Reader Poll: Shapiro Favorite in 2016

Rep. Josh ShapiroWith the 2016 election cycle starting, Democrats are surveying the field of possible candidates to take on Senator Pat Toomey.

Our readers believe that Montgomery County Commissioner Josh Shapiro is the heavy favorite.

1,339 respondents chose Shapiro.

Among the big name contenders, Katie McGinty finished second with 518 votes. Meanwhile, Joe Sestak (who has already thrown his hat into the ring) got the support of 413 readers and Kathleen Kane received 364.

276 respondents backed Rep. Allyson Schwartz while “someone else” got 272 votes. State Treasurer Rob McCord received 197.

Finally, Congressman Matt Cartwright was chosen by 79 readers and Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald 59.

The full results are included below:

Who Should Democrats Nominate for Senate in 2016?


  • Josh Shapiro (38%)
  • Katie McGinty (15%)
  • Joe Sestak (12%)
  • Kathleen Kane (10%)
  • Allyson Schwartz (8%)
  • Someone Else (8%)
  • Rob McCord (6%)
  • Matt Cartwright (2%)
  • Rich Fitzgerald (2%)

Total Voters: 3,517

Loading ... Loading ...

November 11th, 2014 | Posted in Features, Front Page Stories, Poll, Senate, Top Stories | 37 Comments

37 thoughts on “Reader Poll: Shapiro Favorite in 2016”

  1. yordano ventura jersey says:

    Person pain are sometimes compact problems to be adopted caution about, however you aren’t be aware that until finally you’re confident why you effectively getting them. Despite the fact that that you simply don’t ever got a new migraine, this propose you possibly still cannot develop you. Numerous a variety of issues which will achieve whenever, even yet in scenario you have got ın no way previously had one the same just before. Never befuddle these which includes a headaches that hits you for a cycle from no place, mentioned that, because of these could will need medical concours. I will mentioning what type which will comes gradually, and appearance so that you can slowly lead the. The larger you no doubt know about the a variety of scalp pain you can find, the smarter you happen to be about your pain.
    yordano ventura jersey http://kcroyalsproshop.com/17-yordano-ventura-jersey

  2. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    You’re the guy who [unjustifiably] complained that I didn’t scrutinize the hyperlinks I had cited; you are guilty of this behavior for “the UN still considers Gaza ‘occupied’ even though Hamas admits it’s not, given that Israel hasn’t been there since 2005.”

    blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2012/01/27/un-we-still-consider-gaza-occupied-by-israel/

    In fact, the comments illustrate the convoluted lingo that led to the UN’s having reached this conclusion; further, the UN’s anti-Israel bias has been a pattern that has led to retractions, even by their authors [re: Goldstone Report].

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html

    I have no problem with Israel’s having exerted its right to control movement across its borders in the face of terrorism [and one wishes BHO would uphold his constitutional responsibility in like-fashion]; per your citation [which, although it arises from a leftie-source, I do not reject out-of-hand as you do when the word “Breitbart” is either mentioned or conjured in your mind], Israel reacted to what this surgeon had said and, thus, probably felt he would enhance the danger facing Israel from Gaza were he to go there … and there is no reason why he couldn’t enter Gaza via Egypt [unless, of course, he wanted to provoke Israel into doing something that could be politicized against Israel, eh?].

    One resource contains a disinterested summary of these issues noting, for example, how the UNRWA violated [for “operational” purposes] the UN’s definition of a “Refugee”; perhaps you may wish to apply your critical thinking-skills, for a change, instead of adhering to polemics.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_the_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict

    The bottom-line point is that Israel’s policy towards Gaza does not meet the definition of “Military occupation,” for Israel intuitively is not able to exert “effective provisional control of a certain ruling power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign”; you cannot assert otherwise [even invoking the “twisted” section of your mind] for, otherwise, you would have to account for the ascendancy of Hamas and other Islamists [and it’s counter-intuitive that Israel would control a region from which thousands of missiles would have been launched against Israel’s population centers].

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation

    THEREFORE, “Defect #1” remains operational, and you have yet to tackle the others; THEREFORE, your disingenuousness remains exposed.

  3. David Diano says:

    BTW, more proof of occupier status: refusing entry to Gaza of a Norwegian trauma surgeon

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/15/mads-gilbert-surgeon-gaza-israel

  4. David Diano says:

    Regarding occupation:
    “Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza in September 2005, and declared itself no longer to be in occupation of the Strip. However, as it retains control of Gaza’s airspace and coastline, it continues to be designated as an occupying power in the Gaza Strip by the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly and some countries and various human rights organizations.”

    So, yes, they still are occupiers.

  5. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    I really cannot feel sorry for you, nor can I cover-up your ignorance; after having evaded the central query, you finally [partially] confronted the central-question regarding the Israeli incursion into Gaza:

    “THEREFORE, rather than cherry-pick one point, deal with the larger issues raised [such as whether you would justify the ongoing missile attacks from Gaza and the use of human-shields that are acknowledged by both sides] and recognize the justification Israel had when dealing with the missiles and tunnels.”

    You wrote, “The attacks from Gaza are completely justified as a response to Israel’s occupation and blockades, just as the American revolutionaries fought the injustices of British rule.”

    Defect #1: The Israelis are not “occupying” the Gaza Strip; Sharon pulled-out unilaterally almost a decade ago.

    Defect #2: The Israelis have tried to restrict the import of matériel carrying military import; after the relaxation of such limitations [c/o BHO], the steel used to reinforce the tunnels was permitted to be imported, yielding a sophisticated network that was to have been employed to invade hundreds of Southern-Israel communities [including schools], through which innocent Jewish civilians were to be slaughtered/kidnapped.

    Most people would consider the plan to be “terroristic,” although you would probably continue to side with the Islamists [“Hamas”], in this case, thereby again affixing upon your breast the identical label of “anti-Semite” being sported by BHO [for having aided/abetted this scheme ahead-of-time, forcing BB to relent after the Flotilla incident].

    This strategic defensive-move has absolutely no relationship to
    British policy in Colonial America; England wasn’t imposing restrictions in self-defense and, thus, to attempt to wrap yourself around the flag of “patriotism” recalls that infamous phrase that labels that rhetorical-claim to be “the last refuge of the scoundrel.”

    Retreating, somewhat, you added a disclaimer: “However, the attacks are completely misguided because they are ineffective and don’t advance their cause. So, tactically, they aren’t justified, only their right to fight their oppressors is.”

    Charming. So you claim the thousands of missiles that rained upon Israel [extending not only to Tel Aviv, but also to Jerusalem] were “ineffective” in killing enough Jews, despite their having spread terrorism among the civilian population; Jewish life is so cheap in your mind that being traumatized over the years [and having to reside in bomb-shelters] really was an insufficient inconvenience to suit your tastes, eh?

    Then, grudgingly, you admit “Hamas shouldn’t use human shields,” but then quickly add what you mistakenly perceive as a neutralizing counterclaim [lest you subject yourself to the charge that you relented in any shape or form] thusly: “However, Israel shouldn’t blame the deaths all the non-shield humans that Israel indiscriminately kills on Hamas.” Find a quote where this posture was ever struck by the IDF, as it resolutely acted to defend its citizenry [channeling its name].

    Finally, you lapse into the classic defense used episodically by the Arabs [in-between triumphant claims]: “Israel’s response to missiles and tunnels was overkill and not justified, due to its disproportionate nature. Israel had a right to respond, but their response was wrong.” Who the HECK are you to reach that determination, when you [functioning in your familiar “Ugly American” capacity] reside comfortably in PA [which, thus far, has been relatively free of terrorism]?

    Your posting was a Shanda, and the second question posed to Josh by a thinking-reporter [after he is asked to disclaim BHO’s Iranian-Nuke behavior] should be whether he concurs with anything an individual such as yourself [running-interference for him, here, on PoliticsPA] has posted.

  6. David Diano says:

    Robert
    “THEREFORE, rather than cherry-pick one point, deal with the larger issues raised [such as whether you would justify the ongoing missile attacks from Gaza and the use of human-shields that are acknowledged by both sides] and recognize the justification Israel had when dealing with the missiles and tunnels.”

    The attacks from Gaza are completely justified as a response to Israel’s occupation and blockades, just as the American revolutionaries fought the injustices of British rule. However, the attacks are completely misguided because they are ineffective and don’t advance their cause. So, tactically, they aren’t justified, only their right to fight their oppressors is.

    Hamas shouldn’t use human shields. However, Israel shouldn’t blame the deaths all the non-shield humans that Israel indiscriminately kills on Hamas.

    Israel’s response to missiles and tunnels was overkill and not justified, due to its disproportionate nature. Israel had a right to respond, but their response was wrong.

  7. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    BTW, notwithstanding your denials, “President Obama personally crafted a major Obamacare deception with Jonathan Gruber at one of Gruber’s numerous White House meetings, according to a 2012 Gruber interview with PBS.”

    pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/choice-2012/the-frontline-interview-jonathan-gruber/

    dailycaller.com/2014/11/14/president-crafted-obamacare-deception-with-gruber-at-white-house-meeting/

  8. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    BHO is “allowing” Iran to have a nuclear weapon because he has abandoned US/UN policy; it is irrelevant to claim it is inevitable, Israel may also have one, and/or that Russia is complicit.

    BHO has also leaked info that has continued to damage Israel, including the potential for Israeli jets to refuel in Kazakhstan [and, lest we forget, the “chickensh*t/coward quote]; The Obama administration provided a New York Times reporter exclusive access to a range of high-level national security officials for a book that divulged highly classified information on a U.S. cyberwar on Iran’s nuclear program, internal State Department emails show. This is not the conduct of a “friend.”

    That’s why I depict BHO as anti-Semitic; one must call-a-spade a “spade” based upon undeniable data. Claim bigotry/racism to your heart’s content, but don’t keep evading the facts.

    The Islamists in Gaza are linked with those in Egypt/Sinai and, in-turn, with those in Syria/Iraq; note that Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State got “married” yesterday, as others are expressing fealty to their goals. Therefore, the PR-warfare against Israel is, indeed, a subset of the overall initiative against Western Judeo-Christian History/Ethics.

