The 2008 US Election

I know this blog has really not discussed the US presidential election, so here goes nothing...

I predict that Hillary will win the election, which is something I predicted in the year 2000. (that she would win in 2008)

This means 24 years straight (at minimum) of presidents related to each other.

Ultimately, I think it will be Hillary v. either Romney or McCain. Anyway, I think Hillary will win, and then the country will be having that morning after hangover, wondering "what did we do??"

As far as the nominees go...there are many bad choices, but there are "bad" and "worse" choices.

The three worst choices - by far - are Kucinich, Ron Paul, and Mike Gravel.

Kucinich might literally be a traitor to the American nation, and under different times would be charged for treason under the Logan Act. He went to Syria and met with Assad privately, then went onto Syrian state TV, called Assad, a murderous tyrant who presides over a regime that tortured and killed a friend of mine's cousin - a 'man of peace,' and then proceeded to denounce Bush to America's (not just Bush's) enemies. On Syrian state TV. Disgusting. (see the video evidence of this here, if you have the stomach for it) The only saving grace of this man is he has a hot wife.

Mike Gravel worked with an ex-friend of mine (qrswave) who literally supports terrorism. She was a contributor to his campaign, until the fact that she was made him look bad. (see evidence here) Pathetic.

Ron Paul's solutions to the world's problems is to dig America's head in the sand and act as an isolationist. Oh yeah, and he is linked with Neonazis and 9/11 "Troothers." (LGF catalogues that all quite well)

So that's what I think. I predict Hillary will win, and while I do not support her, I guess she is not as bad as those three nutcases.

Regardless, this election is like a side show. I was just recently in Europe, and tried to explain the electoral college to PM and Steven, and they were shocked and flabbergasted.

War and Peace

My friend (who I showcased an email correspondence with over here) wrote me a long email about his correspondence with a 'peace' group, and in it he wrote that he disagreed with their stance on Israel, but he agreed with their other stances. I wrote back that I doubted that he really agreed with them on their other stances. This is the exchange that followed. I am copying all you find folks, as I feel that in these emails I showed the utter hypocrisy of the 'peace' groups.

This is his email back to me:

We haven't really discussed the other positions of the 'peace group,' which I support. Here are a few:

1. paper ballots over electronic voting...at least until more testing is done; (i have to learn more though)
2. raising awareness about the conditions of, and resources avaibable to, Iraq War veterans.
3. anti-Iraq war
4. Darfur Genocide awareness
5. counter military recruitment (at least when it targets underage kids)

My reply was as follows:

I will give my stance on those issues, and then explain why I do not believe you actually agree with all of them...

1. Yes, I agree electronic voting has too many problems at present and I support a paper system; that said, New York's non-electronic system is one of the most faulty in the nation, and with the most machine breakdowns.
2. Raising awareness of Walter Reed medical center and problems that might be there is noble, certainly.
3. Anti-Iraq War is NOT noble from their position. And I doubt you agree with it. They want troops to be brought home NOW, this second. They are NOT looking for a staggered troop withdrawal. I read their statements, they believe it is most 'peaceful' to have mass pandemonium which has hundreds of thousands of troops leave at once and immediately dismantle the infrastructure. But oh, there is more. This sort of nonsensical policy would lead to mass slaughter of Iraqis. In other words, they are in favor of pandemonium and slaughter. And no, I am not exaggerating. Their petition says "bring home troops NOW." They are demanding the end to ANY funds for military action. (never mind the fact that it would take money, and lots of it, to suddenly bring hundreds of thousands of men and women back to the US at once) And never mind the fact that if troops lack money, they will have to cannibalize their resources. Military policy says that if suddenly they lack guns/arms/food due to the US not funding it, they will steal from locals, and do whatever it takes to get this.
   
   This horrific scenario is what the 'peace group' advocates. You cannot possibly agree with it, even if you do believe troops should be out of Iraq. I would like to add that this is the most anti-humane and anti-troop thing you could possibly think of. (not to mention anti-Iraqi) When I read they are in favor of veteran awareness, you have to laugh, given how anti-troop they really are.
   
