By Sarah Palin
As I noted on Judge Jeanine Pirro’s show this weekend, I reject President Obama’s idea that Israel must cede back its territories to the 1967 line. Will we now be in the habit of telling our allies what their borders should be? Should Prime Minister Netanyahu suggest we return to our 1845 borders before the annexation of the southwest of the United States during the Mexican-American War? Should we give back parts of Texas, New Mexico, and California?
But the problem is even deeper. In both his State Department speech and his speech yesterday at AIPAC, President Obama made some seemingly specific comments about the Palestinian state that he wants to see created. He either misspoke or he has even more dangerous plans for our friends in Israel than he is publicly admitting.
In the State Department speech, President Obama said that he wants the borders of Palestine and Israel to “be based on the 1967 lines” (in other words, with both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as part of the new Palestinian state) and that he wants a Palestine that is a “sovereign and contiguous state” (emphasis added). The Merriam–Webster dictionary defines “contiguous” as “being in actual contact: touching along a boundary or at a point; of angles, adjacent; next or near in time or sequence; touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence,” like the “contiguous United States” which obviously excludes Alaska and Hawaii.
But the 1967 lines do not include a “contiguous” Palestine. (See the map here.) So what does he mean? The President proposes “mutually agreed [land] swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” Is linking Gaza and the West Bank with a road the “secured border” he has in mind? Or is he suggesting something more? Is it not possible he’s suggesting that the only way you can create a “contiguous” Palestinian state with “secured” borders is by carving Israel in half? Clarification on this point is of paramount importance, Mr. President.
In fact, that leads me to another even bigger geographic problem with the President’s remarks. As the British newspaper The Independent points out, there is further confusion because President Obama said, “The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.” As The Independent asks: “How does that square with the pre-1967 borders? Was the President implying that the new improved Israel will border neither Jordan nor Egypt, as it does now? Would Palestine’s contiguous territory come at the expense of Israel’s? Would Israel get the Gaza Strip and the Mediterranean and Palestine get the Negev and a Red Sea port?”
Is that what you have in mind, Mr. President? Do you not want an Israeli border with Egypt? You need to clarify what you mean. Diplomacy requires precision and you are causing enormous anxiety for some and making commitments to others that you might not be able to keep.
It has long been the dream of radicals like Noam Chomsky to create a “contiguous Palestine.” True, President George W. Bush spoke ambiguously of a “contiguous” Palestinian state, but he never defined it geographically with borders the way President Obama has, and he had the security of our ally Israel in mind more than our current President. President Obama has in essence boxed Israel in without regard for the facts on the ground and without appreciating the fact that Israel looks across the negotiating table and sees the terrorist organization Hamas in alliance with Fatah. Israel has demonstrated in the past that it is willing to negotiate fairly with a genuine partner in peace. Just look at the treaty it maintains to this day with Egypt. All of this should have been considered and the President’s words should have been carefully measured so as to help and not hinder the peace process. Unfortunately, his words have caused confusion and distressed our ally.
This thing about animals–don’t forget humans are animals too. Look at our past. Evolution shows the millions of years of stages we’ve been through. I believe evolution is how G-d does it. I was born an animal lover, like 82. I was telling my relatives when I was a little girl not to go hunting and kill Bambi. That got a few laughs but it didn’t make me very popular when I got older and defended the animals.
The recent research on animals is showing we are all very much alike. We have basically the same genes, same emotions, and messenger RNA tells the genes which ones should turn on and which should remain off for each species. Chimpanzees and humans share 98% of the same genes. They are conscious, I believe they have souls and that I will be in heaven with my pets. (Phooey on people. Eternity is a long time to spend with relatives.) Their eyes show every emotion that ours do. The very same.
Thank you, Dweller. I’m certainly at sea with regards to Jewish theology and tenets, so to witness the sparring between you and Yamit is very educational and entertaining for me. Two finely honed minds…it’s an honor to watch, but I’ll continue to simply observe as one who knows that to do otherwise would result in his total destruction at the hands of one or the other of you 🙂
A wise man knows his limitations….haaaaa!!
You are, to be sure, entitled to your opinion.
Of course, a lot of animals would disagree with it.
I know you’d LOVE to be able to believe this, Yamit; it’d make it ever so much easier to discount me.
However, your problem is that it takes more than an assertion to make a case.
Takes a fact,
something you have yet to adduce in this matter.
