New York Rabbi Praises Ron Paul After Town Hall Meeting in New Hampshire

Just after a Town Hall Meeting In Meredith, New Hampshire, Presidential Candidate Ron Paul moves through the crowd as CSPAN cameras capture footage of a New York Rabbi praising him.

Watch the moment and hear what the Rabbi said.

Source: Revolution PAC

RNC Chairman Priebus & Co-Chairman Day Statement on the Celebration of Rosh Hashanah

By Matt Sauvage

WASHINGTON – Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus and Co-Chairman Sharon Day released the following statement celebrating Rosh Hashanah:

“As Jewish families in America and across the world come together to celebrate Rosh Hashanah, I wish them the happiest of New Years,” said Chairman Reince Priebus. “A celebration that spans six millennia, the holiday’s traditions have deep roots and great significance. The beginning of the Days of Awe reminds us of the central role that faith and family have played in forging our strong nation. During this time of remembrance and renewal, let us recommit ourselves to God and to a more hopeful future.”

“At sundown today, our Jewish friends and family mark the beginning of Rosh Hashanah, and I share their hopes for the year ahead,” said Co-Chairman Day. “As greetings of ‘L'shana tova’ are shared, we all pray ‘for a good and sweet year’—one of peace and prosperity.”

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Statement on Rosh Hashanah

By DNC Press

Tonight marks the beginning of the celebration of Rosh Hashanah. In recognition of that occasion, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz released the following statement:

“On this eve of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, we celebrate and reflect on how far we have come as a nation. During the past year, we have become a more perfect union. Millions of Americans are now experiencing the benefits of comprehensive health care reform, saving them money and saving lives. We have begun to fulfill a promise to our families, as American troops are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan. And we ended the discriminatory practice of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'

“However, we cannot forget the difficulties we have faced this year. This is a challenging time for our nation, as so many Americans are struggling just to make ends meet. Our country has been rocked by hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters and communities across the nation are still picking up the pieces. It is also a challenging time for our friend and ally, Israel, which continues to face attacks on her safety and legitimacy from hostile neighbors and the broader international community.

“If there is one lesson that these holidays teach us, it is that we must come together to embrace the ideals of reflection, forgiveness, and renewal. Together, we mark the year that was past, and as a community—as a nation—we forge on toward a better future.

“In the spirit of social justice, we must not rest until joblessness, homelessness, and discrimination are relics of history. In the spirit of those before us we must continue to protect the unbreakable bond between Israel and the United States, and stand up for her security. And in the spirit of tikkun olam, we must commit once again to build a better world together that is filled with justice and peace.

“Today, as I celebrate the new year with my own family, I hope you take the opportunity to share this holiday in health and happiness with those you love. May the next year be one of renewed hope in our dreams of all we aspire to be. L'shanah tovah u'metukah, and may you all have a peaceful 5772.”

Dialogues With Socialists: A Personal Message to the Marxists, part 2

By Zach Foster

Continued from Part 1

Recently there has been a rumor campaign among Los Angeles-based socialists slandering my character.  I’ve met a few people at various socialist meetings and we’ve even hit it off, discussing current events and exchanging ideas on Marxist theory.  Someone I know and care for (you know who you are!) let it slip that I’m not a Marxist (gasp)! What was that?  I’m not a Marxist???  Well, by default that means I must be an evil fascist bastard!  Alright, alright, I have yet to be called an evil bastard, but I have been called a fascist, a Neo Nazi, Neo Confederate, etc., and the rumor campaign being waged against me by these angry Reds states that I’m some sort of infiltrator and spy.

Really, folks?  Who’s the McCarthyist witch hunter now?  I’m genuinely disappointed at the amount of ignorant ill will being thrown at me.  I am neither an infiltrator nor a spy.  What these people are doing is the purest form of name calling—yes, just like angry children do over playground disagreements.  They’re engaging in childish name calling simply because they don’t like what I have to say.  I find it highly ironic that the people who so passionately advocate freedom of information and so strongly support Wikileaks all of a sudden have a problem with having their own secrets exposed (but somehow it’s okay to release the names of civilians who cooperated with American soldiers knowing full well that doing so puts these people in danger of insurgent retribution).

I keep getting accused of “red baiting,” another accusation that is completely untrue.  Red baiting literally means accusing someone of being a communist or a communist sympathizer.  When ultraconservatives call Barack Obama a communist, that is actual red baiting.  I have accused no one of being a communist or communist sympathizer (all the people I’ve written about have publicly come out as proud Marxists), nor have I denounced anyone for being one.  What my articles have done is stated theses and woven facts into well-reasoned arguments supporting my theses.  Unraveling a flawed ideology is not a denunciation; it is an intellectual argument.  Denunciation equals saying “That is evil.”  The message in my articles has been “That is not an option for improving society and this is why…”  But then again, it’s easier to slam my character and even write me off as a “red baiter” than it is to try to intelligently refute my arguments and prove me wrong.  That is name-calling in its most refined form.  It also begs the question: when they call me “bourgeois” does that mean they’re capitalist baiting?  Wow, actual capitalist baiting right when they’re complaining about nonexistent red baiting…  If so, that adds yet another thick odorous layer to the bitter onion that is their hypocrisy.

In order to put to rest the foolish idea that I’m some sort of spy or infiltrator, I’m neither.  Every meeting I’ve been to has been a public one, advertised openly on the internet.  The fact that I’ve been able to discuss Marxist theory with people shows that I have an understanding of Marxist theories and philosophies that is either equivalent to or greater than those of the people who believe these doctrines.  Some of these people I spoke with assumed, because of my understanding of Marxist theory, that I was a socialist.  Again, remember what happens when people assume…

One of them did have the courage to confront me personally and actually ask me whether or not the rumors were true, and I have unending respect for this person for actually seeking my side of the story.  I explained to him who I am and what the mission of The Political Spectrum is: to make every voice heard.  I also explained that my attendance of PUBLIC meetings was not for some twisted purpose of gathering information on people, as if I was a McCarthy-era with hunter, but rather to educate myself and to HEAR THEIR SIDE OF THE STORY rather than draw conclusions from my own assumptions.  My tendency to write about current events, economics, political philosophy, and political economy stems not only from my critical thinking but also from my permanent understanding and appreciation of my First Amendment rights.  Such freedoms of speech and expression are utilized and capitalized on by socialists and hardcore communists, even though the same rights are guaranteed to them by the founding documents of the very republic they wish to do away with.