    Far from attempting to terrorize the Gazans, the Gazans have been trying to terrorize the Israelis; you have not only ignored the Missiles [that flew before/during/after the incursion], but you have ignored the Tunnels [that were to be used to invade multiple celebrants of Rosh Hashanah, killing/kidnapping Jews].

    You can “run” [“Whether or not Hamas uses human shields is completely irrelevant”], but you cannot “hide” [Israel faces numerous existential threats]; you will not be able to find an Islamist leader who denies the plan to kill all non-believers [recalling the Munchausen patient’s tombstone: “See, I told ya so!”].

    Finally, if anyone needs counseling, it is a petulant BHO; one can anticipate an exacerbation after he is forced to sign the Keystone-Pipeline bill next week.

    Because of your ongoing pattern of a recognized deficit in cognition [retention-skills], I will repeat the fundamental reason for the Gazan incursion; please confirm/deny this assertion:

    “THEREFORE, rather than cherry-pick one point, deal with the larger issues raised [such as whether you would justify the ongoing missile attacks from Gaza and the use of human-shields that are acknowledged by both sides] and recognize the justification Israel had when dealing with the missiles and tunnels.”

  9. David Diano says:

    Robert-
    1) Obama isn’t “allowing” Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Iran is a sovereign nation the don’t need permission to have a nuclear program. However, he’s not going to bomb them to prevent them getting one (and neither is Israel).

    2) Israel won’t even acknowledge it’s own nuclear weapons.

    3) The Obama administration approved and accelerated cyber-warfare against Iran, of which Stuxnet was a part to set back their nuclear program.

    4) The current talks and sanctions with Iran are an attempt to dissuade their nuclear ambitions, but Iran is getting nuclear support from Russia. Iran getting a bomb is probably inevitable.

    To claim Obama is anti-Semitic based on Iran nuclear policy is just another example of your own bigotry.

    I didn’t say there was a military justification to bomb kids on the beach. The IDF didn’t know (or care or check) that there were kids. They just bomb people indiscriminately, without any justification that they are a threat or combatants. The point is they bomb without justification to terrorize the civilian population into submission.

    As for “human shields”, my claim is that Israel indiscriminately kills civilians who are not human shields. Whether or not Hamas uses human shields is completely irrelevant to the point that Israel is killing innocent civilians who are not human shields. 3 to 1 kill ratio of civilians to combatants is not due to human shields.

    (and clearly, you think killing “shields” is okay anyway)

    You are paranoid and delusion tring to justify your bigotry with the unrealistic goals of a few extremists who want a “worldwide caliphate”. The hundreds of kids killed in Gaza weren’t part of some extreme take over plan.

    You are truly sick and should seek professional help.

  10. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    As has been your pattern, you ignored the thrust of my prior comment:

    “THEREFORE, rather than cherry-pick one point, deal with the larger issues raised [such as whether you would justify the ongoing missile attacks from Gaza and the use of human-shields that are acknowledged by both sides] and recognize the justification Israel had when dealing with the missiles and tunnels.”

    BHO is a anti-Semite because he is allowing Iran to nuke-up; this cannot be relegated to merely a policy-debate; he is also attacking Jews for wanting to live in Jerusalem unjustifiably, blaming Israel for the failure of “peace-talks” from which the PA walked-away.

    I find your formulation of what happened on the beach not to be credible because there would be no military justification to bomb kids playing on a beach; on the other hand, “war is hell” and you have failed to address the intentional targeting of civilians documented on Wikipedia [including the fanciful Jenin “massacre”].

    All the Dems are running-away from Gruber, including Pelosi who has conveniently forgotten she had praised him, years ago; he has revealed the strategy that was employed to lie to Americans [via the media], emblematic of elitists who, like Warren, are lionized by libs.

    Claims of anti-Arab bigotry [or “Islamophoba”] shroud people from facing unpleasant truths regarding the threat being promulgated by those who wish to establish a worldwide caliphate; don’t think that your throat would be spared, regardless of whatever you now “throat” in their defense.

    Because of your recognized deficit in retention-skills, I will repeat the fundamental reason for the Gazan incursion; please confirm/deny this assertion:

    “THEREFORE, rather than cherry-pick one point, deal with the larger issues raised [such as whether you would justify the ongoing missile attacks from Gaza and the use of human-shields that are acknowledged by both sides] and recognize the justification Israel had when dealing with the missiles and tunnels.”

  11. David Diano says:

    Robert-
    You claim Obama is anti-Semitic (for having policy choices that Israel disagrees with, rather than the real definition of disliking people for being Jewish).

    However, you have been displaying flagrant anti-Arab bigotry here and it is disgusting.

    You latched onto a wild conspiracy theory just to downplay the tragic deaths of innocent Arab children.

    You misstate: “Israelis would want to kill-off kids on a beach” as logic counterpoint, that isn’t the point.

    The POINT is that Israel was indiscriminately killing civilians. For the weeks, Israel was killing 3 non-combatants for every 1 combatant. They didn’t care and you don’t seem to either.

    You keep wanting me to waste time down your endless rabbit hole of badly researched links, when you clearly cannot tell news from conspiracy and present the former as the latter.

    I’ve demonstrated the lengths you will go to by promoting a crackpot like Wictor, and how little value your links have (and how little you value the lives of innocent children).

    Therefore, it’s obvious that your primary purposes here are promote you own brand of anti-Arab bigotry and slur Obama.

    As for your attempt to change the subject to Gruber, he wasn’t an architect of the law. He is an economist who ran some simulations and analysis as a outside contractor. Apparently, his computer model ran quickly and was used to give faster turn-around to provide cost estimates and effects of different policy ideas.

    The right-media is hyping him as a Chief Architect of the law.

    From the Washington Post:
    “When it was working on putting together the health law, the Obama administration relied on Gruber’s data and his microsimulation model — which consisted of 15,000 lines of computer code — to get quick estimates of costs and effects of policy proposals. One official involved in the effort said Gruber and his staff of three could provide answers overnight, when it often took weeks to run the same questions through the Office of Management and Budget or the Congressional Budget Office.

    Gruber had played a similar role in states across the country — and for leaders of both parties. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a Republican who pushed through a health law in his state, said Gruber’s estimates persuaded him to include a requirement that individuals buy health insurance and to offer subsidies to those who could not afford to do so. Both are elements of the federal law as well.”

  12. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    PS: Your “real” news-sources ignored Jonathan Gruber’s quotes about ObamaDon’tCare, so you may not wish to adhere to their credibility, reflexly.

  13. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    I probed the beach-incident further and ID’ed uncertainty, but you cannot claim that the hyperlink I provided wasn’t accurate due to the behavior of From [who spoke locally, years ago, and seemed too aligned to the GOP-Establishment for my tastes].

    Indeed, rather than attempt to follow your logic that the Israelis would want to kill-off kids on a beach to achieve some fanciful military goal, I provide a disinterested compilation of all the conjured media-hype by the Arabs [notoriously including the Al-Dura creation] as illustrative of how, for example, the media based on Gaza were prohibited from filming those who were firing missiles @ Israel.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict

    Thus, I don’t accept your sweeping rejection of my views due to your ability to quote a problematic third-party who doubts this one source’s input; furthermore, conceptually, the use of the media for political purposes is well-documented and has duped people such as yourself to unjustifiably condemn Israel.

    THEREFORE, rather than cherry-pick one point, deal with the larger issues raised [such as whether you would justify the ongoing missile attacks from Gaza and the use of human-shields that are acknowledged by both sides] and recognize the justification Israel had when dealing with the missiles and tunnels.

  14. David Diano says:

    Robert-
    Thomas Wictor is mentally unstable and a conspiracy kook. David Frum quoted his “theory” and then had to make a big retraction

    gawker.com/david-frums-apology-for-his-nutty-theory-links-to-more-1613454088

    Here is a interview with Thomas Wictor about his Gaza theory and also his “ghost” cat.
    lobelog.com/david-frums-sources/

    I’m guessing you found Thomas Wictor from Breitbart.

    Let’s put it this way: If I sent you links from Hamas’s website as “authoritative” news they way you treat Breitbart, you wouldn’t consider it evidence either.

    Try using REAL news sources: washington post, ny times, la times, abc/nbc/cbs news. And the NEWS sections, not opinion as posing as news.

    Anyway, your quackery (and gullibility) with Wictor blew your credibility from zero to negative 10.

  15. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    [–Comments again interspersed]

    “I’m not going to even look at anything on Breitbart let alone any links from it. It’s a propaganda site. As for your other links, broken by carriage returns, I can’t follow them from my cell phone, and there is no reason to keep posting them that way.”

    –You are dismissive of primary data quoted by a cite you don’t like, eh? Are there any other sites that receive comparable scorn from you? You peg yourself as a typically “modern” lib [not “classical”] by self-censoring the need to review data that might disturb your [faulty] assumptions; nevertheless, will cite each datapoint individually and eschew a Breitbart-URL.

    0) “Your “could” scenario is ridiculous. One strike would not prevent Israel’s retaliation and Iran’s destruction. Iran would not risk letting it’s only nuclear weapon leave the country. They want it as a deterrent against invasion.”

    –Israel would want to ensure American public-opinion was not alienated and, thus, a clandestine approach that would prompt people such as yourself to wish that the US not support Israel [in the absence of a smoking-gun] could easily be predicted. Thus, prophylaxis is preferable, and the capacity for Iran to make more than one bomb already exists; indeed, it does not fear invasion [for “defense”] from any of its neighbors, unlike the situation a decade ago. Thus, my “could” scenario is reality-based.

    You have also failed to address the gravamen of my comment regarding Iran’s perception of America as the Big-Devil…and its implications.

    {warm-up complete}

    1) “I did discount it. Obama’s policy was to let Egypt and Iran handle their own internal disputes, and honor the election results. Interference by the U.S. would have generated more anti-American sentiment. Sound policy.”

