Posted on 03/13/2019 12:26:55 AM PDT by knighthawk
A top staffer to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign apologized Tuesday for invoking “a dual allegiance” of Jewish Americans while defending Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.
Belén Sisa, Sanders’ national deputy press secretary, was discussing the term seen as anti-Semitic in a Facebook thread over the weekend -- and argued that questioning it was legitimate, Politico reported.
“This is a serious question: do you not think that the American government and American Jewish community has a dual allegiance to the state of Israel? I’m asking not to rule out the history of this issue, but in the context in which this was said by Ilhan,” Sisa wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Believe it or not, that is not the purpose of my posting here, I would venture it is not the purpose of most people who post here. My purpose is to express arguments supported by reason, example, and history. I deplore, as I said in a previous reply in this thread, the practice of substituting the ad hominem for reasoned argument on the merits.
She was brought into the country at age six.
And she has one thing going for her...
“As a college senior in 2017, she was jailed for her role in a sit-in outside of Sen. Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., office.”
Ad hominems are a turn off. It helps to imagine the issue under discussion is an object sitting on a table between the two of us and being discussed as such. Going personal has no place.
You are entitled to your conclusions just as you are entitled to your opinions, and welcome to them.
I ask you again that which I asked you in my first reply to you, what has what you have written to do with what I have written?
“anti-Semitism” like “racism”, “homophobe”, “Islamophobe”, on and on, is just another term used to shut down legitimate debate.
As I said originally you lambast the modern democrat party as tou put it ‘tearing itself apart’’ and yet to venerate the democrat Party that gave this nation the Confederacy. And to drive home that point you have , in every one of your posts the picture of a man who took up arms against his own country in the service of men who had no problem owing another human being and was the first ‘’wizard’’ of one of, if not, America’s first hate group, the Ku Klux Klan and now you’re attempting some petting fogging nonsense cloaked in some phony intellectual discourse. let’s not lose sight of the fact, the South launched a war of violent secession and lost. Now how about answering the questions I put to you?
Buchanan may have been attacked by a couple of sincere Democrats after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, but I guarantee that was the last time.
Any pro-Israel statements issued by the Democrat Party after the 1973 War have been pure political BS.
As to America's support for Israel - why would we not support Israel?
They live on a geo-politically strategic piece of land.
They tenaciously defend themselves.
They are the only country in the world that would actually fight to defend the USA.
They are smart, they are highly productive, and they share the same cultural and political values that most Americans embrace.
Re: “let’s not lose sight of the fact, the South launched a war of violent secession and lost.”
I think the South would have been quite pleased to accept a peaceful division of the country, but such a division was never offered.
Instead, President Lincoln decided that the South was perpetually bound to the United States.
When the South disagreed, Lincoln utterly destroyed the economy of the South, freed the slaves, gave them the right to vote - and just walked away.
What could possibly go wrong?
“treasonous Southern bastard who took up arms against the duly elected government of the United States “
To be fair the south separated and the north attacked them for doing so. The war was no doubt inevitable but the north fired the first shots. What amuses me is watching the Rats trying to keep the muzzle and the Jewish vote. It’s what happens when you base your power on identity politics. Like the Hispanics the Rats do not actually care about either but they do want the votes and will do whatever it takes to get them country be damned.
And, so all political history begins with your personal dislike for the Democrats, circa 1855?
Do you similarly viscerally dislike Thomas Jefferson...a Virginia Democrat?
Hey...stupid...Lincoln had a plan to bring the south back into the union in a way that would be less damaging and less emotionally and economically wrenching but his critics wanted harsher measures against the South.
Lincoln was shot...remember? He didn’t just “walk away”, nor did he want to!(and the harsher measures were implemented causing wide ranging resentment and opposition in the south)
I was frankly nonplussed to read your demand that I answer your questions that you put to me. So I went through your four or five replies to me on this thread and everywhere I saw a question mark I wrote down the question; here they are, such as they are:
Guess irony’s lost on you, huh?
As well as hypocrisy?
Seriously?
Really, you ARE serious?
What would America look like today?
What if the South had won?
I look at the questions and I ask, what is he asking? The first two are personal attacks which I choose to dismiss. The third, "seriously?" Is an empty rhetorical device as well as demeaning which I also choose to dismiss. Likewise the fourth, "Really, you ARE serious?".
The last two are what if questions and I am not inclined to play what if games with you today.
I not at all motivated to defend myself against the fatuous questions listed above.
Nor am I inclined to relitigate the war between the states. Equally am I disinclined to defend the use of my name and avatar beyond which has been thoroughly expressed in my about page, which I stand behind, every word.
You are getting tiresome. You are representative of a major problem today all conservatives must contend against, the incessant, rabid campaign to shut down free speech. Take a look at what's going on with Tucker Carlson. You are playing the same game Media Matters plays against him for something he said 10 years ago and both of you think the ends justify the means.
I want to see your evidence that everyone who fought in the Confederacy was a Democrat. I'll wait, probably for the rest of my days while you figure that out.
I offer in rebuttal the following quotation from, PAT BUCHANAN AND THE MENACE ANTI-ANTI-SEMITISM Autor: Murray N. Rothbard | Publikováno: 31.12.2009 | Rubrika: English:(please note the date)
The major fount of OAAS is the venerable Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (ADL), the head of what the grand Old Rightist John T. Flynn referred to during World War II as the "Smear Bund." (Flynn was forced to publish himself his expose of the orchestrated smear of isolationists in his pamphlet, The Smear Terror.) Since the end of World War II, the key strategy of the ADL has been to broaden its definition of anti-Semitism to include any robust criticisms of the State of Israel. Indeed, the ADL and the rest of the OAAS has formed itself into a mighty praetorian guard focusing on Israeli interests and Israeli security.
(https://www.euportal.cz/PrintArticle/5432-pat-buchanan-and-the-menace-anti-anti-semitism.aspx)
You list very good reasons for supporting Israel. The point of my original post is not that we should necessarily fail to support Israel but that merely asking the question whether or not we should support Israel is alone grounds for condemnation of the speaker?
All the reasons you cite are good and true. There are other countervailing considerations, such as our support potentially commits us to conflict, perhaps thermonuclear existential conflict, with hundreds of millions of Arabs and 1.5 billion Muslims who control much of the world's oil reserves. Even though we no longer seem to need that oil, the supply and price of oil is vital to American interests and allies.
You did not add one reason which I would add for supporting Israel, because it is morally right to support a minority of people who were threatened by multitudes who simply want to wipe them out of existence primarily for who they are or because of a medieval sharia doctrine that says about territory once occupied Muslim always Muslim.
I’m not attempting to shut down anyone’s free speech. Because if someone’s right to free speech can be shut down, so can mine. You’re no different than all the other Lost Causers here, and that’s a profound moral idiocy. Those weren’t demands, they were questions. I answered yours, you won’t answer mine. Thanks for conceding the argument.
Another Lost causer. The leaders of the Confederacy were Democrats. Tell me they weren’t. I’ll wait for as long as it takes.
No. The South opened fire on Ft. Sumter. Jeez, you Lost Causers all sing from the hymnal, don’t you?
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.