When asked why I didn’t identify myself as a Republican, I simply answered, “Revealing myself as a Republican patriot (a.k.a. bourgeois nationalist) at a Leninist party (a.k.a. government takeover party) would be like claiming to be a neo-Nazi at a synagogue or an ethnic minority at a Ku Klux Klan meeting.”  I elaborated that identifying myself at those times would have painted a target on my back, causing intense distraction from the meetings through collective fear and distrust of my presence and motives, and that their current paranoia and rumor campaign steadily supports my thesis.  I also explained that I have a right to privacy, especially in a public forum like the ones I attended.  Why should I have to identify myself and my political affiliation, especially when I’m a minority among a group that is hostile to my ideals and the things I hold sacred?  According to standards like these, I might as well sow a yellow Star of David on my coat for whenever I go out in public.  For a philosophy that claims to be all-inclusive, it more closely begins to resemble fascism (but that’s another argument for another day).

Marxists ultimately believe that the revolution is coming and it will probably be a violent one.  Marxist-Leninists believe that not only will the revolution be violent, but that’s it’s their job to make it happen soon in order to save humanity.  I, however, have the audacity to believe that the war between capitalists and socialists ought to be a battle of ideas, the weapons being spoken and written words and the armor being powerful arguments and un-dismissible evidence.  You can call my idea a dream; I call it democracy.

END

Images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

What Role for the Jewish Media in a World of Growing Anti-Semitism?

By Hannah Rosenthal

Good morning. Mazel tov on this conference – the second one of its kind – it’s encouraging to see that it has doubled in size from last year. I am pleased to be joined by members of the European Parliament, the Israeli Ambassador, leaders of Jewish communities throughout Europe, Jewish organizations and students, and, of course, media representatives.

The subject of this conference is timely as in the 21st century we are still regrettably faced with anti-Semitism. In a world that is increasingly connected, sharing ideas across borders adds to the growing global dialogue, be it constructively or intolerantly. Jewish media needs to be a part of that conversation.

People get their news from many sources these days. Studies by the Pew Research Center and Advertising Age tell us that 77% of adults use the internet – 90% of whom are 18 to 29 years old. When it comes to time spent online, Facebook tops its rivals, with a user base of 517 million people, 70% of whom live outside the U.S. Another trend is the increased use of mobile phones, because they are cheaper than the cost to access the internet in many places. In the developing world, mobile phone applications bring the news to people’s hands.

74% of U.S. adults read newspapers at least once a week in print or on-line; this tends to be an educated, affluent readership. However, despite the trend in the U.S. and Western Europe of decreasing newspaper circulation, the rest of the world is experiencing a boom in newspapers in terms of titles and circulation. But what about the others, those who are less educated and less affluent? TV dominates among the less educated, although the internet is gaining on TV as the public’s main news source. Even relatively poor populations now consider TV a necessity, especially in the developing world. All these trends point to more media consumed around the world, starting with the youth, whose time is mostly spent on social media. This next generation – our future—means that Jewish media needs to adapt to play the changing media game, not only in Europe, but across the developing world.

In my role as the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, I have been tracking the rise in anti-Semitism around the world, most notably in Europe. Let me assure you of the unwavering commitment of the Obama Administration to this cause. The President began his Administration speaking out against intolerance as a global ill. In his historic speech in Cairo, he signaled a new path that embraces a vision of a world based on mutual interest and mutual respect; a world that honors the dignity of all human beings. President Obama and Secretary Clinton have honored me with this appointment and have elevated my office and have fully integrated it into the State Department.

We are attempting -- through diplomacy, public messaging and grassroots programs all over the world -- to confront and combat hatred in all its ugly forms, whether it is hatred directed against people on account of their religion, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation or differences of political opinion or due to their country of origin. Anti-Semitism is one such form of hatred rooted in historical forces that go far beyond any current policy debate. If we want to change this trend, we need to stand together in our efforts to promote tolerance, acceptance and compassion. In that vein, we need to support and encourage Jewish and non-Jewish media outlets alike in their efforts to reveal the ignorance inherent in hateful ideologies like anti-Semitism.

I am here in Brussels on the tail end of a trip which began in Saudi Arabia. I have also visited Jordan, Lebanon and Lithuania. In Lithuania, I spoke to teachers in a Holocaust education program, co-sponsored by the Lithuanian and U.S. Governments. I saw first-hand the impact that social institutions, especially schools, can have on developing a sense of tolerance and responsibility in the minds of our children. These experiences remind me of the importance of the work that I have been charged with as the Special Envoy.

When this year began, I planned to focus my efforts on fighting anti-Semitism in the Arab media and Islamic textbooks. On my recent trip, I met with a range of government officials, women’s and youth groups, and interfaith and non-governmental organizations in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Lebanon. I also met members of the press and bloggers in the Middle East.

In meeting with press, I am so often inspired by the efforts of journalists, news correspondents, photographers and others in the field to bring to light the important issues we face every day. While I am encouraged by the endless opportunities offered by the media, I also feel a sense of anxiety about its potential for misuse. A phrase, image or sound bite can affect millions of people in an instant, especially where no counterweight is present. In a world of increasing anti-Semitism, it is crucial that we understand the power of the media to change the minds and hearts of those who hate. Likewise, it is crucial for us to work hand in hand with other groups in their struggle for tolerance through the media.

