One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Check out topic: Nuclear Option Has Foreign Central Banks Dodging the Dollar and Going for Gold
Main
Why Do Our Media Support Palestinian Terrorists?
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
Aug 2, 2014 20:16:30   #
AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State
 
Bruce Kennedy wrote:
So basically you know nothing about 21st century politics. The Tea Party, basically formed in 2009, in response to the passage of the ACA. There are all sorts of individuals who say the Tea Party's roots harken back as far as the 1860's. And others who credit Ron Paul's movement, in 2007, as the beginning of the "Tea Party". But really it began in 2009 when Obama was elected. At no time did you ever see a "Tea Party" demonstration against GW's rampant spending. No Tea Party demonstration against GW's TARP, the bail out of Wall Street. There were many demonstrations when Obama issued the second TARP. Now I realized that the first stated goals, of the "Tea Party", were to "balance the budget", curb government spending. But the ACA really was borne out of the Federal budget deficit problem. When the ACA was first proposed the number one issue in Congress, at the time, was the Federal budget deficit. And the notion, among many, at that time, was the number one contributor to the Federal budget deficit was, and was going to be, the issue of health care. Primarily Medicare and Medicaid. I don't think initially there was much disagreement that government health costs were quickly becoming the number one contributor to the deficit. But when Democrats and the Obama administration introduced the ACA, as a way to ultimately curb government spending for Medicare and Medicaid, Republicans went nuts. And of course began their obstructionist tactics. At first to block the ACA. But it was clearly the "Tea Party" that took obstructionism to a new level with their "No Compromise" policy, plain and simple. The concept of "No compromise" was never a Democratic idea. Yet you, like most other good little Conservatives, ignore that the fact that the use of obstructionism began with Republicans, as soon as Obama took office, in 2009. In fact hypocritical Republicans take pride in pointing how GW got things done in a bipartisan manner. That's because Democrats were willing to compromise. So the average intelligence individual needs to ask him or herself why were things getting done, in the Bush administration, and not in the Obama administration? It doesn't take an Einstein to figure that Republicans refuse to pass any legislation, unless it complied 100%, with their wishes, "no compromise". Now once Republicans, along with the "Tea Party", started to obstruct every bit of legislation that came out of Obama's administration, the Democrats naturally reacted with the same tactics, a sort of quid pro quo. The Republicans were the first to set this political tone and they even admitted it, on the Senate floor, when McConnell publically stated that the Republican's only goal, in Obama's first term, was to make Obama a "one term President". And the way they planned to do that was to screw the American public and sabotage the American economy, because they felt sure that if the economy was in disarray, the American people would vote for a Republican. Well of course the American public knew the Republicans were screwing them. And that gets us back to the issue of the mid term elections, in 2010, when the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. They, and handful of newly elected "Tea Party" members, implemented their "No compromise" tactics and they have been screwing the American public ever since. And make no mistake about it, the "Tea Party" is calling the shots, for the Republican Party. Cantor and his cabal sabotaged any efforts Boehner made to compromise. Interestingly enough the "Tea Party" eats its own. Cantor said something blasphemous about Immigration reform and is now working at McDonalds. :)
So basically you know nothing about 21st century p... (show quote)



Do you know what a POAC is. Not only are you arrogant, condescending, and, but one of the larger POACs on the site. pretentious

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/gettinginvolved/f/Is-The-Tea-Party-Just-A-Response-To-President-Barack-Obamas-Election.htm

Is the Tea Party Just a Response to President Barack Obama's Election?

Tea Party members often say that they want to restore fiscal responsibility, but when President George W. Bush approved the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and said the free market must be abandoned to preserve the free market, where were they? Why did the Tea Party only emerge a month after President Barack Obama took office?

Answer:
The Left would have everyone believe the Tea Party simply sprung up one day in 2009 in direct response to the inauguration of President Obama. The implication, of course, is that since it allegedly formed out of opposition to Obama, it must then be a movement founded by racists.