   One more thing. These 'peacers' are un-American to even call this an 'Occupation' of Iraq. It is NOT an 'occupation,' and they only use the word to evoke the sympathies of anti-zionists to their cause.
4. Darfur we agree with, but then again, they are all fake. They like to scream about Darfur, but if the US were to go in there with a military action, they would be anti-war. They are only talking about Darfur because it's a way for them to be anti-Bush.
5. Finally, counter-military recruitment is another stupid and suicidal policy. Why, exactly, should we not be doing what we can to encourage kids to join the military? No one is forcing them to join; there is no draft, unlike in many other nations. If you are going to end military recruitment, why not end college recruitment? Is the military somehow a less legitimate life path than college? I know you do not believe that. For many kids, the military is the most sensible path and one they desire, rather than college. To be against military recruitment is to be against having an effective fighting force, and whatever your feelings on Iraq, you again cannot possibly be in favor of that. In contrast, I do believe that the 'peace group' is in favor of dismantling the US army, and this is but one way to do it.

In summary, I do not believe you actually agree with the phony "peace group's" other positions on other issues, however, I also know you are not passionate about Iraq, military equipment, or even Darfur as you are about Israel.

My friend wrote this in reply:

so you agree..... i do agree with them on other issues. no matter that they're fake on darfur. i still agree w/ the position. well, i'm not sure what their position is...military intervention, or bulking up the AU forces. no matter that i don't agree w/ where they're coming from....i still agree w/ raising awareness about veterans' needs. i agree they don't give a genuine shit about military issues and military families...only as it suits their agenda. i was at an ISO sponsored planning event for a Washington Heights anti-war rally earlier this summer...and they were talking about finding out where war widows in w. heights lived, visiting them and soliciting their help to march at the front -- so all the cameras can be on them. i played out the scenario in my head....i imagined some families would be happy to get the visit, but imagine the poor widow who gets visited and decides it's not for them and wants nothing to do w/ anti-war movement? can you imagine the condescension and self-righteousness from these socialist fuckers ...i'm sure they'd commit to not interrogating her, but they'd drop in a "you do know that your husband died for a lie, don't you? and oh, thanks for letting us use your bathroom mrs. gonzalez" i got chills sitting there.

yea, about the iraq war...you know i'm w/ you. i'm against the war, but i don't agree w/ them about ending it.

i also agree w/ you about counter-recruitment. what i agree w/ the 'peace group' about is how some recruitment centers have been targeting under-age kids....15 and 16. i don't think that's right, and they have been breaking rules doing it. counter-recruitment people in general yes, are retarded. they'd be willing to reduce america's military to the national guard....but only if they promised not to shoot.

I read that and I thought..."my friend still doesn't totally get it...I have to drive the point home!" So I wrote the following:

Let me sum up this 'peace group' as well as other 'peace' groups and their positions...

"Rethuglicans and BushCo are war mongers and hate mongers. Therefore, anything they advocate has to be bad, and we must do what is necessary to undermine any and everything they do, in the interest of peace and anti-hate."

This is the lens through which they view modern politics. So, let's examine how they view everything, with that lens...

1. Electronic voting machines are seen as bad because a Republican owns the Diebold corporation. They fear this can be exploited against Democratic (i.e., 'peace') candidates. As such, they work against electronic voting machines. Oh yeah, those 2006 Midterm elections worked out for the Dems, didn't they? And electronic voting was used in much of the country, electing Dems...hmmm...well, let's not talk about that, and ignore it, pretend it didn't happen. So even this position is hypocritical.
2. Despite the fact that Clinton set about eight years of cuts to the military, including to veteran facilities, the problems at Walter Reed Medical Center is another way to blame Bush, while appearing to be noble about it. They can pretend they care about the troops, when really this position again is only used to show how war-like Bush is, compared to their peacefulness.
3. Iraq - They are against this war solely because Bush and Rethugs started it. You heard nary a peep from 'peace' groups when Clinton was bombing aspirin factories in Sudan, or bombing Kosovo, including many civilian localities. (that was under the 'war hero' and 'peacenik,' Wesley Clark) That is right, our campaign in Kosovo included bombing civilian infrastructure...but no one said this was 'a war crime,' or was sobbing for the innocent Serbs who were killed. Feel free to read more about this humanitarian bombing'), but fighting a war in Iraq is a war crime.
4. Darfur again, under this lens, is merely a way to criticize Bush. They do not care about the Darfurians or anyone except excising BushCo from the White House.
5. In general, if there is one thing a 'peace' group is against, it is the military. They don't merely care about targetting 'underage kids,' because they want the military to be barred from college campuses as well. As far as targetting underage kids; you have to be 18 to enlist, anyway. The only wrong thing about military recruitment of underage kids (or ANYONE) is that they might tell lies to entice people to join. That is wrong; but that is not what this 'peace group' ultimately cares about. They just see the military as linked with Bush and anyway evil, but they know based on lessons from Vietnam War protesting that they cannot come right out and say that. So they do every single thing possible to weaken the strength, morale, and fighting ability of the military, with the goal of defanging our defenses. However, we are allowed to fight only when a non-"Rethug" is in the White House. All in the name of peace.
   
