Sign in to follow this  
Ed Hudgins

Obama Endangers Israel

Recommended Posts

Obama Endangers Israel

March 7, 2014 — President Obama’s ignorance, arrogance, and warped morality are endangering Israel and making another Middle East war more likely.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Obama this week. In an interview in advance of the meeting, Obama declared, “The U.S. won’t be able to defend Israel if peace talks fail. If Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.” He went on to offer the barely-concealed threat that Israel could face international isolation and sanctions from countries and companies unnamed.
We can debate the extent to which Obama’s statements are ignorant, malicious, or both. But let’s look to the facts to put Israel’s situation in its full context.
Seeking life and freedom

Jews began their modern migration to what was then Ottoman-ruled Palestine in the 1880s to escape anti-Semitism and pogroms. Many of those pioneers brought with them Enlightenment and modernist values.

Many Jews settled in cities like Haifa and they founded their new city, Tel Aviv. Others purchased what was considered useless land from Arab landlords and created productive farming communities, often sharing their agricultural techniques with impoverished local Arabs. And because the Ottomans and, after World War I, the British rulers could not protect the Jews, they formed self-defense forces. This was a matter of life or death.
After World War II, with thousands of Holocaust survivors seeking entry into Palestine, the Jews finally gained U.N. approval for a new independent state.
The State of Israel was declared on May 14, 1948, with the founders offering equal rights to Arabs, Muslims, and Christians in a multi-ethic community. The next day Israel was attacked by five Arab nations bent on driving the Jews into the sea.
To the world’s surprise, the new state beat back the Arab armies and survived. This was a matter of life or death.
The Arabs and Muslim inhabitants who did not take arms against the new state and, thus, were not sent into exile, remained in Israel and, along with their descendants, became Israeli citizens with rights not enjoyed elsewhere in the Arab world.

Seeking peace

Since independence Israel has been attacked many times by its national-state neighbors as well as by terrorist groups that specialize in murdering innocent men, women, and children.
Israel has extended its borders and occupied territory to ensure its security. And it has given back territory when it has been able to make peace with former enemies, a peace that recognizes and ensures Israel’s right to exist. Israel is at peace for example, with Egypt and Jordan. It has been a matter of life or death.
The Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank have been the most contentious issues in recent decades. While some West Bank settlements might serve security purposes, most settlements have become liabilities, created resentment and, in the end, should be dismantled, with any associated property rights issues dealt with.
In 2006, Israel did pull all its settlements and troops out of Gaza. But the inhabitants did not turn to building their economy, educating their children, and other enterprises of peace. Rather, the terrorist group Hamas took over, vowing to destroy Israel. Hamas regularly fires rockets into Israel and murders Palestinians who seek peace.
In 2009, Netanyahu froze new settlement construction in the West Bank in order to bring the Palestinians back into peace talks. His government has always maintained that the future of the settlements would be dealt with in a final peace agreement. And this week he said, “Of course some of the settlements won’t be part of the deal, everyone understands that.” But he indicated that most settlements would be dismantled when he said “I will make sure that [the number remaining] is as limited as possible.”
It is in this context that Obama makes his outrageous pronouncements that assume 1) that the Palestinians long for peace, and 2) that the Israelis are the only thing standing in the way.
Israel is hardly a perfect society. It has its own internal conflicts between secular and religious Jews. But a fundamental problem for the peace process is that Israel is a prosperous, open society with a culture of modernity in a region of countries and peoples still struggling to overcome authoritarian or theocratic systems rooted pre-modern cultures. Israel wants a peace that will ensure its survival, but it has good reasons to be suspicious of its neighbors, the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza most of all.

Iran rising

Israel now faces another mortal threat from the theocratic fanatics who rule Iran, who are the chief exporters of terrorism, who vow to wipe our Israel, and who are developing nuclear weapons with which to do so. This is a matter of life or death.

Obama’s recent agreement with Iran does little to slow its development of nukes, and the Iranians publicly ridicule him; General Masoud Jazayeri called Obama “the low-IQ U.S. president” and declared the effectiveness of U.S. options “a joke among the Iranian nation, especially the children.”
A strong, principled American president, Republican or Democrat, might be able to deal with the complex Middle East situation. But Obama’s lack of any moral compass makes it more likely that Israel will need to act unilaterally to prevent a mushroom cloud from wiping out Tel Aviv. It will be a matter of life or death.
---
Edward Hudgins is Director of Advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society.
For further information:
Edward Hudgins, “Israel vs. Palestinian Moral Smuggling.” June 5, 2010.
Edward Hudgins, “Iran And Obama’s Hollow Moral Core.” June 25, 2009.
David Kelley, "Does Islam Need a Reformation?" Spring, 2011

William Thomas, “Free World Order.” November 9, 2011.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed wrote:

The Arabs and Muslim inhabitants who did not take arms against the new state and, thus, were not sent into exile, remained in Israel and, along with their descendants, became Israeli citizens with rights not enjoyed elsewhere in the Arab world.

end quote

To be crass: my only quibble to what you are saying is that I can think of no compelling reason why Israel must be a religious state. A non theistic free land would be better.