In many countries, restrictive laws and administrative measures constrain fundamental rights to freedom of expression. The United States recognizes that areas for improvement exist in combating religious intolerance; however, we believe that the best response to hateful speech is debate and dialogue that condemns it and fosters tolerance. Not only do we believe that particular restrictions on expression violate universal human rights, we are convinced that they are counterproductive and exacerbate the very problems they seek to address.

I firmly believe that the most effective way to counter hateful speech and forms of anti-Semitism is by raising voices and taking actions that counter it. Bringing these hateful ideas to light reveals them for what they are and allows people to speak out against them. As President Obama said in Cairo, “suppressing ideas does not make them go away.” The media acts not only as the vehicle to amplify a variety of ideas, but it can also help expose the negative aspects of discriminatory ideas and actions. It is for this reason that I make it a priority to meet with bloggers and journalists wherever I go. The Jewish community must use media to put the spotlight on anti-Semitism and other hate speech wherever and whenever it appears.

At the State Department, we use the full range of media outlets at our disposal to get our message out; we use our webpage, State.gov; our embassy webpages; our blog, DipNote; Twitter; Facebook; webchats; traveling speakers; You Tube; Flickr; and daily press briefings. We tweet in nine languages – Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, French, Hindi, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, and Urdu and have over a 100,000 followers. We have a daily press briefing with domestic and international journalists, issue press releases, place op-eds, make speeches and provide testimony to Congress, as well as post online the remarks of the Secretary of State and other Department principals. We also have briefings for foreign journalists through our Foreign Press Centers in New York and Washington, as well as in media hubs around the world, including here in Brussels. The State Department uses international media engagement to communicate our priorities. In the same way, it’s critical that Jewish media and non-Jewish media cover Jewish priorities, and work together to combat anti-Semitism and intolerance.

As the President’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, I am charged with both monitoring anti-Semitic incidents and combating intolerance. As a child of a Holocaust survivor, anti-Semitism is extremely personal. When I was old enough to begin to understand what my father went through as the only member of his family to survive World War II, I asked him how he handled his guilt and kept his sanity. He didn’t miss a beat and said: “I survived to have you, Hannele!” – thus taking that guilt off his shoulders and putting it squarely on mine – and, as a result, I have dedicated my life to eradicating anti-Semitism and intolerance with a sense of urgency and passion that only my dad could give me.

Our daily actions are of great import, and I hope this conference will help us create connections in partnering to combat intolerance and promote understanding in our world. In addition to the larger communications managed by the State Department’s bureau of Public Affairs and bureau of International Information Programs, one of the things I do is to compile a weekly summary of news articles from around the world – thanks to the Internet, we have access to many sources, including some of the publications represented here today. These items are subsequently posted on my Facebook page under the heading “What We Are Hearing” so that social media users are more aware of anti-Semitism around the world.

I have been on the job for over a year now – and I’ve been hearing about six significant trends in anti-Semitism around the world:

I meet people who think anti-Semitism ended when Hitler killed himself. However, anti-Semitism is not History, it is News. More than six decades after the end of the Second World War, anti-Semitism is still alive and well, and evolving into new, contemporary forms of religious hatred, racism, and political, social and cultural bigotry.

This stems from the fact that traditional forms of anti-Semitism are passed from one generation to the next, and updated to reflect current events. We are all familiar with ongoing hostile acts such as the defacing of property, and the desecration of cemeteries with anti-Semitic graffiti. There are still accusations of blood libel, which are morphing from the centuries-old accusations by the Church that Jews kill Christian children to use their blood for rituals, to accusations that Jews kidnap children to steal their organs. Conspiracy theories continue to flourish, and “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” continue to be best sellers in many countries, often being taught to religious students as truth. For example, in April, the state-run radio in Venezuela urged everyone to buy and read “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” I asked my colleague, the Special Representative to Muslim Communities, to issue a statement condemning this action. Her voice, and those of others, helped lead to that official being fired in May.

A second phenomenon is Holocaust denial. It is being espoused by religious leaders, heads of State, such as in Iran, in academic institutions, and is a standard on hateful websites and other media outlets. As the generation of Holocaust survivors and death camp liberators reaches their eighties and nineties, the window is closing on those able to provide eyewitness accounts and thus we have a heightened sense of urgency to promote Holocaust education, create museums and memorials, and carry the memory and lessons of the Holocaust forward. I am happy to report that in Lithuania, and in other European countries, the U.S. and OSCE provide funding for teacher training in Holocaust education to battle this trend.

Ironically, we also see the antithesis of this as there is a third, disturbing, parallel trend of Holocaust glorification which can be seen in events that openly display Nazi symbols and in the growth of neo-Nazi groups. In Latvia recently, a notorious neo-Nazi made blatantly anti-Semitic statements, including incitements to violence against Jews, on a Latvian television talk show. Holocaust glorification and the growth of neo-Nazi groups is especially virulent in Middle Eastern media – some of which is state owned and operated - calling for a new Holocaust to finish the job. Truly bone-chilling.

A fourth concern is Holocaust relativism – where some governments, museums, academic research and the like are conflating the Holocaust with other terrible events that entailed great human suffering, like the Dirty War or the Soviet regime. No one, least of all myself, wants to weigh atrocities against each other, but to group these horrific chapters of history together is not only historically inaccurate, but also misses the opportunity to learn important lessons from each of these historic events, even as we reflect on universal truths about the need to defend human rights and combat hatred in all of its forms. History must be precise – it must instruct, it must warn, and it must inspire us to protect universal values as we strive to mend this fractured world.

