Posted on 08/23/2004 9:53:38 PM PDT by Mia T
|
If this is true, why do I continue to read the a vast majority of Jews will vote Democrat?
bump! I read Unfit for Command and put away the lying, what came through is what a nutter Kerry is.
THIS Jew will not. Nor will any of her immediate family.
Not even my UWS (upper west side) Columbia PhD ultra-liberal twin brother. (he voted for neither clinton and just to give you an idea of his political orientation, when he recently accosted Kerry in Cambridge MA, he was brushed off as much too liberal!) These days, he never votes dem. he will be voting for nader.
I think it's predominantly older, uneducated, unwired Jews who are intractable dems. the reasons for this are mainly reflex, fear, ignorance and/or stupidity, not necessarily in that order.
Kerry does have psychological 'issues.' I am planning a kerry deconstruction piece, cracking the nut, if you will. ;)
I might add that I was recently heartened to hear that an 85-year-old UES (upper east side) family elder is abandoning his foolish ways and voting for nader. I just sent him the Koch article (see above), which I suspect may even push him into the Bush column.
fyi
good morning
thanks for the ping
& bttt
Well ofcourse I'm no psychiatrist, but I think kerry has a bit of an algore problem, let's face it, here's a guy who has made up all kind of grand stories about his heroics in battle, the question I wonder is, is kerry a narcissist who would do anything to get power and wealth, or is he a just a liar and an opportunist?
Either way, God help us if he gets elected!
The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
eorge Soros could not have more clearly enunciated the lethal danger that he and John Kerry and the clintons and the rest of his leftist cabal pose for America. Yesterday, at the "progressive," i.e., ultra-extremist left-wing liberal, "Take Back America" confab, Mr. Soros confirmed the obvious: 9/11 was dispositive for the Dems; that is, 9/11 accelerated what eight years of the clintons had set into motion, namely, the demise of a Democratic party that is increasingly irrelevant, unflinchingly corrupt, unwaveringly self-serving, chronically moribund and above all, lethally, seditiously dangerous. "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Apparently missing the irony, George Soros chastised America with these words even as he was trying his $25,000,000, 527-end-run damnedest to render himself "more equal than others" in order to foist his radical, paranoic, deadly dementia on an entire nation. "Animal Farm" is George Orwell's satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution; but it could just as easily be the story of the Democratic Party of today, with the its porcine manifestation. GEORGE TSURIS Soros' little speech reveals everything we need to know about the Left, to wit:
Soros is correct when he states that each of the two pillars of the Bush Doctine--the United States maintenance of absolute military superiority and the United States right of preemptive action--are "valid propositions" [in a post-9/11 world]. But when he proceeds from there to argue that the validity of each of these two [essential] pillars is somehow nullified by the resultant unequalled power that these two pillars, when taken together, vest in the United States, rational thought and national-security primacy give way to dogmatic Leftist neo-neoliberal ideology.
What is, in fact, "inviolate" here is the neo-neoliberal doctrine of U.S. sovereignty, which states simply that there must be none, that we must yield our sovereignty to the United Nations. Because this Leftist tenet is inviolate, and because it is the antithesis of the concept of U.S. sovereignty enunciated by the Bush Doctrine and the concept of U.S. sovereignty required by the War on Terror, rabid Leftists like Soros conclude that we must trash the latter two inconvenient concepts--even if critical to the survival of our country. It is precisely here where Soros and the Left fail utterly to understand the War on Terror. They cannot see beyond their own ideology and lust for power. They have become a danger to this country no less lethal than the terrorists they aid and abet.
|
kerry's algore problem:
aiding + abetting the terrorists + imperiling all Americans
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
"'Al has a way of looking at you like his eyes are kind of burning,' said Nashville Tennessean reporter John Warnecke.You would get that when you mentioned his dad'. Asked in a 1987 interview about relations between father and son, Tipper Gore said:'You remember Oedipus? She quickly added that she was kidding, sort of. 'You had a very powerful father - a hero to many people - and a son coming to maturity and learning to find his own dignity.'" Inventing Al Gore by Bill Turque, p. 30 |
|
Was that Koch article posted anywhere else on FR?
Why Bush Must Be Re-elected
Edward I. Koch
Thursday, July 22, 2004
I support the re-election of President George W. Bush. Why? Because I believe one issue overwhelms all others: the presidentís strong commitment to fight the forces of international terrorism regardless of the cost or how long it takes to achieve victory.
I do not agree with President Bush on a single major domestic issue, but in my view those issues pale in comparison with the threat of international terrorism. Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the evil poster boys of mass murder, are revered and supported by millions of Muslims throughout the world. The stated goal of al-Qaida and its supporters is to kill or convert every infidel, and that means Jews, Christians, Buddhists and everyone else who will not accept Islamís supremacy.
These terrorists are convinced that non-Islamic nations do not have the will and courage to persevere in this ongoing struggle, which could last decades. They believe the democracies are weak-willed and will ultimately yield to whatever demands are made upon them.
By withdrawing their troops from Iraq in response to terrorist attacks, Spain and the Philippines have already shown that, tragically, terror tactics, including suicide attacks, car bombings and the beheading of innocent civilians, do work.
The terrorists also intend to destroy moderate Muslim governments that want to live in peace with countries that are not Islamic.