Global average IQ 100; average European Jew IQ 117. Israel may have the highest average Intelligence Quotient of any nation on earth, and therefore has a value to America and the whole world. Hitler’s holocaust may have lowered the world’s average IQ more than any other calamity. What would Ayn Rand’s philosophically greatest character John Galt do? “What would be rational and objective?” is a less fictional way of phrasing the question. Ayn would require the complete circumstances before answering. What would she do in the real world? The “Save the Jews” from genocide factor is historical necessity. I think Rand’s gut thinking would be, “Wouldn’t you have to?” She would defend Israel.

The “Save the Brains” idea is on the level of global, human evolutionary action. Because of her insistence on eliminating any science from her *egalitarian volition* concept this would be a hard sell. She said the facts of different groups IQ’s were somehow racism, and stock yard collectivism, many, many times. She despised eugenics as a phony theory. Hypothetically, let me posit a scenario: there is a debate; a debate between Ayn Rand and the real experts on this evolutionary issue, which she then clearly lost. Six months or a year of rethinking would bring her to this position. She would defend Israel though IQ would never be her primary reason. She would defend *family* and the Jews in Israel who are genetically closer to her family. That is harsh but it is every humans gut feeling, even when Ayn Rand was pissed at her sister for not immigrating to America: Women and children first into the lifeboats. Save the children!

To save the humans from Israel, who create wonderful technology, is a more personal profit motive. Would she think it rational to save physicists, creators of computer technology and medical technologists if they are on the cutting edge of thought? Yes, it would be in her self interest. Is it in our strategic interest to protect the oil pipelines from the middle east? At the same time this would provide protection for Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries. She would save Israel.

Is it in our self interest to keep our mutual defense treaty with Israel? Hmmm? Who else do we have in the area who would risk their lives to rescue one of America’s downed airman? Who would unhesitatingly provide us with their airspace? If a U.S. military jet crashed landed, who would cheer the survivors? Israel. Who would butcher or hold the survivors for ransom? Iran, Hammas in Lebanon and the Palestinians. Who shares our objective, Western values? Ayn would reasonably carp about the level of Israel’s socialism, but she would save Israel.

Rand always maintained it was “righteous” to shoot a looter, or a murderer, or to destroy a dictator: they are the human equivalent of *mad dogs*. The key for a country’s righteous “extended” use of self defense, would be: if it is not in my country’s “current” national security, what would be the cost to the United States in lives and money? If it were negligible she would “double tap” the head of Hamas, and all the Palestinian initiators of force.

What would John Galt do? What would Ayn Rand do? Would she stand next to Francisco and John Galt on the borders of Israel with a gun in each hand, shooting the terrorists? Yes she would.Ayn Rand would defend Israel. So will I.

Peter Taylor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... the Iranians publicly ridicule him; General Masoud Jazayeri called Obama “the low-IQ U.S. president” ...

Ed,

I wonder why the left doesn't call this out as a "dog-whistle" of racism.

(That's rhetorical wondering, by the way. :) )

I've lived among Muslims and if anyone believes racism does not exist in that culture when the surrounding population is white, they only know the culture from the media. I've heard the jokes, seen the eyes roll, listened to the bigotry, etc.

Can you imagine a black man becoming head honcho of Iran? I've never been around Iranians, but if they are anything like the people I knew, Iran would have to become predominantly black for that to happen.

