- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
Reader Mail
Bad, Bad War
(Page 3 of 4)
BLACKWELL'S GOP
Re: W. James Antle, III's Blackwell's Back:
Tina Benkiser has not done a good job in Texas. That is what is
wrong with the GOP. I do not know about Ken Blackwell, but he
needs to shed Benkiser. Call any county chair in Texas and they
will tell you the same story. Anybody but Benkiser.
-- Virginia Carpenter
Brookshire, Texas
Ken Blackwell is exactly what the Republicans may need but I hold out little hope that he will get the nod. I believe we will once again get another RINO for RNC chairman and go down to defeat in the next election. If by some odd chance Republicans should win, they will once again sell out the conservatives who supported them. I for one am finished with the Republican Party and will be supporting a third party from now on. I might add that many of my relatives feel the same and that my brother and his wife have now joined a Ron Paul support group. We need a third party in this country; both of the major parties are controlled by the bankers and other special interests and are selling our country down the drain with free trade, uncontrolled third world immigration and outsourcing of our industrial base.
What possible contribution can illiterate third world migrants
contribute to our country other than to expand the welfare rolls?
Milton Friedman said it best, “you cannot have immigration and a
welfare state,” because you will attract the wrong kind of
people.
-- Paul Martell
GUILTY, THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY
If you've ever wondered why there is continued violence between the Israelis and Palestinians for the past 40 years all you need to do is look at U.S. Policy.
Let's take the current situation in Gaza. The Israelis claim that they have ended the 40 year occupation in Gaza, yet Israel's blockade has forced 1.5 million people in Gaza to go without food, medical care, heating fuel, electricity, clean water and facilities and infrastructure necessary to life or even a half-way decent standard of living. Israel controls the land, sea, and air preventing anyone from entering or leaving -- even Fulbright scholars are denied their education opportunity.
During the past 6 months there has been a cease fire between the two parties but just last month the Israelis were the first to break the cease fire by firing missiles into Gaza, killing 6 Palestinians and eventually killing 21 more Palestinians. It was Israel who was the first to break the cease fire, not Hamas. Why don't we hear about this from the State Department or from the media?
In response to these attacks and to the human rights violations Hamas fired primitive rockets into southern Israel, landing in open fields, and killing or injuring not one Israeli. This innocent retaliation played in the hands of the Israelis just as they intended in order to justify their immediate attack and, as usual, portray themselves as the victims.
In response to Hamas' rocket fire Israel launched an all out air assault on Gaza killing more than 325 Palestinians including 50 children, and seriously wounding another 1400. Instead of condemning this disproportionate response, President Bush and Secretary Rice both blamed Hamas for the violence and stated that Isarael has a right to defend themselves.
This is the kind of unbalanced Middle East Policy that has
created a monster in the Middle East. There will never be any
peace between the Arabs and the Israelis until someone in
Washington has the nerve to make a change. Let's hope this new
administration is serious about change when it comes to Middle
East policy.
-- James J. David
Marietta, Georgia
Comments
Leave a Comment
Are you in a mob?
The Democrats say Obamacare opponents are a mob. Are they right?
Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.
frost| 12.31.08 @ 7:49AM
Poor Mr. David. Israel rocketing the terrorist factions in Gaza? Ah, if he were to check (and maybe be honest), methinks he'd find that the Hamas (and maybe a few Hezbollah) have been lobbing their rockets into the civilian landscape of Israel on pretty much a daily (if not hourly) basis. Hey, when you're outnumbered 100-1 and are surrounded by the multitudes wishing to kill you/drive you into the sea, and, when you've withdrawn your forces to the Arabs could have their "self-determination"?
No, I'm not Jewish, and I have no ax to grind, 'cept in the pursuit of simple justice - - only to hear the supercilious argument about "proportionate response" which is bordering on laughable, if it weren't so tragic a rejoinder....
And Dubya speaks, and Dr. Rice (now an apparent Foggy Bottom convert to Pabulum Puke diplomacy) - - and the world condemns?
We're in a world'o'hurt, gang; may the New Year bring some fresh ideas and common sense, please!
carol hellman| 12.31.08 @ 10:22AM
Not to worry though. Our eminently qualified president-elect (obama) will quickly dispatch his supremely qualified secretary of state (hillary) to make everything hunky-dory.
Never in the course of history have two more unqualified people been put into positions of responsibility.
Well, this is "the change we have been waiting for". A year from now I'm going to start asking
"how's that change you voted for working out?"
Thomas| 12.31.08 @ 10:57AM
Mr. David seems to be a bit informationally deficient in his description of the situation in Gaza.
