Posted on 11/25/2014 8:46:40 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Sen. Ted Cruz is in New York City paying visits to some of the nation's most powerful Jewish leaders — including a private two-hour session with billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson, the largest donor to Republican causes during the 2012 presidential election — to dispel any concerns about Cruz's politics and electability.
The Texas Republican, a likely candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, sat by Adelson during Sunday night's Zionist Organization of America dinner, which featured Cruz in a prominent speaking role, reports The New York Observer.
On Monday, after Cruz and Adelson met privately, a source close to the Venetian casino magnate told the Observer that while he likes Cruz, he also believes he is "too right wing" and is likely to be a long shot for the nomination.
Adelson bristled at the characterization, however, telling the newspaper he was "the only one in a position to know how he felt" about Cruz, the Observer wrote in an updated account.
In addition to Adelson, others attending the dinner on Sunday included attorney Alan Dershowitz, Pastor John Hagee, Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus, billionaire Ira Rennert and Rabbis Avi Weiss and Shmuley Boteach, among others.
Many of those attending said they found Cruz, a Princeton Law School graduate, well-spoken and engaging, the Observer reported....
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Well Apparently George Washington understood this ORDER From HaShem better than you. (Genesis 26:2-4) "And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."
Of Course the 72 Virigns thing comes from the Koran doesn't it? Well, I guess that is just moral equivalency isn't it? hmm?
Criticism or Israel (or even Jewish) activities is no worse than criticism of African or Muslim behavior.
Yes, Because the Jews attacked the U.S.S. Cole, or the Khobar Towers, or The World Trade Center TWICE.
(Will be your next argument I am sure)But Al-Qaeda did those things because we invaded Iraq and helped them in Afghanistan against the Soviets!"
Well then maybe we should start blaming Soviet Aggression then if we are going to go down this line of Historical Grievances.
Yes there is moral equivalency: Islamists follow the dictates of some magic holy book and you are suggesting we follow the dictates of a another magic holy book. That is your argument right? In a country where we can barely put up a Christmas tree (let alone a nativity scene) without complaint we some how should base our international policy on the Bible?
The Bible can also be used to support income redistribution, mass immigration and many other things less appealing to conservatives. How do we decide which parts are correct and which parts can be safely ignored so we can have tax cuts?
It is true that Jews (or Jewish organizations) were not responsible for any of the mentioned attacks but our involvements in wars for Israel’s benefit has hardly been without cost. Jewish organizations within the United States are largely hostile to conservatives and especially socially conservative Christians (except of course for the matter of Israel). It is not coincidence that areas of life with disproportionate Jewish involvement (entertainment, news/media/opinion, academia, big business) are hostile to White conservatives. We can remake destroyed buildings, we cannot rebuild a destroyed culture. You can be hostile without being violent.
Regarding Al-Qaeda et al: Do you really believe their attacks against the United States have *nothing* to do with our involvement in their countries? Islam does seem to have a problem with modernity, but so do many conservatives. Just look at what American style democracy means: multiculturalism, feminism, gay rights all backed up by the force of our all new transgendered, non-hetronormative military. That hardly seems appealing especially to societies that are deeply conservative (even by FreeRepublic standards). I am not, and will not, defend attacks by Muslim savages but I also will not pretend our activities have absolutely nothing to do with it. Look at the outrage Americans feel when Mexico dares to lecture us on our immigration policy. Now imagine they sent troops in to enforce it.
You want a non religious argument for America to support Israel? Here you go...
When America went into German hell and saved the Jews from the Genocide being forced upon them for no reason other than the same core ideas that you seemingly enspouse, we didn’t demand payment. We did it because, among other historical reasons, it was the RIGHT thing to do.
SINCE THEN, Israel has acted as our firewall with Islam. They have paid a dear price and continue to do so, because their friendship with America made them twice the target they ever were. Would muslims attack Jews without America ever being involved? No. Because there would be no Israel as we know it. There wouldn’t BE Jews for them to attack anywhere after the mid 40s.
But there ARE Jews. And they have done nothing but help America become strong and the until recently, dominant force for good on this dirtball. And WE owe THEM for that.
We owe them the loyalty they returned to us. Now one can make the argument, and rightly so that friends don’t owe friends. They just do things for each other, up to and including give their blood and treasure. And that’s true. But as long as abject morons in this country insist that Israel/Jews are somehow unworthy of out whatever, it has to be put in simple terms like ‘owe’ that people that stupid can understand.