I think the Iranian elite saw the election of Obama as proof of the degradation of the USA because (from their view) an innately inferior person attained power. This low-IQ comment by Jazayeri only reinforces that notion in my mind. I don't think it would have occurred to him to say that about Clinton or Bush, or even Jimmy Carter, who the Iranians humiliated to the extreme.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let the U.S. have an open immigration policy for Israelis. Anyone who feels threatened in the State of Israel can move here. And because of Department of Defense policy, those who serve in the U.S. military can get expedited citizenship. It's a win-win deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Francisco wrote:

Let the U.S. have an open immigration policy for Israelis. Anyone who feels threatened in the State of Israel can move here. And because of Department of Defense policy, who serve in the U.S. military can get expedited citizenship. It's a win-win deal.

end quote

I can’t imagine a middle age, Jewish engineer going through basic training, but it is a good idea to invite them. The problem is Israeli’s would not leave their homes without a fight, and their population density places them at extreme risk for annihilation by just a few nuclear weapons. I think there are more Jews in America than in Israel but I am not positive. Hitler tried to wipe out the Jewish race and the Iranians could further that murderous cause. What insanity.

If I were an Israeli I would be counting down the days until a Republican majority is in the Senate and until ANY new President is elected. Somebody. Anybody, but Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Jewish people are NOT a race. We are a People. A culture. An ethnicity.

Jews came in several colors, shapes and sizes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Francisco wrote:

Let the U.S. have an open immigration policy for Israelis. Anyone who feels threatened in the State of Israel can move here. And because of Department of Defense policy, who serve in the U.S. military can get expedited citizenship. It's a win-win deal.

end quote

I can’t imagine a middle age, Jewish engineer going through basic training, but it is a good idea to invite them. The problem is Israeli’s would not leave their homes without a fight, and their population density places them at extreme risk for annihilation by just a few nuclear weapons. I think there are more Jews in America than in Israel but I am not positive. Hitler tried to wipe out the Jewish race and the Iranians could further that murderous cause. What insanity.

If I were an Israeli I would be counting down the days until a Republican majority is in the Senate and until ANY new President is elected. Somebody. Anybody, but Obama.

If they fear for their lives, let them come here. If they want to stay and fight, let them do the fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That takes me aback, Francisco. From someone I know would not give up his home and country without a fight, to the death if necessary...just drop it all, the energy and innovation which built the nation, and the future, a 'secure' haven for Jews?

Which leaves only the other option. It would appear Israel is gradually being pressured into the biggest of showdowns.

I personally believe she should not drag the USA into it. But if America shall, it must be for reasons of principle-to a friend, never out of a reluctant sense of oblgation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've known several American Jews who out of religious conviction moved to Israel and in some cases did military service there. I've also known Christians who have donated generously to the United Jewish Appeal. This is the appropriate way to support the needy: by persuasion and through one's own efforts.

But why should the treasure seized from productive Americans (taxes) be used to provide for the security of a foreign power? Isn't this yet another example of forced altruism?

I raised this point earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally believe she should not drag the USA into it. But if America shall, it must be for reasons of principle-to a friend, never out of a reluctant sense of oblgation.

Tony,

In my view, the principle is one of the oldest in human relations.

When bullies organize and beef up their weapons, the day will come when they will attack peaceful people so they can bully these new victims.

That's about as simple a universal as I can think of and it never fails. When people say history ignored is history repeated (or variations like "those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it"), I believe they mean this universal.

Stated as a prescription, if you have to live next to a bully, don't let him get too strong and don't let yourself get too weak.

The galling thing with Israel for the sundry bullies in all our diverse cultures is the Jewish people stopped acting like easy pickings. Victims are not supposed to act the way they do now and that bothers some folks on a deep, deep level. It's like watching fish grow wings and growl or a tree grow upside down. It doesn't fit their view of how reality is supposed to be.

If the USA is going to give aid to the different bullies in the Middle East, which it does in abundance, why not give aid to the intended victim (Israel) as well?

The real problem is giving foreign aid to begin with. Not giving aid to Israel.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Franciso. Very advisedly, I agree with you at times about the USA's involvement overseas. To briefly give my context, I have been an implicit supporter of the US since young; later I came to understand explicitly- courtesy Rand and other writers- that yours was a nation built on a principle. I've been often horrified at what I see as sacrifice, to little avail, by the US for those who hold her principles in contempt.

There are wrongs and rights about military actions: when and where - and for what reason? It should not be an automatic given - especially and primarily, when it's initiated by the State irrespective of rationality and the desire of the populace (who always end up the payers) - and when it's carried out for that nebulous rationale, 'Democracy'.

Another nation created by a basic principle is Israel. (Also, though with personal links to it, I've always been a fervent supporter of Israel's right to existence).

That alone is cause to seriously consider assistance by any principled nation. Add on that the two countries have traded equably in mutual self-interest; add on, that the two have shared mostly amicable relations,i.e. that you have a friendship.