    –You are not citing Obama’s actions correctly; BHO declared Mubarak should step-down. Therefore, you did not correctly cite history and your conclusion [“sound policy”] must be rendered “inoperative” [to quote a Nixonian concept].

    usnews.com/news/articles/2011/02/04/obama-administration-urges-mubarak-to-step-down

    {strike one}

    2) “He is not the only high-ranking officer in the world, and his statements do not undermine the high civilian count. The U.N. count is the most reliable official record. Many of the strikes kill only civilians when no military targets are in the area (like the boys killed on the beach). The policy has been to target homes of suspected Hamas members, wiping out their entire families, even though the suspected members weren’t there. Even if the family members made it out alive, the destruction of the homes are collective punishment. The high civilian death toll is empirical evidence of Israel’s flawed policy.”

    –You were duped, willingly or unwillingly. You characterize the civilian death toll as “high” without reference to the missile-attacks upon Israel that preceded the bombing of places from which missiles were sent; you failed to acknowledge the need to silence the missiles.

    In addition, the “boys on the beach” claim was a hoax, as per forensic analysis.

    You depict an oxymoron when you claim Israel wiped out entire families when they weren’t present; Israel therefore—by your parlance—couldn’t have wiped-out entire families. Also, it is not “collective” punishment to target specific sites.

    You have failed to discount the specific “human shield” claim and you have failed to acknowledge the heinous plan to use the tunnels to invade southern Israel on Rosh Hashanah.

    thomaswictor.com/timeline-hamas-gaza-beach-operation/

    {strike two}

    3) “The relocation of Churchill was not a metaphor. You are just making that up.”

    –You have failed to discount the specific citation from BHO’s book attacking colonialism…and its implications; and I didn’t “make-up” the relocation from the Oval Office, as per your citation.

    {strike three, one out}

    4) “YOU are the one that used “towns and villages”. YOUR QUOTE: This quote is from an article written by an Israeli-critic: “The 600-odd rockets that had accurately targeted towns and villages were almost all successfully intercepted by Iron Dome’s Tamir missiles — a nearly 90% success rate, according to the Israel Defense Forces.” So, you are now complaining about your own quote? That’s pretty bad. My arithmetic is just fine. Statistically, 10% is a very large sample size. Most statistical projections are done with a fraction of a percent. The expected death toll would be in the low dozens. Shelters are still cheaper than Iron Dome, which isn’t worth the expense.”

    –I used the quote [from a leftie] to introduce the rockets [undeniable]…which you still haven’t confronted. Also, if you had watched videos of the Iron Dome system, you would note that there is an instantaneous decision made as soon as a missile is detected as to its target, and only those that threaten civilians are intercepted; when you play-percentages, you again ignore the fact that Israel must bat “1000” whereas the Arabs can always return to attack again. And Israel also used shelters, whereas Hamas not only DIDN’T use them, but placed civilians @ military targets to protect them.

    Hamas admitted it DID use schools and hospitals in Gaza Strip as ‘human shields’ to launch rocket attacks on Israel – but claims it was ‘mistake.’ Furthermore, the Israeli military captured a Hamas manual on urban warfare — called “Introduction to the City War” — that extols the benefits of civilian deaths and openly admits that Israel tries to avoid them.

    dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2753176/Hamas-DID-use-schools-hospitals-Gaza-Strip-human-shields-launch-rocket-attacks-Israel-admits-says-mistake.html#ixzz3IyXc3CRI

    nypost.com/2014/08/05/hamas-manual-details-civilian-death-plan-israel/

    {strike one, one out}

    5) “I read the article months ago. I didn’t save the link. There are plenty of other articles about Netanayahu sabotaging peace efforts. Here is one: mebriefing.com/?p=720”

    –Your article contains two fatal-defects [let alone the fact that this was Peres acting without corroboration, even from Livni, his party-colleague]: “the details of the Peres-Abbas agreement were not revealed by Peres” and “Tony Blair wrecked the agreement.” The former suggests this octogenarian may have faulty memory and the latter is counterintuitive, for his emissary-role was intended to pursue such leads aggressively. Thus, your narrative is apocryphal absent any provision of any detail, particularly from Peres.

    {strike two, one out}

    6) “Supporting Obama on domestic policies does not mean one supports Obama on foreign policies. You are drawing a line that doesn’t exist. Your attempts to bring in Hitler are silly.”

    –Your attempt to compartmentalize would silence criticism of human rights violations if a perp also was abiding by other policies that you like; this itself violates multiple international norms, for everyone is to be called-out if aberrations exist, regardless of whatever “good” may be done elsewhere. Therefore, it seems you would not have interrupted the Shoah after having learned of the atrocities being conducted by the Nazis; far from being “silly,” this serves as a condemnation of your entire ethical-construct.

    {strike three, two out}

    7) “It’s YOUR claim, not mine, that Israeli’s opposing your policies makes one anti-Semitic. Do a Google search for Netanyahu’s current approval rating. It’s YOUR faulty logic that would conclude Obama is un-American. You are so dumb that you don’t even understand your own logic and made up definitions, when their conclusions are revealed.”

    –If you knew anything about Israeli politics, you would know that its parliamentary system is based upon multiparty elections and coalition-building; thus, polling doesn’t correlate with the American “R vs. D” system. Notwithstanding your embedded insults, you should know that BB is contemplating holding early elections [in ‘15] to ride the tide of his current popularity.

    {strike one, two out}

    8) “Obama should absolutely diverge “from what the Israeli government views as its self-interest” if those interests are against American interests or if he believes the Israeli government is engaged in a policy against their own interests in the long term. His job is not to nod his head in agreement with foreign leaders and let them dictate US policy. The dangerous “appeasement” going on is politicians buckling to pressure from Israel.”

    –You have just admitted that BHO perceives American and Israeli interests—from his [warped] perspective—to be divergent; this has never been admitted publicly and, again, places him as an outlier when compared with all of his predecessors. Instead, he should not accommodate the neo-Nazis in Tehran [assuming, of course, you don’t disagree with the multiple anti-Israel quotes that emanate regularly from the mullahs].

    {strike two, two out}

    9) “As for the jstreet article you posted, I agree with it, and you misrepresented the death of the child. The child was killed after jumping out his window. The article does NOT say that he was throwing rocks or joined the group of kids who were throwing rocks. Merely, he was killed went soldiers fired at a group of kids. (Note: soldiers shouldn’t be lethally firing on kids throwing rocks.) Also, the kids were confronting: “Israeli soldiers after days of house searches and arrests.”

    –Rock-throwing can kill [ref. “stoning to death”] and, thus, cannot be tolerated; whatever oppression may have been appreciated and served as the grievance, none existed with regard to the Israeli.

    {strike three, three out, inning over}

    “I haven’t discussed Josh’s positions with him regarding Israel. However, I’m confident he is a stronger supporter of Israel’s policies than you are and would vote to increase aid to them if given the opportunity. I have zero doubt that he would vote for everything Israel asked for. I have zero hope of convincing him to agree with J-Street. I would vote for him anyway because he’s right on the other issues, and he serious person who wouldn’t call the President (or a group like J-Street) anti-Semitic over a difference in policy approach. Sestak, Toomey and the other potential candidates all parrot Israeli talking points as well, so Israel is a non-issue to make a decision because all the candidates have the same basic position.

    –Sestak doesn’t parrot Israeli talking-points, at least he didn’t when I heard him @ Rosemont and he hasn’t when interviewed on MSNBC periodically. Essentially, you accommodate genocide in what you compose and, in the process, fail to address the ongoing strife that Israelis face on a daily basis from all of her borders [including the Mediterranean.

    {you lose, on top of your not having rectified prior aberrations}

  16. David Diano says:

    Robert-
    I’m not going to even look at anything on Breitbart let alone any links from it. It’s a propaganda site. As for your other links, broken by carriage returns, I can’t follow them from my cell phone, and there is no reason to keep posting them that way.

    0) Your “could” scenario is ridiculous. One strike would not prevent Israel’s retaliation and Iran’s destruction. Iran would not risk letting it’s only nuclear weapon leave the country. They want it as a deterrent against invasion.

    1) I did discount it. Obama’s policy was to let Egypt and Iran handle their own internal disputes, and honor the election results. Interference by the U.S. would have generated more anti-American sentiment.
    Sound policy.

    2) He is not the only high-ranking officer in the world, and his statements do not undermine the high civilian count. The U.N. count is the most reliable official record.
    Many of the strikes kill only civilians when no military targets are in the area (like the boys killed on the beach). The policy has been to target homes of suspected Hamas members, wiping out their entire families, even though the suspected members weren’t there. Even if the family members made it out alive, the destruction of the homes are collective punishment.
    The high civilian death toll is empirical evidence of Israel’s flawed policy.

    3) The relocation of Churchill was not a metaphor. You are just making that up.

    4) YOU are the one that used “towns and villages”. YOUR QUOTE: This quote is from an article written by an Israeli-critic: “The 600-odd rockets that had accurately targeted towns and villages were almost all successfully intercepted by Iron Dome’s Tamir missiles — a nearly 90% success rate, according to the Israel Defense Forces.”

    So, you are now complaining about your own quote? That’s pretty bad.

    My arithmetic is just fine. Statistically, 10% is a very large sample size. Most statistical projections are done with a fraction of a percent. The expected death toll would be in the low dozens. Shelters are still cheaper than Iron Dome, which isn’t worth the expense.

    5) I read the article months ago. I didn’t save the link. There are plenty of other articles about Netanayahu sabotaging peace efforts. Here is one:
    mebriefing.com/?p=720

    6) Supporting Obama on domestic policies does not mean one supports Obama on foreign policies. You are drawing a line that doesn’t exist. Your attempts to bring in Hitler are silly.

    7) It’s YOUR claim, not mine, that Israeli’s opposing your policies makes one anti-Semitic. Do a Google search for Netanyahu’s current approval rating. It’s YOUR faulty logic that would conclude Obama is un-American. You are so dumb that you don’t even understand your own logic and made up definitions, when their conclusions are revealed.

    Obama should absolutely diverge “from what the Israeli government views as its self-interest” if those interests are against American interests or if he believes the Israeli government is engaged in a policy against their own interests in the long term. His job is not to nod his head in agreement with foreign leaders and let them dictate US policy. The dangerous “appeasement” going on is politicians buckling to pressure from Israel.