The reality, however, is that the individual components that led to the formation of the Tea Party had been simmering for years. Well before Obama even announced his intention to run for office, many conservatives were privately murmuring their disapproval about the direction the federal government was headed under President Bush. By 2004, many conservatives had become disenchanted with Bush, especially after sending him into office on a wave of "compassionate conservatism" in 2000. By 2006, the dissonance turned into frustration, and by 2008, the frustration was beginning to boil over into anger.

If conservatives had been annoyed with President Bush for using 9/11 to undertake one of the largest expansions of executive power in U.S. history, they became even more upset when the newly elected Democratic Congress began to expand the entire government at an exponential pace in 2006.

For many conservatives, President Barack Obama's inauguration was indeed a cause for concern, but not because of his race. In the month and a half leading up to the historic event, Obama had been publicly calling for a massive spending package to stoke the growth of the economy. Conservatives were doubtful that additional spending was the answer to the nation's economic woes. Only after it became clear that Obama and Congressional Democrats were not going to reach across the aisle as the president had promised, and indeed were intent on forcing the stimulus package on the American people regardless of their wishes, did the first vestiges of the Tea Party begin to form. The first protest -- held on Tax Day in 2009 -- was in direct response to the $787 billion spending plan approved on Feb. 14 of that year.

Many of these same people were privately chuckling when the Left began to call the demonstrations against ObamaCare "astroturfing." Many of the same people involved in organizing those events were simply citizen-activists, who were completely unaffiliated with multi-national insurance companies or other well-financed special interests. The more their efforts were mocked by Democratic leaders, the more furious their desire became to organize. Not finding the reception they were looking for from an increasingly disconnected Republican Party, these people found what they needed in the loosely-formed Tea Party organizations.

Did President Barack Obama have a role in helping the formation of the Tea Party? Absolutely. Was he the sole reason for its inception? No.


http://usconservatives.about.com/od/gettinginvolved/f/Is-The-Tea-Party-Really-Committed-To-Cutting-Spending.htm

Is the Tea Party Really Committed to Cutting Spending?

Liberals often criticize members of the Tea Party for saying they favor of spending cuts, but failing to mention what they would cut specifically. Are they really committed to spending? Or is this just empty rhetoric designed to appease and motivate the conservative base.

Answer:
Very often, this question is followed up with a second part; it goes something like this:

With the nation involved in two wars, and a military budget that makes up a majority of the nation's expenditures, why don't Tea Party members want to cut military spending? The Tea Party talks about cutting education spending, but that's only 4% of the overall budget. Why not start with the military.

Both questions demonstrate an inherent lack of constitutional knowledge on the part of the questioner.

When asked about spending cuts, most Tea Party members will offer an answer that sounds absolutely preposterous to liberals and anyone else who values the status quo in the era of entitlements. Tea Party members will say something along the lines of "I'd start by eliminating the Department of Education, or the Department of Agriculture."

The reason departments like these are mentioned is because there is no reference to these types of agencies in the Constitution, which means that the specific area of governance which falls under these agencies' purview should be relegated to individual states.

Take the Department of Education for example. The federal government allocates 4% of the federal budget to the agency, and establishes a multitude of laws identifying what should be taught and how it should be taught, yet nowhere in the Constitution does it say that educating America's children is the responsibility of the U.S. government.

This is not to say that the public has no responsibility to educate its children, however. This simply means that the area of education is a responsibility of individual states, as Article X of the Bill of Rights says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Tea Party members use this amendment as their guide to locate spending cuts. Since the Constitution does expressly identify the protection and security of the United States as a responsibility of the federal government, Tea Party members don't see massive military spending cuts as particularly wise (although there is always room for improvement and spending reductions). The departments of education, agriculture, and other agencies and programs such as the National Endowment for the Arts, however, are prime candidates for dramatic budget cuts, because the constitution does not expressly identify them as the U.S. government's responsibilities.