   Sorry for going off on this ramble, but I just find 'peace' groups to be the most dishonest racket around. They believe in peace insofar as they view anti-Chimpy McHalliburton to mean 'peace,' regardless of what policies must be used to be anti-Chimpy McHalliburton. If somehow such policies would cause Israel to be obliterated, Iraqis to be slaughtered en masse, and Americans to be subjected to the worst sorts of terrorism...that does not matter. As it is peaceful, simply because it is anti-BushCo.
   
   They sicken me to no end.

I hope this email exchange as as interesting for you as it was for me in the intellectual exercise of writing it!

My hero!

It is very easy to be an armchair warrior. It is easy to protest from the safety of your home, to rant and rave online with fellow armchair warriors. It is hard to get in the trenches and do what is necessary to make a difference. To that extent, I have striven to be more than an armchair warrior; I am leading activities in the NYC area and I hope to actually make a difference. But what I have done is nothing. It is a drop in the bucket compared to Salah Choudhury, a "Muslim Zionist" journalist from Bangladesh who faces a possible death penalty for the "crime" of advocating for normalized relations with Israel. Please read what David Harris of AJC wrote about this courageous man.

Mr. Choudhury could have easily sought aslyum in the United States, during his week long reprieve he was granted by the Bangladeshi government. He could have sought personal safety. Instead, this man will travel back to Bangladesh and face trial, with his life on the line. Mr. Choudhury, a man I wrote about earlier, is seeking to empower the peace loving people of Bangladesh. And let me say this. With no exceptions, the Muslim Bangladeshis I have met have been kind, peace loving, and honestly moderate. None had a bad word to say about Israel. I actually lived in a building with two Bangladeshi Americans, and the only bad words they had to say were about Pakistan, and the way that Bangladeshis were treated like dirt by what was once their mother country.

And so I empathize with the Bangladeshi people, some of the poorest on earth, who are simply trying to find their way in this world, but have an authoritarian Islamist government backed by Saudi money that is preventing ordinary Bangladeshis from expressing their opinions and leading their lives as they see fit. And I fear for a new generation of Bangladeshis who, so impovershed, will be taught in Saudi-funded madrassas.

And so what does the US do in response to this crisis? It offers a $20 billion weapons deal to Saudi Arabia. What does Israel do in response to THAT? Olmert says, "No, America, give MORE!"

Knowing Choudhury's plight and how empowering the Saudis disempowers the moderate life-loving Bangladeshis, this puts the Saudi weapons deal in a whole new light. Not only is it a suicidally stupid move, it is a move which as a side-swipe also hurts the innocents around the world who are being victimized by those that the Saudis empower. It hurts the friends we have around the world, not just ourselves.

I would say Bush and Olmert should be ashamed of themselves, but at this point I do not believe Olmert has any shame left inside him.

Continuing the theme of getting OUR OWN house in order first...

A few days ago, the Jerusalem Post wrote of a Canadian court case that upheld the ban on listing the birthplace of Canadian citizens born in Jerusalem as "Jerusalem, Israel." Feel free to read more about this case right here.

A federal policy that bans Canadians from listing Jerusalem, Israel, as their birthplace on their passport does not violate the Charter of Rights, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal has ruled.