    As for the jstreet article you posted, I agree with it, and you misrepresented the death of the child.

    The child was killed after jumping out his window. The article does NOT say that he was throwing rocks or joined the group of kids who were throwing rocks. Merely, he was killed went soldiers fired at a group of kids. (Note: soldiers shouldn’t be lethally firing on kids throwing rocks.)
    Also, the kids were confronting: “Israeli soldiers after days of house searches and arrests”

    I haven’t discussed Josh’s positions with him regarding Israel. However, I’m confident he is a stronger supporter of Israel’s policies than you are and would vote to increase aid to them if given the opportunity. I have zero doubt that he would vote for everything Israel asked for.

    I have zero hope of convincing him to agree with J-Street.

    I would vote for him anyway because he’s right on the other issues, and he serious person who wouldn’t call the President (or a group like J-Street) anti-Semitic over a difference in policy approach.

    Sestak, Toomey and the other potential candidates all parrot Israeli talking points as well, so Israel is a non-issue to make a decision because all the candidates have the same basic position.

  17. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    [comments interspersed]

    Your foolishness seems endless. I posted my link the article debunking your Churchill claims using the very technique I suggested. I can’t follow your broken links from my cellphone browser, so you are wasting your time posting them. Also, you tack on superfluous strings on the end of your links, like tracking tags. Your Google links are ridiculous. Just go to the damn site Google is pointing to, and get the clean link of the site, not Google’s search url. Also, stop posting stuff from breitbart. It is not a legitimate news site and no intelligent person considers it to be.

    –Your inability to access basic computer-generated services [such as hyperlinks that merely interrupt those that work by carriage-returns, to traverse the PoliticsPA filter] isn’t my problem; what is also your problem is your inability to provide specific references as you wander from point-to-point. And Breitbart provides—in one article—multiple hyperlinks to others, so your global dismissal of this aggregated site reflects your having admitted the inability to function as an “intelligent person.”

    0) Israel has hundreds of nuclear bombs. If Iran with one is such a threat, why does Israel need hundreds? (That’s rhetorical, don’t bother to answer.) Iran is not going to launch a nuclear strike against Israel because they would be wiped off the map within an hour. They are all talk, and not a real threat because they would never attack.

    –You are incorrect, because Iran could launch a strike surreptitiously, thereby depriving Israel of the ability to counter-strike; if you are now acquiescing to the ability of this renegade regime [that considers Israel the little-devil but America the big-devil] to nuke-up, then you are responsible for altering policy [as BHO obviously is], thereby abandoning the UN Security Council resolutions.

    1) Obama didn’t kiss-up to the Muslim Brotherhood, nor has he “empowered” anyone to destroy Israel.

    –You failed to discount my recitation of BHO’s behavior in Egypt and Iran, just two examples; global-dismissal of essential-truths may make you feel you have escaped scrutiny, but your credibility sinks in the process.

    2)Dempsey is full of sh*t. He is just repeating Israeli military talking points. The 75% figure is from U.N. which used multiple human rights organizations (including Israeli human rights group, Btselem). They check and cross check hospital records, and person effects on the victims, like cell phones. Israel has claimed they killed about 1,000 terrorists, but hasn’t provided any actual evidence to support their count, or contradict the the official U.N. counts. The high civilian count (even using Israel’s claim of 50%) is still too high for anyone to pretend that Israel has been the slightest bit careful about civilian casualties. If the number was 10%, then they could brag about being careful. But, when the number is actually 75%, then the entire engagement policy is a war crime. Israel does mass arrests, raids and round ups all the time. That’s the problem.

    –Dempsey is a high-ranking officer who knows of what he speaks. You have failed to show that Israel targeted civilians, nor have you discounted the documented charge that [as per Hamas pronouncements] people have been used as human-shields; I suppose you would have allowed the tunnels to remain, thereby allowing for mass-massacre of Jews on Rosh Hashanah. I supposed, also, that you would apply your Dem-liberal egalitarian approach to canceling-out mass-massacre with mass-arrests [of terrorists who then are mass-released for no early reason].

    3) The article states that the curator removes all art from the Oval office when presidents switch, as a matter of policy. Obama didn’t specifically ask for it’s removal on 1/20/09 as part of some anti-colonial philosophy, as you suggested. The bust wasn’t returned or boxed up, but merely displayed elsewhere in the residence. Obama is allowed to rearrange the decorations.

    –The relocation of Churchill was a metaphor, as documented by the book-excerpt; as usual, you chose not to see the forest [explicitly articulated] for the trees. BHO is an anti-colonialist, as are those who instructed him and those with whom he surrounds himself [remember Van Jones, the Commie?].

    4) Hamas and it’s allies launched 2,648 rockets. Most fell in empty fields. So, only 600 of them (less than 25%) were target at towns and villages. IDF claims to have intercepted 90% of them. The civilian death toll in Israel consisted of only two citizens and a Thai guest worker. 10% of the 600 rockets killed 3 people. So, stopping the 90% of the 600 would have saved about 27 people.

    –You claim they targeted “towns and villages”; you would therefore include Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in that category? Your compulsion to rationalize-away evil knows no end. And you condemn Israel for having effectively employed bomb-shelters for 49-days as illustrative of imbalanced casualties…when you know Israel did the opposite of Hamas; while Hamas placed humans in-front of missiles to protect them from Israeli retaliation against a merciless barrage [prior to and during the war, a fact you ignore], Israel placed missiles in-front of people to protect humanity. [And your arithmetic is faulty, because the major threats—if allowed to land—would have destroyed groups of people and buildings; that you would trot-out such arithmetic manipulation illustrates the scorn that you direct @ legitimate efforts to maximize the survival of the citizenry.]

    That is not worth the price tag of the Iron Dome system. That same amount of money could have saved a thousand times as many people. Like I said, no bang for the buck.

    –That was very much worth the investment—as per the people who were affected by it—although you won’t want to perceive this from your elitist perch as an Ugly American.

    5) There was a long article a few months ago with detailed conversations from private conversations involving Kerry, Netanyahu, Abbas, Hamas negotiators, etc. It was very detailed showing the problems and distrust on all sides, yet also groups from each side committed to finding common ground. Netanyahu was not a sincere partner committed to peace. Likud would be tossed after peace deal, and they know it.

    –Again, you characterize “a long article” without citing it; what is known is even from Martin Indyk [who is not viewed as an honest-broker by many Israelis], who confirmed what was public-knowledge, namely, that Abbas returned from D.C. to an embrace in Ramallah after he had refused either to accept any proposal or to proffer one of his own [in March]. Just as occurred with Barak @ Camp David II, the PA tried to exact as many bennies as possible without budging a micron towards the possibility of recognizing the State of Israel. I daresay you will not be able to find any Arab leader who would do so [or has expressed openness to doing so]. Likud would welcome leading a coalition towards a durable peace, for the electorate would demand it.

    6) Hitler? Now you’ve just lost it. Domestic policy has nothing to do with Israeli foreign policy.

    –Appeasement is to be condemned, and it is insufficient to compartmentalize one’s allegiances in the process; remaining silent in the face of evil is what led to WW-II’s Holocaust [I HOPE you concur!].

    7) Netanyahu does things that Israeli’s believe undermine Israel’s best interests. His approval is 50% or lower, so with at least half of Israel not approving him, you’ve basically said that Netanyahu is anti-Semitic.

    –Your logic is so specious that it’s almost impossible to cite a reference that would discount it, particularly when you fail to specify the “things” you claim Israelis oppose; by your standards, BHO has been anti-American for years, eh?

    Obama’s job is to do what is best for the U.S. and Americans. There is NO evidence that Obama’s policies are because he doesn’t like Jews.

    –There is evidence that he is diverging from what the Israeli government views as its self-interest, and long ago his “disagreements among friends” argument was demolished; his focus has been on the war by Palestinian Arabs against Israel instead of the war of Iranians and other Islamists against anyone who doesn’t share that particular group’s belief-system. And, through it all, you ignore the methods employed by these tyrants to eliminate dissent, all countenanced by BHO while he clinks-glasses with human-rights violators. In short, his ideology prompts him to discount the priority of “liking” Jews [or, for that matter, anyone who opposes him].

    As for J-Street, the article completely misrepresents their positions. For example:
    “While J Street U claims to be “pro-Israel,” unlike other pro-Israel organizations, J Street does not educate or equip students to distinguish between anti-Israel propaganda and fact.” This is false. J-Street cuts through propaganda from all sides. J-Street does a great service by distinguishing between pro-Israel propaganda put out by the Netanyahu and fact.

    –You again assert without providing citations or references; perhaps you should have watched the film before coming to the aid of these people. For example, J-Street’s leader, Jeremy Ben-Ami, equated the deaths of an Israeli and a Palestinian Arab [“twin tragedies”], despite the fact that the Israeli was attending school while the Palestinian Arab was throwing rocks. This is hardly the type of factual/ethical clarity that would be worthy of praise by any cogent thinker or by any sentient human.

    jstreet.org/blog/post/enough-of-tears-and-bloodshed_1

    If elected, Josh would start serving in Jan 2017 as Obama is leaving office. So, he wouldn’t be working with or against Obama on Israeli policy. Which makes the point kind of moot. Iran is not a threat to Israel, as Israel can/would wipe them off the map if attacked. I rest my case on all points. The readers can decide for themselves.

    –Knowing a politician’s positions is vital, notwithstanding when he might be sworn into office. And Israel has no buffer-zone if, for example a handful of bombs level Tel Aviv, Haifa, Eilat and [Newer] Jerusalem; the same, alas, cannot be said for the Arab lands that surround the Jewish State [country by country, Islamist-State by (budding) Islamist-State].

    You act as did BHO when unilaterally declaring victory and leaving Iraq; he failed to consult the enemy. Similarly, you “rest” your case without [1]—making it, or [2]—documenting it (following even the most superficial critique). Perhaps you might wish to visit Eretz Yisrael and note what has been created within the desert during the past 66 years; you might then appreciate the need for Israelis to defend themselves. Remember, if the Arabs lose, they can fight again; if the Israelis lose, they can’t.