Yes, Tea Party members are committed to federal spending cuts. While some may see cutting the Department of Education from the national budget as extreme, the reality is that it would provide some immediate benefits. Not only would it free up federal tax dollars and eliminate complicated and unnecessary bureaucracy, it would return the onus for public education back to where it belongs: to the states and local governments that know their communities best.

It's important to acknowledge also, however, that not all Tea Party members wish to completely eliminate the aforementioned departments. Some simply believe that each of them should be scoured for as many cuts as possible.

Reply
Aug 2, 2014 20:23:48   #
Liberty Tree
 
AuntiE wrote:
Do you know what a POAC is. Not only are you arrogant, condescending, and, but one of the larger POACs on the site. pretentious

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/gettinginvolved/f/Is-The-Tea-Party-Just-A-Response-To-President-Barack-Obamas-Election.htm

Is the Tea Party Just a Response to President Barack Obama's Election?

Tea Party members often say that they want to restore fiscal responsibility, but when President George W. Bush approved the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and said the free market must be abandoned to preserve the free market, where were they? Why did the Tea Party only emerge a month after President Barack Obama took office?

Answer:
The Left would have everyone believe the Tea Party simply sprung up one day in 2009 in direct response to the inauguration of President Obama. The implication, of course, is that since it allegedly formed out of opposition to Obama, it must then be a movement founded by racists.

The reality, however, is that the individual components that led to the formation of the Tea Party had been simmering for years. Well before Obama even announced his intention to run for office, many conservatives were privately murmuring their disapproval about the direction the federal government was headed under President Bush. By 2004, many conservatives had become disenchanted with Bush, especially after sending him into office on a wave of "compassionate conservatism" in 2000. By 2006, the dissonance turned into frustration, and by 2008, the frustration was beginning to boil over into anger.

If conservatives had been annoyed with President Bush for using 9/11 to undertake one of the largest expansions of executive power in U.S. history, they became even more upset when the newly elected Democratic Congress began to expand the entire government at an exponential pace in 2006.

For many conservatives, President Barack Obama's inauguration was indeed a cause for concern, but not because of his race. In the month and a half leading up to the historic event, Obama had been publicly calling for a massive spending package to stoke the growth of the economy. Conservatives were doubtful that additional spending was the answer to the nation's economic woes. Only after it became clear that Obama and Congressional Democrats were not going to reach across the aisle as the president had promised, and indeed were intent on forcing the stimulus package on the American people regardless of their wishes, did the first vestiges of the Tea Party begin to form. The first protest -- held on Tax Day in 2009 -- was in direct response to the $787 billion spending plan approved on Feb. 14 of that year.

Many of these same people were privately chuckling when the Left began to call the demonstrations against ObamaCare "astroturfing." Many of the same people involved in organizing those events were simply citizen-activists, who were completely unaffiliated with multi-national insurance companies or other well-financed special interests. The more their efforts were mocked by Democratic leaders, the more furious their desire became to organize. Not finding the reception they were looking for from an increasingly disconnected Republican Party, these people found what they needed in the loosely-formed Tea Party organizations.

Did President Barack Obama have a role in helping the formation of the Tea Party? Absolutely. Was he the sole reason for its inception? No.


http://usconservatives.about.com/od/gettinginvolved/f/Is-The-Tea-Party-Really-Committed-To-Cutting-Spending.htm

Is the Tea Party Really Committed to Cutting Spending?

Liberals often criticize members of the Tea Party for saying they favor of spending cuts, but failing to mention what they would cut specifically. Are they really committed to spending? Or is this just empty rhetoric designed to appease and motivate the conservative base.

Answer:
Very often, this question is followed up with a second part; it goes something like this:

With the nation involved in two wars, and a military budget that makes up a majority of the nation's expenditures, why don't Tea Party members want to cut military spending? The Tea Party talks about cutting education spending, but that's only 4% of the overall budget. Why not start with the military.

Both questions demonstrate an inherent lack of constitutional knowledge on the part of the questioner.