Yes, I saw that — and in your zeal to build a trap, Yahnkeleh, you managed to miss the point. That’s typical of the conniving mentality.
Its heart is always in the wrong place.
The crucial element you quite evidently missed consisted of the following phrase:
Re-read the post, with attention to that phrase.
That particular potentiality of a conscience is absolutely species-specific to Man, and Man alone.
What Yamit means, Bruce, is that his take on Judaism disputes it.
But Yamit does not speak for Judaism.
Unlike as in, for example, the RC Church, there is no catechetical structure of dogma, no magisterium. Judaism is a civilization, and if you poke around in it long enough, you may find all sorts of things there. But to call a position authoritative, as Yamit implies? Be serious. Everybody knows the story about how you’ll always get at least three opinions from any two Jews (and that’s a pretty stingy estimate).
This is the purest pig plop.
And rendered all the more pernicious by virtue of the fact that it is so misleading.
Trust your own instincts here, Bruce. It is quite true that under tza’ar ba’alei chayim, Jewish law requires us to minimize the suffering of animals wherever possible & practical — and to exercise proper consideration for their needs; the Torah is most emphatic about it.
But not because of any vaunted ‘rights’ of animals.
Rather because of our DUTY as men
to be considerate of the animals’ needs.
This is why a civilized society calls that humane
— from the word “human” (fancy that).
Kindness to animals is about US, not about the animals.
The bottom line is, as I said above:
Man is the only creature who is made b’tzelem elohim: in the Image of God.
There is no other animal (however fond we may be of them) of which this may be said.
Thus only man is said to possess rights.
With those rights come duties.
And it is precisely BECAUSE animals don’t have rights that our duties toward them are all the greater.
You can’t murder an animal; the idea is preposterous.
The most vicious, deliberately cruel, foul behavior of a man toward an animal — resulting in the most painful of deaths to that creature — does not constitute ‘murder.’ It is heartless & reprehensible, and warrants severe punishment. But it does not constitute murder. CANNOT constitute murder.
On the other hand, if you intentionally kill an innocent but brain-damaged person — even if you do it in the most ‘painless’ possible way — it is indeed murder. It might perhaps be sentimental murder, as opposed to cold-blooded murder. But it remains murder, because you have deliberately taken the life of one created b’tzelem elohim. Death is permanent & irreversible — and however damaged the person might be, he had a RIGHT which you intentionally denied him.
Pathology — masquerading as “ahavat yisrael,” as I’ve told you before.
Don’t have to be in the choir to hear when somebody’s on-key or hitting sour notes. I’M not in the Palin Choir, and I certainly agree with me.
The Tea Party knows that she gets it — and the Tea Party aint going away, it’s growing; and there are signs that it’s acquiring political savvy. Seems to be resisting GOP efforts to coopt it, and may at some point even pull off a hostile takeover of the Party.
It’s true that there is a hard core of devotees of Mr Wonderful, who wouldn’t kiss him off even if the kool-aid were bottled with labels marked “Chateau du Jonestown, ’78.” But those numbers have dropped substantially, as a critical mass has been discovering that it bought a pig-in-a-poke three yrs ago, and is presently writhing in the throes of buyer’s remorse.
The swing voters in the middle are not impressed with the so-called “negatives” that the MSM likes to squawk over; I never took them seriously.
All in all, I think she would do very well indeed if she ran.
I still don’t think she should, however.
And I don’t think she does either.
On the other hand, she is easily the best fund-raiser in the opposition.
Possibly the best fundraiser — on either side of the fence (bar none) — in the country.
And she could be extraordinarily effective as a KING-MAKER, and still have the time she needs to maintain her family situation.
To Bruce O. Your theory on the Left trying to overwhelm the system to bring about the fall of the economy is a lie buried in a towering pile of horse manure. Liberals are fighting to keep it from falling. To all those who thought Obama’s loans to the auto Industry were a farce, look now. Almost all the money has been repaid to the government with interest and the industry is back on its feet. (Mitt Romney, who was against it, is now claiming the idea as his own. Boooooo!)
