Posted on 04/28/2002 1:30:15 PM PDT by buzzyboop
New York Times columnist William Safire whacked Democrats and their "liberal media voices" with the anti-Israel stick in his April 22 column, and Dems are hopping mad.
"Most of the leaders of the Democratic Party and its liberal media voices distanced themselves from Israel in the midst of its defense against Arafat's war," Safire writes in "Democrats vs. Israel."
Among the calumnies Safire ascribes to Democrats are Bill Clinton's support for an engaged U.S. policy in the Middle East, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's "block" of a bipartisan resolution designating the PLO as a terrorist group, and Senator Joseph Biden's refusal to allow Benjamin Netanyahu to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations committee.
"A falafel curtain has descended across our continent," Safire writes colorfully if a bit obscurely, "transmogrifying the Arab aggressor into the victim.... Eight out of 10 American voters who are Jewish have been voting for candidates of a Democratic party that now only tepidly supports the government overwhelmingly chosen by Israelis."
In a news release, the National Jewish Democratic Council attempted to rebut Safire point by point, highlighting recent strong pro-Israel speeches by Richard Gephardt, Daschle's traditionally staunch support for the Jewish state and Clinton's popularity among a "series" of Israeli prime ministers.
The release also quotes Senator Dianne Feinstein, who in remarks to the Senate Monday denied that Daschle "blocked" the anti-PLO resolution.
"American Jews have given their overwhelming support to the Democratic Party — and will continue to do so — because of the Democratic Party's strong support for the separation of church and state, reproductive rights, environmental safeguards, and — indeed — for the Democratic Party's strong and unwavering support for a safe and secure Israel, regardless of which party governs the State of Israel," the release said.
That's interesting. It makes me wonder if you are an Islamic Terrorist sympathizer/supporter.
Yes, did you go to any ?
Or were you at the Islamic Terrorist/Nazi rallies instead ?
His specific examples were a bit specious, but the fact remains that the leftist wing, and Blacks, who are more than a third of the Dem Party are, shall we say, ambivalent on this issue at best. (The Black Caucus in the House, in particular).
The Dems foesee some losses here, no doubt, especially in fund raising . Why the big defense, if not true?
Well, he's half right, then (unless you think of CNN, et al as "unbiased").. But you're right, the leadership in the Senate and House, at least in words if not action, is behind Israel.
The Democrat Party is the "black" party, but they also count on the liberal Jewish vote. Their problem, of course, is that blacks have a basic dislike for Jews. (My father once told me about a "changing" Philadelphia neighborhood where a black couple was shown a home in the white Mount Airy section and asked the seller, who was a friend of my father, "There aren't any Jews around here, are there?" This was thirty years ago.)
Since blacks are not particularly "friends of Israel" or friends of Jews in general, the Scumocrats gotta play it real close to the chest when dealing with their Jewish constituency. They have to get real creative with their lies and duplicity and it just isn't working. Even with all the practice they've had lying to the nation's 'hosts' while taxing them to death in order to buy the votes of the nation's parasites.
They are in a pickle, the Scumocrats are.
Almost exactly so. For your further enlightment, here is the 'Oath of Citizenship'. No doubt you agree with everything below, right?
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.
No doubt that the above applies to the Jews and no doubtr that we expect everyone to "entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity". Right?
It makes me wonder whether you always play with yourself before expressing your 'thoughts' in writing.
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen
Of the millions of American Jews, only a miniscule, tiny fraction of them have ever been subjects or citizens of Israel. And so, simply being a Jew and supporting Israel is no different than being one of many millions of American Christians who also support Israel.
BTW, you seem to be confused on a different topic, too. The "Oath of Citizenship" is sworn by immigrants who wish to become naturalized American citizens. However, the great majority of Jews in the United States were born in the United States and thus became United States citizens from birth. And so even if the "Oath of Citizenship" required people to declare that the moon was made of green cheese, it would have no standing or importance to people who are not required to swear that oath. Are you a United States citizen? Were you required to swear an "Oath of Citizenship"? If so, when, how, and why?
It's pretty clear that your contentions hold no water whatsoever.
Now, his successors no longer waste their time with debating the meanings of 'is'. They are into a lot more serious business, such as deconstructing the concept of 'citizenship'.
I would assume that your misguided comments are suggested that U.S.-born citizens are free to: absolutely and entirely maintain and nurture all allegiances and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which they or their ancestors or their enthnic brethren have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
More, since they are 'born' here, not naturalized, they do not need to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; or bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; etc. etc.
Congratulations, Clinton disciple. You've learned your lesson well. Of course, you need not feel shame. Clinton's disciples know not the meaning of it.
In a prior post on this very thread you bristled when someone else painted you as possibly being "an Islamic Terrorist sympathizer/supporter". If you don't appreciate being mischaracterized, why do you insist on mischaracterizing the thoughts and words and actions of others?
On the contrary, I am a staunch defender of the Constitution. Your arguments, however, do not even have the appearance of being grounded in the Constitution. You seem to have misread it. You are trying to "prove" an indefensible smear - namely that American Jews are traitors. And so you should not be surprised when people challenge the smear with facts, or when people contradict your false arguments.
Are you prowling for teens ?
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.