The fifth trend is the increasing tendency of blurring the lines between opposition to the policies of the State of Israel and anti-Semitism. What I hear from our diplomatic missions, and from non-governmental organizations alike, is that this happens easily and often. I want to be clear – criticism of policies of the State of Israel is not anti-Semitism. But we record huge increases in anti-Semitism whenever there are hostilities in the Middle East. This form of anti-Semitism is more difficult for many to identify. But if all Jews are held responsible for the decisions of the sovereign State of Israel, when governments like Venezuela call upon and intimidate their Jewish communities to condemn Israeli actions – this is not objecting to a policy – this is anti-Semitism. When all academics and experts from Israel are effectively banned or their conferences boycotted, or individual Jews are held responsible for Israeli policy – this is not objecting to a policy – this is anti-Semitism.

Natan Sharansky identified the “three Ds” that cross the line: “It is anti-Semitic when Israel is demonized, held to different standards or delegitimized.” This is more readily illustrated by the fact that the U.S. is often the only “no” vote in international bodies where countries seem to have an obsession with singling out Israel for disproportionate condemnation.

The sixth trend is the growing nationalistic movements which target ‘the other’ – be they immigrants, or religious and ethnic minorities -- in the name of protecting the identity and ‘purity’ of their nation. When this fear or hatred of the ‘other’ occurs or when people try to find a scapegoat for the instability around them, it is rarely good for the Jews, or for that matter, other traditionally discriminated against minorities. The history of Europe, with Russian pogroms, Nazism and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans provides sufficient evidence. When government officials talk about protecting a country’s purity, we’ve seen that movie before. This is a good opportunity for Jewish media to reach out to other faith-based media to educate its counterparts on the problems we face and encourage them to report on these issues. We, in turn, should be prepared to reciprocate.

The State Department monitors these trends and activities and reports on them in all 194 countries in two major annual reports: The International Religious Freedom Report and the Human Rights Report. They are posted on the State Department website and on HumanRights.gov. I am now involved in developing a major training initiative for State Department employees so they can better monitor what is happening in the countries where they serve, and sensitize them to the various forms of anti-Semitism. This will make our annual reports more comprehensive, and allow us to do an even better job of monitoring and confronting anti-Semitism in all its forms. These reports tell us that many countries are pushing hard to advance human rights and fight discrimination. It also tells us that there is so much more work to do. If we don’t chronicle it, if we don’t name it, we can’t fight it.

My approach to combating anti-Semitism is not just to preach to the choir, so to speak, but to join in partnership with non-Jews in condemning it – partnerships with governments, civil society, international institutions, business leaders, labor unions, and media.

And I would encourage all of us here to reach out to our counterparts in non-Jewish media, be it secular or faith-based. Sometimes, the messenger is as important as the message. If the non-Jewish media speaks out against anti-Semitism, people will take notice.

Last summer, Secretary Clinton launched an initiative to strengthen civil society across the globe and she instructed the State Department, including all overseas posts, to treat civil society as strategic partners because such relationships help us to build bridges among ethnic and religious groups and to change a culture – from one steeped in fear and negative stereotyping to one of acceptance and understanding; from narrow mindedness to celebrated diversity; from hate to tolerance.

I have an official website on State.gov and I am using Facebook and other social media to connect with all people – especially youth -- globally, and to encourage them to go beyond words, speeches, or even lectures by providing a vehicle for them to DO something tangible to promote tolerance and practice mutual respect. In February, my colleague Farah Pandith, the Special Representative to Muslims Communities, and I launched a virtual campaign called 2011 Hours Against Hate. We are asking young people around the world to pledge an unspecified number of hours to volunteer to help or serve a population different than their own. We have a Facebook page for this initiative, as well as a page for it on State.gov. We ask them to work with people who may look different, or pray differently or live differently. For example, a young Jew might volunteer time to read books at a Muslim pre-school, or a Russian Orthodox at a Jewish clinic, or a Muslim at a Baha’i food pantry. We want to encourage them to walk a mile in another person’s shoes.

Farah and I began meeting with hundreds of young people earlier this year – students and young professionals – in Azerbaijan, Spain and Turkey – countries that in their histories celebrated Jews and Muslims co-existing and thriving together. They want to DO something. They expressed strong interest in the campaign – and we have already surpassed our goal of 2011 hours pledged against hate. Really, we have just begun. Last week, Farah and I met with youth and interfaith leaders in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Lebanon.

These are just some examples of how I and the Department of State use media daily. Anti-Semitism has been around since the beginning of Judaism, but since then, too, good people of all faiths and backgrounds have striven to combat it. The Jewish tradition tells us that “you are not required to complete the task, but neither are you free to desist from it.” Let’s all work together – let us, the Jewish, other faith and secular media representatives here today, use all forms of media at our disposal in our fight against anti-Semitism.

Dialogues with Socialists: Jesus Christ and Karl Marx

Continued from Part 1: Racism and Civil Rights

Zach Foster: … And really, the gov't CAN'T infringe on people's right to be bigots. They can't be forced to be good people, but only forced to obey laws. Furthermore Soviet, ask yourself what your revolution would do to these bigots once the proletariat comes to power?

Soviet Socialist: The majority vote decides what to do with these people, not "my government", as an isolated minority making decisions on their definition of "morality" like what the tone of your text insinuates. And as I've mentioned before, Islamophobia and xenophobia have once again become very real and all inclusive phenomena within our society which denotes racism ever present here. QED racism is far from being a "thing of the past". Thirdly, we aren't speaking of violence and "gradual change", opportunism and reformism vs. "Machiavellian" politics...we are talking about racism and on if the Libertarian Party can provide. Stick with it. Stop attempting to find random opportunities to red bait. Fourthly, I don't condone Socialist Worker’s comment of the "rich white" stereotype but for the past thousands of years, prominent members of society have been WASPs, and when racism reignites, normally Caucasians don't get thrown into camps, pulled over at check points or are deported for being white. And lastly, in regards to the comment of people finding themselves in glorious positions because of alleged intelligence...come off it. Bush, Hitler, Caesar, Napoleon, Stalin, Franco and the CEOs of companies that DO NOT pay taxes (GE, Verizon, Chase, Bank of America, etc.) could NOT have possibly worked as hard as single mothers, immigrants, and residents of third world countries in the simple matter of trying to survive let alone have IQs anywhere near a gifted level. Fail. And don't be so rash as to mistake bitterness for a compassion for the downtrodden and a vendetta to the oppressors. If this was truly a great basis for intellectual thought, then Homer, Voltaire, Aristotle, Albert Einstein, Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. DuBois, and Steinbeck were all teenage cheerleaders on their periods.