But I will tell you of one Republican conspiracy that came to pass. During Bush’s first term, his free-spending and going-into-debt policies, like fighting wars without raising taxes, caused pundits to say we may run out of money for social programs like Social Security and Medicare if he keeps depleting the coffers. Lo and behold, it happened. I suspect this was deliberate, since social programs don’t put money into Republican pockets. These are the sorriest Republicans ever to walk the halls of Congress and they are furious the American people will not accept that they are peons!! If a group ever needed to jump in the sea, this is it. Maybe we can push them. All their funerals would be a boom for the economy.
Speaking of foreign aid, this article about Pakistan and U.S. aid was in the New Yorker. The U.S. has given billions and billions of dollars in aid to their military over the last twenty years to fight militants, without strings attached. Some of the ways this money was used was to buy weapons to fight the Indians over Kashmir (Polls show the Kashmiris would probably choose independence and cut both countries out); lining the pockets of top military men which they then used to purchase hotels, real estate, shopping centers and other businesses. In a country of 180 million people, fewer than 2 million people pay taxes. But the Pakistanis have come up with the idea of using eunuchs as tax collectors because they are known as relentless scolds in East Asia, and its thought the threat of being hounded by one will somehow replace the audit……….! Oh man. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Where and why are there a lot of eunuchs around in Pakistan? Are they doing this to themselves?
As to why the Pakistanis did not find bin Laden, this could cause the American aid to shrink or disappear altogether. Already the American people are calling for no more aid to them and to bring our soldiers home. It seems one of the problems is the Pakistanis allow top Taliban leaders to live inside the border region on Pakistan’s side, and Afghanis say that until these hideouts are destroyed there will be no peace.
I just had a response to Yamit totally disappear when I clicked “post comment”. This is the second time that has happened. Does it go to Ted, even though it doesn’t post on the page, or is it lost forever?
Yamit says: She is echoing Ron Paul and very late in the Game. China and almost nobody else is loaning America money these days. The FED is buying up American debt and printing digital money not worth the paper it’s printed on. That’s a scam America buying her own debt by destroying the dollar?
While I agree with Palin re: aid to countries, I would include Israel here. We are not so poor or needy that we should accept aid from anyone. we are capable of paying our own way. America wants to keep us tied to aid as it gives America control and leverage with our stupid corrupt politicians and it buys America influence with the Arabs, at least till recently.
——-
Sarah Palin is not echoing Ron Paul. Paul is against all foreign aid, irrespective of ally or enemy status. Palin advocates helping our allies and NOT helping our enemies. Admittedly, that’s not always a clear cut distinction.
Yes, it is a scam. And it will harm the economies of other countries. They have every right to be angry about this ploy. The digital printing of money is bringing about inflation, and one did not require an economics degree to know that it would. There is a conspiracy theory floating about in America that our Left is intentionally “overwhelming the system” in order to bring about a collapse of our economy, upon which a glorious new Socialist system can be created to rise from the ashes. I’m a political cynic and am VERY leery of such theories. However, I do find myself looking at this Administrations economic policies and coming to the conclusion that they are either incredibly stupid, or they are intentionally causing harm. The jury is out on that one, in my mind, at this point, though, truthfully, I lean towards it being intentional. How could it not be? No one is THAT stupid…are they?
Bibi thanked us for our financial assistance to Israel in his recent speech to Congress, which I believe should continue…as long as Israel desires such aid. Should Israel choose to say thanks, but no thanks, then fine. But the shadow of our imminent military defense of Israel, should she require it, should always be the specter to be considered by Israels mortal enemies when they ponder waging all out war on her.
Would you agree with that?
Thank you, Yamit, for taking the time to explain that. I feel a better person for learning it. I will study that, as it all makes perfect sense to me.
I dispute it and Judaism disputes it. What you call indisputable injects your moral and ethical beliefs to the subject. I reject them as to the indisputable part of your statement. It is and can be disputed.
Archery bow-hunting and even rifle hunting is a sad sport, given the high quality of equipment, the blind or vertical seat and the close distance to the animal. Shooting an animal at 15-25 yards with an arrow or bullet that flies virtually “flat” and one doesn’t even need to calculate the “arch” in the trajectory – that’s not a sport IMHO.
Sports hunting violates the mitzvot against cruel treatment of animals (tzaar baali chayim). If hunting is the only alternative to dying oneself, then it is permitted.
A hunted animal is not kosher (trayf) because it was not killed in the strictly humane way that Jewish Law mandates. Judaism places great stress on proper treatment of animals. Unnecessary cruelty to animals is strictly forbidden, and in many cases, animals are accorded the same sensitivity as human beings. This concern for the welfare of animals is unusual in Western civilization. Most civilized nations did not accept this principle until quite recently; cruelty to animals was not outlawed until the 1800s, and even now it is not taken very seriously.