Now if you’d like to piss away all the medical/scientific/mathematical contributions that the ‘Evil Jews’ made to western civilization and turn them over to the tender mercies of Muslims, you really need to do some soul searching and decide who you really have more in common with.
PS: I’m Christian. Raised Roman Catholic. Not Jewish. And I’d GLADLY stand by them before most of the human garbage calling itself ‘American’ these days.
Also a few other points.
Yes there is moral equivalency: Islamists follow the dictates of some magic holy book and you are suggesting we follow the dictates of a another magic holy book.
No, not dictates, those are ORDERS from HaShem. Not my opinion, not your Opinion. His ORDERS.
But our involvements in wars for Israel’s benefit has hardly been without cost. Jewish organizations within the United States are largely hostile to conservatives and especially socially conservative Christians (except of course for the matter of Israel). It is not coincidence that areas of life with disproportionate Jewish involvement (entertainment, news/media/opinion, academia, big business) are hostile to White conservatives.......Just look at what American style democracy means: multiculturalism, feminism, gay rights all backed up by the force of our all new transgendered, non-hetronormative military. That hardly seems appealing especially to societies that are deeply conservative (even by FreeRepublic standards)
But since apparently my Jewishness washes away my white skin, does any other ethnic "odd-balls" kick people out of the White Club?
Since you seem to be extremely concerned with the welfare of White Conservatives I have a news flash for you.
Their is no such thing as a "White" Conservative.
What constitutes a "White" Conservative? What happens when someone is part Mexican? Latin America has its fare share of Socialists. Well can't have them.
I guess we need to stick with European descended Americans. But which ones make up "White" America? Welfare State Norway? Gun Grabbing Great Britain? How about Former Communist Poland? The Italians sure as hell can't be considered white. The French?
Germany then. But should be Catholic South, or Protestant North?
I know several good Hungarian people, but their Language is could not be more different from Europeans who fostered White America. Many of those same Hungarians are also Blonde Jews (gasp)
Some of the most liberal people I know are pasty white christian women.
So tell me, which groups of people constitute your pure unadulterated America?
Which ones are the least influenced from those Homo-Loving, multiculturalist, feminist, transgendered, non-hetronormative Jews?
Of course because any non-sycophantic discussion of Israel or Jewish interests will lead to sixmillionsenttotheovens. You sound like liberals who respond to any complaint of Black misbehaviour with youjustwanttobringbackslavery. In both cases they are reflexive phrases uttered as one word, devoid of any real thought, an expression of religious belief more than any coherent thought. Both follow the same assumptions that to disagree means you are wicked, stupid, or deranged.
The only reason we need a firewall with Islam is because of our often hostile involvement in the Middle-East. You have it backwards: hatred towards America comes from our support of Israel not Israel’s support of America. If Israel denounced America as the Great Satan it would make no difference to Islamic attitudes towards Israel. Israeli support for the United States costs them nothing. Millions of Jews survived the Holocaust (and unlike the Arabs, the Germans were highly organized). I really don’t think angry Muslims are that great a threat to Jewish survival.
It is true that Jews have made many great contributions to America and the world but so have many Gentiles (probably far greater in number if not proportion). Doing some good does not forever relieve you of criticism; it earns you gratitude not an unlimited debt. How many that use (and love) Google or Apple products also feel comfortable criticizing them for other policies (e.g., Google doodles)? No person or group is one thing; we can walk and chew gum, we can be grateful and critical at the same time.
The rest of your reply falls back into the tiresome you-are-with-us-or-against-us-if-you-don’t-agree-you-are not-just-wrong-but-evil rhetoric. By ‘garbage’ do you mean those basketball-Americans rioting in Ferguson, people who would burn the flag, cheap employers who would rather use illegal labor than pay a decent wage, or is it just people who do not have a fawning attitude towards Israel?
You say His orders. So we are right back to believing a magic book. I am not irreligious but am wary of taking literal readings from texts that were actually written by humans. Because God says so is not really a proper argument for a policy with so many ramifications (any policy really).
As a Jew you are one of a distinct people with a long history. This is neither good or bad (indeed you can be proud of centuries – millenia?- of survival). While Jews have White skin and many Euro/Gentile features they still remain a group with distinct ancestry. Jewish fears of intermarriage (mostly to White Gentiles) indicate that Jews feel some degree of separateness not related to skin color and features. This is not a bad thing.