When asked about spending cuts, most Tea Party members will offer an answer that sounds absolutely preposterous to liberals and anyone else who values the status quo in the era of entitlements. Tea Party members will say something along the lines of "I'd start by eliminating the Department of Education, or the Department of Agriculture."

The reason departments like these are mentioned is because there is no reference to these types of agencies in the Constitution, which means that the specific area of governance which falls under these agencies' purview should be relegated to individual states.

Take the Department of Education for example. The federal government allocates 4% of the federal budget to the agency, and establishes a multitude of laws identifying what should be taught and how it should be taught, yet nowhere in the Constitution does it say that educating America's children is the responsibility of the U.S. government.

This is not to say that the public has no responsibility to educate its children, however. This simply means that the area of education is a responsibility of individual states, as Article X of the Bill of Rights says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Tea Party members use this amendment as their guide to locate spending cuts. Since the Constitution does expressly identify the protection and security of the United States as a responsibility of the federal government, Tea Party members don't see massive military spending cuts as particularly wise (although there is always room for improvement and spending reductions). The departments of education, agriculture, and other agencies and programs such as the National Endowment for the Arts, however, are prime candidates for dramatic budget cuts, because the constitution does not expressly identify them as the U.S. government's responsibilities.

Yes, Tea Party members are committed to federal spending cuts. While some may see cutting the Department of Education from the national budget as extreme, the reality is that it would provide some immediate benefits. Not only would it free up federal tax dollars and eliminate complicated and unnecessary bureaucracy, it would return the onus for public education back to where it belongs: to the states and local governments that know their communities best.

It's important to acknowledge also, however, that not all Tea Party members wish to completely eliminate the aforementioned departments. Some simply believe that each of them should be scoured for as many cuts as possible.
Do you know what a POAC is. Not only are you arrog... (show quote)


AuntiE, this is really a super post. Well done!!! Of course you know the TEA Party has been chosen to be the enemy to be feared so the Dems can divert attention from what is really happening and the true Obama agenda.

Reply
Aug 2, 2014 20:35:51   #
AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
AuntiE, this is really a super post. Well done!!! Of course you know the TEA Party has been chosen to be the enemy to be feared so the Dems can divert attention from what is really happening and the true Obama agenda.


I had four more articles I could have posted. Research is King, Queen, Prince and princess.

I wonder if this person understands Kathleen Seiblus (sp) violated GSA protocols by NOT issuing a RFP prior to awarding a multimillion dollar contract to set up the failed ACA website. In point of fact, every contract issued by HHS, for the ACA, is in violation of GSA Procurement Procedures.

Reply
 
 
Aug 2, 2014 20:38:03   #
Liberty Tree
 
AuntiE wrote:
I had four more articles I could have posted. Research is King, Queen, Prince and princess.

I wonder if this person understands Kathleen Seiblus (sp) violated GSA protocols by NOT issuing a RFP prior to awarding a multimillion dollar contract to set up the failed ACA website. In point of fact, every contract issued by HHS, for the ACA, is in violation of GSA Procurement Procedures.


Even if he knew he would not care. Whatever the Obama administration does is ok with him because Obama is his god and one does not criticize his god.

Reply
Aug 3, 2014 11:15:11   #
Weasel Loc: In the Great State Of Indiana!!
 
liberty Tree, you are right on the mark. Obama is determined to hold on to a piece of the action in the middle east. He will suck up to anyone that will keep his foot in the door. Why? I don't know, but americans are forced to suffer in all of this, while prices rise and taxes increase to support his insane efforts to satisfy the richest of the rich in this world for their secret agenda for the future of their life style.
Give the middle east their own stock market so they don't have to wait on their money to clear Wall Street before they can count their own money, and they won't hate America so much.
Start thinking about our problems here, and let them build their own country.