The primary principle behind the treatment of animals in Jewish law is preventing tza’ar ba’alei chayim, the suffering of living creatures. Judaism expresses no definitive opinion as to whether animals actually experience physical or psychological pain in the same way that humans do; however, Judaism has always recognized the link between the way a person treats animals and the way a person treats human beings. A person who is cruel to a defenseless animal will undoubtedly be cruel to defenseless people. Modern psychology confirms this understanding, with many studies finding a relationship between childhood animal cruelty and adult criminal violence.
In the Bible, those who care for animals are heroes, while those who hunt animals are villains. Jacob, Moses and King David were all shepherds, people who cared for animals (Gen. 30, Ex. 31, I Sam. 17). The Talmud specifically states that Moses was chosen for his mission because of his skill in caring for animals. “The Holy One, Blessed Be He, said ‘Since you are merciful to the flock of a human being, you shall be the shepherd of My flock, Israel.'” Likewise Rebecca was chosen as a wife for Isaac because of her kindness to animals. When Abraham’s servant asked for water for himself, she volunteered to water his camels as well, and thereby proved herself a worthy wife (Gen. 24).
On the other hand, the two hunters in the Bible, Nimrod and Esau, are both depicted as villains. The Talmud tells the story of a great rabbi, Judah Ha-Nasi, who was punished with years of kidney stones and other painful ailments because he was insensitive to the fear of a calf being led to slaughter; he was relieved years later when he showed kindness to animals. (Talmud Baba Metzia 85a)
In the Torah, humanity is given dominion over animals (Gen. 1:26), which gives us the right to use animals for legitimate needs. Animal flesh can be consumed for food; animal skins can be used for clothing.
However, dominion does not give us the right to cause indiscriminate pain and destruction. We are permitted to use animals in this way only when there is a genuine, legitimate need, and we must do so in the manner that causes the animal the least suffering. Kosher slaughtering is designed to be as fast and painless as possible, and if anything occurs that might cause pain (such as a nick in the slaughtering knife or a delay in the cutting), the flesh may not be consumed. Hunting for sport is strictly prohibited, and hunting and trapping for legitimate needs is permissible only when it is done in the least painful way possible.
Under Jewish law, animals have some of the same rights as humans do. Animals rest on Shabbat, as humans do (Ex. 20:10). We are forbidden to muzzle an ox to prevent it from eating while it is working in the field (Deut. 25:4), just as we must allow human workers to eat from the produce they are harvesting (Deut. 23:25-26). Animals can partake of the produce from fields lying fallow during the sabbatical year (Ex. 23:11).
Several commandments demonstrate concern for the physical or psychological suffering of animals. We may not plow a field using animals of different species (Deut. 22:10), because this would be a hardship to the animals. We are required to relieve an animal of its burden, even if we do not like its owner, do not know its owner, or even if it is ownerless (Ex. 23:5; Deut. 22:4). We are not permitted to kill an animal in the same day as its young (Lev. 22:28), and are specifically commanded to send away a mother bird when taking the eggs (Deut 22:6-7), because of the psychological distress this would cause the animal. In fact, the Torah specifically says that a person who sends away the mother bird will be rewarded with long life, precisely the same reward that is given for honoring mother and father (Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16), and indeed for observing the whole Torah (Deut. 4:40). This should give some indication of the importance of this law.
We are permitted to violate Shabbat to a limited extent to rescue an animal in pain or at risk of death. For example, we can move them if they are in pain, move objects that we would not otherwise be permitted to touch to relieve their pain, we may give them medicine, and we may ask non-Jews to do things that would violate Shabbat to help a suffering animal.
In the Talmud, the rabbis further dictated that a person may not purchase an animal unless he has made provisions to feed it, and a person must feed his animals before he feeds himself (interpreting Deut. 11:15).
That’s a silly argument Yamit. The human remains a human, period. An animal is a lower form of life. That is indisputable.
Bibi and Sarah would be this generations Reagan/Thatcher…think about it !! The world would be a safer place.
Then you are hypocritical and disingenuous at the least.
I built a human straw man example to conform to your animal definitions”
It absolutely WOULD constitute murder.