If you really feel no greater connection with your Jewish ancestors and other Jews than you do with everyone else (if you do feel that connection I would not consider that sick or evil, perfectly normal actually) than perhaps you really are White. Whites are the only people who appear unwilling to see themselves as part of a larger family. Africans and Asians seem more more able to identify not just with their country of birth but also their broader African/Asian identity (I am aware that individual African and Asian countries can squabble fiercely).
Most of the rest of your reply shows the problem with the ‘proposition nation’ that so enamors conservatives (and some liberals too). If we are a ‘proposition nation’ then how do we reconcile all those different propositions? Proper nations are bound by ancestry and shared history. That is what allows them hold together despite all the varying propositions. Diversity with proximity equals trouble.
The pre 1965 immigration act America was probably a pretty decent setup for a White America. You will note that description does include Jews. I, like most Americans, tend to think of Jews as White. I just realize that as a distinct group our interests may not always coincide.
[I believe that genetically the Ashkenazi Jews – the majority of Jewish Americans - are about 50% Euro/White and 50% percent Semitic/Mid-Eastern. So I guess they are at least half-White :/ ]
By definition White Gentiles as the (barely) majority will also be the majority of both liberals and conservatives. However proportionally Jews are much more liberal. White Christian liberals are the worst – often more about saving Africa, saving the planet or anything but saving their souls.
“...but our involvements in wars for Israel’s benefit has hardly been without cost...”
Which wars? Both Iraq wars did nothing to benefit Israel, were certainly not for Israel’s benefit. Libya? That might have been for France’s benefit, but I doubt that. It more closely resembled banging America’s head against the wall just for fun.
Do you mean involvement in Israeli wars? In 1967, the US supplied spare parts to Jordan’s air force, not Israel’s. Back then, our closest ally was France, which supplied Mirage fighter jets and spare parts to same, which was understandable, because Israel helped France develop the Mirage, and that was part of the deal. In 1973, Nixon did provide a lot of emergency aid, such as spare parts and ordnance, but not one boot on the ground. In ‘81, Reagan provided boots on the ground in order to stop Israel’s Lebanon campaign, not to somehow “benefit” Israel. So far, no American involvement to benefit Israel in any war.
Do you mean American actor Paul Newman starring in Exodus and Cast a Giant Shadow? Other than that, I’m at a loss. Please indicate specifically which war the US involved itself in for Israel’s benefit.
Scott Walker has a stellar record of accomplishments to run on, while Cruz has mere words. However, having written that, Cruz has my emotional vote - I love him - but I think Walker is a more practical choice.
I also think Carson is fantastic and would not hesitate to support him, but the fact that he is not a politician and has never held office will give people pause, but not me - we need someone like that.
Palin is DOA. She has been destroyed by the media and she can't recapture what she had...she is not going to run since she can't raise any money.
My fear is that Walker, Cruz, Carson, etc. split the conservative vote which allows Romney/Bush, etc to squeeze by.
One of the most ignorant posts I have ever seen on FR.
No thank you. You are racist and I am not.
I could get behind Walker- And I really like Carson EXCEPT for his squishy understanding of the Second Amendment, and so far, that’s a dealbreaker. You have a valid point about the average success of Senators, (I Checked- there were six including Obama from the beginning of the twentieth century to present, with ten total before that. So that’s sixteen out of 44 total. The ones in the 20TH century were:
Warren G. Harding
Senator, 1915-1921
President, 1921-1923
Harry S. Truman
Senator, 1935-1945
President, 1945-1953
John F. Kennedy
Senator, 1953-1960
President, 1961-1963
Lyndon B. Johnson
Senator, 1949-1961
President, 1963-1969
Richard M. Nixon
Senator, 1950-1953
President, 1969-1974
Barack Obama
Senator, 2005-2008
President, 2009- present
And you’re right about Palin’s chances- almost zero, but you never know.
And your fear is all too likely, the party of stupid will in all probably run a Christy, Bush, Romney, or some total non-conservative, defaulting to the Warren Witch. Conservatives will again sit it out. The GOPe never learns, never.
I got to wondering later about how many had previously been Governors, and I found this interesting summary-
17 Presidents previously served as state Governors; 9 of 17 were Governors immediately before election as President.
16 Presidents previously served as U.S. Senators; only 3 immediately before election as President.
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.