The 'rational-selfish versus altruist' argument alone, can become highly disingenuous at times, when detached from principle and value. Taken to extremes, it would eventuate in never taking action for anything or anyone, ever - but only in self-defence.

Looked at this way, it can never be "rational" or "self-interested" to spend huge sums of public money and cost the lives of American soldiers in a faraway place. No? But this argument disregards principle, and what the true meaning of rational selfishness really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob wrote:

Jews came in several colors, shapes and sizes.

end quote

Sorry Ba’al. I did not mean to seem like a redneck. Of course I have seen Ethiopian Jews and my own family discovered Spanish Sephardic and European Jews in our genetic pool. Test your DNA folks. My grandfather on my Dad’s side, my Uncle Pete and my brother Rob all looked European “Jewish” but with slightly olive skins and my Dad, looked somewhat like a European Jew from Scotland: faintly reddish hair, and freckles. But they all had a distinctively Jewish nose. Growing up I had 126 kids tell me, “Your family looks like a bunch of Jews.” Or Kikes. I think the worst taunts were in the 4th and 5th grades when I lived in the northern, free state of Rhode Island. They were very anti Semitic and anti “Portuguese” olive skinned people. My sister and I look Swedish.

As to the shapes and sizes of you. I think I caught a picture of you on facebook. You were so tall and skinny you looked like you had lived on a low gravity world. The guys in my institution, called you El Greco. Nurse Ratchet I need to make a phone call!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the links I went to off of OL to was “The Times of Israel,” and you can click to get free downloads. I just got one and it is wonderful to see the Jewish middle east perspective. Excellent photography and stories.

After the download, I looked for viruses, and spyware, with my deliberately unnamed shields. The Times of Israel came out clean but with the usual “cookies” to facilitate a subscription.

The headline was: Netanyahu: I won’t forcibly evacuate settlements – Prime Minister, for the first time, rules out any West Bank repeat of the 2005 enforced removal of Gaza settlers.

end quote

Enemies at the gate? As D Day nears, what a connumdrum for BeeBee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As noted in the Times of Israel:

Palestinian daily claims US isn’t insisting the PA recognize Jewish Israel - Al-Quds claims State Dep’t says key Israeli demand is not critical to peace talks, but spokesperson’s reported comments don’t appear in briefing transcript . . .

end quote

You can see the slant in the Palestinian daily, and it unfortunately jibes with my own conviction that a free country with Jews and Palestinians need not be called “A Jewish State.” So, if that is a Palestinian goal I don’t see that as negating my position. But it does show what can be lost in translation or deliberately slanted to serve the goals of a government.

The good journalists at the ToI wrote:

However, the quotation could not be independently verified, and an official State Department transcript of Psaki’s Friday daily press briefing, the possible source of the Al-Quds report, does not include the same phraseology. Psaki did answer questions on the issue, but merely said: “. . . If you look at the issue of a Jewish state and whether Israel will be called a Jewish state, that’s been our position, as you know, for a long time, but that doesn’t reflect what the parties will agree to, which I know you know, and of course there are many issues like that that are being discussed as part of the framework. So to us, it is not a surprise that at this pivotal point in the discussions, as we’re getting down to the later end of the nine-month timeframe, there would be heated rhetoric and language by both sides about what they are and aren’t willing to make compromises about.”

end quote

So, the Obama administration is not willing to concede that they have no position, or that they are sort of on both sides of the issue. Just kidding about the diplomatic language. Parse that statement and it does convey the idea that it is up to the Palestinians and the Israelis. If you were supposed to be an unbiased intermediate would you go into the talks telling the Palestinians you have no right to some sort of identity in the name of your country but the religious Jews do? How about the names “Israel” or “The Free State of Israel?” If I were Prime Minister of either country I might accept those names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Franciso. Very advisedly, I agree with you at times about the USA's involvement overseas. To briefly give my context, I have been an implicit supporter of the US since young; later I came to understand explicitly- courtesy Rand and other writers- that yours was a nation built on a principle. I've been often horrified at what I see as sacrifice, to little avail, by the US for those who hold her principles in contempt.

There are wrongs and rights about military actions: when and where - and for what reason? It should not be an automatic given - especially and primarily, when it's initiated by the State irrespective of rationality and the desire of the populace (who always end up the payers) - and when it's carried out for that nebulous rationale, 'Democracy'.

Another nation created by a basic principle is Israel. (Also, though with personal links to it, I've always been a fervent supporter of Israel's right to existence).

That alone is cause to seriously consider assistance by any principled nation. Add on that the two countries have traded equably in mutual self-interest; add on, that the two have shared mostly amicable relations,i.e. that you have a friendship.