  18. David Diano says:

    Robert-
    Your foolishness seems endless. I posted my link the article debunking your Churchill claims using the very technique I suggested. I can’t follow your broken links from my cellphone browser, so you are wasting your time posting them. Also, you tack on superfluous strings on the end of your links, like tracking tags. Your Google links are ridiculous. Just go to the damn site Google is pointing to, and get the clean link of the site, not Google’s search url. Also, stop posting stuff from breitbart. It is not a legitimate news site and no intelligent person considers it to be.

    0) Israel has hundreds of nuclear bombs. If Iran with one is such a threat, why does Israel need hundreds? (That’s rhetorical, don’t bother to answer.) Iran is not going to launch a nuclear strike against Israel because they would be wiped off the map within an hour. They are all talk, and not a real threat because they would never attack.

    1) Obama didn’t kiss-up to the Muslim Brotherhood, nor has he “empowered” anyone to destroy Israel.

    2)Dempsey is full of sh*t. He is just repeating Israeli military talking points. The 75% figure is from U.N. which used multiple human rights organizations (including Israeli human rights group,Btselem). They check and cross check hospital records, and person effects on the victims, like cell phones. Israel has claimed they killed about 1,000 terrorists, but hasn’t provided any actual evidence to support their count, or contradict the the official U.N. counts. The high civilian count (even using Israel’s claim of 50%) is still too high for anyone to pretend that Israel has been the slightest bit careful about civilian casualties. If the number was 10%, then they could brag about being careful. But, when the number is actually 75%, then the entire engagement policy is a war crime.
    Israel does mass arrests, raids and round ups all the time. That’s the problem.

    3) The article states that the curator removes all art from the Oval office when presidents switch, as a matter of policy. Obama didn’t specifically ask for it’s removal on 1/20/09 as part of some anti-colonial philosophy, as you suggested. The bust wasn’t returned or boxed up, but merely displayed elsewhere in the residence. Obama is allowed to rearrange the decorations.

    4) Hamas and it’s allies launched 2,648 rockets. Most fell in empty fields. So, only 600 of them (less than 25%) were target at towns and villages. IDF claims to have intercepted 90% of them. The civilian death toll in Israel consisted of only two citizens and a Thai guest worker.
    10% of the 600 rockets killed 3 people. So, stopping the 90% of the 600 would have saved about 27 people.
    That is not worth the price tag of the Iron Dome system. That same amount of money could have saved a thousand times as many people. Like I said, no bang for the buck.

    5) There was a long article a few months ago with detailed conversations from private conversations involving Kerry, Netanyahu, Abbas, Hamas negotiators, etc. It was very detailed showing the problems and distrust on all sides, yet also groups from each side committed to finding common ground. Netanyahu was not a sincere partner committed to peace. Likud would be tossed after peace deal, and they know it.

    6) Hitler? Now you’ve just lost it. Domestic policy has nothing to do with Israeli foreign policy.

    7) Netanyahu does things that Israeli’s believe undermine Israel’s best interests. His approval is 50% or lower, so with at least half of Israel not approving him, you’ve basically said that Netanyahu is anti-Semitic.
    Obama’s job is to do what is best for the U.S. and Americans. There is NO evidence that Obama’s policies are because he doesn’t like Jews.

    As for J-Street, the article completely misrepresents their positions. For example:
    “While J Street U claims to be “pro-Israel,” unlike other pro-Israel organizations, J Street does not educate or equip students to distinguish between anti-Israel propaganda and fact.”

    This is false. J-Street cuts through propaganda from all sides. J-Street does a great service by distinguishing between pro-Israel propaganda put out by the Netanyahu and fact.

    If elected, Josh would start serving in Jan 2017 as Obama is leaving office. So, he wouldn’t be working with or against Obama on Israeli policy. Which makes the point kind of moot.

    Iran is not a threat to Israel, as Israel can/would wipe them off the map if attacked.

    I rest my case on all points. The readers can decide for themselves.

  19. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    [PART I]

    @ DD:

    You often write what you “think” and, therefore, you are almost 100% ignorant of the facts. Indeed, all citations I provided had been accrued within the prior 24-hours; I’ll dig-back into the archives to provide specific counterpoints to what you have created, for it seems you are covering for an anti-Semite by portraying yourself as one. {I tried dropping the “http” from hyperlinks, but I froze and I’m still having difficulty uploading/updating regularly from four [4] different servers; if you cannot refute the authenticity of the points I make, then you are obligated to acknowledge my being 100% correct.} You start-out being deficient, however, for you didn’t address with specificity points already made [such as the chicken-sh*t/coward quotes], concerns that would alarm anyone other than an anti-Semite.

    0) You: “You are not the security arbitrator of which links people have to read. I’ve read plenty of the Israeli talking points and fear mongering on Iran. Nothing new here.”

    Iran just released a horrifying video of how it envisions its nuclear attack on Israel and I already referenced the prior release of the Ayatollah’s battle-plan regarding how end Israel; if you relegate these concerns to “talking-points” that constitute “fear-mongering,” you are obligated to explain-away their existence.

    salsa4.salsalabs.co
    m/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Tn59QLBB6Uibds%2BFF4KRquwcVz1n3aFl
    haaretz.com/mobile/1.625465?v=AA9129CFE3E0BD9A6E8A841B53A46B7A

    1) You: “Obama isn’t for the destruction of the Jewish homeland. He isn’t for the destruction of Palestinian homeland either. Two state solution.”

    If you are trying to effect a “fundamental transformation of American policy” that incrementally can withstand critique from most of a baseline-Jewish base [which is gradually eroding from being 20% GOP to being 33% GOP, last week], you are kissing-up to regimes that are Muslim-Brotherhood rather than secular; there is no other credible explanation, for example, for how he supported Morsi instead of al-Sisi in Egypt [driving the latter to the Russkies]. Empowering those who wish to obliterate Israel would indeed result if Islamists of whatever ilk were to become predominant, also explaining his having become inert during the Ahmadinejad re-election. No other POTUS has been so overtly anti-Israel since ’48…not even close.

    2) You: “There is plenty of justification to oppose Netanyahu and current Israeli policy. 75% kill rate of civilians, collective punishment, false arrests, expanding settlements, etc. have all damaged Israel’s position in the world this year and cost them support among their allies. Netanyahu has sought to put his own political interests/power over the good of Israel. So, many of us who support Israel hope for better leadership to replace Netanyahu and restore Israel’s stature.”

    You must document each of your false-claims. For example, one of the titles I provided earlier that you chose not to read “Top US General Dempsey: Israel Went to ‘Extraordinary Lengths’ to Protect Gaza Civilians” refutes them en-masse and, aggregated, Israel’s standing is only “damaged” when people are predisposed to apply behavioral criteria to BB that are not employed in any other setting. “Kill-rates” based upon Hamas-stats are subsequently cut drastically, and you fail to acknowledge that Gazan missiles were being shot from population centers, hospitals, mosques [and munitions were stored in schools]. “Collective punishment” does not occur, as General Dempsey noted [with people in targeted-buildings receiving leaflets and ‘phone-calls ahead-of-time]. There are no “false-arrests” and, indeed, there has been a revolving-door of terrorists [such as those who subsequently stabbed-killed innocent Israelis]. There is no prohibition against expansion of “settlements” [your nomenclature] in Oslo, but there is specific phraseology against incitement that has been consistently violated [in Arabic] before the ink was dry, for more than two decades…by the Palestinian Arabs. Overall, BB has been forced to abide by BHO’s constraints, maintaining a stiff-upper-lip despite having been consistently snubbed [along with Ya’alon, during his most-recent D.C. visit]. There is no evidence BB has prioritized himself over Israel, although there is ample evidence [e.g., ObamaDon’tCare] that your guy BHO [and SoS-Kerry, as per recently-released Gruber-Videos] has engaged in overt deceit while harboring that particular motive.

    breitbart.co
    m/Big-Peace/2014/11/09/Top-US-General-Dempsey-Israel-went-to-extraordinary-lengths-to-protect-Gaza-civilians
    washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/how-many-civilians-have-been-killed-in-gaza
    google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2Fgops-anti-obamacare-push-gains-new-momentum-in-wake-of-gruber-video%2F2014%2F11%2F12%2Fe0d6b4d2-6aa7-11e4-9fb4-a622dae742a2_story.html&ei=4ENkVLKeHsGLyASe84H4Dg&usg=AFQjCNFVA59bOtIxKLIzwlV5ES_QL7E_xg&sig2=M_7a1qHrHq4B1on78QYxYg&bvm=bv.79189006,d.aWw

    3) You: “The U.S. is not a colonial empire and the founding fathers fought against being a colony.
    You are wrong about the bust being removed. Please see the fact check, and reduce your ignorance slightly:
    m.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/27/fact-check-bust-winston-churchill”

    Your hyperlink confirms the fact that it was relocated from the Oval Office, as stated; thus, your claim of ignorance is unjustified; further, BHO’s “Dreams from my Father” tome illustrates his anti-colonialism [e.g., “The worst thing that colonialism did was to cloud our view of our past.” ].

    [to-be-continued]

  20. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    [PART II]

    4) You: “We already have plenty of military support and joint operations/intelligence with Israel. I don’t think the Iron Dome system is good bang for the buck, and is wasteful spending that Israel can afford itself. I also think it further delays the peace process, costing the U.S. and Israel more in the long term. So, it’s bad policy that wastes money that should be helping Americans, like our veterans. We shouldn’t be neglecting our veterans to fund foreign weapon systems.”

    Your perception of the Iron Dome is at variance with all of the facts, for it protected population-centers throughout Israel; I hope you don’t consider Jewish life so cheap that this observation is relegated to the “talking-point” category. BHO altered the automaticity of Pentagon resupply once he discovered its existence, and the cease-fire suddenly supervened. Why you consider it “wasteful” goes a long way towards explaining many of your other attitudes, sadly, for the American military has praised how judiciously it was deployed. I would quibble with your either/or framing of the question and, thus, how you would fail [as BHO has been doing] to uphold the tradition of strong support for Israel as she attempts to survive in a violent ‘hood.