Shortly after 9/11, President Bush announced his commitment to the struggle against Islamic fanatics, who believe they can destroy the values of Western civilization and democratic governments everywhere. On entering this war against terrorism after 9/11, President Bush said, ìWe shall go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them.î
This Bush Doctrine rivals in importance the Monroe Doctrine, which limited the colonization efforts of foreign powers in the Western Hemisphere, and the Truman Doctrine, which contained the spread of Communism. President Bush has proven that he is prepared to keep to his commitment to fight terrorism.
If John Kerry were to win this presidential election, would he stand up to terrorism to the same extent as George Bush has? I donít think so. Regrettably, my party, the Democratic Party, now has a strong radical left wing whose members often dominate the party primaries. Those same left-wing radicals have an anti-Israel philosophy, reviling that democratic state which shares the values held by a majority of Americans.
Kerry is a patriotic American who performed heroically in the Vietnam War. Regrettably, he surrendered his philosophical independence to the left wing in the recent primaries in order to prevail over the original darling of the radicals, Howard Dean. Kerry owes his nomination in large part to the supporters of Dean and the support of Senator Ted Kennedy.
Kennedy sadly demonstrated his loss of any sense of decency with his crude attacks on President Bush using unacceptable, abusive language. The hatred deliberately stirred by Kennedy directed at President Bush is contemptible and dangerous. It encourages our terrorist enemies with whom we are at war, and it incites the crazies in our own country.
On July 9, a Kerry-Edwards fund-raising concert was held at Radio City Music Hall. During that concert Hollywood comedienne Whoopi Goldberg engaged in unprintable, despicable, sexual references to the president and the vice president. She combined the presidentís family name with allusions to the female anatomy, and she made a sexual reference to Vice President Dick Cheneyís first name by referring to the male anatomy.
Even worse was Kerryís thank-you from the stage to all of the performers saying that they conveyed "the heart and soul of our country." Shameful.
Now a comment about the war in Iraq. Most Americans understand that few, if any, wars go smoothly. Just cast your mind back to the American Revolutionary War, during which New York City was occupied by enemy forces for seven years, or the American Civil War, in which Confederate armies won victory after victory on the battlefield, or even World War II, in which the Nazi menace was defeated at an enormous cost in human lives. Should we have gone to war with Iraq? I believe the answer is yes.
During a daily briefing after 9/11, then CIA Director George Tenet told the president that Iraq had the ability to wage chemical and biological war on the U.S. He referred to Iraqís possession of weapons of mass destruction as a "slam dunk." Had the president not engaged in the pre-emptive war against Saddam, and if this madman had subsequently released in the U.S. biological agents or poison gas, which he had already used against the Kurds and Iran, does anyone doubt that the president would have been impeached?
The security agencies of nearly every democratic nation provided to their president or prime minister the same description of Iraqís weapons-of-mass-destruction capability. The U.S. Congress had the same information and concurred with the presidentís decision. The U.N. Security Council unanimously concurred, passing Resolution 1441.
But it was President Bush who had the courage to take up arms in defense of the U.S. and our allies. That is what leadership is all about.
A poll released by the Washington Post on July 14, 2004, showed that "55 percent of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism" and "51 percent also said they trust Bush more than Kerry to deal with terrorism, while 42 percent prefer the Democrat."
We also should not forget that President Bush, in my opinion, has been the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House. At the U.N. Security Council and in the U.N. General Assembly, allies of the U.S. and others who are indifferent or hostile to our country have conveyed the view that if we end our alliance with Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, they would welcome back the U.S. into their circle. President Bush has refused to abandon our ally Israel.
In my opinion, the U.S. presidents who have been Israelís greatest friends are, in order, the current President Bush, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. This November, we Americans in the Jewish community should remember our friends. We should thank President Bush for his courage in the war against terrorism and for his strong and consistent support for Israel and democracy.
Edward I. Koch is the former mayor of New York City. His commentary for Bloomberg radio is republished here. You can hear his weekly radio show by going to www.bloomberg.com/radio.
104
Well, one thing's for sure. Kerry is NOT the anti-Christ. He just doesn't have the 'charisma'.
how this clown can get as far politically as he has, and makes a mockery of his service to his country, while being promoted and moved along by powerful forces?
parallels the rise of the adolph hitler.
these parallels are much more numerous than those which try to portray GWB as Hitler, as DU, Moveon.org and the left implies:
o Kerry and Hitler were both "War Heros" with medals.
o Kerry and Hitler were heros in wars that their nation "lost".
o Kerry and Hitler were both "Wounded" in that war.
o Kerry and Hitler are both opportunists.
o Kerry and Hitler are dedicated to overthrow the existing order.
o Kerry and Hitler were both leaders of radical organizations willing to use violence to win.
o Kerry and Hitler used national dissatisfaction with the war they fought in to gain political prominence.
o Kerry and Hitler gathered up many recruits to his cause from the new-age paganist movement and the ecology movement.
o Kerry and Hitler use sympathetic newsmedia to mold what people are allowed to know and believe.
o Kerry and Hitler use their ties to the entertainment business to stage grandious events meant to impress the weak minded.
o Kerry and Hitler supress or ban books dangerous to them.
o Kerry and Hitler are both adopted by the super-rich as a vehicle to take political control.
o Kerry and Hitler are both socialists.
o Kerry and Hitler are both power hungry narcissists with "psychological issues".
You keep me so busy. Thank you.
I've emailed the koch articles and the psychologists' piece above to all, requesting that they send it on.
THANKS.
Sent to my email list with annotations and emphases!
Of course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.