Oh, and Jesus for that matter, since he DID rebel against that days law and order, shared compassion for sinners when others beat them down, and revolted against the "intelligent and glorious" leaders of the wealthier class.

Zach Foster: Alrighty then, I sense dodging on what I'm asking you. One more time: in regards to do with these people. Suppose YOU voted in the new society on what to do with bigots. What would your vote be? I'm not red baiting; I'm asking a question and you're avoiding giving a direct answer. What would you vote to be done with these bigots, and would others vote similarly?

FACT: Biggest Islamophobes I've ever encountered and whose works I've read are non-Muslims from the Middle East. Many are Jews and some are Christians. The find nothing wrong with Quranic teaching, especially since Surah Al Baqrah 2.62 teaches that all Muslims, Christians, Jews and Sabyans who believe in God will get into heaven. What they do have a problem with is the spread of medieval Islam, the way it’s practiced in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, etc., because medieval Islam is still in the crusader mindset and has ignored its own peaceful scripture.

FACT: Bush, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Nicolai Ceaucescu, Tito, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Franco, Napoleon, etc. worked 12-20 hour days. They were all @$$holes; all were warmongers while some were outright genocidal, WHICH IS BESIDE THE POINT, oh capitalist baiter. Still, their labor is DIFFERENT from the labor of a single mother or a factory worker, just like a doctor's labor is different from an artist's and a coal miner's, therefore, a head of state's labor cannot be compared to other kinds of labor except that most if not all heads of state, and CEOs, work just as long and just as intensely as whatever X, Y, or Z labor you want to compare it to.

FACT: In most of the above dictators' concentration camps, the vast overwhelming majority of prisoners were of the SAME RACE as their persecutors. The real difference was ideas: utopian National Socialism against Judaism, international socialism, homosexuality, etc.; utopian Marxist-Leninism versus capitalists, petty bourgeois socialists, and other counter-revolutionaries; monarchal Republicans versus fascist Nationalists, etc.

FACT: DuBois and Einstein were international socialists. Voltaire was a nobleman who favored social REFORM, NOT REVOLUTION. Homer, Aristotle, Douglass, and Steinbeck were social reformers who were PATRIOTIC to their respective STATE.

FACT: Jesus of Nazareth, known by over a billion as the Christ, and by an additional billion as a holy prophet, advocated kindness and HOLINESS because it is the will of GOD. Jesus the rabbi taught that GOD made things good, therefore we as His creations ought to be good. He also taught loyalty and fidelity to GOD (not the dialectic), to be a city on the hill and a bright shining light in order to help others return to the grace of GOD. He also said RENDER TO CAESAR THE THINGS THAT ARE CAESAR'S (i.e. taxes, citizenship, community service, etc.) AND TO GOD THE THINGS THAT ARE GOD’S=== (i.e. worship, devotion, the soul). Never once did Jesus advocate uprisings. Furthermore, Jesus taught that ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD, and that ALL SINNERS CAN RETURN TO RIGHTEOUSNESS AND INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Example: Saul persecuted Christians violently for years, until his conversion. He then became a devout Christian and prolific writer and preacher. Marxism teaches people to have compassion for other proles while holding a vendetta against the “oppressors.”

CONCLUSION: Many of your above-used analogies are marred with fallacies and are erroneous. I will now divert this conversation back to the MAIN IDEA: RON PAUL and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[smiley emoticon]

Moderate: You go Zach. Islamaphobia...we don't care about their skin color...or even the way they worship....it's the radical extreme terrorist lifestyle some have chosen. Us whiteys don't give a rat's @$$ about their freaking ultimate conservative clothing selections. We do care about the ones who mistreat women and treat them as if it's the middle ages still. They do have a lifestyle goal in mind for the world...I believe it's called something like "Sharia" or something close to that. I read it last week on someone else's post. It's all about world domination by a systematic infiltration of poor areas of a city. Befriending the poor and weak with their propaganda. Not my world... Don't go planning how you're going to take over my country. Funny Soviet, how you stand up for the rights of all these others...and none of them have asked you to do so on their behalf. Also, how you put down anything that currently has governmental power....what has our country done to you personally, to make you so bitter? ...And I don't want to hear about anyone else’s causes.....just your own personal experience that brought you to this point....and please remember...anything you read, or were taught to believe...is second hand.....I need firsthand experience.

Zach Foster: Moderate, here's a GREAT article I read about “revolutionary” mindsets in the 20th century. [Link: article – About Socialism and Socialists by Frank Chodorov]

Moderate: Thanks Zach.  That's a lot to read...I'll muddle through it.

Zach Foster: lol it takes about 10 mins

Next: What does this all mean? REALITY vs. [Red] fiction

Passover at the White House

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama mark the beginning of Passover with a Seder in the Old Family Dining Room of the White House, April 18, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Peace in the Middle East: Remarks at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy Seventh Annual Forum

By Hillary Rodham Clinton

Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate the introduction, but nothing is imminent – (laughter) – so far as I know. But it is a great pleasure for me to be back here and part of this very important forum.