Reply
Aug 3, 2014 13:36:10   #
Liberty Tree
 
Weasel wrote:
liberty Tree, you are right on the mark. Obama is determined to hold on to a piece of the action in the middle east. He will suck up to anyone that will keep his foot in the door. Why? I don't know, but americans are forced to suffer in all of this, while prices rise and taxes increase to support his insane efforts to satisfy the richest of the rich in this world for their secret agenda for the future of their life style.
Give the middle east their own stock market so they don't have to wait on their money to clear Wall Street before they can count their own money, and they won't hate America so much.
Start thinking about our problems here, and let them build their own country.
liberty Tree, you are right on the mark. Obama is ... (show quote)


Right, he pretends to be a mediator but that is false. He supports the power and money and right now that is the Islamic states. Israel knows better than to trust him.

Reply
Aug 3, 2014 13:49:19   #
Weasel Loc: In the Great State Of Indiana!!
 
If Obama truly wants to help he would set a DMZ at this point of Isreal's advancement creating a safe zone so that no more tunnels could be built.
Now you could have a peace agreement. Any one crossing this area would be taken for questioning. How easy is that? No more wasted money, and we could get on with our lives in peace.

Reply
Check out topic: Ukraine Soldiers are Still Fighting Hard for Their Country With Support From NATO
Aug 3, 2014 16:05:13   #
alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa
 
AuntiE wrote:
Because, they are slimy piles of defecation!


and so is he

Reply
Aug 3, 2014 16:06:42   #
alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa
 
AuntiE wrote:
The Tea Party is a worthless organization, why?


because his lord and master told him so

Reply
Aug 3, 2014 16:10:08   #
alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa
 
Bruce Kennedy wrote:
So basically you know nothing about 21st century politics. The Tea Party, basically formed in 2009, in response to the passage of the ACA. There are all sorts of individuals who say the Tea Party's roots harken back as far as the 1860's. And others who credit Ron Paul's movement, in 2007, as the beginning of the "Tea Party". But really it began in 2009 when Obama was elected. At no time did you ever see a "Tea Party" demonstration against GW's rampant spending. No Tea Party demonstration against GW's TARP, the bail out of Wall Street. There were many demonstrations when Obama issued the second TARP. Now I realized that the first stated goals, of the "Tea Party", were to "balance the budget", curb government spending. But the ACA really was borne out of the Federal budget deficit problem. When the ACA was first proposed the number one issue in Congress, at the time, was the Federal budget deficit. And the notion, among many, at that time, was the number one contributor to the Federal budget deficit was, and was going to be, the issue of health care. Primarily Medicare and Medicaid. I don't think initially there was much disagreement that government health costs were quickly becoming the number one contributor to the deficit. But when Democrats and the Obama administration introduced the ACA, as a way to ultimately curb government spending for Medicare and Medicaid, Republicans went nuts. And of course began their obstructionist tactics. At first to block the ACA. But it was clearly the "Tea Party" that took obstructionism to a new level with their "No Compromise" policy, plain and simple. The concept of "No compromise" was never a Democratic idea. Yet you, like most other good little Conservatives, ignore that the fact that the use of obstructionism began with Republicans, as soon as Obama took office, in 2009. In fact hypocritical Republicans take pride in pointing how GW got things done in a bipartisan manner. That's because Democrats were willing to compromise. So the average intelligence individual needs to ask him or herself why were things getting done, in the Bush administration, and not in the Obama administration? It doesn't take an Einstein to figure that Republicans refuse to pass any legislation, unless it complied 100%, with their wishes, "no compromise". Now once Republicans, along with the "Tea Party", started to obstruct every bit of legislation that came out of Obama's administration, the Democrats naturally reacted with the same tactics, a sort of quid pro quo. The Republicans were the first to set this political tone and they even admitted it, on the Senate floor, when McConnell publically stated that the Republican's only goal, in Obama's first term, was to make Obama a "one term President". And the way they planned to do that was to screw the American public and sabotage the American economy, because they felt sure that if the economy was in disarray, the American people would vote for a Republican. Well of course the American public knew the Republicans were screwing them. And that gets us back to the issue of the mid term elections, in 2010, when the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. They, and handful of newly elected "Tea Party" members, implemented their "No compromise" tactics and they have been screwing the American public ever since. And make no mistake about it, the "Tea Party" is calling the shots, for the Republican Party. Cantor and his cabal sabotaged any efforts Boehner made to compromise. Interestingly enough the "Tea Party" eats its own. Cantor said something blasphemous about Immigration reform and is now working at McDonalds. :)
So basically you know nothing about 21st century p... (show quote)