The violence in Gaza has been going on between Arab and Jew for far longer than 40 years. When still a British protectorate, tensions between the groups culminated in the Palestinian Riots of 1929. This resulted in the expulsion of the smaller Jewish population from Gaza by the British. This did not halt violence between the two groups which continues until the present day. Following the rejection of the UN mandated Palestine Partition Plan by the Arab population, the Arab world attempted to drive the Jewish citizens of the newly created state of Israel into the sea. The Jews held the coastal partition set aside for them and it became the modern state of Israel. Egypt occupied the Gaza and administered it until it was taken, by the Israelis, during the War of 1967. Gaza shares a common border with Egypt to this day, so it is hardly Israel, exclusively, that is blockading Gaza.
Now, it is a matter of record that all during the "ceasefire" cum "truce", Qassam missiles have repeated been fired into Israeli territory from Gaza. It was these continuing attacks that caused Israel to tighten her border security. As for the missile attacks, by the Israelis upon targets in Gaza during the "truce", he neglects to point out that those were directed at high level, wanted, Hamas terrorists who were reportedly engaged in active terrorist activities against Israel, including firing Qassam rockets into the country.
As to Qassam rockets entering Israel from the Gaza causing no casualties, this statement is just plain incorrect.
There is certainly an unbalanced Middle East Policy in this region, but it does not stem from the Israelis and the U.S. It stems from the rabid anti-Jewish Palestinian Arabs of Hamas, Fatah and the smaller jihadist groups in the region. Since the 1990's, Israel has attempted to force a two-state solution to the problem and the Arabs have refused to this compromise time and time again.
So, it might be a good idea to start with accurate historical Facts rather than cherry picking those, or inventing those, that bolster your position. Groups like hamas, Fatah, et al., want it all. By that stance, they may lose everything.
Lu| 12.31.08 @ 4:18PM
The Palestinian "people' have a country, it is called Jordan. We should study the history of that area of the world. There has never been an independent Arab "Palestine' nation nor Palestinian people. Palestine came into existence in one of the many occupations by Roman Crusaders. To insult the Jews, the Romans renamed Judea Philistia, after their enemy the Philistines. The Philistines died out thousands of years ago. They are not the same people calling themselves "Palestinians" today. The Palestine and Palestinians is a figment of Arab propaganada.
Mark Long| 1.1.09 @ 9:59AM
Regarding Christopher Orlet's "Myth of the Secular West": Orlet seems to be praising the concept of Separation of Church and State which, as a legal doctrine, has done great damage to our country over the years. Along with many of the disastrous social and educational policies of the 1960s and 1970s, removing expresses of faith from schools, court houses, and other public places have brought about numerous social pathologies such as the breakdown of families, increased crime, poverty, teen pregnancies, and suicides. From a legal standpoint, even a layman like myself can see that it is a flawed doctrine. First of all, its origin was a private letter by Thomas Jefferson to a group of ministers originally meaning the opposite of how it is understood today. Second, purely as a Constitutional concept I would think that religious freedom should be viewed as a whole. The First Amendment contains five separate rights (four of one counts speech and press together) and the Establishment Clause is immediately followed by "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It stands to reason that they should work together. Any ruling, like many Supreme Court cases over the past 60 years, that emphasis only one part over the other is a grave injustice. Constitutional scholars might disagree but they also advocate the "Living Constitution" theory which is Orwellian Newspeak and just an excuse to rewrite it at will.
Mark Long| 1.1.09 @ 9:59AM
Regarding Christopher Orlet's "Myth of the Secular West": Orlet seems to be praising the concept of Separation of Church and State which, as a legal doctrine, has done great damage to our country over the years. Along with many of the disastrous social and educational policies of the 1960s and 1970s, removing expresses of faith from schools, court houses, and other public places have brought about numerous social pathologies such as the breakdown of families, increased crime, poverty, teen pregnancies, and suicides. From a legal standpoint, even a layman like myself can see that it is a flawed doctrine. First of all, its origin was a private letter by Thomas Jefferson to a group of ministers originally meaning the opposite of how it is understood today. Second, purely as a Constitutional concept I would think that religious freedom should be viewed as a whole. The First Amendment contains five separate rights (four of one counts speech and press together) and the Establishment Clause is immediately followed by "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It stands to reason that they should work together. Any ruling, like many Supreme Court cases over the past 60 years, that emphasis only one part over the other is a grave injustice. Constitutional scholars might disagree but they also advocate the "Living Constitution" theory which is Orwellian Newspeak and just an excuse to rewrite it at will.