And I appreciate your introduction. I appreciate the friendship that you and Cheryl have given to me and to my family. You’ve been friends for many years. And certainly, as anyone who knows Haim understands, as an entrepreneur, a philanthropist, he is unparalleled, but also as a champion for peace. He represents in many ways in the best qualities of both Israel and America. He’s generous, he’s irrepressible, and absolutely unstoppable. And he has dedicated his energy and support to so many important causes and helped so many people. But he has probably no deeper passion than the one we are here discussing tonight – strengthening U.S.-Israeli relations and securing a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

So I thank him and I thank Strobe Talbott, I thank Martin Indyk, and I thank all of you. And in particular, I appreciate your bringing us together to discuss the crucial issues surrounding the Middle East. I also want to acknowledge all of the colleagues from Israel who are here. Certainly, you’ll hear in a minute from Defense Minister Barak.

There are other members of the Israeli Government here – opposition leader Livni, and I’m delighted that Prime Minister Fayyad is also with us. Prime Minister Fayyad has accomplished a great deal in a short amount of time under very difficult circumstances. Along with President Abbas, he has brought strong leadership to the Palestinian Authority and he has helped advance the cause of a two-state solution by making a real difference in the lives of the Palestinian people. So Mr. Prime Minister, welcome again to Washington and thank you for your very good work. (Applause.)

Now, you don’t have to read secret diplomatic cables to know that we are meeting during a difficult period in the pursuit of peace in the Middle East. I understand and indeed I share the deep frustrations of many of you in this room and across the region and the world. But rather than dwell on what has come before, I want to focus tonight on the way forward, on America’s continuing engagement in helping the parties achieve a two-state solution that ends the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians once and for all, and on what it will take, finally, to realize that elusive, but essential goal.

Before I go further, I want to offer the deepest condolences of the American people for the lives lost in the recent fires in Northern Israel. Israelis are always among the first to lend a hand when an emergency strikes anywhere in the world. So when the fires began to burn, people and nations stepped up and offered help. It was remarkable to watch. Turkey sent planes; Egypt and Jordan donated chemicals and equipment; the Palestinian Authority dispatched firefighters and their trucks; and the United States was also part of the effort deploying expert firefighters, C-130 cargo planes, and thousands of gallons of chemicals and suppressants. It was testament once again to the deep and enduring bonds that unite our two countries, to the partnership between our governments, and the friendship between our people.

The United States will always be there when Israel is threatened. We say it often, but it bears repeating: America’s commitment to Israel’s security and its future is rock solid and unwavering, and that will not change. From our first days in office, the Obama Administration has reaffirmed this commitment. For me and for President Obama, this is not simply a policy position. It is also a deeply held personal conviction.

Over the last two years under President Obama’s leadership, the United States has expanded our cooperation with Israel and focused in particular on helping Israel meet the most consequential threats to its future as a secure and democratic Jewish state. Our security relationship has grown broader, deeper, and more intense than ever before. And we have not just worked to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge. We have increased it through new advances like the Iron Dome, a short-range rocket defense system that will help protect Israeli homes and cities. And our military continues to work closely with the IDF through exchanges, training, and joint exercises.

For Israel and for the region, there may be no greater strategic threat than the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. We just heard my husband speaking to that. And let me restate clearly: The United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. And along with our international partners, we have implemented tough new sanctions whose bite is being felt in Tehran. Iran’s leaders face a clear choice, one of those tough choices that Strobe mentioned as the theme of this forum: Meet your international responsibilities or face continued isolation and consequences.

We have also stepped up efforts to block the transfer of dangerous weapons and financing to terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. But Iran and its proxies are not the only threat to regional stability or to Israel’s long-term security. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and between Israel and Arab neighbors is a source of tension and an obstacle to prosperity and opportunity for all the people of the region. It denies the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and it poses a threat to Israel’s future security. It is at odds also with the interests of the United States.

I know that improvements in security and growing prosperity have convinced some that this conflict can be waited out or largely ignored. This view is wrong and it is dangerous. The long-term population trends that result from the occupation are endangering the Zionist vision of a Jewish and democratic state in the historic homeland of the Jewish people. Israelis should not have to choose between preserving both elements of their dream. But that day is approaching.

At the same time, the ever-evolving technology of war, especially the expanding reach of the rockets amassed on Israel’s borders means that it will be increasingly difficult to guarantee the security of Israeli families throughout the country without implementing peace agreements that answer these threats.

Continuing conflict also strengthens the hands of extremists and rejectionists across the region while sapping the support of those open to coexistence and cooperation. Radicalization of the region’s young people and growing support for violent ideologies undermine the stability and prosperity of the Middle East. The United States looks at these trends. We reflect on our deep and unwavering support of the state of Israel and we conclude without a shadow of a doubt that ending this conflict once and for all and achieving a comprehensive regional peace is imperative for safeguarding Israelis’ future.

We also look at our friends the Palestinians, and we remember the painful history of a people who have never had a state of their own, and we are renewed in our determination to help them finally realize their legitimate aspirations. The lack of peace and the occupation that began in 1967 continue to deprive the Palestinian people of dignity and self-determination. This is unacceptable, and, ultimately, it too is unsustainable.

So for both Israelis and Palestinians and, indeed, for all the people of the region, it is in their interest to end this conflict and bring a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace to the Middle East based on two states for two peoples.

For two years, you have heard me and others emphasize again and again that negotiations between the parties is the only path that will succeed in securing their respective aspirations; for the Israelis, security and recognition; for the Palestinians, an independent, viable sovereign state of their own. This remains true today. There is no alternative other than reaching mutual agreement. The stakes are too high, the pain too deep, and the issues to complex for any other approach.

Now, it is no secret that the parties have a long way to go and that they have not yet made the difficult decisions that peace requires. And like many of you, I regret that we have not gotten farther faster in our recent efforts. That is why yesterday and today I met with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators and underscored our seriousness about moving forward with refocused goals and expectations.