yes someone left a pea on the railroad tracks so none of the trains can run

Reply
Aug 3, 2014 16:12:48   #
alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
The Democrats pushed through Obamacare with no GOP input or compromise. They made secret deals to get it through and it has turned out to be the financial disaster predicted. Obama is the no compromise President and only wants a rubber stamp for all his programs. The TEA Partry is not calling the shots for the Reublican Party, but I wish it was. The RINOS are calling the shots and along with the extreme liberal wing of the Democrat Party are going to lead to a financial disaster. As usual your post is just more DNC nonsense talking points.
The Democrats pushed through Obamacare with no GOP... (show quote)


you forget that to a republican compromise means you give a little and I give a little but to a democrat it means you give me what I want and I'll take the rest

Reply
Check out topic: The Democrat convention
Aug 3, 2014 17:50:55   #
Bruce Kennedy Loc: Kansas
 
AuntiE wrote:
The Tea Party is a worthless organization, why




http://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/upload/2014/8/2/thumb-1406994276323-1391731_606129326109223_6179016_n.jpg


Now there is no way I believe this BaselesS poster. I am tempted to call it a "LIE". But at the very least it is disingenuous. I'm curious to know, who is stealing "our" money? And what exactly is the "Tea Party" going to do, to remedy that perceived travesty? And what "Liberty" are they restoring? Certainly they are not "restoring" a women's right to choose. Since her "Liberty" and "Freedom" to choose is currently legal, the "Tea Party" would instead be restricting her "Freedom" and "Liberty". So I guess that put's the statement..."And then leave everybody the Hell alone"...in jeopardy, doesn't it? This is why I'm so close to calling this BaselesS poster an out and out "LIE". The "Tea Party" isn't out to "Leave everybody the Hell alone", quite the opposite, they're out to tell you how to live your life. Since the inception of this country we, the American people, have expanded "Liberty" and "Freedom", that "White Males" enjoyed, from day one, to other segments of our society. I think we all know, to whom, those extensions of "Freedom" and "Liberty" were applied. And frankly "Privileged White Men" opposed those extensions of "Freedom" and "Liberty", at every turn.

Reply
Aug 3, 2014 19:22:54   #
alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa
 
Bruce Kennedy wrote:
AuntiE wrote:
The Tea Party is a worthless organization, why




http://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/upload/2014/8/2/thumb-1406994276323-1391731_606129326109223_6179016_n.jpg


Now there is no way I believe this BaselesS poster. I am tempted to call it a "LIE". But at the very least it is disingenuous. I'm curious to know, who is stealing "our" money? And what exactly is the "Tea Party" going to do, to remedy that perceived travesty? And what "Liberty" are they restoring? Certainly they are not "restoring" a women's right to choose. Since her "Liberty" and "Freedom" to choose is currently legal, the "Tea Party" would instead be restricting her "Freedom" and "Liberty". So I guess that put's the statement..."And then leave everybody the Hell alone"...in jeopardy, doesn't it? This is why I'm so close to calling this BaselesS poster an out and out "LIE". The "Tea Party" isn't out to "Leave everybody the Hell alone", quite the opposite, they're out to tell you how to live your life. Since the inception of this country we, the American people, have expanded "Liberty" and "Freedom", that "White Males" enjoyed, from day one, to other segments of our society. I think we all know, to whom, those extensions of "Freedom" and "Liberty" were applied. And frankly "Privileged White Men" opposed those extensions of "Freedom" and "Liberty", at every turn.
AuntiE wrote: br The Tea Party is a worthless orga... (show quote)


because it scares the shit out of the comucrats

Reply
Aug 3, 2014 21:38:20   #
SeniorVerdad
 
mwdegutis wrote:
There is no doubt that I stand behind Israel.

