Shabbat Shalom 11 Iyar 5768

Disciples of Chamberlain Angered
Democrats take offense to Bush comments in Israel

Thirteen months ago this upcoming week, my family and I met President George W. Bush. As I stood next to him in the Oval Office, I shook his hand, looked him directly in the eye and thanked him for his support of the state of Israel.

On Thursday President Bush took his support for the Jewish people directly to Israel as he addressed the Knesset while attending 60Th anniversary celebrations in the Jewish state. In typical Bush style the President spoke from the heart and while doing so enraged many Democratic leaders including their soon to be Presidential nominee.

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush stated to the Knesset. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is—the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Bush couldn't be more correct and the Democrats know it. They also know that he was speaking about the appeasement activities of Democrats such as former President Jimmy Carter who meets with Hamas and embraces their leadership. Bush probably had in mind the trip House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made to meet the President of Syria, a chief sponsor of terrorism world-wide. I'm sure he also was aware of the statements made by Sen. Barack Obama who wants to sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without any preconditions even though he continues to call for Israel to be wiped off the map.

Bush didn't name any names or cite any political Party, but various Democrats have taken offense by his comments. My question is if you aren't appeasers why do you think President Bush was talking about you?

The fact of the matter is that Neville Chamberlain is alive and well and resides in the foreign policy mindset of many Democrats and the far-left. While Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, Kerry and Biden are screaming bloody murder, the fact of the matter is that too many in their Party, including Sen. Obama and Speaker Pelosi are appeasers.

What I find hypocritical is Pelosi and the Obama camp claiming that Bush making these remarks on foreign soil is unprecedented and offensive. For starters, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore have made a second career out of ripping America in front of foreign audiences. Only after it became a political liability has Democrats condemned President Carter's recent meeting with Hamas.

The fact still remains that Bush never mentioned any names during is speech. How the President of the United States addressing the people of Israel and taking the opportunity to condemn appeasers of terrorism is offensive is beyond me. What was he suppose to talk about? Bagels and the latest album by Matisyahu?

GOP nominee sen. John McCain put Obama into perspective when he said, "I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. That’s what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people.” Amen!



Leave "sweetie" alone
Obama makes sexist remark to female reporter?

Just drop it people. Everyone knows that I believe that Barack Obama becoming President of the United States is nothing short of a nightmare. However various radio and cable news talk-show hosts are trying to make a mountain out of a slip of the tongue when he called a female television reporter "sweetie". Obama later called the reporter by phone to apologize admitting that the term is a "bad habit" of his.

We are all human. For example, I have a bad habit of instinctively yelling a terrible word whenever I see or hear Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (IL-D). I am also one who uses old fashion, outdated terms of endearment when speaking to many woman. I have done so since I was in my early 20's. Not once has it landed me in hot water. Woman tend to have an instinct that tells them if a word is used in a sexiest or demeaning manor compared to a real gesture of kindness. Obama was the latter.

Granted if John McCain did it, it would be the headline story in the New York Times and MSNBC would air the clip in a continuous loop. The reality is that this story is a smoke screen for other problems plaguing Obama, but if the right wing pundits want to dwell on this story instead of the fact that he is the heir apparent to Jimmy Carter, then Obama wins in November.


Blame it on the Gays
California ruling badly timed for Democrats

I often receive strange loooks from Republicans and most Democrats when I talk about homosexual issues. I consider myself a Republican leaning Libertarian and it's the limited government domination of my views that apparently makes me, dare I say a liberal, when it comes to Gay rights.

Simply put, government shouldn't legislate morality and my religious friends too often forget that they are being sinners for judging their fellow man. Is homosexuality a sin? If you believe in the old or new Testament than without a doubt it is. However, so are countless other things that we are all at some time in our life guilty of. I happen to believe that with murder being the exception, judging your fellow man and hate based prejudice are next in line. Do you fall into that category? Practice what you preach.

With the above lecture said, yesterdays ruling by the California Supreme Court making Gay marriage legal is not a positive decision for the Democratic Party.

Agree or disagree with the decision the debate about Gay marriage is non-exisstent. Bottom line, people overwhelmingly don't support it. Their belief is based on religious and family reasons. Better known as the two strongest rationales for any decision.

As we speak many states, including California are gearing to have marriage initiatives placed on the November ballot. GOP nominee John McCain is already having a problem getting his base to vote on election day. Now they will enthusiastically show up to the polls and while they are there they will remember who Barack Obama is and they will close their eyes and vote McCain.

You heard it here first. An Obama Candidacy against McCain has already slightly placed California in play. If they get the marriage initiative on the ballot, McCain chances are much greater. If a Republican wins California, it's over with, end of conversation.

From now until November, watch Obama avoid this issue like the plague, while the GOP utilizes the issue til no end. McCain won't dwell on it much, but he won't have too. At some point Obama will have to take a position and I guess it will be the politically advantageous position. No to Gay marriage, Yes on civil unions. Hmmmm just like President Bush.

I am curious if talk about Gay marriage will bring back the Rev. Wright controversey. Besides hating America and Jews, Obama's spiritual leader despises homosexuals. He makes Pat Robertson look like the Grand Marshall of the Gay Pride Parade.

As far as your brilliant blogger is concerned, Gay marriage is a non-issue. That opinion will disappoint religious and homosexual friends of mine, but it's how I feel. I have Gay friends who are or have been in long term relationships and if a religious institution wants to marry them, it's fine with me. Their relationship has no bearing on the safety and welfare of my family, America, Israel or this countries shift toward big government Socialism.

I also don't care if Uncle Sam wants to recognize my marriage. I got married in front of God not government bureaucrats. When it comes to same sex couples receiving marriage benefits from corporations, it's up to each company not congress. Gays should receive equal treatment under the law and should not be discriminated against.

As a parent I do believe that a two-parent household with a mommy and daddy is the best environment for a child. Gay adoption should not be illegal, I look at it as no different than a single parent adoption. However I do believe a stable family with a mommy and daddy should always be prioritized when it comes to adopting children. Political correctness and political agendas have no place in deciding what is best for kids. Common sense must always prevail.

But I digress.

In what should be a tragic year for the GOP may once again be saved by the Gay agenda. Be careful what you wish for.

Paulie