It is time to grapple with the core issues of the conflict on borders and security; settlements, water and refugees; and on Jerusalem itself. And starting with my meetings this week, that is exactly what we are doing. We will also deepen our strong commitment to supporting the state-building work of the Palestinian Authority and continue to urge the states of the region to develop the content of the Arab Peace Initiative and to work toward implementing its vision.

Over recent months, Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas have met face to face multiple times. I have been privileged to be present during their meetings in Sharm el-Sheikh, in Jerusalem, and in Washington. I have also had the chance to talk with each leader privately. These were meaningful talks that yielded new clarity about the gaps that must be bridged.

Significantly, both sides decided together to pursue a framework agreement that would establish the fundamental compromises on all permanent status issues and pave the way for a final peace treaty.

Reaching this goal will not be easy by any means. The differences between the two sides are real and they are persistent. But the way to get there is by engaging, in good faith, with the full complexities of the core issues and by working to narrow the gaps between the two sides.

By doing this, the parties can begin to rebuild confidence, demonstrate their seriousness, and hopefully find enough common ground on which to eventually re-launch direct negotiations and achieve that framework.

The parties have indicated that they want the United States to continue its efforts. And in the days ahead, our discussions with both sides will be substantive two-way conversations with an eye toward making real progress in the next few months on the key questions of an eventual framework agreement. The United States will not be a passive participant. We will push the parties to lay out their positions on the core issues without delay and with real specificity. We will work to narrow the gaps asking the tough questions and expecting substantive answers. And in the context of our private conversations with the parties, we will offer our own ideas and bridging proposals when appropriate.

We enter this phase with clear expectations of both parties. Their seriousness about achieving an agreement will be measured by their engagement on these core issues. And let me say a few words about some of the important aspects of these issues we will be discussing.

First, on borders and security. The land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean is finite, and both sides must know exactly which parts belong to each. They must agree to a single line drawn on a map that divides Israel from Palestine and to an outcome that implements the two-state solution with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt. The Palestinian leaders must be able to show their people that the occupation will be over. Israeli leaders must be able to offer their people internationally recognized borders that protect Israel’s security. And they must be able to demonstrate to their people that the compromises needed to make peace will not leave Israel vulnerable. Security arrangements must prevent any resurgence of terrorism and deal effectively with new and emerging threats. Families on both sides must feel confident in their security and be able to live free from fear.

Second, on refugees. This is a difficult and emotional issue, but there must be a just and permanent solution that meets the needs of both sides.

Third, on settlements. The fate of existing settlements is an issue that must be dealt with by the parties along with the other final status issues. But let me be clear: The position of the United States on settlements has not changed and will not change. Like every American administration for decades, we do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. We believe their continued expansion is corrosive not only to peace efforts and two-state solution, but to Israel’s future itself.

And finally, on Jerusalem which is profoundly important for Jews, Muslims, and Christians everywhere. There will surely be no peace without an agreement on this, the most sensitive of all the issues. The religious interests of people of all faiths around the world must be respected and protected. We believe that through good faith negotiations, the parties should mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations for both parties, for Jerusalem, and safeguard its status for people around the world.

These core issues are woven together. Considering the larger strategic picture makes it easier to weigh the compromises that must be made on both sides and see the benefits to be gained. We are not moving forward in a vacuum. From day one, the Obama Administration has recognized the importance of making progress on two simultaneous and mutually reinforcing tracks – negotiations between the parties and institution-building that helps the Palestinians as they prepare to govern their own state. Improvements on the ground give confidence to negotiators and help create a climate for progress at the peace table.

So even as we engage both sides on the core issues with an eye toward eventually restarting direct negotiations, we will deepen our support of the Palestinians’ state-building efforts. Because we recognize that a Palestinian state achieved through negotiations is inevitable.

I want, once again, to commend President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad for their leadership in this effort. Under the Palestinian Authority’s Two-Year State-Building plan, security has improved dramatically, services are being delivered, and the economy is growing.

It is of course true that much work remains to reverse a long history of corruption and mismanagement. But Palestinians are rightfully proud of the progress they have achieved, and the World Bank recently concluded that if the Palestinian Authority maintains its momentum in building institutions and delivering public services, it is – and I quote – “Well positioned for the establishment of a state at any point in the near future.”

The United States is continuing our efforts to support this important work along with many other international partners, NGOs and governments, including the government of Israel to bring together key players to focus on solving specific challenges in the region, including in the Palestinian territories, we have launched an initiative called Partners for a New Beginning chaired by Madeleine Albright, Walter Isaacson, and Muhtar Kent. And we are working directly with the Palestinian Authority on a range of issues. Last month I was pleased to announce the transfer of an additional $150 million in direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority.

This fall, to cite one example, American experts in partnership with the Palestinian Water Authority, began drilling new and much needed wells in Hebron. And with recent Israeli approvals, we soon will begin several water infrastructure projects in Gaza that the Palestinian Authority has identified as priorities. These and other efforts to expand wastewater treatment and provide sanitation services have already helped 12,000 Palestinian families gain access to clean water.

The United States is working with the Palestinian Authority, with Israel, and with international partners to ease the situation in Gaza and increase the flow of needed commercial goods and construction supplies while taking appropriate measures to ensure they don’t fall into the wrong hands. We are pleased with Israel’s recent decision to allow more exports from Gaza which will foster legitimate economic growth there. This is an important and overdue step, and we look forward to seeing it implemented.

Now, we also look forward to working with Israel and the Palestinian Authority on further improvements while maintaining pressure on Hamas to end the weapons smuggling and accept the fundamental principles of peacemaking – recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and abiding by past agreements. This is the only path to achieve Palestinians’ dreams of independence.

Security is one area where the Palestinian Authority has made some of its most dramatic progress. I have seen it myself on recent trips to the West Bank, where well-trained and well-equipped Palestinian security forces stood watchful guard. Families in Nablus and Jenin shop, work, and play with a newfound sense of security, which also contributes to the improved economic conditions. As the Palestinian security forces continue to become more professional and capable, we look to Israel to facilitate their efforts. And we hope to see a significant curtailment of incursions by Israeli troops into Palestinian areas.