    [This quote is from an article written by an Israeli-critic: “The 600-odd rockets that had accurately targeted towns and villages were almost all successfully intercepted by Iron Dome’s Tamir missiles — a nearly 90% success rate, according to the Israel Defense Forces.” Frankly, I’ll take the life-preservation over the faux-imagery, any day….Wouldn’t you?]

    Ww
    w.google.c
    om/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fopinion%2Fop-ed%2Fla-oe-morris-iron-dome-disastrous-for-israel-20140822-story.html&ei=1UZkVLy3L4e8yQSfroHQCA&usg=AFQjCNFEcQYfj5IhSAJ-Q-vh8JM8hnJwAA&sig2=IVPh-6zxIyXI7WHQ-2yltw&bvm=bv.79189006,d.aWw

    5) You: “Israel’s military policy during recent Gaza conflict constituted war crimes against the civilian population. Obama gave them a pass. I’ve already listed Israel’s undermining. There has also has been inside reporting about how Israel has held political prisoners, and delayed promised releases, knowing it would undermine Abbas’s ability to reign in Hamas, setting back peace process. The Likud party would lose power if peace agreement was reached.” [sic]

    Even the UN hasn’t accused Israel of “war crimes” and, thus, BHO would have no justification for issuing that claim; indeed, Israel’s success contrasts with BHO’s failure in Iraq. Do you countenance the use by Hamas of human-shields? You need to document your “inside reporting” because, overtly, Israel released hundreds of prisoners based upon a “wink and a nod” from the PA that, predictably, never progressed towards peace. Meanwhile, you would have Abbas link with Hamas which has sworn to destroy Israel and all the Jews residing therein; know that “The covenant of the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas also claims that Freemasonry is a “secret society” founded as part of a Zionist plot to control the world.” Likud would benefit from peace, just as Nixon did after he visited Red China, Begin did after Camp David I, and Rabin/Perez did after Oslo.

    Ww
    w.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAnti-Masonry&ei=ZUhkVMCBNdGdygSeoIKIAw&usg=AFQjCNF95onJe5FZsMrZoCd1vw7LoM_9JQ&sig2=KtBvHfKRqVA7xC2iv_qf-g&bvm=bv.79189006,d.aWw

    6) You: “I don’t know where you get “appeasement” from minimum wage.”

    Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” is the model for “Appeasement” and anyone who cannot shut-aside political forces [including “minimum wage”] to speak-out against injustice is, therefore, an “appeaser.”

    ww
    w.history.co
    m/this-day-in-history/hitler-appeased-at-munich

    7) You: “I think the Likud policies are the ones destroying Israel, and J-Street and others are it’s only hope. So, based on your support for Likud, and your distorted definitions, it is YOU who are anti-Semitic. Note: it’s only anti-Semitic if you are picking policies in hopes of destroying Israel or hurting Jews. However, if someone believes their policies are in Israel’s best interests, then if you disagree, you may call them “misguided” but not anti-Semitic.” [sic]

    When BHO says/does things that Israelis believe undermine Israel’s best-interests, you are obligated to prove otherwise…or stop being an Ugly American and concur with those whose lives are at-stake. BHO’s behavior is indubitably hurting Jews and, thus, is anti-Semitic [employing your simplified ADL-based definition]. One only wishes he was merely “misguided,” but the pattern of misconduct [plus his appointments, quoting Guzzardi’s line “personnel communicates policy”] proves otherwise. I attended an event on 3/27/2014 that one of its participants memorialized [where I memorably rebuked Dershowitz]; attempt to counter this destruction of J-Street if you dare:

    Ww
    w.jpost.co
    m/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Will-the-real-J-Street-stand-up-for-Israel-347625

    x) You: “So, please stop trying to cast aspersions on Josh about Israel because he supports Obama on non-Israel related issues. I have not discussed Israel with Josh, but I would expect him to be the most pro-Israeli senator in Washington, agreeing with every syllable of official Israeli policy.”

    If your assertion is accurate, then let’s start by your provoking him to do just that; and when he doesn’t [or can’t], then you will perhaps have convinced yourself otherwise. In the interim, stop avoiding the Iranian threat to Israel [and the world] and defend BHO’s departure from multiple UN Security Council resolutions.

  21. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    You often write what you “think” and, therefore, you are almost 100% ignorant of the facts. Indeed, all citations I provided had been accrued within the prior 24-hours; I’ll dig-back into the archives to provide specific counterpoints to what you have created, for it seems you are covering for an anti-Semite by portraying yourself as one. {I do acknowledge the ability to drop the “http” from hyperlinks without freezing, although I’m still having difficulty uploading/updating regularly from four [4] different servers; if you cannot refute the authenticity of the points I make, then you are obligated to acknowledge my being 100% correct.} You start-out being deficient, however, for you didn’t address with specificity points already made [such as the chicken-sh*t/coward quotes], concerns that would alarm anyone other than an anti-Semite.

    0) You: “You are not the security arbitrator of which links people have to read. I’ve read plenty of the Israeli talking points and fear mongering on Iran. Nothing new here.”

    Iran just released a horrifying video of how it envisions its nuclear attack on Israel and I already referenced the prior release of the Ayatollah’s battle-plan regarding how end Israel; if you relegate these concerns to “talking-points” that constitute “fear-mongering,” you are obligated to explain-away their existence.

    salsa4.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Tn59QLBB6Uibds%2BFF4KRquwcVz1n3aFl
    haaretz.com/mobile/1.625465?v=AA9129CFE3E0BD9A6E8A841B53A46B7A

    1) You: “Obama isn’t for the destruction of the Jewish homeland. He isn’t for the destruction of Palestinian homeland either. Two state solution.”

    If you are trying to effect a “fundamental transformation of American policy” that incrementally can withstand critique from most of a baseline-Jewish base [which is gradually eroding from being 20% GOP to being 33% GOP, last week], you are kissing-up to regimes that are Muslim-Brotherhood rather than secular; there is no other credible explanation, for example, for how he supported Morsi instead of al-Sisi in Egypt [driving the latter to the Russkies]. Empowering those who wish to obliterate Israel would indeed result if Islamists of whatever ilk were to become predominant, also explaining his having become inert during the Ahmadinejad re-election. No other POTUS has been so overtly anti-Israel since ’48…not even close.

    2) You: “There is plenty of justification to oppose Netanyahu and current Israeli policy. 75% kill rate of civilians, collective punishment, false arrests, expanding settlements, etc. have all damaged Israel’s position in the world this year and cost them support among their allies. Netanyahu has sought to put his own political interests/power over the good of Israel. So, many of us who support Israel hope for better leadership to replace Netanyahu and restore Israel’s stature.”

    You must document each of your false-claims. For example, one of the titles I provided earlier that you chose not to read “Top US General Dempsey: Israel Went to ‘Extraordinary Lengths’ to Protect Gaza Civilians” refutes them en-masse and, aggregated, Israel’s standing is only “damaged” when people are predisposed to apply behavioral criteria to BB that are not employed in any other setting. “Kill-rates” based upon Hamas-stats are subsequently cut drastically, and you fail to acknowledge that Gazan missiles were being shot from population centers, hospitals, mosques [and munitions were stored in schools]. “Collective punishment” does not occur, as General Dempsey noted [with people in targeted-buildings receiving leaflets and ‘phone-calls ahead-of-time]. There are no “false-arrests” and, indeed, there has been a revolving-door of terrorists [such as those who subsequently stabbed-killed innocent Israelis]. There is no prohibition against expansion of “settlements” [your nomenclature] in Oslo, but there is specific phraseology against incitement that has been consistently violated [in Arabic] before the ink was dry, for more than two decades…by the Palestinian Arabs. Overall, BB has been forced to abide by BHO’s constraints, maintaining a stiff-upper-lip despite having been consistently snubbed [along with Ya’alon, during his most-recent D.C. visit]. There is no evidence BB has prioritized himself over Israel, although there is ample evidence [e.g., ObamaDon’tCare] that your guy BHO [and SoS-Kerry, as per recently-released Gruber-Videos] has engaged in overt deceit while harboring that particular motive.

    breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/11/09/Top-US-General-Dempsey-Israel-went-to-extraordinary-lengths-to-protect-Gaza-civilians
    washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/how-many-civilians-have-been-killed-in-gaza
    google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2Fgops-anti-obamacare-push-gains-new-momentum-in-wake-of-gruber-video%2F2014%2F11%2F12%2Fe0d6b4d2-6aa7-11e4-9fb4-a622dae742a2_story.html&ei=4ENkVLKeHsGLyASe84H4Dg&usg=AFQjCNFVA59bOtIxKLIzwlV5ES_QL7E_xg&sig2=M_7a1qHrHq4B1on78QYxYg&bvm=bv.79189006,d.aWw

    3) You: “The U.S. is not a colonial empire and the founding fathers fought against being a colony.
    You are wrong about the bust being removed. Please see the fact check, and reduce your ignorance slightly:
    m.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/27/fact-check-bust-winston-churchill”

    Your hyperlink confirms the fact that it was relocated from the Oval Office, as stated; thus, your claim of ignorance is unjustified; further, BHO’s “Dreams from my Father” tome illustrates his anti-colonialism [e.g., “The worst thing that colonialism did was to cloud our view of our past.” ].

    4) You: “We already have plenty of military support and joint operations/intelligence with Israel. I don’t think the Iron Dome system is good bang for the buck, and is wasteful spending that Israel can afford itself. I also think it further delays the peace process, costing the U.S. and Israel more in the long term. So, it’s bad policy that wastes money that should be helping Americans, like our veterans. We shouldn’t be neglecting our veterans to fund foreign weapon systems.”

    Your perception of the Iron Dome is at variance with all of the facts, for it protected population-centers throughout Israel; I hope you don’t consider Jewish life so cheap that this observation is relegated to the “talking-point” category. BHO altered the automaticity of Pentagon resupply once he discovered its existence, and the cease-fire suddenly supervened. Why you consider it “wasteful” goes a long way towards explaining many of your other attitudes, sadly, for the American military has praised how judiciously it was deployed. I would quibble with your either/or framing of the question and, thus, how you would fail [as BHO has been doing] to uphold the tradition of strong support for Israel as she attempts to survive in a violent ‘hood.