In 2006, Eliyahu Veffer, a 19-year-old Canadian citizen born in Jerusalem, requested that the minister of foreign affairs list Israel as his country of birth on his Canadian passport. His request was rejected, and last week a three-judge panel ruled against his appeal.

"Mr. Veffer has not been discriminated against in that his human dignity has not been invaded," the judges wrote. "Mr. Veffer still maintains the freedom to express his faith and his subjectively held views as to the status of Jerusalem, he is just not able to do so in his Canadian passport."

The decision maintains that the ban on listing Israel as the birth country alongside Jerusalem is not discriminatory, despite the fact that Israel is the only country that is banned from being listed when cities in disputed territories are concerned.

It is easy to be mad at Canada. I was ready to get in line to sing the "Blame Canada" song with everyone else, but then I thought...how can I blame Canada when in fact the same situation exists in the United States? How can I blame Canada when this issue receives so little attention to begin with, and any concern about moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and U.S. passports has pretty much been swept under the carpet?

I was researching this issue, and I found a wonderful article concerning the U.S. legal status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Please read this. An excerpt:

In his first campaign for the presidency, George W. Bush repeatedly promised to move the United States embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to the capital city of Jerusalem - a move long sought by the Jewish state.

Moreover, he said, he would do this immediately upon assuming office. He was courting the Jewish vote, to be sure - but he was also following an overwhelming mandate from Congress, where, as far back as 1995, an almost-unanimous bipartisan majority had voted in favour of the transfer.

Whether Bush's actions amount to a flip-flop is for the political pundits to decide, but it is a fact that Bush has never made good on his promise. For a president who appears to be uncompromising when it comes to refusing to coddle Palestinians, the question remains: why?

The article goes on...

Even then the department pushed a stubbornly biased policy of refusing to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

One bizarre result was that U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem have never been able to carry passports showing their birthplace as Jerusalem, Israel - only Jerusalem.

The situation continues today, even after G.W. Bush signed a law explicitly to change this, because, you guessed it, Bush flip-flopped on the matter. Surprisingly, the BBC has a great article on this issue. (maybe because Bush does not look so favourable?)

There is the political will to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem and change the place of birth for US citizens born in Israel (or at least was at various points during Bush's presidency). And yet, nothing happened.

The status quo remains, and yet many American Jews have the gall to blame Canada???

No. As an American, I say that we need to clean our own shop before we lecture ANYONE about theirs.

Lisa Goldman Travels to Lebanon

I have read of Lisa Goldman's amazing adventures in Lebanon, and I must say, please take a look! She wrote it about here and here. This is an independent blogger who is connected to Sandmonkey, a personal friend of mine. I am rather positive she is no "Mossad agent," but of course that was Hezby's spin on this.

Speaking of Hezby...France, under Sarkozy, is acting rather France-like towards them. They want to have direct talks with Hizballah. Somehow this escaped the radar of the news AND the blogs...but it is distressing. I was so excited about Sarkozy, but then this.

With that said...can you blame France? Olmert wants to have direct talks with Syria (ostensibly to give away the Golan Heights), and announced it on the same day that Syria invaded Lebanon!

It seems there is simply a general tenor of defeat and surrender. People just do not seem to care that Hizballah is an organization designed to destroy Lebanon. It hopes to turn it into an Islamic fundie state! Moreover, Hizballah/Syria are behind the murders of any and all politicians who actually seek to better the lives of the Lebanese. Just in the last few years, Rafik Harriri was killed. Pierre Gemayyel was killed. Walid Eido was killed just a few weeks ago. Walid Jumblatt lives with round the clock bodyguards, fully aware of the assassination plots on his life.

And what is this for? To those who support Hizballah, I ask you...what do you hope to accomplish? Do you really believe your problems will be solved if Lebanon becomes a Judenrein state? (yes, Lebanon has Jews, yes a goal of Hizballah is to kill EVERY SINGLE LAST JEW IN LEBANON!) Why do you believe the Lebanese should be held hostage to a brutal dictatorship (Syria - the nation that ultimately calls Hizballah's shots) that is totally cool with mass butchery OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE? Do you just enjoy savagery? Do you enjoy blood letting? Do you believe human life is worthless? Or are you going to tell me that this is really the work of the Zionazis? Are you really going to sell that bill of goods to me, someone who has a Lebanese Jew as a friend, and whose friend witnessed Syrian agents torturing his cousin to death? Who personally had to flee Lebanon because he is on Nasrallah's death list?