A person’s humanity is not diminished by the damage he sustains.
Wherever did you get the idea that I’d say otherwise?
Only the Palin choir would agree with you and that ain’t enough to gt elected.
My comment to Bruce was blocked
She is echoing Ron Paul and very late in the Game. China and almost nobody else is loaning America money these days. The FED is buying up American debt and printing digital money not worth the paper it’s printed on. That’s a scam America buying her own debt by destroying the dollar?
While I agree with Palin re: aid to countries, I would include Israel here. We are not so poor or needy that we should accept aid from anyone. we are capable of paying our own way. America wants to keep us tied to aid as it gives America control and leverage with our stupid corrupt politicians and it buys America influence with the Arabs, at least till recently.
“A preoccupation with the future not only prevents us from seeing the present as it is but often prompts us to rearrange the past.”
Eric Hoffer [1902-83], The Passionate State of Mind, 1954
Nonsense.
Against the Anointed One?
She’d cut him off at the knees and beat him to death with the bleeding stumps
(figuratively speaking).
She’d eat his lunch.
She’d eat him FOR lunch,
Pick her teeth with the splintered bones
and cough up a hairball twenty minutes later.
That still doesn’t mean she OUGHT to run,
or that she wants to either.
We certainly agree on the Arab lives as opposed to Jewish, or even, dare I say it? Christians 🙂
Yes but not from me. The moral relativism is from the side of pro hunters and YOU? I am consistent, against murder of any mammal 2 legged or 4!
My only exception to this rule is that of enemies. Those we can kill or murder. Use your own terms in this case. I would off every Arab noncombatant rather than risk the life of a single Jew. Is that killing, murder or self defense?
You need to quit listening to the lying Left wing media and learn who Sarah Palin really is. For instance, she just posted this on Facebook, and is the ONLY politician on the Right to speak on this issue…
—————
Obama’s Strange Strategy: Borrow Foreign Money to Give to Foreign Countries
by Sarah Palin on Friday, May 27, 2011 at 7:23pm
Should we be borrowing money from China to turn around and give it to the Muslim Brotherhood?
Given that we are running massive deficits and are drowning in more than $14 trillion in debt, and despite not knowing who will rule Egypt until its election this fall, this strange strategy may be the end result given President Obama’s announcement that he is committing $2 billion to Egypt’s “new government.” It’s part of a $20 billion foreign aid package laid out with the Group of 8 countries in Europe today.
Now, given that Egypt has a history of corruption when it comes to utilizing American aid, it is doubtful that the money will really help needy Egyptian people. Couple that with the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is organized to have a real shot at taking control of Egypt’s government, and one has to ask why we would send money (that we don’t have) into unknown Egyptian hands?
Throwing borrowed money around is not sound economic policy. And throwing borrowed money around the developing world is not sound foreign policy. Foreign assistance should go to American allies that need it and appreciate it, and for humanitarian purposes when it can truly make a difference.
Considering the Obama Administration’s continued strange strategies on the economy and foreign policy have us counting down the days to the next election. November 2012 can’t come soon enough.
Sarah Palin if she runs and is nominated will insure another 4 years of the black Plague. Her negatives to great to be overcome in the eyes of most of the electorate including most republicans.
Your personal preference is irrelevant.
Yamit says: So you would consider pulling the plug on a severely brain-damaged Human whose biological functions are operational but is severely brain damaged to the level of an intelligent animal not murder either? Proponents of Euthanasia would welcome you with both arms.
Yamit, there you go equating animals to humans again. Is this a case of moral relativism?
This ….82 totally diverted discussion from the topic of this blog branch. The matter is that Sarah is strong supporter for Israel and it should mean a lot for any Jew. And although the general situation is changing, there still quite an impressive number of the idiot-Jews who do not appreciate this fact:
statistical data
You are making up your own morality.
So you would consider pulling the plug on a severely brain-damaged Human whose biological functions are operational but is severely brain damaged to the level of an intelligent animal not murder either? Proponents of Euthanasia would welcome you with both arms. You Christians are full of it.
It’s obvious you know next to nothing about animal behavior.
People can be murdered.
Animals can be killed, but cannot be ‘murdered.’
No animal possesses, or has the potential to possess,
a conscience
or a consciousness.
That is,
it may think.
But it does not know
that it thinks;
cannot behold its own thought process.