    1. [This quote is from an article written by an Israeli-critic: “The 600-odd rockets that had accurately targeted towns and villages were almost all successfully intercepted by Iron Dome’s Tamir missiles — a nearly 90% success rate, according to the Israel Defense Forces.” Frankly, I’ll take the life-preservation over the faux-imagery, any day….Wouldn’t you?]

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fopinion%2Fop-ed%2Fla-oe-morris-iron-dome-disastrous-for-israel-20140822-story.html&ei=1UZkVLy3L4e8yQSfroHQCA&usg=AFQjCNFEcQYfj5IhSAJ-Q-vh8JM8hnJwAA&sig2=IVPh-6zxIyXI7WHQ-2yltw&bvm=bv.79189006,d.aWw

    5) You: “Israel’s military policy during recent Gaza conflict constituted war crimes against the civilian population. Obama gave them a pass. I’ve already listed Israel’s undermining. There has also has been inside reporting about how Israel has held political prisoners, and delayed promised releases, knowing it would undermine Abbas’s ability to reign in Hamas, setting back peace process. The Likud party would lose power if peace agreement was reached.” [sic]

    Even the UN hasn’t accused Israel of “war crimes” and, thus, BHO would have no justification for issuing that claim; indeed, Israel’s success contrasts with BHO’s failure in Iraq. Do you countenance the use by Hamas of human-shields? You need to document your “inside reporting” because, overtly, Israel released hundreds of prisoners based upon a “wink and a nod” from the PA that, predictably, never progressed towards peace. Meanwhile, you would have Abbas link with Hamas which has sworn to destroy Israel and all the Jews residing therein; know that “The covenant of the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas also claims that Freemasonry is a “secret society” founded as part of a Zionist plot to control the world.” Likud would benefit from peace, just as Nixon did after he visited Red China, Begin did after Camp David I, and Rabin/Perez did after Oslo.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAnti-Masonry&ei=ZUhkVMCBNdGdygSeoIKIAw&usg=AFQjCNF95onJe5FZsMrZoCd1vw7LoM_9JQ&sig2=KtBvHfKRqVA7xC2iv_qf-g&bvm=bv.79189006,d.aWw

    6) You: “I don’t know where you get “appeasement” from minimum wage.”

    Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” is the model for “Appeasement” and anyone who cannot shut-aside political forces [including “minimum wage”] to speak-out against injustice is, therefore, an “appeaser.”

    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hitler-appeased-at-munich

    7) You: “I think the Likud policies are the ones destroying Israel, and J-Street and others are it’s only hope. So, based on your support for Likud, and your distorted definitions, it is YOU who are anti-Semitic. Note: it’s only anti-Semitic if you are picking policies in hopes of destroying Israel or hurting Jews. However, if someone believes their policies are in Israel’s best interests, then if you disagree, you may call them “misguided” but not anti-Semitic.” [sic]

    When BHO says/does things that Israelis believe undermine Israel’s best-interests, you are obligated to prove otherwise…or stop being an Ugly American and concur with those whose lives are at-stake. BHO’s behavior is indubitably hurting Jews and, thus, is anti-Semitic [employing your simplified ADL-based definition]. One only wishes he was merely “misguided,” but the pattern of misconduct [plus his appointments, quoting Guzzardi’s line “personnel communicates policy”] proves otherwise. I attended an event on 3/27/2014 that one of its participants memorialized [where I memorably rebuked Dershowitz]; attempt to counter this destruction of J-Street if you dare:

    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Will-the-real-J-Street-stand-up-for-Israel-347625

    x) You: “So, please stop trying to cast aspersions on Josh about Israel because he supports Obama on non-Israel related issues. I have not discussed Israel with Josh, but I would expect him to be the most pro-Israeli senator in Washington, agreeing with every syllable of official Israeli policy.”

    If your assertion is accurate, then let’s start by your provoking him to do just that; and when he doesn’t [or can’t], then you will perhaps have convinced yourself otherwise. In the interim, stop avoiding the Iranian threat to Israel [and the world] and defend BHO’s departure from multiple UN Security Council resolutions.

  22. David Diano says:

    Robert
    You are not the security arbitrator of which links people have to read. I’ve read plenty of the Israeli talking points and fear mongering on Iran. Nothing new here.

    1) Obama isn’t for the destruction of the Jewish homeland. He isn’t for the destruction of Palestinian homeland either. Two state solution.

    2) There is plenty of justification to oppose Netanyahu and current Israeli policy. 75% kill rate of civilians, collective punishment, false arrests, expanding settlements, etc. have all damaged Israel’s position in the world this year and cost them support among their allies. Netanyahu has sought to put his own political interests/power over the good of Israel. So, many of us who support Israel hope for better leadership to replace Netanyahu and restore Israel’s stature.

    3) The U.S. is not a colonial empire and the founding fathers fought against being a colony.
    You are wrong about the bust being removed. Please see the fact check, and reduce your ignorance slightly:
    m.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/27/fact-check-bust-winston-churchill

    4) We already have plenty of military support and joint operations/intelligence with Israel. I don’t think the Iron Dome system is good bang for the buck, and is wasteful spending that Israel can afford itself. I also think it further delays the peace process, costing the U.S. and Israel more in the long term. So, it’s bad policy that wastes money that should be helping Americans, like our veterans. We shouldn’t be neglecting our veterans to fund foreign weapon systems.

    5) Israel’s military policy during recent Gaza conflict constituted war crimes against the civilian population. Obama gave them a pass.
    I’ve already listed Israel’s undermining. There has also has been inside reporting about how Israel has held political prisoners, and delayed promised releases, knowing it would undermine Abbas’s ability to reign in Hamas, setting back peace process. The Likud party would lose power if peace agreement was reached.

    6) I don’t know where you get “appeasement” from minimum wage.

    7) I think the Likud policies are the ones destroying Israel, and J-Street and others are it’s only hope. So, based on your support for Likud, and your distorted definitions, it is YOU who are anti-Semitic.

    Note: it’s only anti-Semitic if you are picking policies in hopes of destroying Israel or hurting Jews. However, if someone believes their policies are in Israel’s best interests, then if you disagree, you may call them “misguided” but not anti-Semitic.

    So, please stop trying to cast aspersions on Josh about Israel because he supports Obama on non-Israel related issues. I have not discussed Israel with Josh, but I would expect him to be the most pro-Israeli senator in Washington, agreeing with every syllable of official Israeli policy.

  23. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    You did not read the hyperlinks [or the titles] that were provided; thus, I will enlighten you this time, but you must answer the specific question I posed regarding his allowing Iran to nuke-up – which would threaten Israel intuitively – before allowing yourself to think you have defended BHO.

    1) That is not the definition of Antisemitism. The anti-Defamation League uses the following definition:

    “The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish. It may take the form of religious teachings that proclaim the inferiority of Jews, for instance, or political efforts to isolate, oppress, or otherwise injure them. It may also include prejudiced or stereotyped views about Jews.”

    The ADL has major-league problems [being Dem-dominated] but know that anyone who would countenance the destruction of the Jewish Homeland is an anti-Semite.

    2) Disagreeing on Israeli policy doesn’t make Antisemitism. Nor does not liking or getting along with someone. It’s only Antisemitism if the reason is because they are Jewish, not because they happen to be an @sshole.

    It is one thing to disagree with policy, and it’s quite another to have no justification to do so; that’s why you are burdened not with remaining superficial, but with the responsibility to defend BHO’s conduct with specificity…or cease defending him generically.

    3) Are you saying that Obama is a Muslim? yes or no. Stop hiding and tossing about innuendo about where he went to school as a child.

    I do not know his inclinations; I do know his background and his anti-colonial ideology…and how it has been manifest [such as removing the Churchill bust on 1/20/2009, from the Oval Office].

    4) Israel can pay for Iron Dome itself and does not need aid from the US to do so. $3 billion a year of US taxpayer money would fix a lot US problems. So, people can prefer their taxes get spent in the US for things like medicine, flue shots, Veteran’s benefits, etc., without being Antisemitic.

    So, you are advocating cutting-off military support for Israel, America’s only true strategic and ideological ally in a volatile region? If so, you must justify this move…and tread softly in the process.

    5) Obama hasn’t attacked Israel, but he has been rightly critical of their efforts to undermine the peace process. Hamas has undermined it as well, but the point is that there are elements in Israel who are interested in a one-state solution and pushing out the Palestinians completely. Obama supports a two-state solution with adjustments/swaps to the 1967 borders.

    If you can document how Israel has undermined the peace-process, I’d be all-ears; you won’t be able to do so because, for example, Arafat never gave a counter-offer @ Camp David II and Abbas never gave a counter-offer @ the USA in 3/2014.

    Your egalitarianism is faulty. BHO and his DoS have attacked Israel unjustifiably [such as during the Gaza War] and prematurely when Israel has responded to murders by Palestinian Arabs [Psaki is notorious]. Do you think Jews should be able to live anywhere, or do you also subscribe to certain regions being Judenfrei?

    BB has endorsed the 2-state solution, so it matters not what others in Israel believe; also, the ’67 cease-fire lines [NOT “borders”] are not appropriate models in this modern military age when the Arabs have consistently refused to accept Israel’s mere existence.

    6) Supporting Obama on the host of issues: raising minimum wage, equal rights, health care, etc.. has NOTHING to do with Israeli policy.

    If you are acquiescing to BHO’s appeasement without speaking-out, you are no different than those who failed to stop Hitler in the ’30’s.

    7) With a sweeping brush you attempt to label J-Street and other Jews supporting a different policy as Antisemitic. That’s very convenient (and idiotic). Netanyahu’s approval is near or below 50%. Does that mean (by your twisted logic) that half the Jews in Israel are Antisemitic?

    J-Street’s policies, if implemented, would end Israel; its Soros-funded leader has been demonstrated to be ethically flawed, and it is not “idiotic” to call a spade a “spade.”