The 'rational-selfish versus altruist' argument alone, can become highly disingenuous at times, when detached from principle and value. Taken to extremes, it would eventuate in never taking action for anything or anyone, ever - but only in self-defence.

Looked at this way, it can never be "rational" or "self-interested" to spend huge sums of public money and cost the lives of American soldiers in a faraway place. No? But this argument disregards principle, and what the true meaning of rational selfishness really is.

The first responsibility of a "principled nation" is to respect the property rights of its own people. That means no forced transfers of wealth from A to B, even if B is the State of Israel.

Recognizing the primacy of individual autonomy certainly does not preclude citizens from acting independently of their government. Any citizen of the United States (or South Africa) is free to act on his own rational selfishness, move to Israel, put on an IDF uniform, and go on raids in the West Bank. Or to donate his entire fortune to the State of Israel.

They can shame the rest of us egoists by stepping out from the crowd and showing what true selfishness is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to NIOF trumps morality, eh? A minimal government does not entail a government that cannot act, swiftly and by principle. It should act without waiting to gain consent from its citizens. It must have their implicit consent, built in - by its principles.

Property rights is a principle which is morally right, not a system of morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony wrote:

Back to NIOF trumps morality, eh? A minimal government does not entail a government that cannot act, swiftly and by principle. It should act without waiting to gain consent from its citizens. It must have their implicit consent, built in - by its principles. Property rights is a principle which is morally right, not a system of morality.

end quote

Of course, I agree. Damn, Tony. Slam dunk! That’s a three pointer. Government action cannot always follow a vote. It has been argued endlessly on forums whether or not a gun must be pointed at your head before non- initiation, retaliatory force can be MORALLY used. The guy building a bomb in his garage is an excellent example. Yes, his neighbors have the right to call the Feds.

Got to go. Granddaughter wants to go to NickJr on the web.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to NIOF trumps morality, eh? A minimal government does not entail a government that cannot act, swiftly and by principle. It should act without waiting to gain consent from its citizens. It must have their implicit consent, built in - by its principles.

Property rights is a principle which is morally right, not a system of morality.

A minimal government should act swiftly and by principle to protect its citizens' wealth from theft, including theft by government. Furthermore, a minimal government does not entail citizens who cannot act on their own.

Whatever the Republic of South Africa does not appropriate from your productive work, you are free to donate to the brave little shepherd.

You are also free to move there, take your stand with them and contribute in your own unique way to their survival. After living there three years, you can apply for naturalization.

That way you get to act in your rational self-interest and set an example for the rest of us to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Francisco wrote:

A minimal government should act swiftly and by principle to protect its citizens' wealth from theft, including theft by government. Furthermore, a minimal government does not entail citizens who cannot act on their own.

end quote

A bill of rights would include more than just protection from theft, but you are correct in restating the Randian argument that without *property rights* which includes *ourselves* other rights have no meaning. The generally named pyramid of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” is at the center of consensually accepted, American political thinking. There are other rights and governmental OBLIGATONS that need to be explicit too, so we have a bill of rights and the chores of government are explicitly named.

We Americans have an implicit “standing order” for our military and government to put down bullies, unilaterally in an emergency, or after deliberation if there is time to debate. Think about it Francisco before you bellow, "bullshit." When an ideal government evolves that is voluntarily taxed then *consent* will be more frequently given . . . if not constantly given for every government action . . . but for now I am in agreement with America having allies and alliances, and for countries that pass the ‘smell test’ like the Ukraine to have our approval. Not that we MUST “have their backs” as the saying goes, or expend significant amounts of American treasure on others, but we can be benevolent and a good friend to the republics that protect individual rights.

And we can be the enemy of nationalist, socialistic and expansionist governments. They won’t stop expanding without a line being drawn or being pushed back. Francisco constantly goes back to the money but I maintain that the money is only used ‘morally’ if it is part and parcel of a broader policy of benevolence abroad. And we should never be “Innocents Abroad.” So what would it take to boot Russia out of the Ukraine and its other slave states? I say we should weigh the gold and spend what seems morally right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an ancient portent called the Blood Moon Tetrad...

...which is a sequence of four total lunar eclipses. Previous Blood Moon Tetrads:

Jesus crucified (33ad)

Destruction of Jerusalem (70ad)

Jews driven from Spain and America discovered (1492ad)

Israel becomes nation (1949ad)

6 day war Jerusalem reclaimed(1967ad)

The next Blood Moon Tetrad begins April 15th 2014.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an ancient portent called the Blood Moon Tetrad...