Whether the killing of the animal does or doesn’t entail a “fair fight” is irrelevant; it’s not murder.
well, I can see that projecting what you think hunting would mean to you, onto others, has sealed your opinion of hundreds of thousands of your fellow Americans.
In the interest of full disclosure, I quit hunting almost 40 yrs ago because the work and expense of the hunt outweighed the convenience of the supermarket. But prior to that point, I did need to hunt to secure my meat. I suspect that the percentage of hunters who fall into the “need to hunt” category is small. But…just because I don’t hunt anymore doesn’t put me on a superior moral plane to those that do.
PS, did you hear that Sarah Palin is kicking off a “Fundamental Restoration” tour starting from DC on Sunday? Get it? As opposed to the “fundamental transformation” of the commie-in-chief.
Sarah Palin may be a hunter, BUT SHE AIN’T NO COMMIE !!!! Haaaaaaa!!!
I am not against the slaughter of domesticated animals bred for the purpose of food. I don’t like it but concede it’s necessity. Hunters hunt not because they lack food sources but because they vicariously enjoy the primitive instinct to kill. I call an equal fight where neither side has a distinct technological advantage killing, like kill or be killed but the use of modern technology in sport hunting is murder even or especially if it’s animals who have little or no defenses. Whether the kill is eaten is irrelevant because it’s not a necessity. Every supermarket can provide the meat needs in any modern population including Alaska. I cheer for the animal when they beat and eat their human predators.
I won’t but I won’t vote or support anyone who does and will try to persuade anyone else to follow my lead for my reasons.
People who hunt for food are not murderers. Do you hate the people that kill and package the meat that you buy at the supermarket? Just because you are one person removed from the “murder”, as you ridiculously call it, doesn’t put you in a position to judge. Just don’t hunt if you don’t like hunting.
Anthropomorphize: to attribute humaan shape or characteristics to gods, objects, animals, etc.
People are murdered. Animals are hunted.
I don’t hate Palin per-se I hate hunters and murderers of animals. If you don’t like my idotisms don’t read them.
“Mark still believes he got a perfect score on his SAT.”
“Three hundred.” ayn reagan
yamit82 says:
Your hate to Sarah can be compared only with the level of your infinite idiotism, which you have been proclaiming in every post on this blog.
You should.
The San Remo Resolution was the BASIS for the Mandate; it was the treaty which ordered the creation of the Mandate in the first place, and the assigning of it to Britain. That makes it, together with the Mandate Charter itself, the enduring juristic basis for the Jewish People’s right to Eretz Yisrael — in its entirety.
You are absolutely correct that the overwhelming majority of the world is utterly ignorant of the Resolution’s existence and significance.
That disgraceful (and perilous) state of affairs is OUR fault, and our shame — yours, Sir, and mine.
You’re right, Laura, she’s QUITE credible.
The question is, is she suitable — given her circumstances?
I would say no.
And I suspect that she would say no, as well.
I realize that a party draft would be hard to turn down,
but my suspicion is that her wish is to stay on the national stage
— just not as a presidential candidate.
Cheap shot, Milady.
Best you can do?
I’m hoping that the Liberals do break off and form their own State in Arizona. I’d encourage you, Catarin, to join them. The rest of the State would be a rational, patriotic, prosperous, G-d fearing, far less evil place to live in with all of the foul Leftists gone. Imagine a world with no snarky Leftists…
I should have said Palin used a cross-hair over Gabrielle’s ad. Then by golly somebody shot her. What a coincidence. BTW, the man who shot her was ruled incompetent to stand trial today because he is crazy. If you have seen his picture with his head shaved, you know he missed a career opportunity in Hollywood as a sidekick of Robert Englund, who is well-known for playing a slasher in movies kids just love.
I lived in Arizona 20+ years. None of the creatures Bruce O. listed are as insufferable as the Republicans in the Phoenix area. Tucson was my home base, which is primarily liberal, and I read the other day they want to form a new state the size of their county, Pima, to separate themselves from the Phoenix crowd.
Anyway, it’s way too hot in southern Arizona in the summer, and the more people who move there, the hotter it gets, because the desert needs open space to cool off at night, of which there is little left where most people live. I remember the summer the Phoenix airport was closed, because the wheels of planes melted when they hit the tarmac. On the other hand, you can fry all the eggs you want out on the sidewalks.