    BB’s approval varies, but BHO’s has been as low as 4% with a %-error of 6% in Israel; so you must deal with the elected leader of Eretz Yisrael and stop trying [as Clinton did in the ’90’s and BHO tried to do a few years ago] to KO the Likud.

    BTW, you haven’t responded to other pending issues on this page. You also would probably maintain an incurious posture regarding the charge that BB is a “chicken-sh*t” coward per two high-ranking officials under BHO, as has Josh Earnest. No, this anti-Israel attitude is threatening Israel’s ongoing existence and, thus, is anti-Semitic.

    BHO long-ago crossed-the-line, and you would be hard-pressed to BEGIN to defend him; that’s why Josh will be subject to this type of x-examination [which, BTW, started when he spoke @ a Synagogue in ’08 on BHO’s behalf in Chester County. It’s time for him to come-clean [and you may wish to join him in this cleansing process].

  24. David Diano says:

    Robert-
    1) That is not the definition of Antisemitism. The anti-Defamation League uses the following definition:

    “The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish. It may take the form of religious teachings that proclaim the inferiority of Jews, for instance, or political efforts to isolate, oppress, or otherwise injure them. It may also include prejudiced or stereotyped views about Jews.”

    2) Disagreeing on Israeli policy doesn’t make Antisemitism. Nor does not liking or getting along with someone. It’s only Antisemitism if the reason is because they are Jewish, not because they happen to be an @sshole.

    3) Are you saying that Obama is a Muslim? yes or no. Stop hiding and tossing about innuendo about where he went to school as a child.

    4) Israel can pay for Iron Dome itself and does not need aid from the US to do so. $3 billion a year of US taxpayer money would fix a lot US problems. So, people can prefer their taxes get spent in the US for things like medicine, flue shots, Veteran’s benefits, etc., without being Antisemitic.

    5) Obama hasn’t attacked Israel, but he has been rightly critical of their efforts to undermine the peace process. Hamas has undermined it as well, but the point is that there are elements in Israel who are interested in a one-state solution and pushing out the Palestinians completely. Obama supports a two-state solution with adjustments/swaps to the 1967 borders.

    6) Supporting Obama on the host of issues: raising minimum wage, equal rights, health care, etc.. has NOTHING to do with Israeli policy.

    7) With a sweeping brush you attempt to label J-Street and other Jews supporting a different policy as Antisemitic. That’s very convenient (and idiotic). Netanyahu’s approval is near or below 50%. Does that mean (by your twisted logic) that half the Jews in Israel are Antisemitic?

  25. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD

    You are not authorized to discuss these issues until/unless you have read the database and can explain-away BHO’s consistent attacks on Israel; I provided a sampling, and more is on-tap [hundreds if not thousands of articles accrued during the past 1 1/2 years].

    Anyone who is anti-Israel is an anti-Semite; he/she may or may not have a Muslim background [such as having attended a Madras in Indonesia] or have colluded with Rashid Khalidi [in Chicago] or have absorbed the anti-Israel rants of Rev. Wright uncritically.

    To whatever degree his supporters are adherent to his beliefs [or even know them], they share culpability. That includes those who would block Israel from building homes in Jerusalem, those who would stop resupplying Iron-Dome armaments during a war, those who would not decry murder of Israelis by Arabs without bowing to the Created-God of Egalitarianism, etc.

    I care not about meaningless statements [like supportive tweets] or irrelevant scoring [such as by AIPAC, which consistently covers for Dems]; I care about the ability to make a difference as Iran marches towards becoming nuked-up.

    Respond with specifics, not generalities, and you dare not invoke the committed-lefties [such as those residing on J-Street] to buttress your arguments, for the world is replete with Jewish anti-Semites.

  26. David Diano says:

    Robert-
    1) Obama is not an anti-Semite.
    (Look who’s making racist charges now).
    BTW, do YOU think Obama’s a Muslim?
    Do you think that the millions of Americans who support him are anti-Semites?

    2) J-Street and other Jewish organizations/parties oppose the policies/leadership of Netanyahu and his right-wing Likud party. They aren’t anti-Semitic either. They differ on policy on peace plan, and don’t trust that Netanyahu is interested in peace.

    3) To claim that those critical of Israel/Netanyahu are anti-Semitic is like claiming people are un-American for criticizing US policies they disagree with.

    4) Given Josh’s posts during the recent conflict in Gaza, he seems to back Netanyahu and currently Israeli policy 100% regarding perceived threats and actions. He’d likely have a 100% voting score with AIPAC if elected.

  27. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ ABCDEF:

    “Iran’s Supreme Leader Calls for Annihilation of Israel on Eve of Nuclear Talks”

    jcpa.org/irans-leader-annihilation-israel/

    It is probably apt to provide just the TITLES of a few articles acquired during the past 24-hours on this topic:

    Iran Nuclear Program More Advanced than Previously Believed
    A Major Democratic Donor [Haim Saban] said Israel Should ‘Bomb The Daylights’ Out Of Iran
    Khamenei Tweeted Plan to End Israel
    Netanyahu: Palestinians, Iranian Leader Khamenei Calling for Israel’s Destruction
    Obama’s Latest Outreach to Iran’s Supreme Leader
    Obama Doubts Iran Nuclear Deal as Oman Talks Go into Monday
    Iran’s Uranium Stockpile Grows before Deadline for Nuclear Deal
    Transcript: Obama on Iran
    Iran Nuclear Threat Greater by Fivefold, Says Former Watchdog Chief
    Obama’s Bet on Iran
    Looming Iran Deal Spells the Empowering of Evil
    Iran Subverting Nuclear Deal, Building Secret Uranium Enrichment Machines
    Iran Deal: The New ‘Peace in Our Time’
    Russia to Build Two More Nuclear Reactors in Iran

    Still confused?

  28. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ ABCDEF:

    Thanx for asking.

    Josh Shapiro, Marcel Groen and I are Jewish, and Iran poses an existential-threat to the existence of Israel; all three spoke @ a rally held @ Keneseth Israel two years ago on behalf of BHO and the Dems [along with Rob McCord and Daylin Leach, BTW] and, thus, all placed themselves into a position whereby–regardless of their elected-positions–they were advocating for the anti-Semite residing in the White House.

    Evidence abounds [and accumulates daily] of the anti-Zionism evinced from both BHO and Kerry’s State Department; examples are provided via two essays…

    Arabs kill Jews, US urges restraint
    israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=10557

    and

    The Price of Restraint is Death
    http://www.israpundit.org/archives/63602401

    …that can be amplified, upon request.

    Furthermore, I met with him and with Ms. Ofira Seliktar [an academician] when he was still a state-rep and we educated him regarding the inexorable effort that was transpiring; he reassured us that Amb. Dan Shapiro would accommodate our concerns.

    I have also reminded Marcel [and his wife, Bernice] that they will have Jewish Blood on their hands if/when any attack upon Israel supervenes; it is perhaps of-interest to note the recent release of a Tweeted battle-plan to destroy Israel c/o Iran’s Supreme Leader [whom BHO continues to coddle].

    If this doesn’t transcend what you may consider party-labels or job-descriptions, “Frankly, m’dear, I don’t give a damn.” Indeed, I told Marcel, again last week, he should resign in protest of what BHO is promulgating [I know, fat chance].

    But these guys–including yourself, probably–are OBLIGATED to speak-out against potential-genocide [unlike BHO’s handling of Kobanê and the Yazidis, for example, both of whom remain endangered absent a “Send in the Marines!” battle-cry].

    Just as I’ve used PoliticsPA to attack DD’s hypocrisy, I’d be more than happy to take you on, in this arena, as well.

  29. ABCDEF says:

    In what position was Josh to annoy you Bob on the question of Iran? Why were you bringing up Iran at a MontCo commissioners meeting? I’m not being a smartass I truly don’t understand what that is all about.

  30. ABCDEF says:

    In what position was Josh to annoy you Bob on the question of Iran? Why were you bringing it up at a MontCo commissioners meeting? I’m not being a smartass I truly don’t understand what that is all about.

  31. David Diano says:

    Hillary will run. No question

  32. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    I am skeptical that Hillary will run and, it is hoped, social policies will be trumped by others.

    {@ DD: You STILL haven’t done your homework@}

  33. David Diano says:

    Josh will articulate a policy that matches Hillary Clinton. Toomey is on the wrong side of history on the social issues, and Josh can express himself well there.

    Given high voter turnout in Philly for 2016, and Clinton coattails, Josh will beat Toomey.

  34. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    I would be tempted to concur with DD’s logic, for Josh would be a formidable candidate against Toomey for any number of reasons; nevertheless, he knows I harbor a personal-grudge based upon his having ignored warnings regarding a nuked-up Iran, delivered after a personal presentation from a middle-east expert ~a half-decade ago [and renewed semi-annually on election-days with Marcel Groen, MontCo-Dem Chair, and his wife Bernice…who are long-time committee-people in Abington 7-2, as am I].

    Josh will need to articulate a foreign policy that compares/contrasts with that of BHO…ASAP; having x-examined Sestak twice during the past decade and found him wanting [specifically having disagreed with almost every sentence he uttered during a Rosemont speech while he was an incumbent], Josh would undoubtedly be preferable…but NOT so, when compared with Toomey [on multiple levels].

    So, Josh, I memorialized my conflict with you in the Times Chronicle years ago but, per your request, didn’t voice it during a MontCo Commissioners meeting a year ago; it festers, and you can’t claim you weren’t forewarned.

    {@ DD: You have unfinished homework on the Rendell-page, which still is on the front-page of PoliticsPa.}

  35. Roscoe says:

    Dickie Fitzgerald got 59 votes? I hope he paid Little Eric Hagarty double to work up enough strength to reach the keyboard and refresh the screen that many times. Just think of how tired his little T-Rex arms must be.

  36. Unsanctioned R says:

    Good choice.

  37. David Diano says:

    Josh got more votes than the next three people combined. That seems pretty decisive.

    McGinty is Chief of Staff for Wolf, so she won’t be running. She’ll have her hands full helping Wolf pay for his lack of coattails that gave him a more GOP legislature.

    Kane will probably run for A.G. again.

    Josh will crush Sestak.

Comments are closed.