...which is a sequence of four total lunar eclipses. Previous Blood Moon Tetrads:

Jesus crucified (33ad)

Destruction of Jerusalem (70ad)

Jews driven from Spain and America discovered (1492ad)

Israel becomes nation (1949ad)

6 day war Jerusalem reclaimed(1967ad)

The next Blood Moon Tetrad begins April 15th 2014.

Greg

Can I use the Tetrad to play the stock market? In any case, Israel became a nation in 1948.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We Americans have an implicit “standing order” for our military and government to put down bullies, unilaterally in an emergency, or after deliberation if there is time to debate.

What about the bullies inside government who commit grand tax theft, nationalize healthcare, seize private weapons, persecute critics and ignore constitutional limitations? You can on the military and its commander-in-chief to do precisely nothing about those bullies.

And what's this "emergency" about Israel? The U.S. has been funding their "emergency" rescue since the Kennedy administration.

Think about it Francisco before you bellow, "bullshit." When an ideal government evolves that is voluntarily taxed then *consent* will be more frequently given . . . if not constantly given for every government action . . . but for now I am in agreement with America having allies and alliances, and for countries that pass the ‘smell test’ like the Ukraine to have our approval. Not that we MUST “have their backs” as the saying goes, or expend significant amounts of American treasure on others, but we can be benevolent and a good friend to the republics that protect individual rights.

Go be benevolent with your own damn money. Don't talk about benevolence in the same breath as that gang of collectivists, cronies, czars and crackpots who have shredded the Constitution and are quickly reducing the nation to a financial shambles.

Go be a "good friend" on your own time and with your own private resources.

And we can be the enemy of nationalist, socialistic and expansionist governments. They won’t stop expanding without a line being drawn or being pushed back. Francisco constantly goes back to the money but I maintain that the money is only used ‘morally’ if it is part and parcel of a broader policy of benevolence abroad. And we should never be “Innocents Abroad.” So what would it take to boot Russia out of the Ukraine and its other slave states? I say we should weigh the gold and spend what seems morally right.

No money can be used morally if that money originated in theft.

So 1. stop the government from stealing (and that includes the Fed's cheapening of money), 2. give something back to the victims by selling off U.S. lands and other assets, and 3. whatever you have left you can spend on protecting U.S. citizens as job number one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an ancient portent called the Blood Moon Tetrad...

...which is a sequence of four total lunar eclipses. Previous Blood Moon Tetrads:

Jesus crucified (33ad)

Destruction of Jerusalem (70ad)

Jews driven from Spain and America discovered (1492ad)

Israel becomes nation (1949ad)

6 day war Jerusalem reclaimed(1967ad)

The next Blood Moon Tetrad begins April 15th 2014.

Greg

Can I use the Tetrad to play the stock market?

No law prevents you from gambling just at no law protects you from losing.

Check out stock market behavior in these years:

1966

1973

1980

1987

1994

2001

2008

next... 2015

In any case, Israel became a nation in 1948.

I know. A few months isn't that much off for such an event.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Francisco wrote:

No money can be used morally if that money originated in theft.

end quote.

And Greg worried about an economic collapse in 2015. It worries me too.

Francisco and I are carrying on the same conversation on two different threads. Francisco, your generalizations are squeezing the guts out of my arguments, and not because you are just so darned smart. Theft? All taxation is not theft. Constant consent is not required in a Constitutional country (tpir: that protects individual rights.) By remaining in this country all Americans give their tacit confirmation of the government’s actions but they are welcome to protest and vote the bums out of office, just as occurred in the Ukraine at the end of the cold war. I will say the coup de tata this last time was justified. Have you heard of the missing billions of rubles and the lavish palace the deposed Ukrainian President had?

Adams linked photos of the Viet Nam war protests made me glad to live in 2014. We deserved better. When Prime Minister Yeltsen left office he opened up the files of the KGB which proved money was flowing from the Soviet Union to protesters in America. Not all, but many of those anti-war leaders were traitors taking bribe money, or were monsters like Hanoi Jane Fonda, willing to kill her own country men.

Yes, Francisco and Greg. I agree that excess taxation must stop and that the debt must be paid. I worry about a crash. But I also worry about totalitarians invading other countries. Remember the guy who promised, “Peace in Our Time,” just before the German Nazi’s next blitzkrieg? Doing nothing is appeasement. Doing nothing because of “pie in the sky absolutism” is not sensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this