But for all the progress on the ground and all that the Palestinian Authority has accomplished, a stubborn truth remains: While economic and institutional progress is important, indeed necessary, it is not a substitute for a political resolution. The legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people will never be satisfied, and Israel will never enjoy secure and recognized borders until there is a two-state solution that ensures dignity, justice, and security for all.

This outcome is also in the interests of Israel’s neighbors. The Arab states have a pivotal role to play in ending the conflict. Egypt and Jordan in particular have been valuable partners for peace. In the days ahead, as we engage with the parties on the core issues and support the Palestinian people’s efforts to build their own institutions, we will also continue our diplomacy across the region and with our partners in the Quartet. Senator Mitchell will leave this weekend for Jerusalem and Ramallah and will then visit a number of Arab and European capitals.

Our message remains the same: The Arab states have an interest in a stable and secure region. They should take steps that show Israelis, Palestinians, and their own people that peace is possible and that there will be tangible benefits if it is achieved. Their support makes it easier for the Palestinians to pursue negotiations and a final agreement. And their cooperation is necessary for any future peace between Israel and Lebanon and Israel and Syria.

We continue to support the vision of the Arab Peace Initiative, a vision of a better future for all the people of the Middle East. This landmark proposal rests on the basic bargain that peace between Israel and her neighbors will bring recognition and normalization from all the Arab states. It is time to advance this vision with actions, as well as words. And Israel should seize the opportunity presented by this initiative while it is still available.

In the end, no matter how much the United States and other nations around the region and the world work to see a resolution to this conflict, only the parties themselves will be able to achieve it. The United States and the international community cannot impose a solution. Sometimes I think both parties seem to think we can. We cannot. And even if we could, we would not, because it is only a negotiated agreement between the parties that will be sustainable. The parties themselves have to want it. The people of the region must decide to move beyond a past that cannot change and embrace a future they can shape together.

As a political figure, a Senator, and now as Secretary of State, I have seen what it takes for old adversaries to make sacrifices and come together on common ground. Unfortunately, as we have learned, the parties in this conflict have often not been ready to take the necessary steps. Going forward, they must take responsibility and make the difficult decisions that peace requires.

And this begins with a sincere effort to see the world through the other side’s eyes, to try to understand their perspective and positions. Palestinians must appreciate Israel’s legitimate security concerns. And Israelis must accept the legitimate territorial aspirations of the Palestinian people. Ignoring the other side’s needs is, in the end, self-defeating.

To have a credible negotiating partner, each side must give the other the room, the political space to build a constituency for progress. Part of this is recognizing that Israeli and Palestinian leaders each have their own domestic considerations that neither side can afford to ignore. It takes two sides to agree on a deal and two sides to implement a deal. Both need credibility and standing with their own people to pull it off.

So this is also about how the leaders prepare their own people for compromise. Demonizing the other side will only make it harder to bring each public around to an eventual agreement.

By the same token, to build trust and momentum, both sides need to give the other credit when they take a hard step. As we begin to grapple with the core issues, each side will have to make difficult decisions, and they deserve credit when they do so. And it should not just be the United States that acknowledges moves that are made; the parties themselves must do so as well.

To demonstrate their commitment to peace, Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas and their respective teams should take these steps. They should help build confidence, work to minimize distractions, and focus on the core questions, even in a period when they are not talking directly.

To demonstrate their commitment to peace, Israeli and Palestinian leaders should stop trying to assign blame for the next failure, and focus instead on what they need to do to make these efforts succeed.

And to demonstrate their commitment to peace, they should avoid actions that prejudge the outcome of negotiations or undermine good faith efforts to resolve final status issues. Unilateral efforts at the United Nations are not helpful and undermine trust. Provocative announcements on East Jerusalem are counterproductive. And the United States will not shy away from saying so.

America is serious about peace. We know the road forward will not be easy. But we are convinced that peace is both necessary and possible. So we will be persistent and press forward. We will push the parties to grapple with the core issues. We will work with them on the ground to continue laying the foundations for a future Palestinian state. And we will redouble our regional diplomacy. When one way is blocked, we will seek another. We will not lose hope and neither should the people of the region.

Peace is worth the struggle. It is worth the setbacks and the heartaches. A just and lasting peace will transform the region. Israelis will finally be able to live in security, at peace with their neighbors, and confident in their future. Palestinians will at last have the dignity and justice they deserve with a state of their own and the freedom to chart their own destiny. Across the Middle East, moderates and advocates of peace and coexistence will be strengthened, while old arguments will be drained of their venom and the rejectionists and extremists will be exposed and marginalized.

We must keep our eyes trained on this future and work together to realize it. That is what this is all about. That is what makes the compromises and difficult decisions worth it, for both sides.

We are now in the holiday season, a time of reflection and fellowship. The National Christmas Tree is lighting up the sky. Jewish families have just completed the eight days of Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights, which reminds us that even when the future looks darkest, there is light and hope to be found through perseverance and faith. Muslims around the world also recently celebrated Eid al-Adha, the Festival of Sacrifice, which teaches the story of a man whose faith was tested when he was ordered by God to give up his beloved son. Whether we call him Abraham, Avraham, or Ibrahim, this man is the father of all the faiths of the Holy Land. He is a reminder that despite our differences, our histories are deeply entwined. And so too are our futures.

Today we should remember these stories. Sometimes we will be asked to walk difficult roads together, and sometimes these roads will be lined with naysayers, second-guessers, and rejectionists. But with faith in our common mission, we can and will come through the darkness together. That is the way – the only way toward peace, and that is what I hope we will keep in mind as we make this journey – this difficult journey toward a destination that awaits.

Thank you and may God bless you in this effort.