Both political Partys use the bullseye and the term “targeting”. The Left just points it out in her case and pounds it like it’s something that only she does. It’s been done for years by all. But it’s obvious that their propaganda works with some, whom the Left consider “useful idiots”, so they continue to use such tactics.
The house in Arizona, I believe, will be a lower 48 base to run her campaign from.
There’s plenty to hunt in Arizona, rattlesnakes, mountain lions, coyote, jack rabbits, and mouthy Leftists.
Palin is the most credible candidate out there. Stop listening to the propaganda and think for yourself. The liberals want you to believe she isn’t credible so that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. If they weren’t so threatened by her they wouldn’t be so obsessed with her. Conservatives are buying into the image liberals have created about her.
She and her daughter have just bought homes in Arizona. That should keep them pretty busy for awhile. I wonder what she will hunt in Arizona?
Wetbacks?
I know all about the Potsdam agreement, Treaty of Versailles. never heard of San Remo treaty. 99.9 Percent of the the world population knows nothing about this agreement, so who really cares?
Palin is not a credible candidate. Never was, never will be. Let”s turn the page.
Palin has been rather quiet lately. Pundits say her speech after the shootings in Arizona that killed or wounded many people, including Rep Gabrielle, was a mistake. She made the speech about herself rather than the victims. She had placed a rifle sight “bullseye” over Gabrielle’s name on a website. Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News, and I guess a Republican party honcho, told her not to do it, but she did it anyway.
Bert, you’re my man. Where did you learn about the Jewish Peoples lgal rights to Palestine, emerging from the San Remo Accords of 1920, when the Arabs led by Faisal said tht the mandate for Palestine which included ll of Israel and Jordan for the Jewish People was a modest and suitable request, if he arabs got syria ( and lebanon), and Mesopotamia (Iraq). For a s mart people, we JEWS are divided, don’t know our historic an legal rights, and we keep making more and more concessions for t he peace we got in Gaza and Lebanon.
Islam is the re-emergence of the evil that birthed the NAZIs, now in different clothes. I believe they will eventually have to be dealt with the same way as the NAZIs were.
Ultimately, peace emerges from the yearning of the hearts of men. Since the Arabs have no heart ergo no peace.
Islam is basically irrational. Not just the leaders, but the very religion. This is why we must oppose this evil. See the new book, Rational Thinking, Government Policies, Science, and Living. Rational thinking starts with clearly stated principles, continues with logical deductions, and then examines empirical evidence to possibly modify the principles. Speak clearly, often, and with a powerful voice. Speak about what the kids learn in school.
EXACTLY!!!
Obama said this on Thursday and again on Sunday!
This is no mistake!
Do you know what a “sovereign and contiguous Palestinian state” with “borders with Egypt, Jordan and Israel” looks like? Have a look:
From http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/do-you-know-what-a-sovereign-and-contiguous-palestinian-state-means/
It’s
Deja Vu1947 All Over Again!One of the great mysteries in history is how supposedly intelligent Jews could be so dumb and so craven as to forget their own best arguments for territorial rights and security. Jews who claim to remember Abraham of 4,000 years ago can’t recall the Palestinian Mandate of 1922. That mandate was part of the realignment following WWI and the demise of the old Ottoman Empire. The Jews got about 1% of the land assigned to the Arabs. But that 1% was 35,000 square miles and included all of Jordan, the Golan, Judea Samaria and Gaza and of course Jerusalem. Everyone was in agreement and that was the legal international agreement that is still valid to this day.
At this time the Jews should at least claim that Jordan is Palestine and all Arabs in Gaza, Israel and Judea-Samaria should move to Jordan which is already 3/4 Palestinian. This is doable and then problem solved!
The Jews actually offer NO real solution except to complain and that is NO solution.
not true, it is accomplishing its goals even without our agreement on anything – namely the delegitimization of the Jewish people.
I would like to see Israel take a firm stand of “not one more inch”. Scrap the “peace talks”, and ask the world how they like her now. You know what, they’ll like her no differently than they do when Israel twists into a pretzel to please everyone.
Everyone knows that the ultimate goal of the unholy alliance of Jihadists/Leftists is the total obliteration of Israel. Why pretend that there is anything that Israel can do to change that?
PS, I’m proud of Sarah’s support for Israel.
It’s apparent that she’s been asking all the right questions.
If she keeps it up, she will in time come to conclude what the “peace process” is good for:
nothing.