Is this your grand vision of Lebanon? Totalitarian Islamic dictatorship, Judenrein, women in burqas, constant prayer, no human rights, and no joy.

Seems pretty grim to me.

EDIT: I would like to add that Bush's stance on this is rather hypocritical. His administration castigated Pelosi's trip to Syria, and rightly so. But I ask: Why is there a U.S. Embassy in Damascus, and none in Jerusalem? Bush has had more than six years to correct this, and has done nothing. This stasis has gone on long enough. Bush is part of the problem...

...But with Olmert seeking direct talks with Assad...can you blame him? Shouldn't Jews take the lead in vigilance against monsters such as Assad? And when Jews DON'T take the lead (and decide defeat and surrender is the ideal policy)...it seems natural to me that others would agree and follow suit.

News roundup!!

Okay, I want to start by speaking briefly of non-Israeli news items resuming my discussion of my amazing Israeli adventure.

1) GWB had his state of the union, and I was asleep and have no idea what he said, nor do I really care. That said, feel free to read the transcript.

2) Hillary Clinton announced she is running for prez. I predict she will get the nom, and Obama will be her running mate. I also have no intention of voting for her. If it is Hillary versus a typical Republican, given I live in a non-swing state, I am considering voting Libertarian simply in protest. I predict she will win, because this will go along with my general prediction I made in the year 2000 that Hillary will win in 2008, thereby creating at minimum 24 years straight of presidents related to each other. (Bush Sr (4), Clinton (8), GWB (8), Hillary (4) = 24 years) Who says there are no royal families in America?

3) Lebanon is in chaos. There was a nationwide strike and general mayhem yesterday. It seems that this was basically called off today, in order to avert another civil war that might possibly drag on another 25 years. It seems hundreds of people were injured, many with gunshot wounds, and three were killed. I wrote the following about it on Sandmonkey's blog:

I wish I was surprised, but I am not. This is a long time in the making.

You are right, SM, the ideology is one of destruction, not creation.

The good Lebanese people want to create a functioning government and society, and they are hated for it. It is heartbreaking to watch. I do not know what the answer to this is…it seems like the destruction of what was a beautiful possibility in Lebanon is inevitable.

I want to say that I wish I had the chance to visit Lebanon while I was in Israel (I should say I wish that the Israeli-Lebanese border allowed for that!), but alas, I did see the antennae from Lebanon! It breaks my heart to see a nation with such promise and with people who really have a *zest for life* slowly cracking under the strain of extremism. Of course, the following abomination breaks my heart most of all: the Aoun Hizballah supporter.

This woman is the epitome of Lenin's 'useful idiot.' Actually, in many ways she reminds me of Rachel Corrie.

4) Iran is not letting nuclear inspectors into their country. In a related item, Wesley Clark, former NATO commander and candidate for prez, blamed the JOOOOOOZ for pushing the nation into war. I am horrified that such a mainstream politician, and not just some nutjob extremist (such as David Duke or Cynthia McKinney) is actually blaming the JOOOOZ for controlling foreign policy. The New Republic wrote an excellent response to Wes Clark's antisemitism. In more related news, Newt Gingrich wrote a great response to the Iranian crisis on Ynet news. (thanks to Raccoon)

Despite this all, I maintain my optimism that good will triumph over evil. I maintain my belief that, in the long run, Iran's suicidal ideology will not win out, cannot win out. Let me quote what I wrote earlier, which I feel is especially true in light of Iran's recent developments.

There will always be horrors in the world. There will always be genocide in every generation.

But there also will be goodness, kindness, and love. And perhaps it's not possible to

take one without the other. Perhaps it is all part of the crazy, seemingly incomprehensible world that we live in, and the only way to exist and not go mad is to focus on what each individual can change in their own lives to shine just that little candle of light into the unfathomable darkness.

I believe this now more than ever. Perhaps I have to believe it, to get through each day.

This is what is on my mind at the moment. I know there are other news items, but these are the ones jumping out at me at present. What do you think about it all?