Why Do Our Media Support Palestinian Terrorists?
Chip Wood – Personal Liberty Digest

What on Earth is so wrong with the mainstream media in the United States that it can somehow find “equivalency” between the terroristic assaults Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip have ordered against Israel and what that beleaguered country is doing to defend itself?

And in many cases, the hand-wringing, condescending blowhards in our media don’t just blame both sides equally. No, they’ve somehow decided that Israel is the real culprit in the case.

But it is not Israel that is using its civilians, including children, as a human shield for waging war. It is not Israel that has hidden its rockets and mortars in schools, hospitals and civilian homes — and then ordered civilians not to leave the area.

It is not Israel that uses ambulances to disguise its armed combatants, as it moves them from place to place.

It is not Israel that has built dozens of tunnels under the border between the two areas and that uses them to transport weapons of war. Israeli forces have even captured Hamas infiltrators emerging from a tunnel carrying tranquilizers and handcuffs. Apparently, they were hoping to kidnap some Israeli civilians or soldiers, so they could demand another prisoner exchange. (Back in 2011, Israel agreed to trade 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier who had been kidnapped by Hamas.)

On Sunday, Hamas said it would extend a temporary cease-fire that both sides agreed to on Saturday for another 24 hours. But later that afternoon, it resumed firing rockets into Israel, claiming that Israel demonstrated “a lack of commitment” to the cease-fire.

I think you’ll agree that it’s hard to show a commitment to peace when rockets are raining down on you. The Israeli Defense Forces said in a statement: “Following Hamas’ incessant rocket fire throughout the humanitarian window, which was agreed upon for the welfare of the civilian population in Gaza, the IDF will now resume its aerial, naval and ground activity in the Gaza Strip.”

Thus far, Israeli authorities say that Hamas has launched more than 2,200 rocket attacks against them. Happily, most of them have been stopped by Israel’s very sophisticated Iron Dome defense system. Still, rocket attacks are a constant danger in the country.

The U.N. Security Council held an emergency meeting Sunday night and passed a resolution calling for “an immediate and unconditional cease-fire in Gaza.” The resolution also called for both sides to agree to “a comprehensive peace based on the vision of a region where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace with secure and recognized borders.”

Lots of luck getting the leaders of Hamas to agree to that. The group was founded to promote the killing of Jews and the destruction of Israel. Heck, even the U.S. State Department recognizes that it is a terrorist organization. It is not about to change its objectives or its methods of operation because the U.N. Security Council has issued another meaningless piece of paper.

Ron Prosor, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, said it was remarkable that the Security Council could pass a resolution that “miraculously managed not to mention Hamas, or rockets, or Israel’s right to defend its citizens.” And he added, “The equation is simple. When it is quiet in Israel, it will be quiet in Gaza.”

And so the fighting and bloodshed continue.

There is a lot about this situation that is absolutely appalling. But one thing I have to admire is Israel’s determination to protect its own citizens. I have often wished that our own government would demonstrate a fraction of Israel’s fortitude and resolve.

Wouldn’t you be a lot prouder of your country if it did?
There is no doubt that I stand behind Israel. br ... (show quote)


Saw an interview recently between the leader of Hamas and Charlie Rose and the gentleman was asked by CR if he believed that Israel had a right to exist and his answer was an emphatic NO!! If this is his view on Israel, what makes the Pres and John Kerry think they can broker a peace agreement.

Reply
Aug 3, 2014 23:13:53   #
Bruce Kennedy Loc: Kansas
 
alex wrote:
because it scares the shit out of the comucrats


It certainly doesn't scare me.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out topic: Don’t Say You Weren’t Warned
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.