers on the speech, it can be found on the Joels Trumpet blog.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Jewish Vote Key Factor in Primaries

Posted by J-GOP on Friday, January 04, 2008 2:13:49 PM
According to The Jewish Week online, the Jewish vote will play a key role in the upcoming primaries, especially with the January 29th vote in Florida and the "Super Tuesday" marathon on Feb. 5, with votes in New York and New Jersey, among others. Each of these states have big, politically active Jewish communities.

In addition, the article indicates a certain degree of fluidity with the Jewish Republican vote:

"Several Republican contenders have more at stake in the hunt for Jewish votes. Giuliani, who seems to have bet everything on the second round of primaries, faces a make-or-break test in Florida, where his popularity among Jewish retirees with New York connections could prove decisive."

Political observers generally agree that there is more "swing" in the relatively small Jewish Republican vote, while Jewish Democrats appear more likely to have chosen their favorites.

"A tremendous amount of the Jewish Republican vote is sitting on the sidelines," said Fred Zeidman, a Texas businessman and leading supporter of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). "They will support whoever is the party’s nominee. On the other side, I see most Jewish Democrats have taken sides already."

You can read the entire article by following this link.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234567891011Next »